Talk:Dorothy Clutterbuck

Neopaganism Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neopaganism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neopaganism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeopaganismWikipedia:WikiProject NeopaganismTemplate:WikiProject NeopaganismNeopaganism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Paragraph of speculation

The last paragraph in the article I am removing because it is uncited and reads like original research:

Interest in alternative traditions was common at this time, since the growth of Theosophy in the late nineteenth century. Nationalist and romantic interest in English rural traditions was also common, as is evidenced by foundation of societies for the collection folk-songs and other aspects of threatened folk-culture. The conservative emphasis on Deep England lay behind many of these movements, which became associated with Margaret Murray's ideas about pre-Christian survivals in English rural culture. It is possible that Clutterbuck combined an interest in pagan and occult ideas with an aspiration to preserve local folk beliefs, believed to have survived from ancient pagan faiths. From this Gardner could have developed the myth of an unbroken witchcraft tradition dating back to the pre-Christian old religion. However, the extent to which Clutterbuck was involved in witchcraft – if at all – still remains unclear.^{[citation needed]}

These are really interesting ideas, so if anyone can find authors who state this about Dorothy Clutterbuck, please add what you can back in, with citations.Fuzzypeg ☻ 01:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the Diaries piece - it certainly seems more balanced than it was before, without removing much of what you originally had. Some of that last paragraph seems familiar, but not the whole thing in this context. I'll have a look. More reading. <sigh> Thanks again. Ffetcher 13:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found references to the fashion for witchcraft-related folklore in Hutton (Triumph) and in general, the whole of his 'Stations' is pertinent to the first half of the paragraph. The EFLS was founded in 1898 (I think) and to find specific references would need a search of the index of its journal, Folklore (nope, it's in London, too far away. However, as I got more specific I realised that it has nothing whatever to do with Dorothy. So I added a brief paragraph into Gardner instead. Adding more will require a stub for the EFLS. Ffetcher 10:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've had a go at a proper 'lead' for this article, again spurred by the last sentence of that paragraph. It's not perfect but it may concentrate the mind as to what else we need. I have no idea how, with the extant information, we can ever get better than a 'B', but... it's that or heading to the pub. Ffetcher 17:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiccan?

Mayorcheese removed the "Category:Wiccan people" tag in the article and Paul Barlow reverted it. I believe it's fine to put her in this category, since a) she is only notable for her purported Wiccan involvement; b) her article clearly indicates that this involvement is disputed; c) she is a key figure in Wiccan history and the debate surrounding Wiccan history; d) there is in fact evidence for her involvement (Gardner's testimony plus circumstantial evidence found by Heselton and others), and the only evidence against her involvement is circumstancial. i.e. it's not an open-and-shut case.

The categories allow people to perform research and find articles they might be looking for; to exclude Clutterbuck from Wiccan categories would be to lose any benefit the categories system is supposed to give. Fuzzypeg ☻ 00:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This issue applies to other figures in the maybe-mythical pre-Gardner history of Wicca, for example Adriana Porter, the alleged author of he Wiccan Rede. The only reason they are notable at all is because of their link to Wicca. Paul B 00:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of Latimers

I'm sure the photo of the house is of Chewton Mill House (owned by Clutterbuck's parents before her), and not of Latimers (bought by Clutterbuck and her bigamous husband)? I'll double check. UK J12 (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite right, and as I took the photo and uploaded it I should know better! I've just checked Philip Heselton's new biography of Gardner and it's quite clear that the photo is Chewton Mill House. I'll amend the caption. now! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, "Notice is hereby given that DOROTHY CLUTTERBUCK of "Mill House" Highcliffe and also of "Latimers" Highcliffe, both in the county of Hants, ..." So there were definitely two houses. Is there a picture of the other one, as well? (By the way, the Mill House was on the market for a cool £1,850,000 in January 2011!) Pesky (talk) 08:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was at a talk given by Philip Heselton last week and there definitely are two houses - he may have a photo of Latimers or know where we can get one. I'll ask him next time we meet! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]