Talk:Wicca

Welcome to Wikipedia's Wicca article. Editors here have developed a consensus over certain issues. Please do not override this without first discussing your edit here; your contribution is likely to be quickly reverted. We use British spelling here: -ise, not -ize. We refer to magic and not magick (which has a specialised meaning within Thelema.) A pentagram is a five pointed interlaced star design. A pentacle is a physical object, often worn, or used on an altar. The external links from this article are very selective. Please do not add more without discussion. If adding detailed information about Wiccan views of divinity, Wiccan morality, festivals, magical tools, the history of Wicca, sexual orientation or the persecution of Wiccans please add it to these sub-articles. We are trying to keep the length of this main article down. For the same reason, please add information about specific Wiccan traditions by following the category link from here. Any substantial change to the article should carry a good in-line citation to a reliable source. Wiccans worship a god and a goddess, sometimes named as the Horned God and Mother Goddess and by other names. Lower case initial letters are appropriate for discussion of any gods and goddesses generally (eg a goddess...); upper case when referring to either of the two deities in particular (eg the Goddess....) The background and reasoning behind these decisions may be found in the article archives - see box to the lower right of this notice. The above agreements can of course be changed by consensus: to do so please initiate a discussion here.

God and Goddess, or god and goddess?

This diff removed the capitalisation from the terms God and Goddess, which we have discussed on this talk page before - see first topic in Archive for 2009. At that time we came to the conclusion that they needed capuital letters because they are not usually referred to by name (at least in public...) - so she is the Goddess (definite article) and not simply a goddess (indefinite article). WP:MOS does discuss capitalisation of deities here and I think supports capitalisation. Before I carefully revert (because lower case may be appropriate in some places), anyone have any opinions? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I think that the un-capitalised version is more accurate, since the MOS says that it should only be capitalised in the case of a proper noun, a.k.a a given name. In Christianity for example, God is capitalised because it is what that diety is called (at least most commonly, putting aside complications of the name "Yahweh" etc.). If asked what God is, the response would be that he is a god (lower case). I think the same goes for the subject of Wicca, since the goddess/god a person follows usually has a given name (Cernunnos, Diana etc.), and is only described as the goddess/god since that's just the category of being they fall under. That's my two pennies at least. :) ★KEYS767★ ^talk 20:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you've also made the argument for capitalisation! Let me rewrite your sentence above: "In Wicca for example, the God is capitalised because it is what he is called (at least most commonly, putting aside complications of the name "Cernunnos" etc.). If asked what the God is, the response would be that he is a god (lower case)." Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The word "God" as used in Christianity is not a name either. It's a substitute for that God's actual name, Jehovah, and is capitalized as a measure of respect. God and Goddess clearly should be capitalized here: they are shorthand for Horned God and Triple Goddess, which are proper nouns in which both words are capitalized. To lowercase these references is just as disrespectful as going to the article on Christianity and lowercasing all occurrences of "God" there. Clearly that would be perceived as an act of vandalism and it is no less vandalism when done to this article. Yworo (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I've gone through carefully in this edit and tried to differentiate generic (a god...) uses from specific (the God....) uses. Hopefully this is more accurate and grammatically correct! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

No "Criticism of Wicca"?

There's no criticism of Wicca page or even section of this page like there is for Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, or even Judaism! This is a gross and perhaps biased omission. 184.189.154.1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC).

If there are reliable sources for any criticisms, I'd be happy to see them cited here. I see no reason why Wicca should be exempt from the scrutiny that other religions are subjected to. Unfortunately the only sources I'm familiar with would be unreliable (though entertaining) ones like this. But if there's a reliable synthesis reporting on these views more dispassionately, let's have it in here! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Citation Style

Hello everyone, I'm back on this page after a while, and I really think that what it now needs is a sorting out of citations and references. The citation style is messy, every reference is written out in a style different to many of the others, and better references could certainly be found from academic sources for many of these assertions (i.e. by using Adler Hutton, Magliocco and Clifton more than Gallagher, Gardner and RavenWolf). If there are no objections, I'll get on with this task in the following weeks.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC))

Not sure what the problem is. The references style here is named ref tags. I see that most of the refs use {{cite book}} while some do not. I'd have no objection to using {{cite book}} throughout for consistency, but not with changing from named ref tags. Pulling the page numbers out and putting them in {{rp}} tags would shorten the refs list without changing the reference style, so if that's the goal (not repeating references simply b/c the page numbers are different), that's how I'd suggest going about it as it keeps the current named ref tag style which the current editors are familiar and comfortable with. Yworo (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, many other pages on the subject of Wicca that are of fairly good quality (like New Forest coven), use a different citation style. As this page currently stands, the referencing is just messy (and in many cases innacurate I must add). Major work is definately needed here.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC))

Archiving this page

I fully agree with MBO's recent editto archive this page; problem is, a cut-and-paste archive like this removes the edit history of the talk. There's a fuller discussion of options here but I'm not the most technically minded to know which is best. Does anyone have more experience of archiving than me, or can you make more sense of the advice? If not, I'll try and solve the puzzle myself - just giving others the chance to chip in! Also - just realised I mistakenly marked the reversion as 'minor' - hardly, at 100k+!! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I see no problem with MBO's archive effort. I personally refuse to move-archive a page, as I want the history to entirely be in one spot, not spread out across multiple talk page archives. I also don't like that when the archive page is created in this fashion, people who watch the page then have the archive automatically added to their watch list. Whichever archive system is chosen, should be used for every archive. Unfortunately, for this talk page, both forms of archiving have been used in the past, so consensus will have to choose. TBH, the archive bot system should probably be used for simplicity's sake, whatever bot does it these days. I can't keep track. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I take the point Huntster, while a cut-and-paste archive does not have the edit history on the same page as the text, I can see the benefit of keeping the entire talk page history in one location back on the opriginal talk page. I guess there is no one ideal solution... Agree that maybe a bot should do it so it doesn't depend on diligent housekeeping? Still open to suggestions! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

As Huntster prefers MBO's method of archiving, and I have no very strong opinion either way, I've removed the text archived by MBO which is now at Archive 11. So back to MBO's original plan, sorry for the diversion! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Wiccan Rede: 'Liberal'?

A recent revert inserted the word 'liberal' to define the Wiccan Rede. I suggest this be reconsidered (I've replaced it for the moment with 'broad', which I think is probably more accurate), since Wiccans may disagree that their single overarching commandment is 'liberal' in the sense that most readers would probably interpret the word. That is, it does not grant licence; it doesn't present the Wiccan with free rein to live by their whims. In fact, it is often argued by Wiccans that the Rede is simple but incredibly strict: if the full ramifications of any action are considered in light of every conceivable form of harm, "an it harm none" - the first qualifying section of the Rede - would actually tend to prohibit far more actions than it allows.

I'm not suggesting this change for any political reason of my own - I'm a pagan, but not a Wiccan - and I won't be changing it again should anyone decide to revert my suggestion. - Silvensis (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Definitely agree with the change. I think you nailed the situation quite well...that's how I've always interpreted it. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering - where in the normal short wording "An (if) it harms none, do what you will" is there any prohibition? From a quick perusal of it, I see no statements about which DO harm, only about those which do not. Adding inferrences is OR, without the use of other RS denoting those inferrences. I'd suggest a look at the article about the Rede, as no where in it does it say it is a commandment - it's advice (definition of rede).--Vidkun (talk) 17:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Surely it's characterising a way of life, not offering advice or a commandment SueTwo (talk) 17:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Disagree - rede means advice/counsel, not way of life.--Vidkun (talk) 13:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

It feels to me as if http://www.proteuscoven.org/proteus/rede.htm (weird that I have to type that twice for it to show up) is coming from a fairly similar place to what I was thinking of, albeit argued in a somewhat reductionist way. I think what's more important, though, is that the Rede resonates differently with each individual and circle so the article shouldn't become dogmatic about the significances and connotations that may emerge from its text or its given name. SueTwo (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Agnostic

Kim Dent-Brown reinstated some text about agnostic Wiccans and suggested discussing it. One reason I don't call myself Wiccan is that I'm agnostic. Are there Wiccans who are agnostic? If so then the text is OK. Are there any sources to support this? SueTwo (talk) 17:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Sue, thanks for responding here so clearly! My own personal experience is that there are agnostic Wiccans and even those who describe themselves as atheists. Fred Lamond for example is sometimes very sceptical about the existence of the gods... But of course my own experience counts for nothing here; the question is what can we cite as a reliable source either for the notion that Wicca and agnosticism are incompatible, or that they are not? I'll see what I can find...! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 18:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

There are most certainly agnostic Wiccans! Just as there are atheistic Wiccans, monotheistic Wiccans, duotheistic Wiccans (this is probably the majority), polytheistic Wiccans and animistic Wiccans. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC))

-- I have to disagree that there are Agnostic Wiccan's. There are certainly things that Wiccan's don't know, but Agnostic means that nothing *can* be know, which is exactly the opposite of a Wiccan. For a Wiccan, knowing is the point, starting with self knowledge. Someone who claims to be an Agnostic Wiccan is simply setting themselves up for disappointment one way or the other. So, IMO the Agnostic Wiccan section should be removed and added to a page on Agnostic Pagans brill (talk) 05:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Category

Currently this article is categorised under "New religious movements". Does anyone else think that "Neopaganism" would be better? "Neopaganism" comes under "New religious movements" but I think the latter is too broad to be helpful in this case. SueTwo (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Entirely agree with you Sue, I hadn't noticed how few categories were present on the main article. I've added a coupe as you will see! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Once upon a time, I was only too happy toss a "neo" in there, if it gave someone pause before jumping to conclusions, (now obviated). I even thought it might help distinguish between ancient and contemporary paganism; but apparently, one wouldn't want to offend the ancients by calling them pagans... (I've heard no complaints.)

Unfortunately, some consider the "neo" to be mandatory, and I'm not referring to the notion (Bonewitz) that "Neopaganism" is the proper name of a religion that's debatable.

I think articles should use the term "paganism" when it appears in the sources, even though "neopaganism" was prolific in America. Of course, any synonym should do, all things being equal; but the difference between these and UFO cults, for example, may seem terribly nuanced to another editor... maybe not the best example but a tendency toward homogenization is a factor. So, in terms of how fine-grained the categories should be... "New religious movements" seems like a safe bet.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 23:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you think should happen to the categories, based on the above MachineElf. Are you happy with the new set, or are you saying the Neopaganism category should be removed? If the latter, I would strongly disagree! Or are you saying there are other categories that should be present? In which case which? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 06:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Definitely agree. To me, Wicca is the epitome of a neopagan religion, as, while it may have influences from older traditions, it is an entirely 20th century product. Add new categories if needed, but don't remove this one. — Huntster (t @ c) 10:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Kim, I'm happy you included paganism. I didn't say Neopaganism should be removed. Happy Beltane everybody.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 13:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Only 50 years old?

Sorry guys. Apparently I have missed something. Reading the first paragraph of this page would have the reader believe that witchcraft is only 50 or so years old. I think that is wrong. I'm sure I remeber something about it being a bit older than that. Shall we change this? 2.97.139.66 (talk) 11:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

This article is about the religion of Wicca, not witchcraft. "50 or so years old" is accurate when referring to Wicca. ★KEYS★ ^(talk) 18:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree with KEYS that 50 years or so is an appropriate age for Wicca, given the sources we have. While (in my book) all Wiccans practice witchcraft, the latter is a much wider term for something that has existed for a much longer period of course - but it has its own article! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 19:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

-- I second the 50 year statement. The history is Wicca specifically is fairly well known and short. Many Wiccan's actually know their lineage and can properly trace it back. fifty years is right in the ballpark. brill (talk) 05:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Debates over the origin of Wicca

Hi folks, an IP editor added this material under a heading of 'Scholarly Criticism' which I have reworked with material from the section on 'Acceptance of Wiccans'. However I'm still not at all sure the final two paragraphs belong here; they give the impression that all modern Wiccans claim an unbroken lineage to the Stone Age via the early modern witch trials - which is certainly not the case. Gardner did indeed claim such a heritage, but it's not a claim made very seriously nowadays.

Also, should this section (once re-written) be included at the beginning of the History of Wicca section? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the user's material is suitable. It would seem they've merely read the 2001 Atlantic Monthly article and mis-sourced Charlotte Allen's statements therein directly to the Hutton and Briggs. The article, “The Scholars and the Goddess” (with the charming standfirst/subtitle “Historically speaking, the "ancient" rituals of the Goddess movement are almost certainly bunk”) is, itself, more of an opinion piece than WP:RS, to put it kindly. Ms. Allen has made a name for herself with these sensational screeds against minority religious beliefs. Even when she's isn't simply blaming same-sex unions and gay or women bishops for the “meltdown” of the “strife-torn Episcopal Church USA” which, liberal pundit though she be, “all but a few die-hards now admit… have blurred doctrine and softened moral precepts…”, still, she just can't help taking a few pot shots at feminists:

It is not entirely coincidental that at about the same time that Episcopalians, at their general convention in Columbus, Ohio, were thumbing their noses at a directive from the worldwide Anglican Communion that they "repent" of confirming the openly gay Bishop V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire three years ago, the Presbyterian Church USA, at its general assembly in Birmingham, Ala., was turning itself into the laughingstock of the blogosphere by tacitly approving alternative designations for the supposedly sexist Christian Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Among the suggested names were "Mother, Child and Womb"…

Following the Episcopalian lead, the Presbyterians also voted to give local congregations the freedom to ordain openly cohabiting gay and lesbian ministers…

The Presbyterian Church USA is famous for its 1993 conference, cosponsored with the United Methodist Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and other mainline churches, in which participants "reimagined" God as "Our Maker Sophia" and held a feminist-inspired "milk and honey" ritual designed to replace traditional bread-and-wine Communion.

—Charlotte Allen (9 July 2006) Los Angeles Times, “Liberal Christianity is paying for its sins”.

In her blog, she's not the least bit coy about the malice she feels toward, in her words, “another sacred cow of radical feminism…” apparently, she can hardly keep her pride in check about her delusional part in “conclusively showing that goddess-worship was an idea invented in the 19th century and that Wicca dates back no further than the 1950s.”

…If you want to believe that Jesus Christ married Mary Magdalene and started the "Year in Provence" fad by settling down with her in a picturesque converted farmhouse in Southern France—hey, that's all right by me!

I do get riled, however, at Brown's buying into—and propagating—the idea that Jesus was an undercover rad-fem secretly propagating a form of Mother Goddess religion—"the sacred feminine"—that supposedly dated back to prehistoric times when peace-loving, egalitarian matriarchies ruled the earth. Real historians and archaeologists demolished that myth decades ago, concluding that there is no written or non-written evidence that a universal goddess religion, much less a working matriarchy or any other society without war, ever existed anywhere. Nonetheless goddess-worship lives on in the imaginations of Wiccans, Gloria Steinem-types, and Dan Brown. Brown's theory is that early Christians worshipped Mary Magdalene as an embodiment of the "sacred feminine" until mean old patriarchs like the Emperor Constantine suppressed the whole operation.

So I'm pleased to recommend two books that nicely demolish Brown's claims to scholarly accuracy in his novel…

…especially flattering because [one of them] cites my article, The Scholars and the Goddess, in the January 2001 issue of the Atlantic Monthly. There I assessed all the historical and archaeological evidence conclusively showing that goddess-worship was an idea invented in the 19th century and that Wicca dates back no further than the 1950s…

So, bravo… watch another sacred cow of radical feminism bite the dust.

—Charlotte Allen (11 May 2004) Independent Women's Forum, “The Da Vinci Code's Goddess Hoo-Hah”.

See also: Female Public Intellectuals and Feminist Ideology: “The vast majority of women who might otherwise qualify as public intellectuals would rather recite the feminist catechism or articulate some new twists and refinements on it than carve out a place for themselves in the larger public world.”

References

—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 19:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

More on the origin of Wicca

Hey everyone. I'm new to Wikipedia so I thought I'd check here before editing the article. It seems to me that the origins of Wicca can easily be traced back to about 1300, because of the Cathedrals (e.g. Exeter cathedral) in which pagan symbols were incorporated by the stonemasons. Or am I missing something? Have you already discussed this and decided that pagan (as opposed to Wiccan) symbolism is not relevant to this discussion? But I think it should at least be mentioned - otherwise the article is a bit misleading. Tnx! Kristykj (talk) 03:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kristykj, thanks for joining the ranks of the Wikipagans, and also for discussing here - always a good idea. For what it's worth, (speaking as a Wiccan initiate) my view would be that the origins of Wicca can certainly NOT be "easily traced back to about 1300"... They can easily be traced back to Gerald Gardner, and beyond him perhaps to sources such as Aradia, or the Gospel of the Witches. Beyond that the evidence is pretty much non-existent, although speculation is rife. I'd have 2 issues with incorporating the material you mention. One is that pagan and Wiccan are not synonymous; the symbols at Exeter may be pagan but there's no evidence that they are specifically Wiccan (even though modern Wiccans may use similar symbols). Secondly, because Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia we have to source all our statements to a reputable authority (such as a book, journal or reliable website - eg the BBC or similar). Even if you and I believe the Exeter symbols are Wiccan, and see them as proof of origin, unless we can cite a reliable source who makes such a claim, we are just putting in our own original research. I'm sorry that this is a discouraging answer to a perfectly reasonable question - I'm pretty sure this is how other editors here will see it however.

It looks like you're just starting on editing here, so may I offer an alternative way in? If you have some books on Wicca, have a look through and see if there any key facts which are mentioned in your books but not here on Wikipedia, either in this article or any of the others on the topic. Then you have a fact, and a source to support it, so you're on much stronger ground. Any of us here will gladly help in drafting an addition (in particular the referencing system is a bit hard to get the hang of.) I've just got a good new book on Wicca since Gardner, so I'll try and find a nugget to add so you get the idea. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 08:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I had a few minutes so I have added a few lines on the rise of eclectic Wicca, drawn from Michael Howard's book Modern Wicca. The material I added can be seen here (you can inspect the changes people make by looking at the history tab on the main article page.) I've tried to be brief, not to insert my own opinions or research but to represent what the source itself says - this is the key to adding material here. Please post again here Kristy, or on my talk page if you prefer, if you need any help. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for all that good advice Kim. Yes after posting that I did a bit more reading and realised I'd misunderstood the way it works and so I felt a bit embarrassed! Anyway, glad I posted it here first rather than editing the article. I'll go away and do some more research and see if I can contribute something a bit more useful. But I think it would be good to mention, that while gardner did of course invent Wicca, he was building on a longer pagan tradition which is of course very old. I was forgetting to make that distinction, as you say. Many thanks for your help. Kristykj (talk) 11:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

witchcraft?!?!?!?!?

is wicca a witchcrafted religion???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.139.90 (talk) 21:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

We'd probably need you to be a little clearer in what you're asking before we could even attempt an answer.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 21:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

"in keeping with"

I've just noticed the article says "a small minority of Wiccans, in keeping with the accusations of the historical witch trials, refer to their Horned God with some of Satan's names". In keeping with sounds as if they're intentionally conforming with language used in the witch trials. I doubt if that's true, but I haven't edited the article because maybe it is. Otherwise consistent with might be better. SueTwo (talk) 19:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

This bit of the article has been subject to some editing by committee lately, so I'm not surprised it reads poorly. I'd agree with your view on this Sue, and encourage you by all means to rewrite this in a way that flows better. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It would be best if we had the individual names of all of the members in the "small minority" aforementioned... becuase in my personal opinion that is greatly akin to weasel word terminology... how big is this "small minority", anyway? three people?, twenty?, a hundred?, a hundred and fifty?, three hundred and fourty two?... you get the idea..., are they affiliated with any particular Traditions, or are they independent? Do they belong to a particular coven? Are these "Goddess only" worshipers too. Are they any clear indications as to who precisely these "some people" are? You see, I'm not saying it is not true, but remember Wikipedia deals with Wikipedia: Verifiability not truth. But then again a "small minority of people" say that Wikipedia isn't a very good source of information, anyway, so what's the point? That last bit was just to show what I mean... who exactly is this "small minority" and what constitues them as being "small" and not "moderately sized." I know I sound like a legalistic, but as Sawyer sais on Lost "It's all in the details." 165.138.95.59 (talk) 21:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Addition to my note: Simply because a verifable source can be used, doesn't mean it should be used... when the sources uses vague information, this alone should rule them out... there is a big difference between "small minority of Wiccans" and "According to Robert M. Etchinson in his book 'Wiccans Expore Satan' there is a subsect of Wiccans called the Ecclesiastians who..." {That last line was purely made up, but shows the point I am making. Also there is a big difference between that kind of use, and "According to Etchinson a small minority of..." My vote would be to delete, simply because we don't know who this "small minority" is... If the source was more clear... saying something like "Approximately 15 percent according to the Wiccan Times survey produced last year... I'd vote keep it in, but when the source is vague, knock it out {that's idiomatic for get rid of it} that's my vote { my two-cents worth}... but I will let the normal editors decide...165.138.95.59 (talk) 19:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, line is weaselly, and should go, unless a direct quote can be brought in. It cites Michael Howard's 2009 book Modern Wicca pages 266-267 and 271. I think that if such claims exist, they are minority claims, and using this citation gives undue weight to a minority opinion among researchers.--Vidkun (talk) 01:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Based on the above discussion, I've just deleted this paragraph:

A small minority of Wiccans refer to their Horned God with some of Satan's names, such as "the Devil" or as "Lucifer", a Latin term meaning "light bearer". Whilst this figure is not equated with the traditional Christian figure of Satan, who is seen as being an entity devoted to evil in Christianity, this practice is consistent with the documented accusations of the historical witch trials.

Northernhenge (talk) 18:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't what I intended when I started this conversation but I can see why you've done it. I don't know how we could reliably reference "a small minority" though. Maybe there are specific traditions within Wicca that do this and are reliably reported to be small. SueTwo (talk) 18:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

-- Being so new, its understandable that there is confusion but in my learning, I have never seen names used specifically referring to the Christian Devil (although there are often crossovers borrowed from older religions and myths). I have met people in England who were very confused about what Wiccanism and Satanism were, but theres a story that doesn't need to go up here. I think officially reference to that small minority is exactly that, a small minority that is currently not driving the direction Wicca is moving. brill (talk) 05:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Wicca and Witchcraft

I don't know anything about this subject but these edits seem to be debating a point which should be discussed on this talkpage. Please forgive me if I'm wrong but WP:SOAPBOX comes to mind unfortunately. --Northernhenge (talk) 20:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

A problem I keep having with this page is it's definition of Wicca as (previously)"Traditional Witchcraft" and (now) "Pagan Witchcraft." Can someone please make an edit that will express that Wiccans are *not* the only religious group that refer to themselves as Witches and they are certainly not the only religious group that refers to themselves as Pagans. There are many, many Pagan paths that are not even remotely related to Wicca. I think it is very important to be clear when applying labels with broad strokes. As it is, the Wiccan community is suspected of powergrabbing when it comes to stuff like this - by "stuff" I mean propagating Wiccan belief systems and Wiccan traditions at the expense of marginalizing other traditions. Maybe there can be a suitable compromise here? I made the edit: "many people still confuse the term 'Wicca' as synonymous with the word 'Witch' or 'Witchcraft.' However, many writers are now using a much more (correctly) limited definition of 'Wicca,' confining the term to the Gardnero-Alexandrian Traditions." This is semantically correct. Fine, someone wanted to put "some" instead of "many" - whatever. But changing "Traditional Witchcraft" to "Traditional Paganism" is a move in the opposite direction and is going to cause a bit of commotion in the broader Pagan community; now this definition of Wicca is subsuming all earth religions, ancient and Reconstructionist. Might I suggest an edit that maintains the position that Wicca seems to want to maintain for itself here without engulfing non-Wiccan religions in the doing? How about, "Wicca is a Pagan, or neoPagan, religion. Some Wiccans refer to themselves as alternately 'Wiccans' and/or 'Witches' and practice a religion derived from British Traditional Witchcraft (BTW). However, it is important to note that not all Pagan religions and not all religions that include Witchcraft are Wiccan." Maybe use a redirect page to point to Paganism. MrFixItWitch (talk) 15:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I sympathise with MrFixItWitch's view, but a bit of context may be in order. I agree that the article at present is unclear on the relation ship between initiatory Wicca, broader pagan witchcraft, and paganism at its broadest level. However from my perspective this is not because Wiccans (of whom I'm one!) are claiming imperial ownership of great swathes of modern paganism. Rather it's because many (to my view sometimes unentitled) people want to call their newly-derived "tradition" Wicca even if they learned it off a Llewellyn book or a $50 web-based correspondence course. Now personally I wouldn't call them Wiccan, but many of them want to do so and there are WP:RS out there to attest to that usage.

I'm going to try a rewrite of the lede to see if we can be clearer. Have a look and see what you think, folks! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

MrFixItWitch beat me to the first redraft and I have tidied it up somewhat further. I moved the "pop culture" reference to later on, as it irks me to see Buffy (much as I love her) cited in the second line of an article on Wicca! To be honest, while the new lede accords with my own view that only those with an initiatory lineage can properly be called Wiccan, I do think there will be others who follow a self-initiatory path who will still want to claim the name. And if they can cite WP:RS as I think they may be able to, we'll have to change this section again. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

While I agree with you, Kim, about "only those with an initiatory lineage can properly be called Wiccan", as an opinion, for the purposes of NPOV, all that someone needs to do to provide a RS for the counterpoint is quote any of a dozen Llewellyn books. The opinion "only those with an initiatory lineage can properly be called Wiccan" is not neutral, and never can be neutral.--Vidkun (talk) 18:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes you're quite right Vidkun, I can't hold back the tide of Wicca-wannabees and if goodness knows there are enough of them claiming the term to be notable. But I would like to find a genuinely reliable source that could tease out the differences between initiatory Wicca and Wicca-lite. Not Llewellyn obviously, maybe Ronald Hutton or one of the academic authors now at work has something, eg Jo Pearson? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The Meaning of "Wicca": A Study in Etymology, History, and Pagan Politics. By: White, Ethan Doyle. Pomegranate, Nov2010, Vol. 12 Issue 2, p185-207, 23p; DOI: 10.1558/pome.v12i2.184 begins by saying: "This essay provides the first comprehensive examination of how the term "Wicca" - used in reference to the modern religion of Pagan Witchcraft - has been utilised throughout the faith's history." Unfortunately the copyright says: "Copyright of Pomegranate is the property of Equinox Publishing Group and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission" but I could have a go at summarising it. SueTwo (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

That would be great Sue, if you have the full text then go ahead and extract the pomegranate juice from it (ie transform the meaning into your own words) and insert into the lede. Don't worry if it doesn't feel quite right or you are unsure of formatting the reference - there are plenty of eyes here who will help! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. I've had a go, and I found a reference near the end to another pomegranate article so I pinched the citation format from there.

By the way, White (who uses "Pagan Witchcraft" as his main generic term) concludes: "As I believe that this wealth of evidence displays, there are two alternative yet identifiable definitions of "Wicca" that have been used within both Pagan and academic circles for the last thirty years and which continue to be utilized. The first—and apparently older — definition uses the term in a broad, inclusive manner that covers most, if not all, forms of modem Pagan Witchcraft, particularly if they share sufficiently similar theological beliefs, dates of commemoration and magical praxes. The second uses the term to refer specifically to the tradition of Gardnerian Witchcraft, along with those which are heavily based upon it with little variation, namely Alexandrian and Algard Witchcraft. In North America these particular groups are sometimes collectively called "British Traditional Wicca" because of their shared origins and liturgies."

I don't think I've actually changed the article, just rearranged it a bit. I also spotted what I should have seen before - the Wicca (etymology) page, which already refers to White. He also says that followers of Gnosticism and Luciferianism reject the term "Wicca" for themselves (hardly surprising - are they relevant here at all?). His overall position is that the term has evolved over time, originally being a general term for "Pagan Witchcraft", then becoming increasingly specific to BTW, and now being popularised as an almost meaningless term by Buffy etc.SueTwo (talk) 21:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Good job Sue, looks much better. I agree with White's dual definition but I'd see the development as going in the opposite direction; it seems to me that revived witchcraft in the 1950s and 60s meant initiatory Wicca because there was no wider eclectic movement. With the publishing boom from the 1980s onwards the term has widened (and in my view become cheapened and diluted) into something much more broad and ill defined. But hey, what do I know? At least we have a talk page where I can express my opinion, while trying to keep the article page neutral! Again, good job on the lede. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually Kim, if you ever get the chance to read that paper – and I'd suggest that you do at some point if you're interested in this subject – Doyle White, who I assume is a historian, shows how the term "Wicca" was originally used in the early 1960s to refer to all forms of Pagan Witchcraft, and that it was only later, in the late 1970s, that certain Gardnerians and Alexandrians, particularly in the U.S., adopted it purely in reference to their particular traditions. Then, with the rise of the DIY-Wiccan books in that decade, the original term once more came back into widespread use. Interesting stuff. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC))

Oh, and SueTwo, just to answer your pondrance as to why Doyle White referred to Luciferian and Gnostic Witches in his paper, it is because a great number of practicioners in the "Traditional Witchcraft" movement, particularly in the UK, are both Luciferians and Gnostics, and so do not wish to get caught up with the Pagan movement, which they see as entirely unrelated to their philosophies. For this reason they emphatically reject the term "Wicca". (Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC))

Minor writing issue

Whilst being based upon the Old English word wicca, which referred solely to male sorcerers, the actual individual who coined the capitalised term "Wicca" is unknown ...

I changed "whilst being" to "while", with the flippant comment "wankery." My change was reverted by Huntster, with the comment "British English...wholly acceptable." I have no problem with British English—only bad English. The word "being" (incorrectly tacked on top of a sentence which is already built around a dangling participle) is a bit much. --MillingMachine (talk) 13:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Googling whilst while passes the time nicely :-) SueTwo (talk) 17:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Duotheistic or Monotheistic?

I notice that Wicca is referred to as a Duotheistic religion, however the concept that All are One (all are different aspects of the one, the circle is unbroken, balance, etc) would make it a Monotheistic religion. If we get technical, then religions like the various forms of Christianity are actually Duotheistic, because they have opposite poles in Good and Evil.

I get that we are defining what Wicca *is* on the spot here, using a very short and shallow body of work to choose references from (particularly in a religion that where writing things down to be shared is mostly against the grain), but maybe we can fix this strange flipflop of duo/mono.

At the very least maybe a section at the beginning discussing the argument might be enough in the short term. brill (talk) 05:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I expect that if (unlike me!) you followed up all the references and links flowing out from Systematic theology you would find a clear consensus that Christianity is monotheistic. I also expect they have numerous philosophers explaining why the trinity, and for that matter Mary, don't undermine this. I'm not an initiated Wiccan but I know it's a very specific path with a theology that - as I see it from outside with my nose pressed against the window - is duotheistic. See, for example, Gardner's description of the acting out of the Legend of the Goddess in his Book of Shadows. SueTwo (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

FWIW from someone who is a Wiccan initiate, this is how I see it too. I can't now recall the source of the quote, but the one about "all gods are one God, and all goddesses one Goddess" about sums it up. Wicca is essentially dualistic; God/Goddess, birth/death, growth/decay etc etc... All WP:OR without me citing anything of course but this IS a talk page so please forgive me! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kim, I'm not clear on which point you are supporting. Your quote of "all gods are one God, and all goddesses one Goddess" seems to support a monothistic position but then you go on to talk about duotheistic nature of balance :) -- I am an initiate as well of about 20 years (down the G/F line), and come from a Monotheistic tradition. Its been a while since I did any research on this, and I find that it has changed again when I wasn't looking. Apparently there are several schools of though now including monotheistic, duotheistic, polytheistic, henotheistic, atheistic (from http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_intr.htm). So I think the claim that Wicca is Duotheistic OR Monotheistic is premature. So. as of now, I withdraw the Monothesitic stipulation, but recommend that it be rewritten because its also not clearly Duotheistic. 173.33.251.174 (talk) 17:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

One God + one Goddess = 2 deities = duotheism. Aradia and Cernunnos or whoever you particularly revere. I do see my Wicca as a balancing path from one polarity to another, but I'm well aware that people have made reasonable claims for Wicca as a polytheistic, duothestic, monotheistic or even atheistic path. If we could lay our hands on a good secondary source to make that point it would be good! But maybe we need a series, each making its own claim... Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 19:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

There are lots of examples but this one is particularly poignant and should be the same though all traditions: "One without the other is incomplete and conjoined there be one in truth" == monotheistic. There are many examples that can be pointed to and a rule I find your view prevalent in the US and less so in other places... not a bad thing, just not everywhere :) Anyway, it's pretty clear that there *is no* definition that is consistent. I'm not sure who made the change that exists now, but it has been changed for the better in my opinion. 173.33.251.174 (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Gerald Gardner

I'm a long standing Wiccan but I also have my feet in reality so it immediately hit me to read "a Wiccan high priest named Gerald Gardner". I was tempted to edit but as Wicca is no doubt a sensitive subject I'll raise it here. And indeed I see various admonitions about editing without discussing first. Thing is Gerald was only a high priest because he made himself one and I don't think he ever called himself a Wiccan. He is usually referred to around the web (and in books) as a British civil servant. so "a British civil servant" or "a retired British civil servant" would be more encyclopedic since that came first.

Also he didn't just popularise Wicca, he created it. I do think this article has rose tinted glasses. It would be nice to see it a bit more grounded in fact. I see references to Ronald Hutton - I am sure he would agree with my comments. Robotics1 (talk) 23:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Robotics1. I won't rise to your "feet in reality" bait (nice try though!) but you may find Wicca (etymology) interesting, and also Gardnerian Wicca#History SueTwo (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC) :-)

Actually I think Robotics1 has a point. That firsts sentence in the lede makes it sound as if Gardner was already known as a Wiccan HP when he popularised the witch cult from 1951 onwards. However of course he never called it Wicca, and would never have referred to himself as a Wiccan HP! I think it is appropriate to describe him as a retired civil servant in that first paragraph, because prior to him becoming known for popularising Wicca that's exactly what he was.

Robotics1, thanks for pointing that out and for being so careful as to discuss it here. Many people don't bother and as you have guessed, this is a high profile article! To be fair to ourselves, I don't think it's a completely "feet out of reality" article; many of us who edit here are Wiccan (I am, fo one) but that doesn't mean we can't be objective. Philip Heselton's 2-volume biography of Gardner is due out soon and we can mine that for quotes. See also a documentary airing on Channel 4 on the 20th Feb, presented by Ron and including Philip as a contributor - may also be worth recording and citing. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah - sorry about being brusque. You're right of course. SueTwo (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

@Robotics1: The problem is really that WIcca itself has fragmented quite a lot (some would say thats a good thing) and views have changed. Even those of us who have been Wiccan for 20 years or more can't agree a lot of the time, it even changes depending on how your WIccan tradition began and where you live. For what it's worth, I agree with you and although I think its a bit pedantic, I think we need to be a bit pedantic, seeing as this article is eventually going to form a large part of the history of Wicca as it gets distributed and taken as fact by later generations. brill (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)