Talk:Wicca/Archive 11

Beliefs
i am Wiccan. and i dont believe in over half the things these articles wrote. i dont believe in any Gods or Godesses. i dont know what the "summerland" is. i believe in realms, not heavens. this article isnt even close to what i believe. they should list the brances of Wiccan. im Traditional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.55.17 (talk) 04:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No offense, but what you describe yourself as being doesn't sound anything like any Wiccan tradition I'm familiar with. Your comment doesn't really make any case for changing the article, just that perhaps new articles about different traditions should be created. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 00:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I do love it when children (or people with child-like spelling and grammar) log onto Wikipedia and proclaim what they are, that they're right, and everything else it wrong :) 173.76.55.17, unless you've been initiated into a legitimate Alexandrian or Gardnerian Coven, you're not Wiccan. Glad I got that out of the way. Secondly - Wicca is built upon the relationships between God(s) and Goddess(es), so to say you don't believe in any Gods or Goddesses goes against one of the most fundamental "rules" of Wicca - to have belief in God and Goddess. You don't know what the Summerland is? This article isn't even close to what you believe? Shock, horror! Oh noez - people with other beliefs! Seriously, grow up. Go read a few book books concerning "Wicca" before you come on here (which, by the way, you've shown us how immature you are). A few good lessons in basic English grammar and correct usages of nouns and adjectives wouldn't go amiss neither. Xxglennxx (talk) 16:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Please don't Bite the IP, Glenn. Nothing else needs to be said about this. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 04:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Xxglenxx, I respect your view (and downright agree with your attitude about the "children"), but your statement that Wiccans can only be Alexandrians or Gardnerians is just downright untrue. I suggest reading Melissa Seims' excellent article "Wica or Wicca - Politics and the Power of Words" for a good insight into the origins of the word "Wicca" when referring to the religion. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC))
 * Midnightblueowl, I'm sorry, but according to Trad Wiccan law, then if you're not Alexandrian or Gardnerian initiated, then you're not Wiccan - you're Neo-Wiccan. As Wicca stands, it is a mystery-initiatory religion. Therefore, one needs to be initiated to recieve those mysteries. I don't make the rules, and I do agree that the term 'Wicca(n)' has come to mean "a practitioner/follower of Wicca," though this is not it's traditional meaning. I've met Alexandrian Wiccans, and they've also said the same. I call myself Wiccan, though I always make the point of stating that I'm non-Trad initiated. Xxglennxx (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, no, no, I understand your position, I used to support it, but it has been entirely nulified by recent research. The term "Wicca", when referring to the pagan religion, was invented by the Witch/Wiccan Charles Cardell, the leader of a rival Craft tradition to Gardner's, to refer to all traditions during the 1950s... Gardnerian, Cochranian, Cardellian, even solitaries. It was only in the 1960s and 1970s that the Gardnerians and Alexandrians (or at least some of them, a few certain names come to mind), got on their high horses and declared that they were the only "Wiccans" because they were members of the initiatory priesthood of a mystery religion. In fact, WICCA as a modern word (forgetting the lower case "wicca", as in the Old English male magical practicioner) refers explicitly in its original intent to every single follower of the Witchcraft religion. And it's an attitude that is being reclaimed, with people like Margot Adler and Chas Clifton using such terminology. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC))
 * Hmm. I think this has been taken a little further than is completely supported. Cardell used the term "Wiccens" after Gardner wrote about "Wica", and a poem by one of Gardner's crowd may indicate that Cardell used the term "Wicca" as well. Assuming he did, what does this really tell us? Perhaps Cardell was the first Wica-imitator? Cardell himself affirmed that this was the case, and that he invented the word "Wiccens" only in imitation of Gardner's term. Cardell stated that there were no other "witches" outside of Gardner's groups and never were, prior to Gardner. A few people believe Cardell was lying here, in an effort to keep the existence of witchcraft a secret: indeed it is conceivable that he and Gardner derived this common term (with slightly different spellings) from a pre-existing tradition of which they represented different branches. In that case, it would strengthen the claim that Wica/Wicca refers only to a lineaged, initiatory tradition (and the branches thereof), since this is the way both Cardell's and Gardner's groups operated. This scenario may or may not seem likely, depending on your reading of Wiccan history.
 * That "Wicca" is usually only applied (by initiates) to lineages stemming from Gardner doesn't mean that no other lineages of Wica/Wicca can possibly exist: it is simply a reflection of the fact that few or none have been found. Other forms of witchcraft such as Roy Bowers' have popped up, but these have for the most part not used the term Wicca, and even treated the term with disdain. Other traditions that have termed themselves "Wicca" and have claimed to predate Gardner (such as Rhiannon Ryall's "West Country Wicca") have almost universally proven to be quite recent inventions modelled on Gardnerian Wicca. Perhaps Cardell's "Coven of Atho" was a true and valid branch of Wicca parallel to Gardner's branch (and some think it was): this would make it a rarity. The Cardell material and egregore is now incorporated into certain Gardnerian lines anyway, which makes the whole question rather academic.
 * To summarise: (1) the adoption of the spelling "Wicca" from Cardell is not certain. (2) If Cardell is to be believed, the term "Wiccens" (and "Wicca"?) were coined to imitate Gardner's "Wica"; Cardell affirms that there were no other traditions of Wicca outside of Gardner's. (3) Even if Cardell was running a true group of witches and not just aping Gardner, that would strengthen the claim that "Wicca/Wica" is a single lineaged, initiatory tradition.
 * This is all rather complex and uncertain (not to mention obscure), and I don't think it has its place in the introduction. Its real purpose there seems to be to undermine the position of initiatory Wiccans that "Wicca" refers only to lineaged traditions. This may be valuable discussion, but it is far from conclusive, and it belongs elsewhere. I suggest that the intro should explain the differing positions of lineaged/eclectic practitioners in as simple and clear a manner as possible, and leave such tortuous speculations for elsewhere, possibly in History of Wicca. Fuzzypeg★ 01:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've corrected some of this information (for instance, the idea that it was Cardell who first connected Wicca/Wica with Murray's witch-cult and the Anglo-Saxon word 'wicca'), and also reinstated some etymology details that had become orphaned on this talk page. I think there is excessive information now in both the lead section and in the etymology section. I think a lot of this would be more appropriately moved to History of Wicca, but I don't want to push any further right now with what are already quite significant changes... I'll let you all catch up. Kind regards, Fuzzypeg★ 04:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I find that quite interesting, considering the fact that Raymond Buckland, whom of which was actually initiated into Gardnerian Witchcraft by Gerald's High Priestess herself, says otherwise in his books. I guess I'll have to contact Raymond Buckland, who has over 40 years of experience in the Craft, and tell him he is wrong, because some guy on Wikipedia said so. :\ DiscipleRayne (talk) 16:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Buckland actually supported Xxglenxx's position in some of his earlier works, such as Witchcraft From the Inside, which was published circa 1970 if my mind serves me right. Back then, he was a staunch Gardnerian who attacked anyone else in the Craft, including the Alexandrians. In 1973, he had a complete change of heart, and declared that anyone could form their own tradition of the Craft (hence he founded Seax-Wica), and supported people to ebcome solitary Wiccans. Still, he never stated that Wicca was "anything you want it to be" as Silver Ravenwolf did and the original poster in this discussion seems to support. Wicca simply ISN'T "anything you want it to be", it's specifically a Neopagan religion that typically worships a God and Goddess, follows sabbats and performs magic. Of coruse there are traditions and solitaries who will do somethign differently, for isntance Dianics only worship the Goddess, whilst the Church and School of Wicca as founded by the Frosts refuses to consider itself pagan or Neopagan, but nonetheless, as long as they follow the same basic outline they can all be considered to be forms of Wicca, as defined by Charles Cardell. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC))

You have a very argumentative and negative attitude... Izzy


 * I am Wiccan from the Old Religion, the definition on Wikipedia is a terrible misrepresentation of our path, but leave it to popular culture to bring the cheese to a way of life that predates historical times. I think it is more that we share a name that was popularized in the twentieth century with a newer religion that resembles the Old Religion. It does not matter if you call it heaven or a realm, but in the Old Religion we worship one god, who is a balance between masculine and feminine, the others are very much like the Christian version of Angels - not gods. It would be nice if Wikipedia would separate the two, I am so tired of being grouped in with Neo-Wiccans. Unfortunately, we do not document our way of life, so most people just make stuff up using pop culture :/. ~Izzy 02/09/2011
 * Hello there, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your description doesn't sound like the Wicca I know, or any Wicca I have heard of! But if you have reliable sources for the kind of Wicca you follow then by all means let's put them in, or start a new article if it's sufficiently different to need one. However if your way of life is not documented than sadly there won't be any reliable sources. This will be frustrating for you but you can't have it both ways. Either maintain privacy and have no Wikipedia article reflecting your path, or find publications attesting to it which can be cited. I do have to say though that the material on here is not made up from pop culture. It's well-sourced and I can attest to the accuracy of the material from long personal experience. By the way, if you register for an account you will be able to make better use of Wikipedia, and don't forget to sign your talk page edits with four tildes, which will automatically print your signature including date and time. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  22:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

=such negitivity. the best part about having a personality is that our faiths vary in so many ways. still, for the person who first posted this, you are not wiccan. simply pagan. you cannot title yourself as something without any knowledge of what that thing is.= dj lee

Wicca and Freemasonry
There is a fairly notable conspiracy theory which claims that Wicca is closely related to Freemasonry, and that both have practically the same occult/satanic origins within ancient Greco-Roman civilization. It might be a good idea if this could be incuded in the article somehow. ADM (talk) 06:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * 1st site: same info as part of 4th site
 * 2nd site:
 * 4th site: expanded info as 1st site (also a quote from the index page= "...leave the internet and television alone." defeating the point of the website)


 * 3rd site: if you go to the bottom of the suggested page (which by the way is an attack site)and click then go to the bottom of that page, the links there contradict each other.  (and the index page is blocked by my collage filter (the filter says because of offencive stuff).  rdunn  albatross  13:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * None of those sources are considered reliable sources, in general, let alone for a POV pushing agenda. Bill Schnoebelen, for example, is a repeated fraud.--Vidkun (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing notable about these, they are simply the ravings of a Christian fundamentalist who is almost entirely ignorant of the nature of the Wiccan religion anyway. Wicca and Satanism are fundamentally different faiths. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC))

I'd like to chime in here. At my Masonic Hall, we pray (usually before pizza, before the lodge is opened) by crossing our arms and we say "So Mote It Be" at the conclusion of group prayer. We are very humanist as Freemasons, and believe in a freedom to worship Diety in personal ways not dictated by any government or political hierarchy. We are also encouraged to study various topics such as the history of the tradition, but also all the liberal arts (which, maybe anachronistically, includes astrology). As a Wiccan, I know that Gardner was a brother Mason (and liked being in the nude and worked in Malaysia). I wholeheartedly feel that there is an important connection between the tenants of Freemasonry and that of Wicca. Very British, liberal, humanist, and fraternal love & trust based connection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.177.8.250 (talk) 20:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Etymology section
Hey guys, I think it was Fuzzypeg who recently altered the Etymology section, but I think we need to discuss what actually has to be said in this section. :) (Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC))


 * Yes, as stated above, I feel it probably shouldn't stay as it currently stands. I was mainly rescuing some material from oblivion on the talk page, as well as correcting and properly explaining some info about Cardell's (possible) early use of the term "Wicca". The etymology section is now far more heavy than is suitable for this article, and some of this material may suit moving to History of Wicca. I would be happy to try to perform that move myself, but it might be more appropriate for me to see what others think first. Fuzzypeg★ 04:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Right well I might have a bit of a rearrange of your new info, see if I can think of any additions, and then maybe shall we have a think about cutting it down afterwards? (Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC))
 * On second thoughts and with the Wikipedia policy of BE BOLD still freshly embedded in my head, I simply branched off and founded the article Wicca (etymology) which can deal with the ins-and-outs of the Old English wicca, Gardner's Wica, Cardell's Wiccen and the modern Wicca. We just need a nice, basic little paragraph for this main page. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC))


 * The bold move is fine, though I would suggest making the existing text about doubled (or as much as is necessary). From a reader standpoint, the existing sentence just doesn't feel adequate, and also looks unnecessarily brief. Sections should provide enough information to stand on their own and provide a basic understanding without *requiring* a click-through to the main article. Always keep that in mind. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Excellent move, MidnightBlueOwl. The new article you've created is rich and full of detail, well referenced and gathers everything in one place. There's too little of that kind of work in Wikipedia. And I don't think the paragraph on etymology as it currently stands in this article (Wicca) is too brief, since your wording very efficiently establishes the most useful facts, indeed all that most readers would be interested in knowing. Well judged and well written in my opinion. Fuzzypeg★ 02:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Wicca, also known as Witchcraft?
The first sentence of the article begins "Wicca is a Neopagan religion that is also often referred to as Witchcraft or the Craft". I have an immediate problem with this, since it muddies the distinction between Wicca, which is only one variety of witchcraft, and witchcraft in general. Andrew Chumbley's Sabbatic Craft, for example, is not Wicca, but is Witchcraft. Robert Cochrane's (Boy Bowers') Clan of Tubal Cain practised Witchcraft, but didn't call it "Wicca" (Bowers was rather scathing of "Wicca", I believe). There are many witches, both traditional and eclectic, who don't identify with the term "Wicca".

It's a bit like saying "Roman Catholicism is a popular religion often referred to as Christianity".

Furthermore, there are many trad. Wiccans who don't want the term 'Wicca' applied to non-lineaged groups, and would prefer that the less specific term 'Witchcraft' was used for these instead. This is an area of controversy, I know, and I'm not saying that opposing beliefs shouldn't be mentioned; I just think that they shouldn't be presented as fact in the first paragraph.

I note that the hazy connection between Wicca and Witchcraft is fairly well discussed already in the lead section without needing this wording: it states that Gerald Gardner used to call the religion "witchcraft" or "the witch cult", and at the end of the lead section it states that some believe that all [witchcraft] traditions can be considered "Wicca". I think those two statements sufficiently express the relationship between the terms (for the lead section at least). I would change the first sentence to:
 * Wicca is a Neopagan religion, a variety of modern witchcraft. Its adherents are known as Wiccans.

I haven't read the cited book by Anthony Kemp, so I can't comment on what he has said, but I don't think the first sentence as it stands is balanced.

Sorry for jumping in with so many criticisms all at once; I guess that's the nature of Wikipedia and wanting to make changes. I'm actually really impressed with how the article's looking in general, after taking a very long time away. There's obviously been a lot of good work gone in here. Fuzzypeg★ 04:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Fuzzypeg, I agree with you on the first sentence of the lede, and think that's a fine rewording.--Vidkun (talk) 14:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Vidkun, the sentence in the introduction is clearer now; and Cardell is proabbly a little too obscure for the lead. However, I fear that we overtly accept the idea that Witchcraft is the religion, with Wicca as a collection of traditions within it.. this view is a MINORITY within the vastness of the Craft. It is far more common nowadays for "Wicca" (a term which was almost certainly founded by Charles Cardell, see the Melissa Seims article which I put a reference to), to be applied to all traditions, whether Feri, Gardnerianism, Cochranianism, Pop, Dianic or whatever; indeed this was almost certainly Cardell's original definition. Indeed, I know a number of Traditional Witches (i.e. Cochranians, Ophidians, etc) who do accept that they are "Wiccans"; perhaps the most notable example was Bob Clay-Egerton, one of the most significant British Traditional Witches of the 20th century (Melissa Draco recently collected together and published many of his articles - well worth a read). In his works he accepted that even Luciferian Witches like himself could be considered to be "Wiccans". (Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC))


 * Without having read his articles, I'm sure Bob Clay-Egerton isn't saying that all forms of witchcraft are Wicca. Anyone who says this is demonstrating a complete ignorance of the subject, and eroding our ability to differentiate concepts through language. As I see it,
 * Witchcraft/witchcraft is not of itself a religion
 * Wicca is one form of witchcraft, and incorporates certain religious beliefs.
 * Lineaged Wiccans would argue that Wicca is also defined by its ritual and organisational structures, initiatory lineage, etc. And this is the point of controversy, since others call themselves Wiccan who don't have lineage and don't follow these structures.
 * Many other forms of witchcraft (outside of both British Traditional Wicca and Neo-Wicca or Eclectic Wicca) incorporate religious beliefs that are roughly compatible/comparable with Wiccan religious beliefs.
 * There are many self-professed "witches", even those with comparable beliefs to Wiccans (lineaged or eclectic), who avoid the term 'Wicca' like the plague.
 * My proposed rewording actually gives less possibility for "Witchcraft" to be seen as "the religion" and Wicca merely a denomination of this religion. Instead, after the proposed changes, the lead section would simply indicate that Wicca is a religion, that there is disagreement over who is and isn't Wiccan (addressing point 3 above), and that there are other forms of witchcraft that don't align with the term Wicca. It even states at the end that some people think all witchcraft is Wicca (as ignorant as I feel that concept is). So I don't see how this could be misleading.
 * Talking about differentiating concepts through language, I'm glad you brought up British Traditional Witchcraft, a term meaning something quite different to British Traditional Wicca: I cringe whenever I'm forced to use the latter term, since it's a North-Americanism with a dangerous resemblance to the former. "British Traditional Witchcraft" is an older term used to refer to all British trads that aren't Wicca, such as Roy Bowers' witchcraft. Most (lineaged) Wiccans in the UK, Europe, Australia and NZ still understand "BTW" to mean "not Wicca". Whenever I see one of these "BTW" terms I have to read it carefully to figure out what the person means. All this reinvention of terms makes communication almost impossible, and it leaves us "lineaged Wiccans" (or whatever you call us) with no clear name or term to distinguish ourselves from everyone else. Perhaps you can understand, then, why I'm so keen on keeping the usage of these various terms as clear as possible.
 * Regarding Cardell's "original" definition of "Wicca", what he meant by it and whether he "almost certainly" coined this term, I've addressed this above in a previous post. It seems our mileages vary on this one. Kind regards, Fuzzypeg★ 19:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey Fuzzypeg, just wanted to add thanks for returning to help us out in pulling this article through to FA status. Anyway, as I wish to put forward, I am making a very distinct difference here between "witchcraft", non-capitalised, and "Witchcraft" (capitalised). The first refers to sorcery, the practice of magic that is found worldwide, from religions like Wicca and Santeria to simple cunning folk traditions and to the fictional Charmed Ones and Wicked Witch of the West. The capitalised term "Witchcraft" is different, because it refers to a religion. Many pagan and/or luciferian witches follow the Sabbats, hold to some sort of ethical code, worship deities, and hence esentially follow a European-based religion. This is the religion of Witchcraft, and contains within it groups ranging from Robert Cochrane's Cochranianism, Raymond Howard's Coven of Atho, Sybil Leek's Horsa tradiiton, Zsuzanna Budapest's Dianicism, Gerald Gardner's Gardnerianism, Silver Ravenwolf's Teen Wicca and countless others (I would be here for hours typing all of them out). Oftentimes, particularly nowadays, the religion of Witchcraft is simply equated with Wicca, (as in Anthony Kemp's book), whereas some British Traditional Wiccans (and by this I mean Gardnerians, Alexandrians, Algard etc), prefer to reserve the term "Wicca" simply for themselves. Following this first system, Wicca IS Witchcraft, and one of its practices is witchcraft. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC))


 * Agreed. Very well stated. The difference between Witchcraft and witchcraft may not be readily apparent to readers of the lead section of the article, or not until there has been some explanation of these terms and our intended meaning; therefore I wonder whether perhaps we should word it:
 * Wicca is a Neopagan religion, a variety of modern religious witchcraft. Its adherents are known as Wiccans.
 * i.e. call the broader category "religious witchcraft" rather than "witchcraft". We can then state change the last sentence of the lead to read:
 * Some of these do not use the term "Wicca" at all, while some believe that all traditions of religious witchcraft can be considered "Wiccan".
 * (Or maybe "all traditions of British- and European-derived religious witchcraft"? Can you think of a simpler description?)
 * Kind regards, Fuzzypeg★ 02:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... this is a tricky one. What we could really do with is a good quote from somewhere that amply sums up the whole situation. Regardng "religious witchcraft", I would just make the grammatical change to "religious Witchcraft". I think that this might be one of those situations when we'll have to change it various times till we find something that fits just right. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC))
 * Although, on further contempaltion, describing Wicca as "a variety of modern religious witchcraft" is possibly misleading, for Wicca is a religion, and therefore not really a "form" of witchcraft, rather a religion that includes witchcraft as one of its practices.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC))


 * I would put it the other way around: Wicca is a variety of witchcraft that incorporates spiritual/religious beliefs. Remember that Wicca is much more of an orthopraxy than an orthodoxy, to the point that it doesn't require its members to abandon their previous faith, and it doesn't actually require literal belief in the Goddess and God. There have been plenty of Christian Wiccans (not talking about Christian Wicca here): Gardner mentions an "occasional conformist" in the New Forest group, and according to Maxine Sanders, Alex Sanders first took on the media to draw attention away from some members of his coven who were active Christians holding important lay positions in their Church. I know of several Wiccans who are simultaneously ordained as priests in various Christian denominations (three of them I know personally).
 * From the very start of Wicca being publicised and until relatively recently, it has always been described as a form of witchcraft. It has more occasionally been described as a Neopagan religion. I suspect the "religin" label has been emphasised more in recent years as part of the attempt to gain legal recognition in the US.
 * But regardless of that, the proposed first sentence already explicitly states that Wicca is a religion (in the very first clause). Now, there may be a few people who believe that Wicca is not primarily witchcraft, and some even who feel it's not witchcraft at all, but we can't allow very marginal and ahistorical views to dictate the general wording of the article. If some notable number of people feel Wicca should be distanced from witchcraft, we can add a sentence to that effect further down the article. Fuzzypeg★ 04:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting idea about the nature of the Craft there Fuzzypeg. To be perfectly honest I'm not entirely sure what we should do... it's all quite a tricky situation... Anyone else got any suggestions? (Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC))
 * ... the nature of the 'Craft' (short for 'Witchcraft')... The article currently implies that Wicca and Witchcraft are synonymous. How is it any more misleading to state that Wicca is a form of witchcraft? Authors on the subject have been almost unanimous in describing it as a form of witchcraft. That doesn't mean it's not a religion, and my proposed wording begins "Wicca is a Neopagan religion". I thought that would be uncontroversial. Perhaps I don't quite understand what your disagreement is? Fuzzypeg★ 21:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

How about "Wicca (pronounced [ˈwɪkə]) is a Neopagan religion and form of modern witchraft that is also often referred to as Witchcraft or the Craft[1] by its adherents, who are known as Wiccans or Witches" ? That way the material we already have (that is well attested in various sources) is retained, but your additions are also implemented? (Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC))
 * A good compromise, but a slightly awkward sentence. We could break it in two:
 * "Wicca (pronounced [ˈwɪkə]) is a Neopagan religion and form of modern witchcraft. It is often referred to as Witchcraft or the Craft[1] by its adherents, who are known as Wiccans or Witches"
 * I would still like to see my above-suggested change to the last sentence of the lead made as well. Kind regards, Fuzzypeg★ 02:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, good idea regarding breaking the sentence. Just as a thought, we could also state "Wicca is a witchcraft-based Neopagan religion" instead, but i'm not sure if that would be as good. Regarding your suggestion for the final sentence, "Some of these do not use the term "Wicca" at all, while some believe that all traditions of religious witchcraft can be considered "Wiccan".", I would take issue with the statement that "all traditions of religious witchraft can be considered WIccan", because there are many religious witchcraft traditions, like Santeria or Haitian Vodou that simply could not be defined as Wicca considering they do not share the celebration of the Sabbats, the same theological structure, or have very much in common.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC))
 * Cheers, it sounds like we've reached an approved first sentence, then. I personally wouldn't consider Santeria or Vodou witchcraft at all, but I agree the term is vague and broad. Have you got any better suggestions? "all forms of Neopagan witchcraft"? Do you want to go ahead and make the changes, and I'll trust you to choose a decent wording for that last phrase? Fuzzypeg★ 05:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Bravo
I just want to say bravo to the re-writers of this article, it is much improved over the last time I viewed it. This is truly an encyclopedic article. BTW, talk needs to be archived. The new pictures are nice too! 12.239.95.72 (talk) 14:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback, always welcome. I agree, the rewrite has much improved the article. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your kind words, but there are a few more references that need to be found, and the section on Symbols could do with being lengthened. Then, I think, it will be ready for FA status. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC))

I agree. I wasn't really expecting it, but this is a very good article. Kudos to those who worked on it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.118.229.5 (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Another Site To Collect General Information...
http://www.usminc.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.203.36.251 (talk) 00:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

"Five" Elements
Actually, I'm not going to begin a rant on my detestation of the notion of five elements vs. the classical four (Air, Fire, Water, Earth)--well, not beyond that rather backhanded disclaimer {grin}

However, I believe Valiente's original rhyme scheme is ABAB, not AABB. My daughter seems to have absconded with the key to our glass-fronted bookshelf, so I can't look it up in any of my actual reference works (like Valiente's). However, I do have a recording of (according to the publisher ) Gardner's original coven chanting, and they say "Darksome night and shining moon East, then South, then West, then North; Hearken to the Witches' Rune, Here come I to call ye forth."

The last line actually came as a surprise to me, because I always thought of it as "here I come," not "here come I," but the rest of it is in the order I've always heard it. Since the rest of the Rune is in an ABAB scheme, I think it likely that the opening verse would be as well. I hope you won't be offended, Midnightblueowl, if I tweak it. If you have a copy of anything by Valiente handy that says otherwise, I'll graciously accept a revert.

* Septegram * Talk * Contributions * 05:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh no, by all means. The trouble with much of Valiente's poetry is that it has constantly been changed and adapted by others who have subsequently placed their alterations in the Book of Shadows or on the web. Even Valiente changed certain things during her lifetime. It's probably best to find a reference from either Valiente or the Farrars' books (they were great friends of Valiente's, and in constant communication with her when writing many of their own books). (Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC))

Anyone speak French
Hello all. Just a note to say that considering this page is pretty good now, perhaps it could be translated into French (or any other languages for that matter) and placed on the foreign language versions of Wikipedia. I myself speak only English, so am unable to do so, but think that this is a good idea. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC))
 * ???? There already is a French verson, it's over five years old. Totnesmartin (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think MBO meant that perhaps this version of the English article could be translated into other languages, since it is of decent quality, not that articles didn't already exist for other languages. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Precisely... a lot of the foreign language pages (if not all of them) are of pretty appalling quality, particularly considering that there are very few publications on the Craft in French, German and other languages.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC))

Translating an article into another language can be quite difficult. For example, does "I am so hungry I could eat a cow..." have the same meaning to a Sudanese person, as it does to a Texan, American? The technique of conveying acurate conotations is termed "transliteration", but this is not always possible. For example, there is a phrase among some Native American friends of mine that is hilarious in Western Apache, because of the similarity of sound between the words for want water, and a name of a person. If said too quickly, it can sound like the water wants to drink "Kwasan", if I spelled that correctly. This joke is lost when translating to English. This is part of the reason why the other articles are often "blah" at best in translation. I am not saying it is not possible, but you have to understand that it is very, very difficult, sometimes even to translate one simple sentence into another language. There may be multiple words to choose from. Literal translations may be necessary for some languages, where others may take the usage of more metaphorical ideas or assumptions (e.g. Cherokee.) 165.138.95.59 (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism getting quite excessive
It seems to me that the vandalism on this page is getting excessively regular (see the "history" page to see what I mean), I think it might be time to semi-protect this page, although I am personally unable to do so. Any thoughts? (Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC))
 * Whoever it was/they were, it seems to have stoped for today. if it starts again you could request page protection. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I'm keeping pretty close watch on it. So far, the attempts at vandalism haven't even begun to outstrip the ability of patrollers to revert, and only occur periodically. If it gets out of hand, I'll protect. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * thanks, and have a good Beltane! Totnesmartin (talk) 09:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you too! Wish I could do something more to celebrate than just sit at home :/ — Huntster (t @ c) 09:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Addition of "Further reading" items
There appears to be a disagreement as to the notability of an item being added to the "Further reading" section by. So far, I count three against the addition (Huntster, Machine Elf 1735, and Midnightblueowl ), which seems to me a clear consensus not to add it. However, I dropped a note on Annihilator1's talk to encourage them to engage in discussion before forcing it in again (it remains at the moment, but only in the interests of minimising disruption at this point). – B.hotep •talk• 07:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, there may be other entries in that section that need looking at and dealing with at the same time. – B.hotep •talk• 08:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Consensus was 3:1 against inclusion, so it's gone. – B.hotep •talk• 07:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll be looking through the other books tomorrow and seeing if there's any that need to be ditched. I'm not familiar with many of them, so I may end up deciding I'm not competent enough to make such a determination, but at the least I'll get them looking nice and formatted. Thanks Bubba for your help. — Huntster (t @ c) 08:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Book of Mirrors
Hello. I'm a new wikipedian and I was wondering about the wiccan book of mirrors. I searched the internet and found this in Urban Dictionary :

"A Book of Mirrors, (BoM) is just another (optional) book that Wiccans/Pagans use to record things. While a Book of Shadows details the spells and how to duplicate them (like a recipie book almost), a Book of Mirrors is used to write out your thoughts and feelings about your reactions to the spells and if it acheived what you were doing, or anything that is important to you that concerns magic (personal journal). EX::: {As Patty wrote down the spell in her Book of Shadows, she made a mental note to write in her Book of Mirrors how the spell didn't quite work the way she wanted, but had better results}."

Is this right??????? and if its right, please add it to the article Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.235.200.67 (talk) 02:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The idea of a Book of Mirrors has popped up on a few places on the net in recent years, although I don't think it is very popular amongst the Wiccan community, and I have yet to see a book where the term is used. Considering Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source (as it can be added to by anyone), there is at this time simply no need to add information on the Book of Mirrors to this page.

Thank you for your answer. I was also wondering why the wiccan book is called the book of shadows. Is there any importance of shadows in the Wiccan religion? and if so, what is this importance ? THANK YOU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.235.198.193 (talk) 02:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Please read Book of Shadows, which gives a possible origin for the term in the history section. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, but could you explain in more details the subject of fortelling things using a person's shadows? Waiting for answer. Many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.235.198.193 (talk) 03:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The idea of using a shadow as a form of divination is a traditional practice in parts of India, but has little or no relevence for Wicca. Gardner merely took the name "Book of Shadows", and had nothing to do with shadow divination.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC))


 * While I'm not sure of its accuracy (since it's the only place I've ever seen it stated), chapter four of Thuri Calafia's Dedicant: a Witch's Circle of Fire says that 'Shadows' refers to the occult (as in 'hidden') aspects of our existance. 207.216.53.147 (talk) 04:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no one singular meaning for the term "Book of Shadows". Gerald Gardner never - to my knowledge - declared that the "Shadows" symbolised anything, although a number of later Crafters have indeed claimed that it means this or that, often in a manner that would give the impression that theirs is the one, true meaning, but quite frankly, it isn’t. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC))

the real meaning of "wicca"
wicca is an old english word pronounced witcha meaning male witch and a female is a wicce pronouced witch. wicce was the old english word for wise, and used as a title when referring to a "wise woman". wicces/wiccas were ones well versed in magics, herbology and often having gifts. a seer is a wicce/wicca. some were well versed in a piticular area and it was often a family knowledge passed down from parents to children. The village elders were mostly the oldest of the wicces/wiccas but sometimes were commoners. ones with gifts (seers, psychics ect...) gift was usaully and inherited trait not always directly inherited, ie it could be that the wicces sons first born daughter gets the trait the the first born daughters sons first born daughter ect... but usauly the craft was taught parents to children.

the term wicca as a religion came about by a man gerald gardner. he found the would but did not know its true meaning or how to pronounce it.

wicca is furniture, if something is wiccan it is made from wicca. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BILLIEBRAND (talk • contribs) 12:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "Wicca is furniture"? I believe you are thinking of "wicker". I'm sorely tempted to revert the addition of this section since everything is already covered in the article, or is nonsense. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I think some misunderstanding has crept in here. The lower case term "wicca" was an Old English word spoken in early mediaeval England by those wishing to refer to male practitioners of sorcery. The capitalised term "Wicca" is an entirely different word, one first appearing in contemporary English during the 1960s that refers to the Neopagan Witchcraft religion. Gerald Gardner was not in fact responsible for the term "Wicca", and never himself used it. The Old English "wicca" and contemporary English "Wicca" were pronounced very differently; the first as "witcha" and the latter phonetically. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC))

Referred to as Witchcraft?
The article says that Wicca is also referred to as Witchcraft or the Craft. I think the latter is true, but Wiccans practice witchcraft, but the religion itself is not Witchcraft. It also has the term Witch instead of Wiccan used throughout the article when referring to one who practices Wicca. This implies that all witches are Wiccan. Can we fix this? 72.130.231.62 (talk) 02:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes it is true that Wicca is one of many, many forms of magical beliefs that are considered to be forms of witchcraft, but in many cases Wicca is itself simply called "Witchcraft", and this is borne out in a wide variety of published sources, particularly those dating to the 1950s, 60s, 70s and 80s, such as the writings of Doreen Valiente and Stewart Farrar, who were writing before the time when "Wicca" became highly popularised. But yes, I agree that the term "witch" used throughout the article should be changed to "Wiccan" and "Crafter". (Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC))

Picture in Theology section
I find this picture offensive: the "Altar statues of the Horned God and Mother Goddess as crafted by Bel Bucca, and owned by the 'Mother of Wicca', Doreen Valiente" Because that image appears to be demonic with its red-shifted tint and blood-red colored statues - its about appearances and I think that imagery has too many negative connotations and is suggestive of things that Wicca is not. karlyguy 205.200.189.2 (talk) 20:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You find one of the best known sculptures of the Wiccan deities offensive because it has a red tint? I'm sorry but I don't see this as grounds for removal. {Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)}
 * You didnt read my comment did you? I have no objection to the sculptures nor dieties. I am only suggesting that an alternative picture be found that has less of a 'bloody' appearance. karlyguy --205.200.189.2 (talk) 21:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I read your comment, but I have to say that I agree with Midnightblueowl. There is nothing directly offensive of that picture (yes, I personally don't like the red color, but that is a preference.) You have interpreted it as offensive and "demonic", and that only means that it is offennsive to you. Fortunately, that in itself is not grounds of removal. The interpretation of "red" or "black" equals "demonic" is a common one, but it is one that is not shared by all persons worldwide. As a previous student of Symbology... I have learned that the so called "inherent" meaning or message of a symbol is largely subjective to the person or group's own interpretations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.138.95.59 (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * yes it is "subjective to the person or group's own interpretations" = and what group do you think is going to make that correlation "of 'red' or 'black' equals 'demonic'"?? that is exactly the negative impression i am trying to bring attention to.  karlyguy  --24.78.10.114 (talk) 17:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Then please - suggest something else. Instead of just stating that you find it offensive, suggest something else and we can discuss is. Though I with the others above - it's subjective and demonic to you, and that doesn't mean everyone else thinks it is. The picture illustrates the secion to a t I think. --  Xxglennxx  (talk • cont.) 16:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * IMHO the picture is of an excellent subject, but as noted above is of poor quality. I'd leave it here until a better quality picture can be found (rather than substituting a better quality picture of a less relevant statue.) Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  16:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no such thing as a good suggestion for the wrong reason. But, as others have suggested the picture quality can be improved, I've applied auto color correction & auto levels. It was an improvement, IMO. It really brings out the greens on the alter. Midnight blue, please feel free to undo if you don't agree. The demon likes it too, (we have golf on Tuesdays).—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 06:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No issues there. Unfortunately I had to take the image at the Charge of the Goddess conference in 2009 using the camera on my phone (which is not a very good one). If these two statues appear in the proposed new museum devoted to the Craft that John Belham-Payne is trying to open in Brighton area, then a better photo could perhaps be taken then.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC))

A possible misinterpretation
Wording in an article is very important. For example, the same thing can be said a thousand (if not more) different ways. The object (or goal) of a writer is to apply the most appropiate usage of words and sentence structure to provide as adequately as possible the desired conotation he or she intends to convey. In this sense, his or her goal is not for his or her reader to necessarily agree with his or her own points of view, but rather to understand the point of view the message holds of its own accord. Now I know this is just one line, but I think that it provides a good example of what I am explaining here: "A common marriage vow in Wicca is 'for as long as love lasts' instead of the traditional Christian 'till death do us part'."

There are several different ways this line can be interpreted. First it can be interpreted that the only time when this "vow" is uttered is in common or typical Wiccan marriage ceremonies. It doesn't exemplify other ceremonies (although less common) in which this phrase may be uttered. Second, to some it may imply that this is the only acceptable saying in a Wiccan marriage ceremony. I know it doesn't say that in a literal manner, but if a person desires to read it that way, I don't see anything in the sentence prohibiting them from accepting that notion. Another interpretation, and the one I personally think is the one that needs major attention, is that the phrase is in direct response (or rather an aggressive stab) against the Christian one. This is also a misinterpretation of what the author of the sentence was trying to say. And finally, it isn't explained that previous pagan circles used the phrase, and that the phrase itself, though in Wiccan usage, isn't only a Wiccan one. Its not the sentence itself that is incorrect, it is a correct statement, but only if the correct interpretation is what the reader has already previously assumed. For example, consider the line "The sun is hot." It is correct, but my cousin often refers to his angry temper as "hot", so a person who reads that who only has the reference of the term "hot" as meaning "having an angry temper" without any understanding that the reference is to the star's tempeture in degrees, could think the author of that line thinks that the sun is angry. There are many articles that have these easily misinterpreted lines. I wish there was a tag "Conotation" or "Wording Needs examined." The best I can do in this regard is to hope that the other authors of this article, can re-examine this line, and then when editing other articles, keep in mind, that even if the sentence is correct, its conotation may need to be examined, also.

Thanks, 165.138.95.59 (talk) 19:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

set, standard,
I am simply proposing the addition of an adjective here:

"In Wicca there is no set sacred text such as the Christian Bible,(etc.)"

{of course I didn't copy the entire sentence here, as there was no need to do so}

"In Wicca there is no set, standard sacred text such as the Christian Bible, (etc.)"

The addition of the extra adjective exacerbates upon the term "set." Set can mean "chosen" or "approved"... "standard" would be added to explain that there is no commonplace text as well. This is merely a proposal. I have not changed this line in the article. 165.138.95.59 (talk) 19:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Cybernetics
There are effects within the human psyche that are caused by the way technologies are used, The definition of cybernetics has to do with the human psyche. While studying Wicca, and researching, have learned ways that can be combined with technologies, and have had results that are difficult to explain in short order. There are also effects that have to do with computers and moon phases, and would recommend considering lunar and solar calendars with computer works. Metaphysics and Science are combined, yet not recognized this way in most educational systems 75.204.56.233 (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Material for discussion
Hello there, I removed the good faith edits (pasted below) by Kary247 because they were substantial changes to the article lead and really need discussing here (and at the very least more thoroughly referencing.) I also removed the two new external links because we have a long policy here of NOT adding further links without prior discussion. The reverted edits (the beginning of the lead paragraph) are below:


 * Wicca is a Neopagan religion and a form of modern witchcraft inspired by a diverse range of ancient and modern cultural beliefs, practices and societies including ancient Egypt, ancient Greece, ancient Hebrew, Anglo-Saxon, Saxon, Celtic, Polynesian and Asian civilisations. Wicca is a positive, peaceful and earth-centred religion and its core ideology is underpinned by eclectic values and beliefs shared by many Pagan and polytheistic cultures and traditions spanning thousands of years, including, but not limited to, Shintoism, Buddhism, Shamanism and Polynesian religions . Wicca reflects and incorporates a philosophical and metaphysical belief system that focuses on self-empowerment, self-actualisation, Jungian archetypes and Karma.

Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk)  14:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

FA in wiki pt
pt:Wicca. N and O  ta lk !|undefined   04:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Postmodern Wicca
The editor who contributed the section I reverted (see above) has decided that it needs a new article with this title, rather than adding to the main Wicca article here. I don't know anything about Postmodern Wicca - it's a new concept to me - so I don't feel qualified to comment much on the new page. However if it is a genuinely notable movement it will require some links in from other articles in the Wicca family, as well as potentially changing some templates. I'd be interested in others' views on the topic. Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk)  10:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * A new article is completely inappropriate. At best, the sourced material might be merged into a subsection here and the rest deleted as unsourced original research. Perhaps more properly, the whole thing should simply be redirected back here as entirely POV synthesis. — Huntster (t @ c) 10:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Huntster and Kim,

Thanks for your comments in connection with the article that I have created which focuses on postmodern interpretations of Wicca. I have created an article and category Postmodern Religion and this is now a category - Postmodern Wicca and Postmodern Christianity are listed as sub-categories.

It is in the category Postmodernism - Postmodern Religion - Postmodern Wicca. The other category that connects to Postmodern Religion is Postmodern Christianity The postmodern christianity article gave me the idea that there should be a broader category called Postmodern Religion within Postmodernism, just as there is Postmodern Psychology, Postmodern Politics and so and so on.

Anyway, given that my approach is to gradually add Postmodern religions as sub-categories of my new article Postmodern Religion - I hope that you will not recommend the article for deletion, but if you do, I would certainly respect your decision as knowledgable administrators.

If I can keep the article going, I would like to add Postmodern Buddhism when I get a chance. I see the article as being more connected to Postmodernism??? I would love to say that this is my original research, but there is a huge range of postmodern sources that explore postmodern interpretations of various religion, so I am fairly sure the article I have written is not original research.

I don't think a sub-category in Wicca called Postmodern Wicca would fit? I would be happy for it to be there, but thought I might face a lot of opposition?

To be honest, I think the Wicca article should be a featured article it is very good, fascinating really - to get it to this status, the article needs to be broader in its approach and connect to a wider range of wiki categories and areas - perhaps the addition of a sub-category like Postmodern Theory and Wicca or similar - I would be happy to write a brief paragraph on this topic and connect it to my longer Postmodern articles?

I hope to hear your thoughts - as I am new to Wiki I hope that I am approaching this correctly!

Thanks, --Kary247 (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * There's a notability problem for "Postmodern Wicca" as such, and maybe a WP:COPYVIO problem, (especially earlier versions). Or perhaps more likely, does Kary247 own http://www.wiccamarket.co.uk/ (02-Oct-2010) and http://www.wiccamagazine.com/ (14-Dec-2010) just using their own content as a starting point? They're currently too underdeveloped to be WP:RS or WP:EL, however.
 * I'm sure Kary247's intentions are good, but it struck me that the deconstruction of Postmodern Wicca seems acutely recursive, (more parody than paradox) or maybe just an attempt at a novelty brand... so I checked.


 * Of the 8 results for "postmodern wicca" on Google, the top two are WP: Postmodern Wicca and Postmodern Religion; there's a 2006 livejournal diatribe referring to this article, (Wicca)  Declaration of a Post-Wiccan Environment and a fiction author's guest post at blogstop "a warm tale of old-school occult mystery, postmodern Wicca, family devotion, and courtroom procedure, with a side of slapstick..." (Sarah Avery). Except for the lowercase "p", this would have been the best evidence I could find for Postmodern Wicca as a type of Wicca, rather than discussions of Wicca as postmodern, or cases where "postmodern" just seems to mean late 20th century+, (presumably because no one can decipher what postmodern authors are saying, for example, this parenthetical smart-boost: "History is becoming more circular and less linear, as the most ancient becomes the most modern (or perhaps postmodern). Wicca and other forms of neopaganism ...". History isn't becoming anything, even if we say it is; and that's not a very postmodern thing to say; but that was; so I say this, that and the other; lo! reflexivity).


 * I looked up the sources cited for the Postmodern Wicca article:
 * Amazon/Google Books, no match for "postmodern" or "wicca"
 * Search unavailable
 * Amazon, no match for "postmodern"
 * Amazon, no match for "postmodern"
 * Amazon/Google Books, no match for "postmodern"
 * Amazon, 14 matches for "postmodern", none for "wicca"
 * Search unavailable
 * Amazon/Google Books, no match for "postmodern"
 * Amazon/Google Books, 58 matches for "postmodern", no match for "wicca", 1 for "new age"
 * Amazon, 14 matches for "postmodern", none for "wicca"
 * Search unavailable
 * Amazon/Google Books, no match for "postmodern"
 * Amazon/Google Books, 58 matches for "postmodern", no match for "wicca", 1 for "new age"
 * Amazon/Google Books, no match for "postmodern"
 * Amazon/Google Books, 58 matches for "postmodern", no match for "wicca", 1 for "new age"
 * Amazon/Google Books, 58 matches for "postmodern", no match for "wicca", 1 for "new age"
 * Amazon/Google Books, 58 matches for "postmodern", no match for "wicca", 1 for "new age"


 * So, I tried searching without the quotes in Google Books and 1,400 results came up. It's often used in a casual way, notably Bonewit's essential guide to witchcraft and Wicca chapter 11, which is called "Witchcraft in the Postmodern World". But could just as well have been called "Witchcraft in the World Today". A. J. Drew seems to use it like that in three different books: "Some choose to believe it is a postmodern revival ...". "Three ethical emphases of Wicca make the religion particularly appealing to today's postmodern culture..." (autonomy as opposed to accountability, sexual "licentiousness", and the three-fold law).
 * On the other hand, the question of whether or not Wicca/Feminist Spirituality/New Age is postmodern seems to be notable. In New Age thinking: a psychoanalytic critique, (shrink with an axe to grind) Mel D. Faber, calls New Age thinking vis-à-vis Postmodernity "the mating of monsters" (1996:13). He continues "Charlene Spretnak's (1991:217) States of Grace, a treatise composed largely from a Wiccan angle and fast becoming a New Age classic, devotes itself explicitly to 'the recovery of meaning in the postmodern age,' indeed to the refutation of 'deconstructive postmodernists' and their 'triumphal denial of nearly everything.' For Spretnak, this becomes a 'spiritual quest.'" I guess I tend to think of deconstructionism when I think of postmodernism.
 * Maybe Wicca could be a section of Postmodern Religion, with the focus being on "components that ... appear to reflect a postmodern sensibility"? Helen A. Berger's A Community of Witches: Contemporary Neo-paganism and Witchcraft in the United States was the most interesting book I came across. The author draws conclusions specifically about Wicca from authors discussing (one or more of) Wicca/Feminist Spirituality/New Age. "Wicca ... is a religion of late modernity rather than postmodernity. Although all of these religions have components of postmodernity, they do not ultimately signify an epistemological break with Enlightenment thought. Whether Wicca is a religion of postmodernity or late modernity may appear to be inconsequential; however, the distinction is important for placing the religion within its social and historical context. Postmodern theory brings all truth and moral claims into question and eliminates the active subject. As will be shown in this book, Wicca, while questioning moral issues, is part of the process in late modernity of reembedding moral issues through lifestyle choices. Ritual practices, community activities, and spiritual quests help to define lifestyle choices and are part of the creation and re-creation of the self within Wicca. The emphasis on globalism, the belief in personal and social transformation, and the use of noninstrumental rationality place Wicca firmly within the Englightenment tradition" (Berger 1999:6). She says structuration theory "provides a framework for understanding Wicca within the context of late modernity" and still on page 6: "the death of the grand narrative, the questioning of truth claims, and the decentering of the subject—are not the result of the development of a new postmodern era, but rather are the logical outgrowth of Enlightenment rationality and science. Most notably, methodological doubt and the reflectivity of knowledge that are embedded in the tenents of science result in skepticism toward all knowledge claims. It is this skepticism that I will argue makes the practice of magic among even scientifically educated Witches seem both reasonable and appropriate."


 * References:


 * EOF—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 00:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Response to Lack of Notability for Postmodern Wicca/Neo-Paganism
Hi Machine Elf,

I can certainly understand that you feel that postmodernism may not be relevant as an inclusion to the Wicca article. I think that a lot of your comments here should be included in the Wicca article because they are very insightful, however I do feel that to exclude and silence a postmodern approach would not be valid, based on the number of sources I have found.

"But perhaps the single most direct contributor to the personality and texture of neo-paganism is the post-modern movement. More so than perhaps any other ideology, postmodernism has had a direct hand in the direction and flavor of neo-paganism in the western world. Until very recently, western society has been marked by two prevailing viewpoints: transcendent monotheism, as previously discussed, and scientific atheism. Both schools are dominated by a very Cartesian, mechanistic either/or worldview. Postmodern thought, in contrast, is highly personal and syncretic, preferring individual experience and interpretation over any externally imposed order. We can see this clearly in religions like Wicca and the Goddess movement." Neopaganism in the Postmodern Age - Journal of Western Mystery Tradition www.jwmt.org/v1n6/editorial.html --Kary247 (talk) 12:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

REFERENCES AS EVIDENCE OF POSTMODERN WICCA 1. ^ [http://www.wiccamagazine.com Wicca Magazine (2010) Postmodern Wicca: An Eclectic Ideology 2. ^ Patrick Dunn, Postmodern Magic: The Art of Magic in the Information Age 3. ^ Schiff, Stacy-Pulitzer Prize Winner - (2010) Cleopatra: A Life, Little Brown ISBN 0-3160-0192-9 4. ^ Apuleius, Lucius; Adlington, William (Trans.) (1996). The Golden Ass. Wordsworth Classics of World Literature, Wordsworth Ed. Ltd.: Ware, GB. ISBN 1-85326-460-1 5. ^ Hutton, Ronald (1993) The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles: Their Nature and Legacy. ISBN 0-631-18946-7 6. ^ Smith, Diane (2005) Wicca and Witchcraft for Dummies Wiley Publishing Inc ISBN 978-0-7645-7834-2 7. ^ www.jwmt.org/v1n6/editorial.html - Neopaganism in a Postmodern Age - Journal of Western Mystery Tradition 8. ^ CIRCLE SANCTUARY - Neopagan and Postmodernism http://www.circlesanctuary.org/aboutpagan/contours.htm 9. ^ Weinstein, Marion (2003) Earth Magic: a book of shadows for positive witches New Page Books ISBN 1-56414-638-3 10. ^ On Deconstructing Life-Worlds: Buddhism, Christianity, Culture (Atlanta: Scholars Press of American Academy of Religion, 1997; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000; ISBN 0-7885-0295-6, cloth 11. ^ Cunningham, Scott (1995) - Hawaiian Magic and Spirituality (ISBN 1-56718-199-6)  12. ^ Cunningham, Scott (1988) - Wicca: A Guide for the Solitary Practitioner (ISBN 0-87542-118-0)  13. ^ Weinstein, M (2003) Earth Magic  14. ^ Raphael, Melissa (April 1998) Goddess Religion, Postmodern Jewish Feminism, and the Complexity of Alternative Religious Identities ‌Nova Religio, Vol. 1, No. 2, Pages 198–215 (abstract can be found at: Caliber: University of California Press)  15. ^ Eve, Raymond,Phd, Wiccans vs. Creationists: An Empirical Study of How Two Systems of Belief Differ http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/10-08-25/  16. ^ Patton, K and Ray, B (2008) A Magic Still Dwells:Comparative Religion in the Postmodern Age, University of California Press, Berkeley 17. ^ Smith, Diane (2005) Wicca and Witchcraft for Dummies Wiley Publishing Inc ISBN 978-0-7645-7834-2 18. ^ Smith, Diane(2005) Wicca and Witchcraft for Dummies 19. ^ BBC Religions: Postmodernism http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/types/postmodernism.shtml 20. ^ Starhawk (1999) The Spiral Dance Imprint: HarperSanFrancisco; ISBN: 0062516329 21. ^ http://www.starhawk.org/activism/activism-writings/RNC_update2.html

--Kary247 (talk) 12:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

For my articles, the connection is more postmodernism and looking at postmodern religion from the context of many different religious belief systems -

The flow would be:

Postmodernism Postmodern religions

Current sub-categories are: Postmodern Wicca Postmodern Christianity

I would like to add Postmodern Buddhism Postmodern Shintoism Postmodern Shamanism Postmodern Hinuism

Postmodern Wicca is an interpretation of Wicca using postmodern theory just as Postmodern Christianity is an interpretation of Christianity using postmodern theory and so on.

I hope to bring in many different religious categories and write about the postmodern perspective.

I think making Wicca a section of the Postmodern religion article might make this article a bit long, which is why I thought I would do different articles on different religions and link them back to Postmodern religion??

Thanks, Kary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kary247 (talk • contribs) 12:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Kary, I notice each of those except Wicca could have pre-modern, modern and postmodern history.
 * I didn't comment on this article, (opps). Ah well, there's always next time ^_^* Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 14:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi All,

I have added Eclectic Wicca and Postmodern Thinking as a category - does this fit??

I have also requested that the redirect for 'Eclectic Wicca' be cancelled so that I can create a new page for this. Or perhaps the redirect needs an anchor link to the subcategory here.

According to WICCA AND WITCHCRAFT FOR DUMMIES - "Eclectic Wicca is the most popular form of Wicca in America today" so we can't really ignore this?

I have lots of examples of Postmodern Wicca and Wicca as a Postmodern Religion

Many Wiccan books express postmodernist interpretations of Wicca, for example "Perception creates reality. Reality is flexible and can be directed, created and controlled by us" Weinstein, M (2003) Earth Magic, and Dr.Raymond A Eve, Professor of Sociology at the University of Texas "I label Wicca as a postmodern religion primarily because of its contention that deity is within each of us, and that truth is different and subjective for each practitioner" in Wicca versus Creationists http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/10-08-25/ and "if we look at the disparate themes of contemporary Pagan belief, we can see some that fit very naturally with the ideas of holistic postmodernism" - Towards Postmodern Paganism http://www.darc.org/connelly/pagan1.html

. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.175.145.18 (talk) 18:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

--Kary247 (talk) 15:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Eclectic Wicca
I have added the section eclectic Wicca - as the largest and most popular version of Wicca in America - reference Smith, Diane, Wicca and Witchcraft for Dummies - it really needs to be a sub-category.

The redirect from Eclectic Wicca to Wicca - I question this and feel that eclectic Wicca may need its own page?

Thanks to editors for fixing the eclectic entry - I really think it reads much better now thanks to the edit from MACHINE ELF - and more neutral etc. New to wiki, so please forgive my inadvertant errors.

Re: the deletion of postmodern wicca thinking etc:

Many Wiccan books express postmodernist interpretations of Wicca, for example

"Perception creates reality. Reality is flexible and can be directed, created and controlled by us" Weinstein, M (2003) Earth Magic, and

Dr.Raymond A Eve, Professor of Sociology at the University of Texas

"I label Wicca as a postmodern religion primarily because of its contention that deity is within each of us, and that truth is different and subjective for each practitioner" in Wicca versus Creationists http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/10-08-25/

"if we look at the disparate themes of contemporary Pagan belief, we can see some that fit very naturally with the ideas of holistic postmodernism"

- Towards Postmodern Paganism http://www.darc.org/connelly/pagan1.html

BBC Postmodernism: Religion

"For postmodernists every society is in a state of constant change; there are no absolute values, only relative ones; nor are there any absolute truths.

This promotes the value of individual religious impulses, but weakens the strength of 'religions' which claim to deal with truths that are presented from 'outside', and given as objective realities.

In a postmodern world there are no universal religious or ethical laws, everything is shaped by the cultural context of a particular time and place and community.

In a postmodern world individuals work with their religious impulses, by selecting the bits of various spiritualities that 'speak to them' and create their own internal spiritual world. The 'theology of the pub' becomes as valid as that of the priest."

I really see a strong connection between eclectic Wicca and Postmodern Wicca and would like some reference to it here.

Also to add the following, so that Wicca is less ethno-centric and narrow and connects more to ancient religions

Wicca for Dummies

MOST WICCANS AGREE:

1. Wicca is a continuation of a very old religion that has been passed dow through groups since ancient times.

2. Wicca is a return and revival of an old, ancient religion

3. Wicca is a new form of spirituality that re-creates, re-invents and revives old practices and ideas.

Many Military Wiccans, or Wiccan Warriors, should there be some reference to them?

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10/air-force-academy-now-welcomes-spell-casters/

Many members of the gay community are Wiccan, should there be some reference here??

--Kary247 (talk) 22:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Many Wiccan books express postmodernist interpretations of Wicca while they MAY express that, unless it is specifically called post modern in re: wicca, labelling such interpretations as postmodern wicca is original research.--Vidkun (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

There are hundreds, obviously most Wiccan followers are postmodern in their thinking but a few samples:

"So, to reclaim ‘Witch’ is to reclaim the image of a powerful woman, the whole constellation of ideas about reality and imagination and energy that have been labeled ‘out of bounds’ by Western modernism" http://www.starhawk.org/activism/activism-writings/RNC_update2.html
 * 1. Starhawk is a Wiccan postmodernist - her words against modernism

http://www.circlesanctuary.org/aboutpagan/contours.htm
 * 2. CIRCLE SANCTUARY - Neopagan and postmodernism


 * 3. www.darc.org/connelly/pagan1.html - Advanced Research Collaborative


 * 4. www.jwmt.org/v1n6/editorial.html - Neopaganism in a Postmodern Age - Journal of Western Mystery Tradition

Denice Szafran University at Buffalo
 * 6. Starhawk Re/Claims a View of the World

http://postmodernwitchcraft.blogspot.com/2010/12/oak-moon-new-moon.html
 * 7. A random witch who is eclectic and postmodern

David V. Keith
 * 8. Intuition in family therapy: A short manual on post-modern witchcraft

Her belief is that in relation to Wicca "postmodern fracturing" is the logical outgrowth of modernity - A Community of Witches: Contemporary Neo-Paganism and Witchcraft in the United States (Studies in Comparative Religion)Publisher: University of South Carolina Press ISBN: 1570032467 Tags: Community Witches Contemporary Neo Paganism Witchcraft the United States Studies Comparative Religion
 * 9. http://ebooklink.net/g/detail/1570032467/A%20Community%20of%20Witches:%20Contemporary%20Neo-Paganism%20and%20Witchcraft%20in%20the%20United%20States%20(Studies%20in%20Comparative%20Religion)/

To save you trawling through the reader review at the bottom mentions that the book shows that Wicca is a postmodern religion

"This is a good book if you are interested in how Wicca is growing in the U.S. and the concerns of modern day wiccans...The rest of the book deals with covens, community, and how Wicca is a postmodern religion.


 * 10 Patton, K and Ray, B (2008) A Magic Still Dwells:Comparative Religion in the Postmodern Age, University of California Press, Berkeley


 * Wicca and Witchcraft for Dummies presents a very postmodern and eclectic perspective of Wicca.

I could go on, but the point is that many Wiccan books implicitly presents a postmodern interpretation of religion and spirituality - reality is subjective, the individual is empowered to control realities, there is no one truth etc. - it seems that there should be some reference here.

--Kary247 (talk) 02:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Kary. Vidkun was correct. I bet you haven't really read through WP:SYN and WP:OR, huh?
 * I searched Weinstein and stuff. On the face of it, there's no chocolate in your peanut butter and no peanut butter in your chocolate.
 * "In a postmodern world... etc." I hope you enjoy it and decide to stay, but it's an encyclopedia
 * Wicca versus Creationist was in poor taste. Don't you think?
 * http://www.darc.org/connelly/pagan1.html Said a lot of things about a lot of people scientists, Christians, Muslims, Jews, indigenous people, Nazis, Stalin, and what's the beef with Francis Bacon? Also, the article was from 1992, as evidenced by the repeated juxtaposition of the words burning and times.
 * If you'd like to see a reference to Wicca and Postmodernism here, slow down, put some research into academic sources, work on it at any one your several Postmodern Wicca venues, make sure everything in it is referenced to a reliable source WP:RS, make sure they plainly say what you said they say WP:V, et voilà!
 * ...less ethno-centric... check out the Portugal featured article yesterday?
 * ...ancient religion... is it the 10,000 year old variety that I recall seeing?
 * Wicca for Dummies Kary? Wicca for Dummies. What part of Wicca for Dummies isn't apparent?
 * Definitely read WP:NOT... Patrick Stewart (soldier)... LGBT topics and Wicca... No one should be surprised to hear there are Wiccans in the military or in any other profession. Things don't just need some reference, they need a good one or they risk being patronizing.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 02:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * PS: Seriously, read WP:RS. Some are sites are better than others, but websites are not great sources. You need to research these authors: Griffin, Spretnak. There was another in my notes if you want to go late-modernity. She said these two talk about New Age/Feminist Spirituality (not just Wicca).—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 02:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * PPS: —Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 02:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, My sources for eclectic Wicca are very valid and credible - they a less ethnocentric and include two experts of Jewish descent (Stacy Schiff is a Pulitzer Prize Winner and Starhawk a noted neopagan expert), other sources include the University of California - Berkeley, Scott Cunningham and Hutton:

References - See Wicca - Eclectic Wicca article.

8Cunningham, Scott (1988) - Wicca: A Guide for the Solitary Practitioner (ISBN 0-87542-118-0) Jungian archetypes, Karma for eclectic Wicca.
 * Smith, Diane(2005) Wicca and Witchcraft for Dummies, Wiley Publishing pg 125.
 * Patton, K and Ray, B (2008) A Magic Still Dwells:Comparative Religion in the Postmodern Age, University of California Press, Berkeley very credible source
 * Starhawk The Spiral Dance - Wiccan expert of Jewish descent - important for a less ethno-centric approach
 * Schiff, Stacy (2010) Cleopatra: A Life, Little Brown ISBN 0-3160-0192-9 - Pulitzer Prize Winner - Jewish Expert - important for less ethno-centric approach to sourcing - Cleopatra life history - many eclectics draw on Egyptian magic and philosophy
 * Apuleius, Lucius; Adlington, William (Trans.) (1996). The Golden Ass. Wordsworth Classics of World Literature, Wordsworth Ed. Ltd.: Ware, GB. ISBN 1-85326-460-1
 * Hutton, Ronald (1993) The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles: Their Nature and Legacy. ISBN 0-631-18946-7 - Eclectics use Celtic Wicca and beliefs important source
 * Cunningham, Scott (1995) - Hawaiian Magic and Spirituality (ISBN 1-56718-199-6) Cunningham is an authority and writes about eclectic Wicca - a very good author


 * 1. I did mention that the source you have honed in on referred to 'post fracturing' rather than postmodernism, Her belief is that in relation to Wicca "postmodern fracturing" is the logical outgrowth of modernity - I included for people who seems to be feel strongly that Wicca can only be viewed as a modernist rather than postmodernist religion - even a firm modernist such this ref. does acknowledge the postmodern perspective.


 * 2. I think that Wicca can be viewed from a modernist or postmodernist perspective - the point here is that silencing the postmodernist perspective, or not including it,  is narrow and does not really give a balanced view


 * 2. Weinstein refers to postmodernism, indirectly, and it has already been mentioned that direct references are needed so this is a little repetitive and unproductive to go back to this.


 * 3. Again, I have offered further sources - the comment on Wicca versus Creationists is repetitive, this was an empirical study by a Professor of Sociology at Texas University  and stated "I label Wicca as a postmodern religion primarily because of its contention that deity is within each of us, and that truth is different and subjective for each practitioner".


 * 4. I included the reference to 10,000 BC - this comes from Wicca and Witchcraft for Dummies - Goddess worship has been occurring, according to anthropological evidence.  As Wicca is a religion that reclaims, reinvents and transforms ancient religions, I thought this was a good ref. to have.


 * 5. The 'for dummies' range is pretty valid, logical and well researched - I think it is perfectly fine for a source here at Wiki.

http://www.starhawk.org/activism/activism-writings/RNC_update2.html
 * 6. Starhawk - author of the spiral dance - mentions that she is postmodern rather than modern - she is a good source?  "So, to reclaim ‘Witch’ is to reclaim the image of a powerful woman, the whole constellation of ideas about reality and imagination and energy that have been labeled ‘out of bounds’ by Western modernism"

http://www.circlesanctuary.org/aboutpagan/contours.htm
 * 7. CIRCLE SANCTUARY - Neopagan and postmodernism - good source


 * 8 Patton, K and Ray, B (2008) A Magic Still Dwells:Comparative Religion in the Postmodern Age, University of California Press, Berkeley - good source


 * 9. Patrick Dunn, Postmodern Magic: The Art of Magic in the Information Age


 * 10. Intuition in family therapy: A short manual on post-modern witchcraft  David V. Keith


 * 11 http://www.jwmt.org/v1n6/editorial.html   - Neopaganism in a Postmodern Age - Journal of Western Mystery Tradition  SEE QUOTE BELOW:

But perhaps the single most direct contributor to the personality and texture of neo-paganism is the post-modern movement. More so than perhaps any other ideology, postmodernism has had a direct hand in the direction and flavor of neo-paganism in the western world. Until very recently, western society has been marked by two prevailing viewpoints: transcendent monotheism, as previously discussed, and scientific atheism. Both schools are dominated by a very Cartesian, mechanistic either/or worldview. '''Postmodern thought, in contrast, is highly personal and syncretic, preferring individual experience and interpretation over any externally imposed order. We can see this clearly in religions like Wicca and the Goddess movement.'''


 * 12 You have a reference here in Wicca article already James R Lewis Magic Religion and Modern Witchcraft - He references Wicca as a postmodern religion 6 times in his book see Google books

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lBrTPMonvMAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=postmodern+witchcraft&source=bl&ots=F69s0lnxZO&sig=bNAxl7q78BwjcHynx_MvHV0n4Tk&hl=en&ei=piUNTcemIYu3hAft2e23Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDUQ6AEwBDgU#v=onepage&q=postmodern%20witchcraft&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kary247 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The views of a white, middle class male - Gardner - have been included here in the Wicca article - if we could focus a little more on information to highlights that eclectic Wicca is a religion that reclaims, reinvents and transforms Goddess worship from ancient cultures such as Egypt, Celts, Asian, Anglo-Saxon, Hebrew, Hawaiian, Polynesian etc. I do feel the article would be a little less ethnocentric.

I think that given I have offered over 10 sources, pretty credible ones, one sentence in the eclectic Wicca section I have written about postmodernism would be great - if you revert my edit again, I will leave it, but hopefully someone else at some stage may consider broadening the perspective here to include postmodern views on Wicca - the point is that many Wiccan books implicitly presents a postmodern interpretation of religion and spirituality - reality is subjective, the individual is empowered to control realities, there is no one truth etc. and so on - it seems that there should be some reference here.

A Compromise???

There could be a compromise, for example if I write in eclectic Wicca

While Wicca reflects modernist values, eclectic Wicca tends to connect more closely with a postmodernist interpretation of Wicca?

Machine Elf, I have put in a lot of work here - and so have you - do you think you could agree to a sentence similar to this if I place in in eclectic Wicca and not revert my edit? Revision as of 08:35, 18 December 2010 Kary247


 * I'll assume all your questions are rhetorical but no less urgent. Care to explain this:The views of a white, middle class male - Gardner - have been included here in the Wicca article - if we could focus a little more on information to highlights that eclectic Wicca is a religion that reclaims, reinvents and transforms Goddess worship from ancient cultures such as Egypt, Celts, Asian, Anglo-Saxon, Hebrew, Hawaiian, Polynesian etc. I do feel the article would be a little less ethnocentric.
 * Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Suggested Approach for Eclectic Wicca
An eclectic Wiccan follows no specific tradition and creates his or her own spiritual path by adopting, reclaiming, reinventing and transforming beliefs and rituals from various religious systems, including Wicca, Pagan and Neo-Pagan traditions. The majority of Wiccans agree that eclectic Wicca is the most common and widely adapted form of Wicca in America.[93] Eclectic Wicca can be described as the absence of tradition, rather than a tradition of Wicca. Eclectic Wicca may also be defined as a version of postmodern Wicca - followers of this religious and philosophical path develop individual and eclectic beliefs systems, rituals and philosphies based on a multiplicity of different religious systems. They critically analyse, question, challenge, reclaim and adapt a range of different ideas and practices and reinvent and reinterpret their religion and ideology according to their own personal worldview[94]. Reclaiming neopaganism, created by a neopagan of Jewish descent, Wiccan authority Starhawk, is an example of an eclectic approach to Wicca which has become a movement[95] An eclectic approach to Wicca may draw from a diverse range of ancient and modern cultural beliefs, practices and societies including ancient Egypt[96], ancient Greece[97], Asian, Hebrew, Saxon, Anglo-Saxon and Celtic[98]civilisations. Eclectic Wicca is a positive, peaceful and earth-centred religion and its core ideology is underpinned by an eclectic array of values and beliefs shared by many Pagan, Wicca, Witchcraft and polytheistic cultures and traditions[99] spanning thousands of years, including, but not limited to, Shintoism, Buddhism[100], Shamanism, Hawaiian Religion[101] Polynesian religions, Celtic Wicca and Dianic Wicca. Eclectic Wicca reflects and incorporates a postmodern philosophical and metaphysical belief system that focuses on eclecticism, self-empowerment, self-actualization, Jungian archetypes[102] and Karma. Revision as of 09:16, 18 December 2010 Kary247

References - See Wicca - Eclectic Wicca article.

8Cunningham, Scott (1988) - Wicca: A Guide for the Solitary Practitioner (ISBN 0-87542-118-0) Jungian archetypes, Karma for eclectic Wicca. Revision as of 10:18, 18 December 2010 Kary247 References to support the validity of postmodern Wicca/neopaganism
 * Smith, Diane(2005) Wicca and Witchcraft for Dummies, Wiley Publishing pg 125.
 * Patton, K and Ray, B (2008) A Magic Still Dwells:Comparative Religion in the Postmodern Age, University of California Press, Berkeley very credible source
 * Starhawk The Spiral Dance - Wiccan expert of Jewish descent - important for a less ethno-centric approach
 * Schiff, Stacy (2010) Cleopatra: A Life, Little Brown ISBN 0-3160-0192-9 - Pulitzer Prize Winner - Jewish Expert - important for less ethno-centric approach to sourcing - Cleopatra life history - many eclectics draw on Egyptian magic and philosophy
 * Apuleius, Lucius; Adlington, William (Trans.) (1996). The Golden Ass. Wordsworth Classics of World Literature, Wordsworth Ed. Ltd.: Ware, GB. ISBN 1-85326-460-1
 * Hutton, Ronald (1993) The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles: Their Nature and Legacy. ISBN 0-631-18946-7 - Eclectics use Celtic Wicca and beliefs important source
 * Cunningham, Scott (1995) - Hawaiian Magic and Spirituality (ISBN 1-56718-199-6) Cunningham is an authority and writes about eclectic Wicca - a very good author

"But perhaps the single most direct contributor to the personality and texture of neo-paganism is the post-modern movement. More so than perhaps any other ideology, postmodernism has had a direct hand in the direction and flavor of neo-paganism in the western world. Until very recently, western society has been marked by two prevailing viewpoints: transcendent monotheism, as previously discussed, and scientific atheism. Both schools are dominated by a very Cartesian, mechanistic either/or worldview. Postmodern thought, in contrast, is highly personal and syncretic, preferring individual experience and interpretation over any externally imposed order. We can see this clearly in religions like Wicca and the Goddess movement"

'''REFERENCES FOR POSTMODERN WICCA/NEOPAGAN PERSPECTIVE '''
 * [http://www.wiccamagazine.com Wicca Magazine (2010) Postmodern Wicca: An Eclectic Ideology
 * Patrick Dunn, Postmodern Magic: The Art of Magic in the Information Age
 * Schiff, Stacy-Pulitzer Prize Winner - (2010) Cleopatra: A Life, Little Brown ISBN 0-3160-0192-9
 * Apuleius, Lucius; Adlington, William (Trans.) (1996). The Golden Ass. Wordsworth Classics of World Literature, Wordsworth Ed. Ltd.: Ware, GB. ISBN 1-85326-460-1
 * Hutton, Ronald (1993) The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles: Their Nature and Legacy. ISBN 0-631-18946-7
 * Smith, Diane (2005) Wicca and Witchcraft for Dummies Wiley Publishing Inc ISBN 978-0-7645-7834-2
 * www.jwmt.org/v1n6/editorial.html - Neopaganism in a Postmodern Age - Journal of Western Mystery Tradition
 * CIRCLE SANCTUARY - Neopagan and Postmodernism http://www.circlesanctuary.org/aboutpagan/contours.htm
 * Weinstein, Marion (2003) Earth Magic: a book of shadows for positive witches New Page Books ISBN 1-56414-638-3
 * On Deconstructing Life-Worlds: Buddhism, Christianity, Culture (Atlanta: Scholars Press of American Academy of Religion, 1997; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000; ISBN 0-7885-0295-6, cloth
 * Cunningham, Scott (1995) - Hawaiian Magic and Spirituality (ISBN 1-56718-199-6)
 * Cunningham, Scott (1988) - Wicca: A Guide for the Solitary Practitioner (ISBN 0-87542-118-0)
 * Weinstein, M (2003) Earth Magic
 * Raphael, Melissa (April 1998) Goddess Religion, Postmodern Jewish Feminism, and the Complexity of Alternative Religious Identities ‌Nova Religio, Vol. 1, No. 2, Pages 198–215 (abstract can be found at: Caliber: *University of California Press)
 * Eve, Raymond,Phd, Wiccans vs. Creationists: An Empirical Study of How Two Systems of Belief Differ http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/10-08-25/
 * Patton, K and Ray, B (2008) A Magic Still Dwells:Comparative Religion in the Postmodern Age, University of California Press, Berkeley
 * Smith, Diane (2005) Wicca and Witchcraft for Dummies Wiley Publishing Inc ISBN 978-0-7645-7834-2
 * BBC Religions: Postmodernism http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/types/postmodernism.shtml
 * Starhawk (1999) The Spiral Dance Imprint: HarperSanFrancisco; ISBN: 0062516329
 * http://www.starhawk.org/activism/activism-writings/RNC_update2.html Starhawk is a Wiccan postmodernist see her comments about moving towards postmodernism "So, to reclaim ‘Witch’ is to reclaim the image of a powerful woman, the whole constellation of ideas about reality and imagination and energy that have been labeled ‘out of bounds’ by Western Modernism"
 * Lewis, James Magic religion and modern Witchcraft Page 46 'Wicca as a postmodern religion' NOTE This is already a reference here in the Wicca.

--Kary247 (talk) 21:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

--Kary247 (talk) 08:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Stop spamming the talk page here, you're not proving anything. WP:DISRUPT—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I have added an excellent section on Eclectic Wicca, provided good references and I have also suggested that a postmodern view of Wicca may be important in addition to the current modern view. My references are the references already here on Wicca - for example Lewis, James Magic Religion and modern Witchcraft page 46 - states that Wicca is a postmodern religion and spirituality see Google books link above - I have offered many other sources and I now think that your edits to my contributions are getting a little disruptive. Anyone can edit on wikipedia, these are good faith edits.

--Kary247 (talk) 21:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Valid References citing many Wiccans do in fact view Wicca as a postmodern religion
After lengthy debate through Postmodern Wicca and Eclectic Wicca (see previous sections above) it has been suggested by Ironelf - see above - that I am disruptively editing and spamming.

I have simply added a short well referenced section called Eclectic Wicca - which, as the most popular version of Wicca in America according to Wicca and Witchcraft for Dummies and Census (see this book for ref) needs a section - this took me a long time to research and write and I feel that the constant reverts by Machine Elf are a bit unproductive and disruptive.

I have included two sources from women of Jewish descent to try to ensure that sources are diverse and not ethnocentric - Starhawk and Stacy Schiff.

I have also suggested that many Wiccans interpret Wicca from a postmodern perspective and I have provided 3 credible references to support this assertion - one of the references has been here on the Wicca for a long time and this reference, Lewis, refers to Wicca as a postmodern religion.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lBrTPMonvMAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=james+r+lewis+magical+religion+and+modern+witchcraft&source=bl&ots=F69s0mgxZM&sig=kV7Pf891yy3tqFnSr__e0oUFh0g&hl=en&ei=WzENTeiCOs24hAf_57S4Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=postmodern%20witchcraft&f=false
 * Lewis, James(1996) Magic religion and modern Witchcraft - University of New York Press- page 46


 * Journal of Western Mystery Tradition - Neopaganism in a Postmodern Age


 * Patton, K and Ray, B (2008) A Magic Still Dwells:Comparative Religion in the Postmodern Age, University of California Press, Berkeley


 * Neopaganism America

http://www.americanneopaganism.com/postmodernreligion.htm

For further references, please refer to the article I have created

Postmodern Wicca

Wicca can be a modernist or postmodernist religion - there is no reason why we shouldn't include reference to both of these perspectives to provide a balanced view.

For these reasons I have reverted the deletions by ElfIron - as I feel that his deletions provide and unbalanced and informal view on the topic - also the language was informal "flies in the face of convention" - I do genuinely feel that my wording was more appropriate for an encyclopedia.

FINALLY, MachineElf - Going over to my Postmodern Wicca article and beginning the process for deletion or merging is a direct reaction to our exchanges here, and a little bit unfair - particularly when I am only trying to contribute positively to wikipedia and help to expand the article here. Before you rush off and suggest that the research for this article is inappropriate, perhaps you could take the time to properly address my sources here.

--Kary247 (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:IDHT You're making a mess, so stop spamming this page with references that don't even say "Postmodern Wicca". This has all been very carefully explained for you, but you choose to mock-argue a non-issue all by yourself. Funny how you're fixated on Postmodern Wicca even when you're supposedly talking about Eclectic Wicca? The material was substantially duplicated and you're either incapable or unwilling to make any distinction between the two.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 04:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I find it offensive for you to comment that I am 'making a mess' I am merely attempting to contribute to Wikipedia and I have included valid sources and a new section called Eclectic Wicca which I feel is a wonderful contribution. The editorial process here at wikipedia requires discussion and debate - I feel that you comments are a little counterproductive and that we should focus on the information. Please see the reference below.

Postmodernism is a very notable philosophical and ideological approach - I think it is perfectly valid to suggest that Wicca, particularly eclectic Wicca, may be interpreted from a postmodern perspective, as well as a modernist perspective. Again, there are many references to this, even in sources currently used by the Wicca page -

See page 46, Lewis, James Magical religion and modern witchcraft

"...greatest significance of Witchcraft as a postmodern religion"

Here is the link for google books:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lBrTPMonvMAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=James+Lewis+Witchcraft&hl=en&ei=6sYNTanOM6eShAell4W3Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=postmodern%20witchcraft&f=false

It would be really great if we can include a postmodern interpretation of Wicca to provide a more balanced and neutral perspective. It is not a case of modernist versus postmodernist, just that both viewpoints should be included? Note that postmodern interpretations of Wicca are not a tradition of Wicca, because postmodernism involves subjective and plural versions of truth and reality.--Kary247 (talk) 10:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, my own view here is that a new editor (Kary247) has appeared in a much-cherished article which has been raised to WP:GA status by the work of a large number of others over a long period. Not unnaturally, those of us in the Old Guard feel protective of our work and there's a certain amount of pride in it, which is slightly hurt by the implication that we have missed an entire and significant topic from out of our coverage.


 * I'm trying to put my pride aside and appreciate Kary247's additions, on the basis that I'd much rather encourage a new editor, especially one who obviously wants to be constructive. Right now however, I'm still finding it hard to see the notability of Postmodern Wicca. While I can see that postmodern thinking might have something to say about Wicca, none of the references convince me that there is a notable movement called Postmodern Wicca. It might deserve a small paragraph in the main article but the heavy concentration on this micro-topic over the last few days is a massive example of WP:UNDUE.


 * I'd counsel all sides to do less editing on this topic here, and focus on other areas of this encyclopaedia which are in need of attention. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  11:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this topic has been 'missed' I just think there is more information now about postmodern approaches to Wicca and eclectic Wicca and I have suggested inclusion accordingly and I have included a range of good references to support the assertion.

FOR EXAMPLE

http://www.americanneopaganism.com/postmodernreligion.htm

www.americanneopaganism.com

http://www.americanneopaganism.com/searchthissite.htm

Neopaganism is a postmodern religion http://www.americanneopaganism.com/adefinition.htm#442977196

You do get many hits here??

I can't understand how you would view postmodern interpretations of Wicca as a micro or non issue?

As you have mentioned the WP:UNDUE. - I would argue the article that I have started postmodern wicca outlines that postmodern interpretations of Wicca represent the interests of minority and oppressed groups - this is why I have focused on semitic neopaganism, jewitchery, feminism, gay community etc. in my article over there. As per WP:UNDE

"In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view."

I have appropriately referenced Wicca as the majority viewpoint in postmodern Wicca etc. but people seem to be deleting this and reverted my edits when I try to do this - Machine Elf and "other" sock puppet type people.

Final word...
 * Because I have to move on to other projects as you suggested, Kim, and I am a bit sick of attempting to keep the postmodern Wicca article going, because of the level of opposition to the idea, I will leave the Postmodern Wicca article as is - much of the content and citations have been deleted which is a bit of a shame and a wasted effort, anyway if you feel it should be deleted or merged then I won't object to this  - thank you anyway for considering my contribution and best wishes )0(  --Kary247 (talk) 14:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

--Kary247 (talk) 13:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

--Kary247 (talk) 11:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC) --94.175.145.18 (talk) 11:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Good article proposed by bot
Hi --Kary247 (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC). You are off to such a great start on the article Postmodern Wicca that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. The Main Page gets about 4,000,000 hits per day and appearing on the Main Page may help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created and if you haven't already done so, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. If you do nominate the article for DYK, please cross out the article name on the "Good" articles proposed by bot list. Also, don't forget to keep checking back at Did you know suggestions for comments regarding your nomination. Again, great job on the article. -- Kary247 (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

--Kary247 (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

God and Goddess, or god and goddess?
This diff removed the capitalisation from the terms God and Goddess, which we have discussed on this talk page before - see first topic in Archive for 2009. At that time we came to the conclusion that they needed capuital letters because they are not usually referred to by name (at least in public...) - so she is the Goddess (definite article) and not simply a goddess (indefinite article). WP:MOS does discuss capitalisation of deities here and I think supports capitalisation. Before I carefully revert (because lower case may be appropriate in some places), anyone have any opinions? Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk)  14:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think that the un-capitalised version is more accurate, since the MOS says that it should only be capitalised in the case of a proper noun, a.k.a a given name. In Christianity for example, God is capitalised because it is what that diety is called (at least most commonly, putting aside complications of the name "Yahweh" etc.). If asked what God is, the response would be that he is a god (lower case). I think the same goes for the subject of Wicca, since the goddess/god a person follows usually has a given name (Cernunnos, Diana etc.), and is only described as the goddess/god since that's just the category of being they fall under. That's my two pennies at least. :) &#9733; KEYS 7 6 7 &#9733; talk 20:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you've also made the argument for capitalisation! Let me rewrite your sentence above: "In Wicca for example, the God is capitalised because it is what he is called (at least most commonly, putting aside complications of the name "Cernunnos" etc.). If asked what the God is, the response would be that he is a god (lower case)." Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  21:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The word "God" as used in Christianity is not a name either. It's a substitute for that God's actual name, Jehovah, and is capitalized as a measure of respect. God and Goddess clearly should be capitalized here: they are shorthand for Horned God and Triple Goddess, which are proper nouns in which both words are capitalized. To lowercase these references is just as disrespectful as going to the article on Christianity and lowercasing all occurrences of "God" there. Clearly that would be perceived as an act of vandalism and it is no less vandalism when done to this article. Yworo (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I've gone through carefully in this edit and tried to differentiate generic (a god...) uses from specific (the God....) uses. Hopefully this is more accurate and grammatically correct! Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  22:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

No "Criticism of Wicca"?
There's no criticism of Wicca page or even section of this page like there is for Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, or even Judaism! This is a gross and perhaps biased omission. 184.189.154.1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC).
 * If there are reliable sources for any criticisms, I'd be happy to see them cited here. I see no reason why Wicca should be exempt from the scrutiny that other religions are subjected to. Unfortunately the only sources I'm familiar with would be unreliable (though entertaining) ones like this. But if there's a reliable synthesis reporting on these views more dispassionately, let's have it in here! Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  16:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Citation Style
Hello everyone, I'm back on this page after a while, and I really think that what it now needs is a sorting out of citations and references. The citation style is messy, every reference is written out in a style different to many of the others, and better references could certainly be found from academic sources for many of these assertions (i.e. by using Adler Hutton, Magliocco and Clifton more than Gallagher, Gardner and RavenWolf). If there are no objections, I'll get on with this task in the following weeks.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC))


 * Not sure what the problem is. The references style here is named ref tags. I see that most of the refs use while some do not. I'd have no objection to using  throughout for consistency, but not with changing from named ref tags. Pulling the page numbers out and putting them in  tags would shorten the refs list without changing the reference style, so if that's the goal (not repeating references simply b/c the page numbers are different), that's how I'd suggest going about it as it keeps the current named ref tag style which the current editors are familiar and comfortable with. Yworo (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, many other pages on the subject of Wicca that are of fairly good quality (like New Forest coven), use a different citation style. As this page currently stands, the referencing is just messy (and in many cases innacurate I must add). Major work is definately needed here.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC))

Archiving this page
I fully agree with MBO's recent editto archive this page; problem is, a cut-and-paste archive like this removes the edit history of the talk. There's a fuller discussion of options here but I'm not the most technically minded to know which is best. Does anyone have more experience of archiving than me, or can you make more sense of the advice? If not, I'll try and solve the puzzle myself - just giving others the chance to chip in! Also - just realised I mistakenly marked the reversion as 'minor' - hardly, at 100k+!! Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk)  22:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I see no problem with MBO's archive effort. I personally refuse to move-archive a page, as I want the history to entirely be in one spot, not spread out across multiple talk page archives. I also don't like that when the archive page is created in this fashion, people who watch the page then have the archive automatically added to their watch list. Whichever archive system is chosen, should be used for every archive. Unfortunately, for this talk page, both forms of archiving have been used in the past, so consensus will have to choose. TBH, the archive bot system should probably be used for simplicity's sake, whatever bot does it these days. I can't keep track. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I take the point Huntster, while a cut-and-paste archive does not have the edit history on the same page as the text, I can see the benefit of keeping the entire talk page history in one location back on the opriginal talk page. I guess there is no one ideal solution... Agree that maybe a bot should do it so it doesn't depend on diligent housekeeping? Still open to suggestions! Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  10:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As Huntster prefers MBO's method of archiving, and I have no very strong opinion either way, I've removed the text archived by MBO which is now at Archive 11. So back to MBO's original plan, sorry for the diversion! Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  10:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Wiccan Rede: 'Liberal'?
A recent revert inserted the word 'liberal' to define the Wiccan Rede. I suggest this be reconsidered (I've replaced it for the moment with 'broad', which I think is probably more accurate), since Wiccans may disagree that their single overarching commandment is 'liberal' in the sense that most readers would probably interpret the word. That is, it does not grant licence; it doesn't present the Wiccan with free rein to live by their whims. In fact, it is often argued by Wiccans that the Rede is simple but incredibly strict: if the full ramifications of any action are considered in light of every conceivable form of harm, "an it harm none" - the first qualifying section of the Rede - would actually tend to prohibit far more actions than it allows.

I'm not suggesting this change for any political reason of my own - I'm a pagan, but not a Wiccan - and I won't be changing it again should anyone decide to revert my suggestion. - Silvensis (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Definitely agree with the change. I think you nailed the situation quite well...that's how I've always interpreted it. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm wondering - where in the normal short wording "An (if) it harms none, do what you will" is there any prohibition? From a quick perusal of it, I see no statements about which DO harm, only about those which do not.  Adding inferrences is OR, without the use of other RS denoting those inferrences.  I'd suggest a look at the article about the Rede, as no where in it does it say it is a commandment - it's advice (definition of rede).--Vidkun (talk) 17:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Surely it's characterising a way of life, not offering advice or a commandment SueTwo (talk) 17:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Disagree - rede means advice/counsel, not way of life.--Vidkun (talk) 13:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It feels to me as if http://www.proteuscoven.org/proteus/rede.htm (weird that I have to type that twice for it to show up) is coming from a fairly similar place to what I was thinking of, albeit argued in a somewhat reductionist way. I think what's more important, though, is that the Rede resonates differently with each individual and circle so the article shouldn't become dogmatic about the significances and connotations that may emerge from its text or its given name. SueTwo (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Agnostic
Kim Dent-Brown reinstated some text about agnostic Wiccans and suggested discussing it. One reason I don't call myself Wiccan is that I'm agnostic. Are there Wiccans who are agnostic? If so then the text is OK. Are there any sources to support this? SueTwo (talk) 17:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello Sue, thanks for responding here so clearly! My own personal experience is that there are agnostic Wiccans and even those who describe themselves as atheists. Fred Lamond for example is sometimes very sceptical about the existence of the gods... But of course my own experience counts for nothing here; the question is what can we cite as a reliable source either for the notion that Wicca and agnosticism are incompatible, or that they are not? I'll see what I can find...! Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  18:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There are most certainly agnostic Wiccans! Just as there are atheistic Wiccans, monotheistic Wiccans, duotheistic Wiccans (this is probably the majority), polytheistic Wiccans and animistic Wiccans. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC))
 * -- I have to disagree that there are Agnostic Wiccan's. There are certainly things that Wiccan's don't know, but Agnostic means that nothing *can* be know, which is exactly the opposite of a Wiccan. For a Wiccan, knowing is the point, starting with self knowledge. Someone who claims to be an Agnostic Wiccan is simply setting themselves up for disappointment one way or the other. So, IMO the Agnostic Wiccan section should be removed and added to a page on Agnostic Pagans brill (talk) 05:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Category
Currently this article is categorised under "New religious movements". Does anyone else think that "Neopaganism" would be better? "Neopaganism" comes under "New religious movements" but I think the latter is too broad to be helpful in this case. SueTwo (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Entirely agree with you Sue, I hadn't noticed how few categories were present on the main article. I've added a coupe as you will see! Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  21:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Once upon a time, I was only too happy toss a "neo" in there, if it gave someone pause before jumping to conclusions, (now obviated). I even thought it might help distinguish between ancient and contemporary paganism; but apparently, one wouldn't want to offend the ancients by calling them pagans... (I've heard no complaints.)
 * Unfortunately, some consider the "neo" to be mandatory, and I'm not referring to the notion (Bonewitz) that "Neopaganism" is the proper name of a religion that's debatable.
 * I think articles should use the term "paganism" when it appears in the sources, even though "neopaganism" was prolific in America. Of course, any synonym should do, all things being equal; but the difference between these and UFO cults, for example, may seem terribly nuanced to another editor... maybe not the best example but a tendency toward homogenization is a factor. So, in terms of how fine-grained the categories should be... "New religious movements" seems like a safe bet.—Machine Elf 1735  23:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you think should happen to the categories, based on the above MachineElf. Are you happy with the new set, or are you saying the Neopaganism category should be removed? If the latter, I would strongly disagree! Or are you saying there are other categories that should be present? In which case which? Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  06:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Definitely agree. To me, Wicca is the epitome of a neopagan religion, as, while it may have influences from older traditions, it is an entirely 20th century product. Add new categories if needed, but don't remove this one. — Huntster (t @ c) 10:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Kim, I'm happy you included paganism. I didn't say Neopaganism should be removed. Happy Beltane everybody.—Machine Elf 1735  13:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Only 50 years old?
Sorry guys. Apparently I have missed something. Reading the first paragraph of this page would have the reader believe that witchcraft is only 50 or so years old. I think that is wrong. I'm sure I remeber something about it being a bit older than that. Shall we change this? 2.97.139.66 (talk) 11:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This article is about the religion of Wicca, not witchcraft. "50 or so years old" is accurate when referring to Wicca. &#9733; K E Y S &#9733; (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with K E Y S  that 50 years or so is an appropriate age for Wicca, given the sources we have. While (in my book) all Wiccans practice witchcraft, the latter is a much wider term for something that has existed for a much longer period of course - but it has its own article!  Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  19:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * -- I second the 50 year statement. The history is Wicca specifically is fairly well known and short. Many Wiccan's actually know their lineage and can properly trace it back. fifty years is right in the ballpark. brill (talk) 05:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Debates over the origin of Wicca
Hi folks, an IP editor added this material under a heading of 'Scholarly Criticism' which I have reworked with material from the section on 'Acceptance of Wiccans'. However I'm still not at all sure the final two paragraphs belong here; they give the impression that all modern Wiccans claim an unbroken lineage to the Stone Age via the early modern witch trials - which is certainly not the case. Gardner did indeed claim such a heritage, but it's not a claim made very seriously nowadays.

Also, should this section (once re-written) be included at the beginning of the History of Wicca section? Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk)  09:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the user's material is suitable. It would seem they've merely read the 2001 Atlantic Monthly article and mis-sourced Charlotte Allen's statements therein directly to the Hutton and Briggs. The article, “The Scholars and the Goddess” (with the charming standfirst/subtitle “Historically speaking, the "ancient" rituals of the Goddess movement are almost certainly bunk”) is, itself, more of an opinion piece than WP:RS, to put it kindly. Ms. Allen has made a name for herself with these sensational screeds against minority religious beliefs. Even when she's isn't simply blaming same-sex unions and gay or women bishops for the “meltdown” of the “strife-torn Episcopal Church USA” which, liberal pundit though she be, “all but a few die-hards now admit… have blurred doctrine and softened moral precepts…”, still, she just can't help taking a few pot shots at feminists:  It is not entirely coincidental that at about the same time that Episcopalians, at their general convention in Columbus, Ohio, were thumbing their noses at a directive from the worldwide Anglican Communion that they "repent" of confirming the openly gay Bishop V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire three years ago, the Presbyterian Church USA, at its general assembly in Birmingham, Ala., was turning itself into the laughingstock of the blogosphere by tacitly approving alternative designations for the supposedly sexist Christian Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Among the suggested names were "Mother, Child and Womb"… Following the Episcopalian lead, the Presbyterians also voted to give local congregations the freedom to ordain openly cohabiting gay and lesbian ministers…  The Presbyterian Church USA is famous for its 1993 conference, cosponsored with the United Methodist Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and other mainline churches, in which participants "reimagined" God as "Our Maker Sophia" and held a feminist-inspired "milk and honey" ritual designed to replace traditional bread-and-wine Communion. —Charlotte Allen (9 July 2006) Los Angeles Times, “Liberal Christianity is paying for its sins”. In her blog, she's not the least bit coy about the malice she feels toward, in her words, “another sacred cow of radical feminism…” apparently, she can hardly keep her pride in check about her delusional part in “conclusively showing that goddess-worship was an idea invented in the 19th century and that Wicca dates back no further than the 1950s.”  …If you want to believe that Jesus Christ married Mary Magdalene and started the "Year in Provence" fad by settling down with her in a picturesque converted farmhouse in Southern France—hey, that's all right by me! I do get riled, however, at Brown's buying into—and propagating—the idea that Jesus was an undercover rad-fem secretly propagating a form of Mother Goddess religion—"the sacred feminine"—that supposedly dated back to prehistoric times when peace-loving, egalitarian matriarchies ruled the earth. Real historians and archaeologists demolished that myth decades ago, concluding that there is no written or non-written evidence that a universal goddess religion, much less a working matriarchy or any other society without war, ever existed anywhere. Nonetheless goddess-worship lives on in the imaginations of Wiccans, Gloria Steinem-types, and Dan Brown. Brown's theory is that early Christians worshipped Mary Magdalene as an embodiment of the "sacred feminine" until mean old patriarchs like the Emperor Constantine suppressed the whole operation. So I'm pleased to recommend two books that nicely demolish Brown's claims to scholarly accuracy in his novel… …especially flattering because [one of them] cites my article, The Scholars and the Goddess, in the January 2001 issue of the Atlantic Monthly. There I assessed all the historical and archaeological evidence conclusively showing that goddess-worship was an idea invented in the 19th century and that Wicca dates back no further than the 1950s… So, bravo… watch another sacred cow of radical feminism bite the dust. —Charlotte Allen (11 May 2004) Independent Women's Forum, “The Da Vinci Code's Goddess Hoo-Hah”.

See also: Female Public Intellectuals and Feminist Ideology: “The vast majority of women who might otherwise qualify as public intellectuals would rather recite the feminist catechism or articulate some new twists and refinements on it than carve out a place for themselves in the larger public world.”

—Machine Elf 1735  19:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

More on the origin of Wicca
Hey everyone. I'm new to Wikipedia so I thought I'd check here before editing the article. It seems to me that the origins of Wicca can easily be traced back to about 1300, because of the Cathedrals (e.g. Exeter cathedral) in which pagan symbols were incorporated by the stonemasons. Or am I missing something? Have you already discussed this and decided that pagan (as opposed to Wiccan) symbolism is not relevant to this discussion? But I think it should at least be mentioned - otherwise the article is a bit misleading. Tnx! Kristykj (talk) 03:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Kristykj, thanks for joining the ranks of the Wikipagans, and also for discussing here - always a good idea. For what it's worth, (speaking as a Wiccan initiate) my view would be that the origins of Wicca can certainly NOT be "easily traced back to about 1300"... They can easily be traced back to Gerald Gardner, and beyond him perhaps to sources such as Aradia, or the Gospel of the Witches. Beyond that the evidence is pretty much non-existent, although speculation is rife. I'd have 2 issues with incorporating the material you mention. One is that pagan and Wiccan are not synonymous; the symbols at Exeter may be pagan but there's no evidence that they are specifically Wiccan (even though modern Wiccans may use similar symbols). Secondly, because Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia we have to source all our statements to a reputable authority (such as a book, journal or reliable website - eg the BBC or similar). Even if you and I believe the Exeter symbols are Wiccan, and see them as proof of origin, unless we can cite a reliable source who makes such a claim, we are just putting in our own original research. I'm sorry that this is a discouraging answer to a perfectly reasonable question - I'm pretty sure this is how other editors here will see it however.
 * It looks like you're just starting on editing here, so may I offer an alternative way in? If you have some books on Wicca, have a look through and see if there any key facts which are mentioned in your books but not here on Wikipedia, either in this article or any of the others on the topic. Then you have a fact, and a source to support it, so you're on much stronger ground. Any of us here will gladly help in drafting an addition (in particular the referencing system is a bit hard to get the hang of.) I've just got a good new book on Wicca since Gardner, so I'll try and find a nugget to add so you get the idea. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  08:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I had a few minutes so I have added a few lines on the rise of eclectic Wicca, drawn from Michael Howard's book Modern Wicca. The material I added can be seen here (you can inspect the changes people make by looking at the history tab on the main article page.) I've tried to be brief, not to insert my own opinions or research but to represent what the source itself says - this is the key to adding material here. Please post again here Kristy, or on my talk page if you prefer, if you need any help. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  09:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for all that good advice Kim. Yes after posting that I did a bit more reading and realised I'd misunderstood the way it works and so I felt a bit embarrassed! Anyway, glad I posted it here first rather than editing the article. I'll go away and do some more research and see if I can contribute something a bit more useful. But I think it would be good to mention, that while gardner did of course invent Wicca, he was building on a longer pagan tradition which is of course very old. I was forgetting to make that distinction, as you say. Many thanks for your help. Kristykj (talk) 11:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

witchcraft?!?!?!?!?
is wicca a witchcrafted religion???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.139.90 (talk) 21:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * We'd probably need you to be a little clearer in what you're asking before we could even attempt an answer.
 * * Septegram * Talk * Contributions * 21:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't feed the trolls. Thank you. — Sowlos (talk) 11:33, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

"in keeping with"
I've just noticed the article says "a small minority of Wiccans, in keeping with the accusations of the historical witch trials, refer to their Horned God with some of Satan's names". In keeping with sounds as if they're intentionally conforming with language used in the witch trials. I doubt if that's true, but I haven't edited the article because maybe it is. Otherwise consistent with might be better. SueTwo (talk) 19:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This bit of the article has been subject to some editing by committee lately, so I'm not surprised it reads poorly. I'd agree with your view on this Sue, and encourage you by all means to rewrite this in a way that flows better. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  23:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It would be best if we had the individual names of all of the members in the "small minority" aforementioned... becuase in my personal opinion that is greatly akin to weasel word terminology... how big is this "small minority", anyway? three people?, twenty?, a hundred?, a hundred and fifty?, three hundred and fourty two?... you get the idea..., are they affiliated with any particular Traditions, or are they independent? Do they belong to a particular coven? Are these "Goddess only" worshipers too. Are they any clear indications as to who precisely these "some people" are? You see, I'm not saying it is not true, but remember Wikipedia deals with Verifiability not truth. But then again a "small minority of people" say that Wikipedia isn't a very good source of information, anyway, so what's the point? That last bit was just to show what I mean... who exactly is this "small minority" and what constitues them as being "small" and not "moderately sized." I know I sound like a legalistic, but as Sawyer sais on Lost "It's all in the details." 165.138.95.59 (talk) 21:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Addition to my note: Simply because a verifable source can be used, doesn't mean it should be used... when the sources uses vague information, this alone should rule them out... there is a big difference between "small minority of Wiccans"  and "According to Robert M. Etchinson in his book 'Wiccans Expore Satan' there is a subsect of Wiccans called the Ecclesiastians who..." {That last line was purely made up, but shows the point I am making. Also there is a big difference between that kind of use, and "According to Etchinson a small minority of..." My vote would be to delete, simply because we don't know who this "small minority" is... If the source was more clear... saying something like "Approximately 15 percent according to the Wiccan Times survey produced last year... I'd vote keep it in, but when the source is vague, knock it out {that's idiomatic for get rid of it}  that's my vote { my two-cents worth}... but I will let the normal editors decide...165.138.95.59 (talk) 19:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree, line is weaselly, and should go, unless a direct quote can be brought in. It cites Michael Howard's 2009 book Modern Wicca pages 266-267 and 271.  I think that if such claims exist, they are minority claims, and using this citation gives undue weight to a minority opinion among researchers.--Vidkun (talk) 01:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Based on the above discussion, I've just deleted this paragraph:
 * A small minority of Wiccans refer to their Horned God with some of Satan's names, such as "the Devil" or as "Lucifer", a Latin term meaning "light bearer". Whilst this figure is not equated with the traditional Christian figure of Satan, who is seen as being an entity devoted to evil in Christianity, this practice is consistent with the documented accusations of the historical witch trials.

Northernhenge (talk) 18:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That wasn't what I intended when I started this conversation but I can see why you've done it. I don't know how we could reliably reference "a small minority" though. Maybe there are specific traditions within Wicca that do this and are reliably reported to be small. SueTwo (talk) 18:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * -- Being so new, its understandable that there is confusion but in my learning, I have never seen names used specifically referring to the Christian Devil (although there are often crossovers borrowed from older religions and myths). I have met people in England who were very confused about what Wiccanism and Satanism were, but theres a story that doesn't need to go up here. I think officially reference to that small minority is exactly that, a small minority that is currently not driving the direction Wicca is moving. brill (talk) 05:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)