Talk:Gardnerian Wicca

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments
 WikiProject Religion
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. 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. See comments

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.
This whole article displays the dishonesty inherent in Wicca. For some reason Gardnerians cant deal wih the fact that Gardner was a failure in the Caliphate OTO. He was given a charter by Aleister Crowley to start up his own OTO lodge but he was not competent to do this. Then he went off to America to the Californian OTO. There has "Frater Scire" he never made anything of his time there. At this moment in time a former Caliphate OTO memeber Allen Greenfield has Garnders OTO charter in safe keeping at an OTO lodge. Wiccans need to stop lying about the history of Gardner. It borders on historical revisionism. (Unsigned comment by 86.151.230.36 17:30 2 July 2007.)
I'd be fascinated to have some specifics here about which bits of the article display 'dishonesty' or 'lying'. As a Wiccan I have no problems in seeing Gardner as a thorough old rogue, and certainly do not swallow any of his claims wholesale! If you can point up bits text where we could improved the neutrality of this article, please say so! BTW, if you sign your comments with ~~~~ you will leave your name and time of posting - like this: Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 16:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
"Failed"? or "lost interest"? Presumably Crowley didn't think him a failure or he wouldn't have set Gardner up with the charter. Now just think: Gardner was highly effective in publicising Wicca and bringing new members to it, building a following from the ground up. If he had applied these same efforts to the OTO, which already had a mighty head-start from Crowley and his followers, might he not have had even better results? Yes, he "failed" the OTO in their expectations, not through lack of competence but because he lost interest and instead focussed on something he felt was better and more worthy of his time. My evaluation corresponds with Heselton's and Hutton's on this. Fuzzypeg☻ 04:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[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)

[edit] Removed "verification needed" box

I have been bold in removing this box because in the 15 months it has been there, many citations have been added. I hope to add further citations in the near future (and some illustrations too) to further improve the article. I have removed one or two sentences (eg the 'most famous covens') because the information was (a) unverifiable and (b) even if verifiable, very disputable! Kim dent brown 22:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cult

An IP contributor added the term cult as having been used by Gardner in his writings. He did. If I had copies of his more prominent books with me right now, I would have page references to back that up. But it seems to me that the word cult was removed by reversion simply because it has a negative connotation. Well, not in an anthropological viewpoint. Gardner used the term cult in ways similar to how anthropologists use it. I think the word should, and can go back in there.--Vidkun 13:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

See, for example, Cult (religious practice) vs Cult.--Vidkun 13:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Agreed, and I concur with you replacing the word 'cult'. When I have my copy of Witchcraft Today at hand I will insert a citation. Kim dent brown 14:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree Fuzzypeg☻ 23:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Issues , History and alterations to Gardnerian Book of Shadows.

To make this article a genuine encyclopedic entry then there needs to be blunt honesty about where the material in the Book of shadows came from. In this context there needs to be presentation of material comparing the Book of Shadows and passages from the Thelemic Book of the Law. Secondly there needs to be acceptance of Doreens alterations to Gardners book of Shadows has well. Also this needs to be put in historical context to the Alexandrian Book of Shadows has well. Wiccans need to be open about this or else they wont be taken seriously by historians. I beleive there are lots of references of use from the work of the writer Phillip Heselton.--Redblossom 16:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

(Moved contribution to bottom of page: new discussions go here, not at the top.) Indeed, I have no problem with this view. The problem is finding the reputable sources and taking the trouble to put them in as in-line citations. The lack of detail here is due (at least for my part) to lack of time rather than a desire to deceive! The Farrars will have lots of good stuff to say about the different versions as well. If you'd care to make a start on finding and inserting the citations I'd be glad to lend a hand. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 16:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
On second thoughts - in order to keep subjects together, I think this detailed exegesis belongs in the Book of Shadows article, not here. We've tried to separate out the Wicca articles a bit and we need to try and keep them from merging into one! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 17:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry i disagree about moving this.It should remain here for historical elaboration. This is important specifically to the history of Gardnerian Wicca. In this context issues over the Gardnerian Book of Shadow should be kept here so that in can be put in to historical context over changes from Gardners inital writings and "inspirations" (Eg the Thelemic book of the Law) through to the alterations made by Doreen Valiente. Which is why it should remain here, to be expanded.--Redblossom 12:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not I agree with you, there's nothing much either to keep or to move yet. Would you like to have a go at drafting some of the material you feel is missing? Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 12:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
The problem you're going to get into, Redblossom, is that there is very little reliable research into the variations in the Book of Shadows, and almost none that do a side by side comparison with The Book of the Law. Simply taking pieces of a Book of Shadows and putting them side by side with excerpts from BoL, as comparison here, would be original research.--Vidkun (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of accountability over possible abuses?

One of the criticisms that is barely mentioned is over the inability of Covens to bring abusers to account for their actions. If one Coven High Coven High Priest is abusing women under 18 years under the ruse of "initiation" then no other Coven has the ability to bring that coven or member to account.

In this context can it be said that the rules set forth by Gardner failed to take this into consideration? Secondly if so , why the inertia from the present Gardnerian covens. This lack of action could be interpretated has a charter for abuse (sexual and other).--Redblossom (talk) 20:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I include this web address which addresses issues of this nature--Redblossom (talk) 13:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

http://healing.about.com/od/selfpower/a/covenabuse.htm

DO you have any citations for Gardnerian or Alexandrian Coven leaders actually abusing anyone? As opposed to people who claim to be be Gardnerian/Alexandrian, but aren't. Fact is, there are a lot of frauds out there who claim to be legitimate Gardnerians or Alexandrians, but aren't. Easy clue - Gardnerians and Alexandrians DON'T admit anyone who is legally a minor; so, if they have minors in the group, they aren't authentic.--Vidkun (talk) 14:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Redblossom, to my knowledge Gardnerians and Alexandrians are normally denigrated either for being too popmous, or for being fluff-bunnies. I don't know of any notable accusations of abuse. Certainly within the BT Wicca community we keep tabs on a very few "rotten lines" which do unethical things like selling their books of shadows or try to provide training by correspondence course... these are very much the exception rather than the rule, and are considered warlocks by the rest of the community. I disagree that there is a "lack of action" or "inertia" from Gardnerian covens when some of their number misbehave; I've seen very rapid and decisive action on a few occasions, and I presume you're unaware of this because you're an outsider. The kind of behaviour you're talking about though is getting to the level where police should be involved, and as Vidkun says, you should have some fairly compelling evidence of widespread abuse before you introduce such potentially damaging allegations to the article.

So, what is your evidence? What have you heard, and who from? Fuzzypeg★ 21:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously i am not going to name names on a wiki site, there have been instances where underage girls have been mislead on being "initiated". and this is under the guise of Gardnerian/Alexandrian covens. Can either of you provide of info where an initiated (eg High priest/priestess/ member was "Ex-communicated" so to speak from a coven? And who would have that authority ? Since covens are mostly autonmous how would an abusive Coven leader be disowned by the Gardnerian or Alexandrian commuinity? And how would they stop them from "initiating" more willing victims? And enough of the outsider shit. I am asking a legitimate question that comcerns people who i know.--Redblossom (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

This talk page is to discuss improvements to the article, not for general chat about Gardnerian Wicca. Plenty of fora exist for that purpose. Please everybody, use this page to discuss changes to the article. If you are not willing or able to make appropriately referenced changes, take this discussion elsewhere. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 20:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)