Portal talk:Wicca

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Neopaganism (Rated Portal-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Neopaganism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neopaganism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Portal  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
Information

Created: November 14 2006 Maintainer/Founder: Brenton Eccles

Portal Members: (Anyone can sign up!) Add * ~~~ to be listed as a member.

Regarding the Selected Article[edit]

The selected article, for the Correllian Nativist Church, is currently in rather poor shape, with unverified claims, and reading more like an advertisement than an article. By what criteria was this judged an appropriate article to feature? We must have better articles than this, and if not, are we ready to start using this "Wicca Portal" at all?

I also note that the Correllian tradition is widely despised by the wider Wiccan community for their blatant commercialism and their perceived eclecticism. Making this seeming advertisement the "selected article" is bound to annoy more people than just me. Fuzzypeg 03:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Work on the portal[edit]

Ive done quite a lot of expanding to the content on the portal, and id just like to say that if you see anything that you think is either not "good enough" for the portal or simply not informal enough, it would be good of you to say something, or help by improving the featured content. :) To my judgment, the only completely empty section is the selected article section, as there is no article i have yet to come across that is good enough to go there, but the article "Wheel of the Year" has come into consideration, and to my judgment, with a few more additions, will be suitable for selected article. Oh, and the colors of the portal must be done too!Brenton.eccles 10:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does the Portal article get totally sidetracked? Nearly half of it seems to be devoted to talking about Late Mediaeval church politics in Scotland. Paul S (talk) 17:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I left for a while[edit]

But I'm back. I'll now try and work on more Wicca articles and such, so this portal can be updated more. :) --Brenton.eccles 00:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Baphomet image[edit]

You should change the Baphomet image, just in case. Baphomets looks a lot like the conceived idea of the Christian Devil, so it might create a problem.

Blessed Be!

Boku wa Kage

Why should that be a problem? If that's the common image used to represent Baphomet, then why should anyone care (or better, why should we care) that it resembles something that another faith believes? -- Huntster T@C 21:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Merry Meet you two! I agree with Huntster. Wicca is a religion completely seperate from Christianity, we don't even believe in the concept of "ultimate evil," and regardless of wether Baphoment may appear very "Satan" / "Devil"-like, we believe in neither of those, and thus, changing the image to calm "the Christian mind" is not in my opinion at all appropriate. Brenton.eccles 10:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This image is an image of Baphomet, not of the Christian devil. The article makes no such claim as it being an image of the Christian devil. If the readers makes such a claim, and falsely believe it is an image of the devil, they do so of their own intention and erroneous judgements, since the article does state that the image is of Baphomet, which is according to the traditions discussed the "good god". However I do have a problem with utilizing the picture of Baphomet to represent the generalize veiwpoint of the "Horned God." There are many "Horned Gods", for instance, Pan is one of the more traditional ones in connection with Baphomet. Baphomet is merely one representation of the idea of the Horned God. However Baphomet is not strictly Wiccan, Satanists utilize the image of Baphomet as well. Check religioustolerance(dot)org for more information. -- 69.245.172.44 07:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you can locate a free, non-fair-use image of an alternative image, feel free to upload it or point it out to us here to have it uploaded. I personally see no problem with the current image, but additional and different free images are always welcome. -- Huntster T@C 13:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I too would discourage the use of the Baphomet image as a general Horned God. Far too Christian devil and Satanistic to really give a generalized impression. I would recommend a good Cernunnos or Pan image instead. I had several people hit the Wiccan Portal page and ask me WTF?!!!! WilHatfield (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

New Article[edit]

I think that we need to add a new article in Wiccan Traditions catergory called Neo-Wicca. Does anybody have any good reasons why this article should not be created? If not I will create the article in a weeks time. 00:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the term "Neo-Wicca", but from a quick google search it sounds like it's a synonym for "Eclectic Wicca". It's a nicer term, actually than Eclectic, since it doesn't have any of the negative connotations that "eclectic" historically had, and it is also cognisant of the fact that many trads object to the name "Wicca" being applied to non-trad practices. Have a look at the history of the Eclectic Wicca page before it was merged: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eclectic_Wicca&action=history
I wasn't in favour of the Eclectic Wicca article being merged into Wicca, but others were; you might want to read the discussion surrounding this before you decide whether to create the article again, or create a Neo-Wicca article. Fuzzypeg 03:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

While there is good reason to add 'neo' (new) to something like pagan, which has historically established legitimacy, Wicca is without any historical basis. That is not to say that the practices of Wicca did not exist, but they most certainly weren't called Wicca. Wicca is 'new' (neo) term in of itself. The counter argument to this would be that while pagan is a historically rooted term, it's practised application was as a generic term used to describe agriculturally-based spiritual traditions with no necessary common relationship. In the end, I raise this as a point of the use of language as opposed to what is right or wrong. We should be perhaps mindful to express as accurate and neutral a picture of our collective history as possible as a matter of appropriate recollection. User:Ashar26 06:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Wicca has been in existance since the 1950s, and possibly since the 1920s or even earlier. See History of Wicca. Exactly when the term Wica/Wicca came into being, and whether it originally referred to the members of the cult or the cult itself is hardly that important though. Wicca is a clearly defined concept that's been around for over 50 years, and the new and substantially different variety of Wicca, Eclectic Wicca, erodes most or all of this definition. For instance we have Christian Wiccans who don't consider themselves witches or perform magic, and meet in 'churches', in congregations with a minister officiating! This is a more extreme version of what some people call "Wicca", of course, and other forms of Eclectic Wicca are closer, in form at least, to initiatory Wicca... but Wicca has an inarguable historical basis going back at least 55, 60 years, and Eclectic Wicca is inarguably a new variation on (departure from) this tradition. 'Neo' seems entirely appropriate to me... Do you call Communism 'Neo-Communism' simply because it first appeared in the 19th century rather than in the dawn of time? Hmmm... Fuzzypeg 21:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Events Article[edit]

I'd just like to throw the idea out there that perhaps an "events" article would be a good thing to have. As I'm not really a good one starting things on Wiki, perhaps someone else would like to start? Suggestions: The Salem Witch Trials, The Lancashire Witch Trials, etc. Polgarahanwi (talk) 05:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

If we have an "events" article, and the Salem Witch Trials are included, it must be primarily as they are held by some to be linked to Wicca, and not as a presentation that the Salem Witch Trials actually have anything to do with Wicca.--Starsword333 (talk) 02:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Portal page cleanup[edit]

The portal main page needs some cleaning up, IMO. Specifically, it is in need of splitting into paragraphs, but in general needs some tidying-up. If there aren't any objections, I'll do that. aremisasling (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Impending deletion[edit]

In case anyone has missed it, here is the decision on the MfD discussion regarding this portal. I'm putting it here to make doubly sure that anyone who wants to step forward and maintain the portal has the chance.

I have not been able to find anything equivalent to a notability guideline regarding portals, this makes it difficult to evaluate whether arguments are backed in policy. I have looked at the guidelines for portals, which clearly state that portals should not be created except by someone who intends to maintain it. Maybe someone intended to in this case - but they didn't. However I am not convinced by the arguments about inaccuracies and lack of links. Inaccuracies could have been fixed in the time it took to produce this MfD - especially by the nominator who is apparently knowledgeable about the subject. Fixing it is always a prferable solution when possible. In this case it is. Therefore my closure will be a conditional keep. It will be conditional on the stated will of one or more of the voters to edit the portal adding links and making its contents more accurate. If this is done within a week from now I will not delete the article, but if there is not substantial progress within that time I will delete it and it can be recreated only by someone who intends to maintain it. I must say that it is slightly strange to me that none of the keep voters have taken any steps to improve the portal during this MfD - that would have immediately invalidated the deletion rationales - this leaves me with considerable doubt whether the keep voters are willing to put actions to their words. The result therefore is Delete unless substantial progress by december 4th 2011. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Copied from the MfD page by me, Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 14:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've spent some on this. The walls of text have disappeared, and have been replaced by a few paragraphs copied from relevant articles. The five "selected this, that and the other" boxes now use {{Random portal component}} with between 2 and 5 sub-pages each; I could find more. These sections should not need much maintenance. Still to do:
  • The "Selected quotes" box has a "More quotes" link which currently goes to q:Category:Religion; there's probably a better target for this.
  • I haven't done anything to the "Did you know" box. Have any relevant articles actually appeared at DYK, or is this just a collection of random facts?
  • I haven't done anything to the "Things you can do" box. I'll leave it to the Wikiproject(s) to decide what needs doing.
  • I haven't done anything to the "Wikiprojects" box. Again, I'll leave it to the Wikiproject(s).
Disclaimer: I am not a subject-matter expert! -- John of Reading (talk) 20:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for doing this John; I'm sorry it took a threatened deletion to clear this out but now that you've made such a bold start I'm going to withdraw my nomination at MfD. I don't know how portals work but it looks like you do. I do however know something about the topic so I'll lend a hand now that there's some interest here! Talk to me here about what needs doing... Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 21:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'm pleased to see that the deletion notice has gone. I see that the project has some FA/GA-class articles that ought to be included. Have you seen how to add another selected article/biography/etc? The steps are:

  • Click on the relevant Archive/Nominations link
  • Click on the "Layout" link at the top to grab a blank template
  • Back on the Archive/Nominations page, click on the redlink for the next subpage
  • Paste in the blank template, paste in the content - remember, no fair use images
  • Save with an edit summary stating where you got the content from, per WP:CWW
  • Edit the main Portal:Wicca page to update the relevant "max=NNN" figure

I removed the references from the article text that I copied in. This is common to many portals and to the Main page; the idea is that the "Read more..." link is enough to satisfy WP:V. But opinions differ. If you'd prefer to leave the references in I can add a "References" box to the foot of the portal page to display them. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

French Wicca Portal[edit]

Hello everyone,

I am a contributor to the French version of Wikipedia, and I am also a Wiccan. In Wikipedia.fr, we have only one article about this beautiful religion, and I want to create a wicca portal, like in English. I am going to based my work on certain books like the books of Scott Cunningam and also based on the English version of Wicca. I want to no if anyone had some good sources or any suggestion, and if anyone wants to help me in this project.

Thanks for your help.

P. S. Sorry if I made some mistakes in English, my native language is French.

--Beleg Arc de Fer (talk) 23:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)