Talk:Silver RavenWolf

message: This article is presented in biased terms. I have no direct interest in the subject matter, but would suggest for those who are, that in order to qualify for NPOV the article be re-written with an eye for more balanced language. LeFlyman 02:58, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not seeing it.  The entire article is unreferenced ("best-selling", "some more traditionalist witches"), which seems to me a verifiability problem, not a NPOV problem.  What exactly are you concerned about?  Jkelly 05:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Take a look at what the article was like when I put up the note. It's better now; however, this uncited sentence is problematic, as it reads like Original Research: "Despite, or perhaps because of, her relative popularity many of the more traditionalist Wiccans take issue with Ravenwolf's claims and interpretations, labeling her a fluffy bunny, and often leading to accusations of posing as a high priestess to cash in on the religion." One critical Web page doesn't qualify as a verifiable source of "many of the more traditionalist" -- the use of which is what's known as "Weasel Words" - LeFlyman 18:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

text: A quick search on most pagan boards online would reveal that Ms. Ravenwolf is indeed generally thought of in this manner. As a practicing Wiccan, I can say that, from my general suspicion, she dramatacises and skews aspects of the religion to better market her book at a young 'rebellion' type audience: anyone with more of a grounding in, say Gardnerian Wicca, would claim that a lot of her rituals are pointless mumbo-jumbo. The distinction may not seem that big to non-wiccans, but she is generally not regarded as an authoratative source on the religion. She is (unfortunately imo) very well-selling though, especially in the US. I'll avoid making major edits because of POV, just adding my two pence. Will correct some spelling though. --KharBevNor 01:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It seems amusing that a Gardnerian Wiccan would suggest that anyone's rituals are "pointless mumbo-jumbo", as many (includng myself) feel the same about that tradition's rituals. In any case, this article ought not to be simple opinion, pro or con. This is an encyclopedia. Docrailgun 09:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  As far as I can tell from hanging around in alt.religion.asatru it seems many think almost everything published by Llewellyn Publications is badly researched "fluffy bunny" stuff. // Liftarn 15:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Thinking on it though, it's pretty NPOV to note that many dislike her attitude to other religions. --KharBevNor 01:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that's an example of a POV statement. Use of an unqualified and unsourced statement such as "many dislike..." is, as I note above, a "weasel word"  To be truly NPOV, you need to find a Verifiable publication/media (not just someone's personal Web site) source which you can reference. LeFlyman 03:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I note that the article now closely resembles an anti-Ravenwolf personal essay.  Even if it is the case that we do not have a single editor on Wikipedia that thinks highly of her, surely we can find someone, somewhere that we can use as a reliable source for information about Ravenwolf that is not solely a criticism of her writing / religious beliefs / publishing arrangements.  Jkelly 18:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't a criticism her writing abilities, her beliefs, or her publisher, this is a criticism of the factual inaccuracy of her books. --68.109.185.29 03:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Straw polls are the very definition of 'original research', though.  The plain fact is that Silver Ravenwolf's works face criticism for their content.  We should be able to say at least that much without risking a POV violation. 70.66.215.159 (talk) 01:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: i beleive that siver ravenwolf is exaderatory and lies quite a bit as well as makes the rest of the wiccan religion look bad, she calims that almost nine million wiccans were killed during the burning times, i beleive that would have majorly affected modern society today, wer would not have as many people. there is no need for her the exagerate like that, is a "mere" 60,000 lives lost not truamatic enough for her?
Cocacolafreak 06:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you're assuming the Burning Times were restricted to North America, the 'nine million' figure is not only wildly inaccurate, but totally impossible (the Salem trials occurred in 1692-93, and the Thirteen Colonies had an estimated population of 874,000 as of 1700).  In the three-hundred-year span of the European trials, scholarly estimates range from 40,000 to 50,000 executions.  At most, there were only about two hundred people killed in the Salem trials (which is still a lot for a one-year period, just nowhere near 'nine million'). 24.108.102.4 (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  about silver ravenwolf in general 

message: My apologies for the use of the word "official" for the Gerald Gardner site;it was a semantical error. It was also not my intention to be argumentative--but authoritative, as I am a teacher. Thank you for your kind comments.Toronto Scholar 09:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thank you 

message: I'm trying to find my source on the matter, but prior to the works that have made her well known within the neopagan community did she not run a small newspaper for the neopagan community, and supposedly fight for the rights of pagans in her community?  As I can clarify that source I'll be sure to edit it in.  Sethimothy 21:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ravenwolf's Career

message: There are a range of Wikipedia sources that can help you out. All articles must meet WP:V. To learn how to a proper citing style, consult WP:CITE. For what kind of external links are acceptable, WP:EL is a useful set of guidelines.  Good luck!  GBYork 18:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To upgrade article 

message: It is uncivil and improper and does not assume good faith. MaxReg 02:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your sources are inadequate for an article about a living person. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies, especially WP:LIVING, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:EL. In particular, articles on personal websites and articles by anonymous or non-notable individuals may not be used as criticism of a living person. The only sources which may be used for criticism of a living person would be books published by a reputable publisher, reputable journals, well-known newspapers and magazines. The sources you have used don't qualify, and per WP:LIVING must be reverted as quickly as possible. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 14:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please address criticisms of Silver RavenWolf other than by reverting  

message: The following may not be used as sources of criticism:
*Amateur reviews on Amazon
*Personal websites
*Websites on "free" services such as Freeweb, Geocities, etc.
*Blogs or forums of any sort.
The sources of criticism must be both reliable (i.e. not self-published, but published by a reputable publisher), and written by someone who is actually notable. Personal essays, forum content, blog entries, amateur book reviews, etc. do not qualify as sources and in the case of a living person, may not even be linked to from this article. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 19:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources for criticism

message: I would like to suggest that this page be re-organised with a list of books written by Silver, if there are no objections i can begin as soon as i get a list together myself.
Grey witch 22:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. Stylewise, the correct method is to add a section titled Bibliography to the end of the article (but before See also, Notes, References and External links. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought a bibliography would only be the title if we had references from the books? Not if we were just listing the titles of books she had written? Grey witch 13:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. on Wikiepdia, that's called "References" - a list of an author's works is titled "Bibliography". Ekajati (yakity-yak) 18:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok then thanks for your help. Grey witch 20:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem... Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I edited this down to "She is married and has four children." for the reasons stated.  If someone knows when she was married, it may be worth mentioning the year and possibly the spouse.  I have no personal interest in this subject so I won't be doing additional research, but the change made sense. James A. Stewart (talk) 06:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: Is the personal site of Catherine Noble Beyer, see . As such, it is self-published critcism and cannot be used. It could only be used if it were published by a reputable third party. Thanks. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhm, we're citing Silver RavenWolf's personal site, why can't we link a prominent critic's personal site?  She's a published writer who's gotten her work through peer review; it's not some kid on geocities.  I've readded both links. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 10:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  wicca.timerift.net 

message: I've reverted this attempt to introduce individual's negative screeds disguised as "external links". The first link substitution said it went to the Serpentstone Family website, but the substituted link went to an article by a detractor called "Tarnished Silver". The two additional links went to a couple of blogs. This info is not appropriate in the section called "external links", and is contrary to WP:Bio in any case. This has all been discussed on this very page; I particularly refer you to the section marked "Sources for Criticism" above. This was just a sneaky way of trying to circumvent prior action by an unidentified one-shot editor with a problem with the subject of the article.Rosencomet (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: This article is basically short and to the point. It is objective in that it simply presents factual information: who she is, what she does, her marital/parentage status, the fact she has written books, a list of those books, citations to support all that, and similar data. I believe this is all the subject merits and all that is encyclopedic.
The attempt to interject a section consisting of some people's negative opinions of her, or controversies railed about on blogs by her detractors, would be NON-encyclopedic, and would not only have no place in this article but would be a violation of the instructions at the top of this very page. The same would be true of a section entitled "Praises of Silver Ravenwolf" featuring the positive assessments of her fans as written on THEIR blogs. Wikipedia articles are not forums for subjective arguments between individuals about the value of the subjects, but just factual references about the subject. Save the screeds for other forums; there are plenty. Neither criticisms nor praises belong here, IMO. Rosencomet (talk) 03:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: The Article Thus Far

message: Sorry I didn't leave an explanation, but if you view the history, you'll see this has happened several times: a single-topic unidentified editor drops the same bunch of blog-referenced negative material in as a "criticism" section. Your assessment is quite correct, IMO; thanks, User:Asarelah, for looking twice.Rosencomet (talk) 23:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: "Criticism" Section 

message: This sounds an awful lot like something I read on the talk page for the 'Wicca' article -- user Xglenxx made the claim that 'according to Trad Wiccan law, then if you're not Alexandrian or Gardnerian initiated, then you're not Wiccan - you're Neo-Wiccan'.  I certainly don't consider myself 'neo-Wiccan', and I find that to be rather POV.  I can stand to be corrected on this, though, so...correct away!  207.6.145.129 (talk) 16:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:Verify, I've been removing the 'neo' prefix wherever I can find it; we don't refer to Catholics or Anglicans as 'neo-Christians', so (until supporting evidence is presented) we shouldn't refer to non-Gardnerian Wiccan paths as 'neo-Wiccan'. 24.108.102.4 (talk) 12:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: NeoWiccan 

message: How does the subject of this article meet the Wikipedia notability guideline for notability of people? I'm not seeing much on this article that is independant, third party material from quality reliable sources which establishes actual notability. The material may be out there, somewhere, but it's not currently in the article. -- 155.95.90.245 (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe she comes under the criteria in WP:AUTHOR. She is a significant author for one of the major publishing houses in the Metaphysics, New Age and Occult field. The sourcing is the problem, however, I will agree. She is also notable for many of the areas of discussion on this page, most of which do not meet WP standards for inclusion. Ashareem (talk) 10:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability

message: Since my BLPPROD was contested on the grounds that there's a valid reference given, might I suggest turning this reference into an inline citation? This is what got me confused the first time. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 22:50, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi, have done so- it needs more refs that are reliable sources though, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  De-prod