Talk:Gardnerian Wicca
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is supported by WikiProject Religion. This project provides a central approach to Religion-related subjects on wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
Contents |
[edit] First Gardnerian Order
- The first Gardnerian Wicca Order was the Wiccan Order, founded in 1959.
I removed this. Does anyone have any references fo this? —Ashley Y 04:40, 2004 Aug 31 (UTC)
- In this page you can see that Gardner was the leader of the Wiccan order, when they say:
- But Gardner had no time to spare for the O.T.O., due to his leadership of the Wiccan order (under which title he had organised his synthetic modern revival of witchcraft). [79]
- The tag "[79]" points to "Facsimile of this Charter in Geoffrey Basil Smith: "Knights of the Solar Cross", 1983. Born on 19.1.47, Smith considers himself to be the X° of Great Britain. After 1988, this Charter was owned by Allen H. Greenfield, bishop of Bertiaux's O.T.O.A, and in the 'Caliphate'. There is a report on this charter in "LAShtAL" Nº 1, Georgia 1988, p. 41."
I think the stuff about the "Wiccan order" was a mistake, or more likely an O.T.O. misnomer for the coven Gardner was participating in at the time (in general O.T.O. sources tend not to be very accurate on early Gardnerian Wiccan history). In 1959 Gardner was participating in (but not leading, the High Priest was Jack Bracelin, Gardner's role was more one of "elder statesman") the North London/Bricket's Wood coven, which had existed for years at that point (since at least the early 1950's), and was also just getting involved with the Witchcraft museum in the Isle of Man. His flirtation with the O.T.O. happened about a decade earlier, around the time of Aleister Crowley's death in 1947.
[edit] Du Bandia Grasail
DBG is not Gardnerian, but Alexandrian. I recognize that the article says including Alexandrian offshoots but I doubt many people would consider ANY Alexandrian coven, or major line, to be Gardnerian. Derived from, possibly. Gardnerian themselves, no. Du Bandia Grasail Lineage --Vidkun 18:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Misuse of terminology
Technically, there is no such thing as Gardnerian 'Wicca'. Gardner called his variety of Witchcraft 'Gardnerian Witchcraft'. The word 'wicca', as used by Gardner, denoted a practitioner of his tradition.
It was later that the term 'Wicca' was used to denote the Gardnerian path, and its offshoots, collectively, but modern Gardnerians don't refer to what they do as Wicca.
I think that this should be properly addressed in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jcvamp (talk • contribs) .
- There are a lot of things that could be addressed in this article, but are not. If you were inspired to insert quotes from Gardner defining "Wicca" and "Witchcraft", with proper referencing, I'd certainly feel that the article had been improved. Jkelly 16:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
-
- I think that would be a good idea. There is currently too much erroneous information posted about Wicca on the web. Having properly cited sources will help people to distinguish between the facts and the widespread misinformation.
-
- I'll have to have a look for some good quotations.--Jcvamp 17:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- but modern Gardnerians don't refer to what they do as Wicca Some do. Some refer to WHAT they are as "the Wicca/Wica" (the double/single C is an ongoing debate), and some refer to what they do as Wicca. This is, unfortunately, an area where eprime language could be helpful, but I also think eprime is a weasel word issue. As for sources, I cannot directly cite any of the ones I have, they are from private conversations. Gardner never called what HE did Gardnerian, that sprang up after the tradition was rolling along, as did many of the various tradition names. --Vidkun 14:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] {{fact}} tags added
I have some serious issues with the wording on most of these statements, as I don't find them verifiable, nor neutral. Even though they present the claims as opinion, and show an opposite POV, it still comes across very slanted.
- Some American neopagans regard Gardnerian Wicca as a "fundamentalist" path,
Where is a verifiable source for this?
- As practiced in England, on the other hand, Gardnerian Wicca is often regarded as a mainstream Wiccan tradition
Again, this needs citation, also, is the statement attemping to show, by counterpoint, that Gardnerian Wicca in the US is not mainstream? By whose definition?
- In addition, American Hard Gards consider any non-initiates not true "Wiccans" and equivalent to Fluffy Bunnies.
My understanding of the situation is that Garnderians consider anyone who has an initiatory link back to the New Forest Coven to be Wiccans, provided the core of the British Traditional Wicca lore and practice is passed on. This means any tradition that maintains the core, not only Gardnerians. Additionally, this needs citation, big time. Sure, I know it to be as i said, however, that's original research. So is the other version.
- They also see Alexandrians in a bad light because they claim that it was based on a stolen Book of Shadows.
Again, citation? I know numerous communities where hard Gards and Lexxies get along fine and work together for common goals.
- With regard to "their" Lord and Lady, non-initiates do not know their "secret names" and therefore cannot worship them properly. In this way, only they, the initiates, are "known" and acknowledged by the true Wiccan God and Goddess.
This statement is probably verifiable via any of Gardner's works, or Heselton and Hutton. However, the wording comes across portraying the Gardnerians as pompous. It seems that with any group with secrets, such as the Freemasons or traditional Wicca, the sort of privacy that is normally held between families or even married couples is considered fine and dandy, but these groups get lambasted for it. Definitely needs to be reworded. For example, BTW's consider their Gods to be tribal Gods, and not for everyone and their brother to worship. There is no value judgement implied by this, as there are many Gods equally deserving of worship.--Vidkun 01:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
