Talk:James Murrell

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:James Murrell/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 19:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks like a great topic. Happy to offer a review. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• "Having seventeen children with his wife, they later moved back to Essex" How about "He had seventeen children with his wife, and the family later moved back to..."? (I'm guessing that some/all of the kids went with them?)
  • Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• I feel we need a link to to some kind of article on magic in the lead. I know you're using the term in a technical way, but when you write "On a number of occasions his magical activities gained" you come across as claiming that he genuinely was magical, which, of course, it is not the place of Wikipedia to claim. We also have an article on quackery which may be worth linking.
  • I've added in a link to magic (paranormal) at the first available point. I've also added a link to quackery; that's a great link to stick in there, so thanks for the suggestion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Burnham is a dablink
  • Fixed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• "Murrell's fame was known" An odd phrase
  • Good point. I've changed the sentence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• You should spell out Maple's name in full (preferably with some degree of description) on his first mention outside of the lead (I see now that you do it further down the article- it should be moved up)
  • Ah, another good point. This arose after I rearranged some of the paragraphs. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• The "documented cases" section feels like it opens with very little context
  • True, but I'm unsure as to what could actually be changed here. After all, any addition would have to be properly cited, and I am unsure of any citations that could be used to introduce the section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Actually I've gone ahead and added a sentence here. I hope that it is acceptable because it explains what is found in the rest of the section without directly using any sources. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• "Reverend William Atkinson, the vicar of Atkinson" He was the vicar of a place with the same name as him?
  • Ah, well spotted. He was the vicar of Canewdon (where George Pickingill would later live). Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:53, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• "his aid in exposing the witches" In exposing the women as witches, perhaps?
  • Good idea. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• "The vicar himself died in March 1847" I'm not sure what to make of this- when was Murrell asked to intervene in the village? You do not specify.
  • I'm not sure that the date at which Murrell was asked to intervene is known. The date of the vicar's death is given so as to provide a rough timeframe in which the events took place, although if you think that it's a distraction then I can remove it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:53, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• "belonging to the victim" Would "the girl" not be a bit more neutral?
  • It might, but my concern about making such a change here would be that "girl" could be misinterpreted as a reference to the witch, which would change the whole meaning of the sentence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Tilbury Fort is the one referred to? Surely worth a link?
  • Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• "relieving officer"/"union-house"/"officer of the poor" are all terms that will be alien to many readers.
  • Agreed, but I'm not sure how to deal with this problem. None of these terms would link to appropriate articles (we have an article on Union House, but it isn't really relevant). Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:53, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Stopping for now; back later. (As a little aside, the whole Burrell/Murrell/Mrs Mole account is great. Like a plot from Inside No. 9.) Josh Milburn (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• "Ralph Merrifield asserted that this tale" I think "asserted" is a bit judgmental; how about "suggested", "concluded" or even "felt"?
  • I've gone with "concluded". Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• "Another story related that Murrell's son Buck placed the cunning man's final witch-bottle in the fire, at which it exploded and destroyed a wall of his cottage." This doesn't read that well.
  • Changed to "Another story told among locals was that Murrell's son Buck had taken the cunning man's final witch-bottle. Placing the bottle in his household fire, it was there that the bottle exploded and destroyed a wall of his cottage." Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• Leigh is a dablink
  • Corrected. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Are you attached to "researches"? It's a bit of an odd term to my eyes
  • I've changed it to "research". Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• "Intrigued by the stories of the cunning man, he authored a fictitious account of Murrell's life known as Cunning Murrell, as well as a more objective account for The Strand magazine." How about "Intrigued by the stories of the cunning man, he authored Cunning Murrell, a fictitious account of Murrell's life, as well as a more objective account, the latter for The Strand magazine."
  • Sounds good to me. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• "burned by those who did not believe them to be of any importance" A bit rhetorical
  • I've thought through a few alternatives but I'm not sure if they are really any better. I want to make it clear that the papers were burned because they were not deemed to be important, rather than out of anti-witchcraft fear or anything like that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• "She also stated that her opinion that Murrell's power to control mechanical objects had remained within the family, who were "natural mechanics"." This doesn't quite work
  • I've changed this to "She also commented that that Murrell's power to control mechanical objects had remained within the family, characterising them as "natural mechanics"." Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Why "see also" rather than "further reading"?
  • Changed. I hope to be able to incorporate these sources into the article at some point in future. I have misplaced my copy of Maple's book, while the other two sources are remaining a little more elusive. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
    • It looks like my library has it The Strand Magazine from 1900. I'll see if I have some time to dig it out and scan it tomorrow. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Funny that neither of us thought to check- it's available on archive.org. Best of all, free images- INCLUDING scans of his notebooks. Murrell died in 1945, while J. L. Wimbush (the illustrator) died in 1914- both over 70 years ago, so {{PD-old-70}}. (The illustrations are based on other pictures, but they're anonymous, so {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}). This makes them PD in the UK, while the publication date alone is enough to make it PD in the US ({{PD-1923}}), so you can upload whatever you want to Commons. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
        • That is absolutely wonderful Josh, thank you so much. I shall incorporate the source and some of the images into the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• There's no point linking to the UCL library for The Times links; the citations are fine without it.
  • Removed! Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
• The sources aren't bad, but I'm not particularly keen on the Hallman source or, especially, Wallworth. I'm inclined to go the same way I did with Pickingill and say that the source is acceptable at GAC for very uncontroversial information, but that it's not a suitable source for FAC purposes.
• doi:10.1080/0015587X.1996.9715910, by Jacqueline Simpson, has a mention which might be useful. It seems that most of the hits are just quick summaries of the earlier research.
  • The only mention in that paper is the following: "James Murrell, a famous Essex cunning man (d. 1860), used to refer to himself as a "Master of Witches," but this, too, is confusing, as it could be misinterpreted as a claim to be their leader, not their destroyer (I am indebted to Alan Smith for this information)." If this information is true, then why does it not appear in the other, more in-depth sources, such as those of Maple? I'm concerned that this might reflect a confusion with Murrell's self-description as the "Devil's Master" and thus would be a little hesitant about adding this information into the article at this juncture. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Really interesting topic. Images seem fine. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@J Milburn: I've incorporated further information from the Morrison article and from Maple's later book (which I ultimately found perched atop one of my bookcases). I've also moved things around a bit; I was worried that folklore purely gleaned from Maple's investigations during the 1950s had been placed alongside data about Murrell that was actually recorded during his lifetime or in the decades after it. That of course would blur the lines between historical events and later folklore, which I've tried to avoid by moving this later folk lore to its own section further on in the article. Does that look okay to you? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it's probably best if I have a whole new read through of the article, which I'll find time for ASAP. Some quick interim suggestions: First, I'd include both notebook pages (Template:Multiple images would be nice for this- I think it looks very neat when done properly). Second, it'd be great if you could replace as many of the citations to Wallworth with citations to Morrison as possible, if you haven't already done this. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Josh. I think that (as with the Pickingill article), some reliance on Wallworth is inevitable, but I've added Morrison where possible. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Second look-through

Some quick initial comments (I've not finished reading through again yet...): Josh Milburn (talk) 18:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• "This being the case, it would have been likely that Murrell had at least heard of the Pickingill family who lived in the small Canewdon community; one of the Pickingill's children, George Pickingill, would also grow up to be a cunning man." I think this is too speculative to be attributed to a questionable source. (Though you should add some links further down the article if you do remove this.)
  • Fair enough. I quite like this piece of information, but I see your point and have removed it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• "By the time of the 1841 national census," Why not just "In the 1842 national census"?
  • Good idea. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• "Inside, he had many drying herbs hung from the ceiling in his cottage" A little clumsy
  • I've changed this to "Within the cottage, Murrell had drying herbs hanging from his ceiling".

• "and his devices were reported to include a crystal, a mirror, a bowl of water, a copper charm with which he would allegedly distinguish whether an individual was lying or not, and a "trick" telescope that supposedly enabled him "to see through brick walls"." Long and complex
  • I've carved it up into two sentences. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, some more:

• "Another story given by Choppen was that Murrell's son Edward – or "Buck" as he was nicknamed – had taken the cunning man's final witch-bottle. Placing the bottle in his household fire, it was there that the bottle exploded and destroyed a wall of his cottage." Whose house? Father or son?
  • I've changed "his cottage" to "Buck's cottage". Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• I confess I'm not fully clear on your separation between "folklore" and "documented cases". I'm not going to push it for GA purposes, but perhaps something to think on (or, if there's a clear line that I'm missing, please feel free to enlighten me!)
  • The division that I've tried to go for is between the reports from records that were actually contemporary to Murrell's life (i.e. from local newspapers and from the accounts given by those who knew him), and the stories that were circulating in the 1950s when they were discovered by Maple. For instance, there are no contemporary records claiming that Murrell could fly, and yet by the 1950s this story was being circulated in the area. I didn't want the prose to give the impression that Murrell's contemporaries actually believed that he could fly, because there is no evidence at all that they believed that, but certainly some people living a century after he died were passing around that story. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• It's a little odd that you mention Reverend King before Morrison; would Morrison not be prior to King?
  • I'm not entirely sure. It would seem that their researches were being carried out at roughly the same time, i.e. the 1890s. Unfortunately the lack of information on King doesn't make things particularly clear. Regardless, I think that it might work better if King is indeed mentioned after Morrison, so I shall move the paragraphs. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• In the caption of the pages, does "sigils and pentacles" not refer specifically to the left? The original caption to the other suggests that it's a horoscope.
  • Quite right. Correcting. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• I'm still a bit worried by "those who did not believe them to be of any importance"- it sounds like it should be followed by "in accordance with the prophecy". Do we not know anything more about who burned them? "someone who did not believe them to be of any importance" would be better, but I appreciate that it may not have been only a single person...
  • I don't think that any further information is given. I've gone with "someone" over "those", however. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

A fascinating topic. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• I think so too! Many thanks Josh! Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Great stuff; I've promoted. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Removal of original research

Just to note, I recently removed this addition made to the article in November 2016 by IP 94.9.27.43. The addition makes an important point but constitutes WP:Synthesis or WP:Original research in the manner in which it is structured. It could potentially be restructured and reintegrated into the article. For the sake of posterity, I preserve the addition below. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

"Further evidence suggesting that many of not all of the activities attributed to George Pickingill where in fact the work of James Murrell can be found in C.C Mason's 'Essex its Forest, Folk and Folklore'. Here Mason details many incidents of Murrell's activities, which are nearly identical to those attributed to Pickingill. Written and published in 1928, Mason's book significantly predates Maple but, despite its subject matter, Mason makes no mention of Pickingill, even though the book makes reference to the supposed witches of Canewdon "

References

Morrison (1900) – book or magazine?

@Spedding, judging by the page numbers, the citations to Morrison 1900 are all consistent with being to the article in Strand magazine, which was already present in the bibliography. Could you double check that the book is being cited, and if so disambiguate the references following the instructions here? Thanks, Wham2001 (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@Wham2001 While it is true that "the citations to Morrison 1900 are all consistent with being to the article in Strand magazine, which was already present in the bibliography" I was attempting to suport this statement: "he was made the subject, albeit in a highly fictionalised form, of a 1900 novel by Arthur Morrison". I.e., when I "added Morrison's book, on IA, cited in text" I was referring to this "1900 novel" = a work of fiction, length 310 pages, not the non-fiction article of a dozen or so pages. I think it would be useful to have a link to this "1900 novel"; if I have failed in the correct formatting of this addition I'd be obliged if you could correct it, my skill in coding extends no further than my previous edit! Spedding (talk) 06:57, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Aha I see – that makes sense. The novel is already listed in the "Further reading" section – do you think that's enough? If not I can add it back to the references with a footnote from the mention of the novel in the lede. Thanks, Wham2001 (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Morrison's books and article largely fictional

152.37.110.168 (talk) 12:09, 18 May 2022 (UTC)The whole article doesn't take in consideration that Morrison's book is a novel and largely fictional. He did some research but we do not know what's true and what's fiction. Most of the later research done in the 1960s is also not demonstrable and was done to create highly sensationalistic articles rather than serious research. The whole article fails to say that most of its content is speculation and mostly local folklore/fiction. Most of the linked resources are not creditable as research or historical facts. The infamous 'chest' appears in two different sources in pictures and they are two completely different chests. A chest was also brought by a family member into the collection of Southend Museums and it's a third completely different chest.