Talk:Wicca/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Links cut for discussion

I have cut the following links here for discussion. I feel that there are still too many. We should cut anything that doesn't add anything to what Witchvox and Pagan Federation cover, in my opinion. I have added my reasons for thinking that they are not necessary here.

Please see [When should I link externally?] and Make links relevant to the context, and even WP:NOT. I'd like to further encourage others to cut even deeper than I did. Jkelly 03:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree these links should not be included, they are either not relevant, on the wrong page or spam. - Solar 18:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Just removed a new one, here it is:

    • Wiccacollege.com - A great site on Wicca designed for those who live in college dorms.

The current list is still too long, and I suggest that it may be the reason why people feel free to add their own favourites to it. I would like to get some more feedback before further trimming however. Jkelly 22:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Instead of removing external links and making antagonising statements like "rm link. If you're not willing to discuss the link in the talk page, it probably doesn't belong" when there is no such Wikipedia policy as far as I know, perhaps you might consider putting a comment in the code above the external links to inform hapless individuals who think they are adding value to the page by adding to that section that they first need to clear their addition of the link with the self-appointed "External Link Guardians" of the page so that they don't run afoul of the martial law in this part of town. Otherwise how are they supposed to know? --Craig 17:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
User:Lapsus Linguae, please assume good faith, and consult the links to Wikipedia guidelines posted a few paragrpahs above you for an answer to any questions you might have about using external links. User:Cylik's edit summary, which you quote above, may seem a little abrupt, but that same link has been continuously re-added without discussion over the period of a couple of weeks, after being removed by several different editors. At least a couple of editors have left messages at User talk pages about discussing the link addition. Instead of making what can be read as snarky comments, if you believe that any of the links under discussion above add content to the page, I suggest engaging in a discussion about them. If you feel that a commented out pointer to WP link policy would be helpful, I encourage you to go ahead and add it in. Jkelly 17:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree completely with what Jkelly has just said, and with every link I can see in this discussion that has been removed. Crimsone 02:14, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
I will admit to being perhaps overly harsh when removing things. I agree with Jkelly's sentiments regarding the various links here, and while I'm not knowledgeable about Wicca, I can still see that most of the links do not belong in the article, and I trust Jkelly's judgement on the others. The problem is that a few people keep re-adding the same links and won't discuss the additions no matter how many attempts are made to contact them. I'm not certain that it's multiple people either; the mannerisms suggest that it's no more than two seperate people who keep making new accounts and using dynamic IPs (although why I can't fathom). In any case, if someone isn't willing to acknowledge our attempts at contact, I lose patience, and write edit summaries like the one above. Jkelly seems to be better at it; he's had to remove the same link spam about a dozen times as opposed to my one or two. I'll try to emulate his cool from now on. --Cylik 02:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Jkelly too, and I will admit to being partially wrong, although it's hard to assume good faith when reading something that comes across as antagonising. I'm also aware of the guidelines for external linking (so I don't have any questions and I'm not suggesting that the links above all be put back) and I'm aware that with the rising popularity of Wicca the article does risk becoming not much more than a links page to every teenie bopper's witchy GeoCities site. That said, the specific nature of the external link problem here is the only one I know about so far (although I've removed link spam and repeat link spam from a number of articles in the past), so I think some people (the repeat offenders you mention excluded) could be forgiven for adding a link without consulting the talk page first. As for the comment I suggested -- not being one of the people involved in policing the external links (although I suppose I could choose to be), I didn't think it was my place to add the comment and I also thought there may have been a specific reason for not doing something so obvious. However, I will have a look now and if nobody else has put it there, I will do so. --Craig 03:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
OK, it took me a few edits (and a stuck caps-lock key in the edit summary on the last edit -- sorry) to get it right, but I've done it. Because the individual sub-sections of the external links section can be edited individually, I put abbreviated warnings there too, which will seem redundant if you are editing the whole page or the whole external links section, but it's all you see if you are editing a sub-section. If you feel it's too wordy or should just say, "Read the talk page before adding a link here", feel free to change it. Of course, it won't stop the repeat offenders, but at least you'll be able to say, "We told you so" and hopefully other people will discuss links here before adding them. --Craig 03:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Lapsus Linguae, your commented-out message is perfect. Thank you very much for the addition. I may,um, "borrow" its wording somewhat for other articles that encounter similar problems that I have watchlisted. Regards. Jkelly 03:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome and thank-you. Feel free to borrow or even steal it. :) --Craig 03:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Cut the following. Left a message at IP's Talk page. The Wicca Cauldron Message Board Jkelly 23:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Request for information

Can my request for information please be returned here as I had only just added it to the talk page? jackiespeel 19 October

Hello "Jackiespeel". Please direct questions to the Reference Desk. Article Talk pages are only for discussions about editing the article. Thanks. Jkelly 18:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Article edited

I've changed a small part of the section on the definition of witchcraft which is factually incorrect.

My use of language may not be quite up to scratch, but I felt it important to give a more accurate description on one element. Namely, I've changed the sentence...

"Similarly, all Wiccans and Witches are Pagans, but not all Pagans are Witches and Wiccans."

... to ...

"Similarly, all Wiccans and most Witches are Pagans, but not all Pagans are Witches and Wiccans (It is worth noting that not all witches consider themselves to be pagan, and consider witchcraft to be purely a method and tradition of practicing magic, holding no religious value in itself)."

Crimsone 14:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)Crimsone

Non-NPOV Allegation at "Magick"

Would anyone here (since it seems to be slightly more active here) like to weigh in on the NPOV allegation at magick? An anonymous editor tagged the article as NPOV without giving much in the way of a reason and then disappeared and hasn't returned. The relevant talk section is here. Thanks. --Craig (t|c) 22:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Gave third opinion. Jkelly 08:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. I think those are good points. Unless Mr./Ms. Anonymous returns, I'll remove the NPOV tag in a couple of days. --Craig (t|c) 09:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

wicca or wiccan

If wicca means shaman then is a practitioner a wicca or a wiccan? I'm assuming wiccan is an adjective and then wiccan can be used as a noun if short for wiccan practioner.

Wiccan can be utilised in modern English sentences as an adjective or a noun, and the proper usage would depend on the context. --P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 08:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Persecution of Wiccans - Clean-Up

I have added a notice to clean up the section Persecution of Wiccans as it is poorly written and makes general statements in a form not appropriate for an article of this type. - Solar 13:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I attempted a cleanup. It was under and overexplained. Hyacinth 14:29, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Not all Wiccans are Pagan?

A change was just made to the article, changing "All Wiccans are Pagans" to "Many, but not all, Wiccans are Pagans". As far as my understanding goes, Wicca is by definition a Pagan religion, making all Wiccans to be Pagans by default.

Am I incorrect on this? -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 20:46, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I am positive that, if one looked hard enough, one could find someone who identified as Wiccan but did not identify as Pagan or Neo-pagan. I'd recommened trying the "Klingon Wicca" people first, perhaps the "Christian Wicca" people second... 216.164.51.15 clearly thought that it was worth the trouble to change it. Given the state that the article is currently in, I'm not sure that the added uncertainty detracts much from it. Jkelly 21:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
It would be more accurate to state that Wicca is a pagan religious practice, and leave individual self-identification wackiness out of it. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 21:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. DreamGuy 00:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
I wonder if this is whith reference to my edit, which left ALL WICCANS as pagan, but changed all WITCHES to MOST witches? If so a summary of the edit is above on the talk page, and the part in brackets was to explain why. If this is the self identification thing that's talked about then that's fine, but I've changed witches to most because it is accurate, whereas it was previously misleading.
Of course, if you guys are talking about something else entirely I would have to apologise for this comment and bow out of this subject gracefully, having not seen what you mention.Crimsone 02:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
OK, I edited before I read this discussion, sorry. I was trying to simplify and clarify a very cumbersome paragraph. I've got "Similarly, most Wiccans and witches consider themselves to be Pagans, but many Pagans are neither Wiccans nor witches.". However I stand by the 'individual self-identification wackiness' I've introduced, because otherwise whose definition of Paganism are we using? The Christian one? By that definition (see Paganism) it merely means a non-Abrahamic religion. That's not useful information. With a capital P the word generally refers to Neopaganism, which is much more useful information, but has a more hazy definition. Now I know several Wiccans who don't mix in the general Pagan scene and don't use the term for themselves, largely because they don't like the pop-culture aspects of the Pagan scene, and don't want to be seen in the same light. Fuzzypeg 13:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure the same people would deny that Wicca was a neo-pagan religious practice, though. Whether or not they want to be associated with other neopagan practices. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 14:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Except those who hold that it's an ancient tradition unbroken since the twelfth century (or whenever) :) . I guess I'm used to hearing the words Pagan and Neopagan used as terms of self-adoption. When they're not self-adopted it tends to imply to me that they're imposed (often in a pejorative sense) by people of another religion. Perhaps it would be safe to say something like "Wicca and witchcraft are examples of Paganism" (as opposed to "all Wiccans and witches are Pagans") because then there's not so much sense of the word as an individual label. And yes, I know it sounds like splitting hairs... Another forseeable problem: witchcraft does not necessarily imply Pagan - I know several Christians in the magical community, none yet who identify as witches, but I'm sure it happens occasionally. Fuzzypeg 10:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Citation of sources

I am currently adding "Cleanup" markers to articles that interest me. The commonly used "WP:CITE" notices do not seem to do much as far as indicating *what* exactly should be done, and editing endless Talk pages in order to elucidate what is needed is somewhat tiresome. Wiccans deserve to have a well-written article here at Wikipedia, so I am adding 'please cite this idea/assertion' markers to the aforementioned articles in order to make it much simpler for other editors (or myself, in some cases) to add citations to articles that need them. I finished doing this to a substantial portion of the Wicca article, and will continue if no one has any serious objections. -- P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 08:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I have a source for a couple of the missing cites. In the Origins section the paragraph that states:
"The idea of a supreme Mother Goddess was common in Victorian and Edwardian literature:[Citation needed] the concept of a Horned God — especially related to the gods Pan or Faunus — was less common, but still significant. Both of these ideas were widely accepted in academic literature and the popular press at the time.[Citation needed] Gardner used these concepts as his central theological doctrine and constructed Wicca around this core."
can be referenced to chapter 2, Finding a Goddess, and chapter 3, Finding a God, in The Triumph of the Moon, by Ronald Hutton, a historian from the University of Bristol in the U.K. Those two chapters specifically address the evolution of a Goddess and God archetype in literary and academic circles from the Romantic period through the early Twentieth Century. I would fix the them myself, but I'm a newbie and busy dealing with other articles that are more in my areas of interest. Feel free to post to my talk page if you need more details--page numbers, quotes, etc.--to fix these cites. <Puck 04:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed a couple of {{fact}} tags and added Hutton to the References section. I also removed the numbered bullets because they didn't correspond to the numbering in the article. There has apparently been some drift over time. Do we really need numbered footnotes? They aren't all that common on Wikipedia, at least not as far as I can see. If they are going to be used here then someone needs to go over the entire article and make them consistent. I don't have time for that myself and I don't know who used what source for which statement. I doubt it could be done this late in the game. BTW, my two talk reverts were because I forgot to close a nowiki tag. What a mess. --◀Pucktalk▶ 20:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Numbered footnotes are very common in featured articles, but citing sources also allows for Harvard referencing if it is preferred by the main editors of the article. Please, please do not remove improperly-formatted footnotes. Even if you don't like them and do not feel like re-formatting them, someone else will! Having them there is a lot better than having them buried in the article history. Please see WP:V and WP:CITE for any questions about referencing Wikipedia articles. User:Pádraic MacUidhir took some leadership on making this article more verifiable, and I wouldn't like to see us head away from that. Jkelly 20:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'll put them back, but they still don't match the numbers used in the article. Perhaps using the dynamic # is not a good idea. They should be hard coded. I'll leave that up to someone else though.--◀Pucktalk▶ 20:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I really wasn't familiar with Harvard referencing. I'm going back to where I removed the fact tags and putting the reference in. That way it will be there if someone wants to covert to regular foot notes in the future--◀Pucktalk▶ 22:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Page numbers would be great... Jkelly 22:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Done.--◀Pucktalk▶ 23:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
BTW, it's a great book. I highly recommend it.--◀Pucktalk▶ 23:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Great! Not only is it a good read, it is one of the few reliable sources that one can find for articles on this subject. Jkelly 23:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

If you're talking about Ronald Hutton's Triumph of the Moon (or other of his Pagan-related books), beware. Yes, he catalogues a lot of information, and has a good writing style, but his analysis departs strongly from other authors in the field, particularly in the area of the witch-trials and old pagan practices in Europe. This is despite his claims that leading authors support his views. He has been accused by several scholars of displaying strong bias and going too far with his agenda of discrediting any theories that remotely resemble Margaret Murray's. His book that I'm most familiar with, Triumph of the Moon, contains numerous factual errors, oversights, bizarre examples of selective quoting, and misrepresentation of other authors. I'm currently working on a detailed critique of the book (not yet done), but in the mean-time, you might want to look at these critiques:
  1. A review of Ronald Hutton's The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles by Max Dashu
  2. Margaret Murray and the Distinguished Professor Hutton
There is a lot of useful stuff in Hutton's books, don't get me wrong, just don't assume he's infallible. Never rely on just one author - look for opposing points of view. Fuzzypeg 07:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
That second link seems interesting, if a might rant-like. I haven't read the first one yet. Are you suggesting that Murray's thesis is accurate? Criticism by qualified historians--her field of expertise was Egyptology, not Medieval Christianity--began immediately after The Witch Cult was published. It has never been accepted by academic historians. She was lionized in literary circles and by many people who did not have a background in Medieval history--the same sort of folks who loved Robert Graves--but as Carlo Ginzburg says in Ecstacies: Deciphering the Witches' Sabbath, The Witch Cult was "immediately lambasted by several reviewers for it lack of rigor... Today almost all historians of witchcraft concur in considering Murray's book amateurish, absurd, bereft of any scientific merit( p. 8)." Hutton was not the first to dismiss her and he certainly won't be the last. The author of that second link, Jani Farrell-Roberts, strikes me the same way as many other Pagans who have their identity so tied up in the "ancient" roots of Paganism. They want to believe so badly that nothing anyone says, no amount of evidence, will convince them otherwise. I saw the same thing, and felt it, when I was a Christian. Rather than relying on one's own relationship with the infinite for solace, one gets so attached to an all encompassing belief system that the slightest admission of doubt risks causing the whole thing to come crashing down like a house of cards. Aside from all that, you're absolutely correct. Relying on any single source is just plain silly.--◀Pucktalk▶ 09:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm certainly not suggesting that Murray's thesis is accurate (neither is Jani Farrell-Roberts). Neither is Carlo Ginzburg, as you rightly point out, however he does "recognize a correct intuition in Murray's totally discredited thesis." (Ecstasies: Deciphering the Witches' Sabbath, p. 9) This book of Ginzburg's makes a strong case for the existence of a systematic set of pagan beliefs spread across Europe during the time of the witch-trials, and also demonstrates that witch-trial documents can indeed yeild useful information about the beliefs of the accused. Hutton, a much less eminent scholar than Ginzburg, is blandly dismissive. (Triumph of the Moon, pp. 277-8) At other points Hutton is conspicuously silent regarding Ginzburg's book, such as when he is criticising Leland: He remarks there is no evidence for the prior existence of the Goddess Aradia and that "No other modern Italian folklorist has turned up evidence for anything like the Vangel". (p. 145). In fact large sections of Ginzburg's book focus on societies in north-eastern Italy (the same area Leland collected his material) who believed they travelled at night in spirit, that they feasted, fought with evil spirits, and worshipped a goddess who taught them magic and prophecy. Exactly what these Italians, the benandanti, called their goddess is not known, but their beliefs are almost identical to other beliefs throughout Europe, including in Rumania, where the Goddess had the names Irodiada and Arada. (Ginzburg, Ecstasies, p. 103) That Hutton (supposedly familiar with Ginzburg's work) would neglect to mention this at the key moment when he is destroying Leland's credibility is unforgivable. My choice of this particular example of Hutton's strange scholarship was suggested, I think, by your mention of Ginzburg. Although it is only one small example (and I won't go on), this kind of selectiveness/inaccuracy/unqualified generalisation is typical of large sections of Hutton's book. He is attempting to destroy not only Murray's thesis, but anything remotely resembling her thesis, to the point where not one person persecuted for witchcraft between 1400 and 1800 could have been an adherant of a pagan religion (Hutton, p.380). He's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Fuzzypeg 12:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I have no desire to open up a can of worms. I don't have the time or the emotional energy to invest in trying to prove a point. I don't really have a point to prove. I'm not trying to defend Hutton. He does support the contention made in the section of the article where I posted my cites. I'm just trying to help make this article worthy of the topic it is discussing. I called his book great because to my knowledge his is the first if not the only systematic approach to the origins of Wicca by a credentialed historian. It goes a long way toward preventing the kind of merging of history, myth and fairy tales that occurred when Judaism, Christianity and Islam got their start in a world whwre no one was casting a critical eye on the origins of religious belief. In the preface Hutton himself call his Triumph "an exploratory and tentative work." As such I'm sure it has many flaws--he is treading on unexplored territory. I'm not sure exactly what we're disagreeing about.(Are we disagreeing?) It feels like we're dancing around the issue of Wicca being a survival from pre-Christian Europe. I'm not here to argue one way or the other, but my self-identification as a Wiccan--albeit a markedly Thelemic one--is not rooted in an opinion or belief about its lineage or the lack of it. For me Wicca is purely an experiential religion. If it hails back to the Paleolithic, hurray; if it really did grow out of the Romantic era's revulsion at the vacuous, dehumanizing consequences of the Industrial Revolution, hurray again. It has no bearing on the gnosis I experience when I'm in a circle basking in the radiance of the shining Mother. So I'll happily concede the field to people who care a lot more about it than I do. I'll contribute where I can, but I'm not looking for a fight. I have nothing to fight about.--◀Pucktalk▶ 14:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Let me reassure you, there is no argument here. A little debate is always fun, and when it's in the cause of good scholarship, even better. I'm not criticising your additions to the Wicca page - I value the time and energy that you are investing into cleaning it up (it certainly needs it). And no, I don't subscribe to the view of an unbroken tradition of pre-Christian Paganism. I'm fairly content that most of the Wiccan material originated with Gardner. And my discussion of Leland above is not intended to show Leland's infallibility, but rather Hutton's fallibility. In fact our philosophies are probably pretty similar, really, so please see me as a kindred soul. I'm pretty easy to get on with, no need to treat me with kid gloves. Blessed Be. Fuzzypeg 00:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Do we really want Satanism connected with this article?

Extracted from the main article within the 'Beliefs and Practices' section:

"An oppositional concept is found in modern Satanism . Their representations of pentagrams are usually two points up, with the bottom point representing spirit faces downward, and it is often taken that this symbolises that it is less important than physical things (though it should be remembered that this is not usually the case). One common view is that it is a person standing with their arms and legs out, making a star out of themselves."

My comments: It provides a useful contrast in demonstrating one of the multitude of concepts where Satanists and Wiccans are ideologically opposed to each other... but is that contrast worth including *any* reference to Satanism in the article? My POV is a loud 'heck no!', but that is a POV, so I leave it to others to decide on this portion of text.

Just to clarify a bit: referring to Satanists is workable within the context of the Wicca article... but we might want a better example to use to show opposition in ideology/practices/whatever. Remember that the average human can easily look here to answer 'what is Wicca and why do my friends say it is cool?', encounter the word 'Satanism', and jump to conclusions without reading deeper into the context of what is actually being conveyed in the article. 'Satanism' is a big "Hey, pay attention to me!" sort of word in American culture, which includes the majority of native-English speakers. Using that word should be done with careful consideration since many of us have to work each day to disassociate neo-Paganry from Satanism/Neo-Nazism/every other boogeyman that ignorant/misled people feel they can lump together in one cauldron with whatever else they do not like. --P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 22:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

That level of detail (if any of it is actually verifiable as doctrine and not simply some editor's musings) should go in the pentagram article. It should also be completely re-written. "Oppositional concept"? "(though it should be remembered that this is not usually the case)"? Jkelly 22:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
That is exactly what I was also thinking in looking over the article during the past few minutes. The Pentagram material is unfairly weighing down the "Beliefs and Practices" section.
Oppositional concept - I was thinking more of a literal interpretation of "oppositional" in the context quoted above, but perhaps my wording was a bit too either-or in style, yes. Duly noted, and point taken. :) P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 23:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The Satanism reference seems valid. Why exactly do you want it removed? You mentioned that you wanted to "disassociate neo-Paganry from Satanism/Neo-Nazism/every other..." but why are you associating Satanism with Neo-Nazism? In any event, moving the reference to the pentagram is a good idea. Serf

I already explained why I want that particular text removed. Jkelly's solution seems reasonable to me, and especially so since the Wicca article needs many more word-choice and stylistic changes, not to mention some attention to the flow of ideas as the article progresses. If you need me to clarify something, let me know.
As for your second point- I am not associating Satanism with Neo-Nazism. The point of including those two in the paragraph which I wrote on 23.November (concerning the lumping together of 'boogeymen' into one big group) is that Satanism and Neo-Nazism are, in my experience, unfairly associated more often with neo-Pagans than most other ideologies, so I used those two in my example. P.MacUidhir (t) (c)

"Wiccan traditions" - are these notable?

I removed these from the listing of "Wiccan traditions" since they have no articles of their own at this time. My thought is that if they are notable enough to merit inclusion in the main Wicca article, then their adherents, or those who might be knowledgable about these traditions, might find the time to write a short article for each.

Quite frankly, I have never heard of two of these traditions, and the other two are not particularly notable (in my opinion). The Silver Crescent people seem to have just started up, or at least have only recently discovered the Internet. The Protean Tradition people seem to be a legend based on a cursory Google search (the only site that turned up, at Geocities, no longer exists). Myjestic Order is one I have at least heard about in passing, but they are not numerous or, as said, notable. The Mohsians are simply an off-shoot of Gardnerian Wicca, and last time I checked they had not significantly diverged from the Gardnerians. --P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 22:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Mohsian, Myjestic and Protean are notable. Mohsian could redirect to Gardnerian Wicca until such a time as there exists enough information for its own article. Protean could redirect to Judy Harrow, until such a time as there exists enough information for its own article. Silver Crescent can probably stay removed. Both the "Arthurian Wicca" and "Wizard's Tradition" look dubious to me. We don't, however, need to aggressively trim redlinks from the list, as they are an inspiration to start articles. We should, however, not have them in the "See also" section. Jkelly 23:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Want me to stick those three back in under "Wiccan Traditions", then, with the redirects specified here? Your suggestions are reasonable solutions. --P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 23:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
I notice that Judy Harrow is a redlink, so redirecting there is not a good idea. Gardnerian Wicca doesn't mention the Mohsian tradition. I'd replace the three I think are "notable", but wait on the creation of redirects until good targets for them exist. Thanks for doing all this work, by the way. Jkelly 23:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Judy Harrow - fair enough.
Mohsian - If memory serves me correctly, they broke off of the Gardnerian line a decade or two ago (quite a while ago, anyway), but never really became prominent in their own right. ::shrug::
I will replace them, then, as they were, with no redirects at this time. As for doing work on this article- not a problem. I wish I could do more, but many of the assertions seem like they are either minority opinions or are untracable without an extensive library of Llewellyn-published books on hand, and I do not have many of their texts, so I can only note the bits here and there that probably should have cited refs. At least this work will point the way for folk who *are* Wiccans and can add the appropriate links. :)
Arthurian Wicca, in particular, seems very dubious to me, but I left it alone since that is my POV talking rather than a fair sense of editing. Anything having to do with Arthur in a neo-pagan context always makes my 'is this plausible?' sense start twitching. Romanticised corruptions of what is actually known about Arthur... they tend to annoy me. --P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 00:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Mohsian has a good article describing it at Witchvox, written by one of the people who kept it alive. Protean Tradition is indeed a Judy Harrow item, but from the lists I am on, I cannot get usable information regarding her break from Gardnerian Wicca. Hopefully someone can find a source that is not restricted by copyright and privacy issues. Myjestic Order is, I believe a subline of Central Valley Wicca, but again, I need to check the 'Vox articles. Same for Silver Crescent, although I remember hearing that there is also a Siver Crescent Order unrelated to CVW in the UK. Unfortunately for the rest of the world, those who can answer best on these choose not to. Unfortunately, from an informational POV only. That's their call though, and I choose to not buck them on it. --Vidkun 17:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Wiccans as villains in urban legends - where, when, why?

Extracted from the Wicca article a few minutes ago:

"Wiccans are often the villians in urban legends about poisoned apples or candy at Halloween.

This is pretty funny to me. I have never heard of even one instance of this. Anyone have any articles/news stories to cite for this assertion? The best place to look online to find such tales would be the Snopes reports. As that link demonstrates- nada, nil, nothing. There *are* plenty of urban legends that deal with the popular perception of witches as malevolent creatures (::grin::), but that is not the same as Wiccans. --P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 23:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

It's mentioned in Jack Chick's "The Trick"[1] Also ReligiousTolerance.com mentiones it.[2] "Witches and warlocks frequently insert pins and razor blades into the most innocuous-looking sweets."[3], "Most of the people who want to hurt kids is devil worshippers! They may say they goddess worshippers or nature worshippers or members of that filthy Metropolitan (Gay) Community Cult"[4], "Witches got eight sabbaths eavery year where they hold orgies and drink bodily fluids (not always blood)."[5] (but it's hard to tell if it's a joke or not) and so on... // Liftarn
In sum: we have a gent who is making Christianity look bad by selling hate literature, propaganda, and producing faintly humourous cartoons that look like they belong on a parody site. We have ReligiousTolerance.org, a group that is well known for publishing anything and everything on their website with little (or no) checking of actual facts. And finally we have the (admittedly hilarious) essays written by someone who either is having a heck of a good time whilst consuming their psilocybin crop this year or is just plain wacko.
These samples either directly refer to Satanists (incorrectly in each case, mind you), or toss up an ignorant amalgam of the fundamentalist Protestant evangelical perspective on Witches, Wiccans, Satanists, and anyone else who considers Yahweh just one in a crowd. Granted, urban legends do not always have a firm factual origin, or are even very supportable if common sense is applied, but there is a rather distinct difference between accusing Wiccans of popping heroin needles in candied apples and so-called 'Satanists' chopping up toddlers on Samhain. ;)
I am not seeing any evidence of Wiccans being the subject of urban legends in the cited examples here. Thank you for trying to answer my open query, though. If you have other possible examples, I would like to view them. Slainté, P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 14:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Seems reasonable. But as to the Bible citations you dispute, the Nelson Study Bible (NKJV) has the Exodus one and the other appears here. Dan 19:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh, I am not disputing them. By requesting citations for them, all I am asking is that people provide a reference text in the appropriate sec tion of the Wicca article and then link some cites to those quotes. Since there are dozens, if not hundreds of 'translations' of what is called the Bible, and the arguments for and against each tend to be heated, it seems best to ensure everyone knows what version provides which quotes. People like to know what version of the Bible is being used when people are quoting from it. If no one else bothers to provide cites for those, I am going to just add in appropriate ones from the New Joseph International edition, which is what I use in most cases that require a Bible translation.
--P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 01:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Weel, when it comes to this type of fendamentalists they just label everyone who don't agree with them 100% "satanists" so it's hard to tell what they are talking about (if they even know it themselves)[6], but if someone talkes about "witches" in modern day then I would guess they talk about Wiccans. // Liftarn

I'd suggest that a brief mention of Jack Chick's anti-Wiccan "literature" (which is widely distributed in North America) is appropriate. There should not, however, be anything in the article that speculates upon whether or not his claims have been accepted (and certainly not a bald statement that they have been). This link might be useful. Jkelly 20:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
To clarify my point, then: I am not seeing any evidence of common/popular urban legends dealing with Wiccans putting nasty bits in food items during secular celebrations of Samhain. I am aware of J. Chick's self-appointed role to disseminate misinformation anywhere he or his followers are able to do so. ::shrug:: Wyrd is, and the Well remembers, even people like him. However, his ideas about Wiccans do not constitute urban legends. --P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 06:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Arthurian Wicca

This article is up for deletion because it seems a non-notable branch of Wicca. Has anyone even heard of this? Banana04131 00:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

And what do people think about this article: Frances Billinghurst ?

Derivation from Old English

Would anyone be able to corroborate this statement?

Some sources contend that the term wicca is related to Old English witan, meaning "wise man or counselor".[citation needed] A few language scholars widely reject this as false etymology, with the term deriving from the Old English 'wicce', meaning witch.[citation needed]

This is quite misleading. It's certainly true that some linguists have suggested that wicca and witan are related; but I think that anyone who would argue that would also think that wicce was derived from witan. Wicce is simply the female form of wicca; there are many Anglo-Saxon words that work like this, for example Engla "Englishman" and Engle "Englishwoman".

In any case, it's misleading to say unequivocally that wicce means "witch", without explaining what "witch" meant in an Anglo-Saxon context: they sure weren't thinking of pointy hats and broomsticks.

Someone should also say here that "wicca" pronounced "wika" is not the correct pronunciation of the Anglo-Saxon word; double-c in Anglo-Saxon orthography is pronounced as a cha sound, so "wicca" is "wit-cha". --Saforrest 00:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

'Persecution of Wiccans / United States ' (text moved from article)

Most of this seems like trivia. Anything comprehensive on this subject out there that we can use instead? I am reasonably certain that hundreds of individual cases could be listed and documented here, but that would be plainly silly.

Anyway, in order to avoid problems with removing these individual cases from the main article, they are now found below instead of within the main article. (with a nod toward DreamGuy for alluding to this problem in one of his recent edits to the main Wicca article)

--P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 10:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

__________________________________________________

There are several small examples of intolerance and negative attitudes. An example is a Wiccan travelling to a place of a ritual with an Athame and was charged with possession of a weapon in a motor vehicle.[7] Rosemary Kooiman of the Nomadic Chantry of the Gramarye in Maryland was told by judge F. Bruce Bach that Wicca is not a religion and that she would therefore not be allowed to preside over wedding ceremonies in Virginia. Coven Oldenwilde[8] received a threatening phone call from a man claiming to be the chief of police and saying that he and his boys had ways of "making Witches disappear." They also had problems with the insurance: after they had gotten the insurance one of the city officials called their insurance broker "letting him know" that witches were involved. The insurance company then cancelled the coverage. [9]

The conservative Christian James Clement Taylor has commented "these people of Wicca have been terribly slandered by us. They have lost jobs, and homes, and places of business because we have assured others that they worship Satan, which they do not. We have persecuted them..." [10][11]

In 1999 a group of conservative Christian groups was forms on the initiative of Bob Barr. The group asked US citizens to not enlist or re-enlist in the U.S. Army until the Army terminates the on-base freedoms of religion, speech and assembly for all Wiccan soldiers. The boycott has since become inactive. George W. Bush stated "I don't think witchcraft is a religion. I would hope the military officials would take a second look at the decision they made.". [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]

Allegedly a Baptist minister in Texas has called for the mass murder of Wiccans by napalm, while a televangelist has requested that the U.S. Federal government round up and exterminate all Wiccans. [25]

Senator Jesse Helms (R, NC) introduced a bill in Congress in 1986 to remove tax exempt status from existing Wiccan groups and prevent any new groups from being recognized. However, it never made it out of committee.[26][27][28]

In 2003, Cynthia Marsh [29] Priestess in the local Chesterfield County group of Reclaiming Witches, incorporated as the Broom Riders Association, sued Chesterfield County after she was excluded from a list of religious leaders allowed to pray at Board of Supervisors meetings. In a letter to Miss Simpson, the county explained that the invocations "are traditionally made to a divinity that is consistent with the Judeo-Christian tradition." Her case, she cited Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 and asked to have the law overturned. She received aid from the ACLU and the courts initially ruled in her favor. Later, in 2005, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in nearby Richmond, Virginia overturned the ruling, saying that Chesterfield County has done a good job of including leaders from a variety of religions to offer opening prayers and therefore abided by the Constitution by not advancing any one faith.

In 2004, the 4th Circuit Court relied upon the Marsh decision to rule in favor of a South Carolina Wiccan involved in a similar case. Darla Kaye Wynne, a Wiccan high priestess, sued the town of Great Falls, S.C., over its practice of opening meetings with prayers that specifically mentioned Jesus Christ.[30]

On August 28 2004 two Wiccans, Heidi Gleber and Shelly O'Brien, were organizing a Pagan festival to celebrate the first Finger Lakes Pagan Pride Day in Canandaigua, NY. They wanted to donate some non-perishable food that was collected at the festival to a local group that serves the needy, but their offer was refused. Then the city on religious grounds denied them permission to stage the event at the Baker Park. The organisers called in American Civil Liberties Union and the city gave in.[31][32]

In 2004, Judge Cale J. Bradford put a provision into a child custody case that forbid two Wiccan parents from instructing their son in a "non-mainstream" religion. [33] This provision was overturned on appeal. [34]

__________________________________________________

Another AfD listing

Crowley's Equinox and Hicks

I am cutting the following here for verification / discussion:

"Ex-Wiccan J. Brad Hicks and others argue that if someone initiated Gardner into a coven -- which Mr. Hicks considers plausible -- her version of Wicca originated between 1922 and 1948. The argument points to specific historical claims that agree with scholarship of the time, and contradict later scholarship. Crowley published The Equinox vol 3 no. 1 [35] in 1919."

Who is J. Brad Hicks? Is there a reference for this? Jkelly 05:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I think I remember him from the old BBS days. Seems that I recall coming across his comments when our local BBSes were carrying some extended talknet discussions.
Anyway, if it is the same gent that I am thinking of, he was a really amusing guy in an off-balanced sort of way, but not particularly notable as far as Wicca is concerned. Hope that helps. I have not used BBSes since.... probably around 1994 or 1995, so my memory is a bit fuzzy there.
--P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 07:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
J. Brad Hicks wrote some 'Wiccans arent't Satanists' articles you can find on the web. He later criticized Wicca in his livejournal and specifically attacks the origin story here. I assumed someone else would know where to find this because he also has a user page. (I swear we are not the same person, and in fact disagree about Wicca.) According to Margot Adler, Isaac Bonewits made a similar argument. I haven't tracked it down yet -- ah, here we are. Somewhere between 1920 and 1925 in England some folklorists appear to have gotten together with some Golden Dawn Rosicrucians and a few supposed Fam-Trads to produce the first modern covens in England; grabbing eclectically from any source they could find in order to try and reconstruct the shards of their Pagan past. Dan 08:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
More light is shed...
Looks like Mr. Hicks is probably not notable enough to merit mention in this article. What do you think, Dan?
Random thought for you: didja know that Isaac has his own domain on the 'Net? www.neopagan.net. Well worth a few hours if you have yet to know of it. I would say more, but I am a serious fan of his work in the context of neo-paganism, so best to leave this as-is and still NPOV. ;)
--P.MacUidhir (t) (c)
I've changed the reference. Something about the new version bothers me, but I can't put my finger on it. Let's see if anyone else spots a problem. Dan 19:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Pentacle or pentagram? Next on Oprah...

An anonymous editor User:69.223.148.245 eliminated some puerile (yet still quite funny), vandal text additions to this article (for which we all thank him/her). The anon.editor, however, also changed 'pentagram' to 'pentacle'.

'Pentacle' has a much longer history in the English language (1500s C.E.) compared to 'pentagram' (1800s C.E.). Both seem to have more or less equal colloquial usage in terms of how frequently each is used (according to my own experiences) within Wiccan contexts.

Anyone have ideas on whether one or the other is 'better' to use in this article on Wicca? My personal preference is for 'pentacle', but that preference is entirely subjective rather than based on any sort of logic or reason, so it is not particularly valid here. Thoughts?

P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 06:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion on the matter. My only thought, and it is admittedly a rather obscure point, is that the Wiccan/Ceremonialist tool is more-or-less exclusively referred to as a "pentacle" in the literature, so there may be some value in using pentagram to mean the design, simply to differentiate. Then again, we should probably use whatever is most common word for the design is in the literature, but determining that would be a bit of a headache. Jkelly 21:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I have experience of people using 'pentacle' for the within-a-circle version and 'pentagram' when the 5-point star is not within a circle. Not sure it has any basis but that's what I hear.
Certainly, 'pentacle' is the word in most common use in the Wiccan and neopagan contexts. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 21:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Not at all - both terms have individual meanings. As above, a pentacle is a pentagram surrounded in a circle. A pentagram is a pentagram. Both have very different uses, symbolism, and meaning.

In fact, the pentagram and it's use go back a very very long way indeed, actually once being a Christian symbol used to symbolise the 5 wounds of Christ, arguably later adopted into ceremonial magic (magic of the type practiced by the Golden Dawn), but cxertainly adopted into wicca as representing the "4 elements + spirit".

if one doesn't exist, I may just create a wiki on the pentagram myself :) Crimsone 19:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I am seeing something of a consensus for preferring 'pentacle' in general, with 'pentagram' reserved for only certain specific contexts. In terms of the Wicca article, does this sound like a workable guideline?
→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 14:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I am biased, a bit, having done the research showing pentacle to NOT necessarily be something with the pentagram on it, as shown on the pentagram page. I think pentagram should refer to the five-lined star, circled or not, however used, be it drawn, inscribed, or as a medallion. Pentacle should, from the historic usage, refer to a disk-like tool. That issue is one in which I am a prescriptivist.--Vidkun 18:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

My teachers (pretty old-school Alexandrian) taught me that a 5-point unicursal star is a pentagram, but a pentacle (or pantacle) is a kind of talisman on which an image is drawn, used for the purpose of some kind of evocation; the image can be any kind of sigil, angelic signature, magic square, or other evoking figure (such as the commonly used star of Solomon). The pentacle (in a general magical context) is often made of paper, but can be wax or metal or just about anything. Reading modern authors you might not often see this explanation, but then we all complain about how crap the state of the literature is today, don't we? Reading Barrett, Mathers, Crowley, or many well known grimoires (including Abramelin and (I think) The Greater Key of Solomon), this usage becomes apparent. I've put some comments regarding the difference between pentagram and pentacle on Talk:Pentagram. I intend to split Pentagram into two articles, in fact.
My vote for correct usage would be, a five-pointed figure is a pentagram. A physical object with signs or symbols used for evocatory purposes (such as the Wiccan pentacle) is a pentacle. Fuzzypeg 11:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Well Written Page

I'm book marking this page because it is a vital tool for those of us who practice the old ways.--Bumpusmills1 14:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

You mean the 1954 ways. 84.146.201.41 14:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

<laughing> ... Well said.
→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 07:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I too, must give kudos to the conjoined writers of this page -- well done indeed

--129.252.69.5 01:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Religioustolerance.org

This article uses the religioustolerance.org website as either a reference or a link. Please see the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org and Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org as to whether Wikipedia should cite the religioustolerance.org website, jguk 14:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I reiterate the first line on that talk page -- please be reasonable.... The idea that there is even a question at all is ludicrous, and by bringing it up you show extreme bias. DreamGuy 14:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

CE

Whose bright idea was it to put "CE" after every year mentioned in the article? This is not common practice on Wikipedia, and is especially unnecessary (and annoying) when the vast majority, if not all, of the years are CE/AD. If we were talking about dates much closer to the AD/BC split this would be understandable, but right now it's just downright silly. Search4Lancer 19:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, now that you point it out. That was my fault. I did not think of the repetitive nature of the changes when I made them. I will revert it back to a more sane version. Thank you for bringing it to our (and especially my) attention.
→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 19:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Wiccan traditions - a better way?

Rather than having various Wiccan traditions jumbled together into a bulleted list, what would you say to rewriting this section in paragraph form, providing some bare-bones information on the historical development and theology/practices of the traditions mentioned and putting them into context so the reader can have some idea of how they're related to each other? We also might want to consider creating a list of Wiccan traditions, which could be more inclusive. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 08:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Both ideas are good ones. The bulleted lists in Wikipedia articles that are not actual 'list articles' tend to annoy me.
→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 23:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

A slight issue with the Definition section

The term Pagan (from Latin pāganus "country-dweller, civilian" from pāgus "rural district") can also mean anyone who is not Christian, Muslim or Jewish.

While the derivation of the word Pagan is accurate in as far as it goes, it suggests that it referes to a persecuted minority hiding out in the country. Ronald Hutton has argued that the word was actually being used to designate "followers of the old religious traditions" even before Christianity was the dominant religion of the Roman Empire. This is a quote from page 4 of The Triumph of the Moon where Hutton discusses the meaning of the term:

"For over a hundred years writers had commonly asserted that the Roman word paganus, from which it had derived, signified 'rustic'; a result of the triumph of Christianity as the dominant, metropolitan, and urban faith, which left the old religions to make a last stand among the more backward populations of the countryside. In 1986, however, the Oxford-based historian Robin Lane Fox reminded colleagues that this usage had never been proved and that the term had more probably been employed in a different sense in which it was attested in the Roman world, of a civilian… French academic, Pierre Chuvin, challenged both derivations, arguing that the word pagani was applied to followers of the old religious traditions at a time when the latter still made up the majority of town-dwellers and when its earlier sense, of non-military, had died out. He proposed instead that it simply denoted those who preferred the faith of the pagus, the local unit of government; that is, the rooted or old religion [Pierre Chuvin, A Chronicle of the Last Pagans (Cambridge, MA; Harvard University Press, 1990), 7-9]. His suggestion has so far met with apparent wide acceptance."

I don't think it is actually very critical when it come to this article, but it does lend credence to the still lingering myth of Wicca being a survival of an ancient pre-Christian religion. <Puck 04:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I don;t understand your copmplaint in the slightest. The sentence quoted above is wholly accurate, and I do not see how it "suggests that it referes to a persecuted minority hiding out in the country". That's not a natural conclusion from the info as presented. DreamGuy 08:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
You're probably right. I was just feeling a bit snippy the day I wrote that. It's not worth losing sleep over. Feel free to ignore it and me.--◀Pucktalk▶ 09:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Festival names

(Note: This discussion began in User Talk:Fuzzypeg and was copied here.)

I don't like the way you've changed the festivals listing on Wicca. Nothing personal. The primacy is fine, I just don't like the names you put first, I think you've got it all backwards. Those are the traditional Wiccan names? Since when? Never have I heard a fellow Wiccan call it the Winter Solstice rather than Yule, or the Spring Equinox and the Fall Equinox rather than Ostara and Mabon. Granted, I'm sure some things are different depending on who you ask, but in my experiences you've got that all backwards. Search4Lancer 05:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I was guided by the names used in the Book of Shadows. I agree that in some cases this is no longer the most common name, however within trad. Craft these are still mostly the most common names (exceptions being Beltane and Samhain; also Midwinter and Midsummer are probably more common than Winter Solstice or Yule and Summer Solstice). This despite the fact that some of these names are even quite Christian-sounding. I think the increasing use of Gaelic, Welsh and Germanic names is an attempt to divorce ourselves more strongly from popular Christian culture. My main intention though was to reduce the emphasis on a few very non-traditional names: Mabon is correctly the name of a Welsh fertility god who was celebrated at the Autumn Equinox, and it didn't come into use as the name of a festival until the 1970s (I don't know which author introduced this usage). Similarly 'Ostara' is the name of a Goddess, and the use of her name for the festival is a modern innovation. (However Imbolc ('In the belly') and Oimelc ('First milk') are traditional names). Litha is Scandinavian, and came into common use amongst English-speaking pagans only recently. I'm a little concerned about how easily false histories can be established, especially considering the number of people who already consider Wiccans and Pagans to be flakes. I guess I see Wicca as a tradition that already has enough embarrassing myths to explain, without needing new myths to be constantly invented. OK now, on the subject of false histories and embaressing myths, I still need to find some sources to corroberate my claims here. I haven't yet, but I'll try to in the next day or two. I'm tired... Fuzzypeg 10:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, it's turning into a difficult search; hard to get hits that don't just repeat the recent (invented) usages of the words. I might copy this discussion to talk:Wicca so I can get some help. Here are some sites I've found that support me though:
- OwlDaughter's comment at [36]
- Second paragraph of http:// www. suite101 .com/article.cfm/pagan_parenting/118254
- Note in [37]
I've had less luck with Ostara:
- Fourth paragraph of [38] (although it's a bit unclear what this person is trying to say)
I'll report back when I find more. By the way, if you're keen to have Beltane, Samhain, and even Yule listed first (before May Eve, Halloween and Winter Solstice) I wouldn't be too concerned. I was just trying to find a consistent naming. Fuzzypeg 02:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Finally found corroberation regarding Mabon, Litha and Ostara right under my nose at Mabon and Ostara. Well done, Wikipedia! Silly me! Fuzzypeg 11:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Fraudulent Mediums Act, 1951 and Witchcraft Act of 1735

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pádraic_MacUidhir/tempsource

That is the wording of the relevant 'Act of Parliament' in the United Kingdom. The act itself does not seem to be available on the Internet to the general public except on a few dozen neopagan-themed websites. I attempted to find the Act via Parliament's website for such, but their archives only go back around twenty years thus far.

However, the text of the act can be bought here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0000CHZ7H/026-1405102-5294007

...and I found a *reference* to it, at least, at Parliament's site that archives its Acts:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts.htm (search for 'fraudulent mediums', then scroll down a page or two)

...so I figure that the act does actually exist.

Westlaw UK or LexisNexis.co.uk will almost certainly have the Act in full text stored somewhere in their respective databases, but unfortunately I do not subscribe to the former, and I only subscribe to the US version of LexisNexis, so I cannot access those Acts of Parliament from here without digging in the depths of the local university library with a large trowel and a mold mask. ;) If anyone wants to do the legwork to verify the wording at the 'tempsource' page I made above- it would be appreciated. Any of you that are students in European universities might be able to access those databases listed above.

In the meantime, now we have a copy of it here at Wikipedia that is reasonably certain to be accurate in wording and whatnot, so it is a start. If any of you can finish the task of verifying the source, let us know here. I would also be interested in our having access to the 'Witchcraft Act of 1735' as a companion document to the 'Fraudulent Mediums Act, 1951', both of which can almost certainly find a good home at Wikisource once we have reliable copies of each document. In my opinion, both Acts are necessary for this article in order to properly cite some of its content. Slainté, → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 19:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

If the UK is like Australia, Acts are not public domain, but are copyright to the Crown, and usually a publisher has the rights to produce them for profit. Bit of a pain that documents like that can't be freely copied. Alex Law 13:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Alex. First and foremost, I am NOT a lawyer, but according to the Office of Public Sector Information, "Legislation from official sources is reproducible freely under waiver of copyright." (Cite) To the best of my understanding, Wikipedia could not sell copies of the Acts for profit, but can reproduce them freely. Justin Eiler 18:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

That was fun...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wicca&diff=34415245&oldid=34399432

I have to admit that I laughed for a good five minutes in reading the vandal's additions and changes. They *were* rather offensive... but still fun to read.

→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 23:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

  • --postscript: in reading over the anon.editor's other contributions, I see that Wicca was not an isolated incident:
OM frikin' G, I almost peed my pants. This person should be writing for The Onion. The Handfasting picture reminds me of FSG. OwenX keeps a collection he calls Edit of the Day. I'm nominating this one. I've e-mailed the link to a bunch of my Thelemite friends. They'll be laughing for a week. I know I will.--◀Pucktalk▶ 00:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

While that was funny, isn't the point about Prison Ministry legitimate? The fabled U.S. Government Publication 008-020-00745-5 "Religious Requirements and Practices of Certain Selected Groups: a Handbook for Chaplains" ( does anyone have a real copy of this document from an authoritative source? )lists "athames" ( a type of knife ) as a "minimum requirement for worship", depending on whose web copy you read. Sorry if this is in the wrong place, I don't know much about Wikipedia. --219.194.176.36 07:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

unauthoritative sources-
...and it can be bought here.
As far as a 'printed-on-paper' copy might be relevant, and to answer your question- I have one here. The publishing information for it is: Washington: "Dept. of Defense, Dept. of the Army: for sale by the Supt. of Docs. U.S. Govt. Printing Office, 1978". Then it says further that the book was: "Prepared for Office of the Chief of Chaplains, Department of the Army".
→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 17:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
No, this is the right place. Go ahead and make yourself an account. You'll be glad you did. As to your comment. Whatever the Federal Corrections Service may say in their manual, athemes are not always considered to be required. In the coven where I got my first degree you weren't allowed to have one in the circle until your initiation. Some people don't use them at all; they consider the index finger on your dominant hand sufficient to do most of the things an atheme is for.--◀Pucktalk▶ 08:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the warm invitation - maybe when I have some more time and something of more substance to contribute I'll create an account here. Best of luck with your articles!

Has anyone ever heard of Moon River Wicca?

The only thing I could find on the web was a new age services company in Winchester, Hampshire, UK with a mail-to link to info@moonriverwicca.co.uk. moonriverwicca.co.uk is not a valid domain name, but the IP address of the anon user who added the dead link to the the Wicca page is registered to an ISP in, you guessed it, Winchester, Hampshire, UK. [39]. I'll wait a little while and if no one has any objections I'll revert that edit. BTW that is their only contribution to Wikipedia that I could find.--◀Pucktalk▶ 14:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a danger with lists in articles... they tend to expand indefinitely. Jkelly 17:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I found a contact for a Moon River Wicca group, and am finding out details for us. Will let you know soon.
→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 18:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Final result- my friend in Britain tells me that the Moon River group is extremely small in membership, and is influential only on a limited basis within the town in which their shop is located. I vote for it being 'non-notable'.
→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c)
Yep.--◀Pucktalk▶ 13:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Problem with an edit

I've got problems with this edit. While I think the original wording could be better and should be sourced, removing it is uncalled for. I'm currently digging through Larwence Sutin's Do What Thou Wilt and Gardner's Witchcraft Today, which Sutin cites, to clarify the points, and I've found a link to The Blue Equinox. I'm going to attempt redoing the blanked material to make it suitable to be added back in. As I'm writing this I see Morven has already reverted it. I think it should stay in until I can get it reworked.--◀Pucktalk▶ 00:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The current phrasing suggests that Heselton makes an argument that I am unsure Heselton actually makes. Two paragraphs about the Crowley-origins theory is certainly over-stating the case, regardless. Jkelly 01:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm still working on it. I don't have access to Heselton's book so I can't address that. I'll try to squeeze what I'm doing into the first paragraph and let someone else deal with Heselton.--◀Pucktalk▶ 03:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

OK I changed one paragraph--geeze did that really take two hours? I think Jkelly may be right that the case is over-stated. I think everything from "While the ritual format of Wicca is undeniably styled..." through "Gardner is not known to have owned or had access to a copy of this book." could be condensed and the statement in the first paragraph of the Origins section, "Others posit that he invented it himself, following the thesis of Dr. Margaret Murray and sources such as Aradia, or the Gospel of the Witches by Charles Godfrey Leland, and the practices of Freemasonry and ceremonial magic." could be moved and incorporated into that condensation as the Dearnaley essay I added to the reference section has almost that exact wording. I still don't know what to do about the Heselton part though.--◀Pucktalk▶ 03:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

You improved the article. Don't worry about doing everything all at once. Jkelly 03:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I try. I guess I should forwarn everyone that though I am a 1st degree in a quasi-Alexandian coven I am also a Thelemite and I'm currently awaiting approval of my Minerval application by the OTO. You have no idea how much I want to expand the section about Crowley's influence, but I really do want to keep my personal POV out of this.--◀Pucktalk▶ 04:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Magic vs. Magick

I've again reverted the entire article to use the spelling magic without the k. There seems to be an idea prevalent amongst some of our younger neopagans that magic without a k is incorrect, signifying only stage magic. This is not the case. Remember when you were young, asking if it was real magic you saw on the stage? Of course it wasn't. It was simulated magic, the illusion of magic.

The conventional spelling without the k is used widely throughout literature describing sorcery/witchcraft/ceremonial magic. The k is Crowley's addition, intended to give the word certain numerological qualities, and to 'brand' his particular approach to the Art. Nowadays this spelling is often used to differentiate thelemic magic from other varieties. Strictly, magick should also be pronounced differently too: "mage-ick" (although I think many thelemites wouldn't pronounce it this way any more).

The use of the word magick was popularised further by others, such as Israel Regardie (Aleister Crowley's personal secretary), and it now has some wider usage within the magical community, (particularly younger members and newer authors). My guess is that the conventional spelling is still more common. Regardless, the spelling magic cannot reasonably be claimed to be an incorrect usage, while it is argued by some that magick refers to a much more specific thing, and implies certain crowleyite affiliations. Personally, I don't care for it.

Compare the two articles Magic (paranormal) and Magick. Also look at the disambiguation page Magic. See also an interesting discussion on the Gematria of Magic/Magick. Fuzzypeg 06:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It didn't originate with Crowley, but with Levi, who probab ly borrowed from Dee- the usage goes back at least to Elizabethan times. Also, I don't think the original argument was magic vs. stage magic per se, but a simple way to tell the two apart at a glance in writing. -Unsigned comment
Whatever the origins, it was Crowley who popularised it and gave it its popular definition(s), and it continues to carry strong thelemite implications for many readers. The word magic doesn't have any such implications. Fuzzypeg 08:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Very Relevant and Informative Link

(link to commercial website removed)


References, a new standard for how to do it?

There is a new way for doing refs. Quoting from another page I frequent:If you go to http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cite/Cite.php you can see that recently the wikimedia platform was updated to include a ref tag, this was added to make adding references to articles much easier, and to replace the old reference way where one reference gets a new listing every time it's mentioned in the article, which adds unnecessary length, and creates more work for the editors. It is an automated way to do things, and is the new proper way to do it. It's actually much much much easier and less time consuming to do it this way. Here is a little explanation on how to do it. To add a reference if you were familiar with the old {{note|tag}} method, where you would have put {{note|tag}} put <ref> then type what you would have put in this section followed by </ref> example. I don't know if anyone else has the time to take care of this on this article, or if there is a bot for it, but I can't.--Vidkun 02:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I am planning on taking care of that task, but have yet to have the time to do so. If anyone else does it in the meantime, makes me happy too.
→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 04:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I've just ported our reference list to the new style, also using {{cite}} tags where they seemed appropriate. I probably haven't got it all 100% perfect, but the main work is done.
Handy hint: When adding references in future, this {{cite}} template quick reference page is a handy one to have sitting open in another window. Fuzzypeg 14:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the effort. I have quite a list of articles I need to find the time to migrate over to the new method... Jkelly 17:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Picture you might want for this article

A depiction by Edward Coley Burne-Jones of the God and Goddess. These are personifications of the Masculine and Feminine aspects of The All

used in Hermeticism

KV 05:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

There are a couple of illustrations on this article already, and if we're going to add an artwork I would prefer that it be specifically Wiccan (ideally, created by a Wiccan) and useful in helping people to understand some facet of the article. Personally, I'd like to see a good-quality photograph of a Wiccan altar that could illustrate the set-up and some of the tools frequently used in ritual. Pretty picture, though. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 06:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
well, I figured an article of this size could use a few more than 2 pictures, and after all, it is one of six in the Hermeticism article, mainly added to fulfill suggestions of an average of a picture every page an a half. I also figured it would be much more important to Wicca than it would to Hermeticism anyways... being used there merely for comparison. Neopagans alike may use the imagery, making it not specifically Wiccan, but it is fundamental to Wicca afterall.
KV 06:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the "Clann Breassil" edits

Per WP:NOR, this section has been removed. "Clann Breassil" cannot be verified or documented from other sources, therefore additions of information about it is original research. Justin Eiler 13:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wicca/Archive_4&oldid=1092040423"