Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neopaganism/Archive 4

Archive of discussion from the WP:WPN talk page, February 23, 2007 to November 15, 2007.

Request for Comment: Merging A.C.E. and WinterStar stubs into Starwood article

Talk:Starwood Festival#Request for Comment: Merging WinterStar and A.C.E. articles into Starwood article - Should the Starwood Festival, Association for Consciousness Exploration and WinterStar Symposium articles be merged into one? A.C.E. is the organization that runs the Starwood and WinterStar festivals. The discussion is taking place on the Starwood article talk page. We could use some more eyes on this. Thanks! :-) ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Internal Alchemy

Anyone willing to help out in expanding internal alchemy, or add a neopagan perspective? Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Vassyana 13:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Category: Neo-Pagan festivals

I don't know how to contribute to a page set up the way this category page is. I placed a list of many Neo-Pagan festivals I know about on the talk page, if anyone would like to reference it. Some of them deserve their own articles, but they all deserve to be included in a list. Unless a category page is just for article links, in which case I suppose they belong in an article called "List of Neo-Pagan Festivals". Rosencomet 22:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I just created List of Neo-Pagan festivals and events. Feel free to add to it, create notable articles to link there, and add categories. In some cases, I linked the event to the organization that runs it (if there was no separate article for the event). Rosencomet 22:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The category page is an automatically generated list of all the articles that have been placed in Category:Neopagan festivals by placing [[Category:Neopagan festivals]] at the end of the article. - AdelaMae ^{(t - c - wpn)} 20:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the info. I see the page I created has already been added to the list. Rosencomet 01:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Assessing articles for importance

I've gone through and roughly categorized the articles tagged with the WikiProject Neopaganism template by "importance". You can see a bot-generated table of these assessments, with links to the corresponding categories, at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Neopaganism/Assessment. What I had in mind when I was doing the assessments wasn't so much importance as priority - now I think we have a rough idea of which high-profile articles are most in need of work. For example, none of the articles categorized as Top-importance is rated higher than B-class, and two of the six (Ásatrú and Neo-druidism) are only Start-class. Several of the High-importance articles are even stubs! Anyway, if you see a categorization you disagree with, please change it; I went through the articles pretty fast and I know there are bound to be some errors of judgment. Most of all, though, please take a look at the lovely assessment table and see if there's an article there that could use a little bit of help from someone with your unique knowledge and expertise. - AdelaMae ^{(t - c - wpn)} 03:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Did I Go Too Quickly?

i've nominated Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism over at Wikipedia:Good_article_candidates#Philosophy_and_religion. is there some part of the process i might have missed? Whateley23 07:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW vs BTW

Recently someone slimmed down the task list by redirecting British Traditional Witchcraft to British Traditional WIcca. They're two different things, as is shown in the discussion page for the latter article. But, hey, I'm not going to unilaterally just change it back, that would be precipitous.--Vidkun 13:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• That was me. I realise that strictly speaking this is a valid point - of course Wicca and witchcraft are not identical. But in practice, when people talk about British Traditional Witchcraft, they are talking about covens and individuals tracing a line of descent from Gerald, Alex etc - in other words Wicca! I will look at the talk page for British Traditional Wicca and see if I'm persuaded. But the fact that the British Traditional Witchcraft request hasd been unanswered for so long suggests to me that this is a distinction without a difference! Kim dent brown 16:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Across the pond (UK) it's a distinction WITH a difference. BTW in the UK means the NOT-Wicca Traditional groups that practice initiatory Witchcraft. Over there, BTWicca is just called Wicca, because the "Wicca is whatever you want to call it" groups/attitude inspired by Llewellyn books has not taken off. Those who would call themselves Wiccan in America, who aren't BTWicca, are simply called Pagans in the UK. Citations? I don't have 'em.--Vidkun 16:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree with you about UK usage: I live here and have yet to hear anyone ever using the phrase! We DO talk about Traditional, Family and Initiatory lines, but would talk about Traditionals, not British Traditional Witches. You're right, what in the US call themselves wiccans, in the UK would call mostly themselves pagans. I suggest we leave the redirect as it is for now until someone comes up with distinct content for a page called British Traditional Witchcraft. Kim dent brown 16:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• And this explains why citations are always needed. My UK sources told me differently than your firsthand experience. So, for now, I agree, the redirect should stay (I don't have any sourcing other than personal observations from others), but, as you see on the British Traditional Wicca talk page, there are others who disagree.--Vidkun 16:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks Vidkun. If I can find any citeable sources to back up my personal experience, I'll try and insert them at an appropriate pace. I don't think the views of the one contributor on the British Traditional Wicca talk page should be taken seriously. His edit history shows no interest in Wicca but plenty of vandalism/general misbehaviour. Kim dent brown 11:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Portals

I was noticing we have a Wicca portal, but not a Neopagan one. As many Reconstructionist traditions are not all that comfortable with being identified as Neopagan (even if it is a technically accurate descriptor), I'm wondering if there would be any interest in putting together a Polytheism portal? Perhaps it could cover both ancient, traditional and reconstructionist polytheistic traditions? Or is that too broad? Anyone interested on working on such a thing? My WP time is limited right now - I'm very busy with offline work - but I would be interested in participating in putting something like that together, if there's enough interest. Thoughts? - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Creating a guideline that applies to all religous articles

Please discuss this in a discussion here--Sefringle 03:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

New project proposal

There is a new WikiProject task force proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Inter-religious content that is being proposed to deal specifically with articles whose content relates to several religious traditions. Any editors interested in joining such a group would be more than welcome to indicate their interest there. John Carter 15:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Neopaganism/References

I have added a page here with a link from the main project page, which I hope may be useful. I am aware that several editors have their own custom-made reference lists for easy pasting and insertion of references into article and it occurred to me that if we were to amalgamate these we could save one another a lot of time.

It's quite possible that the format in which I have written this is not the most elegant or efficient (not being the smartest knife in the Wiki-drawer when it comes to code.) If anyone can improve on the format please do.

Please go ahead and start to add references here for our mutual article-writing pleasure! Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 10:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Circle Sanctuary article

This topic has been discussed at the Neopaganism talk page: an article with this name has been drafted but speedily deleted (or AfD'd, I'm not sure which). I've set up a drafting page here which will let us assemble a good-looking, well-referenced article so that we can release it into the mainspace with a chance of surviving. I'm happy to 'host' the page but have no knowledge of Circle Sanctuary myself, so will rely on others with more knowledge for material! Please come and join us if you would like to. Many thanks, Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 09:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I've asked Majorly to consider undeleteing the article (speedied for lack of claims of notability), so we'll see what happens next. Per my conversation with Majorly, he has agreed to let me undelete the article so the wikiproject can work on cleaning it up. Good luck! -- nae'blis 15:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent news. I'll see if I can add/migrate the draft page we were working on right now. Many thanks for your help! —comment added by Kim dent brown^(t/c) 10:47:45

Requested articles on Neo-pagan festivals.

On the Category talk:Neopagan festivals page, it was requested that the following articles be created:

• Ancient Ways; Apple Valley Heathen Gathering;
• CAW-Con; Celebrate Samhain; Celebrate the Spirit;
• Desert Magic Festival
• Fall Festival & Druid Gathering ; FireDance; FireTribe; ForestDance; Free Spirit Gathering;
• Gathering of the Tribes; Gnosticon; Goddess Gathering;
• Harvest Home Gathering;
• MayFire; Merrymeet; Midnight Flame Festival;
• Pagan Pride; Pan Pagan Festival; PantheaCon;
• Rites of Spring;
• Sirius Rising; Spirit Fire; Summerland Gathering;
• Three Realms: A Pacific Druid Festival; Trillium Spring Gathering;
• Wellspring Gathering; Wic-Can Fest; The Witches' Ball;

Any help in creating these would be extremely welcome. John Carter 14:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Are these FAs appropriate?

Thanks Warlordjohncarter for your activity on the Project - I'm just raising a slight question mark. I've looked at the article on Halloween II that you added to the project's FA list. Searching the text of the article for either 'pagan' or 'neopagan' comes up with precisely one hit - in a reference at the foot of the page. Nor is there any eliptical reference to neopaganism in the text of the article as a whole. Under the circumstances, and given many neopagans' discomfort with the schlock surrounding the commercialised festival, do other people have any similar doubts abpout this and the other three articles on the Halloween films? Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 17:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, they were only added because of their being included in one of the subcategories of Halloween. And, actually, all the Halloween films, and the Simpsons Halloween specials and others, were included. The basis for inclusion is that, based on my own personal experience, a lot of these works will make specific references to specific traditions, rituals, etc. (generally historic rather than current) which might not be known by even many of the people in the Horror project, and on that basis the articles might be less complete than they could otherwise be. I myself have reservations about a lot of them, but don't necessarily have the direct knowledge to be able to judge the appropriateness of inclusion in each specific case. Clearly, any and all members are free to reverse any actions I have taken. As my primary interest right now is making a list of all the religion-related GAs, FAs, and 1.0 selections, I don't think I'll be likely to revert any of them, if good reason which doubtless exists in several of these instances is supplied. John Carter 17:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks John, I understand that this is part of a larger project you're engaged on. I think under the circumstances I will in fact take the bold plunge and remove the three Halloween films and the Simpsons episode from the FA lists. As you say, these four articles at present say nothing whatever about neopaganism, although of course if this changed they might become appropriate in the future. Halloween is NOT a neopagan festival, and if we were to bring all articles that mentioned it into the ambit of this WikiProject I think we'd be extending the project's scope far too wide. I see that Septegram has made a similar query on your talk page about the Simpsons episode, so it doesn't feel like this is just me, but it would be good if any other editors active on the project could give feedback about whether these articles should or should not come within the scope of the Project. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 11:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that these films should not. rather than being about neopaganism, they simply use pop-culture ideas of occultism, satanism etc as plot devices. Basically they are not serious treatments of the topic. We might as well include the Star Trek episode Catspaw if we're going that way. Totnesmartin, 17 July 2007

I'm afraid I must concur. While I respect Lord Dotar Sojat, I think the rationale for including these items is a bit strained and could, as I mentioned on my Talk page, lead to all sorts of peripherally-relevant, barely-relevant, or not-really-at-all-relevant stuff getting added if people followed John Carter's lead without appropriate restraint.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 13:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

No disagreement, like I said. However, I think under the circumstances we might want to change the categorization of the Category:Halloween, which is right now clearly a subcat of Category:Neopagan holidays, because as is all those articles would seemingly clearly be within the scope of the project on the basis of the status as a subcategory. Maybe drop the category Halloween from the Neopagan holidays category, and just keep the main Halloween article itself within that category? Also, you might want to review the articles which are all already in the Category:Neopaganism, as in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Neopaganism/Articles page, to see if there are any others which might be less than relevant to the project. I know I haven't assessed all the articles yet, but if you feel hesitant about assessing any yourself, just place the {{WikiProject Neopaganism}} on the article talk page and I'm fairly sure one of the other members will be able to assess the article. Alternately, let me know which categories have their subcat status changed, and I can remove the banners from the articles in those categories. Lastly (I hope) part of the purpose of what I'm trying to do is let each project know which of their articles have already been selected in release versions of wikipedia by the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team, and, by extension, which haven't. If there are articles which you all believe would be required for any real encyclopedia to contain which haven't been selected for inclusion by the 1.0 Editorial Team, please indicate as much below and I can at least nominate them. You might want to review Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria to know the basis for selection before you do so. John Carter 17:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, John Carter. You raise a good point: should Halloween stay under "Neopagan Holidays," or should that just be Samhain? I'm not willing to make a fiat decision on this. How says the room?

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 19:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

(undent) I don't think Halloween should be included. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Good question John Carter. My own twopence worth is that Samhain is a Neopagan holiday but Halloween is not. On that basis I'd vote for the latter to be removed from Category:Neopagan holidays. Not that we vote on these things, of course... Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 21:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious whether you all think that Category:Gorseddau might not be rather inappropriate for this project as well, particularly it's subcats. John Carter 16:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

For me, while Category:Gorseddau is not appropriate for this project the parent Category:Druidry is appropriate - containing as it does other articles and subcategories of central Neopagan concern. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 19:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm in the process of removing the banner from all the articles in the Category:Halloween and its subcats which aren't explicitly tied to specific neopagan activity, the same for Category:Gorseddau. However, I think (can't be sure) that possibly some of the Halloween articles might relate to neopaganism. Someone might want to go through them and check to see if there are any that they think belong to this project. I suppose we could create a separate Category:Samhain for such articles. I would appreciate input on the Category:Germanic mysticism and its subcats and maybe Category:Witchcraft, which right now is separate from the neopaganism category, but the subcat Category:Wicca is currently included. John Carter 20:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merger

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Germanic Mysticism is currently inactive, and seems to deal with a small subsection of the neopaganism articles. On that basis, I think it makes sense to merge the two groups, possibly turning the above group into a subproject of this one. John Carter 21:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Totnesmartin 15:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

I did not see an appropriate section on User:NeoFreak/list, to which the main WikiProject page directs persons for deletion notifications. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• 29 August - expires 3 September
  • Candlelight Spells (PROD by User:EAEB; "Candlelight Spells: The Modern Witch's Book of Spellcasting, Feasting and Natural Healing is a non-fiction book by American author, Gerina Dunwich.") --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Sons of the Goddess (PROD by User:EAEB; "Sons Of The Goddess (ISBN 0-7387-0547-0) is a book by Christopher Penczak and a men's guide to Wiccan practices.") --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The Magick of Candleburning (PROD by User:EAEB; "The Magick of Candleburning (ISBN 0-8065-1141-9) is a non-fiction book by American author, Gerina Dunwich.") --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • To Light a Sacred Flame (PROD by User:EAEB; "To Light A Sacred Flame: Practical Witchcraft for the Millennium (Llewellyn, 2002) is the third in a series of Wiccan books by author Silver RavenWolf that introduce the religion.") --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You can just add prods as a bulleted list under that heading, above or below the link to NeoFreak's page. That's what the project has done before, but I guess we hit a spell where we didn't have any prods and the format got lost. - AdelaMae ^{(t - c - wpn)} 05:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The Druid Network

This article's notability has been in question since December. Is it notable? Totnesmartin 15:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Changes to Polytheistic reconstructionism and Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism

dab has been recently doing some extensive overhauls and changes to Polytheistic reconstructionism, Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism and List of Neopagan movements among other neopagan articles. I'm concerned because there seems to be POV pushing in these efforts, imposing his beliefs and opinions upon the articles. Mostly I think it would be helpful to have more eyes on the articles so it would be great if people checked in on them and voiced an opinion. I'm not soliciting anyone for a particular position, I just want more eyes and opinions about the situation. Thanks, Pigman^what?/trail 22:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

These are not areas in which I'm an expert, but I've had a look at the diffs from all three pages, before and after dab's edits and can't see any POV pushing myself - though this may just be my ignorance. However if you (or anyone else) can - why not be bold and improve the edits yourself? With sources if you have them? However I will keep the pages on my watchlist... Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 10:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! Perhaps it isn't obvious but my biggest complaint was his attempt to impose a strictly rigid (and IMO) artificial division of reconstructionism and folk religion. Not that they aren't different but overlapping qualities shared by both didn't seem to fit with his ideas. This continues to play out but we're apparently finding middle ground for the discussion. Pigman^what?/trail 20:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Move "Germanic Neopaganism" to "Heathenism"

We're talking about this issue here. --Esimal 08:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

4.5 million (1990) to 10 million (2000s) Neopagans in the US

• David Waldron. Witchcraft for Sale! Commodity vs. Community in the Neopagan Movement. Nova Religio. August 2005, Vol. 9, No. 1.

Could someone read the study and prove the accuracy of this statement? --Esimal 18:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The study is refering to the number of Pagan related books sold (ie 10 million) up from 4.5 million in 1990 as reported by the American Book sellers association and was used to reflect the size of the growing neo-Pagan publishing industry. It has nothing to do with the numbers of American Pagans and critiques the two aforementioned figures on the basis that it is very hard to classify exactly what defines a Pagan product.