From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Former good articleWicca 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
June 2, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 2, 2008Good article nomineeListed
January 3, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
April 29, 2013Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

GA nomination[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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)


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 (talkcontribs) 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)


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.-- (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
And this deletion of sourced content by user Huntster is unacceptable.-- (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...".-- (talk) 22:18, 24 January 2018 (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)