Talk:Wicca/Archive 7

message: ::In modern times, Wiccans have been incorrectly associated with black magic and Satanism, especially in connection with Satanic Ritual Abuse hysteria. [54] The Bible (Leviticus 20:27 A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them[55] and Exodus 22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live[56]) may incite Christians to be less than sympathetic toward neo-Pagans in general. Wiccans also experience difficulties in administering and receiving prison ministry, although not in the UK of recent times. [57]
The Old Testament isn't specifically Christian.  Nor is Christianity the sole persecutor, past, present, or future.  In fact, I'd quite easily say that more practitioners of paganistic religions have been felled at the hands of Islam than any other religion, however this isn't as documented as it is an ongoing daily criminal execution matter in many Islamic nations, nor as sensationalistic, nor does it render the victim-culture that most organised religions need to reinstate their solidarity or unity of sorts.
Whilst it's 'trendy' to take shots at Christianity, I consider this to be an NPOV breach and suggest that the article be reviewed for neutrality.  Jachin 01:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the above from the article, as it seems to be, at best, speculation.  In order to connect Leviticus and Exodus passages to modern day persecution of Wiccans, we would need to find a reliable source that makes that connection.  Jkelly 02:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While Im all for getting rid of OR, there still remains the fact that Wiccans are most commonly associated (incorrectly, of course) with Satanism and "black magic". Is there any possible way to address this in the article? Disinclination 20:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I would think the chatter of modern-day Christian practitioners to be fairly reliable, as they voice their beliefs.  After searching quickly, I found a blog , a Q&A "session"  and ReligiousTolerance.com also comments how more conservative Christians use Biblical passages .  It may be just me, but the practice of some conservative Christians seem to be a really good reliable source.  76.48.63.166 20:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, these sources probably would be representative, but they don't meet Wikipedia's attribution requirements. In this case, I can see reasons other than reliability for citing a secondary source rather than the blogs themselves: A secondary source should hopefully be easier to read and more informative, since it would provide some commentary. It would essentially be a "cleaned-up" and summarised source more suitable for citation by an encyclopedia. Fuzzypeg☻ 04:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: This talk page has gotten very long, much longer than the previous archives I looked at. Is it time to archive this? Toyalla 17:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, finito :) -- Huntster T • @ • C 19:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Hunster! Toyalla 04:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive this discussion? 

message: While the article has some notable flaws I was thinking that it might be time to submit this for a Good Article nomination. Any thoughts on wether or not the article is ready and if not what could be done to improve it in order to get it ready? NeoFreak 08:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The great thing about the GA process is that reviewers give fantastic tips on how to improve the article, and then a week or so to have those changes implimented.  While I'm not quite sure it is up-to-snuff, it should be quite useful.  I say go ahead. -- Huntster T • @ • C 13:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see a lot we'd still fail on. The trick isn't being shown the flaws, but finding the time to fix them! And is that really what the GA review system is for, to review articles that the submitters know full well won't pass? Fuzzypeg☻ 05:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  Isn't there a peer review system already in place that the article can be submitted to? -- Huntster T • @ • C 06:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article 

message: So where is Alice?   I do not know what you are thinking....Come and give me a break...Why does She not come up on this article?  I am not understaning.   "Book of THE LAW"  Just what it the connection??? I am so sure that they died..at least at simpler times.  So what is to this "Magick Connection"??? Playaoms11 06:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps I'm a horrible person, but I've not heard of Ms Bailey, and from reading her article, I see no mention of Wicca anywhere.  Yes, a connection to occult, but any specific reason to include her here rather than in a generic Neopaganism or Occult article?  Beyond that, I have no idea what it is you are saying.  The sentences are disjointed.  Who died, and during what time? (I'm confused) -- Huntster T • @ • C 09:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Alice Bailey has no major connection to Wicca that I know of, and if you think she did, or if they really did connections die in magick to a simpler times then article free to feel add to it to. But make sure if you do so, that what you add actually makes some sense, and make sure all statements are correctly attributed. Oh, and Huntster, you're not a horrible person. If someone's talking nonsense, that's not a reflection on you! Fuzzypeg☻ 21:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Alice Bailey]] 

message: Wikipedia citation policy has recently changed so that anything tagged with a "citation needed" tag can be deleted after a "reasonable time" if no citation has been supplied. That stinks! I've added plenty of these tags to statements that are not contentious but could do with citations. However this tag now specifically applies to statements that are doubtful. That means most of the tags in this article need to be removed, since the statements are not at all doubtful, just unreferenced. If anyone has any ideas for alternative ways of tagging uncontroversial but unreferenced statements, I'm all ears. Fuzzypeg☻ 03:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jeeze.. are you serious? Man.. thats really going to throw a wrench in alot of articles, especially those where they have specific sentences that need references. Hmm. Best thing I can think of is to copy and paste the sentences to a talk page for everyone to see, but thats really too time consuming plus not everyone looks at the talk page. Hrm. Sorry I couldn't be of much help. Disinclination 19:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automatic deletion of "citation needed" tags 

message: I have edited the bit about the derivation of 'Do What Thou Wilt' again. To the suggestion that we keep Thelema out of Wicca I say, I have not included the bit about Rabelais being considered the first Thelemite because it is not strictly relevant. However I feel one cannot omit the correct derviation of DWTW. Moreover I do wonder what in the world St Augustine's remark is doing in this paragraph? What he is saying there is nothing like what DWTW means in the western esoteric tradition. Morgan Leigh 12:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The bit about Augustine was put in by someone else; I merely changed it from saying that DWTW was derived from Augustine's phrase to saying that it was similar to Augustine's phrase, since Aleister Crowley clearly claims that the phrase came to him direct from a spiritual entity called Aiwass. The same goes for your Rabelais: as far as I know we have no documentary evidence supporting a derivation from Rabelais, as much as we may suspect it. Fuzzypeg☻ 23:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've just done a little more research and I stand corrected. It's pretty undeniable that the phrase derives from Rabelais, who described an "Abbey of Thelema" operating according to this philosophy. I guess Aiwass read Rabelais. Fuzzypeg☻ 00:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I got that garbled too. No "Abbey of Thelema", just Thelema as a philosophy. Dang. If I were Aiwass I could say what I wanted and always be right... Fuzzypeg☻ 01:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However Gardner's use of the phrase clearly came from Crowley, since Gardner was an initiate of OTO and knew Crowley personally. --Thiebes 17:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can point to the similarity of the rede to Crowley's Law, and we can point to authors who have suggested this origin, but we cannot conclusively say that Gardner derived the Rede from Crowley, since this is only our strong suspicion (and our own original research), not established (verifiable) fact. But that's OK. Our readers mostly aren't stupid, and can form their own judgements. Fuzzypeg☻ 04:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do What Thou Wilt 

message: There has been a small revert skirmish recently over whethr God and Goddess are equal, or whether she has primacy. There is evidence that both views are held - even by the same person sometimes! I've added some citations for both views. Please consider discussing this section here rather than automatically reverting it. This whole article is getting so big I wonder if this section actually needs splitting off into a separate article? Blessed be! Kim dent brown 15:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, I made changes to that section without reading your comment first. I think removing the statement about Gardner mentioning both a Goddess and a God was the most major change I made. I don't have any of my books here, but isn't there something stronger we could say here, than that there's a suggestion Gardner considered both important? I do note, regarding the controversy in the article, that the text as it was did not say either view was correct; it simply said that some view the Goddess and God as equal, and some view the Goddess as pre-eminent. I would have though that would satisfy most parties... Fuzzypeg☻ 03:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi there Fuzzypeg! I too was actually happy with the text as it was, but it had invited constant reversions over the last few days and I was trying to find a form of words that would satisfy both sides. I agree that more citations will help and will look for them - I think Vivianne Crowley and the Farrars will amplify Gardner. I actually think this whole section needs exporting to a new article, with a short summary remaining here. I'll leave it a few days and see what reaction there is to this idea before taking a bold step like this! Kim dent brown 06:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested revision re primacy of Goddess/HPS 

message: Bush Administration Agrees To Approve Wiccan Pentacle For Veteran Memorials.  Someone want to summarize and add this to the article?--Vidkun 15:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  update on the pentacle case in the Circle Sanctuary v Nicholson 

message: I was going to be bold and just go ahead and do this, but I'd rather get some consensus first. This article is getting VERY long and some sections are virtually full articles in themselves. I propose that we take the biggest sections, export them to a new page all of their own with a link out from the main article and leave a much abbreviated summary of the section on the main page.I realise that this is a major change and we have hardly reached a stable state for the main article, but I'm concerned that it is simply getting bigger and less manageable, as the net result of most changes is an increase in the word count! I'll do nothing for a few days but unless there is strong disagreement with this strategy I shall go ahead and make a start in a week or so... Kim dent brown 16:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I've started the hatchet job - apologies if it seems too violent to people - remember, the full original text of these sections is still on Wikipedia in the new subpages! My editing of these two sections brings the whole Wicca article down from about 67k to about 51k. So we have some way to go but have made some progress. In editing the sections I must say I think they would benefit from a complete re-write. My guess is that the old sections had grown organically without an overarching plan, with the result that I think they were over-detailed in some areas while missing others entirely. I think we have a way to go before Wicca becomes a Featured Article candidate... --Kim dent brown 13:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, good work so far. I'm not going to interfere too much yet while the hatchet is still madly flailing; I'll go over it all more carefully when you're spent. But in the meantime I have complete faith in you (gulp). Fuzzypeg☻ 22:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Fuzzypeg. Will do my best to justify your PL&PT! Kim dent brown 06:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Brilliant work so far. I just wanted to thank you for your efforts, Kim and anyone else who's been involved in this. Fuzzypeg☻ 06:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major restructure into subpages - views anyone? 

message: I've written to the IP editor who added to this section asking if they can provide a citation (and gently pointing out that this kind of material is a slippery slope...!) Kim dent brown 18:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are a kinder person than I.  This type of thing happens so often (both in this section and in Wikipedia at large) that it has become a mostly automatic analyse-and-take-action response for me, often resulting in delete.  Hopefully said anon will reply. -- Huntster T • @ • C 21:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition to popular culture section 

message: It seems to me that there should be some mention in the "Origins" section that Gardner's original rites had large sections taken directly and verbatim from The Book of the Law. --Thiebes 17:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that this material belongs in the article History of Wicca rather than here. The history section in this overview article is necessarily brief (and does mention that GBG used other, older sources) and I wouldn't want the article to bloat any further - having already chopped 20k off it! If you have a good source for the The Book of the Lawstuff, why not put it in the History of Wicca article? Kim Dent-Brown 18:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can see where you are coming from but what is confusing to me is that this article says that "elements" of these other sources (e.g. Aradia) were "incorporated", which is well and good but I mean we are talking pages of text taken verbatim from The Book of the Law so it seems strange that the former would warrant mention here but not the latter. That said I am not sure if there is a published source which makes the claim so it may not be possible to include in any case. I just know it to be true, having compared the texts myself. I will see what I can find in the way of published sources though. --Thiebes 20:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins 

message: I've just reverted an edit that said that 'Wica' was the correct spelling. If we were technical about the way language evolves, we could say that English contains a lot of misspelt Latin, Germanic and Anglo-saxon words. The common spelling is now 'Wicca', and it describes the religion rather than the followers of the religion. To me, this is an example of the evolution of a word, not a misspelling.--Jcvamp 18:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are misinterpreting the meaning of the single 'c' is the correct spelling.  I edit a number of articles that have to do with Wicca, and have various spellings of related words, from specific sources.  Many times, well meaning, but uninformed, editors will come through and "correct" what they think are obvious mispellings.  The way I understand Kim's edit, her his commentary was intended to point out, "Yes, that is how it was spelled."  I just went through a similar change on the article about the Wiccan Rede, where someone changed Wiccae (which is the proper spelling from the source quoted, NOT a judgemental proper spelling) to Wiccan.  This instance, that you reverted, is one of those things where a sic would usually be used.--Vidkun 18:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they had said sic I would have interpretted it the way you said. Sorry if I misunderstood. I'll add sic to the article to make sure.--Jcvamp 20:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, sic would have been a more elegant way of expressing it, sorry if my correction was misleading. (And so is my name - see my userpage for photographic explanation of why this she is a he...) Kim Dent-Brown 20:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I knew you were a guy, and forgot.  My bad.--Vidkun 15:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wica, the 'correct' spelling 

message: Hello there, Wikiklrsc thanks for adding the reference you did to this article. I've removed it for now, because I'm not sure it was in the right place. It was in the section titled 'Academic studies' which it isn't, being a magazine article (albeit from an academic institution!) Also, Ronald Hutton's address which is described went way beyond Wicca - if this link belongs anywhere I'd suggest that maybe an article with a broader scope, such as Neopaganism. But honestly, I'd think twice before using it at all as I'm not sure how much it adds that isn't already sourced... If there's something there that would merit an in-line citation, perhaps. But many of these articles suffer from an overload of 'See also' and 'Further reading' links, so I'm doubtful.
Don't take my reversion as definitive! If you think it belongs, stick it in and we can argue it out on the talk page. but I thought I'd start the discussion here rather than just leave you with my edit note in Wicca. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 15:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Kim. Got your note. Generally, I think it good practice personally to discuss deletions before they are done. I thought it significant that Harvard University had such a conference on the topic and was reported in the mainstream Harvard University Gazette. I think it should be there in the article on Wicca to show the importance of the topic even in academia. But it's been a rough day, and I don't wish to get into any spats about it. Wikipedia is a volunteer effort. Perhaps someone else will see its worth or not. I was just reading, as usual, the Harvard Gazette and was struck by the visibility of reporting on the conference. Not my normal topic. So be it. Thanks anyway for your diligence and erudition in matters such as these. Regards. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 16:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Bob, sorry if my deletion was hasty. It's just that on these particular articles we get tons of external links and references added by (usually) uninformed and over-enthusiastic editors - not that I'm placing you in either category! Those of us who patrol these articles regularly tend to have a 'shoot first and ask questions afterwards' kind of attitude. I think I'll copy this discussion to the talk page so that other people can chip in. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 16:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: PS- the article in question is here. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 19:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article from Harvard Gazette [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wicca&diff=131304820&oldid=131302127]