Talk:Wicca/Archive 4

message: I have cut the following links here for discussion.  I feel that there are still too many.  We should cut anything that doesn't add anything to what Witchvox and Pagan Federation cover, in my opinion.  I have added my reasons for thinking that they are not necessary here.
*Circle of Pagans (Specific to Northwest UK)
*Il Culto della Dea: Italian Pagan & Wiccan Community (In Italian -- move link to Italian wp article)
*WiccanWeb.ca (More like a blog with a forum)
*Avalonia Discussion Forums (Commercial site -- sells their own books)
*Circle Amaurot (Single coven's homepage)
*Church and School of Wicca (Should go in an article about the Frosts -- their homepage)
*Lycian Sanctuary, The - official site of the Lycian Tradition of Wicca (homepage of a trad with no article)
*Pagan Network, The (formerly WiccaUK) (Generic forum)
*WICA.org.uk (Particularly egregious commercial site)
*VZW Arcadia - Belgian Wiccan organization (In Flemish)
*Witch School - Online site of the Corellian Tradition. Take online courses for free. (Commercial site)
*Reclaiming Collective in San Francisco (Reclaiming has an article)
*Toby's Wiccan Refuge - another Wiccan page that's been around for years (Personal site)
*Free Introductory Lessons  (Commerical site)
*Gerina Dunwich's Cauldron (In Dunwich article)
*Wiccan Wheel of the Year, The - Extensive Article on the 8 Wheel of the Year Celebrations (Commercial site)
*25,000 Year Old Religion (Random person's essay)
Please see [When should I link externally?] and Make links relevant to the context, and even WP:NOT.  I'd like to further encourage others to cut even deeper than I did.  Jkelly 03:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree these links should not be included, they are either not relevant, on the wrong page or spam. - Solar 18:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Instead of removing external links and making antagonising statements like "rm link. If you're not willing to discuss the link in the talk page, it probably doesn't belong" when there is no such Wikipedia policy as far as I know, perhaps you might consider putting a comment in the code above the external links to inform hapless individuals who think they are adding value to the page by adding to that section that they first need to clear their addition of the link with the self-appointed "External Link Guardians" of the page so that they don't run afoul of the martial law in this part of town. Otherwise how are they supposed to know? --Craig 17:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Lapsus Linguae, please assume good faith, and consult the links to Wikipedia guidelines posted a few paragrpahs above you for an answer to any questions you might have about using external links.  User:Cylik's edit summary, which you quote above, may seem a little abrupt, but that same link has been continuously re-added without discussion over the period of a couple of weeks, after being removed by several different editors. At least a couple of editors have left messages at User talk pages about discussing the link addition.  Instead of making what can be read as snarky comments, if you believe that any of the links under discussion above add content to the page, I suggest engaging in a discussion about them.  If you feel that a commented out pointer to WP link policy would be helpful, I encourage you to go ahead and add it in.  Jkelly 17:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree completely with what Jkelly has just said, and with every link I can see in this discussion that has been removed. Crimsone 02:14, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

text:  I will admit to being perhaps overly harsh when removing things.  I agree with Jkelly's sentiments regarding the various links here, and while I'm not knowledgeable about Wicca, I can still see that most of the links do not belong in the article, and I trust Jkelly's judgement on the others.  The problem is that a few people keep re-adding the same links and won't discuss the additions no matter how many attempts are made to contact them.  I'm not certain that it's multiple people either; the mannerisms suggest that it's no more than two seperate people who keep making new accounts and using dynamic IPs (although why I can't fathom).  In any case, if someone isn't willing to acknowledge our attempts at contact, I lose patience, and write edit summaries like the one above.  Jkelly seems to be better at it; he's had to remove the same link spam about a dozen times as opposed to my one or two.  I'll try to emulate his cool from now on. --Cylik 02:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Jkelly too, and I will admit to being partially wrong, although it's hard to assume good faith when reading something that comes across as antagonising. I'm also aware of the guidelines for external linking (so I don't have any questions and I'm not suggesting that the links above all be put back) and I'm aware that with the rising popularity of Wicca the article does risk becoming not much more than a links page to every teenie bopper's witchy GeoCities site. That said, the specific nature of the external link problem here is the only one I know about so far (although I've removed link spam and repeat link spam from a number of articles in the past), so I think some people (the repeat offenders you mention excluded) could be forgiven for adding a link without consulting the talk page first. As for the comment I suggested -- not being one of the people involved in policing the external links (although I suppose I could choose to be), I didn't think it was my place to add the comment and I also thought there may have been a specific reason for not doing something so obvious. However, I will have a look now and if nobody else has put it there, I will do so. --Craig 03:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, it took me a few edits (and a stuck caps-lock key in the edit summary on the last edit -- sorry) to get it right, but I've done it. Because the individual sub-sections of the external links section can be edited individually, I put abbreviated warnings there too, which will seem redundant if you are editing the whole page or the whole external links section, but it's all you see if you are editing a sub-section. If you feel it's too wordy or should just say, "Read the talk page before adding a link here", feel free to change it. Of course, it won't stop the repeat offenders, but at least you'll be able to say, "We told you so" and hopefully other people will discuss links here before adding them. --Craig 03:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

text: You're welcome and thank-you. Feel free to borrow or even steal it. :) --Craig 03:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cut the following.  Left a message at IP's Talk page.  The Wicca Cauldron Message Board Jkelly 23:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links cut for discussion 

message: Can my request for information please be returned here as I had only just added it to the talk page? jackiespeel 19 October
:Hello "Jackiespeel".  Please direct questions to the Reference Desk.  Article Talk pages are only for discussions about editing the article.  Thanks.  Jkelly 18:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for information 

message: I've changed a small part of the section on the definition of witchcraft which is factually incorrect.
My use of language may not be quite up to scratch, but I felt it important to give a more accurate description on one element. Namely, I've changed the sentence...
"Similarly, all Wiccans and Witches are Pagans, but not all Pagans are Witches and Wiccans."
... to ...
"Similarly, all Wiccans and most Witches are Pagans, but not all Pagans are Witches and Wiccans (It is worth noting that not all witches consider themselves to be pagan, and consider witchcraft to be purely a method and tradition of practicing magic, holding no religious value in itself)."
Crimsone 14:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article edited 

message: Would anyone here (since it seems to be slightly more active here) like to weigh in on the NPOV allegation at magick? An anonymous editor tagged the article as NPOV without giving much in the way of a reason and then disappeared and hasn't returned. The relevant talk section is here. Thanks. --Craig (t|c) 22:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Gave third opinion.  Jkelly 08:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. I think those are good points. Unless Mr./Ms. Anonymous returns, I'll remove the NPOV tag in a couple of days. --Craig (t|c) 09:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-NPOV Allegation at "Magick" 

message: If wicca means shaman then is a practitioner a wicca or a wiccan?
I'm assuming wiccan is an adjective and then wiccan can be used as a noun if short for wiccan practioner.
:Wiccan can be utilised in modern English sentences as an adjective or a noun, and the proper usage would depend on the context. --P.MacUidhir (t) (c)  08:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  wicca or wiccan 

message: I have added a notice to clean up the section Persecution of Wiccans as it is poorly written and makes general statements in a form not appropriate for an article of this type. - Solar 13:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I attempted a cleanup. It was under and overexplained. Hyacinth 14:29, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persecution of Wiccans - Clean-Up 

message: Would anyone be able to corroborate this statement?
:Some sources contend that the term wicca is related to Old English witan, meaning "wise man or counselor". A few language scholars  widely reject this as false etymology, with the term deriving from the Old English 'wicce', meaning witch.
This is quite misleading.  It's certainly true that some linguists have suggested that wicca and witan are related; but I think that anyone who would argue that would also think that wicce was derived from witan.  Wicce is simply the female form of wicca; there are many Anglo-Saxon words that work like this, for example Engla "Englishman" and Engle "Englishwoman".
In any case, it's misleading to say unequivocally that wicce means "witch", without explaining what "witch" meant in an Anglo-Saxon context: they sure weren't thinking of pointy hats and broomsticks.
Someone should also say here that "wicca" pronounced "wika" is not the correct pronunciation of the Anglo-Saxon word; double-c in Anglo-Saxon orthography is pronounced as a cha sound, so "wicca" is "wit-cha". --Saforrest 00:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Derivation from Old English 

message: Most of this seems like trivia. Anything comprehensive on this subject out there that we can use instead? I am reasonably certain that hundreds of individual cases could be listed and documented here, but that would be plainly silly.
Anyway, in order to avoid problems with removing these individual cases from the main article, they are now found below instead of within the main article. (with a nod toward DreamGuy for alluding to this problem in one of his recent edits to the main Wicca article)
--P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 10:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Persecution of Wiccans / United States ' (text moved from article) 

message: * Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Owen Scott, Jr Jkelly 04:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another AfD listing 

message: This article uses the religioustolerance.org website as either a reference or a link. Please see the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org and Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org as to whether Wikipedia should cite the religioustolerance.org website, jguk 14:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I reiterate the first line on that talk page -- please be reasonable.... The idea that there is even a question at all is ludicrous, and by bringing it up you show extreme bias. DreamGuy 14:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Religioustolerance.org

message: The term Pagan (from Latin pāganus "country-dweller, civilian" from pāgus "rural district") can also mean anyone who is not Christian, Muslim or Jewish.
While the derivation of the word Pagan is accurate in as far as it goes, it suggests that it referes to a persecuted minority hiding out in the country. Ronald Hutton has argued that the word was actually being used to designate "followers of the old religious traditions" even before Christianity was the dominant religion of the Roman Empire.  This is a quote from page 4 of The Triumph of the Moon where Hutton discusses the meaning of the term:
"For over a hundred years writers had commonly asserted that the Roman word paganus, from which it had derived, signified 'rustic'; a result of the triumph of Christianity as the dominant, metropolitan, and urban faith, which left the old religions to make a last stand among the more backward populations of the countryside.  In 1986, however, the Oxford-based historian Robin Lane Fox reminded colleagues that this usage had never been proved and that the term had more probably been employed in a different sense in which it was attested in the Roman world, of a civilian…  French academic, Pierre Chuvin, challenged both derivations, arguing that the word pagani was applied to followers of the old religious traditions at a time when the latter still made up the majority of town-dwellers and when its earlier sense, of non-military, had died out.  He proposed instead that it simply denoted those who preferred the faith of the pagus, the local unit of government; that is, the rooted or old religion [Pierre Chuvin, A Chronicle of the Last Pagans (Cambridge, MA; Harvard University Press, 1990), 7-9].  His suggestion has so far met with apparent wide acceptance."
I don't think it is actually very critical when it come to this article, but it does lend credence to the still lingering myth of Wicca being a survival of an ancient pre-Christian religion. <Puck 04:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don;t understand your copmplaint in the slightest. The sentence quoted above is wholly accurate, and I do not see how it "suggests that it referes to a persecuted minority hiding out in the country". That's not a natural conclusion from the info as presented. DreamGuy 08:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're probably right.  I was just feeling a bit snippy the day I wrote that.  It's not worth losing sleep over.  Feel free to ignore it and me.--◀Pucktalk▶ 09:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A slight issue with the Definition section 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pádraic_MacUidhir/tempsource
That is the wording of the relevant 'Act of Parliament' in the United Kingdom. The act itself does not seem to be available on the Internet to the general public except on a few dozen neopagan-themed websites. I attempted to find the Act via Parliament's website for such, but their archives only go back around twenty years thus far.
However, the text of the act can be bought here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0000CHZ7H/026-1405102-5294007
...and I found a *reference* to it, at least, at Parliament's site that archives its Acts:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts.htm (search for 'fraudulent mediums', then scroll down a page or two)
...so I figure that the act does actually exist. 
Westlaw UK or LexisNexis.co.uk will almost certainly have the Act in full text stored somewhere in their respective databases, but unfortunately I do not subscribe to the former, and I only subscribe to the US version of LexisNexis, so I cannot access those Acts of Parliament from here without digging in the depths of the local university library with a large trowel and a mold mask. ;)  If anyone wants to do the legwork to verify the wording at the 'tempsource' page I made above- it would be appreciated. Any of you that are students in European universities might be able to access those databases listed above.
In the meantime, now we have a copy of it here at Wikipedia that is reasonably certain to be accurate in wording and whatnot, so it is a start. If any of you can finish the task of verifying the source, let us know here. I would also be interested in our having access to the 'Witchcraft Act of 1735' as a companion document to the 'Fraudulent Mediums Act, 1951', both of which can almost certainly find a good home at Wikisource once we have reliable copies of each document.
In my opinion, both Acts are necessary for this article in order to properly cite some of its content. Slainté,
→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c)  19:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Alex. First and foremost, I am NOT a lawyer, but according to the Office of Public Sector Information, "Legislation from official sources is reproducible freely under waiver of copyright." (Cite) To the best of my understanding, Wikipedia could not sell copies of the Acts for profit, but can reproduce them freely. Justin Eiler 18:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fraudulent Mediums Act, 1951 and Witchcraft Act of 1735 

message: I've got problems with this edit.  While I think the original wording could be better and should be sourced, removing it is uncalled for.  I'm currently digging through Larwence Sutin's Do What Thou Wilt and Gardner's Witchcraft Today, which Sutin cites, to clarify the points, and I've found a link to The Blue Equinox.  I'm going to attempt redoing the blanked material to make it suitable to be added back in.  As I'm writing this I see Morven has already reverted it. I think it should stay in until I can get it reworked.--◀Pucktalk▶ 00:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current phrasing suggests that Heselton makes an argument that I am unsure Heselton actually makes.  Two paragraphs about the Crowley-origins theory is certainly over-stating the case, regardless.  Jkelly 01:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still working on it.  I don't have access to Heselton's book so I can't address that.  I'll try to squeeze what I'm doing into the first paragraph and let someone else deal with Heselton.--◀Pucktalk▶ 03:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: You improved the article.  Don't worry about doing everything all at once.  Jkelly 03:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I try.  I guess I should forwarn everyone that though I am a 1st degree in a quasi-Alexandian coven I am also a Thelemite and I'm currently awaiting approval of my Minerval application by the OTO.  You have no idea how much I want to expand the section about Crowley's influence, but I really do want to keep my personal POV out of this.--◀Pucktalk▶ 04:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with an edit 

message: Per WP:NOR, this section has been removed. "Clann Breassil" cannot be verified or documented from other sources, therefore additions of information about it is original research. Justin Eiler 13:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the "Clann Breassil" edits