Talk:Grace Sherwood

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grace Sherwood. 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/20131029231535/http://richmondthenandnow.com/Newspaper-Articles/Witch-Grace-Sherwood.html to http://richmondthenandnow.com/Newspaper-Articles/Witch-Grace-Sherwood.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 20:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

"Restore her good name"

This is overly flowery language that is not appropriate for use in encyclopedic prose, regardless of whether it was used in the source. If you wish to keep it, it should be given as a quotation, not a statement in Wikipedia's voice. --Khajidha (talk) 11:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

If the Historical Society of Virginia says so, it seems official enough. It seems clear and not flowery to me, just a fact. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

It's a common phrase and quite appropriate under the circumstances.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Further disucssion

[ Copying the following discussion here from Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors ]

"Restored her good name" seems a little too flowery for an encyclopedia. And, realistically, she's gonna still be known as the Witch of Pungo. --Khajidha (talk) 01:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

• That's the language used in the article and reference. Stephen 03:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

  Doesn't change the fact that it is not encyclopedic language. We wouldn't say that a person "went to meet his maker" and this is the same sort of thing. The page should be changed to remove this phrase or present it as a quotation and not a statement in Wikipedia's voice. --Khajidha (talk) 11:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

  The second definition of "name" in many dictionaries is "reputation". What's the evidence that this use is informal or substandard? - Dank (push to talk) 11:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Khajidha. Phrasing sounds like something written by a local yokel. (Besides, who knows whether she actually had a 'good name' – ?) More appropriate to an encyclopedia would be:

On July 10, 2006, the 300th anniversary of Sherwood's conviction, Governor Tim Kaine reversed the verdict, officially exonerating her.

– Sca (talk) 14:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I see two issues that combine to produce the effect you're talking about. Unless someone has evidence otherwise, I choose to believe the dictionaries; "name" is a reasonable synonym for "reputation". What you're talking about now is the belief that politicians live on a higher moral plane, and have the ability to anoint someone with good standing in the community. Yes, that seems unlikely on the face of it, but the question of what impact politicians can have is one that's endlessly debated, and not an appropriate question for this section of WP:ERRORS. We can deal with the usage question here, if someone will show me something that impeaches the meaning of the word "name". - Dank (push to talk) 15:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I think "Restored her good name" somewhat violates WP:IMPARTIAL, as Wikipedia takes a stance in this case (although this creates a question whether witchcraft-related articles should be an exemption from WP:NPOV policy). Brandmeister^talk 16:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't see this as an error. It is a style matter that should be addressed at the article talk page. Which point of view is it taking sides against? Is there anyone out there who thinks Grace Sherwood was a witch? Are we taking sides against that point of view?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, the only thing I'm objecting to here is the idea that there's a simple, routine fix for this problem. It's a rare problem and a deep one, with many implications. I've scheduled all the July TFAs, and if you guys want to run through those looking for problems, that would be great ... that would give us lots of time to tackle problems like these on the article talk pages, and get a range of opinions. I don't think anyone here is off-track, I just think there's a limit on how much can be done at WP:ERRORS#TFA today before we start alienating editors and reviewers. - Dank (push to talk) 17:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

According to the Washington Post,[1], Governor Kaine gave her an "informal pardon" and was then quoted as writing "I am pleased to officially restore the good name of Grace Sherwood."

In that case, put it in quotes & attribute to Kaine. But if it was just a piece of feel-good theater, rather than an official act – e.g. political BS – it never should have been an FA anyway. Sca (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

What is an "informal" pardon? Presumably not an official, legally effective one? Does it actually "reverse the miscarriage of justice" in any meaningful sense? Could the Governor of Virginia have granted an official pardon in this case? And how does an "informal" (unofficial?) pardon "officially" restore a good name? Does a governor have a power to restore reputations, rather than just excusing or forgiving an offender?

Surely the word "informal" is needed before "pardoned". And perhaps the words "officially restore the good name" could be quoted, so it does not look like WIkipedia is voicing that senitment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.129 (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

• There are different levels of pardon in Virginia – simple, conditional and absolute. There is some formality about these and it seems that this was not done in this case; hence the term "informal". Andrew D. (talk) 23:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

It's like this. The article has a talk page. It is for discussing the improvement of the article. The page we are on serves a valid purpose, I suppose, there should be a central place major errors for main page content should be brought. But. It's now becoming a place for relatively minor phrasing disputes. Thus, the discussion affecting the article's content is taking place away from the people who have it on their watchlist, and those discussions are not placed in the talk page archives. It used to be we could have several discussions open (and usually close) on the TFA's talk page, now everyone comes here. To say nothing of the fact Dank points out that it's terribly off-putting to the people who have invested in the article. To be blunt, it's becoming too easy to snipe from here rather than to post on the talk page of the article. I think this page should be used rarely.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

This is not the high school yearbook. It's a globally accessible compendium of knowledge. There's no excuse for mediocrity – or sloppy, misleading writing – particularly not in a Main Page feature. Sca (talk) 21:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Wehwalt and Dank. Why is article improvement being discussed on an errors page (per Wehwalt)? This is off putting, sneaky, backhanded, and even cowardly. It's a slam to the editors who worked on an article. That this error page has turned into that is shameful. (per Dank) This sort of behavior that drives editors away. This is why I only do gnomish edits these days. That being said, I think the best solution is to put the words in question in quotes. PumpkinSky talk 21:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I've implemented the "best solution" suggested here, and put the word in quotes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.145 (talk) 07:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, the place for some of this is at the article talkpage, but much of this was well-discussed in the FAC process and there is no need to restart those discussions and re-examine the reviewers' consensus on phrasing at this time. This particular article has had a very extensive review and such minor points were already considered by multiple other editors. Montanabw^(talk) 22:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Not an issue now, as it's almost off MP anyway, but FAC is irrelevant to the issues here; if any phrasing is inappropriate for the Main Page, the discussions at FAC don't automatically override that - it is decided through discussion here. Black Kite (talk) 22:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

The question what is flowery about a wording that looks clear to me has not been answered here nor there. She was called Witch, that was restored to the good name/reputation Grace Sherwood, - where's the problem? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

It's not an error. It's what the governor said. It's a debate over what verbiage should be used in the article/MP; which is NOT an error. This page is for errors. This debate belongs on the article talk page. But in 42 minutes it will be off the main page, so I'm not wasting more time on this. PumpkinSky talk 23:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

So, should the article make it clearer that the pardon was "informal", and that "restore her good name" were the words used by the Governor? (For what it is worth, I can't see these precise words being described in any detail in the two FACs, or on the talk page before, although I do see one suggestion that she never had a bad reputation so did not need to have her "good name" restored anyway.)

MisSpelling of word "ducking"

I don't think that it is called "ducking" but should be "dunking". Please show proof if not.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidvail (talk • contribs) 17:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

See Cucking_stool

Plus see the link to the Commons photos where there is a photo of "Witchduck Road". PumpkinSky talk 19:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Grace Sherwood. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://infomotions.com/etexts/archive/ia331315.us.archive.org/1/items/narrativesofwitc00burriala/narrativesofwitc00burriala_djvu.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131103175901/http://www.wethhist.org/articles-from-the-community/2012/06/pardoning-the-witches.html to http://www.wethhist.org/articles-from-the-community/2012/06/pardoning-the-witches.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 00:38, 24 September 2017 (UTC)