Talk:Witchcraft/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

New article Witch (magic), overlap?

There's a new article Witch (magic) I found at WP:UNCAT. It seems that article should be deleted as it overlaps with this one. Concur? MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I've made it a redirect to here, just as Witch does. I won't be incorporating any of the text though, it's badly written and says nothing new. Totnesmartin (talk) 13:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Just Wondering But

Is there any reason why most of the articles on Wikipedia have such little referance to religion and there effects on the topic? It is mentioned i think once in detail in this article and that is only brefly when some religons have had pretty large effects on this topic. Is there any reason for this and if so what?--William.stowers (talk) 13:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

That's because witchcraft doesn't necessarily have much to do with religion. It's a practice, not a faith in and of itself. Stregamama (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia witch-hunt

This site: [Saudi] talks about a person sent to death for witchcraft in Saudi Arabia.Agre22 (talk) 12:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)agre22

New First Sentence

"Witchcraft, in various historical, anthropological, religious and mythological contexts, is the use of certain kinds of supernatural or magical powers in order to inflict harm or damage upon members of a community or their property. "

This is incorrect and violates NPOV. Historically, witchcraft has been used for many purposes among which "inflicting harm or damage" is only one. I propose this instead:

"Witchcraft, in various historical, anthropological, religious and mythological contexts, is the use of various magical techniques and practices to attain desired results."

What do you think?? 70.112.71.2 (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Later... I decided the whole first paragraph needs revision. How about this:

Witchcraft, in various historical, anthropological, religious and mythological contexts, is the use of certain magical techniques and practices to attain desired results. In many societies a distinction is drawn between good witchcraft and bad witchcraft. The former is used to heal, while the latter is employed to inflict harm. A witch (from Old English wicce f. / wicca m.) is a practitioner of witchcraft. 70.112.71.2 (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this may be a good idea, and I have been arguing for the revamp of the first sentence (aka the topic sentence, the one that describes the entire article) because it is contrary to the evidence that follows, and, like you said, it violates NPOV.

And, while I appreciate Mdwh's contribution to distinguish between bad and good witchcraft, it still implies that "good" witchcraft is only used when trying to counter the real, "bad" witchcraft that has already affected someone. Witchcraft should be a neutral term. Aaatkins 27 February 2009

Yes, I agree. My edits are to try to get a compromise in the meantime, and at least fix up the worst parts of the current version, but I agree that there are still problems that need resolving, as you describe. As I say in my previous edit, the addition of defining it in terms of inflicting harm etc is a recent change that clearly does not have consensus, and the previous lead was far more stable. It's a concern that DreamGuy is even unwilling to accept this compromising version. I don't see why it's controversial to leave the definition as simply being the use "of supernatural or magical powers" without qualification, until we get a consensus for something new (e.g., perhaps saying afterwards something like how it's sometimes associated in some societies with inflicting harm etc? I wouldn't object to that, as long as it isn't inherently part of the definition). Mdwh (talk) 19:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you guys get NPOV at all. The claim "Historically, witchcraft has been used for many purposes among which "inflicting harm or damage" is only one." is more POV-pushing than the original. Witchcraft historically, religiously, anthropologically, etc. has overwhelmingly meant inflicting harm. The ONLY side saying otherwise is modern people who self-identify as witches, and their POV should not be pushed onto the article. Their view can be mentioned, and indeed it is, but it does not get to be treated as if it were the primary or even an equal definition. This is not Wiccapedia.

And, seriously folks, an anon user and some newbies suddenly showing up to try to overrule longstanding consensus both on this article and in academics is not how things work here. If you want to change it, you will need clear consensus following Wikipedia policies. You can't just insist that the term historically was used for good and bad, you'd need reliable sources not only to show that anyone thinks that but that enough academics think that to overrule the strong consensus of experts who say otherwise. Get real sources from trustworthy academics on the topic, not just your own personal opinion, and post them here so we can look at them and see what you have. DreamGuy (talk) 00:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

To speak for myself (as a non-newbie, and who certainly does not identify as a witch, or have any interest in Wicca at all) I do not have personal opinions here, I'm just trying to fix up the contradictions, see that the definition(s) make sense, and am concerned at the recent change to this article that does not seem to have consensus support. As I point out above, the current version does not have a "longstanding consensus" - the version that did not specify "inflict harm or damage" was stable for years, meanwhile the recent addition has been subject to edit warring and a lot of discussion on the Talk page. The burden is upon you to provide "real sources" too - in fact, the burden is upon the ones wanting to add "harm of damage", not those who think we should leave it out.

Don't get me wrong - I would equally oppose rewriting the article to be solely a Wicca-POV definition, and I don't necessarily disagree that the negative definition is the "overwhelming" one. So yes, FWIW, I would say that 70.112.71.2's proposal is problematic in that it goes too far the other way. However, the problem is that the version that was up before my edits presented "inflict harm of damage" as being an inherent part of the definition. For that, you don't just have to show the definition is overwhelming, but that it's the only definition. Surely there ought to be a middle ground here - either not qualifying the reasons for using powers at all, or listing both definitions?

The concept of a witch using powers for good does not seem unique to Wicca - but even if it was, that is still something notable enough to be included as one of the definitions. I wouldn't say that it should be treated as a primary or equal definition, just that it should not be ignored altogether. The problem is that witchcraft was defined so that anyone using powers for good could not be defined as a witch, according to this article.

So I agree that the article shouldn't be rewritten to only define witchcraft in terms of good or bad. But we should cover various definitions that are referenced from sources. There are plenty of words that have several definitions - the answer is not to only select one, rather, we should list them all. Mdwh (talk) 04:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the article should draw on major scholarly sources. These would include Lucy Maier's Witchcraft and 'Evans Pritchard's Witchcraft, Magid, and Oracls among the Azande. They describe witchcraft as involving harm, not healing. In the Americas, a distinction is often made between shamanism (which is good) and sorcery (which is bad) but Spanish-speakers distinguish between good and bad witchcraft i.e. there is a healing witchcraft. From this I conclude that most forms of witchcraft are harmful, but in many cses it may be helpful. I think it is reasonable to have a first sentence that emphasizes the mainstream, and then cover the nuances in the remainter of the first paragraph. I am vehemently opposed to any view that jusges the NPOV compliance of this article based solely on one sentence. The article has to be judged as a whole, and the introduction schould introduce the article as a whole. I expect the first paragraph to provide all major points of view; to expect this of one sentence will lead to an overwrought and distorting sentences. Slrubenstein | Talk 06:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

--I couldn't wade through this whole discussion, I don't have the patience or attention span for that; but I do agree with this: :: And, while I appreciate Mdwh's contribution to distinguish between bad and good witchcraft, it still implies that "good" witchcraft is only used when trying to counter the real, "bad" witchcraft that has already affected someone. Witchcraft should be a neutral term. Aaatkins 27 February 2009 There are many other purposes for good witchcraft that do not involve a need to counteract harmful witchcraft. A few examples: and no, these don't aply to only Wiccans: Blessings, Communicating with the Divine, Healing, Rites of Passage, etc. None of these involve a direct relationship countering an "evil magic." Wolfpeaceful (talk) 19:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I have provided citations earlier on this talk page of highly-respected historians of European witchcraft who state that the term 'witchcraft' could have other meanings than a purely inimical one. Absent opposing citations, I think that pretty much resolves the issue. However, as DBachmann has argued above, the less negative uses of the term are far less common, and should receive correspondingly less emphasis in the article. It may be that 'witch' in popular (English) usage was more ambivalent in meaning prior to the Early Modern witch hunts, but I have not read any research that states that. That leaves neopagan witchcraft as the only realm in which 'witch' is given a predominantly positive meaning. Fuzzypeg★ 03:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wide World of Daoism

Daoism may be any of the following;

1) A school of philosophy, strictly philosophy, as a means for understanding spiritual matters and for a different perception of the world.

2) It can be religious, and employ the worship of various gods through the use of idols.

3) It is also known for sorcery; the idea of the 5 elements, earth, fire, water, metal and wood, and their manipulation, are as old as China itself in fact even older. Ultimately all witchcraft regardless of region, originated from Shamanism. The branch of Daoism that deals with sorcery, in fact has its origins in Chinese shamanism before "China's ascent from the darkness" ("darkness" e.g. ignorance). One of the errors made regarding Daoism, is how it is seen as a single system, when in fact, different branches of it can be as different from each other, as night and day. For example, even though Daoist philosophy urges simplicity, Daoist sorcery, involves heavy ritualization, the humming of various sounds through the practice of Chi Kung, etc. In other words an accusation may be thrown as mystical Daoism, as not being TRUE Daoist philosophy because of the heavy ritualization that makes it far from simple. Not a personal opinion, just an illustration.

However, because there are branches of Daoism that deal with mysticism, they are worth a mention. Additionally, even withing "magical" Daoism there are different beliefs. For example, as with "traditional" witchcraft, there is the use of familiars. However, some forms of mystical oriented Daoism worship Shangdi ("the one true God") and hold the claim that all comes from Shangdi. Now, mind, worship of Shangdi does not imply, it is an Abrahamic faith; the rites, rituals and prayers are totally different. Moreover, because the worship of Shangdi in China has always been influenced by Daoism, it is nowhere near as dogmatic, as merciless, towards "heressy." In fact, most Chinese religions have no concept of "heressy."

I am starting to soapbox here, so I'll stop typing; please look into Daoist magical practices and consider expanding the article.

67.148.120.102 (talk) 01:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)stardingo747

Witchcraft is not the same as magic, sorcery or mysticism. The term 'witchcraft' has a number of usages, often overlapping, and one of the main purposes of this page (as I see it) is to clarify these usages and how they interrelate. Daoism may have shamanistic elements that link it with the European magical beliefs behind the witches' sabbath stereotype, but that in itself doesn't make Daoism 'witchcraft'. I would say Daoism is worth a mention only if it is discussed as 'witchcraft' in scholarly anthropological works. Oh, and a common central-Eurasian origin has indeed been hypothesised for these widespread magical beliefs, but I wouldn't call that origin 'shamanism' except in the broadest possible sense. Fuzzypeg★ 03:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

European witchcraft

The article currently fails to address the very significant differences between the English experience of witchcraft and the wider European one, and the role that religious strife between Protestants and Catholics in the late 16th and early 17th century played, as the case of the Samlesbury witches demonstrates. Except for the brief career of Matthew Hopkins in East Anglia, there were none of the witchhunts so common in continental Europe, and some English counties like Cheshire had rather few witch trials, and only about 11 executions for witchcraft in total IIRC. Protestants in England did not share all the same views as their counterparts in continental Europe, being somewhat influenced by the views of King James I. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

One of the main reasons, it seems, that such massive hunts never sparked off in England, was that outright torture was not approved as a means of extracting testimony, except for a relatively brief period. If my brief period of editing lasts long enough (I'm home sick) I'll try to add some of this info, with citations. Fuzzypeg★ 04:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Last trial in England

This is taken from a book Memoirs of the protectoral-house of Cromwell: deduced from an ..., Volume 1, by Mark Noble, pp. 24–26 published in 1787 so now in the public domain which I am using to write an article about Sir Henry Williams (alias Cromwell), the grandfather of Oliver Cromwell, who's second wife Lady Weeks, died from a long illness, for which a family of three were found guilty of witchcraft and executed. The section in Mark Nobles book about this issue, how it affected the people of Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire, and in the footnote what the judge in the last witch trial in England asked a witness for the prosecution, to show the silliness of it all, is too long to be in the article on Sir William but some of it may be of use either in this article or in another article linked to this one:

As this lady [Weeks the second wife of Oliver Cromwell's grandfather] died of a lingering illness, the popular error of the times attributed it to witchcraft; such an idea would now be laughed at, by any but the lowest of the people; but at that time it was of the most serious consequence, as a poor, inoffensive family fell victims to the folly and cruelty of the age. John Samwell, Alice his wife, and Ann their daughter, then inhabitants of Warboys, were ridiculously supposed to be the authors of this lady's death, and were committed to prison. The mother (who seems by age to have been weak and decrepit) was so teized and tortured in prison, and kept constantly without sleep, that her faculties (much impaired before) became now entirely lost, and at length she confessed any the most strange fooleries, that the malice and folly of her enemies could devise; in consequence of which they were all, in defiance of common sense, tried before mr. justice Fenner, 4 April 1593, and convicted of the fact, of not only being the cause of the death of lady Cromwell, but also of bewitching five of Mr. Throgmorton's children, and seven of his servants, the gaoler's man, &c. No mercy, we may readily imagine, would be shown to these unbefriended victims, when even majesty degraded itself by writing the most idle nonsense (some years after this) to prove, not only that there were witches, but recommending certain means to be used as infallible ways to discover them; they were therefore all three publicly murdered, suffering amidst the acclamations of a barbarous and rude populace, who rejoiced that they themselves were relieved from (as they supposed) dangerous neighbours. It was found upon their conviction, that their goods, which amounted in value to £40 were forfeited to Sir Henry as lord of the manor of Warboys; but, he unwilling to posses himself of the supposed felons goods, gave them to the corporation conditionally, that they procured from Queen's college in Cambridge, a doctor, or bachelor of divinity to preach every day of the annunciation of the Second lady of blessed Virgin, a sermon against: the sin of witchcraft in one of the churches in Huntingdon.

I have dwelt longer upon this subject, as it serves not only to prove that Lady Cromwell was supposed to die by witchcraft, but also, that it sufficiently shows that the credulity of the age was such, that even the greatest (if not the wisest) men in the kingdom, acquiesced in the infatuation that then prevailed, and were, as occasion served, subject to the loss of their reputations and lives, when it suited the dark purposes of any malicious enemy to charge them with sorcery, a crime they could not, if they would, commit.

--PBS (talk) 16:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

This trial of 1593 was by no means the last witch trial in England, not even close. There were very many trials during the 17th century, and the last, under the 1735 Witchcraft Act, actually took place in the 1940s.--Malleus Fatuorum 17:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Noble was writing in 1787, he does not say that the last trial was on 4 April 1593! Please read what he wrote. --PBS (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to what Noble says or doesn't say, I was referring to your misleading section title, Last trial in England. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Nothing in the section header or what I wrote as an introduction say anything about 1593 so you must have read that from within the quoted section. But if the section header upsets you then feel free to change it, I won't object.--PBS (talk) 18:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not upset, but I have no idea what you mean by The last trial in England. There were several trials earlier today in England, and witchcraft trials continued on in England until the 20th century. The story of Cromwell's great-grandparents is interesting, I just don't see what's so very special about it, or what makes it "the last" of anything. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It is stated in the quoted section, (I assume that you still have not read it), Nobel may have meant the last to date (as he was writing in 1787), I do not know or care. I placed this here for the reasons I gave in the introduction, and have better things to do than bicker over it. But it was clear from your first posting that you had not read the quoted section, and it seems to me that you still have not bothered to do so or you would have read the content of the second footnote which refers to the the last trial for witchcraft in England. --PBS (talk) 18:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

What's clear to me is that you don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a little cruel, especially since the quote does indeed mention "the last trial for witchcraft in England" (look in the footnote). The witchcraft laws were amended significantly at a certain point so that people were no longer tried as 'witches' but as people who pretended witchcraft (con-artists, essentially). The last trial as a 'witch' may be what this passage refers to, and if so it may contain something of relevance to the European witchcraft article. Fuzzypeg★ 04:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Warlocks

This article says that "warlock" was not used for male witches, but the Warlock article says otherwise. This article also lacks citations for the assertion, whereas Warlock has a citation. edit: Looking over it again, I would suggest that the entire Terminology section be either removed or substantially enhanced. It currently serves no purpose.69.251.39.23 (talk) 00:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, 'warlock' was a term for (male) witches in Scotland. I can't see anything in this article that says it wasn't, so presumably the problem has been fixed. Fuzzypeg★ 04:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Removal of links to See also, Sex magic and the Great Rite

Hi. A larger discussion of this is occuring on the Wicca talk page, near but not at the bottom. I had linked Sex magic and the Great Rite to the See also list on this page, as neither topics are discussed within the article. The links were removed. Can we put them back, and if not, why not? And, as I've asked at the Wicca talk page, if anyone has an interest in creating a major section for Wicca and Witchcraft on the Sex Magic page, please consider doing so. More at Wicca, and thanks, Aleister Wilson (talk) 16:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

We will not add them back here due mainly to that fact that this article presents Witchcraft in its most fundamental form. The Great Rite, and in much part Sex Magick, pertains to Wicca only, and therefore has no real place in this article. Please refrain from adding the links again without further discussion. Xxglennxx (talk) 23:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I did not add them back here, or anywhere in the Wiccan realm since the discussion ensued. And witchcraft in its most fundamental form, why wouldn't sex magic be a part of that? Where, in essence, has all the symbolism which used to be hidden, then saw daylight, gone to, is it hidden again? Will continue more on the Wicca page, and thanks for protecting these articles so well, that I can heartily agree with. Aleister Wilson (talk) 22:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The trouble is, the claim of Wicca and other contemporary branches of witchcraft to represent ancient practices is controversial. Any claim that sex magic was an important part of historical witchcraft is thus equally dubious. From historical studies on witchcraft there is little to suggest that sex was a prominent part of folk magic, and while orgies and copulation with the devil feature heavily in the sabbath stereotype, there is little to suggest this was more than libel. Fuzzypeg★ 04:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

guys, plz

look, I KNOW this isnt a forum n all, but did witchcraft stem or did it not from christainity, or at least its beliefs? if so, could u add to article? thanks! ^_^ Celestialwarden11 (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

When all else fails, try reading article.... Satanism is connected to the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), but Witchcraft is only connected in the inventions of the persecutors of people who may or may not have been witches. Peridon (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Simple answer to a simple question, and the answer is "no." Witchcraft did not, and does not, stem from Christianity. For it to stem from Christianity would mean it to have been based in Christianity - an idea which goes against Christian doctrine and practise. Xxglennxx (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

it did NOT come from christainity it was around BEFORE christainity or at lest its mother religion paganism was. besides how on earth did you figure that? did you not hear about them burning acused witches (most of which probebly were not witches as a witch would have to be wrong in the head to go within 50 miles of one of those places, it is next to impossible to get me out of the car near a church.)the religion you might be thinking of is satinism which is in no way connected to witchcraft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.217.87.224 (talk) 19:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

This article is not accurate in the least

As a practicing Pagan and Witch I am here to say that I am offended by the information found in this article about Witchcraft. If I were to correct the errors here I would have to re-write the whole page. The one who had written this article obviously has not taken the time to much unbiased research. If you would like to know more about witchcraft please look up info on the subject elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.235.8 (talk) 03:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not written by a single person, they are editted by various people over time and are required to adhere to the reliable source guidelines. Unbiased sources would include anthropological and historical articles from peer reviewed journals (check), books by scholars (check), news articles (check)... We don't cite new-age shop stuff by folks like Raven Silverwolf for the same reasons that we don't cite the Malleus Maleficarum when discussing witchcraft. We also sprinkle words like "alleged" when talking about folks being accused of witchcraft. A jargonistic use of the term, even if it's religious jargon, does not trump the more universal usage. Most of Europe (with the exception of parts of Finland) had converted to Christianity by the time of the witchhunts, and most of the witchhunts occured in the countryside where the church didn't have as much power. Most of the people accused were those that the rest of society had some reason to hate, just like the accusations of witchcraft in Salem and in even today in parts of Africa. If someone practices magic and calls that magic witchcraft, what they call that magic is their problem. Margaret Murrey's witch-cult hypothesis was based on select portions of a couple of accounts repeated over and over to give the few similarities between these accounts the appearance of having been all over Europe. No concrete evidence has helped her theory any, just some wishful thinking by some romantics, which has hindered scholarly study into actual remnants of paganism such as the Benandanti (although they identified as Christian). So... Anything I missed? Or did I cover your complaints?

Also, would you actually like to help by pointing out something incorrect and explaining why instead of just complaining? Ian.thomson (talk) 03:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

hey ian i agree with whoever was behind the the origanal commet it is extreamly offensive to actual witches and there are so many incorrect things on there that i get overwelmed just thinking about trying to fix it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.217.87.224 (talk) 19:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you have an actual response, or are you just playing peanut gallery? Ian.thomson (talk) 19:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Grammar

Please explain to me how a belief about an idea and the idea itself can be the same.

The existing content has now been reverted four times (thrice by Malleus Fatuorum), apparently without anyone bothering to read the source, thus making the NSF label 10 ideas themselves as pseudoscientific beliefs, when not all of them are beliefs. The NSF is referring to those who believe in them, and not to the ideas themselves. As an aid to understanding the source, I'll reproduce the exact quote from the source, right after introducing it:

In their yearly Science and Engineering Indicators report, the National Science Foundation always includes a section entitled "Belief in Pseudoscience". In it they wrote:

"Nevertheless, about three-fourths of Americans hold at least one pseudoscientific belief; i.e., they believed in at least 1 of the 10 survey items (similar to the percentage recorded in 2001).[29]" Reference 29 lists the "10 survey items": "Those 10 items were extrasensory perception (ESP), that houses can be haunted, ghosts/that spirits of dead people can come back in certain places/situations, telepathy/communication between minds without using traditional senses, clairvoyance/the power of the mind to know the past and predict the future, astrology/that the position of the stars and planets can affect people's lives, that people can communicate mentally with someone who has died, witches, reincarnation/the rebirth of the soul in a new body after death, and channeling/allowing a "spirit-being" to temporarily assume control of a body."

Note they are referring to "pseudoscientific belief[s]" in the first sentence, and then they mention the ideas, which if believed by someone, make that individual one who holds "pseudoscientific belief[s]". It's a matter of grammar and meaning. That's why the inclusion of "belief in" is necessary for the sentence structure. In this source they aren't calling the ten ideas pseudoscience, but are referring to the beliefs. In other sources one can easily find such items labelled as pseudoscience, but not here. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not a matter of grammar, it's a matter of redundant repetition. Here's the version you inserted: "The scientific consensus, as expressed by the National Science Foundation, has identified belief in ten subjects, including witches, which they consider to be pseudoscientific beliefs." One of those "beliefs" has to go. I'd have no objection to something like "The scientific consensus, as expressed by the National Science Foundation, has identified belief in ten subjects, including witches, as being pseudoscientific" if you'd prefer that though. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

That would be acceptable as the original meaning is preserved, and on top of it it's better and simpler grammar! Thanks. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the entire passage since it is a crass misrepresentation. In the 2006 (only!) version of a longish document on science and education that the NSF publishes every 2 years, a short section talks about ignorance of the public about science. In this context they traditionally talk about "pseudoscience". The document defines pseudoscience correctly as something that pretends to be science but isn't. In the following paragraph it talks about belief in pseudoscience, but uses a Gallup poll about belief in paranormal. By assembling a sentence from the main text with a footnote one can synthesise a statement that all the 10 paranormal-proxies used by Gallup are actually pseudoscience. (BullRangifer would insist on adding "belief in" everywhere, but this is not the point.) This is obviously not what the author intended to say, as it contradicts the previous paragraph: Ghosts, reincarnation and witches do not normally have anything to do with pretending to do science. There are connections to pseudoscience, but they are not really pseudoscience. This appears to be the only remotely reliable thing anywhere that claims ghosts and witches to be pseudoscience, so it's not at all appropriate to use this casual "claim" as a source. Let alone to claim that here "the NSF" is speaking, and expressing "scientific consensus", no less.

The entire document is simply not useful for this article, except for supporting that Gallup considers witches paranormal, in case that's of any use. So I have removed it. I will also remove the absurd box above that claims that this article has something to do with the pseudoscience Arbcom case. BullRangifer is obsessed with pseudoscience and simply wants everything he doesn't like to be pseudoscience and fall under that case. It's obviously not supported in the case of this article. Hans Adler 00:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Citation?

Chan Xiao Ting is the first recorded accused witch? What source? I can't find one that matches and it doesn't seem to have a source or fit the article where it is placed. Please fix.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 03:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

History vs. historiography

I'm embarrassed to say I probably introduced this wrong terminology myself (see my older posts on this page). Historiography is the study of historians and their approaches to history (a kind of meta-history), rather than the study of history itself. That means one heading in the article changes. Fuzzypeg★ 01:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I suggest, however, that the title of this section be changed to "Definitions of witchcraft", "Varieties of witchcraft" or something similar, since a) this section really isn't just about European history; and b) this is not the place in the article to start a purely historical discussion. As I have argued earlier, the terms 'witchcraft' and 'witch' have diverse meanings depending on context, and these meanings would best be itemised early in the article to avoid later confusion. This point in the article seems the most appropriate place to do that. Fuzzypeg★ 01:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No source?

Where belief in malicious magic practices exists, such practitioners are typically forbidden by law as well as hated and feared by the general populace, while beneficial magic is tolerated or even accepted wholesale by the people – even if the orthodox establishment objects to it.

This seems like made up crap to me. First of all, there are places where witchcraft are forbidden, but it is done by social rather than by formal means. It's not like a formal law of "thou shalt not". Should I pull up the Kaluli or the Azande? Or should I pull up other places that don't have formal laws...? I don't get it...

Also, I think the article could benefit a little bit from defining witchcraft v. sorcery in anthropology which may quiet the upset wiccans a little bit. And also separate the academic thoughts of witchcraft from what wiccans think of witchcraft v. the purely historical European version of witchcraft. I can easily pull up sources for that starting with Magic, Witchcraft and Religion which has a variety of papers, including ones on Wiccans. Even if it's not put in, I still have to say that "Wicca" is actually in anthropology thought to be "sorcery" not "witchcraft"--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 18:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I've already made a crack at explaining the anthropological terms 'witchcraft' and 'sorcery'. See Witchcraft#Definitions of witchcraft, first paragraph. If you'd like to expand on or improve the anthropological definition, feel free. Also note the paragraph directly following, and indeed the rest of that section, to understand some of the arguments that might be raised against the anthropological definitions dominating the article. Certainly, Wiccans might not be considered 'witches' in the anthropological sense, but the anthropological 'witch' is a technical term that does not necessarily accord with normal English language or with historical usage (regarding which, see also the [rather unfortunately named] section on white witches).

I note that I myself am Wiccan, though not normally 'upset'. And I would certainly hope, if you review my recent edits on this article, that you will not see me simply as someone who needs to be 'quieted'. :)

Anyway, regarding the sentence you quote, yes, it is uncited, and although it has held true historically in many areas of Europe through to early modern times (and doubtless other places and times as well), it is far too vague and general a statement as it stands.

It sounds like you've got a good grip on the anthropological mileu, and non-European anthropological examples, neither of which I consider myself any kind of expert in. This article is in need of more good scholarship, so I hope to see you sticking around and contributing. Cheers! Fuzzypeg★ 20:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Points up to "This article is not accurate in the least"* I was referring to that specific person and the person before them. They were upset at the use of "witch" in the article, clearly not understanding the roots of Wiccan was based in mainly Britain (England, if I recall right). So those upset Wiccans. I think if they understood the basis of the religion a bit better and the reason why "witch" was used by its founder, they'd not be as upset. I'll try to add better references and expand the Anthropological sources a bit where appropriate.

I'm also think it's worth noting that the term "witch" used in Cultural Anthropology *predated* the Wiccan use of the word witch. However, I'm not sure how to integrate it--it's relatively easy to source based on the paper by Pritchard and v. the founder date. Should it go with the Wicca section or the Anthropology section?--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 22:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. E. E. Evans-Pritchard started his fieldwork with the Azande around 1926 and published his influential book on them in 1937. It seems likely that the New Forest coven was around in the 1920s, and it's still perfectly possible that the group existed even earlier. They certainly claimed to have, and there's little evidence to contradict that claim, other than that many historians find the idea of a secret Victorian society of witches far-fetched. And outside of actual practicing witchcraft groups, usages of the term 'witchcraft' that are very similar to the use made by Wicca are found in literature from the mid-19th century on. I think the primacy of meaning you're trying to establish is going to be a bit more difficult than you think... Fuzzypeg★ 22:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

In Our Time

The BBC programme In Our Time presented by Melvyn Bragg has an episode which may be about this subject (if not moving this note to the appropriate talk page earns cookies). You can add it to "External links" by pasting * {{In Our Time|Witchcraft|p004y2b0}}. Rich Farmbrough, 03:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC).

Sources

T.M. Luhrmann, The Goat and the Gazelle: Witchcraft from Magic, Witchcraft and Religion. (College textbook) I'm adding this to the article. The first is about Wicca (which is more sorcery than witchcraft for Anthro POV and the article discusses this (things like you need to *learn wicca* which is not witchcraft, that's considered inherent).

It's worth noting that the witch doesn't have to be a physical manifestation (as in *that person over there*) for a witch to "exist."

Kaluli culture, for example. All death is a work of a witch, but you don't know who it is.

Source: http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/anthro/faculty/fiske/135b/kaluli.htm

That's UCLA... and they have a large Anthro department. (Written by one of their department). That would be a reliable source.

Azande--I found this article: EE Evans Pritchard, Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic amoung the Azande 69-70 (1937).

The summary is that the witch doesn't have to be a physical manifestation, as it was in Western European tradition, but that if the grain silo tipped over on someone it was considered witchcraft--only they didn't know who it was. In another words, an "accidental" witch. It goes on further about how the grain silo was often infested with termites. The Azande knew that. They also knew people often took refuge from the sun under them. It wasn't the work of a witch when it didn't fall over on someone. It was only the work of witches when it killed someone. In another words the "magic" served to explain why bad things happen.

Two additional sources worth looking at: http://www.unicef.org/wcaro/wcaro_children-accused-of-witchcraft-in-Africa.pdf Children accused of witchcraft in Africa. Tribes are specified.

http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam034/2003043949.pdf A world look at Witchcraft and an extensive discussion on the definition of it in Britain. (i.e. that Pritchard is a functionalist.) From a University Press, so reliable source?

Does anyone have objections to these sources?--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no particular objection, although in general the best work is from peer-reviewed journals. Luhrman is important. Evans-Pritchard is a book, not an article (and it is not just about the Azande, it presented a general theory of witchcraft tha dominated anthropology for about forty years). Evans-Pritchard's work is dated but an important classic; what surprises me is that the major classics on witchcraft - Lucy Maier's Witchcraft, and Baroja's The World of the Witches are not cited. More recently, Peter Geschiere edited an important volume (The Modernity of Witchcraft) as did Neil Whitehead, and Adam Ashforth wrote an important book on witchcraft in contemporary S. Africa. These are all major works. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Then could you add these to the article or at least consider putting up a decent summary plus the places where they could be used? Also, I think it would do that section a bit better justice to add things like dates and add a light discussion on the difference with sorcery made by Pritchard an later discussions of it with an outlink to anthropological discussions of sorcery. So anything you go in dates or chronology I'd appreciate as well. Thanks.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 05:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Belive me, if I thought I could I would. I am sorry to say I read these a long time ago and would need to reread them to do even a minimally decent job. Obviously you cannot bear the burden of fully updating this article, but maybe other people who watch this page have read these books or, if they are interested in witchcraft, will wish to read these books and then improve the article. You can also ask at the Wikiproject anthropology page if anyone can help. Sorry, I just can't. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Hitsuji, a couple of things you're asking for are already in the article. The idea that a witch doesn't have to be a physical person is mentioned as the 'supernatural' or 'night' witch in Eva Pocs' list of varieties of witch. And the difference between the anthropological 'sorcerer' and 'witch' is explained in that same section. If you think either of these explanations are wrong, lacking, or need to be fleshed out more somewhere in the article, let us know. Also, yes, there are great sources out there (though I would say that the field is changing rapidly, and some of the older 'classics' are somewhat outdated in their conclusions now). But what we really need is for some editors to read and digest these books and intelligently work the relevant information from them into the article. If your intention is simply to offer a reading list, I would argue that we should be directing people to recent, concise summaries of the field, such as P.G. Maxwell-Stuart's Witchcraft in Europe and the New World, 1400–1800 (a summary of European/North American witch trials, rather than witchcraft in the anthropological sense). Fuzzypeg★ 22:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Racist comment?

"Africans have a wide range of views of traditional religions." But there isn't a similar comment for Europeans. Couldn't this be phrased so it doesn't make Africa to be an enormous country? Rather it's made up of a lot of tribes. I find the comment ridiculous. It's like saying Native Americans don't have one religion. Of course not. Be specific. It does more honor to those tribes. --Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

When I see such a vague and weirdly-worded sentence as that I look straight at the source. In this case the source is a BBC online opinion page where people post their comments. Some editor has gone through the comments and noticed a variety of views, and on that basis wrote the sentence. This is original research, which is not appropriate in Wikipedia. I'm going to remove the sentence. Fuzzypeg★ 23:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I've just remove the following sentence from the section on Africa:

Several syncretic religions in the Americas, including Vodou, Obeah, Candomblé, Quimbanda and Santería, combine Roman Catholic beliefs and practices and traditional West African religious beliefs and practices, particularly West African Vodun.

Firstly, this is primarily about the Americas, not Africa, and secondly, its relevance to witchcraft is not explained. Is it trying to imply that Vodou etc are a form of witchcraft? On what basis? Is every magical religion to be considered witchcraft? I'm not scoffing; there could be valid arguments about connections between these religions and witchcraft, but unless we make those arguments this kind of innuendo has no place in the article. Fuzzypeg★ 23:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Knights Templar trial connection to witch-trials?

I've removed the following sentence from the article. It cites the Encyclopaedia Britannica 11th edn.:

In 1307 the trial of the Knights Templar shows close parallels to accusations of witchcraft, maleficium, and sorcery and may have been the beginning of the great European witch-hunt.

Yes, the same kind of blood libel was used, as with Bacchics, Christians, Jews, Lepers and Muslims before them, and of course witches. But the theory that this may have "been the beginning of the great European witch-hunt" is pretty outdated. Encyc. Britt. 11th edn was published a long time ago. Fuzzypeg★ 00:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Good call. I've seen that idea elsewhere, but those sources tended to either believe that the Templars and accused witches were definately up to something Satanic, or that they were just a couple of parts of a long line of prosecutions of an otherwise consistent religion (which of course matched whatever religious views the author advocated). Ian.thomson (talk) 00:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Relevance of polytheistic reconstructionism?

I removed the following sentence from the article:

More recently a movement to recreate pre-Christian traditions has taken shape in polytheistic reconstructionism, including such practices as Divination, Seid and various forms of Shamanism.

The relevance to witchcraft is not explained, and is not clear to me, unless we are going to treat every magical religion as witchcraft. People who are interested in knowing more about the various branches of Neopaganism can go to the Neopaganism article. Fuzzypeg★ 00:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it night not hurt to explain the difference between witchcraft and magical religions, as the Hoodoo (folk magic) and Haitian Vodou articles differentiates between themselves. Not disagreeing with the removal of that sentence, but pointing out a problem that it's initial addition does bring up. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Removed an essay about cunning folk vs witches

I've removed the following WP:ESSAY from the article:

Records from the Middle Ages, however, make it seem that it was, quite often, not entirely clear to the populace whether a given practitioner of magic was a witch or one of the cunning-folk. In addition, it appears that much of the populace was willing to approach either of these groups for healing magic and divination. When a person was known to be a witch, the populace would still seek to employ their healing skills; however, as was not the case with cunning-folk, members of the general population would also hire witches to curse their enemies. The important distinction is that there are records of the populace reporting alleged witches to the authorities as such, whereas cunning-folk were not so incriminated; they were more commonly prosecuted for accusing the innocent or defrauding people of money.

The long-term result of this amalgamation of distinct types of magic-worker into one is the considerable present-day confusion as to what witches actually did, whether they harmed or healed, what role (if any) they had in the community, whether they can be identified with the "witches" of other cultures and even whether they existed as anything other than a projection. Present-day beliefs about the witches of history attribute to them elements of the folklore witch, the charmer, the cunning man or wise woman, the diviner and the astrologer.

If anyone can find anything useful that's not already elsewhere in the article, feel free to try to work it into the article. I can't see anything of value, myself. My main problem with all this is that it claims there was a hard distinction between cunning folk / healers / diviners on the one hand, and witches on the other. There was no such hard division. Many cunning folk were quite willing to curse, and many cunning folk (and their counterparts in other countries) ended up being accused of witchcraft. This is stated and cited elsewhere in the article, so I won't bother giving citations here. The essay continues to talk about the 'confusion' that the mix-up of witches and cunning-folk has caused, and it separates charmers, cunning men/women and diviners, as though they were three separate occupations; they are, in most cases, all the same thing. Fuzzypeg★ 11:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Anyone can practice witchcraft

There was a load of old waffle at the end of the article posturing itself under the title Atheisim. As someone felt that I was deleting something of some import I've reinstated it. However as the references are so non-specific as to be almost completely meaningless, I've rewritten in an equally significant manner just to show what a load of old tosh it is.Mighty Antar (talk) 18:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Antar, without prejudice to the merits of the section itself (I haven't inspected every word but will do so shortly) your approach here isn't too friendly. Waffle...posture....meaningless...tosh.... Somebody wrote it, and a group of other editors thought there was sufficient that merited it staying. You would improve the article, and the atmosphere here, by staying collegial and by not posting in such a way as to guarantee bad feeling. This kind of approach is bad enough at the end of a content dispute but it's certainly not a good way to kick one off! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 18:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry old chap, I visited and edited the witchcraft page after reading this news article. [[1]] I wasn't looking for intellectual debate, merely checking any reference to the type of appaling human behaviour which one would hope would have long been consigned to history. As an atheist, I was understandably drawn to the paragraph entitled Atheisim. I expected that this paragraph and its sources would have some illuminating relevance to atheisim. It clearly doesn't, it simply states anyone can practice witchcraft which was why I improved the article by deleting it.Mighty Antar (talk) 19:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Well if you didn't come looking for intellectual debate you came to the wrong place....<g>! As I said, I have no view on whether the material you removed could be improved - in fact I think it's virtually certain that it could. I think the thrust of the section was to distinguish witchcraft as a religious belief system (involving belief in gods of some sort) from other senses of witchcraft as a set of practices not involving any beliefs in external deities. There are good sources for this sort of distinction but I'm sure it could be better set out with better sources. I will try to do so and so will others, I'm sure. Incidentally the horrific news article you cite might be a good addition to the sources further up about witchcraft in Africa. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello! There are paragraphs here on Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. Removing the paragraph on atheism is inappropriate in light of the sources since Wikipedia does not censor information. I will add more information to the paragraph to balance the article; however, I would request that you kindly revert the changing of the heading. With regards, Anupam^Talk 20:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Anupam, if you can come up with a more encyclopaedic heading then by all means edit the article yourself and put one in! I agree it's a bit ungainly at the moment and if you don't, I'm sure someone else will soon. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Kim Dent-Brown! I thought the previous heading was acceptable as each heading in this article refers directly to the religion. For example, there are headings on "Judaism" and "Islam." I would like User:Mighty Antar to self-revert. However, if he does not, I can make the revert myself. Thanks for your comments! With regards, Anupam^Talk 22:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello all. Not that I see it as in anyway pertinent to the edits I've made, but I would point out to those above that whilst Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are all religions, Atheisim is not a relgion. Likewise is their some rule that if you include one religion in a vaguely related article you have to include the entire set? I haven't censored and I'm not interested in censoring anything. As I implied in my first edit, the references given demonstrate absolutely no meaningful symbiosis between Atheisim and Witchcraft. You may as well have headed the section Ford Galaxy and said some people who practice witchcraft can also drive Ford Galaxys. They could and may well do, witches may even favour Ford Galaxys over other types of car, but unless you provide a source which demonstrates otherwise, it really has nothing to do with this article.Mighty Antar (talk) 00:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree Mighty, what the current sections named after religions address, is how the subject of witchcraft is/was treated by those religions. How witches address Atheism doesn't really follow. Atheism is a philosophy, not a religion per se, and taken as a participate in theological discourse, Atheism is at a unique disadvantage. I think that warrants a measure of extra care in circumstances like this. I'm not convinced this article needs to indulge speculation about Atheist magical praxis.

Regarding the cites, whitemagic.com fails WP:RS if anything does. The quote:

“Witchcraft is a lifestyle choice not a spiritual belief system (even an atheist can be a witch).”

directly contradicts Buckland's point:

“The point is, if all you want to do is cast spells and work magic, you do not need to become a Witch, since Wicca is first and foremost a religion. There are many books on working magic, of all types, that have nothing to do with Witchcraft.”

Weiser Field Guide to Witches Non-Wiccan Witches, (p.30), was chosen in lieu of Atheist Witches, (p.21), to further contradict Buckland's use of Witch and Wicca as synonymous.

The term was invented in response to the now-common assumption that all modern witches are Wiccan. Non-Wiccan witches may belong to any tradition other than modern Wicca... [or] to any spiritual or religious tradition or none—agnostic or atheist witches are typically considered non-Wiccan.

— Judika Illes, The Weiser Field Guide Series, "Non-Wiccan Witches", p.30

Fnord Galaxy: Hope it helps clarify the (non-symbiotic) meaning for "Non-Wiccan Witches" who don't necessarily / necessarily don't hold to Wiccan Duotheism proper. I can certainly see why Atheism would prefer to opt-out.

As atheists, these witches do not acknowledge a Supreme Creator or the Wiccan conception of a Lord and Lady; but work their magic using Earth's natural powers and energies. Some may work with elemental spirit such as land spirits or fairies.

— Judika Illes, The Weiser Field Guide Series, "Atheist Witches", p.21

I'm reminded of Scientific Pantheism/Naturalistic Pantheism. They wag a finger at the magic, spirits, fairies... Actually, all of the above except Earth and nature,^symbiosis but they admire the ritual savvy.

References

—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 17:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Kim Dent-Brown, I have changed the subject heading per your request and have also balanced the section to reflect attitudes concerning atheism and witchcraft, which User:Machine Elf 1735 brought up in his/her last post. The only reason the website "whitemagic.com" is given in the article is to demonstrate the attitude of practitioners of witchcraft towards atheism, which is why the content in the article is attributed to that organisation; the other sources in the article are published by the Cambridge University Press, University of Nebraska Press, etc., which meet WP:RS. User:Mighty Antar is welcome to add information about "people who practice witchcraft driv[ing] Ford Galaxys" so long as they are sourced per WP:V. I do not see that analogy as particularly helpful here. Moreover, the heading "Anyone can practice witchcraft whether or not they follow spiritual or religious tradition" is not encyclopedic; discussing other religious traditions in that section is unhelpful, especially when the references discuss atheism in particular. The religious traditions regarding Hinduism, for example, can be added under the section for that religion in the article. If anyone objects to the latest revision, please discuss here rather than reverting so we can come up with a revision, which we can implement to the satisfaction of all of the parties present here. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 21:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Good to see some material inserted that actually relates witchcraft and atheisim, but inserting new material doesn't make the original statement any more meaningful than it was before. Statements that link two words e.g. Atheisim and witchcraft remain waffle unless there is actually some material link between the two words worthy of note. Perhaps if I add a section on Toyota sprint cars with this link [[2]] you'd have some vague idea of where I'm coming from. Mighty Antar (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Mighty Antar, thanks for your approval of the latter insertions. As far as the sentences you removed, I revised them as well as the heading so they read more closely to the original quote. What do you think? I look forward to hearing from you soon. User:Machine Elf 1735, before editing, please attempt to collaborate here on the content so we can build consensus. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 07:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Were there any witches between 600 AD and 1870?

There is nothing on whether or not there were real witches during the witchcraze and and the middle ages. Aside from the so-called "witchdoctors" in Scotland, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of them being any more than a myth.Ericl (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Djambe redirect

Djambe redirects here, but it's not present in the article. Djambe is the witchcraft-creature that lives inside people, belonging to the Maka in Cameroon. We are learning about it in class (From the Modernity of Witchcraft ethnography. Does it belong somewhere in the article? Semitones (talk) 02:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Japanese witchcraft

The section about japanese witchcraft says that the two types of familiars used by japanese witches, supposedly, are foxes and snakes. However, the image immediately to the right talks about a 'cat witch'. This is not coherent! If there is such a thing as a cat witch in japanese folklore or in modern witchcraft practice, we should be able to find sources and be able to include information about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.126.137 (talk) 03:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken I believe Japanese artist Sadahide did a drawing (ca 1860) of a suppose "cat witch" (Station Okazaki. The actor Onoe Kikugoro as a cat-witch). There was also a wood block print that was sold by Kuniyoshi (1797 - 1861) titled "The Cat Witch", Okabe. Maybe these are the sources??? (btw I'm just throwing things out here to see if I can help) There is in Japanese mythology of a "Bakeneko"- a shape shifting cat. I dont know what it supposibly shape shifts into or if it has any relationships with a cat-witch. There is also a "Kasha"- a cat like demone who carries off corpses into the sky. My guess is good as yours. I hope it may lead to a more reliable source. Henry123ifa (talk) 21:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Removal of inappropriate categories

I've just reverted this edit which for the second time has tried to insert some irrelevant catehgories into the article. Both edits have come from IP editors so there may not be much chance of engaging in dialogue - but if you are reading this, please can we discuss those cats? If others see them being reinserted and agree with me, please revert also. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Just noting: 'See also' links are not categories. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 20:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

You're right of course. Confused my {{}} with my [[]] on edit view! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Can this be worked into the Africa section?

I just created an article about Madumo, A Man Bewitched, which deals heavily with the idea of a man that has been cursed and has to seek the help of an inyanga. It's non-fiction, of course, but I thought it might help the section out some. I'll see if there's a way I can smoothly work it in, but I don't want to ruin the flow or anything. It's just that even with its flaws, it's still a fairly good book about witchcraft in Africa.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Irreligion section sketchy, Removed it until someone can have a look at it.

I removed the following for now:

== Irreligion ==

Some individuals who are irreligious, including atheists and agnostics, practice witchcraft and magic. An organization dedicated to the promotion of witchcraft known as The Realm of White Magic states that this is possible because "witchcraft is a lifestyle choice not a spiritual belief system." In the past, witchcraft was often viewed as a precursor of atheism by officials. However, those who subscribe to atheism have often stood in opposition to the practice of witchcraft.

It's a shoddy mess that doesn't really seem to know what its own purpose is. The first two references try to support a claim with sources that only trivially address the subject. (With one using 'agnostic or atheist witches are...' in a throw-away line and the other making a case for irreligious witchcraft being theoretically possible without spending any time on whether there actually are irreligious witches). I'm sure there probably are agnostic and atheistic witches, but the sources don't support this (additionally, agnosticism and atheism are not the same thing as irreligion).
The third source is a website that runs afoul of so many guidelines for sources that I don't rightly know where to begin... And the rest of the section isn't really relevant to the first two sentences and really doesn't merit having its own section (in fact, it was probably added only in an attempt to justify a separate section for the first two sentences).

So yeah, removed for now until someone with more involvement in this page can trim the extraneous parts and merge the rest into other parts of the article as required. Robrecht (talk) 01:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Pharmakeia article needs help.....

You experts on Witchcraft's use of pharmakeia are needed to go to pharmakeia and expand on the historical examples of spell giving potions as well as examples of famous people being poisoned to death in history and what they were poisoned with. As well as the alchemical aspects of pharmakeia and the potions people in history would consume that was believed to have transforming properties. This article needs a lot of help. 2602:306:C518:62C0:7560:4718:4121:2E90 (talk) 02:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

How about splitting this article?

Hi, I am Saebou, mainly working in the Japanese Wikipedia. I hope some Wikipedians working in the English Wikipedia will split this article and create a new article titled 'Witch', for this English article on witchcraft is quite long and most of Wikipedias in other major languages separate 'Witch' from 'Witchcraft'. For example, the Japanese Wikipedia has an article ja:魔女, the French version fr:Sorcier, and the German version de:Hexe for 'Witch'. I wish I could do this myself, but I'm not an English native speaker. さえぼー (talk) 13:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Good suggestion. The article is quite long and there's no reason not to split it into two articles, one for the craft and one the practitioner.

If I may, sandboxing before applying the split would be a good idea. Minimise article degradation.
—Sowlos (talk) 18:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Witchcraft

After i read this article. I think this article has a vague description about history of witchcraft. Like when the word "witch" was first mentioned? Since when people started to think bad things about witch? Since when people started to think witch associated with devil? What was the original reasons for that? It wouldn't make any sense that suddenly people started to think "witch" is anti-Christianity. I think the article is missing a major info about witch.65.128.159.236 (talk) 02:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, for where in all this is the vitally necessary qualifiying statement of "In CHRISTIAN times"? For the writer makes clear that he/she understands that the term "witch" dervies from the Old English word wicce/wicca, as it does indeed (but what it means is "Wise practitioner", or sorcerer [the wicce/wicca (/ˈwɪttʃe/ or /ˈwɪttʃɑ/) was a practitioner of the wys craft, meaning not 'witch craft' as Roman Christians defined that, but the wise craft]) but does not take this simple etymological reality to its logical conclusion ~ that being that the wicce/wicca were not seen as evil nor troublesome in pre-Christian times, for that was a wærlogh or wærloga (in various spellings, see Warlock), but as a wise helper 'sorcerer', closely attuned to Nature and the Natural spirits, and wise (or knowledgeable) in their ways. Though most seem to miss this, out of some kind of Christian prejudice I assume, the word 'wise' is unlikely to have been applied by the people to one who was evil or troublesome, for that would be the very opposite of wisdom. Ironically the horrific Malleus Malificarum makes very clear what a wicce actually was: a woman "suspiciously attundend to Nature and the Natural World" ~ or in other words a herbalist, a healer, a midwife and counsellor, and the wicca was her male counterpart -- practitioners of the wise ways, exactly how we define a witch, or 'Wiccan', today. (NB: the proper pronounciation of wærlogh is værloch, with a V not W; a long, Celtic not Latin 'ae', so 'vær' rhymes with 'bear'; and the 'ch' is sounded deep in the throat as in the Celtic or German; and the presence or absence of the ending A is a dialectical variation, it can be 'vaerloch', or 'vaerloga' with a hard G). Glorious Goddess (talk)

- What absolute unscientific, unencyclopedic nonsense you spot, Glorious Goddess. Waerloga contains Celtic nothing, being a strictly Old English word. Ae is not a Celtic sound at all and appears in many languages and as Old English contained a real W it was not pronounced as a V at all.

And most of what you said is original research or plain Wiccan rubbish. We are an encyclopaedia, dedicated to facts, truths and logical reasoning, not fantasy stories cooked up in the Victorian era. The whole article here is in need of a major clean-up to make it perfectly clear that witches NEVER existed and do not exist now, save in the mind of paranoid Christians of the past and deluded people who want to seem powerful, mystical and magical by following a belief system that is not based on any old religion in any substantial way.

Stop using wikipedia to peddle your religion, folk etymology and original research. Thanks. 90.207.162.211 (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Spiritual healing

A quick but careful search turns up sources (need to be careful as some sources I found talk about spiritual healing to cure problems caused by witchcraft). [3], [4], [5]. Dougweller (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Those sources are poor, being anecdotal accounts of particular practitioners who engage in a variety of activities such as psychology and counselling. The selection of the phrase spiritual healing seems to be cherry-picked and there's no telling what it actually means because we don't have an article of this name at the other end of the redirect. What we have is called energy medicine and that's so vague as to be useless. Now if you look at a proper encyclopedic source such as the entry for contemporary witchcraft in Encyclopedia Britannica, written by the emeritus professor Jeffrey Burton Russell, this says nothing of healing, spiritual or otherwise. In listing what they do, that entry says, "Adherents to Wicca worship the Goddess, honour nature, practice ceremonial magic, invoke the aid of deities, and celebrate Halloween, the summer solstice, and the vernal equinox." Neo-pagans are said to be something different, "Although Neo-Paganism incorporates the emotional involvement and ritual practices associated with religion into its tradition, many Neo-Pagans prefer to think of themselves as practicing magic rather than religion, and although their emphasis is on opening themselves up to hidden powers through rites, chants, or charms, most do not call themselves “witches,” as Wiccans do."

Now, per WP:PROVEIT, "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed." The reference to spiritual healing has been challenged and so a citation to a reliable source is required. Edit-warring + hand-waving is not enough. Warden (talk) 23:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

It's already proven. Citing one source as not having the info doesn't mean that the info isn't out there in other sources, and clearly it is. That modern witchcraft practitioners practice spiritual healing is not controversial in the slightest. Well, except apparently to people, like the newbie who removed it, who object to the idea that "witches" could heal when Jesus was a healer. That reasoning violates WP:NPOV because editors are confusing their own religious bias for facts.

It's odd that you refer to edit warring already. Are you planning to edit war over it? Because you're already hand waving to try to make sources disappear. DreamGuy (talk) 23:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• So, you think witches can heal and that this is not controversial, eh? Me, I'm not planning to edit-war. I'm just going to bed, much amused ... Warden (talk) 23:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

You think there are real witches? I hate to spoil your fun, but there aren't any real witches, but if people who call themselves witches say they are doing spiritual healing, then that belongs in the article if the sources are good enough. Dougweller (talk) 10:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

differences of all magic titles!!!

SORCERY: the study of using good and(or) evil magic power that in which you posses and carry and create the power from the sorcerers hand(s). SORCERER: a male who studies sorcery, a sorcerer who uses good magic is a LIGHT SORCERER, while for evil is a DARK SORCERER. SORCERESS: a female who studies sorcery same as sorcerer, good is light as evil is dark. WIZARDRY: the study a magic used, carried, or created by staff or a wand used by a wizard. Same as sorcerer good is light as evil is dark. WIZARD: male or female who studies wizardry. WITCHCRAFT: the practice of the Pentagon and(or) using mainly potions, spells, curses, healings but although all the forces of magic (sorcery, wizardry, witchcraft and satan worship) all use these witchcraft use it many ways. WITCH: a male or female who studies witchcraft although males usually go by mitch meaning male witch or they normaly study other forces, but an evil male witch is called a WARLOCK while an evil female witch is a DARK WITCH or WICKED WITCH. But same goes as the others good is light and evil is dark. SATANISM: is the religion worshiping a creater of peopel but not the same satan as from Christianity. SATAN WORSHIP: is the worship of the Christian satan AKA fallen Angel. !!!!-message me for more info or ask a question-!!!! TruthTeller197508 (talk) 04:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Cite reliable sources for your claims, please. They appear to be your personal beliefs and that's about it. Wikipedia is not a forum, nor a pulpit. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here, here, here, and here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 00:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Russia section

Shouldn't historical and anthropological descriptions of witchcraft cite sources from historical and anthropological sources? Why then are we treating this author Judika Illes as reliable when it's obvious that a lot of what she's written on the subject is bunk? Her descriptions of witches in pre-Christian Russia is impossibly detailed, considering that nothing about these beliefs was written down before the Christianization of Russia, and thus highly suspect! While some of them may conceivably contain a grain of truth based on extrapolation from current Russian folk tales and practices, it seems just as likely that they were entirely fabricated by a quack. A quick look at her Wikipedia entry pretty much sums up my point: the only training she's had is in English, communication, and aromatherapy! Nothing even close to the realm of anthropology or religious studies. She may be a practitioner of modern magic and miscellaneous spirituality, but I would not consider her a valid source on pre-Christian Russian paganism, especially something as specific and covert as witchcraft. 173.57.54.188 (talk) 05:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The Illes book is marginal--Booklist (by professional librarians ) says "Academic libraries with extensive witchcraft collections may wish to consider this volume if only for the bibliography. Public libraries seeking a popular reference work on witchcraft could do much worse than this one." To read some serious scholarship on Russian witchcraft look at Ryan, William Francis (1999). The Bathhouse at Midnight: A Historical Survey of Magic and Divination in Russia. Penn State U. Press. p. 75. [it has some of the same stories]. Rjensen (talk) 05:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Non-global representation in intro

I've made a few edits to try and improve the global representation and a few other issues, mainly in the intro.

The key issue is, it is very poor in its characterization of the topic. Academics routinely emphasize the diversity of belief and the difficulty of definition, but we say none of that. Therefore the current intro is basically a view through Western eyes and not much more. It describes "faculties" (skills), but the existence of such "faculties" is at best one view of several significant views, and most texts emphasize the difficulty of defining witchcraft, and the pitfalls of imposing Western concepts and distinctions that poorly reflect non-European "witchcraft" concepts. In addition the existence of such skills must not be assumed - presumably, the authoritative view on existence would be that they have not been proven scientifically. Words such as "superstition", "occult", "sorcery" and the like are not the same as "witchcraft" either, across cultures, but this crucial aspect of mistranslation is never mentioned either.

I'm also going to have a go at reducing globalization issues in the body too, by moving a few sections around.

I've had a go. Please help to improve it :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 05:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

German ..

.. wiki: "Hexe" . Stephanie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.128.16.94 (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Review of the Witchcraft in Italy

Kianna, Very good use of sources, almost each sentence of your contribution is back up with a credible source. Just a few things, maybe try finding some kind of image that relates to Italian witchcraft. You talk about Cassandra, I think she needs a better introduction or it needs rewording. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolarreola (talk • contribs) 03:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100312100813/http://blogs.reuters.com/africanews/2010/02/04/the-dangers-of-witchcraft/ to http://blogs.reuters.com/africanews/2010/02/04/the-dangers-of-witchcraft/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 20:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Canon Episcopi

The reference to the Canon Episcopi is totally misleading. That canon did not "introduce" the ideas mentioned. It lists them as commonly believed and false! In short, it describes "witchcraft" (word not used in the text) as a delusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.37.41.162 (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theghana-italynews.com/index.php/component/k2/item/955-ebola-human-rights-group-warns-disease-is-not-caused-by-witchcraft
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070916163034/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/medieval/hamframe.htm to http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/medieval/hamframe.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 18:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

In-universe language

I've noticed a few edits with "in-universe" (or "in-belief-system", in lieu of a better term) perspective, which is inappropriate: statements from within a belief system should not be presented as factual. For example, I am removing the following sentence from the intro: "Witchcraft involves the use of intent (and often physical objects) to manipulate environmental energy in order to effect change in favor of the practitioners." Compare this with, e.g., the language in the Wiki articles for Christianity, Islam or Werewolf. The source for that statement (Witchipedia) also seems to be written from an in-universe perspective (this would be analogous to stating on Wikipedia that "Jesus Christ is the son of God" and using the Holy Bible or Vatican texts as a reference. The sentence could have been adjusted to say something like "adherents believe ..."; however, I'm removing it completely because it doesn't add anything valuable to the previous statements in the intro.

Please refrain from making such edits and, as always, try to maintain a neutral tone.

TastyChikan (talk) 08:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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 modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121017185346/http://humantrafficking.org/publications/593 to http://www.humantrafficking.org/publications/593

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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)