Talk:Wicca/Archive 12

Wicca and Witchcraft

I don't know anything about this subject but these edits seem to be debating a point which should be discussed on this talkpage. Please forgive me if I'm wrong but WP:SOAPBOX comes to mind unfortunately. --Northernhenge (talk) 20:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

A problem I keep having with this page is it's definition of Wicca as (previously)"Traditional Witchcraft" and (now) "Pagan Witchcraft." Can someone please make an edit that will express that Wiccans are *not* the only religious group that refer to themselves as Witches and they are certainly not the only religious group that refers to themselves as Pagans. There are many, many Pagan paths that are not even remotely related to Wicca. I think it is very important to be clear when applying labels with broad strokes. As it is, the Wiccan community is suspected of powergrabbing when it comes to stuff like this - by "stuff" I mean propagating Wiccan belief systems and Wiccan traditions at the expense of marginalizing other traditions. Maybe there can be a suitable compromise here? I made the edit: "many people still confuse the term 'Wicca' as synonymous with the word 'Witch' or 'Witchcraft.' However, many writers are now using a much more (correctly) limited definition of 'Wicca,' confining the term to the Gardnero-Alexandrian Traditions." This is semantically correct. Fine, someone wanted to put "some" instead of "many" - whatever. But changing "Traditional Witchcraft" to "Traditional Paganism" is a move in the opposite direction and is going to cause a bit of commotion in the broader Pagan community; now this definition of Wicca is subsuming all earth religions, ancient and Reconstructionist. Might I suggest an edit that maintains the position that Wicca seems to want to maintain for itself here without engulfing non-Wiccan religions in the doing? How about, "Wicca is a Pagan, or neoPagan, religion. Some Wiccans refer to themselves as alternately 'Wiccans' and/or 'Witches' and practice a religion derived from British Traditional Witchcraft (BTW). However, it is important to note that not all Pagan religions and not all religions that include Witchcraft are Wiccan." Maybe use a redirect page to point to Paganism. MrFixItWitch (talk) 15:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I sympathise with MrFixItWitch's view, but a bit of context may be in order. I agree that the article at present is unclear on the relation ship between initiatory Wicca, broader pagan witchcraft, and paganism at its broadest level. However from my perspective this is not because Wiccans (of whom I'm one!) are claiming imperial ownership of great swathes of modern paganism. Rather it's because many (to my view sometimes unentitled) people want to call their newly-derived "tradition" Wicca even if they learned it off a Llewellyn book or a $50 web-based correspondence course. Now personally I wouldn't call them Wiccan, but many of them want to do so and there are WP:RS out there to attest to that usage.

I'm going to try a rewrite of the lede to see if we can be clearer. Have a look and see what you think, folks! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

MrFixItWitch beat me to the first redraft and I have tidied it up somewhat further. I moved the "pop culture" reference to later on, as it irks me to see Buffy (much as I love her) cited in the second line of an article on Wicca! To be honest, while the new lede accords with my own view that only those with an initiatory lineage can properly be called Wiccan, I do think there will be others who follow a self-initiatory path who will still want to claim the name. And if they can cite WP:RS as I think they may be able to, we'll have to change this section again. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

While I agree with you, Kim, about "only those with an initiatory lineage can properly be called Wiccan", as an opinion, for the purposes of NPOV, all that someone needs to do to provide a RS for the counterpoint is quote any of a dozen Llewellyn books. The opinion "only those with an initiatory lineage can properly be called Wiccan" is not neutral, and never can be neutral.--Vidkun (talk) 18:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes you're quite right Vidkun, I can't hold back the tide of Wicca-wannabees and if goodness knows there are enough of them claiming the term to be notable. But I would like to find a genuinely reliable source that could tease out the differences between initiatory Wicca and Wicca-lite. Not Llewellyn obviously, maybe Ronald Hutton or one of the academic authors now at work has something, eg Jo Pearson? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The Meaning of "Wicca": A Study in Etymology, History, and Pagan Politics. By: White, Ethan Doyle. Pomegranate, Nov2010, Vol. 12 Issue 2, p185-207, 23p; DOI: 10.1558/pome.v12i2.184 begins by saying: "This essay provides the first comprehensive examination of how the term "Wicca" - used in reference to the modern religion of Pagan Witchcraft - has been utilised throughout the faith's history." Unfortunately the copyright says: "Copyright of Pomegranate is the property of Equinox Publishing Group and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission" but I could have a go at summarising it. SueTwo (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

That would be great Sue, if you have the full text then go ahead and extract the pomegranate juice from it (ie transform the meaning into your own words) and insert into the lede. Don't worry if it doesn't feel quite right or you are unsure of formatting the reference - there are plenty of eyes here who will help! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. I've had a go, and I found a reference near the end to another pomegranate article so I pinched the citation format from there.

By the way, White (who uses "Pagan Witchcraft" as his main generic term) concludes: "As I believe that this wealth of evidence displays, there are two alternative yet identifiable definitions of "Wicca" that have been used within both Pagan and academic circles for the last thirty years and which continue to be utilized. The first—and apparently older — definition uses the term in a broad, inclusive manner that covers most, if not all, forms of modem Pagan Witchcraft, particularly if they share sufficiently similar theological beliefs, dates of commemoration and magical praxes. The second uses the term to refer specifically to the tradition of Gardnerian Witchcraft, along with those which are heavily based upon it with little variation, namely Alexandrian and Algard Witchcraft. In North America these particular groups are sometimes collectively called "British Traditional Wicca" because of their shared origins and liturgies."

I don't think I've actually changed the article, just rearranged it a bit. I also spotted what I should have seen before - the Wicca (etymology) page, which already refers to White. He also says that followers of Gnosticism and Luciferianism reject the term "Wicca" for themselves (hardly surprising - are they relevant here at all?). His overall position is that the term has evolved over time, originally being a general term for "Pagan Witchcraft", then becoming increasingly specific to BTW, and now being popularised as an almost meaningless term by Buffy etc.SueTwo (talk) 21:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Good job Sue, looks much better. I agree with White's dual definition but I'd see the development as going in the opposite direction; it seems to me that revived witchcraft in the 1950s and 60s meant initiatory Wicca because there was no wider eclectic movement. With the publishing boom from the 1980s onwards the term has widened (and in my view become cheapened and diluted) into something much more broad and ill defined. But hey, what do I know? At least we have a talk page where I can express my opinion, while trying to keep the article page neutral! Again, good job on the lede. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually Kim, if you ever get the chance to read that paper – and I'd suggest that you do at some point if you're interested in this subject – Doyle White, who I assume is a historian, shows how the term "Wicca" was originally used in the early 1960s to refer to all forms of Pagan Witchcraft, and that it was only later, in the late 1970s, that certain Gardnerians and Alexandrians, particularly in the U.S., adopted it purely in reference to their particular traditions. Then, with the rise of the DIY-Wiccan books in that decade, the original term once more came back into widespread use. Interesting stuff. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC))

Oh, and SueTwo, just to answer your pondrance as to why Doyle White referred to Luciferian and Gnostic Witches in his paper, it is because a great number of practicioners in the "Traditional Witchcraft" movement, particularly in the UK, are both Luciferians and Gnostics, and so do not wish to get caught up with the Pagan movement, which they see as entirely unrelated to their philosophies. For this reason they emphatically reject the term "Wicca". (Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC))

Minor writing issue

Whilst being based upon the Old English word wicca, which referred solely to male sorcerers, the actual individual who coined the capitalised term "Wicca" is unknown ...

I changed "whilst being" to "while", with the flippant comment "wankery." My change was reverted by Huntster, with the comment "British English...wholly acceptable." I have no problem with British English—only bad English. The word "being" (incorrectly tacked on top of a sentence which is already built around a dangling participle) is a bit much. --MillingMachine (talk) 13:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Googling whilst while passes the time nicely :-) SueTwo (talk) 17:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Duotheistic or Monotheistic?

I notice that Wicca is referred to as a Duotheistic religion, however the concept that All are One (all are different aspects of the one, the circle is unbroken, balance, etc) would make it a Monotheistic religion. If we get technical, then religions like the various forms of Christianity are actually Duotheistic, because they have opposite poles in Good and Evil.

I get that we are defining what Wicca *is* on the spot here, using a very short and shallow body of work to choose references from (particularly in a religion that where writing things down to be shared is mostly against the grain), but maybe we can fix this strange flipflop of duo/mono.

At the very least maybe a section at the beginning discussing the argument might be enough in the short term. brill (talk) 05:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I expect that if (unlike me!) you followed up all the references and links flowing out from Systematic theology you would find a clear consensus that Christianity is monotheistic. I also expect they have numerous philosophers explaining why the trinity, and for that matter Mary, don't undermine this. I'm not an initiated Wiccan but I know it's a very specific path with a theology that - as I see it from outside with my nose pressed against the window - is duotheistic. See, for example, Gardner's description of the acting out of the Legend of the Goddess in his Book of Shadows. SueTwo (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

FWIW from someone who is a Wiccan initiate, this is how I see it too. I can't now recall the source of the quote, but the one about "all gods are one God, and all goddesses one Goddess" about sums it up. Wicca is essentially dualistic; God/Goddess, birth/death, growth/decay etc etc... All WP:OR without me citing anything of course but this IS a talk page so please forgive me! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kim, I'm not clear on which point you are supporting. Your quote of "all gods are one God, and all goddesses one Goddess" seems to support a monothistic position but then you go on to talk about duotheistic nature of balance :) -- I am an initiate as well of about 20 years (down the G/F line), and come from a Monotheistic tradition. Its been a while since I did any research on this, and I find that it has changed again when I wasn't looking. Apparently there are several schools of though now including monotheistic, duotheistic, polytheistic, henotheistic, atheistic (from http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_intr.htm). So I think the claim that Wicca is Duotheistic OR Monotheistic is premature. So. as of now, I withdraw the Monothesitic stipulation, but recommend that it be rewritten because its also not clearly Duotheistic. 173.33.251.174 (talk) 17:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

One God + one Goddess = 2 deities = duotheism. Aradia and Cernunnos or whoever you particularly revere. I do see my Wicca as a balancing path from one polarity to another, but I'm well aware that people have made reasonable claims for Wicca as a polytheistic, duothestic, monotheistic or even atheistic path. If we could lay our hands on a good secondary source to make that point it would be good! But maybe we need a series, each making its own claim... Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 19:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

There are lots of examples but this one is particularly poignant and should be the same though all traditions: "One without the other is incomplete and conjoined there be one in truth" == monotheistic. There are many examples that can be pointed to and a rule I find your view prevalent in the US and less so in other places... not a bad thing, just not everywhere :) Anyway, it's pretty clear that there *is no* definition that is consistent. I'm not sure who made the change that exists now, but it has been changed for the better in my opinion. 173.33.251.174 (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Gerald Gardner

I'm a long standing Wiccan but I also have my feet in reality so it immediately hit me to read "a Wiccan high priest named Gerald Gardner". I was tempted to edit but as Wicca is no doubt a sensitive subject I'll raise it here. And indeed I see various admonitions about editing without discussing first. Thing is Gerald was only a high priest because he made himself one and I don't think he ever called himself a Wiccan. He is usually referred to around the web (and in books) as a British civil servant. so "a British civil servant" or "a retired British civil servant" would be more encyclopedic since that came first.

Also he didn't just popularise Wicca, he created it. I do think this article has rose tinted glasses. It would be nice to see it a bit more grounded in fact. I see references to Ronald Hutton - I am sure he would agree with my comments. Robotics1 (talk) 23:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Robotics1. I won't rise to your "feet in reality" bait (nice try though!) but you may find Wicca (etymology) interesting, and also Gardnerian Wicca#History SueTwo (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC) :-)

Actually I think Robotics1 has a point. That firsts sentence in the lede makes it sound as if Gardner was already known as a Wiccan HP when he popularised the witch cult from 1951 onwards. However of course he never called it Wicca, and would never have referred to himself as a Wiccan HP! I think it is appropriate to describe him as a retired civil servant in that first paragraph, because prior to him becoming known for popularising Wicca that's exactly what he was.

Robotics1, thanks for pointing that out and for being so careful as to discuss it here. Many people don't bother and as you have guessed, this is a high profile article! To be fair to ourselves, I don't think it's a completely "feet out of reality" article; many of us who edit here are Wiccan (I am, fo one) but that doesn't mean we can't be objective. Philip Heselton's 2-volume biography of Gardner is due out soon and we can mine that for quotes. See also a documentary airing on Channel 4 on the 20th Feb, presented by Ron and including Philip as a contributor - may also be worth recording and citing. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah - sorry about being brusque. You're right of course. SueTwo (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

@Robotics1: The problem is really that WIcca itself has fragmented quite a lot (some would say thats a good thing) and views have changed. Even those of us who have been Wiccan for 20 years or more can't agree a lot of the time, it even changes depending on how your WIccan tradition began and where you live. For what it's worth, I agree with you and although I think its a bit pedantic, I think we need to be a bit pedantic, seeing as this article is eventually going to form a large part of the history of Wicca as it gets distributed and taken as fact by later generations. brill (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

My two cents, I remember the article used to say he was a civil servant. But it has been changed, and at this point, I am sure there are sources that refer to him as a HP. If so, then it can be included. Now, GG may not have refered to himself a Wiccan, but I think it is relativly reasonable to call him a Wiccan HP. When looking at the past, we often impart names, titles, ect. on historical artifacts so that they make more sense to us. (i.e the first Pharaoh of Egypt may or may not have been called Pharaoh in his time, but he meets the definition of what we consider a Phararoh, and therefore we refer to him as one. Just an example. I dont know if that is the case) I think it is reasonable, to call an individual who would be considered to be a member/founder of the religion known as Wicca, Wiccan, and as practitioner who trained others in the craft and I believe lead a coven, a High Priest. Sephiroth storm (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Cochrane Craft and Feri

I suggest that the reference to Cochrane based witchcraft and Feri be removed from the references of Wicca traditions, as members of thee traditions do not identify themselves as being Wiccan traditions. Additionally, Wikipedia's article on Witchcraft, which covers neopagan witchcraft, lists Wicca, Cochrane based witchcraft and Feri, as being three different things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.57.147 (talk) 16:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Third opinion

An editor says that the three goddess symbol is not Wiccan. (see [1]) Can i have a third opinion on this please? Thanks. Pass a Method talk 09:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

It depends on which tradition of Wicca you're speak about. However, the symbol you're referring to is not a Tripple Goddess symbol. I can see how you might confuse it for a triple moon-crescent, but many symbols around the world incorporate the number three and those are not moon crescents, they're horns. It is known as 'the Triple Horn of Odin.'
—Sowlos (talk) 11:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The images I'm seeing for the triple horn of Odin all have the crescents slightly off center in relation to the other crescents or truncated, either way, forming a triskelion instead of the triquetra emblem of Diane de Poitiers. The Signs and Symbols Bible by Madonna Gauding notes that the Triple Goddess is sometimes "shown as three crescent moons intertwined with each other" (p.103). I'm having trouble finding a similar reliable source (and I ignored a lot of stuff in the Wicca search before finding that one) searching "triple crescent Odin" or "triple horn of Odin" on Google books. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Taking another look, you're right. That appears to be a triple crescent, not the Triple Horn. Looking quickly (after just waking) and seeing 'Germanic', I got confused. In that case, a better answer to Pass a Method's question would be:
A triple goddess symbol (or any other triplicity symbol) isn't necessarily a symbol of 'Wicca'. Wiccans do adopt symbols pre-dating the movement and a symbol's origin is important in establishing what it represents. That one is supposed to be Celtic, but I don't remember seeing it in any ancient context. That may mean it's modern, which could make it Wiccan, but I'm not sure. It's been around for at least a few hundred years. What I do know is the Triple Horn of Odin is supposed to be made of drinking horns, not crescents; the two symbols get confused a bit; and it's listed as a Wiccan Tripple Goddess symbol on the file page.
—Sowlos (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has started over at Talk:Religion#Germanic neopaganism, if others would kindly head over that way. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Removed "new age" and replaced with "contemporary Pagan"

I've removed the description of Wicca as a "New Age" religion and replaced it with "contemporary pagan" religion, which is more accurate. Wicca was developed before the New Age movement and finds it roots in the Western Mystery Tradition, drawing from sources such as The Golden Dawn, Aleister Crowley and Freemasonry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.146.99 (talk) 13:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. It was 'modern pagan' before. The 'New Age' label may have been vandalism.
—Sowlos (talk) 15:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Editnotice

There is a comment at the top of the article informing editors on proper spelling and such. That only works if the user is editing the whole article - not a section - and if they don't skim past leading html comments and templates. Wouldn't an Editnotice make more sense?
—Sowlos (talk) 01:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

That is a fantastic idea, I've gone ahead and moved the text into a new editnotice. Thanks! — Huntster (t @ c) 02:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Glad to help. Looks great; thanks so much!
—Sowlos (talk) 06:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Gardner's Origins of Wicca - Citation Needed

I have added a citation requirement to the following section under "Debates over the origin of Wicca":

"According to Gerald Gardner's account, Wicca is the survival of a theoretical European witch-cult that was persecuted during the witch trials. Theories of an organised pan-European witch-cult, as well as mass trials thereof, have been largely discredited, but it is still common for Wiccans to claim solidarity with witch trial victims.[107]"

The wording here states that Gerald Gardner claimed "Wicca is the survival of a theoretical European witch-cult... [etc]". However, the citation (107) at the end of this paragraph is not for Gerald Gardner or where he allegedly made this claim. The citation is instead for a book by Raymond Buckland. In said book, Buckland does indeed make the above claim about Wicca/Witchcraft, but he does not reference this to Gardner. All that is said of Gardner in this book is that "he saw the Craft as a dying religion". The source given (Buckland's book) does not provide the information stated concerning Gardner. So a citation is needed for where Gardner made this claim, if he ever did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.45.155 (talk) 18:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• A third party source is a valid form of verification.
• Buckland is considered a WP:reliable source for the history of early Wicca (who did and said what). That is why he is cited.
• Gardner's writings in Witchcraft Today and The Meaning of Witchcraft simply state that his tradition is the survival the "theoretical European witch-cult". Interpreting that as a statement open to debate is original research. Wikipedia is not a place for that. However, all reputable sources — at the very least — identify Gardner's "claim" as unverifiable. This is why we cite them, not Gardner.

Your reasons for challenging the said statement and its supporting citation are flawed. I advise you to read Wikipedia:Citing sources.
—Sowlos 23:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but unless Buckland quotes GBG, then you can't use a cite Buckland for a statement about what GBG claimed, it's utter rubbish. Now, if you take something from any of Gardner's books where he does say that, that's fine, but cite HIS book, not Buckland, and use quotes and wording which is appropriate and doesn't come off as coloring the statement (such as claimed, etc).--Vidkun (talk) 23:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Recognition in Spain/Portugal

I just removed the addition below from the article, because while it's good news it needs some copy editing and more importantly a reliable source before we can set it loose in the article. The addition read:

On December 23, 2011, the Spanish government officially recognizes for the first time as the Wicca religion, Celtiberian Tradition enroll in the Registry of Religious Entities with the reference 2560-SG / A, Spain is the first country recognize Wicca. Following the line of visibility that Wicca religious affiliation, tradition Celtiberian, imposed throughout the institution, this Tradition Wicca also established in Portugal has taken the first step and once requested registration in the appropriate register, just been registered and is therefore has become the first recognized as Pagan Religion Confession in the history of Portugal. Thus, the Portuguese public sector has entered in the Register of Religious Entities Religious Confession to Wicca, Celtiberian tradition with the nomenclature: Data of criação: 06/26/12 Wicca Religious Confissão Celtiberian. Permanent Representação. NIPC: 980474531 - CAE / P: 94 910. This milestone is also clear that Portugal is the second country after Spain, to legalize a religious cult Wicca.

Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a subsection should be added to Acceptance of Wiccans detailing its legal position various countries. This could be worked into that.
—Sowlos 23:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Addition of material about Wiccan Rede

An IP editor has been adding material making the strong assertion that all Wiccans must adhere to the Rede and have an obligation to do so. This is worded sufficiently strongly that it really needs a reliable source but I don't believe one exists that would back this up. I've reverted to the less stringent wording once, and another editor has done so a second time. If we could discuss this here rather than going into a revert war that would be very helpful. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

There will be no reliable source which can substantiate it. It's opinion only, refuted by at least one author (not nec. a reliable source, however) David Piper, and in the meaning of "rede" as advice, not commandment.--Vidkun (talk) 15:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The removal of "although this is not taken literally" (emphasis mine), combined with the screaming command for Wiccans to follow the rede strikes me as a bit WP:SOAPBOX-ish. If this was a Christianity related article, I'd be far more emphatic that Wikipedia is not a fundamentalist platform. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes. There is indeed no reliable source for this and it is soapbox-ish (a rather common form of it, too). Such claims can only be made about specific traditions or family trees, not all "Wicca".
—Sowlos 23:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

People are editing this article without reading it first

Multiple sections at the start of this article were duplicates of following sections. Some were sub-sections of "Origins" while their topics were that of beliefs or practice. Sections following the history section were subsections even though unrelated to history. Many sections also contained trailing ramblings that were off topic and (again) redundant...obviously the infamous inability to avoid unnecessary verbosity. (Much of what I found was also unsourced.)

In short, people need to pay closer attention to this. Sloppy editors will always plague Wikipedia, but this is supposed to be a GA. People need to watch this article, lest it devolve into a disorganized mass of POV statements. I was very tempted to nominate this page for reassessment.

I did some minor cleaning and content shuffling. More clean up is still required.
—Sowlos 22:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Inadequate lead

The lead does not adequately summarise the article for a casual reader. From the lead alone I know virtually nothing about Wicca. It says nothing about even the very basics of Wicca beliefs, other than "it draws upon a diverse set of ancient pagan religious motifs for its theological structure and ritual practice." Briefly what are these rituals?

For a 'Good Article' I think the lead is unacceptably short. Hopefully somebody more knowledgeable on this religion can expand this. -- Hazhk ^{Talk to me} 21:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I've seen now that most of the lead was discarded last month for being too long. Looks like you've gone from one extreme to another. I'm going to restore certain paragraphs of that lead. I'll be checking to see which parts were moved to separate sections (that whole last paragraph of this version of the lead has been move to the current "Terminology" section, so I'll be leaving out that). -- Hazhk ^{Talk to me} 21:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Urgh. The old lead has been entirely moved in-article, making it impossible for me to restore the old lead word-for-word. I think somebody needs to do a job of writing at least a very basic summary of the article in the lead. -- Hazhk ^{Talk to me} 21:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Wicca/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Unfortunately, this article no longer lives up the GA status that it was awarded back in 2008. Since then, Wikipedia standards have become far more stringent, while the actual quality and coherance of this page has been eroded. For these reasons, this status must be revoked.

Well written

This article does not fit Wikipedia's manual of style; the introduction in no way summarises the page's contents, for instance. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

On the issue of quality, I can't disagree. I hoped my earlier comments would have spurred more cleaning, but little has changed.

As for the lead, if that was the only problem, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Also, I've expand the lead. I loosely based it on its state around 2010, its stable most stable time before it started growing.

—Sowlos 18:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Verifiable with no original research

There are large sections here that are completely unreferenced, or poorly referenced. On this criteria, it is a clear fail. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I also agree the article needs better referencing. It is not just a matter of quantity, it is also of quality. However, I wouldn't say "large sections" of "completely unreferenced" content is a persistent issue. Only a handful of paragraphs lack any citations.

—Sowlos 18:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Community input

Looks like some valid points raised above. I just wanted to check that the major contributors and Wikiprojects have been notified of the reassessment to see if anyone is willing to address the issues. AIRcorn (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I posted a {{Please see}} at WT:PAGAN#Discussion at Talk:Wicca#GA Reassessment and just now at WT:RELIGION#Discussion at Talk:Wicca#GA Reassessment. As for individual contributors: I haven't personally informed informed anyone and as far as I can see, Midnightblueowl only informed Kim Dent-Brown. However, I have been under the assumption interested editors follow the relevant WikiProjects and this talk page.
—Sowlos 06:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Not all do and I have on a few occasions met disgruntled editors that I have forgotten to inform so it is usually best to be over frivolous when it comes to notifications. AIRcorn (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Hiya. I've got access to a few reference works with substantial articles on Wicca, and, if nothing else, I figure I can in the next few days (I hope it's the next few days, anyway) go through some of them and try to add some material and/or references. I tend to get sidetracked fairly easily, though, so we may not see any real factual results for at least a few days, maybe longer. John Carter (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I figure I can in the next few days (I hope it's the next few days, anyway) go through some of them and try to add some material and/or references. I tend to get sidetracked fairly easily, though ...story of my life.
I'll try to do the same. If the article doesn't see much improvement over the next (say) two weeks, it may require down-listing.
—Sowlos 09:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

As can be seen from my recent edit history, my activity here has been very intermittent recently, due to, among other things, modem problems. That has made any attempts to do anything about this article problematic. Request maybe an extension of a week to give me time to try to do something with a computer that can actually edit here. John Carter (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I am usually for extensions as long as people begin the needed work immediately, but this reassessment is Midnightblueowl's show. That said, I am becoming sceptical that quick emergency cleaning can bring Wicca (back?) to GA status. I have started refactoring the article's citations and I am noticing several un-GA-like problems. Mislabelling of citations, citations that conflict with themselves, erratic citation style and coverage, problematic content structure, and academic deficit top the list. These kinds of systemic issues call for a complete line-by-line review and potential overhaul, not just the addition of a few extra citations. I will do what I can, but without extensive help from others, this article will most definitely require downlisting.
—Sowlos 13:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I've kind of noticed a few problematic areas myself, based on some of the material I've looked at. Of the points you've rasied above, conflicting citations seems to me to be the most serious, and, honestly, I think is probably grounds for delisting in and of itself. I do know that in general we accept entries in other encyclopedic works as being RS, generally among the most reliable of sources, and I wonder whether, for an article of this type, which is both widely discussed in such sources and also, in a sense, maybe a bit more controversial than some others, if maybe one of the best things we could do would be to at least initially base the content of our article on the content of those other articles, adding citations to the relevant encyclopedias as appropriate, and then maybe going through some more "secondary" sources to change to them as required and maybe bring the article up to GA/FA level. John Carter (talk) 15:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

conflicting citations seems to me to be the most serious
True. I don't know how common related problems are, though; it wasn't something I was looking for. The most common issue (thankfully) was copying details from one edition of a book for another of the same title.
we accept entries in other encyclopedic works as being RS...maybe one of the best things we could do would be to at least initially base the content of our article on the content of those other articles
While I'm open to the possibility, I'm hesitant. Historically misunderstood, non-mainstream topics don't always receive accurate coverage (even if well meaning). However, given the fact that most encyclopaedic coverage of Wicca would be within the last decade or so, that may not be a serious issue. I guess lets see what we can find. At the very least, loosely basing/reworking its structure and coverage on that of a few other encyclopaedic articls wont hurt if we find ours to be significantly deficient. Either way, lets make sure that we try to increase the percentage of citations for peer reviewed articles and academic books.
...FA is the goal. ;)  —Sowlos  18:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

(←) Without claiming ownership here, I do feel a certain level of moral responsibility as I reworked this article several years ago and submitted it for GA at that time. I'll have a look and see what I can do, but I think we also need a good specific list of precise criticisms and changes needed. If anyone (perhaps ideally someone relatively unfamiliar with the topic?) felt able to produce that list it would be great. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate that I haven't been a part of much of the discussions here, but seeing as how little has been done on the issues in question, I feel it is necessary that we go ahead and demote it. I very much hope however that such an action will spur editors to go on and improve the quality of the article so that it can then earn its GA status again, and be much better for it. I'm more than happy to help out with this task. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Specific extant criticisms of the article as is

Obviously, referencing where such doesn't yet exist is important. I think others might see other problems, and hope that they point them out below.

Starting the ball rolling, as it were, I very much question the keeping of the as yet unsourced, OR sentence regarding the ritual indicating that Wicca is directly related to Thelema. Not that I am in any way disputing that, but it is still unsourced, and I honestly question whether that particular relationship is of such great importance that it meets WP:WEIGHT requirements. John Carter (talk) 19:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Moved from article

I've moved a section of sourced text that was just added, as it seems to violate WP:UNDUE.

Among witches in Canada, anthropologist Dr. Heather Botting (nee Harden) of the University of Victoria has been the most prominent, having been the first recognized Wiccan chaplain of a public university. In 1966, she and her husband Dr. Gary Botting, up to then Jehovah's Witnesses, inherited Coven Celeste from his maternal grandmother, Lysbeth Turner (nee Rendle), the London-based High Priestess of Gerald Gardner. By 1974, Coven Celeste had spread to Alberta, and by 1990 it had become one of the mainstay covens of Temple of the Lady in Victoria, B.C. With Michele Favarger and Erik Lindblad, Wiccan chaplains at William Head Penitentiary, the Bottings later formed the Canadian Aquarian Tabernacle Church, and successfully campaigned the Province of British Columbia to recognize Wiccan weddings. Gary Botting, a lawyer, has represented several witches in British Columbia in both criminal and civil litigation, including Darren Koehn, wrongfully convicted of murder at his second trial on highly questionable evidence, and Sam Wagar, a candidate for the New Democratic Party whose nomination was revoked because he was a witch.

Do with it what you will, if anything seems useful for the rest of the article. — Huntster (t @ c) 07:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

[ #Acceptance of Wiccans ] may be an acceptable place to mention the first recognized Wiccan chaplain of a Canadian public university (briefly). Gerald Gardner (Wiccan) is a good place to mention the noteworthy status for any of his lineage. Aquarian Tabernacle Church, Coven Celeste, Neopaganism in Canada, are also appropriate places to mention the Bottings and their activities. The latter two, of course, do not (yet) exist.  —Sowlos  11:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

One type of article which we are dramatically missing in general regarding religious topics to date is the "(religion) by (country or area)" article. Articles of that type are among the best places to put material on how the religion was introduced, number of adherents and names of bodies, locations, etc. This material would be wonderfully well suited to a Wicca in Canada article, if anyone were to create it. I am, admittedly slowly, going through some reference books relating to religion globally, and when and if I finish it I think they might be able to establish the notability of some specific articles of that type, which could then be created and developed with content like this. John Carter (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we need Wicca in North America. Wicca by county articles may be few partly because of WP:NOTABILITY. Regional articles might be a better idea. Many countries within the same region have intertwined history anyway. We can worry about country based articles if we acquire enough content.  —Sowlos  07:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Certainly, multinational articles like that would be useful in lots of cases as well, with specifically national articles serving as subarticles of them. There actually are a few reference books out there dealing with religion on a global basis, and I am now trying to go through some of them, amond others, to see what sorts of articls we could establish notability for through them. From what I've seen, though, both Canada and the US, as well as the UK, seem to have enough content specifically about wicca in their own boundaries to merit articles, and probably to have sufficient notability as well. John Carter (talk) 16:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

[ Seems to me that "Acceptance of Wiccans" is precisely the place for this kind of information - including the official recognition of Wiccan weddings, the first Wiccan university chaplain, and Wiccan chaplains in prisons. This is all evidence of "acceptance" not mentioned elsewhere - and it is documented. GRGerald Ryder (talk) 06:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The issue is not whether it falls within the scope of the acceptance of Wiccans by contemporary society. Wicca is a large article covering a broad topic and as the main article for its subject, we must take care when adding detailed information; if we add an important leader from one part of the world, why not all the others from the rest of the world? Topics are divided among multiple articles to alleviate this problem.
[Wicca] focuses on what is of top importance to understanding the subject of Wicca, while Wicca related sub-articles focus on the finer details.  —Sowlos  07:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

[ Got it. Thanks! Gerald Ryder (talk) 23:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Wiccan literature

Yesterday LuckyLeprechaun added a book to the list of article references which I removed as it does not appear to be a source used in the article. Since then the user has readded it five times without explanation or responding to talk page messages. The user has been warned about WP:EDITWARRING and will be reported and dealt with at WP:ANEW if this disruptive editing continues. Please all take care not to violate WP:3RR for our own sakes. HelenOnline 06:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I am filing a report on the whole thing, so we'll see where it goes. Several violations with 4 plus edits, including Huntster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuckyLeprechaun (talk • contribs) 07:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Some things I think could use more references

• The lede emphasizes the centrality of duotheism to Wicca ("Wicca is typically duotheistic, worshipping a god and goddess traditionally viewed as a mother goddess and horned god"). The section below on duotheism is unsourced.
• "There exists no dogmatic moral or ethical code followed universally by Wiccans of all traditions, however a majority follow a code known as the Wiccan Rede"… Regarding a lack of a "dogmatic moral or ethical code", is this original research? In the source given for the section, the author writes:

  Every religion has some sort of ethic, some guideline for what it means to live in accordance with this particular mythos, this worldview. Ours, called the Wiccan Rede, is one of the most elegant statements I've heard of the principle of situational ethics. Rather than placing the power and duty to decide about behavior with teachers or rulebooks, the Rede places it exactly where it belongs, with the actor.

  This doesn't really seem to deny the existence of a "dogmatic" code as such; rather it seems to be indicating the origins of ethical guidance, principles, and practices.
• "further popularised by Raymond Buckland, in his books on Wicca" — Original research, or something else? The linked article on Buckland does not mention the Threefold Law, and no source is given for the assertion in this article.
• "various important figures in the Craft, such as Alex Sanders and Eddie Buczynski, being openly homosexual or bisexual" — Unsourced; could be a serious BLP issue.
• The section on "Natural cycles" is unsourced.
• (The last paragraph of the "Rites of passage" section is unsourced and is marked with a citation needed tag.)
• (The "Symbols" section is unsourced and tagged.)

Goldenshimmer (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: the Rede vs. dogmatism - the Rede is usually used, but not always. I may have a better source, but it might take me a few days. I'll get back to you. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, I think the existing source is good for the existence of the Rede, but the additional source I think I have would be good for the assertion that the Rede is not universal. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Brief note: both Sanders and Buczynski have left for the Summerland, so I would think no BLP issue, specifically. However, I think identifying Alex Sanders as homosexual would require some seriously reliable sources.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 19:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

PProt

This page has been temporary protected due to ongoing content dispute on the article. Please discuss changes here. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Protection has expired, please use the talk page to discuss disputed updated, otherwise happy editing. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Paganism

I think it would be useful to have a section that clarifies the relationship/differences between Wicca and (Neo)Paganism. Littlewindow (talk) 23:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

There isn't really a difference. Wicca is a pagan religion, though not all Pagans are Wiccan. IMO, the article goes into sufficent depth to explain the relationship between Wicca and generalized Paganism.Frednotbob (talk) 01:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Odd addition to article

I've removed an addition from today. I have several issues with this: that the book's topic seems to be anti-capitalism rather than being about Wicca, that I can't really tell what is the editors own words and what is direct quoting from the book, and that the text is nearly unreadable. I feel that, without access to the book (it isn't available in my area), it would be impossible for me to turn this into anything approaching useful text, so I'll leave it to others to 1) determine if it is appropriate for inclusion and 2) rewrite into something encyclopedic.

Removed text follows, with citation formatted and move to the bottom:

Pignarre and Stengers provide an extensive discussion of the neo-pagan witch movement. For them the value and attractiveness of wicca lies in the fabricated yet real nature of its rituals and the undecidability that they confront us with’ (ibid). Accordingly, wicca provides transformative techniques of empowerment and plitical creation by a veritable “culture of recipes” that can serve to counter capitalism’s universal designs and the “psychosocial techniques of adherence” subtending them. Part of the “recipes” that they are a matter of reclaiming (138), of reactivating knowledges that allow for protection and paying attention. To cast a circle and invoke the goddesses ‘is to fabricate a closure, a separation, the space of an experience that is irreducible to individual psychology of encountering differently what was first necessary to keep outside’ (139). The pragmatic “successes” of interventions lies in the fact that they are always local, interstitial, “defined neither against nor in relation to the bloc to which [they] nonetheless belong” (110). The authors advocate a counter-sorcery that entails yearning, giving thanks and resisting capture as well as the ‘mutation of a tradition and the rediscovery/reinvention of old resources’ (136). As the capitalist sorcery (without sorcerers thinking of themselves as such), operates by “capture,” through a culture of “spells” that immobilise thinking and paralyse collective action; what anti-capitalist politics needs then is not so much demystification or dis-alienation, but a counter-magic capable of protecting its practitioners and breaking the spell and overcoming the logic of 'infernal alternatives' that endless procession of lesser evils and false choices “that set of situations that seem to leave no other choice than resignation or a slightly hollow sounding denunciation.” (24) Referring to the anti-globalism “event of Seattle” that is called to to give word to the cry “another world is possible!”, an opening toward a possible world rather than an articulation of explicit demands. The challenge that Seattle poses then is to become “the child of the event: not being born again into innocence, but daring to inhabit the possible as such, without the adult precautions that makes threats of the type ‘what will people say?,’ ‘who will they take us for?’ or ‘and you think that is enough?’ prevail” (4).

• Pignarre, Philippe; Stengers, Isabelle (2011). Capitalist Sorcery: Breaking the Spell. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-230-23762-9.

— Huntster (t @ c) 21:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Huntster. I saw that addition on my phone, and it looked pretty "off," but I didn't feel comfortable about taking any action until I got to an actual computer. You beat me to it. The book referenced is through Amazon, but at a price far too high for me to spend just to see how relevant it is to this article. From the Amazon blurb, I doubt it has any relevance whatsoever. I'm guessing what the drive-by one-post editor posted was a Google Translate version of the original text, but I'm thinking it doesn't belong no matter how it got there.

Best regards,

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 17:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Wicca and the Israeli connection

External link: Shai Feraro, Wicca and the Israeli Connection, (29th November 2014) Shoshie8 (talk) 10:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory: Israel paid the Wicca to cast a magical spell of death and send a plane out of control, crashing into the WTC. Is that what you're trying to say?108.66.197.69 (talk) 17:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Removed 'needs citation' sentence

Just poking my nose in here; I've removed the line 'There are other Wiccans who are atheists or agnostics, not believing in any actual deity, but instead viewing the gods as psychological archetypes of the human mind which can be evoked and interacted with.'. My main concern is that Wicca is a religious belief, and it's a contradiction in terms to be a 'religious athiest/agnostic'.

Ay objections, let me know. 75.154.239.96 (talk) 09:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Various religions adopt atheistic or agnostic approaches; see for instance Theravada Buddhism or LaVeyan Satanism. Religion as a phenomenon can cover many different things, and doesn't automatically have to include theism. There are religious atheists, just as there are non-religious theists. However, we should not have unreferenced information in the article, even if it is true. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Very interesting article from Somewhere: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_in_Hinduism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.107.53 (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Ronald Hutton

I've made a link to Ronald Hutton since there is a WP page about him. I also identified him as a Bristol University professor, since I think in a topic like this it's important to signal which statements or ideas come from a mainstream academic scholar, as opposed to the (very many) amateur, popularizing, or other writers on the topic. Littlewindow (talk) 14:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

'Neo-Wicca'

I've removed a sentence (and its associated citation) regarding 'neo-Wicca'; my reasoning is that A) In a cursory Google search, I've only been able to find one reference that makes that claim (the others were Urban Dictionary and several personal blogs and webpages) abd B) Anglicans and Catholics are not referred to as 'neo-Christian', therefore non-Gardnerian traditions should not be called 'neo-Wiccan'. If there are objections to my deletion, I'm open to discussion. TIA, 24.108.102.4 (talk) 04:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

My opinion is that the first reason is the important one. If the term Neo-Wiccan isn't used by reliable sources (and the ones mentioned aren't,) then it shouldn't be used in the article. Littlewindow (talk) 14:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. If we have academic sources discussing "Neo-Wicca" then it could be included, but without them, there really is no point. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

2016?

“As of 2016, Doyle White suggested that there were "hundreds of thousands of practising Wiccans around the globe".[2]”

As of now, it is still 2015. Consider revision.--Nahum (talk) 12:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I added the quote in question. It's one of those scenarios where a book has been published (in this case in 2015) but the official date of publication is that of the following year (in this case 2016). Given that 2016 is the official date of publication, I assumed that that was the date that should be used in the prose, but I agree that it does cause some problems. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

In point of fact, I just checked Amazon and the date of publication is, in fact, Dec 1 2015. I'll make the corrections :) Frednotbob (talk) 12:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

If you consult a copy of the book itself, you'll see that its publication date is given as 2016. As I said, it has de facto appeared in late 2015 (November in the UK; December in the US), but the actual year that the book itself describes as its date of publication is 2016. Accordingly, I have reverted your edits, Frednotbob. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The official Sussex Academic Press website lists the date of release as November, 2015, and an article on Patheos.com (published in 2015) features an interview with White regarding his 'recently published' book. The 2016 publication date is most likely for the e-book edition. Frednotbob (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I obtained my hard copy in November, when it was available for purchase on AmazonUK. No one is denying that it was actually de facto released in late 2015. Despite this, the date of publication as specified inside the book is 2016; it should thus be cited accordingly. (Although a tad confusing, this is not an uncommon procedure for books). Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The only date I could find that was available in November of 2015 is the paperback; the hardcover (and Kindle) publication date, wherever I can find it listed, is December 1, 2015. After extensive searching, I am revising the '2015' date again; I cite as justification the British Library's October 2015 listing (catalogue number 299.94, http://www.bl.uk/bibliographic/bnbnewpdfs/bnblist3367.pdf) of a 2015 publishing date, that the ISBN for the hardcover edition (on both Amazon.com and the British Library listing) show the hardcover publication date of December 1, 2015, and that Sussex Academic Press' own website lists the release date of 2015. If there are any objections, please let me know. Frednotbob (talk) 17:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

The inset of the book says "2016". I appreciate that the book actually appeared in late 2015, but we follow the printed date. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

And the printed date, according to the publisher itself, is 2015. I don't know the procedure for such a minor dispute; can someone else step in and sort it out? I've never heard of the practice MidnightBlueOwl is talking about; as I understand Wikipedia guidelines, 'I saw it in a book I bought' is considered OR/non-notable, and evidence from notable primary sources trumps non-attributed personal research. I'm not trying to be a jerk about this, but it seems that we need an independent third-party to clarify matters. 70.66.215.159 (talk) 14:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Generally, we consider the book itself as the ultimate authority. I mean, by your reasoning, any material in a book would be considered OR/non-notable because the editor just "saw it in a book" they bought. We don't need verification by another source to prove what the book says...theoretically that would create an endless string of secondary verification to prove the previous source. In any case, this is a Google Books scan of the book, which shows "2016". — Huntster (t @ c) 16:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

My reasoning wasn't meant to imply that all books are OR/non-notable; rather, all other sources that I have been able to locate that fall under Wikipedia's notability and originality guidelines (including the publisher's own website) indicate that the hardcover was published in 2015. If it's a digital edition, I'll gladly concede the point (publishing dates for hardcover and digital editions usually vary), but I stand by my assertion that we need more than just a single non-notable (forgive me, MidnightBlueOwl) primary source for proper verification. 70.66.215.159 (talk) 17:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I give up. How can the book be considered a reliable source for content in our article but an unreliable (or non-notable?) source for its own registered date? I understand that 2015 vs. 2016 is a bizarre thing, but when we start ignoring the printed word in favour of something else, I fear we set a bad precedent. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll let things rest, save to clarify my argument: the publisher's own website claims an earlier publishing date. As there are two editions of the book (electronic vs. hard-copy, each of which can have a separate publication date), and the edition presented by MidnightBlueOwl doesn't identify whether the copyright is for one or the other, I advocate using the publisher's listed date (since we can reasonably assume that they know better than anyone the initial publicaton date of their own product). Likewise, I have produced two further sources that both support a 2015 publication; the British Library is not (we assume) in the habit of printing inaccurate catalogue information, and the ISBN of the hardcover (listing a publication date of 2015) is a matter of record.

My argument for the majority of this discussion has been that a single source is not sufficient verification. If we accept that Book A says 'this' and that's that, I could justify stating on Martha Stewart's article that she built a Stepford clone, simply because that was an article in the National Enquirer. Which it was, incidentally, but that's neither here nor there XD. 70.66.215.159 (talk) 19:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Pentacle/Pentagram

Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, which in American publishing at least is considered authoritative, defines pentacle as "a five pointed star used as a magical symbol," and defines pentagram as "see pentacle." So by the standard dictionary definition they are the same, though my impression is that pentacle is in fact more common in ritual contexts. Littlewindow (talk) 16:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Whereas the Oxford Dictionary says as we do, that it is "a talisman or magical object, typically disk-shaped and inscribed with a pentagram or other figure". They are mostly synonymous when used generally, but within Wicca, the difference is quite specific. Point is, it's simply easier to use two terms to differentiate two concepts. Their individual wiki articles are linked and explain it. — Huntster (t @ c) 17:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

GA nomination

I have just noticed that the article has recently been nominated as a Good Article by User:SparklingPessimist, who has otherwise never before made a contribution to the page. I can appreciate the desire to see the article receive that little green icon but must caution that the article is far from being GA quality. It contains much unreferenced material and cites far too many primary sources. For a look at a comparable topic that is GA-rated, take a look at Heathenry (new religious movement) and see how the two articles compare, particularly in their use of sourcing. For that reason, I would strongly recommend de-nominating it at the present time. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• See Talk:Wicca/GA1 for the last discussion - ensure these items have been addressed before a new nomination. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

According to the GA nomination instructions, if an editor wants to nominate an article but isn't a significant contributor to it, they should consult the significant contributors to see whether they believe it is ready—for example, on this talk page—prior to nominating it. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Debates over the origin of Wicca

This section says: The notion of the survival of Wiccan traditions and rituals from ancient sources is contested by most recent researchers, who suggest that Wicca is a 20th-century creation which combines elements of freemasonry and 19th-century occultism.[143] However, historians such as Ronald Hutton have noted that Wicca not only predates the modern New Age movement but also differs markedly in its general philosophy.[66]. That second sentence seems like a complete non-sequitur. In what way is that a 'however' to the first sentence? The New Age is a 20th-century development too. --Irrevenant [ talk ] 22:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.draknet.com/proteus/rede.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130510122431/http://www.aquariantabernaclechurch.org/atc-affiliates-canada to http://www.aquariantabernaclechurch.org/atc-affiliates-canada
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130510103310/http://www.atccanada.org/services/wiccan-chaplaincy/ to http://www.atccanada.org/services/wiccan-chaplaincy/

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) 17:25, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit

Wicca evolved from the Anglo Saxon word Wicce was not created by Gardner nor is it precisiely Pagan as that simply means a non Abrahamic religion. It is the fundamental beginnning of all Nature based belief systems akin to Shamanism. Whoever is writing this article is misinformed and relying on a group of individuals whom enjoyed a naked romp within the New Forest from the 19th century onwards. I have tried to balance the article but sadly to no avail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Nobody (talk • contribs) 16:54, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Have you WP:Reliable sources, authored by academic specialists in the history of religion and published with a reputable academic press, to bolster your claims? Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

"Wiccanism"

I kept in the note about the term being used at Burning Man, but am not attached to even leaving that in. Someone with that source at hand needs to check it. As I noted in the edit summary - Burning Man is not a Wiccan gathering, so there is no reason to assume that anyone commenting on Wicca at the event was even an adherent. It holds no weight. Cut it completely if you want. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

That "Wiccanism" was used exclusively on the occasion of Burning Man 2010 is your personal opinion, which you added to the article, and is false. With a quick research among resources provided by Google books you would have found other scholarly books using it. I have added other two of them as sources for that sentence.--188.218.122.161 (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

And this deletion of sourced content by user Huntster is unacceptable.--188.218.122.161 (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And I have reverted. First, Corbie does not say that it was used exclusively at Burning Man, just that there was an example of its usage there. Second, those books you reference also use the term one and twice, respectively, and both use it in the sense of action, rather than as a noun. They are not comparable terms. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

False. Oxford University's Heaven on Earth has it in the following list (direct quote), p. 417, "...theosophy and its branches, Wiccanism, neopaganism, native spiritualities..."; Baylor University's New Religious Movements and Religious Liberty in America has it in the phrase, p. 144, "...a Wiccan had been invited to give a purely educational (not evangelical) talk about Wiccanism for the stated purpose of correcting popular misconceptions about the religion...".--188.218.122.161 (talk) 22:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

"...theosophy and its branches, Wiccanism, neopaganism, native spiritualities...";

"Wiccanism" - ie. Wicca isn't derived in any sense from Theosophy. Valgrus Thunderaxe (talk) 13:49, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Just like mispronunciations of holiday names, weird neologisms and inaccurate terminology happens. These mentions are insignificant. I don't think it even merits mention as a neologism. I have zero attachment to what this is called, but as this has now become disruptive, I am removing the mention entirely. I suggest that if the IP disruption continues we semi the article. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 00:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

P.S. In my edit summary I incorrectly noted the IP user has a dynamic IP. This is incorrect. It is two static IPs but writing style and edit history indicates high probability this is one user editing from two IPs on the same ISP. I am considering the IP editor to be one person for this reason, and all the IP edits to be indicative of a logged-out user who is now edit-warring - against three editors in good standing - who are in consensus that "Wiccanism" is an insignificant usage. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 00:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

"Wiccanism" sounds sloppy. The religion is Wicca and practitioners are Wiccans. 108.200.234.93 (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Wicca

It's the oldest religion in the world. 108.200.234.93 (talk) 12:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

A claim like that will require multiple high-quality reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 12:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Which do not exist, because the claim is simply wrong. See History of Wicca. Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:35, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Wicca for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Wicca is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Wicca (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:43, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone else *NOT* like that picture of the people dancing with brooms in Minnesota?

I think it's a silly caricature of Wicca that only serves to reinforce stereotypes, and it's not part of any Wiccan ceremony or ritual I'm aware of. I really wish it would go. 139.138.6.121 (talk) 05:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any "picture of the people dancing with brooms in Minnesota". I believe there is a picture of some people carrying a wreath-like pentagram over some snow-covered ground in Minnesota, but I don't see what you're complaining about. What did I miss? Cheers! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 16:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Can we get an image in the lead?

Moodgenerator (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Is the "witch-cult" discredited?

The article states that the witch-cult is discredited but provides no sources to back up the claim. If not sources can be provided the discredited portion should be removed and it should just be called a theory. Grinhelm (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2022 (UTC)