Talk:Wicca/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 7 October 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

High

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. ħuman 00:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Lame CP-centric section cut to here

"==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. ħuman 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

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? ħuman 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. AnarchoGoon ^{Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living} 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 of the Goons ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 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. ħuman 22:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Despite my pro-pagan bias, this needs more snark. Researcher 22:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Seeking a semblance of consensus

• 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". Gooniepunk2010 ^{Oi! Oi! Oi!} 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... ħuman 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. Punky ^{Your mental puke relief} 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. The Goonie Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 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. Lord of the Goons ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 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. Lord of the Goons ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical 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. ħuman 04:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I did earlier today for this article, actually. Gooniepunk2010 ^{Oi! Oi! Oi!} 04:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

(EC) No basis in reality or no basis in science? ListenerX^TalkerX 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 Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 04:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

of which magical beliefs do you speak? - Any. ħuman 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. AnarchoGoon ^{Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living} 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?

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! The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 05:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Wicca/Wiki

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. AnarchoGoon ^{Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living} 20:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)