Talk:Gardnerian Wicca

Declaration of the Traditional Gardnerian Wica

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 Wikipedia page. It's also unclear that the "schism" is accurately described, as the only source given is this open 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.

Tagging in @Peaceray as a recent editor on this page and an experienced Wikipedia editor. Ianmckeachie (talk) 11:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@Ianmckeachie: As a WikiGnome 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 more involved editors including Himagics8 who added the text.

@Deporodh, Fuzzypeg, Himagics8, Kim Dent-Brown, Midnightblueowl, Noosnomis, Chad The Goatman, Klbrain, and Jkelly: what do you think? Ianmckeachie has bodly removed the text with this edit. Peaceray (talk) 15:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

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 (WP:BLOGS). Grey literature will often be referenced in academic papers, but that doesn't make the sources notable in the Wikipedia 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. Klbrain (talk) 16:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Ianmckeachie 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 is not in question as the previous reviewer pointed out. Himagics8 (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Lots of things happen--the question is whether those things are significant enough to deserve mention on a Wikipedia article. Religious communities experience small-scale infighting all the time, but not every spat ends up on Wikipedia. The entry on Catholicism, 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. Ianmckeachie (talk) 12:19, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

As there are no secondary Reliable Sources 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. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:43, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia's purposes. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:45, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

It looks like there were two Wild Hunt articles (here and here) 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."

@Midnightblueowl, 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. Ianmckeachie (talk) 12:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

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. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:23, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia. The whole argument that there is no schism is evidence that there is, and the chief proponents against it are publicity seekers. 99.118.3.101 (talk) 14:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Okay, following @Midnightblueowl's advice, I am deleting the section and adding a short paragraph describing the letter and its reception as given in the Wild Hunt articles. I am unsure what to do if @Himagics8 or @Editor-37921 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. Ianmckeachie (talk) 19:25, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

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 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. Himagics8 (talk) 14:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia. The page should stand as is. Editor-37921 (talk) 15:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

If Himagics8 and Editor-37921 are unhappy then we can set up a WP:Request for Comment to obtain the opinions of additional, uninvolved editors regarding the wording they wish to include. Of course, editors who are not familiar with Wikipedia's policies must be aware that everything at Wikipedia needs to be based on WP:Reliable Sources and it is unlikely that the Declaration itself would constitute a Reliable Source for the purposes of Wikipedia. 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? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia's editorial standards. I'm not aware of any other Reliable Sources on the subject, unfortunately. Ianmckeachie (talk) 23:31, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I am unsure what you mean by reopened their account, [...] then deleted their account again. See xtools.wmcloud.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Himagics8. Do you mean that Himagics8 stopped editing, then started editing, then has ceased editing again? Peaceray (talk) 23:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

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. Ianmckeachie (talk) 00:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

All I get out of this discussion is User:Ianmckeachie 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. Biropalmistry (talk) 00:12, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

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 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? Editor-37921 (talk) 00:26, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@Himagics8 has reverted my edits, reintroduced citation to grey literature that was previously removed because it does not constitute a Reliable Source by Wikipedia's standards, has removed information taken directly from the only RS available on the matter because they dislike what that source says, and has 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. Ianmckeachie (talk) 14:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

RfC on Open Letter

How to word the discussion of the open letter on "traditional" Gardnerian Wicca? Ianmckeachie (talk) 23:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

@Amacker, Chad The Goatman, Deporodh, Fuzzypeg, Jkelly, Kiblan, Kim Dent-Brown, Midnightblueowl, Mptp94, and Noosnomis: Along with Ianmckeachie, you among are the top ten authors / registered editors as per xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Gardnerian%20Wicca. Would you please add your thoughts? Peaceray (talk) 00:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

The section to which Ianmckeachie is referring is Gardnerian Wicca#Controversy Over Transgender Inclusion. Peaceray (talk) 00:24, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Why is a new talk thread being started? Did Ian not appreciate the responses that he got on the original thread? Himagics8 (talk) 11:49, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@Himagics8: Please see WP:RFC. Ianmckeachie has asked for a more formal process soliciting comments from the larger Wikipedia community. This is a standard way within English Wikipedia that follows the dispute resolution policy.

I remind you to use usernames rather than alleged first names. Doing the latter violates our Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting of personal information policy. I have already cautioned you about this. Peaceray (talk) 14:56, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. I shall use IanMckeachie instead of Ian in the future. Wikipedia 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 concatenate it to IanMcKeachie? Himagics8 (talk) 15:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Please use his user name, IanMcKeachie. Peaceray (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@Peaceray: Got it. Thanks for the help. Himagics8 (talk) 16:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@Himagics8: A more experienced editor has pointed out to me that there is nothing in the WP:DOX policy (Personal information includes real-life name...) that prohibits the truncation of an account name to just a first name when a user has used her or his real life name.

I apologize for misstating Wikipedia policy.

I do believe that my comments about posting information about another editor's off-site opinions to repeatedly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment to be correct.

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 WP:Etiquette behavioral guideline.

Again, I am sorry if I may have misled anyone about English Wikipedia policy. Peaceray (talk) 17:03, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

The talk page above (Talk:Gardnerian Wicca#Declaration of the Traditional Gardnerian Wica) provides context for the discussion surrounding the section in question, and why the RfC was made. Ianmckeachie (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

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. Senorangel (talk) 01:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

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 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.Morgan Leigh | Talk 10:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Does anyone have a Reliable Source that can be used for this section? Ianmckeachie (talk) 12:10, 2 October 2023 (UTC)