Talk:Witchcraft

Witchcraft is not intended to “harm others”. It is intended for personal power!

This post is an insult to witchcraft! 74.75.145.117 (talk) 03:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

This article includes the history of witchcraft, which was stigmatised at the time.

Nicerbep (talk) 13:12, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Nicerbep, I think the anon's point is that the lead is wrong; hence is unbalanced. Some witchcraft is intended for positive purposes (white magic vs. black magic), and this spans further back to subjects like Shamanism. The connotations of witchcraft as simply negative are also outdated, despite the fact that it isn't the first word related to (neutral) divination. 2A00:23C4:41A:9601:5024:97B:369B:2DAB (talk) 23:29, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

(The "Witchcraft traditionally means the use of magic or supernatural powers to harm others" part. At the same time, I think specifically when the word "witchcraft" came into use it was like a word with negative connotations, but that is no longer completely true today. 2A00:23C4:41A:9601:5024:97B:369B:2DAB (talk) 23:30, 27 November 2022 (UTC) )

(At that point, it comes down to the philosophy of what the subject of this article really is about; is it solely about witchcraft with loaded negative connotations, and where do we blur the lines between subjects like healing magic, modern divination (e.g. tarot card readings not intended to harm) New Age Movements; but society has historically used the term negatively (like a sociological moral panic); such as in the 1597 book Daemonologie by King James VI and I. 2A00:23C4:41A:9601:5024:97B:369B:2DAB (talk) 23:35, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

"New Age Movements" Some of these are continuing the traditional beliefs of western occultism, but I am not certain if there is a strong connection between their rituals and traditional conceptions of witchcraft. Dimadick (talk) 15:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@Dimadick: Why does that matter? There are at least 1.5 million people in the US alone who identify as Wiccan. The central tenant of Wicca is the practice of (modern beneficial) witchcraft. Witchcraft is also a defining element of millennial culture (at least for women). At what point does the modern concept of witchcraft become important enough to warrant integration into this article? According to WP:WEIGHT an article on witchcraft should cover all the aspects and meanings of witchcraft "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". Given that there are literally thousands of published books about modern witchcraft (not to mention countless articles on the web), I don't understand why it is so staunchly excluded from the scope of this article (with a few token exceptions). I suspect there is some age and gender bias happening here, as I doubt the demographics of the people controlling this article are very similar to the demographics of the people reading it. But I digress. My question is: At what point does the modern concept of witchcraft become important enough to warrant integration into this article? Nosferattus (talk) 16:15, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd say the connection between New Age adherents and "witchcraft" is not with the traditional meaning, or even with the more traditional Wiccan strains, but with the pop culture, self-helf, affirmations and charms as "spellcraft" type. Sort of the "white witchcraft" Wicca-lite of dabblers, spell kits with crystals advertised next to glitter makeup and Hello Kitty. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

If you wanna talk about the history of my religion, and the persecution of my people, go ahead and put it in the history section. It does not belong in the second sentence, stated as fact. This is hate speech. Remove it now. 68.229.102.219 (talk) 00:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Maybe this page title should be changed to Witch (traditional)? I'm not entirely sure what to do if the current scholarly definition of witch is that it is harmful (is this up-to-date and true, is it euro-centric?), but its clear that the term witch has been used for a long time for occultist practices as well. I've run into these issues before and as a lay-user of Wikipedia it can be quite confusing when the modern term for something leads to a Wikipedia page for something completely different. Poketama (talk) 02:23, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I would support such a change in the page title. I have a close friend who calls herself a witch. Met some of her friends with whom she practices the customs of her craft. All lovely people. No different from bunch of Presbyterians practicing their craft, but with prettier ornamentation. I felt no threat. Nor would anybody else. While this article is obviously valuable, it doesn't describe my friend and her friends. HiLo48 (talk) 03:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Problem is, when more people became aware (in the 1980s and 1990s) that Wicca had been invented in the 1940s/50s, a lot of people focused on calling their practices "Traditional Craft". Some had emphasised "Craft" over "Wicca" all along. Hence: Traditional witchcraft. For the most part, the groups are pretty similar. Identical, even. But some insist they are not. I'm sure your friend is lovely. I know many like her. But if she introduces herself to people from living cultures that never had to invent this stuff, likely they will not see her as lovely, no matter how much she insists she doesn't mean it like that. She should be aware that "witch" as a positive thing is not a "reclamation" but a redefinition. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Except the concept of "good" vs "wicked" witches is already present in the article predating your assumed origination by at least decades. And the idea that witchcraft meets condemnation is introduced exactly 2 sentences later if we don't impose it as moral condemnation in the lead. Darker Dreams (talk) 18:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

It's not so much that witchcraft that has been redefined in the world outside, it's been radically redefined here at Wikipedia: Old revision of Witchcraft. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 19:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

witchcraft is not used to harm others! Stop, forcing your opinions down other peoples throats! There are many things in life that harms, others, and witchcraft is not one of them. Witchcraft is about personal empowerment 174.162.157.131 (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure others are offended too...

This "information" is offensive if another religion was described with such discrimination it would be taken down! BB x 2.125.129.51 (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

You are welcome to feel how you like. But no, we have things somewhere on WP that will likely offend everyone in some way. WP:NOTCENSORED. DMacks (talk) 17:03, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

OK, let’s try and experiment. How about you go to the page about the Jewish people. They have been persecuted throughout history, much like witches have, so that’s a fair example, seeing how they suffered at the hands of the nazis, and we suffered at the hands of white Christians (eg burned at the stake). Now go say in the second sentence that they are evil. Or causing harm. Or greedy. How do you think that would go over. Really good right? Stop attacking my people. Get this hate speech removed now. FYI, not all witches are Wiccan. 68.229.102.219 (talk) 00:10, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

The article you're looking for is Wicca. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 10:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Not all witches are Wiccan. Which raft is a religion. Seeing this kind of discrimination over and over on Wikipedia of all places is disgusting. It’s hate speech. Remove it now. If you wants to mention, it’s negative connotations in history, do that in the history section! Not at the opening! Second sentence. Disgusting. 68.229.102.219 (talk) 00:03, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Witch craft is not evil!

Withcraft is not evil although i can be used to hurt others that rarely ever happens! Please change thay begining part I am a witch and it hurt me deeply to see witch craft be so demonized like that. 2604:6400:460E:2A01:2D77:59A0:D888:3623 (talk) 05:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

The article you're looking for is Wicca. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 10:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

yes i understand that you are and u hurt people but some witches make people's lives hell and can create sickness like depression and anxiety Lee gwebityala (talk) 12:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2023

106.51.166.180 (talk) 10:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

witchcraft is not used to harm others. ai would request that be corrected. its simply using nature to get energies and powers from and transformation

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 11:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Changes without consensus

@Randy Kryn: please read the sources and talk page. Editors have worked hard to come to the version we have. You will need consensus for the changes you want to make. Also, this is not a BLP. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 23:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Witches are people. I’m a witch. I’m not Wiccan. Are you enjoying attacking my religion? My ancestors were burned at the stake (yes really and I can prove it through my ancestry). This is hate speech. Remove it now. 68.229.102.219 (talk) 00:14, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

As I said on user talk: The article is based on the solid sources, and a worldwide view, not just recent, western beliefs (post Gerald Gardner) that have redefined the word in a few cultures. Traditional cultures see it very differently, and we need to represent a worldwide, well-researched view, not the dreck you'll find at a newage store or in clickbait. The other views are thoroughly covered on the 'pedia as well. Read both the article and the links.

Any innocent you are concerned about being harmed for calling themselves a witch (as was probably the case with the IP's ancestors) should be aware it's not a neutral word, and they should do their research before calling themselves this. Most newage and neopagan books are written by amateurs and contain all kinds of misinformation, leading to well-intentioned, but inaccurate ideas about both history and diverse cultures. Best wishes, - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:03, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Ridiculous!

This is an extremely biased and harmful view of witches and witchcraft! Neither witches nor witchcraft is evil, and magic is nothing like Harry Potter or Charmed or any other ridiculous fantasy film/TV show!

Spells are simply spoken affirmations,rituals are ways to focus and concentrate on self-awareness, self-discovery and self-correction, and magic is never used to harm or curse others!

Witches do not believe in evil or the devil or demons...this is lies spread by Christianity, and witch burning was a form of femicide. Powerful men used it to kill their lovers, mistresses, and women who accused them of sexual assault.

This article is NOT based on solid sources and worldwide views, it's based on the lies that have been spread by organised religion for hundreds of years now (mainly Christianity).

If you want this page to be correct, I suggest you do some non-biased research or even talk to some real witches...people who have practised for decades and know what they are actually talking about!!

If you want this page to be correct, I suggest you base it on facts instead of the opinions of organised religions intent on getting rid of all other beliefs that they don't agree with! 92.1.155.53 (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

The article you're looking for is Wicca.
This article is about the traditional and most common meaning of 'witchcraft'. It's absolutely based on solid academic sources and worldwide views. I suggest you take time and read it beyond the first line. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 13:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Actually, Witch redirects here and not to Wicca, so this page and its short descriptor should be presenting a present-day world view as well as the terminology and slant that was literally used and promoted by murderers during the witchhunts and witch trials. It's interesting that Wikipedia is claiming, in its voice, the same reasoning and descriptors of witches (nowadays probably millions of women identify as witches, mostly nature-centered and peaceful people whose tasks and beliefs are positive and benign) that was used during the years of using witchcraft as an excuse to kill intelligent and self-driven women and even young girls. At a bare minimum Witch should redirect to wicca, but it would be much better to balance this page out with topic accuracy. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

In that case I would suggest that Witch be redirected to Witch (disambiguation), where both the traditional and the Wiccan meanings can be listed. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 13:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

The term "Witchcraft" also covers the beliefs and practices of witches, so this page should be balanced as well (as for traditional, whose tradition?). Witchcraft is not solely the excuse to kill women, fairly recently in the context of historical eras, but is an ongoing and evolving topic. The short descriptor of this page by itself ("Practice of malevolent magic") could have been used in the witchhunts and witch trials to gain convictions. This page, which has over 1,700 daily readers, seems to be broken, probably more than just redirecting Witch to different terminology. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I can agree. The page seems pretty biased, despite what Asarlai says. Just take from the first paragraph of the article "Witchcraft traditionally means the use of magic or supernatural powers to harm others...accused witches were usually women who were believed to have used malevolent magic against their own community, and often to have communed with evil beings. It was thought witchcraft could be thwarted by protective magic or counter-magic, which could be provided by cunning folk or folk healers. Suspected witches were also intimidated, banished, attacked or killed. Often they would be formally prosecuted and punished, if found guilty or simply believed to be guilty". This doesn't sound very neutral to me. The question is how to achieve this balance. Are there any sources we should add to ensure the page is more balanced? Historyday01 (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

It's an article focusing on the traditional, conventional and most common meaning of "witchcraft" worldwide, and it's based on modern academic sources. In what way is it not "balanced"? – Asarlaí ^(talk) 14:54, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

If you, or your daughter, wife, girlfriend, mother, or good friend identified as a witch (millions of women do) you might not ask that question. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Again, you're talking about the neo-pagan religion Wicca and its offshoots. That is not the focus of this article. That's clear to anyone who bothers reading past the first line or paragraph, and it has been made clear many times on this talkpage. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 15:07, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

→The end of the lead says: In contemporary Western culture, followers of the neo-pagan religion Wicca, and some followers of New Age belief systems, may self-identify as "witches", and use the term "witchcraft" for their self-help, healing or divination rituals. Other Wiccans avoid the term due to its negative connotations. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 15:53, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

The title "Witchcraft" and the fact that Witch redirects here goes counter to that fact that, I think (haven't hung out with witches in a while, lately I've see two of them once-a-year at yearly garage sales), most modern-day witches call their practice 'witchcraft' and not always, or maybe even usually, wiccan, and call themselves 'witches' and not 'wicca women' or something. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:14, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. Not sure why Asarlaí is so opposed to making the page balanced,especially since there would be use of "modern academic sources". Historyday01 (talk) 17:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

A Wikipedian who identifies as a witch led to ANI by her fellow editors

Just noticed the Witchcraft (disambiguation) page opening line reads: "Witchcraft traditionally means the use of malevolent magic. It can also refer to the neo-pagan religion Wicca.". So again, whose "tradition", and yes, something broken here and also, as the Harry Potter "spell" is "spelled", Riddikulus. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

The fact that Witch redirects here is something that should be discussed at its talkpage. I've said where I stand on that. Also, Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not on our own experiences or what any of us might "think". – Asarlaí ^(talk) 15:53, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it is worth discussing that here, as it is a redirect to this page. If necessary, a change of the redirect could also be posted on Talk:Witch as well. And surely, Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, but that doesn't mean that a page can't be biased and slanted. Even though making pages neutral is a Wikipedia principle, that doesn't mean it is actually carried out in practice. The tone of the article, especially the beginning comes off very negatively, when it shouldn't have that tone. You don't need to get so defensive about this page. All pages on here are fluid and should not be set in stone. I think this discussion would be better if it wasn't just the three of us (apart from the original IP address, who hasn't commented in this discussion apart from the original comment)... Randy Kryn posted a link to this discussion on the Women in Red WikiProject (where I first heard about it), but others should weigh in as well.Historyday01 (talk) 17:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I came here from the link at WikiProject Occult I don't think all the projects contacted were necessarily in-scope, but that one was and am inclined to agree with Kryn's and Historyday's stances -- the idea of discussing the redirect on its talk in particular seems pretty absurd. Wicca is one religion that people who identify as witches/warlocks/wizards/etc may believe in, and probably a minority one these days (I tend to think of it as a kind of 90s thing). Some substantial proportion of people looking for information on modern witches will be doing so at this article. There's a not-explicitly-stated but fairly strong suggestion here that we don't actually have a modern-witchcraft-type article, which is...interesting, but there you go. The lead and body of this article should, regardless of if another article is written, include some information on modern witchcraft, and 'Witch' should redirect to (or be) a disambig if the argument is being made that we have information on witches-of-various-kinds across multiple articles. Vaticidalprophet 17:28, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

In terms of all the projects being contacted not being in scope, I just posted on all the WikiProjects listed on this page, so I guess I assumed they were "in-scope". Otherwise, I have to agree that the lead and body of the article should include information on modern witchcraft. I can also agree that "witch" should redirect to Wicca (which I think is what you are saying). I would add that the "Witches in fiction" sub-section should be expanded too (only ONE source is cited for that entire sub-section!), as I know off hand that witches are a major part of The Owl House and that there is a witch/ninja protagonist in OK K.O.! Let's Be Heroes, as a person who often focuses on animation articles on here (including creating pages for new shows). Some other examples are listed at Witch (disambiguation) and Witchcraft (disambiguation), but there are others left out of those lists. And the suggestion that we don't actually have a modern-witchcraft-type article is surely interesting, to say the least. Historyday01 (talk) 18:12, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

"The lead and body of this article should include some information on modern witchcraft" - it already does. The last paragraph of the lead is about Wicca and its offshoots, and this article has a whole section about Wicca and "neopagan witches".

All articles must have a focus. The focus of this article is the traditional/conventional/historical and still most widespread meaning of "witchcraft" as is studied by historians, folklorists and anthropologists. Wicca, or "modern Witchcraft" as you call it, is the focus of the Wicca article. However, you seem to be suggesting that we mix everything together and make this article more about Wicca too, even suggesting that "witch" redirect to "Wicca". – Asarlaí ^(talk) 18:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

You seem to be overlooking the repeated expression that "modern witchcraft" (as a roughly umbrella term) and "Wicca" are different things, and the latter is a now-pretty-small subset of the former, even though it was the original big-deal of neopaganism. It's completely predictable (and indeed this was kicked off by it happening) that readers will anticipate typing 'witchcraft' rather than 'wicca' for the article about the former. I don't agree Witch should redirect to Wicca, but I don't think it should redirect here either if there's an insistence on making this article entirely historiographical and when a perfectly good disambig exists. If we don't have an article on modern-day witches, which the repeated suggestion that Wicca is that article implies, then we should and it should be hatnoted, and as this is a broad-concept article it should mention them in ways that aren't missed by readers explicitly telling you they've missed them. (This is a different statement to "it should be about them".) Vaticidalprophet 18:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the original poster (92.1.155.53)'s sentiments. The opening sentence of the lede, "Witchcraft traditionally means the use of magic or supernatural powers to harm others" may well be supported by (two) reliable sources, but it sounds POV given that witchcraft has been used traditionally also for benevolent and healing purposes. And, bearing in mind that research comes in the wake of centuries of suppression, animosity, religious (and later, Enlightenment and more fundamentalist) beliefs, it really does come across as (witting or unwitting) propaganda, to me at least. I'd like to see this balanced up with more favourable reliable sources, and mention of the fact that there are "black", "white", and even "grey" practices. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

"I'd like to see this balanced up with more favourable reliable sources" Do you have any specific sources in mind to support the suggested changes? Dimadick (talk) 15:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

The article largely focuses on the Western concept of Witchcraft. However, occasionally moves towards an intercultural approach, often with a short paragraph or even just one sentence, about similar beliefs in other cultures or religions. Whereby, it mixes up different conceptualizations on magical beliefs. Wiccan, for example, often doesn't follow the Christianity influenced depiciton of witchcraft (Wicca), likewise Middle Eastern beliefs, especially Islam, also may have more ambigious attitudes. Maybe the article should make a decission what it want sto be about: the Euro-centric concept of witchcraft or intercultural witchcraft-like practises. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 12:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

This comes up periodically and we cycle through the same arguments. I agree with Asarlaí and the others who maintain this article that the worldwide definition still favors the traditional meaning of those who do harm - which we have focused on in the article, per RS sources. We have addressed the modern redefinitions in the lede and the body. To turn Witch into a disambig would be prioritize white pop culture sources over scholarly ones, and western over global and traditional/Indigenous/African/etc ones. If there are any changes to be made, it's not to lump more stuff into this article. While I could live with Witch being the disambig, it's not my preference. This article already has links to Wicca, disambig, and other redefinitions (which is what they are; they are not reclamations, though many modern Pagan adherents believe this due to fakelore in the 50's +/-). - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:10, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I think this is worth revisiting. We use two sources to define witchcraft as "the use of magic or supernatural powers to harm others". The first of these is 50+ years old, so I'd be very wary of viewing that as the best of contemporary scholarship. The second is much more recent, and notes that there are four contemporary definitions of witch. The author employs one of them, as quoted, but states of the other three "to call anyone wrong to use any one of them would be to reveal oneself as bereft of general knowledge and courtesy, as well of scholarship", yet we only use the most negative of the four definitions. Perhaps we need to expand the opening paragraph and note that there are other contemporary definitions of the term. - Bilby (talk) 00:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

The lead already covers multiple definitions. People can read more than one paragraph. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Articles should be understandable even in snippets, because, unfortunately, snippets are how most readers interact with them. About 60% of mobile readers (the majority) read only the lead of an article; given the structure of the Minerva skin (placing an image or infobox right after para 1), it can be expected a substantial proportion of them read only the first paragraph. Statistics are less clear for desktop readers, who seem more likely to read more but still very likely to read lead-only. A substantial amount of engagement with Wikipedia articles also doesn't happen on Wikipedia itself, but through knowledge graphs, AI assistant summaries, etc. I am reminded of how the opening paragraph to Dracula was rewritten after its author discovered that on Siri, the book's subject was represented as Harker visiting Dracula to conduct a real estate transaction. Vaticidalprophet 02:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I disagree with those who are defending the current text, which seems like a strange, bizarre position to me. Historyday01 (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The 50 year old source should be done away with regardless, as we shouldn't be using outdated scholarship in our articles. And the other source clearly showcases multiple variations on what the term is referring to. It doesn't matter if the rest of the lede showcases that when the first line explicitly only discusses one interpretation of the term and the most negative one. The lede very much needs to be rewritten. Silverseren^C 18:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Changing some of the focus of this page and doing a complete rewrite of the lead seems the way to go. And how about ditching the short description, which all mobile and readers of the default skin read 1,700 times a day when searching for Witchcraft oder Witch: "Short description|Practice of malevolent magic". Randy Kryn (talk) 02:55, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. The short description is bad and really needs to be removed. Historyday01 (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Bilby notes "we only use the most negative of the four definitions". Our article's first paragraph suggests our article is primarily about "the use of magic or supernatural powers to harm others", which presumably is one of those four. Is that one meaning itself substantive enough to have its own article? If so, so it should be, and the broader concept (presumably those four have a unifying higher-level topic) should have its own separate article in WP:SUMMARYSTYLE that links out to the specific article about any one of them. Or if they are fairly unrelated things that simply happen to have the same name, then that's exactly what WP:DISAMBIGUATION is for. DMacks (talk) 03:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Across at Wikipedia talk:Systemic bias#Witchcraft, CorbieVreccan you boldly state that "Input was solicited at the Neopagan wikiproject and that is currently dominating the discussion." As Darker Dreams|Darker Dreams rightly pointed out, "the person who notified the Neopagan group says they notified all the projects listed".

It is not the Neopagan community who are responsible for systemic bias, but quite clearly the article itself, and the sources used, which are responsible for systemic bias that dates back hundreds of years (and also in recent years). Hopefully, more-involved editors will be able to come up with less partisan reliable sources.

The sources that Darker Dreams provided for the revised definition in the article's first sentence were, in my view, a dramatic improvement:

Witchcraft traditionally means the use of magic or supernatural powers. ... This term carries negative connotations due to religious and social condemnation. [refs]

Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 13:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I looked at several Wikiprojects and saw no other notifications. Who notified wikiprojects, and which were notified besides Neopaganism? - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 17:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

OK, I found the notifications. Historyday01 notified the paranormal, horror, skepticism, occult, and anthropology projects but none of the ethnic/cultural ones. After I saw the Neopagan notification, I notified Indigenous of North America, African Diaspora and Systemic Bias, but there are a number of others that are also covered in this article that haven't been notified. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 17:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I added only the WikiProjects were listed on this page, so the ones I listed were limited as a result. Historyday01 (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not including this here as a reliable source, but merely to note that traditional witchcraft has been painted black:

"Of the Healing Power of the Thirteenth Herb

"(13) XXV. The thirteen hearb is named of the Chaldees Olphantas, of the Greeks Hilirion, of the Latines Verbena, of the English men Vervin. This hearb (as witches say) gathered, the Sun being in the Signe of the Ram, and put with graine or corne of piony of one yere old, heals them that are sicke of the falling sickness."

Source: Albertus Magnus (c. 1200 – 15 November 1280), quoted in Idries Shah, The Secret Lore of Magic.

Regards, Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 14:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

"Witchcraft traditionally means the use of magic" - so all magic is witchcraft? That's a ridiculous statement.

"The term carries negative connotations due to religious and social condemnation" - so 'witchcraft' was originally a positive term and only became negative because of 'religious condemnation'? Let's see some modern, high-quality academic sources for that. Preferably from actual historians, folklorists and anthropologists. The current academic sources in the article do not support that claim, but your proposed wording hijacks those.

As has been explained dozens of times, this article is primarily about the traditional/conventional and most common meaning of 'witchcraft' worldwide, .i.e. malevolent magic. Most cultures have believed in both benevolent and malevolent magic. Outside the Church, many ordinary Christians believed in both kinds of magic until recent centuries. In English, helpful or neutral magic was simply called 'magic' or the 'cunning craft', while harmful magic was called 'witchcraft'.
In the modern era, the likes of Margaret Murray tried to make sense of the European witch hunts. She theorized that accused witches had actually been followers of surviving pagan religion. But this 'witch cult' theory has been utterly discredited. Accused witches weren't pagans and they generally weren't doing any kind of magic. They were accused because people really did believe in harmful magic, and/or because of personal disputes. All of this is explained in this article if you care to read it. The witch cult' theory is often seen as pseudohistory and pseudo-folklore. Nevertheless, it was a big influence on the neopagan religion Wicca, which was originally named 'Witchcraft'. It looks as if you want this article to fit a Wiccan and/or pseudohistorical definition of 'witchcraft'. Wicca and its offshoots are discussed here briefly, but they have their own article. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 14:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

witchcraft, traditionally, the exercise or invocation of alleged supernatural powers to control people or events, practices typically involving sorcery or magic. Although defined differently in disparate historical and cultural contexts, witchcraft has often been seen, especially in the West, as the work of crones who meet secretly at night, indulge in cannibalism and orgiastic rites with the Devil, or Satan, and perform black magic. Witchcraft thus defined exists more in the imagination of contemporaries than in any objective reality. Yet this stereotype has a long history and has constituted for many cultures a viable explanation of evil in the world. The intensity of these beliefs is best represented by the European witch hunts of the 14th to 18th century, but witchcraft and its associated ideas are never far from the surface of popular consciousness and—sustained by folk tales—find explicit focus from time to time in popular television and films and in fiction. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 14:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Are you going to overlook the many high-quality academic sources in the article for one source that fits your view? WP:BRITANNICA: "There is no consensus on the reliability of the Encyclopædia Britannica (including its online edition, Encyclopædia Britannica Online). Encyclopædia Britannica is a tertiary source. Most editors prefer reliable secondary sources over the Encyclopædia Britannica when available."
Also see Wikipedia:Dictionaries as sources. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 15:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not presenting this as a reliable source (like Albertus Magnus, I just quickly pickied it at random): I merely wished to show you that there are other possible points of view other than your own and those of the current sources; though yes, of course, we need to be looking for reliable sources. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 17:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

This isn't a question of mathematic or scientific precision, nor is it a question of possibly inaccurate etymological descent. It is a question of postential harm from wikipedia passing a moral judgement based on a choice of which definitions are valid because a decision is made that "tradition" should supercede what you admit is (and deride as) a modern use. Darker Dreams (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree with Asarlaí about the status of Brittanica. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 17:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Also agree that all "magic" or things that get defined as "magic" are not called "witchcraft" in the cultures that have these metaphysical practices. In many cultures it is still a killing word. People have expressed the concern that innocents who call themselves witches will be harmed. Well, those who self-identify this way based on Wiccan and pop culture sources might want to be aware that they will be shunned or worse if they call themselves witches in many settings globally and even in the US and UK. It's a systemic bias issue in both current pop culture and among those who edit Wikipedia to think this is a neutral or positive word. Some cultures still have blood law around harming others with metaphysical means, and they call those people witches. They don't care if someone insists it's not what they mean by the word. I have seen this play out in person. This isn't my preference or edict, it's just a fact. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

The problem isn't that witchcraft is, or has been, a killing word. That is fully addressed in the first paragraph. The problem is that the current version you're insisting on portrays that as an appropriate position to still have by imposing the moral judgement of "all witchcraft is evil magic," when you acknowledge that's a limited ("traditional") definition that is not necessarily what people are going to be looking for when they arrive. The idea that "good witchea" only emerge from Wicca is false from the content of the article, which contains heroic wiches sourced back to 1919. One of the best known is the movie the Wizard of Oz (1939) which predates the public emergence of Wicca by more than a decade and still feels it appropriate to specify whether each witch is "good" or "wicked." And the idea that nothing can change in the article because "we're still validating sources" when the proposed sources include th Cambridge dictionary is nonsense. Darker Dreams (talk) 18:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I have recently watched The Adventures of Prince Achmed (1926) for the first time. The film features the heroic Witch of the Flaming Mountain who repeatedly rescues the other characters, and eventually duels with the film's evil sorcerer and kills him. I am not certain if she is the first "good" witch in film history, but she is probably the earliest one in animation. Dimadick (talk) 07:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

This has absolutely nothing to do with endorsing a moral stance. The fact you see it that way makes it even more abundantly clear that you are engaging in this multi-article POV push in an effort to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. It's clear you believe the debunked "Myth of the Wicca", and that changing this article will protect people. But that is not the case. We are documenting a worldwide issue here. The Wiccan and current, Internet pop culture view is only one perspective. Worldwide, most cultures (many that neopagans imitate) have not redefined this word.

While many Wiccans truly believe the word has been "reclaimed", and was once a positive thing, they have been misled. Misrepresenting the situation on the 'pedia is neither honest nor helpful. If you're actually doing this out of concern for people, Darker Dreams, with your edit-warring on multiple articles now, encouraging naive people to call themselves this could actually endanger them. Again, I've seen it happen, with naive people telling traditional people they are "witches". Battling to change the definition is dishonest. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Another way of approaching this issue is to look back at how things have changed over the course of years. I mean to this article at Wikipedia (see this Old revision of Witchcraft), when the subject was treated very differently (though, of course, the article will have been "improved" over time as well), and to check out the sources used in the past. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

The change to the lede was made around here, not so long ago in the history of the article: Edit difference. This was achieved by swapping out references. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 20:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

And I think this is where the idea of harm was introduced: Edit difference. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 20:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Citations used earlier in the article's history (in the lede)

• Witchcraft in the Middle Ages
• Witchcraft and Magic in Europe: Biblical and Pagan Societies
• Britannica
• Pócs, Éva (1999). Between the Living and the Dead: A perspective on Witches and Seers in the Early Modern Age. Budapest: Central European University Press. ISBN 963-9116-19-X.

Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 07:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Digging around looking for possible additional references. It does strike me that Drawing Down the Moon, which is widely recognized as one of the seminal works on modern Paganism, is used exactly once... and then relies on the 1979 version rather than the 1986, 1996, or 2006 versions each of which improved information and detail.

Darker Dreams (talk) 11:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• [1]
• [2]
• [3] [4] [5]
• [6]
• [7]

Darker Dreams (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Are you going to keep posting links without any explanation? What are these links meant to be supporting? Some of them even go against your arguments.

I've added more academic references showing that the traditional meaning (malevolent magic) is the most common meaning of 'witchcraft' worldwide. Can you show us any sources that say the Wiccan/neopagan re-definition is just as common, or more common, than the traditional meaning? If not, then it shouldn't be given priority here. Wicca and Traditional witchcraft have their own articles. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 15:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

this has some interesting language from a global perspective ("I challenge the notions that witchcraft and sorcery invariably lead to violence, that there is only one type of witchcraft and sorcery, and that what is labelled witchcraft and sorcery in English is entirely superstitious nonsense." "Despite early Christianisation, belief and practice of witchcraft continues to be prevalent in this primarily matrilineal province. Even outside the province, the flying witches of Milne Bay are legendary and Milne Bay itself has been described anecdotally as the witchcraft centre of PNG. In contrast to other chapters from PNG in this volume which speak of witchcraft and sorcery accusations that generate brutal violence on the accused, violence against women is much less in this province where witchcraft is highly articulated, and it is said to empower and contribute to the status of Milne Bay women.") Darker Dreams (talk) 14:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the editors above that the lead paragraph of the article needs to reflect the full scope of the article, which includes both traditional and contemporary usage. Is there wording that we could all find acceptable? Nosferattus (talk) 22:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, I think maybe the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction now. We still need to mention that witchcraft traditionally implies using magic to harm others. We shouldn't remove that from the lead entirely. Nosferattus (talk) 00:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. While we're still discussing this and waiting for more input, Darker Dreams has went on a solo-run and re-written the lead how they think it should be. So the lead no longer opens with the main topic of the article: malevolent magic. This goes against MOS:LEAD.

• The opening line has been changed to "Witchcraft is the use of magic". But this article isn't about "the use of magic" in general, it's about witchcraft. If it's about "the use of magic" then why does this article and the term 'witchcraft' even exist? The wording also wrongly implies that all magic is witchcraft, despite the sources saying otherwise.
• The Wiccan meaning has been put on top, even tho' the vast majority of the article isn't about that. Only one section of the article is about the redefinition used by some Wiccans/neopagans. That goes against MOS:LEAD because its giving undue weight and prominence to one small part of the article.
• The part of the lead dealing with the witch-cult hypothesis, and how its discredited, has been deleted. No clear reason was given.
• Online dictionary definitions are being used as the main sources for the new opening lines, that is not best practice.

I have added more references for the traditional definition being the most common meaning of 'witchcraft' worldwide.

Have we any sources that say the Wiccan/neopagan redefinition is just as common, or more common, than the traditional meaning? If not, then it shouldn't be given priority. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 14:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there are going to be any sources evaluating the relative use of different definitions of "witchcraft", especially since the two definitions overlap significantly. However, any trip to a bookstore in an English-speaking country will let you know which definition is the most common these days, and I suspect it isn't a close competition. Regardless, I think we need to stop approaching this a war between the modern and traditional definitions. If the "modern" definition is positive and the "traditional" definition is negative, using a neutral definition to start off the article seems sensible. However, we still need to prominently explain the evolution of the term and its various connotations in the lead, hopefully in a way that reflects the contents of the article. Nosferattus (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

You have nailed the problem on the head here. You wrote:

However, any trip to a bookstore in an English-speaking country will let you know which definition is the most common these days, and I suspect it isn't a close competition.

Yes, there's a lot of money being made selling pop-culture paperbacks full of spells and such. And the Intarwebs are full of their electronic equivalents, full of terrible or zero sourcing. But that's not representative of the global view. What's left out is oral traditions, Indigenous and other traditional cultures who have never redefined the word.

A more balanced view can be found via some anthropological sources and, more frequently now by members of those cultures themselves, but not all of it is discussed publicly. Which is a problem when it comes to sourcing if people go for quantity over quality. But the scholarly and from-the-cultures-themselves sources should be prioritized here. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Previously headed Wikipedia:Citation overkill ...

You have to be kidding me. Asarlaí has now added six citations back-to-back in the lede about the practice of witchcraft most commonly being seen as "malignant" and is still not satisfied. Surely, they can no longer again religiously insist that the opening sentence of the lede should read Witchcraft traditionally means the use of magic or supernatural powers to harm others. and short description, Practice of magic, usually to cause harm. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there are now numerous citations, from academic sources, that malevolent magic is the most common and widespread meaning of "witchcraft". The vast majority of the article is about that. Yet Darker Dreams has put the minority Wiccan meaning (positive magic) on top of that and given it priority in the lead, going against MOS:LEAD. Any sensible Wikipedian would not be satisfied with that. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 12:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

You will be well aware of this already, of course, but Ronald Hutton, for one, is being deliberately partial (writing only about witchcraft in its destructive manifestations). In Ronald Hutton, The Witch: A History of fear, from ancient times to the present, the author says after the "What is a witch?" quote: That is, however, only one current usage of the word. In fact, Anglo-American senses of it now take at least four different forms, although the one discussed above seems still to be the most widespread and frequent. The others define the witch figure as any person who uses magic ... or as the practitioner of nature-based Pagan religion; or as a symbol of independent female authority and resistance to male domination. All have validity in the present, and to call anybody wrong for using any one of them would be to reveal oneself as bereft of general knowledge, as well as scholarship. ... [I]n this book the mainstream scholarly convention will be followed, and the word used only for an alleged worker of such destructive magic. [emphasis added]. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 13:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

IMO, the article should present witchcraft neutrally as a form of magic. Then it should present a neutral history of the development of the practices and understanding of witchcraft. Positive/negative views are extremely cultural. They should be presented third as "Cultural views on witchcraft". There are many who object to various religions and practices. We do not start the articles on Buddhism or Christianity with the views of their opponents. We do not start the article on Gnosticism with the views of its Christian opponents. Why should we base the article on Christianity's violent oppression of practitioners of the craft? Witchcraft should be presented in a manner similar to Gnosticism; they have much in common, both relying on extra-Biblical knowledge, both having been seen as heresy by the Church. Yet in one case we present the thing in itself, for the other we present the views of its oppressors? Why the difference? Because there's no equivalent of the Nag Hammadi library for witchcraft? What about goetia? It's barely mentioned, but is likely connected to what was called 'witchcraft'. Skyerise (talk) 13:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, it's like writing a scholarly thesis on the topic of Christianity based only on a study of Christian Nationalism or Southern Baptists. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 13:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Here's an interesting tidbit to get started on, "... court pageants and festivals - notably masques ... Often they pitted royal figures against evil forms of magic and witchcraft - theurgia versus goetia ..." "Magick" being the historically used English term for theurgy and "witchcraft" being the contemporaneous English term for goetia. We have an article on theurgy, but goetia merely redirects to Ars Goetia. We have no history of the practice of goetia from Greek times nor material about its spread throughout the Roman Empire, nor precisely when it got branded as "witchcraft". Skyerise (talk) 14:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, Magic (supernatural) § Witchcraft would make a good lead for this article, don't you think? Skyerise (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

"We do not start the articles on Buddhism or Christianity with the views of their opponents. ... Why should we base the article on Christianity's violent oppression of practitioners of the craft?" - That sums up the whole problem with your arguments, as CorbieVreccan has already noted. You seem to think this article is about a religion, and that "witchcraft" meant benevolent magic until it was "oppressed" by Christians. Have you even read the article? Witchcraft always meant malevolent magic, then the witch-cult hypothesis came along and suggested exactly what you're preaching. But the witch-cult theory has been rejected by academia. It's pseudohistory, and some of you are trying to make it the focus of this article. You overlook all the non-Western cultures around the world who believe in witchcraft, and define it as malevolent magic. This article is not about a religion, it's primarily about the traditional and most common meaning of 'witchcraft' worldwide. That was made clear in the lead. The religion has its own articles at Wicca and Traditional Witchcraft. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 15:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

No, I'm not talking about religion, except in the sense of cult. I'm talking about Greek shamanic sorcery and its historical spread, the names by which it was called, goetia, sorcery, maleficium, and witchcraft. About its incorporation of materials from and into the Greek Magical Papyri and later from Jewish kabbalistic and sorcerous sources. It's a quite different and darker history than Wicca projected for itself. There are sources out there to support it, so why is this history absent from the article? Proper coverage would include merging maleficium (sorcery) and black magic as referring to the same subject. Parts of Grimoire also refer to the same tradition. Skyerise (talk) 15:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

You're free to add that to the article with reliable sources. But please stay on the topic of discussion: we're debating the opening lines of the article. If you want to discuss "Greek shamanic sorcery", you'd be better starting a new section. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 15:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

It's all connected. I thought we wrote articles about the thing itself, not the word. Skyerise (talk) 16:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

As a "btw", to avoid an tag, you can group unnamed references together, with bullet-pointed citations each on a new line (not easy to show that here): <ref>* cite1 * cite2 ... * cite6</ref>. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 16:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Asarlaí, I see that you've "added POV lead tag, as the minority Wiccan meaning has been given priority". I could have tagged the lede myself "added POV lead tag, as the traditional meaning, although more common, has been given undue weight, and citations are excessive." However, I will continue to refrain from making major edits to the article, and suggest that you simply go ahead and swap the two sections round. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 16:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Change of plan: Here, I volunteered to move the contemporary material after the more common traditional usage. Hope this helps. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 16:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

That's what I had done here. But I was reverted by Darker Dreams, who complained that "the lead spends much longer on the negative definition". Of course it does! That's what the article is about! Leads summarize the article. The minority Wiccan meaning takes up only one section of the article. It was given a sentence in the lead, a hatnote, and I even added this note so readers wouldn't get confused. But some editors kept pushing their preferred meaning in the lead, ignoring the rest of the article and what it's about. Again, Wicca and Traditional Witchcraft have their own articles. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 17:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I have once again reverted Darker Dreams at Witchcraft (disambiguation) for the same issues. Please look at that user's contribs as they are doing this disruption on multiple related articles. (Darker Dreams (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I think that Skyerise's concern that Wikipedia articles ought to be about "the thing itself, not the word" hits at the heart of our challenge here. Contrary to Gnosticism, which although historically maligned was an actual practice, "witchcraft" in the historical sense is really more of cultural bogeyman/bugbear than something people did in the sense being debated here (the practice of benign or positive magic). In all likelihood, historical practitioners of what is now understood by some as positive witchcraft would not have described their magic as such, not least because of negative contemporary cultural understandings of "witchcraft" as being evil in nature. Self-definition, I believe, is key. It seems, then, that we need two articles: one on "witchcraft" as a cultural bogeyman phenomenon representing fears of malevolent magic (and all the political profiteering and such around it), and another on "witchcraft" as a relatively modern religious/spiritual practice that is largely positive in nature. I do not believe that the "Wicca" and "Traditional witchcraft" articles are sufficient for the latter purpose since they do not describe the full range of practices self-defined as "witchcraft". To rehash the point and re-quote Skyerise, although there is one "word" here, there are two significantly different "things" to write articles about: globally widespread cultural fears of malevolent magic ("witchcraft") and the characteristics and consequences of those cultural fears one the one hand, and a range of spiritual and magical practices self-defined by their practitioners as "witchcraft" on the other. Since the word is shared, I think it entirely appropriate to disambiguate here since both concepts are relatively popular, although one is indeed far more recent (at least insofar as its own practitioners identified it as "witchcraft").Pliny the Elderberry (talk) 19:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I invite people to look at my edit history. Here, I'll help by highlighting what they're talking about. Ensure that you check the preceding and following edits on each of those pages. Then you might compare with this string of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing that credits all possible positive definition of witchcraft solely to Wicca, and pushes that site wide even in the middle of screaming that my undiscussed edits are violations. Also worth note is that there is apparently a belief that Neopagans are dominant enough to create systemic bias in the mix. Darker Dreams (talk) 19:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Apparently these two editors have identified me, personally and individually, as the "main problem" sufficiently that they need to coordinate not just off this talk page, but off wikipedia entirely. Obviously, I have no idea who else they may or may not be privately canvassing or lobbying. Of note, the individual promoting this extra coordination is an administrator. Darker Dreams (talk) 21:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Positive magic is all Wicca thesis

One of the core conflicts in the current content/lead disagreement appears (to me) to be the contentions that a) all positive references to witchcraft are the result of Wicca, and b) their modern development and connection to Wicca means they should be discounted.

B would be an editorial decision that could be reached as a community, but it relies on A. The problem is that this idea is not supported in citation WP:OR and is demonstrably incorrect.

It is not argued that Wicca was founded by Gerald Gardener in England. This is believed to have occurred sometime between 1921 and 1950. The first evidence appears for the practice of a neopagan 'Witchcraft' religion (what would be recognizable now as Wicca) during the 1930s in England. Gardner founded the Bricket Wood coven in the 1940s, and wrote High Magic's Aid (1949), Witchcraft Today (1954), and The Meaning of Witchcraft (1959).

Given that timeline, I think we can likely assume that the influence by Wicca in depictions of “good witches” in Hollywood movies in 1939 (The Wizard of Oz, which identifies both “good” and “wicked” witches) was unlikely. Even less likely would be the same reference in the book of the same name appearing in the 1900 book) or a 1926 movie (The Adventures of Prince Achmed). While these are popular media depictions, not academic descriptions, that presence is even more likely to follow popular perceptions than lead them. Some of these depictions may have been influenced by Margaret Murray, who presented her version of it in The Witch-Cult in Western Europe (1921) and continued thereafter. It is worth pointing out that the earlier version of the Witch-cult hypothesis, pioneered by German scholars Karl Ernst Jarcke and Franz Josef Mone, was intended as an ominous threat – but did influence books like Charles Godfrey Leland's Aradia, or the Gospel of the Witches (1899) and Aleister Crowley.

In this sense, the supposed causal chain being pushed through these edits is backwards; positive depictions of Witchcraft lead to Wicca. As I said at the beginning, presenting all positive or neutral references to witchcraft as Wicca-derived (and all witch-identifying traditions as Wiccan) is WP:OR, is clearly wrong, and is generating bias in editing decisions. Darker Dreams (talk) 22:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Befana and Biddy Early are some other interesting examples of pre-Wicca not-evil witches. Cunning_folk_in_Britain has some cited passages that throw significant question on the hard line drawn between the cunning folk and witches in this article. Meanwhile, the "witches are evil" thread is widely and often tied to virulent strains of misogyny and repression of "undesirables."[8][9] While some keep digging up references to support their (not argued!) assertion that there is a negative classical connotation to witchcraft; they somehow keep missing there is also an accepted anthropological notation that marginalized people are far more likely to be "witches" than some acceptable version of magic user, and that the term "witch" will be much more associated with malignity when applied to those people. Darker Dreams (talk) 23:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Biddy Early was a healer who helped her community, who at a later time was accused of practicing witchcraft (doing harm). She's an example of how, in that traditional worldview/nomenclature, healers are at one end of the spectrum and witches at the other. To call her a witch was an insult and, at that time, an accusation of crime. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 14:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Is there a reason that shouldn't feel cherry-picked to ignore actual points?

Meanwhile, "healers" and "witches" were not that far apart in the eyes of the law. The British Witchcraft Act of 1541 effected cunning folk. The 1562 Act Against Conjurations, Enchantments and Witchcrafts, also still applied to cunning folk. citations at Cunning_folk_in_Britain#England_and_Wales and Witchcraft Acts. Darker Dreams (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

You gave an example of someone who did not call herself a witch, and now you are offended this is pointed out? To call her a witch now is revisionism, based on the post-Witchcult modern redefinition (which has been debunked - healers were not called witches). This revisionism also seems to be evident in modern writings about Befana, but I'll leave that to those who speak Italian and can better vet the translations. Best wishes, - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 15:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussions elsewhere

There are discussions related to this ongoing conflict that have been opened outside this talkpage:

• Wikipedia_talk:Systemic_bias#Witchcraft
• User_talk:CorbieVreccan#Definition_of_witchcraft
• Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive/2023/07#Witchcraft (#1 Declined)
• Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive/2023/07#Witchcraft_2 (#2 Declined)
• User_talk:Esowteric#WP:FOLLOWING

Darker Dreams (talk) 22:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC) Edited above comment to account for project page archiving and add previous related discussion. Darker Dreams (talk) 23:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Underscores

Many underscores (like so) have been added in referenced quotations that are not present in the sources, to add emphasis and "metaphorically underscore" the editor's stance, which seems wrong to me. It's another form of editorialising. As well as this, the manual of style says: "Generally, do not underline text or it may be confused with links on a web page." Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 13:50, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Addendum: Changing the underscores to bold text is not the answer, either. As Wikipedians it is not our place to add our own emphasis, or to make a point, especially not in direct quotations. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 14:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Just use the quotations verbatim. If some of the material is irrelevant, elide it with ellipses. Nosferattus (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I have fixed it. We do not change the style in a quotation. Material should be bolded or underlined only if it is in the source. The best way to make a point clear is to not overquote. Skyerise (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Short description

Consolidating here. We've gone back and forth on several phrasings in the long discussions above. Current form as of this post:

• Type of magical practice

My concern with these is that we shouldn't state in Wiki-voice that everyone who claims to have supernatural powers actually has them. I'm also not sure that all readers will understand, or agree, with how "magic" is defined here (see linked disambig). Occultists came up with the "magick with a k" spelling to distinguish magic (supernatural) and ceremonial magic from stage magic (magic (illusion)). Some readers may still go to stage magic in their minds. We need to think outside the "everyone knows what pagan magic is" box with this. What can we use instead of "magic"? Metaphysical? Occult? - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Maybe occult would be a possible word to introduce. Or supernatural. It's the same with what everyday people think of "imagination", ie mere fantasy. Henry Corbin, too, had to resort to the word "imaginal" (and the imaginal world, mundus imaginalis) to describe "real" or "active" imagination, and was at pains to make the distinction. And Jung didn't help by using the word fantasy when he meant active imagination. Others also talk of the "lost knowledge of the imagination". Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 20:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think you can (nor can you be expected to) come up with a short definition that will please everybody (those who believe, those who know, those who are staunch materialists, and those who have an opinion). "Knowledge is something which you can use. Belief is something which uses you." "Opinion is usually something which people have when they lack comprehensive information." ~ Idries Shah, Reflections. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 20:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I'd avoid using the word "mystical", because to many that means subordinating or annihilating the ego and surrendering to the will of a supreme being, and to others it might mean pink unicorns. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 20:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I do think of unicorns (pink or otherwise) when I hear of "mystical". What does the term have to do with a supreme being? Dimadick (talk) 21:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC)