Talk:History of 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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class 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] Starting splitting process

I have copied this page from the History section of the main Wicca article, without deleting that section as yet. I will now set about the task of editing that section down drastically, so that it retains the sense contained here but is cut down to 25% or less of the word length. Kim dent brown 22:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questionable Comments

I (and invite others) am going to use this section to address parts that I feel are not backed by fact, unclear or biased in some way.

"While the ritual format of Wicca is undeniably styled after late Victorian era occultism (even co-founder Doreen Valiente admits seeing influence from Aleister Crowley), the spiritual content is inspired by older Pagan faiths, with Buddhist and Hindu influences." - While yes DV clearly stated Gardner used some work from the earlier yrs by AC to 'fill in' what he had already collected in her book Witchcraft for Tomorrow, I do not see the connection between the first part of the comment and DV's comment. Yet the author seems to be trying to link the two. AC was many things, but labeling him as a 'Victorian occultist' is sort of like labeling Jack the Ripper as a 'common thug'. While they may fall under that umbrella per se it demotes them in the bigger picture and blurs the impact the person had. When I think of a 'Victorian occultist' I think of a seance`, crystal ball reader or a con artist using parlor room tricks back in the day. I think we can all agree AC did a lot more, and had a wider impact (for better or worse), then that. Note, I am not disputing the core fact but the wording and linking what DV says I feel is taking her writing out of context. 192.80.95.243 20:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Strauss

[edit] Biased Statement

I know wikipedia is Christian centric and all other religions are looked down upon in a questionable tone, however I must point this out. I take issue with this sentence: "There is very little in the Wiccan rites that cannot be shown to have come from earlier extant sources." umm... well I can say the same thing about Christian beliefs. The trinity (holy 3), death/resurrection of a god or man-god (ancient Egypt among several other pre-xian cultures) and the whole miracles/follows thing which ancient gods/priests/priestess had a monopoly on long before jesus came about; these to name just a few. My point being if such a statement is good enough for Wicca then I expect it to be included into the xian pages as well. And please don't play ignorant with the reply 'cite you sources' or the like, if you don't know what I said above to be fact then I'd suggest you move on to a topic you are more qualified to edit. - Strauss —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.80.95.243 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, please do not tell editors to basically go away; this is against our civility rules. Second, I would toss out that Wicca is fairly new, and draws both on Pagan material of old and many other religions. If you don't like that statement, then be bold and remove it. If another editor has a problem with its removal, they can change it back and further discussion can take place. I'd suggest not totally rewriting large areas without some discussion, but a removal or addition here and there is part of the wiki way. -- Huntster T • @ • C 18:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Please re-read what I posted. I did not "tell editors to basically go away". I stated if one is not familiar with the topic I speak of then it best to move on to something they are more versed in, as its counter productive to have to give a 101 course on the topic to 'editors' and beyond the scope of this talk page. I said it to be pro-active rather then re-active and curtail such debate. I wouldn't go over to a topic on mechanical eng. and started editing it as thats not more forte` or skill set. Same difference. I stated my opposition again, to be pro-active, as if I did not highlight before hand why I felt it should be changed someone would have come along and just reverted it back, prob with no reason why either. As you said its the 'wiki way'. -Strauss
Re-reading what you posted, it seems to imply that a number of other editors are ignorant. I'd suggest briefly reviewing your post before submitting it to check that its tone is as intended... Fuzzypeg☻ 06:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Without trying to sound coy or sarcastic; 'If the shoe fits'. I think with this site, many people edit various articles not because they are well versed or knowledgeable on said topic, but because they want to get their POV across. Which of course defeats the point of this site. Sad but after browsing this site for a bit seems to be a accurate comment. 192.80.95.243 19:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Strauss
I don't think Wikipedia is Xtian-centric, and indeed I find that members of other pagan paths tend to be far more scathing about Wicca's history than most Christians. Also, I don't think there's a problem being open about our history, and mentioning the various controversies that revolve around it. I would disagree with Huntster in that I don't believe Wicca is "fairly new", at least not in its essentials. There's certainly enough evidence now to cast significant doubt on the theory that Gardner made it all up. But all this information is interesting, and I think it's valuable that the readers of this encyclopedia be allowed to make up their own mind based on the best available information.
Now that said, I agree that there's a rather odd bias in the article. The sentence you highlight and the one before it both sound like overstatements, and they should at least be attributed to some commentator. Are we really to understand that the majority of the text has been cribbed from other sources? Because that doesn't sound right to me. I know that some has, even significant sections — but the majority of the book? That might need correcting. I'll put a fact tag on it and we'll see what happens, or if you wish, feel free to reword it anyway. Fuzzypeg☻ 04:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thank you for the positive feedback; I have no issue with "being open about our history", However as I said if such comments are valid for this article I expect such to be valid across the board when it applies. And as you know Christianity 'borrowed' (stole if you will) A LOT from pre-xian pagans/belief systems. So such should be highlighted as well in those articles is my only point to be balanced and non-biased. However I have a feeling from reading the current xian articles there are many facts like that they don't like to mention/conveniently ignore. My 2 coppers -Strauss
You are of course free to go and edit the Christian articles to improve their historical accuracy. However I suspect it would be hard work and unless you are well armed with solid references it will almost certainly lead to edit warring. Have a look at the controversy over at Mithraism to get just a little hint of what you'd be in store for. I feel that if we can first knock articles like Mithraism into good shape, and work through all the edit-warring and reliable verification there, then we will be better armed to approach articles like Christianity because we will be familiar with all the arguments that could be raised, and we'll have a ready store of sources of information to draw from.
Oh, and to sign your name at the end of the post, type in four tildes (~~~~) at the end and your signature will magically appear, like this: Fuzzypeg☻ 06:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Well one battle at a time LOL. While I could add factual information to shake up their world (as I am sure you and many others here could as well) I a. do not see the point and b. rather spend my limited time here working on articles that still hold me interest/am involved with. If they wish to do to the xian articles what the church did with the bible (edit it to promote their view of how things should be/would liked to be rather then the factual history) then all the power to them. 192.80.95.243 19:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Strauss

[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 17:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with this; discussion is at Talk:Wicca#"Modern" Wicca. Fuzzypeg☻ 02:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Woodcraft Chivalry

Fuzzypeg has called for a citation for this theory, I gave the citation to Ron Hutton's "Triumph of the Moon" perhaps it was not clear that this theory was covered by the citation. Hutton himslef held the theory for a while but he says it was first produced in a Druidry jouran. I don't have the reference in front of me right now. On that basis I will remove the "citation needed" tag and await develpments.......Jeremy (talk) 04:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is a very brief history of the Order and its breakaways Woodcraft Folk andKindred of the Kibbo Kift. (Unsurprisingly the pagan connection is not mentioned.....but the "Aisling case" is in effect that Wicca should be added to the list of breakaway groups!) http://www.earthcrafters.org/history.htm.
The "Archon Directory" tells me that the Order can be contacted at 73 Willow Way Luton.....while I know that the willow is a very witchy tree I don't think too much should be read into that. The Kibbo Kift morphed into a political movement, "Greenshirts" yet, although now disbanded its legacy website is at http://www.kibbokift.org/. And the Woodcraft Folk have a site at http://www.woodcraft.org.uk/
There is much discussion on newsgroups etc about the woodcraft theory including a rather grumpy posting by the author of the Aisling article. The relevant part of Triumph of the Moon is actually online at Amazon, page 165 for general history of the Order and its pagan section; page 216 for the Aisling theory specifically. But I haven't read cauldron of inspiration yet. Jeremy (talk) 01:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for finding those sources. I've added a stub article for the Order of Woodcraft Chivalry and I may get as far as Heselton; not sure though... I'm languishing at home with a hideous flu and I may need to sleep instead. Cheers, Fuzzypeg☻ 02:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scholarly opinion discrediting possibility of pre-Christian survival?

Jeremytrewindixon recently added a statement to this effect, which I find misleading, since a) it presents "scholarly opinion" as being a group with a single consistent voice, which it is not; and b) it makes it seem as though there is a widespread consensus on the issue, which there cannot be due to simple lack of numbers: the history of witchcraft is itself a small and specialised area, and the history of modern witchcraft has only been attempted by one academic and a handful of non-academics to date!

Hutton, this single academic scholar, maintains that there is no connection between Wicca and previous witchcraft, and indeed that there was no "previous witchcraft" throughout most of Europe from shortly after the end of the pagan period. He is a lone and rather ideosynchratic voice amongst his peers in the history of witchcraft, though. It has been well established by the likes of Keith Thomas, E. William Monter, Carlo Ginsburg, Eva Pocs and other such luminaries that pre-Christian folklore and practises associated with witchcraft continued through the Early Modern period and in some cases even up to the present day. What's doubly odd is that many of these authors are highly praised by Hutton, while in the same breath he says completely the opposite to them. He even at one point attributes Monter with having proven that not a single person accused of witchcraft between 1400 and 1700 was a practitioner of a pagan religion, when the work of Monter's that he cites contains a whole chapter detailing the pagan beliefs underlying French white witch practises! This is pure misrepresentation.

So in the field of history of witchcraft there is a very strong body of research demonstrating the survival of pre-Christian beliefs and practices up until the present day. In the field of history of modern witchcraft and specifically Wicca, there is this one academic historian who, as I've pointed out, contradicts many of his peers and seems to misrepresent a surprising number of his sources. There are other, non-academic scholars, who present different opinions. By far the most detailed history to date has been written by Philip Heselton, who has been highly praised (oddly enough) by Hutton for his meticulous effort. Heselton has tracked down a huge quantity of evidence that was previously completely unknown, filling two books (!), and has for the first time made meaningful inquiry into the nature of the New Forest coven possible. He draws some of his own opinions from this evidence (such as that this coven did indeed contain elements of an older witchcraft tradition), but he is careful to separate opinion from fact. Well worth a read.

So basically you've got one academic scholar who's aligned himself with polemicists like Eliot Rose and Aidan Kelley, and a bunch of other scholars who take a variety of views. I don't see how you can make a single definitive statement about "scholarly opinion" out of this. Fuzzypeg☻ 03:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I note that the wording of the paragraph does rather set it up for a fall. "Survival from pre-Christian Britain" and "as described by Margaret Murray" are rather doomed phrases, since the former suggests an unchanged survival, and the latter suggests a highly organised pan European cult with Man-in-Black, groups of 13, a race of little people hurling elf-shot, and all the rest, and we all know what anathema Murray's name now carries, don't we?
Perhaps it would be a little more fair to explain that this is what Gardner believed and taught, and that this is no longer widely believed; and that furthermore it is a matter of controversy whether Wicca has any connection with Early Modern witchcraft. Fuzzypeg☻ 04:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Fuzzypeg, it is the actual wording of the paragraph that I was referring to. The proposition that Gardner found a surviving chapter of Murray's witch cult is at present regarded as discredited by virtually all scholarly opinion I think you will find; if only because the existence of Murray's witch cult as she described it is discredited. "At present", a qualification worth noting. I also think you will find that no-one, including Hutton, doubts that "pre-Christian folklore and practises associated with witchcraft continued through the Early Modern period and in some cases even up to the present day"......May Day and Hallowe'en spring to mind. I think you're being a bit unfair to Hutton and to some extent misreading his academic caution. (Although I must say his treatment of Robert Graves pissed me off bigly). What is doubted is the survival of a coherent community of people identifying as pagans and engaging in practises associated with witchcraft from (European) pre-Christian times up to the present day....not the same thing. As I recall Murray claimed direct descent fom the Palaeolithic which is a bigger claim again. I don't burn candles to Hutton, I think he makes too much over trifles; and I think that the sharp distinction he draws between cunning folk and "charmers" and "herbalists" and "christian folk magic" is likely to conceal vital information......and as a matter of human probablity I think it very hard to believe that cunning folk never associated or worked in common (and the fact that they didn't normally call themselves witches is of little more than purely semantic interest), and I strongly suspect that if the sharp distinctions drawn as above were relaxed a different picture might emerge.....and I have other criticisms, life is short. TOTM is still a valuable piece of work but. And his final suggestion that the history of spiritualism is likely to have major bearing is a good one I think. Now to look at the changes you made!Jeremy (talk) 03:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your well-considered reply. I know life is short, which makes it even more of a pleasure to find someone who's well informed on the issue and actually agrees with me, even partly. To be even halfway informed in this field is a time-consuming endeavour! I've been working on a critique of ToTM for quite a while now and I'm dismayed at how many inaccuracies and misrepresentations I've found. I don't feel I'm being unfair to Hutton, in fact I feel like I'm understating how flawed the book is, because I don't have the opportunity to present all my evidence here. But that's OK. Wikipedia isn't the place for that kind of research.
Wikipedia has its own charms, on of which is brushing up against people like you. Cheers, Fuzzypeg☻ 07:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)