Talk:Starwood Festival/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


To answer the question of the importance of the event, I've added the following paragraph, as well as the assertion that Starwood is both the largest festival in the American Magical Movement, and the broadest in scope, serving many other communities as well.

"The Starwood Festival has provided an important interface between different groups and their spokespeople, promoting their working together on projects of common interest, and discovering that their similarities and more important than their differences and their differences are a strength and resource to be celebrated. Many attendees and presenters have reported sunsequent involvement in the activities of other represented groups; for instance, Halim El-Dabh and Gilli Smyth with Timothy Leary in the early nineties. Harvey Wasserman has been interviewed and quoted in books and publicatons of the Neo-Pagan movement, an audience he was unaware of before speaking at Starwood. Halim's work with a Rock group (for the first time), Einstein's Secret Orchestra, began at Starwood, and Stephen Gaskin was able to promote aid for Katrina victims through Plenty International at the festival. Synergistic relationships occur regularly there, and the attendees get the opportunity to interact directly with many authors and artists at once in ways that they could not afford to or arrange for individually." Rosencomet 17:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


Advertizing puff piece. And so is every article I have run across which links to it. I am cleaning links to the disambiguation page "Celtic (You can help!), and keep running across links to this in "articles" which are flat-out advertisements. --Sean Lotz 09:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The WP process never ceases to amaze me. With all the editing going on since my previous comment, this may turn into an encyclopedic article. I love this wiki. --Sean Lotz 22:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think it still reads like an advertisement and link farm. --Kathryn NicDhàna 03:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


From WP:V

Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as:

  • It is relevant to the person's or organization's notability;
  • It is not contentious;
  • It is not unduly self-serving;
  • It does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
  • There is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it.

So we have one source: the Starwood website, which verifies the names of performers. There is no reason doubt that this this is an reasonably acurate list of names, and many of the names can be easilly verified throuhg a quick google search, for instance [1] independantly verifies that Gilly was at Starwood, [2] independantly verifies Lerry was there. We could waste a lot of time trying to source all this, but there is no need according to above policy.

Whether all these are notable enough for inclusion is a different question. --Salix alba (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. This is a reputable, professionally run pagan conference. It'd be nice if they published a Proceedings, but they are pagans, not academics... -999 (Talk) 16:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Lead text

The lead-in text is too long. It's four paragraphs and one of them is a long one. MoS (or somewhere) states the lead-in should be three or less paragraphs. If somebody (original editor?) could shorten and move material to other places, it would improve the article. We want to see at least the top of the table of contents. -999 (Talk) 16:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone doesn't understand the footnoting process

There are two footnotes on the article page that aren't really footnotes. The object of the footnote is to give the reader enough information to verify the information independent of the authors of the article. This has not been done. For exampe, the word "Krasner" doen't tell you anything. NLOleson 17:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC) User making this comment was found to be a sockpuppet of Mattisse

I think you are not using the correct templates for footnotes. It should not be a two step process to click down to the footnote (which should be the complete reference) and then have to sort through the references.Actually, what you are calling references here probably should be called Bibliography or Further reading. The Notes and References should be the same thing. Wikipedia gives you a choice which you want to call it. It's odd the way you are doing it. NLOleson 17:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC) User making this comment was found to be a sockpuppet of Mattisse
Then perhaps you could help. I don't understand the templates and don't use them. WP:CITE shows that there are a number of different ways to cite an article. This way is completely understandable, the cited references are listed in full under references. It's a normal academic way of doing things. Making the footnote the complete reference with named reference tags doens't allow for putting different page numbers with each reference, so each reference has to be repeated in full, which is stupid and too much work. -999 (Talk) 17:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

New Edits

I've deleted, at least for now, everything for which a citation was requested that has not been provided. References have been added, and I think we're pretty much OK on this listing barring very nit-picky points. Now how do I eliminate the statements at the top of the page saying citations aren't there and so on?

Ad Astra, RosencometRosencomet 15:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Make every word a link?

What's up with this edit: 26 August 2006) It looks like Flinders (Flinders was found to be a sockpuppet of Mattisse) just made every other word a link. I'm getting tired and don't want to mess with it right now, but it looks pretty ... pointless. Is there any possible reason for making a link out of the word "night"? I'm asking because I'm sleepy and maybe I'm missing something obvious. --Sean Lotz 13:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I reverted it. Be bold! --Sean Lotz 13:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this a group of 30 friends from Cleveland too?

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 . . .

How odd, odd, odd this ensemble of Association for Consciousness Exploration , Starwood Festival, and WinterStar Symposium is. ABSmyth 19:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC) User was found to be a sockpuppet of Mattisse


Odder than you can imagine. They began in the mid to late 70s as an undergrad organization called the Chameleon Club, made up of two groups: a bunch of students who hung around the Hillel House at Case Western Reserve University who were into the Psychedelic Experience and Futurism (and Firesign Theatre), and a group of Society for Creative Anachronism members who were into Neo-Paganism and fantasy literature. There were suprising common themes, which seemed to crystalize in the works of Robert Anton Wilson. They became the first group to bring Timothy Leary to Cleveland and some Neo-Pagan "names" as well (like Dr. Raymond Buckland and Jim & Selena Fox of Circle), and had a hit with their creation of the Starwood Festival, first held at the same site as the SCA Pennsic War.

They founded ACE in 1984 as an organization that sounded more "real" for renting facilities (like resorts for the WinterStar Symposium), and became lecture agents for Wilson and others, and the first "Parapsychologists" listed in the Cleveland Yellow pages. In between ghost-busting (just for fun) and running festivals and symposiums, they ran a "mind-spa" with a sensory isolation tank, bio-feedback equipment, and mind-machines for stress management and electronically-assisted meditation.

As time went on, they began producing their own line of lecture & music tapes (now CDs & DVDs) and a few books, created their own in-house music groups, and grew their events to the point that they could afford to bring in bigger-name talent. Their ranks have included many of their favorite authors and performers either on an active or honorary status, and they've become an important networking body between the different communities they overlap. Their events are known to feature more fun than anyone should be allowed to have; people grin until their jaw-muscles hurt, and continue buzzing with energy from weird magical ceremonies, vision-quest workshops, all-night drumming and partying, great music & multi-media events, and so on for weeks after going home.

Of course, I wouldn't post this praise as part of a Wiki article, and I'm far from neutral. But if you get a chance to go to one of their events, do so. Who can't use a few days of naked Pagan psychedelic drumming & dancing & carrying on, with a chance to enjoy a dozen or so top-notch workshops and concerts? Rosencomet 18:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm quite far from Cleveland. ABSmyth 18:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The Roundhouse

According to the designer, Frank Barney (owner of Brushwood Folklore Center), the Roundhouse is based on a Celtic design, not a Native American design (although looking at it, I can understand why one would make that mistake; it looks kind of like the skeleton of a teepee).

Links to starwood on other pages

Rather than having lots of debates on various pages about whether there should be links to starwood, it seems sensible to have the debate in one place, where we can build a consensus.

The appropriate policy/guidline are

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.
Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided

For example ArcheDream singles out starwood as the one venue listed out of about 100 gigs. To me this seems to be undue weight. I've change the page to now link to the full tour dates. --Salix alba (talk) 09:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep track of link spam

Use this: personal attack removed by Rosencomet (talk · contribs) of his articles, by inserting links as so-called "citations". It this moment there are at least 115 links from Wikipedia to his site. This is assuming he is not still inserting this link to a search engine: http://www. freefind . com/. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timmy12 (talkcontribs)

I've removed the list of links. It doesn't belong here. Samir has said that the links are valid citations. The question is whether they are needed in all articles. This should be discussed on an article by article based using standard dispute resolution methods. Thanks. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 18:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Samir said that links on the starwood site are valid citations, but he also siad they cannot be used as an indication of whether including a reference to starwood in the first is notable. The firstfind citations are perhaphs worse than a direct link to a page on the starwood site. WP:EL says avoid Links to search engine results. they also have a lot of advertising and can be hard to find the material which varifies the claim.
While I agree with Ekajati, in that links should be added on an article by article basis, I think it might be good to have a centralised discussion to establish when its appropriate to mention whether a performer appeared at starwood. In this way we can avoid having lots of revert wars on lots of pages, which only seem to result in people getting blocked. --Salix alba (talk) 19:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


I don't agree with this excuse to cut the copy of an aerticle and say it's more "encyclopedic" that way. I ve read plenty of articles in encyclopedias, and own a Britanica, a World Book, and an Outline of Knowledge encyclopedia, and they don't shy away from complete descriptions or evocative language. None of the content that sme have wanted to cut was non-factual.

The treatment of Wiki articles is very uneven. I don't see these conditions put on the Burning Man listing, and I've seen many others that include purpose of the event, principles, objectives, and variouis activities that take place without being accused of including "non-notable" information, being "chatty" or "too much like an ad".

An encyclopedia is not a dictionary. There is no reason to excise language that adds to the reader's understanding of the nature of the subject, or differentiates it from other subjects based on it's unique characteristics. There is no reason for an article to be terse, incomplete, or boring. Encyclopedias are not written that way.

And I'd like to see less chopping up by people who don't contribute articles of their own. I've created many, and contributed to many more. Rosencomet 19:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

New Age

The terms New Age, Magical, and Spiritual overlap, but none of them completely include the other. Starwood features components of each category that are not included in the other; to simply call it a New Age event would not be an accurate description, nor just a Pagan festival.Rosencomet 19:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Rosencomet, please take some thought about what you're doing

Rosencomet, four experienced admins, one of them an arbitrator, have now removed the worst of the promotional language and triviality from the article, and you have added it back every time. You've violated the WP:3RR, and I see several people have warned you about that on your page, so please be aware that in the future you're not going to get away with something like that ever again. Quite apart from the 3RR, please consider the possibility that these people are more familiar with policy than you are. Having all that redundancy and promospeak in there doesn't make the article more "complete", it merely makes it more bad. Wikipedia is not for advertising. If you insist on keeping the article in such a miserable state, I see no other option than to propose it for deletion instead. Btw, your wild guess that these are people who "don't contribute articles of their own" is amusing to anybody familiar with their output. Better not go any further down that road, you'll only embarrass yourself. Bishonen | talk 19:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC).

PLEASE READ, don't just revert

Please READ the most recent version of the article I wrote. Let's see what I have added in the last time:

I included the topic magical and spiritual, and still state that the phrase "New Age topics" does NOT cover them adequately. Many New Age folks do not accept that magical practice is part of what they do, and there are many spiritual practices that are NOT New Age ones. I also added the topic "mind/body sciences". I included the founding date of the event. I cut the repeat of the phrase "these communities" and just made it "them". I trimmed the third paragraph MORE than the one you keep reverting to. I added an additional type of dance that is featured at the event, then cut a paragraph out.

I created a "Features of the event" section, and cut some of the same other paragraphs that the version you revert to cut. I changed "that can be seen from space" to "visible from space". I added "Sufiism" to the list of spiritual paths featured under the People section.

Otherwise, I have accepted a lot of the cuts that have been made. Gone is the mention of seasonal campers, wood-busters, the line about the intent of the event, the mention of the event being a yearly vacation for some, the "celebrating their diversity" line, and more. In fact, I think I have eliminated most of what has been objected to, while making the description of the event and its components more complete.

I urge you to actually READ the newer copy, and to compare it to such sites as the Burning Man site, and explain why reverting to that one rather than using this one is an improvement. In my opinion, the addition of a History section, a Principles section, a Community section, a Timeline section, and all sorts of other information would be encyclopedic and in keeping with the rest of Wikipedia, along with graphs and photos. I see no reason to harass me over the present content.

However, I apologize for violating the 4-revert rule. It was an accident, and I did self-revert as soon as it was pointed out to me. I'm not sure I did it right, but I certainly did not revert it again until Timmy12 stepped in, and he has a history of staking my articles and reverting them. Rosencomet 21:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

To Salix Alba

Please explain to me why the section you excised is "ad like". First, though, take a look at the Burning Man article. (not that I have anything against them)

An ad would say "a spectacular life-changing experience" or "great value at a great price" or "the finest in the world", or some other ad copy. The "Features of the event" section is just that: a list of some of the things you would find there if you, like the author of the encyclopedia article, had been there. It doesn't say why a sweat lodge is wonderful or what its benefits are, it doesn't say "you'll thrill to the pulsing rhythms" or "cool off in the placid waters of the pool" or "your mind will expand, your spirit will soar, and your soul will be nurtured". It just lists some of the structures, the existence of some resources, and adds to a complete "encyclopedic" description of the event.

Look at the Grand Canyon article, for instance. It doesn't just give the length and depth. It presents a history, offers pictures, discusses who comes to it and what they do there; hiking, climbing, endurance runners. Who has been there, why it's unique.

Look at the Woodstock article. The Glastonbury Festival. Renaissance Fair. Does this simple list really constitute making the article into an ad? Does it really not make the description more complete? Rosencomet 22:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I seriously advise you not to put back the section Salix Alba removed, Rosencomet. The feature of an ad that that section reproduces isn't the kind of explicit praise you're talking about ("finest in the world"), it's the triviality of the information. Sound system? Video support? First aid? It's pure promocopy to mention stuff like that. Work with me here. You sound like a reasonable person, please try to understand what I'm talking about. I agree that there are other articles that need the same kind of attention that I've been giving this one. Thanks for giving me a few names, I'll see if I get a chance to edit them. (Burning Man has far too much how-to stuff about how you get there etc—that all needs to go. Though it has some good sections also, rather better than anything in Starwood Festival, to be frank.) But please note that it's not my job to fix everything on Wikipedia. I'm a volunteer like you. The argument you make, basically that there are other equally bad articles so this one should be allowed to remain bad, is utterly invalid. It's never going to impress any administrator or experienced user, so you might as well save yourself some time and stop using it. Bishonen | talk 23:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC).

I have posed a question to Salix Alba, but have not heard a reply. I have not put that section back at this time, since I am hoping for a real discussion of the issue rather than just rocks thrown from a distance, as you seem to favor. First you argue that it's "not encyclopedic", then that it's "too ad-like", and now that it's "trivial".

I think you are missing the point. I disagree with your assessment of my argument. I was NOT saying other articles are just as bad. I was quite clearly saying that a list of the features of an event IS part of an encyclopedic article about that event. As both an event organizer and attendee, I do not agree that they are trivial, nor that it is "promocopy". Many events in the Neo-Pagan movement, for instance, have none of these features. Starwood is unique in both the production values of their stage offerings, how generally well known and cross-genre' their entertainers and speakers are (especially outside the usual audience of such events), and the degree of family-oriented programming and support and safety arrangements. Frankly, I would not only consider this list acceptable (though I'd be happy to delete the times, as Apostle12 suggested), but would see nothing wrong with a "History" section, a "Principles" section, a "Demographics" section, and other items (photos, for instance)that would make the article about this ground-breaking 26-year-old major event in its community more complete.

(You also seem to have quite an attitude; this sounds like threats, scolding and insult, and I don't see where you get the right, especially if you are just a volunteer like me. I have not had any problem with administrators; they seem to agree with my arguments generally.)Rosencomet 17:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Bishonen comments ptetty much sums up my response.
I've not take things to the mediation cabel and an independent mediator has agreed to work on the case. I'm not quite sure what the procedure is, so its probably best to wait for the mediator to get the process working Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-03 Starwood Festival. --Salix alba (talk) 17:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Food for thought?

Hmm. "As both an event organizer and attendee, I do not agree that they are trivial, nor that it is "promocopy"." And you really don't see that a neutral outsider, who has no dog in the fight, is better placed than an organizer and attendee to evaluate these things? Whatever. How about this, then: after you'd told me and Salix Alba several times that it was unfair to remove Starwood Festival's how-to sections and let Burning Man keep theirs —which is actually no way to argue on a volunteer website, as I said— I took my red pencil to Burning Man and did an encyclopedic cleanup on it. I removed a lot of text. See how nobody reverted me? This was the only talkpage reaction I got. I get the impression they were pleased to see the article improved. Food for thought? Bishonen | talk 18:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC).

Of COURSE I don't think that someone who is not an event organizer and attendee is better placed (whatever that means) to decide what is or isn't trivial about an article about an event, any more than a musician isn't suited to make such judgements about a musical article, or a mathematician about a math article, or a teacher about an education issue... I think you get the idea. And I get ABSOLUTELY NO SATISFACTION in the knowledge that I may have caused you to make cuts in the description of another event. I feel sorry if I have in any way made that article a target for your "red pencil". Nor is it logical to assume that if you removed something from another article and did not get an objection that this means your actions on this one had merit. (And stop talking for Salix Alba.)

Again, my argument was that the claim that the inclusion of this simple list of features of the event neither was "not encyclopedic" nor "ad-like", but that they made the description of the subject of the article more complete.Rosencomet 19:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but I think you misunderstand the point that Bishonen is making. You have too close an involvment with this event to make unbiased judgments. That is the reason that users are encourage to not edit events that are close to them. Other users are better able to make judgments. No special expertise is required to do this. The best judges are Wikipedia users that understand how to make an article be encyclopedic. --FloNight 20:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I might agree if this was a trial and these were judges. But these are articles, and the best people to either write or edit them are, IMO, people with knowledge and experience in the field of the subject. I'm not talking about grammer, formatting, or similar aspects of the article, but whether the content elements are "trivial" or not.
For instance, Alan Shockley is best known, among didgeridoo players and crafters, for being the first to make didges out of Agave cactus, which is not indigenous to Australia. You might not care, but to someone in the field this is important. Gene Krupa is known to have pioneered the trap set as a solo instrument in jazz. Badal Roy introduced the Indian Tabla to jazz music. You might not care, but a drummer or jazz buff would. Important innovations by an artist or unique features of an event as compared to others of his/its kind are notable, but perhaps not to someone unfamiliar with the genre. I'm sure you could come up with many other examples in fields I am not familiar with, and perhaps not qualified to write or edit articles about. Encyclopedias like Britanica and World Book hire experts to write and edit their articles. Rosencomet 18:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Inserting references to Starwood Festival in articles

This is a dispute about whether it is appropriate to add internal links (intra-Wikipedia links) to this article to dozens of articles on people and groups who have appeared at this festival. It is also about whether it is appropriate to add external links to the website of the group which organizes the festival to those same dozens of articles. 04:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute
  • I've struck the second part of the issue, as the links have been or are being removed. I'll repeat what I've said about it on the currently ongoing mediation page. Several parties are attempting to bypass that mediation, namely Kathryn NicDhàna, BostonMA, Paul Pigman, and WeniWidiWiki. Here is what I have to say to them:
    There is also a misperception and intentional rudeness on the part of the parties attempting to end the meditation. They keep calling Rosencomet and others "spammers" in violation of the no personal attacks policy. They have been informed the Rosencomet did not set out to put links in all the articles, but was essentially forced into it by Mattisse, who violated WP:BITE by first attempting to get all of Rosencomet's articles deleted, stalking Rosencomet to do so, and then placed (either herself or using one of several sockpuppets) {fact} tags on every mention of a Starwood appearance, as well as talk page messages intended to convey that any article without citations (the external links to would be subject to excessive tagging and possibly deletion. Thus, the links were added as citations to protect the articles from Mattisse's threats: several editors helped. I helped by improving the formatting and converting them to footnotes. Once the citations were in place, Mattisse then went around trying to get every admin and other user she had ever communicated with in the past to help her fight the 'evil spammers'. IMO, Mattisse has completely manipulated this situation, for reasons unknown to me.—Hanuman Das 05:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment Is this the appropriate place to discuss user conduct? If not, please strike out your comment about intetional rudeness etc. If this is the appropriate place to discuss user conduct, please let me know so that I may respond appropriately. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 16:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • No one attempting to keep them in the articles has any objection to a consensus decision that they are not needed. —Hanuman Das 05:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Over 70 Wikipedia pages have had these internal and external links put on them over the last few months. On some as many as three separate links. My view is that this is WP:SPAM. It is an concerted and deliberate effort to increase visibility via Google bombing. User:Rosencomet has an obvious conflict of interest as Director of the organizing group yet he has inserted many of these references. Mediation has been attempted but has not resolved much. Most of the external links have been removed but internal links remain, many of them obviously shoehorned into the text with little regard for their appropriateness to the subject. Browse through this list for some instances. I believe at least 95% and perhaps all of these references should be removed. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 05:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I've tried to keep this brief and just state my position. However I've just reversed a strikethrough of the second statement at the top. Although many of these external references have been removed, nothing was actually decided in mediation. I would still like to hear what other editors think of the mass use of an external website in scores of articles. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 05:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I have to second Hanuman Das's position. Mattisse is not innocent in this matter. She used a number of sockpuppets to give Rosencomet the impression of strong support of deleting the articles unless a citation was added to every mention of Starwood Festival. Also, I do not agree that this is clear-cut spamming rather than citation of facts requested using the {fact} tag; at least one admin Samir has stated that in his opinion the links are valid citations, not spam. His only question was whether they were needed in all the articles. Those calling Rosencomet a "spammer" or "Google bomber" appear not to be assuming good faith. They have been repeatedly informed that the links were posted in response to {fact} tags and for no other reason. I have to ask why Mattisse has not been blocked for this egregious use of socks to manipulate another user into thinking there was broad support for her position that every mention needed an external link to support it. Without the sockpuppets, Rosencomet may well have sought advice from admins, as it would have been a one-to-one disgreeement rather than the many-to-one that the sockpuppets made it appear. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
    • This is an RfC on article content, not user content. For the avoidance of doubt, the overwhelming majority view in the Mattisse RfC, supported the editor's conduct. In future, could you ensure your comments on this page relate to improving the article. Thanks... Addhoc 15:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
      • This history is not immaterial to the current situation, and explains the motivations for the citations having been added in the first place. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
        • A statement such as "User X is not innocent in this matter" would be ok in a user conduct RfC, but isn't appropriate for an article content RfC. In future, on article talk pages, could you ensure that you comment on the content, instead of the user. Thanks, Addhoc 15:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Links to the rosencomet website are appropriate in the Starwood and Winterstar and Association for Consciousness Exploration articles. In my opinion, they are not appropriate elsewhere. Internal links in biographical articles to Starwood, Winterstar etc. are only appropriate if a) the biography is indeed about a notable person and b) the appearance of said person at a rosencomet event is in fact a notable event in that person's career. That might be the case for certain individuals, but is probably not the case for others, possibly a large number of others. In the absense of evidence that the appearance is a notable aspect of the person's career, the assumption should be that it is not. Evidence that an appearance was important to the individual would, in my opinion, inlcude mention of the event on the individual's personal website. Appearance at Starwood does not necessarily imply that an individual is notable. See WP:BAND. --BostonMA talk 00:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • First of all, why ask about inserting references to the Starwood Festival rather than inserting references to an event in general? Make it personal, and you have to expect comments on the users' past behavior. IMO, there is no reason to limit the number of Wiki articles an article is linked to. The lists of past speakers and entertainers provided in the Starwood article are there, in part, to establish the notability of the event. Those having Wiki articles are linked to those articles, and these articles contain mention of these appearances because they are notable; this is the premier event of its genre, and inclusion in its roster is a unique credit for their bio, and says something about the audiences they choose to appear before. I see no reason not to tell the reader that the appearance took place, and once said, offer the reader a link to another Wiki page explaining what the event is. Such reference is, after all, the reason this linking ability was created. Anyone looking at the history of this issue will see a campaign to eliminate the work I've done by any excuse: either it needs citations, or has too many citations, or hasn't verified the facts, or has too many external links (which were used to verify the facts), or the article is linked to too few other Wiki articles, and now linked to too many. I have tried to improve the articles to address those complaints I found valid, but this is difficult when they contradict each other. In the process, I've been insulted, harassed, threatened, and accused of being someone I am not, of being paid for my work, of being an employee of one or more subjects, of linkspam and "google-bombing" (whatever that is). Compromises have been ignored, as have the comments of administrators, and there seems to be an attempt to do an end-run around the mediation process. It's hard to assume good faith under these circumstances. My only comfort is the support and efforts I've had from good people like Hanumas Das, 999, and Ekajati, and some kind words from Samir and a few others. But being a newcomer, I don't have as many buddies as the individuals following my articles and dissecting them. By the way, this Rfc was begun without any attempt to notify me. Rosencomet 20:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think the Starwood linkage is a clear case of linkspam to a commercial site, and that the internal linkspam is as inappropriate as the external linkspam. Both should be deleted, except in the very few cases where something about Starwood may be crucial to the biography of a person who is otherwise notable on their own merits. Starwood, while probably small-pond notable enough for an article itself, is not notable enough to add to the bios of otherwise notable people. See also comments here: Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-03 Starwood Festival --Kathryn NicDhàna 21:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - The above stated view is my view also. I was under the impression that WP:V was non-negotiable. If this is not true then I need to be told that. While I am flattered that so many choose to dwell on me, my motivations and behavior, I do not understand what that has to do with the issues at hand. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 21:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it's appropriate for me to comment in the "comments" section as I am an editor involved in the current dispute but this is more about the AfC than the dispute itself. I hope this AfC will bring in different editors' voices and eyes. I believe both sides can benefit from such input. The dispute now has a certain static and predictable quality in the interactions. I don't expect resolution here but I would like to hear what other editors think, particularly about the basic issue outlined at the top of this AfC. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 19:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Surely internal links from the artists to the starwood festival is appropriate as they did preform (I assume), also linking to the artists from the starwood article seems to me to be fine, however I do have some reservations on how it has been done at current. As far as the external links go I feel that a link to an external site should be used only on an article which it is providing a positive insite to understanding the article itself. Thereby linking from an artists article to the starwoods page seems impracticle and a waste of both time and space on the wiki servers (I refer to the extra code involved). Any artist who appeared at a starwood festival surely would have appeared elsewhere and it may well be a very small piece of their history, the same for the starwoods article, linking to external artist sites seems to be counter productive as a reader of either article would be looking for information on that subject not nessicarily the other. If one wanted to learn more of the other article would they not first move to the wikipedia page for that person and then, if they wished for more information, to an outside link from that article which possibly provided more relavance to them. On the subject of the internal links on the starwood page all I can disceren from them is that someone wanted to input the maximum exposure in the smallest space, I would have had the lists of featured speakers and entertainers with a little more information about what they did at the festival, also the shear volume of links in a space makes it difficult to read if anything. I would have included a list of say 'related person' in a bulleted list style with a few coloumns to better breakup the links rather than the continous prose. At current it looks like a glorified blog with a wiki stamp on. As Maddox said on his page ( "If I wanted to read another article in the middle of a sentence, I probably wouldn't be reading the article that brought me here to begin with." I would say also that using wikipedia for advertising goes against policy WP:NOT. On another note if Mattise is using sockpuppets does that not further degrade her own postion further than it may have been before, in my humble opinion it does due to her own lack of courage to write responces and feasable arguments herself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Widders (talkcontribs) 21:16, December 4, 2006
    • Note: this is this user's 14th edit. --Ars Scriptor 13:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Can we please declare a moratorium on messing with the links in question until some consensus is reached? Further revert-warring isn't going to solve anything. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 22:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I agree with Kathryn NicDhàna's comment above. Linking to Starwood's article and website from the Wikipedia article of anyone who's performed or taught there is inappropriate promotion of Starwood rather than adding to those articles' usefulness. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I concur with Kathryn NicDhàna. I also think that AdelaMae's request for a moratorium on adding, deleting or modifying these links until consensus is reached, is a really good idea. I also think that the appropriateness of links to should be weighed against the policies set forth in WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. I don't think it meets the criteria, and the mere fact that someone attended /performed /lectured at a for-profit event is not notable in and of itself. - WeniWidiWiki 00:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - concur with User:Kathryn NicDhàna. I inadvertently got involved in this mess, unknowing that there was mediation ongoing re. Starwood Festival; all I saw was inappropriate linkage and revert-warring within the Stewart Farrar article. Either way, I consider the fact that Stewart was ever there in the first place to be entirely non-notable, considering the man made a career of going on the lecture/festival circuit and, frankly, have to question the motivation of certain editors in their zeal to have all this in-linkage propagated throughout the Wiki - Alison 00:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment and offer: I would be happy to lead / mediate the discussion, as there doesn't seem to be a current mediator, if all involved parties agree to agree to attend mediation in good faith. - Che Nuevara 04:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I've responded on CheNuevara's talk page. I recommend others respond there as well to not clutter this page. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 04:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Rosencomet clearly has a conflict of interest here, is there anyone else who is pressing for inclusion of the multiple references to Starwood? Rosencomet is far and away the most impassioned advocate of the links, and I appear to have missed the other advocates of linking in amongst his advocacy. I completely agree with BostomMA's comment above: a link to Starwood (whether internal or external) should only be included if it can be verified from secondary sources that the article subject's involvement with Starwood is considered notable either by them or by neutral third parties independent of both Starwood and the subject (the New York Times, for example). I am not opposed in principle to using Rosencomet's links as support for the appearance, should said appearance be deemed notable, but I am very lukewarm on that since throughout this the overwhelming impression, rightly or wrongly, is that Rosencomet is engaged in astroturfing of his own festival - I would be a lot more comfortable if a demonstrably independent third party were making those calls, and I doubt I am alone in this. Guy (Help!) 12:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, to varying extents myself, Ekajati, Septegram, and 999 (who is on vacation until January according to his talk page). I never thought the external links were needed, but Mattisse insisted on citations and so I helped Rosencomet find citations and also helped make them into proper footnote citations. —Hanuman Das 14:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I do feel that a certain amount of linkage is reasonable, and point out (as I have in several other places) that apparently Rosencomet didn't start posting external links until Mattisse bombed the article with {cite} tags (in, IMO, faith that was questionable, at best). I agree that Rosencomet may have gone overboard, but there seems to be an overreaction happening, trying to get huge slabs of information deleted. *Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 16:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


Please see /mediation —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CheNuevara (talkcontribs) 06:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC).


I have tagged a few places which need clarification. Please elaborate on which "several other communities" are referred to in the lead. Also please clarify what "consciousness-altering devices", "movement systems" and "mind /body sciences" are - these are all very ambiguous terms and mean a lot of different things. I think if these are better explained, they won't need to be sourced - it is just very confusing the way it is currently worded. - WeniWidiWiki 07:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for an actual attempt to improve the article.
"Several other communities" includes magical practitioners who are neither Neo-Pagan nor New Age, Paleo- and Meso-Pagans (to use Isaac Bonewits' terminology), free-thinkers & agnostics, the consciousness exploration/psychedelic/entheogenic movement, environmentalists (NOT strictly New Age by any means), conspiracy buffs, science fiction & fantasy fans, Society for Creative Anachronism members, multi-culturalists, naturists, those interested in Celtic spirituality & culture (even if they are not Pagan), Voudon, Santerian, Yoruban, Church of the SubGenius members, Discordians, non-mainstream and heretical non-Pagans (most mainstream Jews, Christians and Muslims are not interested in Starwood because of the nudity and the policy against proselytizing, but they are not unwelcome as they are at some events), the alternative sexuality community, the polyamory community, and people into healing paths not necessarily associated with either Neo-Paganism or the New Age. There may be others I've missed; this is off the top of my head.
"Consciousness-altering devices" includes technologies that are designed to induce altered states of consciousness or to allow one to control their own passage from one state to another. This includes bio-feedback equipment (when used for this purpose), lucid dreaming devices, sensory-isolation tanks (and other non-immersion devices, including more ancient techniques using the sweat lodge, witch's cradle, etc), subliminal and other trance-inducing recordings, films and instruments, and especially those devices often called "mind-machines". Mind-Machines like the Pulstar, NeuroPep, I.Q., and the classic Whole Brain Wave Synchro-Energizer use controlled sensory stimulation to induce specific brain-wave states on demand. (In a way, they are, in the words of Joseph Rothenberg, exactly the opposite of sensory isolation tanks.) Robert Anton Wilson was a major proponent of such technology, as Timothy Leary was of virtual reality.
"Mind/body sciences" includes techniques and systems that deal with the synchronization between and the study & utilization of the relationship between the body and the mind. (Obviously, there is some overlap between these studies and those which gave birth to the devices mentioned above.) This can include physical meditation techniques like sutras, ritual theatre, ecstatic dance & trance drumming, breathwork, Rolfing, the Feldenkrais method, Reiki, polarity, bio-feedback (when used to control so-called "involuntary metabolic functions"), faith healing, creative visualization, and many other techniques and systems, some of which are part of more complete diciplines such as Yoga, Tai Chi, Chi Gung, Ceremonial Magick, and Shamanism.
I tried to find blanket terms to include these studies, all a BIG part of ACE and Starwood, without including long explanatory text in the article. If you wish to expand on anything for clarity's sake, please feel free, but I think it would be a big mistake to assume that "New Age" covers it. Rosencomet 18:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I changed "mind/body sciences" to "mind/body studies". By the way, if you search on "mind/body", you'll find links to "Biopsychosocial model" (mind-body) and "Philosophy of mind" (mind-body problem), both of which are part of what I mean by mind/body studies. Rosencomet 19:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Fact tags

Just off the top of my head...

Re: Drumming & Dance classes: workshops by Babatunde Olatunji (African Drumming), Daveed Korup (Middle eastern), Raquy Danzinger (Middle Eastern), Louis Martinie' (both Voodoo drumming & Celtic Bodhran), Amampondo (African Drum & Dance), Yaya Diallo (African Drumming), Baka Beyond (Afro-Celtic), Sikiru Adepoju (African Talking Drum), Muruga Booker (African Drumming, Trance Drumming), Badal Roy (Tabla), Larry Myers (Israeli Dancing), Don Waterhawk (Native American Dance), Laurence Galian (Sufi Dancing), Louis Nunez (Santeria Drumming), Max Pollack of Cyro Baptista & Beat the Donkey (Rhumba Tap), Lia Fail (Celtic Music), Brahm Stuart of Shaman (Celtic Bodhran), Halim El-Dabh (African Drumming, Dance & Chant), Neil Chastain (Clave), Jim Barleycorn (Feadog), Billy Bardo (Bodhran), Kelly McGowan (Bodhran), Airto Moreira (Afro-Brazilian Rhythms), Zimra (Belly Dancing), a whole lot more belly dancing & African & Middle Eastern drumming and other kinds ... Is that enough? There's more.

Re: The Roundhouse. Frank Barney, the owner of Brushwood Folklore Center (where Starwood has been held for over 15 years) and the designer of the Roundhouse told me, and has said on numerous occasions speaking to the public, that the Roundhouse is based on a structure of Celtic design he researched in a book while studying standing stone & labyrinth designs for future Brushwood projects (a labyrinth stands there now; he has discussed the standing stone project with Rob Roy, an expert on such matters, and the people at 4 Quarters Farm who have ther own). Frank is a member of ADF, by the way. I don't know how to document this, but I'm pretty sure I saw a discussion of this by him on a Yahoo group or some other chat group. I did verify this with him before changing the info on the Brushwood Folklore Center article (which has since been taken down), which incorrectly called it a Native American design. (I think Sirius Rising, their main event, deserves an article by the way.) Rosencomet 17:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rosencomet, While I appreciate your spending time to remember who all has taught drumming at the festival and who has told you things, nothing above does anything to document that people from Ireland or the Middle East teach at Starwood, or that the roundhouse is a "Celtic" structure. Stone circles are not Celtic, either. As others have pointed out, and I gently remind you again, personal memories and posts on YahooGroups are not WP:V-standard, verifiable sources. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna 18:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Nor does it SAY that "people from Ireland and the Middle East teach at Starwood", though there are several examples I could mention if I was making that point: Raquy Danzinger is from Israel (as are others in her group Raquy & the Cavemen), Halim El-Dabh is from Egypt, and members of Lia Fail, Green Crown, Gaelic Storm and Baka Beyond are from Ireland. I could point to individual listings in the program booklet of the ACE website, but you don't like that, and frankly it is asking too much that a reporter would have put an article in a newspaper about the fact that a speaker at an event that taught a Bodhran class was actually FROM Ireland. However, I have changed the sentence to read "There are classes on drumming and dancing from Africa, South America, Ireland, the Middle East and elsewhere." That should clarify what it meant: the styles of dance and drumming are from those places, not necessarily the people teaching them.
And I said right in the note on the discussion page, WITHOUT deleting your tag, that "I don't know how to document this". And I did NOT say stone circles were Celtic (nor are "standing stones" and "stone circles" the same thing), but just that "the Roundhouse is based on a structure of Celtic design he researched in a book while studying standing stone & labyrinth designs". I don't know if the book included many designs from around the world, or what. Instead of putting words in my mouth and erecting hoops to jump through, why not be helpful? If I add "according to the designer, Frank Barney (owner of Brushwood Folklore Center)" to the sentence, will you drop the citation? Need I ask Frank to ask someone else to place the fact that he said so on a website that I can cite? Do YOU DOUBT that the design is Celtic? Why? Rosencomet 19:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Clean-up Tags

I believe that the clean-up tags on the "Featured speakers" and "Featured entertainers" sections of the Starwood Festival article are inappropriate. There are three reasons listed for putting such a tag on a list:

1. "poorly defined" - I think the lists are accurately defined as lists of "some of the past featured speakers/entertainers"

2. "unverified" - every name on this list can be verified by citation from the website of the event organizers IF IT IS REQUIRED, and these citations have been agreed to be appropriate for the purpose of asserting that these people did, in fact, appear at the event, though their NEED has not been established. The website is listed at the bottom of the article.

3. "indiscriminate" - out of MANY more speakers and entertainers, these lists have been reduced to only those notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles (with the exception of two directors of the event's host organization). They are, I contend, as notable for an event as a bibliography or discography is for an author or recording artists, yet EVERY name has NOT been included. These lists show the diversity, notability and scope of the guest line-ups, and show an assortment of both celebrity and up-and-coming individuals: authors, organization founders, ground-breakers in their fields and arts, etc.

If there is some reason to tag a specific name, it can be discussed, but I think tagging the entire list for something as vague as "clean-up", and thereby alluding to standards that don't really exist, is excessive. If you think a particular name doesn't belong there, it should be discussed on a case-by-case basis, starting with YOUR reason that a particular notable speaker/entertainer should NOT be on the list. Rosencomet 18:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I tend to agree with you that the cleanup tags are unnecessary, and have removed them on the assumption that the standards you mention above are part of Wikipedia guidelines. It would be helpful when citing such standards to mention where you obtained them. I didn't see them in a very brief search. Could you provide a link? Thanks. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 18:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The three I mentioned were right on the box that appeared on the page as a result of the tag. The first one, "poorly defined", had no link (and therefore it was a standard that was poorly defined :-)), but the other two did. I went to them and could find nothing to support the notion that the lists were "unverified" (except that the citations originally on them had been removed, but I guess they are not necessary), and the only thing under "indiscriminate" that MIGHT apply would be the idea that the list is an almanac with every possible entry. My contention is that it does not contain every speaker & entertainer by a long shot, but just ones notable by Wikipedia standards, evidenced by the existence of an article for each.
Thanks for your cooperation and recognition that I am trying to improve the article and make it more complete by addressing the issues others are raising. Rosencomet 19:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Eh, that's not why I tagged them for cleanup. I feel that they need to be broken into sub-cats or something, because currently all they are is a huge unreadable list of names. Please look over at Lollapalooza or Burning Man for ideas - because at this time it is just an unwieldy list of names which goes against WP:NOT. Don't read into my intentions - I was not doing it to be malicious. - WeniWidiWiki 00:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't have a problem with that in principle, but I don't know how you would do that. I wouldn't want to have to break them up according to the topics they speak on or their musical genre's - too much overlap, and too many of them speak on several different kinds of topics and play different styles. Chronological would be problematic, too, since so many of them have appeared on multiple occasions. I don't know if that would be any advantage to the reader, either. I suppose you could put them in columns, and section them into alphabetical groups. It would take up more room, but perhaps be more readable. One long alphabetical list would be MUCH more space consuming, but more readable.
I didn't see any similar lists in the Burning Man article. In fact, they seem to give little space to those who contribute to the event with performance. I looked at the Lollapalooza article, but I think that if one was to include 26 year-by-year lists of who performed and spoke at which stage and workshop site (if one even could), you and certain others would freak out :-). (There are some interesting other features of those articles that might be worth emulating in the Starwood one, though.) Rosencomet 20:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Starwood Festival & RasputinJSvengali

First of all, Happy New Year to you all.

I have just left this note on User:CheNuevara's talk page:

I have just seen an action taken by User: RasputinJSvengali during this arbitration (and, as far as I know, an ongoing mediation) which not only rewrites the text of the article and deletes the entire "Featured Speakers" and "Featured Entertainers" sections, but adds "Satanists" and "the Illuminates_of_Thanateros" to the list of people attending. I am afraid that this has been done to bait me into a revert war during the arbitration. As an objective party who has offered to help with my efforts to rectify the problems caused by the disagreements between myself and other editors, I would like to ask you to reverse this action and request that User: RasputinJSvengali refrain from such actions. For several weeks I have only reduced the number of links and added 3rd party citations, all of which were requested by editors during the mediation, and have engaged in civil discussion on issues related to the article on the discussion page without actually doing the editing (except for one grammatical edit). Thank you. Rosencomet 17:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Rosencomet edits

In the wake of RasputinJSvengali's action and BostonMa's subsequent revertion of parts of it, I made some minor but now necessary (IMO) grammatical corrections and link fixes. I also replaced the ambiguous mention of "Neo-Druidic Groups" with the specific mention of ADF and Asatru. I hope no one minds that; presenters from those traditions can be cited with references to the ACE website if one wishes: Adf members Isaac Bonewits, Brian Perrin, Robert Lee "Skip" Ellison, Ian Corrigan, Liafal, and Bill Elston to name a few; Asatru members Diane L. Paxson, Laurel Mendes, Anne Sheffield, and Victorria Johnson among others. I question the introduction of "Chaos Magickians", but I guess it can stay. Lyrus Landholder, Nema, Taylor Ellwood, and a few others might qualify; but I don't feel confident enough to have added it myself. Rosencomet 19:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I know you disagree, but something needs to be done with the Featured Speakers & Entertainers section in this article. I am not saying this to hurt your organization or lessen the article. I think the Burning Man layout is a lot easier to read and doesn't seem to just be an endless list of names. I think that limiting it to the previous years speakers & entertainers or culling it out to five or six notable people is preferable to the mess that it is now. Most of these people are inter-linked to the Starwood article anyway, right? Currently how does this section contribute to the entry? It seems to detract from the entry, if anything. While Svengali's edits were pretty brutal, I think they were more in line with community consensus on this matter, which seems to be copious lists of links are unproductive.
If anything, I really think a sub-talk page should be made and these sections reworked and then merged back into the article after some discussion and editing.
Also, the remark about Satanists: Temple of Set members have been speakers at Starwood in the past, as per the Rosencomet site and elsewhere. It's a semantic argument whether the TOS is Satanist or not, but the argument could be made. Also, the ACE book catalog sells books by famous Satanists like Nicholas Schreck (who is the husband of Anton Lavey's daughter Zeena.) WeniWidiWiki 20:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why. Rosencomet 17:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think "something needs to be done". However, I quite specifically did not object to it in principle, I just discussed how one could or should do that. I disagree with the notion that there is a problem that must be solved here: the Lollapalooza article you referenced has extensive lists of entertainers and the days they played and which stages they played on. I just don't understand why you object to these simple alphabetical lists. I think it encourages people to read another article in Wikipedia about a notable individual, and helps support the notability of the event. What's the ADVANTAGE to Wikipedia of reducing that? How is that not "lessening the article"? What exactly is "unproductive" about these lists?

And as to the Burning Man article, would you really support sections on the history of the event, the demographics, the relative heights of the Starwood bonfire, other events that have been inspired by Starwood, the lay-out of the grounds, the effects on the environment, terminology, etc etc? Then why have you and those with you on this objected to lists of the features of the events as too ad-like when much more detailed descriptions exist on those, and other, articles about events? Besides, as far as I can tell, Burning Man is a completely different type of event (except that both have a big burning thing on the last night), which doesn't book and feature acts and workshops and therefor no one has listed them. It's a voluntary art festival, not a spiritual and educational event with entertainment. Rosencomet 17:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I know of NO Temple of Set member who has been a speaker at Starwood as a representative of that organization or as a Satanist, and the only talk about Satanism that has happened at Starwood was about how to help the public not confuse Paganism and Wiccan with Satanism. Laurence Galian spoke only about Sufiism and other non-Satanic subjects; this strikes me as an attempt to blackwash an event that YOU KNOW VERY WELL has nothing to do with Satanism. If you examine every speaker bio, you'll find people listing the fact that they are nurses, farmers, metallugists, architects, military personnel and electrical engineers. Must we list those groups as attendees, too, if they are not there in that capacity? Is every interest of every attendee or speaker a notable fact?

And to list as attendees at Starwood anyone who shares an interest with someone who wrote a book that sells in the ACE bookstore is pretty ridiculous. It is a bookstore, and contains books by plenty of people that the organization does not endorse the content of. Heck, there have been copies of the Malleus Mallificarum, the Koran, Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow, and books on conservative politics. They are there because people who buy from the bookstore do research on such subjects. Rosencomet 17:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

(I have moved your replies down - please do not break up blocks of other user's text. Use quotations.) I am starting to become frustrated again with this issue. I feel like you are being needlessly protective of this article, and are exhibiting ownership issues. I am trying to be polite and work with you on this rather than just edit-war about it. This is why WP:COI is such an important policy. You seemingly perceive any changes to the article as attacks or detractions. You immediately put messages on your "allies" user pages asking them to rally to the defense of the entry. You have basically stated in your reply that the long list of names "supports the notability of the event" when for all intents and purposes it is just a long unreadable list. I am running potential changes to the article by you out of courtesy - I, nor any other editor, am obligated to do so. I have tried to discuss changes to make the article better. I did not re-add the reference to satanists attending /speaking at Starwood, and only made the observation that they have in the past. I am trying to work with you here. However, if any alterations to the article as it exists are unacceptable to you, I will let my conscience be my guide, be bold and edit as I normally would. - WeniWidiWiki 17:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I just put the lists in columns. It's a start. - WeniWidiWiki 18:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
OK with me, and thanks. I had no idea how to do something like that. It definitely looks better and more readable. If you think the listing of the years attended is extraneous, I have no objection to deleting them. Or, if you think that's exactly the kind of info that would make the article MORE complete and encyclopedic, I'll try to add them. Rosencomet 19:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I never said that "any changes to the article are attacks or detractions". I have discussed the possibilities on this page. I DO consider attempts to associate the event with Satanists an attack, however, and the wholesale deletion of the entire lists of featured speakers and entertainers, especially during an arbitration. (What happened to the agreement not to make such changes during it?) If someone wants to add people that can be demonstrated to actually attend in large numbers (for instance because the event presents something for them) - environmentalists, body painters, free-thinkers, conspiracy buffs, naturists, Rainbow Tribe folks, Ceremonial Magicians (more accurate than Chaos Magickians anyway, and more inclusive), performance artists, etc - I have no intention of doing so, but I have no objection.
There have been changes made to the article that I have not objected to even by RasputinJSvengali, such as deleting "that burns all night" from the bonfire description, deleting the mention that the Roundhouse is based on a Celtic design, and the elimination of the sentence "Starwood serves the Neopagan and New Age movements and several other disparate communities - providing a common ground for networking and interaction between them". I consider them unnecessary changes, but have not asked anyone to do anything about them. I have responded to your inquiries about issues of clarity and supplied whatever info I could, and have not objected to your changes, just followed up with occasional grammatical tweaks.
But I simply don't agree that there is any need for "limiting it to the previous years speakers & entertainers or culling it out to five or six notable people". I see nothing in that proposal that makes the article better, more complete, more accurate, or more encyclopedic, nor do I see any such requirement in Wikipedia policies or applied generally to other articles. In fact, I think that would lead people to expect those particular individuals to be present at the event if they should attend, rather than lists that give the reader an idea of the type, variety, and notoriety of those presenting. These lists give the reader a better idea of what attending the event is like, what the event offers its attendees, and what contribution it makes to the community it serves in providing a forum for these notable authors and artists where their work can be experienced, which is what IMO an article about an event should do. This seems to be a matter of taste, not policy. Rosencomet 19:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully since these posts are old, the satanism issue has been settled. As an attendee and an editor, and an archivist, there is no historical basis for using the word satanist anywhere on the Starwood website. By sticking to the literal and exact titles of organisations and orders that have presented no group labeling itself as satanic has spoken or presented at a Starwood event. I hope that this issue is settled. A list of speakers and performers however does give the reader a sense of the type of festival event this is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maegdlyn (talkcontribs) 18:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


I'm unfamiliar with the term Neo-Sufi except as used by Hakim Bey (who really should appear at Starwood IMO). The main Sufi speakers that have appeared ar Starwood (that I can recall offhand) are Laurence Galian and Paul Garbanzo (AKA Paul Hudert, AKA Misha Karamazov, a member of the Flying Karamazov Brothers). Their bios don't use that term. There is no "Neo-Sufi" article on Wikipedia. That's about all I can say on the matter for now. Rosencomet 18:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not mean the term "neo-Sufis" as a literal name for a group. My concern is that terms such as Sufi or Druid have an historical meaning. Individuals may call themselves what they may, but that may lead to confusion with the historical meaning. So, my concern is whether those at the Starwood festival who identify themselves as Sufi belong to the category of those who have been historically identified as Sufi. --BostonMA talk 18:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I understand your question and why you brought it up. I'm just giving you the info I have. In the case of Druid, I had no problem with the change to "Neo-Druid" that was made, since there is no direct link to ancient Druid religion on the part of present-day practitioners of paths using the word. There are present-day Pagans, but Neo-Pagans are members of a revival based on traditions that have not had unbroken lines of adherents. Certainly today's Wiccans are not adherents of any religion that existed centuries ago; it's a modern tradition utilizing re-creations of past traditions and lore.
As far as Sufis go, I believe that those calling themselves Sufis today are members of the same tradition as the term "Sufi" indicates. The two speakers I mentioned are among people who follow that tradition and call themselves Sufis rather than Neo-Sufis. But I could be wrong. I'd be happy to hear others weigh in on the issue, or I could try to contact someone who would know better than I. (Maybe Danny DeVito - "Sufis Rule!" :-)) Rosencomet 19:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Laundry Lists

Once again, an attempt is made to circumnavigate an ongoing arbitration by those on one side of the issue, to get what they want by any possible means.

I object to the placement of these tags. The person placing them said above that they are unreadable, and that I should "look at such articles as Lollapalooza for ideas". Well, that article has lists of 300-400 acts, every act that has been there, listed by year and which stage they performed on, dating back to the first year, with plenty of repetition of names, and many acts that are not notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article.

The lists here do not represent everyone who has appeared by any means. Except for two directors of the event, 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. Most have 3rd-party citations on their own articles to further support notability of their appearance, but I have not cluttered this article up with all these links.

I contend that these lists of past speakers and entertainers lends notability to the event itself in a very real way. They illustrate the fact that this is not just a party, or a retreat with a few workshops, but a major event with a cirriculum comparable to a week of a university summer-session. There is NO resource like it in the community it serves; it has featured more authors and leaders of the traditions they are involved in than any festival of its kind in America, and more major entertainment (most of whom are also instructors), and for more years (and for no per-class additional charge). 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 one bit, and I see no clear criteria by which to do so.

I think the tags requesting clean-up are inappropriate, and they should be taken down. I am loathe to do so myself, since there is an ongoing arbitration on the article, one which I think should have been honored before these tags were placed. These lists have already been cleaned up, as the person placing the tags well knows, and a lot of work went into doing so. Rosencomet 00:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Do not presume to know what my intentions are. You have repeatedly stated that no one is editing the articles because everything is 100% resolved. They are not resolved. Furthermore, your above statement is proof that any editing to your article is perceived as an immediate attack. I am stating for the record that I have not edited this entry because you immediately attack any edits. I further maintain that the lists detract from the article and wikipedia. - WeniWidiWiki 06:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I never used the word "attack". I never used the phrase "100% resolved". You may maintain what you maintain, and I may maintain what I maintain. You did not remove the lists, and I did not remove the tags. However, you placed the tags DECLARING that the lists were unencyclopedic, an obvious assertion that the lists NEEDED to be cut down, not a statement on the discussion page that you THOUGHT they needed to be cut down. This is accompanied by a notice on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Laundromat page under "identifying articles to be cleaned". Those seeing either the tags or the notice may be unaware that there is a controversy about this issue. This was, IMO, an invitation for others to do that which you, as a party to the arbitration, did not want to do yourself. Someone like the mysterious Rasputin might simply say "it's an unencyclopedic list; says so right there. Why debate?" and delete the whole thing. Then the removal would be a fait acompli, and those who disagree with you would be in the position of either letting it stand or be accused of resuming a "revert war". I have stated my opinion that this action was inappropriate. I think you have made it clear that you don't care whether this content is notable, or sourced, or whether other articles have even bigger lists, or whether there are no external links, or anything else: you have decided they should be reduced or removed, period. Others, including myself, disagree, which is why there is an ongoing arbitration.Rosencomet 18:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand how placing a cleanup tag is a violation of arbitration. If the lists are already cleaned up, the worst it can do is have no effect. Please explain how having laundry-list tags on this article is harmful to Wikipedia. - AdelaMae (t - c - wpn) 14:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • See the above statement. I never used the term "harmful to Wikipedia" either. I did not place an objection on the arbitration pages against what I see as an attempt to curcumnavigate that process; I was being civil, and expressed my opinion here on the article's discussion page. But I would be in my rights to do so.Rosencomet 18:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

So out of one side of your mouth, you are stating that the reason that edits to the Starwood articles have stopped is because everything is resolved and there are no further contentions. Yet here, you are accusing me of circumventing the Arbitration by merely switching out two templates? Are you suggesting that no editors should touch any of the hundreds of related articles while the arbitration is under way? - WeniWidiWiki 19:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

STOP THAT! I did NOT say "everything is resolved", I did NOT say "there are no further contentions", and I did NOT say "circumvent"; I said "circumnavigate", which is "to go around", not "to prevent or thwart". I said what I said, not what you would like to CLAIM I said. And it is a LIE you folks keep repeating that there are "hundreds of related articles", which you know very well is not so, since there is a list of them on the evidence page of the arbitration. Besides such obvious ones as "list of Neo-Pagan festivals", "Sherman, NY", and links to the ACE article and the other major event it runs (and a redirect page), and the one Matisse/Flinders made to What Witches Do (which has been deleted), there are less than eighty articles. And we're not talking about some editor "touching one of the related articles", we're talking about what YOU, a PARTY to the arbitration, are DOING on THIS ARTICLE ITSELF. And if you guys didn't mean it when you said that providing third-party citations is what was needed to assert that the appearances were notable enough to be mentioned, WHY DID YOU ASK FOR THEM? And why won't you stop arguing the issue? Rosencomet 20:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

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 20:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Entertainers List Additions

In my opinion, Kenny & Tziporah Klein is not a notable enough act for this list. If this act gets a non-contested Wikipedia article, I may change my mind. Sam Andrew is part of Big Brother & the Holding Company, and probably does not need a separate listing (unlike, say, Stephen Kent, who appeared a different year as a solo artist & speaker). James Gurley was not with Big Brother when they appeared at Starwood, and has never been there so far.Rosencomet 17:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Given that they were responsible for spreading their Tradition far and wide, and were pretty well-known in their time, I'm inclined to disagree as to their notability. However, I freely admit I'm biased, being a member of that Trad, so I will not take any action on this one way or the other.
18:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that there was an article about Kenny & Tzipora's tradition. As I said before, if they're notable enough for that, I see no reason not to include them in the Starwood past entertainers' list. It is my opinion, and other editors can do what they think is best, that this act may not pass the judgement of those who keep arguing against these lists, either because the act no longer exists or because they aren't widely enough known or, frankly, whatever excuse one of them can come up with to delete an addition to this page. If it stays, I think it should be moved so it is in alphabetical order like the rest of the list, and a redirect link should be provided from Kenny & Tzipora to Kenny Klein's article (or perhaps by just changing it to Tzipora & Kenny Klein). Rosencomet 16:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup of lists

My opinion on the lists: Laundry lists are listcruft and not encyclopedic. I think they need to be reduced to those individuals who have played an important part in the festival, and then those names integrated into the text in a way that demonstrates their relevance and notability. For instance, it seems to have been deleted now, but I recall reading somewhere that Diana Paxson designed a torchlit procession ritual that is (or was) a regular part of Starwood. So something to the effect of, "a traditional feature of the festival is the torchlight procession [in which x, x, and maybe x happens]. The ritual was designed by Diana Paxson and has been a popular event since its introduction in [year]." And in terms of performers, "Concerts feature Neopagan regulars such as [x, x, and x], and even more widely-known acts such as [x and x]. Internationally known artists such as Babatunde Olatunji and Big Brother and the Holding Company have even made appearances in recent years." ~ Kathryn NicDhàna 01:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not share that opinion. I feel that the present lists, which include only those speakers and entertainers that are notable enough to have articles of their own, ARE encyclopedic and add to the article. I was asked in the past by either you or Weniwediwiki to reference Lalapalooza as an example; well, they have every act that has ever been there listed by year, what night, and what stage they performed on, including repetitions and acts with no evident notability. Other venues are not made to "integrate" those who have appeared into the text, nor "demonstrate their relevance". You are making up new rules and new hurdles to apply just to these events and those who appear at them. I would be glad to revisit such features of the event like Diana Paxson's ritual (which I don't believe is a torchlight one, but the "Bidding the Goddess Welcome/Goodbye" processions at the beginning and end of the event, with a large hand-carved Goddess effigy), although as you know such material has been taken down before as "not notable".
With the help of others, I've put up citations with links to the Starwood programs to answer the flood of "fact" tags one editor (with many sock-puppets) put up. I was told that wasn't valid. It went to mediation, and the mediator said they WERE valid for that purpose. Then the external links were objected to, and I was accused of google-bombing. The links were taken down, and the next accusation was that the PEOPLE weren't notable. I eliminated anyone without a Wikipedia article, leaving only those notable enough to merit one, and was accused of "linkspam" and that the citations don't prove the APPEARANCES were notable. The mediator agreed, and I asked what WOULD be correct citations, and was told 1. third-party citations, and 2. an indication that the event was important to the subject, such as a mention on their website or in an interview, or if a recording of their appearance was produced commercially. I began supplying those, but the fact that the recordings were made at Starwood keeps being taken down as "advertising" (even though no info about where to get them is provided), and in spite of the 3rd-party citations, now the accusation was "undue weight". So I began supplying lists of public appearances that Starwood was merely one of, and the new accusation is "listcruft". You say the names should be incorporated into the text, but that's where you deleted them from as "undue weight". And I feel sure that no matter what else I do, or anyone else does, there will be an objection on some new basis.
Most of this comes from you and Pigman. No matter what I do, my attempts to satisfy the demands are not recognized, more new reasons appear to delete it, and my work is reverted. It has nothing to do with policy; you aren't doing this to other articles. This is a months-long campaign, that has involved two mediations and an arbitration, and I am the only one that keeps working to satisfy the other side, to no avail. Please stop. Rosencomet 21:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide or direct us to a reliable source about the ritual Diana Paxson designed for the event? What about sources for other rituals that are an important part of Starwood and would help put a particular presenter into a meaningful, encyclopedic context? I seem to recall one of the links is about the person who kept the ashes for the fire, and how that role has been passed on now; that seems like an interesting fact to include (though I don't know if other editors would agree). I personally think that sort of information gives people a better sense of why the festival is meaningful to the people who attend than does simply stating that you feel the festival is important.

BTW, I did not delete any well-integrated, third-party-sourced, notable people from the text of this article. IIRC, I haven't deleted *anyone* from this article, though the laundry lists need to go for this to be Wiki-appropriate. I ask you to please bear in mind that a variety of people have worked on this article and made a variety of changes. Also, your conflict with other editors would not have gone on for months, nor reached arbitration, if you had respected the community consensus that, as executive director of ACE, you shouldn't be working on this article. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna 22:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The mention of the Goddess ritual was in Diana L. Paxson's article, until someone named Lorriew deleted it while adding other material. Lorriew has made no contribs before or after that day. The ritual is in two parts: "Hail Holy Earth: Nerthus Procession and Ritual" and "Bidding the Goddess Goodbye". You can find a description at [3]. The story about the person keeping the ashes can be found in the article Circle of Ash at [4]. (I wish this archived version had the really cool pictures that went along with the article; send an e-mail to and I'll see that someone sends you a copy of the issue if you like.) I'm fine with you adding text that you think "gives people a better sense of why the festival is meaningful" if you like, though I'm suprised to here you say that or that descriptions of rituals would be encyclopedic (and past entertainers & speakers wouldn't). However, there are LOTS of rituals at Starwood. I'm not sure you'll find "third-party sources", though; we don't have reporters at Starwood attending individual rituals and writing articles on them. The biggest one, of course, is the Bonfire Lighting Ceremony (designed by Karen Allgire) involving torch dancers (usually from among the event organizers) and drummers & dancers trained for the purpose at workshops each year. It's been led by Jeff McBride at least twice, I believe.
The Church of All Worlds Water Sharing ritual, held in the pool, is an annual event. It had to be scheduled twice since the enormous number of participants broke the pool's lining a few years ago. It's inspired by the descriptions in Stranger in a Strange Land, and led by whatever CAW members are handy, usually Oberon Zell-Ravenheart, Morning Glory (when her health allowed), or Anodea Judith; when none of them are available, Ronn-Walks-With-Fire and Raven. LaSara Firefox ran one at WinterStar in 2005 & 2006. You'll find it here [5] under Drink Deeply/Share Water, or in the program just about any year in the past 15.
Every Wednesday, Thursday & Friday (and sometimes Tuesday) there's a major ritual at midnight, always run by different groups each year. The ADF ritual is usually Thursday, and usually run by Ian Corrigan or Isaac Bonewits. CAW sometimes takes one, or the New Orleans VooDoo Temple (run by Miriam Chamani with drumming led by Louis Martinie') like this one called Revisioning the Roots [6], or Shawn Eyer who does Hellenic Paganism rituals [7], or Sufi Zikr by Laurence Galian[8]. Jeff McBride has run Alchemical Fire Dance Rituals, Mask Rituals and others[9], including a ritual Story-Sharing Circle at WinterStar. There have also been Masonic-style rituals and Pujas. Starwood has also featured the Tslagi Dance of Life, spiral dances, gnostic masses, and Santerian warrior-necklace initiations (by Baba Raul Canizares, until his passing)[10], and always has Inipi sweat lodge (or stone lodge) rituals for both men and women daily, and Shamanic initiations (usually run by Daniel Lupinski). There are others: mens' circles, womens' circles, faerie rituals, Keening Circles, Walking the Labyrinth (constructed of luminaria), Rangolis, etc, and always a Healing Circle Sunday morning (usually either Anodea Judith or Rebecca Crystal). Many workshops, of course, have rituals incorporated into them (animal dancing, drum blessing, divination, Oracular Seidh, Womens' Moontime rituals, Gong Bath, talismanic blessing, etc etc).
Co-Director of ACE Joseph Rothenberg often runs multi-media enhanced rituals designed around some basic pattern. He and Ian Corrigan ran one based on Timothy Leary's 8-circuit mind model at WinterStar last weekend, and has run others at both Starwood and WinterStar based on the 5 Elements, the Tarot, the Kaballistic Tree of Life, the Hero's Journey, the Alchemical Elements, and others, including Thelemic-inspired ones like The Elevenstar and the 6-Ring Circus of the Aeons. Rosencomet 02:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Rosencomet, out of all the names and information and links you put in your post above, one was pure gold: The Cleveland Free Times article.[11] This is what is meant by third party sourcing. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, please read WP:V and WP:RS. --PigmanTalk to me 03:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Lists such as these, and even more extensive ones, are common on festival articles. IMO, there is nothing "unencyclopedic" about them. On the contrary, they are an important component to an event that books speakers and/or entertainers. Also, the term "Listcruft" does not apply at all to these lists, as reading the Listcruft article makes clear. They are obviously relevent and notable to the subject of the article, and should not be broken out for their own article. They are not indiscriminate, but include only people notable enough in their own right to have articles. They are shorter than many lists in articles about other festivals, non-repetitious, and do not include external links to commercial websites. This material would certainly be of interest to anyone interested in checking out an article on the Starwood Festival. Here is a partial list of other festivals' articles that have lists of acts (or contest winners, or whatever relevent term there is for the kind of festival it is). They are of all kinds of festivals. I see no justification for calling the lists on Starwood Festival or WinterStar Symposium "listcruft" or laundry lists, terms generally used to indicate articles SOLELY consisting of a list of something with neither context nor an indicated group to which it would be of interest.

In my opinion, incorporating names into a paragraph of text is more unweildy, and harder to reference for a reader. Examples of this can be seen at Edgefest and Gung Haggis Fat Choy. I think simple, non-repetitive lists of relevent material are perfectly acceptable, and these lists qualify. Rosencomet 22:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Please make comment in less than 4000 long

Your postings are hummongous. I would like to be on your side but i can't read through your enormous postings. Can you be nore succint and to the point? It would help us all. Also, if you provided diffs instead of just your opinion that would help also. Thanks! Alien666 04:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


I've added some references to this page, and WinterStar & 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 18:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Merging WinterStar and A.C.E. articles into Starwood article

Should the Starwood Festival, Association for Consciousness Exploration and WinterStar Symposium articles be merged into one? A.C.E. is the organization that runs the Starwood and WinterStar festivals.

  • Merge - It's been suggested a few times now that the articles be merged. I've added the "proposed merge" template to the articles and listed an RfC so we can have a few more eyes on this. I think merging the other two into this article would be the best bet, as this is the better-known article, and the other two are very brief. I propose a section in this article for A.C.E., and another for WinterStar. Looks like an easy merge as there is significant overlap in the content for all three of these. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna 04:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge - but since A.C.E. runs both festivals, why not merge the festival articles into A.C.E.? - AdelaMae (t - c - wpn) 14:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment If there's a decision to merge, and I'm withholding a vote on the subject at this point, I do think it should go under A.C.E., since the organization runs and predates both events.
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 14:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I can see your point. It would be fine with me to merge the other two into A.C.E. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna 22:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • 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 23:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Do Not Merge per Rosencomet above. If A.C.E.'s sole function was to run these events, or if they were clones of one another, I'd be more inclined to say "Merge." Since that's not the case, I have to oppose the merge. If there's a great deal of overlap between the articles, then it's incumbent on those who are interested in the subject to improve the level of detail to the point where the overlap is comparable to the cases Rosencomet cites above. Otherwise, I might have to vote to merge if this comes up again.
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 23:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect the other two entries - the overlap in material is so great, I think it would be better to have one entry. Switching between all three entries, they read almost identically. I don't think ACE by itself as it currently exists is notable, however I have no opinion on which entry they should be merged into. - WeniWidiWiki 01:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment They are different events, at different venues, at different times of the year, in different states. One is a six-day outdoor "nude-friendly" camping event with a bonfire, fireworks, a major stage with multiple acts, Kids' Programming, and all sorts of features not possible indoors, the other is a symposium held in a luxury resort with hotel rooms and cottage accomodations - no fires, no nudity, no camping, no bandstand, no sweat lodge, no kids' stuff, etc etc. The only similarity is that the same group puts them on, and many of the same speakers have appeared at both events. This is just Kathryn and Weniwediwiki, and I'm sure Pigman will follow, continuing their campaign against this organization and its events in Wikipedia. They never help expand the articles, always try to reduced them.Rosencomet 01:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment Wikipedia is not merely about expanding articles and making them bigger. It is also about refining and distilling information to make it appropriate and accessible for a general encyclopedia. I realize my judgment on these particular articles is different than yours. I'd appreciate it if you would refrain from characterizing my actions (and decisions) as a "...campaign against this organization and its events in Wikipedia." Thanks. --PigmanTalk to me 02:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment I call them as I see them. You three have been editing these articles in a manner that you do NOT edit any other festival articles. There have been months of pressure, two mediations, and an arbitration, and whenever one rationalization for cutting material from them fails you come up with another. You have dedicated a great deal of time and effort to this.
As for "refining and distilling", you three have expanded Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism, a tradition two of you admit to being founders of, so outrageously that there are over 400 words devoted just to the "first modern appearance of the term"! And there is a list of a dozen "names that people involved in CR-style religion have chosen to use"! Yet you three, who act as one, flag a list of 25 past performers over 26 years (all notable enough to have their own articles) as "unencyclopedic", though dozens of festivals have such lists and even more extensive ones. I think an objective look at that article and how you three have been treating these would be assessed by the observer as bias.Rosencomet 20:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment I have to point out in response to Pigman's remarks above that it's perfectly valid to expand existing articles; I see no reason to merge the articles if someone (even the dreaded Rosencomet) is willing to expand and differentiate them. Is there a policy that overlapping articles must be merged instead of expanding to reduce the overlap, I think the "Do Not Merge" is entirely reasonable.
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 01:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment in response to Rosencomet's list above: While WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is from Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, an essay that is neither policy or guideline, I think it has some applicability here. Going through the list of groups and events above, I found them to mostly fall into two camps. 1) Groups and events that should indeed be merged together (in my opinion), and 2) Events and groups with a connection so unobvious, I could barely discern it. In fact, if Rosencomet hadn't paired them above I'm not sure I would have been able to spot the connection. My point is that I would prefer to focus on the appropriateness of merging for these specific articles, not the examples of other articles. Examples are useful but misleading as well. I think it would be wiser to use Wikipedia policy and guidelines as touchstones for the process than other articles. And of course the general consensus of this discussion (if there is one.) --PigmanTalk to me 02:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment All the pairings of festivals and organizations come from the first paragraph in each festival's article. Each article is linked to it's organization's independent article. Rather than misleading, I think these examples are revealing. It is NOT common practice, nor is there any Wikipedia policy, to merge two distinct events together or merge the article of an event with an organization that does other things besides run that event. In fact, there are often separate articles for the same event run two different years, such as Woodstock, Woodstock '89, Woodstock '94, and Woodstock 1999, or Atlanta International Pop Festival (1969) and Atlanta International Pop Festival (1970). (Heck, that one even has a separate article for the album, Live at the Atlanta International Pop Festival: July 3 & 5, 1970, as Woodstock has for the movies, the soundtrack albums, and the Joni Mitchell song.) Special rules and policies should NOT be created just for those articles you have a problem with, nor should apparent "consensus" be built by a tag-team of three editors who traditionally edit as one, especially in regards to these articles and others related to Neo-Paganism.Rosencomet 20:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment I don't believe the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument is relevant here. This isn't about whether we should create or delete something, but whether it's appropriate to merge articles that already exist. That's a different issue, IMO.
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 01:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Do Not Merge -- Starwood and A.C.E. are two VERY different animals. Aside from being an event produced by ACE, Starwood (much like Burning Man) has been around so long that it has built up its own small subculture. There are plenty of people whose summers center around Starwood, but who couldn't even tell you what A.C.E. stands for. To these people Starwood is 'their' gathering, and to them, A.C.E. is just the people who conveniently do the dirty work of setting up the physical aspects along with the Brushwood staff. To such people the event itself, and the traditions that have grown up spontaneously around it, are a major part of their lives and the only time they ever really "get away" from the straight world. A.C.E., on the other hand, not only produces the week-long festival but functions year-round inside the city of Cleveland hosting admittedly smaller but regular events (such as the weekly drum nights at Starwood Center) as well as distribution and publishing of CDs and books that have nothing to do with Starwood, but with metaphysics or counterculture in general. Likewise, Winterstar has a completely different function than Starwood, as much like Starwood as a sci fi convention in a hotel is like a SCA outdoor reenactment festival. In other words Winterstar has an entirely more intellectual orientation. There are rituals but the focus is on speakers, giving workshops and lectures in hotel meeting rooms. I would hate to see any merging of A.C.E., Starwood and Winterstar because it would cut down drastically on the amount of information and cross-referencing that are required to do these three quite distinct subjects justice. Also, I suspect from examining the history of this that a couple of people have some kind of personal anti-ACE agenda -- which is the only reason I can see for this whole argument happening at all.
*Stang* 12:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment While your personal feelings, perceptions, and memories about Starwood, WinterStar, and ACE are obviously detailed and distinct, you should remember Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia depends on secondary and tertiary sources for it's content, not just the first person accounts such as what you just wrote. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. I think what you are perceiving as an attack on an organization/events you belong to and obviously care about, my impression is this is a discussion amongst a group of editors trying to improve the encyclopedia. The priority here is the encyclopedia, not the promotion of an event. --PigmanTalk to me 07:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment Don't misrepresent User:Stang's statements about his relationship with ACE. All you have to do to be a member of ACE is buy a membership card for $65/year, which gives you discounts on events and products but no vote or power. And hundreds of people each year are "involved in Starwood and WinterStar organizing", and mostly just get a work barter for entrance. Stang's involvement is primarily that he often appears as a speaker; he has no financial stake, nor is he a director or partner in the LLC. And much of what he said is not a "first person account", but is reflected in the many references provided in these articles and is a fair assessment of some of the differences between the subjects of these articles. And his statements were made HERE on a talk page; he did not add "first person accounts" to the article. MY impression is that this is not an attempt to "improve the encyclopedia", but to reduce the presence of ACE and its events on Wikipedia.
Also, your concern for comments on a talk page by someone who might be somewhat involved in the subject seem pretty strange considering the constant EDITING of the actual ARTICLE you, User:WeniWidiWiki and User_talk:Kathryn NicDhàna do and have done on Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism, a tradition you and Kathryn have admitted to being founders of; an article that even includes material ATTRIBUTED to Kathryn! Rosencomet 20:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment 1) This is an RfC on merging these three articles. Please try to focus on this. 2) Please try not to read unexplicit thoughts or motivations into what I write. 3) To briefly address your claims concerning User:Kathryn NicDhàna, the Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism article and myself: I am not a "founder" of CR nor have I ever claimed to be. If you read the extravagantly sourced First modern appearance of the term, it does not claim Kathryn "founded" CR; it says she played a part in popularizing the naming of the tradition. An RfC on this matter said Kathryn did nothing wrong with her participation on the article. 4) May I remind you to please try not to shout. Please attempt to keep the discussion within civil bounds if possible. And please try to avoid long and frequent contributions to the conversation. Doing so makes it difficult to follow the discussion and reach an understanding of consensus. --PigmanTalk to me 22:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment Pigman, I think your last request is unreasonable. Anyone who feels they have valid points to make should be able to express them without facing disapprobation from others involved in the discussion as long as those comments remain civil and relevant. Your first three points may be valid, but the last is inappropriate, IMO.
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 01:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I apologize if I gave the appearance of attempting to stifle or limit Rosencomet's contributions to the discussion. It concerns me when one voice overwhelmingly dominates all others in a discussion trying to find consensus, particularly when WP:COI is readily apparent. I think my request was reasonable. --PigmanTalk to me 21:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I think there's sometimes a fine line between reasonable involvement and COI. I think it would be unreasonable to expect Rosencomet to refrain from debating this subject, just as I would be strenuously involved in the debate if someone suggested merging the entry on my Wiccan Tradition into Wicca or even BTW (just to use a relevant example). I don't see Rosencomet "shouting" and I don't see him overwhelmingly dominating all other voices. If he feels he needs to present a large number of examples to make his point, he's entitled to do so.
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 21:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree the COI issue is sometimes a fine line. However, one difference between, say, you editing Wicca or British_Traditional_Wicca is that you probably do not gain in any concrete material way from writing about them. Rosencomet and ACE do directly benefit from these events. ACE's two events have a minimum yearly cash flow of between $200,000 and $300,000. This is a loose and conservative estimate on my part based on available attendance numbers and registration fees; the amount is probably larger. Rosencomet claims that ACE is non-profit and that he is not paid for his work for the organization. This may be true. Yet there is absolutely no accountability or proof of this beyond his word. This is what concerns me most about his COI. I think your COI on editing BTW pales by comparison. --PigmanTalk to me 19:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I consider this statement to be a clear violation of Assumption of Good Faith, as well as a gross display of ignorance as to the workings of ACE and Starwood. See here [12] for more details. Rosencomet 19:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment(I'm getting worn out typing all those colons! ;) ) If you can figure out ACE's annual cash flow, I'm pretty sure you could check its tax-exempt status, too. I believe it is indeed a non-profit organization staffed by volunteers (or, at least, it used to be). I recognize your concern, but it's hard for me to see how Rosencomet is acting inappropriately in this instance.
Frankly, I'm kind of losing my will to continue this discussion. I believe I'm being entirely reasonable, and just want the article and editors to have a fair shake, but apparently not everyone agrees with me. I'm not sure what else there is for me to say.
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 20:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
comment - But the Wicca article is already large and well-sourced. If a Wiccan sub-trad can be sourced well enough for its own article, it should have its own article, so as to not make the Wicca article overly long. There's no way all the various trads of Wicca could be covered in the Wicca article itself. However, with these three articles all but Starwood are essentially stubs. I support the merge because it would take three not-so-hot articles and possibly make one good article. The "profile" of the events would not actually be reduced, as the merged article pages would be turned into redirects. I know it's been hard for some to AGF in this, as I have been critical of Rosencomet's attempts to use WP to promote a commercial event. The thing is, my priority in this and related situations is creating articles that are worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. Please understand that this is not a threat, but an observation: if stubs cannot be well-sourced, and do not result in well-written articles that neutral third parties do not perceive as advertising or cruft, they may at some point be deleted. Again, that's not a threat, but rather feedback based on my work on many, many other articles on the 'pedia. One strong article is preferable, imho, but, really, I'm fine with whatever consensus emerges from this. I do worry, though, that people coming to this discussion will be put off by the excessive verbiage and tone of some of this discussion so far, and not bother to participate. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna 04:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment Stang is perfectly entitled to express an opinion here based on his personal experience; it's not as though he's trying to put it on the article. His "first person account" is reasonable in this context; I've never seen someone demand sourcing in a deletion discussion. He's not trying to publish original thought; he's making a [completely accurate, in fact] point about the differences between the three. I've only ever been to Starwood, and that was a long time ago, but there is no doubt that the three are indeed very different.
I tend to assume good faith, and have considerable respect for the parties who are voting for Merge and who have otherwise butted heads with Rosencomet here and elsewhere, but I can understand how someone might start to wonder if there isn't some sort of animosity toward Starwood/ACE/Winterstar/etc.
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 01:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment (shakes head sadly) I was not asking Stang to source his personal recollections or his analysis of the importance and differentiation between the events here on the talk page. What I was trying to say was that the info Stang provided was neither explicit nor apparent in the event articles themselves. I was looking for sources that would detail and substantiate the uniqueness and differences between the atmosphere and activities of the two events. I was trying to find reasons why these events should be kept in separate articles. Apparently I'm not communicating well because several people seem to misunderstand what I've said here.
Septegram, when someone completely capitalizes five separate words and uses an exclamation point, I consider this raising their voice to a shout. Perhaps I'm overly sensitive to the nuances of the written word but that's my perception.
I'm also wondering to what extent people are responding emotionally to the idea of merging the articles. I can only suggest people actually read the three articles closely. I just don't think the merge suggestion is a radical idea, wildly at odds with these articles. --PigmanTalk to me 03:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry--your response to Stang's comments seemed to be an objection to his using personal experiences in the context of this discussion. If I misinterpreted, I freely apologize, but I'm not sure why you brought up his personal experiences if he's not trying to insert them into the article.
As I said above, if people are willing to expand the articles in question, it's appropriate to give them time to do so.
As for the caps, some people find it easier and faster to use caps for emphasis than to use the appropriate markup, especially since the markup here is not standard HTML. That's the problem with a narrow-bandwidth medium like this; nuances get lost or misunderstood.
I have not noticed inappropriately emotional responses; I think you're mistaking firm beliefs for emotional responses. I know I am not being emotional about this; I have no personal interest in Starwood, ACE, Winterstar etc.
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 16:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Again, what I'm trying to communicate seems to be not getting across and I must accept responsibility for this. Let me try again: I was impressed by Stang's description about the differences and unique qualities of the two events. I don't think the qualities he described are currently in the articles. I thought it would be good if valid and reliable sources for this info could be found so the points of differentiation Stang described could be included in the articles. This would help me decide on the merge issue. Note I have not voiced a specific "merge/don't merge" opinion. I'm still thinking and trying to find ways to make the independent articles stand better separately rather than merged.
Septegram, I was not trying to say you were acting out of an emotional response in this discussion. Perhaps my statement was born out of a mistaken and self-centred belief that I am acting logically on the evidence I can see in the articles and if others would just look carefully, they would see the same things I do. (note self-deprecating sarcasm and not self-righteous tone) Firm beliefs I can respect. However when at least two participants in the discussion derive material and/or social benefit of one sort or another from promotion of the events, I do tend to question the motivations behind their firm beliefs. --PigmanTalk to me 19:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
CommentWe don't know they derive any such benefits. I don't see opposing a merge as something that would engender any benefits for them, as redirects would still point to the information. I only get the impression of someone who's passionate about the subject and wants to see it done justice by Wikipedia.
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 20:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Do Not Merge. Looking over the history of this discussion, here's what it feels like to me: a large part of the issue here has been User:Rosencomet's efforts to promote the Starwood festival through this article. His continued guardianship of this article, and his edits and adding links to everything on Wikipedia related to the Starwood festival, are apparently giving the users here the impression that he's a spammer or a marketer trying to use this article as a promotion for Starwood. This, in turn, has led to the merge request, largely in order to decrease the importance of the Starwood article. I will disagree with this, because while Rosencomet's contributions have been rather focused on this one topic, he has not done anything in violation of accepted Wikipedia standards. He hasn't spammed links to the Starwood festival all over the place, and he has contributed mainly to articles that are indeed related to Starwood. While this may be seen as toeing the line and almost (but not quite) at the level of commercial promotions and/or spam, it's still within the boundaries of what's acceptable here -- because Starwood is indeed a major festival. I'll agree with those who've stated that it "deserves" its own article, because as I mentioned in the article myself, it is indeed the "biggest" pagan festival on the East Coast, and one that attracts a lot of attention and major participants. This fact is not in dispute, and this in itself should be a reason to keep the Starwood article separate from ACE and Winterstar. --Modemac 16:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Do not merge - reasons given are not compelling. Dave Null 18:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • User:Stang has never voted here -- check his contributions. That is some kind of faulty signiture. Funny that he decorated it all up and then attibutes them to someone who has never voted here. Cheers! BackMaun 02:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Here, is this better? I was informed just today by a Wikipedia contributor that I had been doing the signature thing all wrong. I have indeed been participating in various wiki articles but up until now the sig was probably wrong. --RevStang 04:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That should do it :-) Thanks for fixing it. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna 04:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment Try User:RevStang, or simply follow backwards from the history of this talk page. [13]Rosencomet 23:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment I have expanded all three articles to address this issue and further distinguish these subjects. All material I have added is, IMO, notable as part of a description of such a subject, and available from sources already in the reference sections of each article. Rosencomet 20:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Kenny Klein

I did not add Kenny Klein (or Kenny & Tziporah) to the list, but as long as it's there it might as well be linked to his page and in alphabetical order. I also improved the existing links to Stephen Kent and Jim Donovan. It was not my intention to add names to this list, just clean up what was there. Rosencomet 21:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Family Friendly and Youth Programming

I disagree with Kathryn's deletion of the sentence "This is a family-friendly event, with both day-care and programming for children and teens."

Why does the mention under the heading "People" of the fact that the event is family-friendly and has youth programming seem like an advertisement to you? Is it the way it's worded, or do you think youth programming is not a notable feature to a Neo-Pagan event? I think it differentiates it from the raucous party that Starwood is sometimes mischaracterized as, and I think any event with a separate schedule of programming just for young people should have that as part of it's description. Do you feel the same way about this section of Pagan Spirit Gathering's article?

Children, tweens, and young elders

PSG has a extensive program specifically for visitors under 18 year of age, grouped into three categories. The children's day care facilities service those under 7 year old, a pavilion or two is provided (with some guided activities) for the Tweens (8-12) and the Young Elders (13-18) have a Teen Center with snacks and other ameneties. Workshops are listed with age limits or recommendations for participants. Most workshops are usually open to Young Elders, and many are open to Tweens and children. Minors can also have limited access to the fire spinning activities if they get permission from their guardian(s).

Or how about this from Pagan Pride Day?

All Pagan Pride Day events aim to be very family friendly. There are rules regarding what can and cannot occur at such events to this end. Many events provide a safe children's area where young Pagans can participate in various creative and entertaining activities. The children might learn to play rhythm toys with a volunteer musician. They might make wands or other ritual tools for their own use. Mask making is always a popular activity. There are usually spiritual aspects to the children's activities without being too serious or cumbersome for them to comprehend. Often older children help their elders keep tabs on the smaller children, thus learning responsibility via community service.

Why begrudge this article a single sentence on the subject? Have you ever read these events' desciptions, or that of Winter Magic? Or is this just about Starwood? Rosencomet 17:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the reason it strikes me as advertising copy in this article is because of the strong integration of drugs and sex into the Starwood programming and in the social atmosphere outside of programming. While I don't believe in "shielding" children from the realities of these human experiences, neither do I believe exposing them to such an environment is necessarily or obviously "family-friendly." In other words, it strikes me as promotional rather than NPOV and accurately descriptive. --Pigmandialogue 20:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that covers it pretty well IMO, as well. - Kathryn NicDhàna 21:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah. So your real objection has nothing to do with it being "promotional". It has to do with your predjudice against the event based on your perception of the content of the workshops, and your personal beliefs as to whether an event can be "family-friendly" and still have classes where these things are discussed. You don't ask whether any of these classes are open to attendence by minors. You don't recognize that Pagan Spirit Gathering and most other Neo-Pagan events has had classes about the use of Plants of Power (entheogens), sex magic, gay Paganism, and virtually all these issues at one time or another, often the very same classes by the same speakers. You ignore the fact that there have been over 100 children a year at Starwood whose parents evidentally have no problem with their kids being there, and that there is an entire track of child care and youth programming at a separate area (Kids' Village). You not only simply assume that the kids are "being exposed to such an environment", and judge the event by your assumptions, but further judge by your perception of the "social atmosphere outside of programming"! I wonder where you can obtain "3rd party citations" for that, and whether all events should have their articles edited according to your beliefs, without actually being there or citing souces, about their "social atmosphere".
What, by the way, constitutes a "strong integration of drugs and sex into the Starwood programming"? Four classes out of 150? Six classes? Do all classes related to gay issues or gay spirituality constitute "sex"? How about feminist Wicca, or the Great Rite, or Native American Moontime rituals, or polarity in Magick? How about Tantra: sex or spirituality? Is a discussion about sacred use of ayahuasca among members of a tribal society by a noted anthropologist or psychologist like Stanley Krippner or Ralph Metzner constitute "drugs"? Peyote songs among Southwestern Native Americans? Flying potions among medieval witches? Ergot and the witch-hunts? Or a discussion of the drug war; politics or "drugs"? And are YOU to be the judges about whether the youth programming at an event can be mentioned in its article based on your assessment of the above issues? Or is this really about that at all?
I think you have done a good job of exposing what I have said all along; that you have personal predjudices against this event, and that your editing has reflected this from the beginning. You feel no need, it seems, to support your beliefs; you just delete the simple mentions of these features of the event - this event, but not PSG or PPD - with the weak excuse of them being "promotional". You know, there are a lot of people who would say any event discussing (and practicing!) witchcraft and Paganism, gay issues and polygamy, shouldn't be called "family-friendly" or even be ALLOWED to have children there, but I would hope such predjudice would not enter into the editing of Wikipedia articles.
I question your ability to edit this article objectively. You obviously use a different and personal set of standards regarding Starwood than other events. Rosencomet 18:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Rosencomet, while I understand your feelings, I have to point out (from a strenuously NPOV) that this comment is at best perilously close to violating NPA. I realize you're speaking from frustration, and you may well be right and those with whom you disagree wrong, but this sort of comment will do you and your cause more harm than good; I can absolutely guarantee it.
If you have issues with someone's agenda, I believe there are better ways to address them. I don't know, offhand, the accepted Wikipedia procedure for "calling" people on POV, but these kind of remarks are not going to do you any good. I can only recommend a prompt and sincere apology.
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 19:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I am speaking through a great deal of frustration after months of mediations and arbitrations during which I have been repeatedly (and, IMO, wrongfully) accused of various and ever-changing things. I have struck the line about the Neo-paganism project; you are right, that was over the line and not for me to say. The rest is my feeling about what seems to me to be the case. IMO, pre-judging is going on here, by those who have not experienced the event and based on no factual information. I don't know why this is so, or how conscious it is, but I felt it must be pointed out. I don't consider these personal attacks or personal at all, but I believe that these two have edited this article for months (along with a third editor who hasn't weighed in here yet), and battled over this editing through two mediations and an arbitration, in a way that is not objective and sets standards they do not apply to other, similar articles.
I very much appreciate your words. If I have strayed past criticism of their editing, and it seems I am being personal, I apologize and state clearly that I am simply trying (in, perhaps, overly-dynamic language) to plea for a cessation of this harsher treatment of my editing than, in my opinion, it deserves. Perhaps there are better ways of finally addressing the disagreements I have been having with these editors. I'd like to hear them. But I don't want to go through months of mediations and arbitrations just to be treated like everyone else. Rosencomet 20:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Pigman and Kathryn NicDhàna, I have to ask if you have reason to believe children are exposed to sex and drugs at Starwood? When I was there, I did not see obvious sexual activity, and the most I experienced in the way of drugs was walking by someone's camp and smelling something that didn't resemble any incense with which I'm familiar. Sure, there was conversation about those things, but that's a different animal, and I don't believe an event where such discussions happen is thereby unable to claim "family-friendly" status.
I have a three-year-old girl, and would not fear taking her to Starwood because of either sex or drugs, unless the place has changed radically since I was there in the early nineties.
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 19:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Sept - Yeah, actually, I do have a bunch of info about this. However, the unpublished reports of multiple friends and acquaintances over the years are no more WP:V than Rosencomet's opinion that it's a "family friendly" situation. As the unpublished details really can't be included in the article, I'm not sure it's really appropriate to even go into on the talk page. The incidents I know of were not part of official programming, so Rosencomet had nothing to do with them, AFAIK. I am weary of his ridiculous attacks, and don't really care to inflame the situation by detailing it all. Feel free to e-mail me if you want to discuss it further. - Kathryn NicDhàna 23:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
How nice of you to offer to circulate negative rumors you have heard about this event, especially where no one can refute them. I consider the statements Pigman made, and you agreed to, to be the real attack here. You two were slinging mud and trying to convince the reader that Starwood was endangering children. Strangely, that translated to a mention of youth programming and "family-friendliness" as "promotional", when what you were really saying (with no citation or "3rd party sources" to back it up) is that it is a lie that Starwood is family friendly. I just reacted to these unfounded insults. Rosencomet 17:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Request For Comment: Child Care and Youth Programming

One of the features of this event is its child care and youth programming. There is a separate area for child care and kids' classes and entertainment, and a track of teen programming including classes, social activities, and "teen swim" time in the pool. Should a simple mention of the existence of such programming be considered appropriate in this article?

  • Include Such activities have been listed much more extensively in articles about similar events such as Pagan Spirit Gathering and Pagan Pride Day. It is obviously a feature of the event, and though it may not be appropriate to over-describe the specifics, mentioning the fact that families with children attend the event in the "People" section, and the existence of child care and youth programming in the "activities" section, would be appropriate and should not be removed. Rosencomet 18:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I would remove the term "family-friendly" personally, but otherwise I see no problem with mentioning that the event includes programs for young people and has child care. I'd even mention some of these programs for teens specifically. Wjhonson 20:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I should add my reason for removing "family-friendly" would be that it sounds too much like "family values" to my ear which is a buzzword I dislike intensely. Wjhonson 20:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Rosencomet's opinion that the event is "family-friendly" is his opinion. Cite a reliable, verifiable, third-party source, written by someone with no personal stake in the event, which states that the event is such. An RfC is not the way to determine this; verifiable, neutral, third-party sources are. I also think Rosencomet's personal attacks above show that he is still extremely WP:OWNy about this article. The previous RfC's have clearly expressed that Rosencomet has a WP:COI conflict of interest in this matter, and shouldn't be working on this article at all. It has been suggested in the arbitration that Rosencomet avoid "editing aggressively". While he has not been edit-warring on the article itself, I consider his attacks and accusations above, and on various talk pages, to certainly be "aggressive". He is also Canvassing for this RfC: [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] . Rosencomet is no longer a newbie, and has been told many times that this sort of behaviour is wrong. - Kathryn NicDhàna 22:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I have never bothered to publish it, so it doesn't count as proof here, but I have been to Starwood, met lots of kids there, and never seen problems with them being there, other than that they might (gasp) see naked people or non-christian religious ceremonies. Of course I suppose that they might see the same things in the Wikipedia... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 01:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC).
It may be your opinion that I should not be editing this article, but after dragging me through two mediations and an arbitration it is clear that there is nothing prohibiting me from doing so, as the arbitration clearly states, as long as I do so responsibly. You are the one deleting my edits without due cause, IMO. I am not doing so to you. This is the first RFC I have opened, and if what I did consists of "canvassing" (something I do not concede), then it seems to happen all the time. I have gotten notifications of RFCs I might be interested in weighing in on, and I've seen such notifications concerning RFCs on issues I was on the other side of appear on other editors' talk pages. I said not one word about how the people I informed should vote, and in some cases I had never had any contact with them before. But since you, Pigman and WeniWediWiki have been editing as one block on this article and others I created and/or edited, and have deleted my work and called mediations and an arbitration on it, and have spent months on this campaign, I feel I have to do whatever I legitimately can to stand up when I feel you are doing something that is unfair. I apologize to others who might find these exchanges tiresome and contentious; believe me, all I want is for my work to be left alone, especially when it is obvious that it is in keeping with other articles about similar subjects. I hope I can be forgiven for pointing out that in my opinion this editing looks more and more like it comes from someone who has problems with this event (and perhaps the organization that runs it), and is not editing objectively. Rosencomet 17:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I strongly dislike the usage of words like Family-friendly and appropriate. Especially these last days since I got an infinite ban from Conservapedia for being inappropriate when requesting a definition of family-friendly in the debate of whether or not sex is a family-friendly article. I also feel that this article is a little much like an advertisement, also I'd like a photo of "savage people doing savage things" (a prejudice perhaps but I tend to imagine that new age people can sometimes be a little more colorful than programming geeks like myself). Footnote: my first reaction to youth programming was teenage pagans writing Hello World in FORTRAN. I guess the meaning of programming is not the same as the first one than comes to my mind. // PER9000 07:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment This bickering over terms like "family-friendly" is little more than petty politics. There's no reason not to talk about things like that in the article, and the objections to it on the grounds of "Oh dear, we can't talk about children here" are little more than whining of the sort often seen behind the scenes in events of this kind. Bollocks, go ahead and include it, and save the flames and arguing for the mailing lists and round-table discussions. --Modemac 11:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I saw there was a request for outside opinions, and I think mine would be. This question seems easy enough - cut out the term "family-friendly," since it's closer to opinion than fact (as the above discussion demonstrates). Re-write to say something like "There is daycare and programming for children." That's a fact (I assume) that we could cite, and I don't see any undue weight concerns from a simple approach like that. (By the way, if other articles use terms like "family-friendly"....fix them.) --TheOtherBob 14:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Looking at all this further, I see that there is an argument that this approach would give the fact of daycare undue weight. I think it comes down to this: if the daycare is a significant fact that reliable third party sources have commented on, then it should be included (particularly if those reliable third party sources made more than a passing reference to this fact). If it is just a feature of the event that has not been given weight in reliable source, it should not be given weight here. I think so far it looks like the latter, and therefore should not be included. I also share the WP:COI concerns explored below. --TheOtherBob 20:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Reconciling "public nudity" and promotion and usage of "consciousness altering substances" doesn't really jive with "family friendly" in my opinion, but I feel the same way about Burning Man. Opinions have nothing to do with it though. I think that the usage of "family friendly" is inherently vague and un-neutral and just further contribute to a more Advertisement feel to the article and pushes "encyclopaedic" to "promotional." - WeniWidiWiki 15:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)]
    • Comment: There is no "promotion and usage of consciousness altering substances" in the programming of this event, and it is wrong to make such an accusation. If there is usage among attendees, that is not something the organizers can be expected to control; heck, the U.S. government can't do it either. There is no "public nudity" either; this event takes place on private property. And saying that nudity can't be reconciled with family is an insult to all members of the Naturist movement and many cultures around the world, and certainly doesn't "jive" with the opinions and principles of most Neo-Pagan traditions.
    • However, I can see merit in the arguement that the term "family-friendly" is vague and perhaps effectively meaningless. I would be quite willing to dispense with the term, if the same standard is applied to Pagan Spirit Gathering, Pagan Pride Day, and other events that have used the phrase. On the other hand, I see no reason a description of the child care and youth programming of Starwood should be any less acceptable than that of these other events. (Why is it that no one has noticed that this RFC does not even MENTION the term "family-friendly"?)Rosencomet 17:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment I have added mention of the age groups and marital status of attendees under "People", and a simple mention of child care and youth programs under "Activities". No use of the term "family friendly". Rosencomet 17:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment. I have removed it. Childcare isn't a "feature". I discussed the insertion of this kind of triviality with you in early November, by talkpage posts which are still on this page[20] [21] and edit summaries, [22] [23] [24] and after an initially poor reaction[25] and dismissive commentary, you seemed to understand my argument that bad features on other pages are not good excuses for having the same bad features here—for instance, making the article read like a broschure by inserting trivialities like childcare, or the sensational novelty of being attended by singles as well as couples... sheesh. And yet here that stuff comes again. I would have expected your editing practice to get better as you got more experienced and learned how things work here—I wouldn't expect you to keep making the same newbie mistakes. I have removed the childcare stuff, please compare my edit summary from November: "Rm some more advertising language. Stuff like childcare at a festival is utterly non-notable."[26] Bishonen | talk 18:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
With all due respect, that is what this RFC is about: whether it is appropriate to include mention of child care and youth programming in this article. It seems to me that though several people who have weighed in here think the phrase "family friendly" is not, no one but you has said that "Stuff like childcare at a festival is utterly non-notable". I don't think you should lump all the rest of the text you have deleted in the past with this piece, and I don't think an arguement like "see how nobody reverted me" (as you say in one instance) is sufficient. We disagree about this, which is why I've called for a Request For Comment. I hope that you will respect the concensus even if it goes against your characterization of this "stuff". I would, however, ask if you have deleted all mention of child care and/or youth programming from any other events' articles, and specifically WHY you think it "isn't a feature". In fact, it isn't listed as a "feature", but simply placed under "Activities".Rosencomet 18:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment One problem with the inclusion is the difference between "features" (a distinctly ad-like description) and items which are verifiable through reliable sources. Not every detail is pertinent to an article's primary focus. Again, I have to say I don't think you are capable of good and balanced judgment regarding what is or is not appropriate to this article due to your conflict of interest as the executive director of ACE. --Pigmandialogue 19:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Which is why I called this RFC, Pigman. So aside from your opinion of me and my judgement, please answer the question: Should a mention of the existence of child care and youth programming be considered appropriate in this article? IMO, if it is appropriate, then it is not irresponsible for me to add it, and the arbitration states that there is nothing prohibiting me from editing this article if I do so responsibly. Rosencomet 20:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment This reads too much like a promo ad or an review instead of an encyclopedia article. FloNight 18:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

    • So far, this seems to be the count. (I will include comments about the term "family friendly", even though that's not what the RFC is about.) If I have mischaracterized your comment, please correct it.

Rosencomet: Include

Septegram: Include

Wjhonson: Include, but delete "family friendly"; sounds too much like "family values".

Modemac: Include

TheOtherBob: Delete daycare as undue weight, unless 3rd party citation included.

Bishonen: Delete as trivial, advertisement-like and "utterly non-notable".

Paul_Pigman: Delete as ad-like (this is unclear).

FloNight: Delete as ad-like.

WeniWidiWiki: Delete "family friendly" as inherently vague and un-neutral. No clear comment on child care and youth programming.

Kathryn_NicDhàna: Delete "family friendly" as opinion without "reliable, verifiable, third-party source. No clear comment on child care and youth programming.

PER9000: Delete "family friendly" as bad/vague term. No clear comment on child care and youth programming.

Rosencomet 20:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You're mischaracterizing this whole process when you speak of "the count": an RFC isn't a vote, survey, or straw poll. In order to edit the article responsibly, please review WP:VOTE. Sorry about the "feature". Childcare isn't a festival activity, either. Bishonen | talk 16:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
I'm sorry if I once again didn't do things the way I should. I have never done an RFC before. I was just trying to create some kind of summary to help people sort through all the text, and remind one or two folks that they never really commented on the question itself. (I got the idea from here [27]; was this a proper way to summerize an RFC? You note, only those who agreed with the summarizer were included in that "summary".)
So if it's not, in your opinion, a feature or an activity, what is it? Those that have written other articles about similar events found it (and youth programming) notable enough to devote entire paragraphs to it, which no one has deleted. It's not a feature of all festivals by any means. I can see you don't think it's worthy of note in this article, and perhaps in ANY article, but I still don't understand why.Rosencomet 21:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I've restored the wording as Rosencomet last had it. That wording to my eye is completely neutral and informative. *Not* mentioning that certain activities are present appears to be some sort of WP:POINT. The idea that childcare should not be mentioned whatsoever is silly. Perhaps some editors could take a one-day break and consider whether "mentioning child care" is really worth having a long battle over? Wjhonson 16:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Wjhonson, which is why I originally voted "Aye" for "family-friendly" as a shorthand term. This argument is getting way out of hand, and perhaps all the conflicting editors should take a break from this page and get a fresh and more relaxed perspective.
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 16:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your attention to this issue. I will concede after reflection that the phrase "singles, couples and families alike" may sound a bit ad-like, so I've deleted it, and I won't use "family-friendly" either. (What's all this "friendly" stuff anyway? A while back sombody changed "clothing optional" to "nude friendly.") I hope we can all give a little, and relax a bit. This is not defamation of character or false data or any issue important enough to merit a lot of contention. Lets give each other some slack. Rosencomet 17:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge Proposal

No additional comments have been posted for or against this proposal since February 26th. There were three proposals to merge the articles, and five not to merge. All three articles have been expanded since that date, and IMO show greater reason for the articles to stand separately on their own. In accordance with Wikipedia policy [28], there being no clear agreement after two weeks that the articles should be merged and no response after four weeks, I have deleted the Merge tags from all three articles. Rosencomet 20:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Featured guests

I have today tagged this section with a {{cleanup-laundry}} tag. I feel this list is bloated and tending unencyclopaedic. Can somebody acquainted with the subject perhaps scale down the list to the most important speakers, or speakers with the "greatest contribution" to the festival? Ohconfucius 03:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This has all been argued at length before, through arbitrations and mediations and talk page discussions. These lists are comparable to those in other event articles, far shorter than some, and do not include external links to websites of the artists, so they are not linkfarms. They are not unencyclopedic, as they do add to the notability of the event, and the lists only include acts/speakers notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles. Asking to prove either that their inclusion is important to the event or that the event is important to them is asking for a ridiculous amount of tail-chasing that makes no more sense than asking the same for the yearly line-ups on Lalapaloosa's stages, and would only be a bunch of subjective frillery. These are no less encyclopedic for an event than a list of albums appeared on is for a musician, or a list of venues performed at, or magazines a writer's work has appeared in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosencomet (talkcontribs) 18:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is a copy of part of that discussion:

  • Comment Lists such as these, and even more extensive ones, are common on festival articles. IMO, there is nothing "unencyclopedic" about them. On the contrary, they are an important component to an event that books speakers and/or entertainers. Also, the term "Listcruft" does not apply at all to these lists, as reading the Listcruft article makes clear. They are obviously relevent and notable to the subject of the article, and should not be broken out for their own article. They are not indiscriminate, but include only people notable enough in their own right to have articles. They are shorter than many lists in articles about other festivals, non-repetitious, and do not include external links to commercial websites. This material would certainly be of interest to anyone interested in checking out an article on the Starwood Festival. Here is a partial list of other festivals' articles that have lists of acts (or contest winners, or whatever relevent term there is for the kind of festival it is). They are of all kinds of festivals. I see no justification for calling the lists on Starwood Festival or WinterStar Symposium "listcruft" or laundry lists, terms generally used to indicate articles SOLELY consisting of a list of something with neither context nor an indicated group to which it would be of interest.

In my opinion, incorporating names into a paragraph of text is more unweildy, and harder to reference for a reader. Examples of this can be seen at Edgefest and Gung Haggis Fat Choy. I think simple, non-repetitive lists of relevent material are perfectly acceptable, and these lists qualify. Rosencomet 22:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Rosencomet 18:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Kathryn NicDhàna (Talk | contribs), who has been involved in this issue before, has returned the tag with the statement "Actually, no, it's a legitimate concern". I don't see the "concern". These lists don't take away from the articles; in fact, they contribute to them. Rosencomet 17:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Kathryn NicDhàna now posts: "Publications in "References" does not indicate if they are non-trivial mentions that source content." I am not aware of ANY article that includes characterizations of just how significant or trivial a particular reference might be, or on what scale one would measure that, or where you would put such a characterization. She also says that the article has no "footnotes", though it clearly has "Notes", and plenty of references, and no article is REQUIRED to have footnotes. She also says it "reads like an advert", even though it contains only descriptions of elements of the event and it's history with no value judgements, encouragement to attend, or info about upcoming programming. (It is no secret that she has a problem with the articles on Starwood Festival, WinterStar Symposium, and Jeff Rosenbaum, and probably always will.) Rosencomet (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps reading these might clarify the problem:

After being dragged through hell by you and your many sock-puppets, I would prefer you NOT advise me, Mattisse. Rosencomet (talk) 19:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I was making a comment to all the editors of this article, since your opinion is one of many. All the editors of this article need to be involved in these decisions ideally, as the article belongs to everyone. Regards, Mattisse 17:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Idea for advice

It might be helpful to read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Proposed decision if there are people who are unclear about their role in editing this article. Regards, Mattisse 17:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I sincerely hope you don't think that anything in the proposed decision gives you license to provoke or instigate a revert war or other conflict by stalking my work here and on other articles, as you did in the past using dozens of sock-puppets, which began the need for that arbitration in the first place. And saying that you are not speaking of me but just "people" in general while directing people back to that lengthy arbitration is pretty transparent. IMO, you are showing every intention to cause me trouble one way or another.Rosencomet (talk) 19:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
That may be completely true. It's still up to you to follow the COI and other related guidelines. Mattisse know that, so anything you say to him in reply is essentially a waste of time. If you need help with anything, don't hesitate to ask me and others. —Viriditas | Talk 11:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Just for the record, Rosencomet's comments not only "may not be completely true", they are not true. This has been made clear to him multiple times. I do not like these continuing personal attacks on me. Viriditas, you need to make this clear to Rosencomet as I indicated to you. If you need more information on the "truth" of Rosencomet's comment, please consult User:Salix alba among other names I can suggest to you. Regards, Mattisse 12:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Mattisse, your user page says you are a psychologist. A psychologist understands that only an individual can change their beliefs. Nobody is going to change Rosencomet's mind; his beliefs are true for him, and you should respect that, regardless of your history together. Frankly, I don't see what you have to gain by discounting Rosencomet's perspective -- even if it is false -- but it doesn't seem to be constructive to continue confronting him in this way; it didn't work before, did it? Why don't you try ignoring him, ok? He knows what he has to do and he certainly doesn't need a monkey on his back. If there's a problem, contact an admin, but since the two of you have a history together, please try to avoid him. Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 12:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Nothing on my user page says that I am not a human being and that I do not deserve the respect that is accorded every other wikipedian. I have ignored his attacks for over a year and they have not decreased. I am being intimidated into not editing any of his growing list of articles for fear of personal attacks from him. I am not asking him to change his beliefs. I am asking him to stop the personal attacks on me. Mattisse 12:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Noted. Now please ignore him. If you bait him again, and he responds negatively, you will have only yourself to blame. If, however, you ignore him, and he attacks you without any prior provocation, then report him to an admin and use this discussion as evidence. —Viriditas | Talk 13:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
How have I "bated" Rosencoment? Rather, it seems like he is "bating" me. Please try to be objective in your comments and not take sides. I have not "continually confronted him". I have rarely made comments and none have been personal. I cannot control if Rosencomet takes any comment I make personally. If you look through my edit history you will see that I have not personally attacked Rosencomet. Is referring to the Starwood Arbitration, the outcome of which is highly relevant to editing this article considered baiting? Please explain if this is the case. Also, my being a psychologist is totally irrelevant to whether I deserve to be treated with civility or not on this talk page. Mattisse 14:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Time Line

The event is a six-day camping event held mid to late July, as is written in the text. It is held Tuesday through Sunday either the third or the fourth week of July. This year that means July 22nd - 27th. You'll find that date on the ACE Home Page here [29].Is there any other time-line question needed to satisfy this tag? Rosencomet (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a template {{Time-context}} meaning This is about an event or subject that but does not specify the time period. Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, you can't assume that ten or twenty or thirty years from now, someone reading the article would know what you mean when you say "holds" with no timeframe given. They will assume you mean that in that person's present, 2020 for example, the information is true. You could say something like "as of 2007, Starwood has held . . ." or something like that. If you assume anything further than the present, you would be violating {{crystal}} meaning: This article or section contains future predictions, documents events that may possibly not occur or contains speculative material. All you would have to do is update it yearly to make sure it is current. The other alternative is to put a "tense" template on it, {{cleanup-tense}}. There is another template, which I can't find, that says something like "this is a current event" or " "time sensitive" or something like that. Regards, Mattisee (for some reason my signature is no longer working!)
Just a note that any of these changes need to be made by someone with no connection to ACE, as there have been so many COI problems here. So, it would be better for you to do them, Mattisse, rather than Jeff. Another thing that needs to be dealt with on this is the laundry lists of presenters/performers, and the "references" section, which I strongly suspect is almost as padded as the ones that were on the Winterstar and Jeff Rosenbaum articles. Again, these sources need to be evaluated by those with no connection to promoting this event or those who appear at it. I know some of the "references" can stay, as when I checked them on the other articles, some of them mentioned Starwood to one extent or another. What we need to do is go over them and see whether they actually source content in the article, or provide more information that is not covered in the article, or are instead only trivial mentions (like "I wrote this song at Starwood."); the first two can be used, the third is just padding/trivia. My proposal for dealing with the laundry lists is the hierarchy of notability: If the performer/presenter is more notable than Starwood, it may be relevant to add brief mentions of those people to the article. But the lists of barely-notable, or doubtful-to-survive-an-AfD, persons... Those need to go as they're not encyclopedic, and just seem ad-like. Right now this article is a mess, and needs serious cleanup. I have to admit to frustration that this cleanup is even needed, but that's what happens when the source-padding etc gets out of control. The problem is, very few people seem interested in dealing with it. I haven't had the time to do the sort of overhaul on this that I did on some of the related articles. But the consensus in both of the recent AfDs is that probably ACE and Starwood should be merged. Perhaps with enough cleanup, one actually encyclopedic article could emerge out that process. User:Kathryn NicDhàna 23:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)}} (code is borked!)

Hmm :P Avruchtalk 01:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Kathryn, I don't think it is a very good idea that I fix the article. The last time I even posted on the talk page I was attacked by User:Viriditas. For some fact tags I added last summer I was harassed by Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ekajati for over six months, especially User:999, User:Hanuman Das and User:Ekajati with no relief from Admin. Recently more sockpuppets have been added to that category. During the Starwood Arbitration, one of the Arbitrators voted Keep in an AFD for the Jeff Rosenbaum article (recently deleted), that article being part of the arbitration he was arbitrating. There is a huge intimidation factor regarding editing this article. I believe only Administrators or very highly placed persons can dare to materially work for the betterment of the article. It is intimidating enough to post on the talk page. Mattisse 14:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Kathryn, you are misrepresenting the AfDs when you say that there is a consensus that the Starwood Festival and ACE articles should be merged. Perhaps you are unclear of the definition of the word consensus. First of all, there was hardly any discussion about merging the Starwood and ACE articles except by you and Merkinsmum on the Jeff Rosenbaum AfD, and no mention by anyone but you about it on the WinterStar AfD.
Everyone else only spoke of merging/redirecting the Jeff Rosenbaum article and/or the WinterStar Symposium article with the ACE article. It was 12 to 6 in the case of WinterStar, 10 to 4 on Jeff Rosenbaum. Both were voted to delete and/or redirect in great part due to lack of media coverage and therefor notability. This is not true of the ACE and Starwood articles, as can be plainly seen by reading them.
There is an RFC on this very discussion page which went five to three against merging with the ACE article, stressing that the two are notable separately, and that was nearly a year ago before additional data was added, including citations of articles in newspapers about non-Starwood-related activities of ACE; including classes, their mind spa, and other non-festival events (with such notable individuals as Timothy Leary, Robert Anton Wilson and Robin Williamson). ACE has also produced CDs of artists' performances that did not take place at Starwood, and in some cases studio recorded performances outside of any ACE event.
I expect this post will just elicit your usual comments on my COI issues, in spite of the fact that the arbitration not only does not support many of your frequent statements of what I am permitted to edit and comment on, but in some cases has advised me to comment (as I am right now, on the talk page of this article). For instance, a change of the tense of a line to read "as of 2007, Starwood has been held..." to satisfy Mattisse's issue of tense is clearly not a COI issue no matter who does it. Neither is the addition of publication dates and page numbers to a cited newspaper article, though you have claimed COI problems there, too. Frankly, I think a review of your background concerning what you call "Starwood or ACE related articles" - which has at times included not only the article of anyone who has ever appeared there but anyone who have ever had a book published by the leading occult publisher in the world, Llewellyn Worldwide - and the agressive way you campaign for the reduction and/or deletion of these articles and any mention of their subjects, and the level at which you set the bar on appropriateness of a citation (even when used just to confirm an appearance or some other non-controversial fact), suggests (and other editors have commented on this) that you have your own COI issues concerning "Starwood and ACE related" articles and should avoid editing them, and certainly avoid re-introducing delete and merge proposals that failed in the past. This seems, as you have accused in the past, to be an attempt to exhaust any editors who disagree with you on these subjects, IMO until you will be unopposed in your efforts to eliminate them entirely. Rosencomet (talk) 22:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Citation tag

This article does not contain a single specific item with a request for citation. Can the citation tag be removed? It has been there for about three months.Rosencomet (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


It seems to me that the References section has become a rather weedy patch. There are items in there with only the most passing of reference to Starwood. See Wikipedia:Layout#References for more on what kinds of items should be included in the section. Ideally, I'd like to see the majority of the substantial items integrated into the text as footnotes. Unless it bears directly on the article and/or provides more info than can be fit into the article, this is reference padding. Such padding does no good for the article or the reader.

So I'm going through and throwing out the refs that are fluff in my opinion. For example, I deleted "Atwood, Jay (2002) "Sometimes it Rains" article in Witchvox [30]". The content about Starwood? A few very short paragraphs describing a personal experience in the rain at Starwood. This is hardly good source material. Evocative perhaps, but not remotely useful as an encyclopedic source. I just think the article would be better served by focusing a bit more. Pigman 01:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I second that. A few paragraphs about a personal experience is not really a good source of material.--DavidD4scnrt (talk) 04:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)