User talk:Xxglennxx/Archive 1

Archive 1 - Any comments relating to Wicca, Witchcraft, and Paganism

License tagging for File:Issue 18, Lammas 2009.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Issue 18, Lammas 2009.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Wicca

Hello Xxglennxx, I saw your responses to a question regarding "A Witch's 10 Commandments" in the Wicca article. In my opinion, this book is the author's way of presenting her beliefs to the world. Based on my research, it does not claim to be authoritative, it simply presents her beliefs. While I can understand some feeling of anger when viewing the title and synopsis of the book, it is often best not to jump in with quick descisions. We all walk our paths, and this book, and those like it may lead someone on theirs. If you would like to, you can check out this review of the book I found. [1] If you would like to discuss this, just leave a message on my talk page. Blessed Be. Sephiroth storm (talk) 01:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sephiroth, thanks for commenting. Without getting into an argument here, what you must realise is that the 'commandments' posted on the discussion page about Wicca are just parodies of the Christian Ten Commandments. What message do you think seeing this/these sends out to the general public about Wicca?; "Oh, they're just adapted Christian morals and made them their own, in an attempt to validate their religion." We don't need validation, as we are a religion, and have coped well before the publication of the book in question and it's "Commandments." If the commandments present her beliefs, then they still have nothing to do with Wicca, and still do not merit being on the page. I don't want to restrict the article, but things like this/these have no place on it, in my opinion. Xxglennxx (talk) 13:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for taking time out to respond. I defiantly agree that they do not belong on the article, as they are defiantly not part of our religion. That being said, my concern was with your statement, regarding the distinction between Wicca(n) and Witch(craft). I simply would like to point out that the reasoning for this is that there is a paradox in these paths, all Wiccans are Witches, but not all Witches are Wiccan. The author of the book is a Wiccan Witch, she rote the book for Witches. I understand what message it sends, but we should be less concerned about how others view us, and focus on defining and walking our own paths.

As for the comment regarding "Charmed witches", I can also see where you are coming from, however in my experience, there are very few who start on our path after watching charmed and Buffy :) there are some yes, but mostly those who do start on that path quickly find out that our religion is not quite what TV makes it out to be ;) That being said, if that causes one person to look at our religion, to consider our path, or to look at us in a more positive light, then I believe the positive outweighs the negative in this situation. Thoughts? Sephiroth storm (talk) 15:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. To an extent, I agree with your "all Wiccans are Witches, but not all Witches are Wiccan," though others would surely argue a different point; not all Wiccans follow a Magickal based Wiccan path - others concentrate on the homage to Deity / God / Goddess, or whatever they follow. I have nothing against Wiccan Witches writing about what they know, and what they believe in, but you said it yourself; she wrote the book for Witches, who may and may have not wanted to become Wiccan (in whatever sense you accept the word to mean). I personally get very angry when I buy a book that is supposed to be just about Witchcraft, and read it a little more to find that it a book of Wiccan Witchcraft! Everyone seems to have jumped on the band-wagon these days, though I can see why - Wicca now seems to sell >,< I have found that many newbies I have met have come from the mindset of Charmed, or Buffy, but I do use message boards quite a lot (in particular About.com's Pagan/Wiccan section board), and see many many newbies passing through and having their flounce. I think that when people read one book, and declare they know everything about Wicca or Witchcraft to their friends, parents, ect, then in a few months time, drop it - this hinders our religion, I believe, as these are the people who show Wicca to be a fad, and that is not acceptable. If they stick to Wicca, and learn what is it properly, then yes - this is good, but not the other way around. Xxglennxx (talk) 23:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks!

Many thanks for your kind words. Hopefully we can all pull these articles on Neopaganism up to scratch... the Wicca one won't need too much more work before it can probably be nominated for featured article status... but then there are pages like Neo-druidry and Neopaganism which need a hell of a lot! (Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC))

Great Rite and Sex magic

Hi, and good to meet you. I added in the See also section again in Wicca, then noticed you had removed it once. As the topics are touched very lightly in the article, maybe they can be expanded or the See also link can be left. And can you take a look at the Great Rite page and Sex magic page and consider contributing your knowledge to them? See the discussion page for Sex magic, a couple of editors wanted to blank it, so I've put in work on it and have asked other editors to contribute their expertise. It's well covered on the Crowley end, but needs more data from other practices and traditions, as well as additions to a new Further Reading list. As for Great Rite, a key aspect of Wicca, hopefully that page can grow a bit with more data and references. Thanks, Aleister Wilson (talk) 13:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Aleister. I think the best option for this is to discuss it on the Wicca-talk page. The reason I removed them is this: sex magick (perhaps not so much the GR) can be used in other Neo-Pagan traditions, and is therefore not unique to Wicca. It can also be practised in a non-religious setting. They are briefly mentioned, and I believe that is sufficient for the article itself. If people want to read up more about the GR or sex magick, then they only need click the link. Perhaps we can add content which describes both in Wiccan context, such as an overview of what happens, but again - this is explained in each other the separate articles. I'll have a look at each of the articles and see what I can do :) Thanks for contacting me - we always need more people to look after the Wicca article and general neo-Pagan articles. Xxglennxx (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. And any addition to the pages, esp. the Sex magick page where the Wiccan aspect is touched on but could be expanded (and additions to the reading list?), would be great. Maybe then it would be more linkable to at least the See also sections of Wiccan data as well. Noticed the British Wiccan page has nothing about the Great Rite on it, which is why I added a See also list there as well, which you've patroled. I saw a page, Hieros gamos, that says the full and complete Great Rite is used in British Wicca. Thanks again, Aleister Wilson (talk) 17:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be a useful addition, yes. Do you mean British Traditional Wicca (BTW)? There shouldn't be a need to explain the GR there, as its a term used to describe the type of Wicca practised that originates from the British Isles, and thus Gardner. The GR is used in most Traditions of Wicca, though especially in BTW as I'm aware. We shall discuss this further on the talk pages. Xxglennxx (talk) 00:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I did place a comment on the Wicca talk page. Thanks, Aleister Wilson (talk) 06:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed you took 'sex magic' in 'See also' off 'neopaganism' as well, and said that neopaganism "may or may not include it". That's one reason for a See also list, topics not fully covered in the text but related, available for those who want to link through. This removal may be stretching it, don't you think? I won't put it back, but would like a full discussion. On the Wicca page? Thanks again, Aleister Wilson (talk) 22:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

RE: Sex Magic in numerous articles

Your recent note on my page (and please read it, it's almost a threat which, as I'll explain below, is unwarranted and excessive in the context) makes it look like I've added all those links again and you removed them again. I haven't added a link to Sex Magic to any of the relevant articles in question since we've had our discussion, and you may or may not know that, but in either case it seems more discussion is needed as we have two opposite pov's on the relevancy of the link. I don't want to have the discussion on our talk pages, as you mention other editors have an interest in this. On which page should we have the full discussion? Back to Wicca, or somewhere else? Regards for the New Decade, Aleister Wilson (talk) 14:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Went back and read your note again, it seems to me quite angry and threatening, and totally inconsistent with the fact I haven't added any links to the articles you mention in almost or more than a month, not since our discussions. Are you sure you do not have a pov issue with this question? This may be relevant to ongoing discussion, and I would ask you to reconsider the tone of your note when taking in the data of my two comments here. Thanks, Aleister Wilson (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Aleister. I'm sorry that it sounded like a threat - this was not my intention. Nowhere in my comment on your talk-page have I insinuated that I have again removed the links for previous articles; if you have read it like that, then this is no fault of mine. The most recent articles from which I removed the link are Orgasm control, White Stains, the Sex template, and Human sexual behaviour. I cannot see any relevance as to why "sex magic" should be placed on this articles. For others who have removed your link, you can read them on Wicca's talk page (again, what relevance does sex magic have to the Charge of Goddess?). From what I can see,

• You added Sex magic to Orgasm control on Nov 28 2009.
• You added Sex magic to White Stains on Dec 25 2009.
• You added Sex magic to the Sex template on Nov 29 2009.
• You added Sex magic to Human sexual behavior on 30 Nov 2009.
  

When you added them is now irrelevant - the fact is that you're placing these links to pages which have no connection with sex magic. I've nothing against sex magic, I'm only against adding content which is not needed (do not try to argue a point along the lines, "Well it must be needed, as it isn't included!"). Once again, I'm sorry if you read it wrong - I did not mean to cause offence, merely to keep up with Wikipedia English standards, Xxglennxx (talk) 00:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Triple Goddess (neopaganism)

Your edits to that article were unhelpful in obscuring the historical precedence of Graves with respect to a concept that was not invented by Wiccans, is not practiced by Wiccans only, and does not occur in Gardner's writings -- and also in introducing the word "godhead"[sic] which is not only rather archaic in modern English, but which in addition has radically divergent and contradictory meanings in various religious traditions, and so conveys very little meaning. AnonMoos (talk) 01:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. The line "The Triple Goddess is the subject of much of the writing of Robert Graves, and has been adopted by members of the Neopagan religion of Wicca as one of their primary deities" is contradictory to the article and is biased. I'm not against mentioning Graves at all in the article if he has relevance, but he doesn't. Saying that the Triple Goddess is the subject of much of the writing of Robert Graves is like saying Space is the subject of much of the writing of Stephen Hawkins - it sounds absurd, as Stephen does not just write about "space." Wiccans have never claimed to be the ones who termed the coin "Triple Goddess" as you have implied on my talk-page, and I think you'll find Gardner did write about (a) Triple Goddess. As to whether the word of "godhead" is archaic is debatable - I still hear it, and I'm 21. I'll be removing the reference to Graves again and opening up the opening paragraph to discussion to the discussion page. 04:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Please read the article discussion page, where it has been discussed at great length that it is quite dubious whether the specific concept of a new moon / full moon / old moon triad of Goddesses defined as maiden, mother, and crone is attested prior to the "writings of Robert Graves". Furthermore, since the Triple Goddess concept was not invented by Wiccans, is not practiced by Wiccans only, and is not really a core essential Wiccan belief (since it does not occur in Gardner's writings), having Wicca be the only specific individual or group being named in the lead paragraph is greatly diaproportionate. AnonMoos (talk) 07:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)