Talk:Margaret Murray

The Mendacity of Norman Cohn
Why was no mention made throughout this article that Norman Cohn demonstrably lied about and misrepresented Murray's writings in order to destroy her credibility and reputation? In fact, Cohn had attempted to do the same to Carlo Ginzburg according to the English preface of, "The Night Battles"! This is a serious omission and goes to the character and reliability of Cohn as a scholar! He was not above misrepresenting the views of others if he disagreed with them. This is likely on account of Cohn being (or his family having been) a holocaust survivor since he mentally linked "the irrational" with Nazism. It also shows a pattern of behavior on Cohn's behalf! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.39.20.64 (talk) 23:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I am a 100% novice here. I would love to find out more about Cohn. Doing a chapter in a book about the evolution of Wicca. He may be part of the explanation for why her reputation suddenly tanked in the 1970s. Who or how should I ask about this. I'm Aidan Kelly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:603:1C81:6FA0:58BC:66F4:8A8C:9785 (talk) 23:33, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Looking for dates
The article says that she taught Egyptian at University College, London. But it doesn't give the dates. Does anyone know the dates so they can be added? Dates for her other activites would be usefull too. Jpg1954 (talk) 16:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Much more biographical information is needed in this article, presumably a lot of it can come from her autobiography ? (Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC))

Jani Farrell-Roberts article
I understand the need to keep the article balanced and so forth, but I really think getting rid of the Jani Farrell-Roberts reference (last sentence of the Reception section, footnote 22). I've read the debate, and it's Farrell-Roberts does such a poor job of making her case that I think another person to argue for Murray's accuracy needs to be found if she's to be given any defense at all. At any rate, the URL was dead, so I updated it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.135.220 (talk) 05:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Farrell-Roberts could perhaps be cited in a section on Wiccan and Pagan responses to Murray's witch-cult theory, but is too fringe to have her ideas cited alongside those of Norman Cohn, Jacqueline Simpson, and Ronald Hutton, as if her claims carry equal weight to theirs. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Unbalanced presentation of reception.

 * "As soon as Murray published her theory she received criticism from other historians who had studied the Early Modern witch trials.
 * "few experts in the witch trials actually bothered to counter her arguments"
 * "Ever since its first publication, Murray's theory has come under criticism for flaws in its use of evidence"
 * "In 1962,...provided one of the first popular history books to openly criticise Murray's interpretation."

The article currently gives the overall impression that Murray was only criticized, rarely criticized, criticized on publication, or criticism really began forty years later. Whether her theory had merit or not, this article has centered criticism in nearly every paragraph and gives no great indication of why it required decades upon decades of rebuttals. It mentions in passing "her staunchest supporters" but declines to name a single one or gives any indication of what one would be like. __ E L A Q U E A T E  15:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The God of the Witches was published in 1931
Many of the wikipedia articles referring to this book say it was published in 1933, but if you do a search for "The God of the Witches" + Faber and Faber + 1931, you will see that it was published in 1931.Jimhoward72 (talk) 06:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I recall that somewhere (either in his response to Jani Farrell-Roberts in The Cauldron, or to Ben Whitmore in The Pomegranate), Ronald Hutton defended the use of "1933", stating that a "1931" date was a misprint on later editions. It's worth looking into that to see if I recall correctly or whether my memory is playing tricks on me. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The Gang
Would it be appropriate to add Battiscombe Gunn to the list of members of "the Gang"?

I have 3 references that say he studied with Margaret Murray, though I have been unable to establish dates (see the very first comment on this talk page) -

Dawson, Warren R. "Battiscombe George Gunn 1883 – 1950". Proceedings of the British Academy (London: Geoffrey Cumberlege). XXXVI. Griffith Institute Archive: Gunn MSS http://www.griffith.ox.ac.uk/gri/4gunn.html

Margaret S. Drower (2004). Getzel M. Cohen, Martha Joukowsky, ed. Breaking Ground: Pioneering Women Archaeologists. University of Michigan. ISBN 0-472-11372-0.

Jpg1954 (talk) 13:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * That's a very interesting point, Jpg1954. If I'm perfectly honest I'd be hesitant about adding him to "the Gang" if the sources about Murray to not specifically include him as a member of that group. For instance, on page 140 of Sheppard's The Life of Margaret Alice Murray Gunn is very fleetingly mentioned as "one of Murray's former students"; he certainly isn't listed along with the members of the Gang. It may be that Gunn studied under Murray at a different time to "the Gang" (Murray did teach at UCL for decades, after all), and thus was never included as part of that group. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Reference style
I'm looking at the reference section, and very many references that appear as one source, are in reality several sources; like the first one:
 * Williams 1961, p. 433; Drower 2004, p. 110; Sheppard 2013, p. 2.

Is this way of combining sources really appropriate? Why not separate them, so one can see that there are actually three sources to a claim? Also, if the purpose is to "economize" with the number of references, that's counteracted by the fact that the number of possible permutations instead increases the number of references. For instance, Williams 1961, p. 434 occurs no less than four times because it's combined with four different other sources. What the net effect is, is anyone's guess.

Additionally, it makes it harder for the reader, not only visually/optically, but also to "backlink" from a reference: what claims are verified by a certain source?

HandsomeFella (talk) 07:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * This is a fairly common style of referencing here at Wikipedia. Moreover, I would actively disagree with the claim that it makes it harder for the reader on a visual level; I actually think that it makes it easier. I guess it's a subjective thing. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * It makes it very much harder for the reader, and spoils what could otherwise be an interesting article. DuncanHill (talk) 22:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Duncan, could you expand on this a little? I find the current system both intuitive and aesthetically pleasing. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Totally agree with Josh on this one. This is one of the cleanest and most efficient referencing styles on Wikipedia, in my opinion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * It takes too long at too much searching through the list of references after clicking on a ref number in the text to find what the reference is. It's bad enough when they are entered separately, but things like "Williams 1961, p. 433; Drower 2004, p. 110; Sheppard 2013, p. 2. seem if anything intended to discourage anyone from actually checking the refs. It may look nice to some people, but it makes it harder and more time-consuming to find out what the reference actually is. DuncanHill (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * A good example of its unhelpfulness is the subject of my question in the section below. The sentence I queried is "She became a nurse at the Calcutta General Hospital, which was run by the Sisters of the Anglican Sisterhood of Clower, and there was involved with the hospital's attempts to deal with a cholera outbreak.[12]" Now, reference 12 is "^ Drower 2004, pp. 110–111; Sheppard 2013, pp. 22–24." I then have to scroll down to the list below to find out what "Drower 2004" and "Sheppard 2013" are - and I'm still no wiser as to which of these works is used to justify the inclusion of a hospital that doesn't seem to be known by the name given, and an Anglican Order of Nuns which does not seem to have ever existed. DuncanHill (talk) 14:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I have created a version of the article in my userspace, User:HandsomeFella/Margaret Murray, where I have converted all sfnm's into sfn's, and I think it looks much better visually in the reference section. In particular, there are hardly any linebreaks in the individual references. (With my screensize, the reflist is divided into six columns.)
 * HandsomeFella (talk) 13:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting, but I honestly find the pre-existing system far easier on the eye and a lot more user friendly. That's the trouble with something like this; it relies a lot on subjective opinion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Moreover, the current referencing style is akin to hat found within many printed academic sources, if that counts for anything. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I honestly can't see how you can think that a reflist full of linebreaks, with bits and parts of the individual references within a multi-reference ending up on different rows, looks nicer than a straight forward, left-justified reflist with almost no linebreaks at all (depending on screen-width). It's one thing to think it's no big deal, but to think that it looks nicer, come on. HandsomeFella (talk) 14:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It's my honest opinion! The left-justified reflist might provide a more 'standardised' view (if that's the right word), but I don't consider that an important virtue and there are more important issues at play surrounding readability. The citation system used at present is that employed in many academic sources and, well - they use that form of citation for a reason! Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Sisters of the Anglican Sisterhood of Clower?
In the section "Youth" we read "She became a nurse at the Calcutta General Hospital, which was run by the Sisters of the Anglican Sisterhood of Clower". Now, presumably Presidency General Hospital is meant, but who were the "Sisters of the Anglican Sisterhood of Clower" - I can only find them mentioned on Wikipedia mirror sites. DuncanHill (talk) 22:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

More on Egyptology?
While I realize this article is long as it is, it's a little surprising that it focuses mostly on her witch theories when it seems that her main career interest was Egyptology. Was this because the witch theories were so much more controversial? Did she break any ground in Egyptology? Brutannica (talk) 00:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

vandalism
Seems to have been vandalised. 138.248.228.186 (talk) 22:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

"Born to a wealthy middle-class English family"
Which is it? Wealthy or middle-class? &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 23:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Contributions to the Oxford English Dictionary
In order to be more properly encyclopedic, shouldn't we mention the fact that Margaret Murray contributed words to the Oxford English Dictionary? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 04:14, 17 September 2023 (UTC)