Talk:Wicca

Welcome to Wikipedia's Wicca article. Editors here have developed a consensus over certain issues. Please do not override this without first discussing your edit here; your contribution is likely to be quickly reverted. We use British spelling here: -ise, not -ize. We refer to magic and not magick (which has a specialised meaning within Thelema.) A pentagram is a five pointed interlaced star design. A pentacle is a physical object, often worn, or used on an altar. The external links from this article are very selective. Please do not add more without discussion. If adding detailed information about Wiccan views of divinity, Wiccan morality, festivals, magical tools, the history of Wicca, sexual orientation or the persecution of Wiccans please add it to these sub-articles. We are trying to keep the length of this main article down. For the same reason, please add information about specific Wiccan traditions by following the category link from here. Any substantial change to the article should carry a good in-line citation to a reliable source. The background and reasoning behind these decisions may be found in the article archives - see box to the lower right of this notice. The above agreements can of course be changed by consensus: to do so please initiate a discussion here.

Peer review

I realise this is only of indirect relevance to this page, but I would like to ask for any commnts on an expansion I have made at Philip Heselton. I have expanded the article from material provided to me by Philip, who is a close friend and associate: because of this relationship any feedback about neutrality issues in particular would be very welcome. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 22:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Concern with weasel words

I have a slight concern with weasel words of the first paragraph. as in the article "and it is thought that Wiccan theology began to be compiled no earlier than the 1920s" While this is referenced it seems to me to be lacking in the "it is thought" by whom category? Is it historians in general, if so, which ones? Is it theologians? Again which ones? Members of the faith? Which groups? Is it the author of this sentence? If the thinking is being thought, somebody has to be doing the thinking! Chado2008 (talk) 03:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

When "weasel words" or other unattributed/incompletely explained items appear in an introduction section, generally you should look for more detailed explanation further down in the article. The introduction, like an abstract, provides a short synopsis, but may not always provide all the supporting information. If you want to provide a reference to Heselton at this point in the intro, that would be fine, but I think it's more informative to link to both Heselton and Hutton, in the context of an explanation of their disagreements. And that happens further down. Fuzzypeg☻ 04:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

We still have a problem with this. Originally "it is thought"; then "it is a widely held belief"; then "it is probable"; and now back to "widely held belief" again. None of them really stating by whom these things are thought or believed. I'm going to be fussy, and I know this will look like sour grapes from the said/claimed thing... If we can't say that Gardner 'claimed' something on the grounds that 'claimed' implies an unsupportable assertion, then by extension of the same principle I would assume that we can't say "widely held belief" either - since 'belief' similarly implies that it's an unsupportable assertion. Since "it is thought" is no better, and "it is probable" is POV (despite being a POV I firmly subscribe to), I'm going to go for 'possible' - although that probably implies it's less likely than it actually is, but it's the most neutral term I can think of. - Shrivenzale (talk) 07:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Another possible source would be Aidan Kelly's "Crafting the Art of Magic." I read it many years ago and don't have a copy, but someone might. I believe he makes an aggressive case for Wicca being no older than Gerald Gardner.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 12:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfair

" However, there is still hostility from some politicians and Christian organisations. " I find this to be unfairly singinging out Christians, it should be changed to Religious organizations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.224.93.8 (talk) 20:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This is probably because Wicca has developed in Europe, North America and Australia, which are all majority christian countries, so most religious hostility is Christian. If you can find (eg) Jewish or Islamic hostility to Wicca, please include it. Totnesmartin 21:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

yes not to mention some schools when they find you r pagan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.68.49 (talk) 14:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Time for a Good Article submission?

I know this article failed featured article a while ago, but it has been considerably refined since then - many daughter articles being split off and more references added. Is it time to look at 'promotion' again, initially to Good Article? The criteria for GA status are here and I think we meet them. Witchcraft is a GA and I don't think this article suffers by comparison. Have a look here for a summary of the criteria for all grades of article, and see if you don't think we stand a chance. Even if we don't meet the criteria right now, submitting it for review would lead to feedback which could only improve the article. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 22:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

How about Peer review first, then there's less chance of a knockback. Totnesmartin 22:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

There's still a bit of copy editing that could be done, and some sections seem rather awkward, such as Wicca#The afterlife. I've made a few copy edits, but I'm not sure how much time I can put into editing the whole article... Fuzzypeg☻ 01:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Have done a lot of minor edits, plus some cutting out of information which was either irrelevant or (usually) duplicated elsewhere in the article. I realise some of these excisions may look quite savage - however the article at 44k is a good deal too long, and if these sections are not cut we need to remove others! All this material could be replaced in daughter articles, either existing ones or newly created. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The following is pasted from the peer review page, which not everyone may be seeing. It will hopefully explain the many changes I have recently been making here! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

*A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 19:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the semi-automated review: have taken its comments on board. Would appreciate some human reviews too if anyone is out there! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Please fix up the automated suggestions - I've had an article put on GA hold because of the automated suggestions. It's a bit unclear as to whether you've used the "Academic studies" section as a reference in the article at all. Is it just a case of further reading? Such a section is not compliant with the WP:MOS, and as such would give GA reviewers pause. Why is magick (which, somehow, is a separate article from magic (paranormal) ) unmentioned? Why is Craft name capitalised as it is? The "Discrimination against and persecution of Wiccans" link does not work - and in any case screams out POV. I thought "malevent" was spelled "malevolent"... you may need to run the article through a spell-checker. Also, you may wish to consider looking at GA or FA religion articles (not sure if there are any FA religion articles...) to see how they are structured and what information they cover. Towards the middle-end of the article, there are few citations - take a look at Wikipedia:When to cite for opinions about when you should be citing stuff. -Malkinann (talk) 12:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

That's great, many thanks. I have fixed up most of the automated suggestions and will work through your helpful additions above. Is it OK if I copy your paragraph above onto the article's talk page? Not every editor on the article will be looking at this peer review, I fear, and may miss the feedback. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 19:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, go for it. Looking at Bahai, one thing this article is missing is a "demographics" section - who practices Wicca? Is it recognised in any country's censuses? Is there any difference between the demographics of Wicca-in-a-tradition and eclectic Wicca? How impossible is it to find out the demographics of Wicca? Also, the holidays section and the section on the Book of Shadows are unreferenced - could you pull a reference or two out of the daughter articles for these sections? -Malkinann (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

(To keep this together) On 30DEC2007 I listed this in WP:GAN, good luck! — xaosflux ^Talk 05:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see a definition for Wicce on a separate page, with links to this page.

The Goddess community, many of whom refer to their religion as Wicce rather than Wicca, is fast growing and I feel it deserves better representation. We use the term Wicce to distinguish our Monotheastic religion, believing in one living Goddess, from the duotheistic forms of Wicca. There are active blogs that use the terms Wicce, monotheasm, monotheastic and it is becoming widely used among Feminist Witches and other Goddess advocates. It would be nice if people who encounter these new terms could find information on them here on Wikipedia. I'm getting tired of being told that "Wikipedia says "this" or "that"" in contradiction to our tradition because we are not fairly represented.

How would we go about doing that? Do we need permission to make such a page?

Thanks Morgaine Swann (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Find reliable sources. Additionally, please learn proper wiki formatting before adding information; I reverted your edits because there isn't any sourcing to the information you added, and you broke a number of links with your edit.--Vidkun (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds great, Morgaine. As Vidkun says, you'll need to have some reliable sources on which to base your article; have a look at Wikipedia's verifiability guidelines to get a quick idea of what's involved. Don't worry too much about formatting at first; it's not too hard and you'll quickly get the hang of it, but in the meantime if you can get some other editors to visit your article they'll help get the formatting correct. And they'll help make sure that the article's well written and solidly referenced. That's the one annoying/wonderful thing about Wikipedia (depending on your point of view): whatever you write ceases to be yours, and it will be carefully picked over by numerous other people.

So starting an article is easy: just type the article name you want into the search box on the left and follow the instructions, or alternatively, you can follow the link I'm creating right here: Wicce.

Arrgh! OK, so that article name currently redirects to the Volva article. OK, try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wicce&action=edit. Welcome to Wikipedia and have fun! Fuzzypeg☻ 20:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Remember also that an article for Wicce should make note of the other related uses of the term, such as how it is used in the Volva article (since it does currently link there), and the etymology of the word, which is discussed on this article and elsewhere. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 10:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

How about a list of Wiccan holidays?

To whoever inserted this section, do you not think that's covered in Special Occasions already? It covers the sabbats and certain other festivals. If not, then what holidays do you think should be discussed? - Shrivenzale (talk) 00:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not at all clear what you're asking. Which section are you referring to? There is no 'Wiccan holidays' section, nor can I see any suggestion that there should be... Confused, Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 01:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's a bit awkward, since I didn't put the above section heading in, so it's not very clear. According to the History page, it (the heading, no text) was added by someone called Geo8rge as a question. My question in response to the question is as above: Wiccan holidays are already pretty much covered in the article as it stands. - Shrivenzale (talk) 19:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Haloween also known As Samhain.

Beltain Yultide —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.68.49 (talk) 14:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Hallowe'en is Hallowe'en, or All Hallows' Eve. Samhain is Samhain. Many earlier Samhain traditions have been carried into modern Hallowe'en, but the two are not synonymous, as they're not the same festival - they're just on the same date. It's a picky distinction but it's worth making. The argument over whether Christians 'stole' Samhain isn't worth getting into here (personally I don't think it's worth getting into anywhere). Similarly, if you've mentioned Beltane and Yule together here to try to associate the two (and you may not have but your intent wasn't clear), you should know they're at different times of year: Beltane is in spring; Yule is the midwinter period. - Shrivenzale (talk) 14:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Etymology essay

I removed this essay from the article:

According to the Oxford English Dictionary (O.E.D.), "witch" comes from the Saxon word "wicca". Wicca is a noun with a masculine ending. In the Saxon tongue, 'cc' is pronounced 'tch', making the pronunciation "witch'-ah", NOT "wik'-ah" as is commonly thought. The feminine form of the word is Wicce, pronounced "witch'-eh". The same word was applied to both male and female, leaving only the ending of the word changed. It eventually evolved (like most old english words) into what we have today, pronounced and spelled "witch". So in truth, Wicca and Witch are, in terms of etymology, the same word. The term Wiccan is a plural form of the word. One Wicca, two Wiccan (the feminine forms being Wicce and Wiccen. So to say, "This is a Wiccan ceremony" would be incorrect, as 'wiccan' is not an adjective. Gardner's spelling "wica" may have very well led to the mispronunciation of the term, making it an entirely new word to the Occult vocabulary. The term, although some may claim otherwise, was NOT invented by Gardner (nor was the religion itself). "The oldest extant appearance of the word "wicca" can be found in the Law Codes of Alfred the Great, circa 890 C.E." (cited from the Oxford English Dictionary and the research of Mike Nichols). The term has nevertheless evolved even further in recent years, making it an adjective as well as a noun, and is used thus by many practitioners of the faith.

This is all correct apart from the fact that the modern term Wicca comes from Wica, which is of unknown etymology, and is used in a very different sense, and with a different pronunciation to the Saxon wicca. The above paragraph is written entirely on the understanding that they are the same word, whereas they are clearly two different, though historically related, words. Of course, whether Wica was derived from wicca long ago or only in the 20th century is immaterial; the usage and pronunciation were changed dramatically, and it is for all practical purposes a separate word.  Fuzzypeg  ^talk  22:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm trying to rewrite the etymology article (and may be able to work some of this in), but it is not presenting itself as an easy chore, simply because there is such a mess there and I don't have much in the way of resources to work with (not to mention that the history is so muddied). That section you removed overwrote some existing material, so I'm going to go back in time and replace that deleted bit. Strike that (literally), even the old section strayed from the evolution of Wica to Wicca, so I'll try and put it as well in the etymology article. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 00:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of January 2, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass

2. Factually accurate?: Pass

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Pass

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— BorgQueen (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hooray, hooray! Thanks BorgQueen and thanks everyone who has helped get the article to where it is today! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 19:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Great job everyone! — xaosflux ^Talk 04:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this hubris, or...

...should we now go for featured article status? We had a peer review in early December 2007 prior to going for GA, so I'm not sure whether to:

• Ask for another peer review, even though so little time has elapsed
• Just wait for a while, then ask for another peer review in a few months before submitting for FA
• Be bold and go right ahead with a FA submission

Personally I'd be inclined towards the latter, as even if we failed it would get us some useful close criticism from experienced editors, which could only improve the article. What do you think folks? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am fairly certain that the article will fail. But of course, FA discussion will be helpful in any case as long as you don't take criticisms personally. :-) Btw, I'd like to suggest:

1. The books in the further reading section need ISBN.
2. Some more images will be desirable. I was tempted to add the Aradia book cover but the history section of this article doesn't seem to give a lot of importance to the book.

--BorgQueen (talk) 13:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I assume it would fail too in its current state - I'd favour submitting it more for the feedback and to improve the article, than because of any certainty of success! But there doesn't seem to be any other way of guaranteeing close, critical scrutiny without taking a deep breath and going for FA status!

Agree with your comment about illustrations, BTW. I'm sure we ought to be able to come up with something more inspiring than the pentagram as a first visual, and the other illustrations are few. I'd almost favour taking some decent photos and uploading them, so we get exactly what we want here. It's paradoxical that a topic which inspires the fevered imagination of book cover designers has so few pictures here - perhaps we're afraid of seeming too sensationalist ourselves? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend trying to reduce the further reading section, by use if possible rather than removal. -Malkinann (talk) 05:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

As this article is intended as a summary, it could be good to also try and make some of the very important sub-articles like History of Wicca or Wiccan morality up to GA and then re-examine the summary style in this article before trying for FA. -Malkinann (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point, in working the other articles up to GA, we should end up improving this one as well. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Too bad that the latest additions have ruined the article, by being redundant [1] .--Vidkun (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I've found an essay Wikipedia:Compare Criteria Good v. Featured which may, with some solid thought, assist preparation for a FAC. -Malkinann (talk) 01:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Why no mention of Neopaganism in the introduction?

Hey, as you've all probably been aware I've been maybe a little over enthusiastic lately with Pagan articles, but I think that people shouldn't keep deleting this idea whenever I put it into practise. Basically, I think that in the "Wicca" article, there should DEFINATELY be a mention that Wicca is usually seen as a Neo-Pagan faith. So far there isn't, and whenever someone puts it in, it is deleted. May I ask why? The majority of Wiccans, scholars, and other Neo-Pagans see it as a Neo-Pagan faith so why on Earth is this not in the introduction when it's a key element of Wicca? (Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC))

Possibly because at least one noted author has classified Wicca (the original form, now called BTW) as meso-paganism.--Vidkun (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Wicca-as-mesopaganism should be referenced in this article, then? In Paganism Wicca is described as Neo-Pagan. -Malkinann (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Although Isaac Bonewits's classification is neat and ingenious, I don't know that it's generally accepted. I agree with Midnightblueowl on this: Ronald Hutton classifies Wicca as 'Neopagan witchcraft' and personally I think that's the most accurate description. I think we should mention this (citing Hutton perhaps) in the article. Particularly as the Paganism article uses the description pointed out by Malkinann. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've had a bold attempt at inserting this. I've added a bit to the Wicca#Core concepts section introducing the terms Neopaganism and Mesopaganism, with a reference to Bonewits and a link to his webpage defining them. I was wrong about Hutton: he describes Wicca as pagan (not neopagan) witchcraft. Bonewits describes BTW (defined by him as anything originating pre 1960) as mesopagan, and more modern forms of Wicca as neopagan. It's only a first attempt, so do amend it and/or propose rewording here. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Varities path

if show refrecnes and all that would it be considered revelnt if put down the varoius major belifes on the goddess and god and such. Mostly dealing wiht the lady mother croon i.e. three fates lunar goddess and mother earth ... theres so much but asking if would be relvent —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.114.136.226 (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Your typing is very difficult to understand, but I think I can make out what you're asking: should we describe some of the major ways in which the gods are represented, such as the goddess as Maiden, Mother and Crone? The answer is, I believe, that we already do. We don't go into a lot of belief in this article about what Maiden, Mother and Crone actually are, but we link to the Triple Goddess article which gives a more complete explanation. I believe that's sufficient.  Fuzzypeg  ^talk  23:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I need a Wiccan's help

I'm not sure how to go about this, but I thought here would be a good place to ask. I've been editing Religious debates over Harry Potter and, as you might imagine, Wicca comes up a lot in the Christians' arguments. Recently I've had to deal with an incensed Wiccan who is edit warring the page trying to insert a long-winded essay about the nature of Wicca, claiming our portrayal of it is inaccurate. I'm not a fan of edit warring, or of adding OR to pages, but I know next to nothing about Wicca, and, if a page I edit misrepresents the faith, I would like to correct it. So if any Wiccans are interested in having a gander at the page to iron out any flaws, I'd appreciate it. Please be sure to include an authoritative source. Thanks. Serendi^podous 22:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I'm on my way. It will make a change from the discussion about rollback which has been.... interesting! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Harry potter has nothing to do with Wicca. They practice witchcraft and all, but its more of a creative mind than occultism.--24.119.143.87 (talk) 05:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

'Said' versus 'claimed'

Should the first paragraph say that Gardner made 'claims' about the Wiccan religion, or is it more neutral, and therefore less POV, to say that he simply 'said' things about it? In this case, I think we can go with 'claimed'. 'Claimed' can be legitimately used without any implied POV until the substance of the claim can be independently verified - and in this case, with the best will in the world, it can't. The claim might be right, or it might be wrong. The same paragraph goes on to say, rightly, that Gardner's claims cannot be supported. It's not my intention to get into an argument over whether Wicca is an ancient religion or a recent one. Even so, I believe that both NPOV and accuracy can be served properly by recognising Gardner's claims as being just that, until there is some historical verification. - Shrivenzale (talk) 11:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I changed 'claimed' to 'said' simply because 'said' is the more value-neutral term; 'claim' is, as you say, used to imply that a speaker's argument lacks verification. My change was not motivated by any personal beliefs about Gardner's stated views--indeed, there's little evidence that I know of which supports (or refutes) his claims of Wicca's antiquity, although this in no way detracts from the beauty and value of Wicca as a spiritual path or system of magic.

My change was motivated by structural considerations: I simply feel that the introductory paragraph of the article--where a reader might normally expect a simple, straightforward description--is the wrong place to introduce arguments relating to more complicated issues--such as whether or not certain of Gardner's claims can be verified or falsified. I feel a later subsection would be a more logical place in which to introduce that issue; therefore, a neutral 'said' in the first paragraph would be less likely to confuse the reader. Rangergordon (talk) 08:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't for one moment suggest that you were motivated to change the article to present your personal beliefs. You're right to say that 'said' is more 'value neutral'; my only point is that in this case we don't need to worry about the potential implications of the word 'claimed', because in this case the implications would be factual. You say yourself that the word 'claimed' is "used to imply that a speaker's argument lacks verification" - and in this case, that's fact. As you have agreed, there is little (in fact no) evidence to support Gardner's claims - much of his described ancient history of Wicca stems from Margaret Murray's work on European witchcraft which is considered amongst historians to have no factual basis. So, in short, I don't think we need to tread carefully around this issue, unless and until someone can provide some - any - indication that Wicca is of ancient origin.

Incidentally, I should point out that I have the utmost respect for Wicca, no matter whether I agree with everything its founder said. A religion can be valid without being old. - Shrivenzale (talk) 11:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

There is WP guidance on exactly this issue: WP:WTA.  Fuzzypeg  ^talk  23:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me, Shrivenzale. Just glad to have the opportunity to explain my position. Rangergordon (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine. I defer to WP:WTA. I've also changed the subsequent reference to Gardner's 'claims' to 'statements' - it was the nearest equivalent I could think of; someone else may be able to suggest something more appropriate. - Shrivenzale (talk) 01:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to say I found your statement that 'in this case we don't need to worry about the potential implications of the word "claims", because in this case the implications would be factual' sounded reasonable to me, and had actually persuaded me to change my mind--I wasn't referring to the WP:WTA. In fact, I now find myself preferring "claims" since, as you explained it, it really does seem the more accurate term--summing up Gardner's statements, as well as the subsequent widespread doubt about those statements, in one fell swoop! Economical use of a word. "Claims" really is the better term considering the facts of this case, even considering what WP:WTA says. (Still, perhaps it does bring up the issue a little early in the article. How about "asserted"?) Sorry to quibble and then, to top it off, to change positions! Good work. Rangergordon (talk) 06:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

"Not all Wiccans are witches, and vice-versa"

Huntster's reversion (05:15, 25 January 2008) from Keilana's edit (which added the sentence 'While most Wiccans also identify as witches, not all witches are Wiccans, and vice versa') brings up an interesting issue. I wonder whether or not it ought to be addressed in the article. This belief that 'not all Wiccans are witches' has gained some adherents--a recent Google search of that phrase brought up some 1,500 hits. However, I'm inclined to agree with Huntster in that the statement is essentially meaningless. It might be reasonably said that 'not all witches are Wiccans' but I'm not completely sure that the converse is true. Is there some authoritative source that could justify the inclusion of a discussion either supporting or refuting this idea? Would doing so lie within the scope of the article? Rangergordon (talk) 07:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we come up against the reliable sources problem with this. Certainly, I rather doubt there is a RS for the 'not all Wiccans are witches' position: I suspect that all the 1,500 GHits are to homepages and blogs of enthusiastic individuals. But evidence for the other end of the dialectic ('all Wiccans are witches') will also be hard to find - given that it is such a widespread and fundamental belief for some of us, it's hardly worth enunciating (cf: 'All women are human').

Actually I think that Keilana's edit of 'While most Wiccans also identify as witches, not all witches are Wiccans, and vice versa.' is resonable, apart from the tautological 'vice versa'. I think it represents a middle point between the two positions above, and one which most people on most parts of the witch/Wiccan/pagan Venn diagram would agree with. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 07:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Kim, but it's not tautological. It's entirely possible from a logical standpoint for not all witches to be Wiccans without the reverse being true; it would merely require "Wiccan" to be a subset of "witch," which I think you'll agree is not the case. The classes "Wiccan" and "witch" probably have a substantial overlap, but to state in words (rather than in a Venn diagram) that there are Wiccans who are not witches and witches who are not Wiccan does require the "vice-versa."

Now, to address the other point, I know of at least one Tradition where one is not declared to be a witch (at least in the context of the Trad) until Initiation, which can take several years. But if you want a reliable source, I'm disqualified.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 12:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I was just speaking grammatically. The sentence "While most Wiccans also identify as witches, not all witches are Wiccans" is grammatically correct, logically possible and (in practice) factually accurate. Adding "...and vice versa" does not improve either the grammar, the logic or the accuracy.

Just read that back - Gods, I sound pompous! Don't mean to be, slap me with a trout someone and I'll snap out of it. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, dear. I'm afraid I must disagree again. True, it doesn't improve the grammar, but it does improve the accuracy. To say "Not all witches are Wiccans" and to leave it at that allows for the possibility that all Wiccans are witches. Since that's not the case, Wikipedia is better served with he inclusion of the "and vice versa."

And no, you don't sound particularly pompous.

No more than I, anyhow.

OK, perhaps that isn't the best analogy...

Regards,

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 12:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

"...Allows for the possibility that all Wiccans are witches" isn't true, since "While most Wiccans also identify as witches" already covers this side of things in a much more accurate fashion. The vice versa statement is completely redundant. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 18:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that, speaking strictly logically, the sentence does function without the 'vice-versa'. The phrase "While most Wiccans" does show that we're not talking about all Wiccans, while "not all witches are Wiccans" covers the converse. That said, although the sentence in that form works logically, I'd have to question its efficiency in getting the message over to the reader: in that form the reader will need to stop and study it for a moment in order to make sure they've got it. They will have to think about it a little, and although I'm entirely in favour of making people think, the place to do so isn't necessarily in the middle of a flow of text, where it can cause a reader to stumble. And those who don't realise that it is a complex bit of sentence might well ride straight over it and not absorb the full info it's giving. On the other hand, adding the 'vice-versa' is redundant, and does repeat what's already been said - so consciously or not, the reader will think the sentence looks a bit awkward.

I tend to think the best way of tackling a disputed sentence like this is to abandon it and think up a new one entirely. My suggestion would be something like:

"It's common for Wiccans to identify themselves as witches, although witchcraft itself is not considered to be a religious system and its use is not essential for the practice of Wicca, so this is not universal."

...or something along those lines. And to those two worrying about sounding pompous: don't fret. As you can see, you're just amateurs in the pomposity stakes. :o) - Shrivenzale (talk) 10:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It does seem to have become a matter of identity politics. I was thinking something short, like: "Not all witches are Wiccans, and not all who consider themselves Wiccans identify as witches," but Shrivenzale's suggestion is more informative.

It's clear that, today, people are using the word "Wicca" to refer to a great number of different belief systems and practices. Rangergordon (talk) 02:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

In the book "Solatariy Witch" by: Silver Ravenwolf, it says that a wiccan does not consider theirself a witch. I don't consider myself a witch. Besides a witch is a woman with powers. It wouldn't make sense if a male wiccan said they were a witch if a witch is a womam. I'm sorry if I caused any damage by posting that. Hopefully It will clear some of it up. I'm also sorry i can't tell you what page but it's my first reference.Thanks,Later!!!--Condolence "(talk)" 01:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, a couple of points to address here: Silver Ravenwolf doesn't represent traditional Wicca, and everything you can find about Wicca before the 1980s or possibly even the 1990s is based on the understanding that Wicca is (or claims to be) a form of modern witchcraft. Wicca is (or was) different to "paganism" in this regard, in that it is not just a philosophy and religion, but a secret society of witches. New forms of "Wicca" have become prominent in the last 10 years or so which downplay any connection with witchcraft, but they are still a minority.

The second point is, of course men can be witches. The witch trials in Europe executed more women than men, it's true, but a significant proportion of those accused were always men. In some countries such as Iceland, men were actually the majority. It is a modern misconception to assume that witches were all women, just as it is a misconception to assume that they all wore pointy hats, had green skin and a wart on their nose.  Fuzzypeg  ^talk  21:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as how there has been so much ... innovation over the past decade or two with regards to divergent belief systems and practices termed "Wicca" by their adherents, would it be helpful to add a new section--or even a separate article--on the topic of "traditional Wicca"? Or, given folks' strongly held opinions on the matter, would it likely become the source of more heat than light? Rangergordon (talk) 01:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed from article edit comment

Mr manilow added this to the comments at the head of the article page:

On the other hand, it has been argued that Crowley may have been instrumental in the initial formation of modern Wiccanism. For more information, see See Nevill Drury. "Why Does Aleister Crowley Still Matter?" Richard Metzger, ed. Book of Lies: The Disinformation Guide to Magick and the Occult. Disinformation Books, 2003.

I suggest it belongs here on the Talk page, unless someone thinks it's significant enough to incorporate it properly formatted into the article. - Shrivenzale (talk) 16:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

What is this "Wiccanism," anyway? Crowley may have been instrumental in the initial formation of modern Wicca, to be sure, but "Wiccanism?"

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 12:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Polytheism category

(I've glanced into the archives but it seems this topic hasn't come up yet.) I'm removing the article from the Polytheism category for the following reason:

As you can see from the "Beliefs" section, there are several different views among Wiccans about the deities. There are monotheistic, duotheistic, polytheistic and pantheistic Wiccans. Including only one of these categories is wrong. Including all of them would also be incorrect, since each of them would imply that all Wiccans belong to that category.

Blessed be,

– Alensha ^talk 18:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

A bold move, but your logic is good and for my part, I think this is the right approach. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

13 Beliefs

At the risk of appearing overly grumpy, I've removed a fairly lengthy addition by Moontrine outlining thirteen beliefs that s/he states that 'most Wiccans will follow', as defined (I believe) by the American Council of Witches(?). My reasons for removing this text are a) it was (ahem) 'borrowed', and wasn't credited to those who framed it originally; b) because it starts each statement with 'we' it's POV by definition; and c) the American Council of Witches doesn't speak for all Wiccans - although in fairness Moontrine did say only that 'most' will follow these principles. Even so, 'most' would still require a source. (BTW - If someone wants to correct me on who authored these principles in the first place, please feel free. - Shrivenzale (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the deletion, on a number of reasons: first of all, it's copyright material. Secondly, it doesn't list how many, most is weasel word. Thirdly, the ACW lasted less than one year, and that was all they could agree on. It was Carl Weshcke's first attempt to control American NeoPaganism and sell more books.--Vidkun (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Is "less than a year" an understatement? I thought the council met precisely once, adopted the "13 Principles" and then disbanded. Maybe that's an urban legend, though.

Still, the document (or mention of it) could have a place in the article--if not as a statement of belief, then as a historical artifact. The "Principles" did generate a fair amount of press, and the ACW episode is interesting for precisely the reasons discussed by Shrivenzale and Vidkun above.

The document, with the story of its origins, gives a glimpse into the dynamics of that time and, even if it isn't generally regarded as some sort of Wiccan catechism, it could be considered part of the Wiccan heritage, and much perspective can be lost in the interest of building universal consensus. Rangergordon (talk) 01:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"The "Principles" did generate a fair amount of press, and the ACW episode is interesting for precisely the reasons discussed by Shrivenzale and Vidkun above."

Personally, I wouldn't include the principles, because I don't think they truly define what Wicca is - only what a short-lived, unusually-publicised group thought it should be. There's currently no article on the American Council of Witches. Is it significant enough to warrant one of its own? That said, if you think the principles are important enough historically and there's a suitable place for them then by all means feel free to add them again - but please make clear that you're including them for that purpose. As Moontrine originally added them they could have been interpreted either as universal declarations of Wiccan belief, which would have been wrong, or as personal statements of individual belief, in which case they don't belong in the article. - Shrivenzale (talk) 10:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

FWIW I think there's a separate article here: possibly the ACW on its own is too narrow, but what about History of Wicca in the USA? There's a lot to be said which would be too detailed for here or for History of Wicca come to that. Think of the infamous 'Samhain letter', Uncle Bucky's big blue book, Judy Harrow, Aidan Kelly, Starhawk, the Long Island Line, origins of CVW etc etc.... It would also be a chance for people to write 'organization' rather than 'organisation' for once ;-) I've been thinking of starting such an article for British developments since Gardner, so this would be a good partner article. (We can sort out the rest of the world in due course!) Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 19:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Admission by US Armed Forces

In acceptance of wicca it must say that the us army is now recognizing the faith of wiccan soldiers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adipatus (talk • contribs) 18:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. For years the US Army Chaplain's Handbook has had a section of Wicca that treats it respectfully as a genuine religion; that army has also allowed Wiccan religious ceremonies to take place at army bases, despite fierce opposition from "Christian" fundies. They have also recently approved the use of the pentagram on Wiccan soldiers' tombstones. I'm not sure what happened to this information. It used to be here. Fuzzypeg★ 22:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Except that there ISN'T a Chaplain's Handbook. What you may be thinking of is DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PAMPHLET (DA PAM) 165-13 "RELIGIOUS REQUIREMENTS AND PRACTICES of Certain Selected Groups A HANDBOOK FOR CHAPLAINS" and 165-13-1. Neither of them has been officially updated any later than 1993, and neither of them is officially published on the US Army Publishing Agency webpage anymore. What MAY be being confused by Adipatus is that the VA settled the lawsuit brought by a number of people (including close friends of mine) regarding putting a pentacle (sic) on the gravemarkers of Pagan Veterans. The US Army officially approves of NO one specific religion, in accordance with the 1st Amendment, and used 165-13 and 165-13-1 to serve as information books for Chaplains who might be confronted with Soldiers who practice a non-mainstream faith. It in no way shape or form approved of any religion, nor disapproved of any, either.--Vidkun (talk) 13:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have a friend who recently studied to become a Chaplain's Assistant, and he said that the Army was adding Wiccan. I believe there was only three current religions, and they were planning to add Buddhist. the wikipedia on army chaplains refers to a case, where a a newly converted Wiccan Chaplain was dismissed, because he lost his endorsement. This leads me to wonder how many Wiccans serve in the army? Since there are few Wiccans compared to other religions who are not represented by U.S. Army Chaplains, as well as considering the cost of teaching Chaplains Wicca. Are Wiccans, or any sect of Wiccans, particularly martial? Do they employ magic in combat? Rds865 (talk) 00:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what "adding Wiccan" means. Do you mean they are adding Wicca as a recognised religion for Army Chaplains?

I wouldn't be surprised if most Wiccans in the army don't look for or require a chaplain, since Wicca places far less reliance on a leading figure who acts as intercessory between you and divinity. All Wiccans (in traditional, initiatory forms at least) are themselves priests or priestesses, fully responsible for their own actions and their own spirituality.

Regarding your last question: Do Christians employ prayer in combat? Do Buddhists employ mindfulness in combat? I don't see any sect of Wiccans as particularly martial. But these questions are probably best asked at some kind of forum. Here we discuss specific evidence for writing articles. Fuzzypeg★ 22:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Citation needed?

In the Etymology section, there's a sentence about how the word "Wicca" was not used until after Gardner, and the citation points to a Dictionary.com definition. This source says nothing about the origin of the word, only it's modern meaning. Am I missing something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.173.200.87 (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The ref is just to confirm the double c spelling; the gardner statement needs a ref (hmm, reffing a negative statement... is there a Gardner concordance available?) Totnesmartin (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Having given the section another look, it seems as if the statement "gardner never spelt it Wicca is pretty well explained in the opening paragraph, which says he spelt it "witchcraft" (the activity) and "the wica" for the community. I can't find anything in the article which says how it came to be spelt wicca. Hmm. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the Wicca (2 Cs) spelling goes back to either Charles Cardell (Rex Nemorensis) or Doreen Valiente, but my primary sources are packed away. Cardell published "The Craft of the Wiccens" in 1958. is it possible the spellings got conflated somewhere allong the way? Justin Eiler (talk) 22:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Have we answered the original question? Have we even understood the original question? I haven't. The article seems clear to me:

1. Gardner spelt the word Wica (one 'c'), and meant by it, the members of the witchcraft society into which he was initiated.
2. There is an Old English word wicca with a different, but related meaning.
3. Gardner never used the spelling Wicca, but this developed out of Gardner's Wica.
4. Wiccan (both adjective and noun) first appeared in known usage after the early writings of Gardner.

If the dictionary.com definition is what's confusing, then look at the entry for Wicca instead and it should (hopefully) supply a bit more information on the derivation. Old English is essentially a different language to modern English, and the old wicca is a different word to the modern Wicca, and has a different meaning. Fuzzypeg★ 00:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, my fuzzy friend, I believe the original question is looking for a better citation to the statement "The spelling Wicca was not used by Gardner and the term Wiccan (both as an adjective and a noun) was not used until much later, but it is now the prevalent term to refer to followers of Wicca." I personally would like to see a citation for as early as possible use of "Wicca" and "Wiccan" to make me completely comfortable with the sentence as it stands--it's a minor point in the article, but even minor points can make the difference in FA status. Justin Eiler (talk) 01:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Lack of accountability over abuse in Covens.

When a Coven high priest abuses their position by sexually abusing girls under 18 under the ruse of "initiation" why is there no mechanism in place to remove them from the initiation book/register? Also why is there so much inertia from Gardenerian and Alexandrian Wicca in dealing with this frequent problem? It almost has if they tolerate it. Can anyone here give an idea of what guidelines Covens use to remove an abusive Priest or Priestess?--Redblossom (talk) 13:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The main reason that such offenders are not struck off the initiation book or register is that there is no such register. At least, not one that would be universally recognised as authoritative by all Wiccans. Covens keep their own rules - Wicca has no international authority or centralised regulation, as in the case of, say, the Catholic Church. Therefore no standardised response or sanction can really be expected. A coven, at its heart, is composed of the people involved in that coven, and any larger association is likely to be loose.

You say that this is a 'frequent problem'. If it's your intention to create a section detailing this, you'll obviously need reliable cites and sources for the numbers you'll be presenting. You'll also need to show that it's a problem sufficiently widespread - and sufficiently associated with Wicca itself - as to warrant inclusion in an article providing an inevitably brief description of Wicca. Certainly there are those claiming authority in covens who are willing to abuse their position, but this could be said of any religion or society.

Alternatively, you may be asking for other reasons not necessarily related to this descriptive article. It's possible your question is more than just hypothetical. If that's the case, then there are many online discussion groups that may be able to provide suitable advice on this question. In addition, assuming that by 'sexual abuse' you mean actions that would constitute statute crimes (which is the usual implication of the term), then your local law enforcement agency or agencies would certainly be a better bet than any appeal to coven guidelines. - Shrivenzale (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Redblossom has been a long-term troll, starting many fruitless arguments at the Andrew Chumbley article. A number of editors now take a dim view of his opinions. I feel it would be a waste of our time to debate this accusation unless he provides evidence. Wikipedia is not the place to discuss unsupported opinions of editors. Fuzzypeg★ 22:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Noted, thank you. - Shrivenzale (talk) 15:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Shrivenzale. So essentially initiated Wiccan covens dont have the means or the ability to deal with abuse(sexual or otherwise) from its own High Priests or Priestesses? So technically it is quite possible for a Wiccan High Priest to sexually abuse and retain the right to initiate without interference from other covens? Oh and Fuzzypeg if you have nothing good to say dont say anything.--Redblossom (talk) 17:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a courtesy response. I have now viewed some of your previous 'contributions' and other edits attributed to you. I have given what I consider to be a reasonably full response to your original comment here, and as I said, Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for the sort of discussion you are attempting to engage in. I do not intend to discuss this with you any further. - Shrivenzale (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Differentiate between Gardnerian, BTradW and Solitary USA Practice?

I'm sorry that I am unable to make the changes myself (apprehensive about html coding) but would it be possible to differentiate between the 3 main types of Wicca right off the bat so that viewers aren't as tempted to dispute the information. The 6th citation (http://www.newwiccanchurch.net/articles/btwfaq.htm) is one good reference for this but a few more citations might be necessary... Solitary practitioners in the USA are generally far less restrictive and many don't regard Gardner as the founder of anything relevant to what they practice... they follow/incorporate many other Pagan paths like Asatru, Native American, and Dianic Tradition and are sometimes even inspired by American historical events/people like the Salem Trials/Tituba. The beliefs as to how "old" Wicca is and whether or not Gerald Gardner is relevant to what they practice vary drastically in the United States. It can be a point of contention to tell a practitioner that they follow a modern or "invented" religion - many disagree while others are ok with the assessment.

Can someone help to ease the bold beginning of this article that seems to indicate that Wicca and Gardner are still synonymous everywhere you go... it's not very "truthy" anymore. Especially since the name was not even given to the religion by Gardner, he should not be given direct mention in the very first line of the article. It's misleading without some disambiguation in my opinion. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.211.129.152 (talk) 05:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. You know, if you've managed to write this comment, then you'd probably manage OK editing the article, especially since there are plenty of other editors around who can improve your formatting if it's below par. The main thing is to get the information in, and we can worry about making it look pretty later. The reason why I say this is because most of the work is not in the formatting, or even in the writing, but rather in the tracking down of useful sources of information that we can cite.

We had a bit of discussion about different types of Wicca maybe a year ago, and there seemed to be general agreement that making these distinctions clear early in the article was helpful to all parties; perhaps we could move this discussion even closer to the beginning of the article.

You talk about 3 types of Wicca: Gardnerian, BTW and "Solitary USA Practice". Are these common distinctions? I'm not so keyed in with US lingo, but Gardnerian Wicca is normally considered BTW here in NZ and in Australia. It's not a term they use quite so much in the UK, where "Wicca" still largely retains its meaning of initiatory witchcraft in the lineage of Gardner. While any number of gradations and colourations of Wicca could be named, the main two camps that I'm aware of are the initiatory "BTW" camp, those in the lineage of Gardner (Gardnerians, Alexandrians and so on); and the non-initiatory or non-lineaged "Eclectic" camps who couldn't give a toss about Gardner. If we're going to get much more complex than that it would be useful to follow some published taxonomy. And tracking down the best taxonomy is where the work comes in! Fuzzypeg★ 03:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Fuzzypeg, but now I'm logged in, I added a short paragraph and cited it (i think correctly) and it seems to have covered up other text (where it says "Core Ideas") It appears correctly in the edit page but when I look at the article, it seems that I typed over some things... HELP! —Preceding unsigned comment added by FloridaJarrett (talk • contribs) 02:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC) FloridaJarrett (talk) 03:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I think I was just missing a ref tag :( FloridaJarrett (talk) 03:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no... now my reference isn't showing up on the list... maybe someone can help it to "appear"? (this is not the kind of "magic" I'm good at...) FloridaJarrett (talk) 03:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've got it fixed and formatted it. I think the problem was that you use a ref name that was the same as another in the article. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 03:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Wiccan Creationism

What do you think, should we try and add a section devoted to the creationist beliefs of Wicca?

This article may make for a good start...

http://www.witchvox.com/va/dt_va.html?a=usva&c=words&id=8179

(Rosewater Alchemist (talk) 05:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC))

To my knowledge there is no notable philosophical movement within Wicca supporting any particular interpretation of creationism or evolution, or even pushing for the question to be addressed. That article is one person's opinion, and has been cribbed almost entirely from Christian apologetics. I think we'd need a more notable movement before we start talking about what Wiccans might or might not believe. Personally, I also feel he has repeated the same fallacious arguments as Christian creationism, for instance comparing the oldest and crudest theories of evolution (the theory that all evolutionary changes must be very gradual, for example) against recent scientific findings in other fields and concluding that evolution is in opposition to these findings (mechanisms have since been discovered whereby major changes in genetic expression can be made within one or two generations; this is a potential explanation for how rapid species individuation can occur). Another fallacious argument is that because scientists "designed" the experiment to produce amino acids from their "primal soup", then the experiment demonstrated nothing, since we're trying to determine that this can occur in an "undesigned" situation. That's a real gob-smacking argument. So any "designed" experiment can give us no useful information? I have many more problems with that article, but of course it's only my opinion against his.

Suffice it to say, until he gets some followers, I don't think creationism is notable or relevant to this article. I'm sure most Wiccans have some idea of what they personally believe, and I'm also sure there's a great deal of variation amongst these beliefs. There's no reason to think the author of that article is representative of anyone but himself. Fuzzypeg★ 22:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

the question is how important is the belief to Wiccans, of course what Wiccans do believe about origins would be relevant. Do they believe a deity created existence, whether it has changed since creation or not?

And if you have found some source that answers that question, we'd love to hear about it. We already have an article about Wiccan views of divinity that may cover some of this; have a look. Other than that, the best I can suggest is that you start reading, and see what published theories you can find. Unfortunately there's a lot of unrepresentative literature around — it seems every man and his dog wants to write something about Wicca now that this area of publishing has become so lucrative... Fuzzypeg★ 22:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sacrifice and worship

do Wiccans sacrifice? if so what? How do they worship? Rds865 (talk) 00:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Wiccans sacrifice, though no sacrifice is demanded. Things that are generally sacrificed are things that we don't need, like anger, fear, or over-attachment to the product of our labours. For how we worship, see the article Wicca and maybe a few books, like perhaps "What Witches Do" by Stewart Farrar, "Firechild" by Maxine Sanders or even "Witchcraft Today" by Gerald Gardner. Most of the modern books on "eclectic" wicca will only tell you what Eclectic Wicca is about, which is very different to traditional Wicca. Or perhaps that's what you're interested in. Happy seeking, either way! Fuzzypeg★ 22:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It is noted that certain Wiccans, such as Alex Sanders in a documentary, have sacrificed animals, though this is by no means the norm nor even widely accepted in Wiccan circles, as in the Charge of the Goddess it states that no sacrifice is required. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC))

Usualy more because they personally want to rather than it being damanded by the religion.Bed-Head-HairUser:BedHeadHairGirl12:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Pentagrams and Pentacles

would it be right to say that pentagrams and pentacles are a little different. Such as, a pentacle has a circle and a pentagram does not. On pentacle it has the suffix "cle" which is short for circle. --LCondolence_ 12:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It would indeed be right: see their respective articles Pentagram and Pentacle for more details. However the difference is not the one you give as an example.

A pentagram is the name of an abstract shape consisting of a five pointed interlaced star. It may or may not be drawn inside a circle that connects the points. When I say 'abstract shape' I mean it in the same sense as a triangle or square. It's abstract because you can't actually touch a triangle - only a triangular object.

A pentacle on the other hand is an actual physical object. It may be in the shape of a pentagram - or indeed a triangle or any other (usually geometric) shape. One idea about the etymology is that it comes from the French word 'pendu', meaning 'hanging': in other words it's an object meant to hang down, perhaps on a cord round the neck. I've never heard that 'cle' is short for circle. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 19:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I would add to that, that just turning a symbol into a physical three dimensional object doesn't make it a pentacle; a pentacle is specifically a magical tool, often a type of talisman that dangles on a string, or in Wicca, a solid disc. Pentacles are intended to summon or embody particular spirits or energies, and are often made of parchment, metal, wood or wax, and marked with particular symbols and diagrams. Examples of such diagrams can be seen at the Pentacle article. Fuzzypeg★ 05:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)