Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neopaganism/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Archive of discussion from the WP:WPN talk page, October 26, 2006 to February 23, 2007.

religioustolerance dot org

I came across over 700 links to this organization, Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. The site has a ton of ads but on the other hand, it has content (and a Wikipedia article).

Normally, such an ad-intensive site with so many links gets attention at WikiProject Spam for further investigation. Even if it's not spam, many links may often get deleted as not meeting the external links guideline. I've left a note at WikiProject Spam asking others to look at some of these and see what they think.

Even some non-profit organizations will add dozens of links to Wikipedia since links in Wikipedia are heavily weighted in Google's page ranking systems. (If interested, see the article on Spamdexing for more on this).

You can see all the links by going to this this "Search web links" page. I encourage you to look at Wikipedia's external links guideline then look at the links in the articles you normally watch. Also, if you don't mind, please also weigh in at WikiProject Spam with your opinions. If you see links to pages that you don't think add additional value beyond the content already in an article, feel free to delete them, but please don't go mindlessly deleting dozens of links. (Per WP:EL, links that don't add additional value should be deleted but that doesn't necessarily mean they're "spam").

Thanks for your help and for providing some second opinions. --A. B. 16:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Starwood festival

Many pages on neo-pagans have links to Starwood festival and we are trying to workout if they should be included, or if these are really a case of WP:SPAM. It would be good to get some input on the subject at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-03 Starwood Festival. --Salix alba (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Covenant of the Goddess article

I have been working quite the bit on the Covenant of the Goddess article for two days now, and ive spiffed it up a lot, compared to the sad-sorry state it was in. Do you think that it should still be considered a stub? I know theres still much more about CoG to be added to the article, but i do think that it has now surpassed stub status. --Brenton.eccles 01:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting finds from other-language Wikis

I've been poking around lately on the Spanish, Italian, and Greek Wikipedias. Today I found an article on Kemetic heterodoxy, as opposed to Kemetic Orthodoxy, on Italian Wikipeda. It's interesting to see how differently the same material is organized on other Wikipedias. Then I went to look at the Italian Neopaganism WikiProject, and it's huge! The differences between the Greek-language Ελληνική Εθνική Θρησκεία and its English counterpart are giving me some ideas, too. Has anyone else found cool/useful neopagan stuff on foreign-language Wikipedias? - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 21:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

For the past few months Rosencomet, 999, and possibly others, have apparently been running a Google Bombing campaign for the Starwood Festival, the Association for Consciousness Exploration, the WinterStar Symposium and a website called www.rosencomet.com. The latter has over 120 links from wikipedia articles to this website and there is an unbelievable amount of in-linking just to the Starwood Festival. Recently I've noticed a lot of tit for tat wiki-stalking and malicious ad hominem attacks and retaliatory editing going on directed at anyone who is critical of this copious linking, which makes it difficult to assume good faith. There is currently an attempt to mediate this behaviour at the Mediation Cabal, but it seems to have collapsed from lack of admin attention. Regardless, any editors who happen to notice this spamming or are concerned with the possibility of commercial interests or people with ulterior motives using wikipedia for free advertising and search engine placement, please take note. We can nip this sort of behaviour in the bud if we act now. - WeniWidiWiki 23:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Some methods to fight spammers:

  • Submitting the urls to the Spam Blacklist
  • Throwing {{Cleanup-spam}} on every afflicted article. This will put the entry on Category:Wikipedia spam cleanup which will notify other users of the ongoing abuse.
  • Document usage by using {{subst:spam1}} on the user's page as well as in the edit summary to document reverts if the situation escalates.
  • Placing {{subst:NoMoreLinks}} at the top of articles puts a requirement for consensus for all new links.

Perhaps we can set-up an anti-spam sub-page for pages in the project - WeniWidiWiki 01:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

There is now an RfC in progress on the issue of the Starwood linking: Talk:Starwood Festival#Request for Comment: Inserting references to Starwood Festival in articles. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Mediation is currently taking place; see Talk:Starwood Festival/mediation. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 07:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

    • I strongly object to the tone & characterization of the above text. The same people who have objected to the citations that are being called "google-bombing" CALLED for those citations originally, which were provided as a result of a lot of work that they would gladly have skipped. All these external links have now been removed, but these same folks now object to internal links (which CANNOT constitute "google-bombing") between the Starwood Festival (perhaps the largest, and tied for the longest-running, major festival in the American Neo-Pagan community) and speakers & performers who have appeared there. If anything, it is the behaviour of those who do NOT want to see mention of the event, especially on the pages of leading personalities OUTSIDE of the usual perception of the Neo-Pagan community (such as Stanley Krippner, Fred Alan Wolf, Stephen Kent, and Babatunde Olatunji, which lends gravitas to the scope of this movement), that constitutes "a lot of tit for tat wiki-stalking and malicious ad hominem attacks and retaliatory editing". The issue is indeed being mediated as to whether those citations were valid and/or necessary, and what policy, if any, forbids a link between a presentor's Wiki page and that of an important venue at which he/she has appeared, Pagan or otherwise. Input is welcome. Rosencomet 17:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Wicca & Reconstructionist Neopaganism

I have added another project goal to the list, now number 8. I am sure that I am not alone when I state that I have found many articles where there is no line drawn between Wicca and paganism in general, the term being used somewhat like a synonym. In my opinion, this is terribly misleading and we should all be vigilant about this. :bloodofox: 16:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you cite some of the specific articles so I can put them on my watch list? - WeniWidiWiki 16:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I've made a point to tackle any of the ones I've seen. Most of the pagan holiday articles have been really bad about this until recently, when a few of us went through them and restructured the "neopaganism" sections on them. The Wiccan "Sabbat" page that was recently merged into the Wheel of the Year article was also really bad about this until I went through and edited it. I've placed the proposal there as a general rule for future reference, assuming others agree, that is. :bloodofox: 17:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


Odin Brotherhood Article

There have been two Odin Brotherhood articles in 2006 (one deleted in minutes and the other aborted after 9 months). The same person deleted both articles.

Can this situation be rectified?

I understand the second article was deleted without process because the first had been deleted with process. But the articles were actually quite distinct.

For the interested, a rough version of the second deleted article is saved on my user page.

--Tsmollet 23:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I recently resurrected Idol worship from being a redirect. I put a comment in the talk page saying why I did it. Hopefully (goes to check)... yes, still there! Try it with Odin Brotherhood, and tell its deletor why it should stand. And save a copy in case!

Totnesmartin 23:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)



I'm confused by the statement that "the same person deleted both articles." Unless the article was speedily deleted both times (and it wasn't), this is impossible. Deletion discussions on Wikipedia involve many editors giving input and arguing that the article should be deleted or kept. Many editors supported the deletion of the article and many editors voted to uphold that decision in DRV.
Though I voted to relist the article when it went up for DRV, I'm afraid that I can't see the article as it is on your userpage succeeding as a Wikipedia article. Articles about secret societies are notoriously hard to verify - I know, I've tried to defend them in AfD. The fact that of your cited book sources, I believe only The Odin Brotherhood itself spends any significant time talking about this Odin Brotherhood (for all I know, it may be that mentions the Brotherhood at all) is a very serious problem. Your corroborating external links are to Geocities homepages and an MSN chat. There are a lot of statements in there that demand verification from reliable sources, and it just isn't there. Also, the Odin Brotherhood people make some extraordinary claims, yet the article does not cite any critics, jeopardizing its ability to maintain a neutral point of view. Here are my original thoughts on what an article like this needs to overcome its dubious nature:
  • Delete unless someone can point me to either A) a critical (not necessarily negative!) appraisal of the historical claims made in this book by someone with academic qualifications, or B) a critical (not necessarily negative!) appraisal of the book by a member of the polytheistic reconstructionist community and an indication that this is considered an essential text by some segment of the community. Until then, there just isn't enough information for us to write an NPOV article on this book. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 00:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


  • Wow, you were no help, AdelaMae. Soo much for pagan solidarity!

The person who deleted the article both times is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mikkalai He seems to be a dedicated wikipedian--he spends hours online--but is strangely hostile to the whole concept of the Odin Brotherhood.

The notion that the group is fictional is ridiculous. My initiation occurred 21 years ago (Smollet is not my real name), and I personally know members on three continents.

But--even if it were fictional--WHICH IT S NOT--wikipedia has countless articles on pseudo-history, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pseudohistory, so you argument does not hold

I note, however, that it DOES exist. --Tsmollet 23:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


I said nothing about the Odin Brotherhood being fictional. I said that the information needs to be verifiable and reflect a neutral point of view. Category:Pseudohistory is for articles like Oera Linda and The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, which present information in a neutral tone, citing reliable, published book and article sources. If you can write an article like that, by all means, go for it. I haven't been able to find sources. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 23:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I will admit the last version seemed "intense." When the second version appeared in April, however, it was one paragraph long and dispassionate. Over time, however, a couple dozen people "souped it up."--Tsmollet 23:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


While pagans are arguing aboout what is real and what is not, ancient historians are arguing that there is no historical evidence that David, Solomon, Moses, etc ever existed. Also, in the last century over 200 books have been published arguing that Jesus never existed.

The main point, howver, is can't the pagans stick together? I thought that was the purpose of this project. --Tsmollet 23:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the project page says WP:WPN is "dedicated to expanding, organizing, verifying, and NPOVing articles related to neopagan religions". If Odin Brotherhood isn't verifiable and NPOV, that's a problem. My personal religious affiliations have nothing to do with whether an article is or is not appropriate for Wikipedia, and I try to base my opinions about deletion on the latter. WikiProjects are not about ingroup solidarity or vote-stacking. They are about writing good encyclopedia articles on a topic of mutual interest. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 00:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


I mean, I like your Sanders' article, but if discussing curing warts is ok, what is wrong about a discussion of the nature of the gods and the "eternal return" in the OB article?--Tsmollet 03:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

--Tsmollet 03:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not my article (in fact, the version I edited has gone the way of the Ship of Theseus) and you'll note that the claim about warts is tagged as needing a source citation, as is every other paragraph in that section. The three foundational policies of Wikipedia are Verifiability, No original research, and NPOV. Your article fails to meet all three. I won't (and can't) stop you from creating it, but if it doesn't conform to Wikipedia policy, it will undoubtedly be deleted... again. You asked if the situation could be rectified, I told you that you would have to cite sources. That is my answer. You can take it or leave it for whatever it's worth. I am just another Wikipedian. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 03:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmmm. BTW, it is not MY article. I just think it is a good one. (As is the article on Sanders!)

To verifiability, I remind you what I said about "pseudo-history. As for original research, it is not, as for citing sources, all the material appears to be from published sources.

Be that as it may, I see you will never agree! So let's have a cease-fire!--Tsmollet 04:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

the article as it is is not appropriate, on your user page of off it, per WP:V. You can make it ostensibly about the book and call it The Odin Brotherhood, and things will be fine. As far as I can see, this is about a work of fiction, and not about real-life neopaganism at all. dab (�) 08:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the imput. Also, an informative discussion with another editor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WeniWidiWiki#Hropt

has convinced me that restarting the article would be a waste of time, since the same guy will destroy it again.

As for an article on a book instead of a group, my personal opinion is that articles on BOOKS in wikipedia is a form of clutter for people who are too lazy to read. Just my opinion.

As for the existence of the Odin Brotherhood, there was an interesting point made on an earlier deletion review. The FBI has a copy of The Odin Brotherhood in their national library, but no other books on Odinism or Asatru. Why would they study something that does not exist?

I am relieved to hear that a group I have belonged to for 22 years is not simply a plot in a a novel!--Tsmollet 00:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Another point: someone has saved the material on tinwiki [1] --Tsmollet 03:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Key articles for Wikipedia 1.0

I think this message kind of got lost the first time around:

Hello! We at the Work via WikiProjects team for Wikipedia 1.0 would like you to identify the "key articles" from your project that should be included in a small CD release due to their importance, regardless of quality. We will use that information to assess which articles should be nominated for Version 0.5 and later versions. Hopefully it will help you identify which articles are the most important for the project to work on. As well, please add to the Neopaganism WikiProject article table any articles of high quality. If you are interested in developing a worklist such as this one (new) for your WikiProject, or having a bot generate a worklist like this one automatically for you, please contact us. Please feel free to post your suggestions right here. Thanks! Walkerma 04:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be a good idea for us to come up with a list of a few of the most important articles on neopaganism. Off the top of my head, I would nominate Neopaganism, Wicca, and Gerald Gardner. Other ideas are Polytheistic reconstructionism, Germanic neopaganism, and Neo-druidism. The recon articles are spread through their respective cultures, so it's hard to know which to pick. Anyway, please proceed to lambaste this list. *grin* - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 17:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Neopaganism and Wikipedia Notability Standards

I'm hoping this will not be a shock to many here but not every neopagan who ever authored a book is notable by Wikipedia standards. Not every workshop leader, even those with years of experience, is notable by Wikipedia standards.

I've seen a few mentions here of "pagan solidarity" and a desire to fight to make sure people and events from the neopagan community are included in Wikipedia. I'm all for neopagan visibility but I'm much less thrilled by bloating Wikipedia with articles on people notable only within the neopagan community. This is a classic example of big pond, little pond. We are used to seeing people who we know are famous in the neopagan community and saying "Of course they are notable enough for Wikipedia!" This is a problem because there are guidelines about Wikipedia notability. They are only guidelines but they do provide some minimum standards for notability. I'd like to believe most people here have read these guidelines but I'll list them anyway as points of reference: notability of people, general notability, and What Wikipedia is not. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 00:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, but remember wikipedia can be infinite in size. In a paper book, an editor is forced to rate material according to significance and delete accordingly. In wikipedia, that is no longer necessary.

If I am doing research, I want a source where I can locate the obscure people and ideas. If I want to read about Jesus, or Plato, or even Gerald Gardner, wikipedia would be a research source for amateurs only because there are so many books out there....

In short, it is the attention to the small that makes wikipedia useful.--Tsmollet 00:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I see one problem with that argument: The more inclusive Wikipedia is, the more difficult it becomes to find the specific information you want. Eventually the housekeeping of redirects, disambiguation pages, etc. overwhelms the actual content. I just don't think all neopagans, even some well-known in the neopagan community, need or deserve an entry. I guess I'm saying I think we need to apply the same standards of achievement and notability to neopagans as other entries in Wikipedia. I'm a little disturbed by a general attitude I've picked up of "We're a minority so we have to fight to get our people and subjects into Wikipedia 'cause they want to oppress us." I don't think that's generally true on Wikipedia. I probably won't persuade anyone but it was bugging me so I thought I'd mention it. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 03:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Um, and a point I neglected to mention: Wikipedia is NOT infinite in size. It's limited by server space among other things, and space is already tight as I understand it. Perhaps you weren't aware that Wikipedia has had to have fundraisers and discussions are under way about the possibility of using ads to support the project. Calling it a "free" encyclopedia only applies in some ways. The project could just collapse one day without some care. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 03:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
The developers have in general urged us to not consider preserving space as all that valuable. Text is, let's face it, really damn small compared to pictures or sound clips or video files. We should not have to take into account server space in terms of what we write about.
More important than that is the amount of volunteer effort available, which is more limited than server size. Even this increases at a fairly rapid pace.
In the end, though - and the basis of most of our notability standards - is simply that we demand that articles are verifiable and sourced to accurate sources. Important information about someone should be sourced from a source more reliable than the subject's self published writings. If all that can be written about someone is a single sentence:
Random Pagan Author has written three books for Witchy Publishing, Bell (1992), Book (1997) and Candle (2003).
with accompanying references - is it really giving the world anything worthwhile to have that as an article? There are some who would say yes; I tend towards no, since all that Wikipedia article will do is clog up Google searches with a nothing bit of information without being truly helpful. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
To continue that thought - my own feeling is that if a topic is obscure but there are sufficient good sources to write at least a few paragraphs of verifiable info, Wikipedia is better off including it. I've written many articles on obscure topics - e.g. crappy old cameras, obsolete railroad locomotives - but only when I can find enough published info to make a worthwhile article about it. Often this is the first time someone has assembled as detailed an article anywhere online, which means I'm adding to the online-accessable base of knowledge. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to encourage other editors to read Morven's thoughtful response carefully. Focusing on WP:V instead of an abstract and fuzzy "notability" can often cut through otherwise unpleasant disagreements about what to include. Jkelly 17:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I think I tend to focus on the "notability" guidelines because, when I read them, I don't get the abstract and fuzzy aspects. I see distinct benchmarks which can be applied in cases. But I also use them merely as a cut-off point of eligibility. From there I go on WP:V. As Morven and Jkelly both suggest (and I agree), it's probably better to use WP:V because it defines more realistic and provable standards for inclusion. Thanks to you both for your comments. I've heard it before but it's beginning to sink in. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 19:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Religious leaders

The current organization there is abit muddled, and needs some discussing how to deal with. A general proposal for cleaning it up is posted at Category talk:Religious leaders#Organization proposal, and more input would be great. It doesn't address the issue of Religious leaders/religious workers/religious figures, but that is another issue that exists. Badbilltucker 22:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Streamlined task list

I saw a task list like this on another WikiProject and thought it might be useful in make the project page more streamlined. Here is what it looks like when I add in all of the to-dos (other than the deletions and merges) from our front page:


Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

The only problem is that you lose a little information in cases like my request for the Pickingill Papers, where I wrote down some potential sources. What do you think? There are a lot of ways I could think of to tweak with the formatting... - AdelaMae (t - c - wpn) 01:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Restructure proposal

Hello everyone. I would like to propose a restructure, although I am not particularly sure how to go about it. Here's my reasoning.

First of all, this page seems to be largely dominated by the massive spectrum of Wicca and Wiccan-related authors, subjects and books with very little basis in other forms of neopaganism.

Secondly, historically-based forms of neopaganism - such as reconstructive paganism - not only often actively avoid association with Wicca but really have nothing to do with it outside of the fact that Wicca very loosely derives imagery from Celtic art. In fact, it seems to me that Wicca really has more in common with semi-polytheistic monotheism, such as Christianity, than it does any native polytheistic culture.

Plus, I can hardly be alone here in finding having to sift through the multitudes of Wiccan pages, generally just to correct misinformation for their source material, to not be a whole lot of fun. I understand the two are loosely connected as "neopaganism" but I, personally, have a hard time picturing Wicca anything alike the various reconstructive movements we see here.

Suggestions? Surely there's already a WikiProject for Wicca? If so, shouldn't all of this Wiccan stuff be over there? If so, should we change the name of this project? Otherwise, we should we simply categorize this Wikiproject into "Wicca," "Reconstructive" and "Other?" :bloodofox: 14:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

My personal preference would be to continue to call this project Neopaganism, yet to continue to educate editors and readers that Neopaganism and Wicca are not synonymous. I think continued efforts to work together would be more effective than splitting the project. However, it might be useful to do more categorization of the articles covered by the project. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
To answer your question, there is no WikiProject Wicca. Some of the goals of this project are specifically focused on improving Wikipedia's coverage of polytheistic reconstructionism and making sure that Wikipedia articles don't assume that all pagans are Wiccan. A rough categorization might be useful, but I'm concerned about ghettoizing Wicca-related articles because I fear that this would limit input from editors who have knowledge of other forms of paganism, but don't realize that this knowledge is needed in Wicca-related articles. Nobody has to edit articles they don't want to, but since so many neopaganism-related articles make general statements about neopaganism, it is important for all sorts of neopagans to work together to keep these statements accurate and verified. - AdelaMae (t - c - wpn) 20:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Understood on both of your responses. I will attempt a restructure - it's surprising to hear there's no such Wikiproject! :bloodofox: 16:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
AdelaMae, I want to thank you for this commitment to diversity and clarity in the Wikiproject. I have been relieved to find that this project has this sort of clarification as one of its goals. I think some of most valuable work we've done has been cleaning up articles that used "Neopagan" and "Wicca" as interchangeable synonyms. If the articles were all split up into separate Wikiprojects, I most likely would have never looked at the very articles we have now worked together to improve. When I first encountered WikiProject Neopaganism, I really was hesitant to sign on until I saw other Reconstructionists were participating. I have been very pleasantly surprised by how things have gone, and I thank both of you for that, as well as the other folks who have worked together to improve the articles :-) Slàinte Mhath and happy calendar New Year / Hogmanay! ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Neopaganism needs serious help

OK, time to pull the books off the shelf and get out your red pens. The Neopaganism article needs sourcing, and some sections need serious help. I took a stab at rewriting the confusing and mind-numbing Pagan/pagan/Neopagan/Theist/etc... section a while back, but it's *so* not there yet. I may take another run at it sometime soon if no one else fixes it first. If I do it I think I will just start over and do a complete rewrite. I've added a couple cites to other sections, but the article needs a lot more. I'd like to see us work together to get this up to good article status, at least. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you think it would help to put a call for help and a short to-do list towards the top of the main wikiproject page? - AdelaMae (t - c - wpn) 20:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Can't see that it would hurt. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you guys think about removing most of the forms segment of this article and just having very brief explanations on the concepts and then linking to the pertinent entries? Right now there seems to be too much overlap with all the content in the respective recon entries, as well as the Wicca entry. As it currently exists, the entry is barely redeemable in my estimation, and a total refactoring seems to be in order. - WeniWidiWiki 04:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

New article

I've just finished a new article, Bideford witch trial, if anybody want to go over and improve it, please do.

While on the subject, shouldn't the project have a section for listing new articles? Another project I'm in does so and it's quite useful. Totnesmartin 14:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion

The group indicated above was recently revitalized for, among other things, the purpose of working on those articles whose content is such that the article does not fall within the scope of any particular denomination. To most effectively do this, however, we would benefit greatly if there were at least one member from this Project working on those articles. On that basis, I would encourage and welcome any member of this Project willing to work on those articles to join the Religion WikiProject. Thank you. Badbilltucker 22:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Another new article, and an ethical dilemna

I have started a new article, currently in my Sandbox, User:BillWSmithJr/Sandbox/Pagan's_Night_Out, which I feel strongly is both notable and worthy of this project's help. There is just one STRONG problem... I AM Donal of The Brewers' Witch BBS. I am the guy that started the PNO idea. This makes NPOV very difficult for me, and invites accusations of self-promotion. It is hard to assert noteworthiness without attracting these claims. I need someone else to take the article from me and run with it. I will be more than happy to provide any and all requested information, up to and including logbook entries to demonstrate dates and attendance at some of these events. I leave the rest up to you. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 19:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you know of any newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, etc that discuss PNO? - AdelaMae (t - c - wpn) 02:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I am sure there must be one somewhere, Goddess knows I have been interviewed often enough. There is also a PNO article/essay somewhere on Witchvox. Still, we are left with the problem that brought me here. I CANNOT be the primary on this article! Someone needs to adopt it. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 06:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Let's see... I've got http://www.witchvox.com/va/dt_va.html?a=usny&c=festivals&id=8779 (article about Ontario County PNO) and http://www.witchvox.com/va/dt_va.html?a=usmd&c=festivals&id=8732 (mention of DC PNO). I figure the first step is to collect references to PNO from independent sources to establish a firm basis for notability; if we've done that, nobody can claim that it's a vanity article on your part. I am certainly willing to work on it, but I edit in little spurts, so it will take me a while. - AdelaMae (t - c - wpn) 00:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate it, AdelaMae. I am still a little green at Wikipedia, but I am a geek. :) I recognize the danger of being perceived as tooting my own horn here, but feel strongly that this "little idea I had" grew all by itself into something notable and worthy of inclusion. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 08:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Wheel of The Year NPOV

The article Wheel of the Year really needs NPOV checking. If some of the 'viewpoints' are not referanced ASAP, I personally will start to remove large chunks of highly questionable material. As an example; Anti Wicca and CR heavy statments such as 'Wicca makes no effort to reconstruct these ancient practices.' are very bias, do neither path any favours, are not qualified and should be re-worded or deleted immediatleyEmmagallagher 01:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Emma - While the Wheel of the Year article certainly needs footnoting, I suggest that you read the talk page of the article and see the history it has gone through. Pagans of a wide variety of paths and traditions have collaborated on the article. I strongly suggest that you do not attempt massive deletions or major rewrites without checking with the other editors who work on it. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
On the other hand, ANY unreferenced opinion statements should be deleted/moved to the talk page immediately (as in yesterday). It doesn't matter what the POV is trying to get rid of them (or none at all), Wikipedia cannot be used for editor's opinions. -- nae'blis 02:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, Nae'blis :-) However, the section EmmaGallagher is objecting to is from one of the few sections of the article that *is* sourced. The section already had citations, but I added page numbers and a couple more links to the reference so this should be even clearer now :-) ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
As of this timestamp, the article is better than I was expecting it to be. Jkelly 03:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


Firstly, I mention ONE of many unreferanced sections, not only one. There is a whole lot more in the article that is unreferanced and questionable. Secondly, Ronald Hutton as the source for 2 of a total 4 citations throughout an entire article is poor qualification for such remarks, particuluarly as it is an article on a specific religous concept within a path that is not dogmatic or indoctarined and is individual and oathbound to secrecy regarding specific teachings. Fleshing the article out with inapropriate, superfluous and unnescessary commentary is hardly encyclopedic standard. Especially considering the factual errors that Hutton is notorious for. Some examples of scholars accusing Hutton of factual errors can easily be found by googleing his name. One authour with many accusations of poor research and his bias ramblings are also notorious. There are a host of other authours who talk about the wheel of the year concept so this really isnt comprehensive research. Funny how the passage I mentioned is one of only two sections that have recently been cited! Must be because of the call for citation on the talk page made in December 2006, Twice! Even still, I dont think there is any need for the sentance I mentioned. It ads nothing to the article that isn't covered somewhere else and can easily be seen as religious bias. There is a whole lot more in the article that is unreferanced and questionable. Emmagallagher 03:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

If you have a problem with Hutton, why not provide more verifiable sources, then? It also is a lot more helpful to actually go through and cite the exact passages you take issue with and discuss them explicitly on the talk page rather than speak in generalities or threaten to "start to remove large chunks of highly questionable material".
  • {{fact}} produces [citation needed]
  • {{who}} produces [attribution needed]
  • {{vc}} produces [this source's reliability may need verification]
  • {{POVassertion}} produces [Neutrality disputed — See talk page]
  • {{POV-statement}} produces [neutrality disputed]
Like many other editors have learned, you will find that you can catch more bees using honey rather than vinegar. - WeniWidiWiki 04:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Templates should also be dated, like this: {{fact|date=May 2007}} - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 18:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Articles tagged as needing expert attention

Goddess movement and Sabbath (witchcraft) have been tagged as requiring expert attention. Any such assistance in improving these articles would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Badbilltucker 01:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

List of religions and religious denominations

I am currently in the process of compiling the list above. It is my intention that all the articles listed be candidates for, among other things, appearances on the Portal:Religion. However, I am having a rather difficult time determining which specific articles qualify as "pagan denominations", how to categorize them within the subgroup, etc. Also, I hope to list other notable "denominations", even if they don't yet have separate articles. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Badbilltucker 00:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD for Council of Magickal Arts

Has anyone noticed the battle going on over at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Council_of_Magickal_Arts? I put this under the AfD section o the project page. I need some serious help over there, as every time I think I have a firm handle on a solid footing for notability, the deletionistas move the target. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 17:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Please fix typo

Would someone please fix the spelling of "February" in the Wheel of the Year graphic? It is missing an R. Thank you. KayDM 02:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Freya Aswynn entry - help please

I don't generally have interest in Neopagan related entries but after happening onto Freya Aswynn and noticing that as it existed this entry was basically an advertisement for the the author--filled with unverifiable information taken directly from her own website--I tried to get the creator interested in fixing it to no avail. Then, since the entry adds no verifiable information about who this author is nor, perhaps more importantly, why this author is even notable enough to have an entry I proposed deletion. This proposal was contested by an IP editor who also doesn't seem interested in explaining why the entry should exist. Instead of putting up an AFD I decided to post this message here in order to appeal to people with more knowledge on this matter. My concern is simply that Wikipedia isn't a forum to advertise book sales of any kind. Maybe people here can make the entry a worthwhile one. Thanks and best.PelleSmith 00:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Neopaganism/Archive_3&oldid=1136412678"