Talk:Wicca

Archives

Aug 2001 - Feb 2004 May 2004 - Jul 2004 Aug 2004 - Oct 2005 Oct 2005 - Mar 2006 Mar 2006 - Mar 2006 Mar 2006 - Feb 2007

Freemasonry

And issue in the archives that was never resolved; why is there no mention of Freemasonry and the derivation of most Wiccan rituals from the Gardner times onwards of masonic ritual, oaths and symbolism. The Wiccan rede itself is a toast used at formal masonic dinners. Gardner -was- expelled from the Craft before he started 'Wica', and every prominant author on it has been derived from the Craft itself. (I'm using Craft in it's original three hundred year old sense, not it's twenty year old sense.) Just seems interesting that an inherently important portion of the history of this movement is being neglected. 211.30.75.123 23:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

These are really interesting points you're raising, and I'd be intrigued to know more. I'm aware that certain structures of Wiccan ritual are very similar to structures in Freemasonry and other pseudo-Masonic orders, particularly during the initiation. I was under the impression that the rituals of other groups, such as the Golden Dawn and the OTO, were more likely sources for some of this symbolism, meaning that although the symbolism may have ultimately derived from Freemasonry, much of it didn't do so at first hand; I was also under the impression that there was much remaining in the ritual that had no clear precedent, either in Freemasonry or elsewhere.

The rede ("An it harm none, do what you will") as a Masonic toast is quite a surprise to hear, and other scholars seem to have missed this, instead comparing it with Aleister Crowley's "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law; Love is the Law, Love under Will". That would be an exciting revelation for Wiccan history, and I'd love to read the wording of the toast.

Also, I was unaware that Gardner had been expelled from Masonry. As I understand it, Gardner was most likely a Master Mason in Sphinx Lodge (Irish Constitution), Colombo, Sri Lanka, and I just assumed that he left the Lodge when he left the area. If he was expelled that would be an important biographical detail, and I'd be keen to see the evidence. That he was later a Co-Freemason I consider likely, since his associates in the New Forest coven and the Crotona Fellowship were very active in Co-Freemasonry, but I doubt that he would have been expelled from masculine Masonry as a result, for the simple reason that they wouldn't probably have been aware of his Co-FM membership.

As far as the use of the word "Craft" goes, it does seem to fall naturally from the word "witchcraft" (or, equally, from "cunning-craft"). I've heard it claimed that the old institution of the "Masons' Word" had links with witchcraft, and later societies deriving from early Freemasonry such as the "Millers' Word", the "Horsemen's Word" and the "Society of Horsemen" were clearly witchcraft in all but name. Of course trying to find the origin of Freemasonry in witchcraft sounds highly speculative, but even if the term "Craft" does originate in Freemasonry it wasn't necessarily Gardner's innovation. It's worth noting that the term "Craft" is also used by other non-Wiccan witches, including those who have had the practice in the family since before Gardner's time... I guess the key thing is, while I've read various authors remarking on the fact that Freemasonry and Wicca share the term, I haven't (I think) read anyone stating that it is a definite borrowing from Freemasonry, unless perhaps it was Aidan Kelly, who is rather notorious for his poor scholarship and jumping to shaky conclusions.

Any of this information we can gather together would be great though, and I'd really like to see it incorporated into the article. One document I've found online which may provide good data regarding the influence of Freemasonry on Wicca is this. I've only read bits of it so far, but it looks promising. I'm hoping you can add further information too.

Cheers, Fuzzypeg☻ 23:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI, OTO, GD, Crowley, et al. Freemasons. All.  :) (I'll provide a better reply, just flying through atm and wanted to aknowledge your correspondence, but had to address the fact it's all sourced from Freemasonry and there is no esoteric references short of alchemy prior to Freemasonry as the first proper structured organisation. Many spin off cults have emerged, usually in the form of 'black lodges' (lodges that break away for political reasons) or other oranisations from people who've left the craft to seek their Light elsewhere.) 211.30.75.123 09:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Fuzzy, I think he's suggesting that the Tyler's Toast, which is a full song, having the refrain Happy to meet - sorry to part - happy to meet again, again, Oh! happy to meet again[1] is either derived from, or the basis of the phrasing sometimes heard at the end of some Wiccan circles The Circle is open but unbroken, merry have we met, merry have we been, merry shall we part, and merry meet again. I've noticed that similarity, but don't think it's directly causative. Nor have I seen any attributable claims that it is. As for the other claims, well, someone obviously hasn't read Lamond, Heselton, and Hutton.--Vidkun 16:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

"Merry have we met, merry shall we part, and merry shall we meet again." is a common toast in masonic lodges. Usually called out by the toaster and echoed by the brethren at the festive board. Is it happenchance that the toast of the south, a three hundred year old toast, is reitterated in a newly born 1920's - 1950's variance of religions that all stem from men who have been practitioners of the Craft? I think not. This isn't a case of co-evolution, by any means. Crowley was a self proclaimed 33rd degree, whether he obtained the degrees legitimately or not is a moot point, he knew their content, their ritual and their meanings. This is heavily reflected in the rebirth of 'old religions', which even practitioners thereof admit is made-up-as-they-went through the 1930's to 1950's. As it's a non-dogmatic organisation per se development atop of things is expected if not encouraged I would assume; but it's definitely worth pointing out that there's more than a fair share of similarities.

If we take a closer look at the Golden Dawn or the OTO we see Freemasonry in a pure form with names and objects changed, in an identical way as the Order of the Eastern Star is Freemasonry with elements changed around to suit the target audience, which in the instance of OES is womenfolk. I suppose having had an association with Freemasonry, OTO and Wicca since a young age and being an active participant in some of those, it's difficult to address this issue without it being written off as 'personal research', yet the fact remains; we either have the worlds biggest coincidences, or it must be conceded that there's truth to the matter. Amongst Freemasons it's common knowledge and openly discussed. 211.30.75.123 23:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Right, these are good points, and I'm well aware of them. The "merry meet, merry part" saying is nothing to do with the Wiccan Rede; you had me confused there. I'm personally quite convinced that much Wiccan symbolism derives from Freemasonry; but as I said above, "although the symbolism may have ultimately derived from Freemasonry, much of it didn't do so at first hand". I think we're in agreement there. I'm still really interested to hear more about Gardner's expulsion from the Craft; if you could point me to any sources I could read I would be grateful.

If you have good sources to work from we would welcome any information you could add regarding the origins and development of Wiccan ritual and symbolism. We already have some details about OTO connections, but if you can find an author who discusses other masonic similarities it would be great! Thanks, Fuzzypeg☻ 20:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Amongst Freemasons it's common knowledge and openly discussed. Where?--Vidkun 20:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Happy, have we met, Happy..... is part of the JWs work in closing in both my GLs, it's not used as a toast. In fact the Tylers toast is to all poor and distressed Masons, where'er they may be; in the air, on the land, on or under the sea. We wish them a speedy relief from their sufferings and a safe return to their native land, should they so desire it. I don't see any parallels with what I know of the traditional Wiccan rituals, or fam-trad.

There are clear parallels, but I wouldn't say it's as clear cut as GG, or even Crowley, using FM ritual when they wrote their own ritual.

ALR 19:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

ALR, I think my issue was that why is there no mention of Freemasonry and the derivation of most Wiccan rituals from the Gardner times onwards of masonic ritual, oaths and symbolism. The Wiccan rede itself is a toast used at formal masonic dinners. was later described as Amongst Freemasons it's common knowledge and openly discussed I disagree. I do not think it is common knowledge among Freemasons that there may be some influence from FM with GBG's Wica, nor do I believe it is commonly or openly discussed. Possibly among a small group of Masons with historical and religious interest in the two subjects, but, as a general interest to the Fraternity? Hardly. Additionally, what is published of GBG's work is not the entirety of what Gardnerian Wiccans do, so, who's to say what is and isn't in the unpublished oathbound work?--Vidkun 19:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with your disagreement ;)

The Rede doesn't appear in any of the rituals which I'm familiar with, including those orders which have a much more aligned position with respect to the philosophy of Gardnerian. Discussion of this kind of thing only happens amongst a members of a few, fairly small, orders.

I think there has been some consideration of both Gardner and Crowley by QC, but not in any copies of AQC which I posess. I'd need to go and talk to the QCCC office and search through the archive.

I'm conscious that what I have access to is only open source, I'm not a Gardnerian initiate since my personal philosophy is different. It's not my path. So I'm open to there being chunks of similar ritual that I don't know about.

ALR 20:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's what someone quoted to me from Triumph of the Moon by Ronald Hutton: page 56 talks about the 1st degree of Freemasonry. The only comment specifically noted to be about the 2nd is this:

"...Ritual closing pronouncements for ceremonies had likewise been adopted by this time, such as this one, which ended the second degree initiation: 'Happy have we met, Happy have we been, / Happy may we part, And happy meet again!' There is a possibility that this was suggested by Joseph Glanvill's very popular book Saducismus Triumphatus, which represents a group of Somerset witches as having the parting cry of 'Merry meet and merry part! A-boy!' On the other hand, both the Glanvill expression and that of the Masons may have been rooted in a wider popular tradition of such calls.

So, it looks like that bit "Happy have we met..." from the 2nd Degree in FM made its way into closing portions of some Wiccan rituals, BUT, from the Joseph Glanvill info, it could be suggested as a common phrase dealing with witches, which may then suggest the OTHER route - that the phrase came to Masonry from the witches. Wouldn't THAT be a hoot? The exact phrase with which I am most familiar in a NeoPagan context is found in the folk song "Merry are the Bells" - Merry are the bells, and merry would they ring, Merry was myself, and merry could I sing; With a merry ding-dong, happy, gay, and free, And a merry sing-song, happy let us be! Waddle goes your gait, and hollow are your hose: Noddle goes your pate, and purple is your nose: Merry is your sing-song, happy, gay, and free; With a merry ding-dong, happy let us be! Merry have we met, and merry have we been; Merry let us part, and merry meet again; With our merry sing-song, happy, gay, and free, With a merry ding-dong, happy let us be! which, from my research on the net, looks to have been a Mother Goose rhyme ... which brings ANOTHER witchcraft link. never let an ADD person do research on the net!--Vidkun 13:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Vidkun strikes again! I didn't know of those sources (it's a while since I last read TotM). Sadducismus Triumphatus was published in 1682, which was pretty early in the process of operative Masonic guilds transforming into speculative Masonry. It seems highly unlikely to me that Glanvill would have got this phrase from Masonry. It's a fascinating conversation here — I don't suppose there's any article this info could be added to? Probably not at the moment, unless we create a "Connections with Freemasonry" section in History of Wicca... Fuzzypeg☻ 23:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Fuzzypeg - I think this material deserves either an article on its own (linked here and to History of Wicca) or a distinct section in History of Wicca. As this is NOT an area I have any specialist knowledge in I'm not volunteering to do it. however! Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 07:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

In modern times, Wiccans have been incorrectly associated with black magic and Satanism, especially in connection with Satanic Ritual Abuse hysteria. [54] The Bible (Leviticus 20:27 A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them[55] and Exodus 22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live[56]) may incite Christians to be less than sympathetic toward neo-Pagans in general. Wiccans also experience difficulties in administering and receiving prison ministry, although not in the UK of recent times. [57]

The old testament isn't specifically Christian. Nor is Christianity the sole persecutor, past, present, or future. In fact, I'd quite easily say that more practitioners of paganistic religions have been felled at the hands of Islam than any other religion, however this isn't as documented as it is an ongoing daily criminal execution matter in many Islamic nations, nor as sensationalistic, nor does it render the victim-culture that most organised religions need to reinstate their solidarity or unity of sorts.

Whilst it's 'trendy' to take shots at Christianity, I consider this to be an NPOV breach and suggest that the article be reviewed for neutrality. Jachin 01:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the above from the article, as it seems to be, at best, speculation. In order to connect Leviticus and Exodus passages to modern day persecution of Wiccans, we would need to find a reliable source that makes that connection. Jkelly 02:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

While Im all for getting rid of OR, there still remains the fact that Wiccans are most commonly associated (incorrectly, of course) with Satanism and "black magic". Is there any possible way to address this in the article? Disinclination 20:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I would think the chatter of modern-day Christian practitioners to be fairly reliable, as they voice their beliefs. After searching quickly, I found a blog [2], a Q&A "session" [3] and ReligiousTolerance.com also comments how more conservative Christians use Biblical passages [4]. It may be just me, but the practice of some conservative Christians seem to be a really good reliable source. 76.48.63.166 20:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, these sources probably would be representative, but they don't meet Wikipedia's attribution requirements. In this case, I can see reasons other than reliability for citing a secondary source rather than the blogs themselves: A secondary source should hopefully be easier to read and more informative, since it would provide some commentary. It would essentially be a "cleaned-up" and summarised source more suitable for citation by an encyclopedia. Fuzzypeg☻ 04:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Wicca vs. Witchcraft

Forgive me if I am making a discussion that has happened already. But the article currently suggests that all Wiccans practice Witchcraft. This is not so. Some Wiccans do not even like the term witch because of its connotations of either evil or TV's Bewitched/Sabrina/Charmed. I hope I am not remiss in slightly altering these references. Toyalla 05:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The article as it was did mention that some don't call themselves witches nor even practice magic. However it was worded so that the traditional initiatory Wicca was presented first (that being the oldest, most stable and consistent set of beliefs amongst the many under the banner "Wicca"), and the various other beliefs were then presented in comparison. The idea was to provide some kind of structure to the reader from the outset, rather than immediately giving them a vast list of contradictory alternatives with few consistent ideas to hold them together. Traditional wicca is of course the origin and core from which all these various types of working have sprung, and seems the obvious starting point for the discussion. And traditional Wicca, as well as most of its offshoots, are witchcraft. Fuzzypeg☻ 01:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. While I am not new to Wikipedia, I am in a sense new as an editor. I do not want to start here by having an edit war. I certainly understand your point that to present all details at once could be confusing. But I also believe that to present information that will later be contradicted can be even more confusing. I do not believe the statement, "As practiced by initiates, Wicca is a variety of witchcraft" is accurate when there are people who identify themselves as Wiccans who do not call themselves witches nor what they do witchcraft, and who even are offended by being told they practice witchcraft.

And in many covens, there are degrees of initiate. In some, the first degree is called priest or priestess; in some others, this term is not generally used; in still others, the title priest or priestess doesn't come until the second degree of initation. (I was thinking to provide links, but do not know if that would violate Wikipedia policy. But do a search for "wicca initiate priestess" and you will see different points of view). Wicca is not a unified religion, and I think this article should make that clear. But as I am a new editor, I will give others a chance to comment before I make any changes. Toyalla 02:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we need to figure out which is the best term to use. I took the term "initiate" to mean "member of initiatory Wicca", i.e. Alexandrians, Gardnerians and those who trace their lineage back to Gardner and the New Forest coven. In light of previous explanations in the article this seemed clear, but maybe it was only clear to me...

I'm also aware that a few who claim lineage through Gardner have departed quite a lot from the original system and structures, but this has not happened nearly so much as in the greater realm of Eclectic Wicca.

This is a tricky subject I know, since different people have vastly different ideas of what "Wicca" is. They can be split roughly into two groups: one group of people who believe that Wicca is only initiatory and anyone else is doing it "wrong"; and another group who think that those traditionalists are a bunch of arrogant tight-arses. But I think we need to find a way to clearly distinguish between the groups, for the sake of not misrepresenting either group, and for the sake of our poor confused readers trying to sift through this morass of conflicting ideas.

Do we say "eclectic wiccans" and "initiatory wiccans"? "Eclectic Wiccans" and "traditional Wiccans"? Any suggestions? Fuzzypeg☻ 06:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Fuzzy. One possibility is "Lineaged Wicca" and "Eclectic Wicca." Some Eclectics do use Initiation rituals, and while there is some disagreement from the Lineaged crowd on whether or not such initiations are "valid," that gets into POV disagreements that wouldn't really work here. :) Justin Eiler 04:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it? There aren't any wikipedia pages or references to people who call themselves Catholic priests without having undergone the Rite of Ordination, and that isn't a POV disagreement, is it?--Vidkun 13:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there are several wikipedia pages dedicated to irregular, invalid, or even illicit priests, and to similar concepts within Christianity. That may be a distinction that should be made: do lineaged Wiccans consider non-lineaged Wiccans "Valid_but_irregular", "Valid_but_illicit," "Invalid" in the canonical sense, or something else entirely.

As for "Why wouldn't it," because arguing for a lineaged POV over a non-lineaged POV is just as much an issue as if we had this page presented from a Christian point of view. By the WP:NPOV policy, both sides of the conflict should be presented fairly and without bias.

I'll have to admit that this is an area that has the potential for some pretty savage POV battles: I have my own POV, as does everyone in this discussion. For my part, I am a non-Lineaged Wiccan. I hold that I am a valid Wiccan: I am NOT a valid Alexandrian, Gardnerian, or whatever specific BTW trad one may wish to consider. But I would not, in good conscience, have the entire article talk about Wicca without acknowledging that Lineage is an important concept in certain branches of Wicca, and that some Wiccans feel that only lineaged Wiccans are "real Wiccans." Justin Eiler 21:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

"Eclectic" and "lineaged" seem pretty good to me. "Lineaged" has the benefit of being an objective measure not open to disputes in quite the same way that "initiatory" is... And for those of uncertain lineage we can say something like "claimed lineage". What do other people think? (Again, my intention is not to turn the article into a "holier than thou" contest, but rather to provide a clearer structure and avoid misrepresenting or disenfranchising the different groups.) Fuzzypeg☻ 22:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I think "lineaged" and "eclectic" are fine as long as Wiccans in general use those terms. But I believe the article should make it clear that Wiccans cannot simply be divided into two groups. There is some overlap, and some Wiccans may accept all varieties as valid. Toyalla 04:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

There's an interesting discussion of witch vs wicca here, which, while not attributable, does shed some light on the discussion, and could serve as pointers for a later peer reviewed paper on the terms.--Vidkun 20:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion Wicca and Witchcraft are the same thing. It is also my belief the Witch and Witchcraft should be capitalized. I know of many Witches who don't like the word being lowercased. It should be obvious that both words are the same. Most books about the faith use Witchcraft in their title and the word Witch throughout. (examples: Witchcraft Today, Meaning of Witchcraft by Gardner; Complete Book of Witchcraft by Buckland; Nocturnal Witchcraft by Konstantinos; etc.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blade Pippin67.135.62.118 (talk) 18:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

And, while you are entitled to your opinion, there are many people practicing initiatory paths of witchcraft that AREN'T Wicca, for examples: the Cochranites, Clan of Tubal Cain, Roebuck, Plant Bran, Plant Don etc.--Vidkun 18:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Until the last twenty years or so, the term "Wicca" pretty-much exclusively meant an initiatory, coven-based tradition led by high priest and high priestess; in fact, it specifically meant the tradition popularised by Gerald Gardner in the 1950s. The old word Wicca meant "(male) witch", not "witchcraft", and hadn't been used for many hundred years, so the modern, different usage can be treated as a separate but related word. Wicca is of course a variety of witchcraft, and it has been considered by some, such as Gardner and Buckland, to be the pinnacle of the different varieties. No wonder they use the title "Witchcraft". Catholics could be excused for writing about "Christianity" when they are actually writing from a purely "Catholic" perspective. But of course there are many witches who have nothing to do with Wicca, such as the most common variety, the "natural" witches who have never been part of any group, often never even connected with the neopagan scene. To call all Christians "Catholics" would be incorrect, and would lose some useful distinctions... Fuzzypeg☻ 21:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that some witches prefer "Witch" and "Witchcraft" to be capitalized. I did this myself at the beginning of this discussion. It is certainly their right to do so on their websites, flyers, books, etc. However, a check of my dictionaries showed that the words are not capitalized, except of course when part of a title or in other usages where a word would normally be capitalized. "Wicca" is capitalized because it is a religion; "witchcraft" is not, because it is not a religion, it is a practice.

And a simple Internet search for the words "Wicca" and "witchcraft" will show a great number of pages that specifically say they are not the same. Toyalla 15:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem with capitalising "Witchcraft" if that indeed is one's religion. I often describe my religion as Witchcraft rather than using the specific term Wicca, since my Gods and my basic beliefs are the same as those of any other modern witches who are "switched on", and they're the same as those of the historical European witches, who worshipped a Goddess and left their bodies in spirit to travel the same landscapes we now frequent. Modern revisionist historians are wrong. There was a European Witchcraft, and it was indeed the "old religion". This is evidenced in the remarkable consistency of the beliefs of these people, as has been well established by the European school of academic historians. It was (and is) a religion, but it is even more than that. And our Gods and our spiritual landscapes are the heritage of anyone who has the awareness to perceive them. Wicca is just one specific (and relatively modern) branch of their worship. Fuzzypeg☻ 22:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you offer specific scholarly data to back up this claim? 76.48.63.166 21:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

My above comment contains two types of info. One, a rather personally felt rant about why I believe Witchcraft can be considered a religion, a rant which particularly involves my identification of the modern Gods of Wicca and other forms of witchcraft with the older gods revered in the Early Modern Age and before. This is basically my own opinion and original research, and it was really for illustrative purposes to show why a choice of capitalisation might be reasonable, not to establish any other fact. The second type of info regards academic historians who have established that there were fairly consistent beliefs across Europe surrounding witchcraft, that these beliefs contributed strongly to the Sabbath stereotype (in a diabolised form), and that these beliefs were essentially pre-Christian in origin. For this information, see Carlo Ginzburg, Ecstasies: Deciphering the witches' sabbath and Eva Pocs Between the Living and the Dead. Also Gustav Henningsen, E. William Monter and others. The findings of these authors may leave you more convinced of the validity of my rant though; there's surprisingly morphological consistency between the gods of modern Wicca and gods that were worshipped in Europe 500, 800, 1000, 2000, or even 2500 years ago. The name Aradia, for instance, rather disparaged by Ronald Hutton, was the documented name of the witches' goddess in both Italy and Romania (the variation there is Arada) from at least as early as the 16th century, if I remember the dates correctly. These figures have been demonstrated to tie into a much greater mythical stream, which Ginzburg traces back to central Eurasian origins at least 3000 years ago. Fuzzypeg☻ 04:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I made this suggestion as a new editor, which I still am. I am very pleased to see that people have considered my suggestion even though I am new, and to see the work people have done to improve this article. And it has been done in a spirit of cooperation. As a frequent visitor to Wikipedia I have seen much infighting, and am very glad to see that isn't happening here. Hope it will stay that way. Thanks so much to everyone who has worked on this! Toyalla 15:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Archive this discussion?

This talk page has gotten very long, much longer than the previous archives I looked at. Is it time to archive this? Toyalla 17:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Done, finito :) -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 19:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Hunster! Toyalla 04:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Spelling

Just a quick comment to Disinclination re: your last edit. It was minor, and so is my comment. Both "organization" and "organisation" are legitimate spellings, the former more common in North America, the latter in the UK and parts of the Commonwealth. I don't think there are any standardisation (standardization) requirements here, but there's enough stuff to do (and discuss) without getting into any sort of wrangle over minor stuff like this. Sorry, don't mean to offend. Just a quick comment. Esseh 07:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

O... kay? I only changed it using the British English spelling, since I believe that was the consensus established long before I got around here. It's not really that big of a deal. :) Disinclination 07:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - no big deal. Actually, the reason it caught my attention was that I was previously searching for some guidelines on what spelling is preferred in articles, and found none. I have done some journal publishing, and often guidelines are spelled out (no pun intended... but it's not bad...) as American (usually Webster) usage only, or British (usually Oxford) only. Often, international journals said either could be used , BUT that there had to be internal consistency within each article. Would be perhaps difficult to implement here, I guess... Anyway, peace, love and all that good stuff at ya. Esseh 08:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC) (PS, I see you're a Canuck, too - see the username; my initial is S, eh?. I also tend to prefer British spelling, but won't usually change something just for that.) Esseh 08:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this and this are what you're looking for. There is no "prefered" spelling but it is recommended that editors settle on a single style for the entire article so as to not switch back and forth. Unless of course the article is in a specific cultural context, like say an article about Britain, then British English is prefered. NeoFreak 08:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks NeoFreak. I was thinking that, perhaps the originator of an article could tag it in some way to indicate preferred usage, avoiding bunches of minor corrections that really serve no purpose. It would also help editors who come in later to know what is preferred, and thereby get with the programme, and centre in on what really needs editing ;) Thoughts? Esseh 08:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. The consensus by default seems to be American English so far. While the modern Wicca movement came from the UK it is now an international phenomenon and that applies to the editors working here as well. I have no stong opinion either way but the other editors might. NeoFreak 08:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Really, this is the concensus? It seemed to me that most editors here preferred to remain using British English, based on the number of editors who actually use it, and revert or otherwise correct edits made using American English. Just my impression, but it seems that it was long ago decided to use British English. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 13:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Consensus here has for at least a year (perhaps two years or more) been British (non-Oxford) spelling. There are hidden comments at some of the hotspots in the article that people are most likely to change, such as the "Organisation within Wicca" heading. Fuzzypeg☻ 05:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. I hope I didn't stir up a tempest in a teapot here. My original point was that spelling form should not matter, or everyone will be running around like language police rather than concentrating on making the article better. Wikipedia accepts both spelling systems, and that should be sufficient to accept both types, from all editors, in all articles. Period. As shown above by Fuzzypeg, Huntster and NeoFreak, I think getting consensus on spelling form is unlikely in this, or any other article. Let's concentrate on meaningful editing. Respectfully (to all) Esseh 04:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

But, like Fuzzypeg said, there was a consensus established on the spelling. Wicca did originate in the UK (And still seems to run strongly in lineaged covens), and while I was not apart of the voting, I think it should stick with what has already been established. There already is a warning at the top of the article, if I'm not mistaken. Besides, mostly the edits are just non-registered users, while acting with good intentions, can have their edits easily reverted with a message explaining why. Thats why there are people like me out there to do these small edits. :) Disinclination 04:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: Just found out there wasn't a message on it. Well, I added it. Disinclination

... And so it begins... My apologies to everyone for stirring up the fecal matter with my curiosity. I still say that correcting spelling to conform to anyone's version of what should be used isn't worth the dissention it could sow and the resulting inhibition of anyone trying to contribute. IMHO, the purpose of Wikipedia is to educate, not enforce. Tolerance to all, but death to intolerance! Wiccans, of all groups, should be able to appreciate that suppressing others' input (spelling preferences included) is non-productive at best, and amounts to censorship or persecution at worst.

Disinclination, I appreciate your intent, and realise (realize?) your intention was to clarify an inclarity my incautious comments pointed out, but the result could be disastrous. WikiGnomes do small good deeds, but surely they must also be aware that, as my father always said, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". Based on this quote, whenever I make a change, I try to be bold, but always first ask myself "is it really necessary, does it really make things clearer, and (most importantly) will it potentially insult someone unnecessarily or inhibit someone from making a contribution?". I also sometimes fail in this, as evidenced by my having brought up this whole affair!

Please remove your message yourself, or I will feel the guilt of having inspired it. I will not remove it myself, because, on reflection, I realise I might (unintentionally) insult you in so doing. I do know whereof I speak; I am originally from Québec, have witnessed the idiocy of the Régie de la langue française, and thus know the dissention that "language police" can sow. Let us not be "separated by a common language" within a forum dedicated to bringing enlightenment to all humans, of whatever language. Love and inclusion to all, and comments welcome, as always (and my apologies for the "essay"). Esseh 04:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

One of the reasons for that particular section of the MoS is that while this is the English wikipedia, it's readers certainly come from all over the world. Thus, they will typically be looking up material that is pertinant to them, and (ahem) thusly it is most appropriate to present the regional and cultural articles in a dialect that is most familiar to them. How would you justify the entire site being written in American english, for example, with terms and phrases unfamiliar to folks outside of the US? Conversely, how about writing it in British English? Basically, the grammatical and spelling differences between the different types of English, in the long run, means it is easier on the 'targeted' reader to have local articles written in a local dialect. Not trying to criticize or anything, just pointing out a reason for the practice, of which I'm sure there are others. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 09:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Huntster, hello. My point exactly, believe it or not. I would NOT (and have not tried to) justify this (or any) article being written entirely in British English, nor would I try to justify it being written entirely in American English (nor entirely Kiwi, Canadian, South African, Indian, Cockney, Newfoundland, or... you get my point...). For phrases (idiom) unfamiliar to others, I suggest brackets ( ) enclosing other idiomatic usage more familiar to others as an addition. However, idiomatic usage is (not entirely, but often) different from variations in spelling for the same word (with the same meaning). Better, I would suggest that the "Search" function of Wikipedia, as a whole, somehow be set to reflect not only different spellings of the same term, but even simplicities like singular vs. plural of the same word or phrase!! (For example, I recently could not Wikilink to "Black Loyalists" in another discussion, because the stub article was titled "Black Loyalist!"; note still the red vs.blue links!)
Wikipedia for all; not just those who spell like me (or you, or anyone else)!. Just for the record - I do want "correct" spelling for all words in all articles. "Correct", for me, means defined in some dictionary, somewhere, for some version of English. (For example, your "pertinant", above, is properly "pertinent", in all flavours (flavors) or English as far as I can find). Disinclination and myself (and, to me, many other WikiGnomes) would more profitably be employed in correcting such minor typos (typoes?), than in trying to police regional usage. Just my thoughts. Esseh 10:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This extremely lengthy conversation is, as far as I can see, unnecessary. The Manual of Style is quite clear on the issue

"it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. For example, with respect to British spelling as opposed to American spelling, it would only be acceptable to change from American spelling to British spelling if the article concerned a British topic. Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable; if the article uses colour rather than color, it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles, although editors should ensure that articles are internally consistent." (my bold emphasis added).

If there is disagreement on this policy, there are forums elsewhere for challenging it. In my experience it's not a problem though; any editor here should expect to have their work edited, and if their first experience of this editing involves (relatively) uncontroversial changes to spelling or grammar, rather than a more potentially upsetting change to the tone or meaning of what they wrote, then all the better. But it is good that editors realise there are conventions for the article to conform to. And it is good that they realise they don't have to get everything perfect, because others will always be there to help.

Meanwhile, regional spelling corrections are only a very small overhead for editors. I've spent longer on this conversation than I have in my entire history of correcting spelling changes in this article, and I haven't been lazy on that front.

So far you're the only person who's voiced exception to the British spelling convention... Fuzzypeg☻ 21:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Good Article

While the article has some notable flaws I was thinking that it might be time to submit this for a Good Article nomination. Any thoughts on wether or not the article is ready and if not what could be done to improve it in order to get it ready? NeoFreak 08:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The great thing about the GA process is that reviewers give fantastic tips on how to improve the article, and then a week or so to have those changes implimented. While I'm not quite sure it is up-to-snuff, it should be quite useful. I say go ahead. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 13:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I can see a lot we'd still fail on. The trick isn't being shown the flaws, but finding the time to fix them! And is that really what the GA review system is for, to review articles that the submitters know full well won't pass? Fuzzypeg☻ 05:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Isn't there a peer review system already in place that the article can be submitted to? -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 06:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Alice Bailey

So where is Alice? I do not know what you are thinking....Come and give me a break...Why does She not come up on this article? I am not understaning. "Book of THE LAW" Just what it the connection??? I am so sure that they died..at least at simpler times. So what is to this "Magick Connection"??? Playaoms11 06:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm a horrible person, but I've not heard of Ms Bailey, and from reading her article, I see no mention of Wicca anywhere. Yes, a connection to occult, but any specific reason to include her here rather than in a generic Neopaganism or Occult article? Beyond that, I have no idea what it is you are saying. The sentences are disjointed. Who died, and during what time? (I'm confused) -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 09:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Alice Bailey has no major connection to Wicca that I know of, and if you think she did, or if they really did connections die in magick to a simpler times then article free to feel add to it to. But make sure if you do so, that what you add actually makes some sense, and make sure all statements are correctly attributed. Oh, and Huntster, you're not a horrible person. If someone's talking nonsense, that's not a reflection on you! Fuzzypeg☻ 21:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Automatic deletion of "citation needed" tags

Wikipedia citation policy has recently changed so that anything tagged with a "citation needed" tag can be deleted after a "reasonable time" if no citation has been supplied. That stinks! I've added plenty of these tags to statements that are not contentious but could do with citations. However this tag now specifically applies to statements that are doubtful. That means most of the tags in this article need to be removed, since the statements are not at all doubtful, just unreferenced. If anyone has any ideas for alternative ways of tagging uncontroversial but unreferenced statements, I'm all ears. Fuzzypeg☻ 03:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Jeeze.. are you serious? Man.. thats really going to throw a wrench in alot of articles, especially those where they have specific sentences that need references. Hmm. Best thing I can think of is to copy and paste the sentences to a talk page for everyone to see, but thats really too time consuming plus not everyone looks at the talk page. Hrm. Sorry I couldn't be of much help. Disinclination 19:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Do What Thou Wilt

I have edited the bit about the derivation of 'Do What Thou Wilt' again. To the suggestion that we keep Thelema out of Wicca I say, I have not included the bit about Rabelais being considered the first Thelemite because it is not strictly relevant. However I feel one cannot omit the correct derviation of DWTW. Moreover I do wonder what in the world St Augustine's remark is doing in this paragraph? What he is saying there is nothing like what DWTW means in the western esoteric tradition.

Morgan Leigh 12:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The bit about Augustine was put in by someone else; I merely changed it from saying that DWTW was derived from Augustine's phrase to saying that it was similar to Augustine's phrase, since Aleister Crowley clearly claims that the phrase came to him direct from a spiritual entity called Aiwass. The same goes for your Rabelais: as far as I know we have no documentary evidence supporting a derivation from Rabelais, as much as we may suspect it. Fuzzypeg☻ 23:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've just done a little more research and I stand corrected. It's pretty undeniable that the phrase derives from Rabelais, who described an "Abbey of Thelema" operating according to this philosophy. I guess Aiwass read Rabelais. Fuzzypeg☻ 00:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

And I got that garbled too. No "Abbey of Thelema", just Thelema as a philosophy. Dang. If I were Aiwass I could say what I wanted and always be right... Fuzzypeg☻ 01:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

However Gardner's use of the phrase clearly came from Crowley, since Gardner was an initiate of OTO and knew Crowley personally. --Thiebes 17:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

We can point to the similarity of the rede to Crowley's Law, and we can point to authors who have suggested this origin, but we cannot conclusively say that Gardner derived the Rede from Crowley, since this is only our strong suspicion (and our own original research), not established (verifiable) fact. But that's OK. Our readers mostly aren't stupid, and can form their own judgements. Fuzzypeg☻ 04:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, here's what I have a major problem with: Nevertheless, the similarity of the phrasing of the Rede (and explicit and verbatim phrasing of other texts) suggests That section right there is synthesis or outright original research, and does not belong in wikipedia.--Vidkun 14:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see an earlier discussion here.--Vidkun 14:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggested revision re primacy of Goddess/HPS

There has been a small revert skirmish recently over whethr God and Goddess are equal, or whether she has primacy. There is evidence that both views are held - even by the same person sometimes! I've added some citations for both views. Please consider discussing this section here rather than automatically reverting it. This whole article is getting so big I wonder if this section actually needs splitting off into a separate article? Blessed be! Kim dent brown 15:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I made changes to that section without reading your comment first. I think removing the statement about Gardner mentioning both a Goddess and a God was the most major change I made. I don't have any of my books here, but isn't there something stronger we could say here, than that there's a suggestion Gardner considered both important? I do note, regarding the controversy in the article, that the text as it was did not say either view was correct; it simply said that some view the Goddess and God as equal, and some view the Goddess as pre-eminent. I would have though that would satisfy most parties... Fuzzypeg☻ 03:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi there Fuzzypeg! I too was actually happy with the text as it was, but it had invited constant reversions over the last few days and I was trying to find a form of words that would satisfy both sides. I agree that more citations will help and will look for them - I think Vivianne Crowley and the Farrars will amplify Gardner. I actually think this whole section needs exporting to a new article, with a short summary remaining here. I'll leave it a few days and see what reaction there is to this idea before taking a bold step like this! Kim dent brown 06:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

update on the pentacle case in the Circle Sanctuary v Nicholson

Bush Administration Agrees To Approve Wiccan Pentacle For Veteran Memorials. Someone want to summarize and add this to the article?--Vidkun 15:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Major restructure into subpages - views anyone?

I was going to be bold and just go ahead and do this, but I'd rather get some consensus first. This article is getting VERY long and some sections are virtually full articles in themselves. I propose that we take the biggest sections, export them to a new page all of their own with a link out from the main article and leave a much abbreviated summary of the section on the main page.

I realise that this is a major change and we have hardly reached a stable state for the main article, but I'm concerned that it is simply getting bigger and less manageable, as the net result of most changes is an increase in the word count! I'll do nothing for a few days but unless there is strong disagreement with this strategy I shall go ahead and make a start in a week or so... Kim dent brown 16:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• I have started the process, by initially copying the 'History of Wicca' section to a new page here. I shall now try and cut the old section here down to 25% or so of its original size. I intend to try and make it a summary of what has been there before, not to try and change meaning or content (even if I don't particularly agree with it...) Of course anyone who wants to join me will be very welcome!! Kim dent brown 22:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Done the same with Wiccan views of divinity. Of course the main article still looks as big as ever because I haven't started the difficult bit of reducing the sections which I've farmed out to new pages. Will get on with that asap. Kim dent brown 09:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• I've started the hatchet job - apologies if it seems too violent to people - remember, the full original text of these sections is still on Wikipedia in the new subpages! My editing of these two sections brings the whole Wicca article down from about 67k to about 51k. So we have some way to go but have made some progress. In editing the sections I must say I think they would benefit from a complete re-write. My guess is that the old sections had grown organically without an overarching plan, with the result that I think they were over-detailed in some areas while missing others entirely. I think we have a way to go before Wicca becomes a Featured Article candidate... --Kim dent brown 13:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, good work so far. I'm not going to interfere too much yet while the hatchet is still madly flailing; I'll go over it all more carefully when you're spent. But in the meantime I have complete faith in you (gulp). Fuzzypeg☻ 22:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Fuzzypeg. Will do my best to justify your PL&PT! Kim dent brown 06:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

New page added on Wiccan morality and section in this article reduced. Now down to 48k, the edits so far have lost us 10k and we need to lose another 15k or so... Kim dent brown 12:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant work so far. I just wanted to thank you for your efforts, Kim and anyone else who's been involved in this. Fuzzypeg☻ 06:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Addition to popular culture section

I've written to the IP editor who added to this section asking if they can provide a citation (and gently pointing out that this kind of material is a slippery slope...!) Kim dent brown 18:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You are a kinder person than I. This type of thing happens so often (both in this section and in Wikipedia at large) that it has become a mostly automatic analyse-and-take-action response for me, often resulting in delete. Hopefully said anon will reply. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 21:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Origins

It seems to me that there should be some mention in the "Origins" section that Gardner's original rites had large sections taken directly and verbatim from The Book of the Law. --Thiebes 17:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that this material belongs in the article History of Wicca rather than here. The history section in this overview article is necessarily brief (and does mention that GBG used other, older sources) and I wouldn't want the article to bloat any further - having already chopped 20k off it! If you have a good source for the The Book of the Lawstuff, why not put it in the History of Wicca article? Kim Dent-Brown 18:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I can see where you are coming from but what is confusing to me is that this article says that "elements" of these other sources (e.g. Aradia) were "incorporated", which is well and good but I mean we are talking pages of text taken verbatim from The Book of the Law so it seems strange that the former would warrant mention here but not the latter. That said I am not sure if there is a published source which makes the claim so it may not be possible to include in any case. I just know it to be true, having compared the texts myself. I will see what I can find in the way of published sources though. --Thiebes 20:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Wica, the 'correct' spelling

I've just reverted an edit that said that 'Wica' was the correct spelling. If we were technical about the way language evolves, we could say that English contains a lot of misspelt Latin, Germanic and Anglo-saxon words. The common spelling is now 'Wicca', and it describes the religion rather than the followers of the religion. To me, this is an example of the evolution of a word, not a misspelling.--Jcvamp 18:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you are misinterpreting the meaning of the single 'c' is the correct spelling. I edit a number of articles that have to do with Wicca, and have various spellings of related words, from specific sources. Many times, well meaning, but uninformed, editors will come through and "correct" what they think are obvious mispellings. The way I understand Kim's edit, her his commentary was intended to point out, "Yes, that is how it was spelled." I just went through a similar change on the article about the WIccan Rede, where someone changed Wiccae (which is the proper spelling from the source quoted, NOT a judgemental proper spelling) to Wiccan. This instance, that you reverted, is one of those things where a sic would usually be used.--Vidkun 18:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If they had said sic I would have interpretted it the way you said. Sorry if I misunderstood. I'll add sic to the article to make sure.--Jcvamp 20:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sic would have been a more elegant way of expressing it, sorry if my correction was misleading. (And so is my name - see my userpage for photographic explanation of why this she is a he...) Kim Dent-Brown 20:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I knew you were a guy, and forgot. My bad.--Vidkun 15:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Article from Harvard Gazette [5]

Hello there, Wikiklrsc thanks for adding the reference you did to this article. I've removed it for now, because I'm not sure it was in the right place. It was in the section titled 'Academic studies' which it isn't, being a magazine article (albeit from an academic institution!) Also, Ronald Hutton's address which is described went way beyond Wicca - if this link belongs anywhere I'd suggest that maybe an article with a broader scope, such as Neopaganism. But honestly, I'd think twice before using it at all as I'm not sure how much it adds that isn't already sourced... If there's something there that would merit an in-line citation, perhaps. But many of these articles suffer from an overload of 'See also' and 'Further reading' links, so I'm doubtful.

Don't take my reversion as definitive! If you think it belongs, stick it in and we can argue it out on the talk page. but I thought I'd start the discussion here rather than just leave you with my edit note in Wicca. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 15:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kim. Got your note. Generally, I think it good practice personally to discuss deletions before they are done. I thought it significant that Harvard University had such a conference on the topic and was reported in the mainstream Harvard University Gazette. I think it should be there in the article on Wicca to show the importance of the topic even in academia. But it's been a rough day, and I don't wish to get into any spats about it. Wikipedia is a volunteer effort. Perhaps someone else will see its worth or not. I was just reading, as usual, the Harvard Gazette and was struck by the visibility of reporting on the conference. Not my normal topic. So be it. Thanks anyway for your diligence and erudition in matters such as these. Regards. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 16:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC) (talk)

Hello Bob, sorry if my deletion was hasty. It's just that on these particular articles we get tons of external links and references added by (usually) uninformed and over-enthusiastic editors - not that I'm placing you in either category! Those of us who patrol these articles regularly tend to have a 'shoot first and ask questions afterwards' kind of attitude. I think I'll copy this discussion to the talk page so that other people can chip in. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 16:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

PS- the article in question is here. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 19:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Having read the article I believe it doesn't add anything we can't already cite from Triumph of the Moon other than a brief mention of Randy Conner's defense of Aradia and the incorrect implication that Margaret Murray invented Imbolc, Beltane, Lughnassadh and Samhain. Better to stick to more scholarly sources, I reckon. As for showing the importance in academia, I'm not sure this is terribly important - why should anyone expect it to have more or less academic importance than any other recent but popular religion? The main thing we can do to demonstrate its academic validity is to cite well-researched, scholarly sources. Fuzzypeg☻ 01:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Lifting of semi-protection

I see this page has had its semi-protection removed. Some statistics taken from the history page:

• 6 days activity before protection: 30 malicious/naive edits needing reversion, total 70 edits.
• 6 days activity during protection: 0 malicious/naive edits, total 2 edits made.
• 6 days activity after protection lifted: 9 malicious/naive edits, total 35 edits made.
  Of course generally each bad edit needs another good one to revert it. I guess this demonstrates that semi-protection can continue to have an effect after it has lifted. But maybe it also demonstrates that it should not have been lifted in the first place? Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 06:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a good study, one that might warrant further investigation. My opinion has, and always will be, to completely disallow anonymous edits, as that is the root of the vast majority of bad edits and vandalism. However, this will never happen. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 07:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

We need more free speech. Besides, wicca really is a fad religion to some. My 16 year old friend says shes a wiccan because she reads harry potter.

Edit Please

Please edit note 30 to link I-H-O Books i.e. J. L. Bracelin Gerald Gardner: Witch 151 (1960; reprinted Thame, Oxford: I-H-O Books, 1999)

• Done! Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 13:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it is appreciated--Emnx 13:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

book of shadows

Not sure if I'm being pretentious here (new to editing), but I saw that the section discussing the book of shadows in traditional Wicca seemed to imply that there was only one version. I changed it just to be a bit clearer.

And I've changed it a bit further, because the edit (I think it was yours!) accidentally removed the link to Book of Shadows. Incidentally, if you type ~~~~ after your comments, your name and the date magically appear - like this! Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 23:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Oops, thanks! Feriwiccan 23:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

On worship

From my experience of Wicca, the deities aren't worshipped, they are revered. I edited part of the article refering to Dianic Wicca, where it says 'In some traditions, notably Feminist branches of Dianic Wicca, the Goddess is seen as complete unto herself, and the God is not worshipped at all.' I changed worshipped to 'regarded' to bring the sentence in line with the idea that the deities generally aren't worshipped, and the article was reverted on the basis of the WORD being uncited.

Even if people insist that the god and goddess are worshipped, using the word 'regarded' in this instance doesn't suggest otherwise. I actually plan on providing sources to show the Wiccan attitude towards the divine, but I intend to use them in an area where I'm actually making a claim.--Jcvamp 16:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello there Jcvamp, it wasn't I who reverted 'regarded' to 'worshipped', but I did agree with the revision. I do myself find it hard to identify with the 'w' word; perhaps 'revere' might be a better verb in my case. And I know there are atheistic Wiccans. But I do think that 'worshipped' is the most representative word for the majority of Wiccans, despite oddballs like me!

It happens that on my desk as I type is Fred Lamond's 50 Years of Wicca where he describes Wiccans as 'goddess worshippers' and refers to both Wiccan and outer court worship of the Goddess (page 105.) This was the first book I had to hand but I'm pretty sure that Crowley (Viviane, not Aleister!), Valiente, the Farrars et al. all use the same word. I doubt there will be any such unanimity for 'regarded' except perhaps among smaller groups such as - perhaps - Dianics or other groups with a particular take on the Gods. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 21:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

That's fair enough. I just think that the word worship doesn't suit what any of the Wiccans I know believe. The word can be used broadly to represent reverence and observence, but, in its truest sense, worship has connotations of subservience. I've always found Wiccans to feel that the relationship between themselves and the divine is a co-operative harmonious one.--Jcvamp 13:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, the word 'regarded' in the context that I used it, didn't create the impression that Wiccans merely regard their deities. The main gist of my original post here was to say that, though the person reverting the article may disagree with the idea that Wiccans don't worship their deities, I was using wording that didn't change the context of the sentence, but which allowed for the article to be reworded to reflect the non-worship idea, at a later time. I just thought asking for a citation for one word was a bit harsh.

Anyway, as I said above, I can understand your view, but, in my view, the article could explain the relationship more clearly.--Jcvamp 13:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)