Talk:Wicca/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Why was text removed and what is this about "rules"?

I restored some text that seemed like it needed discussion before removing. - Tεx τ urε 21:56, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Moved part of the section on differences between The Craft and Wicca into a new section Defination and some of it was moved to the Craft article. Makes things a bit clearer I think.

--Machenphile 12:00, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm a little uncertain about the claim that there could be a Christian witch. Isn't witchcraft explicitly forbidden by Christianity? - (unsigned)

Most Christian sects forbid adultery as well, yet there are Christian adulterers....go figure. Besides the "picking-and-choosing" issue, there are also translation issues in some of the "prohibiting" texts (witch vs. poisoner)... - Nunh-huh 19:48, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Concerns about the article

I found that the article was some what jumbled and tried to describe too many conflicting traditions though I do see that some care has been taken to make it more readable. I was also concerned with what look to be partisan viewpoints but I can't take issue as yet without doing a little research. I think we can do without the hocus-pocus as well, though I think someone did try to remove as much of it as possible.

I do take issue with this invented word magick (over magic) however... I don't think we need or should be inventing words like this, particularly in a body of work that is supposed to be factual. I think it might be mentioned that some people involved in Wicca or other pagan practices use the term to make a distinction, but the article itself should not invent the word and use as common syntax Does anyone have a strong objection to my editing this, and adding a paragraph on the use of "magick"?

Also, the "Goddess Symbol" at the top of the page is not representative of Wicca in general, though I'm quite sure it exists in some traditions it is not used in all traditions (In my own, there is no pentagram in the center). The only globally recognized (public) symbol of Wicca with the 5 pointed star. So, Does anyone mind if I change that?

brill 19:38, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Certainly the article didn't invent the word or its usage. *grins* The word "magick", though, is often used by some/many/a_significant_number_of[1] Wiccans as a means to distinguish entertainment/stage magic/illusion form the work of the religion/craft. The word may be invented (see: neologism) but so are all other words. Some are just invented more recently, and some are used primarily within a certain context or limited scope of contexts. (See: muggle) None of this makes the word any less real, regardless of whether the word is in any dictionary of standing. (Dictionaries document language usage. Usage comes first, then codification into dictionaries.)

Go ahead and tweak the image to your heart's content. The only problem with using a 5 pointed star and nothing else is that it is too general to mean only Wicca. (As if there is anything that represents all of Wicca without representing something more than Wicca.) Perhaps adding a couple of other symbols and discussing their meaning and relative usage? - UtherSRG 20:00, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Essentially I don't think we need to invent a new word to describe something that already has a word and a correct meaning. Even the meaning of magic(or magik) is also dependent on how you where taught. In my own tradition Aleister Crowley (who coined the word magick) is not thought of with respect and is viewed as a showman without need sitting on the dark side of the fence... I could even argue that stage magic and spiritual magic were not actually different. In fact the meaning fo the word magic[2] is exactly what we think it means. However I note that magick[3] has made it into the dictionary and has a much simpler meaning associated with Wicca only. When I say magic I mean magic as defined... and when I say magick, I mean magic. Anyway this very argument denotes a Weasel Term as you point out :)

Because of the confusion and the plethora of ideas about what it actually means (which I don't think I've heard two people agree on), I think using the correct spelling is important, and instead add a section on the word Magick and why some people have chosen to use it instead.

Yes, I see your point about the image... I think you may have a good solution with a catalogue of possible images. However I can only add the basic images I know from my own tradition. To elaborate and illustrate; to me the Goddess symbol with the Pentagram in the center is strange, because of their meanings, were one represents the "shaper" and "lover" etc (all things Goddess) the other represents the balance of the Goddess with the God, light/dark, etc. in other words, the Goddess is part of the meaning of the Pentagram, not the other way around. This of course if a partisan viewpoint, but I'm sure you understand my meaning. <grin> brill 20:37, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Christian Wicca

Christian Wicca is pretty common. Irist Christianity is a good example. Christian Wiccans study the Bible thouroughly, and know many passages that can argue with the general Christian attitude that witchcraft is evil. They know that the passage, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live," was changed from, "Thou shalt not suffer a poinsoner to live," by King James who was paronoid about witches.

Also, it is easy for a Christian to fit Wicca into their pratices. The Trinity is, in essence, a pantheon, and spells can be considered extremely elaborate prayers

--A Solitary Pratitioner

Re: Christian Wicca

I would strongly object to adding any mention of Christian "Wicca" to the article. The word "Wicca" is not a synonym for "witch." Yes, there are Christians who practice witchcraft. This does not make them Wiccan. Irish Christianity is just that... a form of Christianity, not Wicca. Casting spells does not make a person Wiccan.

-Scypres, 3* Alexandrian HPS

I apologize. When I edited this page, I meant only to add this comment to the previous ones (which included mentioning Christian Wicca). Instead, I accidentally deleted the other comments! If anyone knows how to retrieve them, please do!

Mea Culpa,

-Scypres

Greetings, Scypres,

While I understand (and, to a large measure, agree with) your reservations about "Christian Wicca," I do feel that a discussion of the phenomenon is necessary. IMHO, it's kind of like the "Lineaged vs. Bootstrap" argument, or like any number of "heresies and schisms" in the Christian community--discussing it may lead to understanding, but ignoring it will only make it fester.

As for restoring the previous pages of comments, I don't know how to do that, but I will try to flag the page for someone more knowledgeable to repair.

--Justin.eiler 05:28, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I reverted to the version before Scypres accidentally deleted the information.

--uber-christian--

i think somthing should be added talking abouty  uber-christians.

Gardnerian Wicca

There's actually no such thing as Gardnerian 'Wicca'. Gardner used the word wicca to refer to practioners, and the word witchcraft to refer to the practice. Gardnerian Witchcraft is what he named his tradition. Wicca, in reference to the religion, came well after Gardner's time.

--Jcvamp 09:53, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Open Source Wicca

Hello,

I am requesting some help with another Wikipedia page where the nature of Wicca is being discussed in relationship to what makes a religion "open source". This is the page where your input would be appreciated:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_religion

I am more attracted to spiritual communities rather than to particular religions, though I am more compatible with some religions than others. I regularly participate in Wiccan holidays with friends and have several books on the subject, but I am by no means an expert.

My partner and I are both part of the open source computing community and we had already been discussing the open source aspects of some religions before my discovery of the open source religion page. I was disappointed that the article so narrowly focused on the author's own religion which he founded, without any due discussion of others who are also exploring the opening up of their religions.

On 2005 August 28 I added these links to the Open Source Religion Page in order to encourage a more expanded understanding of the subject:

So, What's Wicca? <http://willowbough.org/wicca101.html> A description of Wicca as an open source religion.

Universal Life Church < http://ulc.org/> Pre-dates the concept of open source religion while still being an exemplar of the ideas behind an open source community.

Principia Discordia <http://www.principiadiscordia.com/> Also pre-dates the concept of open source religion while holding tenets strongly indicative of an open source structure.

On 2005 September 05 these links were removed. This was the reason given:

05:06, 5 September 2005 Kriegman (\u2192External links - LACK of structure or form and the absolute lack of a need for any agreement found in Wicca, ULC, and Discordianism is not consistent with "open source" as defined in the wikipedia)

Kriegman also states 2005 September 11: Before deleting the Wicca reference, I read the article referred to as well as exploring links to the other two "religions." Indeed, about the latter, I read quite a bit and learned more than I wanted to know about them (though the Discordia was somewhat entertaining).

Kriegman quotes no other research or claims any other knowledge of these religions.

From my experience and reading I believe he misunderstands and is too easily dismissing all three of these religions. I am also concerned that this page is not being written from a neutral point of view, does not support its statements with verifiable evidence, and is largely about the author's dogmas. These last three issues I believe I have been able to effectively argue. However, I feel ill equipped to defend Wicca, ULC, or Discordianism.

My personal opinion is that this page needs to be either substantially rewritten or removed. However, even tiny steps in revision are being halted since the page is so obscure that currently I am the only one defending expanding the religions that are represented there. I would appreciate the assistance of anyone who can make coolheaded arguments about Wicca and sticking to Wikipedia policies.

Thank you for any help or third opinions you can give to our discussion.

Kind regards,

Eriostemon 00:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I have been regularly checking here to see if anyone wants to chat with me before perhaps putting their oar in the water with the other page. I speak of removing the Open Source Religion page because every time I consider significantly changing it, I run into the block that no one has written about this subject before, and I would have to write an article for a peer-reviewed journal before it would be sensible to say anything at all in Wikipedia (I may still do so. It's a bit outside my PhD, but I am interested). In the meantime we have a page meant to validate and promote a particular religion, Yoism, without consideration of others including Open Source Judaism put together by Douglas Rushkoff, Open Source Golden Dawn, etc. These should be discussed in the body of the article and not tolerated as links at the bottom of the page by the founder of Yoism.

Eriostemon 22:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)