Talk:Wicca/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

God (Goddess) or god (goddess)

Shouldn't the God and the Goddess on the article be written in small letters, because the god doesn't refer to the God in christianity and goddess isn't usually written with a capital letter? Ofcourse the Horned God and the Triple Goddess can be left with capital letters. Skele (talk) 11:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

No... they shouldn't be non-Capitolized. Simply because the God and Goddess of Wicca, do not correspond to another religious ideology doesn't make their usage any less important. Your argument here, is a weak one, implying that one religious belief system is more valid than another (which is not what an encyclopedia should do.) The reason these terms are capitolized is because they are used religiously, rather than generically. "the gods" and "the goddesses", may be non-capitolized terms, because they would be generic... but "the God" and "the Goddess" would be equal reverence to that of "the God" in the Christian articles. If you de-capitolize them, then by default you should also de-capitolize all references of any God... which is very tabboo for an Encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.186.111.99 (talk) 20:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

No need to get angry. I wasn't argumenting I was just asking, but I thank you for informing me. Skele (talk) 04:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

--I wasn't angry, I was merely explaining the reason why the authors of the article used capitolized terms... and I meant the term "argument" in a sense similar to "persuasion", not as an attacking assertion of your personal character. I apologize for coming off as hostile, as was not my intention. And, you're welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.186.111.99 (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The mystery visitor is right Skele, in Wiccan usage, the God and the Goddess are capitalised (which is probably taken from Christianity), in the same way that the God is refered to as "the Lord" and the Goddess as "the Lady", another thing us Wiccans nicked from the Christians :) (Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC))

-- I don't know so much as if it's taken from Christianity; many religious faiths use capitolize letters when referring to their deities; like Allah in Islam, e.g. Also, I have looked up Wikepedia's official stance on this subject, in the manual of style, it is as follows: "Honorifics for deities, including proper nouns and titles, start with a capital letter (God, Allah, the Lord, the Supreme Being, the Great Spirit, the Horned One). The article "the" is not capitalized unless it is formally a part of the name of the diety. The same is true when referring to major religious figures and figures from mythology by titles or terms of respect (the Prophet, the Messiah, the Virgin). Common nouns denoting deities or religious figures are not capitalized; thus the Romans worshipped many gods, many Anglo-Saxons worshipped the god Wotan, Jesus and Muhammad are both considered prophets in Islam, biblical scholars dispute whether Mary was a virgin for her entire life, and her husband was her muse (but the nine Muses)."; therefore the authors were correct, according to Wikipedia's standards. 75.186.111.99 (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC) (sorry I forgot to sign my previous entries)

To get an account, go to Wikipedia:Register.--Vidkun (talk) 17:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Reference

"Traditionally, Wicca refers only to lineages stemming from Gerald Gardner and operating as initiatory Mystery Priesthoods (such as Gardnerian and Alexandrian Wicca). <ref>The Pagan Federation</ref>" I don't understand this reference. It makes a pretty hefty claim, and the reference is simply "The Pagan Federation", no web link to an article or anything else. Sephiroth storm (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

After reviewing the PF website section on wicca [1], it makes no such claim. I am removing the reference. I welcome any discussion. Sephiroth storm (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Though I do not agree with the reference usage, I do agree with the statement (whether it came from the PF or somewhere else); Wicca, in it's traditional usage and sense, it a Mystery Tradition, and one that will only stem from Gardner or Sanders. Everything else is Neo-Wica. If you're not initiated into Gardnerian or Alexandrian Wicca, then you're not Wiccan, you're Neo-Wicca. This is view is held by Trad. Wiccans, but normally rejected by non Trad. Wiccans (and you can see why, too), though the fact that it is objected by Neo-Wiccans does not make it a false claim; as Gardner stated, you need to be initiated into Wicca to be a "true" Wiccan, or how else would you know that you're practising Wicca? Xxglennxx (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

But there again, is a claim correct simply because it's insisted upon by one Wiccan denomination against the views of many others? To assert that only someone with a direct line of initiation to Gardner can rightly use the term 'Wicca' to describe their beliefs is akin to claiming that only Roman Catholics are entitled to use the term 'Christianity' (since theirs was the first organised form of Christianity). The argument might have held some water in early days, but usage has now thoroughly swamped the distinction.

It would, I suppose, be fair to say that 'Wicca' initially referred only to Gardner and his followers, and mention the dispute over entitlement to the label; but we should certainly avoid appearing to make any judgement on the matter. And, in that case, it might also be worth mentioning (and please someone correct me if I'm wrong on this) that Gardner himself never described the religion as 'Wicca', and used the term 'the Wica' only to describe those who followed the religion he called 'Witchcraft'. If that's true (and I'm basing it on a reading of Witchcraft and the Book of Shadows by Gardner), then it's equally incorrect to refer to Gardnerian Witchcraft as 'Wicca', though many Gardnerians do so, precisely because usage has changed over the years.

In the absence of the man himself, I would suggest that as an encyclopaedia we have to be guided by the best available authority on the subject, which in this case is necessarily the Wiccan community as a whole, rather than just one denomination of it. - Laterensis (talk) 00:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

we have to be guided by the best available authority on the subject, which in this case is necessarily the Wiccan community as a whole which isn't a reliable/cite-able source.--Vidkun (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. But this is a problem it's going to be difficult to get around without choosing and adopting a point of view. State that the word 'Wiccan' can't properly be used to describe anyone but Gardnerians and you risk irritating a large number of non-Gardnerian Wiccans. State that 'Wiccan' can be applied to anyone who self-identifies as Wiccan and you risk irritating Gardnerians. Given that Wicca is by definition a less-than-organised religion with no central authority, what source can we cite that can give a ruling on this? I also remain interested in the question of how Gardner himself defined his religion. Did he ever refer to the religion, rather than its followers, as Wicca? - Laterensis (talk) 15:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

To cut a long story short, Gardner referred to the religion commonly as simply "Witchcraft" and quite often used the term "witches" in regards to it's adherents. In those instances where Gardner used the term "Wica", he only ever did do in one of two ways: either in reference to the initiatory priesthood to which he belonged/founded, when referring to a member of that same priesthood. So basically, where he favoured the use of the terms Witchcraft and witch in general use, he only ever used the term "Wica" with regard to those who had been initiated into his Mystery religion.

This can be evidenced fairly easily, for example, when discussing his own alleged initiation he says of his initiating coven "they are the people who call themselves The Wica" or more directly in his book The Meaning of Witchcraft, when discussing the future of The Wica, he says:

"I have already told of the belief of the Wica in the Ancient Gods of these islands. This is not mere superstition or a figure of speech. Initiates will understand me when I say that the Gods are real, not as persons, but as vehicles of power."

Obviously here Gardner identifies the Wica as specifically being initiates. In fact, throughout Gardner's references to The Wica are always made with reference to those initiated into it, or occasionally he speaks of initiation into "the Cult", such as when he says:

"I have known many atheists who have entered the Cult and said, “It is so lovely to find a religion in which you can believe.”

Of course, when he says "the Cult" like this, it is another of the terms he occasionally uses to describe The Wica, no doubt taken from Margaret Murray's The Witch Cult in Western Europe.

On a related note, it is probably worth mentioning that as much as the term "Wicca" is used in reference to their religion, initiates also tend to still use it in a manner like that of Gardner, as the name of their priesthood.

Luthaneal (talk) 18:36, 04 June 2009 (UTC)

Baphomet.jpg

I object to the use of the image of Baphomet in this article. According to the description, it is "A 19th century illustration of Baphomet by the occultist Eliphas Levi, often used to represent the Wiccan Horned God". Personally, I've never seen this image used in Wicca, though I have seen its association with Satanism. After reviewing the Baphomet article, the first se of the name came from the persicutions of the Templars, a non Wiccan orginization, and the first picture of the figure came from Eliphas Levi, an occultist, not associated in the article with Wicca. It also says that "Levi combined the images of the Tarot of Marseilles Devil card and refigured the ram Banebdjed as a he-goat". This may lend to a percieved connection between Wicca and the Devil. Sephiroth storm (talk) 00:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to remove it. The only reason I had reverted such removals in the past was because it had been removed without any explanation, which is just not appropriate. If a good reason can be given (such as yours above), such additions or removals will rarely be contested. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 01:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand your motives Sephiroth storm, but I'm not sure I agree. I have seem the Baphomet image used in Wiccan rituals on numerous occasions, and there are many examples in the Museum of Witchcraft. Understandably, the Baphomet image may be less popular in modern Wicca with its more New Age, white light, fluffy bunny leanings, but I believe it is still important. Maybe we can find an image of the Horned God that is specifically Wiccan, and not either occultist or Celtic, like the Gundestrup Cauldron. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC))

--Is an image of the God Pan or Cerroneous, an acceptable replacement? Just asking.

Cerroneous? Shurely shome mishtake. Try Cernunnos. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no issue with an image of the Wiccan Horned God being imputted. Please understand as well, to my knowledge, Baphomet does not really exist as an encarnate entity. While most deities exist as legends or what not, Baphomet does not have any lore attributed to him in wicca to my knowledge. Sephiroth storm (talk) 20:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this discussion is silly. The grafting of earth god imagery onto Satan was a Christian tactic to demonize pagan religions in the first place. I am not wiccan, but it seems clear to me that wiccanism is reclaiming this imagery to it's rightful place. Calling it 'satanistic' is utterly irrelevant.--Kelt65 (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

--yes, I meant Cernunnos... as there are many archtypes of the Horned God, such as Pan or Cernunnos, I was merely curious if they would be acceptable replacements. *I too do not know if there are any Wiccan sources referencing Baphomet, but if there were they probably would distinguish from the Horned God, and not as an archetypal figure representing the Horned God. None of my Wiccan sources reference Baphomet at all, but that doesn't mean that there mightn't be one that does. and is this debate really about the image on the Horned God page? I'm going to have to get a name, if I keep on hanging out here 75.186.111.99 (talk) 01:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

We encurage you to register and to join our discussions :) Sephiroth storm (talk) 01:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

--Okay name is created. But no-one answered my questions...Also, in the beginning of the article it says that Gardner "said" that he was initiate... is this meaning that he verbalized it (if so, why not use a quotation), or that he wrote it (again, why not use a quotation)? And should the word be "claimed" instead of "said"? Wolfpeaceful (talk) 15:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it would be acceptable. As for Gardner, my understanding is that he claimed he was an initiate, however, because it cannot be proven, or disproven, and I have no idea if it was spoken or written (I'm sure both at some point in time), I would leave it as is, to avoid speculation. Sephiroth storm (talk) 06:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

--if he wrote it, it would make sense to cite the source he wrote it in, such as a newspaper or a book; the article already provides a speculation, if he merely verbalized it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfpeaceful (talk • contribs) 16:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

claim is one of the words to avoid.--Vidkun (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

--I see now that in the way the sentencee is worded that it would be better to leave it as it is: however I am still curious as to why we cannopt provide a quotation? Wolfpeaceful (talk) 21:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

A Gardner Quotation

I'm not really sure if I should include this quotation here (Wicca) somehow, or in the Gerald Gardner article or perhaps to the Witchcraft Today article. But I do think that it is of importance, because this is a direct quotation from Gardner stating his involvement with witches:

Gerald Gardner in the Foreward to Witchcraft Today: "I have been told by witches in England: 'Write and tell people we are not perverts. We are decent people, we only want to be left alone, but there are certain secrets that you mustn't give away.' So after some arguments as to exactly what I must not reveal, I am permitted to tell much that has never before been made public concerning their beliefs, their rituals and their reasons for what they do; also to emphasize that neither their present beliefs, rituals nor practices are harmful."-- G.B. Gardner

--if someone can help me to know where it is best placed, I'd appreciate it, thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfpeaceful (talk • contribs) 15:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Certainly not Wicca, but one of the others, perhaps both? (Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC))

--I have resolved this... it is now on the Witchcraft Today Article. I don't see a reason to repeat the quotation on Gardner's page. But thanks for the help, anyways. 208.119.72.6 (talk) 15:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding pentagrams, pentacles, pentangles

These things are largely synonymous in many usages, despite one or two users' strange obsessions with peculiar usages. Historical occultism used them largely interchangeably, even if today we regard certain usages as "correct." A pentangle in any case is the same as a pentacle, a five-pointed pattern or device. Historically, a pentacle is a pentagram OR other polygon enclosed in a circle, whether drawn or three-dimensional, such as an altar-pentacle. The image which usually illustrates the top of this article is BOTH a pentacle and a pentagram.Infinitysnake (talk) 22:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

This is incorrect, as shown, with historical references, at the article pentacle. Try looking there.--Vidkun (talk) 02:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

That would be the article illustrated with a number of two-dimensional pentacles, which refers to pentacles and pentagrams as synonyms? Yes, I've seen it.

Where it diverges from my comments above, (and its own opening paragraphs) it's still labeled "citation needed." The synonymous nature is sourced (correctly, I assume) to the Oxford dictionary.

I'm aware that pedantry is an art form on the Wiki, but these pages's definitions diverge too far from mainstream understanding of the subject. It's not a historically correct separation, and it's not semantically correct. The very vocal public movement among Wiccans was to have the "pentacle," not pentagram, inscribed on tombstones, for example.

the image in the illustration is a pentagram, yes- but not as much as it is a pentacle.Infinitysnake (talk) 04:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

question

Why isn't there any critisism on the wicca page and logic against it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.64.14 (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

define critisism please. and as for the logic against it: dont worship if you dont believe.  rdunnPLIB  09:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

This is an article on the Wiccan belief system; not an article on biased opinions toward the faith group. The reason why there is no section on "the Criticisms on Wicca and logic against it" page, is because that sort of action is very unencyclopedic in nature. We are here to define what the belief system is; not whether or not the reader should abide by that belief system. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a director of personal spirituality. The article does mention that criticisms of Wicca have been presented in various forms in the Acceptance of Wicca section. However, it is not our place to deem whether or not those criticisms are justifiable or unjustifiable. Wikipedia is not a place to determine whose faith is the correct or incorrect one; that choice must be retained by the individual. As stated in the Wikipedia policies and guidelines: "Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." In particular regarding "religion" articles, Wikipedias official policies state: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. One important task for encyclopedias is to explain things. In the case of human beliefs and practices, explanation encompasses not only what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices, but an account of how such beliefs and practices evolved. Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts. But Wikipedia articles on history and religion also draw from modern archaeological, historical, and scientific sources." Thank you and have a great day! 208.119.72.6 (talk) 16:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The Elements

Just noticed, but the all of the directions are lower case, except for North. Changed North to north to preserve continuity —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShadowHunterKurohyou (talk • contribs) 21:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

--The official Wikipidia Manual of Style policy regarding this issue is as follows: "Directions such as "north" are not proper nouns and do not take capitals. The same is true for their related forms: someone might call a road that leads north a northern road, compared with the Great North Road. Composite directions may or may not be hyphenated, depending on the general style adopted in the article (Southeast Asia and northwest in American English, but South-East Asia and north-west in British English)." As a general rule, this article uses the British English manual of style, which is consistent with Wikipedia's standard, here, so therefore the terms should remain lowercase. 208.119.72.6 (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

original usage

In the introduction passage of this article, the line "and which was debatably the original usage" is given, which cites blank blog page. I advise removing that part from the sentence in question, as it is unsourced, as well as being historically inaccurate with regards to both modern pagan witchcraft (in this case Wicca) and historical witchcraft (the original usage of the word spelt "wicca"). Luthaneal (talk) 14:10, 05 June 2009 (UTC)

--I could not find this line in the introduction section. Could you elaborate on what this line is referencing. I don't reccommend deleting it, if it is a term that could feasibly be sourced by other material. Perhaps a "needs citation" tag is needed, instead. Wolfpeaceful (talk) 20:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Question

Does anyone have good resources about the witch's 10 commandments?JesseGil (talk) 17:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "The Witch's Ten Commandments"; Witchcraft is a practise, an Art, and therefore does not have to be practised within a religious setting, and therefore does not need any commandments upon which to go by. Wicca, or other paths of Neo-Paganism does have such rules, though I've never heard of "The Wiccans' Ten Commandments" or "The Pagans' Ten Commandments." Wicca uses "Magickal Principles," "Wiccan Ethics," and "The Thirteen Principles of Wiccan Belief," though not 'Ten Commandments.' This might seem a little long winded, but you specifically asked for a witch's ten commandments, of which there are none, as each witch is to their own, and the words "Wicca" and "witch" are not interchangeable; the first is a religion, the second is a practise. Xxglennxx (talk) 13:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

My guess is that this whole "ten commandments" thing stems from this book. I just hope these repeated insertions and mentions aren't an effort to promote the book itself. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 18:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Correct, Hunster. What really infuriates me, as a Wiccan, is that people don't take enough time to distinguish between the words "Wicca(n)" and "Witch(craft)" and end up posting things like the above. Xxglennxx (talk) 22:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, tbh, that people typically call themselves Wiccan after seeing Charmed or some other TV show, and don't understand what it is about, or care for that matter. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 11:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree with you, Hunster! They spend too much time watching Charmed, Sabrina the Teenage With, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and not enough time on actually learning the differences - and there are many which need to be learnt - between words used in modern and general Paganism these days. Anyway, I think we can agree that any such "Witches' Commandments" shall not be added to the "Wicca(n) Article" (seeing as we needed an adjective to the word 'article,' I threw in the 'n' just to be sure :D). Xxglennxx (talk) 14:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, in this day and time, Witchcraft and Wicca are pretty much interchangeable terms, as are Witch and Wiccan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DiscipleRayne (talk • contribs) 16:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Then this just proves how much information you actually know about Wicca and Witchcraft. This is not an attack, but there are many differences between both words. Wicca is a religion. Witchcraft is a practise. One could practise Witchcraft without being Wiccan. You can go as far to say that one can be a Christian practising Witch, as Witchcraft is a practise, compatible within a religious structure, though it would go against Christian doctrine. Likewise, one can be Wiccan without the need to practise Witchcraft. Can you, please, also sign you comment with four tildes (~~~~). Xxglennxx (talk) 15:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

-- Aside, from any personal agreements or disagreements with the sentiments above, there have been numerous postings on the web about Wiccans's or Witches' 10 (or whatever number) of commandments. However, each version is a unique type, influnced by the author's own personal frame of reference and own ideas. These are most often, less than scholarly works. A essay on www.religioustolerance.org exemplifies a fictional account of Moses breaking the ten commandments, purposefully, because "he became furious about it." But in this story, God says "It is well you have broken the tablets, because you misunderstood me. It is very difficult to speak with humans. They hear me according to their preconceptions, their histories, and their emotions. To a thinker I will appear to be a God of thought, to a lover I will appear as a sensuous, beautiful woman. You see me as a pillar of fire and a burning bush, because you see me through your anger. To an angry eye, all things are aflame. Even my principles I gave you, you took as angry commandments. They are not even ‘commandments,’ as if I were demanding things of my people. They are ten pronouncements, principles which lie at the root of things." (Of course none of this Biblical... but the author gives his own version of commandments.)

[Deleted Example]]Wolfpeaceful (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

But, even with this example, it is just one of many. There indeed, is no such thing as set of ten commandments that is universally accepted by the majority of Wiccans.Wolfpeaceful (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is just stupid (not the "commandments" themselves, rather the idea). If anything, the full Gardnerian Rules should be included, though this would Oath break. Please do not add these to the article, Xxglennxx (talk) 19:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Only someone who has sworn an oath can break it. The Gardnerian laws are already widely available to the public. It would be quite easy for someone to add them here without breaking anything. Even so, I still don't think they should be added, simply because they are rules that apply only to Gardnerian Witchcraft (as far as I'm aware he never called the religion 'Wicca'). While Gardnerians may dispute it, it's unavoidable fact that 'Wicca' now describes a vast range of differing traditions, and to my knowledge the only rule they all have in common is the basic Rede ("An it harm none, do as thou wilt"). Even the Charge of the Goddess and the Threefold Law, though often cited as universal principles of Wicca, aren't accepted by all. The article as it stands rightly includes words like 'some' or 'many' or 'most', and I don't think we'll gain anything from trying to add any more rules. - Laterensis (talk) 12:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Which is why I said that if putting them up would be oath breaking. Unless you've been initiated into Gardnerian Wicca, you won't know if all of the laws have been made public (I am not an initiated Gardnerian, so neither do I know). Wicca is a mystery tradition, of which the majority is not accessible to the public. Such things (I would guess) include the laws, rituals, and initiations. I agree fully that no such rules should be added, though I would strongly argue that all Wiccans should follow the rules of Karma, Threefold Return, the Rede, and to an extent 'The Charge,' unless what they're practising is not Wicca - it's Neo-Wicca (which, actually, everyone who isn't initiated into either Alexandrian or Gardnerian Wicca is). But this goes beyond this discussion. Xxglennxx (talk) 21:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I am very saddened at the responses of the pagans above, understanding is one of our key tenets. And if you look you will understand where beliefs like this, misplaced though they may be, come from. In any case, they should not be included, as they are not considered as part of the Wiccan path. Policy states that it would have to have a verifiable source, and with different versions, and the obvious disputes it would provoke. It should not be included. Sephiroth storm (talk) 01:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as I've seen (being an unbaised atheist myself) Wiccans don't really have commandments or official 'rules', but more like guidelines that they should follow. So these shouldnt be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.166.100.251 (talk) 06:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(Inserting a note here: I had no intent on adding these to the article; they were just to show that people have formulated their own "commandments" which are really personal opinions as to what their own view of the religion entails... In truth, however, There are no universally accepted commandments in Wicca. One could argue that the Rede is the closest thing to that, but even that is rejected by some Wiccans. [Also I have deleted it, now... because it takes up too much space on this board... and really this discussion shouldn't be here; I admit I personally got "caught up in it", but Wikipedia is not a forum.] Wolfpeaceful (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)]

Relation Between Elements and Tools on The Alter

I didn't see where in the article it mentions which elements corresponds to a tool on the alter (Cup=Water, Pentacle= Earth, ect.) Where in the article should that be added? 71.23.10.113 (talk) 07:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC) ShadowHunterKurohyou

Hmmm, good point. I can only think of saying that there is no section/mentions because each person will differ, though I suppose we can give the traditional mentions. Xxglennxx (talk) 19:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

You might like to try here; I only just remembered the article, and will try to mention (refer) to it in the main "Wicca" article. Xxglennxx (talk) 19:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no set accordance between the ritual tools and the symbolic elements - the Gardnerians do it one way, the Alexandrians another, and, as far as I'm aware, groups like the Cochranians don't do it at all! (Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC))

Content removed from "Witch (etymology)"

I've just removed the following content from Witch (etymology) where it was irrelevant. I am pasting it here in case any of it is useful to this article. Thryduulf (talk) 22:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

==Modern "Wicca"==
The modern term "Wica" (pronounced /ˈwɪkə/, with spelling later standardised to "Wicca") first appears in the writings of Gerald Gardner. He used the word as a mass noun referring to the adherents of his tradition of witchcraft, rather than the religion itself. The religion he referred to as 'witchcraft', never 'Wicca'.

Gardner himself claimed he learned the term from existing members of the group who initiated him into witchcraft in 1939:

"I realised I had stumbled on something interesting; but I was half-initiated before the word "Wica" which they used hit me like a thunderbolt, and I knew where I was, and that the Old Religion still existed."

The word does not appear in the rituals commonly used nowadays in Gardnerian covens, which were composed by 1959.

Following Gardner a few other early books about Gardner's witchcraft tradition also used the term, with the same spelling and meaning as Gardner. For example, Patricia and Arnold Crother in The Witches Speak (1959):

[T]he Red Queen told Alice that she made words mean what wanted them to mean. She might very well have been talking about witchcraft, for today it is used to describe anything that one wishes to use it for. From the simple meaning "the craft of the Wica," it is used in connection with Black Magic, Satanism, Black Masses...

Also Raymond Buckland in Witchcraft - the Religion (1966):

Today more and more people are turning to the Wica, finding the answer to their religious needs.

The spelling Wicca is now used almost exclusively, Seax-Wica being the only major use of the four-letter spelling. The first appearance of the spelling Wicca is in June John's 1969 book King of the Witches: The World of Alex Sanders.

The word's first appearance within the title of a book was in Wicca: The Ancient Way published in 1981.

The earliest evidence of the common adjectival form "Wiccan", also used as a noun, dates from the 1970s.

Please elaborate on what you mean by "irrelevent", since this is properly sourced material. In my opinion this shows the evolution of the term "Wica" from its original usage as meaning "adherents to witchcraft" to the modern form of "Wicca" as meaning "an earth based pagan religion." 70.61.247.31 (talk) 21:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The content above is irrelevant to the article about the etymology of the word "witch" (Witch (etymology)) because it is about the word and topic "wicca". I therefore removed it from Witch (etymology) and pasted it here (the talk page of the Wicca article) in case it is relevant to this article. It may also be relevant in the articles Witch and/or Witchcraft, I don't know. Thryduulf (talk) 14:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Question regarding "nature-based"

Basically, I ask, why does it still say nature-based, earth-based, etc. It is fertility-based. Big difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.200.22.87 (talk) 03:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

one would assume that "Fertility" has something to do with "Nature" and should therefore be implied. Plus it is open to interpretation as to what its all about.

If the "answer" is not understandable please rephrase the queston.  rdunnPLIB  10:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the Craft is "fertility based" is a matter of dispute. Robert Cochrane was very adamant that it should not be a fertility religion but a mystery religion, whilst Victor Anderson believed his tradition, Feri, to be an "ecstatic" tradition. Yes, some of the Gardnerian-Alexandrian strains tend to consider themselves to be "fertility religions", but as enough people have said on this page already, they do not comprise the entirity of Wicca. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC))

Do you think this article needs protection?

Most of the edits I see are vandalism and then reverting vandalism. Should we make the article semi-protected so only people who are registered with Wikipedia can edit the article? 130.218.126.5 (talk) 21:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)ShadowHunterKurohyou

It's a possibility, and I think it's a good idea. Xxglennxx (talk) 01:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

If the vandalism picks up from its current pace, I'll consider protecting for an extended period of time. Right now, it isn't really that bad, but I'm keeping my eye on it. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Seconded, Huntster. Xxglennxx (talk) 15:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Wicca and Paganism section in article

Is this section really needed in the article at all? I took out the following because its points have already been stressed throughout the article. "Wicca is a neopagan religion with distinctive ritual forms, seasonal observances and religious, magical, and ethical precepts. Wiccans practise a form of witchcraft, but not all witches are Wiccans—other forms of witchcraft, folk magic and sorcery exist within many cultures, with widely varying practices."

After reading the section, it is my vote we take it out completely - there is nothing in that section that hasn't already been previously mentioned in the article as a whole. Xxglennxx (talk) 17:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

If there are no objections, then this section will be removed on Sunday, November 15th, 2009. Let's discuss it. Xxglennxx (talk) 19:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Just make absolutely certain that every point or piece of data in that section is covered elsewhere, and if possible find homes for the citations if they warrant it. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Will do. Xxglennxx (talk) 23:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

New main image

I'd just like to bring up a point that I believe could help to improve this article from an aesthetic point of view. The primary image of this page is a simple line illustration of a pentagram; now while the pentagram is indeed probably the best image to use here, this particular image is somewhat plain and boring, and I wondered if perhaps a more "evocative" or interesting image of a pentagram could be used, for instance a photograph of a pentagram-pentacle on an altar or on a piece of jewellry. Any thoughts? (Midnightblueowl (talk) 01:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC))

Not a bad idea, just make sure the image clearly represents the pentagram design as its primary focus (aka, not just part of a general scene) and is of high quality. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I have introduced an image that I created myself. Do people think that this photograph is an improvement? (Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC))

It does seem to have introduced some naming confusion. :) We're now showing a picture of a pentacle (taken to be the physical object) displaying either a pentagram (the star) or a pentacle (the star in a circle), depending on your usage of the words. Which makes the caption confusing - is it referring to the object or the symbol, and, if the latter, how is the symbol best described? That said, the picture is definitely an improvement. - Bilby (talk) 14:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this is therefore a good chance to explain the difference between the pentagram and the pentacle in the image description... For instance stating that the star is the pentagram, though encircled it is sometimes referred to as a pentacle, and the object itself is a pentacle? (Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC))

We could find a ref to put in at that point to explain. (also the photo looks better, good choice) rdunnalbatross  09:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a link to both pentagram and pentacle articles?--Vidkun (talk) 15:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Something along the lines of "This pentacle, worn as a pendant, depicts a pentagram, or five-pointed star, used as a symbol of Wicca by many adherents." ?(Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC))

I would like to congratulate whoever it was who has uploaded the new images, particularly the Boscastle ones. This article looks so much more like an article on Wicca now! Excellent work! Fuzzypeg★ 01:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe that Midnightblueowl has contributed most of the new sexy pictures :) He's also done much work on here, which has brought the article up to high standards, in my opinion. Xxglennxx (talk) 02:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks, I had these photos hanging around for a while now, when I suddently thought "Oh my Goddess, these should be on Wikipedia!". (Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC))

Great Rite and Sex Magic

Aleister has been adding the above titles to quite a few of the neo-Pagan related articles of late. After replying to a post on my talk page, I thought it'd be a good idea to discuss the above additions to this article and others. I removed them from here before for the following reason: sex magick (perhaps not so much the GR) can be used in other Neo-Pagan traditions, and is therefore not unique to Wicca. It can also be practised in a non-religious setting. They are briefly mentioned, and I believe that is sufficient for this article. If people want to read up more about the GR or sex magick, then they only need click the link.

Perhaps we can add content which describes both in Wiccan context, such as an overview of what happens, but again - this is explained in each other the separate articles. Opinions . . . . . Xxglennxx (talk) 17:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I see of no reason to have a "See Also" section containing these two links. It's simply unnecessary, and excessively lengthens this article. A brief mention of the Great Rite being a form of sex magic found in some Wiccan traditions is probably all that's needed, and can be included in the "Ritual practices" section. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC))

I agree, Midnightblueowl. The GR is mentioned under "Rites of Passage", though nothing specifically about sex magick (though I'm against it being said at all in this article). Xxglennxx (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sex magic is linked to immediately after the Great Rite link (as the word "actual"). — Huntster (t @ c) 00:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The user who has added it here, is adding it all over wikipedia, as if in an agenda driven rush. Recently, it was added to Charge of the Goddess.--Vidkun (talk) 14:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Then should it be removed from here? — Huntster (t @ c) 21:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Vidkun, I back this statement - I've removed them many times from various Wiccan related articles (the user seems to be adding them to all Wiccan articles, by the way). Huntster, I agree that they should be moved from this page. The GR has already been linked, and I see no reason as to why SM needs to be linked here. If there is no objection, then I think we should remove them by Sat. 19 December 09. Any additions after this date after general consensus has been reached can be marked as vandalism and dealt with appropriately. Xxglennxx (talk) 02:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

That user is me, and it would have been nice to receive a heads up if I was going to be spoken of in such language. As for casting aspersions about my motivations to edit, I am not adding it "all over" Wikipedia, but on relevant articles and pages, because I've found that the page had been neglected and a couple of Christian editors were seemingly seeing the page as ready to be deep-sixed. So, my agenda, was and is to save a potentially very good page. The topic of Sex magic, and the related use of sex and sexual techniques to expand and shift conscisousness, is a large one. It covers many traditions and many types of spiritual practices (and of course Sex magic is not unique to Wicca, but may be an important part of Wicca). What would be quite constructive would be for a few Wiccan editors who care about the subject to add a section to the page itself, to expand the data. The Great Rite surely falls within this category, as does the Charge of the Goddess, and it seems appropriate to either expand both of those articles to include detailed data on the subject or to allow 'Sex magic' a link to their "See also" sections. Then, in both instances, for a few critical editors to make sure that the Sex magic page contains an adequate section on Wiccan topics. I think we might all be in agreement on most of this topic, and maybe the problem is with someone adding the 'See also' links without discussion. Hopefully this process has been started. But for now my current agenda driven rush is to get myself to sleep. Good to meet everyone. Bl.b. Aleister Wilson (talk) 06:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The trouble is that nowadays, sex magic, through the Great Rite or in any other form, does not play a hugely significant role in Witchcraft/Wicca. In the 1950s and 60s, it was, of course, highly controversial and played up by the media, and during this era was practiced quite heavily in the Gardnerian and Alexandrian traditions (thereby stemming perhaps from the New Forest coven, though unfortunately Heselton has been unable to prove this either way). However, I am unsure as to whether it was ever practiced within the Clan of Tubal Cain or other such early groups like the Cardells' Dumbledene coven - the secrecy held by these people has made deciphering their practices almost impossible. In the 1970s onwards, with the rise of solitary, eclectic practitioners, and people forming covens based upon what they read in books, it seems that the use of the Great Rite has died out somewhat (with it obviously being difficult for solitaries to perform!). In contemporary 'how-to' books on the Craft you rarely find sections on it, one exception that comes to mind being Anne-Marie Gallagher's The Wicca Bible, which devotes merely a couple of pages to it. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC))

Hi. Probably all the more reason to add the data in some form. In witchcraft, although I don't have reference books where I am, the broom (with the bristles in front of the rider) was a symbol of the penis, and the witches ride into consciousness (flying, although also a remote viewing symbol) was the proper use of sex magic. The Great Rite would publicly break patterns, both in the individuals participating and the attendees to the Rite. Sex magick is still widely used in Thelema associated work, and I didn't know it wasn't still a part of wiccan traditions. My links in see also sections of wicca were selective and not random, with that apparantly mistaken notion in mind. Why and where did Wicca lose such important techniques in magic, just because of the new covens basing themselves on popular books of the time where, just a surmise here, the publishers did not want to carry such data? IMHO all the more reason to revive the information on such an important use of magic which is maybe all but lost within Wicca but thriving in Crowley related organizations. (a comment about the edit last night, during my initial edit I somehow erased the two comments above. I literally have no idea how this occurred, and if I had seen them--I don't think I schrolled down far enough on my laptop to see either the comments on the page or in the edit block--I would have addressed those as well.) Thanks, Aleister Wilson (talk) 15:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The idea of the broomstick being phallic isn't really very historically accurate. I'm not quite sure whose idea it was, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was Murray's. The historical Witch-Cult was not a reality, and whilst the besom may well have phallic associations in certain Wiccan traditions (Alex Sanders claimed in his biography that his grandmother's broom was phallic), there really doesn't appear to be any historical link (that I know of). I think the idea of the Great Rite can be played up more in the Gardnerian Wicca page, but here it isn;t really necessary. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC))

Hi. Not ashamed to admit I'm tearing up about this. It seems, from what I've read here, that much of the symbolism has been lost again in Wicca. I'm on the older side, and the Wiccan women I know and knew all, to a person, knew this information and embraced it. Not only the broom, but the symbolism of the wand, the chalice, in other traditions the rose and cross, the eye in the pyramid, those and others all symbolize on one level the use of either the sexual union or the sole practicioner's use of masturbation to reach consciousness and "working" levels described in the literature of almost all mystic schools. Next you will tell me that "drugs" have also been lost in the practices and in some ceremonies of Wicca. I came to these pages to add the data in, and expected to find, when I saw the lack of data, a response of "let's work up a great section on the Sex magic page for Wicca and Witchcraft". Now maybe the lack of data is inherent in present-day practices, while fully alive in other lineages, and as I say, this may signify a serious loss of information from both the past and from sister-organizations. Please help make the Sex magic page at least an informational pool for the data, extant and lost, and consider adding to it. Aleister Wilson (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

A brief added note. Why would the topics Sex magic and Great Rite be removed from the See also section of the Witchcraft page? I don't see any mention of either on the page itself. Wondering, and not understanding the reasons as yet. Aleister Wilson (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Wicca covers a vast array of different groups and traditions. This page HAS to represent them all and focus on the commonalities. Yes, some groups use ritual drugs, such as the Clan of Tubal Cain and possibly, if Francis X. King is correct, the New Forest coven as well, but this does not constitute the entirety of Wicca, in fact it only constitutes a small minority. All the symbolism that you describe as having to do with sex and masturbation, whilst interesting, again does not apply to most Craft groups nowadays, if it ever did. That is why sex magic cannot play a big part in this article. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC))

Clean up of further reading

Hello everybody. Just as a point I think that the "Further reading" section needs a massive clean-out; some of the books on there are about very specific things or individuals, others are about Neopaganism generally and others are just generally factually innacurate books. I would suggest things like Hutton's Triumph of the Moon and a few others, but not as many as are listed here. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC))

Hello, MBO. I can't speak for most of the books you chose to delete, but much as I dislike Aidan Kelly's piece, I'm inclined to think that one should stay. For all its problems, it is a serious attempt to conduct scholarly research on the origins of Wicca.

However, I'm feeling deferential today, so I'm not going to reinstate it without some feedback. Thoughts, ladies & gentlemen?

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 01:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

No opinions on the Aidan Kelly thing, but I think the trimming and categorising of this section was the right move. Thanks MBO. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It's still not perfect, but the section was too full of things that seemed to be about merely Goddess worship in America that weren't entirely relevent to pure "Wicca" as a subject. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC))

Further Improvementt to go for Featured Article status!

Hello all! As you may have noticed I (having had a few days off with very little to do) have tried to transform much of this page, adding further references, new (and I believe more relevent) images, and more cohesive formatting of the paragraphs. Well, I think that this page will soon be able to be nominated for featured article status, but obviously, a little bit more work is needed, and I'd like to highlight this here so that this work can swiftly be achieved by our collaborative efforts. Right, well here's what I think needs some work:

• The "Pantheism, Polytheism and Animism" needs a bit of a rewrite to make it clearer to readers not familiar with all these long terms.
• The "Ritual practices" section needs fully referencing (and possible a nice image to go with it).
• Much of the "Rites of passage" section needs referencing.
• All references need to be standardised.
• Add further, referenced information to "Symbology" section.
• Add references to "Traditions" section.

So, does everyone agree with these goals, or are there any others that I have neglected to notice? Let's pull this page up to scratch! (Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC))

I agree with the above, and will help where I can :) Xxglennxx (talk) 03:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Wiccantogether.com

Wiccantogether.com is the largest wicca social network. There are other larger communities but none that are purely a social network. Should it be listed in external links on the main page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.229.11.105 (talk) 23:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

No, social networks are not considered to be appropriate external links for use inside articles (unless there is strong consensus to include, that is). — Huntster (t @ c) 23:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Why would a link to Witchvox,com be considered appropriate and one to wiccantogether.com wouldnt? Isnt the fact that the site is the largest wicca social network significant enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.229.11.105 (talk) 23:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:EL, links to social networking sites are to be avoided in articles. Witchvox, on the other hand, provides a much broader range of services than just social networking. — Huntster (t @ c) 07:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)