Talk:Wicca/Archive 3

message: because:
# It did not appear to me to be any universally recognised symbol that means 'Wicca'
# It was ugly, pixellated, rough and amateur looking.
If we need an image here, we should find something representative and then draw a good one. —Morven 20:06, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
:I'd suggest an item like an Athame, or a group of the like an altar, or maybe a photo/drawing of a ritual.
:--Veratien 13:05, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I removed the image 

message: This is after the sacred texts link.
"Archive of public domain documents relevant to Wicca and modern Paganism. Includes a public domain copy of the Gardnerian Book of Shadows."
The last part of that is disputable, because due to the initiatory nature of Wicca, the fact that the Book is only availably for initiates to see, and that no-one is initiated who might reveal any of the secrets, it is impossible for the Book to have been released in the public domain.
I've put this up here because removing it outright would probably get me shouted at, and re-wording would most likely end up with it being put back how it was, but the fact stands that it's impossible for a copy of the actual Gardnarian Book of Shadows to be online there as it would never have been released by an initiate or coven to be put online; it goes against some of the most basic rules of the tradition.
Reword or remove?
 
--Veratien 13:01, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sacred Texts Link 

message: Crowley used the term 'Magi' to mean something different from its Persian origin, which does not help matters. I'm not sure the point about 'magick' belongs here at all - it needs its own section. Cavalorn 12:35, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Magi and magick

message: I would like an explination as to the removal to the link to the article on Oh My Gods! - which is a Pagan comic strip dealing directly with Wicca. The commentary left by User:Wetman merely stated (rRv User:Shivian's self-advertisement for his comic strip) - however I don't understand why a article that is about a comic strip which directly deals with wicca was removed. The comic strip referenced in said article directly references the Wiccan Definition, History of Wicca, Origins, developments, Beliefs and practices, Wiccan traditions, Morality, and Wiccan Divisions. I don't see why a reference which was properly sub-categoriesed in the "see also" section was removed as "self advertisement" - when it is obviousally based on a article which does little advertising and much more historical referencing of the comic strip, it's history, and it's current place.
--Shivian Balaris 05:31, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
:Wikipedia is not for promoting your own work. See What Wikipedia Is Not. Cavalorn 16:34, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is a non-argument.  Wikipedia articles are not forms of self-promotion, and so internal links to them are not self-promotion either.  ‣ᓛᖁ[ ᑐ] 17:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be forms of self-promotion.  An article is not automatically free from self-promotion just by virtue of being a Wikipedia article, any more than being a Wikipedia article makes it automatically NPOV. The issue here is that the author of the strip is using Wikipedia to promote his own work.Cavalorn 18:19, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, if you believe Oh My Gods! is a self-promotion, then edit that page.  It seems appropriate to link to that article from articles on the same subject.  ‣ᓛᖁ[ ᑐ] 21:32, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Edited. Should be okay now. Cavalorn 22:45, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Why's it up for deletion? Why that one and not the hundred other articles on webcomics, such as GPF or Help Desk? -Veratien 15:49, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Oh My Gods! Link 

message: Just pointing out that I changed the caption of the photo in Beliefs and Practices because I actually know the people in the photo.  It was their handfasting ceremony, which is the pagan equivilent of a marriage, so I changed the text slightly to reflect that.
Question, though, is do they know that this photo is up here?
-Veratien 11:17, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avebury Handfasting Photograph 

message: It would be helpful to check the Oxford English Dictionary, which is the most widely accepted academic authority on the origins of English words.  I'm just going by memory, but I believe that the OED lists 'wica' as a verb beaning 'to bend' or 'to twist.'
 I recall Wicca originating from the Latin word Wicca - Lit. Weaker or weaken. Any other latin speakers verify this?
:I'm no expert in Latin, and the fact that my language comes from it doesn't mean I understand Latin. However, your idea doesn't seem probable, in part because Latin doesn't use w, and besides, I can't recall a portuguese word coming from any sort of that wicca latin word. --Jotomicron | talk 20:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wicca - Word root 

message: Any help which could be provided would be greatly appreciated. -Godfearing Parent.
* unsigned comment by 62.255.64.7 (talk · contribs) --> --> -->
:Help with what? What the bloody heck does decency have to do with Wicca? Oh, I get it - the Jesus image that used to be on that template shows what this project is really about: Christian POV-pushing. I suggest having an honest talk with your child(ren), and accepting them if they choose some religion other than what you might like. ~~ N (t/c) 22:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think the Jesus image was put there by people against the project in order to discredit it, but that's besides the point.  If I were you I'd go to the Decency Project's VfD page and say your piece. - Haunti 22:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something which may interest editors of this page 

message: Please consider including a link to Arcadia VZW, when the page gets unprotected. Nabla 00:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done... Nabla 17:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arcadia VZW 

message: I'm a bit concerned that this Wikipedia article furthers a mistaken stereotype about the difference in meaning between a "Pentagram" and "Pentacle." Following from my own knowledge, and also clearly explained Here and in the Pentacle article on wikipedia. The presence of a circular border does not enter in to either definition, but rather the dimensions of it. Pentagrams are 2D figures, whereas the term Pentacle implies that it is a 3D object.
--Taliesin84 03:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pentacle vs. Pentagram 

message: I have created a page Women as theological figures (note - this title may change): would persons knowledgable about Wicca please add to it (or create link pages etc).
Jackiespeel 21:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Information

message: An editor (presumably the site creator, based on his Wikipedia name) has been continuously adding a link to capricorn-witch.tripod.com.  Having looked at this site, it is not particularly well-made, nor does it add anything to this article that is not already covered in other links.  Due to WP:NOT, several editors have been removing this link when it appears.
If the editor would like to rationalize the inclusion here, so be it.  Otherwise, please go away. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 23:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair to User:Capricornwitch it wouldn't be obvious to me from looking at this article that Wikipedia is not a repository of links.  I'm considering cutting some of them to this Talk page for discussion.  Jkelly 00:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Capricorn Witch Page