User talk:Lanternshine

Welcome!

Hello, Lanternshine, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Kingturtle 21:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wicca as a magical religion[edit]

Hi, you took exception to some edits I made, supposedly without discussion. To see my comments, click on the history tab of the article and you should see my edit summary:

rv "can and often does". The branches of "wicca" that don't incorporate witchcraft are a) not traditional b) not very significant. Dealt with further down in this section, so no need to labour here.

To explain this a little further, Wicca has from the outset been described as a form of witchcraft. Now in the last few years there has been a small but increasing minority of people calling themselves "Wiccan" who have no connection to the tradition and very little idea of what is involved in it, and whose practices have almost no resemblance to actual Wiccan practices, to the point that they feel they can be Wiccan without even being witches. Fortunately these people are still a minority, so we don't have to devote too much of the article to them. They are a fairly insignificant group so far, so we can get away with treating them as the exception to the rule in most cases, rather than wording their ideas into every statement we make about Wicca. Imagine if some Scientologists started claiming to be Catholic, and wanted to change the Catholicism article to say "most Catholics believe in God, however some are atheist and believe humans were placed on Earth as convicts in a pan-galactic penitentiary system"!! Without wanting to run completely roughshod over anyone, Wicca is not "whatever anybody wants it to be"; it is a form of initiatory witchcraft with distinct structure and teachings. There are those who call themselves Wiccan, but in fact practice something so different as to be unrecognisable; they should be mentioned, but they shouldn't dominate the article. Fuzzypeg ☻ 01:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that I take exception to your deletion of my edit, but it's not because I didn't see your comments, but rather that I disagree. The section in question, Wicca as a magical religion, includes several other references to the distinction between Wicca and witchcraft, and, the change I made was for editorial consistency. Put simply, I believe the stark statement "Wicca incorporates..." implies all Wicca, and that is simply not correct, and, moreover, can be misleading.

I do, however, take your point that Wiccans who do not practice witchcraft or magic are likely a minority, and as such perhaps we can settle on a compromise between "Wicca incorporates..." and "Wicca can, and often does, incorporate..." as follows: "Usually (or traditionally, or customarily), Wicca incorporates..." Would that do? (I think I would go with "traditionally" as I enjoy the tiny wink at a second, Wiccan tie-in to the word. ;-) )

Lanternshine 04:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Ramy Brooks - Editing Opps[edit]

I have fixed the error with the Iditarod Finishes table in the Ramy Brooks article. It was simply missing a right curly bracket (}) at the end of the table. Since the right curly bracket was missing, the software interpreted the table as incomplete until it hit the right curly bracket at the end of second table.

Thanks for the praise. --Coaster1983 17:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]