This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Below are excerpts from a brilliant essay by historian Peter Linebaugh:

Silvia Federici's book, Caliban and the Witch, although describing a time and place remote from the lawless atrocities in Mesopotamia, being as it is a study of the witch-hunt, of medieval heretical movements, and of European mechanical and materialist philosophy from the 'Age of Reason,' nevertheless, it is essential for understanding either. At the same time, the paradox of the hideous pun of the Structural Adjustment Program and the Special Access Program as the SAP, or the grotesque contradiction found between chapter 39 of Magna Carta and order 39 of the Iraq occupation are explicated.

Nothing can so clearly help us understand the torture and the project of neo-liberalism as this, for Federici describes a foundational process creating the structural conditions for the existence of capitalism. This is the fundamental relationship of capitalist accumulation, or (as it is called in decades of technical literature) 'primitive accumulation.' This mystery perplexed (however coyly) Adam Smith. It was the 'original sin' of the political economists, and for Karl Marx it was written in "letters of blood and fire."

The birth of the proletariat required war against women (emphasis added). This was the witch-hunt when tens of thousands of women in Europe were tortured and burnt at the stake, in massive state-sponsored terror against the European peasantry destroying communal relations and communal property. It was coeval with the enclosures of the land, the destruction of popular culture, the genocide in the New World, and the start of the African slave trade. The 16th century price inflation, the 17th century crisis, the centralized state, the transition to capitalism, the Age of Reason ­ come to life, if the blood-curdling cries at the stake, the crackling of kindling as the faggots suddenly catch fire, the clanging of iron shackles of the imprisoned vagabonds, or the spine-shivering abstractions of the mechanical philosophies can indeed be called "life."

Federici explains why the age of plunder required the patriarchy of the wage. Gender became not only a biological condition or cultural reality but a determining specification of class relations. The devaluation of reproductive labor inevitably devalues its product, labor power. The burning of the witches and the vivisection of the body enforced a new sexual pact, the conjuratio of unpaid labor. It was essential to capitalist work-discipline. This is what Marx called the alienation of the body, what Max Weber called the reform of the body, what Norman O. Brown called the repression of the body, and what Foucault calls the discipline of the body. Yet, these social theorists of deep modernization overlooked the witch-hunt!

In the neo-liberal era of postmodern shadows the proletariat is written out of history, so the labors of the historian must recover even its existential substance. Thus, reproduction and the gender specification of the class relationship, is fully and historically argued.

The women of medieval Europe played a major role in the heretical movements; the women of medieval Europe found gender integration in the cooperative labors of the commons which, indeed, depended on them. A true women's movement in the popular culture was happily described by Chaucer which often urst out in peasant revolt. John Ball repeated "now is the time" and the serfs confidently announced "we'll have our will in the woods, the waters, and the meadows." Thomas Müntzer, the communist leader of the German Peasant's Revolt of 1525, said simply, "all the world needs a jolt." This initiated the vicious period when the body was transformed from a repository of knowledge, wisdom, magic, and power to a work-machine requiring both terror and philosophy. The body under the terror of Rationalism is vivisected under a new sexual pact, the conjuratio of unpaid labor. The maid, the prostitute, and the housewife became the exclusive labors of women, replacing the healer, the craftsperson, the heretic, the herbalist, the sage, the commoner, the old, the naturalist, the obeah woman, the single, the ill-reputed, the freely-spoken, the finder of lost property, the lusty or 'free woman,' the obeah, the midwife.

Land expropriations, the lengthening of social distance, the breakdown of collective relations, all the metaphysical underpinnings of social order, the class struggle reduced to the 'evil eye,' sexuality reduced to the functional production of labor power, contraception, abortion were outlawed by the Bull of Innocent VIII (1484), the obliteration of the enchanted world where the stars and the herbs were connected in correspondences that were friendly, if occult, where luck, the unknown, and accident impeded the progress of "scientific rationalization," anatomy, vivisection, destruction, expropriation, exploitation.

She writes "just as enclosures expropriated the peasantry from the communal land, so the witch-hunt expropriated women from their bodies, which were thus 'liberated' from any impediment preventing them to function as machines for the production of labor."

Were there any exceptions? Did the sons, brothers, uncles, fathers, did the men of the community come to the defense of the women? Sadly, shamefully, there is but a single exception to the otherwise universal answer: in 1609 when the Basque fishermen of St. Jean de Luz heard that the women were being stripped and stabbed for witches, they cut short their Atlantic cod campaign and sailed back home and taking clubs in hand they liberated a convoy of witches being carted to the stake.

What we learn is the systematic, protracted, and global practice of torture. It is systematic in the sense that in the past church and state conspired to exercise it while state theorists developed philosophy for it, such as Jean Bodin ("We must spread terror among some by punishing many"), René Descartes ("I am not this body"), and Thomas Hobbes ("for the laws of nature, as justice, equity, mercy, and, in sum, doing to others as we would be done to, of themselves, without the terror of some power to cause them to be observed, are contrary to our natural passions"). It was protracted in the sense that it was not shock therapy based on the blitzkrieg, or sudden 'structural adjustment plan,' but an intermittent campaign of approximately two centuries which ebbed or flowed with prices. It was coeval with the European Renaissance, high and low, north and south. Finally, it was global in the sense that the degradation of women accomplished by means of terror of the body belonged to the same epoch as the genocide of indigenous people in America and the commencement of the African slave trade. "It was here that the scientific use of torture was born, for blood and torture were necessary to 'breed an animal' capable of regular, homogeneous, and uniform behavior, indelibly marked with the memory of the new rules."

I'm too old to be bold, but if anyone wants to see it, I'll add Federici's analysis to the entry. Trachys (talk) 16:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

If that's an accurate description of Federici's work, then I have to say Federici's work is a politically motivated rewrite of history. The number of factual errors and distortions is simply breathtaking. --Taiwan boi (talk) 11:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

For example? Trachys (talk) 16:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Where to start?

• Witch hunts were not universally pogroms against women. Men were executed in 25% of all cases, and in some countries men were persecuted more than women. * Source?
• Find me any medieval peasant (or even member of the aristocracy), who demonstrably thought of the witch hunts in terms of 'the metaphysical underpinnings of social order', 'the alienation of the body', 'capitalist work-discipline', 'the conjuratio of unpaid labor', 'the class struggle', or 'the obliteration of the enchanted world' (the 'obliteration of the enchanted world' was, ironically, encouraged by the rationalists who opposed the witch hunts). It's complete nonsense to product sophisticated 20th century social philosophies onto medieval peasants who wouldn't have a clue what any of this was about. Witch hunts were the direct result of local pagan superstitions, encouraged by certain Church teachings and combined with social and economic pressures. * Where does the text suggest that contemporaries described the hunts in these ways? Federici is attempting to describe and explain the "social and economic pressures" that you refer to. The "to extinguish knowledge of birth control" argument isn't in itself very convincing, and the scapegoating theory explains nothing whatsoever.

• Only one instance of opposition to the witch hunts is cited, which is breathtakingly ignorant (see here). * None of the instances refered to at the link are of popular opposition to the hunts.
• There is no evidence that 'the witch-hunt expropriated women from their bodies, which were thus 'liberated' from any impediment preventing them to function as machines for the production of labor'. The witch hunts were about superstition, nothing more. * Great analysis, thanks.
• There was no 'systematic, protracted, and global practice of torture'. Torture was not universally used in witch hunt cases, and in fact outlawed in some countries and by certain laws. * You're serious?
• It was not 'coeval with the European Renaissance, high and low, north and south'. The distribution pattern of witch hunt trials is extraordinarily uneven, both chronologically and geographically. * Take a step back.
• This claim is pitifully inaccurate:

'The maid, the prostitute, and the housewife became the exclusive labors of women, replacing the healer, the craftsperson, the heretic, the herbalist, the sage, the commoner, the old, the naturalist, the obeah woman, the single, the ill-reputed, the freely-spoken, the finder of lost property, the lusty or 'free woman,' the obeah, the midwife.'

These allegedly 'replaced' roles were as available after the witch hunts as they were before and during the witch hunts. By the way, I note that 'the obeah' is mentioned twice, which shows that someone didn't proof read their work. * "as available"? Really??

• Women were very frequently accused by other women, and it was the midwives who often accused local women of being witches. Some midwives even became 'witch finders' for money. * Yes. Why? In response to what pressures?

How much more do you want? I can keep this up for pages. The whole essay is trash. It's post-modern lunacy imposed on a medieval world which knew nothing of any of this stuff. --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That's quite enough. You apparently have a grasp of history, but you clearly have no idea how to explain/interpret it. Trachys (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

So that's one 'Really?', one 'Why?', one 'You're serious?', one request for a source and several nyah-nyah-nyahs. Not exactly a reply. To cover your questions:

• If you need a source for the gender statistics of the witch hunt trials, it's clear you've never caught sight of the primary sources, or even the reputable secondary sources. The gender statistics are well attested and cited by several reputable sources See Jenny Gibbons for example (Gibbons uses standard authorities such as Briggs and Levack), and more importantly Robin Briggs, and Steven Katz. Here's Briggs:

• 'Of nearly 1,300 witches whose cases went to the parlement of Paris on appeal, just over half were men'
• 'There are some extreme cases in peripheral regions of Europe, with men accounting for 90 percent of the accused in Iceland, 60 percent in Estonia and nearly 50 per cent in Finland'

Briggs makes the point that 25% of those executed were men. Here's Katz:

• 'over 99.9-plus percent of all women who lived during the three centuries of the witch craze were not harmed directly by the police arm of either the state or the church, though both had the power to do so had the elites that controlled them so desired'

• I didn't say the text suggests 'that contemporaries described the hunts in these ways'. I asked for evidence that they thought about them in these ways. This is a reasonable request, since it is asserted by Federici that they did think about them in these ways. So where's the evidence?
• You say 'Federici is attempting to describe and explain' the social and economic pressures to which I refer, but that isn't the case at all. I see the witch hunts as an unconscious result of certain social and economic pressures, whereas Federici sees the witch hunts as a calculated and orchestrated response to social and economic pressures (and her social and economic pressures are largely made up out of her own head, whereas mine are historical). The fact is that standard recognized historians on this subject have a basic agreement on how the social and economic pressures unconsciously produced the witch hunts. I have yet to see any of them take Federici's views seriously, or even cite them. She's simply not recognized in the field, and rightly so as a radical feminist Marxist post-modernist (or 'raving narcissist' in other words).
• You claimed none of the examples of opposition in the link I gave were of 'popular opposition' to the witch hunts. This proves you didn't really read the list, since a number of them were. But of course, Federici did not confine her claim to 'popular opposition'. She claimed that there was only one instance of 'sons, brothers, uncles, fathers' and 'the men of the community' coming to 'the defense of the women', which is completely false. Let's hear Deborah Willis (Malevolent Nurture: Witch-Hunting and Maternal Power in Early Modern England:

• 'in some cases, it appears that the husband as "head of household" came forward to make statements on behalf of his wife'

Specific men who protested against the witch hunts and specifically against the inhumane treatment of women include Cornelius Agrippa (1518-1520), Johannes Weyer (1563), Johann Matthaus Meyfart (1583), Cornelius Loos (1592), Samuel Harsnett (1599), Friedrich von Spee (1631), Thomas Ady (1656), and Robert Calef (1693-1700), and Sir John Powell (1711), to name a few. The fact that Federici mentions none of this information is demonstrative either of ignorance or bias.

• Yes I am serious. Torture was not universally used in witch hunt cases, and in fact outlawed in some countries and by certain laws. In addition, in the vast majority of cases those accused of witchcraft were not executed on the grounds that they were a witch. They were tried and executed by secular courts on the grounds that they had broken secular law. The typical charge was not witchcraft (which secular laws did not prosecute), but maleficium, damage to property or personal injury. The charge would assert that maleficium had taken place by means of witchcraft, but it was the maleficium which was the crime being prosecuted, not witchcraft. If the judge or jury believed that maleficium could not be proved, the accused was discharged without penalty. This is commonly overlooked in lightweight and populist treatments of the relevant history.
• I said the distribution pattern of witch hunt trials is extraordinarily uneven, both chronologically and geographically. This is demonstrable (again, see Briggs, Levack, Willis, Katz, etc). You said 'Take a step back', which doesn't actually address what I wrote. If you're trying to make a point, make it clearer and cite your sources.
• Yes, these allegedly 'replaced' roles were as available after the witch hunts as they were before and during the witch hunts. The fact that your only response to this was 'Really?' demonstrates to me that you weren't aware of this, and have no data with which to argue the point.
• I'm glad you acknowledged that women were very frequently accused by other women, and it was the midwives who often accused local women of being witches, and that some midwives even became 'witch finders' for money. You ask 'Why? In response to what pressures?', and the answer is 'For many reasons, no pressures, and often simply out of personal spite or for monetary gain'. No one forced them to do this, and there was no pressure on them to do it at all. The fact is that many women simply took personal advantage of the witch hunts to settle personal grudges or get some quick cash. Unfortunately, midwives (who continued to flourish throughout the entire witch hunt era), were formost among those who sold their fellow women for monetary gain. Contrary to Federici, midwives had less chance of being charged. Purkiss:

• 'being a licensed midwife actually decreased a woman's chances of being charged'
• 'midwives were more likely to be found helping witch-hunters'

Willis:

• 'It is really crucial to understand that misogyny in this sense was not reserved to men alone, but could be just as intense among women'
• 'conflicts [that] normally opposed one woman to another, with men liable to become involved only at a later stage as ancillaries to the original dispute'
• 'most informal accusations were made by women against other women'
• 'women did testify in large numbers against other women, making up 43 per cent of witnesses in these cases on average, and predominating in 30 per cent of them'
• 'the proportion of women witnesses rose from around 38 per cent in the last years of Queen Elizabeth to 53 per cent after the Restoration'
• 'women were active in building up reputations by gossip, deploying counter-magic and accusing suspects'

Also contrary to Federici is the fact that the vast majority of women during this era were free from harm by the witch hunts. Katz:

• 'over 99.9-plus percent of all women who lived during the three centuries of the witch craze were not harmed directly by the police arm of either the state or the church, though both had the power to do so had the elites that controlled them so desired'

This fact alone contradicts utterly the idea that the witch hunts were some kind of capitalist anti-female campaign or 'class struggle'.

It's clear you not only have no grasp of the relevant history, you also have no grasp of the relevant sources, no grasp of the relevant authorities, and certainly no grasp of standard historiographical methodology. --Taiwan boi (talk) 16:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Alas that you have identified Federici's 'isms!' Wikipedia readers are surely grateful for your vigilence in protecting historiography from the narcissisms of Marxists and feminists. Trachys (talk) 08:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

In response to what you wrote, no I am not saying that 'witch-hunts had no impact whatsoever on the lives of women, and that even if they did, women themselves readily approved'. I have said absolutely nothing like that. And yes, it's a good thing that someone checked up on Federici and her 'isms'. Politically motivated historical revisionism (as radical Marxist feminist 'history' always is), has no place in this article. Correctly documented and authoritative sources do. Note that I have provided overwhelming documentation from reliable sources for my argument. You have been unable to provide any good reason for including Federici's wild ideas. --Taiwan boi (talk) 08:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a few of points that need to be made here:

1. Taiwan boi is factually correct with his statements.
2. Labels and -isms are not relevant to the discussion. A feminist historian is a historian who focuses on women's history. A marxist historian is one who tests history against structures defined by Marx. 'Radical' is just a pejorative tacked on. There are many approaches to history, each with their own benefits, and any particular work should stand or fall based on its actual merit, rather than pigeon-holing and name-calling.
3. Please don't insert your own comments into another editor's comments. It makes it very difficult to follow the conversation, and will just be annoying to the person whose mouth you are effectively putting words into.
4. Lets keep this friendly.

Thanks, Fuzzypeg★ 05:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Fuzzypeg. I'd like to make a couple of points however. One is that 'isms' are indeed relevant. A feminist historian's view of history is by definition going to be affected by the fact that they are focusing on women's history, and what they consider to be issues in women's history. Selective treatment of the data is inevitable, and a certain bias will result. A Marxist historian commences their historical investigation by assuming the truth of certain Marxist structures, which are then used to interpret history. Selective treatment of the data is inevitable, and a certain bias will result. Both of these are interpretative treatments of history, which is why they depart from standard historiographical method and why their treatments of history generally differ significantly from standard historical scholarship. The term 'radical' is not always a pejorative, and indeed in the very article on Silvia Federici in Wikipedia she is described as 'a scholar, teacher, and activist from the radical Feminist Marxist tradition'. --Taiwan boi (talk) 05:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add the following names to the section which lists 'contemporary protesters against witch trials and against use of torture'. I have provided some explanatory information for each one, which doesn't have to be included.

• 643: The Edictum Rothari, the law code for Lombardy in Italy (‘Let nobody presume to kill a foreign serving maid or female slave as a witch, for it is not possible, nor ought to be believed by Christian minds')
• 672-754: Boniface of Mainz consistently denied the existence of witches, saying that to believe in them was unChristian
• 775-790: The First Synod of Saint Patrick declared that those who believed in witches are to be anathematized
• 785: Canon 6 of the Christian Council of Paderborn in Germany outlawed the belief in witches
• 9th century: French abbot Agobard of Lyons denied that any person could obtain or wield the power to fly, change shape, or cause bad weather, and argued that such claims were imagination and myth
• 906: In his work ‘A Warning To Bishops’, Abbot Regino of Prüm dismisses the popular beliefs in witches and witchcraft as complete fiction
• 936: Pope Leo VII wrote to Archbishop Gerhard of Lorch requiring him to instruct local authorities not to execute those accused of witchcraft
• 10th century: The Canon Episcopi denied the existence of witches, and considered the belief in witches to be heresy (it did not require any punishment of witches)
• 1020: Burchard, Bishop of Worms argued that witches had no power to fly, change people’s dispositions, control the weather, or transform themselves or anyone else, and denied the existence of incubi and succubi. He ruled that a belief in such things was a sin, and required priests to impose a strict penance on those who confessed to believing them.
• 1080: Gregory VII: Wrote to King Harold of Denmark advising that those accused of supernaturally causing bad weather or epidemics should not be sentenced to death
• 11th century: Colomon, the Christian king of Hungary, passed a law declaring ‘Concerning witches, no such things exist, therefore no more investigations are to be held’ (’De strigis vero quae non sunt, nulla amplius quaestio fiat’)
• 1498: Although not denying the existence of witches, Ulrich Molitoris (an attorney in Constance), wrote ‘Dialogus de lamiis et pythonibus mulieribus’, in which he deplored the methods of persecution and punishment inflicted on those accused of witchcraft
• Late 15th century: Antonino, Archbishop of Florence condemned the popular belief in witches, insisting that the powers attributed to them were impossible, and such beliefs were foolish.
• 1514: Alciatus, a civil legal official, was asked by a local prelate to assess the case of a number of women brought to trial for witchcraft. Expressing his belief that they were more in need of medicine than punishment, Alciatus advised against punishment and suggested they be treated kindly.
• 1518-1520: As legal counsel to the city of Metz (Germany), French born Cornelius Agrippa sucessfully defended a local peasant woman from accusations of witchcraft
• 1540: Antonio Venegas de Figueroa, Bishop of Pamplona, sent a circular to the priests in his diocese, explaining that witchcraft was a false belief. He recommended medical treatment for those accused of witchcraft, and blamed the ignorance of the people for their confusion of witchcraft with medical conditions.
• 1580: Frenchman Michel Eyquem de Montaigne objected to the persecution of witches, and expressed his scepticism that reports of witchcraft were ever true
• 1583: Protestant Johann Matthaus Meyfart condemns the inhuman treatment of those accused or convicted of witchcraft
• 1599: English Archbishop Samuel Harsnett condemned not only those who practiced fraudulent exorcisms, but also the very belief in witches and demons.
• 1656: Englishman Thomas Ady published the first of three devastating works attacking beliefs in witches and witchcraft. He opposed the witch hunts vigorously.
• 1669: John Wagstaffe published ‘The Question of Witchcraft Debated; or, a Discourse against their Opinions that affirm Witches’, opposing the witch hunts and declaring the belief in witchcraft to be superstition.
• 1676: John Webster published ‘The Displaying Of Supposed Witchcraft’, opposing the witch hunts and dismissing the belief in witches as superstition
• 1691: The Dutch theologian Balthasar Bekker published ‘Die Betooverde Wereld’, reprinted in English as ‘The World Bewitch’d’ (1695), an attack on the witch hunts and belief in witches
• 1651: The English philosopher Thomas Hobbes published ‘Leviathan, or The Matter, Forme and Power of a Common Wealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil’, in which he rejected the belief in witches and opposing witch hunts
• 1693-1700: Robert Calef wrote repeatedly opposing the witch hunts
• 1712: An anonymous English physician published ‘A Full Confutation of Witchcraft, More particularly of the DEPOSITIONS Against JANE WENHAM, Lately Condemned for a WITCH; at Hertford’, opposing the witch hunts and the belief in witches
• 1718: Anglican clergyman Francis Hutchinson published ‘An Historical Essay Concerning Witchcraft’, attacking the belief in witches and the witch hunts
• 1762: An anonymous work entitled ‘Anti-Canidia: or, Superstition Detected and Exposed’ attacked traditional beliefs on witchcraft, as well as the witch hunts --Taiwan boi 06:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

So, does anyone object to me including this information? I made this suggestion 5 days ago. --Taiwan boi 10:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, I'd like to see this information included, but I'm just trying to figure out whether it fits Wikipedia policy; specifically, WP:INFO. If this could be summarised, with a citation of a publication containing the more complete listing, it might be better. At the very least these items will each need to be accompanied by a citation from a reliable source. Add it all in with citations, and we can see what other people think. Fuzzypeg☻ 06:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I can provide a summary accompanied by a citation from each of the works referred to in the list, but I suppose that would be 'original research'. At present I don't know of any single work which presents this entire list which would be regarded as a 'reliable source' (I created the list myself, simply by personally reading all the primary sources, which I actually own). I suppose you mean that each one would have to be accompanied by a citation of a book or Website which counted as a 'reliable source', unlike the way the list was presented earlier (which didn't do any such thing). I could probably hunt down references to each of these men in a range of different secondary sources which would be considered reliable, such as the article by Jenny Gibbons which is already quoted here. I could also use the following sources which I own:

• Charles Mackay, 'Memoirs of Popular Delusions', 1841
• Charles W Upham, ‘Salem Witchcraft: With an Account of Salem Village and A History of Opinions on Witchcraft and Kindred Subjects’, 1867
• Sir Walter Scott, 'Letters On Demonology And Witchcraft', 1885
• George L Burr (editor), 'Translations And Reprints From The Original Sources Of European History', 1896
• Paul Carus, 'History of the Devil', 1900
• Charles Lea, 'A History of the Inquisition In Spain', 1906-1907
• John D Seymour, ‘Irish Witchcraft And Demonology’, 1913
• Barbara J. Shapiro, ‘"Beyond Reasonable Doubt" and "Probable Cause": Historical Perspectives on the Anglo-American Law of Evidence’, 1991
• Stephen Snobelen, ‘Lust, Pride, And Ambition: Isaac Newton And The Devil’, November 2002
• Kathryn A Edwards, 'Review of Friedrich Spee von Langenfeld, Cautio Criminalis, or a Book on Witch Trials', H-German, H-Net Reviews, August, 2005

Would these be considered 'reliable sources'? I could find citations for practically the whole list using these sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taiwan boi (talk • contribs) 06:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

As long as each entry in your list is cited from either a reliable secondary source or a primary source, it's fine by me. I still don't know how other editors might respond, whether they might want the list trimmed down a bit or moved elsewhere. Seems like useful info to me though. It might even be split into its own article! In terms of verifiability primary sources are OK to cite as long as we present them without analysis or interpretation, and don't present them in a misleading context. Fuzzypeg☻ 02:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I own all the relevant primary and secondary sources. Which would you prefer me to cite? For example, I can cite primary sources for the Canon Episcopi, Regino, Agobard, Wagstaffe, Hutchinson, Mede, Scot, Hobbes, Ady, Webster, Calef, and Bekker. I can cite reliable secondary sources for the rest. Do you want simply the name and the citation, or a brief description as well, like I've given? --Taiwan boi 05:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I see this entire section has been removed. I cannot find any reference to a reason for its removal. --Taiwan boi (talk) 01:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've just found it in the split to 'Witch trials in Early Modern Europe'. That makes sense. --Taiwan boi (talk) 01:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added to that section a number of references containing the information cited in the list of protests which follows. --Taiwan boi (talk) 01:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I think there should be a better explanation of the underlying reasons and causes behind witch-hunts -- and not just individual historical triggers, but the general social ideas and situations which bring them about. The witch-hunt mentality of persecuting a scape-goat has been seen many times in history, (salem, red scare) and a general explanation of the psychology of this would be great. Personally, it's what I was looking for in this article, not the historical details (although those are needed too).

And is it just me, or is this article long-winded and difficult to get through? Bigdan201 (talk) 06:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

We've had quite a few editors adding little bits of info without considering the article as a whole. Yes, the article needs some serious tightening and some consideration given to its overall structure.

In terms of reasons for the witch hunts, yes that would be fabulous. There have been a lot of suggestions, and one good summary to start from (that I know of) might be Ankarloo's and Henningsen's introduction to Early Modern Witchcraft: Centres and Peripheries (ed. Ankarloo and Henningsen). It's available in most university libraries, and provides succinct summaries of the major viewpoints that have emerged since the late 1960s. Other sources are of course also welcome, and help is always appreciated. Fuzzypeg★ 03:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi all. I don't understand why the United States has been placed under the category of Modern Witch Trials. It's sort of... ridiculous, actually, and obviously more-than-a-little POV. I can practically hear the hysterical diatribe of the far-lefty who wrote it in the first place. Where something should be written about the United States is in the history of the hunts, where I think Salem should at least be mentioned. If nobody minds, I'd like to delete the entry in question. --J.Dayton (talk) 03:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)--69.253.92.203 (talk) 03:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I mind. A church in the United States is threatening a witch-hunt. It has been reported by a credible source. Maybe, what you "can practically hear" is the cognitive dissonance: face it, brother. You live in a big, scary country. Trachys (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone has twice added a paragraph about the stigmatization of sex offenders being seen as a "witch hunt". I have some objections to this:

1. This is not necessary to the article to explain the history or usage of witch-hunts. It is only a metaphorical witch-hunt, and it is covered by the Political Usage section.
2. It is not even a good example of a metaphorical witch-hunt, since the victims of the hunt are not only perceived as guilty; they actually are (if they are indeed sex offenders).
3. As discussed earlier on this talk page (for a somewhat similar topic) many examples of modern metaphorical "witch-hunts" that people might add to this page are likely to be POV-pushing. It was agreed that we would exercise caution around such additions.
4. The information has been added to make a point about the treatment of sex offenders, not to make a point about witch-hunts.
5. If we add examples like this we risk the article becoming a dumping ground for people's persecution grievances. That's not to say their grievances aren't warranted; it's just not appropriate for this article.

This information seems inappropriate to this page. Remember, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Fuzzypeg★ 10:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I just thought I should say I've read a bit more from the cited articles accompanying this information, and I can see they're making a quite valid point. I want to give my assurance that I'm not deleting the addition because I don't believe it or because I disapprove of it, but because I don't think it's very relevant or useful to this article. I'm sure a better place can be found for it; start looking at sex and the law perhaps, or social stigma. The golden rule is, put it where people are most likely to look for it! Best wishes, Fuzzypeg★ 10:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The article needs to be about actual witch hunts, not metaphorical ones. Ashmoo (talk) 12:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)