Talk:WinterStar Symposium

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Group of friends from Cleveland

From Krassner's article:*Krassner, Paul (2005). Life Among the Neopagans in The Nation, August 24, 2005 (web only).

The annual Starwood Festivals have been presented by the Cleveland-based Association for Consciousness Exploration, a group of about thirty friends . . .

That's why it's held near Cleveland, I guess. ABSmyth 22:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC) This user was found to be a sock of Mattisse

[edit] Does sound like a group of friends partying

I like the part about "(A Merchants' Room is also maintained with tables & space available for a small fee, but only to paid attendees.) Atwood's pool, hot tub, sauna, restaurant and bar help make the event most appealing." I bet!

Probably the groups of friends from Cleveland don't have to pay to attend or that extra fee for the amenities. The Atwood being referred to must be Margot Adler, since the Association for Consciousness Exploration (that group of 30 or so friends) produced her lecture tape From Witch to Witch-Doctor: Healers, Therapists and Shamans and the panel discussion The Magickal Movement: Present and Future. Do you think she lives in the Cleveland area? NLOleson 22:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC) This user was found to be a sock of Mattisse

Is this intended to be some sort of personal attack? -999 (Talk) 17:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


The Atwood being referred to is Atwood Lake Resort in Delroy, OH, about 2 hours south of Cleveland, OH. The group of friends is known as the Chameleon Club, and they work their butts off during the ACE events, plus several of them run classes and provide entertainment. Margot Adler is not a member, nor does she live in Cleveland. She's a respected radio journalist with NPR out of New York City, and author of two books: Drawing Down the Moon (a classic text on the Neo-Pagan movement, first of its kind), and Heretic Heart (a 60s retrospective). She's also the grandaughter of Dr. Alfred Adler, the famous psychologist. And Starwood is BOTH a seminal event featuring highly respected speakers, authors & entertainers AND a group of friends partying. About 1500 of them.Rosencomet 18:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:EL

While I really don't care one way or the other, keeping the WinterStar link in the references and the EL is superfluous. WP:EL does say that as well (it makes it clear that an article on an organization must link to the site, not that it must link twice... once in the refs and once in the external links section) -- Samir धर्म 21:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that it belongs in EL because that is where reader expect it to be found. If I want to find the link to the website associated with an article, I will click on External links in the TOC. I wouldn't look in the footnotes. It's unfortunate that the way people are interpreting the need for inline citations frequently requires multiple links to the very same website for information on different pages. This article has only two links to the same site, many have dozens because of insistent editors placing multiple {{fact}} tags all over the article instead of browsing the website to see that the information is easily available there. -999 (Talk) 00:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Whatever, please don't use test warning templates in what is essentially a content dispute. Secondly, your take on referencing is unusual to say the least. An external link isn't a reference and {{fact}} tags are perfectly valid! --kingboyk 12:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with 999 on this one. I see fact tags often accompanied by criticism that a link does not go to a "specific page", requiring the substitution of one site (even one with an internal search engine) with several specific page links. Also, there's the danger that while a single page may list the info you want to cite, the entire website may have some commercial material that would lead people to believe that the real motivation was to sell the reader something. In this case, if we were a bit looser about specific pages, the articles would not be as cluttered. If we're going to be sticklers, it's not fair to criticize the extra links. We have to avoid "damned if you do/damned if you don't situations.Rosencomet 16:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
You don't need the same link on the same page twice about 2 centimetres apart! Articles don't need to have external link sections at all. Also, I'm not entirely sure that the organisation's website counts as a reliable source for facts about them (as opposed to their aims etc) since it's not independent. However you reverted me on that. Whatever you do, you simply can't justify having the external link twice in such quick succession, and should remove one or other of them. I think you'd find the wiki troubles you've been having would ease considerably if you listened to what folks are saying here. I'll assume good faith and assume that your intentions are honourable, but some folks are smelling spam and it might be wise to placate them. --kingboyk 19:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. The external links policy says that a link to the site of the person or organization that is the subject of the article should be included in external links. This is completely independent of what may be required for footnote citations. Also, WP:V specificly allows the use of an organization's website as a source. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 20:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Heh. We just edit conflicted on tidying up the refs. You won! --kingboyk 20:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Laundry List

I think the tag calling this list unencyclopedic is inappropriate and should be taken down. This list does not represent everyone who has appeared at this event by any means. Except for two directors of the event's host organization, and Arlen Riley Wilson (who should actually have a redirect page to Robert Anton Wilson IMO), every speaker and entertainer listed is notable enough to have their own article. All can be verified on the ACE website, a link for which is in the reference section. Some have 3rd-party citations on their own articles to further support notability of their appearance, but I have not cluttered this list up with all these links. I contend that this list of past speakers and entertainers lends notability to the event itself in a very real way. IMO, a list of past featured individuals in an event's article is comparable to a bibliography in an author's article or a discography in a recording artist's article. The variety of presentors and their popularity gives the reader a better idea of what the event is, while offering an easy link to look up each one's article for further research. I don't think chopping away at them would improve the article, and I see no clear criteria by which to do so. Rosencomet 17:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't removed or edited anything, so all the template does is denote that it seems like a linkfarm in my opinion. I think we should wait and get some guidelines from the Arb before undergoing edits which add or remove large amounts of material. - WeniWidiWiki 18:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/November 2006/Mattisse

Mattisse has requested assistance. She has mentioned this article in her request. I am starting to look into the issue. Any information people could give me would be very welcome. Cheers. SilkTork 20:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Like an advertisement

I don't think I had thoroughly read at this article, what with the troubles and all. I considered putting an {{advert}} template on it but that seemed needlessly prickly and irresponsible. So... I'm going to be bold and attempt to edit the advertising copy out of the article. I don't plan to touch the list of performers for the moment but I suspect I may make some deep cuts and alterations to other parts. Much of this reads as if it were lifted directly from a promotional flyer or a press release. It is neither encyclopedic nor NPOV. I'll salvage what I can. --PigmanTalk to me 07:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've done the first two paragraphs. The first is, I believe, tighter and more encyclopedic in tone now. I'm not too pleased with the second paragraph but I'm getting tired. It's still generally better I think but needs more work. Comments? --PigmanTalk to me 08:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It's an improvement, but there are still big problems. The only footnotes are to the ACE/etc. websites. And unencyclopedic sentences like: "The members feel that if people who believe different things can still party together, if they can consider their differences a plus rather than a problem, then pick up a drum or musical instrument and jam together, the world would be on its way to a much better place." I think we've still got a bunch of POV that needs to be rewritten and sourced, or cut. Thing is, this article is actually really short, and once it's NPOVed it's going to be shorter. Maybe Starwood/Winterstar should be one article? ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 09:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted paragraph

OK, I know this won't please some but I deleted the third full text paragraph. I carefully looked at it and, except for the first use of the phrase "WinterStar Symposium", everything in the para was about ACE, not WinterStar. Perhaps I should have moved it over to the talk page of Association for Consciousness Exploration to see if it can be integrated over there. However, the para was so unencyclopedic, I couldn't see what could be salvaged even for that article. For example, it spoke of the "principles" of ACE. I expected a search of the ACE website might actually bring to light a written set of principles for the group but I could find nothing speaking to this. If these principles are just an unwritten general understanding among ACE members, that's not really good enough for Wikipedia. If these principles are specifically articulated in by-laws or organizational documents, please point to them. Much of the para was like that: vague and unsourced. --PigmanTalk to me 22:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

I've added some references to this page, and Starwood & ACE as well. I don't think anyone will consider them contentious. I've just discovered Google Book Search - boy, will that make things easier for a lot of editors!Rosencomet 18:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Do Not Merge with Starwood Festival & Association for Consciousness Exploration

  • Do Not Merge It is not common Wikipedia practice to merge festivals together or merge them with the organizations that run them unless the organization does nothing but run that event. Pagan Spirit Gathering is not merged with Circle Sanctuary, Cannabis Cup is not merged with High Times, and Mythic Journeys is not merged with Mythic Imagination Institute. Here are examples of festivals of all sorts from the page for that category that are not so merged. (There are more: I got tired of listing them after reaching the "f"s and just added a few random ones.) If you sample others, discounting those that are not events (festivals like "Beltane") and those run by a city or other government, you'll see my point. The Starwood Festival and the WinterStar Symposium are two distinct events run by an organization that also maintains two facilities in the Cleveland area and produces tapes, CDs, DVDs, and other events, offers local classes, and has other functions. Each has demonstrated it's notability to merit an article, and new rules or policies should not be created just for them. I think this is just another attempt by the same few people who keep trying any possible way to reduce these articles.

Rosencomet 23:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Witchvox reference

Gee, Mr. Pigman, could you direct me to the policies that differentiate between "references" and "trivial references" or "passing references"? Because to me, a passing reference would be something like "My boyfriend took me to dinner right after I got back from Winterstar", or "I lent you that book I bought at Winterstar, and you never gave it back." This, on the other hand, is a 37-word paragraph totally devoted to WinterStar with a heading to that effect, containing reference to the event, the venue, the activities, and six of the speakers who appeared there, and providing a link for more information. That seems like an actual, specific reference to me. It was on a website totally unconnected with the event and its organizing group, making it a 3rd party source, which seems to be what 2 mediations and an arbitration said was needed. Where is the policy that says it should be deleted? I looked at WP:References, but I couldn't find any mention of "trivial references" vs just plain "references". If the Witchvox website refers to an event, what happens there, and who was there, I figure it at least helps support notability and helps verify that these six speakers appeared there.

And I certainly don't understand your characterization of it as "spam". Spam by whom, about what? Spam to promote Witchvox? It can't be spam to provide a link to the WinterStar page of the ACE website, since that's already at the bottom of the article. How is this spam? Rosencomet 03:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This was not a Witchvox link. It was a link to a WiccanFest site/page where there was mostly just a listing of brief descriptions and links to various festival sites. There was no content to speak of. As far as I could see, the page simply linked to the ACE website. --Pigmandialogue 04:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Ooops. I stand corrected; WiccanFest, not Witchvox. My argument still stands, however: it's a 3rd party reference to the event and the appearance of these six speakers there. No existing policy excludes it from being a reference; it's certainly not a passing reference, and "trivial" is a matter of opinion. At the top of the page it states "The sites listed below are considered by us to represent some of the finest resources on Paganism, Wicca, and the festival scene anywhere." They obviously don't consider it trivial, and they don't accept just anything to link to, since they also say, "drop us a line and we will take a look at your site to see if it fits in with our mandate". Rosencomet 05:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
By "trivial" I mean there is no substantial content about Starwood/Winterstar. It is a listing, nothing more or less. Also note that this page refers to those six people being at Winterstar 1999 in the future tense. I'm sure those people probably did attend but the text provides nothing beyond the mention of the names. The almost bare mention of Starwood/WinterStar is not enough to make it suitable for inclusion as an external link. Please take a look at the external links guideline for more on this. Thanks. --Pigmandialogue 17:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I could not find anything in external links guideline that discussed "trivial references", "substantial content", or what tense the reference is expressed in. What is not trivial is that a third party source considers Starwood to be among "some of the finest resources on Paganism, Wicca, and the festival scene anywhere", and thinks these speakers' inclusion in the program is worthy of note. As to their participation, it can be verified in the program of the event on the ACE website, which is also linked to the article. What I'm trying to do is comply with the requests for verification and notability of both the event and the appearances of the speakers, so their inclusion in the list of past speakers is not questioned. I know you will nit-pick and challenge every single fact and datum I edit, but if you don't question whether they were really there and don't think it's necessary to provide a third-party source to support that the event and appearances at it are notable, say so and I won't keep trying to add every citation I can find. Otherwise, I wish you'd be a little more accepting when I can find a 3rd party who says the event is important and thinks these speaker's presentations there are worthy of mention. They are hard to come by because, as you know, reporters are not as a rule allowed to cover such events. Rosencomet 18:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Sigh. I don't believe my opinion on this link or the LaSara FireFox one is controversial in the least. I sincerely believe if you were to ask any experienced Wikipedia editor about whether these particular links were useful and beneficial to this article, they would say no. The tense is important because it's predictive and anticipatory of future events, not descriptive or verification of actual events. I'm at a loss at how to better explain the problems I see with these references. There are several quite good and substantial references/sources in the article now and I suggest you look to them for support of the content of the article rather than padding the reference section with many minor mentions. --Pigmandialogue 00:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, well, if you say that the presence of these speakers and the notability of their appearances is adequately supported by the existing "several quite good and substantial references/sources in the article", that's OK by me. Rosencomet 20:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: LaSara reference

It seems to me that one of the things that came up in the mediations and arbitrations was that if the website of the speaker and/or entertainer mentions an appearance, this supports the notability of that appearance because it shows that it was important to that person, not just to the event's organizers. I believe BostonMa originally brought it up. Well, here we have an announcement by a speaker on her website that she would be a featured guest at the event, in addition to the program of the event showing she offered workshops there. And it is a third party source for the appearance of three other speakers: Phillip H. Farber, Donald Michael Kraig, and Rev. Ivan Stang. In fact, since you refer to WP:RS, this seems to fall under all the exceptions concerning self-published material; it is material used as a secondary source about the owner of the website, and material by a well-known and published researcher/journalist in her field of expertise, there is no real doubt that the material comes from her, it's not contentious, etc, etc. I see no reason to delete this reference from her website that she appeared at this event with the other speakers she mentions, verified by the online program from the event.Rosencomet 03:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Like the WiccanFest reference discussed above, this is a future tense description. It's not really a verification of anything. --Pigmandialogue 17:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
See the above response under Re: Witchvox reference (should be WiccanFest). Her participation can be verified on the ACE website. What this shows is a. that the appearance was important to her and her career, and b. it is a third-party mention of the participation of the other three speakers, which she as a well-known author in the field considered worthy of mention. The bars you keep setting seem pretty extreme to me just for a reference to something non-controversial that you don't really consider to be in doubt. It's not like I'm claiming she founded a tradition or invented something others claim to have invented. Rosencomet 18:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/n/Talk%7EWinterStar_Symposium_6e7a.html"