This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Looking for participants in the the discussion of List of religions once classed as cults cairoi 14:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
We need to add more to this article. Its a growing religion and I don't know how to edit the Wicca list that is on the right.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dante Asgard ( talk • contribs)
This is quite a big article, and, as was inevitable, it's starting to suffer from having had lots of small edits and no big rearrangements. Lets not lose sight of how the whole thing reads, from start to finish.
I would like to see Wiccan Beliefs and practices (and possibly Morality) shifted up above all the talk of history, possibly just after Definition. Beliefs and morality are the most important elements of the religion, and probably the most interesting for general readers to read about. It doesn't matter if there are a few mentions of historical aspects in these sections, just as long as we can paint a vivid initial picture before we get down to the nitty-gritty with the history/scholarly-debate stuff.
I'm also wondering whether a few passages could be moved into footnotes. Does anyone know how to have separate footnotes and references (if this is possible). Should we even separate the two? If not, should we change the "References" heading to "Notes"? (I know we already have a "Notes" section, but it's pretty derelict.)
Comments, suggestions, criticisms much appreciated. Fuzzypeg 14:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I just archived old discussions. Note that I did something unusual. Not being sure that a discussion about Gerald Gardner as a Mason was not still ongoing, I moved it to (the neglected) Talk:Gerald Gardner, instead of to Talk:Wicca/Archive 4. If this is inconvenient for any involved party, I trust that you will do the correct thing. Jkelly 22:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry guys, I'm new, didn't know about the whole comment thing. I've been a newb on many things and as I grow more into it I learn each place has the same single thought "Nothing more annoying then a Noob"
I just thought that since its a growing religion I should add more too it. I was going to do pretty much the same thing for the Rastafari Movement.
I'll do what I can to make up for it but I think I've done enough damage already. ~ Dante
Just read through this article in it's entirety whilst studying spin-off religions from Freemasonry, the linkage of the 'traditional' ritual and most aspects of Wicca can be found identically in Freemasonry yet for some reason the only reference to the Craft is the allegation that Gardner was a 'Co-Freemason', which he was not. He was a Freemason who broke off and started a cult, just as Hubbard, Smith, et al did.
Perhaps clarifying the origin of the ritual and the history of the Craft in a factual rather than a romantic sense would be of more benefit to the Wikipedian community? This is an encyclopedia, therefore clinical, so all this fanciful hubub of where Gardner -claims- the religion takes it's intricacies from have thoroughly been flooded out by the factual derivisions from Freemasonry that have become rather visibly intertwined with it's lore. 211.30.80.121 00:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
If you can prove, with actual citations, other than Bracelin, which Lodge GBG was a member of, and actually come up with something isn't contradictory (like listing a lodge name and number that do not currently go together), the encyclopedia would benefit. As for the issues you have regarding Gardner's claims, they are no more and no less valid than the unverifiable claims of any other religion.-- Vidkun 00:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
We should add a template, I've been working on Template:Wicca thanks to Fuzzypeg. Uh thats all. I'm consulting people of all traditions that are verifiable. So no worries there...
Blessin's! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dante Asgard ( talk • contribs)
Don't forget that this is Wikipedia, and all editors have ownership over this article (or none, depending on how you see it), not just Wiccans of verifiable tradition. The article may be about us, but it's not exclusively for us or by us. I was just recently trying to break up a fight on Talk:Freemasonry, and saying that if the article there is obviously written from a purely Masonic perspective, and in Masonic language, it makes it seem less authoritative, rather than more. In fact, it may be those of "unverified" tradition who contribute more than me on the subject of Wicca, because I'm rather reluctant to go publishing trade secrets. I certainly won't remove material, and I am likely to correct information that's wrong, but there's a lot that I'm not going to be the first to add... ;-D
Anyway, happy editing with the template. I think if we're going to have a template, it would be nice if it quite densely incorporates a lot of information. I was impressed with the {{ancient egypt}} template (as seen at Egyptian hieroglyph), which fits a lot of information in a small space and doesn't cause too many problems with the rest of the article layout. Have a look, see what you think. Oh, and don't forget to sign your discussion posts with ~~~~. Cheers, Fuzzypeg 12:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
80.13.246.6 and 87.88.103.81, you keep adding links to what, from its own url, is obviously a blog. I do not believe it adds anything encyclopedic to the article, and i have now reverted it twice. If you want to put it back in, please, see please see WP:EL and m:When should I link externally first, and then make your case here on the talk page for why we should have that link.-- Vidkun 16:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Can we get a semi-protect on this? the two numbered accounts listed above are link-spamming with their Kolob Order webpage all over wiki.-- Vidkun 12:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I think that you should add www.avalonia.co.uk to your links section. They have a huge resource of Wiccan related articles and also run an excellent open circle in London for people interested in Wicca which is attended by between 40 - 80 people every month. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:80.189.80.62 ( talk • contribs)
I agree with fuzzypeg. - vanis 19:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey, we would like to add an external link to two interviews with Phyllis Currott about Wicca. They describe wicca and her experience in thoughtful and interesting ways. Here's the links: "What? No flying monkeys? and "Longing for love". These interviews are really personalable and interesting and I think add some warmth to the page. - Open Grove Claudia
Actually, this comment is incorrect: "(This policy came under attack when Patrick Stewart, a Wiccan soldier, was killed in action in Afghanistan in 2005. His widow has pressed for the inclusion of a pentacle to memorialize him at the Northern Nevada Veterans Memorial Cemetery.". The policy came under attack when PFC Abe Kooiman died in 2002. One Witchvox article about it. I should know, i am a member of the Pagan Veterans' Headstone Campaign.-- Vidkun 13:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Looking for participants in the the discussion of List of religions once classed as cults cairoi 14:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
We need to add more to this article. Its a growing religion and I don't know how to edit the Wicca list that is on the right.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dante Asgard ( talk • contribs)
This is quite a big article, and, as was inevitable, it's starting to suffer from having had lots of small edits and no big rearrangements. Lets not lose sight of how the whole thing reads, from start to finish.
I would like to see Wiccan Beliefs and practices (and possibly Morality) shifted up above all the talk of history, possibly just after Definition. Beliefs and morality are the most important elements of the religion, and probably the most interesting for general readers to read about. It doesn't matter if there are a few mentions of historical aspects in these sections, just as long as we can paint a vivid initial picture before we get down to the nitty-gritty with the history/scholarly-debate stuff.
I'm also wondering whether a few passages could be moved into footnotes. Does anyone know how to have separate footnotes and references (if this is possible). Should we even separate the two? If not, should we change the "References" heading to "Notes"? (I know we already have a "Notes" section, but it's pretty derelict.)
Comments, suggestions, criticisms much appreciated. Fuzzypeg 14:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I just archived old discussions. Note that I did something unusual. Not being sure that a discussion about Gerald Gardner as a Mason was not still ongoing, I moved it to (the neglected) Talk:Gerald Gardner, instead of to Talk:Wicca/Archive 4. If this is inconvenient for any involved party, I trust that you will do the correct thing. Jkelly 22:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry guys, I'm new, didn't know about the whole comment thing. I've been a newb on many things and as I grow more into it I learn each place has the same single thought "Nothing more annoying then a Noob"
I just thought that since its a growing religion I should add more too it. I was going to do pretty much the same thing for the Rastafari Movement.
I'll do what I can to make up for it but I think I've done enough damage already. ~ Dante
Just read through this article in it's entirety whilst studying spin-off religions from Freemasonry, the linkage of the 'traditional' ritual and most aspects of Wicca can be found identically in Freemasonry yet for some reason the only reference to the Craft is the allegation that Gardner was a 'Co-Freemason', which he was not. He was a Freemason who broke off and started a cult, just as Hubbard, Smith, et al did.
Perhaps clarifying the origin of the ritual and the history of the Craft in a factual rather than a romantic sense would be of more benefit to the Wikipedian community? This is an encyclopedia, therefore clinical, so all this fanciful hubub of where Gardner -claims- the religion takes it's intricacies from have thoroughly been flooded out by the factual derivisions from Freemasonry that have become rather visibly intertwined with it's lore. 211.30.80.121 00:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
If you can prove, with actual citations, other than Bracelin, which Lodge GBG was a member of, and actually come up with something isn't contradictory (like listing a lodge name and number that do not currently go together), the encyclopedia would benefit. As for the issues you have regarding Gardner's claims, they are no more and no less valid than the unverifiable claims of any other religion.-- Vidkun 00:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
We should add a template, I've been working on Template:Wicca thanks to Fuzzypeg. Uh thats all. I'm consulting people of all traditions that are verifiable. So no worries there...
Blessin's! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dante Asgard ( talk • contribs)
Don't forget that this is Wikipedia, and all editors have ownership over this article (or none, depending on how you see it), not just Wiccans of verifiable tradition. The article may be about us, but it's not exclusively for us or by us. I was just recently trying to break up a fight on Talk:Freemasonry, and saying that if the article there is obviously written from a purely Masonic perspective, and in Masonic language, it makes it seem less authoritative, rather than more. In fact, it may be those of "unverified" tradition who contribute more than me on the subject of Wicca, because I'm rather reluctant to go publishing trade secrets. I certainly won't remove material, and I am likely to correct information that's wrong, but there's a lot that I'm not going to be the first to add... ;-D
Anyway, happy editing with the template. I think if we're going to have a template, it would be nice if it quite densely incorporates a lot of information. I was impressed with the {{ancient egypt}} template (as seen at Egyptian hieroglyph), which fits a lot of information in a small space and doesn't cause too many problems with the rest of the article layout. Have a look, see what you think. Oh, and don't forget to sign your discussion posts with ~~~~. Cheers, Fuzzypeg 12:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
80.13.246.6 and 87.88.103.81, you keep adding links to what, from its own url, is obviously a blog. I do not believe it adds anything encyclopedic to the article, and i have now reverted it twice. If you want to put it back in, please, see please see WP:EL and m:When should I link externally first, and then make your case here on the talk page for why we should have that link.-- Vidkun 16:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Can we get a semi-protect on this? the two numbered accounts listed above are link-spamming with their Kolob Order webpage all over wiki.-- Vidkun 12:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I think that you should add www.avalonia.co.uk to your links section. They have a huge resource of Wiccan related articles and also run an excellent open circle in London for people interested in Wicca which is attended by between 40 - 80 people every month. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:80.189.80.62 ( talk • contribs)
I agree with fuzzypeg. - vanis 19:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey, we would like to add an external link to two interviews with Phyllis Currott about Wicca. They describe wicca and her experience in thoughtful and interesting ways. Here's the links: "What? No flying monkeys? and "Longing for love". These interviews are really personalable and interesting and I think add some warmth to the page. - Open Grove Claudia
Actually, this comment is incorrect: "(This policy came under attack when Patrick Stewart, a Wiccan soldier, was killed in action in Afghanistan in 2005. His widow has pressed for the inclusion of a pentacle to memorialize him at the Northern Nevada Veterans Memorial Cemetery.". The policy came under attack when PFC Abe Kooiman died in 2002. One Witchvox article about it. I should know, i am a member of the Pagan Veterans' Headstone Campaign.-- Vidkun 13:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)