Talk:Blue Star Wicca/Archive 1

Spelling of Symbol
I have changed "septagram" to "septegram" because the word comes from the Latin "septem." Thus, I believe the correct spelling is indeed "sept e gram." Septegram 06:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * While neither form is very well attested, septagram seems the one most widely found in relatively recent references to magic or witchcraft, and heptagram in anything mathematical (from completely unscientific flicking through google).
 * You point out a flaw in choosing "septagram" or "septegram" because, as you point out, "septem" comes from the Latin, so really it should be "Heptagram" to keep all of the word Greek, rather than mixing Latin and Greek, and so that the word would be comparable with "pentagram" and "hexagram".
 * That's a matter of what one generally should call the word though, in the context here, Septa seems to come up most amongst B*.Talliesin (talk) 09:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

2nd and 3rd initiation vs elevation?
Initiation in various groups, usually only happens once. You are either an initiate, or not. I am thinking the should be changed to elevation, but i'm not sure that I have any verifiable sources for it. But, an analogous situation is that of Freemasonry, where on is Initiated as an Apprentice, Passed to Fellowcraft, and Raised a Master Mason.--Vidkun 22:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Tidied that up. It took a couple of tries, as I was initially going for esthetics over accuracy.  That'll teach me...
 * Septegram 18:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ordination?
One enters the clergy at (first degree) initiation, but ordination is conveyed thru a distinct ritual, generally after third degree. Jeneralist 02:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And here is where we are going to need citation, because in the general encyclopedia reading world, become clergy or a priest is considered ordination. Additionally, given the issues of being a religion of the priesthood (ie, no laity exists) is clergy the proper term to use?--Vidkun 12:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * We are all "priestesses" and "priests" in that there's no requirement for us to have someone to mediate between us and the Gods. Everyone is able to have direct communion with the Divine.  However, to be an Initiate means that one has taken certain specific vows, made certain specific commitments, and (theoretically, at least) reached a certain level of skill and understanding.  In that sense, those who have not been Initiated are "laity."  Really, the terminology is not suitable for Wicca in general and B* in particular.
 * Unfortunately, we use the term "Ordination" in the sense that one who has been through the rite of Ordination is able to pass on the Tradition in its entirety. What we probably need to do here is define the term "Ordination" as it applies in this context.  You're right, Vidkun, we should probably have a citation, but I don't know of one online or in any book.
 * Septegram 14:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, why the terms just don't work here: Dedicants and Neophytes aren't laity, nor are they Initiates . . . but they sometimes can be officiants, both on an ad hoc basis, and in a pro tempore basis, in that they may serve (for a specific incident) as Hm or Sm, and may serve in either of those roles for a specific period of time.  Additionally, in "outer court" workings where non-Initiates may be present, there may be occasional situations where they serve as MAIN officiants as part of their training.  I agree, that for this article, we need to define the terms ordination/clergy, and possibly try to find something citeable on a generic BTW source discussing the concept of a religion of the priesthood without laity.--Vidkun 15:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "I agree, that for this article, we need to define the terms ordination/clergy, and possibly try to find something citeable on a generic BTW source discussing the concept of a religion of the priesthood without laity"
 * Heh. Good luck.  Maybe I should just write something and let you cite it {grin}
 * Septegram 15:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * All of which is why I re-phrased the text for first degree to remove the word. Maybe we could say 1st is ordination to clergy, and there is a distinct ritual, called ordination, confirming that the recipient is able to pass on the Tradition in its entirety.  Sea Star's web page actually spells this out pretty well: http://www.sea-star.org/aboutbluestar.htm    Jeneralist 16:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

recent edit and BLP issues
There are a number of non locked pages out there, on the history of the tradition, that list names in full. I'm not saying that justifies putting it in here, just saying it IS out there. H2G2, and witchvox are two sites listing it in full.--Vidkun 19:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I want to revisit the topic of the founder's name. I originally added it based on the information here. My edit was subsequently reverted because "no reliable source for this provided, possible WP:BLP concerns". A note from Septegram on my talk page said


 * "I'm not sure how Franque Dufner (I'm told that's how he spells his name, but have only met him once and the spelling of his name didn't come up in conversation) feels about his name being on Wikipedia. Do we need to have it in full?"

I have a few questions I was hoping someone could clear up for me:

1) I agree I did not cite a source for the name inline with my addition but it *is* being cited for the article already. Should I link to the same citation again?

2) What BLP issue would the simple printing of a full name, unaccompanied by any contentious remarks, be running into?

I am not trying to cause a problem, and I hope this is not taken that way. I am simply curious with spare time on my hands. GLKeeney 21:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I added the name again. This is an encyclopedia and it belongs there. If you wish to discuss it, please do so here. GLKeeney 14:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed Text
Back in December, I believe, someone anonymously added the following text to this article:

''Many Third Degree Blue Star Witches reject the name change from Witchcraft to Wicca and refuse to call themselves anything but Blue Star Witches. These Witches go back to the time when Frank Duffner and Tzipora Katz ran the Blue Star Tradition and continue to hold to the original teachings of this tradition. They are centered around Keepers of the Rede Coven in upstate New York.''

I did some checking, and the "Keepers of the Rede" coven seem to be unknown among B* people. Furthermore, the notion of "many" Third Degrees objecting to the use of the term "Wicca" was definitively rejected by Kenny Klein, who said that B* has always been Wiccan.

I just wanted to put this in the Talk page in case this character comes back and reinserts the assertions. If that happens, I didn't want anyone having any doubts about whether they could legitimately yank it again.

* Septegram * Talk * Contributions * 03:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll never have any doubts about it, because there was ZERO sourcing, and, as such, it will always be deleted by me.--Vidkun (talk) 13:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * dcande01Dcande01 (talk) 14:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, you should have doubts. I added the content.  I am Debbie Anderson, HPs of Keepers of the Rede.  Fred and Jill Buck were HP and HPs of Morningstar Coven, one of the first Blue Star covens.  Fred and Jill divorced and Fred and I changed the name of the coven to distinguish it from the group that Fred and Jill had.  Kenny was a relative latecomer, and was the cause of Franque Dufner leaving.  Fred goes back to 1981 in the tradition, and I go back to 1991.  Fred produced some of Kenny and Tzipora's albums.  He talked them into going on the road.  Back then, it was Blue Star Witchcraft, and no amount of revisionist history from Klein can change that.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcande01 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That's nice - who cares? Your information has no reliable thrid party references to support your claims.  It's original research, and it's full of weasel words.  If you can come up with independently verifiable claims (and personal websites don't count), then you can add the information.  Until then, it's going to continue to be removed.  Any attempt to add the information without a reliable source will be considered vandalism uncited, and subject to deletion until referenced.--Vidkun (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You seem to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcande01 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Dcande01... Please read WP:No original research. Wikipedia does not allow statements to be based upon an editor's inside information. You need to cite reliable third party sources to back up anything you add.  Sorry, but those are the rules. Blueboar (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I must say, I've often heard Blue Star initiates state that some lines are Wiccan (as in British Traditional Wicca rather than how wikipedia uses the word) and some are not, and have heard this from both those of the Wiccan and those of the non-Wiccan lines. So often in fact that I'd considered this pretty uncontroversial (if not necessarily uncontroversial in its details). The only references I've found as of yet are web resources that require log-ins to get to, but I shall try to hunt down some more.86.47.160.33 (talk) 17:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have heard the same things, however, for this wikipedia article, we're looking for the most commonly used name (not whether or not it counts as BTW) which seems to be Blue Star Wicca. The claims that Dcande01 is forwarding, seem to be a controversy that is only internal to the tradition, with most non-members (both BTW and others) using the term Wicca for the tradition.  Her claims, while they may be partially true (that SOME, not MANY, Thirds use the term WItchcraft instead), also have major POV issues right in the middle of them (that ONLY the Keepers of the Rede aligned groups are practicing the original tradition), which aren't verifiable.  Hell, even the controversy isn't verifiable - there isn't anything published in a reliable source which could argue one way or the other, and nothing published in a reliable source which states the OPINIONS, either.--Vidkun (talk) 18:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have changed "many" to "some." I am in contact with most Thirds, and have not heard this from anyone.  I will accept "some," but "many" implies more than I can accept without verification.  Frankly, I think it likely that "a few" or "one or two" would be more accurate, but I'll settle for "some."
 * * Septegram * Talk * Contributions * 08:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's still original research.--Vidkun (talk) 21:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep, it's original research. It's original research I agree with 100%, but it's still original research. Now, since I believe it to be true I'm inclined to believe that something citable will be out there somewhere, but I still haven't found anything to that extent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talliesin (talk • contribs) 10:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Wholesale Link Removal
User Iwilleditu (talk)|(contributions) went through and did a wholesale deletion of "redlinks." The preferred approach to such links is to write the article to which they link. If you don't want to do that, simple courtesy calls for discussion on the Talk page before such a sweeping string of deletions.

I have restored the links, pending such a discussion.

* Septegram * Talk * Contributions * 07:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)