Talk:Doruchów witch trial

Reason

This says nothing about what the alleged witches were accused of doing. You could also include the names of the 1793 women. --85.226.235.208 (talk) 14:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• This event is known only from the book of the German historian Wilhelm Soldan, does not provide any first-hand information, but reports a report that the Prussian authorities in 1801 found in one of the villages near Poznań the remains of something like the stake etc. Doubtful credibility. Pilot Pirx (talk) 15:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Different section for 1775 and 1783

Perhaps this article should have different sections for 1775 and 1783, so the information regarding the 1775 version and the 1783 version can be gatthered better. As it is now, it is somewhat difficult to understand which of the information describes the theories and information about 1775 and 1783. For example: the article say that the trial is not mentioned in the documents of 1776. This seem to state that the trial never occurred because it was not stated in the 1776 documents. But of course, if it did in fact take place in 1783, the absence of it in the 1776 documents is not very strange. The clerify, I suggest that the article is given wto sections: "1775 case" and "1783 case", and state all the information and theories under each section, to better clerify exactly to what year the information belongs. At present, the article is blurred with the information about 1775 and the information about 1783 all blend together, which makes it unclear and a bit of a mess. --Aciram (talk) 13:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Reversion

I have reverted back to the referenced version that explains that there are two version of events. The old version is using the term "reality" which isn't encyclopedic and I have changed it to describe the two versions. The whole section on the "reality" is unreferenced. I think it is tied to the 2006 Master's Degree thesis. I don't think Wikipedia considers that reliable. I don't mind it being quoted, but saying that it is the "reality" is not encyclopedic by Wikipedia WP:Reliable source standards. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• The "version" of 1783 is based on research of two Polish experts on the witch trials - Janusz Tazbir and M. Pilaszek and I've both them included in the references. The 1999 work of Gijswijt-Hofstra proves only that western sources are not yet familiar with the Polish research. CarlosPn (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Besides, it should be noted that Polish witch trials is still very neglected topic in the Polish history and the serious research on it has been initiated only few years ago. In many even academic sources there are still references to totally unfounded estimate oh 10 or 15 thousand witches burned in Poland in XVI-XVIII centuries (see W. Monter: Witchcraft and magic in Europe, 2002, p. 12-13) CarlosPn (talk) 21:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Your problem is that you are reverting all my changes back to a version that has dates as links and other older formatting. You are reversing my additions then adding your additions, so I have no choice but to revert yours to get back to the MoS formatting rules. If you want to make additions you have to not reverse the changes I have made of adding inline citations and delinking the dates. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Dead link should be removed - I've gained access to the sources on which is based. BTW, the book of Iwona Rosińska about traditional costumes in Great Poland is even weaker reference for this trial than Master Thesis of Byczkowski CarlosPn (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Instead of reverting, please add your references to this version. You can cut and paste the same template I am using. It would be best if you talked about the strength of the arguments for the later date instead of calling one a fabrication and the other "reality". That way people who come across the reference works using the earlier date can use your information to understand why one is more likely to be correct. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I've rewrite only one passage and did not remove any reference. However, I can say that among the Polish scholars who has made research on the topic there is a consensus in favor of the later date CarlosPn (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Doruchów witch trial. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111007143846/http://www.portalwiedzy.pan.pl/images/stories/pliki/publikacje/nauka/2006/03/N_306_03_Tazbir.pdf to http://www.portalwiedzy.pan.pl/images/stories/pliki/publikacje/nauka/2006/03/N_306_03_Tazbir.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)