Talk:Wicca/Archive 6

Persecution Claims

 * However, because many modern Wiccans practice a tradition similar to the "old ways" of pre-Christian Paganism, many more Wiccans relate to the men and women persecuted during the Burning Times.

The above sentence was added by an anonymous editor (please see History), but consists of religious claims, not historical one. As the paragraph notes, there is no evidence of pre-20th century practice of Wicca, and a considerable dearth of evidence on what pre-Christian Paganism consisted of: there is, however, considerable evidence that Wiccan praxis was completely developed from Victorian- and Edwardian-era esotericism. Ronald Hutton presents a far more complete argument than I have space for, but the evidence is (IMO) fairly conclusive. Justin Eiler 03:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * While I agree that the quote from the article (above) is unsupportable, I disagree that Hutton's argument is either complete or conclusive. I'm still working on an article chronicling the numerous factual errors, misrepresentations of authors and other bizarreness in his Triumph of the Moon – until I finish this I can only direct you to a couple of critiques (one of an earlier book of his) that you'll find in his article (one by Max Dashu, one by Jani Farrell-Roberts). I'm not a flake who's clinging to the idea of an unbroken tradition of Wicca or maintaining that Murray's theories are correct; I'm just cautioning that if you read Hutton you may be quite surprised if you follow up his references, or if you read other prominent authors in the fields of early modern or modern European witchcraft. There are holes in his scholarship that considerably affect some of his conclusions. Fuzzypeg 06:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Any work as wide-ranging as Triumph of the Moon is bound to suffer from gaps and misrepresentations, and it is important to use Hutton (as all such sources) with caution. As he says himself, TotM is "an exploratory and tentative work, intended as an initial mapping out of an area which badly needs and deserves serious treatment by more scholars in a number of different disciplines". (Preface, vii).  That said, it does seem to me that using (as opposed to mentioning) phrases and ideas like 'the Old Ways,' pre-Christian paganism as a single religion, 'the Burning Times,' and the assumed similarity of Wicca to ancient pagan religious practices is inappropriate.   To speak of 'the "old ways" of pre-Christian paganism' is to assume a whole host of (unverified) things. - AdelaMa e  (talk - contribs) 07:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, Fuzzy and Adela. You're both quite correct that Hutton is not the "be-all and end-all" of Wiccan history, but he has put paid to the concept that claims of "the Old Religion" can be used with impunity. As Adela mentioned, there are a lot of assumptions in that whole train of thought, and I'm persuaded that those assumptions should be treated as "religious history myth" until they're much more clearly documented." Justin Eiler 14:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. :) Fuzzypeg 12:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

"Black and White" Vs "Good and Evil"

 * Why is black magick inherantly "evil"? Black is the opposite of white and the night has always been tied in to womanhood and femininity due to the moon (can we say menstral cycle). due to that whole childbirth thing femininity is basicly creative and nurturing.
 * Does it not follow then, that "black magick" is creative and nurturing, while the flipside "white magick" is the opposite ie. destructive. We all live, we all die. nether of these two principles are "good" or "evil". As such I am removing all references to "black magic" and replacing it with "harmful magic".
 * Not only is it more accurate, but it doesn't stigmatise myself or other "black witches" who realy only want to shrug of the bad accociations we were given by the media and so forth.
 * Oppinions?


 * "Black magic" has, for better or worse, traditionally been associated (amongst occultists as well as popularly) with malevolent, evil and diabolical magic. I understand there are people now attempting to recast the term in an ambivalent light, perhaps based on an ethical world-view that doesn't incorporate the concept of "evil" (this is just supposition on my part, based on the few "black witches" I've met; I think they've all been satanists though, so perhaps they're not who you have in mind). I do agree, though, that "harmful magic" is a more precise and thus better term for general use.
 * From a philosophical point of view, the Western Mystery Tradition incorporates the concept of the divine feminine, and associates her with darkness, however this darkness is still considered to be a manifestation of the one light. In this context, "black magic" is not so much alignment with this feminine darkness, as divorcing oneself from the divine light, whether it be manifested as masculine, feminine, light or dark. It would imply the denial of "God/Goddess", unity, and the greater good. Fuzzypeg ☻ 05:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * i'm afraid I can't see why the concept you identify, Fuzzypeg, should be allowed to remain the only viewpoint most people, Wiccan or otherwise, will ever meet. Is it not our duty to our fellows to chalange the grossly unfair misconceptions that we are faced with? by propagating this antagonistic terminology we only reinforce them, making projects such as this whole entry, at least in a small way, redundant. Perhaps in your coven, should you have one, black magick is "evil" but in my coven it is not. We are too often assumed to be diabolists as it is, so it seems to me logical that we remove the term simply to avoid confusion.


 * I'm simply saying that this is the concept the overwhelming majority of people (occultists and otherwise) associate with "black magic". It's had that meaning for centuries if not longer (I've actually done a little research into the historical usage of "black" and "white" regarding magic, and it goes back a reasonable way). So I don't see what's unfair about people considering it "evil". The bad associations with "black magic" certainly weren't given by the media, unless you call hundreds of years of Western culture "media". You may, for your own reasons, wish to re-cast this term in a positive light, but I'm sure you realise what a laborious task that will be.
 * Now the way Wikipedia policy works (see WP:NPOV), minority views may be briefly mentioned, but very small minorities may not. If you have already managed to generate some significant awareness regarding the use of this term, then it might be discussed in the article. However Wikipedia is not a tool for influencing societal views, and unless you can cite a reliable source who describes "black magic" the way you do, it is likely to fall into the category that Wikipedia policy calls original research.
 * This is not about me, my views or my coven's views, but about providing reliable and balanced information in the article.
 * Again, I agree that "black magic" should not be the main term used in the article, simply because it's imprecise and says nothing about the etical system on which the concept of "black" is based. Fuzzypeg ☻ 21:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This is quite ridiculous, debating the relationship between these made-up forces. Can we save this for a forum and concentrate on what can be objectively observered, that being the historical facts on the development of modern wicca. Christ almighty... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.166.222.207 (talk) 10:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC).


 * Blasphemy is probably to be avoided, just as much on a Wicca discussion page as on a Christian page. Now, if we were to not discuss "made up" or (may I suggest) hypothesised forces, then we wouldn't have much to say about the theology of most religions, nor would we have articles on most of psychology or large areas of physics and cosmology. I wonder if what you really mean is that you don't personally believe in said forces, and reading about them infuriates you? Happily this is not an encyclopedia of your personal world-view; it incorporates a much greater diversity of human behaviour, beliefs and interests. Fuzzypeg ☻ 01:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Citations, please!
"'In modern times, Wiccans have been incorrectly associated with black magic and Satanism, especially in connection with Satanic Ritual Abuse hysteria.[citation needed] The Bible (Leviticus 20:27 A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them[33] and Exodus 22:17 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live[34]) may incite Christians to be less than sympathetic toward neo-Pagans in general. Wiccans also experience difficulties in administering and receiving prison ministry, although not in the UK of recent times.[citation needed]'"

Can we get some citing on here?

ManicParroT 21:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

"Burning Times" claims
Hi, Fuzzy: I reverted your edit because there are a number of Wiccans (especially in the BTW Traditions, but also Feminist Trads and some Eclectics) who do claim a pre-historical origin for Wicca, and an explicit historical connection between modern Wicca and the "Burning Times." Yes, the text as it stands is silly (and does need revamping), but that's the claim I debated against all too often as an Eclectic Wiccan. Justin Eiler 23:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I have not seen any BTW's claim a pre-historical origin for Wicca, and, I'm not here to argue with you about it, but I would love to know where they have made claims like this. I have found such a claim to most prevalent amongst fluffies who think that history is whatever Charlie Murphy wrote in his song "The Burning Times", not among people who actually pay attention to historical source.  Nor do I know any BTW's who claim that Wiccans were killed in the witch trials of Europe.--Vidkun 01:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess one of the things I am looking for is a citation for the statement "However, some Wiccans claim a historical link between Wicca and earlier religious and/or spiritual traditions, and thus may claim that the witch trials (sometimes termed the "Burning Times") were persecutions against their faith." that isn't original research, especially if it is about BTW's.--Vidkun 02:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, Vidkun. Well, one good place to start seeing "ancient history of Wicca" claims within the BTW community is the Amberandjet mailing list. There are some really good people on that list (inculding several I'd have loved to learn from), but "ancient history v. modern religion" has been a long-running argument there. But the foundation of the claim go right back to Gardner, and before him to Margaret Murray. Justin Eiler 14:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * A&J is not citable, and, in my time on that list, I have never seen any BTW's argue that Wicca is a pre-historic religion. I have seen arguments that certain practices may predate Gardner's appearance, and may trace back to older traditions of pre-Christian Europe, but none from present day BTW's that say Wicca is pre-historic.  In fact, any time someone new comes on there WITH such a claim, they are usually torn apart by people with degrees in history and anthropolog ywho also happen to have other degrees, too.  Additionally, the wording sure would not have included Margaret Murray, as, not only is she not Wiccan, but her historical claims have been disproven, as have any prehistorical claims Gardner made based on them.--Vidkun 14:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Eh, I'd argue whether or not A&J is citeable--at least as far as opinions present within the BTW community. But yes, I have seen claims on A&J by lineaged BTWs about Wicca being an ancient religion. *shrug* But I've also got to admit I've been off the list for quite a while. Justin Eiler 21:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There have not been any claims on A&J by lineaged BTW's that Wicca is an "ancient" religion. It just hasn't happened.  And no, I don't think a Yahoogroup should be citeable... and I'm the listowner. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.124.36.217 (talk • contribs) 08:19, 23 May 2006.


 * Yeah, I was getting quite tired by that stage, and I probably should have stopped earlier. I'm well aware that some Wiccans (perhaps many) believe in a direct lineal connection with the "European witch-cult", and re-reading my edit, it seems I didn't properly cater for these views. I might have another go. I was particularly trying to remove the connotations that some Wiccans are really ignorant and need their noses rubbed in a history lesson. I'd like to avoid raising the straw doll that all Wiccans who mention the Burning Times are historical revisionists.
 * Another interesting facet of the argument: I've met three witches (none of them specifically Wiccan) who have past-life memories involving being burnt at the stake or drowned as witches. I don't know of any reputable sources who discuss this aspect, though, so I'm not going to bother mentioning it. Fuzzypeg 04:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict!) Raymond Buckland makes this claim in Witchcraft from the Inside (3rd edition, revised/enlarged, Llewellyn, 2002):
 * Where then, and why, did all this defamation come about? Why has the inverted, distorted image of the Witch been held for the past several hundred years?  To find that out we must return to the original question - what is Witchcraft?
 * The short answer is that Witchcraft is a religion. The longer, and more satisfactory, answer is to show the beginnings and the development of that religion.  To do so we must go back twenty or thirty thousand years to the Paleolithic Age, where the God of Hunting first appeared. (p. 3)
 * He then goes on to give a narrative of the "history" of Witchcraft ("Wica") as a continuous religious tradition from the Paleolithic through the Burning Times and up to the present day, an account based heavily on The Witch-Cult in Western Europe. Though the book was originally published in 1971, Buckland's 1994 foreward endorses it as "still valid." (p. xii)  I would give you more quotes, but I despised this book so thoroughly that I gave it away at the first opportunity, so I'm reduced to using Amazon.com's "Search Inside This Book" to find the bits I want. - AdelaMa e  (talk - contribs) 04:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I've actually just reworded that section so the citations needed are a little different... I'll have a check and see whether this reference might still be useful... sorry. Fuzzypeg 05:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, no apologies--the revamp looks good! Justin Eiler 14:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There's got to be a quote in Buckland that would fit as a citation for this, since Buckland clearly does feel in WftI that the witch trials were a persecution against his religion, but Amazon has cut me off from searching any more. There is a bit on page 168 where Buckland is quoting someone else who is urging Wiccans to not feel bad about being secretive because in the past their lives would have depended on it, and also to remember what their brothers and sisters (referring to the victims of witch hunts) suffered so that their faith would survive.  I'm just going to put the whole book as a source for the moment and we can track down something more specific later. - AdelaMa e  (talk - contribs) 02:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I read the new wording, and hey, it's verifiable, and makes no uncited claims about modern Wiccans, so, never mind my commentary in regards to the article itself.--Vidkun 14:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The question of the age of Wicca is never going to be easy, but how old is Christianity? 2006 years or so? older if you view it as an evolution of Mythrasism. Religions evolve in a simmilar way to language when you look at it. Wicca as it stands now is not particulaly ancient but the basic principles it works on certainly are, dating back to the earliest scraws of animals on cave walls, nothing remains unchanging forever, the dictionary is expanded with each passing year, and so wicca has grown through the ages. Of course individual traditions are younger, and the devolpment of Wicca as an "organised" religion will almost certainly never be known.
 * I'm sorry, but did you just claim that some elements of Wicca are Prehistoric? Are you basing that on anything? The question of the age of Wicca is easy, it started 50 years ago with Gardner. He combined elements of older religions to create it, but so what? Saying that Wicca is older than 50 years is like saying Mormonism is as old is Christianity.Eshmasesh 16:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, the age of Wicca is easy if you believe Ronald Hutton. Unfortunately he relies on a host of inaccuracies to build his open-and-shut case. Some of his conclusions are probably not far from the truth, but he has certainly made the whole case seem simpler than it actually is, by conveniently ignoring some facts, getting other facts wrong, misrepresenting other academic scholars, and constructing straw doll arguments. More recent research by Philip Heselton adds a stunning amount of detail to what we know of early Wicca and the New Forest Coven, and the claim that Gardner simply invented it all himself now seems untenable. Gardner seems to have said and done what he did largely in good faith.
 * Now as to the "basic principles" mentioned above, there is a point to that persons comment. Speaking purely as a priest rather than a historian, the old gods are not our inventions, and they have chosen us rather than us choosing them. The gods that have appeared to us seem very similar to the descriptions of certain ancient gods, so its quite natural for us to assume that we are continuing an ancient tradition. If Wicca was invented 50 years ago (or more like 60 to 80 years, if you follow recent research), then it wasnt an invention of Gardner or any other person, but of the gods.
 * I dont expect you to put that in the article of course.
 * (Damn apostrophe not working!!!) Fuzzypeg ☻ 22:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Fuzzy said: "Actually, the age of Wicca is easy if you believe Ronald Hutton. Unfortunately he relies on a host of inaccuracies to build his open-and-shut case."
 * It's very easy to claim "a host of inaccuracies" and dismiss someone's work, however, I would want some serious evidence (from primary sources) before I start disregarding Hutton. Additionally, if it is based on "a host of inaccuracies," then it should be disregarded entirely: I for one would not regard Hutton as a reliable source if his "reliability" was the equivalent of a blind pig who finds the occasional acorn.
 * If we can document these "inaccuracies," then I would be willing to undertake the task of removing all references to Hutton (and the information that depends on his writings) from the article. If we cannot document these "inaccuracies," then I would be forced to the conclusion that he is, perhaps, correct and accurate. Justin Eiler 00:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I've been gradually putting together a detailed critique of Ecstasies. I'll give you a couple of examples which are easily verifiable: Hutton (p.362) rallies together seven prominent scholars who supposedly "left no doubt that the people tried for witchcraft in early modern Europe were not practitioners of a surviving pagan religion". He provides almost no other discussion or evidence, relying pretty much entirely on citing books by these seven, for this pivotal claim. A few of these books are not in English, however of those that are, none make this claim! Midelfort, for instance, focuses on the hysteria of the accusers, but doesn't attempt to determine the beliefs of the accused beyond noting a probable progression from older pagan beliefs to the diabolised accounts found in the witch trials (Midelfort 1972, pp. 15-19); while Monter in fact spends most of a chapter comparing the practices of white witches in France and England, noting distinct similarities between their practices despite their cultural and geographical separation, and speculating as to the pre-Christian nature of several of their beliefs and practices! (Monter 1976 pp. 112, 175) Monter and Macfarlane both also disagree markedly with Hutton regarding the numbers of cunning folk in England, Macfarlane reporting that in around 1600 "well-informed contemporaries ... thought them roughly comparable in number to the parish clergy".(Monter p. 172 quotes Macfarlane p. ?) These are some of the most pivotal claims in Hutton's book, and his hand-picked academic hit-men turn out to be double agents for the other team! Has Hutton even read their books? Are his misrepresentations intentional? Who knows? But seriously, if you just read the books Hutton has cited, let alone anything else, you get a vastly different picture of the history of European paganism and the witch trials. Fuzzypeg ☻  05:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Citation problem

 * Today, Gardner's role in Wicca's origin is controversial. Some criticize him for breaking the secrecy of Wicca, and that his explanation for his fear that the Craft would die out wasn't substantial. Others hail him as the savior of the Craft, and argue that Wicca would still be unknown today had he not publicized it.

Folks, while I generally agree with the accuracy of the above paragraph, I simply don't know of any way to provide citations without indulging in original research. Any suggestions? Justin Eiler 03:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Blame me, in part, for that, Justin. In my last revert to last known good, that stayed in.--Vidkun 03:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Many, many books on Wicca have some sort of evaluation of Gardner. The second sentence above should be very easy to source (Buckland probably says something like this, for instance).  The first one may have to be rephrased into something closer to whatever Hutton, Heselton, or Crowther have to say about it.  Jkelly 17:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, no blame, Vidkun. Especially since I've also been there and done that. ;)


 * Jkelly, do you have access to any of those books right now? We're getting ready for a move, and my library is currently sitting somewhere in a sea of boxes. I swear, if I never see "cardboard brown" again, it'll be too soon! Justin Eiler 01:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Exact same problem. Jkelly 01:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * (sigh) Ain't moving grand! OK, if nobody else has caught it first, I'll try to get something up when I get unpacked. Justin Eiler 03:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

"Today, Gardner's role in Wicca's origin is controversial. Some criticize him for breaking the secrecy of Wicca, and that his explanation for his fear that the Craft would die out wasn't substantial. Others hail him as the savior of the Craft, and argue that Wicca would still be unknown today had he not publicized it." The main problem with this passage is that it ignores that a number of the followers of Wicca actually dispute Wicca being any older than Gardner, and this needs to be mentioned in the passage or it would not reflect the actual views within the Wiccan community. The above passage has been deleted over and over, because by failing to cite any source and present other views within the community it is in effect opinion and in violation of the policies of Wikipedia. Saijm 27, April 2006


 * (nods in agreement) That's a ... tricky discussion, as you're probably already aware. I personally think that discarding the paragraph would be the wisest course--if it needs to be discussed at all, it would probably best be placed in the Gerald Gardner article. However, I personally would have preferred to seek community consensus before removing it entirely. Justin Eiler 03:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Article removed from Good articles
This article was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because most of the article does not cite sources - tons of "citation needed" tags. WP:WIAGA says a GA should "provide references to any and all sources used for its material"; this is obviously not the case here. Let's get cracking, people. - AdelaMa e (talk - contribs) 03:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm starting to try to fill in some of these reference gaps, or reword to remove offending assertions. I don't have all my books, so one of the references I've added doesn't have full publication year, page numbers, etc. I notice however that many of the references don't have full details. It looks like some work is needed by someone with a good library getting all these into shape... Thanks all, I can see good things starting to happen to this article. Fuzzypeg 11:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Amado Crowley and the Book of Shadows
I've removed the following sentence from the introduction paragraph:
 * More recently, Amado Crowley, son of the occultist Aleister Crowley, has claimed he was present when Gardner hired his father to create the Book of Shadows.

This historical detail is inappropriate in the intro; also, Amado Crowley has been criticised as a likely fraud and imposter: Ronald Hutton in Triumph of the Moon pp. 208-9 says that there is no trace in Aleister Crowley's meticulously-kept diary of any of Amado's anecdotes regarding his "father's" affairs, nor even any mention of Amado himself. In light of that, does anyone have a compelling reason to put this detail back in the article? Fuzzypeg 09:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There is not just one book of shadows. There are, perhaps, thousands. Disinclination 04:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Disinclination, I understand that the discussion is about the first Book of Shadows, i.e. Gardner's. --Jdemarcos 10:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Pentagram: do Gardnerians use elements+spirit symbolism?
I removed the following section:
 * A common belief held by Alexandrian Wiccans is that the upper, most important point represents spirit, and the four remaining points symbolise earth, air, fire, and water. This concept, as applied to pentagonous symbols, has slowly worked itself into other traditions, such as Solitary Wicca and Seax-Wica. A notable exception is Gardnerian Wicca, whose adherents will usually deny that the points of the pentagram actually represent anything at all.

since the reference I found supporting the 4 elements plus spirit interpretation was from Valiente, a rather famous Gardnerian. Alexandrians didn't invent this symbolism; they follow the popular Golden Dawn system. My guess is that Seax Wica and the rest weren't influenced purely by Alexandrian Wicca — also I wonder whether that final sentence is really true: do Gardnerians really not use this interpretation? Gardner's knowledge of the magical theories of the time would seem to prohibit him not knowing this attribution, and I can't imagine why he then wouldn't use it in at least some situations. Can anyone help? Thanks, Fuzzypeg 10:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed the following regarding the pentagram (as expressing the golden ratio):
 * thus characteristically it represents the perfected and most beautiful form of life. This may be the reason for the pentagram's antiquity in relation with divinity, particularly amoungst the Pythagoreans.

From the text that was given, the pentagram cannot be concluded to represent the "perfected and most beautiful form of life" in geometric terms. Also, the concept of the golden ratio being associated with beauty is a common but unproven claim: see golden ratio. Also, looking at that article, it didn't seem that the Pythagoreans necessarily associated the golden ratio with divinity:
 * ... there is no evidence they thought the number warranted special attention above that for numbers like π (Pi), for example. (from golden ratio article)

I hope you prefer my rewording, in which I've tried to retain these concepts, while remaining factually correct. Fuzzypeg 10:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

First legal Wiccan wedding in Britain: too much detail?
Someone recently added a segment about the first legally recognised Wiccan wedding in Britain. I've tried to improve its wording and style and move it to a more appropriate place. I'm not sure I've done any of these things totally successfully! The celebrant is named and quoted, however I moved these into the footnote as being unnecessary detail to the main article.

My question is, should I delete these details altogether and just give a reference to the newspaper article? (Note: it's not available online without paid subscription.)

Also, it's pretty awkward where it currently is. Should we just leave it there and just wait for a context to appear as the article develops? Any help appreciated. Fuzzypeg 13:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I lean very slightly toward keeping it in. Jkelly 21:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Wicca / Emberverse series
Paste from User talk:Jkelly I thought mentioning the series in the section on WICCA IN POPULAR FICTION would be appropriate - the Wiccan religion and those who practce it are a major theme of the novel -Paullaw


 * I think it would be a bad thing for this article to start including every mention of the religion in popular culture. I ask you, in all seriousness, whether you would go add your favourite novel with Jewish protagonists to the article Judaism under "Judaism in popular culture"?  Further, a number of brief published discussions about Wicca feel the need to mention that the religion does not resemble its depictions in The Craft, or on some television series; we're not alone in that.  Following that disclaimer by highlighting some of our favourite novels, on the other hand, is coming up with our own brand new "important things about Wicca" list, which isn't our job here.  Jkelly 19:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * For the reason given above, I just cut a similar addition. Perhaps someone should start List of novels with Wiccan characters if people feel that this sort of thing is encyclopedic.  Jkelly 20:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, the currect state of the "Wicca in popular fiction" section is poor. It discusses only films and television programs, mentions only "manipulative" examples, and presents an exclusively antagonistic relationship between Wicca and popular culture.  If the Emberverse series isn't going to be mentioned, why have a section called "Wicca in popular fiction" at all? -Acjelen 22:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Page Move
Okay, I am really tired and kind of cranky right now, but I don't think this page should have been moved to Wicca (Religion). Who is going to type in Wicca and expect to get some book series that is only called Wicca in the UK and is named after the religion anyway? I couldn't move it back because a disambig page was created at Wicca... I moved it to Wicca (disambiguation) where it belongs, but I can't move this one back to Wicca because the redirect is still there. I posted it on Requested Moves, so with any luck there will be admin help soon. - AdelaMa e (talk - contribs) 17:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh for... I'll do it. Hold one second.  Jkelly 17:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. I'd like to ask editors to be a little less enthusiastic about shuffling pages around without discussion.  Jkelly 17:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Persecution, jews and practitioners of necromancy
The following phrase from Wicca makes little sense to me:
 * ... Jews have typically understood this passage to historically refer specifically to practitioners of Necromancy.

It's nice that Jews are more permissive of Wiccans (but I'd like some supporting evidence for this), but I don't see how that can rely on a necromancy interpretation, since Wicca contains elements of necromancy (does Halloween and calling the ancestors ring any bells, anyone?). Can anyone help in explaining this to me? Also, the phrase seems to be out of date, since there are now two passages cited, not one. Which is intended? Thanks, Fuzzypeg 05:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Heck, I guess you could say that Christianity also contains elements of necromancy, such as communing with and praying to the dead (Jesus). As a Christian myself, I've always taken the phrase (and I assume we're discussing "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live") to refer to those who knowingly and willingly embrace evil, not to Wiccans or even necessarily to "witches". My belief is probably not very scripturally sound, but witches were the boogey-men of the period when the Bible was translated into English.  I personally don't feel God holds any special condemnation (beyond what is reserved for all sinners) for Wiccans or witches. Applejuicefool 20:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Wiccan origins: Ronald Hutton vs. Philip Heselton
Currently in the article there seems a strong lean towards accepting Hutton's analyses as authoritative while Philip Heselton's analyses are treated more like hobby journalism. I would like to change the emphasis of the wording to make this more balanced, or even reverse the emphasis, if I can get away with it.

It's a rather strange situation, since Hutton himself has written a rather glowing appreciation of Heselton as Foreword to Heselton's Gerald Gardner and the Cauldron of Inspiration, despite the fact that many of Heselton's findings fly in the face of Hutton's conclusions in Triumph of the Moon.

I've read Triumph several times, in the process of documenting the many factual inaccuracies and misrepresentations that Hutton's conclusions rely on. While purporting to represent the leading academic thought of the mid-90s, Hutton in fact is presenting a particularly extreme end of the spectrum, and occasionally even grossly misrepresents other academic historians (such as when he claims the support of 7 leading authors in concluding that no-one accused of witchcraft during the witch-trials was a practitioner of a pagan religion; on the contrary some of these authors say quite the opposite). He also makes crucial mistakes and omissions on the subject of Freemasonry, the origins of Leland's Aradia, the God and ancient mystery religions, etc., etc..

Reading Heselton's Cauldron more recently, I'm thrilled to find that someone has revealed such copious quantities of data regarding Gardner and his associations. According to Hutton he provides data, on a scale and with a depth that has never been known in this subject before ... [and admits] what is fact and what conjecture. I need to do a bit more searching for critical commentary on Heselton, but so far I find him by far the more authoritative, and his conclusions by far the more convincing, supported as they are by much more evidence.

This is just my warning and call for discussion before I go and make changes. I know Hutton has been received very warmly by many Wiccans and Pagans, so my changes may not be universally popular... Thanks, Fuzzypeg 06:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Good call. I've learned, over the last years and a half of discussions with BTW's, that if one reads Hutton, it is probably a very good idea to reah Heselton as well, when it comes to the history work.  I have heard suggestions that Hutton slanted intentionally.  I cannot confirm that.  I think one interesting look would be at the Order of Woodcraft Chivalry, Freemasonry, CM, and surviving folk traditions.--Vidkun 11:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * TotM was published by Oxford University Press, while Heselton's publisher is Capall Bann (sp?); I suggest that it makes sense to treat the former as much more authoritative. Adler's now very dated Drawing Down the Moon is, off the top of my head, the only other book that I can think of on the general subject with any claim to academic credentials (ignoring more specific work like Enchanted Feminism, or the critical edition of Aradia).  That said, while I suggest we treat Hutton as mainstream, accepted scholarship, there is something of a goldmine of good research in Heselton's work that is much better than using, say, Gerald Gardner, Witch as the main source for Gerald Gardner.  Pomegranate remains, to my knowledge, the only attempt at a scholastic journal on Neopaganism.  Jkelly 17:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments, both. I agree with the remarks regarding publishing houses, and of course Hutton has higher academic qualifications. I'll try to tread carefully. I haven't actually made any changes in this regard yet — been a bit busy — but I still might, after having another careful read. Fuzzypeg ☻ 01:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I've made a very little start to this. I need to return to it armed with books. I envisage the section should start by presenting Gardner's explanation of the origins, followed by critical analysis. The discussion of influences could be improved greatly, and the part about the "prevailing theory" that most BoS material was adapted from Crowley is quite unlikely and needs a rewrite. I hope I haven't made any mistakes here. I don't have any books in front of me. I'll double-check later. Fuzzypeg ☻ 04:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Try this: The Sources of the Charge of the Goddess by Ceisiwr Serith.--Vidkun 20:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed new section for Wicca
I've been wanting to clean up this section for a while, since I find it very incomplete and misrepresentative, and the gods really are the heart and soul of Wicca. I've come up with the following text, which I would like you to help me beat into shape before it goes into the article. I haven't got references for everything yet, since I wrote from what I know rather than out of books. I realise this is a pretty important section and people will have some strong opinions; I need your help to ensure we don't disenfranchise people. I've already had a comment from Vidkun from when the text was sitting as a draft on my user page; I've copied that below. I suggest my text as given below be a working copy; anyone feel free to mess with it:


 * Wicca as a religion is primarily concerned with the priestess or priest's relationship to their Goddess and God. The Lady and Lord (as they are called) are seen as primal cosmic beings, the source of limitless power, yet they are also familiar figures who comfort and nurture their children, and often challenge or even repremand them as well.


 * According to Gerald Gardner the gods of Wicca are ancient gods of the British Isles: a Horned God of hunting, death and magic who rules over an after-world paradise, and a goddess, the Great Mother (who is simultaneously the Eternal Virgin and the Primordial Enchantress), who gives regeneration and rebirth to souls of the dead and love to the living. These are tribal gods of the witches, much like Isis and Osiris of the Egyptians or Elohim of the Jews. A being higher than these tribal gods is recognised as Prime Mover, but remains unknowable, and is of little concern to witches.


 * Gardner's explanation aside, individual interpretations of the exact natures of the gods can differ significantly, since priests and priestesses develop their own relationships with the gods through intense personal work and revelation. Many have a duotheistic conception of deity as a Goddess (of Moon, Earth and sea) and a God (of forest, hunting and the animal realm). This concept is often extended into a kind of polytheism by the belief that the gods and goddesses of all cultures are aspects of this pair (or of the Goddess alone). Others hold the various gods and goddesses to be separate and distinct. Some, particularly in feminist traditions, have a monotheistic belief in the Goddess as One. Still others do not believe in the gods as real personalities, yet attempt to have a relationship with them as personifications of universal principles or as Jungian archetypes.


 * Many are drawn to particular deities from a variety of pantheons (often Celtic), whom they honour specifically.


 * For most Wiccans, roughly speaking, the Lord and Lady are seen as complimentary polarities: male and female, force and form, comprehending all in their union; the tension and interplay between them is the basis of all creation. The Goddess is often considered pre-eminent, since she contains and conceives all (Gaea or Mother Earth is one of her more commonly revered aspects); the God, commonly described as the Horned God or the Divine Child, is the spark of life and inspiration within her, simultaneously her lover and her child. In some traditions, notably Feminist branches of Dianic Wicca, the Goddess is seen as complete unto herself, and the God is not worshipped at all.


 * Just as the Goddess is said to contain all life within her, so the Goddess is contained within all life, as is the God, and all beings are thus held to be divine. This is a key understanding conveyed in the Charge of the Goddess, one of the most important texts of Wicca, and is very similar to the Hermetic understanding that "God" contains all things, and in truth is all things. For some Wiccans this idea also involves elements of animism, and plants, rivers, rocks (and, importantly, ritual tools) are seen as spiritual beings, facets of a single life.


 * A key belief in Wicca is that the gods are able to manifest in personal form, either through dreams, as physical manifestations, or through the bodies of Priestesses and Priests. This latter variety of manifestation is the purpose of the ritual of Drawing down the Moon (or Drawing down the Sun), whereby the Goddess is called to descend into the body of the Priestess (or the God into the Priest) to effect divine possession.

Thanks in advance for your help! (comments follow) Fuzzypeg 12:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I really like what you wrote, as it is well written, but I would like to point out a few issues I have with it. Specifically, the section
 * Individual interpretations of the exact natures of these two divinities can differ significantly, since priests and priestesses develop their own relationships with the gods through intense personal work and revelation. Many are drawn to particular deities from a variety of pantheons, whom they honour specifically, but traditionally all these goddesses and gods are held to be aspects of one Goddess (the Great Mother) and one God.

seems to fly in the face of the fairly standard view of the the Gods of the Wica being specific tribal gods, known only to those who are initiated. Of course, now I need to go pick up one of the few Gardner books I have (can't touch the Farrars Bible, as I am trying to avoid reading anything about initiation until I get to it myself) and see what GBG has to say about the nature of the Gods. Additionally, I would suggest that the all gods are one god thing is a Valiente-ism, and not in line with the idea of specific tribal gods alongside other gods from other pantheons. For example, if/when I am initiated, I will be introduced to the Gods of the Wica, but that will not preclude me from honoring and working with other Gods, such as my Matron, the Morrigan. I do like the wording in the first line of what you wrote, as I seen tons of references within BTW and seeker chats regarding the idea that being of the Wica is a calling to serve the Gods.--Vidkun 13:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * [summary of my response at User:Fuzzypeg:] I haven't really managed to word the 'tribal gods' view yet (though I agree this is an important concept), partly because I'm not sure where (in which sources) it's actually stated, partly because I ran out of steam for a bit. Fuzzypeg 12:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This is quite a task. I'd love to see something here that we can be really proud of.  The challenge is avoiding WP:NOR on the one hand, while not giving undue weight to the many varities of theological wackiness that have been published.  The Farrars are not going to be the perfect solution; their take in Eight Sabbats is to conflate the Wiccan God and Goddess with Frazerian stereotypes; that's worth a mention for being hugely influential, but it would be weird of us to present that as mainstream.  Their Witches' God / Goddess books take a different approach (sort-of indiscriminate polytheism), but an even less helpful one.  I suggest that for background we quote what Gardner writes about the God and Goddess, give some overview of Hutton's "Finding a [deity]" chapters, and then we're just going to have to figure out amongst ourselves what we can treat as reliable sourcing for what passes for current mainstream theology in Wicca today.  I suggest that is more of a universalist duotheism than mystery-cult pseudo-henotheism. Jkelly 17:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * From a TW standpoint, by way of GBG's words, we have -
 * They quite realise that there must be some great "Prime Mover", some Supreme Deity; but they think that if It gives them no means of knowing It, it is because It does not want to be known; also possibly, at our present stage of evolution we are incapable of understanding It. So It has appointed what might be called various Under-Gods, who manifest as the tribal gods of different peoples; as the Elohim of the Jews, Isis, Osiris and Horus of the Egyptians, and the Horned God and the Goddess of the witches. They can see no reason why each people should not worship their national gods, or why anyone should strive to prevent them from doing so. (the citations are not in this version, only the french one I can find here: from Gerald Gardner, The Meaning of Witchcraft, Lakemont, GA US: Copple House Books, 1959; edition of 1988, pg 26-27)
 * Not sure how much this helps, but it's what I can give right now.--Vidkun 18:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've tried to work this in, and a bit more from Gardner. I'll let it sit for a bit as it is, while I find more decent info. I've been working on other projects recently, and haven't had much time for this... Fuzzypeg ☻ 07:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, and if you have any comments, please let me know how I'm doing. Even better, jump in and edit it yourselves. I'm not sure what people's opinions on the text are, or when they would consider it "good enough" for putting in the article. Should it be "perfect" before we do that, or would we like to put it where a larger number of people can see it and edit it? Sorry I've been going so slowly... I still don't have my Farrars' book... Fuzzypeg ☻ 07:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've edited in some of Margot Adler's analysis of the different approaches to divinity within Wicca. This is from the Pagan World View chapter of Drawing Down the Moon, but she's included a lot of info relating specifically to Wicca. I haven't yet managed to incorporate her descriptions of pantheism/animism, and there's now one sentence that's hanging on its own, but I'm really tired and I have to pause here... Fuzzypeg ☻ 12:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Common misconception that Dianic Wiccans do not worship the Horned God, Please note that there are two main branches of Dianic Wicca, "Feminist" and "Old/Clasical" (Otherwise known as the Wisconsin and Texas schools respectivly). Feminists dont worship the Horned God, but clasicals do(Both are equal,but the Wiccan in question identifies mainly with the feminine aspect). Coincidently clasical dianics split from the feminists for this very reason, or so I beleve. I also feel it would be good to redifine this concept of the all, or the one. Just to clarify that the view exists that the Goddess and God are in fact different sides of the same coin, and what we worship is creation, using our various assorted deities as a way to help us make sence of these cosmic principles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.161.166 (talk • contribs)


 * I've added the qualifier "Feminist". I believe the "prime mover" reference goes some way towards explaining the "two sides of a single coin" theory, although it could do to be reinforced a little further down. I'd really like to move some or all of this to the article, since I think it would be exposed to more editors there. If I have time today, I might be bold and try to move it over. Fuzzypeg ☻ 20:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Why are the Biblical references removed?
I don't find it inappropriate mentioning biblical verses condemning witchcraft in an article about modern witchcraft; these are the verses cited by the most vocal Christian detractors. There seems to be a good reason for at least mentioning them, so what is the compelling reason for removing them? I didn't understand the bit about jews and necromancy, but the rest seems reasonable, and pretty objectively-based (NPOV). Fuzzypeg 10:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not think they were too out of place, but might they not be more appropriate in Witchcraft? - AdelaMa e (talk - contribs) 10:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As stated in the edit summary, I removed those lines because they are an argument in a controversy, and therefore they do not belong in an encyclopaedia article but rather in some forum or discussion list. Besides that, AdelaMa e made a very good point: this article is about Wicca, and the quotes refer to witchcraft, and they were made many centuries before Wicca was conceived by Gardner. --Jdemarcos 17:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I wonder whether you assumed the tag indicated controversy? I put that tag there myself with reference to the Jews and necromancy statement (see my comment above, Talk:Wicca). The rest is, as far as I can make out, non-controversial.
 * (We also need to be careful with the tag not to assume that the statement is controversial. It may easily be that a statement is generally agreed with, and just needs a supporting reference to be found.)
 * I agree the quotes relate to witchcraft in general, but then I would suggest that pretty much all persecution of Wiccans relates to witchcraft in general. Our detractors see no difference between Wiccans and witches and Satanists. So by that reasoning the entire section on persecution should be removed from Wicca and relocated to Witchcraft. No, they really should be mentioned here, seeing as it's those few biblical references which are used to justify the majority of Christian persecution. Perhaps if anyone wants to simplify the discussion a bit and take out the different translation comparisons, that might be more appropriate in Witchcraft.
 * I'm going to reinstate the text, minus the the reference to jews and necromancy. Fuzzypeg 22:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops, I thought I had added a citation needed tag to that statement. I obviously didn't... I'm reading this all again as I'm trying to reinstate it, and I agree some of the wording is difficult. I'd like to try to improve it rather than remove it, though. Fuzzypeg 22:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Minor phrasing challenge.
This one in the intro paragraph continues to bother me.

"These other traditions of Wicca each have specific beliefs, rituals, and practices."

Well, yes. It is sort of a 'duh' statement, in that it makes a redundant point. I tried reworking the structure of its phrasing in order to indicate that each of the referenced traditions has *individual*, or otherwise specialised/semi-unique beliefs, rituals, and practices. That seems a bit more precise. I cannot come up with anything that I like which makes the original better, though, so if anyone wants to have a go at it... please do.

''' P. Mac Uidhir''' (t)  (c) 22:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

copy lift?
This section:
 * Gardner probably had access to few, if any, traditional Pagan rites. The prevailing theory is that most of his rites were the result of an adaption of the works of Aleister Crowley. Gardner was chartered by Crowley to form an encampment of Crowley's Ordo Templi Orientis in England, though he never did (Sutin, pp. 409-410).

looks like from the citation, possibly a copy lift from somewhere. Anyone recognize the source?--Vidkun 20:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Running the name "Sutin" through Amazon leads me to believe it's probably from Lawrence Sutin's "Do What Thou Wilt: A Life of Aleister Crowley". Indeed, on pages 409 and 410, Gardner is mentioned (as you can tell by running a "Search This Book" for "Gardner").  The book was originally written in 1951, but the copyright notice also notes Coyright 2000.  So I'm gonna go ahead and remove this section. --  CABHAN   TALK   CONTRIBS  20:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * A bit of a tangent- I have not examined both editions of the book in question, but on the matter of the copyright, anything that is essentially unchanged from the 1951 edition would be considered to be under copyright from 1951, and any 'substantial' (word in law, not mine) changes would be copyrighted from 2001. In this sort of case, usually the new copyright notice only applies to a new preface, an added chapter, or a few chapters that were expanded here and there. Just thought I would mention it. As far as quoting from either, as long as they are properly cited within the article itself *as a quote* (which I think was the gist of the notice placed here, that the quoted be rendered as such), then fair use allows us to place it within the article if it is properly attributed.
 * →  P . Mac Uidhir (t)  (c)  05:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Removing some dubious information about the Pentagram
I've always loved Wikipedia. Out of curiousity I decided to read the article on Wicca and was kind of taken aback by a few things. I already made a few changes to a few things, though I'm not sure of the level of formality these things are done here. Anyways, there is one thing I just want to remove from the article:


 * A less common view is that, upright, the pentagram is a protective charm that uses passive, positive energies such as goodwill to guard the wearer. However, if it is inverted, it will protect the wearer using passive, negative energies such as anger.    The contrast between the upright pentagram and inverted pentagram seems to have been invented by Eliphas Levi.

If you can't tell, I already rewrote this because it was just poorly written and akward. But I still don't like it. I've never heard of this before, there's no good citation, and I don't think anyone will ever find one. This just sounds like fluff that shouldn't be in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Divsky (talk • contribs)


 * The belief that an upright pentagram is positive and an inverted (point-down) pentagram is negative is quite widespread, however there is no one explanation for why. I agree this is fluff. Regarding invention by Eliphas Levi, I know some have claimed this (can't give you citations at the moment, sorry), but I haven't seen any strong arguments for or against to truth of this. I suggest that, as long as the article still expresses that inverted pentagrams are (often) seen in a negative light, you can get rid of the text above. Fuzzypeg ☻ 01:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I already added into the article that Wiccans avoid association with the inverted pentagram as it's widely seen as a symbol of Satanism. I believe that's a valid point.  I agree that theres no known reason or source as to -why- an inverted pentagram is seen as negative (other than its associations with Satanism).  But I believe that it's such a common view that it should probably be included in the article. Divsky 20:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The inverted pentagram as a tool to invoke satanic energies is indeed documented and the origin is Eliphas Levi. See Hutton, The Triumph of the Moon, p. 71, quoting Levi himself from The Key to the Misteries and Transcendental Magic. Being a 19th-century well-known magician the one who developed this idea, there is no fluffiness about it (i.e. the origin is documented and recent, and not distant and mythical).


 * Whether it actually works or not in gathering "negative energies", this is no criteria for labelling this particular belief as fluff, simply because magic has no scientific proof of its effectiveness, therefore any magical practice is actually fluff under scientific (i.e. verifiable and non-subjective) criteria. Fluffiness only refers to reliance on false history and unreliable sources. --Jdemarcos 20:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The "fluff" in the text in question is the speculation about "passive, positive energies such as goodwill" and "passive, negative energies such as anger". Exactly how or why the upright pentagram is positive or "good" and the inverted is negative or "evil" is not really important, and the sheer number of theories regarding this makes it easier not to attempt to explain it. Also, just out of interest, I don't recall Hutton having any evidence that Levi invented this symbolism; having failed to find this symbolism in earlier usage he concluded that Levi invented it. I've read others argue that for Levi to have invented all the things that have been ascribed to him he must have been a genius of prodigious proportions - a more likely scenario supposedly being that he wasn't working in a vacuum, and had access to others' work. Regardless of this, I'm reluctant to take Hutton's word as final, since Hutton has introduced so many errors in other places through use of this same technique of reasoning (a quick search does not reveal evidence of a certain thing, therefore that thing does not exist).
 * The upshot being, I believe we should say that upright is considered positive, inverted is considered negative, and this symbolism was popularised by Levi. In fact, I'm not sure we should even bother to mention Levi, when the subject is dealt with at length in Pentagram. Lets not forget that the section in question is supposed to be about the Elements, and there's much more to that than the layout of the pentagram... Fuzzypeg ☻ 00:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You may be reluctant about Hutton, but surely you will understand that I am even more reluctant about your reference to "others" regarding Levi's prodigious capacity for inventing symbols and rituals. You need to provide specific quotes about where Levi found all of this. Otherwise, Hutton's bibliographical reference should stand as valid because the quote is based upon Levi's own writings, and no writings have been shown to disprove it. As for moving it to the Pentagram article, it's fine with me. --Jdemarcos 06:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * When I am asked to explain the signifigance of the inverted pentagram I say it is a symbol for the horned god, tied in with the devil for your average follower of the god of Abraham due to the horns, agrivated by the persicution of native religions by the chruch and all that jazz. Incidently "Satanism" isn't a religion at all, just a philosophy of self-empowerment, and thus doesn't have any symbols. If the luciferians were organised enough to have one symbol, it would be the inverted crusafix.

Adding in a section on Wiccan symbology
This has been touched apon in the previous topic. There should be a new section added into the Wiccan article on Wiccan symbology. I agree that talk about the pentagram has little to do with discussion on the elements. There also are some other common Wiccan symbols that deserve to be covered, such as the symbols of the God and Goddess. Anyone else agree that this would make a good section? If so, any other ideas for common Wiccan symbols that should be covered? Divsky 01:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree totally with you that there should be a section on the symbols. I have pictures of the elements symbols and if a section is added I would certainly add them.--Dil 02:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The only thing to be cautious of is making sure that the symbols selected for discussion are in widespread Wiccan use, and that they are not better covered in the context of wider magical traditions. The element symbols (triangles with or without bisecting lines), for instance are common to most forms of modern western magic, and are not specifically Wiccan. In fact, I'm not sure whether they were even part of early Wicca, or whether they just started appearing in various Wiccan-related books. The purpose of this article is not to be a one-stop magical textbook. The pentagram is an integral part of Wicca, but I would argue that its use is basically identical to that of any Golden Dawn-derived group, and it's probably better to cover it in Pentagram. The trouble is, not many Wiccan symbols have ever been published, and most of those are almost unchanged from their usage in a wider magical context. The symbols that are still relatively unknown I would be as reluctant to write about as I would be to put scans of my BoS online. Fuzzypeg ☻ 06:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, basicly we have the pentagram...and thats it.


 * Well, besides the pentagram, there's also the God symbol (very similar to the symbol for Taurus), the Triple Goddess symbol, and the three "degree" symbols used within BTW. I don't know if these would be considered "widespread" enough for inclusion, but it may benefit to discuss them. Justin Eiler 15:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Wiccan Rede and Law of Thelema
Recent changes in the article regarding the origin of the Wiccan Rede seem to show again that some people are reluctant to admit that the Rede is based upon Crowley's Law of Thelema (itself inspired in a work by Rabelais with a much different purpose). Gardner's attribution of the Rede to a fabled king, IMO, should not be used instead of clear historical and literary precedents. Otherwise we could quote just any god or legendary character and say that they are the authors of sentences when there are real documents written by real people which are verifiable and a connection traceable. --Jdemarcos 14:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * However, without a verifiable source claiming the link between the Rede and the Law, what you are adding is considered original research.--Vidkun 14:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Recent changes in the article regarding the origin of the Wiccan Rede seem to show again that some people are reluctant to admit that the Rede is based upon Crowley's Law of Thelema Actually, it shows that wikipedians are reluctant to add something to the 'pedia that isn't verifiable, from reliable sources, but is, without those standards, original research.--Vidkun 14:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not original research, as it has been already researched by different authors. --Jdemarcos 14:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * When you come up with reliable sources, let me know. Oh, and cite them:  don't simply throw in your supposition without backup.--Vidkun 14:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

When you come up with reliable sources other than "Good King Pausol", please let me know. And also try that this time it is a real person. --Jdemarcos 14:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * We have a reliable source showing that that is who GBG attributed it to. Where is your reliable source saying otherwise?  As in, either a primary source saying it directly, or a published reliable source (not simply someone's personal website).--Vidkun 14:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

So, let's first look at what some of the reliable source guidelines are:
 * An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable. However, that a certain person or group expressed a certain opinion is a fact (that is, it is true that the person expressed the opinion) and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group expressed the opinion.


 * A primary source is a document or person providing direct evidence of a certain state of affairs; in other words, a source very close to the situation you are writing about. The term most often refers to a document produced by a participant in an event or an observer of that event. It could be an official report, an original letter, a media account by a journalist who actually observed the event, or an autobiography.


 * A secondary source summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources. Secondary sources produced by scholars and published by scholarly presses are carefully vetted for quality control and can be considered authoritative.


 * Look out for false claims of authority. Advanced degrees give authority in the topic of the degree. Web sites that have numerous footnotes may be entirely unreliable. The first question to ask yourself is, "What are the credentials and expertise of the people taking responsibility for a website?" Anyone can post anything on the web.


 * Evaluate the reliability of online sources just as you would print or other more traditional sources. Neither online nor print sources deserve an automatic assumption of reliability by virtue of the medium they are printed in. All reports must be evaluated according to the processes and people that created them.


 * Publications with teams of fact-checkers, reporters, editors, lawyers, and managers — like the New York Times or The Times of London — are likely to be reliable, and are regarded as reputable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia. At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are typically not acceptable as sources.

Now, let's look at what is actually said on the pages that are cited by Jdemarcos:
 * The Wiccan Rede: A Historical Journey
 * When associating the Rede with Gardner, most scholars suggest the Rede is actually based on the older Law of Thelema created by Aleister Crowley (1875-1947) in his work Liber AL vel Legis (1904), more commonly known as The Book of the Law.

Except that the author of that page doesn't cite which most scholars suggest that. It's a use of a weasel word to avoid having to show who said it.

Next up: THE WICCAN RULE OF BEHAVIOR THE "WICCAN REDE" from Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance (who cite The Wiccan Rede:  A Historical Journey)
 * Gardner may have taken the phrase from Rabelais and Crowley: "do what thou wilt," grafted it onto a clear, unambiguous expression to do no harm, and produced the Wiccan Rede as we know it today.

It says MAY have taken from Rabelais and Crowley. Does not say DID take from Crowley.

And now: The Wiccan Rede from a personal blog-type webpage:
 * The Wiccan Rede, "An it harm none, do what ye will", is an evolution of Crowley's Law of Thelema. It states, quite simply, that one should follow one's true path without being tripped up by ego plays or abusive impulses.  Or, more succintly, that one's TRUE path will never call on you to subvert the true will of another.  One's true path will never cause you to use or abuse people for your own whims.  Spiritual evolution is a personal quest, and while others may aid us along the way, they are not "things" to be used and tossed away.  They are spiritual beings just like you.  Of course, ask twelve Wiccans a question and you'll get 13 answers...others may differ.  This is one view.

This author finally states that without a doubt, it is an evolution from AC. But what is HIS proof? And what are his credentials?

From Wicca for the Rest of Us:
 * The Wiccan Rede was clearly influenced by Crowley's "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law" and the Charge of the Goddess likewise bears a passage of Crowley's. However, Crowley was long dead before the publication of Witchcraft Today, and he never claimed to be a witch. The suggestion that Crowley ghost wrote for Gardner is completely without merit.

Again, we have a personal opinion stated, without scholarly backup.

It comes down to this: sure, there are many people who have the OPINION that GB took the Rede directly from Thelema. But how many of them are reliable sources to make the claim? We can say that their OPINION is that he did, we cannot say that they have supported the CLAIM ITSELF to the standards that wiki requires. I have no problem with citing people who state their opinion, what I have a problem with is the wholesale removal of what GBG himself said, which is citeable opinion as well.--Vidkun 15:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Have any of you look at the two codes? They look simmilar but are completly different. The rede advocates consideration of well being of the self and of others. the law of thelma doesn't. They are mutualy exclusive. To ilistrate my point I shall create two statements, one Marxist (far-left) one anarco-capitalist (lib far right);
 * a) "It is only right that each individual acheve their full potential, as such we must eliminate alienation from work by taking and collectivly opperating the means of production"
 * b) ""It is only right that each individual acheve their full potential, for this to happen we must always observe the right of property as an incentive for each to work as hard as they can"
 * What!?!?! how can these be opposite yet contain the same sentance fragment?!?!
 * Come on people...think about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.161.166 (talk • contribs)

Wiccan Rede information
I have reverted a statement that the Rede is linked to the Law of Thelema, as we have no primary sources asserting this. We do have GBG himself making the link to Pausol in TMoW, and we also do NOT have GBG, Doreen, or Gwen Thompson ever saying that it was linked to Aleister Crowley. That GBG makes the suppositional link to Pausol IS verifiable. That OTHERS have tried to suppose that it really is derived from AC is verifiable, but we have NONE of the (three best known) sources of the Rede saying that.--Vidkun 14:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "King Pausol" is a literary character. So Gardner's affirmation is totally unreliable. It is necessary to go beyond what is stated at some point by interested parties and look for the real, historical sources. At least if what we are doing is about History and not myth-making or myth-retelling. --Jdemarcos 14:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Fine, then I suggest you find some reliable sources and then cite them. Right now what you have put up is actually original research, in terms of what you have used to back it up.--Vidkun 14:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please check the external links that I quote in the topic I opened above. There are many others, of course, as a Google search will promptly show you, including bibliographical references for further verification. --Jdemarcos 14:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, all of your sources suggest that it COULD be so. We do, however, have GBG himself, saying his source.  The way you introduced your material made it look like it is generally accepted by everyone that it was influenced by Crowley.--Vidkun 14:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest that Vidkun is more-or-less right about this. It is really not interesting that a bunch of random people on the internet think that Gardner must have rephrased Crowley instead of rephrasing a storybook or rephrasing Rabelais.  Hutton undoubtedly discusses this point in Triumph, so there's no reason not to summarise his position in the Wiccan Rede article, where this sort of material belongs.  Jkelly 17:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no problem about including both versions, so that people can find out for themselves whether Gardner took it from "King Pausol" or from Aleister Crowley, as long as the readers know that the Crowley hypothesis is not just a guess by "a bunch of random people" as you seem to suggest. I encourage you to keep investigating this if you need further proof that the Crowley hypothesis is not unfounded. As far as I am concerned, the similarities, and the fact that Gardner met Crowley and was named honorary member of OTO and its leader in England, are simply too obvious to make the connection not just possible, but more than likely. --Jdemarcos 21:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I encourage you to keep investigating this if you need further proof that the Crowley hypothesis is not unfounded. No.  You are the one making the claim, the burden of support is on you.  Show us scholarly research that suggests the linkage.  Research that has been peer reviewed, or vetted for accuracy etc.  All YOUR sources have shown is opinions, when we have a primary source telling us what GBG claimed as the background for the phrase.--Vidkun 22:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * So you support that we take a literary, i.e. fictional character as the reliable source for Gardner's Rede, in spite of all the evidence that Gardner was familiar with Crowley's writings and thought, and the obvious similarities between the two sentences? And let me insist on this: I am not making any claim, this is a widespread conclusion reached by mutually independent sources that cannot be easily dismissed, IMO, and that conclusion needs to be cited in the article for general information. Also note that I am not blaming Gardner for deceit, because I have no proof that he was deliberately lying about the source. Finally, do not blame me for "making the claim", because the reference to Crowley was first entered, not by me, but by user San de Berg on February 27, 2004. And be aware that, if you trust quoting a fictional character as more reliable than the comparative method in religion applied to existing documents and to real people who actually met and knew each other, then you are promoting a literalistic interpretation of the sources. --Jdemarcos 00:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The point here is not to convince editors here what "the truth" is. Let's say you managed to convince me that Gardner had never read a book not authored by Crowley and had never talked to any human being other than Crowley, and therefore could not have possibly composed anything not directly inspired by Crowley.  If I then tried to insert that information into the article, it would be removed for violating our policies.  All we are doing here is summarising what reliable sources say about a subject.  In any case, a discussion about improving the Wiccan Rede article belongs at Talk:Wiccan Rede.  Jkelly 22:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Bibliographical and encyclopedic sources
I have removed:


 * Joanne Pearson, A Popular Dictionary of Paganism (London and New York: Routledge Curzon, 2002).

It is not bibliographic and is far from being encyclopedic. It is a slight volume of little if any academic use.

Academic Studies
I have also removed:


 * Darren Oldridge, ed., The Witchcraft Reader (London and New York: Routledge, 2002).

Whilst a good collection of articles, this book is about witchcraft not Wicca.

wiccan calendar
i saw this on the article for wicca in some other langauge, haha im not sure which, well its this one


 * The language is Catalan. Jdemarcos 18:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Festivals wicca segons els hemisferis

i think it could easyly be translated and added here and be quite helpful as a grahpic. in its original langauge its accompanied by a beutiful calendar picture and if the licensing issues can be resoloved it think this could be great Qrc2006 22:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The article is already quite lengthy, and there are two other articles that go over the Wiccan sabbats in detail (Wheel of the year and Sabbat (neopaganism)). Rather than repeat the info yet again, I'd actually like to merge all that info and move it into just one. It looks (based on the discussion there) like it might all end up moving into Wheel of the year, which may at some future date become Wheel of the year (neopagan). I suggest if we perform a facelift, we do it at Wheel of the year. Fuzzypeg ☻ 15:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that those who live in the Southern Hemisphere, celebrate on different dates (reversed) due to the seasons. Disinclination 04:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. I live in New Zealand, so I know all about that. The table above includes Northern and Southern Hemisphere dates, as do the articles Sabbat (neopaganism) and Wheel of the year. Fuzzypeg ☻ 04:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge? Why?
Why has a merge template been added in the article? I can't find any discussion, much less a justification for it, here or in Wiccan rituals, and this article is too long already to add still one more long section to it. --Jdemarcos 15:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

History and roots
I'm taking a class on paganism; would you like me to add some relevant information about the accuracy of claims that "this is how ancient pagans did it", sourced from my textbook? I have some information on "celtic" holidays and how a lot of them came from, say, romans or germanic tribes; information about how pagan religions changed and merged and the unliklyhood of a single ancient "fertility cult" as Murray claimed, et cetera; a lot of stuff that, as a wiccan, I never was told. The article seems long and comprehensive to begin with... should I make a seperate article? Is there an article I should put this stuff in? Kuronue 15:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Kuronue. A new editor armed with a textbook is always a joy and a pleasure! I suggest you go looking at Wheel of the Year and Sabbat (neopaganism), which are both rather a shambles at the moment; I expect them to merge into one article soon. Also try looking at Margaret Murray, Witchcraft, European witchcraft, Great Mother, Triple Goddess and Horned God. Any clean-up you feel like doing would be appreciated, and there's certainly plenty that needs doing to some of the paganism-related articles. I caution you that even popular academic authors may not always be the gospel truth (Ronald Hutton is one such author who never ceases to amaze me with the number of inaccuracies in his work), but being able to mention the most influential theories and provide citations would help Wikipedia no end. I hope you have lots of fun. Fuzzypeg ☻ 06:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Awesome. We've gone over in extensive detail holidays in various pagan religions, and being a neopagan I easily recognized which ones are currently celebrated (like Saturnalia -> Yule); I'll head over there to add to the histories in Wheel of the Year. Margaret Murray is briefly mentioned in my new textbook as debunked by several facts, so if any of them arn't in the article I'll add them. European Witchcraft is what we're studying now, so that'll be my next project. It's a college class taught by the religious studies department so I'd hope they would pick books by credible authors, but the books are pretty new so they should be ok, plus it has to be verifiable, not true ^_^ I'll get on that Kuronue 15:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone should write an article about the widespread bathing problems reported in high school age wiccans which aren't supported by the older and more tradictional members. It seems those young kids think its cool and controversial to not bathe, but really it just makes us look like we are trying to be different just for the sake of being different. Which is of course not true.
 * yeah, sure. I'll get right on that one.  Ungovernable Force  Got something to say? 05:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
Is this normal? Every time I check my watchlist someone's reverted 2 more counts of vandalism today.... new to the article, sorry Kuronue 15:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is fairly normal for an article of this type. Wicca is fairly controversial among many groups.  Then again, some teenagers just want to show off and pump ego in front of their friends.  :P 207.216.14.202 06:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * thanks for finally replying, I was specifically asking about that one day when there was a rush of vandalism that didn't seem normal. Was wondering if someone had linked the article someplace. It seems to have slowed to a manageable pace now. Kuronue 16:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, Kuronue. Yeah, the vandalism on this article is pretty much in fits and spurts--one day it won't get touched, the next day there'll be twenty or so vandals in the space of a few hours, with no discernable cause. *shrug* All in a days work at Wikipedia. :) Justin Eiler 16:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Finding Contacts
I'm not in any contact with any wiccans, I was wanting to get a veiw of the religion from their point of veiw. So how would I get in contact with someone of the religion?Solon Olrek 17:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Try the witchvox website, or alternatly, drop me a line on my talk page, I don't claim to speak for everyone but I happen to be a wiccan. Kuronue 05:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

There are also many wiccan groups on e.g. yahoo, msn and blog hosts. Of course I can't vouch for the quality of individual groups, but if you want to join one and state why you're there, I think you'll get a good response. Totnesmartin 14:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Linking Your Website
Hello, I am the creator of the wicca site, The Wiccan Experience. It is a learning and resource site for people who are or would like to study Wicca. It has advanced coding that is used in order to give people a new type of online learning experience. As well a new part has been added to the site known as the, Interactive Altar (not yet completed), which is basically an altar (done in Macromedia Flash) that you can click on different things on it and they will lead you to other parts of the altar or around a common wiccan household of sorts. I was wondering if I could add this site to the links area on this topic. Thanks!


 * Hi Alistair, I've had a look at the site (without registering) and I don't think it's suitable for linking in to Wikipedia. It has almost no information that you can get to without registering (anything requiring registration is unlikely to be of interest to Wikipedia); the virtual altar sounds like a fun idea, but serves no encyclopedic purpose (and doesn't seem to work properly yet); also the site only offers a single point of view of what Wicca is, or how it should be taught: I for one would claim that you cannot learn Wicca except by initiation and training in a traditional Wiccan group. Perhaps that's become a minority view by now, I don't know. But if your site claims you can learn everything you need to know about Wicca by correspondence it could be construed as misleading by some people (such as me).
 * The fact is, we're not trying to find lots of external links for this article. Only exceptionally good sites, thoughtful and rich in information, are likely to be wanted here. Witchvox is a good example. Other people often add their own sites here, but these generally don't last for long before one of the editors deletes them again.
 * I'm not saying your site is bad, it looks like you've put a lot of work into your site. But remember this is an encyclopedia, rather than any other type of website or forum, so have very specific requirements for the materials we incorporate here. Fuzzypeg ☻ 04:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi,its Alastar again, I just wanted to let you know that the site isn't from one point of view of learning. If you do register (which is completely free. Registration is only for the purpose of customization of your, Wiccan Experience) you will be able to access whatever you want. We talk about covens and solitary witchcraft. Though as you said and are right, it isn't finished yet being that I just started it. Maybe I'll talk to you guys later once it is finished. I may be making it so that you can access everything without registration, though you can register to customize your experience. I will later be featuring classes online of famous authors that I have been talking to you. I will talk to you guys later on.

Cleanup
I cleaned up bits of this article, mostly punctuation or wikilink repair. There are still a few instances of minor non-NPOV language (the section on media depictions was particularly POV, and I think I've fixed that). The first sentence of the paragraph following the "confusing" tag I added needs repair, as it made NO sense to me. (Of course, since it made no sense, maybe it just needs EXPLANATION, rather than repair. I'm not familiar enough with the subject matter to know.) -Porlob 22:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, good work. The confusing sentence was some vandalism that occurred in the edit just prior to yours. I've fixed it and removed the tag. Fuzzypeg ☻  23:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, good catch. I probably should have thought about that and checked on that. Oh well. :) Thanks again. -Porlob 12:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I should mention here that I did some pretty substantial copyediting a couple of days ago, mainly just for style - particularly where the existing style was a bit repetitive within sentences. You'll find some of the wording is now more concise and I hope more the sort of style Wikipedia aims for. I apologise if I have inadvertently changed the meaning of anything. Metamagician3000 12:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Tradition List
I removed some of the listed traditions, including Atheist Wicca or Wiccan Atheists (not a "tradition," but a philosophy within Wicca), and MoonStar, since there was no article to link to. Justin Eiler 16:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Magic vs. magick, Redux
Folks, the discussion of "Magic vs. Macick" has already occurred: magic with a "k" is a non-standard neologism that makes sense within a Thelemic context, but not within a Wiccan one. Gardner wrote the word in its standard spelling (rather than using the neologism)--it makes the most sense within a Wiccan context to continue in that practice. Justin Eiler 18:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I re added this info, corrected the brackets vs braces issue that was breaking the info, and have some more to add. Someone pointed out that we HAVE an article on magick, which means this won't redlink.  Yes, we have an article on magick, but a number of the spelling changes DID result in redlinks.  Additionaly, the magick article states this:
 * This article refers to the magical system of Aleister Crowley and Thelema. For how this term appears in Wicca and similar Neopagan traditions, see Witchcraft and Folk magic. For a general survey of the topic, see Magic (paranormal).


 * That's NOT what each link to magic should be pointing to, IMHO.--Vidkun 19:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Guess I was not party to the original discussion. :) For my information, then, what is your source disputing the one I found? I understand when the claim was unsourced you removed it immediately (which of course can always be done), but a source cite was provided stating that some Wiccans (not all, as the sentence clearly stated) do in fact use this spelling. Please either provide a source for your assertion (that Wicca does not ever use this spelling) or put it back.

I understand the concern over redlinks. As it is only some Wiccans who use this spelling, I would have no objection to leaving all links within the article spelled with the "c". Alternatively, they could be piped, but I don't think that would be necessary at all-just a mention that the alternate spelling is sometimes used. However, it does seem this information is valid and verifiable, and it should be part of the article. (Parenthetically, though of course this would be original research, I know -many- Wiccans who use the "magick" spelling, and some who use "magic".) Even if the magick article does not relate to Wicca, the spelling does. I will leave the section removed pending response. Seraphimblade 20:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, Seraphimblade. The biggest source for the "c" spelling is Gardner's writings--he (to the best of my knowledge based on what I have available) never used the "ck" spelling, even in his Book of Art (Book of Shadows). (The books Gardner wrote include High Magic's Aid (fiction), Witchcraft Today, and The Meaning of Witchcraft--I can look up the ISBN numbers later if you wish--and the Booke of Art, which is unpublished and held secret within Gardnerian Wicca.) The "ck" spelling didn't really become popular in Wiccan circles until ... eh, probably the late 80s or early 90s, when some Eclectic covens combined Wicca with Thelemic techniques.


 * The big issue is that Wiccan magic is fundamentally different from Thelemic magick--different intent, different purpose, different philosophical worldview. However, my knowledge on that is WP:OR, so I can't cite that. ;) Justin Eiler 21:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response, upon looking into it further it appears this has been more of an issue then I ever realized among some Wiccans. I'll defer to your knowledge on it, guess I learned something today. Seraphimblade 23:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't care. I defer to your judgement. I linked it because it looked like that was what took the article back to the stable spelling (I guess not). I have no interest either way. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 20:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks--and I hope we didn't give offense by jumping so quickly. Justin Eiler 21:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course not. Everything appears to have worked out as it should. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 21:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * For the sake of asking, does the word magic mean anything different than the word magick? (I couldn't find the word magick in my dictionary, so I was just curious.)Solon Olrek 17:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, Solon89. Yes, there is a difference: Magick (with the k) is a specialised "jargon word" within Thelema that means "Any act that causes change in conformance with Will." Crowley's concept of True_Will was quite a bit more specialised than the standard definition, and it may help to read the article on Magick for a more complete explanation than I can give here. Justin Eiler 18:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you Justin. I guess I should have thought of going to the magick article, but I was in class so I didn't have time. Since I now can slightly contemplate the difference between the two spellings, I propose that the word be spelled magic and let there be another article devoted to the difference between the two words. Any objections?Solon Olrek 22:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I certainly have no objections personally; however, that may be such a specialized discussion that it would fall beneath the Wikipedia standards of notability. However, I would hazard a guess that [www.sourceryforge.org] would be more than willing to host such an article. Justin Eiler 23:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I will have to check that website out when I have some more time.


 * Are you a practitioner of the Wiccan religion?Solon Olrek 23:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I was for many years, and am still engaged in apologetics for Wicca and Paganism. Dunno if I'd still classify myself as Wiccan, or even as Pagan ... I've kind of dropped the labels and categorizations. :) Justin Eiler 23:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * So I take it that you are not a teen like I am? I am looking at different religions and trying to find one that I fit in with. Wicca looks very promising so far, but I want to find out a little bit more about it before I join the religion.Solon Olrek 00:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Goodness no, I'm 40! *laughs* Wicca is certainly a viable religion from my experience. Like any other religion, whether or not it works for an individual seems to have a lot more to do with that individual than with the religion in and of itself.


 * I no longer teach, but would certainly be willing to answer any questions or provide any help I was able to provide. You (or anyone else interested) can email me from my talk page, if you like. Justin Eiler 02:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I will do that. Thank you. I was wondering if you could give me some tips on how to join the religion. I live in northern Arkansas (wasn't born here THANK THE GODS), and since this is almost the buckle or the bible belt, I thought that it might be a little bit difficult to find other people who are interested in the Wiccan Religion. Do you know somewhere I could go to talk to other people of the religion and to see if there are any groups near where I live?Solon Olrek 19:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello all,

I was not sure how to contact you to let you know but I wanted to inform you that Cassandra Easson ( author of over 70 books world wide in the MBS catagory, has listed and endorced Moon River Wicca in her new book (title pending) I will send you more detail as I have them, and I hope that following on from this you will be happy to consider listing Moon River Wicca on your site. with Best Regards

Arietta Moon (nee Amethyst TygerMoon) & Romany Rivers Co-Founders of the Moon River Wicca Tradition

info@moonriverwicca.co.uk


 * The comment in the wikitext at the top of the article says not to write "magick" because it results in redlinks. That is not a good reason.  There may be a good reason, and there may not.  Redlinks can be easily avoided with piped links.  (Anyway, apparently it doesn't result in redlinks any more.)  So maybe that comment needs to be changed to point to an archive page where consensus was reached on the spelling (if that ever happened).  --Coppertwig 02:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

"Old guard"
I removed the reference to "Old Guard" since its meaning is as variable as the weather. Any traditional Wicca (Alexandrian, Gardnerian and offshoots) may be considered old-guard Wicca; however its initiates tend to just consider it "Wicca" (and anything else, "not Wicca"). For us, "old-guard" generally refers to those older covens that worked in a highly disciplined traditional manner. Depending on who you talk to, these groups are either rare or extinct, although some covens try to emulate their style. There's also the term "Old-Gard" [sic] referring to pretty much the same thing, but specifically Gardnerian. Fuzzypeg ☻ 01:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Wicca in popular fiction
This brief sentence section currently reads:
 * Several television shows and movies have depicted Wicca, including The Craft, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel and Charmed. Popular fiction, such as Cate Tiernan's Sweep series, and Isobel Bird's "Circle of Three" also makes references to Wicca. Such fictional depictions usually do not present an accurate picture of Wiccan beliefs and practices, and should, for the most part, not be taken as fact.

The last sentence had been deleted today, then replaced. As much as I enjoyed the "Buffy" series, I shudder at the thought that someone might regard these examples as an accurate depiction of Wicca. The important last sentence however, reads like it was tacked on as an afterthought. I wanted to suggest melding it into the paragraph, maybe like this:
 * Several television shows and movies have presented depictions of Wicca, fictionalized for dramatic purposes. Recent popular television series include The Craft, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel and Charmed. Popular fiction, such as Cate Tiernan's Sweep series, and Isobel Bird's Circle of Three also makes references to Wicca.

Does this seem to be an improvement, or is the change not really necessary? --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 06:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "I shudder at the thought that someone might regard these examples as an accurate depiction of Wicca" <<< yes, that's why i replaced it =). I can't see anything wrong with the last sentence (except maybe changing "for the most part, not be taken as fact" to "never taken as fact"), but you're version is fine too. If you think it needs changing, i won't oppose. --`/aksha 07:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think that my proposed version has any great literary merit, it was just a suggestion off the top of my head. Mostly I thought it would make it harder to delete some important info. I'll wait a reasonable time, and if no one objects or suggests something better, I'll make the change. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 07:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I like the version we've had for a while, because it emphasises the fact that these depictions have about as much similarity to Wicca as Hercules and Xena have to the religion of the Greeks! Remember that Wicca is still widely misunderstood and misrepresented. Many members of the public haven't even heard of it, not to mention having no idea what it's all about! If a Catholic priest were depicted as, say, a man in a purple loincloth in the Middle East with a great white beard, fighting snakes with his staff and magically parting the red sea, then most people would recognise this as a gross misrepresentation. And of course depictions like this would only appear in the outer fringes of lunatic comedy. However we have just as ridiculous depictions of Wicca in programs like "Charmed", and no-one seems to bat an eyelid! Fuzzypeg ☻ 20:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This just got tagged on to the section:

In Final Fantasy Tactics Advance Wicca is the magic power of the final boss, and the note is "magic that allows to realize wishes".

Delete? Totnesmartin 11:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

General improvements
Hi. I like what is presented in this article and I have some suggestions for improvement. The article is rich in source and information but more could be done to create neutral statements as per NPOV policy. I did notice some argument or possible editorializing before and of course it is important to look out for more. I understand that good sourcing may make it more neutral as can rearranging. The opening is not quite what I believe NPOV policy says about openings. I could imagine it being far more representative of the article as a whole. I would say that the para structure needs improving throughout and will work with anyone willing to spare the time. AlanBarnet 13:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The Wicca that never was
I've removed the following external link: This is a book review (not the book itself) of a book claiming Wicca originated in the Conneticut Woodcraft movement (much like the later Boy Scout movement). While I haven't read the reviewed book, it sounds questionable given the data uncovered regarding the Order of Woodcraft Chivalry by Philip Heselton in Gerald Gardner and the Cauldron of Inspiration and by Ronald Hutton in Triumph of the Moon. Furthermore, it is a rather specific area of historical interest and would be much better placed as source in the Origins section. If the contributor has actually read the book in question, they might want to incorporate some of the information into that section where it would be most useful.
 * The Wicca That Never Was: The real story of the world's newest "ancient" religion

Another reason for wanting to remove the link is that it makes strong and debatable claims about Wicca's lack of history, and placing this in a prominent place like the external links section (rather than in the article body where it could be placed in the context of a historical discussion) seems inappropriate and is liable to be inflammatory. Fuzzypeg ☻ 05:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I see what you are saying. I think there are more articles about myths surrounding Wicca at least in the journalistic sources I have. I will have a good delve in the sources for those publications and only present the verifiable ones. Im not interested in reinstating the link. But some of the ideas are ok. Back to you soon. AlanBarnet 05:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Pentagram/pentacle
Just saying that what I have written about the pentagram is entirely true, so please think before you call me a vandal. I know, because I have practised Wicca myself.Asteroidz R not planetz 16:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Athiests practicing Wicca
I'm sure its mentioned in the article, but nowadays, Wicca and Witchcraft are seen as seperate things (religion and craft). So, someone who is athiest can practice witchcraft, since witchcraft does not require a God/ess. Just to address the recent edits about it. Disinclination 04:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And as the sentence says now, Witchcraft is sometimes practiced by Atheists, to distinguish it from Wicca, which is not. Kuronue 04:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And that is good. This is just a message for those who are going to change it (providing they read the talk page first). Disinclination 04:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I am a Wiccan Atheist and practice Wicca. Not just witchcraft. Just because I believe in god(s) and goddess(es) as symbols, not living entities does not mean i do not follow the principals and practices of wicca-the religion. Modlibyouth 00:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but it doesn't work. Wicca is a religion, worshipping God and Goddess. By the definition of The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, an athiest is:  One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods. Same goes for dictionary.com:   a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. Therefore, you cannot be in a religion that worships divine beings, and be an athiest at the same time. The way you described it, would be witchcraft, or a certain type of paganism, with a female force and a male force. Disinclination 01:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It is my religious orientation and according to religioustolerance.org wicca can be atheistic. I disbelieve the existence of a god(s) or goddess(es) as living entities. To me, they are symbols. By definition, I am an atheist, but am also Wiccan. Just because you disagree does not mean it doesn't exist. Modlibyouth 06:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you read the article, you'll realize that Wicca worships the God and Goddess as living entities = deity = higher beings. Therefore, you cant been an Athiest Wiccan, because Wicca is a religion, and an Athiest doesn't believe in a higher power. They cancel eachother out. It makes less sense than a Christian Wiccan. I suggest you do your research on why it doesn't work. Just because one website says so, doesn't make it true. I suggest looking up alternative pagan paths, and I can tell you of a person who used to be Wiccan, but became an athiest witch instead, and gives lots of insight on it.Disinclination 07:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

And just because you say it isn't true, doesn't make it so. My source proves, if nothing else, that I did not make it up and I am not the only one who believes this way. I do not consider myself to be adamantly Atheist. The Atheist part only means that to me, as a wiccan, god(s) and goddess(es) are symbols. I am sure there are other Wiccans that have the same belief that do not tack on the Atheist title. But I do because yes, technically, I believe in no higher being. A higher power is totally different, however. I believe in the rule of three, magick, etc. But I do not believe it is all controlled by any supreme being(s). They are my beliefs and you can not refute that. Modlibyouth 18:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Then you arn't practicing Wicca. Sad but true, but Wicca is a religion that believes in a higher power. Read the article. I'm not the only one saying this. Hell, even $ilver Ravenwolf says Wicca is the worship of the two deities, God and Goddess. Disinclination 22:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Please, take this current discussion elsewhere. This is not the place to debate about the ins and outs of personal interpretation of religion. -- Huntster  T • @ • C 23:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Wicca on Masturbation
I saw a section on Wicca in the article Masturbation and you may want to verify its claims... --Hamster2.0 17:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry for moving your comment, but it would be easier if you put it at the bottom under a new section, so we can all see. Anyways, I really see no direct connection between the Charge of the Goddess and Masturbation (one seems to be more of a prayer than an act), and then they go and link the Charge and the Great Rite together. Not all Wiccans practice the Great Rite with actual intercourse (I am only speculating that a greater amount do it only symbolically than literally). Someone from here should probably go and edit that section, since it seems rather POVish, or raise some sort of flag about it The way the section is worded, however, makes me believe it should be in the Sex article, rather than masturbation.. Just my opinion. -- Disinclination 21:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Sexual intercourse
There is a Wicca section on this article, that I have put under dispute. Personally, I think it really needs to be cleaned up, by someone who is more aquainted with Wicca's history to deal with this. Disinclination 05:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm considering deleting the whole section, or attemping to take it on by myself. Every time I look at it, I want to cringe. :( Disinclination 05:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Ritual section
There have been lots of edits to the Ritual section recently. While they seem to be mostly consistent with usual Wiccan practice, they are unsourced. Would somebody like to write it up, with sources? Ta. Totnesmartin 16:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Copyright issues
I just came across a website that has an article about Wicca, in which there are sections that read word-for-word like this one. It is always possible that whoever wrote that article copied from Wikipedia, but I just wanted to put the information out there to see if anyone has an idea, or wants to investigate further. The website is here. I only skimmed through it, but noticed particular parallels in the "Origins" and "Later developments" sections; there are probably more as well. Like I said, I don't know which came first, or if there are any copyright isses to deal with here, but I wanted to alert anyone who might want to find out more. Thanks! romarin [talk ]  04:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Did a history search, and the sections you mentioned appear similar since at least November 20, with just a few changes by us. Time for an overhaul? Totnesmartin 10:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The website referenced actually has a link to the wiki article. This suggests to me that they felt they could use the information under copyleft attitudes, but still failed to show what the original source was. It's not a matter of us copying them, but the other way around, as a search on the internet wayback machine would show. They changed the page between April 28, 2005 and May 7, 2005, as shown here.--Vidkun 17:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's a long way back, I only went back to last month... Totnesmartin 19:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

the template
i think that the template for wicca should be added to the page, it links it to the rest of the pages on wiccan themes. im putting it back, but should it be deleted, i have it on my user page as well, you may look at it. Evil oranges 15:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've removed it. It is not obvious to me that this is of particular value to the readers of the article.    Jkelly 17:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * i messed it up due to rushing, thats all. as soon as i put the right one on there, you will see the use. just incase you dont, can i ask you if the nice collection of links to related pages is of no value? i found that having things like that helped in a number of articals: the Jew artical for example, it has a template that lists articals relating to Jews. clearly, articals relating to Jews are useless here, but WICCA articals are not. Evil oranges 00:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * We've had a couple of attempts of add a wicca template and a wicca portal; neither have, to my mind, been successful. I think the problem is that we just don't have many decent articles that relate specifically to Wicca. Now there are a lot more Jews than Wiccans, which is more manpower into making decent articles, and they've also got a lot more history than us, as well as having more defined schools of theological thought. There's more to write about there, and more people to write it. Meanwhile we're still hard at work trying to get just a small handful of articles into decent shape. Before creating these templates I think we should first put our efforts into making some good articles that we can put in the templates. See comments on this page and at Template talk:Wicca. Fuzzypeg ☻ 05:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Third Largest Religion??
(moved from further up the page) What are the requerimients on Wikipedia sources? The http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2005/4/emw231351.htm link on "Wicca as emerging third religion" itself doesn't prove anything, has no sources itself, no studies to backup the claims it make, and all in all looks like a regular PR release (i.e. not a good source) to my eyes. Check the link yourselves. 201.252.13.69 18:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Jkelly 19:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree as well -- I find it highly suspect that any person of repute would claim that by 2012 Wicca would surpass Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism to stand third after Christianity and Judaism in the U.S. Thoreaulylazy 02:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That caught my eye as well. I'm going to pull it as the source doesn't justify this with any numbers or put forth the "experts" credentials. I'm not saying this statment is untrue or that these two cited people are not potentially reliable sources, just that the source is too weak for such a strong statement. I'll look deeper into the sources, maybe I can find enought to put it back or add new citations. NeoFreak 20:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

"third largest religion..."
"there has been some speculation that Wicca will be the third largest religion in the United States by 2012 (possibly fourth due to Atheists/Agnostics)[19] due to large numbers of students converting. [2]"

The source for this is at emediawire.com. This is a site that exists to distribute press releases, the press release in this case being one that accompanied a book launch by the look of things. I therefore think the suggestion that wicca is likely to become the religion of tens of millions of U.S.ians is groundless hype and should be deleted. Anyone disagree? Ireneshusband 05:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I seriously doubt that's true.  Ungovernable Force  Got something to say? 05:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, if the only "speculation" is from a press release! Where's the research? Totnesmartin 09:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced material
Almost every statement in the article is unsourced. I seems every wiccapedian (sorry) is putting in their version of how it is, but they may as well be making it up for all a non-wiccan would know. Sources, please, people! Totnesmartin 18:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Death of a child
A tragedy has occurred, and a young child has apparently been bludgeoned and/or drowned, possibly by the child's mother, who claimed the devil was in her son, and who is currently undergoing psychiatric examination. According to the dead boy's 8-year-old sister the mother had that morning poured a circle of salt around the boy's body. Apparently police found a writing at the house describing a "ritualistic-type ceremony". The following text was added to this article:


 * In January, 2007, New Mexico DA Matt Chandler stated publically that he believed that published Wiccan rituals were responsible for the death of a child. Library books by Gavin and Yvonne Frost were seized as evidence from the local library.  As reported by the Associated Press  he stated "We believe the way some of the child abuse resulting in death happened can be related to stuff that’s in those books."

The reference is. Now the text as written jumps to some conclusions that the cited source doesn't make: DA Matt Chandler did not in fact say that published Wiccan rituals were responsible for the child's death. They withdrew books on witchcraft, astrology and Scientology from the local library, and stated they believed there was some relationship between the child's manner of death and "stuff that's in those books". Unfortunately two of those books are by the infamous Gavin and Yvonne Frost, who have done so much damage in the past to the public perception of Wicca...

I have removed this text anyway, since it is misleading and likely to be very inflammatory. I suggest we wait until more details of the case emerge, rather than go off half-cocked. The mother is still undergoing psychiatric assessment, and evidence is still being gathered. This is not the moment to write the case into an encyclopedia! Fuzzypeg ☻ 04:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Charlotte Allen's debunking article
I would dearly love to remove this article, not just because it is antagonistic and patronising to Wiccans, but because it is a load of codswallop. It is largely derivative of the work of Ronald Hutton, and repeats his many mistakes. It also seems to use him as the starting-point for what little further research she's done, so she comes up with statements like "The most thorough recent study of historical witchcraft is Witches and Neighbors (1996), by Robin Briggs", ignoring the groundbreaking developments in European study of witchcraft by scholars like Eva Pocs. In fact since the 1970s more and more evidence has been amassed indicating that yes, while accused witches were very often just simple Christians, a significant number of them were practitioners of witch-like practices (or believed themselves to be) including cursing and healing, going out of their bodies, and feasting in spirit at gatherings headed by a lady or goddess. Hutton drastically misrepresents the current scholarly consensus, ignoring important scholars and at times completely misrepresenting their work, such as when he says that E William Monter has helped prove "beyond a doubt" that none of the accused were practitioners of a pagan religion. In fact Monter quite clearly expresses the exact opposite, saying that the coloured devils in the woods associated with witchcraft were clearly remnants of pagan gods, that the saints' wells to which white witches sent their clients for healing baths were clearly the holy springs of pre-Christian gods under a thin veneer. He even identifies similarities between the methods of french white witches and English cunning folk, and suggests that they have a common origin.

The thing is, all of this is corroborated in a host of other solid academic works, which people like Hutton and Allen just ignore. The European school of historians studying the witch trials have known all this for years, and are starting to develop sophisticated pictures of the pre-Christian belief systems that were at play during the trials! Gustav Henningsen, Eva Pocs, Carlo Ginzburg, Bengt Ankarloo, this is a stellar list in this academic field.

I personally believe Hutton's (and hence Allen's) research regarding the later (20th C.) history of Wicca is just as shoddy, but I don't have so many top academics to compare them with here, that not being such a popular area for academic study. We have Heselton's books, though, which dwarf Hutton's in the quantity and clarity of evidence gathered. And Heselton's conclusions are quite different from Hutton's.

I want to remove that insulting article, because it is a) largely derivative b) misrepresentative. Do I have the mandate to do so?

Sorry for the rant, Fuzzypeg ☻ 05:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Be bold, as they say round these here parts. Totnesmartin 16:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Having calmed down a bit, I can see it's ludicrous to provide this polemical article as a main link from the Wicca page. Our history section, while not perfect yet, provides a much more balanced view. If details from Allen's article seem pertinent, and are not covered sufficiently by less polemical writers, then she could be added in as a reference for statements in this section. I would avoid citing her, though, if possible; I've already expressed what I think about her scholarship and that of her sources... Fuzzypeg ☻ 20:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, in case anyone wants them, the articles I removed are: Article critical of Wicca's Historic Origin and Rebuttal to Allen's article by Starhawk. Starhawk's rebuttal makes some good points, but she could have gone further and torn Allen's "history" to shreds. Fuzzypeg ☻ 20:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

A little re-edit?
Wiccan ethics require that magical activities be limited to good purposes only. Maybe this is just me being nitpicky, but could they re-edited a little (I dont feel I have the finesse for it) editing, only because it sounds a little too 'whitelighter' ish. I understand where it is coming from, but am I the only one who gets that feeling from it? I've been waiting awhile to say something about it, but I don't think I can do it. Perhaps it could make some mention of exceptions or something below (where the ethics section is)? Disinclination 01:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Once you pointed it out, I saw it too. Will that little edit do it for you? Or does it need something more (or less)? Lanternshine 05:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If you'll excuse my sick-addled (read: too sick to comprehend more than 'yes', 'no', 'please', 'I need more painkillers!') mind, could you elaborate on what you asked? Did you make an edit and I missed it? Disinclination 07:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. I did make an edit, but it seems no longer to be there.  Perhaps I skipped that final step from preview to submit.  Shame on me.  Or, perhaps it disappeared when another Wikipedian reverted another edit of mine in that same paragraph (a breach of Wiki etiquette on his part, BTW).  In any event, it read as follows and I'll put it back in.  Let me know if this works for you.


 * Commonly held Wiccan ethics require that magical activities be limited to beneficial purposes only. This principle is bolstered by customary adherence to The Wiccan Rede and belief in the Threefold Law of Return (see Morality below).


 * Lanternshine 22:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I edited over the top of that. I've been aware for a while that the old wording needed improvement, but I think that section needed a bit of a rewrite first. So many things to improve here! I've tried now to improve the wording; see what you think. Feel free to alter it again or suggest alterations. Fuzzypeg ☻ 20:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it works great! Probably better than anything I could have done. :) Now I just need to find a pretty gold star... Disinclination 21:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Wicca Portal
I've been working on the Wicca portal since last November (the 14th of November to be exact), and I've finally removed it from the "Portals Under Construction" category, and its now at what I consider to be release status, and I'd like to just invite you to all go and take a look at it. It is my hope that this portal will not only provide a way for Wikipedians to learn many things about Wicca, but also to encourage and expand interest in being an editor of articles related to Wicca and Neo-Paganism. It is most defeneatly possible to say that the portal is not of some "super portal" standard, but I think that it is of good quality, considering there arent really many articles in relation to Wicca that are up to any kind of featured status. This has been the first major project that I've completed at Wikipedia, my first portal was the English portal, but the topic seemed to broad, and I was unable to complete it. I'd like to say thanks to you all, those who gave suggestions, support, and such for this portal. --Brenton.eccles 08:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ranks within Wicca
As I was going through some articles, I noticed that on Sex magic, they have a sentence linked to the Wiccan High Priest and Priestess, but both redirect to the High priest disambig page. When I came back here, we have no mention of what a high priest or priess is, and I think that the Organisation section probably needs some more fleshing out. While I am aware that there are several traditions who follow many different things, most Wiccans, I'd hope, know what High Priest and Priestess are, at least within Gardnerian or Alexandrian Wicca, yet this article does not reflect that. Or perhaps a new article should be made altogether for the Wiccan High Priest and Priestess? Or just a new section? Just a thought. Disinclination 07:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It would depend on how much detail you want on the subject. Start with a section, then if it gets too complex we can debate whether to split it into an article. Totnesmartin 14:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

POV Sentence Removed
I was Being Bold and removed the following statement:

"The first witch in a film or television series was named Lauren Goslet from france and although the image gave her a in some ways bad reputation was thrilled to have landed such a wonderfull place in the cast."

Aside from various missing words and grammatical errors, it hasn't been properly cited, and the 'thrilled' portion, while it seems to be a quote, doesn't make it clear that it *is*, in fact, a quote. 207.81.138.180 04:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Worst Information about wicca.
If you’re going to talk about Wicca please don’t referee to one type of it as Wicca. There are no guide lines and there is no set way to practice. To say one of the oldest religions or set of beliefs was popularized by one person is insane and insulting especially when his set of beliefs doesn’t even constitute nearly 1% of the possibilities of this particular religion. That’s was makes this religion so beautiful and incorruptible its 100% interpretation and feel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.146.189.180 (talk • contribs)


 * While I respect your feelings and beliefs, I do have to point out that your grasp of Wiccan history does not seem to be grounded in fact. And while I agree with the importance of interpretation and feelings, neither feelings nor interpretations change the facts. In the beliefs of my Tradition, the Lady gave us Intuition, and the Lord gave us knowledge. We must balance the two to live properly.


 * More relevant to Wikipedia, however, is that we work with verifiable, objective facts, not feelings or interpretations. If you are not comfortable with that emphasis, I certainly understand and respect your views. If you would prefer other sources on Wicca to work with, feel free to contact me on my talk page, and I'll provide you with some links to other Wiccan sources on the web that you may be more comfortable with. Justin Eiler 16:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)