Talk:Margaret Murray
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Problems
EXTREMELY POV article (unexplained dismissal of Cohn and Hutton, attribution of Murray's lack of popularity to an academic "Church Ethos"). I would appreciate if someone who is better-versed in Murray's life and academic contributions than I could possibly do a thorough rewrite. -Saligos
Have completly rewritten article and added much more detail. I have never read any criticism's of Cohn's work its been a standard text for thirty years. - Machenphile
The article as it now stands still has problems with editorializing and original research (along with some incidental formatting issues). I hope to do a rewrite myself fairly soon. Jkelly 18:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC) form
This is a phenomenally biased article. The statement "No historian or scholar has ever challenged Cohn's conclusions." is false on its face, as Jani-Farrell Roberts has challenged Cohn's conclusions, both in print and on the internet, and HER challenging of Cohn has never been challenged or refuted.
[edit] Is it a copyedit?
I included a external link http://www.hermetics.org/pdf/witchcult.pdf in which the book The Witchcult in Western Europe can be found in PDF format. This has been deleted by user:205.188.116.199 as copy edit. First is a link, and secondly the book was published more than 50 years ago. Is it still a copyedit to link an external web page?
--Francisco Valverde 21:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Balance
This article could stand to use quite a bit more balance, particularly in favor of Murray's views and her side of things. SouthernComfort 03:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Look through the history. It has swung both ways. Jkelly 05:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Well, certainly it would be best if the article were as close to NPOV as possible - that is to say, in the middle, rather than gravitating to either side. This is what we should strive for with any article. SouthernComfort 19:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] PDF link
I put back the external link that was deleted a few weeks ago. No one has answered my question. It is an external link and the book was published more than 50 years ago so I find it lawfull to put back this link. Apart of that I agree that the other links should be kept. --Francisco Valverde 16:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- ¡¡¡But it is just a link....!!!! ¡¡I am not copy editing anything!!--Francisco Valverde 18:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- OK... I have consulted the web page [1] and there are no copyright infringements. So I see no reason for this being deleted. Apart from that, the link was deleted without consulting or consensus. User 152.163.100.133 (not registered) states that: Since this book was later republished, there may be copyright issues. No, there aren't any. --Francisco Valverde 18:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- No, there is literally no problem in adding a link to the full text and it should definitely remain. Furthermore the anon(s) keep adding links to personal websites from Fortunecity and Angelfire, violating WP:V. This is inappropriate behavior on their part. SouthernComfort 08:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Question:
I have read that Margaret Murray made some excavations in the island of Minorca, in relation with the talayotic culture. I would like to know if anyone has any information about this? I would like to, in future, contribute to this article and any help from you would be helpful... --Francisco Valverde 15:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- I only know what she mentions in her autobiography -- the people she was with, the locations (Trapucó and Sa Torreta), and a little about the taula megaliths. What sort of information were you looking for? If you want detailed archaeological info, she published a three-volume account of the excavations, Cambridge Excavations in Minorca, which might be available either as second-hand books or reprints. Gesso 13:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the bibliographic reference, that´s great! The information I was looking for, is for the moment, general. If anyone else could tell me more, it would be nice. --Francisco Valverde 16:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Misplaced expression in “Criticism of Murray’s theories”
The term “Inquisitors” is misplaced. The Inquisition was primarily interested in heresy not witchcraft. During the Witch-hunts most people was killed in Protestant countries. This was at least partly because the risk of being innocently convicted was smaller if you where charged by the Inquisition than if you where charged by a secular court. The Inquisition granted every charged person a defendant. Torture was rare and never literary bloody. Furthermore, you could not be sentenced on confession alone but it could mean a milder punishment. (Some people confess things they could not have done just because they want attention. Such people are known as “mad confessors”.) Consequently, half of the people charged by the Inquisition where found not guilty. Death was not the only punishment ether. Imprisonment was common as well as variations on pillory and Catholic improvement. Unfortunately, the Inquisition has an awful reputation in Protestant countries mainly due to contemporary anti-Catholic propaganda.
2007-03-28 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.