Talk:Etymology of Wicca/Archive 1

Archive 1

Thank you and well done

As the author of the paper which is being used as a basis for much of this article, I'd just like to say that it's nice to see that people out there are benefiting from my work, and if there is anything that I can do then I'd be happy to help. (Ethan Doyle White (talk) 15:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC))

Scholar X said, asserted, noted

"Changes to the text means that Doyle White's argument here has been misconstrued; making correction"

As I indicated in my edit summaries. I had a number of reasons for rewording the article's content to avoid preceding claims in the article as opinions or observations of Ethan Doyle White.

1. While he certainly is a good source to cite for articles of this type, there is a difference between citing the sources of your information and simply paraphrasing everything the source said. Wikipedia articles are supposed to independent articles with facts that speak for themselves, not a chronicle of what one or more scholars observed, revealed, and noted. If a fact truly can't stand on its own without being phrased as someone's opinion, than it should be removed.
2. Statements of individual should be included in articles when they are materially related to the subject. For instance, in Wicca related articles: Gerald Gardner, father of..., said...; when speaking about Gardner: Doreen Valiente, then high priestess of his coven, stated...; when discussing Paganism in Britain: The Pagan Federation...; etcetera. The questions you need to ask yourself before quoting or paraphrasing another person's statements is "why should the reader care what this person has to say?" and "why should what they say be highlighted over others?". Recently, I've noticed a lot of Wikipedia articles being packed with "scholar X said" statements. While that gets the citation needed and who tags to go away, that doesn't mean such statements are constructively contributing to the article's structure. If you fill an article with statements supported by one researcher, why can't others do the same for every other academic who's looked at the topic?
3. Most importantly, the statements I changed violate the WP:MOS. As WP:SAY describes it:
   "...to write that a person revealed, pointed out, exposed, explained, or found something can imply that it is true, where a neutral account might preclude such an endorsement. To write that someone noted, observed, insisted, speculated, or surmised can suggest the degree of the speaker's carefulness, resoluteness, or access to evidence when that is unverifiable.
   To write that someone claimed or asserted something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence. Similarly, be judicious in the use of admit, confess, and deny, particularly of living people, because these verbs can convey guilt when that is not a settled matter."

It's OK (but not optimal) if an article depends one source for a significant portion of its content, but remember not to change an article's topic into *discussion of said topic by scholar X*. I'm glad to see an attempt wasn't made to revert all my wording changes, but what was reverted didn't need to be.  —Sowlos  22:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

P.S.
I consider it rather ironic (and unfortunate) that my post had to immediately follow a friendly post by Ethan Doyle White. I hope no one interoperates my statements as disapproval of him or what he has to say. I have no such feelings. I am only addressing issues that would be raised regardless of who was cited.  —Sowlos  22:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello there Sowlos; I hope that you didn't consider my edits to be an attack on your work on this page, which I am very appreciative of. I saw my edits as a bit of tweaking, not an attempt to undo your edits wholesale by any means. My issue with one of the edits was that it was stating that something was a fact when it was, more accurately, an opinion; the opinion of Ethan Doyle White. Naturally, he's basically the main authority on Wiccan etymology from what I can gather, so his opinion carries some weight, but it is an opinion nonetheless, and I think that this needs to be stressed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

No wories, this is Wikipedia and I don't expect my edits to remain unchanged. I mentioned the above because it has become too common. Often based in good intent, but still leading to a bad place (because it is an editing sytle; with a cumulative efect).
If you feel the statements in the usage and origin sections can only be claimed as opinions, I suggest we find more sources on the matter. While you worded it well enough to not be confusing, syntactically, I feel many readers may be left wondering who this briefly mentioned person is. I agree they are relevant and worth mentioning. As many credible authors have discussed these issues, I'm sure we could use a few to word and adequately support statements that can be asserted as more than opinion.  —Sowlos  01:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that my original edits to the page relied far too much on "Doyle White said this.... Seims said that..." and appreciate the work that you have done in scaling this back. However, in my opinion you might have scaled it back a little too much, and I think that we need to work on developing a happy medium. You mention that "many credible authors have discussed these issues", but as the references used in this article attest, Clifton, Seims and Doyle White are the only figures to have written on this matter in a scholarly or academic manner (other scholars have worked on Wiccan history, most notably Ronald Hutton, but they have not explored the etymology of "Wicca"). Because we only have these three sources, I would have to respectfully disagree with your statement that we "could use a few to word and adequately support statements that can be asserted as more than opinion". Furthermore, even if all three of these scholars stated that they believed the same thing, surely it would still constitute opinion – albeit one with a scholarly consensus – rather than objective fact ?

My initial edits included a paragraph at the end of the introduction (now removed) stating exactly who Seims and Doyle White were, and why their ideas were important, so maybe we could re-include that information in a different form ? That way, readers would understand precisely who they were when their names reappear later in the rest of the text. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

… if all three of these scholars stated that they believed the same thing, surely it would still constitute opinion – albeit one with a scholarly consensus – rather than objective fact ?
Yes, but that is the case with all "facts". Scholarly consensus is precisely what we treat as fact on Wikipedia. The few things which are universally considered facts are the things that don't need citations.
Wikipedia articles are supposed to cover their named topics for a general audience, without asking them to understand the academic landscape behind every "fact" the article presents (unless — of course — said topic is about a subject's study rather than the subject). For example: the FA class article King Arthur discusses the sort of topic that has no shortage of opinions or alternate interpretations of empirical data, yet it simply states "the facts" without mentioning the academic(s) who support them. The people who are mentioned have material significance to the history of the topic.
The number authors supporting a statement is unimportant. Crediting the sources are primarily done via footnotes. In-text mentions of independent sources should be limited to only where necessary, such as when there is not academic consensus or significant dissent of the dominant view.
If this were Wiccan studies or some similarly named article, I would completely agree on mentioning every significant independent author in the text.
My initial edits included a paragraph at the end of the introduction (now removed) stating exactly who Seims and Doyle White were, and why their ideas were important, so maybe we could re-include that information in a different form ?
If it's necessary (see above), of course they should be mentioned for context, but the lead isn't the place. Its job is to provide an overview of the topic.  —Sowlos  08:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay Sowlos, thanks for explaining your position on the matter in such a clear manner; you're clearly right when it comes to Wikipedia policy. I'm still not particularly happy with the policy itself here, as I feel that it dumbs down the article and makes it more difficult for the average reader to appreciate the nature of academic argument and debate – objectively, scholarly concensus is *not* the same thing as fact, no matter what Wikipedia might dictate – but obviously I don't have the power to rewrite policy! (Not yet anyway *evil laugh*)... Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I do understand the feeling. It does seem like we walk a fine line. I recently told someone on the Higgs boson talk page to see the Simple English Wikipedia when (s)he said the article was not clear for the layman.
My understanding is it depends on an article's subject matter. The more focused and technical its scope, the less "dumbed down" it is.
By the way, if you're interested in discussing the academics behind the facts, you should look at Pagan studies. It is very underdeveloped (another of the many on my endless list).  —Sowlos  08:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, the Pagan studies article... another of my creations I'm afraid. I managed to start it, put together the bare bones, but then got distracted by articles that were in more pressing need. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Contemporary Paganism Sidebar

No consensus was ever achieved on the use of this bar (which I created to start with), and it has proved contenscious in the past.
— User:Midnightblueowl

In what way was the template contentious? As I remember it, the only controversial element of its content was an image an editor tried placing in it. Per consensus, that image was removed.
I don't see what's inappropriate about about the sidebar, especially since it is included in the parent article of this one.  —Sowlos  10:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I actually created that particular side bar back in 2008, and began including it on pages pertaining to contemporary Paganisms, however it proved so contentious at the time that it ended up being removed from those articles on which I had placed it. At the time, enough editors interested in the topic expressed sufficient opposition that it wasn't a fight that I was willing to carry on with. Soon enough I suspect that it shall be re-removed from the Wicca page too, perhaps leading to some unpleasant protracted edit war. For what its worth, I don't think that the Paganism side bar is of any worth any more; contemporary Paganisms are such a vast collective of different new religious movements that putting the bar up on every single page in some way linked to one of these religions would be simply unwieldy. For instance, "Etymology of Wicca" isn't even linked on this particular template. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I can see it being contentious if added to articles on the fringes of what can be called "Neopagan". For instance, I believe it was transcluded on New Age for a time. The thing is sidebars/navboxs are not supposed to be put on every single page in some way linked to its topic; they only belong on pages "part of a series" (WP:SIDEBAR). This doesn't mean articles must be linked to by a sidebar before they can use it. Sidebars simply link to the major articles of their topic. {{Politics of ancient Rome}}, for example, is transluded on several pages it doesn't link to. Etymology of Wicca is a sub-article of Wicca, so that should mean it's part of any series Wicca is.
That said, it's conceivable a future movement (on Wikipedia) could push for the removal of a single contemporary Pagan/Neopagan sidebar, but I doubt it. While those terms are diverse, they are in reality most often used to refer to interconnected movements rooted in beliefs native to Europe.^{(Not to be too blunt)}
I obviously won't push the issue if you disagree. There are only two of us currently active on this page and a 50/50 split is no consensus. I do, however, ask you to reconsider.  —Sowlos  16:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd be more accepting of a sidebar explicitly devoted to "Wicca", but last time I founded one doing this (again in 2008), it was widely opposed and removed from pages on which I had placed it. I don't particularly want to open that can of beans again. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Fiddlersmouth (talk · contribs) 17:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I took the liberty of making one minor grammatical correction. Otherwise the article is good. It is well laid out, and explains what it claims to describe in the title clearly, historically and in a logical order. The article clearly benefitted from the previous FA review.

I took a liberal view of the "illustrated, if possible, by images" guideline. I would question the relevance of the jewellery, and recommend finding a photograph of Gardner, Cunningham, the ubiquitous Farrars, or whatever you're having yourself, with a line explaining their contribution. Otherwise, well done, and I enjoyed reading it.

Fiddlersmouth (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Possible alternative image

There is a Commons image of a Wiccan grave in Arlington Cemetery, where the Wiccan symbol has been permitted since 2007. HelenOnline 17:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

FYI I have uploaded the Wiccan gravestone on its own to Commons, in case it can be used somewhere. The VA description of the approved emblem of belief is "37 – WICCA (Pentacle)". HelenOnline 09:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I reverted the changes you made. They have nothing to do with etymology and their grammar wasn't great either. Please keep article scope in mind when editing.

• Following mention of The Wiccan (which is part of a timeline on usage of the word wicca[n]) with Doreen Valiente describes in Witchcraft for Tomorrow (1978) as "the witches' news-sheet, The Wiccan, an occasional publication which circulates among British and American witch covens and sympathizers" only adds a difficult to read tangent to the paragraph.
• Discussing the acceptance of Wiccan symbols of faith belongs in Wicca and Religious discrimination against Neopagans, not in an article on the evolution and usage of a word.

When you say alternative image, do you mean the main image at the top of the article? My opinion on that is that some depiction of the word(s) [them/it]self is the best. Just as "Etymology of Wicca" doesn't relate to jewellery, it doesn't relate to symbols on gravestones.  —Sowlos  13:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings about the gravestone image, just brainstorming following Midnightblueowl's personal request for my input on the article. As you say, it is as relevant to the article as a pentacle pendant which has furthermore already been used in Wicca.

I mentioned the VA development as it is an official use of the term Wicca, not in the context of religious discrimination against Neopagans.

I disagree that Valiente's description of The Wiccan is irrelevant to the article. I did struggle a bit incorporating the quote, but that is not an insurmountable problem. The reference is still there although unused for now. I would appreciate other editors' input in this regard.

Wag more, bark less. HelenOnline 14:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion Helen! If I'm perfectly honest, I prefer the image that we currently use in this article to that of the tombstone; I think that it is clearer and less cluttered. That being said, if multiple Wikipedia editors prefer the tombstone image, then I won't object to a replacement being made. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I am happy to forget about the tombstone. What do you think about the Valiente quote? HelenOnline 16:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

A few things (sorry TL;DR):

• Valiente's quote about The Wiccan calls it "news-sheet ... [and] an occasional publication". This gives the reader no new information that calling it a "magazine" does not.
• If you're struggling to incorporate a quote into article text, then maybe a quote is not the best option. Attention must be paid to the sentence flow.
• Yes a gravestones is no more relevant than jewellery and I would not contest you replacing the top image with such, but you did not replace the top image. You added content about the US VA's policy towards marking pagan graves with pentacle imagery. The source you added does well to support claims of Pagans and particularly Wiccans receiving more equal treatment—for instance, but it does not take any stance on the evolution or perception of the word "Wicca". Sure, it has implications, but interperating those implications yourself is original research (something we are not allowed to do at Wikipedia).
• The statement added about Vivianne Crowley doesn't look very helpful. Ostensibly, it's there add an additional example of it's usage by someone notable. However, her use of a word reflecting the terminology of the tradition she was initiated into is not surprising. Adding examples to add examples merely clutters articles. Also, you used no source this time (to supports what you said or that interpretation). I was going to leave it and discuss first (in the interest of bark[ing] less), but the source is a technical issue that cannot be ignored.
• If you are not sure where else to put something, then why make the edit? Forcing content is more likely to degrade an article than improve it; and this a GA, meaning a lot of work (mostly by Midnightblueowl) has been put into forming a coherent article and properly sourcing it. This is why we have talk pages. Post some proposed content and/or any questions; I and others would be more than willing to help incorporate it into this article or wherever it may be in scope. It's not nessasarilly bad and I'd love to put it wherever it fits/belongs.

I'm sorry if it seems like biting a lot, but I am a little protective of GAs and FAs. There are too few in Wikipedia and horrendously fewer around this topic.  —Sowlos  01:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The source for the Crowley sentence is not an issue, that information can easily be verified and sourced (see Vivianne Crowley). Instead of just dismissing my edits out of hand, why not take the civil approach and add a citation needed tag or first discuss it here? You don't own Wikipedia, even GAs and FAs. HelenOnline 06:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

First, this is not a subject the general reader can be assumed to know much about. Second, citations are also used to support a statement's relevance to its host article.(WP:NOTBLUE) Nothing is gone; it's still in the history and so can be reintroduced (in that form or modified) with proper citation.
No, I don't own Wikipedia. If you followed the guidelines and added the said content more coherently, there would be nothing I could do—nor want to do—unless I had RSs contradicting your additions.  —Sowlos  08:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm wondering why an image of jewelry or a gravestone is useful in this article about the etymology? Why not simply use File:Pentagram.svg or File:Pentacle 2.svg as a alternative? — Huntster (t @ c) 01:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

They both include the Wiccan pentacle symbol, that is the only reason as far as I know. The difference between a plain symbol and a photograph of an object containing the symbol is probably a matter of taste (and image availability of course). HelenOnline 10:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Back to brainstorming alternative images (based on the peer review feedback), inspired by another Commons image, I have uploaded an image of a pile of books about Wicca and contemporary Witchcraft and another similar one. I don't claim to be the world's greatest photographer or have the greatest selection of books, so I wouldn't have any objection if someone else uploaded a better image if the consensus supports the concept. HelenOnline 10:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea. I originally suggested a collage of cutouts (literally or via Photoshop) of historical appearances of the word, but a stack of books would be cool.  —Sowlos  08:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Valiente and Crowley edits

I am a regular volunteer at the Third Opinion project and am here in response to a request made there. One particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions like this, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'." This is an opinion of that sort.

What we have to be very careful about here is not engaging in original research in the form of merely adding examples of early uses of the term wicca without a reliable source which clearly says that the example somehow relates to the etymology of the term. There is a difference between an article whose subject is "Uses of the term Wicca between 1962-1970" and an article whose subject is "Etymology of Wicca". In the first article an editor could legitimately toss in any example that s/he might find and could prove came from that period, but in the second the examples must be shown by third-party reliable sources to somehow relate to the etymology of that term as it is now known. Otherwise, the following insertion would be legitimate in the etymology article: "In 1964, London furniture-maker John Fringle advertised a "Wicca" line of wicker Winnie-the-Pooh-themed furniture." With that in mind:

• The Valiente edit might, on its face, be useful to establish that the term was being used before both a UK and US audience, but using it for that point is not legitimate unless either Valiente or Doyle White make that point specifically about the history of the usage of the term. If White uses that newsletter as an example, as would seem to be probably the case (I do not have access to any of the sources discussed here, so can only discuss them in the context of their use here), but does not use it for making the US/UK point, which also seems likely, but the Valiente quote was not made in Valiente at least in the context of the history of the term (and it is to be remembered that she could have been discussing the history of the practice without intending to be discussing the history of the term) and preferably to specifically make the point about its exposure in both the US and the UK then to include it here would be improper synthesis.

• The Crowley edit: I can see no reason for it to be here. This is a section of the article about usage 1962-1970 and the Crowley book came out 19 years after the end of that period. Moreover, it seems to be an inclusion just as another example without any reliable source relating it to the etymology of the term. The lack of a source for it has been noted, but what's needed is not a reliable source for its existence but a reliable source for the fact that it has anything to do with the etymology of the term "Wicca" and, especially, the term as used between 1962-1970.

In saying what I have about examples and original research, let me note that there may very well indeed be other instances of improperly-used examples in this article. I wouldn't know because I did not look. If there are, however, the remedy here is for those instances to be removed, not for additional instances to be introduced. (And, let me further note, that the fact that this is a GA does not contradict either the possibility of their presence or the need for removal. GA reviews are done by anyone who wishes to do them and are sometimes done poorly and, even if not done poorly, the distinction here is easily overlooked. Since I do not know whether any are here or not, I certainly do not mean to necessarily slight the GA reviewer, but I merely mean to note the fact that their presence and that a GA review might leave them in place are both possible.) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, that is a very helpful explanation. Neither of the two sources relates to the etymology of the term only the existence of the term, so I am happy for them to stay out. HelenOnline 17:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

One other possible instance is this sentence, as the source – the book quoted from in the sentence – does not seem to indicate it has anything to do with discussing the etymology of the word: "Another Gardnerian to use the term was Raymond Buckland, a High Priest who founded a coven in Long Island, New York, in his book Witchcraft – the Religion (1966), when he states that 'Today more and more people are turning to the Wica, finding the answer to their religious needs.'[22]" If there are no other sources available that discuss the sentence quoted in terms of etymology, my understanding is we should remove it from the article. HelenOnline 18:20, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

You are right. That statement is cited by the very book it quotes. In this case, that citation is only adequate for supporting the quote itself, not the context in which that statement uses it. (Even if Buckland discusses word usage,he's not a good source for historical analysis.)
I think I remember seeing Doyle White (or one of the others cited in the article) discussing the term Wicca traversing the Atlantic (via Buckland). I suspect it may have become divorced from proper citation during the overhaul, but I won't have access to any of the sources for several hours. Hopefully, someone else can check in the meantime; I will later if not. Should that turns out to not be true, then a removal is most definitely in order.  —Sowlos  12:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

It was added in the sixth edit to the article, on the day of its creation. Except for some tweaking elaborating on who Buckland is, the statement has existed as is since. My scanning of sources didn't find direct comments relating to it. I pulled it.
Considering that Buckland didn't introduce the term wica to the US (Clifton 2006, p. 15) and that he & others initially preferred referring to the religion as "Witchcraft" and "the Craft" (Clifton 2006, pp. 88—89), I'm not even sure what it was trying to say.  —Sowlos  09:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

FYI that sixth edit just rearranged it and expanded it a bit, it was included in the initial transfer from the general Wicca article. HelenOnline 12:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Witchcraft, The Sixth Sense–and Us vs Witchcraft, The Sixth Sense – and Us vs ...

In #The emergence of Wicca: 1962–1970, HelenOnline changed Witchcraft, The Sixth Sense–and Us to Witchcraft, The Sixth Sense – and Us. I like double checking changes to book titles. Unfortunately, a quick Amazon search shows many slight variations of the title. Google was little help.
Which is the proper form?

• I found an image of the book cover with the full title using a spaced endash here. HelenOnline 09:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)