I realise this is only of indirect relevance to this page, but I would like to ask for any commnts on an expansion I have made at Philip Heselton. I have expanded the article from material provided to me by Philip, who is a close friend and associate: because of this relationship any feedback about neutrality issues in particular would be very welcome. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 22:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I have a slight concern with weasel words of the first paragraph. as in the article "and it is thought that Wiccan theology began to be compiled no earlier than the 1920s" While this is referenced it seems to me to be lacking in the "it is thought" by whom category? Is it historians in general, if so, which ones? Is it theologians? Again which ones? Members of the faith? Which groups? Is it the author of this sentence? If the thinking is being thought, somebody has to be doing the thinking! Chado2008 ( talk) 03:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
" However, there is still hostility from some politicians and Christian organisations. " I find this to be unfairly singinging out Christians, it should be changed to Religious organizations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.224.93.8 ( talk) 20:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
yes not to mention some schools when they find you r pagan. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
121.209.68.49 (
talk)
14:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I know this article failed featured article a while ago, but it has been considerably refined since then - many daughter articles being split off and more references added. Is it time to look at 'promotion' again, initially to Good Article? The criteria for GA status are here and I think we meet them. Witchcraft is a GA and I don't think this article suffers by comparison. Have a look here for a summary of the criteria for all grades of article, and see if you don't think we stand a chance. Even if we don't meet the criteria right now, submitting it for review would lead to feedback which could only improve the article. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 22:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
The following is pasted from the peer review page, which not everyone may be seeing. It will hopefully explain the many changes I have recently been making here! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 09:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
*A script has been used to generate a semi- automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 19:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the semi-automated review: have taken its comments on board. Would appreciate some human reviews too if anyone is out there! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 15:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Please fix up the automated suggestions - I've had an article put on GA hold because of the automated suggestions. It's a bit unclear as to whether you've used the "Academic studies" section as a reference in the article at all. Is it just a case of further reading? Such a section is not compliant with the WP:MOS, and as such would give GA reviewers pause. Why is magick (which, somehow, is a separate article from magic (paranormal) ) unmentioned? Why is Craft name capitalised as it is? The "Discrimination against and persecution of Wiccans" link does not work - and in any case screams out POV. I thought "malevent" was spelled "malevolent"... you may need to run the article through a spell-checker. Also, you may wish to consider looking at GA or FA religion articles (not sure if there are any FA religion articles...) to see how they are structured and what information they cover. Towards the middle-end of the article, there are few citations - take a look at Wikipedia:When to cite for opinions about when you should be citing stuff. - Malkinann ( talk) 12:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- That's great, many thanks. I have fixed up most of the automated suggestions and will work through your helpful additions above. Is it OK if I copy your paragraph above onto the article's talk page? Not every editor on the article will be looking at this peer review, I fear, and may miss the feedback. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 19:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, go for it. Looking at Bahai, one thing this article is missing is a "demographics" section - who practices Wicca? Is it recognised in any country's censuses? Is there any difference between the demographics of Wicca-in-a-tradition and eclectic Wicca? How impossible is it to find out the demographics of Wicca? Also, the holidays section and the section on the Book of Shadows are unreferenced - could you pull a reference or two out of the daughter articles for these sections? - Malkinann ( talk) 23:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
The Goddess community, many of whom refer to their religion as Wicce rather than Wicca, is fast growing and I feel it deserves better representation. We use the term Wicce to distinguish our Monotheastic religion, believing in one living Goddess, from the duotheistic forms of Wicca. There are active blogs that use the terms Wicce, monotheasm, monotheastic and it is becoming widely used among Feminist Witches and other Goddess advocates. It would be nice if people who encounter these new terms could find information on them here on Wikipedia. I'm getting tired of being told that "Wikipedia says "this" or "that"" in contradiction to our tradition because we are not fairly represented.
How would we go about doing that? Do we need permission to make such a page?
Thanks Morgaine Swann ( talk) 16:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not at all clear what you're asking. Which section are you referring to? There is no 'Wiccan holidays' section, nor can I see any suggestion that there should be... Confused, Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 01:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Haloween also known As Samhain.
Beltain Yultide —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.68.49 ( talk) 14:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
As a follower of Wicca and the Old Pagan way, I will list the Wiccan sabbats. Samhain, October 31. It is a festival that we define the role of death in the cycle of life. Yule, December 21 or 22. It is a solar festival, the day the sun is reborn to warm the earth again. Imbolc, February 2. It is the day of celebration for the stering of the earth and all its criters. Ostara, March 20 or 21. The time of year that all is growing and fertility is growing in our spiritual lives. Beltane, April 30 and May 1. This time of year the spirit of summer is at hand. Midsummer, June 21 or 22. In the hands of summer we give thanks for what we have. Lammas, July 31 and August 1. A time to gather and thank the harvest. Mabon, September 20 or 21. "The Witches' Thanksgiving." Or to look back opon the Year and see what you have done to better your self. That is the eight Sabbats of Wicca, and what they mean to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.76.156.87 ( talk) 18:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
This is the way i learned it, it may be wrong in your eyes but if there is one thing about wicca and the old pagan way, is that everybody has a diffrent name for everything. Does not mean it wrong but its just diffrent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.76.156.87 ( talk) 19:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I removed this essay from the article:
This is all correct apart from the fact that the modern term Wicca comes from Wica, which is of unknown etymology, and is used in a very different sense, and with a different pronunciation to the Saxon wicca. The above paragraph is written entirely on the understanding that they are the same word, whereas they are clearly two different, though historically related, words. Of course, whether Wica was derived from wicca long ago or only in the 20th century is immaterial; the usage and pronunciation were changed dramatically, and it is for all practical purposes a separate word. Fuzzypeg talk 22:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of January 2, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:
If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— BorgQueen ( talk) 12:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
...should we now go for featured article status? We had a peer review in early December 2007 prior to going for GA, so I'm not sure whether to:
Personally I'd be inclined towards the latter, as even if we failed it would get us some useful close criticism from experienced editors, which could only improve the article. What do you think folks? Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 12:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I've found an essay Wikipedia:Compare Criteria Good v. Featured which may, with some solid thought, assist preparation for a FAC. - Malkinann ( talk) 01:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey, as you've all probably been aware I've been maybe a little over enthusiastic lately with Pagan articles, but I think that people shouldn't keep deleting this idea whenever I put it into practise. Basically, I think that in the "Wicca" article, there should DEFINATELY be a mention that Wicca is usually seen as a Neo-Pagan faith. So far there isn't, and whenever someone puts it in, it is deleted. May I ask why? The majority of Wiccans, scholars, and other Neo-Pagans see it as a Neo-Pagan faith so why on Earth is this not in the introduction when it's a key element of Wicca? ( Midnightblueowl ( talk) 20:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC))
if show refrecnes and all that would it be considered revelnt if put down the varoius major belifes on the goddess and god and such. Mostly dealing wiht the lady mother croon i.e. three fates lunar goddess and mother earth ... theres so much but asking if would be relvent —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.114.136.226 ( talk) 21:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to go about this, but I thought here would be a good place to ask. I've been editing Religious debates over Harry Potter and, as you might imagine, Wicca comes up a lot in the Christians' arguments. Recently I've had to deal with an incensed Wiccan who is edit warring the page trying to insert a long-winded essay about the nature of Wicca, claiming our portrayal of it is inaccurate. I'm not a fan of edit warring, or of adding OR to pages, but I know next to nothing about Wicca, and, if a page I edit misrepresents the faith, I would like to correct it. So if any Wiccans are interested in having a gander at the page to iron out any flaws, I'd appreciate it. Please be sure to include an authoritative source. Thanks. Serendipod ous 22:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Harry potter has nothing to do with Wicca. They practice witchcraft and all, but its more of a creative mind than occultism.-- 24.119.143.87 ( talk) 05:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Should the first paragraph say that Gardner made 'claims' about the Wiccan religion, or is it more neutral, and therefore less POV, to say that he simply 'said' things about it? In this case, I think we can go with 'claimed'. 'Claimed' can be legitimately used without any implied POV until the substance of the claim can be independently verified - and in this case, with the best will in the world, it can't. The claim might be right, or it might be wrong. The same paragraph goes on to say, rightly, that Gardner's claims cannot be supported. It's not my intention to get into an argument over whether Wicca is an ancient religion or a recent one. Even so, I believe that both NPOV and accuracy can be served properly by recognising Gardner's claims as being just that, until there is some historical verification. - Shrivenzale ( talk) 11:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Huntster's reversion (05:15, 25 January 2008) from Keilana's edit (which added the sentence 'While most Wiccans also identify as witches, not all witches are Wiccans, and vice versa') brings up an interesting issue. I wonder whether or not it ought to be addressed in the article. This belief that 'not all Wiccans are witches' has gained some adherents--a recent Google search of that phrase brought up some 1,500 hits. However, I'm inclined to agree with Huntster in that the statement is essentially meaningless. It might be reasonably said that 'not all witches are Wiccans' but I'm not completely sure that the converse is true. Is there some authoritative source that could justify the inclusion of a discussion either supporting or refuting this idea? Would doing so lie within the scope of the article? Rangergordon ( talk) 07:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
In the book "Solatariy Witch" by: Silver Ravenwolf, it says that a wiccan does not consider theirself a witch. I don't consider myself a witch. Besides a witch is a woman with powers. It wouldn't make sense if a male wiccan said they were a witch if a witch is a womam. I'm sorry if I caused any damage by posting that. Hopefully It will clear some of it up. I'm also sorry i can't tell you what page but it's my first reference.Thanks,Later!!!-- Condolence "(talk)" 01:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Mr manilow added this to the comments at the head of the article page:
On the other hand, it has been argued that Crowley may have been instrumental in the initial formation of modern Wiccanism. For more information, see See Nevill Drury. "Why Does Aleister Crowley Still Matter?" Richard Metzger, ed. Book of Lies: The Disinformation Guide to Magick and the Occult. Disinformation Books, 2003.
I suggest it belongs here on the Talk page, unless someone thinks it's significant enough to incorporate it properly formatted into the article. - Shrivenzale ( talk) 16:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
(I've glanced into the archives but it seems this topic hasn't come up yet.) I'm removing the article from the Polytheism category for the following reason:
As you can see from the "Beliefs" section, there are several different views among Wiccans about the deities. There are monotheistic, duotheistic, polytheistic and pantheistic Wiccans. Including only one of these categories is wrong. Including all of them would also be incorrect, since each of them would imply that all Wiccans belong to that category.
Blessed be,
– Alensha talk 18:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
At the risk of appearing overly grumpy, I've removed a fairly lengthy addition by Moontrine outlining thirteen beliefs that s/he states that 'most Wiccans will follow', as defined (I believe) by the American Council of Witches(?). My reasons for removing this text are a) it was (ahem) 'borrowed', and wasn't credited to those who framed it originally; b) because it starts each statement with 'we' it's POV by definition; and c) the American Council of Witches doesn't speak for all Wiccans - although in fairness Moontrine did say only that 'most' will follow these principles. Even so, 'most' would still require a source. (BTW - If someone wants to correct me on who authored these principles in the first place, please feel free. - Shrivenzale ( talk) 16:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
In acceptance of wicca it must say that the us army is now recognizing the faith of wiccan soldiers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adipatus ( talk • contribs) 18:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
In the Etymology section, there's a sentence about how the word "Wicca" was not used until after Gardner, and the citation points to a Dictionary.com definition. This source says nothing about the origin of the word, only it's modern meaning. Am I missing something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.173.200.87 ( talk) 20:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the Wicca (2 Cs) spelling goes back to either Charles Cardell (Rex Nemorensis) or Doreen Valiente, but my primary sources are packed away. Cardell published "The Craft of the Wiccens" in 1958. is it possible the spellings got conflated somewhere allong the way? Justin Eiler ( talk) 22:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
When a Coven high priest abuses their position by sexually abusing girls under 18 under the ruse of "initiation" why is there no mechanism in place to remove them from the initiation book/register? Also why is there so much inertia from Gardenerian and Alexandrian Wicca in dealing with this frequent problem? It almost has if they tolerate it. Can anyone here give an idea of what guidelines Covens use to remove an abusive Priest or Priestess?-- Redblossom ( talk) 13:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Redblossom has been a long-term troll, starting many fruitless arguments at the Andrew Chumbley article. A number of editors now take a dim view of his opinions. I feel it would be a waste of our time to debate this accusation unless he provides evidence. Wikipedia is not the place to discuss unsupported opinions of editors. Fuzzypeg ★ 22:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Shrivenzale. So essentially initiated Wiccan covens dont have the means or the ability to deal with abuse(sexual or otherwise) from its own High Priests or Priestesses? So technically it is quite possible for a Wiccan High Priest to sexually abuse and retain the right to initiate without interference from other covens? Oh and Fuzzypeg if you have nothing good to say dont say anything.-- Redblossom ( talk) 17:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry that I am unable to make the changes myself (apprehensive about html coding) but would it be possible to differentiate between the 3 main types of Wicca right off the bat so that viewers aren't as tempted to dispute the information. The 6th citation ( http://www.newwiccanchurch.net/articles/btwfaq.htm) is one good reference for this but a few more citations might be necessary... Solitary practitioners in the USA are generally far less restrictive and many don't regard Gardner as the founder of anything relevant to what they practice... they follow/incorporate many other Pagan paths like Asatru, Native American, and Dianic Tradition and are sometimes even inspired by American historical events/people like the Salem Trials/Tituba. The beliefs as to how "old" Wicca is and whether or not Gerald Gardner is relevant to what they practice vary drastically in the United States. It can be a point of contention to tell a practitioner that they follow a modern or "invented" religion - many disagree while others are ok with the assessment.
Can someone help to ease the bold beginning of this article that seems to indicate that Wicca and Gardner are still synonymous everywhere you go... it's not very "truthy" anymore. Especially since the name was not even given to the religion by Gardner, he should not be given direct mention in the very first line of the article. It's misleading without some disambiguation in my opinion. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.211.129.152 ( talk) 05:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Fuzzypeg, but now I'm logged in, I added a short paragraph and cited it (i think correctly) and it seems to have covered up other text (where it says "Core Ideas") It appears correctly in the edit page but when I look at the article, it seems that I typed over some things... HELP! —Preceding unsigned comment added by FloridaJarrett ( talk • contribs) 02:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC) FloridaJarrett ( talk) 03:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind, I think I was just missing a ref tag :( FloridaJarrett ( talk) 03:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, no... now my reference isn't showing up on the list... maybe someone can help it to "appear"? (this is not the kind of "magic" I'm good at...) FloridaJarrett ( talk) 03:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
What do you think, should we try and add a section devoted to the creationist beliefs of Wicca?
This article may make for a good start...
http://www.witchvox.com/va/dt_va.html?a=usva&c=words&id=8179
( Rosewater Alchemist ( talk) 05:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC))
do Wiccans sacrifice? if so what? How do they worship? Rds865 ( talk) 00:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
would it be right to say that pentagrams and pentacles are a little different. Such as, a pentacle has a circle and a pentagram does not. On pentacle it has the suffix "cle" which is short for circle. -- L Condolence _ 12:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I think we should add to the “Traditions” section the debate that has been going on between Lineaged and Eclectic Wiccans about the definition of Wicca. Lineaged Wiccans are saying that the only people that are Wiccan are ones that were initiated into a coven that can trace its lineage back to Gardner while Eclectics say they can do whatever they want due to authors such as Silver RavenWolf and StarHawk. Watcher4187 ( talk) 18:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it is implied but the actual debate that goes on between the groups is not really discussed. I want to add a section on the actual arguments that each side puts forth. Watcher4187 ( talk) 16:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Should the Rites of passage section include a section on initiation? Sephiroth storm ( talk) 14:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
See [2] and Filiquarian Publishing LLC (including the talk page) -- Doug Weller ( talk) 10:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I would like to learn more about wicca and talk with someone with knownledge please contact me thank you blessed be Gypsy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.120.65 ( talk) 04:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
do we need an overview section? It's not usual on Wikipedia - the introduction is meant to be the overview. There's also no "overview" in, eg, Christianity. Time to merge with the intro? Totnesmartin ( talk) 17:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
The overview section gave three examples of "witchcraft, folk magic or sorcery" from other cultures: kulam, Hoodoo and Stregheria. Of these, Hoodoo and Stregheria are both practised by largely the same types of person as Wicca: modern Westerners, often urbanites and well educated. The original point of mentioning other varieties of witchcraft (I wrote the original wording) was to indicate that witchcraft is a widespread phenomenon, practised everywhere from Bangladesh to Japan to Bulgaria to Chile to Scotland to Bali (and you can't learn about these from Llewellyn books). I removed all three examples since I don't see the point in leaving just kulam, and I'm not really sure what can be gained from giving a more extensive list. Any list will be incomplete, and I don't see why examples are required at all. Fuzzypeg ★ 22:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
[Note: User:Mustafa Al-Zulfikari's invisible comment was moved here in order to facilitate discussion of the user's concern, as per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Invisible_comments User's comment, followed by my reply, appears below.]
It is highly contested that Gardner merely popularized Wicca. Many believe that it was manufactured by Gardner as were his claims to some of his initiations. (Source: In-text invisible comment by User:Mustafa Al-Zulfikari)
It might be worth mentioning the sub categories like Correllian Wicca, American Traditional Wicca, British Traditional Wicca, Dianic Wicca, American Celtic Wicca, or Eclectic Wicca are Wiccan, Gardnerian Wicca or Alexandrian Wicca. As a non pagan I would like a quick cheat sheet for these sub groups. Geo8rge ( talk) 19:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
This question was asked and answered here. Consensus seems to be it's not likely we'd be able to have the list verifiable, and meet NPOV.-- Vidkun ( talk) 15:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
If the information on this page is to be factual, it should comment on how Eclectic Wicca does not exist. British Traditional Wicca is the only form of Wicca - All other paths are invalid. Wicca has a set of rules, beliefs and rites which MUST be followed. Anyone not following these rules are not Wiccan but infact Neo-Pagan. Eclectic Wicca is like saying your a Christian but don't believe in the Bible (Such like not believing in what is written in Gerald Gardners Books). To be Wiccan you must be part of a coven, must worship two deities and must keep your oath. You can't just believe in what you want.
Eclectic Wicca should not be praised by saying it outnumbers Traditional Wicca as it does not. Neo-Paganism outnumbers Traditional Wicca, cause you can't have Eclectic Faith when it is a firm based religion. It just can't happen.
LuckyFlame ( talk) 14:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I fear that what is being described here is an extremist view. Many thousands of people, like myself, are not members of BTW covens, were never officially inititated into the Craft through a BTW coven, but still worship the Horned God and the Mother Goddess, respect and adhere to most of the teachings of Gardner, celebrate the eight sabbats, and practice some of the traditional Wiccan rituals as have been published by the Farrars, Valiente etc. So why I am suddenly "not infact a Wiccan, but a Neo-Pagan"? I don't take offence at your accusation, because I fully understand your position, even though I believe it is flawed. I am, by-and-large, a traditional eclectic, in that I am not a New-Ager (in fact, in my Book of Shadows I have described, somewat jokingly, Dianic Wiccans as heretics for not adhering to the Horned Lord), and the Charmed/Buffy-generation of Teen Wiccans makes me somewhat cringe at what I fear is too much focus on the magic and not enough on the theology of Wicca. But these eclectics are Wiccans - it's virtually a fact. Simply because some BTW's refuse to accept any other forms of neopagan witchcraft that describes itself as "Wicca" as being Wicca, does not make it so. Countless sources, from Scott Cunningham to the BBC make the claim that "eclectic Wiccans" are "Wiccans".
This is somewhat a parralel with what happenned to Christianity, it started out as a secretive cult into which one had to be initiated, but as it became more tolerable to the populace, so its rituals and beliefs became more public, and it became a public religion instead of a mystery religion. This is what is happening to Wicca now. The article's description of eclectic Wiccans as a form of Wicca is perfectly valid in the eyes of the majority of books and other media on the subject. I hope I have explained the point of view of the majority to you, though I still respect your beliefs and the reasons behind them.
PS - in response to Fuzzypeg's mention of Valiente describing her faith in Witchcraft for Today as "Witchcraft" and not "Wicca", I would like to note that Valiente, like many of the early Wiccans, never referred to "Wicca" as "Wicca", they always called it "Witchcraft". It only later came about to be known as "Wicca" because the religion of "Witchcraft" could commonly be confused with the noun of "witchcraft". It is similar to Christianity, which did not gain the name of "Christianity" till at least a century into its existence. Simply because Valiente did not use the word "Wicca" does not mean she was not talking about Wicca. Saint Paul never used the (Hebrew-Aramaic version of) "Christianity", and yet everyone accepts him as a Christian who talked about Christianity. Your asserttion that "an important purpose of hers in writing the book was to provide something new that was not Wicca and was not Cochrane Craft, and wasn't tied up with the perceived power plays of those movements. This book was intended to be a point of departure from Wicca" may well be true, and I don't mean to accuse you of lying or being ignorant, but I have read no source to back this up, and I personally doubt it; she may have been trying to get away from the powerplay occuring in many "Witches'/Wiccan covens", but I do not believe she meant to get away from Wicca. After all, didn't she once say that she'd "had enough of the gospel according to Gerald, but still believed that the Craft was real" or something along those lines? ( Midnightblueowl ( talk) 18:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC))
I think that Fuzzypeg has hit the nail squarely on the head, here. Argumentum ad populum is a heavily flawed argument. Luthaneal ( talk) 14:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I think that we could make it perhaps even clearer that there are differing definitions of Wicca in the introduction. We could say something like:
There is a dispute as to what actually constitutes Wicca. Traditionally, Wicca refers only to Gardnerian Wicca, the lineage stemming from Gerald Gardner. A second use uses "Wicca" to refer to several groups independant of, but similar to that tradition, such as Alexandrian Wicca, which together are known in the United States as British Traditional Wicca. A third usage, which has grown in popularity in recent years, considers all forms of neopagan witchcraft that share many of the beliefs held by Gardnerians to be types of Wicca, including Dianic Wicca and the 1734 Tradition.
Any opinions on this, I think it gives a fairly clear overview of the situation. ( Midnightblueowl ( talk) 10:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC))
In the United Kingdom and Europe, Wicca tends to maintain its meaning as a Mystery Priesthood.[1] However, in the US the term Wicca is often applied to any Goddess orientated form of religious witchcraft, many of which are based on the Wicca of Britain and Europe.[2][3] To mark the distinction between the two groups, US members of this faith tend to refer to the Mystery Priesthood as "British Traditional Wicca".[4]
The Long Island line of Gardnerian Wicca has installed a system of verification to enable them to better define members of the priesthood in the US. Initiates are given a certificate of initiation, which is signed by their High Priestess, along with copies of the preceding certificates which demonstrate their lineage. These authentication certificates have become known as "puppy papers".[5]
1. Pagan Federation
2. Fred Lamond, Fifty Years of Wicca
3. Margot Adler, Drawing Down the Moon
4. Fred Lamond, Fifty Years of Wicca
5. Fred Lamond, Fifty Years of Wicca
There is dispute as to what actually constitutes Wicca. Traditionally, Wicca refers only to lineages stemming from Gerald Gardner and operating as Mystery Priesthoods (such as Gardnerian and Alexandrian Wicca).[1] These are collectively known in North America as British Traditional Wicca.[4] A second usage, which has grown in popularity in recent years, considers Wicca to include other forms of Goddess-oriented witchcraft that are influenced by but independent of that lineage, including Dianic Wicca and the 1734 Tradition.[2][3]
Fuzzypeg, I think that what you have put in the quote box above is absolutely fine and does well to demonstrate the current debate (as it were)of the matter. It is neutral, yet correct. You are also right that the "puppy papers" bit can go elsewhere, later in the article, if it is indeed determined to be required at all. It is useful information, perhaps, but whether or not it really needs to be in this article is a matter best left to your discretion, in my opinion. Luthaneal ( talk) 15:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.115.210 ( talk)
ahm,? well if that's the case? i think many will
go on debate about it..
i mean, two types of wiccans???
WAT"S THE DIFFERENCE OF THE TWO ANYWAY??
they are still wicca..--
Vanessa2403 (
talk)
16:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Vanessa2403
Why is he called "19th-century" when he lived to 1947, and is by far the best remembered for what he did in the 20th-century? AnonMoos ( talk) 14:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, after plenty of discussion over the last year or two about what we want and what we don't want in the way of Wicca and Neopaganism templates, we now have two new ones starting to appear in various articles. Several editors initially expressed a desire not to have a "Wicca" template, but eventually agreed on the current Template:WiccaandWitchcraft, because it is collapsible and doesn't take up heaps of room. The previous Template:Wicca was disliked by many, and most of the criticisms of it can no longer be read because it was eventually deleted outright. It has now been reinstated by Midnightblueowl and added to several articles, meaning that they now have two different wicca-related templates each. Same with Template:Neopaganism2 which has recently appeared in this article (also created by Midnightblueowl), while Template:Neopaganism still sits at the bottom.
Midnightblueowl, have you really forgotten the discussions we had regarding these templates? Look here. Have you forgotten that you were asked to check with other editors before deploying new templates? See here. I'm going to remove the newly added templates from the various articles, and you can explain your case at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neopaganism/Templates if you believe they should be reinstated. Fuzzypeg ★ 22:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Lol, it's okay. So do you now believe things are sorted out, or should we still look into deleting/merging some of them? — Huntster ( t • @ • c) 06:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Do we really have to preferentially use these terms? They don't appear in traditional Wicca and they only seem to have become popular in the last 5 years. They're modern inventions, and are seen as embarrassing to many traditionalists, because they're very obvious attempts to sound faux-ancient. Why can't we use the time-honoured terms "Midsummer" and "Autumn Equinox"? It's pretensions like this that make us a laughing-stock. Fuzzypeg ★ 04:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
What about describing the two uses of the word "Wicca", both the popular one (that nearly all forms of Neopagan witchcraft that revolve around the God and the Goddess, sabbats etc are traditions of Wicca), and the second, rarer, but perhaps older one (that Gardnerian Wicca and possibly all BTW is the only true "Wicca" and is a form of "Witchcraft"), in the ETYMOLOGY section, and bringing that to the top of the sections ?
Oh and by the way Fuzzypeg, I've just seen your comment on how we are working for the same goal. Thank you for the comment, it's nice to see an editor who doesn't just get bitchy and start destroying everything I do on any page. Thank you again ( Midnightblueowl ( talk) 19:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC))
Is it right (in History/origins) for this coven to be described as being in Dorset? Most of the New Forset is in Hampshire. Southampton, which seems to figure prominantly in the NFC article is also Hampshire rather than Dorset. Fainites barley 19:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello all Wiccapedians. Currently the page has sections such as "Theology", "Ritual Practises" etc under a greater section of "Core Concepts". We could continue using this, or we could divided it into two sections, "Beliefs" and "Practises". Both systems are in use on religious pages on Wikipedia, so I'd just like to see what was the general concensus on the issue as to which we should use? ( Midnightblueowl ( talk) 18:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC))
Dion Fortune's words are used to describe the concept that all goddesses are one goddess and all gods are one god. They're lovely words, very fitting, and her writings are held in importance by many Wiccans; but she's not Wiccan, and has no simple connection to Wicca. After her death, her Society of the Inner Light seem to have distanced themselves from her more pagan leanings, and made a point of stating that she had had nothing to do with Wicca or witchcraft. I'm not sure we can use her as a spokesperson for Wiccan theology unless we also include a fairly convincing explanation of her influence on Wicca. I wouldn't know where to start looking for that... Fuzzypeg ★ 23:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
In the section headed "Acceptance of Wiccans", the following statement is made: "Due to negative connotations associated with witchcraft, many Wiccans continue the traditional practice of secrecy, concealing their faith for fear of persecution." This seems to imply that fear of persecution is the only rationale for secrecy.
But Wiccans may maintain secrecy for any number of reasons: in order not to foreswear their traditional vows, for instance. Or, possibly, as a means to avoid dissipating personal power.
Any help on un- WP:POV-ing the "Acceptance of Wiccans" section? Or am I reading too much into the whole thing? Rangergordon ( talk) 11:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I realise this is only of indirect relevance to this page, but I would like to ask for any commnts on an expansion I have made at Philip Heselton. I have expanded the article from material provided to me by Philip, who is a close friend and associate: because of this relationship any feedback about neutrality issues in particular would be very welcome. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 22:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I have a slight concern with weasel words of the first paragraph. as in the article "and it is thought that Wiccan theology began to be compiled no earlier than the 1920s" While this is referenced it seems to me to be lacking in the "it is thought" by whom category? Is it historians in general, if so, which ones? Is it theologians? Again which ones? Members of the faith? Which groups? Is it the author of this sentence? If the thinking is being thought, somebody has to be doing the thinking! Chado2008 ( talk) 03:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
" However, there is still hostility from some politicians and Christian organisations. " I find this to be unfairly singinging out Christians, it should be changed to Religious organizations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.224.93.8 ( talk) 20:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
yes not to mention some schools when they find you r pagan. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
121.209.68.49 (
talk)
14:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I know this article failed featured article a while ago, but it has been considerably refined since then - many daughter articles being split off and more references added. Is it time to look at 'promotion' again, initially to Good Article? The criteria for GA status are here and I think we meet them. Witchcraft is a GA and I don't think this article suffers by comparison. Have a look here for a summary of the criteria for all grades of article, and see if you don't think we stand a chance. Even if we don't meet the criteria right now, submitting it for review would lead to feedback which could only improve the article. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 22:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
The following is pasted from the peer review page, which not everyone may be seeing. It will hopefully explain the many changes I have recently been making here! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 09:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
*A script has been used to generate a semi- automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 19:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the semi-automated review: have taken its comments on board. Would appreciate some human reviews too if anyone is out there! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 15:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Please fix up the automated suggestions - I've had an article put on GA hold because of the automated suggestions. It's a bit unclear as to whether you've used the "Academic studies" section as a reference in the article at all. Is it just a case of further reading? Such a section is not compliant with the WP:MOS, and as such would give GA reviewers pause. Why is magick (which, somehow, is a separate article from magic (paranormal) ) unmentioned? Why is Craft name capitalised as it is? The "Discrimination against and persecution of Wiccans" link does not work - and in any case screams out POV. I thought "malevent" was spelled "malevolent"... you may need to run the article through a spell-checker. Also, you may wish to consider looking at GA or FA religion articles (not sure if there are any FA religion articles...) to see how they are structured and what information they cover. Towards the middle-end of the article, there are few citations - take a look at Wikipedia:When to cite for opinions about when you should be citing stuff. - Malkinann ( talk) 12:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- That's great, many thanks. I have fixed up most of the automated suggestions and will work through your helpful additions above. Is it OK if I copy your paragraph above onto the article's talk page? Not every editor on the article will be looking at this peer review, I fear, and may miss the feedback. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 19:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, go for it. Looking at Bahai, one thing this article is missing is a "demographics" section - who practices Wicca? Is it recognised in any country's censuses? Is there any difference between the demographics of Wicca-in-a-tradition and eclectic Wicca? How impossible is it to find out the demographics of Wicca? Also, the holidays section and the section on the Book of Shadows are unreferenced - could you pull a reference or two out of the daughter articles for these sections? - Malkinann ( talk) 23:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
The Goddess community, many of whom refer to their religion as Wicce rather than Wicca, is fast growing and I feel it deserves better representation. We use the term Wicce to distinguish our Monotheastic religion, believing in one living Goddess, from the duotheistic forms of Wicca. There are active blogs that use the terms Wicce, monotheasm, monotheastic and it is becoming widely used among Feminist Witches and other Goddess advocates. It would be nice if people who encounter these new terms could find information on them here on Wikipedia. I'm getting tired of being told that "Wikipedia says "this" or "that"" in contradiction to our tradition because we are not fairly represented.
How would we go about doing that? Do we need permission to make such a page?
Thanks Morgaine Swann ( talk) 16:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not at all clear what you're asking. Which section are you referring to? There is no 'Wiccan holidays' section, nor can I see any suggestion that there should be... Confused, Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 01:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Haloween also known As Samhain.
Beltain Yultide —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.68.49 ( talk) 14:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
As a follower of Wicca and the Old Pagan way, I will list the Wiccan sabbats. Samhain, October 31. It is a festival that we define the role of death in the cycle of life. Yule, December 21 or 22. It is a solar festival, the day the sun is reborn to warm the earth again. Imbolc, February 2. It is the day of celebration for the stering of the earth and all its criters. Ostara, March 20 or 21. The time of year that all is growing and fertility is growing in our spiritual lives. Beltane, April 30 and May 1. This time of year the spirit of summer is at hand. Midsummer, June 21 or 22. In the hands of summer we give thanks for what we have. Lammas, July 31 and August 1. A time to gather and thank the harvest. Mabon, September 20 or 21. "The Witches' Thanksgiving." Or to look back opon the Year and see what you have done to better your self. That is the eight Sabbats of Wicca, and what they mean to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.76.156.87 ( talk) 18:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
This is the way i learned it, it may be wrong in your eyes but if there is one thing about wicca and the old pagan way, is that everybody has a diffrent name for everything. Does not mean it wrong but its just diffrent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.76.156.87 ( talk) 19:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I removed this essay from the article:
This is all correct apart from the fact that the modern term Wicca comes from Wica, which is of unknown etymology, and is used in a very different sense, and with a different pronunciation to the Saxon wicca. The above paragraph is written entirely on the understanding that they are the same word, whereas they are clearly two different, though historically related, words. Of course, whether Wica was derived from wicca long ago or only in the 20th century is immaterial; the usage and pronunciation were changed dramatically, and it is for all practical purposes a separate word. Fuzzypeg talk 22:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of January 2, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:
If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— BorgQueen ( talk) 12:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
...should we now go for featured article status? We had a peer review in early December 2007 prior to going for GA, so I'm not sure whether to:
Personally I'd be inclined towards the latter, as even if we failed it would get us some useful close criticism from experienced editors, which could only improve the article. What do you think folks? Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 12:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I've found an essay Wikipedia:Compare Criteria Good v. Featured which may, with some solid thought, assist preparation for a FAC. - Malkinann ( talk) 01:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey, as you've all probably been aware I've been maybe a little over enthusiastic lately with Pagan articles, but I think that people shouldn't keep deleting this idea whenever I put it into practise. Basically, I think that in the "Wicca" article, there should DEFINATELY be a mention that Wicca is usually seen as a Neo-Pagan faith. So far there isn't, and whenever someone puts it in, it is deleted. May I ask why? The majority of Wiccans, scholars, and other Neo-Pagans see it as a Neo-Pagan faith so why on Earth is this not in the introduction when it's a key element of Wicca? ( Midnightblueowl ( talk) 20:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC))
if show refrecnes and all that would it be considered revelnt if put down the varoius major belifes on the goddess and god and such. Mostly dealing wiht the lady mother croon i.e. three fates lunar goddess and mother earth ... theres so much but asking if would be relvent —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.114.136.226 ( talk) 21:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to go about this, but I thought here would be a good place to ask. I've been editing Religious debates over Harry Potter and, as you might imagine, Wicca comes up a lot in the Christians' arguments. Recently I've had to deal with an incensed Wiccan who is edit warring the page trying to insert a long-winded essay about the nature of Wicca, claiming our portrayal of it is inaccurate. I'm not a fan of edit warring, or of adding OR to pages, but I know next to nothing about Wicca, and, if a page I edit misrepresents the faith, I would like to correct it. So if any Wiccans are interested in having a gander at the page to iron out any flaws, I'd appreciate it. Please be sure to include an authoritative source. Thanks. Serendipod ous 22:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Harry potter has nothing to do with Wicca. They practice witchcraft and all, but its more of a creative mind than occultism.-- 24.119.143.87 ( talk) 05:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Should the first paragraph say that Gardner made 'claims' about the Wiccan religion, or is it more neutral, and therefore less POV, to say that he simply 'said' things about it? In this case, I think we can go with 'claimed'. 'Claimed' can be legitimately used without any implied POV until the substance of the claim can be independently verified - and in this case, with the best will in the world, it can't. The claim might be right, or it might be wrong. The same paragraph goes on to say, rightly, that Gardner's claims cannot be supported. It's not my intention to get into an argument over whether Wicca is an ancient religion or a recent one. Even so, I believe that both NPOV and accuracy can be served properly by recognising Gardner's claims as being just that, until there is some historical verification. - Shrivenzale ( talk) 11:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Huntster's reversion (05:15, 25 January 2008) from Keilana's edit (which added the sentence 'While most Wiccans also identify as witches, not all witches are Wiccans, and vice versa') brings up an interesting issue. I wonder whether or not it ought to be addressed in the article. This belief that 'not all Wiccans are witches' has gained some adherents--a recent Google search of that phrase brought up some 1,500 hits. However, I'm inclined to agree with Huntster in that the statement is essentially meaningless. It might be reasonably said that 'not all witches are Wiccans' but I'm not completely sure that the converse is true. Is there some authoritative source that could justify the inclusion of a discussion either supporting or refuting this idea? Would doing so lie within the scope of the article? Rangergordon ( talk) 07:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
In the book "Solatariy Witch" by: Silver Ravenwolf, it says that a wiccan does not consider theirself a witch. I don't consider myself a witch. Besides a witch is a woman with powers. It wouldn't make sense if a male wiccan said they were a witch if a witch is a womam. I'm sorry if I caused any damage by posting that. Hopefully It will clear some of it up. I'm also sorry i can't tell you what page but it's my first reference.Thanks,Later!!!-- Condolence "(talk)" 01:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Mr manilow added this to the comments at the head of the article page:
On the other hand, it has been argued that Crowley may have been instrumental in the initial formation of modern Wiccanism. For more information, see See Nevill Drury. "Why Does Aleister Crowley Still Matter?" Richard Metzger, ed. Book of Lies: The Disinformation Guide to Magick and the Occult. Disinformation Books, 2003.
I suggest it belongs here on the Talk page, unless someone thinks it's significant enough to incorporate it properly formatted into the article. - Shrivenzale ( talk) 16:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
(I've glanced into the archives but it seems this topic hasn't come up yet.) I'm removing the article from the Polytheism category for the following reason:
As you can see from the "Beliefs" section, there are several different views among Wiccans about the deities. There are monotheistic, duotheistic, polytheistic and pantheistic Wiccans. Including only one of these categories is wrong. Including all of them would also be incorrect, since each of them would imply that all Wiccans belong to that category.
Blessed be,
– Alensha talk 18:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
At the risk of appearing overly grumpy, I've removed a fairly lengthy addition by Moontrine outlining thirteen beliefs that s/he states that 'most Wiccans will follow', as defined (I believe) by the American Council of Witches(?). My reasons for removing this text are a) it was (ahem) 'borrowed', and wasn't credited to those who framed it originally; b) because it starts each statement with 'we' it's POV by definition; and c) the American Council of Witches doesn't speak for all Wiccans - although in fairness Moontrine did say only that 'most' will follow these principles. Even so, 'most' would still require a source. (BTW - If someone wants to correct me on who authored these principles in the first place, please feel free. - Shrivenzale ( talk) 16:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
In acceptance of wicca it must say that the us army is now recognizing the faith of wiccan soldiers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adipatus ( talk • contribs) 18:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
In the Etymology section, there's a sentence about how the word "Wicca" was not used until after Gardner, and the citation points to a Dictionary.com definition. This source says nothing about the origin of the word, only it's modern meaning. Am I missing something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.173.200.87 ( talk) 20:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the Wicca (2 Cs) spelling goes back to either Charles Cardell (Rex Nemorensis) or Doreen Valiente, but my primary sources are packed away. Cardell published "The Craft of the Wiccens" in 1958. is it possible the spellings got conflated somewhere allong the way? Justin Eiler ( talk) 22:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
When a Coven high priest abuses their position by sexually abusing girls under 18 under the ruse of "initiation" why is there no mechanism in place to remove them from the initiation book/register? Also why is there so much inertia from Gardenerian and Alexandrian Wicca in dealing with this frequent problem? It almost has if they tolerate it. Can anyone here give an idea of what guidelines Covens use to remove an abusive Priest or Priestess?-- Redblossom ( talk) 13:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Redblossom has been a long-term troll, starting many fruitless arguments at the Andrew Chumbley article. A number of editors now take a dim view of his opinions. I feel it would be a waste of our time to debate this accusation unless he provides evidence. Wikipedia is not the place to discuss unsupported opinions of editors. Fuzzypeg ★ 22:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Shrivenzale. So essentially initiated Wiccan covens dont have the means or the ability to deal with abuse(sexual or otherwise) from its own High Priests or Priestesses? So technically it is quite possible for a Wiccan High Priest to sexually abuse and retain the right to initiate without interference from other covens? Oh and Fuzzypeg if you have nothing good to say dont say anything.-- Redblossom ( talk) 17:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry that I am unable to make the changes myself (apprehensive about html coding) but would it be possible to differentiate between the 3 main types of Wicca right off the bat so that viewers aren't as tempted to dispute the information. The 6th citation ( http://www.newwiccanchurch.net/articles/btwfaq.htm) is one good reference for this but a few more citations might be necessary... Solitary practitioners in the USA are generally far less restrictive and many don't regard Gardner as the founder of anything relevant to what they practice... they follow/incorporate many other Pagan paths like Asatru, Native American, and Dianic Tradition and are sometimes even inspired by American historical events/people like the Salem Trials/Tituba. The beliefs as to how "old" Wicca is and whether or not Gerald Gardner is relevant to what they practice vary drastically in the United States. It can be a point of contention to tell a practitioner that they follow a modern or "invented" religion - many disagree while others are ok with the assessment.
Can someone help to ease the bold beginning of this article that seems to indicate that Wicca and Gardner are still synonymous everywhere you go... it's not very "truthy" anymore. Especially since the name was not even given to the religion by Gardner, he should not be given direct mention in the very first line of the article. It's misleading without some disambiguation in my opinion. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.211.129.152 ( talk) 05:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Fuzzypeg, but now I'm logged in, I added a short paragraph and cited it (i think correctly) and it seems to have covered up other text (where it says "Core Ideas") It appears correctly in the edit page but when I look at the article, it seems that I typed over some things... HELP! —Preceding unsigned comment added by FloridaJarrett ( talk • contribs) 02:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC) FloridaJarrett ( talk) 03:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind, I think I was just missing a ref tag :( FloridaJarrett ( talk) 03:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, no... now my reference isn't showing up on the list... maybe someone can help it to "appear"? (this is not the kind of "magic" I'm good at...) FloridaJarrett ( talk) 03:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
What do you think, should we try and add a section devoted to the creationist beliefs of Wicca?
This article may make for a good start...
http://www.witchvox.com/va/dt_va.html?a=usva&c=words&id=8179
( Rosewater Alchemist ( talk) 05:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC))
do Wiccans sacrifice? if so what? How do they worship? Rds865 ( talk) 00:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
would it be right to say that pentagrams and pentacles are a little different. Such as, a pentacle has a circle and a pentagram does not. On pentacle it has the suffix "cle" which is short for circle. -- L Condolence _ 12:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I think we should add to the “Traditions” section the debate that has been going on between Lineaged and Eclectic Wiccans about the definition of Wicca. Lineaged Wiccans are saying that the only people that are Wiccan are ones that were initiated into a coven that can trace its lineage back to Gardner while Eclectics say they can do whatever they want due to authors such as Silver RavenWolf and StarHawk. Watcher4187 ( talk) 18:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it is implied but the actual debate that goes on between the groups is not really discussed. I want to add a section on the actual arguments that each side puts forth. Watcher4187 ( talk) 16:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Should the Rites of passage section include a section on initiation? Sephiroth storm ( talk) 14:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
See [2] and Filiquarian Publishing LLC (including the talk page) -- Doug Weller ( talk) 10:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I would like to learn more about wicca and talk with someone with knownledge please contact me thank you blessed be Gypsy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.120.65 ( talk) 04:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
do we need an overview section? It's not usual on Wikipedia - the introduction is meant to be the overview. There's also no "overview" in, eg, Christianity. Time to merge with the intro? Totnesmartin ( talk) 17:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
The overview section gave three examples of "witchcraft, folk magic or sorcery" from other cultures: kulam, Hoodoo and Stregheria. Of these, Hoodoo and Stregheria are both practised by largely the same types of person as Wicca: modern Westerners, often urbanites and well educated. The original point of mentioning other varieties of witchcraft (I wrote the original wording) was to indicate that witchcraft is a widespread phenomenon, practised everywhere from Bangladesh to Japan to Bulgaria to Chile to Scotland to Bali (and you can't learn about these from Llewellyn books). I removed all three examples since I don't see the point in leaving just kulam, and I'm not really sure what can be gained from giving a more extensive list. Any list will be incomplete, and I don't see why examples are required at all. Fuzzypeg ★ 22:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
[Note: User:Mustafa Al-Zulfikari's invisible comment was moved here in order to facilitate discussion of the user's concern, as per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Invisible_comments User's comment, followed by my reply, appears below.]
It is highly contested that Gardner merely popularized Wicca. Many believe that it was manufactured by Gardner as were his claims to some of his initiations. (Source: In-text invisible comment by User:Mustafa Al-Zulfikari)
It might be worth mentioning the sub categories like Correllian Wicca, American Traditional Wicca, British Traditional Wicca, Dianic Wicca, American Celtic Wicca, or Eclectic Wicca are Wiccan, Gardnerian Wicca or Alexandrian Wicca. As a non pagan I would like a quick cheat sheet for these sub groups. Geo8rge ( talk) 19:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
This question was asked and answered here. Consensus seems to be it's not likely we'd be able to have the list verifiable, and meet NPOV.-- Vidkun ( talk) 15:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
If the information on this page is to be factual, it should comment on how Eclectic Wicca does not exist. British Traditional Wicca is the only form of Wicca - All other paths are invalid. Wicca has a set of rules, beliefs and rites which MUST be followed. Anyone not following these rules are not Wiccan but infact Neo-Pagan. Eclectic Wicca is like saying your a Christian but don't believe in the Bible (Such like not believing in what is written in Gerald Gardners Books). To be Wiccan you must be part of a coven, must worship two deities and must keep your oath. You can't just believe in what you want.
Eclectic Wicca should not be praised by saying it outnumbers Traditional Wicca as it does not. Neo-Paganism outnumbers Traditional Wicca, cause you can't have Eclectic Faith when it is a firm based religion. It just can't happen.
LuckyFlame ( talk) 14:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I fear that what is being described here is an extremist view. Many thousands of people, like myself, are not members of BTW covens, were never officially inititated into the Craft through a BTW coven, but still worship the Horned God and the Mother Goddess, respect and adhere to most of the teachings of Gardner, celebrate the eight sabbats, and practice some of the traditional Wiccan rituals as have been published by the Farrars, Valiente etc. So why I am suddenly "not infact a Wiccan, but a Neo-Pagan"? I don't take offence at your accusation, because I fully understand your position, even though I believe it is flawed. I am, by-and-large, a traditional eclectic, in that I am not a New-Ager (in fact, in my Book of Shadows I have described, somewat jokingly, Dianic Wiccans as heretics for not adhering to the Horned Lord), and the Charmed/Buffy-generation of Teen Wiccans makes me somewhat cringe at what I fear is too much focus on the magic and not enough on the theology of Wicca. But these eclectics are Wiccans - it's virtually a fact. Simply because some BTW's refuse to accept any other forms of neopagan witchcraft that describes itself as "Wicca" as being Wicca, does not make it so. Countless sources, from Scott Cunningham to the BBC make the claim that "eclectic Wiccans" are "Wiccans".
This is somewhat a parralel with what happenned to Christianity, it started out as a secretive cult into which one had to be initiated, but as it became more tolerable to the populace, so its rituals and beliefs became more public, and it became a public religion instead of a mystery religion. This is what is happening to Wicca now. The article's description of eclectic Wiccans as a form of Wicca is perfectly valid in the eyes of the majority of books and other media on the subject. I hope I have explained the point of view of the majority to you, though I still respect your beliefs and the reasons behind them.
PS - in response to Fuzzypeg's mention of Valiente describing her faith in Witchcraft for Today as "Witchcraft" and not "Wicca", I would like to note that Valiente, like many of the early Wiccans, never referred to "Wicca" as "Wicca", they always called it "Witchcraft". It only later came about to be known as "Wicca" because the religion of "Witchcraft" could commonly be confused with the noun of "witchcraft". It is similar to Christianity, which did not gain the name of "Christianity" till at least a century into its existence. Simply because Valiente did not use the word "Wicca" does not mean she was not talking about Wicca. Saint Paul never used the (Hebrew-Aramaic version of) "Christianity", and yet everyone accepts him as a Christian who talked about Christianity. Your asserttion that "an important purpose of hers in writing the book was to provide something new that was not Wicca and was not Cochrane Craft, and wasn't tied up with the perceived power plays of those movements. This book was intended to be a point of departure from Wicca" may well be true, and I don't mean to accuse you of lying or being ignorant, but I have read no source to back this up, and I personally doubt it; she may have been trying to get away from the powerplay occuring in many "Witches'/Wiccan covens", but I do not believe she meant to get away from Wicca. After all, didn't she once say that she'd "had enough of the gospel according to Gerald, but still believed that the Craft was real" or something along those lines? ( Midnightblueowl ( talk) 18:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC))
I think that Fuzzypeg has hit the nail squarely on the head, here. Argumentum ad populum is a heavily flawed argument. Luthaneal ( talk) 14:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I think that we could make it perhaps even clearer that there are differing definitions of Wicca in the introduction. We could say something like:
There is a dispute as to what actually constitutes Wicca. Traditionally, Wicca refers only to Gardnerian Wicca, the lineage stemming from Gerald Gardner. A second use uses "Wicca" to refer to several groups independant of, but similar to that tradition, such as Alexandrian Wicca, which together are known in the United States as British Traditional Wicca. A third usage, which has grown in popularity in recent years, considers all forms of neopagan witchcraft that share many of the beliefs held by Gardnerians to be types of Wicca, including Dianic Wicca and the 1734 Tradition.
Any opinions on this, I think it gives a fairly clear overview of the situation. ( Midnightblueowl ( talk) 10:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC))
In the United Kingdom and Europe, Wicca tends to maintain its meaning as a Mystery Priesthood.[1] However, in the US the term Wicca is often applied to any Goddess orientated form of religious witchcraft, many of which are based on the Wicca of Britain and Europe.[2][3] To mark the distinction between the two groups, US members of this faith tend to refer to the Mystery Priesthood as "British Traditional Wicca".[4]
The Long Island line of Gardnerian Wicca has installed a system of verification to enable them to better define members of the priesthood in the US. Initiates are given a certificate of initiation, which is signed by their High Priestess, along with copies of the preceding certificates which demonstrate their lineage. These authentication certificates have become known as "puppy papers".[5]
1. Pagan Federation
2. Fred Lamond, Fifty Years of Wicca
3. Margot Adler, Drawing Down the Moon
4. Fred Lamond, Fifty Years of Wicca
5. Fred Lamond, Fifty Years of Wicca
There is dispute as to what actually constitutes Wicca. Traditionally, Wicca refers only to lineages stemming from Gerald Gardner and operating as Mystery Priesthoods (such as Gardnerian and Alexandrian Wicca).[1] These are collectively known in North America as British Traditional Wicca.[4] A second usage, which has grown in popularity in recent years, considers Wicca to include other forms of Goddess-oriented witchcraft that are influenced by but independent of that lineage, including Dianic Wicca and the 1734 Tradition.[2][3]
Fuzzypeg, I think that what you have put in the quote box above is absolutely fine and does well to demonstrate the current debate (as it were)of the matter. It is neutral, yet correct. You are also right that the "puppy papers" bit can go elsewhere, later in the article, if it is indeed determined to be required at all. It is useful information, perhaps, but whether or not it really needs to be in this article is a matter best left to your discretion, in my opinion. Luthaneal ( talk) 15:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.115.210 ( talk)
ahm,? well if that's the case? i think many will
go on debate about it..
i mean, two types of wiccans???
WAT"S THE DIFFERENCE OF THE TWO ANYWAY??
they are still wicca..--
Vanessa2403 (
talk)
16:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Vanessa2403
Why is he called "19th-century" when he lived to 1947, and is by far the best remembered for what he did in the 20th-century? AnonMoos ( talk) 14:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, after plenty of discussion over the last year or two about what we want and what we don't want in the way of Wicca and Neopaganism templates, we now have two new ones starting to appear in various articles. Several editors initially expressed a desire not to have a "Wicca" template, but eventually agreed on the current Template:WiccaandWitchcraft, because it is collapsible and doesn't take up heaps of room. The previous Template:Wicca was disliked by many, and most of the criticisms of it can no longer be read because it was eventually deleted outright. It has now been reinstated by Midnightblueowl and added to several articles, meaning that they now have two different wicca-related templates each. Same with Template:Neopaganism2 which has recently appeared in this article (also created by Midnightblueowl), while Template:Neopaganism still sits at the bottom.
Midnightblueowl, have you really forgotten the discussions we had regarding these templates? Look here. Have you forgotten that you were asked to check with other editors before deploying new templates? See here. I'm going to remove the newly added templates from the various articles, and you can explain your case at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neopaganism/Templates if you believe they should be reinstated. Fuzzypeg ★ 22:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Lol, it's okay. So do you now believe things are sorted out, or should we still look into deleting/merging some of them? — Huntster ( t • @ • c) 06:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Do we really have to preferentially use these terms? They don't appear in traditional Wicca and they only seem to have become popular in the last 5 years. They're modern inventions, and are seen as embarrassing to many traditionalists, because they're very obvious attempts to sound faux-ancient. Why can't we use the time-honoured terms "Midsummer" and "Autumn Equinox"? It's pretensions like this that make us a laughing-stock. Fuzzypeg ★ 04:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
What about describing the two uses of the word "Wicca", both the popular one (that nearly all forms of Neopagan witchcraft that revolve around the God and the Goddess, sabbats etc are traditions of Wicca), and the second, rarer, but perhaps older one (that Gardnerian Wicca and possibly all BTW is the only true "Wicca" and is a form of "Witchcraft"), in the ETYMOLOGY section, and bringing that to the top of the sections ?
Oh and by the way Fuzzypeg, I've just seen your comment on how we are working for the same goal. Thank you for the comment, it's nice to see an editor who doesn't just get bitchy and start destroying everything I do on any page. Thank you again ( Midnightblueowl ( talk) 19:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC))
Is it right (in History/origins) for this coven to be described as being in Dorset? Most of the New Forset is in Hampshire. Southampton, which seems to figure prominantly in the NFC article is also Hampshire rather than Dorset. Fainites barley 19:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello all Wiccapedians. Currently the page has sections such as "Theology", "Ritual Practises" etc under a greater section of "Core Concepts". We could continue using this, or we could divided it into two sections, "Beliefs" and "Practises". Both systems are in use on religious pages on Wikipedia, so I'd just like to see what was the general concensus on the issue as to which we should use? ( Midnightblueowl ( talk) 18:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC))
Dion Fortune's words are used to describe the concept that all goddesses are one goddess and all gods are one god. They're lovely words, very fitting, and her writings are held in importance by many Wiccans; but she's not Wiccan, and has no simple connection to Wicca. After her death, her Society of the Inner Light seem to have distanced themselves from her more pagan leanings, and made a point of stating that she had had nothing to do with Wicca or witchcraft. I'm not sure we can use her as a spokesperson for Wiccan theology unless we also include a fairly convincing explanation of her influence on Wicca. I wouldn't know where to start looking for that... Fuzzypeg ★ 23:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
In the section headed "Acceptance of Wiccans", the following statement is made: "Due to negative connotations associated with witchcraft, many Wiccans continue the traditional practice of secrecy, concealing their faith for fear of persecution." This seems to imply that fear of persecution is the only rationale for secrecy.
But Wiccans may maintain secrecy for any number of reasons: in order not to foreswear their traditional vows, for instance. Or, possibly, as a means to avoid dissipating personal power.
Any help on un- WP:POV-ing the "Acceptance of Wiccans" section? Or am I reading too much into the whole thing? Rangergordon ( talk) 11:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)