Talk:List of occult writers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Occult Portal List of occult writers is supported by WikiProject Occult in order to expand, improve, and standardize articles related to the occult. Feel free to edit the article attached to this talk page and/or become a participating member.
List	This article has been rated as List-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This page was proposed for deletion December 2004. The archived discussion is available at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of occult authors. Joyous 22:24, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

This article was nominated for deletion on 11 June 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

[edit] Why is there no easy way to navigate the lists of authors?

I just put in some time on the list of occult authors, but frankly, i think the entire lists of authors sitaution needs help. I, for one, would find it most useful if all lists became CATEGORIES. I can see where this was discussed and tabled in the past. As an indexer and organizer, i see the value of lists of authors being categories and such category listings appearing at the end of an author's entry, leading the reader on to other such authors. Just a voice in the wilderness here, i guess, but maybe, if i have the inclination, i will propose this again. It really is a good idea, and i can;t see why it was never implemented. Also, jsut for drills, a robot search of all wiki pages for the word "writer" in the articles would assist in creation of these lists. Just another helpful thought... Catherineyronwode 00:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How this list was developed

This list includes authors writing about occult subjects from a participant viewpoint; academic authors researching occultism have been excluded. Those appearing in red at this time will have short wiki articles created by me over the course of the next month -- or YOU can do it, if you want to help!!!! Catherineyronwode 04:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Work Has Been Started to Upgrade This List to Category Status

As of today, there are 19 "red ink" names in this list. My partner nagasiva and i will be creating bio stubs and full bios for these names. When we have completed this task, we will apply for category status for the list, with the understanding that if category status is granted, we will then go into each of the individual pages and add the category tag (with name piped to show surname first, in alphabetical order). Please consider helping us, if so inclined. Catherineyronwode 20:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added Names

I've added quite a few names to this list (including the ones under 16:26, 9 May 2007 75.33.60.58 - my login had expired). Some have no articles of their own. Rosencomet 16:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mass deletion

The list below, consisting of the deleted names by Pigman, is IMO an excellent resource for those looking for occult authors that need an article. I've googled them and included notes on publishers and aprox numbers of books published. These writers are, for the most part, major occult writers with multiple books published by respected publishers such as Llewellyn Worldwide. Before deleting a name, please research it and see if that particular individual is, indeed, an occult author of books that are not just self-published or vanity press products, or a contributor to recognized occult publications.

I am deleting those authors with less than three books on the occult (unless they are known to me as recognized authors of articles in publications or some other medium), and those for which I have already created a stub. Rosencomet 22:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Margo Anand (author of several books on sex magic, tantra, and related subjects published by Tarcher)
• Dan & Pauline Campanelli (authors of at least 6 magic books through Llewellyn)
• Phillip Cooper (at least 8 occult books, mostly through Weiser and Spiral)
• Carol L. Dow (author of one Llewellyn book and co-author of 2 others on Afro-Brazilian Magick with Morwyn)
• Taylor Ellwood (author of four books, co-author of 2 others, editor of another, all through Immanion Press)
• Marguerite Elsbeth (author of at least four books on occult & related topics, mostly through Llewellyn)
• Ann-Marie Gallagher (author of over half a dozen occult books through Sterling, Thorsons, Penguin, Barrons, etc)
• Ray Malbrough (author of at least three occult books through Llewellyn)
• Tony Mierzwicki (author of 2 books and contributor to 2 others: Immanion and Konton)
• Teresa Moorey (about 20 books through Ryland Peters & Small, Sterling, Capall Bann, Ulysses Press, etc)
• John Mumford (at least six Llewellyn titles)
• Joseph M. Murphy (at least 4 books on Santeria through Beacon Press)
• Claire Nahmad (over a dozen book by Inner Traditions / Bear & Company, Sterling Publishing, Tuttle Publishing, Parkgate Books, Souvenir Press, Random House, Running Press, Anova Books)
• Carlyle A. Pushong (3 books through Newcastle Publishing, Regency Press, D. Dolphin)
• Janina Renee (at least four Llewellyn titles)
• Gini Graham Scott (many books, at least four on Occult topics through ASJA Press, Alpha, Whitford Press, Paragon House)
• Gerald & Betty Schueler (at least nine Llewellyn titles on Enochian Magick and other topics)
• Zolar (Over 20 books from Arco, Nash, Fireside, Simon & Schuster, Prentice Hall, Fawcett, Tarpon House, Pearson Press, Souvenir Press)

Rosencomet 18:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

(crossposted to Rosencomet's talk page)

I'm going to be cleaning up this list shortly but I see you reverted someone who attempted to take out the redlinked names on the list. Lists such as this should not have redlinks on them. Please see Wikipedia:Listcruft but more specifically Wikipedia:Lists which is a style guideline on lists:.

"Some lists are useful for Wikipedia development purposes. The lists of related topics give an indication of the state of Wikipedia, the articles that have been written, and the articles that have yet to be written. However, as Wikipedia is optimized for readers over editors, any lists which exist primarily for development or maintenance purposes (such as a list of red link articles needed) should be in project or user space not the main space, if the list is not otherwise encyclopedic." (my emphasis added)

If you wish to write articles for the people/writers you would like to see on Wikipedia, please do. Putting them on a list like this before they have a Wikipedia article is a kind of POV pushing. Please be aware of this in the future.

Do many of these writers deserve articles? Yes. But this is not a maintenance development list. It would be better to put them up on Wikipedia:WikiProject Neopaganism to be written rather than here. Pig^man 19:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to note that some of the names I'm deleting are friends and/or acquaintances of mine and who I believe should have Wikipedia articles for their accomplishments. Be that as it may, I'm still deleting them. As a point of comparison, take a look at List of transgender people which appears to be an exemplary list in terms of information. Pig^man 19:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Pigman.

I'm not sure I understand. I see many lists that have, among them, items that do not (as yet) have articles, like List of Marvel Comics mutants and List of sitcoms. It seems to me that in some cases a list should be complete even if each item on that list doesn't even merit a separate article. After all, the article isn't called "List of Wikipedia articles about occult writers". You could get that by clicking on the category.

In this case, I would expect that any author that has written, say, at least three books on occult subjects published by a recognized press (not a "vanity press" like Lulu or Cafe Press, but one which has standards) is an occult writer, even if no one has gotten around to writing an article about him/her. That's an objective criteria, not POV "pushing".

If the reader is looking for a list of occult writers, this one is now a poorer example since it is missing many writers who you yourself just admitted are notable enough to merit inclusion. I see no reason to prevent their inclusion in such a list pending the day when each has an article written about it; what exactly is the upside to that? Also, as a resource to those looking for articles in the field to write, it has a use above and beyond a simple list of articles, which would be satisfied simply by the category "Occult writers". Without entries that don't have articles, wouldn't it apply as WP:Listcruft by this definition:

"The list has no content beyond links to other articles, so would be better implemented as a (self-maintaining) category".

Anyway, these are not people I "promote", as the unnamed editor warned against, nor did I enter all of them by any means. I have had contact with only a few, maybe five, of the red-linked ones (except that I've read or skimmed many of their books). Some, like Nevill Drury, Ted Andrews, Al G. Manning, Sirona Knight, Pamela J. Ball, D.J. Conway, and Vivianne Crowley certainly belong on any list of occult writers. Some, like Anaar, Tom F. Driver, Bonnie L. Johnston, Michael S. Margolin, Phoenix McFarland and Thorn T. Coyle, IMO do not. Some, like Carol L. Dow, David Harrington, and Tony Mierzwicki are debatable. (All the preceding are based on very quick googles, though. Please feel free to refer to them with appropriate grains of salt.)

I'd be happy to work with you on a clean-up based on some useful objective criteria, but I don't think "it has no article" is such a criteria. I didn't create the list, and I truly thought the additions I made were in keeping with the list that existed before in terms of notability of individuals. I also hope to write some articles on some of these folks, and perhaps propose some better clarification that these are writers on occult subjects as opposed to writers of occult fiction (though in some cases, they are both, and that too may be notable).Rosencomet 19:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, not having an article is indeed an objective criteria for exclusion and in line with accepted WP guidelines as I understand them. As I think I've advised you before, looking to WP policies and guidelines is much better than looking to other articles (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) as examples. Pig^man 21:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Then why are you refering me to another article above:

"As a point of comparison, take a look at List of transgender people which appears to be an exemplary list in terms of information."

And ignoring the direct quote from the definition of WP:Listcruft I've supplied which indicates that you are wrong?Rosencomet 16:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

So, in your opinion, the only list articles that should exist in Wikipedia are those that are lists of articles already in Wikipedia. There should be no lists containing any items that have not had articles written about them. I don't see that guideline anywhere; in fact, that seems to be one of the definitions of Listcruft: "a list that has no content beyond links to other articles". What use has it as an independent article? What purpose do such lists serve not already served by the page you get when you click on a category?Rosencomet 21:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)