Jump to content

Talk:Dorset Ooser/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

The Head of Atho

The Head of Atho was removed based on a wrong theory published in an article on the Coven of Atho in 2007. The Head of Atho has nothing to do with the Dorset Ooser. It was crafted based on symbolism found in the Coven of Atho. It was not a mask like the Dorset Ooser but used as an alter piece and a tool used to teach the oral lore within the Coven of Atho. Covenofathos (talk) 03:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I am reverting back to my modifications. The theory of the Head of Atho being inspired from the Dorset Ooser has no basis on any facts. A theory must have some facts and there are none. The head was inspired from other lore not yet published. Covenofathos (talk) 07:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.39.190 (talk)

With respects, CoA, your claim that the information is "wrong", which you base upon "lore not yet published" doesn't hold water here I'm afraid. There is a referenced link to the fact that Melissa Seims SUGGESTED that when Raymond Howard made the head (which has been proven through the claims of his son Peter), he based it's iconography upon the Ooser. It is a perfectly plausable possibility. Granted, the head contained aspects from Howard's Athonian tradition, such as the symbolism of the entwined snakes and flying bird which were engraved upon it, but it's general shape could have been inspired by the Ooser. Thank you for your contribution, but Wikipedia relies on published fact, like the fact that Melissa Seims stated that the Head of Atho's design may have been based upon the Ooser. Your claims at unpublished lore just aren't provable; indeed, if you published an article about them in The Cauldron or Pentacle or whatever then yes, we could use them on here, but with just your word for it, I'm afraid we can't.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC))

Comment moved from the article page

This comment has been moved from the article page:

"Read this book: http://www.amazon.com/Folklore-Legends-Britain-READERS-DIGEST/dp/B000RT1H5G/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1368349809&sr=1-2&keywords=folklore+myths+and+legends+of+britain
The Dorset Ooser is on the front cover and is to do with publicly embarrassing people who committed adultery and originally not witchcraft."

The comment was made by Simon Le Messurier (talk) 00:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC), and was moved here by PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Dorset Ooser/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 08:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


Happy to take this on. I know I review a lot of your articles, so if you'd rather hear from other voices, do let me know- I'd be happy to step away from this review or stay away from some in the future- and, of course, I wouldn't take offence! Josh Milburn (talk) 08:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing to review this one, Josh - in fact when I first posted it at GAN I had the feeling that it would be something that might take your interest! Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "The Ooser was hollow, allowing an individual to place their own head within it, at which it could be carried and worn as a mask" I'm not sure "at which" works, here.
    • I've gone with "The Ooser was hollow, allowing an individual to place their own head within it, potentially permitting it to be be carried on the shoulders and worn as a mask", which I think improves things. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Some inconsistency in Mr/Dr vs Mr./Dr.- I'm not sure which is actually preferable
    • In each case I was following the convention in the source material itself, which referred to Mr Thos Cave and Dr Edward Cave (his son perhaps ?). However I am unsure that the use of these terms is acceptable to Wikipedia standards, so have removed them altogether, albeit with the added statement that Edward Cave was a doctor. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "folklore collector" is evokes an image of an anthologist; how about "collector of folklore paraphernalia" or something?
    • This is actually the correct term, and does refer to something akin to an ethnographer or anthropologist - a "folklore collector" was just that, somebody who collected folklore and folk tales from 'the folk' and then recorded them for posterity. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • You have three sentences in a row start with "Dewer also". This paragraph could probably be smoothed. I'm also left generally unclear on what Dewar ultimately held.
  • In first instance outside the lead, Murray is introduced as a "folklorist" and her name is not linked; in the second, she is an "Egyptologist" and her name is linked.
  • "However, historian Jeffrey B. Russell and Brooks Alexander have asserted that" I've mentioned this before, but "asserted" is a little judgmental, I feel.
  • What makes The Wica a reliable source? And is it a periodical or just a website?
    • It is just a website, although its author – the Gardnerian Wiccan Melissa Seims – has published several articles on Wiccan history in The Cauldron magazine. We cite at least one of these in another Wikipedia article (the GA-rated Etymology of Wicca) and it is also cited in at least one peer-reviewed research article (Ethan Doyle White's "The Meaning of ""Wicca"", The Pomegranate.) That being the case, I'm fairly happy that this constitutes a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • File:The Ooser.jpg: Unless you're clearer on the actual date of death, there are other ways you could list this as PD. Do you have any idea of early publication (even in postcard form)? If so, {PD-old} and {PD-1923} would work. If you're not sure of early publication, I'd recommend {PD-old} and {PD-1996} (these are all Commons templates). The former would be right if the image was published prior to 1923 (likely) and the photographer died in or before 1944 (almost certain), while the latter would work if the photographer died in or before 1925 (likely), regardless of first publication. Your current claim works only if the photographer died in or before 1914 (plausible).

Really interesting topic. The claim that the Ooser's owner was "willing to dispose of this mask to a lover of objects of antiquarian interest" is like something straight out of an M. R. James novella. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Glad that you found the article's topic to be of interest, Josh. If you have any other comments then they too would be very much appreciated. Kind regards, Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I've added a few extra pieces of information procured from Frederick Thomas Elworthy's Horns of Honour. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm really happy with how the article's looking- I'm happy to promote. Great work! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I've placed the article in "European history"; feel free to move it if you feel somewhere else is more appropriate. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lead sentence over-emphasising Melbury Osmond?

The lead sentence of the article states that the Ooser "a wooden head that featured in the nineteenth-century folk culture of Melbury Osmond", but I am wondering if this is misleading. Lower down in the text the article states that the Ooser mask found at Melbury Osmond was "possibly the only example now in existence, or at any rate from one of the very few which may still survive in the County", which suggests the Ooser as a concept existed more widely than at Melbury, and that only one particular effigy is connected to the village. I have a small book on Dorset folklore in my possession; I cannot with confidence state that it could be regarded as a reliable source (it might be self-published), though the author (Maureen Hymas) has this to say on the Ooser: "a creature who roamed villages at the end of each year demanding refreshment. He was believed to have represented a high priest who rules over a pagan fertility ritual. Reputed to be the stud bull of Dorset witchcraft, the Ooser's mask was worn by the head of a coven. By the beginning of the 19th century his original purpose was forgotten and in places like Shillingstone he became known as the "Christmas Bull". The last known one was at Melbury Osmond who roamed around at the beginning of the 20th century." From reading the article it is apparent that this summary would be disputed by modern scholars, however it is the last two sentences that I find interesting, as they suggest the Ooser is not something specific to Melbury Osmond. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

woodwose

Ooser and Wurse may possibly come from woodwose, the hairy wildman of English lore. Woodwoses had connection to devils and Mummers plays. Just an educated guess, no source I have.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dorset Ooser. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 10:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dorset_Ooser/Archive_1&oldid=1246347733"