Talk:History of Wicca/Archive 1

Archive 1

Starting splitting process

I have copied this page from the History section of the main Wicca article, without deleting that section as yet. I will now set about the task of editing that section down drastically, so that it retains the sense contained here but is cut down to 25% or less of the word length. Kim dent brown 22:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Questionable Comments

I (and invite others) am going to use this section to address parts that I feel are not backed by fact, unclear or biased in some way.

"While the ritual format of Wicca is undeniably styled after late Victorian era occultism (even co-founder Doreen Valiente admits seeing influence from Aleister Crowley), the spiritual content is inspired by older Pagan faiths, with Buddhist and Hindu influences." - While yes DV clearly stated Gardner used some work from the earlier yrs by AC to 'fill in' what he had already collected in her book Witchcraft for Tomorrow, I do not see the connection between the first part of the comment and DV's comment. Yet the author seems to be trying to link the two. AC was many things, but labeling him as a 'Victorian occultist' is sort of like labeling Jack the Ripper as a 'common thug'. While they may fall under that umbrella per se it demotes them in the bigger picture and blurs the impact the person had. When I think of a 'Victorian occultist' I think of a seance`, crystal ball reader or a con artist using parlor room tricks back in the day. I think we can all agree AC did a lot more, and had a wider impact (for better or worse), then that. Note, I am not disputing the core fact but the wording and linking what DV says I feel is taking her writing out of context. 192.80.95.243 20:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Strauss

Biased Statement

I know wikipedia is Christian centric and all other religions are looked down upon in a questionable tone, however I must point this out. I take issue with this sentence: "There is very little in the Wiccan rites that cannot be shown to have come from earlier extant sources." umm... well I can say the same thing about Christian beliefs. The trinity (holy 3), death/resurrection of a god or man-god (ancient Egypt among several other pre-xian cultures) and the whole miracles/follows thing which ancient gods/priests/priestess had a monopoly on long before jesus came about; these to name just a few. My point being if such a statement is good enough for Wicca then I expect it to be included into the xian pages as well. And please don't play ignorant with the reply 'cite you sources' or the like, if you don't know what I said above to be fact then I'd suggest you move on to a topic you are more qualified to edit. - Strauss —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.80.95.243 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, please do not tell editors to basically go away; this is against our civility rules. Second, I would toss out that Wicca is fairly new, and draws both on Pagan material of old and many other religions. If you don't like that statement, then be bold and remove it. If another editor has a problem with its removal, they can change it back and further discussion can take place. I'd suggest not totally rewriting large areas without some discussion, but a removal or addition here and there is part of the wiki way. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 18:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read what I posted. I did not "tell editors to basically go away". I stated if one is not familiar with the topic I speak of then it best to move on to something they are more versed in, as its counter productive to have to give a 101 course on the topic to 'editors' and beyond the scope of this talk page. I said it to be pro-active rather then re-active and curtail such debate. I wouldn't go over to a topic on mechanical eng. and started editing it as thats not more forte` or skill set. Same difference. I stated my opposition again, to be pro-active, as if I did not highlight before hand why I felt it should be changed someone would have come along and just reverted it back, prob with no reason why either. As you said its the 'wiki way'. -Strauss

Re-reading what you posted, it seems to imply that a number of other editors are ignorant. I'd suggest briefly reviewing your post before submitting it to check that its tone is as intended... Fuzzypeg☻ 06:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Without trying to sound coy or sarcastic; 'If the shoe fits'. I think with this site, many people edit various articles not because they are well versed or knowledgeable on said topic, but because they want to get their POV across. Which of course defeats the point of this site. Sad but after browsing this site for a bit seems to be a accurate comment. 192.80.95.243 19:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Strauss

I don't think Wikipedia is Xtian-centric, and indeed I find that members of other pagan paths tend to be far more scathing about Wicca's history than most Christians. Also, I don't think there's a problem being open about our history, and mentioning the various controversies that revolve around it. I would disagree with Huntster in that I don't believe Wicca is "fairly new", at least not in its essentials. There's certainly enough evidence now to cast significant doubt on the theory that Gardner made it all up. But all this information is interesting, and I think it's valuable that the readers of this encyclopedia be allowed to make up their own mind based on the best available information.

Now that said, I agree that there's a rather odd bias in the article. The sentence you highlight and the one before it both sound like overstatements, and they should at least be attributed to some commentator. Are we really to understand that the majority of the text has been cribbed from other sources? Because that doesn't sound right to me. I know that some has, even significant sections — but the majority of the book? That might need correcting. I'll put a fact tag on it and we'll see what happens, or if you wish, feel free to reword it anyway. Fuzzypeg☻ 04:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

thank you for the positive feedback; I have no issue with "being open about our history", However as I said if such comments are valid for this article I expect such to be valid across the board when it applies. And as you know Christianity 'borrowed' (stole if you will) A LOT from pre-xian pagans/belief systems. So such should be highlighted as well in those articles is my only point to be balanced and non-biased. However I have a feeling from reading the current xian articles there are many facts like that they don't like to mention/conveniently ignore. My 2 coppers -Strauss

You are of course free to go and edit the Christian articles to improve their historical accuracy. However I suspect it would be hard work and unless you are well armed with solid references it will almost certainly lead to edit warring. Have a look at the controversy over at Mithraism to get just a little hint of what you'd be in store for. I feel that if we can first knock articles like Mithraism into good shape, and work through all the edit-warring and reliable verification there, then we will be better armed to approach articles like Christianity because we will be familiar with all the arguments that could be raised, and we'll have a ready store of sources of information to draw from.

Oh, and to sign your name at the end of the post, type in four tildes (~~~~) at the end and your signature will magically appear, like this: Fuzzypeg☻ 06:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well one battle at a time LOL. While I could add factual information to shake up their world (as I am sure you and many others here could as well) I a. do not see the point and b. rather spend my limited time here working on articles that still hold me interest/am involved with. If they wish to do to the xian articles what the church did with the bible (edit it to promote their view of how things should be/would liked to be rather then the factual history) then all the power to them. 192.80.95.243 19:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Strauss

"Modern" Wicca

Other Wicca-based articles like Gerald Gardner and History of Wicca also use this misnomer. I would like to eliminate the use of this terminology. The article puts forth two scenarios: 1. Wicca is a recent religion created by Gardner less than a century ago or 2. Wicca is a modern spinoff of an old tradition. In either case, there is no such thing as "modern" Wicca. With the former the term is an oxymoron; the religion is too new to designate "modern" teachings since it itself is a young religion (it would be like saying "modern Scientology" or "modern New Age"). With the latter, calling a new take on an old religion as a "modern" version of the old religion is a disrespect to the original, which did not ascribe to practices and teachings of various religions like Thelema. Thus calling Wicca a modern version of an older tradition would be like calling Christianity "Modern Judaism."

I don't have time to remove this description from every Wicca-based article, but I think it is important that it be removed. I'll do what I can, I just want other editors to understand my decision rather than draw their own conclusions. Penguinwithin 17:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with this; discussion is at Talk:Wicca#"Modern" Wicca. Fuzzypeg☻ 02:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Woodcraft Chivalry

Fuzzypeg has called for a citation for this theory, I gave the citation to Ron Hutton's "Triumph of the Moon" perhaps it was not clear that this theory was covered by the citation. Hutton himslef held the theory for a while but he says it was first produced in a Druidry jouran. I don't have the reference in front of me right now. On that basis I will remove the "citation needed" tag and await develpments.......Jeremy (talk) 04:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is a very brief history of the Order and its breakaways Woodcraft Folk andKindred of the Kibbo Kift. (Unsurprisingly the pagan connection is not mentioned.....but the "Aisling case" is in effect that Wicca should be added to the list of breakaway groups!) http://www.earthcrafters.org/history.htm.
The "Archon Directory" tells me that the Order can be contacted at 73 Willow Way Luton.....while I know that the willow is a very witchy tree I don't think too much should be read into that. The Kibbo Kift morphed into a political movement, "Greenshirts" yet, although now disbanded its legacy website is at http://www.kibbokift.org/. And the Woodcraft Folk have a site at http://www.woodcraft.org.uk/
There is much discussion on newsgroups etc about the woodcraft theory including a rather grumpy posting by the author of the Aisling article. The relevant part of Triumph of the Moon is actually online at Amazon, page 165 for general history of the Order and its pagan section; page 216 for the Aisling theory specifically. But I haven't read cauldron of inspiration yet. Jeremy (talk) 01:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for finding those sources. I've added a stub article for the Order of Woodcraft Chivalry and I may get as far as Heselton; not sure though... I'm languishing at home with a hideous flu and I may need to sleep instead. Cheers, Fuzzypeg☻ 02:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Scholarly opinion discrediting possibility of pre-Christian survival?

Jeremytrewindixon recently added a statement to this effect, which I find misleading, since a) it presents "scholarly opinion" as being a group with a single consistent voice, which it is not; and b) it makes it seem as though there is a widespread consensus on the issue, which there cannot be due to simple lack of numbers: the history of witchcraft is itself a small and specialised area, and the history of modern witchcraft has only been attempted by one academic and a handful of non-academics to date!

Hutton, this single academic scholar, maintains that there is no connection between Wicca and previous witchcraft, and indeed that there was no "previous witchcraft" throughout most of Europe from shortly after the end of the pagan period. He is a lone and rather ideosynchratic voice amongst his peers in the history of witchcraft, though. It has been well established by the likes of Keith Thomas, E. William Monter, Carlo Ginsburg, Eva Pocs and other such luminaries that pre-Christian folklore and practises associated with witchcraft continued through the Early Modern period and in some cases even up to the present day. What's doubly odd is that many of these authors are highly praised by Hutton, while in the same breath he says completely the opposite to them. He even at one point attributes Monter with having proven that not a single person accused of witchcraft between 1400 and 1700 was a practitioner of a pagan religion, when the work of Monter's that he cites contains a whole chapter detailing the pagan beliefs underlying French white witch practises! This is pure misrepresentation.

So in the field of history of witchcraft there is a very strong body of research demonstrating the survival of pre-Christian beliefs and practices up until the present day. In the field of history of modern witchcraft and specifically Wicca, there is this one academic historian who, as I've pointed out, contradicts many of his peers and seems to misrepresent a surprising number of his sources. There are other, non-academic scholars, who present different opinions. By far the most detailed history to date has been written by Philip Heselton, who has been highly praised (oddly enough) by Hutton for his meticulous effort. Heselton has tracked down a huge quantity of evidence that was previously completely unknown, filling two books (!), and has for the first time made meaningful inquiry into the nature of the New Forest coven possible. He draws some of his own opinions from this evidence (such as that this coven did indeed contain elements of an older witchcraft tradition), but he is careful to separate opinion from fact. Well worth a read.

So basically you've got one academic scholar who's aligned himself with polemicists like Eliot Rose and Aidan Kelley, and a bunch of other scholars who take a variety of views. I don't see how you can make a single definitive statement about "scholarly opinion" out of this. Fuzzypeg☻ 03:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I wish more people would read Wouter J. Hanegraaff "New Age Religion and Western Culture: Esotericism in the Mirror of Secular Thought" (Suny Series, Western Esoteric Traditions) He documents how Wicca is a product of 500 years of western esoteric practice.

Michael York "Pagan Theology: Paganism as a World Religion" Demonstrates how Wiccan theology is similar to paleo-pagan religions all over the world. Sheherazahde (talk) 15:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Also my favorite quote from Hutton "Even if Gerald Gardner had compiled the rituals himself and founded the first modern pagan coven, however, it would still not be wholly just to describe him as having 'invented' or 'made up' modern pagan witchcraft. In religious terms, it might be said that he was contacted by a divine force which had been manifesting with increasing strength during the previous two hundred years, and that it worked through him to remarkable effect. A secular way of saying the same thing, more commonly found among historians, is that the cultural forces which had been developing for a couple of centuries combined in his emotions and ideas to produce a powerful, and extreme, response to the needs which they represented. It is the capacity, or destiny, to function in this sort of way that makes certain human beings especially significant in the historical record. I would emphasize again, however, that it has not been proven here that he did in fact fulfill such a role. In the last analysis, the old rascal is still in charge of the early history of his movement." p238-240 "The Triumph of the Moon: A History of Modern Pagan Witchcraft" by Ronald Hutton, Oxford University Press:Oxford, 1999.Sheherazahde (talk) 15:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I note that the wording of the paragraph does rather set it up for a fall. "Survival from pre-Christian Britain" and "as described by Margaret Murray" are rather doomed phrases, since the former suggests an unchanged survival, and the latter suggests a highly organised pan European cult with Man-in-Black, groups of 13, a race of little people hurling elf-shot, and all the rest, and we all know what anathema Murray's name now carries, don't we?

Perhaps it would be a little more fair to explain that this is what Gardner believed and taught, and that this is no longer widely believed; and that furthermore it is a matter of controversy whether Wicca has any connection with Early Modern witchcraft. Fuzzypeg☻ 04:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Fuzzypeg, it is the actual wording of the paragraph that I was referring to. The proposition that Gardner found a surviving chapter of Murray's witch cult is at present regarded as discredited by virtually all scholarly opinion I think you will find; if only because the existence of Murray's witch cult as she described it is discredited. "At present", a qualification worth noting. I also think you will find that no-one, including Hutton, doubts that "pre-Christian folklore and practises associated with witchcraft continued through the Early Modern period and in some cases even up to the present day"......May Day and Hallowe'en spring to mind. I think you're being a bit unfair to Hutton and to some extent misreading his academic caution. (Although I must say his treatment of Robert Graves pissed me off bigly). What is doubted is the survival of a coherent community of people identifying as pagans and engaging in practises associated with witchcraft from (European) pre-Christian times up to the present day....not the same thing. As I recall Murray claimed direct descent fom the Palaeolithic which is a bigger claim again. I don't burn candles to Hutton, I think he makes too much over trifles; and I think that the sharp distinction he draws between cunning folk and "charmers" and "herbalists" and "christian folk magic" is likely to conceal vital information......and as a matter of human probablity I think it very hard to believe that cunning folk never associated or worked in common (and the fact that they didn't normally call themselves witches is of little more than purely semantic interest), and I strongly suspect that if the sharp distinctions drawn as above were relaxed a different picture might emerge.....and I have other criticisms, life is short. TOTM is still a valuable piece of work but. And his final suggestion that the history of spiritualism is likely to have major bearing is a good one I think. Now to look at the changes you made!Jeremy (talk) 03:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your well-considered reply. I know life is short, which makes it even more of a pleasure to find someone who's well informed on the issue and actually agrees with me, even partly. To be even halfway informed in this field is a time-consuming endeavour! I've been working on a critique of ToTM for quite a while now and I'm dismayed at how many inaccuracies and misrepresentations I've found. I don't feel I'm being unfair to Hutton, in fact I feel like I'm understating how flawed the book is, because I don't have the opportunity to present all my evidence here. But that's OK. Wikipedia isn't the place for that kind of research.

Wikipedia has its own charms, on of which is brushing up against people like you. Cheers, Fuzzypeg☻ 07:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope. We know there IS some kidn of prechristian survival. Like in Christmas oder Halloween. Nobody doubts it. The problem is, that the religion as it`s told in Wicca never existed anywhere. Wicca is, instead of acknowledging the variety of prechristian religions, very dogmatic and, in a really weird way, really christian orientated. There were a variety of prechristian religions, and some left their footprints in christian belief, but Wiccans often climb to much to christianity.

Christians celebrate christmas/ midwinter? Some prechristian people celebrated midwinter too? Okay, we should too.

Christians believe in a dying and resurrected god/ god-son? Some prechristian people believed in a dying and resurrected god too? Okay, we should too.

Christians celebrate Halloween/ Samhain? The celts celebrated Samhain too? Okay, we should too.

Christians in European countries drew their devil as horned and part animal? There have been prechristian gods depicted as horned and part animal too? Okay, we should too.

Christians neglected the female part, and they also neglected the night and the moon? There were one or two moon gods who happened to be goddesses? Okay, we should connect the female and the darkness too.

What wiccans are trying to do, is not pagan belief revival, but it is christianity by another name.

The religion wiccans try to imagine never existed. End of story.

Wicca rock

A large quantity of text was added advertising Themis, a 'Wicca Rock' band. Not only that, when an editor removed it, explaining that it was merely advertising and thus inappropriate, the editor who first added it simply reverted that change.

The added text is relevant to the history of Themis, not to the history of Wicca. There are plenty of Wiccans out there doing interesting things with their religion, and this particular couple don't warrant any special mention that I can see. Hey, they actually have their own article, I believe (I remember seeing it at some stage).

Also, a reminder that when editing, if your edit is challenged, the correct action is not to just revert the person who challenged you, but to withdraw to the talk page and discuss it. Unexplained reverts are considered very rude here. Fuzzypeg★ 05:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Help Please!! Ooops. There are about ten of us and we have no idea what we are doing. We likely are tripping over each other.

The goal was this: To say that there is a very strong movement around Canada who are nature loving pagan (don't believe in "god") vegans who are not witches and are very nice, helpful, kind people.

I changed the edit to read without any reference to source. I mean this: I reverted it to get the text back and then edited my text to take out what you describe as the offending reference to a Wicca music style. OMG I dont know the right way to do that I wasn't meaning to be rude. Sorry I was rude. I am 17 and just rude I guess. Neways I am kind of stuck for a source but I am asking around for help. Sorri I seemed to mess things up but in fact its a work in progress and I need help :s

Here's the new addition. I will delete it if you want or maybe you can find me a new source that you like better. :s TTYL Joshua Stone

""The first Wiccan Wedding to be legally recognised in the UK (by the Registrars of Scotland) was performed in 2004.

In 2007, some Canadian musicians with a strong pro-ecology and feminism message stirred up the Wicca scene. Their followers advance the idea that modern Wicca should be more about nature, ecology and feminism and less about witchcraft and spirtualism. According to one review: "With the public's growing awareness of the harmful effects of polluting and abusing the environment, more and more people connect with the Wiccan message of respecting the beauty and mystery of nature. Wiccans and non-Wiccans alike can experience and appreciate Mother Nature's precious earth and every drop of life each of us is given."

In late December 2007 and again in Summer 2008 these same musicians hosted "Wiccan festivals" near Parry Sound Ontario and Toronto Canada and promoted a version of Wicca that mentions nothing of witchcraft but seeks unity among all peoples through the natural love; and the common need to love earth and her fragility."

According to that band's music and apparently its fans: "We thrive in the song and spirit of the birds and other creatures of the wild -- our music is written from a love of all life. The cycles of nature are our holy days: the earth is our temple, its plants and creatures our partners and teachers so we respect life, cherish the free will of sentient beings, and accept the sacredness of all creation. Our bible is the wind and the rain." <--Will look for other sources-->

I will ask someone more important than me to contact you but I would love to have as much help as possible. Many Thanks. Joshua —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.163.18.194 (talk) 07:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

References

Philip Heselton

Has this article been written entirely by Philip Heselton? He seems to be quoted at every possible opportunity. This obviously introduces a bias problem. Also, what are Heselton's credentials as a researcher? And based on his lack of training should we be prepared to trust anything he says? I look forward to your feedback on this as I think it is a serious issue. Formicarius (talk) 19:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Heselton is the most recent of the serious attempts to shed light on the history of early Wicca, the New Forest Coven, and Gardner's influences. He has also produced the most exhaustive collection of data yet, with very large amounts of new primary research. He is also very reliable, and Ronald Hutton praises him in his foreword to Gerald Gardner and the Cauldron of Inspiration for keeping any speculations very separate from actual provable fact, and making it very clear that they are only speculations. Heselton obviously has a few ideas of his own, but he doesn't shove them down the reader's throat, and he doesn't present them as anything more than possibilities. Furthermore he is a Gardnerian High Priest, with plenty of inside contacts, so we can presume he is better informed in some respects than most previous historians on the subject. In all, his works are vastly relevant, providing more detail and better information in this particular subject than any previous works, and they have been praised for their rigour and their importance by Ronald Hutton, who despite his failings is still widely regarded as an authority on the history of Neopagan witchcraft. What more do you want?

And if you aren't prepared to trust anything he says, it makes me wonder whether you've actually read either of his books. All his evidence is clearly cited to its sources, his methodology fully explained, his interpretations clearly segregated from statements of fact. These are painstaking works of history, and eminently trustworthy. Fuzzypeg★ 22:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Link to Witchcraft or Witchcraft (Gardner)?

Dbachmann has recently gone through a number of articles editing links to Witchcraft in the context of Wicca or contemporary Witchcraft, so that they pipe instead to Witchcraft (Gardner). That link itself is actually a redirect to Witch-cult hypothesis. Now I have a couple of problems with this: firstly, such use of pipes and redirects is confusing, and it should be fairly clear to the reader where the link leads. It says "Witchcraft", and there's an article titled "Witchcraft", but that's not where it leads. Yes, this leads to more specific information, but it may not be the specifics the reader is looking for, and there are is no easily found link on to Witchcraft from that article, for those who want a broader view of the subject.

I think the reader is better served by making sure that the Witch-cult hypothesis is prominently linked from the Witchcraft article, which I have done. The Witchcraft article contains substantial text relevant to Wicca and the contemporary Witchcraft movement, and easily-found links to the witch-cult hypothesis and related philosophical and historical background. I have thus reverted the piping on this page, and am considering reverting the pipes on several other pages where Dbachmann has done the same. Comments, anyone? Fuzzypeg★ 00:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Question about the history of Wicca

(Moved from top of talk page) I see all the discussion below is about 5 years old, but it seems to me to be missing the point. And my apologies if this isn't really meant to be a discussion forum, but I'm guessing that there are people who monitor this page who will be able to answer my question.

Isn't it well established that Paganism was rife in Britain well after Christianity, with Pagan symbols being included even in church architecture until about 1500, and with people who themselves identified as witches, and being executed as witches, right up to the 19th century? And that there are plausible arguments that pockets of paganism/witchcraft existed until half-ways through the 20th century? So when we say that Gardner "invented" Wicca, we are saying that his claims of meeting witches are false, and that even though there were witches around, he never managed to meet up with them, and instead invented a new religion which resembled theirs? It seems pretty unlikely! Or am I missing something? I hope someone can help me here. JamesL2011 (talk) 08:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

You're right, this page isn't really meant to be a forum but I'll reply! You're essentially restating the theories of Margaret Murray which are not well established and have largely been discounted. I don't think the article explicitly says that GBG invented Wicca - but the evidence is that he largely reconstructed it (as he himself stated) from fragmentary remains. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

This article gives no recognition to the work of Emma Wilby which might be described as rehabilitating the Murray thesis in a weaker form, nor does it mention the recent discoveries about Monica English and the Narford coven; and pretty much all stuff about the attested traditional witches and cunning folk seems to have been removed. This is odd. And the introduction doesn't seem to square with the article entirely....¬¬¬¬

Monica English

Sources relating to Monica English, known to be an associate both of Gardner and a member of a non-Gardnerian coven at least contemporary with Wicca and possibly predating it are gathered here, together with new research. http://www.deadfamilies.com/Z3-Others/English/English-Monica-01.html. The new research establishes the involvement with Monica English in the coven of the once-prominent fascist leader Andrew Fountaine which is fairly important stuff. English and Fontaine are the "Margo" and "Bertram" respectively of the book by Lois Bourne. People editing this page should know about this. (Just as they should know about the work of Emma Wilby! Jeremy (talk) 06:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC) Some (not all) of this material is now available in MichaelHoward's "Children of Cain" Jeremy (talk) 08:10, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Monique Wilson

In the History of Wicca#Gardnerian Wicca and the Bricket Wood coven (1946–1963) subsection, I initially removed a link to Monique Wilson, an actress and activist who was evidently not connected with Wicca or Gardner. Looked into it a bit and found this .pdf page about the correct Monique Wilson. So I returned her name and a red link to the article so as to enhance the possibility of an article written about her someday. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  04:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Traditional Witch practices

Article says in the "background" section on on the early modern witch trials: "Most scholars agree that the witch trials were the result of isolated incidents of hysteria in remote peasant communities. While many of the accused confessed to various acts of magic and Satanism, all did so under threat of torture, and historians agree that there is no evidence any of the victims of the trials were practicing any real magic or any non-Christian religious or magical practices." But that isn't true. Magical practises, some of them with very ancient origins such as toad bone magic, were practised up to modern times by folk magicians who sometimes even called themselves "witches". There is no reason to doubt that a significant portion of the victims of the witch trials were practitioners of folk magic. Not even that some of them, like the modern Horseman's Word, were folk-Satanists. If you read Gardner's Witchcraft Today you will see he did not in fact claim that "his" witchcraft was a direct descendant of the Old Stone Age but thought it was an early modern import into Britain. The article needs to take not of Emma Wilby's more recent work and other work noting the resemblance of British traditional witchcraft to Shamanism. It needs to pay more attention to witchcraft practices independent of Wicca like the Monica English or "Grey Goosefeather" coven which we now know had close connections to British fascism. There was not a witch cult in Murray's sense but there was a folk culture which generated witches, the figure of Cain as the "Man in the Moon" recurring for example. And also of course it needs to pay some regard to classical accounts of witches as adherents of Hecate as also found in Macbeth of course but anciently in The Golden Ass. That British witchcraft was generated in entirely in Murray's fevered brain doesn't really stand up. Jeremy (talk)