Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Etymology of Wicca/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Etymology of Wicca

edit

Etymology of Wicca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it gained its GA status back in May 2013 and has since gone through a peer review that ironed out any of the cracks. It's a comprehensive article on a relatively small topic, making use of all the academic studies on the subject, and I believe that it ably fits all of the FA criteria. It would be great if some reviewers could give it a look and see what they think. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your Buckland ref is unused. PumpkinSky talk 14:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for picking up on that; it has not been removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that means it has now been removed. :) HelenOnline 07:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! Yes indeed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Put it in Further reading, makes it easier to find if you need it again and gives readers more to look up. PumpkinSky talk 17:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I'd be a little hesitant about putting that particular book in "Further reading"; the work is by a Wiccan practitioner rather than an academic active in Pagan studies scholarship. As such it contains much historically erroneous information. Placing it in "Further reading" might imply that it is a good source for readers to gain further, accurate information, but quite simply it isn't. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. That shouldn't be placed in a Further reading section of an FA(C). —Sowlos  09:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If that's true then it shouldn't have been a ref at one point either. PumpkinSky talk 00:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is understood. It was initially copied across from the Wicca article which is not focussed on etymology. The ref and associated content was removed from the main text as a result of a recent peer review but the ref details were accidentally left in the bibliography (now removed). HelenOnline 07:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage

edit

Mostly looking at references and reference formatting for the moment:

  • You reference some books by OCLC rather than ISBN, even when ISBNs are available. The Farrar source is 978-0432045701, and Janus-Mithras is 978-1881532026.
  • The Field source needs page number(s).
  • I'm concerned what makes a couple of these sources reliable, especially the Seims article, on which you lean quite heavily. I don't see anything at the parent website that suggests editorial control; the article being cited appears to be a personal opinion piece of the website's author.
  • From a comprehensiveness standpoint, have you considered the following scholarly sources, which appear on cursory examination to have something to say on the topic:

Other:

Leaning oppose, mostly on the reliability of the Seims source and possible comprehensiveness issues. I'll try to make a more thorough prose examination as time permits. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing my objections here. I've looked through Nova Religio without success, and don't think I'll have any better luck in Aries; despite my belief to the contrary, this does appear to be a comprehensive literature review. I wish we had access to the original publication of the Seims content and to more complete bibliographical information for the Daily Dispatch article (I wouldn't consider a handwritten date on a newspaper clipping the pinnacle of reliability), but so long as others are willing to accept that these satisfy WP:V as they stand, I'll not press the point. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, I disagree with the assertion that this article might not be comprehensive. Doyle White's paper is the only academic article ever published devoted to the etymology of the word Wicca; he states as much in his prose. Of course many other papers and books – including that by Scarboro and Luck, which you cite – discuss the religion of Wicca (from historical, anthropological, and sociological angles), but none discuss the word's etymology. In fact I think that the Scarboro and Luck article would be of very little use here, because it does not focus on the etymology or terminology, instead offering a sociological analysis of a Wiccan coven in Atlanta, Georgia. Interesting stuff, but not particularly pertinent here.
I also defend the reliability of the Seims article. This was first published in The Cauldron, a relatively influential journal in the British Pagan scene, albeit one that is not peer-reviewed or academic. Seims herself subsequently uploaded the article online so that it could gain a wider readership, but originally it did appear in print, and therefore fits with Wikipedia's reliable source policy. If its of any relevance here, Doyle White actually quotes Seims's arguments in his academic paper, in order to support or critique them.
Regarding the page numbers on the Field source, this was an issue that has previously been discussed at the article's prior FAC; to reiterate the argument here, it is no longer possible to ascertain what the page numbers were for the source, sadly.
I have added the link to Alexandrian Wicca and added the missing ISBNs. Thank you for your constructive comments! Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mea culpa on calling out Doyle White, which is very clearly already employed by the article. I'll also concede reliability on the Seims article; I had not recognized The Cauldron as a periodical title, and had assumed incorrectly about that material's origins. I don't suppose there's any chance of a page number there, either? I do still have some questions about that Fields source, though. For starters, what Daily Dispatch is that? The most well known of them is indeed from London -- or, rather, East London in South Africa. If that's the source, we should make that more clear. Meanwhile, I'll try to take a closer look at Scarboro and Luck to see if its applicable, and check the back issues of Nova Religio in case anything's been missed. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Squeamish Ossifrage, thank you for bringing up the comprehensiveness scholarly sources. I would be very happy if the article were able to include another academic source or two that support a large portion of the article. Of course, I expect that Doyle White's "The Meaning of "Wicca"" will stay (by far) the leading source for this article. As Midnightblueowl, there doesn't appear to be any other article that give this subject such a full treatment. —Sowlos  09:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I have not been able to track down a hard copy of the issue of The Cauldron in which Seims' article appeared, so have relied purely on the online version. In this instance, I don't think it would be possible to ascertain the page numbers. I will get back to you on the issue of the Daily Dispatch. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily Dispatch would probably be the defunct UK newspaper founded by Edward Hulton Jr: "a national popular title launched from Manchester in 1900 that sold in the hundreds of thousands and survived for five decades", red-linked in Sporting Chronicle. HelenOnline 18:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead image

edit

Minor comprehensiveness and citation particularities aside, there is one other issue which I think should be raised here. On the talk page, there was some discussion about changing the lead image—to a collage of cutouts (literally or via Photoshop) of historical appearances of the word Wicca, a pile of books about Wicca and contemporary Witchcraft, something more closely related to words than a piece of jewelery or other religious artefact. —Sowlos  09:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am certainly open to the replacement of the image in question, however I am unsure as to whether images of text would be deemed fair use under Wikipedia policy. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would have to be a copyright-free image uploaded to Commons. I don't think fair use comes into play unless we are using a copyrighted full illustrated book cover associated with a specific book, and such an image would normally only be used in an article about that book. Single words and book titles are generally not subject to copyright. HelenOnline 14:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the problematic issues have been addressed, would any editors out there consider offering this FAC their support? Conversely, are there any other areas in need of improvement ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Etymology_of_Wicca/archive1&oldid=1138459874"