Talk:Wicca

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WP:WPN	This article is part of WikiProject Neopaganism, a WikiProject dedicated to expanding, organizing, verifying, and NPOVing articles related to neopagan religions. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments

	Religion Portal 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.
B	This article has been rated as B on the Project's quality scale. See comments

This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. See the 2004 press source article for details. The citation is in: "The Wiccan Way.", The Longview Washington, May 8, 2004.

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Archives

Aug 2001 - Feb 2004 May 2004 - Jul 2004 Aug 2004 - Oct 2005 Oct 2005 - Mar 2006 Mar 2006 - Mar 2006 Mar 2006 - Feb 2007

Contents 1 Freemasonry 2 NPOV 3 Wicca vs. Witchcraft 4 Archive this discussion? 5 Spelling 6 Good Article 7 Alice Bailey

[edit] Freemasonry

And issue in the archives that was never resolved; why is there no mention of Freemasonry and the derivation of most Wiccan rituals from the Gardner times onwards of masonic ritual, oaths and symbolism. The Wiccan rede itself is a toast used at formal masonic dinners. Gardner -was- expelled from the Craft before he started 'Wica', and every prominant author on it has been derived from the Craft itself. (I'm using Craft in it's original three hundred year old sense, not it's twenty year old sense.) Just seems interesting that an inherently important portion of the history of this movement is being neglected. 211.30.75.123 23:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

These are really interesting points you're raising, and I'd be intrigued to know more. I'm aware that certain structures of Wiccan ritual are very similar to structures in Freemasonry and other pseudo-Masonic orders, particularly during the initiation. I was under the impression that the rituals of other groups, such as the Golden Dawn and the OTO, were more likely sources for some of this symbolism, meaning that although the symbolism may have ultimately derived from Freemasonry, much of it didn't do so at first hand; I was also under the impression that there was much remaining in the ritual that had no clear precedent, either in Freemasonry or elsewhere.

The rede ("An it harm none, do what you will") as a Masonic toast is quite a surprise to hear, and other scholars seem to have missed this, instead comparing it with Aleister Crowley's "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law; Love is the Law, Love under Will". That would be an exciting revelation for Wiccan history, and I'd love to read the wording of the toast.

Also, I was unaware that Gardner had been expelled from Masonry. As I understand it, Gardner was most likely a Master Mason in Sphinx Lodge (Irish Constitution), Colombo, Sri Lanka, and I just assumed that he left the Lodge when he left the area. If he was expelled that would be an important biographical detail, and I'd be keen to see the evidence. That he was later a Co-Freemason I consider likely, since his associates in the New Forest coven and the Crotona Fellowship were very active in Co-Freemasonry, but I doubt that he would have been expelled from masculine Masonry as a result, for the simple reason that they wouldn't probably have been aware of his Co-FM membership.

As far as the use of the word "Craft" goes, it does seem to fall naturally from the word "witchcraft" (or, equally, from "cunning-craft"). I've heard it claimed that the old institution of the "Masons' Word" had links with witchcraft, and later societies deriving from early Freemasonry such as the "Millers' Word", the "Horsemen's Word" and the "Society of Horsemen" were clearly witchcraft in all but name. Of course trying to find the origin of Freemasonry in witchcraft sounds highly speculative, but even if the term "Craft" does originate in Freemasonry it wasn't necessarily Gardner's innovation. It's worth noting that the term "Craft" is also used by other non-Wiccan witches, including those who have had the practice in the family since before Gardner's time... I guess the key thing is, while I've read various authors remarking on the fact that Freemasonry and Wicca share the term, I haven't (I think) read anyone stating that it is a definite borrowing from Freemasonry, unless perhaps it was Aidan Kelly, who is rather notorious for his poor scholarship and jumping to shaky conclusions.

Any of this information we can gather together would be great though, and I'd really like to see it incorporated into the article. One document I've found online which may provide good data regarding the influence of Freemasonry on Wicca is this. I've only read bits of it so far, but it looks promising. I'm hoping you can add further information too.

Cheers, Fuzzypeg☻ 23:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI, OTO, GD, Crowley, et al. Freemasons. All.  :) (I'll provide a better reply, just flying through atm and wanted to aknowledge your correspondence, but had to address the fact it's all sourced from Freemasonry and there is no esoteric references short of alchemy prior to Freemasonry as the first proper structured organisation. Many spin off cults have emerged, usually in the form of 'black lodges' (lodges that break away for political reasons) or other oranisations from people who've left the craft to seek their Light elsewhere.) 211.30.75.123 09:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Fuzzy, I think he's suggesting that the Tyler's Toast, which is a full song, having the refrain Happy to meet - sorry to part - happy to meet again, again, Oh! happy to meet again[1] is either derived from, or the basis of the phrasing sometimes heard at the end of some Wiccan circles The Circle is open but unbroken, merry have we met, merry have we been, merry shall we part, and merry meet again. I've noticed that similarity, but don't think it's directly causative. Nor have I seen any attributable claims that it is. As for the other claims, well, someone obviously hasn't read Lamond, Heselton, and Hutton.--Vidkun 16:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

"Merry have we met, merry shall we part, and merry shall we meet again." is a common toast in masonic lodges. Usually called out by the toaster and echoed by the brethren at the festive board. Is it happenchance that the toast of the south, a three hundred year old toast, is reitterated in a newly born 1920's - 1950's variance of religions that all stem from men who have been practitioners of the Craft? I think not. This isn't a case of co-evolution, by any means. Crowley was a self proclaimed 33rd degree, whether he obtained the degrees legitimately or not is a moot point, he knew their content, their ritual and their meanings. This is heavily reflected in the rebirth of 'old religions', which even practitioners thereof admit is made-up-as-they-went through the 1930's to 1950's. As it's a non-dogmatic organisation per se development atop of things is expected if not encouraged I would assume; but it's definitely worth pointing out that there's more than a fair share of similarities.

If we take a closer look at the Golden Dawn or the OTO we see Freemasonry in a pure form with names and objects changed, in an identical way as the Order of the Eastern Star is Freemasonry with elements changed around to suit the target audience, which in the instance of OES is womenfolk. I suppose having had an association with Freemasonry, OTO and Wicca since a young age and being an active participant in some of those, it's difficult to address this issue without it being written off as 'personal research', yet the fact remains; we either have the worlds biggest coincidences, or it must be conceded that there's truth to the matter. Amongst Freemasons it's common knowledge and openly discussed. 211.30.75.123 23:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Right, these are good points, and I'm well aware of them. The "merry meet, merry part" saying is nothing to do with the Wiccan Rede; you had me confused there. I'm personally quite convinced that much Wiccan symbolism derives from Freemasonry; but as I said above, "although the symbolism may have ultimately derived from Freemasonry, much of it didn't do so at first hand". I think we're in agreement there. I'm still really interested to hear more about Gardner's expulsion from the Craft; if you could point me to any sources I could read I would be grateful.

If you have good sources to work from we would welcome any information you could add regarding the origins and development of Wiccan ritual and symbolism. We already have some details about OTO connections, but if you can find an author who discusses other masonic similarities it would be great! Thanks, Fuzzypeg☻ 20:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Amongst Freemasons it's common knowledge and openly discussed. Where?--Vidkun 20:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

In modern times, Wiccans have been incorrectly associated with black magic and Satanism, especially in connection with Satanic Ritual Abuse hysteria. [54] The Bible (Leviticus 20:27 A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them[55] and Exodus 22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live[56]) may incite Christians to be less than sympathetic toward neo-Pagans in general. Wiccans also experience difficulties in administering and receiving prison ministry, although not in the UK of recent times. [57]

The old testament isn't specifically Christian. Nor is Christianity the sole persecutor, past, present, or future. In fact, I'd quite easily say that more practitioners of paganistic religions have been felled at the hands of Islam than any other religion, however this isn't as documented as it is an ongoing daily criminal execution matter in many Islamic nations, nor as sensationalistic, nor does it render the victim-culture that most organised religions need to reinstate their solidarity or unity of sorts.

Whilst it's 'trendy' to take shots at Christianity, I consider this to be an NPOV breach and suggest that the article be reviewed for neutrality. Jachin 01:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the above from the article, as it seems to be, at best, speculation. In order to connect Leviticus and Exodus passages to modern day persecution of Wiccans, we would need to find a reliable source that makes that connection. Jkelly 02:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

While Im all for getting rid of OR, there still remains the fact that Wiccans are most commonly associated (incorrectly, of course) with Satanism and "black magic". Is there any possible way to address this in the article? Disinclination 20:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wicca vs. Witchcraft

Forgive me if I am making a discussion that has happened already. But the article currently suggests that all Wiccans practice Witchcraft. This is not so. Some Wiccans do not even like the term witch because of its connotations of either evil or TV's Bewitched/Sabrina/Charmed. I hope I am not remiss in slightly altering these references. Toyalla 05:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The article as it was did mention that some don't call themselves witches nor even practice magic. However it was worded so that the traditional initiatory Wicca was presented first (that being the oldest, most stable and consistent set of beliefs amongst the many under the banner "Wicca"), and the various other beliefs were then presented in comparison. The idea was to provide some kind of structure to the reader from the outset, rather than immediately giving them a vast list of contradictory alternatives with few consistent ideas to hold them together. Traditional wicca is of course the origin and core from which all these various types of working have sprung, and seems the obvious starting point for the discussion. And traditional Wicca, as well as most of its offshoots, are witchcraft. Fuzzypeg☻ 01:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. While I am not new to Wikipedia, I am in a sense new as an editor. I do not want to start here by having an edit war. I certainly understand your point that to present all details at once could be confusing. But I also believe that to present information that will later be contradicted can be even more confusing. I do not believe the statement, "As practiced by initiates, Wicca is a variety of witchcraft" is accurate when there are people who identify themselves as Wiccans who do not call themselves witches nor what they do witchcraft, and who even are offended by being told they practice witchcraft.

And in many covens, there are degrees of initiate. In some, the first degree is called priest or priestess; in some others, this term is not generally used; in still others, the title priest or priestess doesn't come until the second degree of initation. (I was thinking to provide links, but do not know if that would violate Wikipedia policy. But do a search for "wicca initiate priestess" and you will see different points of view). Wicca is not a unified religion, and I think this article should make that clear. But as I am a new editor, I will give others a chance to comment before I make any changes. Toyalla 02:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we need to figure out which is the best term to use. I took the term "initiate" to mean "member of initiatory Wicca", i.e. Alexandrians, Gardnerians and those who trace their lineage back to Gardner and the New Forest coven. In light of previous explanations in the article this seemed clear, but maybe it was only clear to me...

I'm also aware that a few who claim lineage through Gardner have departed quite a lot from the original system and structures, but this has not happened nearly so much as in the greater realm of Eclectic Wicca.

This is a tricky subject I know, since different people have vastly different ideas of what "Wicca" is. They can be split roughly into two groups: one group of people who believe that Wicca is only initiatory and anyone else is doing it "wrong"; and another group who think that those traditionalists are a bunch of arrogant tight-arses. But I think we need to find a way to clearly distinguish between the groups, for the sake of not misrepresenting either group, and for the sake of our poor confused readers trying to sift through this morass of conflicting ideas.

Do we say "eclectic wiccans" and "initiatory wiccans"? "Eclectic Wiccans" and "traditional Wiccans"? Any suggestions? Fuzzypeg☻ 06:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Fuzzy. One possibility is "Lineaged Wicca" and "Eclectic Wicca." Some Eclectics do use Initiation rituals, and while there is some disagreement from the Lineaged crowd on whether or not such initiations are "valid," that gets into POV disagreements that wouldn't really work here. :) Justin Eiler 04:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it? There aren't any wikipedia pages or references to people who call themselves Catholic priests without having undergone the Rite of Ordination, and that isn't a POV disagreement, is it?--Vidkun 13:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there are several wikipedia pages dedicated to irregular, invalid, or even illicit priests, and to similar concepts within Christianity. That may be a distinction that should be made: do lineaged Wiccans consider non-lineaged Wiccans "Valid_but_irregular", "Valid_but_illicit," "Invalid" in the canonical sense, or something else entirely.

As for "Why wouldn't it," because arguing for a lineaged POV over a non-lineaged POV is just as much an issue as if we had this page presented from a Christian point of view. By the WP:NPOV policy, both sides of the conflict should be presented fairly and without bias.

I'll have to admit that this is an area that has the potential for some pretty savage POV battles: I have my own POV, as does everyone in this discussion. For my part, I am a non-Lineaged Wiccan. I hold that I am a valid Wiccan: I am NOT a valid Alexandrian, Gardnerian, or whatever specific BTW trad one may wish to consider. But I would not, in good conscience, have the entire article talk about Wicca without acknowledging that Lineage is an important concept in certain branches of Wicca, and that some Wiccans feel that only lineaged Wiccans are "real Wiccans." Justin Eiler 21:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

"Eclectic" and "lineaged" seem pretty good to me. "Lineaged" has the benefit of being an objective measure not open to disputes in quite the same way that "initiatory" is... And for those of uncertain lineage we can say something like "claimed lineage". What do other people think? (Again, my intention is not to turn the article into a "holier than thou" contest, but rather to provide a clearer structure and avoid misrepresenting or disenfranchising the different groups.) Fuzzypeg☻ 22:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I think "lineaged" and "eclectic" are fine as long as Wiccans in general use those terms. But I believe the article should make it clear that Wiccans cannot simply be divided into two groups. There is some overlap, and some Wiccans may accept all varieties as valid. Toyalla 04:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

There's an interesting discussion of witch vs wicca here, which, while not attributable, does shed some light on the discussion, and could serve as pointers for a later peer reviewed paper on the terms.--Vidkun 20:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archive this discussion?

This talk page has gotten very long, much longer than the previous archives I looked at. Is it time to archive this? Toyalla 17:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Done, finito :) -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 19:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Hunster! Toyalla 04:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling

Just a quick comment to Disinclination re: your last edit. It was minor, and so is my comment. Both "organization" and "organisation" are legitimate spellings, the former more common in North America, the latter in the UK and parts of the Commonwealth. I don't think there are any standardisation (standardization) requirements here, but there's enough stuff to do (and discuss) without getting into any sort of wrangle over minor stuff like this. Sorry, don't mean to offend. Just a quick comment. Esseh 07:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

O... kay? I only changed it using the British English spelling, since I believe that was the consensus established long before I got around here. It's not really that big of a deal. :) Disinclination 07:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - no big deal. Actually, the reason it caught my attention was that I was previously searching for some guidelines on what spelling is preferred in articles, and found none. I have done some journal publishing, and often guidelines are spelled out (no pun intended... but it's not bad...) as American (usually Webster) usage only, or British (usually Oxford) only. Often, international journals said either could be used , BUT that there had to be internal consistency within each article. Would be perhaps difficult to implement here, I guess... Anyway, peace, love and all that good stuff at ya. Esseh 08:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC) (PS, I see you're a Canuck, too - see the username; my initial is S, eh?. I also tend to prefer British spelling, but won't usually change something just for that.) Esseh 08:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this and this are what you're looking for. There is no "prefered" spelling but it is recommended that editors settle on a single style for the entire article so as to not switch back and forth. Unless of course the article is in a specific cultural context, like say an article about Britain, then British English is prefered. NeoFreak 08:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks NeoFreak. I was thinking that, perhaps the originator of an article could tag it in some way to indicate preferred usage, avoiding bunches of minor corrections that really serve no purpose. It would also help editors who come in later to know what is preferred, and thereby get with the programme, and centre in on what really needs editing ;) Thoughts? Esseh 08:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. The consensus by default seems to be American English so far. While the modern Wicca movement came from the UK it is now an international phenomenon and that applies to the editors working here as well. I have no stong opinion either way but the other editors might. NeoFreak 08:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Really, this is the concensus? It seemed to me that most editors here preferred to remain using British English, based on the number of editors who actually use it, and revert or otherwise correct edits made using American English. Just my impression, but it seems that it was long ago decided to use British English. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 13:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Consensus here has for at least a year (perhaps two years or more) been British (non-Oxford) spelling. There are hidden comments at some of the hotspots in the article that people are most likely to change, such as the "Organisation within Wicca" heading. Fuzzypeg☻ 05:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. I hope I didn't stir up a tempest in a teapot here. My original point was that spelling form should not matter, or everyone will be running around like language police rather than concentrating on making the article better. Wikipedia accepts both spelling systems, and that should be sufficient to accept both types, from all editors, in all articles. Period. As shown above by Fuzzypeg, Huntster and NeoFreak, I think getting consensus on spelling form is unlikely in this, or any other article. Let's concentrate on meaningful editing. Respectfully (to all) Esseh 04:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

But, like Fuzzypeg said, there was a consensus established on the spelling. Wicca did originate in the UK (And still seems to run strongly in lineaged covens), and while I was not apart of the voting, I think it should stick with what has already been established. There already is a warning at the top of the article, if I'm not mistaken. Besides, mostly the edits are just non-registered users, while acting with good intentions, can have their edits easily reverted with a message explaining why. Thats why there are people like me out there to do these small edits. :) Disinclination 04:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: Just found out there wasn't a message on it. Well, I added it. Disinclination

... And so it begins... My apologies to everyone for stirring up the fecal matter with my curiosity. I still say that correcting spelling to conform to anyone's version of what should be used isn't worth the dissention it could sow and the resulting inhibition of anyone trying to contribute. IMHO, the purpose of Wikipedia is to educate, not enforce. Tolerance to all, but death to intolerance! Wiccans, of all groups, should be able to appreciate that suppressing others' input (spelling preferences included) is non-productive at best, and amounts to censorship or persecution at worst.

Disinclination, I appreciate your intent, and realise (realize?) your intention was to clarify an inclarity my incautious comments pointed out, but the result could be disastrous. WikiGnomes do small good deeds, but surely they must also be aware that, as my father always said, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". Based on this quote, whenever I make a change, I try to be bold, but always first ask myself "is it really necessary, does it really make things clearer, and (most importantly) will it potentially insult someone unnecessarily or inhibit someone from making a contribution?". I also sometimes fail in this, as evidenced by my having brought up this whole affair!

Please remove your message yourself, or I will feel the guilt of having inspired it. I will not remove it myself, because, on reflection, I realise I might (unintentionally) insult you in so doing. I do know whereof I speak; I am originally from Québec, have witnessed the idiocy of the Régie de la langue française, and thus know the dissention that "language police" can sow. Let us not be "separated by a common language" within a forum dedicated to bringing enlightenment to all humans, of whatever language. Love and inclusion to all, and comments welcome, as always (and my apologies for the "essay"). Esseh 04:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

One of the reasons for that particular section of the MoS is that while this is the English wikipedia, it's readers certainly come from all over the world. Thus, they will typically be looking up material that is pertinant to them, and (ahem) thusly it is most appropriate to present the regional and cultural articles in a dialect that is most familiar to them. How would you justify the entire site being written in American english, for example, with terms and phrases unfamiliar to folks outside of the US? Conversely, how about writing it in British English? Basically, the grammatical and spelling differences between the different types of English, in the long run, means it is easier on the 'targeted' reader to have local articles written in a local dialect. Not trying to criticize or anything, just pointing out a reason for the practice, of which I'm sure there are others. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 09:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Huntster, hello. My point exactly, believe it or not. I would NOT (and have not tried to) justify this (or any) article being written entirely in British English, nor would I try to justify it being written entirely in American English (nor entirely Kiwi, Canadian, South African, Indian, Cockney, Newfoundland, or... you get my point...). For phrases (idiom) unfamiliar to others, I suggest brackets ( ) enclosing other idiomatic usage more familiar to others as an addition. However, idiomatic usage is (not entirely, but often) different from variations in spelling for the same word (with the same meaning). Better, I would suggest that the "Search" function of Wikipedia, as a whole, somehow be set to reflect not only different spellings of the same term, but even simplicities like singular vs. plural of the same word or phrase!! (For example, I recently could not Wikilink to "Black Loyalists" in another discussion, because the stub article was titled "Black Loyalist!"; note still the red vs.blue links!)
Wikipedia for all; not just those who spell like me (or you, or anyone else)!. Just for the record - I do want "correct" spelling for all words in all articles. "Correct", for me, means defined in some dictionary, somewhere, for some version of English. (For example, your "pertinant", above, is properly "pertinent", in all flavours (flavors) or English as far as I can find). Disinclination and myself (and, to me, many other WikiGnomes) would more profitably be employed in correcting such minor typos (typoes?), than in trying to police regional usage. Just my thoughts. Esseh 10:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article

While the article has some notable flaws I was thinking that it might be time to submit this for a Good Article nomination. Any thoughts on wether or not the article is ready and if not what could be done to improve it in order to get it ready? NeoFreak 08:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The great thing about the GA process is that reviewers give fantastic tips on how to improve the article, and then a week or so to have those changes implimented. While I'm not quite sure it is up-to-snuff, it should be quite useful. I say go ahead. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 13:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I can see a lot we'd still fail on. The trick isn't being shown the flaws, but finding the time to fix them! And is that really what the GA review system is for, to review articles that the submitters know full well won't pass? Fuzzypeg☻ 05:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Isn't there a peer review system already in place that the article can be submitted to? -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 06:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alice Bailey

So where is Alice? I do not know what you are thinking....Come and give me a break...Why does She not come up on this article? I am not understaning. "Book of THE LAW" Just what it the connection??? I am so sure that they died..at least at simpler times. So what is to this "Magick Connection"??? Playaoms11 06:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm a horrible person, but I've not heard of Ms Bailey, and from reading her article, I see no mention of Wicca anywhere. Yes, a connection to occult, but any specific reason to include her here rather than in a generic Neopaganism or Occult article? Beyond that, I have no idea what it is you are saying. The sentences are disjointed. Who died, and during what time? (I'm confused) -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 09:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)