I'm concerned about the copyright status of
File:George Pickingill.jpg: namely, how can you assert life and 100 years of the author if you don't know who authored the photograph? It's plausible that the author died in the mid-20th century, which would still put this work in copyright. Further, the photo doesn't seem like it was first published in the US prior to 1923, which doesn't make it PD in the US. Its
copyright status in the United Kingdom seems to fit point four, which makes it copyrighted until the end of 2039; when combined, the file should not be at the Commons.
A very valid concern; thank you for pointing it out. To rectify this, I have set the image in question on to a process for deletion over at Commons. However, in the infobox of this article I have added a newly uploaded identical image with a rectified copyright tag (
File:George Pickingill, Cunning Man.jpg). I hope that this deals with the problem.
Midnightblueowl (
talk)
21:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)reply
File:St Georges Church.jpg appears to be a copyright violation of
[1], which lists an upload date of August 20, 2012, with ours at February 10, 2013. Its uploader,
Agw19666, could be the "Andrew Whittaker" listed at the site, but an official release through
OTRS should be used if you want to include the photo. As a side, that user seems to have uploaded several other photos from the site, so if you could contact him through www.picturesofengland.com and confirm that the users are the same, that would be great for the encyclopedia.
This is the point where I am having difficulty. I have been unable to find a way of contacting Andrew Whittaker. Maybe I should remove the image from this page in the meantime ?
Midnightblueowl (
talk)
14:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Crowley was famously labelled the "wickedest man in the world" by a tabloid in his own day and the name stuck, with many fans of Crowley also embracing it. Nonetheless, you make a fair point regarding neutrality. I'm not sure how to actually change the name of the file itself; nevertheless, surely the name of the image should not endanger this particular GAN ?
Midnightblueowl (
talk)
21:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)reply
most notably an old woman named Lillian Garner why is she, out of everyone else, "most notable"? "Most notable" seems like
editorializing. Can you be specific with her contributions?
Fair point. I don't think that Maple ever actually named his sources, although both Hutton and Howard have claimed that they met with her subsequently, and their work reveals that Garner was one of those whom Maple talked to. However, given that this doesn't really make her "most notable", I have decided to remove this entire sentence from the lede.
Midnightblueowl (
talk)
22:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)reply
major figure in the nineteenth-century esoteric scene. "major figure" is a
WP:PEACOCK phrase; can you link "esoteric" to Wiktionary?
The year of Pickingill's birth is however in question, as he would make differing claims regarding this in different censuses would make → made; I don't think "regarding this" is necessary here, it should be implied from context
Essex, however by 1861 they had moved to Eastwood, Essex, where they were recorded in that year's census. I think a semi-colon would work best after "Essex" instead of the comma
In the quotebox, quotes within the quote should be single-quoted (') instead of double.
I'm not sure if I agree on this one, because the double-quote marks are those that were present in the original source; thus, to replace them with single-quote marks would be to alter the original text, which is itself a problem.
Midnightblueowl (
talk)
22:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)reply
While I'm still a little uneasy about changing the formatting of a quoted source, I agree with your assessment of QWQ and have made alterations to the prose accordingly.
Midnightblueowl (
talk)
14:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)reply
ignored scholarly conventions in relating his information what does this mean? What are "scholarly conventions"?
As Hutton (p. 296) puts it, "[Maple's] colleagues in the Folk-Lore Society rued his abandonment of scholarly standards". I believe that what they are referring to was his lack of
peer review, the general non-academic tome of the book's prose, its absence of detail, etc. However, I am unsure how this could be incorporated into the article itself without it being OR on my behalf.
Midnightblueowl (
talk)
23:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)reply
He was also recorded as coercing local people to obtain him I'm not sure "him" is needed here
I think it important to clarify that he was (allegedly) coercing them to obtain water for him, not for other uses; however, the wording here isn't great, so I've changed it to "to obtain water for him".
Midnightblueowl (
talk)
22:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)reply
- which were his familiar spirits - would suggest ndashes here; I'm not sure "which were" is needed here
the sensationalist potboiler Witness to Witchcraft (1970). "sensationalist potboiler" seems like OR without a citation; can you find a source that described it as such?
Hutton (p. 296) refers to the tome as "sensationalist book", so I shall remove "potboiler" from the article's prose because as you point out, that could count as OR.
Midnightblueowl (
talk)
23:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)reply
As evidence, she highlighted that there was no evidence two uses of "evidence" too close together
whilst his house fell into dilapidation before falling down. The same day? Can you reword this; "whilst" implies, to me, a relation to the day of his funeral.
I've expanded this sentence slightly with a few extra words: "He was subsequently buried in the church's graveyard, whilst his abandoned house gradually fell into dilapidation before falling down." Hopefully that clarifies matters, although let me know if you're not convinced.
Midnightblueowl (
talk)
22:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)reply
for the reason that it was deemed less dominated by the tradition for the reason that → because; can you tie this to Lugh more? I'm struggling to see the connection.
I've changed the prose to "he claimed to have switched outlets because The Wiccan had been too dominated by Gardnerian perspectives". Hope that helps to clear things up a little.
Midnightblueowl (
talk)
22:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)reply
His partner, Sylvia Tatham, had been one of those present when Alex Sanders "had been one of those present" → was present; I can't understand / see why Liddel's partner is relevant to this article.
Admittedly, it is not directly relevant, but it is included in Hutton's book, so thus does have some contextual relevance to the wider subject. Further, many (possibly even most) of those reading this section will have an interest in Wicca and its history, and thus find this information to be a useful addition.
Midnightblueowl (
talk)
22:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)reply
The first is a hereditary tradition of Pagan witchcraft, the second a similar but separate tradition which Pickingill had greatly influenced in the nineteenth century, and third his experiences as an individual born into a witchcraft family, who had subsequently been initiated into both of these traditions and a separate "cunning lodge" prior to his emigration to New Zealand. Can you clarify if the first two are literal or abstract sources? Is there a name for the second source?
I've rewritten this in a manner that I hope is a little clearer: "The first is a hereditary tradition of Pagan witchcraft, while the second was a similar yet separate tradition of Pagan witchcraft which, Liddell alleged, had been greatly influenced by Pickingill in the nineteenth century. The third source cited by Liddell was his own experiences gained from being born into a witchcraft family and subsequently being initiated into both of the aforementioned traditions and a separate "cunning lodge"."
Midnightblueowl (
talk)
22:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Can you clarify if these are literal sources (ie people) or just sources of inspiration for his own work? Can you change "alleged" to "stated"?
Seattle (
talk)
02:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Liddell certainly claims that they are literal sources. I have altered the prose to the following: "Liddell explained this by stating that the information contained in his articles had been passed on to him by three separate sources, all of which had decided to use him as a mouthpiece for their own claims. The first were the members of a hereditary tradition of Pagan witchcraft, while the second were the practitioners of a similar yet separate tradition of Pagan witchcraft which, Liddell alleged, had been greatly influenced by Pickingill in the nineteenth century. The third source cited by Liddell was his own experiences gained from being born into a witchcraft family and subsequently being initiated into both of the aforementioned traditions and a separate "cunning lodge"."
Midnightblueowl (
talk)
12:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)reply
He claimed that most of the information that he was publishing came from Elders Mr. and Mrs. Elder? Why the caps? Can you link somewhere if it's a proper noun?
Ah, I understand the confusion. In contemporary Pagan discourse, "Elders" are older, wiser members of a group. I have placed the term in quotation marks in the article and added "or older members", so hopefully that solves the problem; if you don't think it does, let me know and I can try something else.
Midnightblueowl (
talk)
22:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)reply
thereby making it hard for anyone to trace their identities. The Elders? Why don't they want their identities traced?
I don't know. Critics of Liddell would (and have) argued that it is because the Elders never existed, and Liddell is just making stuff up for attention. However, he would probably respond that these Elders instead value their anonymity and secrecy.
Midnightblueowl (
talk)
22:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)reply
, although stressed that this group was separate from Gardner's own Bricket Wood coven. I think this should be its own sentence; "Liddell stressed that this group ...
Thank you so much for taking the time to review this article,
Seattle. I hope that you found it to be of some interest! All the best, and happy holidays, whatever you may be celebrating !
Midnightblueowl (
talk)
20:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)reply
I'm concerned about the copyright status of
File:George Pickingill.jpg: namely, how can you assert life and 100 years of the author if you don't know who authored the photograph? It's plausible that the author died in the mid-20th century, which would still put this work in copyright. Further, the photo doesn't seem like it was first published in the US prior to 1923, which doesn't make it PD in the US. Its
copyright status in the United Kingdom seems to fit point four, which makes it copyrighted until the end of 2039; when combined, the file should not be at the Commons.
A very valid concern; thank you for pointing it out. To rectify this, I have set the image in question on to a process for deletion over at Commons. However, in the infobox of this article I have added a newly uploaded identical image with a rectified copyright tag (
File:George Pickingill, Cunning Man.jpg). I hope that this deals with the problem.
Midnightblueowl (
talk)
21:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)reply
File:St Georges Church.jpg appears to be a copyright violation of
[1], which lists an upload date of August 20, 2012, with ours at February 10, 2013. Its uploader,
Agw19666, could be the "Andrew Whittaker" listed at the site, but an official release through
OTRS should be used if you want to include the photo. As a side, that user seems to have uploaded several other photos from the site, so if you could contact him through www.picturesofengland.com and confirm that the users are the same, that would be great for the encyclopedia.
This is the point where I am having difficulty. I have been unable to find a way of contacting Andrew Whittaker. Maybe I should remove the image from this page in the meantime ?
Midnightblueowl (
talk)
14:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Crowley was famously labelled the "wickedest man in the world" by a tabloid in his own day and the name stuck, with many fans of Crowley also embracing it. Nonetheless, you make a fair point regarding neutrality. I'm not sure how to actually change the name of the file itself; nevertheless, surely the name of the image should not endanger this particular GAN ?
Midnightblueowl (
talk)
21:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)reply
most notably an old woman named Lillian Garner why is she, out of everyone else, "most notable"? "Most notable" seems like
editorializing. Can you be specific with her contributions?
Fair point. I don't think that Maple ever actually named his sources, although both Hutton and Howard have claimed that they met with her subsequently, and their work reveals that Garner was one of those whom Maple talked to. However, given that this doesn't really make her "most notable", I have decided to remove this entire sentence from the lede.
Midnightblueowl (
talk)
22:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)reply
major figure in the nineteenth-century esoteric scene. "major figure" is a
WP:PEACOCK phrase; can you link "esoteric" to Wiktionary?
The year of Pickingill's birth is however in question, as he would make differing claims regarding this in different censuses would make → made; I don't think "regarding this" is necessary here, it should be implied from context
Essex, however by 1861 they had moved to Eastwood, Essex, where they were recorded in that year's census. I think a semi-colon would work best after "Essex" instead of the comma
In the quotebox, quotes within the quote should be single-quoted (') instead of double.
I'm not sure if I agree on this one, because the double-quote marks are those that were present in the original source; thus, to replace them with single-quote marks would be to alter the original text, which is itself a problem.
Midnightblueowl (
talk)
22:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)reply
While I'm still a little uneasy about changing the formatting of a quoted source, I agree with your assessment of QWQ and have made alterations to the prose accordingly.
Midnightblueowl (
talk)
14:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)reply
ignored scholarly conventions in relating his information what does this mean? What are "scholarly conventions"?
As Hutton (p. 296) puts it, "[Maple's] colleagues in the Folk-Lore Society rued his abandonment of scholarly standards". I believe that what they are referring to was his lack of
peer review, the general non-academic tome of the book's prose, its absence of detail, etc. However, I am unsure how this could be incorporated into the article itself without it being OR on my behalf.
Midnightblueowl (
talk)
23:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)reply
He was also recorded as coercing local people to obtain him I'm not sure "him" is needed here
I think it important to clarify that he was (allegedly) coercing them to obtain water for him, not for other uses; however, the wording here isn't great, so I've changed it to "to obtain water for him".
Midnightblueowl (
talk)
22:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)reply
- which were his familiar spirits - would suggest ndashes here; I'm not sure "which were" is needed here
the sensationalist potboiler Witness to Witchcraft (1970). "sensationalist potboiler" seems like OR without a citation; can you find a source that described it as such?
Hutton (p. 296) refers to the tome as "sensationalist book", so I shall remove "potboiler" from the article's prose because as you point out, that could count as OR.
Midnightblueowl (
talk)
23:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)reply
As evidence, she highlighted that there was no evidence two uses of "evidence" too close together
whilst his house fell into dilapidation before falling down. The same day? Can you reword this; "whilst" implies, to me, a relation to the day of his funeral.
I've expanded this sentence slightly with a few extra words: "He was subsequently buried in the church's graveyard, whilst his abandoned house gradually fell into dilapidation before falling down." Hopefully that clarifies matters, although let me know if you're not convinced.
Midnightblueowl (
talk)
22:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)reply
for the reason that it was deemed less dominated by the tradition for the reason that → because; can you tie this to Lugh more? I'm struggling to see the connection.
I've changed the prose to "he claimed to have switched outlets because The Wiccan had been too dominated by Gardnerian perspectives". Hope that helps to clear things up a little.
Midnightblueowl (
talk)
22:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)reply
His partner, Sylvia Tatham, had been one of those present when Alex Sanders "had been one of those present" → was present; I can't understand / see why Liddel's partner is relevant to this article.
Admittedly, it is not directly relevant, but it is included in Hutton's book, so thus does have some contextual relevance to the wider subject. Further, many (possibly even most) of those reading this section will have an interest in Wicca and its history, and thus find this information to be a useful addition.
Midnightblueowl (
talk)
22:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)reply
The first is a hereditary tradition of Pagan witchcraft, the second a similar but separate tradition which Pickingill had greatly influenced in the nineteenth century, and third his experiences as an individual born into a witchcraft family, who had subsequently been initiated into both of these traditions and a separate "cunning lodge" prior to his emigration to New Zealand. Can you clarify if the first two are literal or abstract sources? Is there a name for the second source?
I've rewritten this in a manner that I hope is a little clearer: "The first is a hereditary tradition of Pagan witchcraft, while the second was a similar yet separate tradition of Pagan witchcraft which, Liddell alleged, had been greatly influenced by Pickingill in the nineteenth century. The third source cited by Liddell was his own experiences gained from being born into a witchcraft family and subsequently being initiated into both of the aforementioned traditions and a separate "cunning lodge"."
Midnightblueowl (
talk)
22:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Can you clarify if these are literal sources (ie people) or just sources of inspiration for his own work? Can you change "alleged" to "stated"?
Seattle (
talk)
02:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Liddell certainly claims that they are literal sources. I have altered the prose to the following: "Liddell explained this by stating that the information contained in his articles had been passed on to him by three separate sources, all of which had decided to use him as a mouthpiece for their own claims. The first were the members of a hereditary tradition of Pagan witchcraft, while the second were the practitioners of a similar yet separate tradition of Pagan witchcraft which, Liddell alleged, had been greatly influenced by Pickingill in the nineteenth century. The third source cited by Liddell was his own experiences gained from being born into a witchcraft family and subsequently being initiated into both of the aforementioned traditions and a separate "cunning lodge"."
Midnightblueowl (
talk)
12:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)reply
He claimed that most of the information that he was publishing came from Elders Mr. and Mrs. Elder? Why the caps? Can you link somewhere if it's a proper noun?
Ah, I understand the confusion. In contemporary Pagan discourse, "Elders" are older, wiser members of a group. I have placed the term in quotation marks in the article and added "or older members", so hopefully that solves the problem; if you don't think it does, let me know and I can try something else.
Midnightblueowl (
talk)
22:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)reply
thereby making it hard for anyone to trace their identities. The Elders? Why don't they want their identities traced?
I don't know. Critics of Liddell would (and have) argued that it is because the Elders never existed, and Liddell is just making stuff up for attention. However, he would probably respond that these Elders instead value their anonymity and secrecy.
Midnightblueowl (
talk)
22:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)reply
, although stressed that this group was separate from Gardner's own Bricket Wood coven. I think this should be its own sentence; "Liddell stressed that this group ...
Thank you so much for taking the time to review this article,
Seattle. I hope that you found it to be of some interest! All the best, and happy holidays, whatever you may be celebrating !
Midnightblueowl (
talk)
20:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)reply