Talk:Wicca
|
|
| Contents |
I removed the image
because:
- It did not appear to me to be any universally recognised symbol that means 'Wicca'
- It was ugly, pixellated, rough and amateur looking.
If we need an image here, we should find something representative and then draw a good one. —Morven 20:06, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
- I'd suggest an item like an Athame, or a group of the like an altar, or maybe a photo/drawing of a ritual.
- --Veratien 13:05, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
"normal" attire?
There is a logical (and factual) conflict in saying that the "normal" attire for Wiccan practice is a cotton robe. The sentence that immediately precedes this statement says that "many Wiccans do this, many others do not" in reference to working skyclad. If "many" work skyclad, how can their practice be less "normal" than those who work robed?
Also, the emphasis on a "pure cotton" robe seems Cunningham-esque (sorry if my prejudice is showing). As anyone who has attended a number of public rituals can attest, those who wear robes in ritual can be seen in all kinds of cloth; synthetic fabrics are not uncommon. What they wear in a private ritual, I can't say, but the point is, other than the traditional "skyclad," there is no "normal" attire for Wicca.
-Scypres 3* Alexandrian High Priestess
And the phrase "(Watch out for "clothing optional" gatherings.)" seems very POV to me, not to mention out of place even regardless of its intent. Anyone mind if I remove it? --JoshRaspberry 11:05, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Last paragraph in the "Origins" section:
"It is important to the understanding of Wicca to realize that while Wicca as we understand it is modern, both the practice of magick and the worship of a Mother Goddess and a God or Horned God are ancient. It would be fair to say Gardner merely took the idea and ran with it. His claims that Wicca was the "Old Religion" are false, and probably has hindered, rather than helped, Wicca gain widespread acceptance."
I'm more than a little leery of the first sentence in this paragraph. It seems to me that the author is supplying a modern interpretation to ancient activities, and I'm just not sure if the interpretation fits.
"Magic" is a modern word that we use to categorize a multitude of activities done in history, but besides the confusing use of the Crowleyan/Thelemite spelling, there's also the probability that the ancients didn't think of things in the same context that we do. We might call offering a cake and a small measure of wine "magic," but to the ancients, it was a sacrifice (or depending on culture, two sacrifices--meal and libation).
"...worship of a Mother Goddess..." Yes, there were female deity figures, and yes, some of these were Mother Goddesses, and yes, there were probably specific cults that worshipped a Mother Goddess solely or primarily, but the sentence as it stands makes too close a comparison between ancient practices and modern Wiccan practice. Same with "...a God or Horned God...."
Instead of the above, I'd like to propose the following:
"The idea of a supreme Mother Goddess was common in Victorian and Eduardian literature: the concept of a Horned God--especially related to the god Pan or Faunus--was less common, but still significant. Both of these ideas were widely accepted in academic literature, and in the popular press. Gardner used these concepts as a central theology, and constructed Wicca around this core, though we now know that the historicity is dubious. His claims that Wicca was the "Old Religion" are false, and probably has hindered, rather than helped, Wicca gain widespread acceptance."
(I would have put it directly in, but I'm new to Wikipedia, and still finding my way around editing.)
Justin
- I say give it a shot, and see what happens. --Gary D 22:06, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
Sacred Texts Link
This is after the sacred texts link.
"Archive of public domain documents relevant to Wicca and modern Paganism. Includes a public domain copy of the Gardnerian Book of Shadows."
The last part of that is disputable, because due to the initiatory nature of Wicca, the fact that the Book is only availably for initiates to see, and that no-one is initiated who might reveal any of the secrets, it is impossible for the Book to have been released in the public domain.
I've put this up here because removing it outright would probably get me shouted at, and re-wording would most likely end up with it being put back how it was, but the fact stands that it's impossible for a copy of the actual Gardnarian Book of Shadows to be online there as it would never have been released by an initiate or coven to be put online; it goes against some of the most basic rules of the tradition.
Reword or remove?
--Veratien 13:01, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The text at Sacred Texts is (putatively) at least a partial copy of Gerald Gardner's Ye Bok of Ye Art Magical,and thus would broadly qualify as a Gardnerian Book of Shadows. It was excerpted from Aidan Kelly's Crafting the Art of Magic, and as such it's not strictly "public domain" (though TTBOMK, Aidan Kelly has made no action to protect the copyright of this particular excerpt). I've seen the book vetted as "a valuable text of the history of Wicca" by Don Frew, a public and recognized Gardnerian 3*, though of course he could not comment on the accuracy one way or another.
I'd say leave it up, unchanged: the BoS at Sacred Texts is actually all over the Internet, but in varying degrees of accuracy to the original excerpt. Their is, at least, accurate to Kelly's original.
--Justin.eiler 05:31, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Magi and magick
Crowley used the term 'Magi' to mean something different from its Persian origin, which does not help matters. I'm not sure the point about 'magick' belongs here at all - it needs its own section. Cavalorn 12:35, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
History of Wicca - sources
The previous edit (which I reverted) used the claim that Wicca is 25,000 years old. While some people do believe this, most anthropologists do not. We should take a look at the sources we use when discussing the history of Wicca. I'd like to recommend Religious Tolerance (http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_hist.htm) as a source. --Morningstar2651 22:24, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Removal of Oh My Gods! Link
I would like an explination as to the removal to the link to the article on Oh My Gods! - which is a Pagan comic strip dealing directly with Wicca. The commentary left by User:Wetman merely stated (rRv User:Shivian's self-advertisement for his comic strip) - however I don't understand why a article that is about a comic strip which directly deals with wicca was removed. The comic strip referenced in said article directly references the Wiccan Definition, History of Wicca, Origins, developments, Beliefs and practices, Wiccan traditions, Morality, and Wiccan Divisions. I don't see why a reference which was properly sub-categoriesed in the "see also" section was removed as "self advertisement" - when it is obviousally based on a article which does little advertising and much more historical referencing of the comic strip, it's history, and it's current place. --Shivian Balaris 05:31, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not for promoting your own work. See What Wikipedia Is Not. Cavalorn 16:34, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- This is a non-argument. Wikipedia articles are not forms of self-promotion, and so internal links to them are not self-promotion either. User:Eequor/Signature/Syllabic 17:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be forms of self-promotion. An article is not automatically free from self-promotion just by virtue of being a Wikipedia article, any more than being a Wikipedia article makes it automatically NPOV. The issue here is that the author of the strip is using Wikipedia to promote his own work.Cavalorn 18:19, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Well, if you believe Oh My Gods! is a self-promotion, then edit that page. It seems appropriate to link to that article from articles on the same subject. User:Eequor/Signature/Syllabic 21:32, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Edited. Should be okay now. Cavalorn 22:45, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I am for the placing of Oh My Gods! in the See Also section. It should not be removed pre-emptively. The Oh My Gods! article is currently a candidate for deletion, but I am confident that it will not be deleted. --Morningstar2651 16:32, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Why's it up for deletion? Why that one and not the hundred other articles on webcomics, such as GPF or Help Desk? -Veratien 15:49, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"The Friends of Hekate"?!
Oh please...
- Friends of Hekate, The (http://www.paganassociationisevil.org.uk/) - UK occult world order
I think it should be taken off the article because it doesn't actually have anything on the site, which is almost as bad as PAN (http://www.patregan.freeuk.com/)'s, and the URL just makes me cringe...
- Forgot to add my sig, again... -Veratien 11:17, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
- Veratien, my friend, you're almost as bad about forgetting your sig as I am.
- As far as the Friends of Hekate, I'd have to agree--they do have some content, but it's not related to Wicca. I'll go ahead and pull it.
--Justin.eiler 02:02, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Avebury Handfasting Photograph
Just pointing out that I changed the caption of the photo in Beliefs and Practices because I actually know the people in the photo. It was their handfasting ceremony, which is the pagan equivilent of a marriage, so I changed the text slightly to reflect that.
Question, though, is do they know that this photo is up here?
-Veratien 11:17, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Pentacle Caption
I greatly appreciate the addition of the pentacle image: however, I think the paragraph of explanatory caption of what a pentacle is should probably remain in the article for Pentagram. I've taken the liberty of extracting it, however, I'm also contacting the editor Solar to join the discussion.
--Justin.eiler 23:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I added the caption as I had previously added a very similar pentagram image to the page, which was removed after claims that it was not a representative symbol of Wicca. So I felt that it was important to give the image some context when I saw someone else had added it. I think the description could have been shortened maybe rather than reverting it as I feel the elemental nature of the pentagram is highly relevant to why it was used in Wicca.
Solar 10:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- --Justin.eiler 20:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)