This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult 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.OccultWikipedia:WikiProject OccultTemplate:WikiProject OccultOccult articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles 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.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astrology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Astrology 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.AstrologyWikipedia:WikiProject AstrologyTemplate:WikiProject Astrologyastrology articles
Someone local to me and someone I imagine a lot of my more occult-minded friends would be very interested in. Review to follow soon. J Milburn (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Having read the article, it's coming back to me now- I roleplayed in a game which featured the OMS once. I definitely have a few friends interested in this subject!
"believed that the Luciferian faith that she propagated had its origins" Slightly clumsy wording.
I'm very aware of the fact that this is sourced primarily to works from within the occult world, so I'm going to be quite picky concerning tone- "was an insurance agent of unknown parentage, while her mother, Marion Neruda Shaw, had grown up in Oldham as the daughter of a master tailor." This sounds a little grand for an encyclopedia article
"Another of her accounts held" Montalban's, or Philips's?
"although when and why he changed it remains unknown." Again- I can imagine occultists being keen to be "shrouded in mystery" (or portray their heroes as such) and I don't think the article should really be pandering to that.
"A fireman, Montalban bore him a daughter, Rosanna, but their relationship deteriorated," The phrase "bore him a daughter" is slightly archaic; "they had a daughter"?
"working as a "personal clairvoyant and psychic advisor" to Lord Louis Mountbatten." That's sheer bollocks, surely?
Probably, but it's what Gardner claimed.... then again, he claimed an awful lot of nonsense. As it stands, the article doesn't outright state that it is true, just that Gardner claimed it.Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny, I showed the article to a friend more familiar with the occult, and that's what she said. Perhaps it would be worth mentioning Gardner's general unreliability? Certainly, I wouldn't like readers to think that Wikipedia is any way endorsing Gardner's claims. J Milburn (talk) 00:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The manuscript constituted a novel known as High Magic's Aid," Over-wordy?
In the lead, you say "she became known to the press as "The Witch of St. Giles", a moniker she despised. She died of lung cancer in 1982." In the prose, your claim isn't as strong: she "was particularly angry when the esoteric magazine Man, Myth and Magic referred to her as "The Witch of St. Giles", an area of Central London which she would later inhabit.[26]"
"for publication in magazines." Do we know the names of these magazines?
"The couple sent out lessons to those who paid the necessary fees over a series of weeks, eventually leading to the twelfth lesson, which contained The Book of Lumiel, a short work written by Montalban that documented her understanding of Lumiel and his involvement with humankind." Who or what is Lumiel?
"like the Picatrix, Corpus Hermeticum, The Heptameron of Peter d'Abano, The Key of Solomon, The Book of Abramelin, and Cornelius Agrippa's Occult Philosophy." Any of these worth linking?
"While she did not usually respond to enquiries, something made her decide to do so in Howard's case" As above- slightly "mysterious" tone
Is the relationship with Howard mentioned by anyone other than Howard?
It is mentioned, though not in such depth, in a recent paper from Fredrik Gregorious.Midnightblueowl (talk)
Ooh, excellent, another source from a mainstream publisher. Could citations to that paper by added elsewhere in the article, if appropriate? J Milburn (talk) 12:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Her letters focused" What do you mean by "her letters"?
Perhaps the Hutton quote belongs in the Legacy section? As he's a more "mainstream" historian, seeing his stuff is important. Also, there shouldn't really be anything in the lead not in the prose.
The sources seem appropriate, even if the number of occult names does make me pause slightly. I'm inclined to think that they're not the most rigorously academic of publications! What makes DouglasSheridan.com reliable?
Unfortunately, I think my use of sources has been thoroughly comprehensive; it would be nice if academics like Hutton decided to write more about her, but that's just not the state of affairs at the moment. As such I have had to rely on non-academic sources from within the esoteric community. DouglasSheridan is the website of the individuals who are legally entitled to continue propagating Montalban's legacy, so that gives them some reliability in my opinion; problematically there just aren't any other sources available!Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've left the "magician" category because it isn't explicit as to what it refers to, and terminologically speaking, Montalban is as much a "magician" as Paul Daniels, but have added all of your other suggestions.Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could you check your ISBNs? I'm not sure they're all valid.
In all, you're a great writer, but I worry that, in places, what should be a neutral encyclopedia article drifts into something a little more fanciful. J Milburn (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've had a play with the references (please double-check the changes I've made- I don't want to ruin your page refs) but I'm having trouble with the following sources-
Hutton, Ronald (1999). The Triumph of the Moon: A History of Modern Pagan Witchcraft. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0198207441. The ISBN seems to be invalid, and I can find no 1999 version ISBN online. Could you check your hard copy?
Philips, Julia (2012). Madeline Montalban: The Magus of St. Giles. Bloomsbury, London: Neptune Press. ISBN 978-0-9547063-9-5. ISBN invalid, couldn't find the ISBN online. Could you check your hard copy?
Valiente, Doreen (1989). The Rebirth of Witchcraft. London: Robert Hale. ISBN 978-0709037155. ISBN invalid, couldn't find this version online. Again, could you check your hard copy?
Once these ISBNs are dealt with, and possibly with a comment about Gardner's general unreliability, I'll be happy to promote. (The WebCitation link doesn't seem to be working, but that's not the end of the world.) J Milburn (talk) 19:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to my hard copies, Hutton (1999) is ISBN 978-0198207441; Philips (2012) is ISBN 978-0954706395; Valiente (1989) is ISBN 0709037155. Here's a great quote from Hutton that can be used to testify to Gardner's unreliability: "perfectly capable of... trickery, dissimulation, and plagiarism... anecdotes from very different sources testify to his capacity to be at times (depending on one's viewpoint) either a liar or a prankster." (p. 239). Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've found the Valiente source (strangely, the 13-digit ISBN doesn't seem to register), but I still can't find the others in the versions you have them. I'm not particularly fussed; I can imagine that the particular versions you have may have been very small runs, and I can certainly find evidence that the books themselves exist. I'm going to go ahead and promote. J Milburn (talk) 21:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Bedridden for the course of the illness, she read literature to entertain herself, enjoying the works of Bulwer-Lytton, H. Rider Haggard and E. T. A. Hoffman" - the link to Bulwer-Lytton is a disambig page and I am not sure it is clear from the text to whom it refers to specifically. --Noswall59 (talk) 09:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]
That does seem very probable. The problem I found was the disambig page doesn't mention his interest in the occult, so a lay reader might not know. Anyway, I am surprised this wasn't picked up at FAC. --Noswall59 (talk) 13:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]
.png){kind=small}
