Talk:Stregheria

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Stregheria has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
January 9, 2007 Good article nominee Listed

Contents

[edit] Archives

/Archive 01: March 2005 - October 2005

[edit] Rewrite

I just put up my rewrite. Jkelly 22:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Very nice. Well done!

My applause to Jkelly for the unbiased rewrite. This is very much as I imagined the article should be. Informative, yet maintaining that we are dealing with a very specific, modern group... all the time without raining on anyone's parade.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Solitario (talk • contribs) October 14 2005 23:18 (UTC)

[edit] Minor edit

Ginzburg's book is "Ecstasies: Deciphering the Witches' Sabbath". I fixed it. Toadsboon 09:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Jkelly 17:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit

I've just done a full copyedit for stylistic consistency and flow. I hope I haven't introduced any new typos/glitches. Someone should check through. This was already a very well-written article. I hope I've put a little bit more polish on it here and there.

I'm impressed by this article and am thinking of nominating it for Good Article status. I won't do so yet, in case that cuts across anyone else's plans. Metamagician3000 01:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

You should feel free. Jkelly 02:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Done! Metamagician3000 02:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
And congratulations on the outcome. Well deserved! Metamagician3000 11:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re-add text

I have just re-added text that was apparently removed in 2005. I came here looking for text about Stregheria's reinterpretation of Lucifer (not having looked in since fall 2005) and found that all mention had been removed. This seems a misrepresentation. Badagnani 09:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. The discussion previous to the major re-write is available at Talk:Stregheria/Archive_01. The article has since been vetted as a Wikipedia:Good article, and is carefully referenced. Please feel free to add material to the article, but only material that can be verified with reliable sources as Wikipedia defines them. Thanks. Jkelly 16:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The removal of all mention of Lucifer (among other things) seems glaring, and the failure to address this in the above paragraph makes it seem to me that this was, and is, a POV decision. Can you explain this? We're both skilled editors and you're obviously quite knowledgeable about this subject, so I'm interested to know your reasoning for this removal; I think you're the one who originally removed all of this text. Badagnani 19:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "a POV decision". User:Corvun appparantly was, um, particularly interested in the idea that Lucifer was a Roman god and central figure in Stregheria, and that all published sources on Stregheria were some kind of deviation from true, Luciferian Stregheria. If that idea comes up anywhere in reliable sources in a way that wouldn't be an egregious violation of Wikipedia:No original research, I haven't found it. We really can't go creating new histories for our subjects ourselves based on personal religious belief, amateur internet anthropology, or do anything other than summarise mainstream views. In the case of Stregheria, as opposed to almost every other Neopagan tradition, we are fortunate in having actual scholarship published in an academic journal on the subject. Presumably Grimassi discusses Leland's use of Lucifer in Aradia, or the Gospel of the Witches in one or more of his publications, but when Grimassi is summarising Stregheria, it doesn't come up as an important issue, and we really don't get to decide on our own that he's wrong about that. All of that said, I'm open to the idea that I've missed something significant. If you know of a reliable source that discusses Lucifer as being an important part of Stregheria, point me towards it, and I will be happy to see it included. Jkelly 20:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. It does seem that Lucifer is, on the contrary, a major figure in the book you mention (according, at least, to the article here), at least in connection with Aradia and the other figures of the mythology. As I stated before, at least a mention is merited, if only to say that he is a minor figure. As I recall the original article before you removed a large amount of text, Stregheria was presented as a religious tradition counterposed to Christianity (by those in Italy who rejected it in favor of older traditions) which nevertheless incorporated elements of Christianity, reinterpreting aspects considered negative in Christianity in a positive way that is quite unorthodox from a Christian perspective. This sense is lost in the present version, and that seems unfortunate. Badagnani 20:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems, also, a mistake to discuss only one person's (Grimassi's) interpretations of a vast and previously uncodified tradition or set of traditions, without mentioning other published interpretations, if only to debunk them. Badagnani 20:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be suggesting that there was something that should be described as Stregheria that pre-dates Raven Grimassi's books on the subject. This is likely where some confusion is coming from. We can't repeat the claims of antiquity that Grimassi, or another believer, might make as if they were fact, or argue that published sources are wrong and that Leland's Aradia should have more of a role in defining this tradition. Anyway, let us discuss the inclusion of the objects of worship in Stregheria. Grimassi writes:

In the Arician Tradition, we worship a pantheon that is different from the urban gods of the Romans. Some of those deities were shared, however, with the Latins, and some with the Etruscans, and some of them are in our pantheon, most notably Diana, whose worship was focused at a temple at Lake Nemi in the Alban Hills. Our principle name for the Goddess and God is Uni and Tagni, taken from the Etruscans. However, there are other Streghe in Italy who do not follow our tradition, who may worship the urban gods of the Romans.

The text that was removed, and that you seem to be missing, is part of what I was talking about above; a previous editor's hobbyhorse. Many practitioners of Stregheria may express the religious belief that Stregheria was handed down from Aradia centuries ago and taught in secret until Grimassi revealed it, but the whole "Syncreto-Pagan" Luciferean narrative was basically a personal essay posted here as if it were an article. Jkelly 21:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Fascinating. This does explain a lot. Though all could agree that there were a variety of pre-Christian "folk" religions in Italy that survived into the Christian era, some in defiance of orthodox Catholicism with elements of Etruscan, Roman, Middle Eastern, and Celtic religions. It does seem, however, that Lucifer should be mentioned, if only to debunk this figure's importance to the Stregheria mythology, whether construed by either of the two major published authors on the subject. It seems with Stregheria that modern practitioners and writers (as in Wicca/"witchcraft") have one of two agendas: to "clean up" (i.e. eschew all mention of "black magic, Satan, Lucifer, etc.) or to overemphasize the Satanic aspects in order to make the religion seem more "dangerous." I don't think we should privilege either of these, but present the facts as they are known. Thus, Leland's claims should be summarized in more detail (adding mention of such traditionally "evil" figures as Lucifer, Cain, etc.), then explained that there is no consensus that his claims are factual. As with Gardner's writings, it's probably a mix of fact and fancy. Badagnani 22:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I added "Other major characters in the myths include Lucifer and Cain." to the mention of Aradia. I'm leery of doing anything that resembles "Grimassi could/should have borrowed x and y from Leland, but chose not to", however, because it's not really our call to make. Leland only claimed to have been given a text, whereas Gardner claimed initiation into an ongoing tradition; I'd suggest that there is a significant difference between the two. The "Influence on Wicca" section of Aradia, or the Gospel of the Witches could likely be expanded with material from the critical edition that came out a few years ago (for that matter, the whole article could probably be expanded using the critical edition). Jkelly 01:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; it seems to me that these mentions of Diana, Cain, and (now, again) Lucifer could use more explanation but this is a good start. I'm really most curious to know if Stregheria "on the ground" over the centuries had a strong anti-Catholic/heretical bias. The way the article is written (relying on the scant available sources) it doesn't really answer that fully, but I suppose readers could pursue sources on their own for more. There certainly are a lot of unique folk religious practices (maybe the most famous of which is the "evil eye") still prevalent in Italy but I'm not sure they would qualify as being part of Stregheria, however that term is defined. Badagnani 01:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] All-Wrong Approach to the Subject

This article should be primarily about the actual Italian folk tradition, in its Catholic-syncretic context -- and the Americanized New Age pop culture publishing industry which exploits it in such dubious taste should only be mentioned fairly briefly, and in a much less adulatory tone. --unsigned comment by User:66.81.220.138

That seems to be a sensible idea. But the question is how much is known, from available scholarship, about the folk religion, and how far back can it be documented in any detail? If you know, you can modify the article as you see fit. Badagnani 21:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't the article be called stregoneria?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Xorgol (talk • contribs)
That's not how the movement self-identifies. Jkelly 16:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A "Balanced" Look at a Satanic Group?

While I realize it is wholly unintentional, the article as currently presented reads like a satire. This is one of the problems with Wikipedia--the effort to treat potentially controversial topics in an overly "reasonable," "balanced," "NPOV" manner leads directly into the ridiculous. I mean, c'mon--witchcraft? In a supposedly objective and scientific reference work that calls itself an encyclopedia? Mmmm-hmm. And it is even judged to be a "good" article! And, oh yes, so politic of everyone to eliminate that nasty little business about these Italian witches worshiping Lucifer. We can't sell too many New Age books if we leave that in. Yep.

Not that I have a chance in--uh, Hell--of getting the actual facts into this article, but the facts are indeed these:

  • 1) People who promote "witchcraft" are either charlatans or severely mentally ill
  • 2) A good number of these Strega folks are Satan worshippers, for whatever that's worth
  • 3) The rest of them are a bunch of New Agers who have gone way, way, way over the deep end, spending too much time sucking on water pipes in Santa Cruz and imagining that their deceased Italian forebears are going to drop down out of the sky (or rise up out of Hell) with advice on imagined medical problems, real financial problems, horrible self-created relationship problems, etc.

Now, mind you, I am interested in improving the article, not in starting a flame war with a bunch of witches who think they can put a hex on me. I am not afraid of witches. They do not exist. Lucifer does not exist either, but if a few Italian-American New Agers on the West Coast want to worship Him in order to get their old boyfriends back, so be it.

As it stands, the article sounds like it's talking about the Kiwanis Club. This is not an article about the Kiwanis Club. This is an article about mentally ill, delusional people who are worshiping Satan and their dead Roman or Neapolitan ancestors. We've got real cutting-edge science and sociology going on here--not. These people are greatly disturbed--they are not pursuing any kind of rational path.

There should be an NPOV way of getting across the idea that these folks are a whacked-out, highly marginalized minority with extremely dubious beliefs. There should be a polite way of saying this. If Wikipedia can offer a Holocaust Denial article that lets everybody know a certain group is seriously looped, then certainly it can do so about a pack of aging, overweight, chanting devil worshippers belly-dancing around the redwood trees. Qworty 08:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Geez, how'd you "witches" find this obscure little talk page so dern fast? Did you use your tarot decks, did you consult your dead ancestors, or did you simply cyberstalk your way over here? Nice to see how you're just a bunch of innocent gals who are always minding your own business. Qworty 01:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Qworty. I agree that the article needs some serious work. Grimassi's version of events needs to be taken with a rather large helping of salt, I think, and a little more reading around the subject from some actual Italian folklorists and historians would help a great deal. I certainly agree that the Leland material and Lucifer should be mentioned; it does rather seem that this has been "swept under the carpet".
These are the only useful suggestions I can draw your post. The rest seems to be a rather petty string of insults one after another, couched in self-righteousness ("I am not afraid of witches", "I am interested in improving the article, not in starting a flame war"). These inflammatory comments and your attitude of us vs. them have no place in Wikipedia, where we are trying to promote collaboration and cooperation and make it a pleasant place for all editors. It's hard enough having your work reverted without being insulted into the bargain (irrational, aging, overweight, etc, etc.).
If you really are keen on improving the article then please do so. However if you wish to remain an editor, you will desist from attacking other groups here, no matter how "marginalised" you consider them to be. You can consider this a formal warning, and I ask that you have a quick look at Wikipedia's civility policy. I will repeat this warning on your talk page. Thanks, Fuzzypeg☻ 23:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology

What's the etymology of the term? Apparently from "stryx/strix" as per the Italian WP, so a more literal translation would be "owlcraft". Dysmorodrepanis 12:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] That's utterly fucked up

The article is clearly well-written, but "witchcraft" in Italian translates as STREGONERIA (from STREGONE, a mage, which in turn derives from Strix - a bird of prey). No sane person would ever say "stregheria".

If you search "stregheria" with Google yuyou turn up only with english reasults, actually.


[edit] Taking Grimassi out of Stregheria?

I noticed that the mention of Raven Grimassi has been deleted in several places from the Stregheria article. However, Grimassi is a key figure related to Stregheria, and is currently the primary author in this field. Therefore I have restored the deleted text. Stephanie Taylor (talk) 16:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)