Talk:Wicca

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

How high were you when you wrote this?--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 00:52, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

Referring to me or Human? Researcher 00:58, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
I'm thinking Human.--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 01:11, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
I dunno, I used to be pretty funny (smelling) back in the day. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Lame CP-centric section cut to here[edit]

"==Pro-Wiccan Bias At CP==

For some reason, the article on Wicca over at "the other place" is very respectful. Which, considering everything else about that place, means that either 1) no one noticed or 2) there are some deep-cover Pagans over there.

Apparently it was because no one noticed. The current version of the page now has a very anti-Wiccan tone.

As of Feb. 1, 2009 it's not. Oddly enough, the person who made the edit was not blocked, though they will shortly."

If this said anything interesting I sort of wouldn't mind it being there, but, nah, I would. "What CP thinks of X" is a thing to try to avoid in our mainspace articles I think. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I originally put it there because 1) it was just SO bizarre and 2) I felt left out because I never did anything at CP. (This is researcher, again, but I keep getting logged out as soon as I log in.) 67.142.130.17 02:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree it's bizarre and amusing (to people who care about CP?), but there aren't really any refs/screenshots/diffs/whatever. But because it was amusing, in concept at least, I saved it to here. Hey, secret squirrel doesn't even know CP exists, and still manages to contribute greatly ;) so don't kick yourself.

Oh no, religious TOLERANCE(!) LOL I'm polytheist with Isis as my goddess, and yeah I don't give a fuck about what any so-called "rational" people think because I get more friends and popularity with my tolerance. I don't need to degrade others to feel good about myself. — Unsigned, by: 124.179.112.167 / talk / contribs

Mucked up[edit]

While I am tempted to simply revert these two edits because some of the writing is crap and it's ridiculously "gentle" in not critiquing the woo at all, I also think that it looks like there is some decent factual material in there. Does anyone else have the energy to rewrite, saving the wheat and chucking the chaff? Or will I have to steel myself to the task? ħumanUser talk:Human 21:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Give me a couple of days, and I can hack away at it. I reverted it back to the version before the Gleamchaser drive-byed the article. Lord Goonie Hooray! I'm helping! 21:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
However, being as I am a Wiccan, I will need some unbiased snark to make sure I'm not too biased. Are you up to that task, Human? Lord Goonie Hooray! I'm helping! 21:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, let me know when you're done fattening it up, then I will come drain its blood for the ceremony. ħumanUser talk:Human 22:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Despite my pro-pagan bias, this needs more snark. Researcher 22:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Origins[edit]

Given that there is no evidence that that provides concrete proof of it's existence before the 20th century, it is generally regarded by FOOLISH MORTALS to be almost certainly fabricated by Gerald Gardner,

Seeking a semblance of consensus[edit]

  • Where it now says
A common tenet is that "whatever you send away in either plane will come back to you."

I'd like to have it say something like

A common tenet is that "whatever you send away in either plane will come back to you." (or "come back to you threefold.")

but I'm not sure what proportion of Wiccans hold that.


  • You want snark? Seems to me that "- though they'd most certainly have a problem with the magic and the teen angst that usually follows and/or fuels the desire to join such a religion." was a step in that direction. Or is that too close to "blurring the Goth/vampire distinction?" (talking about the South Park episode where the Goths had a problem with being mistaken for newbie vampires, if that makes any sense here)

Hardly any doubt in my mind that some kids take to Wicca as rebellion, for shocking or distancing themselves from their elders. No idea how many such kids there are, compared to the number who are doing real personal work with it. Sprocket J Cogswell 01:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I can attest that most actual Wiccans reject those kids who are into it just for the shock value. We consider them "tourists". AnarchoGoon Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living 01:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I think that teen angst line was a bit lame and gratuitous. And someone else (Goonie?) already reverted it... ħumanUser talk:Human 02:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I did revert it simply because it was lame and because it was, in my mind, ignorant of the bulk of the Wiccan community's attitude towards teens joining the religion simply out of spite. But, perhaps, as a practicing Wiccan, I could be considered biased, so it's nice to have a second to my revert. Lord Goonie Hooray! I'm helping! 02:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw Goonie reverted it, which is why I ask here. Them there tourists show up in the shot when most of us click on the Wicca channel... Sprocket J Cogswell 02:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Surprisingly, most serious Wiccans could be considered of the hippie variety. Gooniepunk2010 Oi! Oi! Oi! 02:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Surprising to whom? ;-) Sprocket J Cogswell 02:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, for starters, myself. When I incidentally found myself a member of the religion, I was shocked that the stereotype of angsty teens being the majority wasn't true and that, rather, the majority of the Wiccans, at least in the flourishing Minneapolis Wiccan community, were, if anything, old peace-and-love, John Lennon-worshipping hippies from my parents' generation. The Goonie 1 What's this button do? Uh oh.... 02:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah. I was unaware that the stereotype had the teens in the majority. I was aware of the tourism, if not by that name, but always thought it was a transient fraction, only bothersome at times. Any comment on the threefold thing above the line? Sprocket J Cogswell 02:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Basically, "the Threefold Law" is held by the vast majority of Wiccans; that law being that what you send out returns, and occasionally (but not always) returns up to threefold. I do like you suggestion for an explanation of the Threefold Law. The Spikey Punk I'm punking my punk! 02:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Let us not forget, of course, to mock these silly magical beliefs with no basis in reality, even if some of us hold to them. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I think I did earlier today for this article, actually. Lord of the Goons The official spikey-haired skeptical punk 04:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
(EC) No basis in reality or no basis in science? Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Good point. I would argue some certainly have basis in reality, just not "science". And of which magical beliefs do you speak? The Goonie 1 What's this button do? Uh oh.... 04:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
of which magical beliefs do you speak? - Any. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I thought you were going to call the Threefold Law a silly magical belief, to which I was about to counter that it is more of a moral/ethical belief. Punky Your mental puke relief 04:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
As a non-Wiccan neopagan, it's my understanding that the 3-fold law is pretty universal in Wicca. It's not nearly so universal in neopaganism in general, but should probably belong here. (And I am now prepared to be flamed by a dozen Wiccans who disagree.) Researcher 15:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
The Wiccans I've known (fine people, on the whole) generally buy the 3-fold law as one of the few near-constants in the highly individualistic faith, although I've heard debates as to whether it's actually true or not. When it comes down to it, it's basically just a fancier version of "what goes around, comes around", which is hardly a religious sentiment. --Kels 15:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

And what does a Wiccan think?[edit]

First, in the interest of transparency; I am Wiccan.

This article made me laugh... I loved it! I loved it because I don't like hocus-pocus, not one little bit and it's just the sort of wtf message a lot of people need to read. As I said, I am Wiccan and I can actually trace the lineage from when it was invented (not long ago, maybe around the 1930s).

We are such a delusional bunch. We borrow good stuff from ancient cultures and say we're ancient. We borrow good stuff from current society and say we're really using some idea from before recorded history. What a bunch of crazies we can be.

Anyway, I Hope it doesn't get too mucked up by folks who can't handle it... there are a lot of them though, in every religion from Atheism to the head shrinkers in the jungle.

If you are Wiccan:

I felt I should add this section not for the folks who wrote the page, but for those who come after, and are incensed. Can we maybe *not* change it please? Let it be. It's good. It's correct for the most part as far as my own experience (I mean in reality, not fairy land). There is enough wonder in the real world as any good scientist can tell you that you don't have to invent anything magical. You are responsible for yourself, not the authors. You don't need to convert anyone.

- bb

For the record, I, myself, am a Wiccan (though I prefer Wittan), and I completely agree with your observations. In fact, as a result of RationalWiki, I eliminated a lot of the "magick" from my practice, as I have always felt it to be mostly useless anyways. Anyhow, blessed be! Merry meet, and merry part, and, merry meet again! Lord Goonie Hooray! I'm helping! 05:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Wicca/Wiki[edit]

There's a pun there somewhere. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

But there is a Wicca Wiki somewhere on the internets. Lord Goonie Hooray! I'm helping! 20:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Not So Much[edit]

Yes, modern Wicca came about in the 1950s. I'm not going to claim it has ancient roots.

But it isn't a "make it up as you go along" religion or a "pick and choose" religion. It has gotten watered down by many who come to it from that point of view, I admit. That is why there is now a phenomena called "Traditional Wicca" to keep a core belief system and practice intact. And the traditionalist don't very much care for the Fluffy-Bunny New-Age Wiccans. | Harvestdancer over at Wikipedia

This is why I want to write an article on fluffbunnies/fluff-paganism/sparkly-wicca/whatever you call it. Because while Wicca itself came about relatively recently, it's still a 'thing,' a set of beliefs or a tradition one can follow. Anything that pretends to be part of that tradition, yet really exists to take advantage of people who want to feel better (a la New Age) and get money/form a consumer culture around said set of beliefs is worthy of coverage here. I just haven't found anyone else here that knows enough about fluffbunnies (I was involved with some in high school, preserve me, and I remember the antics) to write the article. Any takers? I have one other friend who knows a lot about it, but she's a friendly lurker here at best. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRlongissimus non legeri 19:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I couldn't take it on without ending every other sentence with "just like Scientology!". Scarlet A.pngssholeModerator 19:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Fluffbunny crap is less organized, more like horoscopes-and-star-signs in the way it gets people... and mostly kids. Very kids. Especially tweenagers and early teenagers. You know, looking for easy identity that promises easy life improvement, etc. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRlongissimus non legeri 20:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

FluffBunnies[edit]

We need a page on this in general. Fluff bunnies infest Wicca, neopaganism, and pretty much anything that can reasonably incorporate getting tubes of sparkles from a craft store and making a circle out of them to summon invisible 'fairies' to tell you you're pretty or other such garbage. Fluffbunny stuff has a serious overlap with adolescence/kid-targeted woo and is often marketed primarily at teenagers when their identities are full of crap and they just want some affirmation. It draws on pop culture to promise a pretty image while ignoring the ideas it appropriates come from actual belief systems. It steals goofy concepts from New Age philosophies and religions, and annoys everybody. We need to make this an actual page, not scattered statements on it on a handful of pages; kids are scammed with this stuff. and while it's written off as a 'phase,' nobody should be profiteering on adolescents and their body image, their social anxiety, their need for solutions and guidance, or other cultural problems that are most definitely not solved by Silva Ravenwolf. In fact, being told that you're entitled to be special and you don't need help from the mundanes who 'just don't understand' can be severely damaging to kids that actually do need counseling and such.±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRcritical thinking is the key to success! 02:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Do we have any former fluffbunnies on RationalWiki? Or is there any research? I've done what I can for the more orthodox British traditions (Gardnerian and Alexandrian) - but you'd have to pay me to e.g. open a book by Silver Ravenwolf. Neonchameleon (talk) 09:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm not nor have I been a fluffbunny, but I've dealt with a few of them over the years in various Neopagan traditions. What specific sorts of things are you looking to poke at? I can think of lots of them in regards to Wicca. Especially when it comes to those who found it by way of Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 13:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Given that all of wika seems to be an ongoing individualistic party of "believe what you like" syncretism, the idea that there are some ideas which are too odd or simplistic for this apparently chaotic belief system is interesting. I've never heard of fluffbunnys before, but if they've got ideas which are too weirdly of base to be incorporated in this super-inclusive inane semi-religion then I think a separate section would be, .... ummmmm ...., illustrative.--Weirdstuff (talk) 16:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
If they are going for a super-inclusive 'believe what you like' inane semi-religion then they probably are fluffbunnies/'Wanna-Blessed-bes'. And they probably have as much to do with Christianity as they do with the Mystery religions that are either Alexandrian or Gardnerian Wicca, or even Janet Farrar's Reformed Alexandrian Wicca (much as she hates the term) that she learnt at least as much from Doreen Valiente as Alex Sanders. As for what we want, sources, practices, how you can tell them. I'm not even sure where to begin tbh. Breadcrumbs away from fluffbunniness is one approach, mockery is another and pointing out how it isn't part of Traditional Wicca Neonchameleon (talk) 18:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
So a section on fluffbunnies would be good then? As far as I can tell from this page they are "Neo-pagans with strange beliefs". So a section explaining how they are different from other neo-pagans would at least be entertaining.- Weirdstuff (talk) 11:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Definitely. The main difference I'm aware of is most neo-pagans at least try to stick to some pattern in what they believe. Wicca in specific has source texts and initiations. Neonchameleon (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Another thing typical of fluffbunnies is that the material targeted at them is very commercial and new-agey in nature. It is sold with a lot of promises often to young people (I have friends who are former fluff, best friend included; she still has books) but no real reward. It no-true-scotsmans people who perform practices that individual authors don't like, and basically sells a power fantasy. Mostly to adolescents, who are at times of their lives where they feel very little control, but some older people end up going along with it all, too. There are also a lot of things targeted at kids from christian households so they can get into the movement but hide their involvement, such as 'angel worship' and other pseudo-pagan-???? things. They are sometimes known as 'one-book-wonders' who read only one intro text by Silva Ravenwolf or somebody and think they are now an amazing and powerful witch who can do anything... but a common criticism of that label is that older and more 'experienced' practitioners could just be said to be 'twenty-book wonders,' etc. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRfree guybrush threepwood! no new taxes! down with porcelain! 16:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Stub created with a couple of lines. Needs more - but Fluff Bunny Wicca is a whole subculture so far as I can tell and I don't know enough. I've also split out the Dianic Wicca section although that still needs some work. Neonchameleon (talk) 01:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Dianic Wicca[edit]

In edit notes Reckless Noise Symphony suggests that Zsuzsanna Budapest's Dianic Wicca (occasionally called Lesbian Separatist Wicca) deserves its own page. I'd agree but know very little about it. Anyone know more? Neonchameleon (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Apparently google and Wiki do. I've made a page - although still consider it a stub.Neonchameleon (talk) 01:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Beliefs section[edit]

It's inaccurate, factually. It assumes "rede" means law. It does not. [1] It is just archaic language which was common for Gardner and the others to use. This "rede" misconception has been used on other pages. It also assumes the wrong thing about Wicca. Gardner originally called it Wica or the Wica, which is a term for a male witch and is of Old English derivation.

ChaoticBlue (talk) 04:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)