Talk:Witchcraft

Ancient Roman world
The sub-sub-section for Witchcraft is entirety duplicative of material in the European_witchcraft section. It is, by itself, as long as most of the other regions covered in this article, which seems unbalanced. It has been restored to this article twice without explanation, description, or suggestion of what it adds to coverage by being repeated in this article. - Darker Dreams (talk) 23:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable to remove this and maybe preserve some information by adding it in summarized form after the fact, in chronological order, to what remains about Europe. Organizationally, this section doesn't belong here any more, as it makes no sense to cover Europe, and then also only Ancient Rome—what about the rest of Europe (in time and in space)? I don't oppose removal.—Alalch E. 01:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Rewording of first sentence
What do others think of moving the word alleged in the first sentence?

...is the use of alleged supernatural powers... Vs my suggestion: ...is the alleged use of supernatural powers...

Its subtle, but I believe this is more in line with the article Malibu Sapphire (talk) 03:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * The opening sentence was determined by RFC, and my understanding is it takes more to change things determined by RFC. - Darker Dreams (talk) 06:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree that "the alleged use" is better than "the use of alleged", so I'll go ahead and be bold and make that change. I don't think the existence of the RFC should tie us down in procedural hurdles, but if anyone has a substantial objection, they can feel free to revert. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It is the supernatural powers that are alleged. This is because we cannot say in WikiVoice that supernatural powers are real. It is not the use that is alleged, it is the powers that are alleged. This is specified in Chetsford's closure of the RfC above, per discussion. Netherzone (talk) 23:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think they are both alleged. Witchcraft isn't real. Witches were accused of using magic. It isn't like the alleged witches said "I did do something, but it was not supernatural". C͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏u͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏r͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏s͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏ed Peace (talk) 06:00, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Notice of ANI discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue watchers of this page may be interested in. - Darker Dreams (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The logic of the opening sentence
I know there's been a lot of discussion of the lede, so please forgive me if this is out of turn, but to my mind, the opening sentence involves a mistake: "Witchcraft, as most commonly understood in both historical and present-day communities, is the use of alleged supernatural powers of magic." When believers in witchcraft say, "That is witchcraft," they are not saying that someone is making use of allegedly supernatural powers. They are saying that someone is making use of supernatural powers, period.

It is a bit understandable why someone added 'allegedly'. I think we can all agree that part of the challenge of getting this right is that we want to describe and define something that only exists according to certain worldviews, without saying on behalf of Wikipedia that this thing is real. So we need to say something like: "According to certain worldviews, witchcraft is...." There is a temptation to hedge even further, to distance the encyclopedia from any implication that witchcraft is real, by adding an adverb like "allegedly". But this actually makes the statement incorrect. When you write, "As most commonly understood in worldview X, [ ... ]," the words after the comma describe the world according to that worldview.

For the sake of accuracy, as well as clarity and brevity, the word 'alleged' should, in my opinion, be removed from the first sentence.

Compare the opening line of the article on God: "In monotheistic thought, God is usually viewed as the supreme being, creator, and principal object of faith." It would be a mistake to change this to: "In monotheistic thought, God is usually viewed as the allegedly supreme being, creator, and principal object of faith." In monotheistic thought, God is not merely the allegedly supreme being; according to that kind of thought, God really is the supreme being.

I obviously want to respect the democratic process employed above, and if that has to be prioritized, so be it, but please reconsider. Omphaloscope talk 17:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with Malibu Sapphire, Red Rock Canyon, and Cursed Peace that "the alleged use" makes more sense than "the use of alleged" because that way it covers both people who genuinely believe to be using "alleged" supernatural powers and those who are falsely alleged to use supernatural powers. I personally don't think the switch would imply that witchcraft-derived supernatural powers are objectively real. Pliny the Elderberry (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The word "alleged" was added in this diff: special:diff/1166760498. In this edit, an editor defended the addition of "alleged": special:diff/1179714382. I mentioned the original edit in this discussion: Talk:Witchcraft/Archive 6. The concern of editors who add the word "alleged" in this place is that if we were not to add it, we would be saying that magic is real. It's literally a forced disclaimer. A better mockup analogy with the God article sentence than the one you've made would be: "In monotheistic thought, God is usually viewed as the alleged supreme being, alleged creator, and principal object of faith." We must allegedly add "alleged" before "supreme being" and "creator" because otherwise we would be saying that there really is a supreme being and a creator. —Alalch E. 17:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It’s complex, but we do need to avoid saying magic is real. Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Skewed
Stating that witches are evil and intend to harm people needs to be removed. LadyNyx666 (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Few interested editors will see this message on your own user talk page. It might be better placed on the article's talk page at Talk:Witchcraft.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   20:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Good point, @Esowteric. I’ll move it. Shadestar474   (talk)  20:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree wholeheartedly, @LadyNyx666. I practice some forms of witchcraft as well. But as I’ve been saying, it shouldn’t say that it’s always good. It shouldn’t say that it’s bad, either. It shouldn’t swing to either side of the argument. Shadestar474   (talk)  20:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The article is based on scholarly opinion in reliable sources. Please read through the talk page archives where such issues have been discussed to death by experienced editors with knowledge of the field.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   20:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So… you’re telling me what my practice is? LadyNyx666 (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is wild. I was told this was supposed to be unbiased. Saying witches have intent to harm people is very skewed. Witches basically served as nurses and midwives at one time. They kept communities healthy and were demonized for it by Christian’s who wanted power. I’m just asking you to make the wording unbiased. Witchcraft isn’t a joke. LadyNyx666 (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This article isn't about your practice. This article is about traditional and historical views of witchcraft. There is a separate article on Neopagan witchcraft, which was invented in the 1950s and is most likely what you practice. They are, according to sources, not related. Skyerise (talk) 22:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * lol again telling me what you think I practice rather than asking. I give Wiki money every year and have for at least 10 years. That’s over. 2605:59C8:895:1800:2161:5AA9:1FB8:7331 (talk) 01:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Good Riddance. The last think we need is someone using money to get his way in editorial work. Dimadick (talk) 04:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I was waiting for the "but I give money to wikipedia" comment to appear, and it magically appeared! I think the encyclopedia will survive. Netherzone (talk) 04:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If you can't figure out that a single word can refer to two different things and that therefore there will be two different articles about those two different things, then we don't need your input. Skyerise (talk) 11:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This article is about Malificarum, not neo-paganism. As other have said, we have a separate article for that. and all cultures have malicious magic, so to claim that it only refers to a 19th European esoteric tradition is, "ethnocentric". Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)