Talk:Polly Vaughn

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs 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.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

Roots music Mid‑importance

	Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Roots music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to roots, folk and traditional folk music 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.Roots musicWikipedia:WikiProject Roots musicTemplate:WikiProject Roots musicRoots music articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Molly Bhán[edit]

I don't doubt that Molly Ban is a common English name (that's what the singers I know call it), but looking at the English form Vaughn and knowing that feminine adjectives lenite, is there a tradition of calling this 'Molly Bhán'? It's just odd that the English form underlies better Irish grammar than the psuedo-Gaelic does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.33.134 (talk) 15:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do! A search on the Great Britain Family Names surname profiler doesn't show any instances of the surname Ban. The name Bann occurs in the 1881 census, mostly in Birmingham and at a rate of 13 per million. On the other hand, bean is the Irish Gaelic word for "woman". Joe Fogey (talk) 08:53, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In some versions the unfortunate young woman is called Molly Bawn, which could easily be a mishearing of Vaughan or vice versa. Joe Fogey (talk) 08:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sections not sourced, Rifle interpretation[edit]

There seems to be a lot of unsourced speculation or original research here. This is especially the case for the rifle hypothesis. There's even a contradictory parenthetical statement in the paragraph. All of the hypothetical statements without sources should probably be removed. — ★Parsa ☞ talk 16:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictory statement[edit]

"Moreover, there are no versions known before 1806 [there are number of versions from 1765 to 1806]. We would have expected earlier versions or fragments. This down-to-earth interpretation of the song is rare."

There are no versions before 1806 and then there are a number of versions before 1806. Which is it? Or should there be no versions AFTER 1806. Spiel (talk) 02:59, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]