|WikiProject Neopaganism||(Rated Start-class)|
Numbering & References
Something wonky is going on with the numbering of the references in this article, but I'm not sure how to fix it. According to the in-text citations, reference #3 should be to "A Brief History of the WCC and the Odyssean Tradition", and the citations that show up as 3 specifically reference that article. But in the reference list, it shows up as #2, and the Blue Star article as #3, when that one should (as far as I can tell) be #4.
- fixed it, I think. Someone had added the pagancommunitychurch.org link both to External links and to References, screwing up numbering. I don't see it referenced anywhere in the main article as a source, so have removed it to restore the logical numbering and have references link properly to notes. The bad formatting of the wrongly inserted link caused the numbering of the references to begin again, so there were actually two reference 1's. Hope this helps. Shamanchill (talk) 02:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
A recent major edit has occurred in which the reference cited is authored by the article editor (by IP, but noted in Edit Summary as Neil Jameison-Williams). One of WP's policies is that it is NOT a place for original research, and these edits thus have grounds for roll-back, although I'm reticent to do so until the source is verified, and am not sure that the edits detract from the article or violate NPOV. I think that they add neutrality, on the whole, should the source proove to be genuine and its research valid. Also see my comment below on the separation of entities for better NPOV. There must be other sources to cite on this matter, surely, to ensure neutrality and completeness of the entry. Shamanchill (talk) 19:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Increased NPOV by separate WCC and OW articles
I suggest that a separate article on the WCC should be written. Although there are inextricable links between the WCC and Odyssean Wicca, certain potential conflicts of interest and Point-Of-View concerns could be mitigated by their separation (albeit with references to each other where the organizations overlap). As separate entities, they should be treated individually. Shamanchill (talk) 19:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
"One of WP's policies is that it is NOT a place for original research..." Okay, there has not been a lot of academic material that has been published on the Wiccan Church of Canada -- all the major works (Rabinovitch, 1992; Reid, 2001; Sandilands, 1988; Tyrrell, 1992 plus my own earlier work; Jamieson-Williams, 1990, 1995) done to date have been reviewed and synthesised within my book, as have the few works of journalism and publications by the WCC itself (James, 1987; Marron, 1989). There has been no published academic study of the Hamilton WCC or of the Hamilton Modern Pagan community -- in that, my work is original, though I do cite and make use of the single journalism work on Modern Pagans in Hamilton (Davie, 2000). I am uncertain as to the full interpretation of WP policy, though I would have to agree that my book is not "exclusively" based on previous research on the subject. As for your comment that my addition to the existing article does "add neutrality", I would agree -- references 1 and 3 are by active Odyssean priesthood and reference 5 is by a Blue Star initiate who was Leading Priesthood when there was a WCC temple in Oshawa. While I have been a retire Odyssean initiate since 1997, I an also a social anthropologist and professor. "There must be other sources to cite on this matter..." I wish there were, but most of the data collected over the years have been in the form of graduate theses and dissertations. I am the only researcher to date who has conducted long term (twenty years) ethnographic research on the WCC.
RE: Increased NPOV by separate WCC and OW articles
I disagree with you here. The Odyssean tradition and the Wiccan Church of Canada are really so interwoven that it would be pointless for there to be two separate articles. What would be more logical is for there to be an article just on the Wiccan Church of Canada, that includes a subsection within it on the Odyssean tradition.
- As a current Odyssean Neophyte I disagree with this comment. The Wiccan Church of Canada is a location specific phenomenon (i.e. 109 Vaughan or the Hamilton Temple) which holds the public classes and public rituals that make up the Wiccan Church of Canada. Odyssean Wicca is initiate oriented based on the relationship between teacher and student only. It would be entirely possible for an initiate to move away from the geographical loci of the WCC (ie the Toronto or Hamilton temples), effectively taking no part in the public forum that is the Wiccan Church of Canada and continue to practice as an Odyssean Wiccan. An initiate could potentially move to another community, continue correspondences with their teacher, train and tutor additional initiates without ever being involved in the Wiccan Church of Canada proper. We have begun to see this trend in at least one of the 3rd degree Odyssean Initiates who has moved well out of the Greater Toronto Area and continues practicing her faith, tutoring initiates, and only occasionally involving herself with WCC activities.
As an Odyssean initiate, albeit a retired one, I disagree with you. I have studied the WCC for twenty years and I have within my fieldnotes and interviews reflections by individuals who were involved in the WCC during the early years. To begin with, the early days of the WCC and the WCC post-1987 are two different organisations. The early organisation ran as per its by-laws; there was the secular arm run by the laity and the sacred arm run by the priesthood. The priesthood, of what would later be named the Odyssean tradition, ran very much like a British Traditional coven. Initiates did rise, slowly, through the ranks -- but much, much faster than today -- and the neophyte pre-degree had not been created. Nor, were there any policies about active, inactive, and retired. Initiates, during this time period, did not have to have their students pass before Priesthood Council -- when the teacher felt that the student was ready, they would initiate them. Priesthood from this time period, once they were elevated into the high priesthood (2nd or 3rd degree) would be autonomous, both from the tradition founders and from the WCC. However, there were not a lot of Odyssean initiates during this time period (the 3rd degree Odyssean initiate that I think you are referring to, would have received her elevations during the early period -- if we are talking about the same person, she resides in Texas and has not updated her coven's website since 2003) and those who left the WCC tended to gravitate into other traditions or to form their own. During 1986 and 1987, there was a civil war within the WCC over several issues, in particular the by-laws. These had been changed to concentrate more power into the hands of the high priesthood and remove democratic power from the laity. At the end of the civil war, all prospective candidates for Odyssean priesthood had to pass before the Odyssean Priesthood Council -- open to all members of active Odyssean priesthood. It was also at this time that the active/inactive categories of priesthood were created by the Odyssean high priesthood -- later, they would add the retired category. The upshot of all this, is that after 1987 to be an active member of the Odyssean priesthood, and have the ability to initiate and/or elevate persons within the Odyssean tradition, you also had to be involved with the WCC -- that is how you retain your active status. While there are indeed some Odyssean initiates and members of Odyssean high priesthood from the early period who are fully autonomous of the tradition's founders and the Wiccan Church of Canada, it is a fallacy to present these exceptions as the current norm within the organisation -- these examples come from the WCC's foundation years and do not reflect the way that the organisation has actually operated for twenty years. Therefore, I stand firm that the Odyssean tradition and the Wiccan Church of Canada should not be separated into two different articles, but that they should be kept together within a single article under the category Wiccan Church of Canada.
Is anyone else concerned that an anonymous user removed information on the grounds that it was "not for public consumption"? Wikipedia is not the PR arm of WCC! Carolynparrishfan (talk) 15:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I am concerned and I am not concerned -- this is because I have seen this behaviour before. However, I do strongly agree that Wikipedia is not the PR front for the WCC, nor should individual WCC members attempt to use the Wikipedia article for the promotion of their Modern Pagan church. Neil Jamieson-Williams Chaladoor (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)