Talk:Witta (Wicca)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Added sources for potatoes, Norman Ireland, and Irish language, which back up the points made on the disparity between Wittan mythology and accepted Irish history.

Beyond that the actual Wittan mythology is outlined in the book referenced.

That there are few Wittans in Ireland is hard to cite for (if there were lots we could demonstrate that by pointing out events, groups or census data, but there aren't and pointing out that there aren't isn't easy unless we ask every Irish person if they are Wittan). It would be easily demonstrable if there were many Wittans in Ireland, but there aren't.

That the adoption of "Wicca" in the wider sense and the creation of named "Wiccan" traditions is rare in Ireland poses a similar problem. It's easily demonstrated by getting a witch to calling themself "Wiccan" at a moot after a few pints have been drunk but that's not exactly a standard method of investigation. Again, if this statement were untrue its falcity would be easily demonstrated.

In the end the Wittan tradition is influencial enough to be worth noting it. The mythology does not match accepted history or geography, but we can have articles about the book of Genesis and articles about dinosaurs, so I don't see that as a grounds for deletion. Most Alexandrians don't believe Sanders was initiated by his grandmother, but Alexandrianism is still going.

Adding content is the way to increase balance here. In particular Witta appears to have some Appalacian influences which may well be its true origins (including Appalacian concepts about European history which, while ahistorical, are part of a living tradition).

I think this article is as balanced as can probably be achieved, if there is to be an article on this at all. Given the, afaik, universal agreement that the book that started this small tradition is essentially fiction, and full of laughable claims, it could certainly be harsher. In cases such as this, imho, it's simply not possible to create equally long lists of good and bad points. Therefore, I'm removing the "not balanced" flag. The only "good" point I could see being included is that some people don't care about historical or cultural accuracy, so are still able to find personal value in it. --Kathryn NicDhàna 23:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

Looks like the article has good sources but is simply not cited. I think a few of the statements might not be supportable. Another criticism I have is the use of weasel words like "critics" - if there is only one sourced critic for the criticism, you should state clearly where that criticism comes from rather than imply that there is a broad base of published criticism. There may well be popular acceptance of the criticism, but we need to note who the published critics actually are rather than use the word "critics". Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm adding cites, but some of these requests of yours are really excessive. Not every sentence needs to be cited. OK, you haven't asked for cites on *every* sentence, but on the opening sentence? I'll cite it, I guess, but this just feels excessive for a book that is roundly condemned and barely deserves a Wiki article at all. I do think the article is worth keeping, due to the fact that some newbies have been seriously misled by it. Also, please remember WP:CIVIL in your edit summaries. It is not appropriate to talk down to other editors and refer to them as "kids". Thank you. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

But it's appopriate to call living people "Fuzzy Bunnies" in an article? Puleeeze.. Anyway, the article is much improved and fully cited. I'm sure you know that full citation is required for all criticism of living people, so I'll take your complaints about the tags as rhetorical. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 14:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)