Talk:Circle Sanctuary/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Circle Sanctuary
I do not think this article should be deleted. According to the article, Circle Sanctuary is well known internationally. Keep the article. Thank you-RFD 12:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Article has been undeleted as of today. I think the historical context for CS (which will mostly be pulled from books and not off the Interweb, I expect) will be key to making sure that people unfamiliar with the topic recognize the importance of Circle Sanctuary. Since I don't have time personally right now to edit/improve articles much, I appreciate others taking the time to do so. -- nae'blis 15:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Secondary sources needed
Many thanks to Nae'blis and Majorly for facilitating the return of this article. I will try and encourage the addition of further good secondary sources: I can quite see that without these the article as it stood lacked credibility. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 15:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Wrong Title
I am Changing "Chaplain's Handbook", because frankly there is no such book. The actual title of the book that is often referred to as The Chaplain's Handbook, is officially, Requirements and Practices of Certain Selected Groups: A Handbook for Chaplains If the sentence requires it, I might compensate for its collequialized expression, but I will still include its official title. Thanks, Wolfpeaceful (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Criticism
This letter is a series of allegations with no evidence, filled with claims about conversations with unnamed "sources". It is not accompanied by its own citations or a response from Selena Fox. I have been a friend to both parties for over 25 years, and I see no reason to consider this letter encyclopedic. Bonewits and Fox had different approaches to the way they structured and ran the two organizations they each founded, but this single relic of that disagreement does not IMO belong in an encyclopedic article about Fox. At this point, it is simply a single preserved heated and unsupported statement about Bonewits' opinion about Fox, a derogatory one from a biographical standpoint, and does not belong here. Also, Please refer to the guidelines concerning biographies of living persons; Bonewits' allegations are both poorly sourced and potentially libelous.Rosencomet (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)