Talk:Celtic Wicca/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

[Untitled]

This article doesn't actually talk about Wicca at all. Perhaps it should be redirected to "Celtic Spirituality" or somesuch. —Ashley Y 23:47, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)

Is this page a Copyright violation??? Nowhere do I see a statement that it was copied from the referenced other website with the authors permission???? --137.111.13.34 12:08, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Exactly; this looks like it was just copied from http://www.greenspirit.org.uk/resources/CelticSpirituality.htm wholesale. Even if they did give Wikipedia permission (and I don't see the slightest reason to assume they did), we'd need almost a complete rewrite to make this correspond to NPOV – and be topical! I'm just going to delete the material from the other website. QuartierLatin 1968 20:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Synthesis or Syncretism? Indeed it seems to take entirely something from a single source; and at face value... i.e. Modern Druidry, Wicca, Shamanism, and certain types of Christianity, classified as Celtic Sprituality (Wicca is not, Shamanism, strictly speaking, is not, certain types of Christianity, is vague, and Modern Druidry, for the most part, I dispute that it has much Celtic beyond the name)

In addition, there are unsubstantiated claims (lots of weasel terms) that need references in the article. The Jade Knight 07:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

British Isles

The term British Isles is not longer accpeted if you are referring to th island of Britian and Ireland combind then please refer to it as Ireland and the UK or the UK & Ireland —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.41.130.169 (talk • contribs) . (Moved from article by Gurch 14:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC))

POV Flag

User:Redeagle688, you flagged this for POV concerns, but did not state what the issues are. Please explain. --Kathryn NicDhàna 20:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is rife with unsourced statements along the lines of "Most of what is believed to be 'Celtic' in these traditions is actually based on Romantic fantasies, not actual Celtic traditions.". Redeagle688 22:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's true; but yes, the tone could be more NPOV, and it makes sense to cite sources so it's not only true but verifiable. I can list Kelly and Hutton, for a start, though someone with the books at hand will have to add page numbers. I'm not sure if any of my Celtic books even mention Wicca, but I'll take a look around. However, some of this is like asking someone to prove, for example, that Wicca is not Native American. Or Hindu. Even though Gardner took bits and pieces from those cultures as well. --Kathryn NicDhàna 23:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I think this is adequately sourced now. For the sake of process I'll leave the POV flag up for now, so some other Wikipedians can give it a look-over. I think it can be de-flagged, though. --Kathryn NicDhàna 00:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The NPOV problem should now be resolved as I just completed a complete NPOV rewrite. Autumnalmonk (talk) 06:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

What derived babble!

Generally, wikipedia is an excellent and reliable source of information. Admittedly, this is the first time I have witnessed such an INCORRECT definition or answer to a subject. First off, the modern Celtic Wiccan practice predates the Gardenarians. A simple search of the internet should find you references of Celtic Wiccan practice in the 1890's. This predates the modern "Western" (north America, et al) concept by over 30 years! Witness Gardene's own claims and statements about some of his origins in the what is now called the "Brittish Isles."

Yes, the article is correct in its claim that many of the Traditional Celtic beliefs do not coincide with modern day Wiccan precepts. But, what it fails to metion is that these differences are trivial, at best and do, indeed, fall under the realm of Wicca. One such example would be in the attribution of the elements to the four directions (cardinal points). Wherein, the average wiccan views a: air-east, fire-south, water-west and earth-north concept, a Celt views the air as north and the earth as east. An easy way to explain why is to simply look at a map and determine for yourself why this would be correct. Basically, I could list about 2 dozen reasons, but, I feel that is not appropriate. Another difference in belief systems is that from the time predating Alaister Crowley, the celtic believed in the three fold rules for most everything. In the Wiccan rede poem, it is stated, "cast the circle and cast it thrice" The Traditional celtic faiths did cast a circle... usually around a "great Oak" and the circle was cast three times, each in decreasing circumfrence. More proof of Celtic Wiccan practices? Look at the documented evidence of Witch trials, witch executions, tortures and burnings in Scotland and Ireland that date back as early as the 1300's! Yes, modern day eltic Wiccans can trace their system of beliefs back to those dates. Logically speaking, if you were a 14th century Irish pagan, who would likely be your deity? A Celtic or Roman Goddess? A Celtic or Egyptian God? It is those same gods and goddesses that are recognized to this very day!

To grant some degree of creedence to my words... and please, understand that I've no intentions of boistering myself. I merely desire to make an attempt at helping others to understand and correct - to some degree- this misinformation... I have been a Celtic Wiccan Practitioner for over 20 years. Currently, I am a Celtic High-Priestess, duly ordaied by the state, in which I reside and the Celtic Witan Counsel. These titles were not "self-appointed, but conferred after years of extensive study, research and practice.

If the statements of thsi article were true, only one thing could be comfrimed: Modern Wicca is just as guilty as the christians when it comes to stealing holidays, traditions and practices: The Ritual Circle, the Wheel of the year, most elemental ssociations, the notion of the circle of life and that time is circular and not linear, the sabbats... all find their wiccan roots in ancient celtic tradition.

Hey, but don't take my word for it, simply pick a Sabbat (Wiccan holiday) at random and do a little bit of research about it. Take a wild guess where most of the common day traditions originated?

The facts are: The Celtic Isles, over the course of the last 2,000 years or so have practiced 3 main religious belief systems: That of the Druids, many of whom carried their beliefs into what we now call Celtic Wicca and the third is Christianity.

One last bit of proof - look to the Catholics and to St. Brigit. In order to convert the pagan population, they incorporated the Celtic Goddess Brigid into their mythology as a Saint. From her, the Christians derived their modern day wedding ceremony and nomenclature: the words, phrases and traditions: Bride, groom, tying the knot, the wedding band (a circle), feeding each other the wedding cakes and so many more things... ALL Brigid!

Please forgive my rambling, but this article did bother me a bit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MorganLeFaye (talk • contribs) .

Greetings, Morgan. Yes, I (and many other editors) am aware that the article is not in conformance with what you may have been taught under the auspices of your religious training. However, many of the claims that you make, while religiously significant, are simply not verifiable in a historical context. One statement that you made derisively that I must agree with is "Modern Wicca is just as guilty as the christians when it comes to stealing holidays, traditions and practices." Yes, we have stolen holidays. I encourage you to examine the books of Ronald Hutton for a starting place to verify that claim. Justin Eiler 04:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit this Article, Please!

This article needs to be changed pronto to sound less Pagan-hating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.170.7 (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I just completed a major rewrite to bring this article in line with NPOV and referencing guidelines. A separate criticisms section has also been created so that material does not skew the entirety of the article away from a NPOV. Autumnalmonk (talk) 06:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but you also deleted sources and introduced inaccuracies. "Celtic" Wicca is not that different from Gardnerian and Alexandrian Wicca. And it's nothing like Celtic Reconstructionism. You've introduced a bunch of unsourced opinion. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

First, rather than simply revert the article back to an earlier (and clearly lacking) version, it would be better to identify exactly what you feel was inaccurate so that those specifics could be addressed.

Second, the old article text reads more like a reconstructionist's rant than an informative article and is off-topic, uninformative, and clearly biased. My revision attempted to add a NPOV and accurate informative material, yet retain an acknowledgment of the criticisms. I have re-reverted the article, bringing forward the references you added, and adding a few more bits of information. If you have specific problems with the article as it now stands, I am happy to discuss those with you here. Autumnalmonk (talk) 12:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Hitting the "undo" button is not collaboration. Everyone believes their version is NPOV, so your assertions are nothing new. Again, your version includes unsourced opinion and replaces sourced content with misinformation. Additionally, you seem unfamiliar with the sources here, as you have inserted new content that is not in the sources, implying some of this content is sourced when it actually is not. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that simply undoing another's work is not collaboration, which is why I do not think you should have simply undone my article revision and why I reinstated it. Hopefully we can move past that now so that this article can be improved. Again, if you think there is "misinformation", point it out and we can discuss it case by case. If you think I am inserting unsourced opinion, point it out with a citation request. As for my familiarity with Hutton et al, please see my comment below. Autumnalmonk (talk) 01:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Autumnalmonk, I agree with Kathryn in this case. You really need to learn a bit about reliable and verifiable sources. The source you put on the Frosts from pagans.org isn't a reliable source but I'm fine with it staying. And some of the changes you've tried to introduce attribute statements to sources which don't contain the information. Please carefully check the sourcing to make sure the info in the article agrees with the specifically footnoted source. If you are unfamiliar with Kelly and Hutton's work, I strongly recommend you read them before removing info sourced to them. Pigman☿/talk 23:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for just assuming that I do not understand reliability/validity, rather than simply not having had the best source to cite at hand (which I have now added as a reference, BTW). And I am familiar with the work of Hutton, Kelly, et al but as there have been valid critical analyses of that work I do not accord them the priveledge of defining all truth as some would. They are simply one perspective (albeit one supported with some degree of research and scholarship) and not without valid oposition (also supported with some degree of research and scholarship). However, this is perhaps not the place to argue those points. I certainly did not mean to misrepresent their work when I reworked the article cited to them, and trust any such instance has been corrected. Autumnalmonk (talk) 01:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Sources and Citing

I propose that the reference to Witta be removed. I don't think this adds anything of substance to the article, is unsourced, and redirects to Edain McCoy's page which is barely a stub and only has one vague mention of "Witta". Not to mention that even some folks who would claim to practice "Celtic Wicca" find "Witta" less than noteworthy. Autumnalmonk (talk) 01:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Easily sourced. And a look at this talk page shows there are still some who believe Witta is a real tradition. Look at the history of the Witta (Wicca) article. I think some of that could be incorporated into either this article or the McCoy article (McCoy wrote the book, btw, not Conway). - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, McCoy rather than Conway, which I've corrected above. I certainly think that any additional material about Witta should be placed in the author's article rather than here. Autumnalmonk (talk) 03:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I also propose that the article (listed in external links) entitled "The Wicca That Never Was" be deleted as it does not relate specifically to "Celtic" Wicca. It may be relevant to Wicca in general but the word "Celtic" isn't even used in the article. Autumnalmonk (talk) 03:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It's relevant as it discusses Wicca's origins, and the Greer and Cooper article. Though the article speaks in terms of things "British" and "European", it still questions the foundation myth that most "Celtic" Wiccan traditions believed for decades, and may still believe. Note that many who have founded and led "Celtic" Wiccan groups have often lumped "British" and "Celtic" together. Quote: "Rather, they argue that modern witchcraft has its roots not in ancient Europe but in turn-of-the-century Connecticut." While it may not use the word "Celtic", it proposes the true origins of some of the aspects of Wicca that people mistakenly believe to be Celtic. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

RE: "Celtic Wicca can be seen as both a form of Wicca and a branch of Celtic Neopaganism, equally as historically inaccurate as most forms of Neo-druidism, contrasting firmly with Celtic Reconstructionism.[10][11]" - Can this be clarified? Not only does it sound unnecessarily harsh, but it is unclear if "equally historically inaccurate" is intended to apply only to Celtic Wicca, Wicca (in general), Celtic Neopaganism, or all three- and if such is validly supported by the cited sources. Autumnalmonk (talk) 02:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Further, I've had a look at McColman and doubt that entire quote should be attributed to him, as I don't see him at any point describing Celtic Wicca as "historically inaccurate". Perhaps he should only be cited for the first clause of that sentence? Autumnalmonk (talk) 00:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Source checked and McColman indeed says no such thing on the page cited. Reference removed. Autumnalmonk (talk) 22:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

McColman relevant for discussing Wicca as "Multicultural" and Reconstructionism, "as purely Celtic as possible". Most sources we use for this are about "Wicca" rather than "Celtic Wicca". Serious scholars tend to know that "Celtic Wicca" is an oxymoron. And the same people who believe "Celtic Wicca" is Celtic tend to do so because they are operating under the mistaken impression that Wicca as a whole is Celtic. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The revision of the statement has brought it much more in line with what McColman wrote so I'll agree that citing him for it is now appropriate. As for "Celtic Wicca" being an oxymoron, that is definitely the case under some definitions of the word "Celtic" but perhaps less so so under other definitions. As John Davies has pointed out very eloquently, "Celtic" can mean a number of different things, and thus much of this is semantic. And just because something is an oxymoron doesn't mean that it isn't "real" (cf: "political transparency" or "military intelligence"). Regardless of how authentic Celtic Wicca isn't, and what mistaken ideas some Celtic Wiccans might hold, Celtic Wicca remains a framework wherein some find spiritual meaning for their lives. Thus, though it is certainly not how either of us would label ourselves, it deserves a fair and respectful presentation. Autumnalmonk (talk) 02:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Misinformation is not "respectful". You deleted the sourced content on where Wiccan, including "Celtic" Wiccan, ritual structures and theology come from. Read the sources. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Point to the misinformation. You keep using that word, but have yet to identify any specific instances of it in the article. I deleted content that, while accurate and sourced, belongs in the general "Wicca" article but is not germane to this article specifically. Not everything relating to Wicca belongs on this page, as I am sure you would agree.

Further, your repeated insinuations that I have not read the sources is insulting, specifically as I have already specified that I am familiar with them. You are obviously very passionate about things "Celtic", and I respect that more than you probably know. However, that passion does not give you right to use this article as a forum for advancing your personally favored perspective, countering erroneous beliefs that some readers might hold (but which are not mentioned in nor supported by the article), nor maligning and demeaning others with spiritual and religious inclinations that differ from your own. The article already clearly indicates that Celtic Wicca is not historically authentic and it's numerous criticisms are repeatedly identified. Your point has been made, so please stop trying to insert further tangential critical information at every turn, as the tone is one of brow-beating the reader. Autumnalmonk (talk) 04:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

'Celtic Wicca' in the US Neopagan History

I'm not sure where or even how to fit this in, but the following two bits (clipped from Ian Corrigan's talk page) are pertinent to this article as regard the phrase 'Celtic Traditional Wicca':

'Celtic Traditional' refers most directly to a group of Wiccan lineages from the East Coast of the US, which began in the 1960s/70s. It includes Buscinsky's (sp) 'Welsh Traditionalists', the 'NECTW' trad that Corrigan joined, and several others. A web-search on NECTW will turn up the modern versions of that gang. The 'celtic traditionalist' term is unfortunate, and has been invented independently many times, but the specific usage in the article refers to the traditions mentioned above.—Preceding unsigned comment added by IanCorrigan (talk • contribs)

'Buczynski' is the correct spelling. 'Celtic Traditionalist' in the 1970s generally meant initiatory lineage to one of three sources: Gwen Thompson, Bonnie Sherlock or Kitty Lessing. Buczynski was one of Thompson's initiates, though he did not use the term 'Celtic' but rather 'Welsh'. Thompson actually preferred to just be called 'Traditionalist'. --HR Mitchell (talk) 09:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions? I'll leave it for another to actually fit it in, if that is the consensus. --HR Mitchell 06:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Historicity vs Definition of Celtic Wicca

This article does not define Celtic Wicca, and reads as anti-Wicca. It is overly concerned with 'historicity' and criticism, rather than facts about Celtic Wicca. Clearly the author is heavily biased against the subject they are writing about. All religions take from previous cultures, so I am not sure why this is such an issue in the article; especially considering that Celtic Wicca is an admitted revival of old Celtic ideas, and it is well known that 'revivals' are always interpretations and do not have to be exact historic artifacts, as even ancient rituals still practiced by groups like Samaritans evolve in some ways which some are aware of, other are not, and some may call minor and other major. Such disrespect for Celtic Wicca is undeserved, since they do not even proselytize or claim their beliefs are 'the only way and truth' like Mormons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.239.148.108 (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Celtic Wicca. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090123114610/http://pagans.org:80/wicca/branches/branches.html to http://www.pagans.org/wicca/branches/branches.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Celtic Wicca. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)