Jump to content

Talk:Wicca/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 12

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)

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)

Thanks for the change. You are right, there isn't just one Book Of Shadows. I know it's cliche, but look at Sabrina the Teenage Witch and Charmed. They deal with things two different ways, so their Book of Shadows' differ from one another. They contain different ways of casting spells, and such. Not to say that the Book of Shadows that either show portrays is a valid one (because who really knows), but just an example.  :-) ResurrectPanther 22:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The Book of Shadows is what a practissioner of Wicca writes for himself or herself. it would have the moon festivals. witches tools like Athama it would have the Major festivals like samhain also known as Halloween. the book of shadows would also tell them how to cast the magic circle and what elimental belongs to what quarter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.64.248 (talk) 12:04, 25 November 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)

I think this section of the article would benefit from a description of Wicca as a religion of the Clergy. Each Wiccan (at least in BTW) acts as their own Priest/Priestess, coming together with other Wiccans for communal worship. Perhaps a brief description of the evolving nature of Wiccan clergy and Pagan laity. Runeman11 16:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello Runeman11 and welcome to the phenomenon that is Wikipedia! I'm glad you chose to raise this here on the talk page, as I'm not sure I recognise the description you give here. I've never heard Wicca referred to as a "religion of the Clergy" except to the extent that because ALL are priest/esses, NONE are pre-eminent over others. I certainly reject the idea that Wiccans are the clergy to the pagan laity - though I have heard it argued that this would be a desirable future outcome. If you can find a source for this proposal, then by all means post it. But contentious assertions like that will certainly need to be supported with good citations. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 16:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
When I say Wicca as a religion of the Clergy I mean in the sense that Wiccan's all act as their own connection to the Divine, also (at least in BTW) there is a fairly standard path of instruction coupled with a liturgical structure. The view of Clergy -vs- Laity come partially from experiance and partially from other sources out there. To offer a couple of examples, noted Wiccan High Priestess Judy Harrow describes this in an interview with the Wiccan Pagan Times (http://www.twpt.com/harrow.htm) and some more can be found here (http://www.sacred-texts.com/bos/bos475.htm). Runeman11 17:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
As it happens, I've had this conversation with a Gardnerian priestess of the third degree of initiation. According to her, the Gardnerians view themselves as the clergy--but not to any laity, merely to themselves. However, not all Wiccans share this view. I think in the interest of NPOV we need to leave this out of the article. Jorgath 23:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
There is academic scholarship to the effect that every Wiccan practitioner is considered a priest/priestess. I can't put my finger on it right now, and my thesis is due real soon now but once I have finished I will find a source and cite it. I am sure it will be somewhere in the Farrar's A Witches' Bible...Morgan Leigh | Talk 23:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
That depends on one's tradition. If one is a Gardnerian, for example, from that point of view only Gardnerian and Alexandrian Wiccans are the priests of the Wiccan Gods. Jorgath 13:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Urm, I don't think we claim that only Alexandrians and Gardnerians (and other BTW lines) are priests of the Gods; there are other branches of Witchcraft and mysticism that revere the same gods as we do, and some really competent priests and priestesses. But only BTW are Wiccan priests and priestesses. The Craft of Wicca works a certain way and has its own magic, and if you're not in the family how are you even going to recognise that magic, let alone work it? Fuzzypeg? 01:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Would it be possible to include the concept of Sacred Drama during worship? Right now the only description of worship is in the ritual section and consists of, "Prayers to the God and Goddess are said, the "Guardians" of the North, South, East and West are welcomed, and spells are sometimes worked," and, "An altar is usually present in the circle, on which ritual tools are placed. Before entering the circle, some traditions fast for the day, and/or ritually bathe. After a ritual has finished, the God, Goddess and Guardians are thanked and the circle is closed." While this information is correct, every Sabbat ritual I have attended or officiated (I know officiated doesn't count here, being the equivalent of referencing yourself) has included an element of Sacred Drama, from the Oak/Holly King fight to the Decent of the Goddess, the Birth of the God, the Sacred Marriage/Union at Beltain and so forth. The structure of the drama is no way universal, but I've never beet to a major ritual where some element of it was not present. Runeman11 11:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with this if a sufficiently authoritative source could be found, which should not be difficult. The Farrars, maybe? What you're describing fits with my experience too. My only issue would be that to start increasing the level of detail increases the length of an article that we've been fighting to keep down: IMHO it's too long already. What I'd propose is that if there is sufficient material on Wiccan practice (to include ritual/worship, modes of attire etc) then we establish a new article to take this detailed material, and leave a much shortened version here with a Wikilink. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 12:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim Dent-Brown (talk • contribs)
Sounds like a plan. Most of my library is halfway across the country from me now, but I'll start looking through what I have. Runeman11 12:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Page archiving

This talk page gets a bit long, was just wondering if we should auto-archive it with a bot like this one or on some other way. I'm no techno-geek so will stand corrected if another method seems better. But automatic archiving seems sensible as no-one then has to remember to do it... Thoughts, anyone?Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 11:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Some talk pages have threads with long gaps between comments, but this is a busy one so a bot would be safe. I think you should do it. Totnesmartin 12:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I strongly object to allowing bots to archive talk pages, as it is completely unsubjective as to what to archive (at least, I've seen a number of instances where it rather messed things up). If it is desired, I'd be more than happy to take over such archiving duties here, as I've done it before. Personally, I'm just not a big fan of unsupervised automation. -- Huntster T • @ • C 12:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
If you're willing to take the job on Huntster, all power to you! I agree a human is better in principle than a machine, and I'd be happy to trust your judgement on this. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 12:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
checkY Done, keeping discussions newer than ~one month. For the time being, I'll archive in one-month increments (once the final discussions have run their course) into single archive pages until those pages have a reasonable amount of material in each, say two-four months of active talking. *Nods* I have systems for everything.... -- Huntster T • @ • C 13:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Good job! Almost 64k of text archived, good to get all that stowed away. One question: do you think it would be worth putting a short statement at the top of the talk page and pinning it there (ie never archiving) to summarise agreed conventions for this page? I mean stuff like using British English for spelling (-ise not -ize), using magic not magick, , pentagram vs pentacle, not adding external links, using sub-pages for adding detailed information (History of Wicca etc). I realise that some of the more naive editors are not going to read this anyway, but it might stop those with good faith who might act out of ignorance rather than malice. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 13:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
That might actually be a good idea. If you can come up with the bullet points, I can come up with the formatting and placement. I think a night light green infobox might be catchy and set it apart from the other notification boxes up top.

Outdent for the sake of sanity... OK, I'll draft something and place it here for comment later. The brief list above is probably it - I'll provide links to talk page discussions where relevant. Can anyone think of any other old chestnuts that it's worth pointing people towards? Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 17:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, the draft is below. If anyone objects/dissents/has amendments go ahead and make them, or discuss here if you prefer. I decided against links to the archives for the sake of brevity. If anyone wants to trawl through, let 'em! If you can now prettify this and stick it at the top Huntster that would be fantastic. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 11:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

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.

The background and reasoning behind these decisions may be found in the article archives - see box to the right of this page. The above agreements can of course be changed by consensus: to do so please initiate a discussion here.

Eclectic nature of lineaged Wicca

In the "Lineaged and Eclectic Wicca" section someone added information to the effect that many lineaged Wiccans have developed their own philosophies and practices in an eclectic manner. This is true, but misleading, since all traditional Wicca is approached in this manner to at least some degree. This is an inappropriate discussion to have in that section, which is concerned with lineage and lack of lineage, and I have removed it. If we want it back in the article, it needs to be inserted into some discussion of philosophy or practices. Fuzzypeg? 00:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Lineaged and Eclectic Wicca

The section on Lineaged and Eclectic Wicca draws a false dichotomy between Wiccans with a lineage back to Gerald Gardner and "Eclectics" who, we are told, do not. As an Eclectic with a lineage back to Gardner, I must object. "Eclectic" means "drawn from a variety of sources," and has nothing to do with initiatory lineage. Eclectic Wiccans seek to augment their Wiccan practice by adding to its philosophy and its magical system by taking "what its practitioners believe to be the best from several paths." Cantrell, Gary, Wiccan Beliefs & Practices: With Rituals for Solitaries & Covens, p. 15, Llewelyn Publications (2002). Most Wiccans now reject the notion that an initiatory experience must be passed down from Gardner to be valid. See, e.g., Farrar, Janet & Stewart, A Witches ' Bible: The Complete Witches' Handbook, P. 12-17, Phoenix Publishing (1996 edition). 76.22.219.76 02:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC) Carl Moore, July 1, 2007

Sorry for coming across so bluntly by just removing what you'd written. I'll try to explain myself a little better.
The term "Eclectic" with a capital E is widely used and accepted amongst the Wiccan community as meaning non-lineaged Wicca. This term was partly popularised through Margot Adler's book Drawing Down the Moon, where she uses the phrase American Eclectic Wicca; it means much more than "eclectic" (small e). (See also [1]). You see, all the original books published about Wicca stated that it was a secret tradition of initiates. After Wicca was publicised other people spoke up and said "we're witches too, but we don't practice what you do, and we don't call ourselves 'the Wicca'". So Wicca was clearly established by the end of the 1950s as a secretive, initiatory tradition of Witchcraft, but not the only tradition of witchcraft. Then in the 60s, 70s and 80s other non-initiates, particularly in the US, started adopting the term "Wicca" to describe what they were doing. They had read about Wicca, and incorporated many elements of it, but not been initiated, which was considered an essential by most other members of initiatory Wicca. Some term had to be devised to differentiate these newcomers who were practicing something considered very untraditional, and the term "Eclectic Wicca" stuck. It is not simply a descriptive term, because even the most conservative, "traditional" forms of Wicca promote an eclectic approach (lower-case e). Two groups both practicing "traditional Wicca" may indeed have vastly different ways of doing things. That's one of the reasons Eclectic Wiccans (capital E) were viewed so askance: they assumed that by copying a form they were also copying the essence, when initiates know from experience that the outer forms are adaptable and shiftable, but the inner substance is the really powerful and important bit. Of course at a deeper level the essence of Eclectic and traditional Wicca is the same, since we yearn towards the same gods (and you could also say that ultimately all religions have the same essential core). Anyway, enough theology.
Eclectic (capital E) means much more than "drawing from many sources". I haven't read Cantrell's book, and I don't know what his take is on it, but if he says otherwise, then he's stripping meaning from the term. A little wider reading around the literature should demonstrate that (here are some interesting discussions I've found: [2], [3], [4], [5], I'm sure you can find plenty more).
I agree with your statement that "Most Wiccans now reject the notion that an initiatory experience must be passed down from Gardner to be valid", but find it misleading. "Eclectic" Wiccans would of course believe this, so the real question is what lineaged Wiccans believe. And in my experience we almost all believe in the validity of self-initiation. That's fine. But that doesn't necessarily mean initiation into Wicca. Just imagine, you could construct a self-initiation ritual along masonic lines, that would hold power, but performing it wouldn't make you a Freemason! Traditional Wicca has its own community, which we treat like family, and we just don't accept strangers, no matter what rituals they say they've put themselves through! I repeat, though, that we mostly do recognise the validity of self-initiation, and we recognise that there are many other types of witch than just Wiccans.
So to sum up: "Eclectic" has specific meanings beyond just "eclectic" (small e); most lineaged Wiccans (in my experience) recognise the validity of self-initiation into witchcraft; most lineaged Wiccans (in my experience) don't recognise the validity of self-initiation into traditional Wicca (they see this as an abuse of terminology).
The eclectic (small e) nature of traditional Wicca may be worth discussing in the article, but I considered that an inappropriate place; that section's purpose is to briefly introduce terminology used later throughout the article, and I felt that bringing in alternative meanings of "eclectic" and lengthy discussions of philosophy would just confuse things. That's why I removed it. Fuzzypeg? 23:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Wiccan traditions

Under the sub-heading Wiccan traditions, there seems to be a gloss over that does not attend to the specificities of what tradition means. Can we complicate this definition of tradition? The current definition (4 July 2007) is as follow:

"A "tradition" in Wicca usually implies the transfer of a lineage by initiation. There are many such traditions[40][41] and there are also many solitary or eclectic Wiccans who do not align themselves with any particular lineage. There are also other forms of witchcraft which do not claim origins in Wicca. Traditions within the U.S. are well described in Margot Adler's Drawing Down the Moon and Starhawk's The Spiral Dance."

While it clearly describes the nature of a tradition, that it is essentially a set of lineaged practice transferable via initiation, it fails to distinguish the differences between Wiccan traditions that are constitutive of Lineage Wicca and Wiccan traditions that are formed by the Eclectic movement. Traditions stemming from the eclectic movement such as Georgian, Assembly of Sacred Wheel, Celtic Wicca, Faery Wicca, Dianic Wicca has little commonality in terms of lore, practice and current with lineage traditions such as Gardnerian, Alexandrian, Blue Star, CVW, Minoan, Proteus, Odyssean, Algard, etc. I think it is helpful if we distinguish the differences found between lineage and eclectic traditions so not to confuse readers that all traditions are by default inheritor of a lineage back to Gardner or the new forest coven practices. What do you think? Noosnomis 06:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I would be very grateful if you could do this. Hey, on second thoughts, I'll do it myself, based on your listings above; please check that I've done what you intended and got it right; feel free to edit. Fuzzypeg? 03:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
actually you just did it and it looks perfect! thanks marvos 06:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Good idea, good addition. One or two blue links are a bit short and need filling out (eg Algard Tradition) but on the whole it's improved the article. One question (coming from ignorance, not malice). I see on the Central Valley Wicca page (2nd paragraph) that:
With no lineage to GBG, doesn't CVW logically belong in the second group, and not in the first which is described as 'Wiccan traditions with lineage to the New Forest coven through Gerald Gardner'? Or is it the desciptions of the two groups which should be tweaked slightly? Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 06:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I have tweaked it slightly. Let me know if it sounds better. 'Wiccan traditions that share a common magical current stemming from the Wica, New Forest coven, include:'marvos 06:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm getting worried about this now. People are adding links (usually red ones) and there's no knowing where this will stop! I strongly favour removing this section altogether and replacing it with a one-paragraph summary and the category link. As it is, this section is now just a magnet for anyone to paste in a red-link to their own just-invented 'tradition'. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 15:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
(deindent) With respect to Fuzzypeg, I've removed this list as nothing but fodder for list-creep, which is exactly what was happening. Without extremely strict parameters, lists on Wikipedia will quickly grow. We have a link at the top of this section to the Wiccan traditions category, which should be more than sufficient. If specification is desired, two new categories could be created ("Wiccan Eclectic traditions" and "Wiccan New Forest traditions" perhaps? I don't claim knowledge here), and the original category placed for deletion. Additional articles on traditions can be fleshed out (assuming they can be created under Wikipedia policies) and added to the appropriate category. -- Huntster T • @ • C 17:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
You WHAT? But, but... my Tradition was listed there. How dare you?!?! You're just an anti-(insert Tradition of choice here) bigot. {stamps foot}
*chuckle*
Probably the best move, Huntster
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 17:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
*Laughs* I needed that, thanks :) -- Huntster T • @ • C 18:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
As an alternative to British Traditional Wicca (BTW) is the term Traditional Craft Wicca (TCW). This term is becoming common in parts of Europe where the acronym BTW carries certain historical connotations which, while not connected to Wicca, are still unpopular. Runeman11 12:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Discrimination section

Does anyone mind If I remove the "united States" part of the discrimination section to the discrimination article (leaving a summary sentence or two)? It would help get the article down to size, and it's mainly about the recent legal battles, which jars a little with the rest of the article. Totnesmartin 14:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Go for it, I say. Having chopped it nearly in half this article is growing again so I agree with the principle of exporting detail and just keeping the basics here. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 15:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Done. I removed most but only added the image, as the rest was there anyway (something I often find in these situations...) Totnesmartin 15:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
However, you did not transfer any of the citations that were on the main article. I'm going to go through and try to rewrite the new article to include them, but this is just a reminder to check for that in the future. Citations are just too important to throw out. -- Huntster T • @ • C 23:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Arg. Sorry! Totnesmartin 19:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
S'all good. Update was made, hopefully everything is okay. I also converted the original opening section into a header for the article...seemed to work fine for that purpose. -- Huntster T • @ • C 20:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Little g, big G?

A recent edit points up the fact that we seem to use god/dess and God/dess rather indiscriminately in this article and its offshoots. Any thoughts on an addition to the article style guide? Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 06:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

When referring to the Goddess and God worshiped by Wiccans of a duotheistic bent (à la Gardner), the words should be capitalized. When referring to deities in general, they should not. In the former case, they are essentially general terms that have been made specific, as with Christianity's description of their deity as "God." In both cases, the underlying implication is that there is/are no other(s), and so the descriptive term becomes the name by default. When speaking in a more polytheistic context, this is not the case; the terms retain their descriptive nature, being general nouns instead of proper ones, and thus should not be capitalized.
I have spoken.
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 13:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC) (ducking for cover)

"Third largest religion..."

Regarding the last paragraph in Wicca#Later developments, I've merged some similar material into one section rather than having figures floating around the article. However, I'm not satisfied with the placement of this material. To be honest, I'm skeptical about including the paragraph, period, since it's so hard to pin down firm figures. Any thoughts about where this might be better relocated to or what else could be done with the paragraph? Huntster T • @ • C 12:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah! I just removed that last section. Good to see I wasn't the only one uneasy about it. Reading the cited "article" I discovered that it was only Phyllis Curott's assertion that numbers were doubling every 18 months; also, it is statistically unsupportable to assume that growth will continue geometrically like this. On that basis by 2024-2027 everyone on the planet would be Wiccan. Another concern is that the "article" conflates wiccans, witches and pagans, and thus is written by someone who either knows very little about Wicca or is willing to manipulate the facts. The greatest cause for concern however, is that this is not a "newsfeed" as such, despite being tarted up to look like it, but an advertising service who produce press releases from whom private companies (in this case Witch School Inc.) for a fee. The removed section is as follows:
(The cited "article" is here)
Take care with other "news items" on emediawire in future! Fuzzypeg? 23:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Good deal. Yes, figures were messy to say the least. I worded it the way I did so that anyone reading it would not immediately assume the information was correct ("another source indicates"), so removing it takes nothing away from the context. -- Huntster T • @ • C 00:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Religious discrimination against Wiccans

Also, might I get some other eyes to look upon the misery that is Religious discrimination against Wiccans, and possibly do some additions, especially with regards to creating a proper lead section and adding more than just material on the United States (Europe? Just the UK? Anything?). It is just so...haphazard right now, and I just don't have the necessary knowledge to do much with it. -- Huntster T • @ • C 12:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I unwatched it. It looks like one of those dumping ground articles that lots of people contribute to but almost nobody edits, or even reads in some cases. I'll give it a butcher's for you and save you some trouble. Totnesmartin 14:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
these "dumping ground" articles belong merged into more coherent discussions, where the topic gets more serious attention. In this case, the article belongs merged into religious discrimination against Neopagans. It appears that this is a topic entirely restricted to US prisons and the US armed forces. This should be made explicit to counter attempt to portray this as a bigger deal than it actually is. Please come to Talk:religious discrimination against Neopagans and help putting this all into perspective. dab (??) 14:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, these types of articles really are dumping grounds. However, that doesn't mean they cannot be salvaged. The United States portion of the material is considerably more broad than just prisons and military. It primarily covers attempted government restrictions against the religion as a whole, plus it includes the actual precedent set by a court recognising Wicca as an actual religion in the U.S. While I would prefer to find additional material from elsewhere in the world, perhaps if nothing is contributed within a certain amount of time, the article should be renamed to Religious discrimination against Wiccans in the United States. I still believe that this article has enough content to stand on its own apart from the generic Neopagan one. -- Huntster T • @ • C 16:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

some one vandalize the front page on the first article i think. noones taken it off.user:Bloodsource

Where is the vandalism? I maintain that page and haven't noticed any (mine are the last edits there). -- Huntster T • @ • C 04:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

the Church may have apologised for the persecutions caused, but its people still treat us with contempt, even though no wiccan has caused an Evil deed, some cristians spread Properganda and lies conserning the pagan religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.64.248 (talk) 12:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Additional information

New material includes links to verifiable and credible sources.24.168.227.29 16:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm definitely not liking the placement of the new material, nor the fact that Wicca is mentioned a whole one time (and even then only as a reference itself). Anyone else have an opinion on this? -- Huntster T • @ • C 21:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
The cited article is not about Wicca, and only mentions Wicca once as an aside. Also, "May have roots in pre-Christian religion" (or however it was worded) is controversial, and this is better discussed where we can do justice to it, lower down in the article. So I've reverted that introduction section. Fuzzypeg? 05:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Did you mean to do a full revert including all subsequent edits? If not, I'll go back and copyedit the later changes. -- Huntster T • @ • C 09:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
No, I manually changed the text of the intro section back to what it was, leaving other subsequent changes intact. Fuzzypeg? 05:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

It was first popularised in 1954 by a retired British civil servant named Gerald Gardner

Why is Gerald Gardner introduced by former career first?

It was first popularised in 1954 by Gerald Gardner, a retired British civil servant

Would perhaps be more appropriate?

BananaFiend 21:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Fuzzypeg, I noticed you made the change I had suggested, I didn't make the change myself as I thought it should be discussed. Could you leave a message of support instead of just making the change? BananaFiend
If it is a change that makes complete sense, as your suggestion did, people are invited to be bold and make the modification themselves. If it is later determined to not be wanted, it can always be reverted by someone else, at which point it becomes a controversial change and no further action should be taken until it is properly discussed. It's all good. :) -- Huntster T • @ • C 17:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Aaah... I just wanted to make the change ;) I'm always hesitant to edit a page that has a) religious or emotional appeal b) looks to have a strong style and active editors, I'll be bolder in future! BananaFiend 14:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Please do be bold! That is one of the central tenants of Wikipedia, especially as it regards uncontroversial edits such as your suggestion. Cheers! -- Huntster T • @ • C 14:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The element Spirit

Isnt spirit one of the elements?

According to some traditions, yes; it's mentioned in the article, if you look. Also, please sign your posts with four "~"s in a row (beside the 1 key). Kuronue | Talk 06:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
If you were to ask me on a professional basis, I'd say no, it isn't. Just as the entire human body isn't counted as one of the limbs: the limbs being the legs, arms and (possibly) the head. But as a wikipedia editor, I'm quite prepared to accept that a lot of people seem to think it is. Fuzzypeg? 06:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

None of the current 4 external links are particularly useful, I think they should all be removed. --TotesBoats 10:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

They were originally placed there because there was agreement that they were useful. -- Huntster T • @ • C 19:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, witchvox seems pretty useful to me. It's got the largest online collection of reviewed articles on the subject of Wicca, it is the place to find actual groups and contacts. So I don't know what your measure of "not useful" is... Fuzzypeg? 04:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The BBC just showed an interesting report on Wicca, which led me to their homepage where there is substantial information BBC - Religion & Ethics - Wicca. I would add it to the external links, but apparently there should be a discussion first. Gryffindor 14:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree this is a sound link to a good, impartial site. (Which links onwards to wider articles on other aspects of paganism.) I suggest Gryffindor goes ahead and makes the link unless anyone objects. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 08:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
A good amount of "upper level" material on Wicca can be found in the Proteus Coven library [6]. While the Coven itself is not a NPC as far as I know, most of the material in the library is professional in nature and heavily cited. Runeman11 15:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
While I value the Proteus material and think it's very well written, we've tried very hard to restrict the number of links here to those which amplify the subject of Wicca generally. IMO the Protean tradition is too small and unrepresentative of Wicca as a whole to link to the site from here. There already is a link to the library from the Judy Harrow page, and personally I think that's where it should stay. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 21:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Confusing referencing

The Bibliographical and encyclopedic sources section should be merged into the References and notes and section. --TotesBoats 11:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The wikipedia guide to layout allows for both sorts of section. In this case, the notes and references serves to provide the citation for specific statements within the article. The bibliographical and encyclopedic sources section provides further references one might want to look at the relate to the article.--Vidkun 13:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Tools section

There are countless books out there that include the information given in this section, so there's really no reason why it should be lacking a reference. I would like to propose two references for this purpose, both of which I believe qualify as reliable sources and contain the information outlined in the section. They are Wicca for Beginners by Thea Sabin and Wicca: A Guide for the Solitary Practitioner by Scott Cunningham. Jorgath 15:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms of Section Not here?

Every other religion on here has a 'criticisms of' section. Either this has been conveniently left out or deleted. This is a very controversial religion and has pleanty of controvery and skepticism to accompany it. All of which can be easily cited and referenced and added to this article.

If no one else is willing to step forward to construct this section than I will add it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.132.139.254 (talk) 01:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

For any religion, those are some of the hardest things to write. Maintaining a neutral point of view is very difficult... I'm not saying that this article shouldn't have such a section, rather, I think the reason it hasn't been written is it's difficulty. Please feel free to contribute one as long as it's balanced and represents both sides of the issue. --Shadowlink1014 03:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Looking at Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam and Buddhism, the only one with such a section is Islam, although some of the others have separate articles devoted to this. I would guess that the reason we don't have a separate section or article devoted to this is that Wicca is a small religion and accounts for relatively little material in Wikipedia. The material regarding criticisms of Wicca simply hasn't gained enough bulk to necessitate splitting it out. Various criticisms are already mentioned in, for instance, the History of Wicca article, and I'd be inclined to note any criticisms in the relevant locations; however if you think you can gather together enough to warrant a separate section or article, then go for it. And if you add any more good information on this subject, it will be much appreciated. Thanks for your help, Fuzzypeg? 03:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Gardnerian skew

While reading the page on Wicca, I noticed a severe skew towards Gardnerian Wicca. Most topics hardly mention the practices of Ecclectic Wiccans or really any type of Wicca that is not traditional Gardnerian despite the large number of non-Gardnerian Wiccans. I plan on doing plenty of research to be able to correct this bias, but, in the meantime, if anyone has knowledge of how to remedy this problem readily available, I'd be greatly comforted knowing my religion wasn't left so much neglected. Thanks LaRubi 04:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been partly responsible for that skew, although I'm not Gardnerian myself. There was a discussion of this a while ago, involving some BTW views and some Eclectic views, and there seemed to be general agreement that it would suit both the Eclectics and the trads to clearly differentiate the two, since Eclectics don't generally want to be tarred with the brush of heirarchy, secrecy etc, and trads often don't consider Eclectic Wiccans to be part of their secret club. And even more importantly it makes sense to differentiate these two quite divergent approaches to avoid leaving the reader terribly confused.
For the same reason of clarity and avoiding confusion, I've also tried to structure sections like "views of divinity" along roughly chronological lines, starting with the earliest explanations as given by, say, Gardner, and progressing on to the numerous modern eclectic explanations. This has the benefit of starting the reader on one single easily understandable and well established concept with fairly widespread acceptance, rather than immediately throwing them in the deep end with the dozen or more contradictory ideas. When we used to do that it was really hard to read, hard to understand, and hard to maintain.
This approach lends itself to a much more easy narrative, since so many eclectic beliefs and practices are either founded in, or in reaction to (and rejection of) the earlier Gardnerian beliefs and practices.
However Eclectic Wicca is still probably under-represented here. We actually used to have a separate article with a bit more information, but it was poorly written and referenced, and ended up disappearing, although I had lobbied for it to remain.
If you were willing to help flesh out our info on Eclectic Wicca, that would be very welcome. Fuzzypeg? 03:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm willing to contribute to that too. Are there any specific sections you've noticed where we're lacking info from the Eclectic side? Jorgath 15:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No idea!!!

I didn't know that it's spelled British here. I'm still kinda getting around here. If anyone can help me, please do and send me basic commands to chat and that kind of stuff. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piro-san (talk • contribs) 01:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent massive changes to article

The recent changes have been very hard to follow because when sections are moved to different locations the diffs don't really work. So many big changes in such a short space of time makes for a huge amount of work for other editors; perhaps some discussion first would have helped. There have been several things moved out of context, or the flow of concepts has been broken, and I've tried to correct some of these; however I have to head home and it'll have to wait until later. Take the magic section for example: this was initially a succinct entry sub-section to the Core Concepts super-section, indicating the features that distinguish Wicca from other popular religions. Whoever moved it didn't realise that, or didn't understand, and as it now stands it makes little sense. But I'll have to deal with this later. Fuzzypeg? 06:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll admit some fault here in terms of moving sections around, but it was primarily reactionary to the changes User:Midnightblueowl had wrought, with my own sprinkled in. Explaining some of it: I moved the History section to the top as the history of anything will inevitably set the tone of everything to follow. Typically speaking, history sections should always come first so that major background events are explained. Core concepts logically follows, and there I moved from the more spiritual concepts to ideals and into physical concepts. The "Divisions within Wicca", which is best renamed, really should stand as its own section, containing all group concepts rather than having them scattered through the article, as this is one of the more visible differences amongst Wiccans. Perhaps move this above Core concepts as well (which, no, I don't think is ultimately as important as those other building blocks of understanding).
As for the order of "Magic", I placed "The elements" before it as, in modern time, it seems the elements are more universal than the use of magic. (I may be wrong in that assumption, certainly, but I for one have not experienced any personal magic in a very long time; I accept that and move on, though the elements remain a central idea...the section even mentions it is key. I've heard this from others as well.)
So, ordering of major sections as follows: History, "Traditions"/"Divisions"/"Whatever", Core concepts, Etymology, etc? In any case, once final orders are figured out, I'll go through and fix the wikilinks that are now out of order. Upheavals are a central idea of how wikis work; they aren't right or wrong, just a fact of life here. -- Huntster T • @ • C 22:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, my comments sound more accusatory than intended — I was trying to explain my changes quickly before leaving to catch a train. And I did see that you were cleaning up, rather than initiating these changes yourself.
Now to me the history section seems too dry and complicated to head the article; I had hoped that enough of the history had been summarised in the introduction that the rest of the article would make sense; it is only a bare minimum, but it gets the important points across, I think. Certainly the core concepts are so named because they are core to understanding the religion, more so than the history is. I realise Wicca has more recent origins than religions like Christianity or Hinduism, for instance, but I don't think that's a good reason for historical debate to come before even the basic tenets are explained. Have a look at the intro and see if you think the historical summary is sufficient...
Magic vs. elements: to me it seems obvious, but this may reflect my training and world-view. To my understanding everything in the Craft is within the realms of magic, including the elements, ritual, the Gods, Craft ethics, initiation, Craft organisation, even finding new candidates... I'm not terribly fussed about this though... Fuzzypeg? 06:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Ritual

I think the section on ritual could benefit from an expansion. In particular a little more information concerning the theory and cosmology which informs Wiccan ritual structure. I offered an edit last night (my second Wikipedia edit) and forgot to fill out a summery explanation explaining my reasons for doing so. Runeman11 11:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem with doing that is that if you ask three Wiccans who aren't members of the same coven how the universe works, you'll get seven different answers. Yes, I'm exaggerating, but there's not enough consensus to give every view a fair hearing and keep it within reasonable length. Jorgath 07:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. Given the very wide array of views and methods represented within the community, general data is often better than specific. -- Huntster T • @ • C 07:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that there exists a wide array of views and methods within the community. That said, within Wicca most of our variation has been developed from the Gardnerian or BTW model. That model was in tern developed based off of the practice of ceremonial magic, from the use of a circle down to the tools and ritual structure. This is information that, while available, is not often taught. As a suggested compromise, maybe this information would be better added to the entry magic circle? Runeman11 11:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Ritual attire

Then entry says, "Skyclad working is mostly the province of Initiatory Wiccans, who are outnumbered by the less strictly observant Eclectics." It is my understanding that this statement is only true in America. In Europe there is an even balance between Initiatory and non-Initiatory Wiccan's, if not more of the former than the latter. This section has no sources cited, so I'm hoping that we can get some more input before making a change. Runeman11 03:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

the Atire for wiccan groups depends on the group you belong to. Gardairians for example some work robed Gerard Gardiner's group. Alexandrians on the other hand work sky clad Maxine and Alex Saunders Group —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.64.248 (talk) 12:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I have been bold and removed these two sections as part of the ongoing drive to keep this article from bloating beyond the point of no return. Of course anyone who feels they're essential is welcome to restore the sections but please bear my reasoning in mind.

The Wicca in Popular Fiction section has been tagged as having no references for two months, and none have been forthcoming. There is a guideline under discussion suggesting that notability in such a section would consist of being able to say something like "The New York Times has commented on the use of the Wiccan religion in the TV series Charmed'. In other words it's not enough to assert that Charmed includes references to Wicca: it has to be shown that this reference has been noted by an authoritative source. As I say, this is a guideline under discussion but it seemed a reasonable rule of thumb to me hence the deletion. A paragraph noting that Scooby Doo once referenced Wicca is, it seems to me, taking up space that could be better used. I decided not to split the section off into another article because it would have looked so weak it would have immediately have had a WP:PROD or AfD slapped on it. Probably by me...

As for the See Also section, every Wikilink there also appears earlier in the body text of the article. The links were an incomplete selection of those that already appear and it seemed to me they too were taking up a few bytes that could be better used.

I know Wikipedia is not paper but there is a good reason for trying to limit page sizes and I feel we should make efforts to cut this article down to the essentials rather than just let it grow like a weed. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 17:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

A little while ago I removed a lot of these references and tried to structure the section so that it gave a historical account, only including key films, books etc that had strongly influenced popular perceptions. I realised as I was doing that, though, that it was only my own judgement that I was relying on, and that it might be better to just scrub the section entirely and wait for a study of Wicca and popular culture to be published (or brought to our attention) and base the section on that. If no such study has been produced, it's probably not important enough to include in the article! I support removing all these "popular references", which are frankly embarrassing. If Scooby-Doo was depicted as, say, meeting some Hare Krsnas at the airport, would that make it into the ISKCON article? I think not. And the Christianity article doesn't have a section itemising every pop-culture depiction of Jesus or the Virgin Mary — such as the poseable Jesus action figures that you can buy at our local comics shop, or the film Jesus of Montreal, regardless of how great they are! Fuzzypeg? 21:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Neo-Wicca

Would anyone object to the splitting of the Section "Coven and Solitary Wiccans" under the Section "Traditions", especially removing the part of the section that refers to "Eclectic Wicca" and moving to new section called "Neo-Wicca" which is a more apt title for "Eclectic Wicca." I was going to create a new page called "Neo-Wicca" however it was pointed out that it already existed and was merged into this article. User:SilverWolf10 03:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm afraid I'd object! I have never heard of Neo-Wicca, nor heard the term used at all. I have heard and read the phrase 'eclectic Wicca' and it seems better to use a phrase that is familiar rather than a neologism as a title. However I'm not against a new article in principle, just the title! If an article on Later developments in Wiccan practice (or similar title) has sufficient sourced material to float, then I'd say go for it. But choose titles that describe the article succinctly and are not newly-coined phrases. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 08:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim Dent-Brown (talk • contribs)
Remember also that creating an article for the sake of creating it, or just because of length, isn't always good either. This is the main article for Wicca, and sufficient detail needs to be maintained here for it to all make sense. I question whether there would be enough material for a completely new article. -- Huntster T • @ • C 08:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Merging

You are invited to join the discussion over at Talk:Religious discrimination against Neopagans#Merge suggestion regarding if Religious discrimination against Wiccans should be merged and if so where. // Liftarn

Reversion of recent edits

Hi folks, I just reverted some edits by an IP editor because they were unsourced and not discussed here. I wouldn't say thay are too controversial (see here) but I did feel they went against the consensus that has emerged here on the subject. I've brought it here in case others see it differently. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 17:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Wicca is still considered a form of witchcraft by most people (or else they think it's people who want to be witches!), as well as in most publications, and certainly in the terms it was originally described. The article mentioned the fact that some eclectic Wiccans don't consider themselves Witches, or Wicca a form of Witchcraft, and I think the balance we had was fairly appropriate, following the guidelines at WP:UNDUE. Fuzzypeg? 05:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Fuzzypeg as to the balance we had. Jorgath 14:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Merry meet, Kim.
Forgive me if my ways were inappropriate with editing the Wicca page, I'm new to this site. I realize I didn't source my changes. They're based on experience, and any documentation I've had is stored in the annuls of my mind.
I am a Wiccan witch.
I don't want to make a stink, but the article claims (or seems to claim) more than once that Wicca IS witchcraft; absolutely NOT true.
Wicca is a religion. Witchcraft is a practice.
Not every Wiccan practices witchcraft, and not every witch is Wiccan. Generalizing in this case isn't merited. I did see that an attempt has been made to separate the two; but it is confusing when you read first that Wicca is witchcraft, and then that it's not. While I don't presume that my ways and my ways alone are right, the changes I made were things that are not opinion.
Blessed be. Gabhin dru'i Gothbard —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tripthruwires (talk • contribs) 19:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
(Copied by me from my talk page as I think the discussion is better held here - Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 18:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC))
The problem being that Witchcraft is very much associated with Wicca, and when Gerald Gardner introduced Wicca, he did so as witchcraft. Jorgath 18:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to reply at some length here, as it's such a nice change to have a new editor joining us who actually wants to improve the article AND get involved in the discussion process. Merry meet, Tripthruwires/Gabhin. First I've gone through the article and extracted the bits that refer to the relationship between Wicca and witchcraft. Here they are:

  • [Gardner] claimed that the religion, of which he was an initiate, was a modern survival of an old witchcraft religion
  • As practised by initiates in the lineage of Gerald Gardner, Wicca is a variety of witchcraft founded on religious and magical concepts…[however]…Some Eclectic Wiccans neither perform magic nor identify as witches.
  • Wicca is only one variety of pagan witchcraft, with distinctive ritual forms, seasonal observances and religious, magical and ethical precepts. Other forms of witchcraft exist within many cultures, with widely varying practices.
  • There are also other forms of witchcraft which do not claim origins in Wicca.
  • As practised by Gerald Gardner and his followers, Wicca was and is a secretive and exclusive society of religious witchcraft… A few Eclectic Wiccans neither consider themselves witches nor practice magic.
  • Subsequently fearing that the Craft would die out, he worked on his book Witchcraft Today, releasing it in 1954, followed by The Meaning of Witchcraft in 1959. It is from these books that much of modern Wicca is derived.
  • The term Wica first appears in the writings of Gerald Gardner (Witchcraft Today, 1954, and The Meaning of 'Witchcraft, 1959). He used the word as a mass noun referring to the adherents of his tradition of witchcraft ('the Wica'), rather than the religion itself. The religion he referred to as witchcraft, never Wica.

It seems to me that your main objection, Gabhin, is that you feel the article claims that all Wiccans are witches, and that all witches are Wiccans. The quotes above should reassure you on that, I feel. That claim is never explicitly or implicitly made, and indeed the opposite position (that they overlap, but not completely) is made more than once. You and I probably differ on how much the two groups intersect: I believe that almost all Wiccans profess to be witches, while only a minority of the more numerous witches would (or could) claim to be Wiccan. I take my evidence for this from the titles of Gardner's books mentioned above, and from the words spoken at my own initiation and the way I was proclaimed to the four quarters at the end. The latter evidence is of course not a quotable source! But the former certainly is. I still feel that on balance the present text for this article describes the situation fairly and accurately. If you can cite sources that say differently Gabhin, please find them and we'll look again. Blessed be! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 18:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm gonna have to disagree with you on something, Kim. You said the article doesn't explicitly or implicitly imply that Wicca is witchcraft, correct? If I may refer to a quote you made... "Wicca is only one variety of pagan witchcraft..." You actually quoted that twice. That is an explicit claim that Wicca is witchcraft, at very least in variety (implication). I will never deny that witchcraft is used by some Wiccans. However, I maintain that Wicca itself is the lifestyle, or religion; and witchcraft is the practice.
The problem I still see here, though I do certainly respect your stance, is one of legalism, or probably more precisely, elitism. What I'm about to say may seem like I'm stepping on toes. Please understand, that is not my intention. This is what I'm seeing: IF it's not done this way, it's not Gardnerian Wicca. I think, and I bet Gardner would agree, that Wicca comes from the heart, from Nature itself. Nitpicking about the way rituals are done is frivolous, and misses the point. 'Wicca is done this way. Wicca is done that way.' As my wife would say "quit overanalyzing and do it already." I'd hate to see people misunderstanding Gerald's intentions. Not that I claim any certain privy to his mindset, but this is the feeling I get in my gut.
Wicca is Wicca. The feeling you get when you're on the beach watching the sunrise, or watching a couple birds play together... that's Wicca. The sheer and utter appreciation for Nature and it's representation of the Divine. THAT is Wicca. Rituals and spells are practice, and part of witchcraft. I feel it would be better to use the term Gardnerian witchcraft than Gardnerian Wicca. Maybe that's a game of semantics, but it seems relevant to separate the two.
Blessed be. Gabhin - Tripthruwires 00:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
The article states:"The term Wica first appears in the writings of Gerald Gardner (Witchcraft Today, 1954, and The Meaning of Witchcraft, 1959)." So GBG himself is, for me, the origin of the link between Wicca and witchcraft. If te one is not (for most people) a subset of the other, pray explain why the founder of Wicca uses the word witchcraft in his two books describing it? And on another note, I'm afraid I don't see Wicca as a lifestyle, thank you very much! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 20:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Bluntly said, Kim, but agreed. Witchcraft was the original name of the religion according to Gardner. Wica is the name of the collected groups of Witches that Gardner belonged to. Wicca, in its Eclectic or Traditional forms, is an evolution of that name, and refers to groups who also evolved in some way from those groups, whether directly or simply from the knowledge that they existed. Some of those evolutions involve abandoning Witchcraft. Most do not. Jorgath 07:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I guess my point, then, would be that I don't see Gerald Gardner as being the founder of Wicca; since to me Wicca is more even than just a religion. As I said before, it being a frame of mind; a mentality; a lifestyle; a state of being at one with Nature and that search for Truth within and about it. Gerald Gardner may have labelled it Wicca, but in my opinion he was labelling what has been around since the dawn of time. If he was calling witchcraft a religion, in any form, I disagree with him.
In response to Jorgath: again, my religion is not witchcraft, it's Wicca. Even if you were to refer to Wicca as a culture, as compared to Judaism. You would not call the Jewish sader dinner the religion of Judaism, but a practice within the religion. Not all Jews participate in sader dinners. Maybe they're not Orthodox, maybe they're liberal Reformed. To claim that they're less Jewish because of it is ridiculous to the point of being offensive. They're still Jews. Point being, Wiccans are no less Wiccan because they don't practice witchcraft. Wicca is a strong proponent of individuality. To claim otherwise is *distinctly* un-Wiccan, especially if you're speaking from a Gardnerian standpoint.
"An it harm none, do as ye will." Notwithstanding that Gardner borrowed the phrase (even if in only half it's form) from Crowley's Thelema. Being used as the "Wiccan Rede," it is not exclusive. It, by nature, cannot be. One cannot claim possession of certain rites as solely Wiccan and still live by the 'Wiccan Rede.' That's contradictory at best. By that logic, Gardner was not Wiccan, but Thelemic.
Blessed be. Gabhin - Tripthruwires 14:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I guess my point, then, would be that I don't see Gerald Gardner as being the founder of Wicca; since to me Wicca is more even than just a religion. As I said before, it being a frame of mind; a mentality; a lifestyle; a state of being at one with Nature and that search for Truth within and about it. Gerald Gardner may have labelled it Wicca, but in my opinion he was labelling what has been around since the dawn of time. If he was calling witchcraft a religion, in any form, I disagree with him. Here's my issue with what you said: witchcraft-the techniques labeled as such, have been around forever, in various forms. Wicca, whose use as a term for SPECIFIC practitioners of a religion that uses techniques of witchcraft, has been around AND PUBLICIZED, since Gardner was initiated, and fleshed out the gaps in the rituals he received. Witchcraft and Wicca are not the same thing, but Wicca hasn't been around forever. It simply HASN'T. Many people claim to be Wiccan (they may be). Many of them claim that the practices they use are ancient (they may be). Many of them claim that they are ancient WICCAN practices. They aren't. Wicca does not have any traceable history much further back than Gardner. To say that certain rites around necessary to be Wiccan is as incorrect (to those who first used the term commonly) as saying that one does not need to undergo ordination to be a Catholic Priest. My definition of wicca is this:
  • Wicca is a henotheistic religion, which recognises its own specific gods, while not denying the existence of gods and goddesses from other pantheons. Wicca itself is a 'hard polytheistic' religion, meaning that Wicca see their deities as specific individual beings. The gods of Wicca are known as the Horned God and Great Mother, these are outer court references meant to be used as place holders for the real names of their gods until the Seeker is initiated and taught those names.
  • Wicca was brought to public attention by Gerald Gardner in around the 1930's, although the exact date is open for discussion, also open for discussion is whether Gardner founded Wicca entirely or whether it was an already existing spirituality which he merely re-introduced and re-invented, either way he is considered the founding father of Wicca. Gardner brought together Paganism with influences from many sources including the rituals and teachings of Freemasonry and Golden dawn resulting in a unique orthopraxic religion. Wicca embraces its early Pagan roots in history, the history of Pagan faiths and the gods whom they followed and worshipped, Wicca also introduces eastern philosophy into it's primarily western path, along with this possibly one of Wicca's best known features, that of religious witchcraft.
  • Wicca is gaining much attention due to a change in peoples approach to religion and the increase in public awareness of the religion through media attention and with this attention there has come much change to the face of Wicca with many forms:
  • Wicca is an initiate only mystery tradition, or more precisely a priesthood, where one can trace their lineage back to the New Forest lines. Initiation is the only way into the Wicca, and is carried out by a Wicca coven, initiation into a coven requires formal training after which initiation and a system of degrees is followed.
  • Wicca follows a strong set of doctrines, one who takes on the name 'Wicca' is also taking on these doctrines as well as practices and beliefs of Wicca, the title of 'Wicca' implies more than that you are a member of the Wicca, but also that you have worked long and hard to earn that title.
  • Neo-wicca is a new phenomenon, which is usually wholly eclectic, however like Wicca there are various different traditions. Neo-wicca often learn on their own terms, from books and other sources, but have little or no formal training and no initiation into Wicca. The beliefs of Neo-wicca are generally similar to that of outer court teachings of the Wicca, however the details can often vary greatly as it follows the new age idea of personal belief/spirituality over formal religious doctrine. Neo-Wicca have varied views of the divine, either following soft-polytheism seeing all gods and goddesses as one god/goddess, polytheism working with gods and goddesses from various pantheons or pantheism working with a single divine present in all.
To me, and to very many Gardnerians, Alexandrians, Central Valley Wiccans, Mohsians etc (most of these groups were around, and practicing their religion in the 1960's) Wicca is a term that THEIR predecessors coined for their style of religious witchcraft. Wicca is NOT orthodox (same/right belief) but orthopraxic (same/right practice): That if you aren't doing the same core things that were given to you, you aren't practicing Wicca. The analogy used by many of the people who hold to this standard is this:
  • Christianity-Catholicism-Holy Orders-Jesuits
  • Neo-Paganism-Religious Witchcraft-Wicca-Gardnerian
--Vidkun 15:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Vidkun,
It looks like we agree more than we disagree. We agree, it's only been *called* Wicca since Gardner, and witchcraft has indeed been practiced for eons before Gardner. That's what I said before.
I've already said my piece about initiation and covens. So I won't rehash that. I will add that I feel it's equally valid and important to note that those who aren't in covens are "initiated" into Wicca by God and Goddess themselves. That is more important, at least in my opinion, than a coven initiating them.
I will differ with you on one other thing that hasn't been previously discussed. Unless you're referring to orthopraxy on a fairly broad scale, I don't see that as being valid either. Again, the concept "an it harm none, do as ye will" would also range to differing practices, ideas, and the like. That phrase, as pointed out, wasn't even coined by Gardner, but Crowley, and even before him.
Blessed be. Gabhin - Tripthruwires 18:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

New section added on Beliefs

A new section on Beliefs has been added by Vishvax here which I have tagged with a {{references needed}} tag. To be honest I don't know if it's necessary or sustainable. For me, Wicca is a religion of practice rather than of belief and I fear such a section may be a magnet for pointless debate. On the other hand, if a good summary of varying beliefs were to emerge, we could always export it as a daughter article. However in my opinion anything in this section MUST have a good citation added, and quickly! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 10:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree with what Vishvax said. I'd suggest not jumping too fast to delete it. Give it some time. Gabhin Blessed be. - Gabhin 17:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Time is fine, as long as the wait produces some solid references to secondary sources. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 17:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd suggest these additions aren't necessarily appropriate to the article itself because these things aren't unique to Wicca, and really don't need to be discussed in such detail here. Briefly mentioning them and providing wikilinks (and by that I mean a couple of sentences summarising the entire section) in prose elsewhere would be fine, but to devote a top-level section to a rather generic matter seems excessive. Thoughts on where the material might be relocated to? Perhaps in the top "Core concepts" section, or somewhere in "Traditions"? (also, please note I made some formatting changes above. I replaced Kim's soft link to the "Beliefs" section with a hard link that will always work, and moved Gabhin's signature to one line.) -- Huntster T • @ • C 18:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm unsure as to whether or not the section is necessary, but I'll leave it until such time as consensus decides to remove it. I'm limiting myself to spelling and grammar policing it. Jorgath 19:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I would say these changes are at least appropriate to the article as a representation of diversity. I would clear up SOME of the ambiguity, and do away with the more redundant parts. But I still think we should lighten up a bit when it comes to references. I agree also with Hunster that this needn't be top level.
Blessed be. -Gabhin
As I've said above, I'm ambiguous about the section's existence. I honestly don't care. BUT if it does, I insist that it be fully and well referenced as per Wikipedia policy. Jorgath 20:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I was translating/writing this article to Sinhala [si] and thought that these sections are necessory. I couldn't remember the exact pages when I added these paragraphs. Now I have found them and added the references (with the page numbers) to the sections I added. I apologize if my changes are inappropriate. Please remove those sections if you think that those are inappropriate. I was not going to mention unique features of wicca, but to mention some similarities with some eastern phillosophies.
See http://si.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicca - Vishvax 03:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"Modern" Wicca

Other Wicca-based articles like Gerald Gardner and History of Wicca also use this misnomer. I would like to eliminate the use of this terminology. The article puts forth two scenarios: 1. Wicca is a recent religion created by Gardner less than a century ago or 2. Wicca is a modern spinoff of an old tradition. In either case, there is no such thing as "modern" Wicca. With the former the term is an oxymoron; the religion is too new to designate "modern" teachings since it itself is a young religion (it would be like saying "modern Scientology" or "modern New Age"). With the latter, calling a new take on an old religion as a "modern" version of the old religion is a disrespect to the original, which did not ascribe to practices and teachings of various religions like Thelema. Thus calling Wicca a modern version of an older tradition would be like calling Christianity "Modern Judaism."

I don't have time to remove this description from every Wicca-based article, but I think it is important that it be removed. I'll do what I can, I just want other editors to understand my decision rather than draw their own conclusions. Penguinwithin 17:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

1. "With the former the term is an oxymoron" I think you mean tautology. Even if you meant a contradiction, it's not an oxymoron.
2. Why is it disrespectful? There can be 'Modern Christianity' or 'Modern Islam' which differs in many ways from the version practiced a century ago. 199.71.183.2 18:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Because a century ago, there WAS no religion called Wicca. There may have been pagan practices with similarities, but there was no religion called Wicca, nor is it a simple name-change from an older tradition. Christianity is not Modern Judaism. Kuronue | Talk 19:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Urr, you're operating on the basis that the term "Wica" (which I here spell as Gardner did) didn't predate Gardner. As I understand it, the major question surrounding the history of Wicca is whether Gardner was a flagrant liar and made everything up, or whether his account can be substantially relied on as faithful. If he's essentially honest, then the word "Wica" is not his invention, but originates earlier in the history of the New Forest coven, thus giving us an older form of Wica and a "modern" (post Gardner) form. The only way to conclude that Wicca originates with Gardner is if you believe he invented the details of his initiation.
Authors like Hutton have tried to paint him as a liar, but a critical reading of Hutton shows he's relied on a number of misrepresentations to cast doubt on Gardner. For instance by saying he couldn't be a Holy Royal Arch Mason because that's the highest most prestigious degree in Masonry. Well, I'm a Holy Royal Arch Mason, at the age of 30 years, and I can tell you that it isn't the "highest" degree by a long shot. Hutton cast doubt on Gardner's claim that Dorothy Clutterbuck was a member of the group, the main evidence being that her diaries supposedly contained nothing that could be construed as paganism; you can find a few excerpts of this diary at her article (and more in Philip Heselton's book Wiccan Roots) and make up your own mind on that! And regarding Gardner's phony PhD "which allowed him in every case to style himself 'Doctor'" (not an exact quote of Hutton, but as close as I can remember), in actual fact Gardner didn't call himself "Doctor" in any of his writings that I'm aware of, and from the accounts I've read he didn't tend to use that title when talking either, although he wouldn't correct someone if they used the term. And recently Don Frew has done some research and discovered that Gardner actually did have a doctorate, although it can't have been a very useful one.
Philip Heselton has found much evidence to corroborate Gardner's story, and I really can't see any reason to doubt his good faith in describing the Craft. So why doubt him when he says that his initiators used the word "Wica"?
Regardless of how much or little credulity you afford Gardner's tale, it has certainly not been established that the term "Wicca" was invented by him. Fuzzypeg? 21:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
The word, according to my Barnhart Concise Dictionary of Etymology says witch derived from wicce and wicca in Old English no earlier than 890. I'm not arguing the term. At all. What I argue is back-applying the term to witchcraft pre-existing Gardner. He chose the term for his take on witchcraft. Therefore, British, pre-Gardenian witchcraft, Celtic witchcraaft, and a myriad of other mystical religions many Wiccans like to take from, ARE NOT Wicca, and using the term "modern" Wicca propogates the insult to ancient religions. Kuronue gets my point here. Anyway, whether or not Gardner made the religion up is IRRELEVANT, the history of the term is irrelevant, we're talking about what is in the article, which is an evaluation of a religion that happens to have a name much much older than it is. Using the term "modern Wicca" is implying other w, when used in regards to the religion as it is in this article, is in regards to the religion he fronted ... not all existing witchcraft.
OH, and to the fellow who wants to know how things might offends worshipers, I'm a deist so I can't say anything there, but I can mourn for those who have a hard enough time keeping to their cultural heritage without it being assimilated into yet another new religion. If we're going to claim for a religion that it is the continuation of past witchcraft, let's at least attribute to a priestess or something so we aren't misrepresenting other religions, or the religion itself. Where was that Beliefnet.com article where Adler said a religion shouldn't deny its past?...Bah. I'll find it later.
I'm not reverting again until my point is understood by more than just Kuronue, although I do appreciate it though. :) Penguinwithin
The first evidence we have of "Wica" referring to a form of witchcraft is from Gardner's Witchcraft Today. The use of the word is substantially different to that given in Barnhart, where wicca means "(male) witch". (Just as "politics" is a different word to "politician"!)
Great. Now that that's out of the way, I would like to point out that we're discussing three separate types of witchcraft:
  1. the variety taught by Gardner
  2. the variety practised by the New Forest coven before Gardner's 1939 initiation and potentially for a long time before that (Toothill and the Mason family, etc.)
  3. all British and European witchcraft prior to 1939.
Gardner clearly indicates that the word "Wica" was used by both groups 1 and 2: "I realised I had stumbled on something interesting; but I was half-initiated before the word Wica which they used hit me like a thunderbolt, and I knew where I was, and that the Old Religion still existed.". He claims he did not choose the term. Therefore it's quite meaningful to discuss "modern Wicca" and "pre-Gardnerian Wicca". There is no tautology, no oxymoron. Also, using the term "modern Wicca" doesn't imply that all forms of witchcraft before Gardner were also Wicca (group 3); it merely implies that any form of Wicca before Gardner (group 2) is still "Wicca".
And this debate does indeed seem to revolve around the question of whether or not Gardner made everything up, since conflating groups 2 and 3 only makes sense if you disregard Gardner's story. Fuzzypeg? 02:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, my opinion is that 'modern Wicca' is a tautology. I have seen no evidence of 'pre-Gardnerian Wicca' beyond what GBG claimed, and I'm quite prepared to believe that he claimedmore than was true. Just as he invented the 'Ardanes' and gave them a quasi-historical origin in order to suit his purposes at the time. You know me well enough by now Fuzzy to know that I'm not anti-Wiccan - I'm an initiated Gardnerian and work very closely with Philip Heselton (whom I love dearly but who I think is too charitable to old Gerald). I just think that we harm our own credibility by claiming origins which are (a) unlikely and (b) unprovable. Having said all of which, am I going to get involved in a revert war over whether the word 'modern' is removed from all mentions of Wicca? No I'm not. There are FAR more important gaps to be filled across Wikipedia on these topics. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 07:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Kim on this one. My understanding, from the way things were worded, was that the modern term was added in order to suggest that there is ancient Wicca. This comes back to the argument I had with tripthruwires: whatever witchcraft practices existed before Gardner published, they weren't for the most part, Wicca. Wicca is that tradition publicised by Gardner. Did it predate him? Maybe. Does it predate him, with that name, prior to 1900? unlikely, but possible. But calling his work modern wicca, seems like an attempt to gin up a history that isn't supported ... suggesting that there is an unbroken tradition of wicca that goes all the way back to prechristian times. I'm sick of that shoddy scholarship tarring those of us who do our research. revising and extending - Fuzzypeg, I wish I could assume good faith towards hose who added modern to the article, and assume they meant it the way you do. But I can't. YOUR argument makes sense to me, and calls up an interesting idea: there may be groups practicing Wica as GBG got it that DON'T have the additions he added on, but they are still practicing Wicca. Is it modern wicca, or is it wicca?--Vidkun 17:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it was probably me who inserted the word "modern", at least in Wicca and History of Wicca. And of course I intended it to mean post-Gardner Wicca; it seems clear that he rewrote much of what he was taught, and perhaps (if you believe Ray Bone) wasn't taught everything there was to know. I'm certainly not taking Heselton's theories as proven, but I am taking many of Hutton's criticisms as disproven. Hutton has, I'm afraid, made a frightening number of quite drastic mistakes in his books (including representing other academics as saying the opposite to what they actually say!), and a great number of Wiccans now see that section of our history as an open-and-shut-case of "he made it all up". I guess with my wording I was just being cautious to avoid naming Gardner as the founder of Wicca. But I'm not going to be that fussed if you all prefer to take out the word "modern". I just personally think it's a little misleading, portraying an open question as closed. No biggie though. Fuzzypeg? 21:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
And so a modest proposal: why not replace the phrase 'modern Wicca' with the phrase 'post-Gardner Wicca' and we can all (at least the three of us!) agree? Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 21:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
What a wonderful suggestion! (Assuming it actually makes sense in the context. If it's too verbose, I'll just defer to your judgement) Fuzzypeg? 04:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Moving recent addition from Etymology

The following is moved from the Etymology section. It is interesting information, and mostly correct, but I simply don't see its value in the article itself, given that it is fairly apparent that the term "Wicca" was known prior to 1954. Any thoughts on if and how it should be used? Note some errors here: the date should be 1942, not '45; the source notes that it is impossible for Tolkien to have influenced Gardner since the drafts were not published. Sourced article here. -- Huntster T • @ • C 15:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


If the information is in fact true, and I've never heard this but I'll trust Huntster on this, then I feel it should be included, with Huntster's caveats above taken into account. However, is Witchvox RS material? Jorgath 15:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
If I may ask, why do you think it should be included, when, as I stated above, the article is clear about knowledge of the term before Gardner? I see it more as trivia than useful data. As for WitchVox, it is borderline. I believe it has been used elsewhere, but the article itself appears to be this authors personal writings (i.e. probably not fact-checked). Conversely, however, the fact that he is writing about another independently-verifiable publication, in this case the Tolkien material, I don't think it is a problem if used. I still don't see why, though. -- Huntster T • @ • C 16:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
IMHO it's trivia. If Gardner wasn't aware of Tolkien's draft, and Tolkien was unaware of Gardner's use of 'wica' then the two circumstances have nothing to do with one another and this is just an interesting coincidence. Unfortunately we don't have the room in the article for this kind of detail, it's too big already. Leave it out, I say. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 17:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I added it because the original text was misleading. Although it said that Gardner was the first to use the term "Wica", it's clear that the current spelling "Wicca" had modern usage prior to his publication. That's also why I changed the text in the next paragraph from "term" to "spelling" as he's clearly not the first person to use the term, even if he was the first to use that particular spelling. Also, I referenced the article on Witchvox instead of the original source so that the author would get credit for their discovery of the earlier usage of the term. I personally don't care if the Tolkien reference is included or not, as long as the article doesn't suggest Gardner was the sole or first origin of the modern usage of the term. Yarthkin 19:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
It's trivia. It's interesting and cool trivia, but Kim Dent-Brown makes a good point on the article size. In a smaller article I would push for this to be included, but... Jorgath 19:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Err, there's nothing misleading about the opening paragraph; Gardner used "Wica" to describe the followers, not "Wicca", which has existed for a long time and is derivative of even older terms, as laid out in the section. "Term" is also correct because "Wica" is used to describe the followers of the tradition. "Wica" and "Wicca" are used in two very different ways here. If there is confusion in the way the material is presented, perhaps it could be rewritten slightly to remove any ambiguity? Perhaps I'm misinterpreting what is presented...let's please have some additional commentary. -- Huntster T • @ • C 23:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

A Fractal Pentacle graphic

An artistic Fractal Pentacle.

I have created a Fractal Pentacle Image while developing a fractal software; and added to our Sinhalese translation of Wicca page. Have no idea where to put it on the English version. I have uploaded it, (see thumbneil). Just thought to ask where it is more appropriate to be added if suitable.

This is a bit different from the traditional Pentacle symbol, because it is a Fractal. Each small pentagram is a small version of the complete pentagram when subdevided infinitely...

Vishvax 17:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

While that is shiny and really really cool, I feel like in the interest of keeping image use down in the article we should not include it. Jorgath 19:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed; while pretty and interesting, I don't see the immediate value of using the image on any related article, really, when the current pentagram image works quite well. I will say this though: I love fractals, and this is one of the most unique iterations I've come across. Well done in its creation. Why not use it on your Userspace page? -- Huntster T • @ • C 23:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes I understand. Thanks for your complements. I think that it will go in to the Fractals article, (somewhere in the latter half). Vishvax 09:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello.

We would like you to review our website and possibly allow us to have a link from your website as we have noticed that you have an interest in Wicca and/or Witchcraft. Therefore, we graciously request for you to review our site, and possibly contribute to it if you so choose. There is no charge, nor donation requested. Thanks for your assistance.

The wesite is located here:

http://www.moonwolfwiccanschool.tk/

Blessed Be,

The Moon Wolf School of Wicca staff...

C/O Crimson Peaceful Wolf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.172.44 (talk) 05:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Historically, these schools have not been included in the External links list, given that there are quite a number of them these days and inclusion would quickly overrun the article. And, personally speaking, I'm not a fan of cut'n'paste notifications of this nature :/ -- Huntster T • @ • C 05:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I concur with Huntster on this one. In addition, a site with as few as 69 hits (when I visited it just now) is unlikely to meet criteria for notability. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 07:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
We understand your reason to decline, as we are new to develop. We originally began under another progam, which had paying members. We felt that alot of the information our students were paying for, should be free, so we moved to a new location. Same material, but no students. Compiling and rewriting the articles is a bit daunting. And technically, I think the term school is a bit misleading for our website. Nonetheless, Thanks for your consideration. We were told by Wikipedia administration that if we wanted a link to our website from this particular page we were to request it in the discussions page, rather than simply posting a link. Sorry if we were in error to do so. The Moon Wolf School Of Wicca Staff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.172.44 (talk) 14:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
No, this was absolutely the correct place to request the addition, but as stated above, there are reasons for not including every website that is requested. Primary among them being that we'd be quickly overrun if any number of covens or schools or other were to request a link. There is certainly no disparagement intended upon your organisation. I wish you well in your endeavours! -- Huntster T • @ • C 21:34, 1 November 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.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.89.1 (talk • contribs) 01:43, June 20, 2007

Free speech is all well and good, but it's not the basis upon which Wikipedia operates. WP operates on verifiability, which is different. Your 16 year old friend is entitled to her views (and indeed, people like her could be better represented in the article), and she would be perfectly able to make edits after being in Wikipedia for a short time. What's being proposed is not a means of preventing non-traditional Wiccans from editing the article, but a means of preventing people who don't know how Wikipedia works from editing the article. It's just raising the ignorance/apathy threshold a little. Fuzzypeg? 03:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Latest count since semi-protection lifted on June 1 2007:

  • Vandalism edits: 23
  • Naive edits (usually counter to previous talk-page discussions): 20
  • Reversions to vandalism and naive edits: 29
  • Constructive edits: 39

Thus only 35% of the edits made during this period were constructive. The remaining 65% were either destructive or reparative. I shall ask for the page to be semi-protected again. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 10:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected 10 minutes later thanks to the good offices of admin Phaedriel to whom many thanks!! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 10:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
We've been getting a string of vandals recently. Is semi-protection still in place? Jorgath 00:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Appears not... we're getting IP vandals again. --Shadowlink1014 19:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

If semi-protection is not currently in place, I hereby request that it be restored. We definitely need it, considering the number of IP vandals we've been getting lately. Jorgath 18:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed "an evil, satanic cult" from the first line. I daresay there may be more vandalism. Protection for the article would be a good idea if it sees so much in the way of vandalism and ignorant 'fan boy' additions. Siranui:Siranui

  1. ^ "Christians and Pagans Agree, Wicca Emerging as America's Third Religion". PRWeb via eMediaWire (Press release). 2005-04-21. Retrieved 2007-07-20. {{cite press release}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= (help)
  2. ^ Nichols, Mike. "A Witch By Any Other Name". witchvox.com. Retrieved 2007-10-26.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wicca/Archive_8&oldid=1144663405"