This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Margaret Murray article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | Margaret Murray is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 13, 2016, and on July 13, 2023. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Why was no mention made throughout this article that Norman Cohn demonstrably lied about and misrepresented Murray's writings in order to destroy her credibility and reputation? In fact, Cohn had attempted to do the same to Carlo Ginzburg according to the English preface of, "The Night Battles"! This is a serious omission and goes to the character and reliability of Cohn as a scholar! He was not above misrepresenting the views of others if he disagreed with them. This is likely on account of Cohn being (or his family having been) a holocaust survivor since he mentally linked "the irrational" with Nazism. It also shows a pattern of behavior on Cohn's behalf! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.39.20.64 ( talk) 23:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
I am a 100% novice here. I would love to find out more about Cohn. Doing a chapter in a book about the evolution of Wicca. He may be part of the explanation for why her reputation suddenly tanked in the 1970s. Who or how should I ask about this. I'm Aidan Kelly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:603:1C81:6FA0:58BC:66F4:8A8C:9785 ( talk) 23:33, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
The article says that she taught Egyptian at University College, London. But it doesn't give the dates. Does anyone know the dates so they can be added? Dates for her other activites would be usefull too. Jpg1954 ( talk) 16:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I understand the need to keep the article balanced and so forth, but I really think getting rid of the Jani Farrell-Roberts reference (last sentence of the Reception section, footnote 22). I've read the debate, and it's Farrell-Roberts does such a poor job of making her case that I think another person to argue for Murray's accuracy needs to be found if she's to be given any defense at all. At any rate, the URL was dead, so I updated it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.135.220 ( talk) 05:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
The article currently gives the overall impression that Murray was only criticized, rarely criticized, criticized on publication, or criticism really began forty years later. Whether her theory had merit or not, this article has centered criticism in nearly every paragraph and gives no great indication of why it required decades upon decades of rebuttals. It mentions in passing "her staunchest supporters" but declines to name a single one or gives any indication of what one would be like. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Many of the wikipedia articles referring to this book say it was published in 1933, but if you do a search for "The God of the Witches" + Faber and Faber + 1931, you will see that it was published in 1931. Jimhoward72 ( talk) 06:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: J Milburn ( talk · contribs) 21:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Happy to take on this review- someone I've heard of (and not just through reading your articles on Wikipedia!) but not someone I know much about.
Josh Milburn (
talk)
21:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
A really great read- I thoroughly enjoyed it. I'll take a closer look at the images/sources in the next few days. Josh Milburn ( talk) 23:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
The other images look fine. To be honest, I'd be happy promoting without any work being done on the images, but if you clarify this stuff now, it may save you a headache at FAC. Josh Milburn ( talk) 22:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Other than that- impeccably sourced to up-to-date research. Josh Milburn ( talk) 18:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
OK, I'm going to go ahead and promote. This has been one of my favourite reads at GAC for a while; only a very small amount of tweaking (some attention to the images, as I mentioned above, would be good), and I suspect that this will be FAC-ready. Josh Milburn ( talk) 22:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate to add Battiscombe Gunn to the list of members of "the Gang"?
I have 3 references that say he studied with Margaret Murray, though I have been unable to establish dates (see the very first comment on this talk page) -
Dawson, Warren R. "Battiscombe George Gunn 1883 – 1950". Proceedings of the British Academy (London: Geoffrey Cumberlege). XXXVI.
Griffith Institute Archive: Gunn MSS http://www.griffith.ox.ac.uk/gri/4gunn.html
Margaret S. Drower (2004). Getzel M. Cohen, Martha Joukowsky, ed. Breaking Ground: Pioneering Women Archaeologists. University of Michigan. ISBN 0-472-11372-0.
Jpg1954 ( talk) 13:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm looking at the reference section, and very many references that appear as one source, are in reality several sources; like the first one:
Is this way of combining sources really appropriate? Why not separate them, so one can see that there are actually three sources to a claim? Also, if the purpose is to "economize" with the number of references, that's counteracted by the fact that the number of possible permutations instead increases the number of references. For instance, Williams 1961, p. 434 occurs no less than four times because it's combined with four different other sources. What the net effect is, is anyone's guess.
Additionally, it makes it harder for the reader, not only visually/optically, but also to "backlink" from a reference: what claims are verified by a certain source?
HandsomeFella ( talk) 07:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
In the section "Youth" we read "She became a nurse at the Calcutta General Hospital, which was run by the Sisters of the Anglican Sisterhood of Clower". Now, presumably Presidency General Hospital is meant, but who were the "Sisters of the Anglican Sisterhood of Clower" - I can only find them mentioned on Wikipedia mirror sites. DuncanHill ( talk) 22:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
While I realize this article is long as it is, it's a little surprising that it focuses mostly on her witch theories when it seems that her main career interest was Egyptology. Was this because the witch theories were so much more controversial? Did she break any ground in Egyptology? Brutannica ( talk) 00:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Seems to have been vandalised. 138.248.228.186 ( talk) 22:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Which is it? Wealthy or middle-class? :bloodofox: ( talk) 23:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
In order to be more properly encyclopedic, shouldn't we mention the fact that Margaret Murray contributed words to the Oxford English Dictionary? 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 04:14, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Margaret Murray article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | Margaret Murray is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 13, 2016, and on July 13, 2023. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Why was no mention made throughout this article that Norman Cohn demonstrably lied about and misrepresented Murray's writings in order to destroy her credibility and reputation? In fact, Cohn had attempted to do the same to Carlo Ginzburg according to the English preface of, "The Night Battles"! This is a serious omission and goes to the character and reliability of Cohn as a scholar! He was not above misrepresenting the views of others if he disagreed with them. This is likely on account of Cohn being (or his family having been) a holocaust survivor since he mentally linked "the irrational" with Nazism. It also shows a pattern of behavior on Cohn's behalf! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.39.20.64 ( talk) 23:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
I am a 100% novice here. I would love to find out more about Cohn. Doing a chapter in a book about the evolution of Wicca. He may be part of the explanation for why her reputation suddenly tanked in the 1970s. Who or how should I ask about this. I'm Aidan Kelly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:603:1C81:6FA0:58BC:66F4:8A8C:9785 ( talk) 23:33, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
The article says that she taught Egyptian at University College, London. But it doesn't give the dates. Does anyone know the dates so they can be added? Dates for her other activites would be usefull too. Jpg1954 ( talk) 16:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I understand the need to keep the article balanced and so forth, but I really think getting rid of the Jani Farrell-Roberts reference (last sentence of the Reception section, footnote 22). I've read the debate, and it's Farrell-Roberts does such a poor job of making her case that I think another person to argue for Murray's accuracy needs to be found if she's to be given any defense at all. At any rate, the URL was dead, so I updated it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.135.220 ( talk) 05:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
The article currently gives the overall impression that Murray was only criticized, rarely criticized, criticized on publication, or criticism really began forty years later. Whether her theory had merit or not, this article has centered criticism in nearly every paragraph and gives no great indication of why it required decades upon decades of rebuttals. It mentions in passing "her staunchest supporters" but declines to name a single one or gives any indication of what one would be like. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Many of the wikipedia articles referring to this book say it was published in 1933, but if you do a search for "The God of the Witches" + Faber and Faber + 1931, you will see that it was published in 1931. Jimhoward72 ( talk) 06:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: J Milburn ( talk · contribs) 21:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Happy to take on this review- someone I've heard of (and not just through reading your articles on Wikipedia!) but not someone I know much about.
Josh Milburn (
talk)
21:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
A really great read- I thoroughly enjoyed it. I'll take a closer look at the images/sources in the next few days. Josh Milburn ( talk) 23:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
The other images look fine. To be honest, I'd be happy promoting without any work being done on the images, but if you clarify this stuff now, it may save you a headache at FAC. Josh Milburn ( talk) 22:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Other than that- impeccably sourced to up-to-date research. Josh Milburn ( talk) 18:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
OK, I'm going to go ahead and promote. This has been one of my favourite reads at GAC for a while; only a very small amount of tweaking (some attention to the images, as I mentioned above, would be good), and I suspect that this will be FAC-ready. Josh Milburn ( talk) 22:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate to add Battiscombe Gunn to the list of members of "the Gang"?
I have 3 references that say he studied with Margaret Murray, though I have been unable to establish dates (see the very first comment on this talk page) -
Dawson, Warren R. "Battiscombe George Gunn 1883 – 1950". Proceedings of the British Academy (London: Geoffrey Cumberlege). XXXVI.
Griffith Institute Archive: Gunn MSS http://www.griffith.ox.ac.uk/gri/4gunn.html
Margaret S. Drower (2004). Getzel M. Cohen, Martha Joukowsky, ed. Breaking Ground: Pioneering Women Archaeologists. University of Michigan. ISBN 0-472-11372-0.
Jpg1954 ( talk) 13:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm looking at the reference section, and very many references that appear as one source, are in reality several sources; like the first one:
Is this way of combining sources really appropriate? Why not separate them, so one can see that there are actually three sources to a claim? Also, if the purpose is to "economize" with the number of references, that's counteracted by the fact that the number of possible permutations instead increases the number of references. For instance, Williams 1961, p. 434 occurs no less than four times because it's combined with four different other sources. What the net effect is, is anyone's guess.
Additionally, it makes it harder for the reader, not only visually/optically, but also to "backlink" from a reference: what claims are verified by a certain source?
HandsomeFella ( talk) 07:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
In the section "Youth" we read "She became a nurse at the Calcutta General Hospital, which was run by the Sisters of the Anglican Sisterhood of Clower". Now, presumably Presidency General Hospital is meant, but who were the "Sisters of the Anglican Sisterhood of Clower" - I can only find them mentioned on Wikipedia mirror sites. DuncanHill ( talk) 22:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
While I realize this article is long as it is, it's a little surprising that it focuses mostly on her witch theories when it seems that her main career interest was Egyptology. Was this because the witch theories were so much more controversial? Did she break any ground in Egyptology? Brutannica ( talk) 00:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Seems to have been vandalised. 138.248.228.186 ( talk) 22:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Which is it? Wealthy or middle-class? :bloodofox: ( talk) 23:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
In order to be more properly encyclopedic, shouldn't we mention the fact that Margaret Murray contributed words to the Oxford English Dictionary? 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 04:14, 17 September 2023 (UTC)