Talk:Starhawk

Category

Ashley Y could we discuss the category issue? I think that Starhawk's work shouldn't be restricted to just Wicca. Her contributions effect the larger category of Paganism in my opinion. - FSVallare —Preceding undated comment added 08:55, 16 July 2004.

Could we put her in both Neopaganism and Wicca? —Ashley Y 21:32, 2004 Jul 18 (UTC)

Sounds like a great solution to me. Will do that now. -- FSVallare —Preceding undated comment added 20:54, 18 July 2004.

I did remove Paganism though, unless she has some connection to paganism other than neopaganism. Actually I don't really like the word "neopaganism" but it's kind of stuck here to mean specifically contemporary paganism in the West.—Ashley Y 01:29, 2004 Jul 20 (UTC)

Hmm...well the reason I listed Paganism is due to her connection with Marija Gimbutas' work. To me that connection to the past moves her work out of purely Neopaganism. In the part of the country I'm in Paganism is the more predominate description vs. Neopaganism, so that is also part of it. - FSVallare 18:12, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Starhawk is not Wiccan. She believes in Goddess Spirituality. Her first books she did identify herself as being Wiccan (which can cause alot of confusion), she does follow Goddess Spirituality. Disinclination 03:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Residences

She doesn't live in San Francisco anymore. She lives on a farm in capitalist Marin. So much for her "ideals". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.100.79 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 30 October 2005

She apparantly has two residences, though the RUMOR is that she doesn't spend very much time at the SF one.

"Starhawk lives part-time in a solar-powered cabin in the remote Cazadero hills of western Sonoma County, near the 485-acre Black Mountain Preserve. It's more than a two-hour drive along some of the North Coast's most wicked roads, the kind that snake through the hills in endless spirals.

She also lives in a townhouse (a collective called the Black Cats) on a busy street in San Francisco's Mission District with her husband, David Miller, and a half dozen housemates, including a schoolgirl who's learning about magic."

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/10/29/NBGRE9FM091.DTL&hw=starhawk&sn=001&sc=1000—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.100.79 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 30 October 2005

Middle Name

Note on edit of 9/2/06: Source for addition of Starhawk's mother's middle name Claire is the Minnesota Birth Index, File 1951-MN-035927. (Existing information on DOB, name, and father's name are also verified by this file.) - Zinning 23:30, 2006 Sep 2 [EDT]

== Witchcraft vs. Wicca ==

I hope I didn't step on anybody's toes by changing the link for "Witch" from Wicca to Witchcraft, but I think that this change better reflects Starhawk's position. While she once identified as a Wiccan (as someone else mentioned above) that is no longer the case, as far as I know. Many, if not most, people involved in Reclaiming identify as Witches but not as Wiccans. If someone disagrees with this...let's talk about it! Thanks, romarin [talk ] 19:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

She doesn't call herself a Wiccan. She's not somebody that I would recognise as a fellow Wiccan. She does however have beliefs and practices that match what Wikipedia labels "Wiccan". I don't like Wikipedia's definition of the word, but if that's the way it's defined, then surely it should be used throughout? 86.47.160.33 (talk) 13:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I wonder more about the "self-described" label. Most adherents to a set of beliefs probably describe themselves as believing that thing, don't they? For example, is Pope Benedict a "self-described" Catholic, or is he just a Catholic? Others describe Starhawk as a witch, so I would respectfully suggest that a citation be provided to show why Starhawk's own description of her beliefs is notable. -- otherlleft 14:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? For quite some time, people everywhere could pretty much agree what would make somebody a Catholic...Goes to confession, takes communion, defends the pope, etc. I'm afraid it isn't possible to say the same about Wiccans and Witches. They are pretty much subjective self-identifying classifications, even today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.42.220 (talk) 17:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC) "

It's been my observation that phrases such as "self-identified" or "self-described" are considered demeaning within the overall larger Pagan religious movement, as it has a connotation there that the religion is less legitimate than other religions. -- Davidkevin (talk) 03:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Impact

I've added an impact section that talks about the impact her works have had. mainly about her popularisation of the nine million witches figure, but also one line about how "The Spiral dance" was arguably the inspiration behind the neo-pagan movement. Feel free to add to this. It would require, I think, a review of the book, it's main themes and the popular impact that the book has had, specifically with reference to neo-paganism and wicca. the paragraph I've written (about her popularisation of the incorrect figure of nine million witches killed during the witch hunt) can be considered as one small part of this. It is for others to write the rest.Steve3742 12:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Since this new content was almost entirely about the book The Spiral Dance, I've moved it over to that article. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

If you read "The Spiral Dance" you'll read about how she was influenced by people in the Neopagan movement. It can hardly therefore have been the inspiration for it. Nor can she be given credit/blame for popularising the 9,000,000 figure; it was already popular amongst witches thanks largely to Gerald Gardner and amongst Feminists thanks largely to Mary Daly and Andrea Dworkin (all three drawing on Gage as their source). Since Starhawk's influence is where these to groups meet, this was ground already covered - if anything it was the very idea of the nine-million that gave her a fertile bed to work from. It was still reasonable scholarship for someone for whom relevant history wasn't their field working from available sources when Starhawk was first writing so she can't be blamed for keeping the idea in circulation after it had been debunked. In all she's not particularly significant in this regard. Where she is significant is in being a leading figure in combining the two groups for which the nine-million held particular emotional significance86.47.160.33 (talk) 13:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC).

"The Spiral dance" was arguably the inspiration behind the neo-pagan movement?? The Neopagan movement started in the early 1900s, at the latest. Its "counter-culture" revival started in the late 1950s. A 1979 book, no matter how influential, can hardly be considered the "inspiration" of that, unless you give up on the arrow of time and the notion of causality altogether. I am certainly willing to recognize that this author was influential within the "feminist Wicca" subculture and that her book may have inspiered the "Goddess movement", but to equate this with "Neopaganism", or even call her a "theorist of Paganism" is clearly misguided. I do believe that this author contributed to the public perception of "modern pagans" as feminists throwing about "fakelore" and bashing Christianity for the "burning times", at least in the United States, but this is clearly a popular misconception held by people who know nothing about the topic, and certainly not something to be perpetuated by Wikipedia. --dab (𒁳) 12:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

YOUTUBE

well i dont like her so ill refrain from editing this article but YOUTUBE not utube —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.39.48 (talk) 03:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Concerning Pagan Theorist

I was just wondering if this article should refer to her a "theorist of Paganism." Has she published scientific theories related to paganism? Koonboi (talk) 07:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: returned to base name JHunterJ (talk) 11:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

---

Starhawk (author) → Starhawk – Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and has been for the 8 years this article has existed; the page was moved recently without discussion. More than 70% of Google Web results are to her; only 15% to the two video games, and only 10% to comic. 99% of the GoogleBooks results are to her. Extremely prolific and well-known author and activist. ALL of the "What Links Here" for the term or the dab -- well over 100 -- are referring to her. Softlavender (talk) 12:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - To be clear, the game was announced 1-2 days ago, so the above info actually leans the other way. If 15% percent of google results are for a game that was announced two days ago, that won't even be released until 2012, I think that is a clear indication that the term should be a disambiguator. 100% of the google news results (285 at present) are for the upcoming game. The game is only going to get more notable, and the fact that even one entry on the first page of a Google search is for the (two day old) game says that. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 13:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

There are two video games, one released in 1977, and the Google results I quoted are for both, not just one. Softlavender (talk) 03:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

*Against move and have reverted the change as there was no consensus to make it. The discussion here needs to run its course before any change is made. There will be some mess to clean up which I will do my best to do. Please don't revert back - await consensus before anyone moves this page again. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• • To try and be clear: I'm against (and have reverted) the unilateral move by JohnnyMrNinja that took Starhawk to a disambiguation page. As to Softlavender's proposal for Starhawk (author) → Starhawk I have no objections. The main worry for me was that so many pages were left pointing to a dab page but this has now been fixed. I'm easy either way about whether the title of this page should be Starhawk or Starhawk (author) - as long as it is the first page people get to when they type "Starhawk" into WP's search box. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 08:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

You're against what move? Please make your position clear as to what you believe this page on the author should be titled, so the admin in charge of this discussion can tally your vote. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 03:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Against move Per: Softlavender & Kim Dent-Brown etc. as the request makes clear, the move had no merit whatsoever and the circumstances are highly suspicious. I'd like to hear how the editor who moved it, and others, attempt to justify the perfect timing for a hijacking when it just-so-happens to coincide with the announcement of this video game? WP:COI's the way that leans, but despite all the media hype, the game's numbers didn't even come close to Starhawk (author); the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC by a wide margin, (unless we've switched to a daily news cycle)? Anyway, the media event is old news in 1-2 more days, and you'd have to pry that dab page out of my cold dead fists, if I had secured the #1 spot on Google for the duration... I guess a hat won't due.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 16:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

You're against what move? Please make your position clear as to what you believe this page on the author should be titled, so the admin in charge of this discussion can tally your vote. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 03:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Kim undid the damage... Click here: Starhawk™ to be directed to the article about Miriam Simos.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 03:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I know that. But the Move Request is to move Starhawk (author) → Starhawk, making your "Against move" vote a vote against this. Is that really what you want to vote? I don't think so, but the admin in charge will likely tally your vote as against the Move Request Starhawk (author) → Starhawk (along with JohnnyMrNinja's vote) unless you clarify what move you are against, or unless you change your vote to "Support". "Against" means the same thing as "Oppose", so right now your vote and JohnnyMrNinja's are the same. Softlavender (talk) 03:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, it's not a WP:VOTE. The closing admin will read everything and they'll be aware of how confusing disambiguation is. But all the comments asking for clarification are not helping...—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 04:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I have to disagree, and it's not the disambiguation that's confusing, it's the fact that you're voting "Against" when you really want to vote "Support". Right now everyone but Zzyzx11 has voted against the Move Request, making this a 5 to 1 consensus against the move request. Admins are busy -- they see 5 to 1 against and from respected editors, so they quickly close the discussion as against and move on. Softlavender (talk) 04:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Wrong, Zzyzx11 supports Kim's resolution. Correct, you don't have to take my advice about asking everyone to come back and do it your way.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 04:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I said everyone but Zzyzx11 has voted against the Move Request; read the votes: they are all "Against" or "Oppose" except for Zzyzx11. Kim voted "Against" as well, although he didn't mean to. Softlavender (talk) 04:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Revert back: IMO, a unilateral move should not have been made. The primary topic should not be changed every time there is recentism or news spikes, and Google search results are heavily skewed based on only 1- or 2-day old hits. Nor should it be based on a claim that it "is only going to get more notable [in the near future]", more or less merely opinionated speculation or assumption. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Revert back to what? Please make your position clear as to what you believe this page on the author should be titled, so the admin in charge of this discussion can tally your vote. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 03:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Revert the unilateral move so the author is back to being the primary target. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

That's already been done through a redirect. It would be clearer for the admin who closes the discussion if your vote was "Support" the move request, which is to move Starhawk (author) → Starhawk, which has to be done manually by the admin closing the discussion. Softlavender (talk) 04:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

First of all, a discussion to determine consensus like Requested Moves is not a vote. Any admin who is merely counting "Support" and "Oppose" votes without asserting the merits of each argument, or is not discounting invalid reasons, or is not paying attention to any other comments, is not doing their job. Secondly, my comment on reverting back was more of a rebuttal on the original reason for the unilateral move, and that the primary topic should not be updated solely on recentism. This is not a pure "support" or "oppose" vote because I remain neutral on the other reasons that may determine the long-term primary topic ... and I'll just leave it at that. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose make it a disambiguation page. I get a LEGO toyset as the primary usage in Google. 184.144.163.181 (talk) 03:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Then you're not searching correctly. Starhawk the person gets well over a million hits on the web alone, and the Lego item gets only 88,000, and zero in GoogleBooks, where Starhawk the person gets 20,000 hits. Softlavender (talk) 04:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• So, everything above is a confusing mess. The page was moved, then a request was made to move it back, so people started asking for it to be moved when they didn't want it to be, so it was moved again, back to where it was after the first move so that something here might make sense. This whole thing is a little silly. No other article is being moved to the main slot, just a dab page. This is an argument over an author/activist being a primary topic. No offense is meant to her or her supporters. The game is getting more notable every day, that is the nature of our society and the internet in general. There will probably never be any Google Scholar or book results for the video game, but it is already becoming as saturated on the internet as the author. A generic Google search for Starhawk nets a first page balanced between the two. Google news results are only about the game. Page article statistics - Starhawk, Starhawk (2012 video game). Notice the giant spike on the day the trailer was released? It is already clear that the topic is notable. It is not more notable than the author, but it is clear that a significant number of people searching for the term Starhawk are looking for the upcoming game. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 01:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

You need to re-check your facts because most of what you said there is incorrect. Your unauthorized move was remedied by making Starhawk re-direct to this page. Everyone in this discussion except you, who made the unauthorized move, agrees that the person is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, so perhaps you should review those criteria instead of on relying on a spike in the first page of Google results. Softlavender (talk) 02:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• Disambiguation page at Starhawk is the best way to deal with a term that means different things to different people. Last week, I was considering starting a disambig page, but JohnnyMrNinja saw the need for it before I got around to doing it. Nobody here is proposing that the 2012 video game, 1977 video game, comic book character, or Lego model reside at Starhawk! We are merely a proposing a disambiguation page! And sure enough there seems to be ambiguity going on among the five uses of the word. Referencing Google Books is a biased argument because Google Books will only find, well, books! The other four uses of "Starhawk" aren't books. Obviously the fact that this discussion is taking place on the article about the author biases the poll toward the former configuration. The argument, "Everyone in this discussion except you," is invalid due to that bias. This conversation should be moved to Talk:Starhawk if you want to conduct a fair, unbiased discussion. —voidxor (talk | contrib) 07:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Hat note doesn't work? Cool, you guys think it going to be huge. If and when that comes true, it should definitely be reassessed. Can an encyclopedic be biased against games (in favor of books)? I'm not sure that's possible.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 07:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Another Move Request

Turn to disambiguation page, and move this to [[Starhawk {author)]] due to the upcoming game, which is now the dominant returned result on a Google search and the game being a far wider and well known entity than the author worldwide, due to it being the sequel to a critically acclaimed and multimillion copies selling game. --2.221.193.78 (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Agree. While this has been discussed within the past year, I do agree that the video game now gets more hits on google than the author. Also, despite its cumbersome name, Starhawk (2012 video game) now gets more hits per month than Starhawk. So, I think that the proposal to make this page a disambiguation page has merit. Sunray (talk) 18:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Disagree strongly. Even if it is the case that the game is receiving more hits, this on its own is not a sufficient reason to move. It would be a bad case of recentism and I take it this is why the same arguments for the same move were rejected a few months back. Next year when the immediate and temporary Google spike about the game has died away and the author remains as significant as ever, this argument would imply that whenever her Ghits outstrip the game again we should revert the name change. That's clearly a nonsense. We need to make an editorial decision here based on judgements about the likely durability of the various entities. My judgement is that this year's upcoming game sequel is likely to be a flash in the pan. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 19:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Agree strongly Checking the google trends, searches for starhawk went up by a factor of 10 since the game's announcement. It seems perfectly transparent to me that the majority of internet searches will be related to the game rather than the author. --86.20.221.12 (talk) 14:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

For a few months that might be true. But it would be recentism to bow to that when the game will be a distant memory in 12 months time. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I would point out that until the game was announced, starhawk did not recieve enough searches on google to merit an actual reading; there are no results before the announcement occured. This would suggest that the author did not hold a very strong presence in the public conciousness even before the game was announced. I understand your concern regarding having to immediately undo edits, but I think the game release will have a greater impact on popular culture than you give it credit for. Warhawk, the predecessor to this game, which was released in 2007 to little fanfare, was actually getting double the hits on wikipedia than starhawk at the beginning of 2010. --86.20.221.12 (talk) 16:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• Disagree strongly. Let's not play this out again folks. That would be a huge waste of everybody's time. Softlavender (talk) 06:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
• Agree. It has now been nearly a year of significantly more hits for the game than the author on both google and wikipedia. 72.37.244.156 (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: Is there some reason this was not listed on WP:RM? Not listing this move there will only raise questions about the validity of any descision made here. older ≠ wiser 23:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Needs sources

Practically nothing in this article is properly sourced. This needs to be rectified. Deletion of all non-sourced material would likely make this article a stub, so any editors familiar with the subject should work to get sources in. Please let me know if I'm wrong here. Awwhiteman (talk) 00:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course it's not "properly sourced." "Wicca" is nothing more than a collection of nonsense produced by charlatans inventing "ancient wisdom" to line their modern pockets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.152.122.230 (talk) 07:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Date of name change

Does this article mention when her name was changed to Starhawk? I assume this happened before she published her books but when? Even the year would be good. 184.146.160.203 (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Starhawk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080511204010/http://www.cuups.org/content2/ to http://www.cuups.org/content2/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Starhawk. 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://web.archive.org/web/20140505044500/http://starhawk.org/writings/writings.html to http://www.starhawk.org/writings/writings.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 00:46, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Starhawk. 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://web.archive.org/web/20061021013132/http://www.researchpubs.com/books/mpex_star.php to http://www.researchpubs.com/books/mpex_star.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061021013132/http://www.researchpubs.com/books/mpex_star.php to http://www.researchpubs.com/books/mpex_star.php

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 23:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)