Talk:Wicca/Archive 8

message: Please edit note 30 to link I-H-O Books i.e.
J. L. Bracelin Gerald Gardner: Witch 151 (1960; reprinted Thame, Oxford: I-H-O Books, 1999)
:*Done! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 13:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, it is appreciated--Emnx 13:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit Please

message: Not sure if I'm being pretentious here (new to editing), but I saw that the section discussing the book of shadows in traditional Wicca seemed to imply that there was only one version. I changed it just to be a bit clearer.
:And I've changed it a bit further, because the edit (I think it was yours!) accidentally removed the link to Book of Shadows. Incidentally, if you type ~~~~ after your comments, your name and the date magically appear - like this! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 23:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, thanks! Feriwiccan 23:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book of Shadows 

message: In the "Lineaged and Eclectic Wicca" section someone added information to the effect that many lineaged Wiccans have developed their own philosophies and practices in an eclectic manner. This is true, but misleading, since all traditional Wicca is approached in this manner to at least some degree. This is an inappropriate discussion to have in that section, which is concerned with lineage and lack of lineage, and I have removed it. If we want it back in the article, it needs to be inserted into some discussion of philosophy or practices. Fuzzypeg? 00:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eclectic nature of lineaged Wicca 

message: Does anyone mind If I remove the "united States" part of the discrimination section to the discrimination article (leaving a summary sentence or two)? It would help get the article down to size, and it's mainly about the recent legal battles, which jars a little with the rest of the article. Totnesmartin 14:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it, I say. Having chopped it nearly in half this article is growing again so I agree with the principle of exporting detail and just keeping the basics here. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 15:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I removed most but only added the image, as the rest was there anyway (something I often find in these situations...) Totnesmartin 15:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However, you did not transfer any of the citations that were on the main article.  I'm going to go through and try to rewrite the new article to include them, but this is just a reminder to check for that in the future.  Citations are just too important to throw out. -- Huntster T • @ • C 23:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Arg. Sorry! Totnesmartin 19:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: S'all good.  Update was made, hopefully everything is okay.  I also converted the original opening section into a header for the article...seemed to work fine for that purpose. -- Huntster T • @ • C 20:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrimination section 

message: Also, might I get some other eyes to look upon the misery that is Religious discrimination against Wiccans, and possibly do some additions, especially with regards to creating a proper lead section and adding more than just material on the United States (Europe? Just the UK? Anything?).  It is just so...haphazard right now, and I just don't have the necessary knowledge to do much with it. -- Huntster T • @ • C 12:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid I unwatched it. It looks like one of those dumping ground articles that lots of people contribute to but almost nobody edits, or even reads in some cases. I'll give it a butcher's for you and save you some trouble. Totnesmartin 14:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: these "dumping ground" articles belong merged into more coherent discussions, where the topic gets more serious attention. In this case, the article belongs merged into religious discrimination against Neopagans. It appears that this is a topic entirely restricted to US prisons and the US armed forces. This should be made explicit to counter attempt to portray this as a bigger deal than it actually is. Please come to Talk:religious discrimination against Neopagans and help putting this all into perspective. dab (??) 14:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, these types of articles really are dumping grounds.  However, that doesn't mean they cannot be salvaged.  The United States portion of the material is considerably more broad than just prisons and military.  It primarily covers attempted government restrictions against the religion as a whole, plus it includes the actual precedent set by a court recognising Wicca as an actual religion in the U.S.  While I would prefer to find additional material from elsewhere in the world, perhaps if nothing is contributed within a certain amount of time, the article should be renamed to Religious discrimination against Wiccans in the United States.  I still believe that this article has enough content to stand on its own apart from the generic Neopagan one. -- Huntster T • @ • C 16:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Where is the vandalism?  I maintain that page and haven't noticed any (mine are the last edits there). -- Huntster T • @ • C 04:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Religious discrimination against Wiccans]] 

message: New material includes links to verifiable and credible sources.24.168.227.29 16:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm definitely not liking the placement of the new material, nor the fact that Wicca is mentioned a whole one time (and even then only as a reference itself).  Anyone else have an opinion on this? -- Huntster T • @ • C 21:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The cited article is not about Wicca, and only mentions Wicca once as an aside. Also, "May have roots in pre-Christian religion" (or however it was worded) is controversial, and this is better discussed where we can do justice to it, lower down in the article. So I've reverted that introduction section. Fuzzypeg? 05:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you mean to do a full revert including all subsequent edits?  If not, I'll go back and copyedit the later changes. -- Huntster T • @ • C 09:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I manually changed the text of the intro section back to what it was, leaving other subsequent changes intact. Fuzzypeg? 05:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional information 

message: Isnt spirit one of the elements?
:According to some traditions, yes; it's mentioned in the article, if you look. Also, please sign your posts with four "~"s in a row (beside the 1 key). Kuronue | Talk 06:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you were to ask me on a professional basis, I'd say no, it isn't. Just as the entire human body isn't counted as one of the limbs: the limbs being the legs, arms and (possibly) the head. But as a wikipedia editor, I'm quite prepared to accept that a lot of people seem to think it is. Fuzzypeg? 06:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The element Spirit 

message: None of the current 4 external links are particularly useful, I think they should all be removed. --TotesBoats 10:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They were originally placed there because there was agreement that they were useful. -- Huntster T • @ • C 19:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, witchvox seems pretty useful to me. It's got the largest online collection of reviewed articles on the subject of Wicca, it is the place to find actual groups and contacts. So I don't know what your measure of "not useful" is... Fuzzypeg? 04:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd agree this is a sound link to a good, impartial site. (Which links onwards to wider articles on other aspects of paganism.)  I suggest  Gryffindor goes ahead and makes the link unless anyone objects. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 08:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: A good amount of "upper level" material on Wicca can be found in the Proteus Coven library .  While the Coven itself is not a NPC as far as I know, most of the material in the library is professional in nature and heavily cited. Runeman11 15:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I value the Proteus material and think it's very well written, we've tried very hard to restrict the number of links here to those which amplify the subject of Wicca generally. IMO the Protean tradition is too small and unrepresentative of Wicca as a whole to link to the site from here. There already is a link to the library from the Judy Harrow page, and personally I think that's where it should stay. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 21:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: The Bibliographical and encyclopedic sources section should be merged into the References and notes and section. --TotesBoats 11:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  The wikipedia guide to layout allows for both sorts of section.  In this case, the notes and references serves to provide the citation for specific statements within the article.  The bibliographical and encyclopedic sources section provides further references one might want to look at the relate to the article.--Vidkun 13:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing referencing 

message: There are countless books out there that include the information given in this section, so there's really no reason why it should be lacking a reference.  I would like to propose two references for this purpose, both of which I believe qualify as reliable sources and contain the information outlined in the section.  They are Wicca for Beginners by Thea Sabin and Wicca: A Guide for the Solitary Practitioner by Scott Cunningham. Jorgath 15:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tools section 

message: Every other religion on here has a 'criticisms of' section.  Either this has been conveniently left out or deleted.  This is a very controversial religion and has pleanty of controvery and skepticism to accompany it.  All of which can be easily cited and referenced and added to this article.  
If no one else is willing to step forward to construct this section than I will add it myself.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.132.139.254 (talk) 01:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For any religion, those are some of the hardest things to write.  Maintaining a neutral point of view is very difficult... I'm not saying that this article shouldn't have such a section, rather, I think the reason it hasn't been written is it's difficulty.  Please feel free to contribute one as long as it's balanced and represents both sides of the issue.  --Shadowlink1014 03:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Looking at Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam and Buddhism, the only one with such a section is Islam, although some of the others have separate articles devoted to this. I would guess that the reason we don't have a separate section or article devoted to this is that Wicca is a small religion and accounts for relatively little material in Wikipedia. The material regarding criticisms of Wicca simply hasn't gained enough bulk to necessitate splitting it out. Various criticisms are already mentioned in, for instance, the History of Wicca article, and I'd be inclined to note any criticisms in the relevant locations; however if you think you can gather together enough to warrant a separate section or article, then go for it. And if you add any more good information on this subject, it will be much appreciated. Thanks for your help, Fuzzypeg? 03:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms of Section Not here? 

message: I didn't know that it's spelled British here. I'm still kinda getting around here. If anyone can help me, please do and send me basic commands to chat and that kind of stuff. Thank you.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piro-san (talk • contribs) 01:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No idea!!! 

message: I think the section on ritual could benefit from an expansion.  In particular a little more information concerning the theory and cosmology which informs Wiccan ritual structure.  I offered an edit last night (my second Wikipedia edit) and forgot to fill out a summery explanation explaining my reasons for doing so. Runeman11 11:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with doing that is that if you ask three Wiccans who aren't members of the same coven how the universe works, you'll get seven different answers.  Yes, I'm exaggerating, but there's not enough consensus to give every view a fair hearing and keep it within reasonable length.  Jorgath 07:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed.  Given the very wide array of views and methods represented within the community, general data is often better than specific. -- Huntster T • @ • C 07:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that there exists a wide array of views and methods within the community.  That said, within Wicca most of our variation has been developed from the Gardnerian or BTW model.  That model was in tern developed based off of the practice of ceremonial magic, from the use of a circle down to the tools and ritual structure.  This is information that, while available, is not often taught.  As a suggested compromise, maybe this information would be better added to the entry magic circle? Runeman11 11:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ritual 

message: Then entry says, "Skyclad working is mostly the province of Initiatory Wiccans, who are outnumbered by the less strictly observant Eclectics."  It is my understanding that this statement is only true in America.  In Europe there is an even balance between Initiatory and non-Initiatory Wiccan's, if not more of the former than the latter.  This section has no sources cited, so I'm hoping that we can get some more input before making a change. Runeman11 03:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ritual attire 

message: I have been bold and removed these two sections as part of the ongoing drive to keep this article from bloating beyond the point of no return. Of course anyone who feels they're essential is welcome  to restore the sections but please bear my reasoning in mind.
The Wicca in Popular Fiction section has been tagged as having no references for two months, and none have been forthcoming. There is a guideline under discussion suggesting that notability in such a section would consist of being able to say something like "The New York Times has commented on the use of the Wiccan religion in the TV series Charmed'. In other words it's not enough to assert that Charmed includes references to Wicca: it has to be shown that this reference has been noted by an authoritative source. As I say, this is a guideline under discussion but it seemed a reasonable rule of thumb to me hence the deletion. A paragraph noting that Scooby Doo once referenced Wicca is, it seems to me, taking up space that could be better used. I decided not to split the section off into another article because it would have looked so weak it would have immediately have had a WP:PROD or AfD slapped on it. Probably by me...
As for the See Also section, every Wikilink there also appears earlier in the body text of the article. The links were an incomplete selection of those that already appear and it seemed to me they too were taking up a few bytes that could be better used.
I know Wikipedia is not paper but there is a good reason for trying to limit page sizes and I feel we should make efforts to cut this article down to the essentials rather than just let it grow like a weed. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 17:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A little while ago I removed a lot of these references and tried to structure the section so that it gave a historical account, only including key films, books etc that had strongly influenced popular perceptions. I realised as I was doing that, though, that it was only my own judgement that I was relying on, and that it might be better to just scrub the section entirely and wait for a study of Wicca and popular culture to be published (or brought to our attention) and base the section on that. If no such study has been produced, it's probably not important enough to include in the article! I support removing all these "popular references", which are frankly embarrassing. If Scooby-Doo was depicted as, say, meeting some Hare Krsnas at the airport, would that make it into the ISKCON article? I think not. And the Christianity article doesn't have a section itemising every pop-culture depiction of Jesus or the Virgin Mary — such as the poseable Jesus action figures that you can buy at our local comics shop, or the film Jesus of Montreal, regardless of how great they are! Fuzzypeg? 21:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Popular Fiction and See also sections 

message: Would anyone object to the splitting of the Section "Coven and Solitary Wiccans" under the Section "Traditions", especially removing the part of the section that refers to "Eclectic Wicca" and moving to new section called "Neo-Wicca" which is a more apt title for "Eclectic Wicca." I was going to create a new page called "Neo-Wicca" however it was pointed out that it already existed and was merged into this article. User:SilverWolf10 03:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'm afraid I'd object! I have never heard of Neo-Wicca, nor heard the term used at all. I have heard and read the phrase 'eclectic Wicca' and it seems better to use a phrase that is familiar rather than a neologism as a title. However I'm not against a new article in principle, just the title! If an article on Later developments in Wiccan practice (or similar title) has sufficient sourced material to float, then I'd say go for it. But choose titles that describe the article succinctly and are not newly-coined phrases. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 08:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember also that creating an article for the sake of creating it, or just because of length, isn't always good either.  This is the main article for Wicca, and sufficient detail needs to be maintained here for it to all make sense.  I question whether there would be enough material for a completely new article. -- Huntster T • @ • C 08:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neo-Wicca 

message: The following is moved from the Etymology section. It is interesting information, and mostly correct, but I simply don't see its value in the article itself, given that it is fairly apparent that the term "Wicca" was known prior to 1954. Any thoughts on if and how it should be used? Note some errors here: the date should be 1942, not '45; the source notes that it is impossible for Tolkien to have influenced Gardner since the drafts were not published. Sourced article here. -- Huntster T • @ • C 15:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the information is in fact true, and I've never heard this but I'll trust Huntster on this, then I feel it should be included, with Huntster's caveats above taken into account.  However, is Witchvox RS material? Jorgath 15:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I may ask, why do you think it should be included, when, as I stated above, the article is clear about knowledge of the term before Gardner?  I see it more as trivia than useful data.  As for WitchVox, it is borderline.  I believe it has been used elsewhere, but the article itself appears to be this authors personal writings (i.e. probably not fact-checked).  Conversely, however, the fact that he is writing about another independently-verifiable publication, in this case the Tolkien material, I don't think it is a problem if used.  I still don't see why, though. -- Huntster T • @ • C 16:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO it's trivia. If Gardner wasn't aware of Tolkien's draft, and Tolkien was unaware of Gardner's use of 'wica' then the two circumstances have nothing to do with one another and this is just an interesting coincidence. Unfortunately we don't have the room in the article for this kind of detail, it's too big already. Leave it out, I say. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 17:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added it because the original text was misleading. Although it said that Gardner was the first to use the term "Wica", it's clear that the current spelling "Wicca" had modern usage prior to his publication.  That's also why I changed the text in the next paragraph from "term" to "spelling" as he's clearly not the first person to use the term, even if he was the first to use that particular spelling.  Also, I referenced the article on Witchvox instead of the original source so that the author would get credit for their discovery of the earlier usage of the term. I personally don't care if the Tolkien reference is included or not, as long as the article doesn't suggest Gardner was the sole or first origin of the modern usage of the term.  Yarthkin 19:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's trivia.  It's interesting and cool trivia, but Kim Dent-Brown makes a good point on the article size.  In a smaller article I would push for this to be included, but... Jorgath 19:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Err, there's nothing misleading about the opening paragraph; Gardner used "Wica" to describe the followers, not "Wicca", which has existed for a long time and is derivative of even older terms, as laid out in the section.  "Term" is also correct because "Wica" is used to describe the followers of the tradition.  "Wica" and "Wicca" are used in two very different ways here.  If there is confusion in the way the material is presented, perhaps it could be rewritten slightly to remove any ambiguity?  Perhaps I'm misinterpreting what is presented...let's please have some additional commentary. -- Huntster T • @ • C 23:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving recent addition from Etymology 

message: I have created a Fractal Pentacle Image while developing a fractal software; and added to our Sinhalese translation of Wicca page. Have no idea where to put it on the English version. I have uploaded it, (see thumbneil). Just thought to ask where it is more appropriate to be added if suitable.
This is a bit different from the traditional Pentacle symbol, because it is a Fractal. Each small pentagram is a small version of the complete pentagram when subdevided infinitely...
Vishvax 17:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While that is shiny and really really cool, I feel like in the interest of keeping image use down in the article we should not include it. Jorgath 19:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed; while pretty and interesting, I don't see the immediate value of using the image on any related article, really, when the current pentagram image works quite well. I will say this though: I love fractals, and this is one of the most unique iterations I've come across.  Well done in its creation.  Why not use it on your Userspace page? -- Huntster T • @ • C 23:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I understand. Thanks for your complements. I think that it will go in to the Fractals article, (somewhere in the latter half).  Vishvax 09:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Fractal Pentacle graphic 

message: Hello.
We would like you to review our website and possibly allow us to have a link from your website as we have noticed that you have an interest in Wicca and/or Witchcraft. Therefore, we graciously request for you to review our site, and possibly contribute to it if you so choose.  There is no charge, nor donation requested.  Thanks for your assistance.
The wesite is located here:
http://www.moonwolfwiccanschool.tk/
Blessed Be,
The Moon Wolf School of Wicca staff...
C/O Crimson Peaceful Wolf  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.172.44 (talk) 05:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Historically, these schools have not been included in the External links list, given that there are quite a number of them these days and inclusion would quickly overrun the article. And, personally speaking, I'm not a fan of cut'n'paste notifications of this nature :/ -- Huntster T • @ • C 05:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Huntster on this one. In addition, a site with as few as 69 hits (when I visited it just now) is unlikely to meet criteria for notability. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 07:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We understand your reason to decline, as we are new to develop. We originally began under another progam, which had paying members.  We felt that alot of the information our students were paying for, should be free, so we moved to a new location.  Same material, but no students. Compiling and rewriting the articles is a bit daunting.  And technically, I think the term school is a bit misleading for our website.  Nonetheless, Thanks for your consideration. We were told by Wikipedia administration that if we wanted a link to our website from this particular page we were to request it in the discussions page, rather than simply posting a link. Sorry if we were in error to do so.  The Moon Wolf School Of Wicca Staff.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.172.44 (talk) 14:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this was absolutely the correct place to request the addition, but as stated above, there are reasons for not including every website that is requested.  Primary among them being that we'd be quickly overrun if any number of covens or schools or other were to request a link.  There is certainly no disparagement intended upon your organisation.  I wish you well in your endeavours! -- Huntster T • @ • C 21:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiccan School Link