Talk:Margaret Murray

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Mendacity of Norman Cohn 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Looking for dates 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Jani Farrell-Roberts article 

message: *"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)
thread_title:  Unbalanced presentation of reception. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: The God of the Witches was published in 1931

message: 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. .
Jpg1954 (talk) 13:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The Gang 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sisters of the Anglican Sisterhood of Clower?  

message: 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)
thread_title: More on Egyptology?

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Contributions to the ''Oxford English Dictionary''