This is fascinating, though I'm rather disappointed by their citation of sources (or non-sources). The most salient citation in the whole article, with the tex

This is fascinating, though I'm rather disappointed by their citation of sources (or non-sources). The most salient citation in the whole article, with the text "accused female brewers of being witches", points to https://bigthink.com/scotty-hendricks/the-dark-history-of-women-witches-and-beer https://bigthink.com/scotty-hendricks/the-dark-history-of-wo... . This article makes absolutely no reference to female brewers being accused of being witches. Now, I find it plausible and even fairly likely that campaigns against witchcraft also resulted in women being forced out of beer production (to say nothing of the deaths of many women whose sole crime was their independence), but this isn't about that for me. It's lazy at best or dishonest at worst to imply that a source backs up a core statement of your article when it does not. It's all the worse that the Smithsonian article is mostly a shameless repackaging of the BigThink article, with the unsourced (though we're made to think it's sourced!) prosecution-of-alewives-for-witchcraft claim being the main addition of this new article!