Talk:Dianic Wicca/Archive 1

Archive 1

Starhawk

I question the inclusion of StarHawk as related to Dianic Wicca. She is very much into pan-gender practice. Maybe she has been influential in some way I don't know about? --Dmerrill

Comment: Starhawk labels herself as a "Reclaiming Witch". Reclaiming has much closer ties to Feri tradition than Dianic. While Feri shares some beautiful parallels to Dianic tradition, it is most certainly a different path (mainly since it embraces male involvement). 68.226.2.177 09:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Starhawk's early training included significant experience with Z. Budapest and Feminist Wicca (the store). Some of Starhawk's work is in The Holy Book of Women's Mysteries by Z. Budapest. -SC

I question the inclusion of the Dianic tradition as Wiccan. The teachings are nowhere near the same, and the origins are too far removed.--J. Robinson

I totally agree with Mr. Robinson. Dianic "Wicca" has no real ties and no real line of succession to Gardner and this is one of the most important proofs for realness in the magical scene. --F. Kroener

Comment: Some Dianic Witches would agree with you. However Charles Godfrey Leland (1824-1903), author of Aradia: Gospel of the Witches (1899) would probably not; "Whenever in history there is a period of radical intellectual rebellion against long established conservatism, hierarchy, and the like, there is always an effort to regard Woman as the fully equal, which means the superior sex." -SC

You quoted Leland. Last I checked Leland is not the same man as Gardner. "Dianic Wicca" is not Wicca. It is a completely independant practice that mimicks some of trappings of Wicca, but defiantley an imposter. BoyintheMachine (talk) 17:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Moved from Village Pump

Although most Dianics do worship the goddess unto herself, not all Dianics believe that there is no equal god form. In fact, I personally know two ordained McFarlane Dianic Priests. Although rare it does happen. Purley feminist Wicca is a reactionary belief system. It is a sociological backlash against male dominated religions. However, it has the same fault in that it rejects balance in favor of the domination of one form of Deity; hence, it is a psycholoigcal reaction rather than a true belief system. It has served its purpose in showing the fallacy of a amle dominant god from. But, to not understand the sacrifice of the god and the joy and pain the goddess experiences from his arrival and departure from this plane, is to not understand the majesty, beauty and compassion of the goddess herself. Unfortunately, many Dianic Wiccans fail to understadn the true nature of the goddess by ignoring or downplaying her equal and opposite self.

Comment: You are entitled to your Point Of View. However, most Dianics do NOT practice or agree with polarity worship and dualism. Some non-Dianic Wiccans also do not. Personally, I think Dianic Wicca to be an oxymoron, because polarity worship has become The significant belief in American Wicca. -SC

From personal experience I would agree with SC. Unfortunately the name has stuck. --Mjausson 21:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I would most certainly disagree that belief in a singular female Deity is a result of "sociological backlash". There are several ancient cultures that began with this practice when left to their own path and even biologically it is easier to understand the female form as the creator (mother) and nurturer without the need for a counter form. Even western science concludes that "all life starts as female" and that the male form is a derivative, so there is plenty of "logic" to a belief system evolving this way. But I digress from the entry, my apologies... 68.226.2.177 09:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Merges

It has been suggested that Dianic Wicca be merged with Dianic Tradition. I do not think this merger is appropriate; Dianic Wicca is a sub-set of the Dianic Tradition, in the same way Catholicism and Protestantism are sub-sets of Christianity; the articles are NOT redundant. SC 03:26, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I have proposed that Dianic and Dianic Tradition be merged. SC 03:26, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• Completing merge Actually, if the articles on Catholicism and Protestantism were as short, we would have them as sub sections under christianity. The Dianic Wicca merger doesn't prevent a future split, it merely consolidates two related topics with little coverage in hopes that the one article will be better maintained. I am completing the merge for Ruth Barret now. I advise future editors to consider the consolidation. Alan.ca 08:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Entirely unreferenced article

This article is entirely lacking in references, and some of it looks like original research. I am especially concerned with sentences like "Despite this, there has been friction between some traditional Wiccans and Dianics; some Wiccans have expressed their concern about "imbalance" in Dianic practice by invading women's groups, shutting down rituals, and denouncing Dianic practitioners. Most pagans are now much more respectful of each other, and consider such behavior extremely inappropriate.", which sound like story-telling from an editor. Is there any source for either of these claims? Jkelly 22:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Is there a tag (like the POV or Clean Up ones) that can be used to mark the article for this? The Jade Knight 07:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I just added {{unreferenced|date=August 2006}} to the top of the article page. Someone clearly did a lot of work on this article. It's a shame that they left little in the way of a clue as to where it came from. Jkelly 07:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm trying to add some references and clean it up a bit. --Mjausson 21:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Part of the problem is the lack availability of independent documentary on the issues but for what little it's worth, I can personally vouch having observed some of the issues mentioned. These issues were much stronger and obvious in the 1970-80's but Dianics are starting to receive (and return) more respect as the original quote claimed. I too am curious who wrote it, can you tell if the author was from the USA (east or west) or elsewhere by the IP? 68.226.2.177 09:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Definitely US, just by experience of the religion ;-) Bridesmill 01:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I find the representation of Dianic Paganism as being "women-only" or ultra-feminist highly misleading and inaccurate. At least in my own limited experience, I have participated in male-led Dianic rites, and seen gender-balanced covens focused on Dianic worship. I don't know who wrote the page, but it seems largely written by somebody with no knowledge or experience of Dianic ritual. 12.130.59.99 16:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I just tried entering "dianic wiccan" into google and hitting the "I feel lucky" button. The page it came up with described the tradition as "feminist" and "women-only". I'm not saying Google is the be-all and end-all of research, however the sheer quantity of material on the net purporting to be written by Dianics and describing the tradition in these same terms is difficult to ignore. I'm not Dianic, but I have met people who claim to be Dianic and seem to agree on its being feminist and women-only. The founders, women like Zsuzsanna Budapest, seem to have intended it this way.

I would guess that there are mixed-gender groups, and that these are a more modern innovation within the tradition. Oh, and just in case you're not aware (but you probably are, so forgive me), Dianic Wicca doesn't just mean the worship of Diana — it means a specific Feminist Goddess tradition begun in the 60s. Fuzzypeg☻ 04:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I might add that the idea of Dianic practice as some sort heresy or psychological abnormality is quite perverted. It is like this page and talk-section were written by people who don't get it. At all. The whole idea of paganism is anti-theological to the core. If you explain the differences between different modes of pagan worship theologically, you don't get. You don't get it at all.12.130.59.99 16:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Citations added.

this article is junk

Having once been involved in Dianic Wicca myself, I can assure you that this article is rampant with generalizations and falsehoods that do not apply to Wicca or Dianic Wicca today, if they ever did. If I was to put a "citation needed" tag on every such statement, I'd be tagging almost every sentence in the article. Seriously. I'm going to slash-and-burn the text and start pulling stuff out until someone comes up with inline citations to proper sources as per WP:RS and WP:V for these statements. wikipediatrix 20:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Great. This article needed the tender ministrations (*grin*) of an expert. I do suggest though that if you remove all mention of certain things, like the philosophical influence of feminist historians, political groups like W.I.T.C.H., and disagreements with more "traditional" forms of Wicca, then you open the article up to people coming along and adding these back. Essentially the article is easier to maintain (not to mention more informative) if we try to get some of these mentions right, rather than removing them entirely. Obvious gaps in information are open invitations to poorly-prepared editors...

If there's anything here that my expertise might cover I'll try to help out with it. Cheers, Fuzzypeg☻ 22:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

this article is "junk" (2009 redux)

The sourcing here is not acceptable, several of the links to online sources seem to be broken. Can someone with some interest in this topic pick up the gauntlet and fix the article? Cheers.Davémon (talk) 18:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Not that it will help with the unsourcedness, but the article Dianic tradition just appears to be some kind of weird WP:POVFORK/debate over who the "real Dianic Wiccans(TM)" are. Propose to merge it here under a section "Factions" or somesuch. Also note this was suggested and agreed in 2007 but nobody completed the action. cheers! Davémon (talk) 18:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

But Dianic tradition lists three distinct segments, and says Dianic Wicca is only one of them; so then why merge the three into the third? (Note that the proposed merge above was in the other direction, "Dianic Wicca" into the larger category of "Dianic Tradition", parallel being "Catholicism" into "Christianity".) — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 05:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

oppose per Sizzle Flambé.  rdunnalbatross  09:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The internal divisioning at Dianic tradition is not notable enough to sustain its own article. Whereas both Christianity and Catholicism and Protestantism actually do require individual articles because they can be supported by reliable sources as separate topics. The point isn't that sub-sections of religions somehow deserve their own article because that's how the religion is structured, they deserve their own articles because of the individual wp:notability of the topics. There is nowhere near enough reliably sourcable material written on Dianic Wicca vs. its different branches, so the articles should be merged. Naming issues can be treated separately, the point is a stronger, more encyclopedic article will emerge if both are merged. Davémon (talk) 18:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Then by your argument Dianic Wicca (the subset) should be merged into Dianic tradition (the superset) and not vice versa. Except I don't see how that accomplishes the goal you say it does. Dianic tradition already exists; anything that can be written for it after merging can be written for it now; nothing's standing in the way. At the moment, there are two other subsets besides Dianic Wicca: McFarland Dianic, and "(Non-Wiccan) Feminist Dianic Witches" (who don't have their own article). It seems to me that the proposed "merge" would only put Dianic Wicca in the latter category, leaving no article at all, in effect simply throwing away what has been accomplished so far, and preventing anything further from ever being accomplished with it. That doesn't sound like progress; rather the reverse. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 22:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The concerns about article structure 'needing' to mirror the organisational structure of a 'religion' are bafflingly incoherent. The problem is simnply that "Dianic Tradition" does not meet the notability guidelines . Rather than just delete it as failing WP:N, the material can be rescued and placed at Dianic Wicca, thus providing one handy place to find discussion of the topic. Davémon (talk) 19:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

rather than merging why dont we just put a stub tag on the "traditions" page?  rdunnalbatross  09:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Why not just merge and point "Dianic Tradtion" to the sub-section? Other than a ridiculous argument saying that Wikipedia should organise articles by following the hierarchical divisions of religious organisations, I can see no reason not to simply merge. The subject areas completely overlap. What reason do you propose to keep the stub as a separate article? --Davémon (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

because someone looking for what a "Dianic Tradition" may not be looking for a modern example.  rdunnalbatross  09:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

There are no pre-modern examples in Dianic tradition and Dianic Wicca#Dianic tradtion, does not preclude their addition. This line of reasoning does not support keeping the articles separate. When looking for "Dianic Tradition" users would simple be directed to the section in Dianic Wicca. --Davémon (talk) 15:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The merger has been completed, the reasoning against it being mostly nonsensical. If there are genuine reasons why an article on the "Dianic Tradition" should be separate from the article on "Dianic Wicca", rather than just soapboxing extreme minority views, they have not emerged since 2007. --Davémon (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Nominate Article Name Changed From 'Dianic Wicca' to 'Dianic Tradition'

Most people with the basic understanding of the history of the Dianic path know that it's founder Z. Budapest, is not Wiccan and doesn't subscribe to vital Wiccan beliefs, such as the Wiccan Rede.

Therefore, the claim to the title 'Wicca' is misleading or outright false.

I hearby nominate the article name to be changed from 'Dianic Wicca' to 'Dianic Tradition'.BoyintheMachine (talk) 03:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Read the section above please.  rdunnalbatross  09:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Clarification needed

In the opening paragraph: "It combines elements of British Traditional Wicca, Italian folk-magic recorded in Charles Leland's Aradia, feminist values, and ritual, folk magic, and healing practices learned from her mother." Whose mother? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.60.94 (talk) 01:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Discrimination Against Transsexual Women at Pantheacon

Hello. I was wondering where and how we should mention the discrimination against transsexual women at Pantheacon, which was justified by Z Budapest? JessicaSideways (talk) 01:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Might be worth a mention, but are there any sources that Wikipedia would accept? So far as I know, only the PNC, the Wild Hunt, Patheos, and various other Pagan bloggers have talked about it, and in the past Wikipedia has not considered these to be suitable sources. WarriorPrincessDanu (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)WarriorPrincessDanu

Queen and Hag?

In the second to last paragraph of the Other Dianic Traditions section they list the life stages of women as maiden, mother, queen, crone, and hag. I have never heard of queen and hag being in this list before. Is there any citation to back this up? WarriorPrincessDanu (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)WarriorPrincessDanu

Maintenance

It is always sad to see an article in such a poor state. I have done some nominal clean up and copy editing, but this article still needs a lot of work.
—Sowlos (talk) 12:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

== How can anyone say what Dianic is, that is not Dianic.Angel Dianic Priestess (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I take issue with anyone stating what Dianic is, that IS NOT Dianic. I am Dianic, a resurged Dianic Priestess.  

First off not all of us are “wiccan”, it is much older that word. We are not part of the modern "feminist Dianic" or the "Dianic Neopagan Faerie Faith tradition". For us she IS “complete unto herself” there is no worship of a “Goddess and “god” only her Goddess Diana, as she has given birth unto her self and all of life. With these words I would defend with my life, with no second thought or regret.

Merging McFarland Dianic as a subsection

The McFarland Dianic article is not fixable to get it up to WP standards. However, I think there is enough sourcing (basically, Adler, who all others are basing their info on) to warrant a small subsection here. I don't think the McFarland info should be integrated into the main body of this, as the Feminist/Women-only variety is clearly much larger and what almost everyone means by "Dianic," and because one third-party source and their own website are not enough to warrant all that detail. But deleting the McFarland article entirely might be a bit too much. If there are no objections I'll do the deed. - CorbieV^☊ 17:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dianic 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/20131206194250/http://www.templeofdiana.org/dwt.htm to http://www.templeofdiana.org/dwt.htm

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) 00:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

How open to new people are they?

I have been doing research (as I am spiritual but couldn't find something that I fit into) and find this fits my beliefs. Is this a welcoming environment for beginners? Jadeinmoonlight (talk) 02:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Womanpower logo.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:25, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Just a side note

" It is notable for its worship of a single Goddess and focus on egalitarian matriarchy"

Isn't egalitarian matriarchy an oxymoron? 100.16.169.194 (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)