Talk:Wiccan Rede/Archive 1

message: Yes, rede is a (conscious) archaism - finding a Germanic word in Middle English that didn't make it into Modern English usage.  It should be defined in the entry. --MichaelTinkler
Surely the obvious comparison is NOT to the 10 Commandments, but to the 'golden rule', of which it is (unless it is actually ancient, which no one seems to be asserting in these entries) a paraphrase.
:Very good point. The comparison to the commandments gives insight into the Wiccan moral viewpoint, but I added a comparison to the Golden Rule. See if you like it better now. --Dmerrill
::Isn't it more related to the Hippocratic oath? HK
:Interesting. I'd never thought of that. Yes, it definitely is very similar, but as the Hippocratic oath isn't a religious belief I'm not sure how relevant it is here. But anyway, let's leave that comparison to the actual Golden Rule article rather than reproducing it under every single religion's version of the golden rule (there at least 8-10 of them). --Dmerrill
----
Comparing the Rede to the golden rule is fine, but saying that it is an expression of it, or equivalent to it in some other way, is simply wrong.  --Lee Daniel Crocker
:See what you think now. And thanks for your criticism. Unfortunately this is one area where I might be too close to the subject matter and need the criticism to examine my own preconceptions. I am trying to be factual and npov, truly. --Dmerrill
::I'm starting to find this whole thing more interesting than i'd like -- I've run into people who swear up and down that they are Wiccans = witches, and that Wicca is the religion of witchcraft.  I've always thought (from the little I've read on Wicca) that Wicca was a modern (not to say New Age) attempt to reconnect with Druidic and other Celtic traditions (for which we don't have a lot of evidence).  When I combine this with the knowledge that many women accused of witchcraft, especially in the middle ages, may have been folk healers or herbalists, then the Hippocratic oath makes sense.  
I've also been on a lot of religion bulletin boards where self-avowed Wiccans say that they are witches, but that their Wiccan religion prevents them from harming others...so could someone explain to me where this leaves witchcraft in the sense of people who practice magic, spells, incantations, etc, with or without a rejection of Christianity, with or without a touch of Satanism???  I'm sooo confused! HK
:It seems to me that a person could practice many forms of 'magic' without rejecting Christianity and might even, in theory, accept the dogmas of Jesus's divinity and literal resurrection. The Christian Kabbalah springs to mind. What does the word 'satanism' mean to you? --Dan
:It is quite simple: we do not practise harmful magick. - montréalais
----
Crowley said he received The Book of The Law in 1904 G.C., but I don't think he published it until 1909. Hence I say 'at least 1909'. --Dan
----
Please note that "the golden rule" isn't the venue of religion only: secular thought and ethics throughout human history have and had their various similar versions.
I do not agree that the Wiccan Rede is close enough to the "Golden Rule" to draw a parallel. The "Golden Rule" mandates the lack of inflicting harm based upon one's own preference and is therefore ego-centric; the Wiccan Rede prohibits harm without qualifiers. There is a version of the "golden rule" which states "What is distasteful to you, do not do unto others." This is also ego-centric: it mandates treating others as one wishes to be treated--- which I object to. A much superior mandate would be to treat others how THEY wish to be treated (baring harm), and not how we ourselves wish to be treated. Desertphile 05:19 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)
----
You may also wish to include something to the effect that the Rede proscribes harm to oneself as well as to others.  "An it harm NONE, do as thou wilt."  Many people forget this and assume the Rede allows any sort of behavior as long as no external harm is done. --Morgan
----
The article claims that "An it harm none, do what ye will" is one of the most common forms according to Google. However, "An ye harm none, do what ye will" (a variant which the article does not even mention) gets more hits: An it harm none, do what ye will (1740 hits)
An ye harm none, do what ye will (2910 hits). Is there is a reason for omitting forms with "ye" instead of "it"? --Zundark 10:36, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

message: the Wiccan Rede forbids harm absolutely. I have to dispute this.  Read the construction of the phrase in its original "An it harm none, do what ye will."  The Rede says nothing about actions which DO harm.  The Rede gives permission for all acts that do NOT harm, but does not command at all.  It is not a "thou shall not" proscriptive commandment, but a statement that, at best, gives permission for those things which do no harm.  This is discussed in Wiccan Ethics and the Wiccan Rede by David Piper.  
:  Propose - "There is some debate in the neo-Pagan, neo-Wiccan and Wiccan communities as to the meaning of the rede.  The debate centers around the concept of the rede being advice (from the meaning of rede) not a commandment, as well as the fact that actions which do harm are not discussed in the rede." with link to article by Piper. --Vidkun 19:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd leave out "neo-Wiccan", as it is a neologism, but I encourage you to insert the rest of the above.  The whole article needs a fairly major re-write.  As it stands now it is entirely unreferenced, presents the entirety of a poem that may be under copyright, has a non-descriptive External links section, makes no mention of any text, and the Interpretations section reads like an essay.  If you feel inspired to fix anything else while you're editing, please do so.  Otherwise I will get around to it eventually.  Jkelly 01:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interpretations of the Rede 

message: I have now obtained and read the Mathiesen/Theitic book on Thompson and Porter. The book's claim is that Porter probably wrote much - most - of the poem, which was later adapted and supplemented by Thompson. Anyway, I propose to add material relating to this and restore and supplement the critical notes relating to Bott that have been deleted. Paul B 00:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rede of the Wiccae Book

message: I'm moving this here because I dont understand it:
:Contrary to this, some argue that this interpretation is based upon the law of Thelema and while the wording of one may have inspired the other, the interpretation of the two do not necessarily coincide so. In particular, the injunction "An it harm none" is arguably redundant when it comes to matters of "true will", as knowledge of ones true will should be sufficient to result in ethical behaviour.
I don't understand:
1. Why being based on the law of Thelema "contradicts" other interpretations.
2. What is meant by "while the wording of one may have inspired the other, the interpretation of the two do not necessarily coincide so."
3. On what basis other than assertion is it claimed that "ones true will" necessarily will not involve harm to others, thus somehow making the "an it harm none" component redundant.
I assume this is a Crowleyite criticism of Wicca, but I think it needs some clarification. Paul B 01:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Added passage

message: I'm not going to get into a long long debate about the use of the apostrophe, unless I see a facsimile of the original article "Wiccan Pagan Potpourri" from Green Egg.  However, someone at 24.222.134.200 keeps trying to change the wording of the end phrase.  Now it may or not make much difference, that change.  But the wording, as quoted by Nemed Cuculatii in Wiccan Pagan Potpourri TRANSCRIPT, is An it harm none not An harm ye none.--Vidkun 01:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the original published form of the wording is from a report on Valiente's 1964 speech, not from the Green Egg magazine - which is not even the original published form of the long poem, so we can't be absolutist about the "correct" phrasing. Nevertheless, all published accounts that I know of agree with your version. Paul B 08:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the first published version of the long form of the Rede of the Wiccae?  I'll be mightily confused until I get my copy of Mathieson's and Theitic's book.--Vidkun 14:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll add it here when I get the time. It's very similar to Porter's. I made a mistake above, since all versions are not identical. The reported Valiente version has "the Wiccan rede fulfill". Porter's version has "ye Wiccan rede fulfill". Paul B 16:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  an it harm none vs an harm ye none 

message: Here's the ERN version. As you can see, there are many relatively minor differences. Intriguingly, the last line has "an ye harm none", but has "the" in the first half. So no early published version agrees with the anonymous editor's version, but every one of them has at least one "ye" in one of the places s/he added them, and all the places are "yeified" in one or other of the versions. Paul B 22:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: paste of entirety of work removed, not licensed for Wikipedia use Jkelly (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Earth Religion News version

message: I've twice reverted the addition of links to the 'see also section'. The first time both were red, the second time one was to a piece of copyvio text which was immediately changed to a redirect to Doreen Valiente. Anyone following either link to The Witches Creed or The Witches Lament would currently be puzzled by where they ended up. May I suggest that if anyone wants to wikilink that they first prepare an appopriate article, and only link to it once it is stably in place and has meaningful content? Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 12:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion of wikilinks 

message: Can someone please put some explanation as to how the word "rede" should be pronounced? An IPA spelling could be nice. Thanks, Tamuz    (Talk)   13:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done (pronunciation is "reed") but I don't know how to format this in IPA. Anyone else? Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 12:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation guide 

message: s:The Wiccan Rede is being discussed as a possible copyright violation.  Please lend a hand in helping us sort through the history of this work. John Vandenberg (talk) 05:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikisource deletion discussion 

message: There have been a ton of edits made in the last few days, and there are quite a number of them with which I have issues.  Too many to list, really, but the first one to jump out at me is the use of AC Aldag as a source.  It's a self published article, with no peer review, and not a reliable source.  A number of issues regarding derivation of the rede in re Crowley were discussed here.--Vidkun (talk) 20:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent additions 

message: I've still got problems with the AC Aldag stuff, from a reference point of view.  Who is AC Aldag, has their stuff been peer reviewed, does this writer have any sort of degree?  In short, is AC Aldag a reliable source?  Or is it simply self published internet opinion pieces?  I ask, because in the various places on Witchvox that AC Aldag posted the "What's really old, and what likely ain't?" stuff, Aldag ALSO says this: You decide! Please Google everything I've written, in various forms, such as "Pentacle", "Pentagram", "Pentangle". Read Gerald Gardner's work, read authors who've studied Pagan history, look at images online. Read Gardner's detractors and supporters. Read other authors who disagree with the "experts". Look up some museum sites. Read the books mentioned in these articles. Have fun!  leaving us with no indication of any of their sources, no citation, pulls information seemingly out of thin air.  I believe Aldag's work has good sourcing, but the problem is - we don't get to see it!  Aldag takes copyleft for their own work, but won't tell us where any specific statements are referenced from.  I think it's intellectually dishonest to claim copyleft without citing your own sources.--Vidkun (talk) 14:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've no idea who Aldag is. According to his website "A.C. Aldag is one of the founders of Caer na Donia y Llew, a legal Pagan church located near beautiful Lake Michigan. Our family practices a Cymri (Welsh, Celtic) folk magic tradition, and I also have a background in Alexandrian Wicca and Welsh Witchcraft". In other words, he does not appear to be an accredited scholar, but a practicing Wiccan. I simply reworded the section today because the foototes and quotation had become hopelessly confused. It wasn't clear exactly who was saying what. I can have a look at what Ronald Hutton or Robert Mathiesen say. Paul B (talk) 14:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think AC Fisher Aldag is a woman.  I actually used the witchvox link to ask her how she could claim copyleft, but in at least one of her articles say she wasn't going to list sources for fear or infringement lawsuit.  I got back a very nasty email saying "go read my sources, I listed them in the article!!!"--Vidkun (talk) 14:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: OK. I don't think there's any problem with the info, as you say, but sourcing could be better.. Paul B (talk) 14:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Here's the quote from one of her articles: Several people wanted to learn my sources, or gain additional material on the subject matter. Well, I’m sorry, but in the interest of not being sued for unintentional copyright infringement, I leave it up to the reader to discover my sources for him or herself. There are pointers about how to do this, listed below. Other readers requested that I rate the accuracy of some of the references I used. This also seems to be begging for trouble. Because I’m just one amateur historian, who is not backed by a university with deep pockets (financed by taxpayers’ money!) , then I can’t afford to cite a source who might feel that I used their material illegally. Or drag me into court for defamation of character, if I think their pet theory might not hold water.--Vidkun (talk) 16:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Very odd comments! Citing of sources does not infringe copyright - unless they are quoted verbatim and at length. Expressing opinions about them are unlikely to landf anyone in court. Paul B (talk) 15:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and, to me, it shows a certain lack of reliability of the source, AC Aldag.  It suggests to me that we shouldn't even use her as a source in this article, or anywhere in wikipedia.--Vidkun (talk) 15:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aldag additions 

message: The wording of this section is clumsy; it currently reads "This poem was shortly followed by another, slightly different, version, entitled the "Rede Of The Wiccae", which was published in Green Egg magazine by Lady Gwen Thompson. She ascribed it to her grandmother Adriana Porter, and claimed that the earlier published text was distorted from "its original form". The poem has since been very widely circulated and has appeared in other versions and layouts, with additional or variant passages. It is commonly known as the "Long Rede"." and then goes in to the poem. 
A quick reading leads one to believe that the version posted in the article as "The Long Rede" is the version published by Thompson in her Green Egg article; it is not. It doesn't make clear that the version on the page is one of those "other versions and layouts, with additional or variant passages." That version also needs a source; I'm trying to track down a first publication of it, but having no real luck at the moment, although a 2008 posting indicates that it **may** have been published by Silver Ravenwolf in one of her books.
Also, FWIW, Thompson did not state that Porter was her grandmother in the text of the article; that information that was added  post-publication via an internet posting by myself after Thompson's death in 1986.  HR Mitchell 03:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This is simply due the fact that editors come along and change words here and there over time, so that the text gets, as it were, corrupted. We should use the same version published by Thompson. The Thompson version is published on this website. The variants are published in the book  The Rede of the Wiccae: Adriana Porter, Gwen Thompson and the Birth of a Tradition of Witchcraft, of which I own a copy. The Earth Religion News version can be seen in this diff.  Paul B (talk) 19:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Long Rede 

message: I haven't had much to do with this article since its inception; however as I read it tonight, I could not help but think the following text ought to be removed, and thus I have placed it here: 
"  Documented ideas similar to the Rede reach as far back as the fourth century theologian Saint Augustine of Hippo. In Homily 7 on the First Epistle of John, Augustine wrote Dilige, et quod vis fac meaning Love, and do what you will,http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/170207.htm Augustine was commenting on 1 John 4:4-12, which talks about love at length. Certain versions of the Bible translate  as "Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."Romans 13:10 NKJV, which may be referenced at  and versions also compared at  It has also been argued that similar concepts exist among Native Americans.Ventimiglia, Mark. Harm None. "The Wiccan Rede: Couplets of the Laws, Teachings, and Enchantments." Citadel Press: Kensington, 2003. 186-87.:"
 
I am uncertain whether the above text is necessary.  Secondarily, I think that St. Augustine was most likely referring to that passage speaking of "the fulfillment of the law" as in the context of Scriptural (perhaps Biblical or Papal or both) Law... not as Crowley would have as in the sense of "Moral Obligation."  On the surface these two ideas seem related; though, and perhaps I'm wrong, but St. Augustine would most likely be referring to Law that was already written.  Again I may be wrong, but I think that Crowley would have been referring to an unseen trait within the individual.  In short I think this is comparing apples to oranges, though I welcome other opinions. Thanks. 162.234.97.208 (talk) 04:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not really about what you or I think, but what sources have said. In this case the Augustine passage is cited to the original source, so the editor who added it has apparently made the connection, which is "original research" in wiki-speak. The claim about Native Americans is cited to a source, though I don't know how reliable it is (not very, it would seem). Personally I suspect it's likely to be a New Age fantasy that this has anything to do with "Native American" cultures, but of course there are many of them, so it would hardly be surprising if something a bit similar was to be found somewhere. The claim, however, is very vague, and it is of dubious notability. Better out than in, I'd say. Paul B (talk) 11:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I don't see why we should care what Ventimiglia thinks. We'd need something more impressive and specific. And the Augustine bit is indeed OR. Dougweller (talk) 12:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved Text