# Talk:James Murrell

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 "

@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)

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.