Talk:Isaac Bonewits

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

I removed from the article the following:

He is currently working on starting an "Old folks home," as he calls it, for Pagan elders, a project he believes will take the next twenty years.

For lack of evidence of notability: is he working on a proposal for something that as yet lacks even a name?
--Jerzy(t) 05:49, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] The O.T.O.

Isaac Bonewits did NOT found the O.T.O., or lead it I believe. Aleister Crowley founded it, that I know. I will research what Bonewits' involvement was, exactly.

Crowley didn't found it either; he just radically transformed it. mkehrt

[edit] All articles must meet Wikipedia policy WP:V

In addition to WP:V it probably would be helpful to consult WP:EL. GBYork 17:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC) This user was found to be a sock of Mattisse

[edit] Cults

In answer to Sfacets's question, I believe the person who added the "Cults" category to this article did so because Isaac Bonewits created the Advanced Bonewits Cult Danger Evaluation Frame, a criteria list for identifying a cult. I don't think it was meant to indicate that Bonewits himself was a cult member; he has researched cults extensively, and lectured on the mistaken impressions in the public view that Pagans and Wiccans are cult members (and other groups as well). I have no strong feelings myself as to whether it is appropriate for the "Cult" category to be on this article.Rosencomet 15:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A statement of possible CoI on my part

A quick glance at the history on this page shows that I have patrolled it for a while trying to eliminate any vandalism that I see. That said, I do this in part (beyond my basic desire to see vandalism stopped) because this is my step-father. I will do my best to maintain a proper restraint so that any Confict of Interest is avoided due to my relationship with him. As it is, I simply remove vandalism or items I know to be patently false (and to be honest, I don't know him that well, so I don't have the knowledge to do too much there).

If any of the editors believe that I am too close to Isaac and believe I need to step further back, I will do so.

Thank you for your time.

--Donovan Ravenhull 13:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] COI, but different ;-)

Well, I guess I have minor COI here, as I've met Isaac a handful of times, and he mentions me favorably in one of his books. However, I'm removing blatant COI/undue weight in the article and attempting a more NPOV, less laudatory (or, in places, promotional) tone. Isaac is notable by WP criteria, due to his influence on Neopaganism and his published works (which, unlike many occult books, did not just sink into oblivion but have also been influential). That said, the same user who added many of the "references" here has engaged in massive source-padding on other articles, so, if they're to be kept, the books listed in the "references" section need to be evaluated. Google book search should do the trick. Compare them to the criteria at WP:RS and WP:V. If it's just a mention in passing, cut it. If it sources content in the article, include page numbers and quotes and turn it into a footnote. If it provides more info than is in the article, put it in a new, "Further reading" section, including page numbers of the relevant content. I may get a chance to do this later, but we have a lot of articles to check, so it would be great if some folks without COI (as in, is not a friend or close colleague of Isaac's, does not hire him for events, promote him, or sell his books or tapes) would help out. Tapadh Leibh! - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 07:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits by User:Ibonewits

(The following is a duplicate of info I left on Ibonewits (talk · contribs) talk page but I want to make sure it's here as well since my previous post to him appears to be unheeded.)

Ibonewits, I want you to carefully look at the following policies and guidelines before making any more edits to the Isaac Bonewits article:

These are important and basic policies relating to article content. The first paragraph of the Wikipedia Verifiability policy reads:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."

Your own website is not a reliable source in this case. You are perfectly welcome to question the sources already used in the article if you think they do not meet Wikipedia standards. If the sources aren't reliable, the information those sources purport to support will be cut completely.

I'm not trying to tell you what to do but if you don't follow basic policies about how to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, it is likely that your changes and edits will be removed or changed by other editors. Please, if you have any questions about this or anything else, leave a message on my talk page. Pigman☿ 03:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Questionable sources

I'm concerned at the number of cited sources in this article that link to Isaac's own website at neopagan dot net. This isn't in keeping with WP:V and WP:RS. While some refs to his writings are fine, some of these discuss other people and this is an inappropriate use in a Wikipedia article. I'm particularly looking at the differing perspectives on the footage from Bonewits' short time with the Church of Satan. This footage is almost universally referred to as "documentary" in nature. Isaac's account differs substantially on this point, indicating that it was wholly staged and that his role in it was as a "character". Because of this discrepancy, it might be better to eliminate the references to this footage entirely. Although his appearance in the footage is very well known in the Neopagan community, this might cause the least amount of conflict with WP:BLP. It just doesn't seem encyclopedic to allow the subject of the article to provide personal counterpoint without WP:V sources that I can see. Thoughts? Pigman☿ 07:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I reccommend you read the Documentary article. You will see that documentaries often include staged scenes and re-enactments. I have no opinion about whether to keep the section on any other issue, but in this case all the article is saying is that Bonewits appeared in the documentary, and now it is clear that he appeared there in a 'scene in which the character he played had his penis blessed by LaVey rather than this being something that LaVey actually did for Bonewits. Is it encyclopedic? Maybe not. But the fact that the ceremonies in the documentary were staged ones rather than filmed during an actual ritual doesn't make the film less of a documentary, nor is it really a surprise. Perhaps more encyclopedic is the fact that a segment of this film was used in the Kenneth Anger film Lucifer Rising, but so far I can't document this fact, though I've seen it in the video and the DVD . In any event, I've changed the text to mention the film Satanis and the fact that the ceremonies were staged, without the IMO non-encyclopedic description of the ritual content. Rosencomet (talk) 19:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that there is no WP:V source confirming this "staging" in the article at the moment. Without such confirmation, it is really quite wrong to state it in the article. Currently, the source we have for this staging is Isaac Bonewits himself, not exactly a disinterested party. I'm not saying what he says is untrue, only that it isn't a WP:V or WP:RS to use that as the source for the information. Since the account adding this info is User:Ibonewits, I have to consider the possibility that the user has a conflict of interest in changing this information. While WP:BLP is very clear about this sort of thing, it does not say we should disregard WP:V sources and insert unattested info in place of sourced info. Once again, I recommend you read the actual Wikipedia policies to support your argument. Cheers, Pigman☿ 06:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)