From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Wicca was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Removed 'needs citation' sentence[edit]

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. (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: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Ronald Hutton[edit]

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)


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, (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)


“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 (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, of a 2015 publishing date, that the ISBN for the hardcover edition (on both 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. (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. (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. (talk) 19:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


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)