Talk:Willow Rosenberg

Wiccan versus Witch

As an active Pagan, currently part of a traditional (Alexandrian) Wiccan coven, I find the description of Willow Rosenberg as a "Wiccan" simply innacurate. Wicca is a very specific Witchcraft religion, involving certain rites and traditions such as the Fivefold Kiss, Scourging, strict adherence to the Wiccan Rede (which is a long poem, not just the one line commonly quoted), etc. It is widely thought of as the "orthodox" Witchcraft religion, and while some other Witches use "Wiccan" instead of "Witch" because it's less stereotyped, this is considered inaccurate by older Witches and those active in the traditional modes of Witchcraft.

Essentially, Willow is an eclectic Witch, not a Wiccan. I say eclectic because she performs some very powerful sorts of magick that are not by any means part of the spellbook of most Witchcraft traditions, such as murder and soul manipulation. In fact, in content if not in form, she veers awfully close to Goetic (medieval spirit-manipulation) magick.

I'll also be changing "magic" to "magick" throughout the article, as it is the more technically accurate term. May you never thirst. Skritchmeee 04:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did some considerable editing as there was a ton of non-relevant information as well as NPOV issues. "Skillfully acted" etc....

(The above is undated and unsigned.) I'm not the least bit religious but I agree that it's inappropriate to describe Willow as "Wiccan". —Tamfang 08:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I realise I am ressurecting an old debate but having come across this, I have to disagree. Willow is identified in the show as "a Wicca", and any article about her should make this clear.

For example, from Doppelgangland: Anya: I just need a secondary to create a temporal fold. I heard you were a pretty powerful wicca, so...

Willow: You heard right, mister!

This article is accurate if it accurately describes the character on the show, not what the character should have been or how the writers might have portrayed her if they had done their research properly. The fact that the depiction of Wicca on the show is apparently innacurate is of course noteworthy and should be included too. Hobson 01:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that Willow should really be referred to as a "witch", not "wicca". Just because some characters in the show threw around a word improperly doesn't mean that it should go into an encyclopedia as an official description of the character. Whether Willow is or is not a Wicca seems to be controversial, so I would suggest that we just call her a witch (which at least we definitely know is an accurate term). Riverbend 15:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain it is controversial that Willow is portrayed as "a Wicca" on the show. In the show Buffy the Vampire Slayer, the character Willow is portrayed as a Wicca - surely that's just a fact? I don't think any of the editors have disagreed with that.

If a person like Willow existed in real life then anyone who knew anything about Wicca might say she was not a Wiccan. However, Wikipedia is not the place to try to make an official ruling on whether Willow "really was" a Wiccan or not. The article should tell people who this fictional character is, and in the storyline of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Willow is portrayed as "a Wicca". In this fictional world, Wicca has very little to do with the real-world religion.

It is, of course, important to mention (just a sentence or two) that the writers' portrayal of Wicca is considered highly innacurate by people who know anything about the real religion it is loosely based on (as the article currently does, with a citation).

She is also called a witch sometimes too, but the fact that she is portrayed as a Wicca is notable imho. It is presented on the show as being an important part of her character.

The way the characters describe themselves and each other on the show is important:) This is how the writers tell is who the characters are. Hobson 21:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

who's a regular character?

Doesn't Giles count as a character in at the beginning and still there at the end? Although in season 6 (iirc?) he wasn't in every episode neither was WIllow (or everyone, for that matter) VampWillow 22:42, 2004 May 10 (UTC)

except Xander. Xander was in every episode of every season except season seven, wherein he was not in one ep ("Conversations with Dead People"). And in the later seasons Giles is a guest star, not a main character, because his name is not in the opening credits. Willow and Xander are credited as main characters in every season. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 02:40, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Willow and Buffy are the only characters to appear in all 144 episodes. —Tamfang 05:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Willow vs Darth Rosenberg

Should we list both the nicknames? I say we do; I, personally, and a considerable number of fans I correspond with, use primarily the second name. I have noticed that we're somewhat of a minority, but that should not be reason not to name it. For completeness' sake, we might as well have it. --Allycat 23:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The former is widespread (google test: 9660 results) whereas the latter is very much a minority exercise and uncommon (gt: 659). I've also seen the "Dark Willow" used as a comparison method and by trade manufacturers of model statuettes; the latter complicates readers' understanding and searches (ie. is she a Sith?) Leave former, remove latter --Vamp:Willow 09:40, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think a mention of the "Darth Rosenberg" moniker shouldn't be out of the question. It's mentioned in the role-playing game books, and is actually used in the series. Of course the toy manufacturers aren't going to use the term 'Darth,' as LucasArts has mighty lawyers. Putting an 'aka Darth Rosenberg' in parentheses shouldn't cause that much trouble. Anyone who's reading the article and is so confused they think that Willow's a Sith Lord is confused to a point where the article wouldn't help much anyhow, I imagine.--MythicFox 13:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuality = a retcon?

Should Willow's becoming gay be described as a retcon? Many in the Buffy community have thought so ever since she came out, describing her crush on Xander and her obvious love for Oz.

I fail to see how Willow being gay is retcon. Her homosexuality is even forshadowed in Doppelgängland.--WhyBeNormal 07:02, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Which essentially means you've neither read what's been said here nor what's currently noted on the page, really. Reviewing:

She consistently expressed a crush on Xander throughout the initial seasons, which actually expressed itself sexually - see season two's Go Fish, where she joyously looks on at a shirtless, wet Xander in speedos.
She comments on boys, and expresses some level of sexual interest on them throughout the initial seasons as well - I can't think beyond the Living Conditions episode, where she comments on Parker somewhat appreciatively,... well, in fact, as far as the fifth season opener, Buffster vs Dracul and all, she seems positively giddy at just the thought of the Dark Prince (though this can admitedly be attributed to magic, but... I don't know about that). I also have some recollection of other moments of appreciation somewhere in season two or three, I think, which I can't back up on right now, for which I apologize.
She establishes a functioning, healthy relationship with Oz which lasts... what, two years? Not only this, but if I remember correctly, even after sexual contact, she remains satisfied and very obviously in love with him. Their relationship seems untainted by any doubts of hers as to its nature, and full realization of it or not.
And this is the main point: It's never even dealt with that she goes from this to a self-identifying lesbian. No-one asks about what this means as to Oz, or what's happened to her apparent and recurring interest in males, or if the crush on Xander was just a silly phase, and so on. Meaning, she could perfectly well be a lesbian (or a bisexual, though this isn't even explored, which just seems kinda silly), but the matter isn't even approached by the characters or Willow herself - this in a show that is all about continuity and character development. Not so much a case of character development, but a change which could be justifiable ("I was repressed, I was fooling myself, I was never fully satisfied, etc.") and is never even passingly explored.

And what, VampWillow being bisexual is a sign that Willow would come to out as a lesbian? Because I'd like to remind people that, at least as *I* saw it, VampWillow was all over VampXander in The Wish, pointing much more strongly to sexual ambiguity than homosexuality, and the logical interpretation could very well be "oh, she's BI!, then!" as logically as gay or straight, if not more.

So, basically, saying outright that her homosexuality is a retcon is indeed incorrect - the note should be made, though, that it can, and sometimes is interpreted as such, by people who know the show and accompanied the character (whether these people are driven in this line of thought by a lack of logic as to the character development or an actual problem with the thought of her being gay is another matter entirely, indeed)

OH, and on the whole "it was foreshadowed" thing?, interestingly, I actually think Xander would be more justifiably gay (what a stupid way to put it, but oh well) what with the way he speaks of Angel, depreciative(?)ly or not, when he sees him, and the whole Larry episode which people would have ended up interpreting as a sign as well. At least he never quite had a proper relationship with girls, and what with Buffy and Cordelia, his interests seemed always highly attached and dedicated, which would have been interesting to explore as a sign of uncomfort with the other sexy. Just sayin'. :) Cheers, sorry for ramblyness, Zeppocity 13:39, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't that unusual for someone who later comes out as gay/lesbian to have a phase of heterosexuality first (societal pressures, etc) and Willow certainly stays lesbian post-Tara. My own view is that the WB didn't dare get into use of the 'B' word so just let her follow the fairly typical path of many a young lesbian from str9 to gay (and let us not forget that we all do odd things at school!) --Vamp:Willow 21:27, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, and I'm bisexual, so I'm not really speaking from personal experience, I'll admit it, but I have a really hard time buying the concept that she just switches from a) to b) - to indentify as a heterosexual and live as one, limitedly, is one thing (see the number of gay men with wives who eventually explore their interests outside the marriage or simply live in a state of repression and sexual inactivity), but, and this was what I was pointing out with my examples, Willow didn't just appear straight in all ways, but she acted as such with pretty absolute consistency (leaving the leather-clad joy out of the convo). Now, as far as I'm concerned, this could all be attributed to repression - "her love of Oz was a friendly one with an uncomfortable sexual nature", "her crush on Xander was her subconsciously forcing herself to be drawn to males", etc, etc, etc, this is all very valid to me... but it should have been adressed. I'm not saying that this is a recton and all ye who think not are to be taught, not even close, but I think that one thing should be taken in consideration - her sudden shift from straight straight straight! Willow to gay gay gay! Willow, without any other exploration of the subject, seems lazy to me (whether the WB or the creators are to blame is a whole other can of worms). So, for me, personally, I can't quite shake the feeling that Willow just turned gay (which, good people, doesn't happen that way) where she should have come out as gay. See my issue with this? Sorry for the ramblyness. Not trying to make with the righteous, rather, s€ort of enjoying making the point. Pardon if it's the wrong place :). Cheers, Zeppocity 22:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You've made good points that I agree with, but I don't think "retcon" accurately describes Willow becoming gay. The writers didn't go back and change the history of the show. --WhyBeNormal 07:19, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Don't reckon so either. A few will however feel that it is, though. Hence a passing reference and no more. Zeppocity 14:00, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(and again, the use of "becoming gay", as if such a thing exists... anywho. :)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeppocity (talk • contribs) 14:02, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to jump on this several months later, but I kinda object to your statements about sexual orientation being rigid and unchanging. That might be the case for you, but it's certainly not the case for all humans. I for one appreciated the nod given by the writers of BtVS, intentional or not, that many of us go through changes as our sexuality develops. I know plenty of people who would say they were once straight or bi and are now gay, and just as many who have gone the other way. I would certainly say that Willow's homosexuality falls under the heading of character development, rather than a retcon. Hexyhex 04:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, disagree with the use of the term "retcon" in this case. It implies IMO an objection on the part of the writer to the suggestion that someone who had been heterosexual earlier in life may later decide to pursue a homosexual relationship. I've no knowledge of whether that happens often, but in the absence of evidence to the contrary I accept that it is possible. Xiner 19:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need the section at all? Why not just have the facts, that she began a sexual relationship with Tara. If we need to comment on her sexuality, then we could restrict ourselves to quotes from the show itself. I don't see a need to comment on what some fans think her sexuality might possibly be. The reader can make that interpretation for themselves--Nalvage 16:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Giles from list of romantic relationships

The fact that Willow had a crush on Giles does not qualify him as a romantic relationship. It was never pursued, much less consummated.

When I started the little "romantic relationship" heading for all of the Buffyverse character profiles, I meant for it to include all romances, including meaningless one-time things and crushes. I think we should definately include the Giles/Willow line. If you want to change the title of the list to be more neutral sounding fine. Pinchofhope 03:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "romantic interests"? --Gruepig 05:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Willow's Middle Name?

Where does the mention of a middle name appear? I don't remember there being one. --MagicPath111 05:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the article says, in the script of Bad Girls. The line was cut from the show. —Tamfang 05:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a link to such a script, or a note as to where it came from? Xiner 19:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scripts are available in script books. But if it was cut, it isn't canon.

Scripts also here http://www.unreliablenarrator.net/buffy_scripts.asp specifically http://www.unreliablenarrator.net/buffyverse/buffy_shooting_scripts/3x14.htm but Danielle isn't in it

It's from an early draft of the script. I'm wondering if we should cut it, or at least move it to the trivia section? It's conceivable or maybe probable that it didn't make it to a later draft (let alone the actual episode), because Joss didn't want her middle name to be Danielle.--Nalvage 01:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Willow's diploma is (or was reccently) on E-bay, and I happened to notice she was called Danielle. It can be argued that the document could be fake and not an actual prop, but I feel inclined to believe it's legitimate.MaskedScissorDoll 06:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Willow's favorite band

Willow says her favorite band is Cibo Matto in When She Was Bad. I wish there were a place to put it in the article.

Willow's power when under magic spells

I think the last paragraph in Powers section should be deleted. Tons of spells have been cast on the show and I don't see what the big deal is if she became a ghost during such an episode. It doesn't contribute to the understanding of the character. What do people think?

(Xiner said that.) I agree, particularly because it has no lingering effect (except that it helps get Willow out of her shell!) and because it could have happened to anyone. (It probably did happen to a few others.) —Tamfang 22:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Fictional Deity??"

Does Willow really belong in this category? It seems based on one utterance by Kennedy - and how/why would she know? As far as I can see Willow merely performed a powerful spell and was momentarily affected by it.--Ross Nolan 15:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the side of goddess, that momentary affect only happened once in the Buffyverse. Hyacinth 17:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deity - Extract from the opening of that article: "A deity or a god is a postulated preternatural being, usually, but not always, of significant power, worshipped, thought holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, or respected by human beings...They are usually immortal...and they may be thought to be the authorities or controllers of every aspect of human life (such as birth or the afterlife). Some deities are asserted to be the directors of time and fate itself, to be the givers of human law and morality, to be the ultimate judges of human worth and behavior, and to be the designers and creators of the Earth or the universe. Some of these "gods" have no power at all—they are simply worshipped."

Kennedy does not have any special power which means she can detect Willow has suddenly turned into a 'Goddess', she was just using it as a phrase of praise. Even when Willow was under the control of the dark magics at the end of Buffy Season 6, that didn't make 'Willow' herself anything other than human (althought the magic controlling her may have been demonic).. Although it's possible that doing that spell made her become a deity, there is not a shred of actual evidence to suggest as such, And even at the end of Chosen, I can't see Willow meeting much of the criteria above. -- Paxomen 18:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is evidence to support that Willow did indeed become a goddess. It is stated in the show that she became a goddess by Kennedy. Also if you watch the season seven extras the writers do confirm that willow became a goddess and that is how her character arc ended.

God may be defined that way on Wikipedia, but the only character most certainly a Goddess on Buffy, Glory, is only preternatural, of signifigant power, worshipped (by demons), and immortal (though not impervious). The criteria of our real world don't apply, those of the fictional Buffyverse do. Hyacinth 09:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

date of birth

Article has said Willow was born in 1980, 1981 and 1982. Is there canon for any of these? Buffy was 1981, it said on her tombstone. Surely Willow is the same age?

I agree, unless Willow was skipped a grade it's impossible for her to be a year younger then Buffy and Xander, seeing that Buffy was born in january of 1981 and it says that Willow was born in 1982...that doesn't make any sense.PhoenixPrince 12:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Her birth year was actually stated on the Official Buffy website as being 1982. Chimufu 04:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Willow and Xander

For the section on romantic interests, would it be appropriate/relevant to mention that in "The Wish", alternate reality vampire Willow and vampire Xander were romantically involved?Riverbend 18:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]