Talk:Tituba/Archive 1

Archive 1

Incongruency

The endings of the sixth and ninth paragraphs of the witch trials section seem contradictory. Did Tituba die in prison or disappear into obscurity with a new owner? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.202.30.38 (talk) 10:11, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

It is noted that Tituba remained in jail throughout the trial. A stranger posted her bail and she left with him and no known information of her aware abouts afterwards. Her daughter Violet remained with the Parris Family. Possibly as a assurance from retailiation against Samuel Parris. Since the slavery law allows complete ownership of a slave, 'body and soul' the concept of Violet remaining as part of Tituba's body along with her husband John Indian whom was also a slave of Parris. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.85.147 (talk) 22:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Lack of Interest in Tituba

Why is it that the first confessor of witchcraft in Salem in 1692 has had so little attention paid to her until the scholar, Elaine G. Breslaw, made it relevant? Tituba was responsible for putting it into the heads of the Puritans of Salem that Satan was present in their village and that their neighbors could have been the ones communing with him. It was not until Breslaw rasied questions about Tituba and her role in Salem that other scholars chose to follow her lead. Since then there have been fictional books such as Ann Petry's, "Tituba of Salem Village" which have added to the debates on her ethnicity and background in Barbados. Why is it that fictional stories can change how scholars look at evidence and eventually make conclusions that change the ethnicity of a person?RayDugg (talk) 08:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Tituba has been cited as a key figure in the history of the witch trials from the earliest accounts; it can't really be said that she was given "little attention" until a modern author came along.

Edits

I edited this entire on Tituba because of a couple of reasons. One I felt that even though the previous writer did a excellent job at describing who Tituba was I felt that they really did not explain the major role in the Salem witch craft trial that Tituba had. I felt that the strongest point that the previous writer had is when they --Hiscraft 10:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)described how Tituba was left out in the cold by her former owner Minister Parris(which I left in the text). Second I thought that the story of Tituba's ethnicity had really nothing to do with the Salem witchcraft trials so they should have been separated by headings. --Hiscraft 10:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC) --Hiscraft 10:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The sub-heading of Historical debate over Tituba and Historical Imprtance of Tituba I added to further explain Tituba's role historically. The importance of Tituba scholarly did not stop with the Salem witch trials. Tituba has her own plaace in history because the part that she played in Salem. The two sub-headings I hoped placed of relance of how importance Tituba has been. The two sections cover how the question of Tituba's ethnicity is just as a main focus of scholarly resource and discussion as her being classified as the first Salem witch. They also explain how important Tituba's confession was to the village of Salem. If Tituba had not confessed the village of Salem may not have been able to maintains its independence from neighboring towns.--Hiscraft 23:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

According to Elain Breslaw's book, Tituba: Reluctant Witch of Salem, Tituba was probably not a Carib, but rather an Arawak-speaking Indian from South America. I changed the article to reflect that. Also, removed Parris title Reverend (not a minister in 1680), and added some info about his purchase of Tituba, and the Parris household move to Salem in the late 1680's.

I have added to the first passage about Tituba so those who want to look her up can get a little more information at first glance. I also thought the title "In the Name of Black Magic" was not appropriate for the section about Tituba's enthnicity because scholarship says she was an Inidan and there is no actual evidence that shows what type of magic she did.(RayDugg (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC))

Witch Cake

Answer to witch cake: the witch cake was made by someone in the household. it was mixed with rye meal and the urine of the person supposedly possessed or enchanted. it was baked up and then fed to the dog, if the dog then began do act possessed or bewitched, then it was proof that the person was telling the truth about being possessed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeanjeanmarie (talk • contribs) 22:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The witchcake was also a reason the Puritans believed the accusations about Tituba and doing witchcraft. She was approached by one of the Aunts of the afflicted girls and Tituba and her husband John helped in creating the witchcake. (RayDugg (talk) 21:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC))

What happened?

Something's up...this article used to be longer and more well-sourced, and I even believe it included an image. What happened? BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 01:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea... I only came to this article less than a month ago, I think. Wolfpeaceful (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to sandbox this, and see if I can't present a new replacement. <<<sorry that attempt didn't work out too well. There are major problems even with the earlier sources material. In my opinion it is much easier to just improve this one; rather than wading through countless previous articles for sourcing. Also the earlier article with more sourcing (the mahjority of those sources are only of the historical debate about Tituba's ethnicity... not about her as a person. 208.119.72.6 (talk) 18:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I just reverted the page to its last version, as someone had inserted a (spam?) link to moo.com and a missing image (example.jpg). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.183.24 (talk) 02:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Historical Debate and Ethnic Background sections

The Historical Debate and Ethnic Background sections might as well be worked into one section, as they essentially cover the same ground. 75.100.85.145 (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Merge sections

"Historical debate" and "Ethnic background" contain the same sort of information. Should they be integrated? Roscelese (talk) 04:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

hanged confessed witches?

Near the beginning of the survival paragraph, the article says that confessed witches were usually hanged. This is not true. A confessed witch would be saved. Accused witches who did not confess were hanged.

Jep101010 (talk) 20:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)jep101010

References and Citations

This article is in urgent need of citations and references, as it is currently lacking any. I have added a template for this reason. Thanks Wolfpeaceful (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The article cites William Cooke's book. The thesis of this book is: "There was actual witchcraft practiced in colonial New England... And while miscarriages of justice were carried out, especially when the judges abandoned traditional legal protections in order to satisfy the wishes of the masses, guilty people were still among the condemned." Not a credible source for an encyclopedia article, to say the least. —LJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.232.183.97 (talk) 03:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not familiar with William Cooke. I do not know whether or not his work is reliable or not. This was not my personal addition... Thank you. 208.119.72.6 (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC) user: Wolfpeaceful

This WILLIAM COOKE writer, to whom much of this is credited as a source, is a self-published "author" (who is an Attorney living in Maryland - which is easily found on both of his personal webpages). While I'm sure he's a nice person and an entertaining and talented writer, his self-published book is far from scholarly and does not deserve to be cited as such on a definitive article on an historical figure. Ergo, the need for deletion of said material as sourced from his book. This is attributed to Wiki's rules for sourcing less than scholarly, peer-reviewed, professionally pubblished, or evidence-based sources/references. As an attorney I imagine Mr. Cooke would agree (as the "because I said so" justification for accusation without unimpeachable evidence doesn't usually work in a courtroom either). If Mr. Cooke desires a Wikipedia article for his book or himself as an author, I respectfully suggest he create one and submit it for consideration to see if it passes requirements under Noteriety rules as set forth herein, herewith, hitherto, and so forth and so on ;-). Thank you.

NEEDS MORE WORK

• Needs more sources and references
• Speculative phrases need to be modified or deleted (e.g. "It is likely that Tituba was (so old)..." needs to be changed... (i.e. who believes that? and why?) There are excessive speculations: "Tituba was the first witch to confess in Salem, and she likely did it to avoid further punishment", "It is likely that the same person bought her husband, John, because Puritans were not inclined to split up married couples, even slaves" (i.e. too many "likely"'s. Ideally there shouldn't be any... instead when you want to use a "likely" you should provide a back-up claim as to why it is more a more probable reality than otherwise. You should state who believes that something is "likely", and why they believe that. Using "likely" in this way falls into the category of weasel words.
• Sentimental statements need to be deleted or modified (e.g. It is believed that Tituba had only one child, a daughter named Violet, who would remain in Parris's household until his death.") (i.e. it is believed by whom?)
• This article lacks NPOV... it needs to address both the pros and cons for Tituba's percieved "witch" status by using verifable sources.
  • Really? You think that "magic exists" is the kind of position that needs to be given equal representation in an encyclopedia?

Roscelese (talk) 04:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

'Note dear Roscelese: I DID NOT STATE WHETHER OR NOT I BELIEVE IN MAGIC!': Pay attention>> to what I actually stated>>: "This article lacks NPOV... it needs to address both the pros and cons for Tituba's percieved "witch" status by using verifable sources." Just for your information, I am referring to the concept of Witchcraft here, which is a long held belief system held by many cultures; it does not matter whether I believe it or not, for the sake of NPOV: we know that many people have and some cultures still do: The point I am making is this: is that if it was believed by people that she was a witch, who believed it? Are there verifiable resources that point that out? Further, I have not disclosed any of my personal religious, philosophical, ethical, or moral beliefs by making this observation; and have no intention on doing so. I also want to point out, since the time I had originally wrote this, this had been changed somewhat, with more sources added to the article... it may not be entirely neutral, but it closer, now, thank you.

• This article is not as detailed as it could be. [i.e. The information presented needs to be more cohesive, and checked for both accuracy and verifiability.]
• The article needs to establish the merits of The Salem Witch Trials in connection with Tituba more accurately, as well as expanding on Parris relationship with Tituba
• The phrasing of peacock phrases and weasel words needs to be taken out... (for example "Tituba made herself a likely target for witchcraft accusations... (with the use of the witchcake)" needs modified and verified.

The Witch's Children - NPOV and verification

I'm tempted to remove this:

"Clapp's portrayal is very accurate of what puritan girls probably went through and how large a role Tituba played in the opening up the girls to witchcraft."

It seems to me that we need to cite evidence of Clapp's accuracy. Otherwise the statement appears to be speculation. Secondly, I'm not aware of any credible evidence that Tituba played any role whatsoever in opening anyone to witchcraft. (A coerced confession doesn't count!) Respectfully, Scoof (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Native v. Indian

This has become a little silly, but I guess there is some sort of point to it. My problem with the current edit is that it is both anonymous and ungramatical. I don't have a problem with the use of the term native though I personally prefer the term aboriginal. I would like to request feedback especially from anyone who is > 1/16 aboriginee. My guess is that the right thing is to just undo the last edit, however instead I am going to edit for grammar and request feedback. Feel free to continue this discusion on the task force discussion page, and if we do this I will cc this there.John5Russell3Finley (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The term "Native" is typically a more modern term. With Tituba, the wording varies from author to author. As her precise ethnicity is debatable, we cannot truly deduce a specific wording. However, when possible it is best to use the wording of a specific cited author in context.If you have a citation with the wording "aboriginal" in reference to Tituba, by all means use it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfpeaceful (talk • contribs) 17:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

In this context, "Indian" is very confusing and should not be used, unless it's supposed to mean someone from "India". 72.42.174.233 (talk) 07:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding identification of Tituba

To refer to Tituba as a "slave," rather than an enslaved Black woman, is to perpetuate the association with Black skin as synonymous with "slave." The use of such terms as "givens" - that naturally the reader should assume Tituba is Black when she is described as a slave, for example, and to describe her as "belonging" to someone rather than being held captive or claimed by that person as property, is to perpetuate the historical barbarism of US slavery and the institutional racism it has spawned. Just sayin'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.100.30.65 (talk) 21:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

There's an established controversy as to whether she was Black at all. Not all slaves were. 64.72.65.120 (talk) 08:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Tituba

How historians interpret Tituba — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jconnollycepurac (talk • contribs) 23:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding historical interpratation

Hi there. I just deleted the entire 'Historical interpretation of Tibuta' from this article because I felt like it didn't really have a place in it. It was very essay-like, 'We as historians...' 'We can assume..' and was just like a weird sum of how certain books looked at Tibuta's place in things like feminism. None of the other articles about victims of the witch trials have a bit like this and it kinda gets covered a bit by the fiction section. I know that my argumentation doesn't make sense at all but my brain hurts a bit after trying to untangle that paragraph.

I tried to save a bit of it but I really think it doesn't fit at all. If anyone would like to check or maybe salvage it a bit, let me know. Romeowth (talk) 00:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tituba. 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/20061206180539/http://school.discovery.com/schooladventures/salemwitchtrials/story/story.html to http://school.discovery.com/schooladventures/salemwitchtrials/story/story.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: 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) 01:49, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Not sure whether these paragraphs are too essay-like?

Hello! So last year I removed some pretty large parts of the Tituba page because they were written completely like an essay. Just now I noticed a notification that someone just reverted my edits because More public history is better than a lack of information, this revert was done by the person that wrote most of the essay-like paragraphs that I removed. I honestly don't know enough about wikipedia guidelines to know whether they are right or not. For now I've put a tag on the page, but I do honestly believe those paragraphs are not suited for wikipedia. Could someone more experienced with the guidelines perhaps edit the paragraphs? I don't want to just undo her edits without any grounds again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romeowth (talk • contribs) 21:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

re: Fiction section (Miller and Starkey references)

The discussion of Tituba in Miller's and Starkey's works is confusing. The paragraph reads, in part, "These fictional accounts hold that Abigail Williams and the other girls tried to use Tituba's knowledge when dancing in the woods before the trials began; it was, in fact, their being caught that led to those events. With the original intention of covering up their own sinful deeds, Tituba was the one to be accused by Abigail, who had in fact drunk from a magic cup Tituba made to kill John Proctor's wife, Elizabeth, and to bewitch him into loving her. She and the other girls claimed to have seen Tituba "with the Devil". It is ironic that the belief that Tituba led these girls astray has persisted in popular lore, fiction and non fiction alike. The charge, which is seen by some as having barely disguised racist undertones, is based on the imagination of authors like Starkey . . ." Haven't read Starkey's book, but in Miller's play it is quite clear that Abigail is the instigator of the witchcraft rituals. I'm not sure what the writer is trying to say here. If you are comparing fact (the girls started it) with fiction (Tituba started it), please cite sources. 11 Arlington (talk) 01:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Bad writing

The section Early life and accusations against her begins as follows:

"Tituba's husband was John Indian, an Indigenous man whose origins are unknown, but he may have been from Central or South America. Tibitó Colombia to be precise."

It is entirely unclear what the second "sentence" is trying to be "precise" about.

And it is not even a sentence.

What is the phrase "Tibitó Colombia" supposed to be referring to??? Nobody knows. 2601:200:C000:1A0:C5DF:20FF:952F:6F33 (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)