Talk:Robert Cochrane (witch)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Gardnerian?

There are several references to Gardnerian and Gardnerians without explanation or link. Section 2.1 looks as though it should follow on from something explanatory. As it is it means nothing to me. It needs to be edit be some disinterested hand. DavidCh0 (talk) 10:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Chad Wilson

There have been a few edits here by someone calling themselves Chad Joseph Wilson. Now, Joseph Bearwalker Wilson died in 2004, so I'm assuming you're his son, or other relation? If so, it's great to have you helping out here with your knowledge. However that doesn't directly help us with making this into a good article. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, every editor is essentially anonymous, and all information in articles has to be verifiable in externally published reliable sources. That means signing your name next to something you've written doesn't make the information any more useful to us -- we still have to find a published source for it. Just imagine, I could easily create the user name User:Chad J. Wilson and say all kinds of rubbish, so the user name alone is no authority.

What you can do, though, is publish this information on the 1734 website or somewhere else that's clearly identifiable as belonging to the 1734 tradition, and then either direct us to this website for information, or even copy the material here yourself. In Wikipedia we're always searching for better source documents to use, and you're in the wonderful position of being able to actually create some of those source documents. Without published sources, the article is very limited in what it can say. Thanks, Fuzzypeg★ 23:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I must remember to site sources in reference not just in text - sorry --Chad Joseph Wilson (talk) 10:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

name change

Did he ever give a reason for choosing Robert Cochrane as a name? Does it have anything to do with Robert Cochrane, the favorite of James III of Scotland, an alleged witch and alchemist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.71.2 (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea, but that would certainly be of note if a source can be found. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC))

Cochrane is a family name. I believe from our Grandfather's side (Roy's father) of the family.

Wishful Thinking

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Robert Cochrane's wife name was Jane not Jean. Roy Bowers' father or mother(my grandparents) were never witches and there was no history of witchcraft in the family.Strimstrum (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Move?

This title has two things wrong with it in my point of view. First, witch seems to say that he was an actual witch with the whole power thing that they are famous for. I believe that we can change this to something better than this. The second issue with the title is that by having the label of witch there, we are in some ways promoting his view that he was a witch. What do others think, because I can't think of a name-neutral name to move this to. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, tricky situation. What about Robert Cochrane (Witch) - the term is capitalised to denote a follower of the religion of Witchcraft, as opposed to just general magical practice. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC))

Would we have to prove Transubstantiation to label a notable Catholic priest as (priest) if they had the same name as another notable person? Cochrane was a witch, whether that means anything outside of his and his co-religious heads' is another matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.234.81.124 (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The article has to have something as an disambiguation, as Robert Cochrane is a DAB page. The lede does say "was an English Neopagan witch", so witch is not too far from the truth - you could have Robert Cochrane (neopagan witch) to fit more with the text, but it doesn't have to be exact as it's just the disambiguation label. I also know from past experience that there are a serious lot of editors watching this page, all with the own set of views. I've seen too many edit wars break out. I would suggest that any name change goes through a full WP:RM, I can see lots of problems otherwise.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Minor details

Slough was actually in Buckinghamshire at the time Bowers lived there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.5.254 (talk) 10:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

original research?

There's a section (with self-identified edit) that looks OR – direct first-person information. Can somebody please process this? The section is 3.1 Witchcraft Research Association and Gardnerianism as follows—

"Re: The link below here regarding Cynthia Swettenham and alleged 2nd degree initiation. Have known Cynthia for many years also being in her last coven I asked about this yesterday 14.3.2018 to her. Cynthia was intrigued but has no recollection of this happening or of any meeting such or similar. It could be believed that coincidental inaccurate information may have led to this conclusion. (Edited Alan Saunders)"

There may be other, like the strangely styled quote that follows, but I can't tell the difference except that it doesn't have a citation.Manytexts (talk) 01:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Witchcraft Research Association and Gardnerianism

From the Robert Cochrane (witch)#Witchcraft Research Association and Gardnerianism section:

Re: The link below here regarding Cynthia Swettenham and alleged 2nd degree initiation. Have known Cynthia for many years also being in her last coven I asked about this yesterday 14.3.2018 to her. Cynthia was intrigued but has no recollection of this happening or of any meeting such or similar. It could be believed that coincidental inaccurate information may have led to this conclusion. (Edited Alan Saunders)

It was here that he met the coven's High Priest Jack Bracelin, who liked Jane Bowers but disliked Cochrane, later describing him as a "weirdie" and his subsequent letters as "a load of drivel". It is known that Cochrane was also in contact with two other prominent Gardnerian initiates around this time; Eleanor Bone and Lois Bourne. There is also evidence to suggest that Cochrane was initiated into the Gardnerian tradition up until the second degree by Cynthia Swettenham and her partner Dick, who ran a coven in West London.

This has however been cast into question by information from Dick Swettenham's magical partner who stated online

"I have no experiences of the Craft in the US – My magical partner Dick Swettenham (who died in 2001) was privileged for 35 years to be a member of the coven of which Gerald Gardner was also once a member"

This and other evidence from Cochrane's letters indicates that Dick Swettenham did not become a Gardnerian until after the split with between Cochrane and other members of the West London coven around 1960 and could not therefore have initiated Cochrane prior to the creation of the Thames Valley Coven. Evidence from the Cochrane's letters referring to his membership of a coven that 'went over to Aradia' indicate that the events referred to occurred in 1959–60 and not in 1965–66.

Removed as OR. If someone can rewrite the above to make it encyclopedic, then feel free to return a modified version to the article. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  20:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

References