Talk:Wicca/Archive 3

Archives: 1 2

Just a talking
Man LUE, what did you DO??!?!?!?

Removed Sentence
I removed the following sentence on 08/04/2005: "In the earlier stages of Wicca and the religions that it is based off, the christians used the wiccan's pentagram symbol as a symbol of the devil."


 * 1) The sentences was unclear and awkwardly constructed.
 * 2) It did not seem to belong in the paragraph.
 * 3) The use and origins of the pentacle are dealt with more accurately and thoroughly under the pentagram subheading and in the wikipedia article Pentagram.

I removed the image
because:


 * 1) It did not appear to me to be any universally recognised symbol that means 'Wicca'
 * 2) It was ugly, pixellated, rough and amateur looking.

If we need an image here, we should find something representative and then draw a good one. &mdash;Morven 20:06, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest an item like an Athame, or a group of the like an altar, or maybe a photo/drawing of a ritual.


 * --Veratien 13:05, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"normal" attire?
There is a logical (and factual) conflict in saying that the "normal" attire for Wiccan practice is a cotton robe. The sentence that immediately precedes this statement says that "many Wiccans do this, many others do not" in reference to working skyclad. If "many" work skyclad, how can their practice be less "normal" than those who work robed?

Also, the emphasis on a "pure cotton" robe seems Cunningham-esque (sorry if my prejudice is showing). As anyone who has attended a number of public rituals can attest, those who wear robes in ritual can be seen in all kinds of cloth; synthetic fabrics are not uncommon. What they wear in a private ritual, I can't say, but the point is, other than the traditional "skyclad," there is no "normal" attire for Wicca.

-Scypres 3* Alexandrian High Priestess

And the phrase "(Watch out for "clothing optional" gatherings.)" seems very POV to me, not to mention out of place even regardless of its intent. Anyone mind if I remove it? --JoshRaspberry 11:05, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Last paragraph in the "Origins" section:

"It is important to the understanding of Wicca to realize that while Wicca as we understand it is modern, both the practice of magick and the worship of a Mother Goddess and a God or Horned God are ancient. It would be fair to say Gardner merely took the idea and ran with it. His claims that Wicca was the "Old Religion" are false, and probably has hindered, rather than helped, Wicca gain widespread acceptance."

I'm more than a little leery of the first sentence in this paragraph. It seems to me that the author is supplying a modern interpretation to ancient activities, and I'm just not sure if the interpretation fits.

"Magic" is a modern word that we use to categorize a multitude of activities done in history, but besides the confusing use of the Crowleyan/Thelemite spelling, there's also the probability that the ancients didn't think of things in the same context that we do. We might call offering a cake and a small measure of wine "magic," but to the ancients, it was a sacrifice (or depending on culture, two sacrifices--meal and libation).

"...worship of a Mother Goddess..." Yes, there were female deity figures, and yes, some of these were Mother Goddesses, and yes, there were probably specific cults that worshipped a Mother Goddess solely or primarily, but the sentence as it stands makes too close a comparison between ancient practices and modern Wiccan practice. Same with "...a God or Horned God...."

Instead of the above, I'd like to propose the following:

"The idea of a supreme Mother Goddess was common in Victorian and Eduardian literature: the concept of a Horned God--especially related to the god Pan or Faunus--was less common, but still significant. Both of these ideas were widely accepted in academic literature, and in the popular press. Gardner used these concepts as a central theology, and constructed Wicca around this core, though we now know that the historicity is dubious. His claims that Wicca was the "Old Religion" are false, and probably has hindered, rather than helped, Wicca gain widespread acceptance."

(I would have put it directly in, but I'm new to Wikipedia, and still finding my way around editing.)

Justin


 * I say give it a shot, and see what happens. --Gary D 22:06, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Sacred Texts Link
This is after the sacred texts link.

"Archive of public domain documents relevant to Wicca and modern Paganism. Includes a public domain copy of the Gardnerian Book of Shadows."

The last part of that is disputable, because due to the initiatory nature of Wicca, the fact that the Book is only availably for initiates to see, and that no-one is initiated who might reveal any of the secrets, it is impossible for the Book to have been released in the public domain.

I've put this up here because removing it outright would probably get me shouted at, and re-wording would most likely end up with it being put back how it was, but the fact stands that it's impossible for a copy of the actual Gardnarian Book of Shadows to be online there as it would never have been released by an initiate or coven to be put online; it goes against some of the most basic rules of the tradition.

Reword or remove? --Veratien 13:01, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The text at Sacred Texts is (putatively) at least a partial copy of Gerald Gardner's Ye Bok of Ye Art Magical,and thus would broadly qualify as a Gardnerian Book of Shadows. It was excerpted from Aidan Kelly's Crafting the Art of Magic, and as such it's not strictly "public domain" (though TTBOMK, Aidan Kelly has made no action to protect the copyright of this particular excerpt). I've seen the book vetted as "a valuable text of the history of Wicca" by Don Frew, a public and recognized Gardnerian 3*, though of course he could not comment on the accuracy one way or another.

I'd say leave it up, unchanged: the BoS at Sacred Texts is actually all over the Internet, but in varying degrees of accuracy to the original excerpt. Their is, at least, accurate to Kelly's original.

--Justin.eiler 05:31, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

History of Wicca - sources
The previous edit (which I reverted) used the claim that Wicca is 25,000 years old. While some people do believe this, most anthropologists do not. We should take a look at the sources we use when discussing the history of Wicca. I'd like to recommend Religious Tolerance as a source. --Morningstar2651 22:24, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

sorry to cut in.. it's so silly..Wicca is new age no true witch sees a neopagan as anything but a trend follower. being a witch isn't a religion the Celts wasn't Wiccan nor was the Druids. it's the basics of the basics...ecletic since they grab one thing from many cultures and put it together to make a new found faith? there is NO religion that you can join that make you a witch.

Removal of Oh My Gods! Link
I would like an explination as to the removal to the link to the article on Oh My Gods! - which is a Pagan comic strip dealing directly with Wicca. The commentary left by User:Wetman merely stated (rRv User:Shivian's self-advertisement for his comic strip) - however I don't understand why a article that is about a comic strip which directly deals with wicca was removed. The comic strip referenced in said article directly references the Wiccan Definition, History of Wicca, Origins, developments, Beliefs and practices, Wiccan traditions, Morality, and Wiccan Divisions. I don't see why a reference which was properly sub-categoriesed in the "see also" section was removed as "self advertisement" - when it is obviousally based on a article which does little advertising and much more historical referencing of the comic strip, it's history, and it's current place. --Shivian Balaris 05:31, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not for promoting your own work. See What Wikipedia Is Not. Cavalorn 16:34, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * This is a non-argument. Wikipedia articles are not forms of self-promotion, and so internal links to them are not self-promotion either.  &#8227; &#5339;&#5505;  [[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|&#9792;]] [ &#5200; ] 17:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be forms of self-promotion. An article is not automatically free from self-promotion just by virtue of being a Wikipedia article, any more than being a Wikipedia article makes it automatically NPOV. The issue here is that the author of the strip is using Wikipedia to promote his own work.Cavalorn 18:19, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, if you believe Oh My Gods! is a self-promotion, then edit that page. It seems appropriate to link to that article from articles on the same subject.  &#8227; &#5339;&#5505;  [[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|&#9792;]] [ &#5200; ] 21:32, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Edited. Should be okay now. Cavalorn 22:45, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am for the placing of Oh My Gods! in the See Also section. It should not be removed pre-emptively. The Oh My Gods! article is currently a candidate for deletion, but I am confident that it will not be deleted. --Morningstar2651 16:32, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Why's it up for deletion? Why that one and not the hundred other articles on webcomics, such as GPF or Help Desk? -Veratien 15:49, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"The Friends of Hekate"?!
Oh please...


 * Friends of Hekate, The - UK occult world order

I think it should be taken off the article because it doesn't actually have anything on the site, which is almost as bad as PAN's, and the URL just makes me cringe...
 * Forgot to add my sig, again... -Veratien 11:17, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Veratien, my friend, you're almost as bad about forgetting your sig as I am.
 * As far as the Friends of Hekate, I'd have to agree--they do have some content, but it's not related to Wicca. I'll go ahead and pull it.

--Justin.eiler 02:02, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Avebury Handfasting Photograph
Just pointing out that I changed the caption of the photo in Beliefs and Practices because I actually know the people in the photo. It was their handfasting ceremony, which is the pagan equivilent of a marriage, so I changed the text slightly to reflect that.

Question, though, is do they know that this photo is up here?

-Veratien 11:17, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Pentacle Caption
I greatly appreciate the addition of the pentacle image: however, I think the paragraph of explanatory caption of what a pentacle is should probably remain in the article for Pentagram. I've taken the liberty of extracting it, however, I'm also contacting the editor Solar to join the discussion.

--Justin.eiler 23:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I added the caption as I had previously added a very similar pentagram image to the page, which was removed after claims that it was not a representative symbol of Wicca. So I felt that it was important to give the image some context when I saw someone else had added it. I think the description could have been shortened maybe rather than reverting it as I feel the elemental nature of the pentagram is highly relevant to why it was used in Wicca.

Solar 10:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. Good point, but I'm still a bit concerned (maybe overly concerned) with being redundant. I did, however, take the liberty of adding that image and your description to the Neo-Pagan section of the main Pentagram article.


 * --Justin.eiler 20:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * --Why is is being called a pentagram in the caption? It's a pentacle...I'm changing it, hope no one minds.--00:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Wicca - Word root
It would be helpful to check the Oxford English Dictionary, which is the most widely accepted academic authority on the origins of English words. I'm just going by memory, but I believe that the OED lists 'wica' as a verb beaning 'to bend' or 'to twist.'

I recall Wicca originating from the Latin word Wicca - Lit. Weaker or weaken. Any other latin speakers verify this?
 * I'm no expert in Latin, and the fact that my language comes from it doesn't mean I understand Latin. However, your idea doesn't seem probable, in part because Latin doesn't use w, and besides, I can't recall a portuguese word coming from any sort of that wicca latin word. --Jotomicron | talk 20:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC) (Please, sign your comments)

I think this link should resolve this: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=wicca&searchmode=none 01:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

The Craft (aka AAROFM)
I'm curious as to why there is no notice of the similarities between all neo-pagan religions and the organisation from which each cult span off initially, Freemasonry. It amazes me that practitioners of neo-pagan religions haven't investigated the organisation that has for the last thousand years that we know of (historically) been refered to as 'The Craft', a name that has even been stolen, not to mention thousands of rites, et cetera. Why isn't there any mention of this in this article?

Almost every neo-pagan 'rite', regardless of where its origin is oft cited to have originated, can be found in any rite and dogma book from any masonic lodge. I'm also curious as to why the citation of the pentagram, being inverted in the instance of display here, isn't cited as a reference to Lucifer, the god of illumination and knowledge. I can't think of any other significance of the pentragram, apart from the greek elements, which is a loose tie in at its best. The pentagram is the 8 year cyclic pattern of Lucifer, the morning star (Venus) in the sky. However, as it appears here, it would be as viewed from the southern hemisphere. 211.31.9.5 04:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Indeed, it vexes me greatly that so many cults have forms from spin offs of Freemasonry that're all oblivious of their history or of what they are saying and doing. It's probably not politically correct to say so, but I often use the analogy of a child of speaking yet not proper reading age being given an Oxford Longer and hearing them recite sporadically from it.  You hear familiar sounds, yet nothing quite makes sense.  The difference being, that child will want to seek out and understand what it means, where as most neo-pagans are happy in having no idea what they're saying, doing or where it comes from.


 * I've found that equally, as much that is from Freemasonry, there's quite a bit of Crowley's stuff also (Who was also a Freemason and started a cult orchestrated around 'fertility' as an excuse for orgies, hey, I can't say that's a bad thing.) and even more poetry. Yes, poetry.  A lot of this stuff is made up ad hoc to fill in some theatrics in missing ritual.


 * Due to pop culture embracing the sparse yet dynamic neo-pagan flavours of the Craft, even the words 'The Craft' to your average couch potato stereotypical gen x, y or z'er will mean 'pagan' and not 'Freemasonry'. Then again, dare I point out that the Wiccan 'rede' is actually a combination of a Masonic toast at supper crossed with some of Crowley's writs?  :P Jachin 06:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, Five Wounds of Christ; Water, Fire, Air, Earth and Spirit... Lots of stuff. But seriously, saying Wicca spun off from Freemasonry is like saying that Christianity spun off from Egyptian religion, there are connections and borrowings, but the blending with other influences coupled with the dropping of Degrees by many branches of Wicca would seem to argue against Wicca being simply and offshoot of Freemasonry. That is before addressing other, non-Wicca derived Neo-Page groups like the Discordians. Alex Law 04:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Interesting you should say that Alex, I think any scholar who doesn't fear reprisal for speaking the truth will happily admit that Christianity is a spin off of the early Judaic Nasorean cult, which is likewise a schizmatic mob from the jews which stole all of their material (plus a bit of paraphrasing) from the two countries the proto-jews (desert princes) parasitically came across through their siege and sacing of Egypt (south) and Sumer over the centuries.


 * Likewise, Christians get offended when the truth and source is raised, as do Jews, and apparently likewise wiccans, or so I have noted from past experiences when constantly saying, "Wow, shit, you know, that sounds mightily like something from lodge!" to wiccan friends. As an aside, I think Venus predates Christ by .. a little.  :P

Jachin 06:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Something which may interest editors of this page
Any help which could be provided would be greatly appreciated. -Godfearing Parent.
 * unsigned comment by 62.255.64.7 (talk · contribs) --> --> -->


 * Help with what? What the bloody heck does decency have to do with Wicca? Oh, I get it - the Jesus image that used to be on that template shows what this project is really about: Christian POV-pushing. I suggest having an honest talk with your child(ren), and accepting them if they choose some religion other than what you might like. N (t/c) 22:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think the Jesus image was put there by people against the project in order to discredit it, but that's besides the point. If I were you I'd go to the Decency Project's VfD page and say your piece. - Haunti 22:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It's a new WikiProject that is promoting "decency" in Wikipedia. According to the latest vote tally, I believe there are 62 votes for Deletion on their VfD currently.  And yeah, I got really mad, but they're signing it "A Godfearing Parent" on all of the Talk pages.  Basically, it has nothing to do with Wicca (I assume), though it does seem to be run by a bunch of conservative Christians (see the VfD's on almost every article on a stripper).  So yeah.  Nothing to see here: move along. --  CABHAN   TALK   CONTRIBS  22:49:44, 2005-08-17 (UTC)


 * Some of the templates are being signed by User:Agriculture, the culprit behind the decency project. I find the "Godfearing Parent" ones so much more bothersome, though. Especially this one - WTF???? N (t/c) 22:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * For those of you who haven't figured it out, 62.255.64.7 (talk · contribs) --> --> --> who posted this is probably opposed to the Wikipedians for Decency and is trolling here for negative votes in the VfD. Brilliant, eh?  How easy people are to manipulate. ObsidianOrder  01:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Not Technically a Religion?
I found this statement added to the article:

Wicca is a Neopagan religion(though wicca is often described as a religon this is not the most accurate definition because religion is to re-legion or to rejoin. Whereas humans are always with the earth so wiccans do not need to wait to be rejoined with the earth after death) (emphasis mine, and the added section in bold)

I have never heard this belief before ever, nor do I believe it to be the correct definition of religion. My first attempt to take it out resulted in it being put back, so can anyone tell me if this statement is at all valid? -- CABHAN   TALK   CONTRIBS  22:41:02, 2005-08-29 (UTC)

It's inaccurate, POV, and does not represent an important belief of any Wicca-based Neo-Pagan theology that I'm aware of. Keep deleting it as it shows up; I just did. Jkelly 22:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)JKelly


 * The user who added it back in (who you reverted) is User:Paganpan. Looking at his other contribs, many seem to be Pagan vandalisms (for example, changing the text of the Pledge of Allegiance to "One nation under Gods").  Keep an eye out for him. --  CABHAN   TALK   CONTRIBS  22:56:37, 2005-08-29 (UTC)


 * This is folk etymology, but it isn't entirely incorrect. Religion is derived from Latin religio (pious, reverent), which is derived from the morphemes re-, lig (to bind), and -ion.  It is not, however, related to legion, and invoking the technical etymological meaning would simply be pedantry.  On the other hand, if a significant number of Wiccans actually believe the Latin roots are relevant to the modern sense of religion, this probably should be mentioned somewhere, most likely near the end of the article.  &#8227; &#5339;&#5505;  [[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|&#9792;]] [ &#5200; ] 23:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


 * IMHO, it's utterly irrelevant. The word "religion" today has NOTHING to do with what our pedant says. N (t/c) 23:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

i find that many book share my belife who said that religion dosen't mean re-ligion?!?! i find that this coment was and is valid maby could be moved but it NEEDS to be in there somewere!!!

for exaple go to the book "wicca for men" it states that fact!


 * It isn't a fact, though. The author is incorrect.  &#8227; &#5339;&#5505;  [[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|&#9792;]] [ &#5200; ] 23:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

oh and sorry about the pleg of aligance that was someone useing my acount for reveng on the guv. sorry again paganpan

i have moved the position of "(though wicca is often described as a religon this is not the most accurate definition because religion is to re-legion or to rejoin. Whereas humans are always with the earth so wiccans do not need to wait to be rejoined with the earth after death)" to a more reasunable place.


 * You still need to cite a source for it that one of us has access to and will be able to testify actually says that. N (t/c) 23:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that common usage of "religion" today has nothing to do with the original meaning. That's like complaining that your salary isn't paid in salt. N (t/c) 23:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Whatever the origin of the "re-legion" idea, it's spreading.  -_-;
 * Considering how often "religion" is misspelled "relegion", perhaps this is like Yahoo!'s accidental creation of "medireview" from "medieval", where a large number of people now believe "medireview" was a historically used word. &#8227; &#5339;&#5505;  [[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|&#9792;]] [ &#5200; ] 11:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

as for a cite of example again wicca for men is a great book it said "it is oftin difocult to proprly expaln wicca as a religion because our society has been dominated by a belief system alien to the teachings of nature. our language oftin makes it dificult to express consepts which are at the very root of nature based 'religons' even the word religon oftin denots consepts not in harmony whith the wiccan path. when one considers the word RELIGON to mean 're-legion' or 're-joining' it is easy to understand how this word may seem inapropret"
 * Be that as it may, I have NEVER heard of any other person or book refer to Wicca as a non-religion. In fact, here's Scott Cunningham, in the intro to "Wicca: A Guide for the Solitary Practitioner": "Wicca, the religion (emphasis mine) of the 'Witches'...".  In Witchcraft Today, Gardner refers to the cult of the Wica, with "cult", of course, being a religious movement.  Basically, my point is that even if one book has stated this, it is not immediately made authoritative, and it is certainly not a widespread belief within Wicca. --  CABHAN   TALK   CONTRIBS  22:25:58, 2005-09-01 (UTC)


 * i am not saying that wicca is a non religoon i am saying the the COMPOUND word "religon" is not aproret for the sichooation(pardun the spelling). as you say people refer to wicca as a religon but is it not easer to say "in this RELIGON many..." than "in this nature based mind set that is tecnicly not a religon because religon is a combination of the prefix: re and the verb: join or legion because meny other relegons have a re-joining of god and man (or woman), is how the woard came about. many..." not to mention the fact that that was a unbeliveble run-on! paganpan
 * What's the difference? And what would you say to my comment about "salary" - it literally means "wage paid in salt" (Latin), yet nobody objects to calling a wage paid in dollars a "salary", because the word has become completely divorced from its original meaning. N (t/c) 01:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, 'religion' comes from either relegare ('go through again, read again'), religare ('to bind fast'), or religiens ('careful'). In the English language it's not a compound word and definitely doesn't mean 'rejoin', so your addition should probably not be included in Wikipedia. - ulayiti  (talk)   (my RfA)  01:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC)


 * about the salary thing i belive you because dollers have become the comin cerincey so the word salary conformed to mean a wage but there are so many people that dont know about wicca that wicca has not been exepted as a "relegon" yet when you hand some one a bag of salt over the counter the dont give you your cheese because it is not acsepted and when you hane someone a wiccan they dont hand you the wiccan reed and thay definetly dont say oh that is a religon!


 * how abot a comromise i will say: "(though wicca is often described as a religion some people belive this is not the most accurate definition because religion is to re-legion or to rejoin. Whereas humans are always with the earth so wiccans do not need to wait to be rejoined with the earth after death)" wich is conpetly true because atleast 6 people in mey very close cercle of frinds belive that (if i have any spelling mistaks in the quotes please tell me i will cut and paste from the talk page.
 * I frankly do not think that this is acceptable. It has been pointed out several times that this is a false etymology and that even if it wasn't, this is not a widespread belief in Wicca.  Also, even if it wasn't a false etymology, it STILL doesn't mean that, no matter what the origin says.  I refer you to the salary example: a salary is quite literally a wage paid in salt.  Not a wage paid in the common currency, but in salt (see the Salary article).  By your definition, no religion that believes itself in harmony with nature is actually a religion, so Hinduism, Taoism, any sort of Paganism, these are all not actually religions.  To end, I do not think that it is acceptable to include this at all.  As a note, if you can find a scholarly work that is available to all of us and that is verifiable that supports your argument, you would be much strengthened.  --  CABHAN   TALK   CONTRIBS  01:34:05, 2005-09-02 (UTC)


 * i have a news article that has a Q&A section (i think) "Wicca is not a centralized religion but a belief system observed by 50,000 Americans that is recognized by reference texts such as the U.S. Army Chaplain's Handbook." you can find this site at google.
 * and again in a defennding wicca article "...but since Wicca is not an organized religion, has no leaders, is eclectic, and predicated upon each individual's experiences, needs, and practices, there will never be a consensus on "what Wiccans believe."
 * This is true: Wicca is not an organized religion. There is no central hierachy (a la the Catholic Church) or a universal set of beliefs (a la Christianity) or a central holy dogma (a la Judaism, Christianity, Islam).  However, "organized religion" and "religion" are different.  I have read the Army Chaplain's manual on Wicca; you can view it yourself at .  You will note that it discusses how Wicca is not an organized religion: it says nothing about it being a religion. --  CABHAN   TALK   CONTRIBS  02:03:39, 2005-09-02 (UTC)
 * As another note, your mentioning of that most people would not call Wicca a religion is probably not true. If a person has heard of Wicca, I can almost guarantee that they would consider it a religion (albeit a false one to some, but no less a religion than Zoroastrianism). --  CABHAN   TALK   CONTRIBS  02:21:44, 2005-09-02 (UTC)

ok so if it had to be on there what would you think it shuld say? paganpan


 * Unless you can find a respected source stating it (that other editors have access to), it doesn't belong. If you can find such a source, it should say "X states that Wicca is not really a religion because Y". See WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:V. N (t/c) 22:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Neo-wicca?
I have noticed Neo-wicca is largely glossed over as a new part of Wicca, rather than parallel, rather concerning considering how many people are Neo-wicca and how important it is to recognise this as different to Wicca.

Propose:

Neo-wicca is a new phenomenon, which is usually wholly eclectic, however like Wicca there are various different traditions. Neo-wicca often learn on their own terms, from books and other sources, but have little or no formal training and no initiation into Wicca. The beliefs of Neo-wicca are generally similar to that of Wicca however the details can often vary greatly as it follows the new age idea of personal belief/spirituality over formal religious doctrine. Neo-Wicca have varied views of the divine, either following soft-polytheism seeing all gods and goddesses as one god/goddess, polytheism working with gods and goddesses from various pantheons or pantheism working with a single divine present in all. The 'Neo' in Neo-wicca refers to the New Age approach taken by Neo-wicca that puts emphasis on personal spirituality or belief over the organized religion of Wicca. It also refers to a new take on Wicca, this has less to do with the age of the religion but the idea that this is a belief system which may have come naturally from Wicca if it was allowed to evolve in it’s own time, media influences have brought about Neo-wicca, it develops paralleled to Wicca, but is not part of Wicca. Often Neo-wicca describe themselves as 'Eclectic Wicca' or 'Solitary Wicca', although not actually Wicca.

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

Agnostic Wicca?
The following raised a little flag for me:

"Many Gardnerian Wiccans do not claim to be dualist, but rather, may practice some form of polytheism, often with particular reference to the Celtic pantheons; they may also be animists, pantheists, agnostics or indeed any of the other spectacular range of possibilities."

As has been pointed out already in discussion, 'Wicca' is not a synonym for 'Witchcraft', although many people use them (incorrectly) interchangably. So, my objection (as one who considers himself agnostic) is this: what is agnostic Wicca? If there's one unified thing that can be said about Wicca, it would be the belief in some kind of higher power. It seems to me that this excludes the possibility of atheists who (as I understand it) believe in the abscence of a higher power and agnostics who (again, as I understand it) have no belief in higher power (as in, maybe there is, maybe there isn't, it's nothing I concern myself with). Contrastingly, I see that there can be agnostic (or for that matter atheist, athough I doubt such a person exists) Witches, since Witchcraft is the secular tradition of generating/harnessing raw energy into something purposeful (at least as I understand it, of course, it should probably be appended that when the masses see such a thing possible, they call it science, but they call it arcane if its done in a manner they don't yet understand/control ... reference magnetic energy, although I'd need to sniff around for the source I'm remembering :p). --Graatz 13:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I guess I answered my own question by sniffing around some articles. Nontheism is the viewpoint I pointed out above.. which I suppose makes me a nontheistic agnostic :)

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

--Taliesin84 03:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Do wiccans put love spells on you? I fell in love with a girl from Peculiar and wondered how I could break the spell??

Request for Information
I have created a page Women as theological figures (note - this title may change): would persons knowledgable about Wicca please add to it (or create link pages etc).

Jackiespeel 21:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

The Capricorn Witch Page
An editor (presumably the site creator, based on his Wikipedia name) has been continuously adding a link to capricorn-witch.tripod.com. Having looked at this site, it is not particularly well-made, nor does it add anything to this article that is not already covered in other links. Due to WP:NOT, several editors have been removing this link when it appears.

If the editor would like to rationalize the inclusion here, so be it. Otherwise, please go away. -- CABHAN   TALK   CONTRIBS  23:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * To be fair to User:Capricornwitch it wouldn't be obvious to me from looking at this article that Wikipedia is not a repository of links. I'm considering cutting some of them to this Talk page for discussion.  Jkelly 00:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)