Talk:Neopaganism in Minnesota

Neopaganism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neopaganism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neopaganism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeopaganismWikipedia:WikiProject NeopaganismTemplate:WikiProject NeopaganismNeopaganism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Minnesota Low‑importance

	Minnesota portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Minnesota on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MinnesotaWikipedia:WikiProject MinnesotaTemplate:WikiProject MinnesotaMinnesota
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 20 May 2011. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

change

I changed bi-monthly to semi-monthly in the description of Coffee Cauldron. Bi-monthly means every two months. Semi-monthly means twice a month.

WikiFugue

WikiFugue (talk) 03:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

article problems

This article needs some work. It's too long and going in too many directions. Reading the article it appears to be trying to hard to convince the reader that the topic is notable. It also reads very promotionally and the citations are excessive. Most citations aren't referencing claims or other material in the article but simply providing external links for books or organizations and were simply reference spam.--RadioFan (talk) 02:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning out the author and book section as well as the list of groups helped a lot. These list made were very disjointed and disconnected from the rest of the article. The only references present there simply links to purchasing the books (e.g. from Amazon) or to the groups websites. This edit removed ~60 entries in the references section. Much better. Now for the remaining references, most of which are of unclear reliability (can someone help there?) and the rest of unreliable and self-published (blogs) --RadioFan (talk) 02:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you'll have noticed, I've tried to clean up the references a bit, hopefully it's a bit better now. Still a ways to go, but it's a start. Can we remove the "neutrality is disputed" banner? I think it's fairly neutral and factual in tone now. --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 21:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are still significant problems with this article but it is a bit better. Claims needed citations are tagged as are references that failed verification (i.e. the claim in the article is not supported by the reference) and a number of self-published sources have been tagged as well. If these reference problems aren't fixed, the material will be removed from the article. Since the article is actively being edited, that can hold off for a bit while references are improved.--RadioFan (talk) 12:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 1 link is broken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.195.4.240 (talk) 08:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

repeated tagging of sources

I have repeatedly referred to Wikipedia guidelines on sourcing, specifically that self-published sources may be used as references for themselves. Despite this, some other editors have been re-tagging sources that are clearly valid under this policy as questionable, saying that some sort of editorial disagreement allows them to keep questioning the validity of the sources. May I remind said editors that we all remain bound by Wikipedia's guidelines and policies despite any personal disagreements, and if an editor disagrees with a policy the correct procedure to join a discussion to change the policy, not to ignore it. --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not all editors agree with your view of the validity of these sources and have expressed concerns. This is under discussion in the AFD. Removing those tags doesn't resolve those concerns. The tags help identify the sources that are being questioned and help enable further discussion. Let's leave the tags there until the AFD is complete when they can then be removed.--RadioFan (talk) 15:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And as I keep pointing out, it doesn't matter who agrees on what, what matters is that we follow the policies as laid down by Wikipedia. According to those policies several sources that you have tagged as problematic are perfectly valid, and when I have pointed this out and removed the tags you have chosen to ignore the policy and retag the sources. Where sources have been truly questionable according to the guidelines I have left your tags in place. As it happens, I personally think that the PNC source is valid, but since I acknowledge that there's a case to be made there, I think it right that you question it, and more power to you. However Wikipedia policy states very clearly that self-published sources CAN be used as references about themselves, so even if you can make a case for tagging PNC when they are cited for info about others, there's no case to be made for tagging PNC when they are being used for info about themselves. --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 09:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published sources cannot be used if the information given is controversial or disputed in any way. Thus, if a company says on their website that they moved to the Twin Cities in 197x, that's fine. If they say they moved to Mpls in 1672; or that they are the biggest in their field, such claims need stronger sourcing than their own website. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History and Culture of Paganistan section

I would argue that the "History and Culture" section is the portion of this article needing the most clean up. The vast majority of it is subjective and reads more like an opinion piece than it does an encyclopedic article. PunkyMcPunkersen (talk) 22:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

page move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. Unanimous support. -- Hadal (talk) 08:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paganistan → Paganism in Minnesota –

It seems clear that many users who participated at the AFD agreed this is a notable topic but that it should probably not be under this name but rather a general article on the subject that could of course mention the "Paganistan" nickname. I've used one of the names suggested at the AFD for this proposal but Neopagans community in the Twin Cities region was also suggested. Thoughts? Beeblebrox (talk) 01:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support for Paganism in Minnesota, this broader title is most appropriate for the topic.--RadioFan (talk) 02:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctantly Agree As I already said in the Deletion Debate (where is that now? Is it deleted? Ironic if so.) I prefer Paganistan to stay and to have "Paganism in Minnesota" to redirect there. But if it is still a choice between deletion or move to "Paganism in Minnesota" I'll go with the move and then 'Paganistan' searches redirect to "Paganism in Minnesota". I can live with that. As a related aside it is important for everyone to know that persecution of witches and pagans just isn't happening in [Africa] but here as well, just not quite as bloody. We don't yet know the facts of this new case out of Seattle case but this magazine has already decided it's version of 'the Truth': http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/a_new_age_beyond_right_and_wrong/. What we do here is important and peoples lives may one day depend on it. Rev. Jack Green ( talk) 02:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a move will include a redirect from Paganistan to the new name. Actually a section on the phrase "Paganisatan"--RadioFan (talk) 03:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Paganisatan?Jdoggiedogg (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

(Meta) A typo… "Well isn't that special." :) —C.Fred (talk) 17:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can we stick to the subject here? Human rights abuse in Africa or Seattle or wherever has nothing to do with the naming of this article. Consensus is going to be difficult to achieve if we get off course again.--RadioFan (talk) 12:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support as a better title for the subject that better frames what's being covered. Although, after the move, this title should be kept as a redirect to the article. —C.Fred (talk) 02:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Rev Jack: Could we keep the hyperbole to a minimum please? It's a bit over the top to suggest that anyone's life depends on what we decide to name this article. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So "...may one day..." is not sufficient to reduce the hyperbolic to merely parabolic? What would be elliptical in this case? Rev. Jack Green ( talk) 07:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SARCASM isn't any more helpful than gross exaggeration. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep on task here. The discussion is on the article's name. --RadioFan (talk) 13:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would support nearly any article title over the current neologism, however my personal preference would be Minneapolis – Saint Paul neopagan community (or close approximation). The current lead states "Paganistan is the name some Neopagans in the USA use for Minnesota's Twin Cities region", with 'Minnesota's Twin Cities' piped to Minneapolis – Saint Paul. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which is also a good title, since it focuses on the community of neopagans in the Twin Cities. I say that because Neopaganism in the United States focuses on splitting up the various flavours/traditions of neopaganism rather than on geographic communitities. —C.Fred (talk) 15:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support My first preference is Paganism in Minnestota because of simplicity and inclusiveness but any neutral name not based on a neologism is acceptable to me. It is good to see signs of consensus emerging. Cullen328 (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Support The current article would make a fantastic article on Paganism in Minnesota, as its main focus seems to be on that topic and not on the term "Paganistan" itself. That term could most certainly be a good sub-section, but is not really something that could stand alone here on Wikipedia. It would also allow those of us interested in the subject of Paganism in Minnesota a chance to expand such an article onto local topics and subjects that couldn't be included in an article on Paganistan. PunkyMcPunkersen (talk) 22:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Support The Punkster and some other friends have convinced me and now trying to view this as as opportunity rather than a burden I can also see some positives not available under the old title. However, this bunch of newbies still felt very chewed on considering WP:BITE so please forgive my sarcasm, hyperbole, etc. Rev. Jack Green ( talk)02:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's give this another 24 hours before making the move, just to make sure.--RadioFan (talk) 02:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that, someone added the requested move template, we'll need to wait another 2 days before taking any action.--RadioFan (talk) 00:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be all nitpicky on you but the requested move template has been there all along [1] Beeblebrox (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't notice it before. I know that's how it's supposed to work by the book but I was still a bit surprised the template was added since a significant discussion had already taken place in the AFD and we were well on our way to consensus. I expected another couple days of discussion to make sure we were all reasonably on the same page here but not another 7 days. At any rate, it's almost over...--RadioFan (talk) 21:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions: (i) is there any evidence that neopagan activity extends significantly outside Minneapolis – Saint Paul to Minnesota more generally? (ii) Is there any reason to prefer "pagan" over "neopagan" -- the latter being used to distinguish the modern religious movements from the paganism of the ancient world (Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Norse, etc)? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two Answers Yes to both questions. 1) I personally know several outstate pagans but if you want a link for a rough survey you can go here: http://www.witchvox.com/vn/hm/usmn.html If you look along the left side of the page you can see how many adults and groups live in what areas of the state and in the metro are. Since most pagans don't register with Witchvox (my wife and I are exceptions, we are listed under 'family groups' - Hollow Hills Coven and Grove) for fear of persecution especially in small towns choose your multiplier. My guess is very roughly 10 to 20x in the metro areas and 20 to 30x outstate. 2) Neo-pagan is the older pop term for the new pagans of the revival and now Anthropologists and Sociologists are preferring to use 'Contemporary Pagan' as a general term because 'Pagan' still generally means not Christian, Jew or Muslim, that is any non-Abrahamic religion which is of course the vast majority of them across the planet. Thus all local Native American Traditions (mainly Ojibwe and Dakota) are also 'Contemporary Pagans' not to mention modern reconstructionists of the traditions you listed as are immigrant Hindus, Buddhists, Japanese Shintoist, African Tribal, etc., etc., etc. Does that help? Rev. Jack Green ( talk) 19:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think we have a reasonable consensus to move this article tomorrow to Paganism in Minnesotta. The move has unanimous support here and the name appears to be satisfactory to nearly all who have participated in this discussion or the AFD. any last minute objections?--RadioFan (talk) 21:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

where did the interest in this article go?

There was a lot of interest in this article when it was up for deletion and even when the article name was being considered. 2 months have gone by with essentially no activity on this article. There are still concerns about neutrality,(a great deal of concern about neutrality) inappropriate synthesis of opinion and use of self-published sources. If those sections cant be improved, they will have to be removed. Does anyone still care about this article?--RadioFan (talk) 14:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still care about it, and have mostly been hacking away at this article's issues in my sandbox. Sorry, but I was without internet for a while, so my cleanup of this article waned a bit. Mind you, there's so much that needs cleanup that it's hard to do it all in the mainspace copy of this article, so I've mostly been sandboxing my changes first. PunkyMcPunkersen (talk) 19:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please WP:BEBOLD--RadioFan (talk) 19:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. Now that I have the internet again, I'll hack away at this more. Don't worry. PunkyMcPunkersen (talk) 11:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On that note, however, I could always use a good Devil's advocate to critique this article for me. After all, I may not be able to find all the (albeit massive) issues with the article myself. PunkyMcPunkersen (talk) 11:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned user draft

Please would an interested editor assess the material added at User:Rev. Jack Green/sandbox, incorporate what is useful, blank that WP:COPYARTICLE, and leave a note here when done? – Fayenatic London 23:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it needs to be blanked, but I also don't see anything of value there for the current article in the sourcing. Suriname0 (talk) 14:30, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 March 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. (non-admin closure) Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 07:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neopaganism in Minnesota → Modern paganism in Minnesota – Consitency with Modern paganism and spread pages such as Modern paganism in the United Kingdom and Modern paganism in Scandinavia. Ingwina (talk) 08:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)— Relisting. >>> Extorc.talk 08:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 06:55, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not sure that Modern paganism is located at the correct title. Looking at the Google Ngrams it looks like "neopaganism" is much more common of a term. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, due to WP:PRECISION; and as I argue at Talk:Modern paganism#Requested move 24 March 2023, that title also should go back to "neo-paganism": there are "modern pagans" who are NOT "neo-pagans"... but these articles' topics are the latter. Also, concur with Rreagan007. – _•Raven ^.talk 07:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Neopaganism has been notified of this discussion. ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 06:54, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Minnesota has been notified of this discussion. ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 06:55, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support for consistency and per nom. The RM for Modern paganism was closed; it was not moved to "Neo...". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.