This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Neopaganism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeopaganismWikipedia:WikiProject NeopaganismTemplate:WikiProject NeopaganismNeopaganism articles
good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
The article referred to by Ethan Doyle White is, according to the linked webpage, unpublished. I can't find any reference to his article via the normal searches (he has one published article in Pomegranate, but this is not the article in question). The only reference is that he himself has posted on the academia.edu site, which gives no publishing info. If this really is unpublished -- an essay by an undergraduate -- then it hardly qualifies as a reliable source... Cheers, Fuzzypeg★ 09:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, probably not the best source to use; whilst it has been written by a figure with academic credentials in the Pagan studies discipline, Doyle White specifies that it is an "unpublished" review, hence why I assume it is uploaded to academia.edu. It should probably be removed, but then again, it might class as a web source, thereby warranting inclusion. Regarding the use of the picture of you Ben, I chose the one that had the tidy edges (I didn't mean to cause any offence by using the other image), as I just thought that it looked a bit neater; the current image has messy, squiggly edges, which are not ideal for a Wikipedia article to my eyes. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Thanks for fixing the download link that was previously missing; the .wps file still doesn't load in MS Works, and I had to crack it open with a plain text editor and remove all the control characters to read it. You might want to check that, and of course a PDF would be better. I do think that citing an unpublished review by an unknown undergraduate, that can only be accessed by subscribing to a login-protected site, for which the file was at first inaccessible, and is now available but only in an obscure format and possibly corrupted... ...is a bit of a long shot. I'm sure you know the
WP:RS policies; I'll let you draw your own conclusions. I'm even a little surprised that my own book made it into this article, being self-published and all—again, I'll let you figure out for yourself where you ought to be drawing the line. Happy editing! Fuzzypeg★ 14:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Criticisms of Trials
The article states "Whitmore's work was itself criticised from several quarters, in particular from academics involved in Pagan studies." It then proceeds to cite a published review by media studies lecturer Peg Aloi and an unpublished review by an undergraduate called Ethan Doyle White. I wonder if the "several quarters" phrase is straying into hyperbole, since I know of relatively few people who have pronounced on Trials. There's Hutton himself, Peg Aloi, and after that it gets more tenuous. Chas Clifton wrote some vague criticisms in his blog, but had not actually seen the book at that point; and Robert Matthiesen gave a correction of detail in a comment under Aloi's blog post. There are various other mutterings in the blogs of non-academics, both in favour of Trials and against it. (I suggest that most of these are beyond what Wikipedia would consider
reliable sources.) I think the wording as stands strays into hyperbole, and it would be better and more informative if it simply cited the negative reviews. Fuzzypeg★ 20:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Hi Fuzzypeg. I agree that blogs are not really appropriate as references for Wikipedia, and should not be used, but that still doesn't discount the fact that the only academic reviews of the work have had negative points as well as positive ones, which is what I feel that the current wording is alluding to. Nonetheless, I have removed the sentence that you suggest, as I can see your point. On a slightly different note, I appreciate your interest in this area, but as the author of Trials of the Moon, don't you think that it is a breach of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest to be commenting on the criticisms of it here on Wikipedia ? Naturally, you're going to have an interest in the promotion of your book, and this could well conflict with the purpose of Wikipedia. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Hi, Midnightblueowl. I feel it is reasonable to note inaccuracies that relate directly to myself, especially when I'm doing so on the talk page rather than in the article. Please read
WP:BIOSELF, which provide the relevant guidance on this. Fuzzypeg★ 12:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Less on Mr. Whitmore, please
This 'self-published' author is probably worth a mention since Professor Hutton himself deigned to respond to it, as he often does - rather nice of him, I think. But it surely doesn't merit the emphasis it gets here. Mr. Whitmore is not a scholar, and I don't think his opinion is worth more than a couple sentences. This is not an actual scholarly controversy, and adds very little to the article. (In light of Professor Hutton's more recent publications, it's probably not as relevant.Certainly the quote should go.--Yellow DiamondΔ Direct Line to the Diamonds 05:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
