Battle of Middle Boggy Depot

This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Religion: New religious movements Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Top-importance). Neopaganism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neopaganism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neopaganism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeopaganismWikipedia:WikiProject NeopaganismTemplate:WikiProject NeopaganismNeopaganism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women in Religion High‑importance This article is within the scope of the Women in Religion WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Women in religion. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Women in ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject Women in ReligionTemplate:WikiProject Women in ReligionWomen in Religion articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Wicca was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 2, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted January 2, 2008 Good article nominee Listed January 3, 2008 Peer review Reviewed April 29, 2013 Good article reassessment Delisted Current status: Delisted good article

"Magick" as a term refers to a broad range of spiritual practices that do not only apply to Ceremonial magic. While the term was popularized by Crowley he never defined it to only apply to Ceremonial magic or to practices one used to achieve their true will . I think this misconception comes from the way he defined "Magick" in his book Magick in theory and practice the following is a quote is his definition of magick from the aforementioned book "the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will" the misconception comes because Crowley frequently used "will" to refer to True Will which is indeed a Thelemic concept ,but his use of "will" in this instance is closer to the word "intent" and DOES NOT refer to the concept of True will . This is further supported because later in the book he states "Every intentional act is a Magical act." which solidifies that he was indeed not talking about True will , nor was he trying to say that Magick specifically refers to Thelemic-only principles/practices. Kuia34 (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kuia34 Since there is longstanding consensus to use the "magic" spelling exclusively, it would take a widely-participated-in discussion and broad consensus to get support for the change. —C.Fred (talk) 01:17, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I understand that it may take a while for this post to gain traction but it's not really something that bothers me as long as a consensus for or against "magick" is eventually reached. Kuia34 (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's ironic that Wiccans insist on using the "K"-spelling of Magick, because this is an obvious Crowleyism, but all Wiccans I know don't like anything about Crowley (except for this idiosyncratic K spelling). What's the explanation why they embrace this, but not the other obviously Crowley-esque roots of their religion? Valiente did a good job of sanitizing Gardner's history with Crowley pretty well. 57.135.233.22 (talk) 10:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not all Wiccans! SueTwoReloaded (talk) 22:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I wrote that I’d had a “magical” time in the woods, I’d be saying that, as a pagan, I had a generally good time doing things that other pagans might find meaningful. If I wrote “magickal”, I’d be implying I’d done something specific and intentional, at least with hindsight! For me, it’s just an implication, not a technical term. (I have no sources to back me up or suggest this is a widely held view.) SueTwoReloaded (talk) 22:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion at Talk:Witchcraft#Ridiculous! which may be of interest to editors and the topic of this page. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The academic view is that they should be classed as Wicca. There are relevant discussions at Talk:Witchcraft#Proposal. A counterproposal might be to merge to Contemporary witchcraft. Opinions? Skyerise (talk) 19:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've withdrawn this merge proposal. Since "Contemporary witchcraft" has been renamed Neopagan witchcraft, that seems a better merge target, esp. as there is duplicated material in those two articles. The new discussion is at Talk:Neopagan witchcraft. Skyerise (talk) 13:30, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And the merge has been completed with several editors participating. Have a great day! Skyerise (talk) 16:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a discussion about moving the article Witchcraft to Witchcraft (classical) and moving Witchcraft (disambiguation) to Witchcraft instead, at Talk:Witchcraft#Requested move 19 July 2023. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 07:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I find the information of Wicca to be an exaggeration of the faith given the sources. I believe you are describing a Neopagan sect known as Zelda, but please don't change the article too soon. Finding the real Wicca would be like finding a needle in a haystack. I suppose the real Wicca is medieval in nature, but that is close to the modern era. (Just a theory.) Unitarian9999 (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Unitarian9999: It's well established that Wicca was developed in the 20th century, and has nothing to do with medieval witchcraft. Skyerise (talk) 17:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me, but tell that to my fellow Wiccans. It would be wiser to say that Wicca was founded 1080 England but not finished until the 20th century. Some Wiccans claim that their ways are ancient. Unitarian9999 (talk) 18:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Either that, or I have the wrong name. Many don't even recognize Wicca or mistake it for Judaism. My apologies. Unitarian9999 (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Unitarian9999:Those claims have all been proven false; they are just claims. See Witch-cult hypothesis. It's covered in the article, usually best to read the whole thing before you start making suggestiions on the talk page. I know you can only have skimmed it, or you would have known this. Read! Skyerise (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Witch-cult? My religion is nowhere near Wicca. It is not even Neopagan. It is not a new religious movement, but it is European. I guess it to be medieval Celtic. Is there any article that matches this? Any advice is appreciated. Unitarian9999 (talk) 19:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zelda is non-notable. It's been removed several times for lack of sources. There is not article on it, because it lacks significance. It's just another new religious movement that makes unsupported historical claims. Skyerise (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, you're the one who keeps trying to add it. Not gonna happen, unless you 1) learn how to source an article, and 2) actually find reliable sources about the topic. Skyerise (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely! There is no point in adding an article to Wikipedia without citing a reliable source. The "Zelda" I mentioned is really a Nintendo video-game character. There should be an article on that. Unitarian9999 (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Unitarian9999: This is an article on the character Princess Zelda, please clarify what you are trying to say RudolfRed (talk) 23:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about the Nintendo character from The Legends Of Zelda. It's religion is Christianity if you are interested, but a character made a spin-off as a fictitious religion. It ought to be listed under List of religious and spiritual traditions with the category "Parody and Fictional Religions." Just please cite your sources. End of story. Muted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unitarian9999 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're the one who has to cite sources when you propose additions. No one else has to find them for you. Skyerise (talk) 02:17, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've uncollapsed the discussion again, since it received more comments, I'm just noting it here to avoid confusion. I thought it was over, since the OP tried deleting it. – 2804:F1...9E:9592 (talk) 02:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]