Talk:Radical Faeries/Archive 1

Archive 1

White Crane?

I see someone removed the White Crane Journal. It does often have articles about Faeries - shouldn't it stay? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It should, very much a publishing faerie authority.Benjiboi 08:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

John Burnside article linked to wrong John Burnside <EOM>

The link needs correctinng...

I wonder how one would disambig John Burnside. I know his page (if one existed) would have a parenthetical beside it - something like John Burnside (noun). Can anyone propose a suitable noun? "Faerie" doesn't seem right. "Activist" maybe? "Old guy" seems disrespectful... Thoughts? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

How about Gay Liberation Movement activist. Or simply activist. --Lizzard 01:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Radical Faerie Co-founder seems most appropriate, at least everytime I've ever talked with him, and his nickname has been N'John as he has mostly been associated with his partner Harry Hay until Harry's death.Benjiboi 08:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Relevance/Importance

Harry Hay founded the Mattachine society which was a key foundation for the gay rights movement ultimately, so he is definitely relevant historically and culturally. maybe that needs to be addded in the header since relevance/importance has been questioned.

This is certainly an important piece of the history of the gay rights movement and of gay men and women in the U.S. and I will try to find more sources and references if that's necessary. On what grounds is notability being challenged? I would like to say that I think this is a spurious challenge -- and one that should be questioned for an attempt to erase the history of non-dominant cultural groups.--Lizzard 01:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

notability needs to be asserted or challenged under WP:ORG.

A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be attributable.

a few sources are cited, but none is referred to directly, and none appears to be dedicated to this group in particular. One appears to be a book about Harry Hay. It may be argued that this article should be moved to Harry Hay if his group cannot be asserted to be notable. In this case, WP:BIO would apply. With 25,000 google hits, or 300 google books hits, I assume it is possible to assert notability, but it will also need to be in fact asserted. dab (𒁳) 14:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The article needs to be improved but is quite safe per this Google book search. Part of the issue is they seem to be highly decentralized and seem to operate on consensus with no leaders. Thus the RFD (magazine) and their online communities are they main vehicles of communication besides local and regional gatherings. I think the article is safe but definitely should be expanded. Benjiboi 23:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Harry Hay as RF founder

Harry Hay was a very early member, from 1976, but not a founding member (as he makes clear in his biography). There is a connection to the Angels of Light, the Cockettes, and Nomenus, other early gay organizations. I do have some books on the history of gay liberation movements in the US. and can go try to source this and fix the article up. Please don't delete it, in the meantime. --Lizzard 01:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The Faeries as such didn't even exist until 1979, so your statement can't be quite accurate. Though this article is pretty clear that he was one of the initiators, not the founder. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi SatyrTN. Unfortunately I don't have the source in front of me, but I think if you look in Hays' biography he talks about going to an already existing faerie meeting in 76 or 77. I could be wrong. When I can confirm I'll come back and source it properly... --Lizzard 23:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Some quick research- "Hay launched the first ever Spiritual Conference for Radical Faeries in Arizona, in 1978, with over two hundred men attending. Offering invocations to the spirits, Hay called on the crowd to "throw off the ugly green frog skin of hetero-imitation to find the shining Faerie prince beneath." Needless to say, this intense air of celebration in a natural setting precipitated all manner of pagan practices, circle castings, Wiccan-inspired rituals, ecstatic dancing, communal feasting and Nature based religious offerings.

While there has always been a heavy emphasis on creating a celebratory, fantasy oriented free-space, the core intent of the Faeries remains sober to this day; in a sociological strategy repeated throughout cultural-anthropological history, in order to make an 'institutionally complete' sub- or counterculture, it is necessary to provide all the elements needed to sustain it. A Queer-specific spirituality, for Hay, was the missing cornerstone." Benjiboi 19:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

We should not quoting anyone, ever, without attribution. Where did you find this quote? Is it from a reliable scholarly source?24.22.141.252 (talk) 12:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Benjiboi, since you won't answer, I'll answer for you: it's a page called "queer rites now: a brief history of the radical faeries " from a site called "Disinformation"[1] The author is Scott Treleaven, a.k.a. "mongrel priest".

According to Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources, we want reliable third-party sources. Contra your edit summary, no, Radical Faeries are not "certainly considered [by whom?] experts on themselves." You might try this book, which refers to Bonck, Treleaven and other RF members and their views and claims.24.22.141.252 (talk) 02:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Removing POV

I removed the mentioning that the group is "beloved" and "fascinating." —Preceding unsigned comment added by AgnosticPreachersKid (talk • contribs) 11:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Misattribution of sources

Benjiboi, you've wrongly attributed the work of Scott Morgensen, to Lewin and Leap, who are the editors of the volume in which Morgensen's work appears. Though you use Morgensen's paper, his name appears nowhere in the references or the biblography. It should go without saying (but apparently doesn't) that this is wildly unethical and completely unacceptable. I have the full cite here, but it seems appropriate that you should be the one to fix this.
Similarly, you've used an internet entry by Bonck (who is not a reliable source anyhow), yet again his name is nowhere mentioned in our sources.24.22.141.252 (talk) 02:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Mitch Walker

A number of passages in this article are cited to Mitch Walker, who does not appear to be a reliable scholarly source.[2] Comments?24.22.141.252 (talk) 01:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I will soon remove material sourced to Mr. Walker.24.22.141.252 (talk) 06:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I've removed a few of the more opinionated passages based upon Walker, one of which was sourced directly to the uranian psych website.[3][4]. I don't necessarily object to Walker being quoted as a Radical Faerie founder, so long as his claims are explicitly presented as such, rather than as the dispassionate analysis of a qualified expert ("Mitch Walker PhD") which he is not.24.22.141.252 (talk) 00:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, someone might consider cleaning up the "Philosophy" section, in which most of the sentences are ungrammatical, consisting only of subjectless participles.24.22.141.252 (talk) 00:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Spiritual Conference

I moved the the "first gathering" to it's own article. the summary of what it was in the middle of the history section, was a good candidate for a new article of it's own. Howaboutudance (talk) 01:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Using the term faerie or not, having sanctuaries or not

I moved the Edward Carpenter Community from the list of sanctuaries because it does not have its own land or buildings.

Also, some sanctuaries or organisations listed in the article and/or on websites such as radfae.org do not actually describe themselves using the term faerie.

I think that there is some real significance to what terms are used.

There are a lot of organisations and groups of people that overlap in terms of actual personnel, and in terms of aims/ethos/etc.

I have stated in the article that different groups use different words, but I think that the point of saying this could be a bit mysterious as I have left it; but I could not work out how to get any further but stay verified.

Can anyone take this any further?

One other point is that the URL http://aka.amberfox.ca was giving a "cannot be found", so I have put in http://akaamberfox.blogspot.com/ instead.

FrankSier (talk) 23:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

FrankSier,thanks for correcting me on Edward Carpenter structure and Amberfox's link

on the question of Faerie sanctuaries definition any particular ones you disagree with listing?

Honestly I would actually like to remove sanctuaries because of the recent evolution of urban gatherings and existing gatherings that do not exist in traditional sanctuary space (such as Brietensbush Men's, Treschelling and the Albion Faerie's gathering) further wikipedia I don't think is the best place to keep a sanctuary/gathering list in general.

Update:

trying to find verifiable sources of IDA's faerieness or better terminology....I agree with you on Edward Carpenter and should probably be removed (it's questionable whether they are even Faerie in trueness, because of they are more similar to Queer Spirit in Utah to a point, from my understanding).

On Asian Faeries, from their website/2011's Call:

Faeries from around the world will converge on the magical island of Koh Yao Yai near Phuket, Thailand, for 10 days of fun and relaxation. Last year's gathering found 35 faeries coming to our island paradise from the US, Middle East, Europe, Australia and all over Asia. Please join us for the 8th annual Asian Faerie gathering.

Howaboutudance (talk) 05:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Please avoid posting notice-type material on talk pages, anything related to article improvement is fine but if the page starts looking like a forum it tends to get trimmed back. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 08:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Howaboutudance, no there are not any locations in particular I would disagree about listing.

When you say "remove sanctuaries" do you mean remove all reference to sanctuaries, or remove names of sanctuaries?

I am not quite sure of your meaning but I think you said that because there are gatherings at places which are not sanctuaries, then sanctuaries maybe should not be listed/mentioned on Wikipedia. (Please correct me if I am wrong.) I do not think that this is a good reason for not talking about sanctuaries.

I think that sanctuaries are an important concept in relation to Radical Faeries, and should therefore be covered in this article.

I think that at least a sample of sanctuaries should be mentioned, pretty much as in the existing article.

My reason for removing Edward Carpenter Community from the list of sanctuaries was that it is not, or does not have, a piece of land or any buildings; and it was not to do with its degree of faerieness (though that could be another consideration).

When it comes to considering whether something is faerie or not, in my edit I just went into whether a particular organisation used the word faerie or not to describe themselves.

To a certain extent I also looked at whether organisations that do call themselves faerie, indicated in some way that they considered the organisation in question to be faerie, though I did not go into that in the article.

FrankSier (talk) 11:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Faerie terminology and practises

When I condensed the "gatherings" paragraph this included removing the term "called" (meaning "organised and announced" of a gathering), for simplicity, and because it might not be clear what it meant.

I think that it might be worth having a new section in the article covering Faerie terminology and practises.

Reasons:

• This would help to illuminate the essence of Faerie.

• Would help to distinguish Faerie from non-Faerie (in terms of gatherings and organisations).

Some terminology and practises that could be included:

• Call
• Gathering
• Sanctuary (already partly covered)
• NOTAFLOF
• Yoo-hoo
• Heart Circle
• Elements of financial and organisational structure
• Ethos
• Faerie time
• Attitudes regarding people with various gender-identities and sexualities attending gatherings (already covered to some extent)

FrankSier (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

On the Dutch page I included:

• altar
• rituals
• drag
• faerie-name
• intimacy and seks
• no-talent show and auction

Or are these just European customs? --Eezie (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, FrankSier and Eezie. I don't personally have the time to add these sections myself, but if you both have the time to add your suggestions, then I think it will improve the article immensely. Good on you both! :) ★★Violet Fae (talk)★★ 08:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

vself

These non-gendered personal pronouns probably need explanation when used in the text as the layman reader will not be familiar with them (I notice there is no article for vself currently to refer to though Spivak pronoun exists). I believe there is precedence for using vself but this might need careful explanation and discussion on this talk page for the change to stick in the article long term and unambiguous sources cited in the article. Fæ (talk) 08:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

To a point "(as himself/vself/zeself)" dosen't really add anything to the sentance and particularly to the article. Does it really matter to the Faerie article, that Justin Bond appers as Justin Bond matter except in the Shortbus article (or related such as Gay Shame or DUMBA)? Howaboutudance (talk) 08:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I would lean towards inclusiveness here, though articles should be pitched primarily in layman friendly language, this does not mean that we exclude diverse concepts or ignore fringe theories. Non-gendered personal pronouns are rarely used and this may be a case where their use in this article illuminates the character of the person being referenced. So long as this person is documented as identifying themselves in this way, there seems no good reason to deliberately exclude the terminology and our policies would indicate that it is good practice to use the same self-identifying terminology as as person uses to describe themselves (which is pretty much how we ever get to describe a person as gay, transsexual or bisexual in the first place). In terms of value, yes I believe that including the vself term adds encyclopaedic value in this context. Fæ (talk) 10:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I actually could agree with you to a point, the challenge for me is to write it in a way that can educate and provide reference but also not detract from the article's subject, such as ending up writing couple sentances(or more) on non-gender pronouns. One solution maybe to link to invented pronouns to provide reference.thus it could be "Justin Bond (as Vself)". I would also suggest Gender-neutral_pronoun#Invented_pronouns as that link since it deals with non-Spivak pronouns Howaboutudance (talk) 23:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems like a solution, though if there are some reliable sources that explain 'vself' explicitly then perhaps it would be a good opportunity to extend the linked article to cover this variation (I'm no expert in this area but perhaps others who sometimes read this page might want to suggest some sources?). Fæ (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

the cite in that section takes to site where Bond explicitly explained V's choice of, basically Bonded created it for V's own purposes. now within the guidelines ofWP:MOS#Identity that should be covered Howaboutudance (talk) 00:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposal on section names - local consensus needed

The section title "Bibliography" seems inappropriate for a non-biographical article. I propose a slight re-arrangement in line with common practices and WP:FNNR. I suggest the Bibliography section is moved after References and becomes Sources for citations where the intention is to cross reference to specific page numbers in key books in the References section ({{harvnb}} is often used as an easy way to do this). I also suggest that a new section of Further reading is added for publications directly about Radical Faeries but for which there are no current footnotes citing them as sources. Websites that are not directly cited or are not versions of printed publications I suggest stay in the External links section rather than moving any into the Further reading section. Note, if {{harv}} or {{harvnb}} is used for cross-referencing then associated sources should use the {{citation}} template. Your yea, nay or other suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks Fæ (talk) 14:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)