Talk:Charge of the Goddess

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Neopaganism (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
As a courtesy, previous comments have been archived. Jkelly 20:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


I would like to thank everyone ahead of time for the collegial, friendly conversation about improving this article that I look forward to seeing develop. Jkelly 20:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Link to Eko Eko Azarak[edit]

Thanks for this link: I just thought I'd raise it here as I wasn't sure a bald link was the right way of connecting the two articles: after all Eko Eko isn't part of the Charge. Arguably each article could be see-also'd to Book of Shadows, or maybe we need to establish a new category called something like 'Wiccan texts' (which could also incluide Aradia for example. Any ideas? Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 18:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

That might not be a bad idea. I created the Eko Eko article while looking for sources for the use of the Carmen Arvale as a Wiccan text; I found that we had an article under the title, but it was about an anime series. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The Text of the Charge[edit]

I added the text of the Charge of the Goddess, and it was removed by an editor who claimed it must be under copyright. It is in common use throughout the Pagan community, and it is ridiculous to have an entry about it and not include the text of the Charge itself. --Morgaine Swann (talk) 13:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Morgaine, it was me who removed it. Unfortunately Wikipedia is rather constrained by the copyright laws (those of Florida, I believe, where Wikipedia has its servers!) You have found the text of your Charge from one of two sources: either your own Book of Shadows (in which case it is not a reliable source, as well as being a questionable disclosure) or from a published source such as one of the many versions of the BoS. Whichever published source it is, needs citing and if the author died less than 75 years ago (from memory, will check this) then the text is still copyright. I believe Doreen Valiente wrote the Charge in the mid-late 1950s and therefore her version, or anyone else's later re-writing, are still copyright. I know it seems odd that something so well known can't be cited here but there it is. Have a look here for more details of the copyright policy. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 13:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
While scholarship may strongly suggest that Lady Doreen wrote the charge, as far as copyright is concerned, it is in the public domain. When Gerald Gardner first published it he claimed to be transmitting the words of an ancient folk tradition. These are not covered by copyright. When I can confirm this and cite the source properly, I will restore the words of the charge to this article.

John Elder (talk) 08:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

And I will revert it - don't play around when there ARE groups who are currently enforcing the copyright, namely the legal heirs of Doreen Valiente. Don't take the risk - it's been looked at here on wikipedia before, and consensus was NOT to list the full text. Essentially, the full text of the Charge of the Goddess is claimed by the estate of Doreen Valiente, and wikipedia is not a court. Therefore, the status of the full text is suspect, in which case, we should err on the side of caution, and not publish it.--Vidkun (talk) 11:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
If indeed there is consensus, I will respect that consensus. Can you please point me to the discussion or talk pages where this was achieved? I would like to read what has already been discussed. John Elder (talk) 00:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

This discussion appears to be based on the assumption that the Charge was originated by Doreen Valiente, which is nonsense. She may have written the version that is most widely known, but her version is simply an rewrite of one written by Gardner, which itself was compiled largely from Aradia and Crowley's Gnostic Mass (which itself is copyright O.T.O. I believe). See any number of sources to verify this, including Rankine & D'Este's Wicca: Magickal Beginnings, and my own article in the latest Pentacle magazine cited on the page. Couldn't we quote some "fair use" sections from Gardner's Charge and thus sidestep the entire issue? --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 14:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

This discussion appears to be based on the assumption that the Charge was originated by Doreen Valiente No, it's based on the fact that there is a written version which can be directly traced to having been written by Doreen Valiente, regardless of the sources she may have based it off of. That written version published by Doreen is her intellectual property, and that of her heirs, until copyright expires. If you want to quote portions of GBG's version, fine, use only enough that it counts as fair use (meaning, not most of it). As for Doreen's work - the part that she wrote and published, regardless of anything she may have based it on, is still HER writing, and her published material, ergo, subject to copyright issues and the enforcement of them by her legal heirs - which has happened here on wikipedia in the past - see the archives for discussion.--Vidkun (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi all, I'm a Wiccan historian - who wrote a thesis on the history of Wicca to gain my MA - I can add to the discussion regarding who wrote it. Nobody can prove a thing. Basically it's widely understood that Gerald wrote a frankly crap version, then Doreen rewrote it as the basis of the various versions of the Charge used today. However, Doreen's original version is largely seen as the biggie and we know exactly what the copyright status is there. It's on her official website, with is overseen by her estate (namely John). You can read it here. Basically, it's fine to add Doreen's Charge of the Goddess to Wikipedia. You can do what you like with it, as long as you credit her and you're not selling it commercially. I hope this helps. JoHarrington (talk) 10:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Sources of the Charge[edit]

Vidkun asserts that Ali Puli is not cited by Serith in the referenced article on the sources of the charge: He clearly is several times, albeit in a less than complete attribution. I.E:

I have used these abbreviations for the sources:

AL: The Book of the Law (Liber AL vel Legis).

AP: Alipilli

; and

The line attributed here to Alilpilli, ("That if that which thou seekest thou findest not within thee thou wilt never find it without thee") has been attributed by Kelly (p. 115) to L. A. Cahagnet's Magnetic Magic, where it appears on the title page.

There are a total of 498 words in the version given by Kelly. The following table shows how many came from each source:

Valiente: 174 - (34.9%) Gardner: 66 - (15%) Crowley: 83 - (16.7%) Crowley (edited by either Gardneror Valiente): 40 - (8.0%) Gardner (edited by Valiente): 12 - (2.4%) Alipilli: 18 - (3.6%)

The seat of the confusion may be that Serith uses the contracted form 'Alipilli', instead of 'Ali Puli', and does not specify the work which the quote is taken from. The fact that both names refer to the same person is clear from the link to Ali Puli, and from the references on that page. Josephus (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the corrections.--Vidkun (talk) 16:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charge of the Goddess. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)