Talk:American Council of Witches

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject United States  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Neopaganism (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Needs a rewrite[edit]

This phrase needs a re-write: "to postulate a summary set of principles, to clarify the actuality of Neopagan religions in North America, to unify and define the many differing beliefs across the many paths and traditions prevalent in Neopaganism at that time, and to counterThe participants also expressed a desire to include anyone wishing do be included, to counteract misinformation, cultural stigma, stereotypes, and governmental lack of recognition." Rosencomet (talk) 19:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I have rewritten this with a few simple changes... "to postulate a summary set of principles which would clarify the actuality of Neopagan religions in North America and unify and define the many differing beliefs across the many paths and traditions prevalent in Neopaganism at that time, and which counteract misinformation, cultural stigma, stereotypes, and governmental lack of recognition." However, other suggestions are welcome... Wolfpeaceful (talk) 18:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

And speaking of rewrites: I understand the desire to reduce redundency... but this rewrite is wrong: "The participants also expressed a desire to include anyone wishing do be included, as long as their "ways" to[sic; I changed this to "do" in the article] not contradict those of the Council"

First, the council was not only referring to the veiws of the council members themselves, but also to whatever neopagan tradition the outside party wished to be equated with. And second, the term "ways" is too vague. What they meant was "views, opinions and attitudes toward the Neopagan group that they wished to associate with." Perhaps I should have written this better in the first place. I'll work on this. Done. (May still need a little work, from someone else, though.) Wolfpeaceful (talk) 12:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

But on a positive note: I find this rewrite superb: "The position of the Witches expressed in the document is that modern Witches are not bound to any modern interpretation of historical evidence or any contemporary hierarchy, but are rather subject only to their inherent Divine connection: "We are not bound by traditions from other times and other cultures and owe no allegiance to any person or power greater than the Divinity manifest through our own being." Wolfpeaceful (talk) 13:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Council Members[edit]

I'm having difficulty finding third party sources relating to this, but I will continue to search. Also, I don't think it proper to have this reference: "1974 Council of American Witches History? [goes to a www.yahooanswers.com answer... link below] Relates comments by Carl Llewellyn Weschke about the council." Yahoo Answers is a place where anybody can write anything. The only reason I included the same names, used in the percieved email is that I have (in the past) had personal contact with Raymond Buckland, but I intended on searching for reliable third party sources, which I am finding quite difficult. There is no way to verify that the person who sent those names to the person in the email was indeed Weschcke. I can assume that it is probably correct, but I cannot guarntee it. (I don't think hearsay works well with verifiability.) In the mean-time, I am moving the link here: [[1]]. Wolfpeaceful (talk) 17:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Retracting message.