Talk:Wicca/Archive 9

Peer review

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)

Concern with weasel words

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)

When "weasel words" or other unattributed/incompletely explained items appear in an introduction section, generally you should look for more detailed explanation further down in the article. The introduction, like an abstract, provides a short synopsis, but may not always provide all the supporting information. If you want to provide a reference to Heselton at this point in the intro, that would be fine, but I think it's more informative to link to both Heselton and Hutton, in the context of an explanation of their disagreements. And that happens further down. Fuzzypeg☻ 04:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

We still have a problem with this. Originally "it is thought"; then "it is a widely held belief"; then "it is probable"; and now back to "widely held belief" again. None of them really stating by whom these things are thought or believed. I'm going to be fussy, and I know this will look like sour grapes from the said/claimed thing... If we can't say that Gardner 'claimed' something on the grounds that 'claimed' implies an unsupportable assertion, then by extension of the same principle I would assume that we can't say "widely held belief" either - since 'belief' similarly implies that it's an unsupportable assertion. Since "it is thought" is no better, and "it is probable" is POV (despite being a POV I firmly subscribe to), I'm going to go for 'possible' - although that probably implies it's less likely than it actually is, but it's the most neutral term I can think of. - Shrivenzale (talk) 07:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Another possible source would be Aidan Kelly's "Crafting the Art of Magic." I read it many years ago and don't have a copy, but someone might. I believe he makes an aggressive case for Wicca being no older than Gerald Gardner.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 12:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfair

" 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)

This is probably because Wicca has developed in Europe, North America and Australia, which are all majority christian countries, so most religious hostility is Christian. If you can find (eg) Jewish or Islamic hostility to Wicca, please include it. Totnesmartin 21:07, 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)

Time for a Good Article submission?

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)

How about Peer review first, then there's less chance of a knockback. Totnesmartin 22:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

There's still a bit of copy editing that could be done, and some sections seem rather awkward, such as Wicca#The afterlife. I've made a few copy edits, but I'm not sure how much time I can put into editing the whole article... Fuzzypeg☻ 01:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Have done a lot of minor edits, plus some cutting out of information which was either irrelevant or (usually) duplicated elsewhere in the article. I realise some of these excisions may look quite savage - however the article at 44k is a good deal too long, and if these sections are not cut we need to remove others! All this material could be replaced in daughter articles, either existing ones or newly created. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:08, 7 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)

(To keep this together) On 30DEC2007 I listed this in WP:GAN, good luck! — xaosflux ^Talk 05:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see a definition for Wicce on a separate page, with links to this page.

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)

Find reliable sources. Additionally, please learn proper wiki formatting before adding information; I reverted your edits because there isn't any sourcing to the information you added, and you broke a number of links with your edit.--Vidkun (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds great, Morgaine. As Vidkun says, you'll need to have some reliable sources on which to base your article; have a look at Wikipedia's verifiability guidelines to get a quick idea of what's involved. Don't worry too much about formatting at first; it's not too hard and you'll quickly get the hang of it, but in the meantime if you can get some other editors to visit your article they'll help get the formatting correct. And they'll help make sure that the article's well written and solidly referenced. That's the one annoying/wonderful thing about Wikipedia (depending on your point of view): whatever you write ceases to be yours, and it will be carefully picked over by numerous other people.

So starting an article is easy: just type the article name you want into the search box on the left and follow the instructions, or alternatively, you can follow the link I'm creating right here: Wicce.

Arrgh! OK, so that article name currently redirects to the Volva article. OK, try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wicce&action=edit. Welcome to Wikipedia and have fun! Fuzzypeg☻ 20:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Remember also that an article for Wicce should make note of the other related uses of the term, such as how it is used in the Volva article (since it does currently link there), and the etymology of the word, which is discussed on this article and elsewhere. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 10:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

How about a list of Wiccan holidays?

To whoever inserted this section, do you not think that's covered in Special Occasions already? It covers the sabbats and certain other festivals. If not, then what holidays do you think should be discussed? - Shrivenzale (talk) 00:42, 23 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)

Yes, it's a bit awkward, since I didn't put the above section heading in, so it's not very clear. According to the History page, it (the heading, no text) was added by someone called Geo8rge as a question. My question in response to the question is as above: Wiccan holidays are already pretty much covered in the article as it stands. - Shrivenzale (talk) 19:08, 24 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)

Hallowe'en is Hallowe'en, or All Hallows' Eve. Samhain is Samhain. Many earlier Samhain traditions have been carried into modern Hallowe'en, but the two are not synonymous, as they're not the same festival - they're just on the same date. It's a picky distinction but it's worth making. The argument over whether Christians 'stole' Samhain isn't worth getting into here (personally I don't think it's worth getting into anywhere). Similarly, if you've mentioned Beltane and Yule together here to try to associate the two (and you may not have but your intent wasn't clear), you should know they're at different times of year: Beltane is in spring; Yule is the midwinter period. - Shrivenzale (talk) 14:41, 13 January 2008 (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)

Great, but we already have a Wheel of the Year article that covers this, and the information you're providing is not encyclopedic. For instance the names "Mabon" and "The Witches' Thanksgiving" are very recent innovations, not traditional to Wicca. Even the name "Samhain" is a late addition, rather than the traditional name used. Fuzzypeg★ 04:39, 8 January 2009 (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)

We aren't here to discuss what's wrong or right for you to practice - we're here to discuss what's encyclopedic. Please read the five pillars of Wikipedia to understand what Fuzzypeg is trying to get you to understand.--Vidkun (talk) 20:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Etymology essay

I removed this essay from the article:

According to the Oxford English Dictionary (O.E.D.), "witch" comes from the Saxon word "wicca". Wicca is a noun with a masculine ending. In the Saxon tongue, 'cc' is pronounced 'tch', making the pronunciation "witch'-ah", NOT "wik'-ah" as is commonly thought. The feminine form of the word is Wicce, pronounced "witch'-eh". The same word was applied to both male and female, leaving only the ending of the word changed. It eventually evolved (like most old english words) into what we have today, pronounced and spelled "witch". So in truth, Wicca and Witch are, in terms of etymology, the same word. The term Wiccan is a plural form of the word. One Wicca, two Wiccan (the feminine forms being Wicce and Wiccen. So to say, "This is a Wiccan ceremony" would be incorrect, as 'wiccan' is not an adjective. Gardner's spelling "wica" may have very well led to the mispronunciation of the term, making it an entirely new word to the Occult vocabulary. The term, although some may claim otherwise, was NOT invented by Gardner (nor was the religion itself). "The oldest extant appearance of the word "wicca" can be found in the Law Codes of Alfred the Great, circa 890 C.E." (cited from the Oxford English Dictionary and the research of Mike Nichols). The term has nevertheless evolved even further in recent years, making it an adjective as well as a noun, and is used thus by many practitioners of the faith.

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)

Indeed. I'm trying to rewrite the etymology article (and may be able to work some of this in), but it is not presenting itself as an easy chore, simply because there is such a mess there and I don't have much in the way of resources to work with (not to mention that the history is so muddied). That section you removed overwrote some existing material, so I'm going to go back in time and replace that deleted bit. Strike that (literally), even the old section strayed from the evolution of Wica to Wicca, so I'll try and put it as well in the etymology article. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 00:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination

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:

1. Well written?: Pass

2. Factually accurate?: Pass

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Pass

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)

Hooray, hooray! Thanks BorgQueen and thanks everyone who has helped get the article to where it is today! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 19:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Great job everyone! — xaosflux ^Talk 04:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this hubris, or...

...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:

• Ask for another peer review, even though so little time has elapsed
• Just wait for a while, then ask for another peer review in a few months before submitting for FA
• Be bold and go right ahead with a FA submission

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)

Well, I am fairly certain that the article will fail. But of course, FA discussion will be helpful in any case as long as you don't take criticisms personally. :-) Btw, I'd like to suggest:

1. The books in the further reading section need ISBN.
2. Some more images will be desirable. I was tempted to add the Aradia book cover but the history section of this article doesn't seem to give a lot of importance to the book.

--BorgQueen (talk) 13:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I assume it would fail too in its current state - I'd favour submitting it more for the feedback and to improve the article, than because of any certainty of success! But there doesn't seem to be any other way of guaranteeing close, critical scrutiny without taking a deep breath and going for FA status!

Agree with your comment about illustrations, BTW. I'm sure we ought to be able to come up with something more inspiring than the pentagram as a first visual, and the other illustrations are few. I'd almost favour taking some decent photos and uploading them, so we get exactly what we want here. It's paradoxical that a topic which inspires the fevered imagination of book cover designers has so few pictures here - perhaps we're afraid of seeming too sensationalist ourselves? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend trying to reduce the further reading section, by use if possible rather than removal. -Malkinann (talk) 05:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

As this article is intended as a summary, it could be good to also try and make some of the very important sub-articles like History of Wicca or Wiccan morality up to GA and then re-examine the summary style in this article before trying for FA. -Malkinann (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point, in working the other articles up to GA, we should end up improving this one as well. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Too bad that the latest additions have ruined the article, by being redundant [1] .--Vidkun (talk) 18:27, 9 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)

Why no mention of Neopaganism in the introduction?

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))

Possibly because at least one noted author has classified Wicca (the original form, now called BTW) as meso-paganism.--Vidkun (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Wicca-as-mesopaganism should be referenced in this article, then? In Paganism Wicca is described as Neo-Pagan. -Malkinann (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Although Isaac Bonewits's classification is neat and ingenious, I don't know that it's generally accepted. I agree with Midnightblueowl on this: Ronald Hutton classifies Wicca as 'Neopagan witchcraft' and personally I think that's the most accurate description. I think we should mention this (citing Hutton perhaps) in the article. Particularly as the Paganism article uses the description pointed out by Malkinann. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've had a bold attempt at inserting this. I've added a bit to the Wicca#Core concepts section introducing the terms Neopaganism and Mesopaganism, with a reference to Bonewits and a link to his webpage defining them. I was wrong about Hutton: he describes Wicca as pagan (not neopagan) witchcraft. Bonewits describes BTW (defined by him as anything originating pre 1960) as mesopagan, and more modern forms of Wicca as neopagan. It's only a first attempt, so do amend it and/or propose rewording here. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the confusing nature of the matter (the definition of mesopagan vs. neopagan vs. pagan), I think we should just leave the introduction without attribution as to the 'type' of paganism under which Wicca is classified. While certainly a useful point to make note of (in some fashion), we're never going to reach a real consensus on the matter.64.180.201.206 (talk) 08:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Varities path

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)

Your typing is very difficult to understand, but I think I can make out what you're asking: should we describe some of the major ways in which the gods are represented, such as the goddess as Maiden, Mother and Crone? The answer is, I believe, that we already do. We don't go into a lot of belief in this article about what Maiden, Mother and Crone actually are, but we link to the Triple Goddess article which gives a more complete explanation. I believe that's sufficient.  Fuzzypeg  ^talk  23:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I need a Wiccan's help

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. Serendi^podous 22:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I'm on my way. It will make a change from the discussion about rollback which has been.... interesting! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:33, 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)

Make no mistake, Wicca is about as occult as you can get (traditional Wicca, that is)! And Harry Potter is about as 'fantasy' as you can get. Therein lies the difference. And, of course, Wicca is only one very specific variety of modern witchcraft, and the burn-Master-Potter crew aren't drawing any parallels with specifically Wiccan practices... Fuzzypeg★ 22:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

'Said' versus 'claimed'

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)

I changed 'claimed' to 'said' simply because 'said' is the more value-neutral term; 'claim' is, as you say, used to imply that a speaker's argument lacks verification. My change was not motivated by any personal beliefs about Gardner's stated views--indeed, there's little evidence that I know of which supports (or refutes) his claims of Wicca's antiquity, although this in no way detracts from the beauty and value of Wicca as a spiritual path or system of magic.

My change was motivated by structural considerations: I simply feel that the introductory paragraph of the article--where a reader might normally expect a simple, straightforward description--is the wrong place to introduce arguments relating to more complicated issues--such as whether or not certain of Gardner's claims can be verified or falsified. I feel a later subsection would be a more logical place in which to introduce that issue; therefore, a neutral 'said' in the first paragraph would be less likely to confuse the reader. Rangergordon (talk) 08:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't for one moment suggest that you were motivated to change the article to present your personal beliefs. You're right to say that 'said' is more 'value neutral'; my only point is that in this case we don't need to worry about the potential implications of the word 'claimed', because in this case the implications would be factual. You say yourself that the word 'claimed' is "used to imply that a speaker's argument lacks verification" - and in this case, that's fact. As you have agreed, there is little (in fact no) evidence to support Gardner's claims - much of his described ancient history of Wicca stems from Margaret Murray's work on European witchcraft which is considered amongst historians to have no factual basis. So, in short, I don't think we need to tread carefully around this issue, unless and until someone can provide some - any - indication that Wicca is of ancient origin.

Incidentally, I should point out that I have the utmost respect for Wicca, no matter whether I agree with everything its founder said. A religion can be valid without being old. - Shrivenzale (talk) 11:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

There is WP guidance on exactly this issue: WP:WTA.  Fuzzypeg  ^talk  23:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me, Shrivenzale. Just glad to have the opportunity to explain my position. Rangergordon (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine. I defer to WP:WTA. I've also changed the subsequent reference to Gardner's 'claims' to 'statements' - it was the nearest equivalent I could think of; someone else may be able to suggest something more appropriate. - Shrivenzale (talk) 01:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to say I found your statement that 'in this case we don't need to worry about the potential implications of the word "claims", because in this case the implications would be factual' sounded reasonable to me, and had actually persuaded me to change my mind--I wasn't referring to the WP:WTA. In fact, I now find myself preferring "claims" since, as you explained it, it really does seem the more accurate term--summing up Gardner's statements, as well as the subsequent widespread doubt about those statements, in one fell swoop! Economical use of a word. "Claims" really is the better term considering the facts of this case, even considering what WP:WTA says. (Still, perhaps it does bring up the issue a little early in the article. How about "asserted"?) Sorry to quibble and then, to top it off, to change positions! Good work. Rangergordon (talk) 06:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

"Not all Wiccans are witches, and vice-versa"

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)

I think we come up against the reliable sources problem with this. Certainly, I rather doubt there is a RS for the 'not all Wiccans are witches' position: I suspect that all the 1,500 GHits are to homepages and blogs of enthusiastic individuals. But evidence for the other end of the dialectic ('all Wiccans are witches') will also be hard to find - given that it is such a widespread and fundamental belief for some of us, it's hardly worth enunciating (cf: 'All women are human').

Actually I think that Keilana's edit of 'While most Wiccans also identify as witches, not all witches are Wiccans, and vice versa.' is resonable, apart from the tautological 'vice versa'. I think it represents a middle point between the two positions above, and one which most people on most parts of the witch/Wiccan/pagan Venn diagram would agree with. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 07:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Kim, but it's not tautological. It's entirely possible from a logical standpoint for not all witches to be Wiccans without the reverse being true; it would merely require "Wiccan" to be a subset of "witch," which I think you'll agree is not the case. The classes "Wiccan" and "witch" probably have a substantial overlap, but to state in words (rather than in a Venn diagram) that there are Wiccans who are not witches and witches who are not Wiccan does require the "vice-versa."

Now, to address the other point, I know of at least one Tradition where one is not declared to be a witch (at least in the context of the Trad) until Initiation, which can take several years. But if you want a reliable source, I'm disqualified.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 12:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I was just speaking grammatically. The sentence "While most Wiccans also identify as witches, not all witches are Wiccans" is grammatically correct, logically possible and (in practice) factually accurate. Adding "...and vice versa" does not improve either the grammar, the logic or the accuracy.

Just read that back - Gods, I sound pompous! Don't mean to be, slap me with a trout someone and I'll snap out of it. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, dear. I'm afraid I must disagree again. True, it doesn't improve the grammar, but it does improve the accuracy. To say "Not all witches are Wiccans" and to leave it at that allows for the possibility that all Wiccans are witches. Since that's not the case, Wikipedia is better served with he inclusion of the "and vice versa."

And no, you don't sound particularly pompous.

No more than I, anyhow.

OK, perhaps that isn't the best analogy...

Regards,

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 12:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

"...Allows for the possibility that all Wiccans are witches" isn't true, since "While most Wiccans also identify as witches" already covers this side of things in a much more accurate fashion. The vice versa statement is completely redundant. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 18:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that, speaking strictly logically, the sentence does function without the 'vice-versa'. The phrase "While most Wiccans" does show that we're not talking about all Wiccans, while "not all witches are Wiccans" covers the converse. That said, although the sentence in that form works logically, I'd have to question its efficiency in getting the message over to the reader: in that form the reader will need to stop and study it for a moment in order to make sure they've got it. They will have to think about it a little, and although I'm entirely in favour of making people think, the place to do so isn't necessarily in the middle of a flow of text, where it can cause a reader to stumble. And those who don't realise that it is a complex bit of sentence might well ride straight over it and not absorb the full info it's giving. On the other hand, adding the 'vice-versa' is redundant, and does repeat what's already been said - so consciously or not, the reader will think the sentence looks a bit awkward.

I tend to think the best way of tackling a disputed sentence like this is to abandon it and think up a new one entirely. My suggestion would be something like:

"It's common for Wiccans to identify themselves as witches, although witchcraft itself is not considered to be a religious system and its use is not essential for the practice of Wicca, so this is not universal."

...or something along those lines. And to those two worrying about sounding pompous: don't fret. As you can see, you're just amateurs in the pomposity stakes. :o) - Shrivenzale (talk) 10:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It does seem to have become a matter of identity politics. I was thinking something short, like: "Not all witches are Wiccans, and not all who consider themselves Wiccans identify as witches," but Shrivenzale's suggestion is more informative.

It's clear that, today, people are using the word "Wicca" to refer to a great number of different belief systems and practices. Rangergordon (talk) 02:23, 25 February 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)

OK, a couple of points to address here: Silver Ravenwolf doesn't represent traditional Wicca, and everything you can find about Wicca before the 1980s or possibly even the 1990s is based on the understanding that Wicca is (or claims to be) a form of modern witchcraft. Wicca is (or was) different to "paganism" in this regard, in that it is not just a philosophy and religion, but a secret society of witches. New forms of "Wicca" have become prominent in the last 10 years or so which downplay any connection with witchcraft, but they are still a minority.

The second point is, of course men can be witches. The witch trials in Europe executed more women than men, it's true, but a significant proportion of those accused were always men. In some countries such as Iceland, men were actually the majority. It is a modern misconception to assume that witches were all women, just as it is a misconception to assume that they all wore pointy hats, had green skin and a wart on their nose.  Fuzzypeg  ^talk  21:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as how there has been so much ... innovation over the past decade or two with regards to divergent belief systems and practices termed "Wicca" by their adherents, would it be helpful to add a new section--or even a separate article--on the topic of "traditional Wicca"? Or, given folks' strongly held opinions on the matter, would it likely become the source of more heat than light? Rangergordon (talk) 01:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed from article edit comment

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)

What is this "Wiccanism," anyway? Crowley may have been instrumental in the initial formation of modern Wicca, to be sure, but "Wiccanism?"

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 12:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Polytheism category

(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)

A bold move, but your logic is good and for my part, I think this is the right approach. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

13 Beliefs

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)

I agree with the deletion, on a number of reasons: first of all, it's copyright material. Secondly, it doesn't list how many, most is weasel word. Thirdly, the ACW lasted less than one year, and that was all they could agree on. It was Carl Weshcke's first attempt to control American NeoPaganism and sell more books.--Vidkun (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Is "less than a year" an understatement? I thought the council met precisely once, adopted the "13 Principles" and then disbanded. Maybe that's an urban legend, though.

Still, the document (or mention of it) could have a place in the article--if not as a statement of belief, then as a historical artifact. The "Principles" did generate a fair amount of press, and the ACW episode is interesting for precisely the reasons discussed by Shrivenzale and Vidkun above.

The document, with the story of its origins, gives a glimpse into the dynamics of that time and, even if it isn't generally regarded as some sort of Wiccan catechism, it could be considered part of the Wiccan heritage, and much perspective can be lost in the interest of building universal consensus. Rangergordon (talk) 01:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"The "Principles" did generate a fair amount of press, and the ACW episode is interesting for precisely the reasons discussed by Shrivenzale and Vidkun above."

Personally, I wouldn't include the principles, because I don't think they truly define what Wicca is - only what a short-lived, unusually-publicised group thought it should be. There's currently no article on the American Council of Witches. Is it significant enough to warrant one of its own? That said, if you think the principles are important enough historically and there's a suitable place for them then by all means feel free to add them again - but please make clear that you're including them for that purpose. As Moontrine originally added them they could have been interpreted either as universal declarations of Wiccan belief, which would have been wrong, or as personal statements of individual belief, in which case they don't belong in the article. - Shrivenzale (talk) 10:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

FWIW I think there's a separate article here: possibly the ACW on its own is too narrow, but what about History of Wicca in the USA? There's a lot to be said which would be too detailed for here or for History of Wicca come to that. Think of the infamous 'Samhain letter', Uncle Bucky's big blue book, Judy Harrow, Aidan Kelly, Starhawk, the Long Island Line, origins of CVW etc etc.... It would also be a chance for people to write 'organization' rather than 'organisation' for once ;-) I've been thinking of starting such an article for British developments since Gardner, so this would be a good partner article. (We can sort out the rest of the world in due course!) Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 19:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Admission by US Armed Forces

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)

Yes. For years the US Army Chaplain's Handbook has had a section of Wicca that treats it respectfully as a genuine religion; that army has also allowed Wiccan religious ceremonies to take place at army bases, despite fierce opposition from "Christian" fundies. They have also recently approved the use of the pentagram on Wiccan soldiers' tombstones. I'm not sure what happened to this information. It used to be here. Fuzzypeg★ 22:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Except that there ISN'T a Chaplain's Handbook. What you may be thinking of is DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PAMPHLET (DA PAM) 165-13 "RELIGIOUS REQUIREMENTS AND PRACTICES of Certain Selected Groups A HANDBOOK FOR CHAPLAINS" and 165-13-1. Neither of them has been officially updated any later than 1993, and neither of them is officially published on the US Army Publishing Agency webpage anymore. What MAY be being confused by Adipatus is that the VA settled the lawsuit brought by a number of people (including close friends of mine) regarding putting a pentacle (sic) on the gravemarkers of Pagan Veterans. The US Army officially approves of NO one specific religion, in accordance with the 1st Amendment, and used 165-13 and 165-13-1 to serve as information books for Chaplains who might be confronted with Soldiers who practice a non-mainstream faith. It in no way shape or form approved of any religion, nor disapproved of any, either.--Vidkun (talk) 13:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have a friend who recently studied to become a Chaplain's Assistant, and he said that the Army was adding Wiccan. I believe there was only three current religions, and they were planning to add Buddhist. the wikipedia on army chaplains refers to a case, where a a newly converted Wiccan Chaplain was dismissed, because he lost his endorsement. This leads me to wonder how many Wiccans serve in the army? Since there are few Wiccans compared to other religions who are not represented by U.S. Army Chaplains, as well as considering the cost of teaching Chaplains Wicca. Are Wiccans, or any sect of Wiccans, particularly martial? Do they employ magic in combat? Rds865 (talk) 00:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what "adding Wiccan" means. Do you mean they are adding Wicca as a recognised religion for Army Chaplains?

I wouldn't be surprised if most Wiccans in the army don't look for or require a chaplain, since Wicca places far less reliance on a leading figure who acts as intercessory between you and divinity. All Wiccans (in traditional, initiatory forms at least) are themselves priests or priestesses, fully responsible for their own actions and their own spirituality.

Regarding your last question: Do Christians employ prayer in combat? Do Buddhists employ mindfulness in combat? I don't see any sect of Wiccans as particularly martial. But these questions are probably best asked at some kind of forum. Here we discuss specific evidence for writing articles. Fuzzypeg★ 22:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Citation needed?

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)

The ref is just to confirm the double c spelling; the gardner statement needs a ref (hmm, reffing a negative statement... is there a Gardner concordance available?) Totnesmartin (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Having given the section another look, it seems as if the statement "gardner never spelt it Wicca is pretty well explained in the opening paragraph, which says he spelt it "witchcraft" (the activity) and "the wica" for the community. I can't find anything in the article which says how it came to be spelt wicca. Hmm. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:41, 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)

Have we answered the original question? Have we even understood the original question? I haven't. The article seems clear to me:

1. Gardner spelt the word Wica (one 'c'), and meant by it, the members of the witchcraft society into which he was initiated.
2. There is an Old English word wicca with a different, but related meaning.
3. Gardner never used the spelling Wicca, but this developed out of Gardner's Wica.
4. Wiccan (both adjective and noun) first appeared in known usage after the early writings of Gardner.

If the dictionary.com definition is what's confusing, then look at the entry for Wicca instead and it should (hopefully) supply a bit more information on the derivation. Old English is essentially a different language to modern English, and the old wicca is a different word to the modern Wicca, and has a different meaning. Fuzzypeg★ 00:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, my fuzzy friend, I believe the original question is looking for a better citation to the statement "The spelling Wicca was not used by Gardner and the term Wiccan (both as an adjective and a noun) was not used until much later, but it is now the prevalent term to refer to followers of Wicca." I personally would like to see a citation for as early as possible use of "Wicca" and "Wiccan" to make me completely comfortable with the sentence as it stands--it's a minor point in the article, but even minor points can make the difference in FA status. Justin Eiler (talk) 01:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Lack of accountability over abuse in Covens.

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)

The main reason that such offenders are not struck off the initiation book or register is that there is no such register. At least, not one that would be universally recognised as authoritative by all Wiccans. Covens keep their own rules - Wicca has no international authority or centralised regulation, as in the case of, say, the Catholic Church. Therefore no standardised response or sanction can really be expected. A coven, at its heart, is composed of the people involved in that coven, and any larger association is likely to be loose.

You say that this is a 'frequent problem'. If it's your intention to create a section detailing this, you'll obviously need reliable cites and sources for the numbers you'll be presenting. You'll also need to show that it's a problem sufficiently widespread - and sufficiently associated with Wicca itself - as to warrant inclusion in an article providing an inevitably brief description of Wicca. Certainly there are those claiming authority in covens who are willing to abuse their position, but this could be said of any religion or society.

Alternatively, you may be asking for other reasons not necessarily related to this descriptive article. It's possible your question is more than just hypothetical. If that's the case, then there are many online discussion groups that may be able to provide suitable advice on this question. In addition, assuming that by 'sexual abuse' you mean actions that would constitute statute crimes (which is the usual implication of the term), then your local law enforcement agency or agencies would certainly be a better bet than any appeal to coven guidelines. - Shrivenzale (talk) 14:45, 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)

Noted, thank you. - Shrivenzale (talk) 15:52, 19 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)

This is a courtesy response. I have now viewed some of your previous 'contributions' and other edits attributed to you. I have given what I consider to be a reasonably full response to your original comment here, and as I said, Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for the sort of discussion you are attempting to engage in. I do not intend to discuss this with you any further. - Shrivenzale (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Differentiate between Gardnerian, BTradW and Solitary USA Practice?

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)

Hmmm. You know, if you've managed to write this comment, then you'd probably manage OK editing the article, especially since there are plenty of other editors around who can improve your formatting if it's below par. The main thing is to get the information in, and we can worry about making it look pretty later. The reason why I say this is because most of the work is not in the formatting, or even in the writing, but rather in the tracking down of useful sources of information that we can cite.

We had a bit of discussion about different types of Wicca maybe a year ago, and there seemed to be general agreement that making these distinctions clear early in the article was helpful to all parties; perhaps we could move this discussion even closer to the beginning of the article.

You talk about 3 types of Wicca: Gardnerian, BTW and "Solitary USA Practice". Are these common distinctions? I'm not so keyed in with US lingo, but Gardnerian Wicca is normally considered BTW here in NZ and in Australia. It's not a term they use quite so much in the UK, where "Wicca" still largely retains its meaning of initiatory witchcraft in the lineage of Gardner. While any number of gradations and colourations of Wicca could be named, the main two camps that I'm aware of are the initiatory "BTW" camp, those in the lineage of Gardner (Gardnerians, Alexandrians and so on); and the non-initiatory or non-lineaged "Eclectic" camps who couldn't give a toss about Gardner. If we're going to get much more complex than that it would be useful to follow some published taxonomy. And tracking down the best taxonomy is where the work comes in! Fuzzypeg★ 03:19, 16 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)

I've got it fixed and formatted it. I think the problem was that you use a ref name that was the same as another in the article. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 03:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Wiccan Creationism

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))

To my knowledge there is no notable philosophical movement within Wicca supporting any particular interpretation of creationism or evolution, or even pushing for the question to be addressed. That article is one person's opinion, and has been cribbed almost entirely from Christian apologetics. I think we'd need a more notable movement before we start talking about what Wiccans might or might not believe. Personally, I also feel he has repeated the same fallacious arguments as Christian creationism, for instance comparing the oldest and crudest theories of evolution (the theory that all evolutionary changes must be very gradual, for example) against recent scientific findings in other fields and concluding that evolution is in opposition to these findings (mechanisms have since been discovered whereby major changes in genetic expression can be made within one or two generations; this is a potential explanation for how rapid species individuation can occur). Another fallacious argument is that because scientists "designed" the experiment to produce amino acids from their "primal soup", then the experiment demonstrated nothing, since we're trying to determine that this can occur in an "undesigned" situation. That's a real gob-smacking argument. So any "designed" experiment can give us no useful information? I have many more problems with that article, but of course it's only my opinion against his.

Suffice it to say, until he gets some followers, I don't think creationism is notable or relevant to this article. I'm sure most Wiccans have some idea of what they personally believe, and I'm also sure there's a great deal of variation amongst these beliefs. There's no reason to think the author of that article is representative of anyone but himself. Fuzzypeg★ 22:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

the question is how important is the belief to Wiccans, of course what Wiccans do believe about origins would be relevant. Do they believe a deity created existence, whether it has changed since creation or not?

And if you have found some source that answers that question, we'd love to hear about it. We already have an article about Wiccan views of divinity that may cover some of this; have a look. Other than that, the best I can suggest is that you start reading, and see what published theories you can find. Unfortunately there's a lot of unrepresentative literature around — it seems every man and his dog wants to write something about Wicca now that this area of publishing has become so lucrative... Fuzzypeg★ 22:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sacrifice and worship

do Wiccans sacrifice? if so what? How do they worship? Rds865 (talk) 00:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Wiccans sacrifice, though no sacrifice is demanded. Things that are generally sacrificed are things that we don't need, like anger, fear, or over-attachment to the product of our labours. For how we worship, see the article Wicca and maybe a few books, like perhaps "What Witches Do" by Stewart Farrar, "Firechild" by Maxine Sanders or even "Witchcraft Today" by Gerald Gardner. Most of the modern books on "eclectic" wicca will only tell you what Eclectic Wicca is about, which is very different to traditional Wicca. Or perhaps that's what you're interested in. Happy seeking, either way! Fuzzypeg★ 22:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It is noted that certain Wiccans, such as Alex Sanders in a documentary, have sacrificed animals, though this is by no means the norm nor even widely accepted in Wiccan circles, as in the Charge of the Goddess it states that no sacrifice is required. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC))

Usualy more because they personally want to rather than it being damanded by the religion.Bed-Head-HairUser:BedHeadHairGirl12:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Pentagrams and Pentacles

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. --LCondolence_ 12:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It would indeed be right: see their respective articles Pentagram and Pentacle for more details. However the difference is not the one you give as an example.

A pentagram is the name of an abstract shape consisting of a five pointed interlaced star. It may or may not be drawn inside a circle that connects the points. When I say 'abstract shape' I mean it in the same sense as a triangle or square. It's abstract because you can't actually touch a triangle - only a triangular object.

A pentacle on the other hand is an actual physical object. It may be in the shape of a pentagram - or indeed a triangle or any other (usually geometric) shape. One idea about the etymology is that it comes from the French word 'pendu', meaning 'hanging': in other words it's an object meant to hang down, perhaps on a cord round the neck. I've never heard that 'cle' is short for circle. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 19:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I would add to that, that just turning a symbol into a physical three dimensional object doesn't make it a pentacle; a pentacle is specifically a magical tool, often a type of talisman that dangles on a string, or in Wicca, a solid disc. Pentacles are intended to summon or embody particular spirits or energies, and are often made of parchment, metal, wood or wax, and marked with particular symbols and diagrams. Examples of such diagrams can be seen at the Pentacle article. Fuzzypeg★ 05:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Lineaged Wiccans vs Eclectic Wiccans

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 that's covered, isn't it? A bit in the lead section, a bit in Overview, and a bit in Traditions? If you can improve it, though, go for it. Fuzzypeg★ 05:44, 20 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)

Sounds good, as long as you can find some good sources to work from. I'm looking forward to it. Fuzzypeg★ 04:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Rites of passage?

Should the Rites of passage section include a section on initiation? Sephiroth storm (talk) 14:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Notice: 2007 version of this being sold as a book

See [2] and Filiquarian Publishing LLC (including the talk page) --Doug Weller (talk) 10:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for you to run ads.--Vidkun (talk) 13:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you look at the article? This is a warning/complaint, not an ad. I thought people would recognise sarcasm, obviously not. Doug Weller (talk) 13:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Why didn't you just say that? Considering it's linked to the Filiquarian article, it looked like an ad to me. As for your comments about whether or not people recognize sarcasm, lay off the person attacks.--Vidkun (talk) 14:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't meant as a personal attack, just as an observation, and I've gone and changed the wording to make sure it is clearer now that I know that my sarcasm isn't coming across clearly.

Should have added a link to a discussion on this at the help desk. [3] Doug Weller (talk) 18:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

From looking at the sample pages on Google Books, the rules of GFDL are not being followed, such as the requirement for attribution (not once did a see a mention of Wikipedia, though I admit it may have been on one of the pages not in the sample). I even saw one page there that had multiple 'fill-in-the-blank' spots that were left empty. Rather sad that someone would try to dupe customers into buying material that is not only out of date, but perfectly free elsewhere. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 00:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

new to wicca

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)

Sorry, this isn't the proper forum for such a discussion. Look at the external link at the bottom of the article, and you should find some references which would be useful for finding a general web forum.--Vidkun (talk) 14:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I explained that on his/her talk page. As I had done that, I removed the edit according to WP:TALK "some examples of appropriately editing others' comments -...Deleting material not relevant to improving the article (per the above subsection #How to use article talk pages). Why was that a problem? Doug Weller (talk) 14:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, was still working under an attitude of, whether or not the discussion was not relevant, leave other's comment alone, and explain why they were not appropriate, like we did in Lack of accountability over abuse in Covens, and Sacrifice and worship.--Vidkun (talk) 15:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem, I almost wish I hadn't done it because this section is a lot longer now!Doug Weller (talk) 15:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Overview section

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)

Done and dusted :) (Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC))

Examples of other types of folk magic

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)

"Popularised" by Gardner

[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)

I'm not convinced that the word "popularised," necessarily implies anything about Wicca's origins. For instance, one might say that Thomas Edison popularised the use of the electric light bulb, which he not only invented but also spent considerable resources promoting. On the other hand, The Beatles certainly popularised British rock & roll throughout the world, but nobody claims that, before the Beatles, rock & roll was nonexistent in Britain. You can popularise something regardless of whether or not you invented it.

I do, however, validate Al-Zulfikari's concern that the issue of Wicca's origins is an important and interesting one. These days, most Wiccans probably are familiar with the possibility that Gardner synthesized or, to some extent, outright invented Wicca. The idea that he compiled it from various other initiatory traditions, possibly filling in gaps as necessary, is plausible. And, at any rate, Gardner's account of Dorothy Clutterbuck and the New Forest Coven has long been disputed, with reasonable people taking both sides of the argument. (Nobody would characterize Doreen Valiente or Philip Heselton, both of whose research tends to support Gardner's account, as intellectual lightweights; nor is Ronald Hutton, who takes the opposite viewpoint.)

In some sense, that dispute has become an important feature of Wicca. It is remarkable that many of Wicca's practitioners are not only willing to question their faith, but even base that faith, and its practice, on independent source research. Rangergordon (talk) 09:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

That Gardener 'filled in' gaps as necessary is not only possible, but definite, as he openly admits it. That Gardner invented Wicca is far from proven, but it is a possibility, and of course the controversy should be discussed in this article (and in History of Wicca). However because of this controversy it is not appropriate for Wikipedia to state as a fact that Gardner invented Wicca. (i.e., I'm in agreement with Rangergordon) Fuzzypeg★ 00:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

sub categories of Wiccans.

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)

That already basically exists although it could be expanded a bit. If you go to this section of the page and follow the "see also" links it does list many of the more popular Wiccan denominations. ~Ttony21 (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The Beaufort House Index is the most widely accepted list of British Traditional Witchcraft traditions, however exercise caution, for they include traditions which are not Wicca; the list has a lot of info in it, but needs to be read with understanding. Once you understand how it's arranged, though, it should make sense. Fuzzypeg★ 05:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, from the USA based BTW people I know, Fuzzy, and on one of their discussion boards, Beaufort is considered shoddy at best.--Vidkun (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Well as long as we're bringing up reliable lists, Witchvox has a very good one and is considered a popular and reliable Wiccan/pagan website, although it certainly doesn't list them all. Buckland's Complete Book of Witchcraft (which is already cited in the article) also has a list with some information on each tradition, although many would consider it out of date and thus not completely reliable (unless looking for information on the Seax Wicca tradition). Using any of the three sources mentioned though, a new article entirely could probably be made from this (such as List of Christian denominations).~Ttony21 (talk) 14:57, 29 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)

Well what about this list already then? There are more Wiccan traditions that have Wikipedia articles so those should at least be listed with the rest. ~Ttony21 (talk) 15:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, I just added the link to the category under that section title, that should be enough. ~Ttony21 (talk) 15:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Traditional Wicca vs Eclectic Wicca

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)

That's entirely an opinion. Most people self identified as Wiccans are eclectic solitaries. It's more like comparing Catholics to Lutherans. If it doesn't fit your own definition, that's too bad -- but there are some Christians who don't think members of other denominations are actually Christian, but that doesn't stop the rest of us from classifying them as such. Traegorn (talk) 19:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a sad state of affairs, I agree, that a fairly well-defined and useful term was co-opted by plagiarists like Lady Sheba (and rather more well-meaning imitators) and has ended up losing virtually all meaning: congregational Christian Wicca, for instance, bears very little resemblance to BTW. But there are now so many published sources out there that use the term 'Wicca' for eclectic varieties, that it's probably irreversible. In the UK, Australia and NZ the term still primarily refers to BTW, with only a few uneducated newbies mistakenly assuming that because they wear black crushed velvet they're 'Wiccan'. But in the States it's different, and there are plenty of quite serious, competent and devoted witches there who call themselves 'Wiccan' despite having nothing to do with BTW. 'Eclectic Wicca' was born out of plagiarism, power-trips, ignorance and publishers' greed, but now that it's established (in the US) it has many sincere people under its banners. Trad Wiccans still don't generally consider them Wiccan, but there's not much we can do about it. And there are more graceful things we could be doing than fighting a losing battle to regain our term of identity. Fuzzypeg★ 02:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Traegorn it is not opinion. A religion is defined as a set of shared beliefs, ethics, practices, texts, etc, etc, etc. Eclectic Wicca cannot be a religion, because there is nothing core that defines it. --151.201.149.209 (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

But there is a core connecting Eclectic Wiccans (Dualistic Structure of God and Goddess, Adherence to the Rede, shared Holidays, etc), and this article actually does define it fairly well. If you can't see this as the standard denominational strife most religions go through, you're no better than the the extremist Catholics who claim Lutherans aren't Christians. Perspective my friend, perspective. Traegorn (talk) 19:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Dualistic Structure of God and Goddess here's the thing - Initiates of groups downline from the New Forest Coven aren't worhsipping "The" God, or "The" Goddess - they're worshiping specific Deities, whose names aren't known by those who aren't initiates. Ergo - how would an eclectic know they are worshiping the same Gods?--Vidkun (talk) 12:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, the argument over who's Christian isn't made in the way you claim, at least not from the official line. The Vatican sees nonCatholics as Christians, just not fully in line with all teachings of Christ (in the Churches opinion). The BTW/Eclectic divide is of a recent enough timeframe that there are still some from the original groups alive (like Fred Lamond). They know that what they were told, by the people who initiated them was that if they did the same stuff, it's the same religion - if they didn't, it isn't. Your argument might be valid if it were about Catholics telling Lutherans they can't be consider member of the Franciscan or Jesuit Orders, because they haven't gone through the proper procedures like ordination.--Vidkun (talk) 12:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Doreen Valiente, one of Gardner's High Priestesses, included a self-initiation ritual for solitary Wiccans in her book Witchcraft For Tomorrow. The assertion that one must belong to a Coven in order to be Wiccan is refuted.Holzman (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

That may be, but Valiente wrote that after breaking from Gardner's coven when she refused to follow some of his beliefs such as the Wiccan Laws, so that doesn't mean that Gardner or British Traditional Wicca believed in self-initation (maybe self-dedication).~Ttony21 (talk) 02:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Unless you're claiming that Valiente ceased to be Wiccan or British Traditional Wicca after breaking parting ways with Gardner, my point stands. If BTW if defined only by Gardner's personal beliefs, and not those of the High Priestesses under whom he served, define BTW; that might be worth a mention in the BTW article.Holzman (talk) 14:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Did she cease to be BTW, no. If she was advocating self initiation, she wasn't advocating BTW practice, which is that initiation is performed cross-gender, by someone who has received the proper practices and uses them in the initiation. If you get to the level of the most vocal "we're the same as Gardnerians, we're just as worthy of the term Wicca!!!", the best stop to that is to ask "is coerced sex part of Wicca?" The eclectics will say no, and then the response is "well, who made you the authority? If you say Wicca is whatever you want to call it, then, logically, rape is a valid expression of wicca." The eclectics start the slippery slope, not the traditionals.--Vidkun (talk) 16:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not claim that self-initiation is BTW practice. I claim that Valiente's inclusion of a self-initiation ritual in her writings on Wicca indicate that she did not find self-initiation incompatible with Wicca. On further reflection, this also refutes the original contention of this thread that "Wicca" and "BTW" are synonymous, because she found no difficulty calling her non-BTW work "Wicca."

I do not believe this is an apprpriate forum for debunking the "coerced sex" scarecrow, but we can have that conversation elsewhere if you wish.(Holzman (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC))

Additionally, while Valiente may have written that, what you have to understand is the difference between orthopraxis, and orthodoxy.--Vidkun (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

From memory, the book Witchcraft for Tomorrow contains almost no reference to Wicca, but instead talks about witchcraft. The Liber Umbrarum she provides contains a rite for self-initiation into witchcraft, not Wicca, and 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. I think the first legitimately initiated person to go on and publish do-it-yourself initiations into "Wicca" was Scott Cunningham. Fuzzypeg★ 01:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, to the best of my knowledge, Scott Cunningham did not receive a traditional initiation into the Wicca, either. As I recall, he was initiated into Raven Grimassi's Stregheria, but not Wicca.

I have been told that Cunningham studied with a Wiccan coven, but did not initiate, however I have not been able to verify that. But more to the point, I've not been able to find reference to any initiation for Cunningham beyond that of Grimassi.Luthaneal (talk) 12:00, 02 November 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))

Midnightblueowl, the main reason is simply this: Wicca is a Mystery Cult (or Mystery religion, if you prefer) and people on the outside don't get to determine what it is and is not. Neither Cunningham, nor the BBC, nor any one else who is not in the Wicca can rightfully say what Wicca is.

Gardner named the religion Witchcraft and the mystery priesthood that he created were referred to as "The Wica" (which later became Wicca, as the priesthood sought to further define itself as separate from all the other forms of Witchcraft that were springing up).

So by the standards of the founder of the religion (and those that followed him), if you are following the Horned God and Triple Goddess, following the Rede and observing the Sabbats, then you are following the religion of Witchcraft. However, if you are initiated into the Mystery priesthood which is named "Wicca", then you are a Wiccan.

"Wicca" is the name of the priesthood, despite the fact that it gets commonly used to refer to the religion itself. As Wicca is a Mystery cult, it cannot be Wicca without initiation - just like every other Mystery Cult throughout history. To say other wise is in complete contradiction of what defines these things.

I'd also like to add that although I recognise what you are saying with regard to the similarities between what is happening now in Wicca and the early days of Christianity. Christianity was never actually a Mystery Cult. Certainly, they had rites and practices that are similar to the Mysteries of the time, but they were never actually a Mystery Cult.

It should also be noted that Christians themselves held a conclave in which it was determined that Christianity was not just for Jews, but instead that it was open to everyone. If, perhaps one day, the Wiccan priesthood makes such a declaration amongst itself and relinquishes its Mystery practices, then at that point it could be said that anyone can be a Wiccan. However, that does has not come and nor do I (personally) expect it to.

PS - Fuzzypeg is completely correct about Doreen Valiente and her departure from Wicca in favour of the wider idea of Witchcraft, which she still believed had older roots beyond the tall tales of Gardner and Cochrane.

Luthaneal (talk) 17:18, 09 November 2008 (UTC)

Whilst it is true that members of BTW mystery groups (though most of the mystery appears to have been published for the general public to read), those that trace their lineage back to either Gardner and Sanders, do consider themselves to be the "Wicca", it is irrefutable that the word is now used, in books (The Wicca Bible by Anne-Marie Gallagher, Wicca: A Guide to the Solitary Practitioner by Cunningham, Wicca for One by Raymond Buckland etc), on the internet (a google search will bring up countless examples), and in common speech and usage (like the "religious belief" settings on facebook), to refer to most forms of what were called "Witchcraft" in the 50s and 60s, including Gardnerians, Dianics, and even Cochrane's craft, though with (I believe), the exception of Stregheria, which does not (as far as I am aware) venerate a Horned God and a Mother Goddess, follow the sabbats etc. In the usage that has become most well known, and most used, by millions across the world, Wicca refers to a religion that venerates a God and a Goddess, celebrates the sabbats, practises ritual magic, etc etc. It does not refer simply to members of British Traditional Wicca, which is a sort of subcategory within Wicca, and which includes traditions (or denominations), such as Gardnerian Wicca and Alexandrian Wicca. I respect that some BTW's only want the term "Wicca" to be used to refer to their specific pagan witchcraft religion, but i'm sorry - it just aint' gonna happen. The word "Wicca" has a new meaning now, and I think that this article correctly portrays this. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC))

Midnightblueowl, I've been trying to avoid bringing this topic to a head with my editing here, since I know that the horse has long bolted and enough non-initiates now call themselves Wiccans that it's a bit late for shutting the stable door. This article has been challenging to edit, since "Wicca", which once had quite a precise meaning and defined set of beliefs, is now represented by an extremely confusing hotch-potch of amorphous ideas, and it's hard to put it into a meaningful structure for readers. What seems to have worked is to represent the oldest, most "traditional" conceptions first in any section, thus providing an understandable structure, and then describe variations on these conceptions. I've discussed this approach and its benefits elsewhere on this talk page, in one of the recent discussions.

You're wondering what all the fuss is about, so I'll try to explain the traditionalist view:

Trad Wicca is very much an extended family: we know our kin, we meet together for cups of tea or parties; sometimes we have bitter family rivalries. But it's family. It's often even closer than family. If I come to your house claiming to be your cousin Rex, not by blood or marriage but because I'd decided to adopt myself into your family and assume the same surname, you probably wouldn't put me up for the night! It's the same with us: we know who are family and who are complete strangers who for some bizarre reason have assumed our surname.

Now, I've never come across any Eclectic Wiccan who practises anything like what I practise. They have emulated our published rituals, but only our published ones, and without the working methods and the entire approach that for me is Wicca. Wicca was and is a secret magical and spiritual society that works in a particular way, and utilises a wide variety of rituals to do so. A few of those rituals have been published. Many groups don't even use those published rituals, except rarely. You see, it's not the particular liturgy that defines Wicca; it's not even the theology, which we share with other forms of traditional witchcraft. Rather, it is the whole way it moves, the way the individual, the group, the entire community function, and the particular shape of magic that results. I've never seen that "shape" outside of trad Wicca. If you do a 5-minute search on the internet for "Freemasonry" you'll probably find as much information regarding that society as Eclectics have access to regarding traditional initiatory Wicca. If you were then to attempt to reconstruct your own Masonic rites based on that 5-minute search, you'd create something which might be very satisfying to you, but would be very alien to a Freemason. Your local Masonic Lodge certainly wouldn't accept you as one of their own. And it's the same with Wicca: All the Eclectic Wicca I've ever come across has only a very superficial resemblance to trad Wicca. I don't think that's an exaggeration.

So the problem for us really began when Eclectic Wicca became bigger than trad Wicca, and started altering the public's perception of us. The public are now being told that we never practise magic, that we're only interested in magic, that we worship a triple goddess and a horned god, that we only worship the goddess, that the gods are only in our minds, that we're rebelling against Christianity, that we worship God the Father, Goddess the Mother and Christ the Son in Church congregations with a "Minister" as intermediary, that we're not even witches and resent being called such, and a thousand and one other confused statements that bear no relationship to what we do. We're being misrepresented by people who have no idea what our Wicca is about, and the public, bless them, can't tell initiates from non-initiates. You can see how that might be upsetting to us. It's a bit like being hijacked.

Fortunately that's not something I have to deal with so much on my own turf, though it may well be coming, sweeping in on a tide of neopagan literature. In the UK, Australia and NZ, at least for the time being, the term "Wicca" still mainly refers to lineaged initiates, and it's only the very inexperienced newbies on the pagan scene who make the mistake of calling themselves "Wiccan" until someone takes them aside and has a gentle word. In the US it's whole different game, and I understand there are some very experienced and competent priesthood there who, though not in the Wiccan lineage, still call themselves "Wiccan". There are also a lot of incompetents who bring us all into disrepute. Perhaps that's why the "Wicca" books seem to be aiming more and more at the lowest common denominator.

And the only reason I can see why these people ever picked up the word "Wicca" in the first place was because "witchcraft" sounded too risque. Why not "Pagan" then? Trad Wicca doesn't have monopoly over the Gods, or magic, or paganism, or witchcraft; it did have monopoly over its own name and image, but now it doesn't even have that.

This article will continue to take a neutral POV, as will I attempt to do with my editing. But you can expect to wait a long time before lineaged Wiccans open their family up to "cousin Rex". Fuzzypeg★ 03:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Fuzzypeg, I can see we are on similar wave-lengths here even if we are on different sides of the fencepost. I am in no-means advocating that the flood gates should be opened on the BTW groups, indeed I think that such a thing would be a terrible shame. My main point, which I hope to clarify, is not that any person can declare themselves "Wiccan" and automatically be following the same faith as Gardnerians and Alexandrians, no, I maintain that there are differences, in the same way that there is huge difference in practice and approach to religion between Roman Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Quakers, but all are considered Christian. In the same way, there are large differences between BTW's, Dianics and Eclectics for example. Whilst yourself, and various others, maintain that these other groups follow the religion of "Witchcraft", but not in the Wiccan group, which, if we were having this conversation 40 years ago, would be true, I do not think it still applies. So many books, (including from such influential authors as Raymond Buckland), and other forms of media, now refer to the religion of "Witchcraft" as "Wicca", and not just the specific mystery cult. The word "Wicca" has come into such common and academic usage for "Witchcraft", both in the United States, and in the United Kingdom (in the south east at least), that I believe it to be irreversible. I understand that the word "Wicca" was only initially designed to refer to BTW's, a tradition in the religion of Witchcraft, but now the word "Wicca" refers to the religion of "Witchcraft" in general, whether the particular strain originated from Gardner, Sanders, Cochrane, Budapest, or any other. I'm not saying that I think that this was a good thing or a bad thing. I'm just saying that it happened. That is why I believe that we should focus this article in reference to the religion formerly known as "Witchcraft", with it's duotheistic theology, celebration of sabbats and practice of ritual magic, with, as you have specified, particular note to those beliefs that originated in BTW, and not those that have arisen in Eclectic Wicca. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:05, 13 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)

Well then, if we focus this article purely upon the usage of Wicca that you support, we might as well delete the British Traditional Wicca page, because BTW and Wicca will be considered the same thing, a new page on "Witchcraft" the religion will have to be established, pages such as Faery Wicca and Georgian Wicca will have to have a note stuck on them saying "Despite the name, [Faery] Wicca, isn't actually a form of Wicca, and is just a form of Neopaganism, whose adherants claim, incorrectly, to be Wiccans". That would be very POV, and would cause so much trouble. This page must remain nuetral, to both views. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC))

The article is already pretty well focused towards making the distinction, or at least as much as it can be while remaining neutral. It states that Wicca is a Mystery Religion and "eclectic Wicca" is rarely mentioned, but where it is mentioned the distinction in made in a general way.

BTW & Wicca are the same thing, though it should be noted that some lineaged Traditions of Wicca are beginning to define themselves as American Traditional Wicca. This has arisen pretty recently, but seems to be on the increase and so the distinction between BTW and ATW is something that will, no doubt, need to be maintained. But it should also be noted that BTW often also means "British Traditional Witchcraft" and so it is a distinction that works fairly well in the sense of the broader world of religious Witchcraft.

Yes, I would say that a note should be attached to entries that regard non-lineaged witchcraft groups that call themselves Wicca. However, the note would better suit to outline the controversy, rather than having to be a seemingly offensive opinion. However, I would also say that whether or not it is offensive is either here nor there when something like an encyclopedia is attempting to provide correct definitions.

Additionally, there is nothing wrong with a page on the religion of Witchcraft. However, I would think that such an entry would be better as an addition to the already existing page on witchcraft, as a detailing of what that means in recent history.

Luthaneal (talk) 21:14, 15 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))

That actually doesn't really represent the views correctly. The priesthood doesn't claim that only Gardnerians are Wiccan, they say that to be Wiccan you must have been initiated into a lineaged coven. That would include Gardnerians, Alexandrians, McFarland Dianics, Algard, Triskellion, Protean, etc. All of these Traditions (and a few others) are part of the Wiccan priesthood, having inherited the Mysteries through a chain of initiation that traces directly back to Gardner.

It should also be noted that many Witchcraft Traditions recognise the distinction and have no desire to call themselves "Wicca". Some good examples of that would be the 1734 Tradition, Feri and Stregheria.

I think that a more correct disclaimer would be something like:

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

Luthaneal (talk) 13:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not keeping up with the conversation; I've been a bit busy. I agree with Midnightblueowl that we can't insist on hard claims about what is and isn't Wicca: the literature simply doesn't support this. The reason the literature doesn't support this is because so much crappy literature has been published, but regardless of how trad Wiccans may feel about this, it makes it impossible for us to insist on absolute ownership of the term, at least in Wikipedia. In terms of explanatory paragraphs, we already have a couple in the lead section (the last two). We could possibly improve the last paragraph by incorporating some of the suggested wordings given above:

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]

(Footnotes as given by Luthaneal above.) I would save discussion of Long Island puppy papers for the later section on Traditions, rather than make the lead section too detailed. Fuzzypeg★ 23:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I thought I should speak to Midnightblueowl's enumeration of the first two meanings of Wicca, whereby some use the term to refer only to Gardnerian Wicca. There was a historical period when this was the case, and Alex Sanders and his crowd were considered upstarts who had somehow managed to steal the Gardnerian BoS. It was later demonstrated that Sanders had indeed received valid Gardnerian initiation up to 3*, and rather than surreptitiously copying his BoS in the basement of his Gardnerian host during a party, as legend had it, he had copied it from his initiator's book in the normal manner! Gardnerians almost universally now recognise the validity of Alexandrian and various other branches of Wicca, and the different BTW traditions are mostly quite amicable with each other. Fuzzypeg★ 23:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

Some scholarly works, such as Jeffrey B. Russell's A New History of Witchcraft, still refer to "Gardnerian Wicca", but use "Alexandrian Witchcraft" etc. I think that Fuzzypeg's paragraph is perfect, well done, shall we implement it?(Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC))

It seems like an agreement has been met by all.

Luthaneal (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh! I didn't mean remove the preceding paragraph as well! Well, I guess there was some repeated information, but I think there was some stuff in there worth keeping as well:

• "Each lineage has distinctive rituals, oral traditions and liturgy, and most remain secretive and require that members be initiated."
• "a growing movement of Eclectic Wiccans who do not believe that any doctrine or traditional initiation is necessary in order to practise Wicca."

I'll try to work these in (as briefly as possible); sorry for changing what you thought was done and dusted... Fuzzypeg★ 22:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Aleister Crowley

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)

Template madness

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)

Oops. I see it was Huntster who added Template:Neopaganism2 to this article. Sorry for falsely accusing you of this, Midnightblueowl. I'll leave that in place until Huntster has a chance to explain what he's thinking. Fuzzypeg★ 22:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I...did? I don't remember doing such, but I do believe everything but the Wicca template at bottom should come down. If we can boil down (again) which templates are superfluous, they can easily be TfD'ed. And do feel free to remove them from any article you see fit...if they are to be readded, some kind of discussion will have to take place. There is much template madness running around these parts. One per topic (and usually just one per article unless otherwise reasoned) is plenty. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 02:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I seem to be turning into a hack. I misinterpreted your edit comment, and then misread the diff. I should have known better than to believe that of you! Anyway, the template link seems to have been present since way back in July, but since the template didn't actually exist for a substantial period, it's only just reappeared now because the template has only just been re-created. I'll remove it. Fuzzypeg★ 04:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Clearly it's time for me to go home. Template:Wicca has only just been re-created, but Template:Neopaganism2 has been around for ages, and obviously has been prominently displayed in this article for ages. Sorry for clogging up the talk page with my bizarre ramblings... Fuzzypeg★ 04:43, 7 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)

In the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neopaganism/Templates it was decided that only one template should appear in any one article (templates in the scope of WikiProject Neopaganism, that is). According to that only Template:WiccaandWitchcraft would appear in this article, and Template:Neopaganism would be removed. But because they both seem to be collapsed by default, and don't take much room, I haven't been that concerned. Someone else might feel more strongly about this than me.

Regarding merges, the new Template:Wicca is less complete than Template:WiccaandWitchcraft, and overall a less pleasing design. I don't think anything needs merging from that. I've done a bit of merging from Template:Neopaganism2 into Template:Neopaganism, and other clean-up. The latter is now good to go, and I'll leave it to others to decide whether it should appear in this article. Fuzzypeg★ 00:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

In that case, should I start the TfD process for {{Wicca}} and {{Neopaganism2}}? — Huntster (t • @ • c) 01:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me... Fuzzypeg★ 03:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

"Midnightblueowl, have you really forgotten the discussions we had regarding these templates?" - oops, yes, sorry. However, it does seem that virtually every other religion has a top right hand corner templates (and many have a bottom template too!)... Christianity, Rastafari, Islam, Raelism, Buddhism, Religion in ancient Greece, Religion in ancient Rome, etc etc ... they all have them - so why not Wicca? (Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC))

There is a bit of a difference. The side template at Christianity has rather a lot of links to very definitely related articles: the least relevant links I can find in that template are Creed and Sermon, which are only mostly about Christianity. The Wicca templates we've been seeing, on the other hand, have linked to plenty of articles that say almost nothing (or even nothing at all) about Wicca. We simply don't have enough articles on the subject of Wicca to warrant extensive templates.

Please remember that these templates are for aiding navigation, not for making articles look pretty or important. Templates should arise out of necessity for easier means of navigation, not from a desire for eye candy. But this has all already been discussed at length in the past. Fuzzypeg★ 04:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Litha and Mabon

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)

I'd argue the 5 year thing, as I know they were used as titles for holidays in Llewellyn books I bought over ten years ago. Their use makes us no more a laughingstock than does Christmas in December - winter in Israel wasn't a sheep herding time; additionally, the commentary at the midsummer article regarding it being called midsummer by New Forest groups seems to ignore that in gardners writings that the public has access to, he listed only the four greater sabbats, IIRC.--Vidkun (talk) 13:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I've just been reading a thread regarding this in a private Alexandrian newsgroup, and these names are described as "neoCeltic jive" and "an antiquing agent to give an edge of mystery". The consensus seems to be that they don't like the names and see no reason to use them. Also, when I say "popular in the last 5 years" I mean popular in the last 5 years. I believe Litha, Mabon and Ostara were terms invented some time around 1974 by Aidan Kelly, and I know the names have been quietly floating around in the background since then, but they've only become really popular in the last 5 years or so, by my observations. They certainly have nothing to do with any traditional form of Wicca.

And this is exactly the kind of thing that our detractors use to ridicule us. Historical inaccuracy is the number one accusation against Wicca after devil-worshipping.

Regarding the greater and lesser sabbats, Gardner's early Bricket Wood coven observed only the greater sabbats at first, but during one of Gardner's trips to the Isle of Man the rest of the coven decided to start celebrating the lesser sabbats (equinoxes and solstices) as well, basically because it meant twice as many parties. Gardner on his return was entirely happy with this change, and (Fred Lamond speculates) this may have been because it brought their celebrations closer into line with those of his druid friend Ross Nichols. Fuzzypeg★ 21:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason to not use "Midsummer" and "Autumn Equinox" in their stead. The terms are certainly more "user-friendly", in my opinion. I have my own opinions about the lesser sabbats, but I'll keep them to myself ;) — Huntster (t • @ • c) 21:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

When I say popular, I mean, I heard numbers of neoPagans using both the term Litha and Mabon, a lot, well over ten years ago - heck, over 15 years ago, here in the US. I heard it a lot in the Washington DC Pagan community. Can I provide citation for it? No. Do I realise they are made up names, yes, does that negate their use in toto, no. And saying that all BTW's always use the terms "Midsummer" and "Autumn Equinox" is unverifiable, and just plain untrue, as I know a number of people in a BTW forum online who use the terms, and these are hard Gards, Alexandrians, and CVW people, including an anthropologist.--Vidkun (talk) 16:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The terms "Mabon" and "Litha" may have only beeen applied to the Wiccan sabbats in the last few decades, but wasn't the term "Wicca" itself only applied to the religion that had, prior to that point, been known as "Witchcraft", in the 1970s & 80s ? (Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC))

No, the name Wicca (originally spelt Wica) was there with Gardner's earliest writings. It was originally "the Wica", referring to the collective members of the society. Roy Bowers seems to have coined Wiccans as a derisory term for Gardner's people, but the name was happily accepted, and from it came the term Wicca to describe the society. This all happened before the mid 60s. And the term Wicca was definitely used within the society. Aidan Kelly, on the other hand was not a Wiccan initiate when he was coining these names and inventing his new witchcraft tradition, the NROOGD. He was eventually initiated into Gardnerian Wicca in the 1980s, but quickly fell out with his Gardnerian colleagues and became antagonistic to Gardnerian Wicca. So those names don't really have anything to do with traditional Wicca.

As for Witchcraft being an early synonym for Wicca, you can indeed imply that from Gardner's writings, but then, it was only a short time after he started writing that it became clear that Gardner's "Wica" or "Wicca" was only one variety of witchcraft. When Gardner first wrote, he treated witchcraft as a synonym, but since then Wicca has been distinguished from other types of witchcraft. There are a few Gardnerians who still claim that no-one outside of Gardnerian Wicca is a true witch, but this view is as rare now as it is extreme.

I don't think "Witchcraft" should be in bold in the lead section, since it doesn't reflect common usage among Wiccans, and helps reinforce the common misconception that all witchcraft is Wicca. Fuzzypeg★ 23:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and what I meant to say before getting carried away with my own pedantry, was that I don't think we need to note the conflict over names here — explanations in the Mabon and Litha articles would be sufficient.

Also, I know I've kicked up a stink over a couple of things recently, Midnightblueowl, and I think I should say I do appreciate your efforts at improving this and other articles. We don't agree on all things, but we're both working towards the same ultimate goals, and editors of your enthusiasm are as rare as hen's teeth. I'm sorry I've made things a bit tough for you. Fuzzypeg★ 03:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

regarding Wicca/witchcraft, at least one person I know, who was around in a lineaged (but NOT BTW) witchcraft trad in the late 70's said something along these lines, when we recently had the debate over what is and isn't wicca: part of the problem is self-inflicted. In the '60's, '70's and '80's, (in the US) the term "Wicca" was widely used as a synonym for "pagan religious witchcraft," whether or not the practice in question derived from Gardner or the New Forest, because "Wicca" did not carry the negative connotations of the term "witchcraft." There are any number of long-established groups out there using the term "Wicca" for what they do that are not BTW. While I understand the Traditional position and the rationale behind it, it often comes across to me as trying to put a broken egg back into the shell. I cannot stress the issue of negative connotations enough - there were publishers who told authors to change book titles to use Wicca, instead of witchcraft, in the 70's and 80's and still even now. Lady Sheba's "American Celtic Wicca Tradition" wasn't New Forest derived, and existed in the 70's, with Carl Weshcke joining up with it. Gwen Thompson, "author" of the Rede of the Wiccae, was NOT BTW - she was part of an American tradition now called New England Coven of Traditionalist Witches. Seax-Wica, which is most definitely not BTW, was started by a Gardnerian, in 1973. The Principles of Wiccan Belief, 1974, were not written by only BTW. As much as I prefer the term Wicca to be a proscriptive one, meaning a lineaged, orthopraxic, mystery priesthood, tracing back to the covens in New Forest, I think we have more than enough evidence to support the idea that the word was not exclusively used in that meaning, at least as far back as 1970.--Vidkun (talk) 17:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

There are two sides to the issue: 1) is "Wicca" restricted to lineaged initiates only, and 2) is "Wicca" merely a synonym for "witchcraft"? Vidkun, I believe your argument relates mostly to the first question, since the word "witchcraft" has never shared all its meanings with "Wicca". Rhodesian "witches", for instance, have never (to my knowledge) been referred to as "Wiccans". Some use "Wicca" as a synonym for "modern neopagan witchcraft", and that's a bit different. But even here I think it's worth making a distinction, because while some have indeed conflated the two, there are many non-Wiccan witches out there who don't want to be associated with what they see as Wiccan twaddle, and many Wiccans who would like to distinguish themselves from other types of witchcraft.

In the interests of clarity in the article I think it would be better to make full use of these words, "Wicca" and "witchcraft", by investing them from the outset with their precise meanings, and then noting other usages and variants of meaning. If we were instead to take a less precise approach and present them as synonyms from the outset, we would effectively be limiting our vocabulary, and our ability to explain the subject. Wicca, its beliefs, its history and its relationship to other forms of witchcraft (and controversies surrounding such relationships), is a highly technical subject, and we need all the technical vocabulary we have to clearly explain it. Fuzzypeg★ 21:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Fuzzy, I agree that Rhodesian witches are not the same, and are no where's near the same, as Llewellyn inspired witches, or even Robert Cochrane inspired witches. I DO agree we need to be as precise as possible. When I'm worried about, because I've fought the battle time and again in the blogosphere, is that trying to hold the term Wicca to only mean an initiate only mystery tradition, or more precisely a priesthood, where one can trace their lineage back to the New Forest lines. Initiation is the only way into the Wicca, and is carried out by a Wicca coven, initiation into a coven requires formal training after which initiation and a system of degrees is followed is going to get a ton of people, both whiney "why are you saying you're better than me!!!!" (when we aren't) ones, and those editors who don't have a horse in the race, so to speak, but do see that there are tons of books out there that use the word Wicca to refer to things other than lineaged BTW. How do we deal with that? I think the best way is to describe the two uses of the word. My point in my quotes and anecdotes, was to show that the Gardnerians/Alexandrians weren't the only ones using the word Wicca, and that the use of Wicca to refer to various non-BTW neo-pagan religious witchcraft paths, PRIOR to Scott Cunningham's book. There's an interesting article (not peer reviewed) called "Traditional and Innovative Trends in Post-Gardnerian Witchcraft" that I think sheds some interesting light on the subject.--Vidkun (talk) 13:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Right, I think we're in agreement on that one, that it's more trouble than it's worth to push exclusivity for lineaged initiates over the word "Wicca". That was part 1 of the issue, as I divided it above. But there are plenty of witches out there who don't describe themselves as "Wiccan", and I don't want to imply that the word is synonymous with witchcraft in general (part 2 of the issue above).

(<-) I'm of course not an expert, so shoot me down if this is unreasonable. Right now we have a single section in the article that specifically deals with traditions. Why not treat the entire article as a method to compare and contrast lineaged and eclectic? First step: identify those items/topics that are shared between the two and create a unified section(s) to handle those things that make us similar. For everything else that is unique to one or the other (or things that are highly differentiated between the two), discuss in separate super-sections. You may want to take this opportunity to discuss the "Wicca" vs. "witchcraft" issue as well. Without question, the biggest challenge will be to provide sources, especially for the the eclectic issues. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 16:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think it will be harder to document specifics for lineaged traditions, as it's stuff that's not published.--Vidkun (talk) 17:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

(And, if it ever were published, it would probably immediately become suspect of being fabricated or unduly subjected to editorial review!) Regarding the topic at hand, though, I don't think it would be terrible to include a section about the way the names of Sabbats have evolved in recent decades, or sections on how terminology differs among traditions.

For the purposes of the article, however, some arbitrary system of nomenclature should be adopted--and stated as such--simply so that things can be named. If the editors insist upon remaining perfectly, absolutely neutral with respect to terminology for the sake of achieving a weak consensus, it will result in sentences that flounder about like wounded lizards, seldom settling upon any particular noun, and spewing long lists of alternate names which will obscure any point.

For instance, it is a fact that there is a major solar event that occurs in mid-to-late June, which tends to be rather important among Wiccans. The editors should decide to call this event something—whether it be "Litha," "Midsummer," "Summer Solstice" or even "Geshi," only when a particular term is established will the reader be able to figure out what the article is talking about without a lot of verbal algebra.

It might even be beneficial for editors to consider that documentation of a particular word usage may not necessarily constitute endorsement of that usage as The One, True, Correct Wiccan Way--nor need it be an indictment of differing terminology as inferior. (Gods, I still find it more natural to say "Candlemas" instead of "Imbolc"--it's just the way I learned it. Others seem to dislike that usage--but to attach ego-based emotional significance to that fact would be severely unhelpful.)

Encyclopedically, the evaluation of dialects and differences is less important than the provision of documentation. The more documented usages, the better. It is often very interesting to note the prevalence of a particular usage—and it's usually much less interesting to cite each and every instance in which some particular usage has provoked unnecessary conflict. Rangergordon (talk) 09:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it'll be that hard to substantiate most of lineaged Gardnerian practice; much has been published on it. Gardner himself described an awful lot, and we apparently have early versions of the Gardnerian BoS on the internet. These accord well with what the Farrars have published of the Alexandrian tradition, and then there's Valiente and Lamond and others like that to provide extra detail. Fuzzypeg★ 03:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Huntster, that's the approach I've been trying to take with this article. We can't cover all the variations in trad/eclectic approach in a single section! Now there's a corollary to this, which is that we still need to keep the article coherent. This has been a very difficult article for word-smithing, since every little philosophical point has several interpretations from different factions, and it's hard to find any way to build a coherent picture for the reader, rather than bamboozling them from the outset with a dense cloud of conflicting statements. What seems to be working well is to always (in each section) start by describing the earliest and most coherent interpretation. Then when you've described a model that makes some sense, you can start listing all the alternative views. That way our poor readers will have at least some structure to hold on to, and they will also hopefully get a chronological sense of how Wicca has branched and changed.

So, to illustrate my point, when talking about Wiccan views of divinity, instead of starting off by saying "Wiccans variously worship a God and a Goddess, or just a Goddess, or a multitude of gods drawn from different cultures, or no god at all", we start by building a coherent picture of worship of a goddess and a horned god, as described in the earliest (and hence most coherent) accounts, and only once we have have this basic picture do we introduce the confusing lists of alternatives.

The other nice thing about this approach is that the old conceptions still tend to have the most commonality, since for any single element that one group has changed, there are a dozen more groups that have kept that element intact and still derive it from "tradition". Fuzzypeg★ 03:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, this topic just doesn't lend itself well to sectioning. I've tried multiple times to come up with a layout scheme, and always find myself reduced to three: "Traditional", "Eclectic", and "Everything else". Brings me to tears, sometimes :/ I do wonder if the "Core concepts" section couldn't be merged and trimmed a bit and "Traditions" expanded, but that's another matter. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 04:52, 3 November 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))

New Forest Coven

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)

Highcliffe, Christchurch, Dorset. Very close to Hampshire, though, and in fact, prior to 1974 Christchurch was indeed part of Hampshire, not Dorset. Fuzzypeg★ 21:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

A tricky one then - but not of huge import - unless anyone wants to win "the most pointless edit war" title. Fainites ^barley 17:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Oooh i've always longed for that title! Maybe we should just say, The New Forest Coven in southern England.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC))

No, no, no, it's southern Britain.--Vidkun (talk) 16:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't southern England be more specific?(Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC))

Nobody British would ever say "southern Britain". Britain is a political rather than a geographical concept. It would be southern England. Usually people say "the South East" or "the South West" How about "the New Forest in the south west of England" or "England's southwest"? But we're never going to win that title if we just discuss it in a civilised manner on the talkpage you know.Fainites ^barley 19:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

(<--) "southern England" would indeed be the best term for this...see Terminology of the British Isles. Forgive the lecture, but.....United Kingdom is comprised of Northern Ireland and Great Britain, which is in turn comprised of England, Scotland and Wales (which are proper geographical terms). Being specific is a good thing, here. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 00:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah but then what of "Britain" as opposed to "Great Britain"? Anyway - I've changed it to "southern England" if thats OK with everybody - but "south west" would be equally fine. Fainites ^barley 08:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

"Core Concepts" or "Beliefs" and "Practises"

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 describing Wicca

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)

"All gods are different aspects of the one God and all goddesses are different aspects of the one Goddess... ultimately these two are reconciled in the one divine essence" - Vivianne Crowley, could we use this quote instead? I have a source for it. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC))

Rationale for Secrecy

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)

You are right that there may be several reasons for a Wiccan to conceal their faith, though I'm not sure that they warrant inclusion in the article. In areas where fundamentalist Christianity is strong (notably the US "Bible Belt"), persecution can, and does, occur, so I think that this is probably the key reason for secrecy. Maybe we could change it to "Due to negative connotations associated with witchcraft, many Wiccans continue the traditional practice of secrecy, often concealing their faith for fear of persecution." (Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC))

This is well written, but still seems to imply that fear of persecution is the sole motivation for secrecy. I suggest something like this: "Many Wiccans continue to preserve the tradition of secrecy for various reasons, not least of which is fear of persecution." Rangergordon (talk) 12:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)