Template talk:Neopagan witchcraft

On 1 August 2023, it was proposed that this page be moved from Template:Contemporary witchcraft. The result of the discussion was moved.

Talk page for all templates relating to this topic

Several templates have recently been produced and added to pages within this general area, namely:

I'm a bit concerned that this profusion has taken place without much discussion from editors who work on these articles. Some articles could conceivably be tagged with 3 or 4 of these templates: indeed, Wicca already has three. I mean no criticism of the creators of the templates - but I suggest that this should be discussed centrally so that there is a degree of uniformity in articles within the same family. If you would like to join this discussion, please do not reply here, but go instead to the talk page I have set up for this purpose. Many thanks! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What constitutes "Eclectic Wicca"?

Midnightblueowl said:

"Dianic Wicca" and "Georgian Wicca" etc are not forms of "Eclectic Wicca"

I was under the impression that 'Eclectic Wicca' was a term to describe all forms of Wicca that are non-BTW. I seem to remember Margot Adler popularised this term with her discussion of 'American Eclectic Wiccans', a term chosen to include traditions such as Dianic Wicca. See this page for more info, although it's probably not admissable as a reliable source. I'd need to have another look at Adler for that. Fuzzypeg ★ 00:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that to be an "Eclectic Wiccan", one had to practise eclectically, like the New Age movement. As far as I amn aware, Georgian Wicca etc does not do this. That was my reasoning, though if sources say otherwise than fair do's :) (Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

My opinion is biased, but I'd call Georgian Traditional Witchcraft, not eclectic Wicca. If we are going to call it Wicca, I still wouldn't call it eclectic, but some sort of "non BTW, but initiatory" Wicca. The taxonomy is difficult to work with.--Vidkun (talk) 15:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1734 trad Wiccan?

The 1734 tradition was founded based on the teachings of Roy Bowers, who was very scathing of Wicca: Bowers, I believe, coined the term "Wiccan" with derogatory intent, and went to some lengths to ridicule and denounce the "Gardnerians" (another derogatory term from Bowers). Bowers claimed to represent a quite separate variety of witchcraft. I would therefore find it very strange if the 1734 crowd had adopted the name "Wicca" which their patron saint had so vilified!

...And following a quick search I discover that they have indeed started calling themselves Wiccans! Wonders will never cease. OK, leave them in the list then. Fuzzypeg ★ 22:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cite for that one, please, Fuzzy? I wasn't aware of Bowers using "Wicca" as a derogatory term, but I had heard it about the term "Gardnerian". And all of the Cochranites I know use witchcraft, or, more specifically, Traditional Initiatory Witchraft to refer to their practices.--Vidkun (talk) 14:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that Cochrane/Bowers used the term "Wiccans" either - I thought that the first usage of the term was in the June Johns official biography of Alex Sanders. If so, as far as I am aware, the term "Wicca" hadn't even been invented in it's contemporary meaning around the 1950s. Gardner never called his religion Wicca, he always called it Witchcraft - which is exactly what Cochrane called his, and terms like the 'Old Religion' were used to refer to both. Valiente believed that both were the same religion, just different variations. It is for these reasons that I support the usage which allows Wicca to include all forms of Neopagan witchcraft that have the same beliefs about theology etc. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Notable Wiccans

I keep removing Ipsita because, frankly, she is not notable, as a Wiccan, on the level of the others in the list.--Vidkun (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Vidkun. It wasn't me who added Ipsita, but I personally believe that she is notable enough to warrant inclusion, after all, she is the most notable Wiccan in India, and indeed in all of Asia. She may not be very well known outside of India, but within that nation she is essentially its public face. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Okay, and where's reliable sources accounting for her notability as a Wicca? Right now, it only seems like her own webpage asserts her notability.--Vidkun (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, you may well be right there Vidkun, maybe the person who added her to the list can find their notability? (Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

List of Notables needs trimming

The list of Notables is too long and it's hard to see the real notables in the forest. Some of these people barely have two paragraphs on Wikipedia, and some are not even Wiccans or Witches, but merely "alleged" to be; much less are they "notable". I will attempt to trim the list after a while if no one objects or does it themselves or comments. Softlavender (talk) 06:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it's been over 7 weeks and nobody has objected, so I went ahead and trimmed the list down to 23, which is really still too many (20 is the recommended limit). I trimmed the ones whose articles did not prove sufficient notability for inclusion in the infobox. I feel that about five of the ones remaining should be trimmed as well. If the navbox is to be useful for the average reader, the links on it should lead to articles that are extremely revelant. For instance, I think the articles on the people who initiated Gardner (or claim to have) are not sufficiently notable for a crowded infobox. I think they are important, but not important enough for this -- for instance, they should be found and linked on Gardner's article if they are not already. Lastly, I think the solution to this overcrowding is the List of Pagans article, which is a better place to list so many people. Softlavender (talk) 05:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I must have missed the original post above from April, or I'd have made some suggestions of my own. But kudos for trying a first cut of what, I agree, was too long a list. However all such attempts are going to provoke a reaction and here's mine! I can't accept that Dorothy Clutterbuck, Edith Woodford-Grimes or Alex Sanders (who have been removed) are less relevant to this topic than Cerridwen Fallingstar or Charles Cardell (who remain). Indeed, to remove Alex but leave Maxine Sanders seems very odd (especially to me, from an Alexandrian line!)

I won't revert because I can't particularly defend the original list - for example I'd probably remove Philip Heselton although I wrote most of that article myself! But perhaps we can have a fuller discussion here about who should be on the list and why? One thing did strike me was that most of the list removed were English; I wonder if those on different sides of the Atlantic see people's importance differently? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kim. I gave my rationale for those I removed: The articles on those removed in my opinion seemed to least support a level of notability which would support inclusion in this navbox. This may be the fault of those articles, but that's most of what I had to go on. Also, on March 3, 2011, the list was 65% British, 25% American, and 9% other, reflecting an extreme systemic bias towards Britain, especially when one takes population into consideration. This needs to be remedied.

What I suggest is that we decide how many people we want on the list (I suggest 20); and then decide from there who should be on the list. I suggest that it be 45% British, 45% American, and 10% other. I would also lean towards more living breathing people rather than dead ones than currently exists on the list (the bulk of the non-living can be prominently reviewed in a History of Wicca article), and also lean towards letting only one person stand in for a tradition (e.g. Alex Sanders for Alexandrian) rather than a multiplicity, because this lets the list be more helpful to the general reader and eliminates duplication. The other members of each tradition are generally prominently linked in the article on one person (e.g. Maxine Sanders is prominently linked on Alex's article). By the way, my trim of Alex was meant to trim Maxine! Sorry about that!! Must have only looked at the last name when I used the "delete" button.

Anyway, those are my suggestions. I suggest that once we decide what percent British and American, that the Brits choose their people, and the Americans choose their people, since it seems to me that folks on either side of the pond do not know who is popular on the other side. Softlavender (talk) 01:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but that's a dreadful rationale! There's a systematic bias because as Ronald Hutton points out Wicca is "the only religion England has given the world". Wicca originated in England so of course it's likely to have many key figures. It would be like saying the a template on Mormonism mentions too many Americans! I do agree that those on either side of the pond may be less aware of those on the other but that's no reason for imposing a quota system; we need to look at each person on their merits and this is where a true editorial function needs exercising to make a mature judgement about notability. I'd also say that I disagree with the recentism inherent in choosing living people - it's likely to mean that media witches win the Google hits war because they've got their message out on Facebook and Twitter. Dorothy Clutterbuck had no email address! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 06:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wicca may have originated in England, but Christianity originated in Israel, Buddhism originated in India, Protestantism originated in Germany, Judaism originated in Isael, and yet most of the notables of those religions are not from those countries. Nor am I advocating recentism or a Google web hits war; I simply opined that the list could use more living people than it had on March 3, 2011. Softlavender (talk) 07:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good counter argument but I'd respond by pointing out that Wicca has had only about 60 years to develop. I'd guess that in about AD90 Christianity too would have been dominated by folk from its land of origin. This soon after a religious movement starts it would not be surprising if people from its birthplace are over-represented in the list.

Thanks by the way for making the original bold move to cut the list, an objective with which I entirely agree. And it's good to be having a proper discussion about editorial matters here in an adult way - so many of these differences of viewpoint are fought out in revert wars rather than on the merits of the case! I'm hoping other people may chime in here to expand this from a dialogue - in due course I may propose a further slimming down of the list, which I agree is still too big, but it would be good to see others' opinions first. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 08:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That Wicca has had only 60 years to develop adds to my point; much or most of that development and the most increase in activity and participation has been in the last 30 years in the U.S. Softlavender (talk) 08:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. —Sowlos 17:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WiccaandWitchcraft → Template:Witchcraft (contemporary) or Template:Contemporary Witchcraft –This template was originally designed as a Wicca {{navbox}} and it shows. It was expanded to more broadly cover contemporary Witchcraft, but that resulted in little more than changing the title to [[Wicca|Wicca and Neopagan Witchcraft]][1] and squeezing in a few related non-Wiccan links thereafter. It still looks like it straggles between focusing on Wicca and general Witchcraft. While it wont take too much cleaning to fix that, I propose moving this template to make things clearer. The current name is neither natural, precise, consistent with the current naming of its parent serieses. In fact, I would say it is actually confusing.
—Sowlos (talk) 14:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about Template:Contemporary witchcraft? That capitalization is probably better unless we're referring to a specific organization. --BDD (talk) 16:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The capitalization was based on the common practice among modern 'Witches' and 'Pagans' to capitalize the terms in modern contexts. I, however, have no preference.
—Sowlos (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support Template:Contemporary witchcraft?. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support {{Contemporary witchcraft}}, given the above input.
—Sowlos (talk) 17:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done
—Sowlos 16:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 1 August 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 22:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Contemporary witchcraft → ? – As can be seen in the discussion above, this template was moved to Template:Contemporary witchcraft as part of a move to make it about more general witchcraft topics. Template:Wicca lists it as the Wicca footer box. If it is the Wicca footer box its current title is promoting the same type of confusion that the original move was intended to avoid. If it is a witchcraft box, other changes need to be made. The easier route seems to be letting it be the Wicca footer box, so I propose moving it to Template:Wicca navbox. Darker Dreams (talk) 20:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Either Template:Neopagan witchcraft (current title in text) or would be ok with Template:Wicca navbox. Does not belong at "Contemporary witchcraft" as Indigenous, African, Afro-Diasporan, Islamic, Gaelic and other living cultures, globally, have never redefined "witchcraft" to be a positive term. Even in English-speaking cultures that more recently modified it with terms like "white witchcraft", the necessity for the modifier indicates the primary meaning. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 00:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Template:Neopagan witchcraft, as that's the current title and that's what it covers. Calling it "contemporary witchcraft" is misleading as that could refer to contemporary witchcraft beliefs. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 10:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.