Talk:Patricia Telesco

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Neopaganism, a WikiProject dedicated to expanding, organizing, verifying, and NPOVing articles related to neopagan religions. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-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 article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Maintenance An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

[edit] New Article

This article is not a revival of the old one which was deleted because it was just a direct cut-and-paste from a website, but a new article with information culled from several sources and a partial bibliography I just assembled. I hope to contribute more info as time goes on. Rosencomet 19:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I am hoping to keep this article here, and feel it should not be weighted down with phrases like "has continued an eclectic tradition that respectfully draws from various beliefs, seeking to find those underlying ties that bring people together". This is good advertising copy, but merely someone's opinion of her intent. Also, without some citation to support it, I can't see including "She has been humorously called the "Martha Stewart" of Neo-Paganism". By whom?
Also, statements like "Note: those wishing to book an event should try to contact her at least 6 months in advance" and "Her website offers readings, dream interpretation, gift certificates, autographed books, and booking information with a travel schedule" belong in a catalog or on a website, not in an encyclopedia. On the other hand, much of the info that was deleted by this editor IS encyclopedic and DOES belong here, like the organizations she is a member of. I hate to say it, but these changes sound like someone wants to substitute everything associated with witchcraft with New-Age copy that sounds less "controversial", and include info about hiring her services and buying her products. They may think they are doing her a favor, but they don't understand how Wikipedia works, or why the previous article was deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosencomet (talk • contribs) 21:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pigman's deletions

I must say, this is another example of setting the bar higher than usual by Pigman, something I have been subject to a lot in my editing. There is no reason, IMO, to cut the fact that Telesco is an herbalist; she has several published books about herbalism and herbs listed in this very article. There is no reason to cut the fact that she is a public speaker who lectures and leads workshops; it is a major part of her career. Why cut the fact that she is a poet, when she has books of poetry and books that include poetry listed in the article? These are not self-published, either, but published by the leading occult publisher in the world, Llewellyn Worldwide. Why disallow her website as a source, and delete Llewellyn's, and Witchvox' Sponsor's Profile? Perhaps each isn't sufficient as a sole source, especially FOR SOMETHING CONTROVERSIAL, but since when is anyone's website totally barred from inclusion? Why delete the name of the business she founded and owns; that's not important to her biography? Why delete where she lives, her marital and parental status, what notable publications she has written for and notable venues she has appeared at, or notable organizations she is a part of (such as the Writers' Guild)? Aren't these important parts of the biography of an author, speaker, performer, teacher, authority in a field, etc? Aren't they customarily included in such an article? And isn't an author's website, or the bio provided by a publisher, or that of a publication she writes for such as Witchvox suitable for at least SOME of this information?Rosencomet (talk) 21:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

According to "Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons" under "Using the subject as a self-published source"
Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:
  1. it is relevant to their notability;
  2. it is not contentious;
  3. it is not unduly self-serving;
  4. it does not involve claims about third parties;
  5. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  6. there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it;
  7. the article is not based primarily on such sources.
None of the information deleted by Pigman was controversial. I think the references provided were reliable third-party ones: Llewellyn is a major publisher, and both Witchvox and Wiccan/Pagan Times are third-party sources respected in their communities. The only justification Pigman gives for his deletiong is that he can only source the data back to Telesco's website, but WP:Bio of living persons accepts self-published material. Also, one of the sources includes an interview where much of the data is verified by the subject.
Furthermore, some of the deletions seem very weak. The bibliography lists non-self-published self-help books, cookbooks, books of poetry, and books on herbalism; why delete the statements that she is a poet and an herbalist that has written cookbooks and self-help books? If both her interview and her bios state that she is a member of the Society for Creative Anachronism, the Writers' Guild, and the Wiccan-Pagan Press Alliance, why delete this? Is it truly controversial? Has someone somewhere raised an issue about any of these facts?
I am going to revert the text to the former version, for the most part. I do not want to get into a battle about this, but clearly there is no reason to doubt this information, which is verified by the subjects own words, and much of which is supported by the books she has written themselves. I hope Pigman will reconsider and not delete it again. I would also, of course, welcome additional citations to support the info, and even an expansion of the article. IMO, an author of so many books merits more copy than this.Rosencomet (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
One reason why I cut so much was because it was primarily based on info written by the subject of this article. I have little doubt much of it is true but without better sources I find it "self-serving" to include it. Some of the words used to describe her lack verifiable sources and substantiation. She is a writer (a prolific one at that) but I haven't seen anything to indicate she is a "journalist", a specific type of writing with certain standards. Publishing in journals does not make one a journalist by today's standards. Similarly, she has written quite a bit about herbs but an herbalist is someone who proscribes (and possibly dispenses) herbs for health and illness, probably as a profession. Nothing I've seen indicates she does this as a profession. I'm very knowledgeable about a wide range of herbs and their medicinal uses and often use that knowledge to treat myself with herbs but I wouldn't dream of calling myself an herbalist because that indicates a level of expertise I haven't achieved. Her theoretical knowledge is probably broad but unless she actually applies it on a practical level, I think it's fair to hesitate to call her an herbalist.
And, I'm sorry, but the author bio from an author's publisher (Llewellyn) is not a third party source by any stretch. Such bios are, by definition, "self-serving" and very possibly largely written by Ms. Telesco. I thought some of the facts, while uncontroversial, were of very limited importance to the article and Ms Telesco. The mentions of the Society for Creative Anachronism and the Writers' Guild seemed unremarkable. She's a member of the SCA; this is special how? Tens of thousands of people are members. She holds no position in the org that I could find. A member of the Writers' Guild? As are many professional writers. Neither of these things are achievements of note.
I'm busy in real life at the moment and can't really devote attention to this article. None of the info included is egregiously unusable. I just think it reads a little more like a puff piece than a serious cataloging of her achievements and skills. I'm sure there are better sources out there besides just the one interview. Cheers, Pigman☿ 23:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
PS: As is my wont to do recently, I highly recommend you carefully read the verifiable sources policy and the reliable sources guidelines. You still seem to me to be somewhat unclear on how to apply these standards to your Wikipedia work even after 19 months as an editor. Please please read them. Thanks, Pigman☿ 01:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
First, just because I don't agree with your interpretation of them, don't assume I haven't read them. I have. I have also read WP:Biographies of living persons, which you might refresh yourself on.
You should check the dictionary definition of herbalist. Start with the Wikipedia article; several are offered, none of which mentions the terms "someone who proscribes (and possibly dispenses) herbs for health and illness, probably as a profession". Regardless of how you characterize yourself, to use one definition, "One skilled in the harvesting and collection of medicinal plants" is an herbalist, regardless of whether they have a private practice and actually treat people. That would be, I guess, an herbal therapist or an herbal healer. If you simply study the field and write books about it you are an herbalist, just like a psychologist may not have a private practice, a rabbi may not have a congregation, a midwife might be retired, and a guitarist may not be a professional. I regret to say, you seem to have come up with this definition out of thin air. If you can get a publisher like Llewellyn to publish a few books by you on herbs, I'll call you an herbalist, though I'd have to study your work before I'd call you a good one, which goes for Patricia Telesco as well.
I didn't even use the interview for my source, just the bio supplied above it. I really should include info from the interview, and you are correct; there are probably a lot of sources as good or better to flesh out this article about such a prolific author. I can accept the deletion of "journalist", by the way, and "metaphysical" before "lecturer", and kept the characterization as an American author, and changes in categories.
I also wonder: if an autobiography printed by a reputable publisher is an acceptable source, and an official website or even blog can be used (as long as there is no reasonable doubt as to whether the subject is the source), then why would the possibility that some of the information in a publisher's bio might have come from the subject make any difference? I don't care if it's a "third-party source"; according to WP:Biographies of living persons those are not the only acceptable sources. I don't accept the notion that "such bios are, by definition, 'self-serving'"; many I've seen have been quite neutral and pretty bare-bones compared with the actual credits an author has, and certainly nowhere near as complete as an encyclopedia article on the author. I find the phrase "I have little doubt much of it is true but without better sources I find it "self-serving" to include it" to be a very odd definition of "self-serving". And according to WP:Biographies of living persons, even with material written by the subject, the bar is "unduly self-serving". I don't think you can just throw out any data from a publisher's bio simply because it came from there, especially if it is corroborated by other bios and interviews with the subject, and no citation exists that someone contests it. Rosencomet (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)