User talk:Katie alsop/sandbox

Notes about The Themis Article[change source]

The noteworthyness of this article has to do with the fact that it tells of a musical group which is the most outspoken public leadership entity for a modern, recently popular religion: a sort of pied piper in a gypsy vein. It will never be a huge commercial success: there aren't that many Wiccans in the world and most Wiccans keep their religion a secret.

Wicca is heretofore a silent, indivdual and underground religion. In most religions the obviously visible aspect is a person (i.e.: a pope or evangelist), a church building or some other traditional centre point of a religion. This article talks about an emergence of an energetic, boisterous project that focuses on teaching Wicca.

Also the article speaks of a 'leader' that takes the religion in a somewhat new direction but along the lines of its most popular threads like: ecology; uncomplicated worship; eclectic choices; non-patriarchal (statistics indicate 70% female 30% male membership) aspects; and its more modern theology.

"The notability of this article has to do with the rapidly growing Wicca religion having a public entity advancing its beliefs. This is new for Wicca. Maybe I have titled the article wrongly. People keep bashing this issue around but the debate has centred on a musical band and not the fact that there is a music project done by some Wicca priests which significantly advances the concept of Wicca and gives Wicca greater notability and acceptance. We are talking about a religion wherein women who practiced homeopathy and herbal remedies were burned at the stake. Today a musical ensemble promotes Wicca openly for what it is: a nature based pagan religion. That's notable. There are no Wiccan Churches, Popes, Annual General Meetings; Ecclesiastical Conferences but there is a Music Band that promotes Wicca openly, widely, and in many different ways."

All very interesting but you must comply with en:WP:MUSIC for the article to stand a chance... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may also want to read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. It outlines our purpose but also the limitations on what is to be included. EhJJ^TALK 19:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]