Knowledge

Talk:Gardnerian Wicca

Source đź“ť

1038:
welcomed, but need to practice as the Tradition mandates (and yes, there are mandates) You are no longer vegan when you begin eating meat. You are no longer Gardnerian when you stop practicing what Gardner and others passes on. Citing the biased WH article is also misleading as that article only states one side of the story, and quotes a small handful of Llewellyn authors looking for a chance to plug their books. There are many published sources from early Gardnerians saying the Tradition is passed cross-gender. The problem is that a small few do not like this mandate and thus seek to re-define cross-gender. Might I suggest Ian et al start their own page and call it Inclusive Wicca or something else?
810:) covering the publication of the open letter, which interviewed a handful of prominent Gardnerians about it. Those articles are reliable sources confirming the existence of the letter itself. However, the information on this page doesn't reflect what's given in those articles. Rather than describing a schism, the Wild Hunt's pieces note "widespread dismissal of any influence the statement’s authors have in the Gardenarian community" and say that "the proclamation effectively only applies to covens that are led by or hive from the documents’ signers." 312: 291: 522: 501: 532: 1059:
introduced ambiguous and unexplained language on "gender polarity" that only serves to muddy the waters of the section. I am genuinely trying to engage in good faith here to help produce a neutral and well-sourced description of this letter and its reception, but at this point I don't know what more I can do. I'm not re-adding my edits because I'm sure they'd just be reverted again, but I'm really hoping that the RfC below can get some impartial editors to help settle this dispute.
401: 411: 380: 755:, for example, doesn't list every person the Catholic church ever excommunicated. In this instance, the page has received a sizable addition alleging a deep schism in the religious community, but the only evidence given for that schism is an open letter with 47 signatories. Even for a small religion like Gardnerian Wicca (taking the estimate of roughly 1,000 adherents as given on this page), 47 people are hardly enough to constitute a schism. 260: 219: 1401:
TWH they have only included information from one side of this story. The tradgardwica.com site that the document is being cited to is also not a reliable source. It contains zero information as to who runs it and whose views it is expressing. This means we have no reliable sources supporting this at all. That being the case it should be deleted.
718:). Grey literature will often be referenced in academic papers, but that doesn't make the sources notable in the Knowledge sense - the academic articles themselves, essentially constituting a review, might be. If a document is important, it can be lodged at Wikisource, and if accepted there could be cited here. 735:
Has previously uploaded Youtube Videos indicating that he is opposed to the Declaration that was released and is therefore a biased editor. I would note that rather than seeking to correct the text, he deleted it wholesale. The history happened and has been cited in academic papers, so it's existence
1400:
To me this seems interesting enough to be included if it can be supported by reliable sources. It was alleged above that it had been reported in academic papers so if they can be found and cited that would be great. Is The Wild Hunt a reliable source? I think not. It is a group blog. As is usual for
1261:
Fair enough. I shall use IanMckeachie instead of Ian in the future. Knowledge has it's own rules and regs and we all have to abide by them. Thank you for the clarification. Question though, given that he used his full legal name as his username, can we refer to him as Ian McKeachie or do we have to
1058:
has reverted my edits, reintroduced citation to grey literature that was previously removed because it does not constitute a Reliable Source by Knowledge's standards, has removed information taken directly from the only RS available on the matter because they dislike what that source says, and has
894:
It is also noteworthy to point out that the Wild Hunt did not reach out to any sources on the Traditional side, only the Inclusive side, for comment. They only linked to the Declaration after they were publicly called out on their Reddit page for engaging in biased reporting. A cursory read of the
1037:
The edits posted just a few minutes ago are totally misleading. They will not stand for long. 47 elders and coven leaders signed their name to a Declaration, thus they were not anonymous. Also the controversy is not about Trans inclusion, as the Declaration clearly stated that they and all are
948:
That's probably for the best, given that Himagics8 has reopened their account, removed quotations and altered language, and then deleted their account again. I think the best way to resolve the situation would be to bring in uninvolved editors who have a good deal of experience with Knowledge's
846:
I disagree. They provide valid educational and historical value to readers. They should stay. The Wild Hunt merely quoted a handful of Llewellyn authors plugging their own books and seeking publicity by weighing in on the controversy. Such commercialism has no place in Knowledge. The whole
610:
It's unclear to me that this section, which describes an open letter signed by fewer than 50 people, is of sufficient significance to the religion as a whole to be included on its Knowledge page. It's also unclear that the "schism" is accurately described, as the only source given is this open
817:, you're a much more experienced editor than I am, so I defer to your judgment as to how the section in question should be handled---whether it would be better to delete it or to edit it to remove citations from personal blogs and instead provide the information from a reliable source. 909:
Deletion is an attempt at censorship and seeks to hide the fact that there is a schism -- where one side called out the other as no longer practicing the Gardnerian Tradition. Students deserve to know this. Censorship has no place in Knowledge. The page should stand as is.
933:
and it is unlikely that the Declaration itself would constitute a Reliable Source for the purposes of Knowledge. We really need additional, secondary sources that comment on the schism/argument. Is anyone aware of any such secondary sources other than The Wild Hunt?
877:
delete that edit and try to revert it back to what they had written, as it seems likely they will do. They also seem to be deleting and recreating their accounts every time they edit or comment here, which is making it difficult to have a conversation.
611:
letter. The section was recently added by someone who clearly feels strongly about it, as they have reverted edits that removed or altered it. I would propose removing the section altogether, but I worry we may have a burgeoning edit war on our hands.
750:
Lots of things happen--the question is whether those things are significant enough to deserve mention on a Knowledge article. Religious communities experience small-scale infighting all the time, but not every spat ends up on Knowledge. The entry on
831:
I think that the best option would be to delete all of the recently added paragraphs, because they rely on non-Reliable Sources, and then to write a new (shorter, more concise) paragraph that relies upon (and cites) the Wild Hunt articles.
928:
to obtain the opinions of additional, uninvolved editors regarding the wording they wish to include. Of course, editors who are not familiar with Knowledge's policies must be aware that everything at Knowledge needs to be based on
1385:
The Wild Hunt article covering the event said that a small group was behind the declaration. It does say "47 Gardnerians who are either third-degree or autonomous second-degree". The declaration file appears to be locked.
153: 773:
discussing the schism cited, it makes sense to delete the information. If such a schism does come to be covered by Reliable Sources at a later date, then the subject could be re-integrated back into the article.
1019:
doesn't actually want to have a discussion about what a neutral viewpoint is and wants to move the discussion into completely unrelated things since he cannot substantiate his viewpoints otherwise.
1001:
When I hover over their username, the alt text reads "User:Himagics8 (page does not exist)". Does this not mean their account has been deleted? If not, I apologize for having misunderstood.
895:
articles referenced confirms this biased reporting. Also, one of the Editors on this thread vociferously opposing the addition of this section is quoted in the Wild Hunt article.
788:
Although, in addition to my previous comment, has the division been covered at The Wild Hunt news website? If so, that would constitute a Reliable Source for Knowledge's purposes.
1230:. Ianmckeachie has asked for a more formal process soliciting comments from the larger Knowledge community. This is a standard way within English Knowledge that follows the 147: 852: 588: 362: 1020: 1039: 911: 874: 483: 1336:
I do ask you to please consider using an editor's full account name rather than shortening it to a first name. I believe this to be in line with the
605: 1310: 1295: 1263: 1221: 1206: 1055: 896: 870: 807: 737: 661: 1468: 1120: 653: 578: 714:
The deletion seems very reasonable to me; there were numerous problems with the block of text, including its reliance on text from a blog site (
1443: 1132: 352: 627: 1473: 803: 79: 1453: 554: 473: 437: 1463: 44: 644:
with three edits on the article, I have little stake here & must refer it to those who have edited more. Let's check in with
1458: 328: 168: 1438: 135: 85: 1068: 958: 943: 887: 856: 841: 826: 797: 783: 1238: 545: 506: 445: 1323:...) that prohibits the truncation of an account name to just a first name when a user has used her or his real life name. 1188: 1028: 865:'s advice, I am deleting the section and adding a short paragraph describing the letter and its reception as given in the 1423: 1409: 1380: 1243: 1047: 919: 1448: 1395: 848: 847:
argument that there is no schism is evidence that there is, and the chief proponents against it are publicity seekers.
30: 1214: 904: 764: 240: 1200: 1182: 1010: 996: 709: 319: 296: 696: 441: 1352: 1303: 1285: 1271: 1256: 129: 1205:
Why is a new talk thread being started? Did Ian not appreciate the responses that he got on the original thread?
745: 190: 99: 1104: 727: 449: 425: 385: 104: 20: 925: 125: 74: 271: 1155: 645: 65: 175: 930: 770: 185: 1371:) provides context for the discussion surrounding the section in question, and why the RfC was made. 939: 837: 793: 779: 987:. Do you mean that Himagics8 stopped editing, then started editing, then has ceased editing again? 238:
on 17 April 2020. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see
553:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
327:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1024: 324: 109: 949:
editorial standards. I'm not aware of any other Reliable Sources on the subject, unfortunately.
1419: 1406: 1376: 1100: 1064: 1043: 1006: 954: 915: 883: 822: 760: 623: 141: 1237:
I remind you to use usernames rather than alleged first names. Doing the latter violates our
1116: 1090: 677: 537: 277: 1391: 1140: 935: 862: 833: 814: 789: 775: 669: 8: 1337: 1299: 1267: 1210: 1136: 900: 741: 665: 259: 55: 969: 1348: 1281: 1252: 1196: 1178: 1153:
Along with Ianmckeachie, you among are the top ten authors / registered editors as per
992: 705: 70: 226: 1415: 1402: 1372: 1096: 1060: 1016: 1002: 950: 879: 818: 756: 732: 723: 635: 619: 245: 231: 51: 311: 290: 235: 24: 161: 1387: 1331:
off-site opinions to repeatedly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment
1095:
How to word the discussion of the open letter on "traditional" Gardnerian Wicca?
752: 715: 641: 416: 1329:
I do believe that my comments about posting information about another editor's
1148: 691: 673: 550: 1343:
Again, I am sorry if I may have misled anyone about English Knowledge policy.
199: 1432: 1344: 1316: 1315:
A more experienced editor has pointed out to me that there is nothing in the
1291: 1277: 1248: 1227: 1192: 1174: 1124: 988: 701: 657: 615: 521: 500: 203: 1231: 1112: 719: 681: 436:-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us 1144: 1128: 685: 204: 1414:
Does anyone have a Reliable Source that can be used for this section?
618:
as a recent editor on this page and an experienced Knowledge editor.
1369:
Talk:Gardnerian Wicca#Declaration of the Traditional Gardnerian Wica
1368: 432: 410: 201: 400: 379: 924:
If Himagics8 and Editor-37921 are unhappy then we can set up a
205: 965:
reopened their account, then deleted their account again.
736:
is not in question as the previous reviewer pointed out.
549:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the 1189:
Gardnerian Wicca#Controversy Over Transgender Inclusion
160: 1239:
Knowledge:Harassment#Posting of personal information
527: 406: 323:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 15: 1187:The section to which Ianmckeachie is referring is 802:It looks like there were two Wild Hunt articles ( 1430: 33:for general discussion of the article's subject. 430:, a project to improve Knowledge's articles on 606:Declaration of the Traditional Gardnerian Wica 174: 1326:I apologize for misstating Knowledge policy. 1321:Personal information includes real-life name 244:; for the discussion at that location, see 1276:Please use his user name, IanMcKeachie. 648:including Himagics8 who added the text. 257: 1469:Low-importance United Kingdom articles 1431: 1173:. Would you please add your thoughts? 869:articles. I am unsure what to do if @ 1444:High-importance Neopaganism articles 1015:All I get out of this discussion is 690:what do you think? Ianmckeachie has 563:Knowledge:WikiProject United Kingdom 543:This article is within the scope of 422:This article is within the scope of 317:This article is within the scope of 253: 213: 1474:WikiProject United Kingdom articles 566:Template:WikiProject United Kingdom 276:It is of interest to the following 23:for discussing improvements to the 13: 14: 1485: 337:Knowledge:WikiProject Neopaganism 1454:Low-importance Religion articles 1262:concatenate it to IanMcKeachie? 530: 520: 499: 409: 399: 378: 340:Template:WikiProject Neopaganism 310: 289: 258: 217: 45:Click here to start a new topic. 1464:B-Class United Kingdom articles 1294:: Got it. Thanks for the help. 583:This article has been rated as 478:This article has been rated as 357:This article has been rated as 1410:10:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC) 1396:01:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC) 1381:14:53, 14 September 2023 (UTC) 1304:16:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC) 1286:16:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC) 1272:15:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC) 1257:14:56, 14 September 2023 (UTC) 1215:11:49, 14 September 2023 (UTC) 1201:00:24, 14 September 2023 (UTC) 1183:00:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC) 1105:23:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC) 1069:14:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC) 1048:00:26, 14 September 2023 (UTC) 1029:00:12, 14 September 2023 (UTC) 1011:00:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC) 997:23:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC) 959:23:31, 13 September 2023 (UTC) 944:19:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC) 920:15:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC) 905:14:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC) 888:19:25, 13 September 2023 (UTC) 857:14:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC) 842:12:23, 13 September 2023 (UTC) 827:12:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC) 798:08:45, 13 September 2023 (UTC) 784:08:43, 13 September 2023 (UTC) 765:12:19, 12 September 2023 (UTC) 746:18:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC) 728:16:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC) 710:15:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC) 628:11:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC) 458:Knowledge:WikiProject Religion 1: 1459:WikiProject Religion articles 963:I am unsure what you mean by 557:and see a list of open tasks. 461:Template:WikiProject Religion 331:and see a list of open tasks. 42:Put new text under old text. 1439:B-Class Neopaganism articles 7: 1424:12:10, 2 October 2023 (UTC) 1353:17:03, 5 October 2023 (UTC) 50:New to Knowledge? Welcome! 10: 1490: 769:As there are no secondary 589:project's importance scale 546:WikiProject United Kingdom 484:project's importance scale 363:project's importance scale 1449:B-Class Religion articles 582: 515: 477: 394: 356: 305: 284: 80:Be welcoming to newcomers 1244:cautioned you about this 448:standards, or visit the 1241:policy. I have already 569:United Kingdom articles 320:WikiProject Neopaganism 926:WP:Request for Comment 694:removed the text with 266:This article is rated 75:avoid personal attacks 1367:The talk page above ( 1340:behavioral guideline. 646:more involved editors 538:United Kingdom portal 224:The contents of the 100:Neutral point of view 426:WikiProject Religion 343:Neopaganism articles 105:No original research 1170:/Gardnerian%20Wicca 931:WP:Reliable Sources 1232:dispute resolution 1091:RfC on Open Letter 438:assess and improve 272:content assessment 86:dispute resolution 47: 1017:User:Ianmckeachie 861:Okay, following @ 603: 602: 599: 598: 595: 594: 494: 493: 490: 489: 464:Religion articles 452:for more details. 373: 372: 369: 368: 252: 251: 212: 211: 66:Assume good faith 43: 1481: 1314: 1246: 1225: 1172: 1152: 1117:Chad The Goatman 986: 771:Reliable Sources 699: 689: 678:Chad The Goatman 639: 571: 570: 567: 564: 561: 540: 535: 534: 533: 524: 517: 516: 511: 503: 496: 495: 466: 465: 462: 459: 456: 450:wikiproject page 419: 414: 413: 403: 396: 395: 390: 382: 375: 374: 345: 344: 341: 338: 335: 314: 307: 306: 301: 293: 286: 285: 269: 263: 262: 254: 243: 236:Gardnerian Wicca 221: 220: 214: 206: 179: 178: 164: 95:Article policies 25:Gardnerian Wicca 16: 1489: 1488: 1484: 1483: 1482: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1429: 1428: 1308: 1242: 1219: 1169: 1167: 1165: 1163: 1161: 1159: 1157: 1154: 1141:Midnightblueowl 1110: 1093: 983: 981: 979: 977: 975: 973: 971: 968: 936:Midnightblueowl 863:Midnightblueowl 834:Midnightblueowl 815:Midnightblueowl 790:Midnightblueowl 776:Midnightblueowl 695: 670:Midnightblueowl 651: 633: 608: 568: 565: 562: 559: 558: 536: 531: 529: 509: 463: 460: 457: 454: 453: 417:Religion portal 415: 408: 388: 359:High-importance 342: 339: 336: 333: 332: 300:High‑importance 299: 270:on Knowledge's 267: 239: 218: 208: 207: 202: 121: 116: 115: 114: 91: 61: 12: 11: 5: 1487: 1477: 1476: 1471: 1466: 1461: 1456: 1451: 1446: 1441: 1427: 1426: 1412: 1398: 1383: 1365: 1364: 1363: 1362: 1361: 1360: 1359: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1341: 1334: 1333:to be correct. 1327: 1324: 1235: 1203: 1185: 1137:Kim Dent-Brown 1092: 1089: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1084: 1083: 1082: 1081: 1080: 1079: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1031: 907: 892: 891: 890: 859: 811: 786: 666:Kim Dent-Brown 649: 607: 604: 601: 600: 597: 596: 593: 592: 585:Low-importance 581: 575: 574: 572: 560:United Kingdom 555:the discussion 551:United Kingdom 542: 541: 525: 513: 512: 510:Low‑importance 507:United Kingdom 504: 492: 491: 488: 487: 480:Low-importance 476: 470: 469: 467: 421: 420: 404: 392: 391: 389:Low‑importance 383: 371: 370: 367: 366: 355: 349: 348: 346: 329:the discussion 315: 303: 302: 294: 282: 281: 275: 264: 250: 249: 222: 210: 209: 200: 198: 197: 194: 193: 181: 180: 118: 117: 113: 112: 107: 102: 93: 92: 90: 89: 82: 77: 68: 62: 60: 59: 48: 39: 38: 35: 34: 28: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 1486: 1475: 1472: 1470: 1467: 1465: 1462: 1460: 1457: 1455: 1452: 1450: 1447: 1445: 1442: 1440: 1437: 1436: 1434: 1425: 1421: 1417: 1413: 1411: 1408: 1404: 1399: 1397: 1393: 1389: 1384: 1382: 1378: 1374: 1370: 1366: 1354: 1350: 1346: 1342: 1339: 1335: 1332: 1328: 1325: 1322: 1318: 1312: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1301: 1297: 1293: 1289: 1288: 1287: 1283: 1279: 1275: 1274: 1273: 1269: 1265: 1260: 1259: 1258: 1254: 1250: 1245: 1240: 1236: 1233: 1229: 1223: 1218: 1217: 1216: 1212: 1208: 1204: 1202: 1198: 1194: 1190: 1186: 1184: 1180: 1176: 1171: 1150: 1146: 1142: 1138: 1134: 1130: 1126: 1122: 1118: 1114: 1109: 1108: 1107: 1106: 1102: 1098: 1070: 1066: 1062: 1057: 1053: 1049: 1045: 1041: 1036: 1030: 1026: 1022: 1021:Biropalmistry 1018: 1014: 1013: 1012: 1008: 1004: 1000: 999: 998: 994: 990: 985: 966: 962: 961: 960: 956: 952: 947: 946: 945: 941: 937: 932: 927: 923: 922: 921: 917: 913: 908: 906: 902: 898: 893: 889: 885: 881: 876: 872: 868: 864: 860: 858: 854: 850: 845: 844: 843: 839: 835: 830: 829: 828: 824: 820: 816: 812: 809: 805: 801: 800: 799: 795: 791: 787: 785: 781: 777: 772: 768: 767: 766: 762: 758: 754: 749: 748: 747: 743: 739: 734: 731: 730: 729: 725: 721: 717: 713: 712: 711: 707: 703: 698: 693: 687: 683: 679: 675: 671: 667: 663: 659: 655: 650: 647: 643: 637: 632: 631: 630: 629: 625: 621: 617: 612: 590: 586: 580: 577: 576: 573: 556: 552: 548: 547: 539: 528: 526: 523: 519: 518: 514: 508: 505: 502: 498: 497: 485: 481: 475: 472: 471: 468: 451: 447: 443: 439: 435: 434: 429: 428: 427: 418: 412: 407: 405: 402: 398: 397: 393: 387: 384: 381: 377: 376: 364: 360: 354: 351: 350: 347: 330: 326: 322: 321: 316: 313: 309: 308: 304: 298: 295: 292: 288: 287: 283: 279: 273: 265: 261: 256: 255: 247: 246:its talk page 242: 237: 233: 229: 228: 223: 216: 215: 196: 195: 192: 189: 187: 183: 182: 177: 173: 170: 167: 163: 159: 155: 152: 149: 146: 143: 140: 137: 134: 131: 127: 124: 123:Find sources: 120: 119: 111: 110:Verifiability 108: 106: 103: 101: 98: 97: 96: 87: 83: 81: 78: 76: 72: 69: 67: 64: 63: 57: 53: 52:Learn to edit 49: 46: 41: 40: 37: 36: 32: 26: 22: 18: 17: 1416:Ianmckeachie 1403:Morgan Leigh 1373:Ianmckeachie 1338:WP:Etiquette 1330: 1320: 1162:/articleinfo 1097:Ianmckeachie 1094: 1061:Ianmckeachie 1040:Editor-37921 1003:Ianmckeachie 964: 951:Ianmckeachie 912:Editor-37921 880:Ianmckeachie 875:Editor-37921 866: 849:99.118.3.101 819:Ianmckeachie 757:Ianmckeachie 733:Ianmckeachie 636:Ianmckeachie 620:Ianmckeachie 614:Tagging in @ 613: 609: 584: 544: 479: 440:articles to 431: 424: 423: 358: 318: 278:WikiProjects 227:Algard Wicca 225: 184: 171: 165: 157: 150: 144: 138: 132: 122: 94: 19:This is the 1226:Please see 753:Catholicism 334:Neopaganism 325:Neopaganism 297:Neopaganism 241:its history 148:free images 31:not a forum 1433:Categories 1388:Senorangel 1166:.wikipedia 984:/Himagics8 980:.wikipedia 230:page were 1311:Himagics8 1296:Himagics8 1264:Himagics8 1222:Himagics8 1207:Himagics8 1149:Noosnomis 1056:Himagics8 897:Himagics8 871:Himagics8 867:Wild Hunt 738:Himagics8 697:this edit 674:Noosnomis 662:Himagics8 642:WikiGnome 88:if needed 71:Be polite 21:talk page 1345:Peaceray 1319:policy ( 1292:Peaceray 1278:Peaceray 1249:Peaceray 1193:Peaceray 1175:Peaceray 1158:.wmcloud 1125:Fuzzypeg 1121:Deporodh 989:Peaceray 972:.wmcloud 716:WP:BLOGS 702:Peaceray 658:Fuzzypeg 654:Deporodh 616:Peaceray 455:Religion 433:Religion 386:Religion 186:Archives 56:get help 29:This is 27:article. 1234:policy. 1147:, and 1113:Amacker 720:Klbrain 684:, and 682:Klbrain 587:on the 482:on the 361:on the 268:B-class 154:WP refs 142:scholar 1317:WP:DOX 1228:WP:RFC 1156:xtools 1145:Mptp94 1133:Kiblan 1129:Jkelly 970:xtools 686:Jkelly 274:scale. 232:merged 126:Google 692:bodly 640:As a 234:into 169:JSTOR 130:books 84:Seek 1420:talk 1407:Talk 1392:talk 1377:talk 1349:talk 1300:talk 1282:talk 1268:talk 1253:talk 1211:talk 1197:talk 1179:talk 1168:.org 1160:.org 1101:talk 1065:talk 1044:talk 1025:talk 1007:talk 993:talk 982:.org 974:.org 967:See 955:talk 940:talk 916:talk 901:talk 884:talk 873:or @ 853:talk 838:talk 823:talk 808:here 806:and 804:here 794:talk 780:talk 761:talk 742:talk 724:talk 706:talk 624:talk 444:and 442:good 353:High 162:FENS 136:news 73:and 1164:/en 978:/en 976:/ec 579:Low 474:Low 446:1.0 176:TWL 1435:: 1422:) 1405:| 1394:) 1379:) 1351:) 1302:) 1284:) 1270:) 1255:) 1247:. 1213:) 1199:) 1191:. 1181:) 1143:, 1139:, 1135:, 1131:, 1127:, 1123:, 1119:, 1115:, 1103:) 1067:) 1046:) 1027:) 1009:) 995:) 957:) 942:) 918:) 903:) 886:) 855:) 840:) 825:) 796:) 782:) 763:) 744:) 726:) 708:) 700:. 680:, 676:, 672:, 668:, 664:, 660:, 656:, 626:) 156:) 54:; 1418:( 1390:( 1375:( 1347:( 1313:: 1309:@ 1298:( 1290:@ 1280:( 1266:( 1251:( 1224:: 1220:@ 1209:( 1195:( 1177:( 1151:: 1111:@ 1099:( 1063:( 1054:@ 1042:( 1023:( 1005:( 991:( 953:( 938:( 914:( 899:( 882:( 851:( 836:( 821:( 813:@ 792:( 778:( 759:( 740:( 722:( 704:( 688:: 652:@ 638:: 634:@ 622:( 591:. 486:. 365:. 280:: 248:. 191:1 188:: 172:· 166:· 158:· 151:· 145:· 139:· 133:· 128:( 58:.

Index

talk page
Gardnerian Wicca
not a forum
Click here to start a new topic.
Learn to edit
get help
Assume good faith
Be polite
avoid personal attacks
Be welcoming to newcomers
dispute resolution
Neutral point of view
No original research
Verifiability
Google
books
news
scholar
free images
WP refs
FENS
JSTOR
TWL
Archives
1
Algard Wicca
merged
Gardnerian Wicca
its history
its talk page

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

↑