Talk:Feri Tradition/Archive 1

Untitled
Should this article be tagged for cleanup? The Jade Knight 08:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

19 Aug 2006
Hey Faerywolf! Great to see your new edits on the page - it's very good to have a real specialist here. My only concern is that we might have a potential conflict of interests at hand. Are you Storm Faerywolf of feritradition.org? If so, we may have to remove some of this because of Wikipedia's policy on no original research. It's great that so much is cited now, but it would be nice to have more material from a place other than this one source, particularly if you are that source. Thanks! --TurabianNights 04:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Back again! Do you suppose we could pare down the external links? There are an awful lot of them, and many of them are easily accessible by googling "feri tradition"... there probably doesn't need to be such a laundry list here. Also, do we really need to cover all the people in "History and Lines"? Some, like Anaar and Thorn Coyle, seem rather minor here.--TurabianNights 04:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Sept 4, 2006
Yes, that's me. I didn't realize the policy but that makes sense. I liked your changes. Please feel free to pare down or cut out entirely whatever seems redundant, unnecessary, or conflicts with Wikipedia policies. I would argue, however, that neither Anaar or Thorn Coyle are all that minor, but your mileage may vary. ;) --Faerywolf

Editing suggestions
The way it reads, it implies that Starhawk was a student of Victor and Cora's but not their initiate; but she's an initiate and has initiated other people into the tradition. Also, Tony Spurlock says that his "line" isn't a separate tradition at all (per his website). I don't think "most Feris" would think that it was, necessarily. I'm not sure how to fix those things without some major rearranging. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mabonwy (talk • contribs) 22:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I added in that Starhawk used to be a Feri initiate, since she has now "turned" to Reclaiming. Not sure if that is grammatically correct. Disinclination (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Once an initiate, always an initiate: Victor said that only the Gods can undo an initiation. It's possible to focus on other things (as Starhawk has done with Reclaiming--though her Feri background continues, with other things, to inform her Reclaiming practice). It's possible to abandon one's practice altogether. Neither of these acts undoes an initiation.Valerie voigt (talk) 21:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Valerie_Voigt

Edit
I have just removed a paragraph from the Reclaiming Feri bullet point, under the Lines and Teachers of Feri section. I would like some discussion before it is put back as I don't believe it to be true, and reads like it was written by someone with a large axe to grind. It was as follows:

"Some controversy exists regarding this mixed lineage, as certain concepts (such as the Three Hearts as opposed to the Black Heart of Innocence) are not derived from Anderson Feri," Controversy? Really? Where? The Black Heart of Innocence *is* included in the concept of the three hearts, with an addition of a further two hearts. Many initiates have added their own teachings to Feri, where is the controversy?

"and there is less emphasis on secrecy, mystery and mastery." Says who? I'm an initiate of this line, these things were very much emphasised in the teaching I received.

"In addition, members of this mixed lineage may be initiated very early, or even before, their deeper Feri studies and practices; this stands in contrast to the years of work that may be required by other lines before initiation is considered." The key words here are "may be". Some lines initiate into Feri right away (as noted under "Vicia", one very well known line may wait 5 to 7 years or more but do all? From what I've been told by those who knew them, Victor and Cora initiated at different stages. Why exactly is Reclaiming Feri being singled out for this? And FYI I don't know anyone who initiated very early in Reclaiming Feri.

So, who wants to discuss this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casper 100 1 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Three souls
I have just removed two words - the Egyptians - from the sentence that the Feri belief in three souls is related or similar to a more ancient belief. The Kemitic Egyptians believed they had nine souls (see for instance Budge, E.A.Wallis, The book of the Dead, Penguin Arkana 1989 ed, pp lxv-lxx in case anyone is interested). The sentence was unsourced so I am unsure whether it is the primary Feri author(s) who believe the Kemitic religion features only 3 souls, or whether this represents the belief of the editor who added that sentence. If the first, then something on the lines of "which they also believe to be true of the Egyptians" could be added with a source. If the second, it is original research and should not have been included to start with. It would be helpful to source the reference to Mystic Judaism, to confirm that this comes out of Feri beliefs, and hasn't been added as original research. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Lack of reliable sources
While I am a pagan I am not of the Feri tradition, so I don't know whether everyone at the burgeoning list of teachers is equally notable. However I am concerned that all of the references to them are, as far as I can see, to unreliable sources such as their own sites, other people websites etc. There are none to books, newspaper articles, journals or in dependent sources. I hesitate to take a broom to the section as people have obviously put a lot of work into it but really at the moment it strikes me as unencyclopaedic. Could we either get some good citations in here or have a clear-out? Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk)  20:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * A quick further note to alert anyone who has an interest in this topic and the article on their watchlist. I do fear that this article is seriously short of good sources - there are few of any kind, and those that are present do not seem solid to me. So in a few days I am going to remove the unsourced parts of the article, particularly those relating to named individuals. I will do my best to find some better sources but if they existed I guess they would have been invoked by now. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  11:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I have removed some of the unsourced material from the page - I do think the list of publications and some of the external links are possibly also a little unencyclopaedic but I'll wait and see what people make of my removals so far! Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  13:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It's been a long time since this problem of sources has ben named but we still don't have much of a solution! There has been a lot of new material just added which may be accurate (I don't know, not being of the tradition) but for which there is no sourcing. None of it on its own is particularly contentious but it's not really feasible to keep adding material which has no source. Anyone have any ideas how to solve this? Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  11:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 15:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)