Talk:Reclaiming (Neopaganism)/Archive 1

Removing the "critique" section
Hi,

I removed the critique section for several reason. Firstly, it seems a bit silly that over half the article, and the only main section, would be solely criticism of Reclaiming. This seems clearly unbalanced.

Secondly, there were no citations, and as such it was all original research. The whole thing appeared to be more of a personal biased rant than a constructive impartial and encyclopedic input.

"Reclaiming paganism endures some critique from other neopagan groups and individual neopagans" - which ones? This clearly falls under Avoid weasel words

"Reclaiming authors and thinkers (such as Starhawk) cast men in a predominantly negative, simplistic, or even misandronist, ways, particularly in their earlier writings" - if this is the case, it shouldn't be all that hard to provide a source from these writings, should it?

"Another is that standards of conduct are at times unevenly applied to men and women, such that men are held to higher standards at most events and must be more circumspect in their participation in ritual and community activities." - this is a biased and unencyclopedic statement, most likely based on the author's experience. Other people have had widely differing experiences.

Most, if not all of this section goes against Wikipedia's policy on original research: Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.

Regards, --IronChris |  (talk) 18:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

"of women and men"
Can we delete this phrase? It seems sort of redundant. On the other hand, if this is some kind of quote from their principles or something, maybe we should mark it somehow. &mdash;Ashley Y 08:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Reclaiming has, as is written in the article, roots in the Dianic tradition of Zsuzsanna Budapest, which only works with woman, and in feminism. As such it might be assumed by the reader, it would be a women-only organisation, if men are not mentioned explicitely. --79.213.64.32 (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC), Nikolai Pretzell