Talk:Modern paganism

message: Regarding this edit to the lead (and similar). In its fullness, the statement that would be added is not supported by citation. The statement is not a key point that would belong in the lead (MOS:LEADREL).  It is a POV. The addition fails WP:WEIGHT. There is a WP:ONUS.  In the light of the recent RM, the edit wcould appear to be Wikipedia:Gaming the system and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:41, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You've made 0 edits to this page aside from these reverts. An attempt to address your initial round of concerns was met with summary reversion. You've only provided WP:LAWYERING, and frankly accusatory, edit summaries. You make accusations of wp:gaming, but your edits could be read equally that way as protecting the MR you recently 'won.' You're now claiming authority on what is (or should be) both a "key point" of the article and legitimate sources, based on... no edit history that shows knowledge of the subject. It is already a topic with its own sub-heading. Given that the decapitalization of Paganism on wikipedia was sufficient to trigger an editorial in one of the most well-known news source for the Pagan community, maybe that is, or should be, a more significant point in the article. You reverted an edit where I changed words like "most" and to "some" rather than just adding  or  and called it "gaming the system." You've sought to place the onus for work entirely on others while feeling free to simply revert without contributing any actual effort at finding consensus or compromise, let alone providing any addition or improvement to the article. I'm not trying to "right great wrongs," as you again accused. However, given the number of sources I've seen you dismiss/disqualify for being "too specialized," or some other wiki-technical reason, it doesn't seem like you're as unbiased and reasonable as you're trying to present with your cherry-picked quoting of policy-as-law. Darker Dreams (talk) 01:36, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: , apart from the obvious issues of WP:OWN in the afore, I am somewhat curious.  Apart from the subject edits, I can only find that you have contributed one recent minor edit to this article? Cinderella157 (talk) 11:16, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

text: The changes of most and some are somewhat trivial, though acknowledging that they might have been tagged indicates that they are also problematic. Changing  to  directly relates to matters raised in the RM. Collective term has been used in the lead since 2017. It is difficult for me to see any other reason for changing this now unless it is a reaction to the RM. There is then the sentence you would add.  The matter of P/p is not .  On my screen, it occupies just over three lines of prose (half of one paragraph) in the section Reappropriation of "paganism" which consists of three near equal paragraphs.  There are 111 words in the subject passage out of 9460 words of readable prose in the article (just over 1%).  The article does not support that this is a "key point" that should be mentioned in the lead.   The cited passage does not support a causative relationship.(Rountree p8) The matter of P/p (per the article) is not a matter on which there is a scholarly consensus.  There are two opposing views (POVs). To state in the lead (without fuller context)  fails WP:WEIGHT, since it favours one POV on the basis of a single statement.  As to Rountree's actual statement, a review of JSTOR and Google Scholar (as offered in the RM) are cause for concern as to the weight that should be afforded it - though this is not so problematic when balanced as in the body of the article.  If you have not already, please see WP:VNOT.  The WP:ONUS has not been met and the status quo should be retained until there is a consensus for the change. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:08, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that  makes some valid points. It is very doubtful that the capitalisation of Paganism now enjoys any presumption of correctness or authority. I find the above arguments of  lack credibility and sincerity. The accusation of gaming the system or WP:LAWYERING may be more applicable in his own case. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:37, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: , are you "accusing" me of Wikipedia:Gaming the system or WP:LAWYERING? Cinderella157 (talk) 11:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

text: Lawyered because the change to the lead made assertions that the editor would not let go of or back up sufficiently. Dicklyon (talk) 19:12, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit to lead 

message: Should the lead of the article be amended per this edit. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Lawyered because the change to the lead made assertions that the editor would not let go of or back up sufficiently. Dicklyon (talk) 19:12, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC