Talk:Harvest (Neopagan magazine)

This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-12-19. The result of the discussion was No consensus.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines 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.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Neopaganism Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neopaganism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Proposed For Deletion

Before we delete this article, I'd like to see some reasoning on either side.

How much of the USA NeoPagan community did Harvest reach?
How influential was it considered to be?
What noteworthy figures wrote for Harvest or were otherwise involved with it?
What noteworthy articles appeared in Harvest?

If it was a small publication, even as Pagan publications go, and short-lived as such things go, then that would be an argument for deletion. If, on the other hand, it was the second-longest-running Pagan publication at the time (I have no idea if it was or not--just said that for example), then that would be an argument against deletion.

Weigh in, ladies and gentlemen!

Septegram*Talk*Contributions 18:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are no online sources for any of this information. I took the time to check Google. Every reference to Harvest was derived from this Wikipedia entry.

I also happen to know from direct experience that this "magazine" was "published" from Morven's living room. Cut and paste (with scissors and glue), photocopied, and stapled by hand. Really, I should have speedied it. :-) Frater Xyzzy 18:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of online sources does not render it automatically non-notable.

I know where/when Harvest was published, but that, again, does not render it non-notable. I don't believe Speedy Deletion is appropriate here, although deletion may be. If you were so intimately involved with publication, perhaps you can answer some of the questions I raised. Thanks

Septegram Talk[[Contributions 18:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Under sixty seconds of Googling got me this, which has over ten pages of references. Now, not all of these necessarily point to the correct site, but there are certainly some. Which information were you trying to find online and were unable to?

Septegram Talk[[Contributions 18:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely true, of course, but I suspect there are no reputable third party offline sources either. The only source is likely to be the magazine itself, and it's not likely to be in libraries, etc. Completely unverifiable. :-( Frater Xyzzy 18:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there I found that there were several magazines called Harvest or Harvest Magazine. Those seem to be showing up in your search... Frater Xyzzy 19:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've been looking through the first few pages of those. Every refrence to the right mag are copies of or derived from either Harvest Magazine or Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism on Wikipedia. Frater Xyzzy 19:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as Harvest had transformed into "Tides" (which *was* relatively short-lived) before the www was in existence, lack of web sources isn't surprising. Yes, like all the other Pagan publications of it's time ('80-'92, iirc), it did start as a stapled zine. But as technology improved it was desktop published and professionally printed. I'll add the DDTM reference, and I'll ping people who know circulation figures (actually, I can go look in the Pagan Zine archive in our storage room :-)). It was instrumental in some of the early Celtic Reconstructionist and Slavic Reconstructionist discussions, among others, but I'll see if we can pull up a list of notable contributors. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ping people who know circulation figures (actually, I can go look in the Pagan Zine archive in our storage room :-))

Uh, that'd violate no original research and couldn't be used. Frater Xyzzy 19:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the article, certainly, but for purposes of this discussion I'd think a looser standard might be acceptable.

Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 19:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about looking at published circulation figures :-) Citing published facts is not original research --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, third-party published figures or self-published figures? Frater Xyzzy 20:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page Move

Was the actual title of the 'zine Harvest or Harvest Magazine? If the former, the article should be moved, say to Harvest (Neopagan magazine). Frater Xyzzy 20:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing and rewrite

I've added in some more sources. Mostly from the Utne Reader feature, and from issues of Harvest and Tides I had in my desk. Over the next few days I'll try to go through more of the zine archive and get a fuller list of contributors, preferably additional authors who have WP articles. I'll also see if I can dig up the old issues of Factsheet Five and Green Egg that wrote about Harvest and Tides. Hope everyone is having a good holiday, whatever traditions you do or don't celebrate ;-) --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use of names

Came here from working on Green Egg, where this article is a see also. Interesting article. I am however baffled by non-observance of our prohibition against referring to people solely by their first names. In particular I refer to the references to "Morven" and "Brenwyn". These look like first names to me, though I may be mistaken. Some of the sources also omit last names from the authors. As I don't have access to these sources, could someone who does please fill in individual's full names? If this cannot be done, I wonder whether these sources meet our WP:BLP policy where they refer to living individuals. We don't really allow essentially anonymous sourcing for information about living people, and without last names, it would also be impossible to determine who might be living! Unless this can be corrected, I suggest we omit the last paragraph in order to comply with WP:BLP. Skyerise (talk) 18:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the writers for those zines used pen names. Actually, I think usage of real names was the exception. In cases where there is only a single name in the article, that is what is in all the sources - the zine in question, other zines, as well as books like Drawing Down the Moon. It's what the person was known as. Like Cher. Or Madonna. The neopagan community at that time was very small, and many people were not "out of the broom closet". The majority of people came from Wiccan backgrounds and used their "coven names" for their pen names, or had a private "magical name" as well as a public one. It was pre-Internet, communication was via snail mail and maybe a once a year festival. There weren't enough people yet for people to be confused with others. There are also quite a few authors of occult books during that era who wrote under a one-name pen name. Some of them went on to publish under other names later in their careers, or when publishing in other genres. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. It's still a bit odd though. Normally this would be sorted out in the third-parity reliable sources writing about the subject in depth. Perhaps the sources used aren't as in-depth on this subject as they should be? Skyerise (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you removing information from citations? - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also find it odd that you have a list that includes occult, neopagan and new age authors and have edited articles for people like Nema (occultist) (diff:[1]) but say you're unfamiliar with these naming conventions. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CorbieVreccan, information is removed from the citations because it is not citation material. They are statements of alleged fact. Facts belong in the article body, and they themselves must be cited. Stuffing unsupported information into a citation is a way of hiding that it is unsourced. It seems like it might be relevant to the article, so create a section about writers who wrote for this zine who then went on to write books, along with the citations which support these claims. As for what you find or don't find odd, I was just trying to elicit more information about the people involved as I am unfamiliar with these particular names. It can sometimes be relevant with respect to WP:BLP. As it stands, we have no way to determine if these are living people or not. Skyerise (talk) 05:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Harvest (Neopagan magazine). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5QgCzLc0I?url=http://www.draknet.com/proteus/rede.htm to http://www.draknet.com/proteus/rede.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:53, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]