Talk:Malkin Tower

Question about accuracy

I saw this article when it was the featured article on October 31, 2013. I raise an issue about the accuracy of article, because it contains a patent error. This is probably a problem with the underlying source material rather than the article itself, but it is nonetheless a patent error.

The article states that the coven of the Pendle witches met on April 6, 1612, and that the date was Good Friday. Although it is true that April 6, 1612 was a Friday on the Gregorian calendar, it was not Good Friday but two weeks before Good Friday. In addition, Great Britain was using the Julian calendar in 1612, not the Gregorian calendar. April 6, 1612 was not Good Friday on the Julian calendar, either; it was not even a Friday. Good Friday of 1612 was April 20 on the Gregorian calendar and April 10 on the Julian calendar. That can be verified by entering the Gregorian dates into the Wolfram Alpha math engine and examining the Julian calendar and Hebrew calendar dates that coincide. In addition, I checked a 1611 prayer book which has an Easter table that verifies the Julian calendar date for Good Friday as given above. (A Google search for prayer books and missals from that period should links to PDFs of source materials that can verify this fact.)

The error in the date of the convening of the supposed Pendle witch coven may call other details of the story into question. -- Bob (Bob99 (talk) 14:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC))

Interesting, but it's commonplace for modern historians to convert from old style to new style dates. Just looking at the sources I have immediately to hand both Bennett (1993) and Hasted (1993) are quite explicit that the meeting took place on Good Friday, 6 April 1612. Do you have any sources to contradict that? Eric Corbett 14:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The point is that the date is impossible, both in terms of Old Style (Julian) dating and in terms of New Style (Gregorian) dating. The point is that April 6 of 1612 was not Good Friday. Only one day of that year was Good Friday, and it may be cited as Friday October 10 (Old Style/Julian) or as Friday October 20 (New Style/Gregorian). The Julian calendar puts April 6 of that year on a Monday, while the Gregorian calendar puts April 6 of that year on a Friday, but two weeks before Good Friday. Julian-Gregorian correspondences and days of the week for historical dates can be verified, for example, by the Wolfram Alpha math engine (www.wolframalpha.com), and the date of Good Friday can be verified by the Moveable Feast tables of various 17th prayer books, such as (for example) the 1611 Book of Common Order of the Church of Scotland (see, e.g., 1868 reprint by William Blackwood and Sons, Edinburgh and London). (Catholic and Protestant prayer books of this type typically contain tables showing when Easter occurs over a period of time when the book is expected to be in use.) You could also use one of the algorithms in the Wikipedia article on the Easter Computus to calculate it yourself. -- Bob (Bob99 (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC))

Does the original trial transcript say what the alleged day was? Parrot of Doom 14:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Answered it myself (was being lazy), according to this file they met "Good Friday last". Parrot of Doom 14:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Years ago there was severe edit warring at various Ernest Shackleton-related articles about how close he got to the South Pole. Most reliable sources say less than 100 miles, the context being statute miles. However, it is easily calculable from his latitude that he got to 112 statute miles (within 100 nautical miles) and a few sources give the right distance. These articles, which have all become featured, now either silently correct the distance[1] or record the discrepancy in a footnote.[2][3] Thincat (talk) 16:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I've yet to be convinced that there's a discrepancy to be explained. Eric Corbett 16:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, if the discovery document is the main source for most of what's written about the Pendle Witches, and the source of the "Good Friday", then all that remains is for someone knowledgeable to check what date that Friday would have fallen on in either calendar. Unfortunately that requires detailed knowledge of moon phases and tradition, well beyond my skills. Parrot of Doom 17:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Personally I don't think this matters too much from the point of view of the article, but I agree with what @Bob99: says above. In 1612, Good Friday wasn't on 6th April in either calendar. Here is a website that calculates the date of Easter Day for any year in either Julian or Gregorian calendars. http://www.koshko.com/calendar/easter-js.shtml Thincat (talk) 17:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• I've looked deeper into this and found a number of sources saying that the meeting at Malkin Tower took place on 10 April rather than 6 April. On the Julian calendar then in use that was indeed a Friday, and given that by the Gregorian calendar Easter Sunday was on 22 April in 1612 (12 April by the Julian calendar) that seems to fit. So I'll change the date now and add an explanatory note later. Eric Corbett 17:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, how interesting. Well, in the Julian calendar for 1612, 10 April was Good Friday, not merely a Friday. Thincat (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, of course, that's what I meant to say. Eric Corbett 18:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

So perhaps this article and the linked article on the Pendle witches should be changed. But the original point remains. The April 6 sources, which appear to have been relied on significantly, appear to be less than completely reliable. It is possible that the correct date was Monday April 6 but that it was sensationalized at some point to Good Friday, because associating a gathering of witches with Good Friday is just so very interesting. At the very least, the sources should be looked at critically. -- Bob (Bob99 (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC))

Both articles have been changed, and the sources have been looked at critically. The only contemporary source for this event is Potts' Discoverie of Witches, and he quite explicitly states that the meeting took place on Good Friday, so there can be no real doubt, and no later addition to sensationalise the event. Eric Corbett 20:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

And I've just realised I haven't thanked you for spotting this date discrepancy, so thanks. Eric Corbett 21:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

"coven gathering" not "trial"

The opening states that the tower was the site of the most famous witch trial. However, a similar sentence lower down states that the tower was where the coven met, which makes much more sense, especially if the Malkin Tower was pulled down by locals after the trial. It's unlikely that the courthouse would have been destroyed.Mahuna2 (talk) 15:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Changed earlier today by one or more anonymous editors, and now fixed - thanks. Bencherlite^Talk 16:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Glitch?

Right now, on my screen, the article says [[Category:]] at the top. Can't find what causes it; purging hasn't helped. Drmies (talk) 20:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

It's fine here (win 8.1 + chrome) Parrot of Doom 20:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

It went away after these edits though, interestingly, that editor's user page has nine of those Category things on top. Drmies (talk) 20:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I noticed it too. But seems to have been rectified now? --Trappedinburnley (talk) 20:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

TOC

Why in the world would you need a TOC for an article that is only four sections long? Is it really necessary in this case? The reader can scroll down, can't they? Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 14:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Haven't you got anything better to do? Eric Corbett 14:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I could watch Family Guy (in fact, I could do a lot of things), but that's beside the point. The point is to not add a TOC to articles that don't need it. Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 14:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't added, it's the default. Eric Corbett 15:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Epicgenius is right to raise this question. Corbett, show some civility (WP:CIVIL): Responses like "haven't you got anything better to do?" are completely inappropriate. This is a wiki, where users work together. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

And that's enough of the comments directed at contributors. Discuss the merits of the TOC and whether its automatic generation should be overridden here with __NOTOC__. Bencherlite^Talk 15:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

After a closer look, I've concluded that the article is only 10–12 paragraphs long. This is a relatively short article compared to other articles (like Pi, Gangnam Style, or Futurama). In such articles (with over 20 paragraphs) it might be appropriate to add a TOC. However, when the article is, on the most part, short (like this one), it's easier to add __NOTOC__. Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 19:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

How can it be easier to add __NOTOC__ than to do nothing at all and leave it to the default? Eric Corbett 19:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Unqualified Usage of "Slut" in Article Prose

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Currently the article reads:

"The name Malkin has several possible derivations: it was a familiar form of the female names Mary or Maud, and a term for a poor or shabby woman;[2] the similar mawkin was a word used to describe a lower-class woman or slut.[3]"

Putting aside that the toponymy section was clearly written by someone without a background in historical linguistics background (the writing style and wording give this away), here the non-neutral term "slut" is used without qualification. This is a major problem. By not providing qualification or appropriate mark up (either quotation marks derived directly form the author or apostrophes to signify 'semantic value'), the term here is used as if it is simply a fact of life, and not the moral judgment that it was. This is not neutral.

Attempts to fix this have been aggressively reverted by Eric Corbett (talk · contribs), who went as far as reverting—at times without edit summary—four times in a 24 hour window (1, 2, 3, 4). His other edit summaries in the history section of this talk page reveal a similar aggressive stance to other changes to the article.

This article is currently locked down to Corbett's preferred version and non-administrators cannot edit it. Very convenient for Corbett, but unfortunate for the reader. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that your writing style "Putting aside that the toponymy section was clearly written by someone without a background in historical linguistics background (the writing style and wording give this away) ... clearly gives you away as a pompous you-know-what. A background in a background? What's that supposed to mean? Look up the word mawkin in a decent dictionary and let us know if the word slut is in quotes. Eric Corbett 15:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

It's simple etymology, my good man. Those mark ups are employed for a reason. If the extent of your linguistics background is a dictionary, it's time to dig a little further. There's a big difference between the synchronic and the diachronic, and the toponymy section is currently a jumble. Dismissing this complaint as "pompous" gets this article nowhere. Grab an etymological dictionary, see how semantic values are marked up. Dictionaries are just the surface, but a good one will come with a basically accepted etymology. If someone lifts the current "protect Eric Corbett's preferred status" version, I'll see what I can do about rewriting the section for you. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

It obviously isn't so simple, as you clearly have no idea or understanding of what you're talking about. Eric Corbett 15:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Really? Set me straight, Eric, because from where I'm sitting it basically looks to me like you've wandered in over your head and have to simply resort to "you have no idea or understanding of what you're talking about". :bloodofox: (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Bloodofox, stop it. Eric, ignore that provocative remark. Please, both of you, read what I put below. Bencherlite^Talk 15:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

(after multiple edit conflicts) Bloodofox, please depersonalise this discussion and focus on the content, not the contributors or their background (whether in historical linguistics or otherwise). After all, you took to "discussing" things through edit summaries as you repeated your disputed edit rather than taking matters to the talk page, which is why your AN3 report was declined. Don't carry that grudge into this discussion. Incidentally, articles are always protected at "The wrong version" and it's only temporary anyway. I doubt any readers will be seriously harmed by the article as it stands while discussion takes place. Now, I would like all future contributions to this thread to be about whether slut should be in quotation marks or not, rather than who did what and why yesterday/today etc. Bencherlite^Talk 15:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Bencher, are you going to warn Eric about civility? Or is the issue here that someone questioned Eric? Because it's quite convenient that you're only coming around now and have had nothing to say about Eric's various personal attacks above and in the history section here. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I wrote that before Eric's reply, but got multiple edit conflicts trying to get it in at all, so I didn't expand it to refer specifically to his reply to your initial provocation. I hope by now both of you are getting the message that diverting from the direct subject is not helpful. And I don't know what you're insinuating about me "only coming around now", but I don't appreciate it. Check the edit history for why I'm here and what I've done. (Hint: I schedule every TFA, so they are on my watchlist before, during and after TFA day, and I step in when I have to). Bencherlite^Talk 15:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Restart

So, the question is - should slut appear as "slut" or slut? Discuss this, not contributors or their abilities/background/histories etc. Bencherlite^Talk 15:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

As this is referring to a morality judgment and not a simple fact and we're talking about a semantic value, this either needs quotation marks or apostrophes around it. Apostrophes are standard mark up for semantic values in linguistics. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The word slut is colloquial, perjorative and carries with it moralistic judgment, hence it is not especially encyclopedic. Would it be better to use promiscuous? Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, the discussion is not whether to use the term or not. It's putting it under a qualifier; i.e., quotation marks or apostrophes, to avoid using the word as if it were some sort of moralistic judgment by the narrator rather than a relayed semantic value. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Alternatively it could be phrased "someone considered slutty". The problem with using quotation marks or "scare quotes" is that it wouldn't be clear why they are being used or who is being quoted. If they are needed it is better to include some form of attribution or better explanation. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

It's standard for semantic values, but I would still take "one considered a promiscuous woman" rather than the unqualified "slut" in the prose. One of the issues is how badly the section is currently put together. It should definitely be more clear and use standard notation. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I mentioned on Bloodofox's talk page that what matters is what the source says. That source is not available online; I don't know who brought the word into the article but I have to assume good faith in that they properly represented what the book says. I pointed out also that the word may well be deemed problematic (but this is no reason to go on a witch hunt, of course); any rephrasing of it, however, will have to be done with the book in hand because context is everything here. Drmies (talk) 16:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

We also present information in a neutral manner, no matter what a source says. "Slut" is by no means neutral and requires special handling. Under no circumstance may it be employed without qualification on these articles. The same goes for racial slurs and words such as "sin". It's rather surprising that we're debating this, but note that Drmies is a good friend of Corbett. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure I am. So I must be wrong. Drmies (talk) 16:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

For the record, your edit summary, which read "The name Malkin is not real has several possible derivations" contains the phrase "not real", which is the result of vandalism and obviously not my intended addition. Please refrain from attempted taunts.:bloodofox: (talk) 16:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

"Good friend" is a taunt too: you're suggesting that I can't see right from wrong because I'm a friend. (I'm also a linguist with a Ph.D., but whatever.) And I see now how you reinserted that stuff--that's what happens when one gets caught up in an edit war, I suppose. Can I repeat that the source needs to be discussed here? Drmies (talk) 17:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

You can repeat it all you want, and I will agree, but I'm not here to be taunted. Your relation to the user in question is relevant to this discussion. Your supposed PhD, unconfirmable as it is, is irrelevant. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Come on. This is the antithesis of "comment on content, not on editors", the opposite of what Bencherlite called for. As it happens, I agree with a rephrasing, but you have given me no reason whatsoever to agree with you on a content issue, since you question my judgment in almost every remark you make. Sorry Bencherlite: I'm going to drop this stick now and throw it in the yard, far from the house. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll ask you next time to avoid the misguided edit summary taunting, thanks. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The OED has a good entry on malkin, one definition of which is "sluttish woman" (without the quotes). I wonder, who exactly is offended here? It's just a word and it hasn't been used pejoratively. Parrot of Doom 16:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Dictionaries produce lists of semantic values. They do not spit out narratives. Also, as a Wikipedia editor, I am sure you realize that words have constellations of semantic values, and these values can be offensive or ideological. A core principle of Wikipedia is neutrality WP:NPOV, and therefore we don't make moral judgments. As a result, non-neutral language needs to be couched in quotation marks or attributed directly, in prose, to their source. In this case, we're talking about the semantic value. OED usually contains a etymologies with entries; see those apostrophes? :bloodofox: (talk) 16:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Aren't you making a moral judgement by proclaiming the word slut is offensive? That's hardly neutral. It doesn't offend me. Have you read Gropecunt Lane? Parrot of Doom 16:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

There term is generally considered pejorative, although there have been attempts at "reclaiming" it. Given the data we have on the lexeme, this wasn't always the case. However, that's beside the point. The same goes for "cunt", our native term replaced with a Latinate. Again, beside the point. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The suggestion that we use the descriptor slut because that's the word used in a book from 1989 seems misguided. As an unattributed designation it is colloquial and perjorative, hence unencyclopedic. It at least needs qualifications or explanation. Even Wikipedia's entry on slut notes that the term is perjorative. The comparison to other impartial language is apt here. We avoid the terms negro, kink, kiki, fag etc. for similar reasons. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Nobody in the UK avoids the word fag. Or faggot. Parrot of Doom 16:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe, but this is for a broader audience. The OED has, " A typical name (usu. derogatory) for: a lower-class, untidy, or sluttish woman, esp. a servant or country girl. In Scotland: an awkward or ungainly young girl." No italics, no quotation marks. (Typical--it's a dictionary.) I would support a rephrase, considering the "derogatory" part, to something like "'sluttish woman', according to the OED." Drmies (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Drmies here. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Yet you're well aware that the term is highly pejorative elsewhere in the anglosphere. Wikipedia is not written specifically for the UK. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm finding the fact that Bloodofox is being allowed to make these repeated personal attacks to be rather interesting. For the record, I don't recall ever having read the Catlow book being used a source, I didn't write that section of the article anyway, and I did in fact study linguistics as part of my psychology degree. Eric Corbett 17:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Personal attacks such as? If you've got the background, and it's in question, say otherwise. Meanwhile, your willingness to revert, without edit summary, attempts to apply quotation marks or apostrophes to the word "slut" has given users every reason to question said background. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

So you're calling me a liar now. Interesting. Eric Corbett 19:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I said no such thing. However, you're certainly saying quite a lot elsewhere that would get other users blocked. But this isn't really the place for you and I to go round and round. If you want to chat, I invite you to my talk page. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Moving on

Alright, for the sake of this article and as suggested above, let's try to keep this discussion entirely on article content and not inter-Wikipedia politics. So far we've had two users voicing support in changing the wording and two users making an unclear stance. Can we get some reasons for or against applying quotation marks or apostrophes to the usage of the word slut here? :bloodofox: (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

If a person was commonly described as a fanatic, a pejorative word, would you think that should be in quotes? Parrot of Doom 19:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes. If it isn't an objective description, then it needs to be quoted. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

But I find that bizarre, because if used in the same context as slut, I can see no offence whatsoever. "the similar mawkin was a word used to describe a radical preacher or fanatic". Who on earth would be offended by that? Parrot of Doom 19:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

This isn't an issue of offending anyone, this is an issue of neutrality. Consider "freedom fighter" versus "terrorist" (Wikipedia:Terrorist#Contentious_labels). Degrees of religious zealotry fall into the area of subjectivity. We're supposed to be objective here. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think what we have here is another one of those silly feminism/gender issues. Remember how it's OK on here to call someone a dick but not a cunt? Eric Corbett 19:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Gender studies is certainly not a "silly" topic, but that's not what we're talking about here. And it's not OK to call someone either of those things on Wikipedia, so I don't know what that has to do with anything. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you might like to explain the existence of WP:DICK then, and why there's no corresponding WP:CUNT. No? I didn't think so. Eric Corbett 19:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

It's an essay, not a policy. Wikipedia has plenty of nonsensical or poorly-considered essays out there. None of that has anything to do with what we're talking about. Please stay on topic. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

So you choose to avoid the issue, no surprise there. Eric Corbett 19:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

But the article is describing a word, not a person. How can any true description of a word ever be subjective? I'd understand if it was used to describe some historical figure or other and I'd immediately be on your side, but a word? Parrot of Doom 19:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Words can be subjective or objective. "The ball is yellow." "The sky is blue." These are objective descriptions. "The movie is awesome." "He is a terrorist." "She is a slut." These are subjective statements. Objective words are freely employed, subjective terms require caveats making it clear who said exactly what and under what circumstances; this is often done with quotation marks to make it evident that the narration is not making this subjective claim. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

It's becoming clearer and clearer that you have no idea what you're talking about. The "sky is blue" is not objective it's subjective, as colours don't really exist. And nobody has called anyone a slut. Eric Corbett 19:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

But you've completely ignored what I've said about the article describing a word, not a person. The article is patently true. Your argument makes no sense to me. Parrot of Doom 19:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, we don't know how true the article is because no one bothered to put quotation marks around the word, so we don't know exactly what the source says. However, what we do have is a line of prose and at least one user who is vehemently against using standard mark up for reasons unknown, while at least three so far who want it changed. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the pejorative nature of the term is irrelevant. The problem is that the word is unclear. Slut means whore. That is not the meaning intended. DrKiernan (talk) 19:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

This statement gets my support. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Slut doesn't mean whore at all, and even if it did so what? Eric Corbett 19:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Please read synonym. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)