Talk:Wicca

Welcome to Wikipedia's Wicca article. Editors here have developed a consensus over certain issues. Please do not override this without first discussing your edit here; your contribution is likely to be quickly reverted. We use British spelling here: -ise, not -ize. We refer to magic and not magick (which has a specialised meaning within Thelema.) A pentagram is a five pointed interlaced star design. A pentacle is a physical object, often worn, or used on an altar. The external links from this article are very selective. Please do not add more without discussion. If adding detailed information about Wiccan views of divinity, Wiccan morality, festivals, magical tools, the history of Wicca, sexual orientation or the persecution of Wiccans please add it to these sub-articles. We are trying to keep the length of this main article down. For the same reason, please add information about specific Wiccan traditions by following the category link from here. Any substantial change to the article should carry a good in-line citation to a reliable source. The background and reasoning behind these decisions may be found in the article archives - see box to the lower right of this notice. The above agreements can of course be changed by consensus: to do so please initiate a discussion here.

Peer review

I realise this is only of indirect relevance to this page, but I would like to ask for any commnts on an expansion I have made at Philip Heselton. I have expanded the article from material provided to me by Philip, who is a close friend and associate: because of this relationship any feedback about neutrality issues in particular would be very welcome. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 22:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Concern with weasel words

I have a slight concern with weasel words of the first paragraph. as in the article "and it is thought that Wiccan theology began to be compiled no earlier than the 1920s" While this is referenced it seems to me to be lacking in the "it is thought" by whom category? Is it historians in general, if so, which ones? Is it theologians? Again which ones? Members of the faith? Which groups? Is it the author of this sentence? If the thinking is being thought, somebody has to be doing the thinking! Chado2008 (talk) 03:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

When "weasel words" or other unattributed/incompletely explained items appear in an introduction section, generally you should look for more detailed explanation further down in the article. The introduction, like an abstract, provides a short synopsis, but may not always provide all the supporting information. If you want to provide a reference to Heselton at this point in the intro, that would be fine, but I think it's more informative to link to both Heselton and Hutton, in the context of an explanation of their disagreements. And that happens further down. Fuzzypeg☻ 04:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfair

" However, there is still hostility from some politicians and Christian organisations. " I find this to be unfairly singinging out Christians, it should be changed to Religious organizations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.224.93.8 (talk) 20:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This is probably because Wicca has developed in Europe, North America and Australia, which are all majority christian countries, so most religious hostility is Christian. If you can find (eg) Jewish or Islamic hostility to Wicca, please include it. Totnesmartin 21:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

yes not to mention some schools when they find you r pagan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.68.49 (talk) 14:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Time for a Good Article submission?

I know this article failed featured article a while ago, but it has been considerably refined since then - many daughter articles being split off and more references added. Is it time to look at 'promotion' again, initially to Good Article? The criteria for GA status are here and I think we meet them. Witchcraft is a GA and I don't think this article suffers by comparison. Have a look here for a summary of the criteria for all grades of article, and see if you don't think we stand a chance. Even if we don't meet the criteria right now, submitting it for review would lead to feedback which could only improve the article. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 22:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

How about Peer review first, then there's less chance of a knockback. Totnesmartin 22:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

There's still a bit of copy editing that could be done, and some sections seem rather awkward, such as Wicca#The afterlife. I've made a few copy edits, but I'm not sure how much time I can put into editing the whole article... Fuzzypeg☻ 01:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Have done a lot of minor edits, plus some cutting out of information which was either irrelevant or (usually) duplicated elsewhere in the article. I realise some of these excisions may look quite savage - however the article at 44k is a good deal too long, and if these sections are not cut we need to remove others! All this material could be replaced in daughter articles, either existing ones or newly created. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The following is pasted from the peer review page, which not everyone may be seeing. It will hopefully explain the many changes I have recently been making here! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

*A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 19:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the semi-automated review: have taken its comments on board. Would appreciate some human reviews too if anyone is out there! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Please fix up the automated suggestions - I've had an article put on GA hold because of the automated suggestions. It's a bit unclear as to whether you've used the "Academic studies" section as a reference in the article at all. Is it just a case of further reading? Such a section is not compliant with the WP:MOS, and as such would give GA reviewers pause. Why is magick (which, somehow, is a separate article from magic (paranormal) ) unmentioned? Why is Craft name capitalised as it is? The "Discrimination against and persecution of Wiccans" link does not work - and in any case screams out POV. I thought "malevent" was spelled "malevolent"... you may need to run the article through a spell-checker. Also, you may wish to consider looking at GA or FA religion articles (not sure if there are any FA religion articles...) to see how they are structured and what information they cover. Towards the middle-end of the article, there are few citations - take a look at Wikipedia:When to cite for opinions about when you should be citing stuff. -Malkinann (talk) 12:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

That's great, many thanks. I have fixed up most of the automated suggestions and will work through your helpful additions above. Is it OK if I copy your paragraph above onto the article's talk page? Not every editor on the article will be looking at this peer review, I fear, and may miss the feedback. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 19:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, go for it. Looking at Bahai, one thing this article is missing is a "demographics" section - who practices Wicca? Is it recognised in any country's censuses? Is there any difference between the demographics of Wicca-in-a-tradition and eclectic Wicca? How impossible is it to find out the demographics of Wicca? Also, the holidays section and the section on the Book of Shadows are unreferenced - could you pull a reference or two out of the daughter articles for these sections? -Malkinann (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

(To keep this together) On 30DEC2007 I listed this in WP:GAN, good luck! — xaosflux ^Talk 05:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see a definition for Wicce on a separate page, with links to this page.

The Goddess community, many of whom refer to their religion as Wicce rather than Wicca, is fast growing and I feel it deserves better representation. We use the term Wicce to distinguish our Monotheastic religion, believing in one living Goddess, from the duotheistic forms of Wicca. There are active blogs that use the terms Wicce, monotheasm, monotheastic and it is becoming widely used among Feminist Witches and other Goddess advocates. It would be nice if people who encounter these new terms could find information on them here on Wikipedia. I'm getting tired of being told that "Wikipedia says "this" or "that"" in contradiction to our tradition because we are not fairly represented.

How would we go about doing that? Do we need permission to make such a page?

Thanks Morgaine Swann (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Find reliable sources. Additionally, please learn proper wiki formatting before adding information; I reverted your edits because there isn't any sourcing to the information you added, and you broke a number of links with your edit.--Vidkun (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds great, Morgaine. As Vidkun says, you'll need to have some reliable sources on which to base your article; have a look at Wikipedia's verifiability guidelines to get a quick idea of what's involved. Don't worry too much about formatting at first; it's not too hard and you'll quickly get the hang of it, but in the meantime if you can get some other editors to visit your article they'll help get the formatting correct. And they'll help make sure that the article's well written and solidly referenced. That's the one annoying/wonderful thing about Wikipedia (depending on your point of view): whatever you write ceases to be yours, and it will be carefully picked over by numerous other people.

So starting an article is easy: just type the article name you want into the search box on the left and follow the instructions, or alternatively, you can follow the link I'm creating right here: Wicce.

Arrgh! OK, so that article name currently redirects to the Volva article. OK, try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wicce&action=edit. Welcome to Wikipedia and have fun! Fuzzypeg☻ 20:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Remember also that an article for Wicce should make note of the other related uses of the term, such as how it is used in the Volva article (since it does currently link there), and the etymology of the word, which is discussed on this article and elsewhere. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 10:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

How about a list of Wiccan holidays?

To whoever inserted this section, do you not think that's covered in Special Occasions already? It covers the sabbats and certain other festivals. If not, then what holidays do you think should be discussed? - Shrivenzale (talk) 00:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not at all clear what you're asking. Which section are you referring to? There is no 'Wiccan holidays' section, nor can I see any suggestion that there should be... Confused, Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 01:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's a bit awkward, since I didn't put the above section heading in, so it's not very clear. According to the History page, it (the heading, no text) was added by someone called Geo8rge as a question. My question in response to the question is as above: Wiccan holidays are already pretty much covered in the article as it stands. - Shrivenzale (talk) 19:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Haloween also known As Samhain.

Beltain Yultide —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.68.49 (talk) 14:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Etymology essay

I removed this essay from the article:

According to the Oxford English Dictionary (O.E.D.), "witch" comes from the Saxon word "wicca". Wicca is a noun with a masculine ending. In the Saxon tongue, 'cc' is pronounced 'tch', making the pronunciation "witch'-ah", NOT "wik'-ah" as is commonly thought. The feminine form of the word is Wicce, pronounced "witch'-eh". The same word was applied to both male and female, leaving only the ending of the word changed. It eventually evolved (like most old english words) into what we have today, pronounced and spelled "witch". So in truth, Wicca and Witch are, in terms of etymology, the same word. The term Wiccan is a plural form of the word. One Wicca, two Wiccan (the feminine forms being Wicce and Wiccen. So to say, "This is a Wiccan ceremony" would be incorrect, as 'wiccan' is not an adjective. Gardner's spelling "wica" may have very well led to the mispronunciation of the term, making it an entirely new word to the Occult vocabulary. The term, although some may claim otherwise, was NOT invented by Gardner (nor was the religion itself). "The oldest extant appearance of the word "wicca" can be found in the Law Codes of Alfred the Great, circa 890 C.E." (cited from the Oxford English Dictionary and the research of Mike Nichols). The term has nevertheless evolved even further in recent years, making it an adjective as well as a noun, and is used thus by many practitioners of the faith.

This is all correct apart from the fact that the modern term Wicca comes from Wica, which is of unknown etymology, and is used in a very different sense, and with a different pronunciation to the Saxon wicca. The above paragraph is written entirely on the understanding that they are the same word, whereas they are clearly two different, though historically related, words. Of course, whether Wica was derived from wicca long ago or only in the 20th century is immaterial; the usage and pronunciation were changed dramatically, and it is for all practical purposes a separate word.  Fuzzypeg  ^talk  22:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm trying to rewrite the etymology article (and may be able to work some of this in), but it is not presenting itself as an easy chore, simply because there is such a mess there and I don't have much in the way of resources to work with (not to mention that the history is so muddied). That section you removed overwrote some existing material, so I'm going to go back in time and replace that deleted bit. Strike that (literally), even the old section strayed from the evolution of Wica to Wicca, so I'll try and put it as well in the etymology article. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 00:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of January 2, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass

2. Factually accurate?: Pass

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Pass

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— BorgQueen (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hooray, hooray! Thanks BorgQueen and thanks everyone who has helped get the article to where it is today! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 19:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Great job everyone! — xaosflux ^Talk 04:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this hubris, or...

...should we now go for featured article status? We had a peer review in early December 2007 prior to going for GA, so I'm not sure whether to:

• Ask for another peer review, even though so little time has elapsed
• Just wait for a while, then ask for another peer review in a few months before submitting for FA
• Be bold and go right ahead with a FA submission

Personally I'd be inclined towards the latter, as even if we failed it would get us some useful close criticism from experienced editors, which could only improve the article. What do you think folks? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am fairly certain that the article will fail. But of course, FA discussion will be helpful in any case as long as you don't take criticisms personally. :-) Btw, I'd like to suggest:

1. The books in the further reading section need ISBN.
2. Some more images will be desirable. I was tempted to add the Aradia book cover but the history section of this article doesn't seem to give a lot of importance to the book.

--BorgQueen (talk) 13:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I assume it would fail too in its current state - I'd favour submitting it more for the feedback and to improve the article, than because of any certainty of success! But there doesn't seem to be any other way of guaranteeing close, critical scrutiny without taking a deep breath and going for FA status!

Agree with your comment about illustrations, BTW. I'm sure we ought to be able to come up with something more inspiring than the pentagram as a first visual, and the other illustrations are few. I'd almost favour taking some decent photos and uploading them, so we get exactly what we want here. It's paradoxical that a topic which inspires the fevered imagination of book cover designers has so few pictures here - perhaps we're afraid of seeming too sensationalist ourselves? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend trying to reduce the further reading section, by use if possible rather than removal. -Malkinann (talk) 05:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

As this article is intended as a summary, it could be good to also try and make some of the very important sub-articles like History of Wicca or Wiccan morality up to GA and then re-examine the summary style in this article before trying for FA. -Malkinann (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point, in working the other articles up to GA, we should end up improving this one as well. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Too bad that the latest additions have ruined the article, by being redundant [1] .--Vidkun (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Why no mention of Neopaganism in the introduction?

Hey, as you've all probably been aware I've been maybe a little over enthusiastic lately with Pagan articles, but I think that people shouldn't keep deleting this idea whenever I put it into practise. Basically, I think that in the "Wicca" article, there should DEFINATELY be a mention that Wicca is usually seen as a Neo-Pagan faith. So far there isn't, and whenever someone puts it in, it is deleted. May I ask why? The majority of Wiccans, scholars, and other Neo-Pagans see it as a Neo-Pagan faith so why on Earth is this not in the introduction when it's a key element of Wicca? (Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC))

Possibly because at least one noted author has classified Wicca (the original form, now called BTW) as meso-paganism.--Vidkun (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Wicca-as-mesopaganism should be referenced in this article, then? In Paganism Wicca is described as Neo-Pagan. -Malkinann (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Although Isaac Bonewits's classification is neat and ingenious, I don't know that it's generally accepted. I agree with Midnightblueowl on this: Ronald Hutton classifies Wicca as 'Neopagan witchcraft' and personally I think that's the most accurate description. I think we should mention this (citing Hutton perhaps) in the article. Particularly as the Paganism article uses the description pointed out by Malkinann. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)