Talk:Wicca/Archive 6

message: :However, because many modern Wiccans practice a tradition similar to the "old ways" of pre-Christian Paganism, many more Wiccans relate to the men and women persecuted during the Burning Times.
The above sentence was added by an anonymous editor (please see History), but consists of religious claims, not historical one. As the paragraph notes, there is no evidence of pre-20th century practice of Wicca, and a considerable dearth of evidence on what pre-Christian Paganism consisted of: there is, however, considerable evidence that Wiccan praxis was completely developed from Victorian- and Edwardian-era esotericism. Ronald Hutton presents a far more complete argument than I have space for, but the evidence is (IMO) fairly conclusive. Justin Eiler 03:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree that the quote from the article (above) is unsupportable, I disagree that Hutton's argument is either complete or conclusive. I'm still working on an article chronicling the numerous factual errors, misrepresentations of authors and other bizarreness in his Triumph of the Moon – until I finish this I can only direct you to a couple of critiques (one of an earlier book of his) that you'll find in his article (one by Max Dashu, one by Jani Farrell-Roberts). I'm not a flake who's clinging to the idea of an unbroken tradition of Wicca or maintaining that Murray's theories are correct; I'm just cautioning that if you read Hutton you may be quite surprised if you follow up his references, or if you read other prominent authors in the fields of early modern or modern European witchcraft. There are holes in his scholarship that considerably affect some of his conclusions. Fuzzypeg 06:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any work as wide-ranging as Triumph of the Moon is bound to suffer from gaps and misrepresentations, and it is important to use Hutton (as all such sources) with caution.  As he says himself, TotM is "an exploratory and tentative work, intended as an initial mapping out of an area which badly needs and deserves serious treatment by more scholars in a number of different disciplines". (Preface, vii).  That said, it does seem to me that using (as opposed to mentioning) phrases and ideas like 'the Old Ways,' pre-Christian paganism as a single religion, 'the Burning Times,' and the assumed similarity of Wicca to ancient pagan religious practices is inappropriate.   To speak of 'the "old ways" of pre-Christian paganism' is to assume a whole host of (unverified) things. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 07:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi, Fuzzy and Adela. You're both quite correct that Hutton is not the "be-all and end-all" of Wiccan history, but he has put paid to the concept that claims of "the Old Religion" can be used with impunity. As Adela mentioned, there are a lot of assumptions in that whole train of thought, and I'm persuaded that those assumptions should be treated as "religious history myth" until they're much more clearly documented." Justin Eiler 14:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. :) Fuzzypeg 12:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persecution Claims 

message: "In modern times, Wiccans have been incorrectly associated with black magic and Satanism, especially in connection with Satanic Ritual Abuse hysteria.[citation needed] 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[33] and Exodus 22:17 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live[34]) 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.[citation needed]"
Can we get some citing on here? 
ManicParroT 21:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations, please! 

message: This article was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because most of the article does not cite sources - tons of "citation needed" tags.  WP:WIAGA says a GA should "provide references to any and all sources used for its material"; this is obviously not the case here.  Let's get cracking, people. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 03:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm starting to try to fill in some of these reference gaps, or reword to remove offending assertions. I don't have all my books, so one of the references I've added doesn't have full publication year, page numbers, etc. I notice however that many of the references don't have full details. It looks like some work is needed by someone with a good library getting all these into shape... Thanks all, I can see good things starting to happen to this article. Fuzzypeg 11:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article removed from [[Wikipedia:Good articles]]

message: I've removed the following sentence from the introduction paragraph:
:More recently, Amado Crowley, son of the occultist Aleister Crowley, has claimed he was present when Gardner hired his father to create the Book of Shadows.
This historical detail is inappropriate in the intro; also, Amado Crowley has been criticised as a likely fraud and imposter: Ronald Hutton in Triumph of the Moon pp. 208-9 says that there is no trace in Aleister Crowley's meticulously-kept diary of any of Amado's anecdotes regarding his "father's" affairs, nor even any mention of Amado himself. In light of that, does anyone have a compelling reason to put this detail back in the article? Fuzzypeg 09:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is not just one book of shadows. There are, perhaps, thousands. Disinclination 04:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Disinclination, I understand that the discussion is about the first Book of Shadows, i.e. Gardner's. --Jdemarcos 10:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amado Crowley and the ''Book of Shadows'' 

message: Someone recently added a segment about the first legally recognised Wiccan wedding in Britain. I've tried to improve its wording and style and move it to a more appropriate place. I'm not sure I've done any of these things totally successfully! The celebrant is named and quoted, however I moved these into the footnote as being unnecessary detail to the main article.
My question is, should I delete these details altogether and just give a reference to the newspaper article? (Note: it's not available online without paid subscription.)
Also, it's pretty awkward where it currently is. Should we just leave it there and just wait for a context to appear as the article develops? Any help appreciated. Fuzzypeg 13:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I lean very slightly toward keeping it in.  Jkelly 21:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First legal Wiccan wedding in Britain: too much detail? 

message: Paste from User talk:Jkelly
I thought mentioning the series in the section on WICCA IN POPULAR FICTION would be appropriate - the Wiccan religion and those who practce it are a major theme of the novel
-Paullaw
:I think it would be a bad thing for this article to start including every mention of the religion in popular culture.  I ask you, in all seriousness, whether you would go add your favourite novel with Jewish protagonists to the article Judaism under "Judaism in popular culture"?  Further, a number of brief published discussions about Wicca feel the need to mention that the religion does not resemble its depictions in The Craft, or on some television series; we're not alone in that.  Following that disclaimer by highlighting some of our favourite novels, on the other hand, is coming up with our own brand new "important things about Wicca" list, which isn't our job here.  Jkelly 19:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the reason given above, I just cut a similar addition.  Perhaps someone should start List of novels with Wiccan characters if people feel that this sort of thing is encyclopedic.  Jkelly 20:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, the currect state of the "Wicca in popular fiction" section is poor.  It discusses only films and television programs, mentions only "manipulative" examples, and presents an exclusively antagonistic relationship between Wicca and popular culture.  If the Emberverse series isn't going to be mentioned, why have a section called "Wicca in popular fiction" at all? -Acjelen 22:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wicca / Emberverse series 

message: Okay, I am really tired and kind of cranky right now, but I don't think this page should have been moved to Wicca (Religion).  Who is going to type in Wicca and expect to get some book series that is only called Wicca in the UK and is named after the religion anyway?  I couldn't move it back because a disambig page was created at Wicca... I moved it to Wicca (disambiguation) where it belongs, but I can't move this one back to Wicca because the redirect is still there.  I posted it on Requested Moves, so with any luck there will be admin help soon. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 17:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh for... I'll do it.  Hold one second.  Jkelly 17:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Done.  I'd like to ask editors to be a little less enthusiastic about shuffling pages around without discussion.  Jkelly 17:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page Move

message: The following phrase from Wicca#Discrimination and persecution of Wiccans makes little sense to me:
:... Jews have typically understood this passage to historically refer specifically to practitioners of Necromancy.
It's nice that Jews are more permissive of Wiccans (but I'd like some supporting evidence for this), but I don't see how that can rely on a necromancy interpretation, since Wicca contains elements of necromancy (does Halloween and calling the ancestors ring any bells, anyone?). Can anyone help in explaining this to me? Also, the phrase seems to be out of date, since there are now two passages cited, not one. Which is intended? Thanks, Fuzzypeg 05:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heck, I guess you could say that Christianity also contains elements of necromancy, such as communing with and praying to the dead (Jesus). As a Christian myself, I've always taken the phrase (and I assume we're discussing "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live") to refer to those who knowingly and willingly embrace evil, not to Wiccans or even necessarily to "witches".  My belief is probably not very scripturally sound, but witches were the boogey-men of the period when the Bible was translated into English.  I personally don't feel God holds any special condemnation (beyond what is reserved for all sinners) for Wiccans or witches. Applejuicefool 20:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persecution, jews and practitioners of necromancy 

message: Currently in the article there seems a strong lean towards accepting Hutton's analyses as authoritative while Philip Heselton's analyses are treated more like hobby journalism. I would like to change the emphasis of the wording to make this more balanced, or even reverse the emphasis, if I can get away with it.
It's a rather strange situation, since Hutton himself has written a rather glowing appreciation of Heselton as Foreword to Heselton's Gerald Gardner and the Cauldron of Inspiration, despite the fact that many of Heselton's findings fly in the face of Hutton's conclusions in Triumph of the Moon.
I've read Triumph several times, in the process of documenting the many factual inaccuracies and misrepresentations that Hutton's conclusions rely on. While purporting to represent the leading academic thought of the mid-90s, Hutton in fact is presenting a particularly extreme end of the spectrum, and occasionally even grossly misrepresents other academic historians (such as when he claims the support of 7 leading authors in concluding that no-one accused of witchcraft during the witch-trials was a practitioner of a pagan religion; on the contrary some of these authors say quite the opposite). He also makes crucial mistakes and omissions on the subject of Freemasonry, the origins of Leland's Aradia, the God and ancient mystery religions, etc., etc..
Reading Heselton's Cauldron more recently, I'm thrilled to find that someone has revealed such copious quantities of data regarding Gardner and his associations. According to Hutton he provides data, on a scale and with a depth that has never been known in this subject before ... [and admits] what is fact and what conjecture. I need to do a bit more searching for critical commentary on Heselton, but so far I find him by far the more authoritative, and his conclusions by far the more convincing, supported as they are by much more evidence.
This is just my warning and call for discussion before I go and make changes. I know Hutton has been received very warmly by many Wiccans and Pagans, so my changes may not be universally popular... Thanks, Fuzzypeg 06:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call.  I've learned, over the last years and a half of discussions with BTW's, that if one reads Hutton, it is probably a very good idea to reah Heselton as well, when it comes to the history work.  I have heard suggestions that Hutton slanted intentionally.  I cannot confirm that.  I think one interesting look would be at the Order of Woodcraft Chivalry, Freemasonry, CM, and surviving folk traditions.--Vidkun 11:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: TotM was published by Oxford University Press, while Heselton's publisher is Capall Bann (sp?); I suggest that it makes sense to treat the former as much more authoritative.  Adler's now very dated Drawing Down the Moon is, off the top of my head, the only other book that I can think of on the general subject with any claim to academic credentials (ignoring more specific work like Enchanted Feminism, or the critical edition of Aradia).  That said, while I suggest we treat Hutton as mainstream, accepted scholarship, there is something of a goldmine of good research in Heselton's work that is much better than using, say, Gerald Gardner, Witch as the main source for Gerald Gardner.  Pomegranate remains, to my knowledge, the only attempt at a scholastic journal on Neopaganism.  Jkelly 17:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comments, both. I agree with the remarks regarding publishing houses, and of course Hutton has higher academic qualifications. I'll try to tread carefully. I haven't actually made any changes in this regard yet — been a bit busy — but I still might, after having another careful read. Fuzzypeg☻ 01:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Try this:  The Sources of the Charge of the Goddess by Ceisiwr Serith.--Vidkun 20:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiccan origins: Ronald Hutton vs. Philip Heselton 

message: This one in the intro paragraph continues to bother me.
"These other traditions of Wicca each have specific beliefs, rituals, and practices."
Well, yes. It is sort of a 'duh' statement, in that it makes a redundant point. I tried reworking the structure of its phrasing in order to indicate that each of the referenced traditions has *individual*, or otherwise specialised/semi-unique beliefs, rituals, and practices. That seems a bit more precise. I cannot come up with anything that I like which makes the original better, though, so if anyone wants to have a go at it... please do.
P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 22:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor phrasing challenge. 

message: I have reverted a statement that the Rede is linked to the Law of Thelema, as we have no primary sources asserting this.  We do have GBG himself making the link to Pausol in TMoW, and we also do NOT have GBG, Doreen, or Gwen Thompson ever saying that it was linked to Aleister Crowley.  That GBG makes the suppositional link to Pausol IS verifiable.  That OTHERS have tried to suppose that it really is derived from AC is verifiable, but we have NONE of the (three best known) sources of the Rede saying that.--Vidkun 14:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "King Pausol" is a literary character. So Gardner's affirmation is totally unreliable. It is necessary to go beyond what is stated at some point by interested parties and look for the real, historical sources. At least if what we are doing is about History and not myth-making or myth-retelling. --Jdemarcos 14:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, then I suggest you find some reliable sources and then cite them.  Right now what you have put up is actually original research, in terms of what you have used to back it up.--Vidkun 14:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Please check the external links that I quote in the topic I opened above. There are many others, of course, as a Google search will promptly show you, including bibliographical references for further verification. --Jdemarcos 14:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, all of your sources suggest that it COULD be so.  We do, however, have GBG himself, saying his source.  The way you introduced your material made it look like it is generally accepted by everyone that it was influenced by Crowley.--Vidkun 14:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that Vidkun is more-or-less right about this.  It is really not interesting that a bunch of random people on the internet think that Gardner must have rephrased Crowley instead of rephrasing a storybook or rephrasing Rabelais.  Hutton undoubtedly discusses this point in Triumph, so there's no reason not to summarise his position in the Wiccan Rede article, where this sort of material belongs.  Jkelly 17:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I have no problem about including both versions, so that people can find out for themselves whether Gardner took it from "King Pausol" or from Aleister Crowley, as long as the readers know that the Crowley hypothesis is not just a guess by "a bunch of random people" as you seem to suggest. I encourage you to keep investigating this if you need further proof that the Crowley hypothesis is not unfounded. As far as I am concerned, the similarities, and the fact that Gardner met Crowley and was named honorary member of OTO and its leader in England, are simply too obvious to make the connection not just possible, but more than likely. --Jdemarcos 21:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I encourage you to keep investigating this if you need further proof that the Crowley hypothesis is not unfounded.  No.  You are the one making the claim, the burden of support is on you.  Show us scholarly research that suggests the linkage.  Research that has been peer reviewed, or vetted for accuracy etc.  All YOUR sources have shown is opinions, when we have a primary source telling us what GBG claimed as the background for the phrase.--Vidkun 22:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: So you support that we take a literary, i.e. fictional character as the reliable source for Gardner's Rede, in spite of all the evidence that Gardner was familiar with Crowley's writings and thought, and the obvious similarities between the two sentences? And let me insist on this: I am not making any claim, this is a widespread conclusion reached by mutually independent sources that cannot be easily dismissed, IMO, and that conclusion needs to be cited in the article for general information. Also note that I am not blaming Gardner for deceit, because I have no proof that he was deliberately lying about the source. Finally, do not blame me for "making the claim", because the reference to Crowley was first entered, not by me, but by user San de Berg on February 27, 2004. And be aware that, if you trust quoting a fictional character as more reliable than the comparative method in religion applied to existing documents and to real people who actually met and knew each other, then you are promoting a literalistic interpretation of the sources. --Jdemarcos 00:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point here is not to convince editors here what "the truth" is.  Let's say you managed to convince me that Gardner had never read a book not authored by Crowley and had never talked to any human being other than Crowley, and therefore could not have possibly composed anything not directly inspired by Crowley.  If I then tried to insert that information into the article, it would be removed for violating our policies.  All we are doing here is summarising what reliable sources say about a subject.  In any case, a discussion about improving the Wiccan Rede article belongs at Talk:Wiccan Rede.  Jkelly 22:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wiccan Rede]] information 

message: i saw this on the article for wicca in some other langauge, haha im not sure which, well its this one
:The language is Catalan. Jdemarcos 18:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is already quite lengthy, and there are two other articles that go over the Wiccan sabbats in detail (Wheel of the year and Sabbat (neopaganism)). Rather than repeat the info yet again, I'd actually like to merge all that info and move it into just one. It looks (based on the discussion there) like it might all end up moving into Wheel of the year, which may at some future date become Wheel of the year (neopagan). I suggest if we perform a facelift, we do it at Wheel of the year. Fuzzypeg☻ 15:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be noted that those who live in the Southern Hemisphere, celebrate on different dates (reversed) due to the seasons. Disinclination 04:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I live in New Zealand, so I know all about that. The table above includes Northern and Southern Hemisphere dates, as do the articles Sabbat (neopaganism) and Wheel of the year. Fuzzypeg☻ 04:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: wiccan calendar

message: Why has a merge template been added in the article? I can't find any discussion, much less a justification for it, here or in Wiccan rituals, and this article is too long already to add still one more long section to it. --Jdemarcos 15:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge? Why? 

message: I'm taking a class on paganism; would you like me to add some relevant information about the accuracy of claims that "this is how ancient pagans did it", sourced from my textbook? I have some information on "celtic" holidays and how a lot of them came from, say, romans or germanic tribes; information about how pagan religions changed and merged and the unliklyhood of a single ancient "fertility cult" as Murray claimed, et cetera; a lot of stuff that, as a wiccan, I never was told. The article seems long and comprehensive to begin with... should I make a seperate article? Is there an article I should put this stuff in? Kuronue 15:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Kuronue. A new editor armed with a textbook is always a joy and a pleasure! I suggest you go looking at Wheel of the Year and Sabbat (neopaganism), which are both rather a shambles at the moment; I expect them to merge into one article soon. Also try looking at Margaret Murray, Witchcraft, European witchcraft, Great Mother, Triple Goddess and Horned God. Any clean-up you feel like doing would be appreciated, and there's certainly plenty that needs doing to some of the paganism-related articles. I caution you that even popular academic authors may not always be the gospel truth (Ronald Hutton is one such author who never ceases to amaze me with the number of inaccuracies in his work), but being able to mention the most influential theories and provide citations would help Wikipedia no end. I hope you have lots of fun. Fuzzypeg☻ 06:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Awesome. We've gone over in extensive detail holidays in various pagan religions, and being a neopagan I easily recognized which ones are currently celebrated (like Saturnalia -> Yule); I'll head over there to add to the histories in Wheel of the Year. Margaret Murray is briefly mentioned in my new textbook as debunked by several facts, so if any of them arn't in the article I'll add them. European Witchcraft is what we're studying now, so that'll be my next project. It's a college class taught by the religious studies department so I'd hope they would pick books by credible authors, but the books are pretty new so they should be ok, plus it has to be verifiable, not true ^_^ I'll get on that Kuronue 15:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: <sarcasm>yeah, sure. I'll get right on that one. </sarcasm> Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 05:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History and roots 

message: Is this normal? Every time I check my watchlist someone's reverted 2 more counts of vandalism today.... new to the article, sorry Kuronue 15:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this is fairly normal for an article of this type.  Wicca is fairly controversial among many groups.  Then again, some teenagers just want to show off and pump ego in front of their friends.  :P 207.216.14.202 06:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  thanks for finally replying, I was specifically asking about that one day when there was a rush of vandalism that didn't seem normal. Was wondering if someone had linked the article someplace. It seems to have slowed to a manageable pace now. Kuronue 16:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Kuronue. Yeah, the vandalism on this article is pretty much in fits and spurts--one day it won't get touched, the next day there'll be twenty or so vandals in the space of a few hours, with no discernable cause. *shrug* All in a days work at Wikipedia. :) Justin Eiler 16:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: I'm not in any contact with any wiccans, I was wanting to get a veiw of the religion from their point of veiw. So how would I get in contact with someone of the religion?Solon Olrek 17:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finding Contacts 

message: Hello, I am the creator of the wicca site, The Wiccan Experience. It is a learning and resource site for people who are or would like to study Wicca. It has advanced coding that is used in order to give people a new type of online learning experience. As well a new part has been added to the site known as the, Interactive Altar (not yet completed), which is basically an altar (done in Macromedia Flash) that you can click on different things on it and they will lead you to other parts of the altar or around a common wiccan household of sorts. I was wondering if I could add this site to the links area on this topic. Thanks!
:Hi Alistair, I've had a look at the site (without registering) and I don't think it's suitable for linking in to Wikipedia. It has almost no information that you can get to without registering (anything requiring registration is unlikely to be of interest to Wikipedia); the virtual altar sounds like a fun idea, but serves no encyclopedic purpose (and doesn't seem to work properly yet); also the site only offers a single point of view of what Wicca is, or how it should be taught: I for one would claim that you cannot learn Wicca except by initiation and training in a traditional Wiccan group. Perhaps that's become a minority view by now, I don't know. But if your site claims you can learn everything you need to know about Wicca by correspondence it could be construed as misleading by some people (such as me).
:The fact is, we're not trying to find lots of external links for this article. Only exceptionally good sites, thoughtful and rich in information, are likely to be wanted here. Witchvox is a good example. Other people often add their own sites here, but these generally don't last for long before one of the editors deletes them again.
:I'm not saying your site is bad, it looks like you've put a lot of work into your site. But remember this is an encyclopedia, rather than any other type of website or forum, so have very specific requirements for the materials we incorporate here. Fuzzypeg☻ 04:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking Your Website 

message: I cleaned up bits of this article, mostly punctuation or wikilink repair. There are still a few instances of minor non-NPOV language (the section on media depictions was particularly POV, and I think I've fixed that). The first sentence of the paragraph following the "confusing" tag I added needs repair, as it made NO sense to me. (Of course, since it made no sense, maybe it just needs EXPLANATION, rather than repair. I'm not familiar enough with the subject matter to know.) -Porlob 22:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, good work. The confusing sentence was some vandalism that occurred in the edit just prior to yours. I've fixed it and removed the  tag. Fuzzypeg☻ 23:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, good catch. I probably should have thought about that and checked on that. Oh well. :) Thanks again. -Porlob 12:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I should mention here that I did some pretty substantial copyediting a couple of days ago, mainly just for style - particularly where the existing style was a bit repetitive within sentences. You'll find some of the wording is now more concise and I hope more the sort of style Wikipedia aims for. I apologise if I have inadvertently changed the meaning of anything. Metamagician3000 12:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: I removed some of the listed traditions, including Atheist Wicca or Wiccan Atheists (not a "tradition," but a philosophy within Wicca), and MoonStar, since there was no article to link to. Justin Eiler 16:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tradition List 

message: I removed the reference to "Old Guard" since its meaning is as variable as the weather. Any traditional Wicca (Alexandrian, Gardnerian and offshoots) may be considered old-guard Wicca; however its initiates tend to just consider it "Wicca" (and anything else, "not Wicca"). For us, "old-guard" generally refers to those older covens that worked in a highly disciplined traditional manner. Depending on who you talk to, these groups are either rare or extinct, although some covens try to emulate their style. There's also the term "Old-Gard" [sic] referring to pretty much the same thing, but specifically Gardnerian. Fuzzypeg☻ 01:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Old guard" 

message: This brief sentence section currently reads:
*Several television shows and movies have depicted Wicca, including The Craft, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel and Charmed. Popular fiction, such as Cate Tiernan's Sweep series, and Isobel Bird's "Circle of Three" also makes references to Wicca.  Such fictional depictions usually do not present an accurate picture of Wiccan beliefs and practices, and should, for the most part, not be taken as fact.
The last sentence had been deleted today, then replaced. As much as I enjoyed the "Buffy" series, I shudder at the thought that someone might regard these examples as an accurate depiction of Wicca. The important last sentence however, reads like it was tacked on as an afterthought. I wanted to suggest melding it into the paragraph, maybe like this:
*Several television shows and movies have presented depictions of Wicca, fictionalized for dramatic purposes. Recent popular television series include The Craft, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel and Charmed. Popular fiction, such as Cate Tiernan's Sweep series, and Isobel Bird's Circle of Three also makes references to Wicca.
Does this seem to be an improvement, or is the change not really necessary? --Doc  Tropics Message in a bottle 06:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "I shudder at the thought that someone might regard these examples as an accurate depiction of Wicca" <<< yes, that's why i replaced it =). I can't see anything wrong with the last sentence (except maybe changing "for the most part, not be taken as fact" to "never taken as fact"), but you're version is fine too. If you think it needs changing, i won't oppose. --`/aksha 07:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that my proposed version has any great literary merit, it was just a suggestion off the top of my head. Mostly I thought it would make it harder to delete some important info. I'll wait a reasonable time, and if no one objects or suggests something better, I'll make the change. --Doc  Tropics Message in a bottle 07:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the version we've had for a while, because it emphasises the fact that these depictions have about as much similarity to Wicca as Hercules and Xena have to the religion of the Greeks! Remember that Wicca is still widely misunderstood and misrepresented. Many members of the public haven't even heard of it, not to mention having no idea what it's all about! If a Catholic priest were depicted as, say, a man in a purple loincloth in the Middle East with a great white beard, fighting snakes with his staff and magically parting the red sea, then most people would recognise this as a gross misrepresentation. And of course depictions like this would only appear in the outer fringes of lunatic comedy. However we have just as ridiculous depictions of Wicca in programs like "Charmed", and no-one seems to bat an eyelid! Fuzzypeg☻ 20:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: This just got tagged on to the section:
In Final Fantasy Tactics Advance Wicca is the magic power of the final boss, and the note is "magic that allows to realize wishes".
Delete? Totnesmartin 11:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wicca in popular fiction

message: Hi. I like what is presented in this article and I have some suggestions for improvement. The article is rich in source and information but more could be done to create neutral statements as per NPOV policy. I did notice some argument or possible editorializing before and of course it is important to look out for more. I understand that good sourcing may make it more neutral as can rearranging. The opening is not quite what I believe NPOV policy says about openings. I could imagine it being far more representative of the article as a whole.  I would say that the para structure needs improving throughout and will work with anyone willing to spare the time. AlanBarnet 13:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  General improvements 

message: I've removed the following external link:
* The Wicca That Never Was: The real story of the world's newest "ancient" religion
This is a book review (not the book itself) of a book claiming Wicca originated in the Conneticut Woodcraft movement (much like the later Boy Scout movement). While I haven't read the reviewed book, it sounds questionable given the data uncovered regarding the Order of Woodcraft Chivalry by Philip Heselton in Gerald Gardner and the Cauldron of Inspiration and by Ronald Hutton in Triumph of the Moon. Furthermore, it is a rather specific area of historical interest and would be much better placed as source in the Origins section. If the contributor has actually read the book in question, they might want to incorporate some of the information into that section where it would be most useful.
Another reason for wanting to remove the link is that it makes strong and debatable claims about Wicca's lack of history, and placing this in a prominent place like the external links section (rather than in the article body where it could be placed in the context of a historical discussion) seems inappropriate and is liable to be inflammatory. Fuzzypeg☻ 05:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Wicca that never was 

message: Just saying that what I have written about the pentagram is entirely true, so please think before you call me a vandal. I know, because I have practised Wicca myself.Asteroidz R not planetz 16:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pentagram/pentacle

message: I'm sure its mentioned in the article, but nowadays, Wicca and Witchcraft are seen as seperate things (religion and craft). So, someone who is athiest can practice witchcraft, since witchcraft does not require a God/ess. Just to address the recent edits about it. Disinclination 04:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And as the sentence says now, Witchcraft is sometimes practiced by Atheists, to distinguish it from Wicca, which is not. Kuronue 04:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And that is good. This is just a message for those who are going to change it (providing they read the talk page first). Disinclination 04:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but it doesn't work. Wicca is a religion, worshipping God and Goddess. By the definition of The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, an athiest is:   One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods. Same goes for dictionary.com:   a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. Therefore, you cannot be in a religion that worships divine beings, and be an athiest at the same time. The way you described it, would be witchcraft, or a certain type of paganism, with a female force and a male force. Disinclination 01:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read the article, you'll realize that Wicca worships the God and Goddess as living entities = deity = higher beings. Therefore, you cant been an Athiest Wiccan, because Wicca is a religion, and an Athiest doesn't believe in a higher power. They cancel eachother out. It makes less sense than a Christian Wiccan. I suggest you do your research on why it doesn't work. Just because one website says so, doesn't make it true. I suggest looking up alternative pagan paths, and I can tell you of a person who used to be Wiccan, but became an athiest witch instead, and gives lots of insight on it.Disinclination 07:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Then you arn't practicing Wicca. Sad but true, but Wicca is a religion that believes in a higher power. Read the article. I'm not the only one saying this. Hell, even $ilver Ravenwolf says Wicca is the worship of the two deities, God and Goddess. Disinclination 22:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Athiests practicing Wicca 

message: I saw a section on Wicca in the article Masturbation and you may want to verify its claims... --Hamster2.0 17:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for moving your comment, but it would be easier if you put it at the bottom under a new section, so we can all see. Anyways, I really see no direct connection between the Charge of the Goddess and Masturbation (one seems to be more of a prayer than an act), and then they go and link the Charge and the Great Rite together. Not all Wiccans practice the Great Rite with actual intercourse (I am only speculating that a greater amount do it only symbolically than literally). Someone from here should probably go and edit that section, since it seems rather POVish, or raise some sort of flag about it The way the section is worded, however, makes me believe it should be in the Sex article, rather than masturbation..  Just my opinion. -- Disinclination 21:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm considering deleting the whole section, or attemping to take it on by myself. Every time I look at it, I want to cringe. :( Disinclination 05:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wicca on [[Masturbation]] 

message: There is a Wicca section on this article, that I have put under dispute. Personally, I think it really needs to be cleaned up, by someone who is more aquainted with Wicca's history to deal with this. Disinclination 05:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm considering deleting the whole section, or attemping to take it on by myself. Every time I look at it, I want to cringe. :( Disinclination 05:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Sexual intercourse]]

message: There have been lots of edits to the Ritual section recently. While they seem to be mostly consistent with usual Wiccan practice, they are unsourced. Would somebody like to write it up, with sources? Ta. Totnesmartin 16:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ritual section 

message: I just came across a website that has an article about Wicca, in which there are sections that read word-for-word like this one. It is always possible that whoever wrote that article copied from Wikipedia, but I just wanted to put the information out there to see if anyone has an idea, or wants to investigate further. The website is here. I only skimmed through it, but noticed particular parallels in the "Origins" and "Later developments" sections; there are probably more as well. Like I said, I don't know which came first, or if there are any copyright isses to deal with here, but I wanted to alert anyone who might want to find out more. Thanks! romarin [talk ] 04:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, that's a long way back, I only went back to last month... Totnesmartin 19:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright issues 

message: i think that the template for wicca should be added to the page, it links it to the rest of the pages on wiccan themes. im putting it back, but should it be deleted, i have it on my user page as well, you may look at it. Evil oranges 15:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it.  It is not obvious to me that this is of particular value to the readers of the article.    Jkelly 17:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  i messed it up due to rushing, thats all. as soon as i put the right one on there, you will see the use. just incase you dont, can i ask you if the nice collection of links to related pages is of no value? i found that having things like that helped in a number of articals: the Jew artical for example, it has a template that lists articals relating to Jews. clearly, articals relating to Jews are useless here, but WICCA articals are not. Evil oranges 00:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We've had a couple of attempts of add a wicca template and a wicca portal; neither have, to my mind, been successful. I think the problem is that we just don't have many decent articles that relate specifically to Wicca. Now there are a lot more Jews than Wiccans, which is more manpower into making decent articles, and they've also got a lot more history than us, as well as having more defined schools of theological thought. There's more to write about there, and more people to write it. Meanwhile we're still hard at work trying to get just a small handful of articles into decent shape. Before creating these templates I think we should first put our efforts into making some good articles that we can put in the templates. See comments on this page and at Template talk:Wicca. Fuzzypeg☻ 05:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the template 

message: (moved from further up the page)
What are the requerimients on Wikipedia sources? The http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2005/4/emw231351.htm link on "Wicca as emerging third religion" itself doesn't prove anything, has no sources itself, no studies to backup the claims it make, and all in all looks like a regular PR release (i.e. not a good source) to my eyes. Check the link yourselves. 201.252.13.69 18:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Jkelly 19:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree as well -- I find it highly suspect that any person of repute would claim that by 2012 Wicca would surpass Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism to stand third after Christianity and Judaism in the U.S. Thoreaulylazy 02:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That caught my eye as well. I'm going to pull it as the source doesn't justify this with any numbers or put forth the "experts" credentials. I'm not saying this statment is untrue or that these two cited people are not potentially reliable sources, just that the source is too weak for such a strong statement. I'll look deeper into the sources, maybe I can find enought to put it back or add new citations. NeoFreak 20:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I seriously doubt that's true. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 05:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Delete, if the only "speculation" is from a press release! Where's the research? Totnesmartin 09:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Third Largest Religion??

message: there has been some speculation that Wicca will be the third largest religion in the United States by 2012 (possibly fourth due to Atheists/Agnostics)[19] due to large numbers of students converting. [2]
The source for this is at emediawire.com. This is a site that exists to distribute press releases, the press release in this case being one that accompanied a book launch by the look of things. I therefore think the suggestion that wicca is likely to become the religion of tens of millions of U.S.ians is groundless hype and should be deleted. Anyone disagree? Ireneshusband 05:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I seriously doubt that's true. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 05:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Delete, if the only "speculation" is from a press release! Where's the research? Totnesmartin 09:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "third largest religion..."

message: Almost every statement in the article is unsourced. I seems every wiccapedian (sorry) is putting in their version of how it is, but they may as well be making it up for all a non-wiccan would know. Sources, please, people! Totnesmartin 18:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced material 

message: A tragedy has occurred, and a young child has apparently been bludgeoned and/or drowned, possibly by the child's mother, who claimed the devil was in her son, and who is currently undergoing psychiatric examination. According to the dead boy's 8-year-old sister the mother had that morning poured a circle of salt around the boy's body. Apparently police found a writing at the house describing a "ritualistic-type ceremony". The following text was added to this article:
:In January, 2007, New Mexico DA Matt Chandler stated publically that he believed that published Wiccan rituals were responsible for the death of a child.  Library books by Gavin and Yvonne Frost were seized as evidence from the local library.  As reported by the Associated Press  he stated "We believe the way some of the child abuse resulting in death happened can be related to stuff that’s in those books."
The reference is . Now the text as written jumps to some conclusions that the cited source doesn't make: DA Matt Chandler did not in fact say that published Wiccan rituals were responsible for the child's death. They withdrew books on witchcraft, astrology and Scientology from the local library, and stated they believed there was some relationship between the child's manner of death and "stuff that's in those books". Unfortunately two of those books are by the infamous Gavin and Yvonne Frost, who have done so much damage in the past to the public perception of Wicca...
I have removed this text anyway, since it is misleading and likely to be very inflammatory. I suggest we wait until more details of the case emerge, rather than go off half-cocked. The mother is still undergoing psychiatric assessment, and evidence is still being gathered. This is not the moment to write the case into an encyclopedia! Fuzzypeg☻ 04:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death of a child 

message: I would dearly love to remove this article, not just because it is antagonistic and patronising to Wiccans, but because it is a load of codswallop. It is largely derivative of the work of Ronald Hutton, and repeats his many mistakes. It also seems to use him as the starting-point for what little further research she's done, so she comes up with statements like "The most thorough recent study of historical witchcraft is Witches and Neighbors (1996), by Robin Briggs", ignoring the groundbreaking developments in European study of witchcraft by scholars like Eva Pocs. In fact since the 1970s more and more evidence has been amassed indicating that yes, while accused witches were very often just simple Christians, a significant number of them were practitioners of witch-like practices (or believed themselves to be) including cursing and healing, going out of their bodies, and feasting in spirit at gatherings headed by a lady or goddess. Hutton drastically misrepresents the current scholarly consensus, ignoring important scholars and at times completely misrepresenting their work, such as when he says that E William Monter has helped prove "beyond a doubt" that none of the accused were practitioners of a pagan religion. In fact Monter quite clearly expresses the exact opposite, saying that the coloured devils in the woods associated with witchcraft were clearly remnants of pagan gods, that the saints' wells to which white witches sent their clients for healing baths were clearly the holy springs of pre-Christian gods under a thin veneer. He even identifies similarities between the methods of french white witches and English cunning folk, and suggests that they have a common origin.
The thing is, all of this is corroborated in a host of other solid academic works, which people like Hutton and Allen just ignore. The European school of historians studying the witch trials have known all this for years, and are starting to develop sophisticated pictures of the pre-Christian belief systems that were at play during the trials! Gustav Henningsen, Eva Pocs, Carlo Ginzburg, Bengt Ankarloo, this is a stellar list in this academic field.
I personally believe Hutton's (and hence Allen's) research regarding the later (20th C.) history of Wicca is just as shoddy, but I don't have so many top academics to compare them with here, that not being such a popular area for academic study. We have Heselton's books, though, which dwarf Hutton's in the quantity and clarity of evidence gathered. And Heselton's conclusions are quite different from Hutton's.
I want to remove that insulting article, because it is a) largely derivative b) misrepresentative. Do I have the mandate to do so?
Sorry for the rant, Fuzzypeg☻ 05:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold, as they say round these here parts. Totnesmartin 16:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Having calmed down a bit, I can see it's ludicrous to provide this polemical article as a main link from the Wicca page. Our history section, while not perfect yet, provides a much more balanced view. If details from Allen's article seem pertinent, and are not covered sufficiently by less polemical writers, then she could be added in as a reference for statements in this section. I would avoid citing her, though, if possible; I've already expressed what I think about her scholarship and that of her sources... Fuzzypeg☻ 20:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, in case anyone wants them, the articles I removed are: Article critical of Wicca's Historic Origin and Rebuttal to Allen's article by Starhawk. Starhawk's rebuttal makes some good points, but she could have gone further and torn Allen's "history" to shreds. Fuzzypeg☻ 20:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charlotte Allen's debunking article 

message: I've been working on the Wicca portal since last November (the 14th of November to be exact), and I've finally removed it from the "Portals Under Construction" category, and its now at what I consider to be release status, and I'd like to just invite you to all go and take a look at it. It is my hope that this portal will not only provide a way for Wikipedians to learn many things about Wicca, but also to encourage and expand interest in being an editor of articles related to Wicca and Neo-Paganism. It is most defeneatly possible to say that the portal is not of some "super portal" standard, but I think that it is of good quality, considering there arent really many articles in relation to Wicca that are up to any kind of featured status. This has been the first major project that I've completed at Wikipedia, my first portal was the English portal, but the topic seemed to broad, and I was unable to complete it. I'd like to say thanks to you all, those who gave suggestions, support, and such for this portal. --Brenton.eccles 08:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Portal:Wicca|Wicca Portal]] 

message: As I was going through some articles, I noticed that on Sex magic, they have a sentence linked to the Wiccan High Priest and Priestess, but both redirect to the High priest disambig page. When I came back here, we have no mention of what a high priest or priess is, and I think that the Organisation section probably needs some more fleshing out. While I am aware that there are several traditions who follow many different things, most Wiccans, I'd hope, know what High Priest and Priestess are, at least within Gardnerian or Alexandrian Wicca, yet this article does not reflect that. Or perhaps a new article should be made altogether for the Wiccan High Priest and Priestess? Or just a new section? Just a thought. Disinclination 07:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would depend on how much detail you want on the subject. Start with a section, then if it gets too complex we can debate whether to split it into an article. Totnesmartin 14:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ranks within Wicca 

message: I was Being Bold and removed the following statement:
"The first witch in a film or television series was named Lauren Goslet from france and although the image gave her a in some ways bad reputation was thrilled to have landed such a wonderfull place in the cast."
Aside from various missing words and grammatical errors, it hasn't been properly cited, and the 'thrilled' portion, while it seems to be a quote, doesn't make it clear that it *is*, in fact, a quote. 207.81.138.180 04:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Sentence Removed 

message: If you’re going to talk about Wicca please don’t referee to one type of it as Wicca. There are no guide lines and there is no set way to practice. To say one of the oldest religions or set of beliefs was popularized by one person is insane and insulting especially when his set of beliefs doesn’t even constitute nearly 1% of the possibilities of this particular religion. That’s was makes this religion so beautiful and incorruptible its 100% interpretation and feel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.146.189.180 (talk • contribs) 
:While I respect your feelings and beliefs, I do have to point out that your grasp of Wiccan history does not seem to be grounded in fact. And while I agree with the importance of interpretation and feelings, neither feelings nor interpretations change the facts. In the beliefs of my Tradition, the Lady gave us Intuition, and the Lord gave us knowledge. We must balance the two to live properly.
:More relevant to Wikipedia, however, is that we work with verifiable, objective facts, not feelings or interpretations. If you are not comfortable with that emphasis, I certainly understand and respect your views. If you would prefer other sources on Wicca to work with, feel free to contact me on my talk page, and I'll provide you with some links to other Wiccan sources on the web that you may be more comfortable with. Justin Eiler 16:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Worst Information about wicca.