Talk:Raven Grimassi/Archive 1

Archive 1

Recent editing

It is, of course, unclear to me whether the flurry of edits to this article have been made by one person or by many (given the variety of IPs and usernames), I would like to take a moment to compliment the contributor/s, who judging from this diff, are getting the hang of Wikipedia editing. Good work! I especially appreciate that, instead of the earlier deletions of criticism, the fact that referenced rebuttals are being added. Don't worry if the referencing isn't quite perfect, I am, or another editor will be, more than happy to get around to properly formatting it. Jkelly 00:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV and Grimassi lurking

This article reads like a PR release from his website. This article needs more of the criticism on him. I know that the subject of this article lurks on wiki and I would not be surprised if he's been trying to keep his article as pristine from negative statements as possible. I will be attempting to gather reputable sources and writing up a "criticisms" section for this article. Stregamama (talk) 17:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Why, may I ask, would the biographical page of an author require "criticisms"? Under the assumption that everything in the page should be factual, rather than opinions, I don't see the need for someone's biased criticisms? What merit would they have other than being the personal standpoints of someone who does not agree with the author? A biography is an account of a person's life, and may perhaps have that person's views pointed out; I'm just not clear on the need for "criticisms".--Branwen70 ^(Talk) 21:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

why was this piece of PR drivel recreated? The very modest amount of material actually based on third party sources can easily be accommodated in the "Grimassi" section in the Stregheria article. As long as there isn't sufficient material for this article, there is no need to create a placeholder article full of peacock terms copy-pasted from the subject's website. --dab (𒁳) 10:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I know next to nothing about the topic, but the recent revisions seem entirely sensible from an editorial point of view - the material that dab removed waqs very unencyclopaedic and peacocky. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

this article is also linked from the man's "official biography". I am not going to judge his merits as an author or as a witch, but he clearly has vanity issues paired with a tendency to patrol the internet. So yes, there is a real danger that this article is subject to vanity editing. I see no problem with keeping this page separate, even though there is very little biographical information we can base on third-party sources. It could just as easily be merged into a section at Stregheria. But if it is to remain separate, we need to keep an eye on it. --dab (𒁳) 09:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

the edits of Rasenna (talk · contribs) would bear looking into. I am making no claims beyond stating the fact that all edits by this account seem to be touting Grimassi and Stregheria. --dab (𒁳) 09:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It makes very little sense to me to merge the Grimassi and Stregheria accounts. One is a biographical page and the other informational regarding a European pre-Christian religion, of which the former has some knowledge and experience. I find it curious that Grimassi is the ONLY person of interest listed on the Stregheria page and wonder at the reason for that. Branwen70 ^(Talk) 16:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Since Raven Grimassi is a well known author he naturally deserves a biography on Wikipedia. That seems to be the purpose of a dictionary, after all. Grimassi is not "Stregheria" and therefore he should not be isolated in that entry. As to "looking into" edits by "Rasenna" - well, that's me. I am an initiate of Stregheria, and personally trained by Mr. Grimassi. Therefore I have first hand knowledge of the tradition and the man himself. That's not irrelevant, and though you can argue it's "bias" (as are Grimassi's critics) I stick to the facts, and I edit because people often misrepresent the facts in articles about Grimassi and Stregheria. This "discussion" appears to be little more than an attempt to hold Grimassi to a different standard than the other authors on Wikipedia, and one that is intended to diminish knowledge about him. Rasenna (talk) 14:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

One minor quibble on the above - WP is an encyclopaedia, not a dictionary, and only has articles on topics that meet the WP:GNG guideline - which I agree, this subject does. The fact that Rasenna may know intimately about the subject is a double edged sword. In the first place, this can't be proved (not that I disbelieve it!) and therefore can't be claimed as providing any special status in editing the article. More seriously, it raises the difficulty of WP:COI and WP:POV; it is unlikely that, love hoim or hate him, you are going to be neutral about Raven Grimassi. Therefore the touchstone is not personal knowledge, but verifiability; if we can all observe that principle, we'll be OK. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality would only be an issue if my additions or edits contained glowing remarks about the author's character or work. They don't. I merely correct misinformation, and do so by drawing from the author's writings, which make his position clear. I use this to clarify or correct, not to sing him praises. Unfortunately some people insist on misrepresenting this author and misinforming people about him and his writings through Wikipedia. I note that the criticisms and negative allegations about Grimassi are never in question despite the absence of verification. For example, the statement in the article that Grimassi claims to belong to a hereditary tradition is not supported by the source material referenced (the linked article doesn't quote Grimassi claiming to be hereditary nor anyone else saying that he is). Rasenna (talk) 02:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Really?! Stregamama and everyone here. So, I know what nationality I am and if I make claim that Witchcraft is in my family, I automatically get criticism from people who know nothing about my family at all even if I don't have any papers to prove? Yeah, you're Witches alright judgmental. I'm friends with the man up on Facebook and speak to him every other day. I would like to see you all tell that to his private message box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StormKat34 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

People seem to be really missing the NPOV point, citing an authors own words do not counter or verify any claims, criticism is reasonable when a non-fiction makes claims of any kind and is found in many author biographies on wikipedia. There is too much concern in the article and this talk page for this to appear like a "balanced" PR statement. Being an initiate, associate or social media contact calls into question NPOV of some editors, and many of their own statements here come of more as fans then as people concerned about representing the facts accurately. Czarnibog (talk) 10:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The merge tag on this article has been collecting dust for almost a year now, so I'm going to remove it. If you put the tag back on it, please post an explanation here so we can discuss it. Folklore1 (talk) 03:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

um, the "explanation" is right there,

This article relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject. Please add citations from reliable and independent sources. (November 2011)

you even left it in place. This article does not meet WP:BIO as Grimassi is notable for Stregheria and Stregheria is what Grimassi is notable for. For the purposes of Wikipedia, "Grimassi" and "Stregheria" are one and the same topic. I have mostly given up addressing the pov-pushers in neopagan topics as grown ups, and even on this page, we read that Stregheria is "informational regarding a European pre-Christian religion". It is completely impossible to have a rational discussion in this climate of simply making stuff up, and the very fact that people post here thinking that "Stregheria is a European pre-Christian religion" illustrates how badly needed the merger is.

I have nothing against Grimassi, or his system of witchcraft. All I am saying is that precisely because a lot of idiotic nonsense is thrown around in our neopagan topics, it is extremely important to keep things organized, referenced, neutral and within WP:DUE. We absolutely should have an aricle about Grimassi and his system. Whether we keep this article under Raven Grimassi or under Stregheria I do not care. What I do care about is keeping it under a single title, either a "Stregheria" section in a bio article, or a "founder" section in the "Stregheria" one, just to forestall the attempt of "inflating notability by multiplying page count", one of the oldest and most boring tricks in the book of COI editing. --dab (𒁳) 16:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose merge. Grimassi and Stregheria began at different points and they have since diverged. Stregheria started with Leo Martello in the 1970s, while Grimassi started in a general Wicca group in 1969. In 2004, Grimassi stepped down as head of the Stregheria tradition, which makes it imperative that the two articles remain apart so that recent developments in Stregheria can be described separately from recent developments in Grimassi's life. Binksternet (talk) 20:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• Also Oppose merge. Grimassi is an author with 17 books in print, only two of which are about Stregheria. Therefore, to relegate him solely to a mention in the Stregheria article is inappropriate and misleading. His award-winning books include the Encyclopedia of Wicca and Witchcraft, and Wiccan Mysteries, which demonstrates he is acknowledged outside of Stregheria. His primary work covers Witchcraft, Wicca and Magick in general and is thereby an author of widespread notoriety. Rasenna (talk) 11:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• Note that Raven is involved with the Grey School of Wizardry[1] so that pulls him further out of the orbit of Stregheria. I'm striking the merge tag as there is no consensus for such a change. Binksternet (talk) 18:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)