Talk:Ralph Merrifield

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ralph Merrifield/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 20:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Happy to take a look. I'm a bit all over the place at the moment, so I don't think this'll be a "full" review initially! Josh Milburn (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• I think three paragraphs in the lead is too many for an article of this length
  • Would you advise me merging two of the paragraphs or you instead feel that there is information that should be expunged? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• "catalogue which he had helped catalogue" Repetition
  • I've changed the first to "collection". This was just a silly error on my part, I'm surprised that I didn't pick up on it in my read-through. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• "that were present in Britain's past" How about something like "in historical Britain" or "in the history of Britain"?
  • My choice of "past" here was chosen because it better reflects the fact that we are dealing with an archaeological subject here. While "history" is used as a synonym for the past generally, the discipline of "history" deals specifically with the past-as-recorded-in text, as opposed to archaeology, which deals with the past-as-recorded-in-material-culture. For this reason I would favour the use of "past" so as to avoid confusion between the two meanings of "history". Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes, good point. I'm not convinced that it's completely clear- at the moment it's ambiguous about whether these are beliefs (at an unclear time) about past witchcraft or past beliefs about witchcraft generally. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
      • How about "It was during this that he developed a keen interest in the archaeological evidence for both religion and for the magical practices that took place in Britain's past." ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
        • Better. I worry that the phrase "magic practices" is a little pro-magic, but maybe I'm being over-senstive! Josh Milburn (talk) 20:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
          • Personally I think that the wording is okay there. We know that people perform magical acts, and have done for centuries (and probably a lot longer), regardless of whether or not there is any objective reality to magical forces themselves. It is a similar situation to prayer; we know that people pray, and have done for a very long time, regardless of whether or not there is actually a deity acting upon those prayers. Thus, I believe that using the term "magical practices" here does not provide a judgement on the actual efficacy of said practices, any more than saying "prayer" would be a judgement of the reality of a particular divinity. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
            • Yes, that seems fair. I'll get to the last issue later today. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• Royal Exchange is a dablink
  • Changed! Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• "the city's archaeological community were largely preoccupied with salvaging" I'm not sure about this, but should that be was largely preoccupied?
  • Agreed and changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• "In 1951 he married Lysbeth Webb, and together they had one son and one daughter." You should specify Merrifield here; also, do you have dates of birth? Even if not, the current phrasing seems to suggest that they were born in '51
  • I've changed this to "In 1951 Merrifield married Lysbeth Webb, and together they went on to have one son and one daughter." Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• Why "day of independence" and not "independence day"?
  • I felt that the term "Independence day" implied a day of commemoration (as with U.S. independence day), whereas the date in question was the actual day in which Ghana became an independent state. Hence the proposed wording, although I'm certainly open to alternatives. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Gotcha. How about, rather than "for Ghana's first day of independence" something like "for the day of Ghana's officially achieved independence" or something akin? Josh Milburn (talk) 17:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
      • I've changed to your proposed wording. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• "further predicting where further archaeological remains were likely be be found by future investigation" Too wordy!
  • I've changed this to "further providing suggestions for where additional archaeological remains were likely located." Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• "During this period, he designed the Museum's first Roman gallery." What period?
  • I've merged this sentence into the previous one and changed the specific wording here to "and being responsible for designing the Museum's first Roman gallery." Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• Did you manage to have a look at Studies Presented to Ralph Merrifield? It's not cited, but I do note that it's in my university library, so I could go and pick it up tomorrow for a flick through. Its full title is apparently Collectanea Londiniensia : studies in London archaeology and history presented to Ralph Merrifield, and it was edited by Joanna Bird, Hugh Chapman and John Clark.
  • I hadn't thought about that, but it would be good to consult it. If you wish to do so that would be appreciated, although alternately I could easily consult a library copy (although I would only be able to do that in a couple of weeks time) - I wouldn't want to distract you too much from your doctoral work! Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
    • I picked it up; there are forty odd chapters! There is a two-page biography of Merrifield by W. F. Grimes which is probably worth citing, just as another reference if nothing else- I'll scan it for you tomorrow. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• "Endorsing these views" Which views?
  • I've changed this to "Concurring with Merrifield's assessment about this widespread neglect," Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• You don't really have much on his personal life in the personal life section.
  • That's true. Perhaps a term like "Personality" would be preferable? Or do you think that this section could just be termed "Legacy"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Merely "legacy" would be fine, or you could move information about his marriage and children down. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
      • I've changed it to "Legacy". Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• A few more citations wouldn't go amiss- you mention this one, I think! Have you seen this obituary? An old book review? Another? Another? Another (also, this suggests that the book was coauthored, which isn't mentioned in the article)? Don't worry about including everything ever for GAC, but reviews of one or two of the Roman books would be a nice balance to the review comments you offer for the magic book, and another obituary would help establish significance.
  • I had searched for additional obituaries in academic journals like Antiquity (to no avail) but had't thought of looking in the mainstream media - I have added The New York Times reference into the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks mostly fine to me! Josh Milburn (talk) 21:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, please double-check my copyedits. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Your copy-edits look fine to me, Josh. Thank you. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay- my workload has shot up. The scanner was having an off-day when I came to scan the biography, but having looked through what it says, it looks like your obituaries may have been based on it anyway. If you happen to be in a library where there's a copy of the book, it might be nice to pick it up (add a few citations for the sake of completeness), but I've dropped it into a further reading section for now. My one worry was that there may be too much of a focus on his magic/religion work at the expense of his London work, but the former interest is actually mentioned in the biography by Grimes, so it's certainly not a minor part of his career, even before he published the book. As such, I'm happy to promote at this time. Great work, as ever. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@J Milburn: - many thanks! I hope to be able to check out Collectanea Londiniensia later this week, if possible. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Accuracy of sources

While I'm only too aware that WP relies principally on secondary sources, I'm prompted to raise some questions about some of the information presented in this article after an exchange of text messages yesterday evening with my sister-in-law, who happens to be Ralph Merrifield's daughter. Among the issues raised by my sister-in-law, there is only one where I think there may be some support in an existing secondary source, but for the rest I suspect such sources are lacking, so you must make of them what you will. I'm also aware that the article is currently undergoing a GA review, but I'm posting this here rather than under the review in the hope that this will not interfere directly with that process. I suspect that the lack of supporting secondary sources – to my knowledge – may give rise to an uncomfortable aspect of "TL;DR" to much of this, but that is another reason for posting it here rather than under the GA review: if it's felt that these observations don't carry enough weight in themselves to prompt changes, perhaps in time secondary sources shall become available, and these observations might provide pointers to possible changes.

The first issue raised by my sister-in-law – after expressing excitement that the article has recently received so much attention – concerns the date of the photograph of Ralph Merrifield, given in the article as "from the 1970s". I see that its "original" source gives a title for the image as "Dr. Ralph Merrifield c. 1970's", and dates it "1970 AD – 1979 AD"; but my sister-in-law tells me that the photograph was taken in the 1980s by her mother, Lysbeth Merrifield, specifically for The Archaeology of Ritual and Magic, which was published in 1987. I see a slight difference between the photograph in this article and the one on the back cover of that book – in the latter, there is slightly less of a smile – but both clearly were taken on the same occasion, given the posture, clothing and lighting. I think some circumstantial support for my sister-in-law's assertion may be found in the blurb below the photograph on the back of that book, which says that Ralph Merrifield "has always – even in retirement – kept in close touch with field archaeologists and current excavations." Of course, he was well into his retirement in 1987 when that book was published, bearing that photograph on the back.

The second issue raised by my sister-in-law concerns Ralph Merrifield's place of birth: she says that her father was not born in Brighton but in Temple Fortune, North London, and that she has his birth certificate to prove it! She is willing to share this, if it might be helpful. When I expressed surprise at this, she responded that this sort of "error" arose "in the national obituaries, [and] so became fact by repetition." Apparently Ralph Merrifield was 2 years old, not 3, when his father died – I'm told that the father's death certificate is also available for inspection – and his mother then took him with her to Brighton, where her parents had a "shoe shop" by an open space in central Brighton known as the Level, to the north of St Peter's Church.

The third issue is much more minor, and concerns Varndean College: according to my sister-in-law, when her father studied there it was called simply the "Municipal School for Boys". He left there in 1930, and two years later, in 1932, its name was changed to "Varndean Municipal Secondary School for Boys": I note from the unreliable source (!) of the WP article for Varndean College that, until 1932, the school had been in York Place, adjacent to St Peter's Church and very near Ralph Merrifield's childhood home by the Level; whereas the change in name coincided with a move to the school's present site, which is about 1.5 miles (2.4 km) to the north; further, my sister-in-law informs me that the school only became a grammar school in 1963, while the relevant article states that it became a sixth-form college – hence presumably the name "Varndean College" – in 1975.

I hope that all of this is of some interest at least, recognising that it is probably of limited usefulness for WP as things stand. Midnightblueowl, do let me know if you would like sight of the certificates mentioned above, I believe it can be arranged. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your message, Nortonius; it's nice to hear that Merrifield's family members are pleased with the development of the article. Regarding your first point, I believe that this issue may be solved by simply removing the date altogether (so will do so). Similarly, the third issue can be resolved fairly easily by changing the text to read "Municipal School for Boys" while still linking to Varndean College. It is the second issue, however, that poses most problems. While I certainly appreciate the offer, I feel that looking at Merrifield's birth/death records would not actually accomplish anything because it would still be WP:Original Research to use them as sources for this article. That being the case, my suggestion would be that Merrifield's daughter (or someone else) publish a brief note, letter, or article in a Reliable Source (maybe something like London Archaeologist or the Folk-Lore Society Newsletter) in which they laid out the errors of the obituaries; perhaps they could also add further information about Merrifield, such as personal reminiscences. Were such a source to be published, then we certainly could use that as a citation in the article itself. Other than this, I am not really sure what we could actually do here. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Great, thanks Midnightowl – good to hear back from you. About the first and third issues, I agree with your assessment. About the second, I agree in that I see your assessment regarding WP:OR as in line with the general approach on WP: I've had occasion to discuss relevant policy in the not-too-distant past, but, although I made the offer of sight of the certificates with that in mind, I have absolutely no desire to go over the policy again! :o) However I do now have photographs of the certificates in my possession, and I'd still be happy to share them with you via email for your own information should you be interested, although I'm sure that my sister-in-law would require that, for now, the images be shared strictly for the present purpose. That's just by-the-by, and you needn't respond. About the "errors of the obituaries", I've been thinking along very much the same lines, and only a few minutes before reading your response I sent my sister-in-law an email suggesting that she and I might collaborate on a biographical piece for publication somewhere – I do have somewhere in mind, and she's just responded positively to my suggestion. I'll let you know if or when there's any news of a suitable bio, although obviously that will take some time, probably months. By the way, my sister-in-law informs me that there is a book to be published fairly soon by Ronald Hutton that will touch on Ralph Merrifield's career – something to watch out for in the meantime! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 14:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@Nortonius: If I could chip in- a basically identical photograph to the one currently used in the article (obviously from the same photoshoot- same shirt and tie) is in the front of Collectanea Londiniensia, which was published in 1978, so it couldn't be from the 1980s. The Brighton claim (as well as the "three years old" claim) is also in Collectanea Londiniensia, so that may be the origin of it. Perhaps this would be worth mentioning to your sister-in-law if she is thinking of publishing some corrections. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Great, thank you J Milburn, I'll mention Collectanea Londiniensia to my sister-in-law. She might well have a copy herself, although I don't. Perhaps sight of it would jog her memory! Your suggestion regarding the origin of the Brighton and "three years old" claims sounds very likely – I had been wondering about the source for the obituaries, I'm very grateful for your input and correction, obviously we do need to look at this book. Nortonius (talk) 10:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Handily my sister-in-law does have a copy of Collectanea Londiniensia, and she now agrees that she must have been wrong about when the photograph was taken – in her own words, it "goes to show how memory plays tricks", although she was able to describe the event in quite some detail – this photographic session must instead have been for that book of 1978, and one might suggest that the photograph in the article be dated to that year. I'll see what I can do about that on Commons in a bit. So, apologies to Midnightblueowl for the confusion over that! However, a willing publisher has been found for a brief, corrective bio of Ralph Merrifield, and I'm hoping it shall be in print in three or four months' time. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 10:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Peterson, Colin & Peterson, Jenny (2016), "Remembering Ralph Merrifield: Getting it right", Kent Archaeological Review (201), pp. 56–61 is now in print, and I've made a quick series of edits mostly based on that. Nortonius (talk) 12:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)