Open main menu
Witchcraft was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 3, 2006Good article nomineeListed
June 15, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Contents

Adding in the relation of witchcraft, feminism, and the mediaEdit

Hey, Im working on a school project, and i am adding a section on the relations of modern witchcraft and feminism through media. I have sources and if you have any question, let me know.Foxx Molinari (talk) 22:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I think there are some problems with this section, and should either be removed or the information moved elsewhere. From what I could gather, the referenced sources are primarily talking about Neo-Wicca or "Eclectic Wicca" (as the Wicca section of this article calls it) which is not clear when reading the section. In addition, the media and feminist aspects seem a bit disjoint, and there are some weasel words with unclear attributions (e.g., "Wiccan literature has been described as aiding the empowerment of young women[...]": by whom? Catherine Tosenberg is the next reference, and she doesn't seem to be making this claim in her essay).

Since Wicca is only a small section of the Witchcraft article, and Eclectic Wicca is a mere mention within that section, it seems to me that this feminism/media section is trying to go into way more depth that is appropriate for the Witchcraft article. If cleaned-up and referenced properly, there's definitely some interesting information here, but I think it would be a lot more appropriate to be incorporated into the main Wicca article.

I've added links to the sources used in this section to aid further discussion of whether this section should stay or where the information should go.

TastyChikan (talk) 10:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Witchcraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:23, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Witch and witchcraft: two Wikidata items, and a problemEdit

I came across this problem by a roundabout route, but it seems best to set it out in a more logical order.

Witchcraft is in a Wikidata item with 59 entries: wikidata:Q259745. There's one rather glaring omission - German. That's because the German article is in a different Wikidata item altogether: wikidata:Q1616828, with 57 entries. Some languages are in both Wikidata items, for varying reasons. (1) nl:Hekserij is in Q259745; but the Dutch redirect nl:Heks (persoon) to it is in Q1616828. (2) fr:Sorcier is in Q1616828 but fr:Sorcellerie is in Q259745. (3) Witchcraft is in Q259745, as is simple:Witchcraft; but simple:Witch is in Q1616828.

(Witch redirects to Witchcraft. English 'witch' and German 'de:Hexe' are one-for-one equivalents in both directions; but, 'witchcraft' and 'Hexe' are in different Wikidata items.)

DAB page Ragana equates lt:Ragana and lv:Ragana; but the former is in Q1616828 and the latter is in Q259745. (This was where I spotted the problem.) Some pictures, e.g. File:Baldung Hexen 1508 kol.JPG are used in both groups.

Q259745 (which includes the English article Witchcraft} does not link in any way to 11 articles in Q1616828.

IMO this is too complex a problem for a WP:BOLD attempt by any single editor, and requires discussion and consensus. I recognise that problems in non-English Wikis are not our concern, but we can at least set our own house in order. One solution might be to turn the redirect Witch into a standalone article and to add it to Q1616828, which would have no impact on non-English Wikis but would help English readers to find articles in those other languages, and I propose it. Other editors may have other opinions; the discussion is open.

I am notifying the WP:WikiProjects listed on this Talk Page of this discussion. Narky Blert (talk) 21:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Footnote. I have just discovered some ancient history, from 2004-2007 - Talk:Witch#Merge and Talk:Witch#Merge again. Narky Blert (talk) 21:50, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

About WithcraftEdit

Why would witch craft be considered bad yet it involves use of only nature William POWERZ (talk) 11:09, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

@William POWERZ: Because the term is complex and has a variety of possible meanings, the "benign nature (worship/use/harmony)" meaning only appearing within the past 200 years. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:41, 22 December 2018 (UTC).


If only you guys knew what it would feel like coz its all the same be it a witch or a Christian, a Muslim, any religion is supposed to be respected and if u disguise it then just stay away but don't oppose it

Ian Thomson try to understand this situation its like you are opposing a religion please put your self in their shoes and your religion is being opposed just think about it


If there was a way then I would like to know The Late Bridget Bishop's children so that I could get to know all the accusations made against her and I promise I will let you know that she was not bad at all . — Preceding unsigned comment added by William POWERZ (talkcontribs)

The word "witchcraft" was used long before any religions calling themselves "Witchcraft" can be shown to exist. That's not the fault of people who don't belong to Witchcraft religions. We don't remove pictures of Muhammad just because some Muslims don't like them, we don't say the world is only 6000 years old just because some Christians believe it's so, we're not going to deny the historical use of certain words just because some some new religious movements use a homographous name.
For the third time, this is not a forum. No one here knows any of Bridget Bishop's descendants, this is not a place to meet them.
You really don't seem to get what the purpose of this site is. I'm going to explain on your talk page again. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:41, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Return to "Witchcraft" page.