Talk:Joseph Bearwalker Wilson/Archive 1

Connection to Roy Bowers
Joseph Bearwalker Wilson is directly linked to Roy Bowers and the 1734 tradition This article is not yet finished but it already includes links to most of the significant historical pages involved, including what you need to verify its content. Much of its content is the first real history of the modern spiritual movement. If you delete it the people with the rest of the information may never come forward. Many are afraid now because of the repression the few in society are able to generate with their big money. Answers to who we are are not contained in the confines we call Christian, Jewish, Budhist, Hindu etc...--Chad Joseph Wilson (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Joe Wilson was the founder of the "1734" Witchcraft tradition, and was a very notable, significant and influential figure in Traditional Witchcraft circles. He is mentioned in Ronald Hutton's Triumph of the Moon (from memory, I'd need to check that), and he has been discussed in several books by Evan John Jones and I believe Nigel Pennick. I don't have these references in front of me, but since the threat of deletion is hanging over this article, I wanted to get my word in before anyone gets too excited.
 * For a little historical overview, Roy Bowers and his "Clan of Tubal Cain" represented the strongest early competition to Wicca for the claim to being a genuine surviving tradition of witchcraft, rather than a 20th century invention. Roy Bowers (writing under the name Robert Cochrane) became one of the most famous and controversial figures in British witchcraft circles, and indeed stirred up a lot of controversy on purpose. Little was known at first of Bowers' philosophy or magic, and he died at a young age; however Joe Wilson had conducted a series of correspondence with him, through which he (and subsequently the rest of the witchcraft community) were given insights into Bowers' system. These letters are quite famous amongst witches, as is the "1734" Tradition (that's not a date) that Wilson established based on Bowers' teachings. I have tried to wikilink to 1734 Tradition in the past and been surprised and dismayed that neither this tradition nor Joe Wilson had articles yet; finally someone's making a start.
 * Very notable in his field. Fuzzypeg★ 00:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

1734
I have found in Joe Wilsons work one reference to exactly what 1734 means I do not have this in front of me but will return with the reference point 1=J 7=H 3=V 4=A (as translated from an ancient number system, maybe Celtic)I am not ready to push this do not yet take it as truth until I edit in the reference point but it is a translation —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chad Joseph Wilson (talk • contribs) 11:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, there's two separate "meanings" to be explained here. The first is the explanation that Roy Bowers, (Robert Cochrane), gave in his second letter to Joe Wilson for the meaning of 1734, (which was IHVH, as in Jehovah).  Secondly, in his "Flags, Flax and Fodder" website on the page entitled "Those Pesky 1734 Riddles", Joe Wilson explains that he purposefully introduced another meaning, a "hidden name of the Goddess", in order to encourage people to read "The White Goddess" by Robert Graves.  This re-imagined "riddle" is based partially on one of the lists Graves presented as a numeric cipher for letters of the Celtic Ogham alphabet.  In "Those Pesky 1734 Riddles", Joe Wilson states explicitly what answer he intended for the "hidden name of the Goddess" and the mechanics of how that name is derived from 1734 and "The White Goddess".  Joe Wilson's "hidden name of the Goddess" is not IHVH/JHVH/YHVH.  However, one must consider his admonishment that any answer to such a riddle is far less important than the mystical exercise by which one comes to find an answer.   - Machine Elf 1735.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Machine Elf 1735 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Catagorize

I am having trouble with catagorization I am trying to place it in go to edit to see how I actually intend catagory. I am working on a paper draft overview to 1973 right now --Chad Joseph Wilson (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it... why does someone this completely and utterly useless and insignificant deserve a wiki entry? I mean, who's next? One of the drunks who hang out on the street corner down from my house? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.68.67 (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're really interested, then please read my comments regarding notability above. And until you have something civil to say, I suggest you don't try to edit or comment on articles, but restrict your Wikipedia activities to reading alone. You might learn something. Fuzzypeg★ 02:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Y'know, I just wrote out a really nasty response -- I have really solid reasons to dislike Mr. Wilson and his spiritual children -- but I realized that you are probably his son, and you've never done anything to me. I'm sorry I trashed your father's memorial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.68.67 (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not his son, and I have no idea what you're talking about with 'trashing' his memorial. This is not, however, the place to discuss personal grievances. We're putting an encyclopedia together here, not casting around for hearsay and random insults. If there is some reliable published information out there that you wish to bring our attention to, then by all means do so; otherwise you're better off finding a traditional witchcraft forum somewhere. Wikipedia is not a forum. Fuzzypeg★ 23:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)