Talk:Gerald Gardner

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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Wikiproject Thelema Gerald Gardner is part of WikiProject Thelema, an attempt to expand, improve, and standardize articles related to Thelema. You are invited to participate by editing the article or by joining the Thelema WikiProject as a participating member.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments

Contents

[edit] References

[edit] Nurse's name

Source on the name of nurse: http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/g/gardner_gerald_b.html -Chèvredansante 00:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology Sources

http://www.etymonline.com -Chèvredansante 01:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology Corrections

This was just flat out wrong:


In Old English, a "Wicca" is a male necromancer, "Wicce" a female one, and "Wiccae", is the plural form, "necromancers".


There is nothing in the Old English corpus to associate wicca/wicce with necromancy, per se, and "wiccae" is not an Old English plural form, much less one attested in the corpus. "Wicca" is only attested twice in the corpus, so far as I can tell, both times in Plantin-Moretus MS. 32 (British Museum MS.) and both times glossed as Latin "Ariolus" which is to say "soothsayer"/"diviner". "Wicce" appears to be attested a few times, glossed once in Ælfric's Glossary (from Zupitza's Ælfrics Grammatik und Glossar) as "phitonissa" which would appear to be a zany corruption of "pythonissa" which is to say, "one possessed; as Pythia". As far as the traditional sources for OE definitions go, J R Clark Hall, Sweet and Bosworth Toller all simply give "Wizard" and "Witch" as glosses respectively, with Bosworth Toller providing the Latin gloss (which he renders "phytonissa") as well.--Yst 14:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

All this belongs in Wicca or Witchcraft, and I have moved it there. Fuzzypeg☻ 04:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My edits

My first edit was to format the article to follow Wikipedia:Manual of style. My second edit removed the sentence "Almost everything anyone who knew Garder (and Gardner himself) wrote relating to Gardner's religious tradition seems farfetched & twisted." which is opinion, and therefore incompatible with WP:CITE, Wikipedia:No original research and does not adhere to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. This article absolutely should express the skepticism that Gardner's claims have been greeted with. I recommend referenced quotes from Ronald Hutton to achieve that. Jkelly 01:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Prof. Jkelly, I completely understand and respect the removal of that phrase. :)--Chèvredansante 23:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] paganwiccan.about.com as Futher Reading

The information about Gardner on that website seems rather biased; the author's tone gives the impression that there is little controversy surronding Gardner's life & times. Including it as an external source would not demonstrate NPOV policy, would it? --Chèvredansante 23:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

We don't demand that external links be neutral, instead we try to succinctly summarize their POV as an aid to the reader (ie "a pro-Gardner website"). That said, I've become a little suspicious of any of the external links in articles related to Wicca, however. Not having followed this one, I have no idea if it adds encyclopedic value. Jkelly 00:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gardner CoMason

I'm working on verifiable sources regardin. GBG and Masonry. Online I see some references showing he was given his third degree of FM in Sphinx Lodge #113 Irish Constitution, in Colombo Sri Lanka. However, Sphinx Lodge under the GLI is not 113. I have emailed them, and, maybe, at some point, sources will be put online to show when he was made a Mason. Right now, we can show some references to which mainstream Masonic Lodge he was a member of, but not which CoMasonic one--Vidkun 19:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

"Bracelin"'s (sp?) biography Gerald Gardner, Witch may get into this; I don't recall this level of detail in Heselton's books. If it turns out that you get a response to your inquiry but cannot find a verifiable reference, let me know. Jkelly 20:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Everyone keeps pointing me back at secondary sources right now. Various things that claim one side or the other (he was only a first degree, he was a third, he was only a CoMason, he was a Mason). I'm trying to get the Lodge itself to answer the question, and copy source documents to the Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon; they have a page about his membership there.--Vidkun 21:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
L just offered to let me borrow Hutton and Bracelin out of her library, so, I should get around to doing that and see what they have to say, and what their references are. Now, if I were to get information from the Lodge directly, how do I go about making THAT verifiable for wiki use? Get them to photocopy the Lodge records and give them to the GL of BC&Y to include on their GBG biography page?--Vidkun 13:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Now it's Ronald Hutton who prominently casts doubt on Gardner's claim to be a Royal Arch Co-Freemason - I thought it worth mentioning that this is just one of many areas in which Hutton displays his ignorance. Holy Royal Arch is not the "highest, most sublime degree in Freemasonry" (or whatever his words were) - I'm only 28 and I have an application in to join a Holy Royal Arch chapter, which I expect to be approved. I would say about a third of the members of my (Co-masonic) lodge are in the Holy Royal Arch. And of course Hutton's got the history of Co-Freemasonry all wrong too. If Gardner were interested in the occult and were a Freemason, I would find it very surprising if he hadn't joined the HRA!
I should have done a little primary research myself before the Eastern International Order of Co-Freemasonry split from Le Droit Humain, because communication then would have been completely straight-forward. Ah, well, so much to do, so little time. Fuzzypeg 22:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to have to disagree with you regarding Royal Arch in England. Now, I will point out, I am NOT a UGLE Mason, nor a member of York Rite or Royal Arch in the US. However, when the two GL's were United in 1813 in England, they came an agreement on one of the bigger points of contention that the Antients had: that the Royal Arch is considered to be the culmination of the sublime degree of Master mason. Why Royal Arch?; from the Constitutions of the UGLE: "By the solemn act of union between the two Grand Lodges of Freemasons of England in December, 1813, it was declared and pronounced that pure Antient Masonry consists of three Degrees and no more, viz., those of the Entered Apprentice, the Fellow Craft and the Master Mason, including the Supreme Order of the Holy Royal Arch." from the UGLE Constitutions. I have no information one way or the other regarding Royal Arch in CoMasonry, however, it is true that for a long time in England, the HRA was seen as the capstone to the MM Degree.--Vidkun 03:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I guess I'm working under the assumption that Gardner was a Co-Freemason, and his HRA chapter was under Le Droit Humain constitution, not UGLE (other members of the Rosicrucian Fellowship of Crotona were also Co-Freemasons). And if Gardner was indeed a Co-Mason, it would be surprising if a man of his interests were not in HRA. Fuzzypeg 11:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
The thing is, it is fairly well established (but not yet documented) the GBG started out as a "regular" Mason. Specifically, he was Initiated, Passed and Raised in Sphinx Lodge #113 IC (Irish Constitution, or, Grand Lodge of Ireland) in Colombo, Sri Lanka, somewhere between 1905 and 1909. My goal is to show his regular Masonic status, because that is the closest thing I, as a regular Mason, can do. I'm still trying to work with my GL to help me contact the GLI. It's all well and good to assume he was a CoMason, because, well, all things seem to point that he should have been. But we at least have Lodge information on him in regular Masonry, now we just have to confirm it.--Vidkun 13:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, so you would agree that we have no particular reason to doubt he was a member of Holy Royal Arch in Co-Masonry? Although there's no particular reason to doubt it, it would still be nice to have the documentation... I'm not really in a better position than you now to request this information. In fact, following our separation from Le Droit Humain (we wanted to keep the Landmark requirement of belief in a supreme being), we are considered clandestine, while the masculine Craft in general is not. So you might bizarrely have a better chance of getting this information if you contacted them than I would! At some stage I'll get around to trying it myself... Fuzzypeg 11:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
The problem is, i have no particular reason to believe he WAS HRA in CoMasonry, either. I need evidence, Lodge and Chapter names and numbers would help.--Vidkun 12:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] anyone else want to try this link?

Contact Sphinx Lodge in Sri Lanka, which is the only Lodge I can find info for that tallies with what is said at bio sketch of GBG on the GL of British Columbia and Yukon.--Vidkun 15:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More info on Gerald Gardner's Masonic status

Here's what I finally received from the Secretary of Sphinx Lodge #107 IC in Sri Lanka:

Unfortunately most of our old records are lost. The only authentic item that we have that dates back to our inception is a members registration book which has all the members records since inception, I went through this record book but could not find a Gerald Gardner during the period you have mentioned. Even checking ten years previous and forward this name was not mentioned.
There were three Irish Lodges during that period
Sphinx Lodge 107 IC 1861
Leinster Lodge 115 IC 1874
Dimbula Lodge 298 IC 1874
Sphinx and Leinster had their meeting in Colombo. Dimbula Lodge met in the hill country among the tea plantations. At that time almost a days travelling distance from Colombo.
The web page you refer to mentions that he was raised at Sphinx. It is possible that he was a member of another lodge but was raised at Sphinx. This practice seems to very common in those days as in our member?s registry there are a few times when Sphinx members had being passed or raised at a another lodge.
There was only one Sphinx Lodge in Sri Lanka(Ceylon then) and our number is 107 IC. Sphinx is the oldest lodge in Sri Lanka which has a unbroken record of continuity.
The Oldest lodge is St John's Lodge of Colombo EC (founded 1938)but it has had periods of abeyance during its early times.
Other English constitution lodges at that time were:
St George Lodge 2170 EC 1886
Adam's Peak Lodge 2656 EC 1897
The Grant Lodge 2862 EC 1901
Duke of Connaught Lodge 2940 EC -1902
The Nuwara Eliya Lodge 3629 EC 1903
Kurunegala Lodge 3629 EC -1912
There is also a Scottish lodge which meets in Colombo
Lodge Bonnie Doon 611 SC - 1877

So, I think we are at LESS of a dead end than we were, but we still do not have anything verifiable. My next attempt will be to ask that Lodge Secretary for contact information, or suggestion, on how to check with the other Lodges in the area.--Vidkun 11:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology Gardner's use of Wica / Wicca

> Gardner, in his two books on the subject, referred to religious > witchcraft as "Wica", or "The Craft".

Gardner's writing did not refer to the name of the religion as Wica or Wicca. Gardner's usage of Wica was as a proper noun refering to one or more practitioners and roughly equivalent to "one who is wise in the way of the Craft". It was used in a manner similar to the term Brethren.

A possible correction would be:

> Gardner, in his two books on the subject, referred to religious > witchcraft practitioners as "Wica".

Source: "Witchcraft Today" chapter 10 GBG

quoted - These Wica generally work for good purposes and help those in trouble to the best of their ability. Of course whatever you do in this world you tread on someone's toes; if a witch...

> Gardner's spelling was quickly replaced by usage of "Wicca".

Agreed, but such usage was also not as the name of the religion.

WARNING - *** original research, not for print ***

The usage as name of the religion came along much later (1969 is first known usage in print) quoting Alex Sanders.

“No, a witch wedding still needs a civil ceremony to make it legal. Wicca itself as a religion is not registered yet. But it is about time somebody registered it, I think. I’ve done all I can to call attention to our religion.”

"The Truth About Witchcraft" 1969 Hans Holzer - Doubleday, 1st edition, 1st printing - Chapter 5, page 172, paragraph 7, 1st sentence.

There are rumors of earlier usage by Sybil Leek, but nothing confirmed.

END WARNING

[edit] Aleister Crowley

This line is dubious:

"Dr Leo Ruickbie in his Witchcraft Out of the Shadows analysed the documentary evidence and concluded that Aleister Crowley played a crucial role in inspiring Gardner to establish a new pagan religion."

So I've added a "citation needed" mark to it. There is little evidence that Crowley inspired Gardner to establish a new pagan religion. It's very debatable. We know that Gardner freely borrowed Crowley's ritual prose, but from Crowley's own diaries (ref: Hutton, Triumph) we know that Crowley was largely disinterested in Gardner when they met in the mid 1940s.

If anyone could quote some evidence from either Hutton's or Ruickbie's works that prove this statement, please do so, otherwise it may be prudent to remove the sentence.

Not sure what you're getting at here, the source is cited in the sentence!!!. I've added a footnote with a complete citation. Remember, Wikipedia is after verifiability, not truth. Since the source is clearly cited, it would be up to you examine the source and show that it says nothing of the sort. I don't have it, so can't give a page number, but I think it likely with such a clear sentence that the reported info is in it, and the sentence is properly qulified in that it doesn't claim it to be true, but simply reports what the source says. So not sure what the problem is here... -999 (Talk) 19:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
In appropriate reference to this matter, is there any justification for linking GBG to a List of Thelemites? I think the supposed link is deeply dubious, as are a number of the supposed links on that page.
Nuttyskin 22:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
It's not nearly as absurd as the fact that François Rabelais was there. I removed both. Lists need to follow our content policies just as much as articles do. Jkelly 22:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Gardner was an initiate of OTO in the degree of Prince of Jerusalem (IV°) and held a charter to establish a Camp of Minervals thereof.[1]. -999 (Talk) 17:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
With an appropriate reference he would then belong in a list of OTO initiates. We cannot be the first place to call someone a Thelemite, which, unpacked, is a statement about someone's religious beliefs, not simply a statement about their membership in an organisation. Jkelly 17:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Membership in the organization requires the member to take an oath that they accept The Book of the Law. If they were not a Thelemite at the time of the initiation, they become one on initiation. -999 (Talk) 17:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
That is both not our call to make (as it includes a number of assumptions outside our purvue, such as correctly performed initiations, that the oath was made in good faith, that the oath was in any way binding, that it makes sense to use such an oath as a criteria for religious beliefs, etc.) and the adoption of an OTO point of view. Find reliable sources that describe Gardner as a Thelemite before including him in that list, and please don't replace Rabelais without a serious scholar making such a comparison. Jkelly 18:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
(crossposted from Talk:List of Thelemites) We don't need to. Gardner plainly expressed the creed of Thelema in the Wiccan creed, "An ye harm none, do what thou wilt." You seem to be using a much less inclusive definition of Thelema and thus of Thelemite! Of course, I wouldn't include the everyday Wiccan, but Gardner basically created the Creed. He plainly professed Will and thus was an adherent of Thelema. -999 (Talk) 18:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Response at Talk:List of Thelemites. Jkelly 18:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Forest coven

The New Forest coven article is a substub - just one or two (unsourced) sentences. I'm not sure there's anything more to say about it, so I'm suggesting that it be merged here. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 19:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Definitely should be merged. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Well that's just silly, Gardner and New Forest Coven are two entirely different things. Though no doubt they are related to a similar subject, they are indeed separate entities. Unless Gerald Gardner comes back to life and physically manifests as the New Forest Coven, then they each get their own article.

I agree; merging the articles might suggest that the existence or otherwise of the New Forest Coven is core to Gardner's writing on Wicca, or to the validity or otherwise of that writing. The article needs to cite what Gardner himself and others said about the Coven, and should at least include a reference to Prof Hutton's leg-work in the area; the term 'commonly believed' also needs review. These shortcomings, however, don't seem to me to be a reason for merging the articles. Ffetcher 10:59, 10 January 2007

Is there anything to say about the New Forest Coven that couldn't be included in the article on Gerald Gardner? If the answer is no, New Forest Coven should be merged here. Merging one article into another doesn't have to mean that the two topics are the same. It can mean that the merged topic is completely covered by a subsection in the larger article, and that subsection could be split off again if it ever got so large it needed its own article - that's what {{R with possibilities}} is for. Don't take this the wrong way, but it's similar to how Jump the couch redirects to Tom Cruise; there just isn't anything you can say about "jump the couch" at this point that doesn't have to do with Tom Cruise. Better for people to see the information in context, in a higher-traffic article that will be better maintained because more editors focus their efforts on it. - AdelaMae (t - c - wpn) 23:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I take the point about Jump the couch, but I'm not sure the analogy is exact, although I'm happy to be persuaded, which of course is what 'talk' is all about. Rightly or wrongly, the existence or otherwise of the New Forest Coven has taken on a life of its own. I live locally and don't know anyone around here who thinks that it existed, but it's a tenet of faith for some groups of which I'm aware - these tend to be the same groups who believe unbroken tradition referred to as a 'myth' in the Dorothy Clutterbuck article. It may be an incorrect belief, but inconveniently, at this remove it's not historically provably incorrect, so there's at least an argument that denying the coven's existence outside of Gardner is not NPOV. Those who know Hutton's writing style well probably cosider that he'd agree amongst friends that it didn't exist, but in print he's usually kind enough not to tread on someone's beliefs without actual proof. Ffetcher 10:26, 16 January 2007
I think you may be reading too much into this. Merging the article here would not be a statement that New Forest coven didn't have an existence outside of Gardner, but simply a statement that what little information we have about it ("we" being Wikipedia) is related to Gardner and can therefore be found (for the time being, at least) in the article about him. Right now, I think that readers who search for "New Forest coven" would get more out of reading Gerald Gardner than a standalone New Forest coven article. What are your thoughts on that? - AdelaMae (t - c - wpn) 11:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I guess I'm convinced. How about making a heading above Wicca and incorporating the first two sentences of that entry, down to 'Old Dorothy', into the New Forest Coven text - when I tried to do that I found that there's about a 50% overlap anyway. At the risk of slight repetition, the new text should probably also contain a reference to Hutton, in that as an historian he returns an open verdict on the existence of the coven but if it did he finds it unlikely that 'Old Dorothy' was Dorothy Clutterbuck - this should then counterbalance the note that the existence of the coven is for some Wiccans a tenet of faith. This latter I know to be true, but can't find any printed citation. Mayhap one of my American friends can help out.
It's worth then adding into the remaining Wicca material, after ...identifiable sources, something like 'including material from Leland's Aradia, probably directly but perhaps from the works of Margaret Murray'. Ffetcher 11:08, 20 January 2007
Don't merge. Lets not forget the two books by Philip Heselton that have produced a large amount of evidence about some of the likely members of the coven, including a wealth of biographical information for several of them. This information couldn't just be bundled into the Gerald Gardner article. The "legwork" performed by Hutton pales in comparison to the incredible amount of information that Heselton unearthed. Of course none of the evidence proves the existence of the New Forest Coven, just indicates its likelihood. I think that's still enough for quite a decent article. Fuzzypeg☻ 23:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Then, please, put that material into the article. Totnesmartin 13:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, yes, but I've got a lot on the go. I work full time, run a temple and have a social life. We'll see how quickly I can get around to this. I do most of my editing at work where I don't have my books handy. Fuzzypeg☻ 20:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
fair point mate. Totnesmartin 23:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I've started adding substantial amounts of info to New Forest coven. I'll leave it to someone else to remove the merge tags. The info I've added is still getting to the good bits, which should make the idea of an actual coven seem more plausible, but hopefully it's now clear there's enough info available to make a good article, regardless of whether any of these theories can be established as "fact". Fuzzypeg☻ 13:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks good now. good job there. I'll take the tag off if anyone here agrees, but personally I think it can go. Totnesmartin 16:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

As original proponent of the merge, I've removed the tags. It's obvious at this point that New Forest Coven can hold its own as a separate article; I stand corrected. - AdelaMae (t - c - wpn) 19:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] etymology bit removed

I removed the following anonymous contribution, as it didn't belong in the article:--Vidkun 22:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

(for Editors: Etymologically speaking, the word Wicca is the masculine form of an Old English period word meaning a Wizard, the feminine form being Wicce meaning a Witch. Wicca is masculine and means Wizard. Wicce is feminine and means Witch. It is important to realise that we are using the words, witch and wizard as per the definitions of the Old English period in the above. The word Wiccian is first found in use, during this period of time, meaning to use Wicce-craeft Ie: to use Witchcraft. Both the Old English words Wicce / Wicca are corruptions of the earlier Saxon words Witega meaning a Seer or a Magician. However some have suggested Wiglaer meaning God(Idol)- Learning or God-Sight. It is from these early God-sight associations that we get the idea of witchcraft being the Craft of the Wise. Doreen Valinte in her book 'The Rebirth of Witchcraft' rejects the Saxon source in favour of an even older Indo-European root Weik, which relates to magic. However, whatever the original source of the word, there can is no disputing the etymological history of the word Wicca in Britain, which came from the Saxons. The words Wicce / Wicca continued in use, until the Middle English period, where we find the word Wicche in use to include both male and female practitioners. Now we have the word Wicche-craeft. There were also few Middle Low German influences in the language around then, and this is why we see such words : Wicker, Wikkern, Wikken etc creeping into various sources. - Jean de Cabalis)

[edit] Gardner-made-it-all-up bias

I have made a few changes of the text to mitigate the strong bias towards the view that Gardner invented Wicca pretty much from scratch. I know Hutton leans in that direction, although in the final analysis he leaves it as an open question; Ruickbie may take that view and Aidan Kelly certainly does; however the evidence raised by these people is largely countered by the substantial quantities of evidence more recently uncovered by Philip Heselton. But even regardless of the new evidence, the issue has never reached a consensus, and WP shouldn't take such a strong point of view as to claim that Gardner was definitely a fraud. Fuzzypeg☻ 04:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gardner and the FolkLore Society

After Fuzzypeg☻ removed the folkore paragraph from the Dorothy Clutterbuck page, with which I wholeheartedly agree, I added a brief paragraph about Gardner and the FolkLore society. I've made two modifications from the sources, firstly spelling it the way the society does, rather than following Heselton, and secondly adding the 1946 date (not explicitly specified in either source) from my own notes. Hmm, there is no entry for the EFLS, only the American one, and to add more here needs at least a stub for that one. Ho hum Ffetcher 10:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] movie heavyweights link to occult

in the movie "heavyweights" the hero is also named gerald gardner and at times even repeating his name often throughout the movie. may just be a coincidence but anyone else think this is weird?

As Goldfinger said: once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action. If the only connection between occultism and Heavyweights is that one name, then I would call this "happenstance", not even "coincidence". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fuzzypeg (talk • contribs) 21:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Wiccan order

I've removed the rather odd section from the article:

There is a claim that Gardner founded an order of Wicca called the Wiccan Order in 1959.[1] There is disagreement as to whether there is sufficient evidence for the existence of any such order.

The ref reads: "[2] Facsimile of this Charter in Geoffrey Basil Smith: "Knights of the Solar Cross", 1983".

Now, looking at the hyperlinked page, it is clear that when the term "Wiccan order" is used, it's talking about Wicca. Nothing mysterious there, just a recounting of the same well-known fact that Gerald was given an OTO charter but didn't end up doing anything with it because he was so busy with Wicca. The charter mentioned in that document is his charter for the OTO to set up a Minerval camp, and I presume that's the "charter" that the ref (above) is talking about, not a charter for a 'Wiccan order', something I've never heard of. I don't have access to Smith's book, but on the basis that the rest of the cited evidence doesn't make much sense I'm willing to assume that the Smith reference has been misinterpreted too. Fuzzypeg☻ 07:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Modern" Wicca

Other Wicca-based articles like Gerald Gardner and History of Wicca also use this misnomer. I would like to eliminate the use of this terminology. The article puts forth two scenarios: 1. Wicca is a recent religion created by Gardner less than a century ago or 2. Wicca is a modern spinoff of an old tradition. In either case, there is no such thing as "modern" Wicca. With the former the term is an oxymoron; the religion is too new to designate "modern" teachings since it itself is a young religion (it would be like saying "modern Scientology" or "modern New Age"). With the latter, calling a new take on an old religion as a "modern" version of the old religion is a disrespect to the original, which did not ascribe to practices and teachings of various religions like Thelema. Thus calling Wicca a modern version of an older tradition would be like calling Christianity "Modern Judaism."

I don't have time to remove this description from every Wicca-based article, but I think it is important that it be removed. I'll do what I can, I just want other editors to understand my decision rather than draw their own conclusions. Penguinwithin 17:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with this; discussion is at Talk:Wicca#"Modern" Wicca. Fuzzypeg☻ 02:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)