User talk:Foxx Molinari/sandbox

You are taking an interesting approach here on this article. It is already a big article, and there are some issues on the talk page, but your focus is to add a new section. I think this section would add to the article, but you are going to need to do some work here to get it where you want. First, you only have a list of statements from your sources. You will want to wave those together into a more cohesive paragraph(s) to conform to the conventions of the Wikipedia article. Second, I think you want to view your sources from an outside point of view. Right now your statements make it sound like the sources are true, where, based in a quick look over your sources, they are in fact offering hypotheses based on observable conditions. Instead mention your scholars by name and point out that they are making claims about wicca, feminism, and media, AKA take a more distant, unbiased, approach than what you have going now. For example, at the beginning say something more like "Some scholars speculate a recent growth in neo-pagan witchcraft (I avoid "religion" here as there are some non-witchcraft/wicca based neo-pagan religions, such as druidism and asatru that would not be as influenced by the texts you are discussion) due to an increase of positive portrayals in recent media, such as Buffy or Harry Potter." This is just an example, but one to use as a reference as you work on this section some more. I would also post your intentions on the talk page, see if any other Wikipedians had advise on where to put the section.

I think the best place to put this section would be in the "Contemporary Witchcraft" subheading, either right before or right after the section on witchcraft, satanism, and lucifererianism. Clafjaco (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

It seems that i have been misleading, yet when under that category of witchcraft, there is a growth in Neo-pagan religions because of these sources. I am not addressing Druidism and Asatru because i am speaking about witchcraft and that the religions are going. I would like to avoid micro-aggression by belittling the religions by avoiding the word "religion" and instead say religion. Also the sources used are people who have a Ph.D in folklore or do not have motive and are provided from scholarly sources from the Idaho State Library. Foxx Molinari (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

   There has been a growth in the Neo-Pagan religions because teenaged religious seekers are shown a world of feminism and spiritual paths, instead of Satanism, in the more recent media through fiction such as Buffy the Vampire Slayer and the Harry Potter novels and informative texts that introduce the history of witchcraft to this young audience.[1]
   Young woman are empowered by the Wiccan literature through the, although fictional, lively portrayals.[1]

These two statements make the feminism link to witchcraft seem like a fad, linked directly at impressionable youths. Although, I see that being a great criticism about the longevity of the movement. If that isn't what you are going for I feel it needs to be changed. Maybe a rewording showing initial draw being the fictional works, and separating out the informative texts and history into a separate idea. The "Harry Potter and informative texts" shows either Harry Potter being accurate to witchcraft, or diminishes the history of witchcraft. Shrurobe (talk) 07:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The article leaves a desire for more supporting details. Give examples of how Wiccan ideals align with feminism, the green movement, and liberal ideals. Incorporate more information from the sources you have cited to explain why Wiccan beliefs have become more popular. Tell us why young women are feel empowered by Wiccan literature. Does Wiccan literature have an effect of young men? Mooddan2 (talk) 05:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I realize you are not talking about Druidism or Asatru, but they are neo-pagan religions (and there are quite a bit more as well). When you say: "There has been a growth of neo-pagan religions because of . . . " you are saying that this growth includes all neo-pagan religions. That is why I suggested being clear and specific with something like "neo-pagan witchcraft." That phrase makes it clear what neo-pagan religion(s) you are focusing on so you don't mislead people into thinking all neo-pagan religions have seen the effect you are describing. This is about your rhetoric, using words to clearly convey your meaning.

My comment on your sources was not about their validity, their accuracy, or where you found them, but about how you are positioning them in the article. Wikipedia articles are about distance and reporting, "just the facts ma'am." When you use a source you should make it clear that the argument the source is making comes from the source, and is not necessarily the only argument about the subject. There is no clear way to find the absolute truth in this kind of a topic. Cultural trends are hard to pin down as they are part of a massive and highly complicated system with literally billions of aspects a researcher must take into account. All the researcher can do, in this context, is basically guess using the available data. An expert in this case is making a well informed guess based on the data, and their experience in the field. They are certainly credible and their argument is valid to bring up in this context, but it is still a guess not the absolute truth. Make it clear that the sources have specific theories you are talking about, and do not make it seem like the theories of these scholars is the unquestionable truth. For example, don't say "Buffy the Vampire Slayer caused an increase in young women practicing wicca." Say something like "John Doe, in his article 'Title,' claims that Buffy The Vampire Slayer caused an increase in young women practicing wicca." See the difference? Again, this is about rhetoric, using your ability to shape words to make your meaning come through clearly without causing confusion (the hardest part of wring). Clafjaco (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)