# Talk:George Pickingill

This article has has been edited to remove the assertion that Pickingill was in fact a cunning man, replacing it with noting the 'claim' which "has been doubted". I have returned the strong claim which is backed up by Hutton on "Triumph of the Moon" and is not under serious dispute. "Has been doubted" is classic weasel words. Doubted by whom? Certainly not by the foremost scholar currently working in the field, Hutton, who did first-hand research in Canewdon and talked to Maple's sources.
The article does need further work; the main new source being the amateur historian William Wallworth's primary researches through birth deaths and marriage records and the like. Wallworth has shown that it is not entirely true that Pickingill "lived and worked in Canewdon" for example; he was married in Gravesend where there was quite a colony from the environs of Canewdon (ie Rochford County). There is also no mention of Pickingill's connection with white mouse magic; a distinctive feature of East Anglian cunning folk (compare Jabez Few). So the article needs further work on Pickingill's intrinsic interest; it is still too dominated by the Liddell dispute. Granny Garner who was Maple's main source for example should be mentioned. Although when mentioning Liddell his claims should be dealt with fairly; for example it is no part of his claims that Murray's "witch-cult" existed....so I will  be back here. Jeremy (talk) 02:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Good call with those edits, Jeremy. Great to see someone else taking an interest in this page. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I've made quite a few further modifications and additions. In these I make clear the argument – now articulated by two separate individuals – that the "Pickingill as cunning-man" story was a hoax created by a number of locals to fool Eric Maple; however, I then outline Hutton's recent criticism of that same position. Thus, I hope that we now have a fair assessment of this particular issue. I should stress, however, that I see this article as a work in progress at present, and any suggestions that you have on improving it would be greatly appreciated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm just returning to editing after being distracted for a while. I think some issues have to be addressed. Why are Webster and Ward regarded as usable sources? I'm not saying they are not, I'm just saying it is worth asking. Webster isn't even sourced directly here but through Howard. Quotes would be helpful. The article implies that there is something odd about Pickingill's reputation not appearing in print until Maple's articles which is certainly not the case.  Even  cursory research into 19th century trad witchcraft will show there is nothing odd about that.  It is certainly true that stories about Pickingill are similar to stories about other cunning folk. More rather than less stress could be placed on that. Reputed witches wizards and cunning folk were prevalent in the area, and some context would be valuable; Fanny Bird, Bill Spearman etc; and the context of white mouse magic which Maple discusses in Folklore, compare 20th century Jabez Few and his white rats. Jeremy (talk) 14:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC) A large part of Enid Porter's book on Cambridgeshire folkore, including stuff about Jabez Few and others of relevance is no longer accessible. Nuts! Anyway  I will get back to this.....Jeremy (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Welcome back Jeremy. In your absence I have greatly expanded this article, successfully taken it through GAN, obtained a peer review, and then (un)successfully submitted it to FAC (where the main problem preventing its promotion surrounded the reliability of Wallworth; I'm hoping that in future an academic cites Wallworth's work, thus validating its utility as a reliable source). Regarding Ward, I think that he represents a reliable source because he has been published in The Cauldron (not a peer-reviewed journal, granted, but still a published source), and (perhaps more importantly) because Ronald Hutton has acknowledged Ward's ideas to such an extent that he has publicly responded to them. Regarding Webster, I think that she might be a little less "reliable", but the fact that she is cited in two separate sources testifies to her ultimate reliability for our purposes (on a side note, I believe that she passed on her views to Howard first hand rather than publishing her ideas).
As for your statement that "The article implies that there is something odd about Pickingill's reputation not appearing in print until Maple's articles which is certainly not the case", I can see where you are coming from but we should reflect the fact that various writers have thought that there is something odd about the lack of textual sources that can attest to Pickingill's magical activities (compare the lack of textual verification regarding Pickingill's magical activities with the range of contemporary 19th century sources for James Murrell, for instance). Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Midnightblueowl, if I had been less rushed I would have taken the time to recognize the fine work you have done on the article. And should have anyway. Did you know Bill Wallworth has also been published in The Cauldron? I think the issue of academic worship will  have to be taken on at some stage. Why, Hutton himself has been moved to criticise it. Cunning Murrell was certainly a significant fellow but the main reason for his notoriety is that popular novelist Arthur Morrison liked to holiday in Rochford, and thus heard of him, and chose to write a novel about him, and an article for the Strand magazine.(Which Hutton  would have benefitted from reading, incidentally, before writing TOTM) During his lifetime I believe  there was one (1) mention of him as a cunning man by name as in a newspaper,  concerning his part in the Mrs Mole business. Bill Wallworth found another reference apparently about him where his  name wasn't mentioned. Generally cunning folk don't get mentioned by name in the popular press of the time, still less witches ad wizards. Mainly they turn up, when they do, in the police reports. Due to the wonders of the internet I have been able to do some OR into the subject, not nearly as much as Bill to be sure, and it does get frustrating not being able to use it. There are mistakes and gaps in the academic literature, naturally. Hutton for example doesn't even mentioning the clear link between witchcraft and the Romany, except in the context of Liddell's claims about Pickingill, with the implication that there is something suspect or unusual about the claim of a Romany connection  which there is not.Just for example, Alexander Sanders' grandmother who Hutton describes as a cunning woman was and Sanders described as his initiatrix was "Mrs Bibby" and Bibby is a Romany name. Examples can be multiplied. The Pickingill story of the two workmen from Dengie is a version of an earlier story about Elizabeth Fyson the "celebrated witch of Holme Hale" who deserves either an article of her own or an honourable mention in an overview. The link between witchcraft and prostitution is I think rather clearly there but not yet so to speak fleshed out. No-one academic has noted the clear connection between reputed witches and the Church of England, especially high church i think. Betty Wells a reputed witch actually  read the lesson in church, Pickingill's father was a sexton, numbers of reputed witches were protected by their local vicars including Elizabeth Cooper who appears in a Folklore article as "Mrs Smith". The killing of Dummy is often cited as the last time a witch was swum in England, if you read the contemporary report you will see that he wasn't swum at all. He was put in running water to break his power, quite a different thing. A small point you may think but indicative of the fact that even academics may read primary sources less than they should. Anyway, this stuff, and more, while largely unusable at present because of the OR rule is  a bit of  a foretaste of what will appear in authoritative sources over the next few years. Have you seen all the stuff on Monica English and the fascist Andrew Fountaine that Bill W has dug up?Jeremy (talk) 14:45, 23 June 2015 http://www.pickingill.com/ ....this is Liddell's "Defence of the Pickingill Papers" page and should be available to editors. Jeremy (talk) 15:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
All of the issues that you point out do testify to how little research has actually been carried out into the folk magic practices and beliefs surrounding witchcraft that existed in nineteenth and early twentieth-century Britain. Of course, quite a bit has been done on the Early Modern witch trials since the 1960s and 1970s, and Ronald Hutton has led the way in the study of twentieth-century Pagan witchcraft, yet the world of British folk magic has really not seen anywhere near as much attention: there's the wonderful work of Owen Davies of course, as well as a few bits by Hutton and by Jason Semmens, but very little that has gone beyond that. Hopefully this is an area that will see further academic enquiry in the coming decades and that that will allow the Wikipedia articles on these subjects to be fleshed out accordingly. Until then, we can but wait, sadly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, let me be the spoilsport. This page is an account of the Pickingill legend as promoted by Bill Liddell without much support. George Pickingill existed and was a cunning man, so much is clear. However all the stuff about the nine covens etc is unverified and very contested. See Ronald Hutton's Triumph of the Moon for an analysis.  See also History of Wicca. Jeremy (talk) 07:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I've made a start at setting up a fair article. It should recorded that one of Pickingill's sisters married a man called "Wells", given that a mysterious George Wells is supposed to have stood witness to some of Liddel's claims. See the Defense of Pickingill Papers......also   I think some of Liddell's other comments from the Defense, which I have not yet included should be included. Jeremy (talk) 03:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, I've sorted this issue out. This article now is based far more upon folklorist Eric Maple's more accurate claims.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC))

This review is transcluded from Talk:George Pickingill/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Seattle (talk · contribs) 22:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I will review this article soon. Seattle (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Comments:

Watch DAB link
I've made the corrections here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm concerned about the copyright status of File:George Pickingill.jpg: namely, how can you assert life and 100 years of the author if you don't know who authored the photograph? It's plausible that the author died in the mid-20th century, which would still put this work in copyright. Further, the photo doesn't seem like it was first published in the US prior to 1923, which doesn't make it PD in the US. Its copyright status in the United Kingdom seems to fit point four, which makes it copyrighted until the end of 2039; when combined, the file should not be at the Commons.
A very valid concern; thank you for pointing it out. To rectify this, I have set the image in question on to a process for deletion over at Commons. However, in the infobox of this article I have added a newly uploaded identical image with a rectified copyright tag (File:George Pickingill, Cunning Man.jpg). I hope that this deals with the problem. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
File:St Georges Church.jpg appears to be a copyright violation of [1], which lists an upload date of August 20, 2012, with ours at February 10, 2013. Its uploader, Agw19666, could be the "Andrew Whittaker" listed at the site, but an official release through OTRS should be used if you want to include the photo. As a side, that user seems to have uploaded several other photos from the site, so if you could contact him through www.picturesofengland.com and confirm that the users are the same, that would be great for the encyclopedia.
This is the point where I am having difficulty. I have been unable to find a way of contacting Andrew Whittaker. Maybe I should remove the image from this page in the meantime ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you can remove it, and that would be fine. Seattle (talk) 03:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Done! Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
File:Stnicolaschurchcanewdon.jpg: checks out, though a transfer to the Commons and an information template there would be nice.
File:Aleister Crowley, wickedest man in the world.jpg: File copyright checks out, but the photo's title is not neutral (File:Aleister Crowley works fine).
Crowley was famously labelled the "wickedest man in the world" by a tabloid in his own day and the name stuck, with many fans of Crowley also embracing it. Nonetheless, you make a fair point regarding neutrality. I'm not sure how to actually change the name of the file itself; nevertheless, surely the name of the image should not endanger this particular GAN ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I've asked for a move. Seattle (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
File:Canewdon essex 1.jpg: Perfect.
most notably an old woman named Lillian Garner why is she, out of everyone else, "most notable"? "Most notable" seems like editorializing. Can you be specific with her contributions?
Fair point. I don't think that Maple ever actually named his sources, although both Hutton and Howard have claimed that they met with her subsequently, and their work reveals that Garner was one of those whom Maple talked to. However, given that this doesn't really make her "most notable", I have decided to remove this entire sentence from the lede. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
major figure in the nineteenth-century esoteric scene. "major figure" is a WP:PEACOCK phrase; can you link "esoteric" to Wiktionary?
Good point, although rather than linking it to Wiktionary I have linked it to the Wikipedia article on Western esotericism. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Rereading the sentence, it seems fine. Seattle (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Hutton, Ronald (1999) uses a 10-digit ISBN, while the others use a 13-digit ISBN. Be consistent; see WP:ISBN for a converter.
Corrected. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I will start the "Biography" review soon. Seattle (talk) 23:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Life and family

The year of Pickingill's birth is however in question, as he would make differing claims regarding this in different censuses would make → made; I don't think "regarding this" is necessary here, it should be implied from context
Agreed; I have made the suggested changes. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Can you link "parish"?
Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Essex, however by 1861 they had moved to Eastwood, Essex, where they were recorded in that year's census. I think a semi-colon would work best after "Essex" instead of the comma
Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
In the quotebox, quotes within the quote should be single-quoted (') instead of double.
I'm not sure if I agree on this one, because the double-quote marks are those that were present in the original source; thus, to replace them with single-quote marks would be to alter the original text, which is itself a problem. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I think single quotes would be appropriate, if my reading of MOS:QWQ is correct (which it might not be). What's your interpretation of MOS:QWQ? Seattle (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
While I'm still a little uneasy about changing the formatting of a quoted source, I agree with your assessment of QWQ and have made alterations to the prose accordingly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Can you link "peck" and "schilling"?
Agreed; links are now to peck and Shilling (British coin). Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Taylor was arrested and brought to trial in Rochdale on 24 August, in October pleading guilty this is awkwardly constructed; can you reword?
I've gone with "Taylor was arrested and brought to trial in Rochdale on 24 August; in October, he pleaded guilty to the theft of the jacket, although not to those of the other items." Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Can you mention if Sarah Ann Bateman had a listed profession in the Censuses, or what she was mentioned as?
I have added the following to the article to deal with this ommission: "no profession was listed for Bateman" Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Magical activities

Can you link "cunning man"?
I have added a link to cunning folk. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 ignored scholarly conventions in relating his information what does this mean? What are "scholarly conventions"?
As Hutton (p. 296) puts it, "[Maple's] colleagues in the Folk-Lore Society rued his abandonment of scholarly standards". I believe that what they are referring to was his lack of peer review, the general non-academic tome of the book's prose, its absence of detail, etc. However, I am unsure how this could be incorporated into the article itself without it being OR on my behalf. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
He was also recorded as coercing local people to obtain him  I'm not sure "him" is needed here
I think it important to clarify that he was (allegedly) coercing them to obtain water for him, not for other uses; however, the wording here isn't great, so I've changed it to "to obtain water for him". Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- which were his familiar spirits - would suggest ndashes here; I'm not sure "which were" is needed here
Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
he believed that this story had its origins clarify "he" here; "had its origins" → originated
Both changes made. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
who sought his advice in a dispute that they were having over wages. → who sought his advice over a wage dispute
Good call. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
who were malevolent witches who second "who" to "and"
Another good call. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Maple also noted would prefer "wrote" here
Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
In April 1967 Ronald Hutton, later to become a noted historian, cut the clause; that phrase is WP:PEACOCK
Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Can you link "Gardnerian Wiccan"?
Added link to Gardnerian Wicca. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
the sensationalist potboiler Witness to Witchcraft (1970). "sensationalist potboiler" seems like OR without a citation; can you find a source that described it as such?
Hutton (p. 296) refers to the tome as "sensationalist book", so I shall remove "potboiler" from the article's prose because as you point out, that could count as OR. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
As evidence, she highlighted that there was no evidence two uses of "evidence" too close together
I've changed the prose to "Supporting this position, she highlighted that there was no evidence..." Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Death

Can you link "infirmary"?
Done! Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Can you link "shaft"?
I've added a link to Horse harness because there is not article on harness shafts specifically. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
whilst his house fell into dilapidation before falling down. The same day? Can you reword this; "whilst" implies, to me, a relation to the day of his funeral.
I've expanded this sentence slightly with a few extra words: "He was subsequently buried in the church's graveyard, whilst his abandoned house gradually fell into dilapidation before falling down." Hopefully that clarifies matters, although let me know if you're not convinced. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Looks good. Seattle (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
"Maple would assert" → asserted Seattle (talk) 21:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Done! Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Bill Liddell's claims

 he later began using the pseudonym of Lugh not sure "of" is needed here
Fair point. Removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
for the reason that it was deemed less dominated by the tradition for the reason that → because; can you tie this to Lugh more? I'm struggling to see the connection.
I've changed the prose to "he claimed to have switched outlets because The Wiccan had been too dominated by Gardnerian perspectives". Hope that helps to clear things up a little. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
His partner, Sylvia Tatham, had been one of those present when Alex Sanders "had been one of those present" → was present; I can't understand / see why Liddel's partner is relevant to this article.
Admittedly, it is not directly relevant, but it is included in Hutton's book, so thus does have some contextual relevance to the wider subject. Further, many (possibly even most) of those reading this section will have an interest in Wicca and its history, and thus find this information to be a useful addition. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
The first is a hereditary tradition of Pagan witchcraft, the second a similar but separate tradition which Pickingill had greatly influenced in the nineteenth century, and third his experiences as an individual born into a witchcraft family, who had subsequently been initiated into both of these traditions and a separate "cunning lodge" prior to his emigration to New Zealand. Can you clarify if the first two are literal or abstract sources? Is there a name for the second source?
I've rewritten this in a manner that I hope is a little clearer: "The first is a hereditary tradition of Pagan witchcraft, while the second was a similar yet separate tradition of Pagan witchcraft which, Liddell alleged, had been greatly influenced by Pickingill in the nineteenth century. The third source cited by Liddell was his own experiences gained from being born into a witchcraft family and subsequently being initiated into both of the aforementioned traditions and a separate "cunning lodge"." Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Can you clarify if these are literal sources (ie people) or just sources of inspiration for his own work? Can you change "alleged" to "stated"?Seattle (talk) 02:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Liddell certainly claims that they are literal sources. I have altered the prose to the following: "Liddell explained this by stating that the information contained in his articles had been passed on to him by three separate sources, all of which had decided to use him as a mouthpiece for their own claims. The first were the members of a hereditary tradition of Pagan witchcraft, while the second were the practitioners of a similar yet separate tradition of Pagan witchcraft which, Liddell alleged, had been greatly influenced by Pickingill in the nineteenth century. The third source cited by Liddell was his own experiences gained from being born into a witchcraft family and subsequently being initiated into both of the aforementioned traditions and a separate "cunning lodge"." Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
That's certainly clearer. Seattle (talk) 20:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
He claimed that most of the information that he was publishing came from Elders Mr. and Mrs. Elder? Why the caps? Can you link somewhere if it's a proper noun?
Ah, I understand the confusion. In contemporary Pagan discourse, "Elders" are older, wiser members of a group. I have placed the term in quotation marks in the article and added "or older members", so hopefully that solves the problem; if you don't think it does, let me know and I can try something else. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Looks good. Seattle (talk) 02:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
thereby making it hard for anyone to trace their identities. The Elders? Why don't they want their identities traced?
I don't know. Critics of Liddell would (and have) argued that it is because the Elders never existed, and Liddell is just making stuff up for attention. However, he would probably respond that these Elders instead value their anonymity and secrecy. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
OK. Seattle (talk) 02:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
You've lost me here. Seattle (talk) 21:51, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
File:Lois Bourne.JPG: Needs a personality rights template at the Commons if she's still alive
Added! Admittedly I'd never heard of such a template before. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Liddell's account

gypsy kako can you link "gypsy kako" somewhere?
"Kako" is a Romani word meaning "uncle". I've added a wiktionary link, as there isn't a relevent Wikipedia article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
mid-fifteenth century, –  Use either the commas or the ndashes, not both
Well spotted; corrected. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
the roup assuming you mean the group, not an auction?
Corrected! Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
further added that two of those covens, based in Hertfordshire and Norfolk, survived into his own time. can you clarify whose "his" is here?
I've changed "into his own time" into "into the 1970s". Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 female-oriented form because he was aware that is "he was aware that" necessary here?
Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Liddell nevertheless asserted I don't see a contrast in that "nevertheless" could transition to;
Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
he later contrasted this with the claim that this was not certain. too wordy
Changed to "however, he later stated that he was not certain of this" Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 which was based in Hertfordshire we don't need "which was" here
Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
, although stressed that this group was separate from Gardner's own Bricket Wood coven. I think this should be its own sentence; "Liddell stressed that this group ...
Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Can you link or explain "Third Rite"?
Done, through the addition of both a link and a little further text. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
and that "No impartial watch caps on "No"
The capital N was included here because it is a correct trascript from the original source, but I guess it's okay to convert it here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 Liddell was of the opinion that → believed that?
Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Pagan response

 the prominent Wiccan Doreen Valiente "prominent" doesn't particularly add anything
Removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
had come to be more sceptical → became more sceptical
Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Academic response

that he believed that second "that" unnecessary
Removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Murrell, James Tuckett, John Wrightson, or William Brewer. are these people notable enough to have articles sometime in the future?
Given that Davies decided to cite them specifically, they probably are of some (small) significance, and thus would be worthy of articles in future. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
In the photo caption, covens have been heavily scrutinised and discredited have should be "has" because the claim is singular
Well spotted! And changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm happy to pass this article after the above comments are addressed. Seattle (talk) 20:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much for taking the time to review this article, Seattle. I hope that you found it to be of some interest! All the best, and happy holidays, whatever you may be celebrating ! Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The continual references in the first part to Pickingill using different spellings of his name and inflating his age are I think misleading or possibly so. These variations are very common in records of the lower orders, they don't necessarily imply an attempt to mislead, especially variations of the name. So I think the wording should be more neutral. Pickingill signed with a mark, this does not mean he couldn't read (before universal education it was common enough to be able to read without being able to write)but it does mean that variations of the spelling of his name were not likely to be his idea. Ditto his wife. (And I would guess that he didn't give the name "Frederick" to the reporter, who remarked how youthful he seemed. I think it is more likely that the reporter spoke to Pickingill's eldest son! Reporters.)
A couple of issues which I'm not sure how to address but which I think should be kept in mind by anyone interested in this article. The material on Pickingill clearly situates him in two contexts quite separate from Cunning Murrell. He is associated in Maple's article with white mouse magic which clearly puts him on the "witch or wizard" side of the fence dividing witches from "quack doctor" cunning men like Murrell. Maple's articles mention the importance of the white mouse but Hutton doesn't really pick it up. Sometimes it is hard to tell from accounts whether we are talking about flesh and blood mice (or rats) or supernatural creatures but we have the case of the Romany wizard Jabez Few from Cambridgeshire (died in the 1920s) whose white rats were definitely flesh and blood. They seem to have been important, a witch or wizard passed on their power when they died by passing them on, they get mentioned in the records when the nominated successor doesn't want them! Another context which Pickingill seems to have belonged to is the Society of Horsemen, some of the powers atrributed to him are Horseman's Word powers. Again a very separate thing from cunning men such as Murrell. While the Horsemen are known to have existed in an organised form in Scotland their possible organized existence further south is  shadowy. But that horseman's word type magic was practiced in East Anglia is very well known, I think the records show it more clearly in Norfolk than in Essex....and the tradition that Pickingill had Norfolk kin may (or admittedly may not) have something to do with that.
Another matter is Pickingill's residence and marriage in Gravesend. Gravesend was a cosmopolitan port and recreational area, with a high Romany population. A London playground. Horse fairs, fortune tellers etc. His residence there makes it much more likely that there is some kernel of truth in Liddell's claims, or in the claims Liddell transmitted. In Gravesend he may well have come in contact with middle or upper class occultists. I think these factors should be kept in mind even if they can't be directly applied at this stage. The last word has not been said. Jeremy (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)