Talk:Witchcraft/Archive 7

Proposal
I've looked a bit into the history of this article. In 2017, the article Contemporary witchcraft was merged into this article, even though contemporary witchcraft does not fall under the definition used here of being malicious. That merge should be reversed, since it merged material that doesn't fit what seems to be the whole premise of the article.

Once material which does not fall under the negative view premise is removed, then this article should be renamed to something like Historical witchcraft or Premodern witchcraft or Historical views of witchcraft.

Most certainly, both Witchcraft and Witch should be disambiguation pages. Skyerise (talk) 10:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I think this is an outstanding idea. I might suggest witchcraft and witch being a single (disambiguation) page still, just because I think that seems more like word-splitting than subject splitting. (Ie, a witch is someone who practices witchcraft, the problem being how witchcraft is defined in various times and places, including academic study of those times and places.) Darker Dreams (talk) 12:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I could be better that the two be merged to one disambiguation page, but in my view, why should the pages be disambiguated in one as a witch is a person and a witchcraft is a magic also Witch redirects to Witchcraft so what is the point? ToadetteEdit (chat)/(logs) 15:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

For clarity, I suggest the dividing line be historical: this article should in general end with the passage of the Witchcraft Act in 1736, though keeping the section about Modern witch-hunts seems reasonable. Thus, we should have one historical article which basically ends with the decriminalization of witchcraft, and another one which starts with Modern witchcraft. I'm sure reasonable discussion will lead to solutions for how to handle the intervening period, depending on which view the material best fits. Skyerise (talk) 10:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Good plan, and you may have explained where the problem occurred (the inadequate merging of "Contemporary witchcraft" to this page as well as the undiscussed merging of 'Witch' in 2007). Add mislinks - Magic and Witchcraft in the British Isles things like this have been linked to this article for a long time - and the point of departure that you've pointed out then grew into the boat-without-a-rudder effect which then "captured" the words witchcraft and witch. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:44, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that something along these lines would be helpful. There's a lot of confusion (at least for first-time visitors) when we have Witchcraft supposedly for premodern material, with modern stuff tacked on, and then we have Traditional witchcraft which you might expect to be premodern, but which turns out to be neo-pagan.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   10:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)


 * It turns out that the merge was invalid. The merge was proposed by who a month later closed the discussion against the rules (the proposer cannot be the one who closes the discussion) and implemented the merge against process and with no consensus. I've taken the liberty of restoring Contemporary witchcraft because of this irregularity. Skyerise (talk) 10:52, 16 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. Might be worth explicitly explaining your reasoning on the talk page.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   10:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)


 * If the article is clearly titled, then earlier (and perennial) objections about negative bias in the lede would probably be reduced.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   11:16, 16 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I suppose the major difference between pre-modern and modern material here is that you have modern people who self-identify as witches in a positive way. You don't have that in older material, and that makes it spurious to cover witchcraft as something with a generic, fixed definition. It becomes more complicated because those who self-identify as witches often have their own definitions, which they apply also to historical people and material. I don't know if the available sources allow us to do this, but I like the approach in our article on Gnosticism in modern times. If we instead of "contemporary witchcraft" have an article on "witchcraft in modern times", it would be possible to cover every variation of the topic on its own merits: self-identifying contemporary witches, how the term has been tossed around as a label for people who don't use it about themselves, modern reception history and discussions about the term in general, presence in language and culture etc. I've thought about proposing a similar approach to our article on modern paganism, which has a lot of problems, but there I'm familiar enough with the most authoritative sources to know it's not possible. The article is a mess because it accurately reflects the existing scholarship. Ffranc (talk) 11:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Basically, premodern and modern witchcraft are two different things using the same name. Precisely the job of a disambiguation page. Trying to cover it without such a division as if they were one and the same thing is the root of the problem here. Skyerise (talk) 11:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)


 * They're both several different things, and many of these things are too intertwined to make any definite distinctions possible. For example, "modern witchcraft" is sometimes to take things no one in pre-modern times thought of as witchcraft and label them as "pre-modern witchcraft". Ffranc (talk) 12:05, 16 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm not clear what point you are trying to make here. Skyerise (talk) 12:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Pre-modern and modern witchcraft are not really separate subjects. There are differences in how the word has been used in different times and places, but a separate article about modern or contemporary material would be defined by time period, not by its own distinct definition of witchcraft. Ffranc (talk) 12:44, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This is most likely a minority view. The discrediting of the witch cult hypothesis put the nail in the coffin of the idea that one is an historical continuation of the other. It is now well established that "witches" in premodern times practiced something completely different than "witches" in modern times. There being no continuity makes them two things: premodern witchcraft was a combination of indigenous practices and Greco-Roman goetia; Modern witchcraft was made up out of whole cloth in the 20th century, with a false veneer of historical continuation. Skyerise (talk) 12:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll quibble slightly with the "from whole cloth" characterization... It's a semantic distinction, but modern "witchcraft" as practiced by Wiccans, "traditional witches," and the like has been assembled from a number of places including hermetic practice, goetia, various indigenous practices, historical/anthropological study of various quality, etc rather than just being completely fantasy inventions (though, there is some of that, too). I recognize that your actual point that there's no evidence for (and plenty of evidence against) "unbroken lineage of practice" and that is completely valid and accurate. Darker Dreams (talk) 13:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying my meaning. I agree completely with your restatement. Skyerise (talk) 13:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Darker Dreams gave a good summary of what I was thinking of while I was typing. I'll post my version anyway.
 * I'm not talking about the witch-cult theory but how the word "witchcraft" is understood in the first place. "Witches" in pre-modern times were people who were labelled as witches by someone else, in their own time or retroactively by someone in modern times. They didn't think of themselves as witches and the reasons for the label varied. The practice of labelling things as witchcraft didn't change in some major way with the advent of modernity, although it intensified with the witch trials in the early modern period.
 * Self-identifying witches are new, but that's just one part of the broader subject of (modern) witchcraft. Scholars of contemporary witchcraft as new religious movements often trace contemporary practices to things like goetia, renaissance magic and esoteric Christian practices. Some of these things caught the attention of contemporary witches because they saw they had been labelled as witchcraft, at some point in time, pre-modern or modern. The lumping together of paganism, magic and witchraft by ancient and medieval Christian writers is one part of the history of witchcraft, the idea that pre-modern goetia is witchcraft is another, the witch-cult theory is a third. Contemporary witches that draw inspiration from all these things can be said to be a fourth, or a part of the reception history of the earlier material. I don't see how these things can be separated as pre-modern and modern in a clearly definable way, and I'm not aware of any WP:RS that even tries to do this. "Modern" and "contemporary" witchcraft are here primarily about when things have taken place. Ffranc (talk) 13:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Not an insurmountable problem. Seriously, if this were a real obstacle, we'd have to merge science back into magick and chemistry back into alchemy. Sheesh. Skyerise (talk) 13:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could merge every Wikipedia article into one article titled "Everything", while we're at it! Skyerise (talk) 14:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Science is not derived from renaissance magic, if that's what you're implying. I'm not opposed to having an article about contemporary witchcraft, I'm opposed to defining it as qualitatively different from the witchcraft covered in this article. This article isn't perfect but has a good scope that includes a variety of subtopics such as witchcraft accusations, things that have been labelled as witchcraft at various times, different theories about witchcraft, portrayals of witchcraft in culture, and contemporary people who use the label for themselves. The article about contemporary witchcraft should have the same kind of material, just go more in-depth about contemporary history. Ffranc (talk) 14:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You wrote "Science is not derived from renaissance magic". Exactly. And contemporary witchcraft is not derived from historical "malevolent" witchcraft. Your reply would seem to support my point. Skyerise (talk) 14:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It does not, because there is no inherent correspondence between these subjects. I'm proposing that "contemporary witchcraft", as a subject, should be treated as the parts of this article's subject that are about contemporary times, including contemporary accusations about malevolent practices. Ffranc (talk) 14:58, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, and in point of fact, science did derive from Renaissance magic. Prior to the introduction of the term 'science', such studies fell under the rubric of 'magick'. The division proceeded first by distinguishing science as a type of magic, called Natural magic, which eventually came to be called 'science'. Skyerise (talk) 14:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * A reminder of how we arrived here: The opening sentence of Witchcraft read until the most recent editorial skirmish: Witchcraft traditionally means the use of magic or supernatural powers to harm others. Ditto, short description: Practice of magic, usually to cause harm. Redirecting unsuspecting readers and editors alike to this page, that should really be titled something like [Scholarly views on] "Witchcraft (premodern)", is the cause of much confusion and many heated talk page discussions. Skyerise's proposal seeks to address this and other concerns.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   14:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The article on natural magic only talks about natural science. Science is a broader subject, and the Wikipedia article on natural science doesn't shy away at all from covering pre-modern material as well. If we apply the logic of our discussion about witchcraft here, it would mean that you want us to treat modern science as largely unrelated to pre-modern science other than by name, whereas I propose that we should be careful about making too definite, qualitative distinctions.
 * I don't think I have anything more to add here. I'm interested in the subject, but I know from experience that the sources needed to write something that's actually useful about these kinds of topics often don't exist. A fully developed Wikipedia article about something as broad and elusive as witchcraft will often result in little more than a collection of statements from scholars who talk past each other. Ffranc (talk) 14:58, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What I'm seeing here—and broadly throughout this talk page—is advocates of a religious movement attempting to give this movement undue weight within this topic. The concept of witchcraft has a long history, and there's extensive academic research related to that history. Witchcraft was understood to mean malevolent magic for hundreds of years before a handful of people started calling themselves "witches" and then insisting that their religion's interpretation was the Truth. Trying to supplant the broader concept with a religious movement's interpretation of the concept is inappropriate. This would be no different than saying that the article Satan should better reflect the beliefs and practices of Satanists or that the article apostle should reflect the Pentecostal understanding of apostles because some Pentecostal Christians identify as apostles today. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 14:49, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Nobody is trying to supplant anything. Splitting and disambiguating tthe article properly allows this article to be free from such attempts, as it would restrict itself to pre- "movement", as you put it. And the use of the word "handful" is derogatory. There are in excess of 1.2 million neopagans in the US alone. And your characterization of what editors "want" also seems specious: the only reason some want to make this article more positive is that certain editors, who would be the first to acknowledge the lack of historical continuation, have commandeered two terms whose historical and modern meanings differ and refuse to allow them to be disambiguated. This leaves editors with no choice but to try to improve the presentation in this article to cover two different topics, which in this case can not be done well. Skyerise (talk) 14:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If I want to create a religion whose primarily belief is that Finland doesnt exist, that wouldn't give my followers the right to spout any of it on any article relating to Finland.
 * Modern "witches" are allowed to believe whatever made up crap they want to, but that doesnt give them the right to come here and "make positive changes" just because there are "1.2 million of them"
 * Oh, and by the way, that 1.2 million number also includes other types of neopagans, but just wannabe witches. 2603:7000:CF0:7280:58B:3BD4:1DAB:AEB4 (talk) 14:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Good points about the religious advocacy here, and that we don't write Satan to privilege the beliefs of modern Satanists. Agreed, . - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 19:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Going forward...
To help resolve this dispute, I've had to resurrect Contemporary witchcraft. I've already proposed to collapse the Wicca structure by merging Traditional witchcraft either into Wicca or into Contemporary. Academic sources say that trad is part of Wicca. The relevant discussion is at Talk:Wicca. If the Wicca folk reject it (the article is pretty large), then I'd suggest we merge it up into Contemporary. Then we can decide if there is a more appropriate or accurate title than Contemporary witchcraft. Skyerise (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, . And also: (b) a complementary and more accurate name for Witchcraft, should consensus be reached, (c) in some cases, better redirect target/s than this current article, Witchcraft.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   19:33, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I have to say that much of the problem came from merging the old Contemporary witchcraft the wrong way, since I don't believe there are academic sources which call the modern witchcraft movement malevolent. However, there may be a reason to separate trad from Wicca. We'll see... Skyerise (talk) 19:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned above, aside from some outliers, most of the contemporary people who self-id as "traditional witches" are Wiccans who changed their nomenclature after it came to light that Valiente and Gardner cobbled it together in the 40's/50's. This happened largely after Aiden Kelly published, but his manuscript, and similar research, had been circulated privately for many years before publication, and led to name changes to "Traditional Craft" in some quarters a decade or more prior. I know this has been written about in periodicals. Not sure if they're available online. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 21:17, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Here is an academic source from 2007 with a consise summary of the use of "traditional" in this context, as well as a lamentation on the inconsistencies and sloppiness from scholars. I think this info can be added to the article on Wicca, and traditional witchcraft can then be redirected there.


 * "Most writers on the New Age and Paganism do not even make any differentiation between the British definition of Wicca (initiatory Gardnerian and Alexandrian lines) from the American definition of Wicca (anyone, initiated or not, who is committed to the ideology and practice of Modern Pagan Witchcraft). Nor do they seem to differentiate between the two different meanings of the word 'traditional' used when referring to Modern Pagan Witchcraft. The British tend to use that term to refer to Witchcraft believed to derive from pre-Gardnerian groups, whilst the American definition tends to refer to Gardnerian and Alexandrian initiatory lines."


 * Glancing at our article on Wicca, some of its confusing parts may result from attempts to patch something together from contradictory American and British material. It uses the term "British Traditional Wicca" in a way that would imply that the American individualist version now is the standard, which may or may not be the case. There is also the term "Modern Pagan Witchcraft" in the source I quoted, which I think is similar in scope to what Skyerise is aiming for in the contemporary witchcraft article, but I doubt it would be possible to have an article under that title. The existing corpus of WP:RS might just be too confused and contradictory for us to be able to write anything really worthwhile, and it becomes more about reducing the prevalence of outright misunderstandings. I usually find it more meaningful to cover these subjects through more concentrated articles, such as biographies or articles about creative works with related themes. When scholars attempt to cover the subject as a whole, it tends to quickly become bad and misleading. Ffranc (talk) 08:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If you want to have an article about 'Witchcraft' as some neo-pagans re-define it, I suggest it be named Neopagan Witchcraft or something similar; preferably capitalized as we're talking about a religion. If you name it "contemporary witchcraft" you would have to include all the contemporary cultures that still define witchcraft as malevolent magic, which is the most common meaning worldwide. So you'd be mixing together two completely different things. – Asarlaí  (talk) 11:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Perfect. If everything doesn't get merged into Wicca, that's the best title proposal I've heard so far. Skyerise (talk) 11:35, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Not for nothing, but if we're making this article all about the negative view of witches and witchcraft somewhere in here we should probably address how a significant part of the global "witchcraft is evil" ties in with Christianization. Whether from demonizing indigenous practices, using local beliefs to try to convert populace, etc... outside Europe it generally isn't a natural outgrowth of many of the existing cultures until they get that influence. I was digging for some of those references above, here's another Darker Dreams (talk) 13:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "the global "witchcraft is evil" ties in with Christianization" Probably true, but this should probably be covered on the main article on Christianization. At this point, its overview is a chronological list of events, with relatively little coverage for specific cultural changes. Dimadick (talk) 08:05, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Asarlaí and Skyrise that Neopagan Witchcraft is a far better title that "contemporary witchcraft" for the neopagan stuff. For all the reasons. I'm going to create the redirect and propose the move. Actually, let me get up to speed on today's state of the articles first. I'm not attached to who creates it, just that we resolve the "traditional" and "contemporary" issues with better terminology, like "neopagan". - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 17:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * And look at that. All kinds of stuff already happening at other pages: Neopagan witchcraft. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 17:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, everyone involved did some great work on this. Thank you! Hopefully now with a clear separation, clear hatnotes, and less confusing titles, there will be less complaints like the one that started all this. Skyerise (talk) 18:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

"Witchcraft": To move or not to move?

 * Per previous conversation, current Witchcraft article needs a destination for move, and disambig should move to main namespace. Several people have said they were going to submit move proposal and it doesn't look like anyone has. Darker Dreams (talk) 11:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Is there a neat way of encompassing the topic range "worldwide historical and traditional views of witchcraft" in a new article title?  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   13:10, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * After informal discussion here, I guess this is the way to go (?): Requested_moves.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   15:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That would be my assumption. I propose Witchcraft (classical) based on Bonewits's divisions. Darker Dreams (talk) 12:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There's no need to re-name this article at all. It's about the traditional and still most common and widespread meaning of "witchcraft". The re-definition used by some neo-pagans is dealt with at Neopagan witchcraft, and there are hatnotes for anyone who might get confused. – Asarlaí  (talk) 12:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @: What do you think? Clearly, from the above, it would be deemed a controversial move.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   15:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I'd say rather than a requested move, an RfC to discuss potential new titles and get a consensus for a specific title. Then a RM or another RfC to determine whether there is consensus to move to that new title. Skyerise (talk) 15:26, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps we could begin here by working out how to word the first RfC (to find consensus on a specific new article title)? Or else simply open that first RfC if you already know what you want to say.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   15:53, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * A joint effort to come up with a list of options seems in order before opening an RfC to choose between them... Skyerise (talk) 15:56, 19 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Witchcraft (classical): I'm much taken by ' proposal: Witchcraft (classical) based on Bonewits's divisions.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   16:26, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Witchcraft (historic and indigenous)  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   17:05, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Witchcraft (scholarly consensus)  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   17:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm good with (historic), saying (historic and indigenous) implies things about local beliefs that don't alwyas fit. (Scholarly consensus) feels weird, but I get what it's driving towards. Darker Dreams (talk) 18:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Just trying to keep the cauldron bubbling. I think that the issue here is that this current article, Witchcraft, came to encompass a little bit of everything, but with an overarching assertion that witchcraft is malevolent, which makes the inclusion of contemporary witchcraft untenable. It's like a camel: an animal designed by committee, and the topics it covers make it difficult to define and hence title. Unless you subscribe to the view that Witchcraft is the correct title, and that no move is required.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   19:00, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Parentheses in titles are mainly to disambiguate, rather than to set out the intended topics of articles, which the lede is supposed to do. If I'm wrong, may I suggest Witchcraft (discoverie)? small jars 19:20, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Witchcraft: for those who maintain that "this is the correct title, and no move is required."  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   19:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * To propose a move we have to have a proposed title. People can suggest alternates in response to the move request. I agree that the problem has absolutely been animal by committee, and leaving the page at its current location will simply allow that problem to fester and recur. The regular round of visitors who show up to this page and are shocked to find their religion described as malevolent will continue to be an issue, while other editors will continue to point to that text as clear consensus that is how Wikipedia should present Wicca and other individuals involved with witchcraft. I'm opening the move request. Darker Dreams (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Skyerise has suggested that the first RfC contributors be presented with a list of optional names from which to choose.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   19:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * For those who think I may be exaggerating. Here is the entry at Witchcraft (disambiguation): Witchcraft, traditionally and worldwide, usually means the use of malevolent magic." and it came with a warning about revert warring.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   19:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Requested move can build consensus around alternatives other than the initial proposal, any RfC result will still needs to go through a move proposal. Sorry for overrunning everyone and firing off the move proposal, but it feels like a meeting about having a meeting and I'll admit to impatience and easy frustration as personal character flaws. Darker Dreams (talk) 20:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Pageview statistics and Google Trends
Some statistics (views over last year / daily views):  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   08:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Witchcraft: 718,559 / 1,961
 * Wicca: 849,567 / 2,321
 * Neopagan witchcraft (formerly Contemporary witchcraft): Unknown
 * Contemporary witchcraft: 391 / 1
 * Witchcraft (disambiguation): 4,926 / 13
 * Witch (redirect to Witchcraft): 56,747 / 155


 * Yes. Look like Witchcraft and Wicca are already nicely naturally disambiguated. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * A slightly more pertinent analysis: page navigation. Almost no readers headed to witchcraft move on to Wicca, and none go from Wicca to witchcraft, meaning that there is little to no navigational confusion here. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The confusion is that most people who come to this article are looking for information on neopagan witchcraft, as that is the most popular use of the term "witchcraft" these days. If you don't believe it, just look through the Talk page archives. Nosferattus (talk) 15:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The numbers for witchcraft and Wicca would suggest that Wicca should actually be the primary topic on the dab page. Skyerise (talk) 15:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * They have scholarly consensus on their side.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   15:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Check out what brings people to Witchcraft and Wicca in the links that provided (pity we don't have the search engine terms, too). Those seeking Witchcraft come from places like My Little Mermaid; those seeking Wicca look like they're more serious about the topic.  Esowteric  +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   16:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The Little Mermaid is just trending because of the recent release, and, because, yes, global film viewership is of sufficient magnitude to drive search traffic. By all accounts, Ursula is meant to terrify the Bejesus out of small children in the new film, so I guess they're all wondering about witches now. Outside of that you have skin-walker, which is core witchcraft folklore content and the Salem witch trials, for obvious reasons. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Google Trends (witchcraft, wicca, pagan compared).  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   16:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * (witchcraft, wicca, witches) - I replaced pagan with witches. Wonder why the peaks? Skyerise (talk) 16:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Long-term (witchcraft, wicca, pagan since 2004).  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   16:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, "witch" comes out quite a lot higher than "witches", Skyerise.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   16:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This one's probably the most useful. Note how "good witch" is searched for about as often as "wicca" at about the same rate: witchcraft, wicca, "good witch". Skyerise (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Dummy edit to make sure that this thread is not archived while dispute resolution is going on.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   09:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

"Stereotyped"
The longstanding opening line said that "witchcraft" commonly means the use of magic to inflict harm on others. Be aware that's only explaining the meaning of the word, not discussing whether it's real or not.

Skyerise changed it to say that "witchcraft" commonly means "the use of magic, generally stereotyped as doing harm". Aside from being grammatically wrong, this implies that the magic might be real but the idea of it being used for harm is 'just a negative stereotype'. The Cambridge Dictionary defines 'stereotype' as "a set idea that people have about what someone or something is like, especially an idea that is wrong".

Five references were added to support the claim. Here's what they say...


 * Willis, D. (2018). Malevolent Nurture: Witch-Hunting and Maternal Power in Early Modern England. Cornell University Press. pp.23-33...
 * "Although Thomas, Macfarlane, and Larner do think many accused women fell into the 'difficult neighbor' category and that a few may have intentionally practiced maleficium, they often treat the actions or beliefs of the accused as more or less irrelevant to the construction of the witch stereotype "
 * "Another approach to explaining the witch's gender is suggested by the witch stereotype itself, which associates the practice of harmful magic with misdirected nurture. Although popular beliefs do not assume the witch must be biologically female, they do represent the witch in terms of the maternal". — This is about the stereotypical or archetypal witch being female. It doesn't say that harmful magic is just a stereotype.


 * Napier, G. (2017). Maleficium: Witchcraft and Witch Hunting in the West. Amberley Publishing. Chapter 2...
 * "Since ancient times, a stereotypical image of a witch was the malevolent old crone" — This is about the archetypal image of a witch.


 * Ole Peter Grell and Robert W. Scribner (2002). Tolerance and Intolerance in the European Reformation. Cambridge University Press. p. 45...
 * "Not all the stereotypes created by elites were capable of popular reception ... The most interesting example concerns cunning folk, whom secular and religious authorities consistently sought to associate with negative stereotypes of superstition or witchcraft . This proved no deterrent to their activities or to the positive evaluation in the popular mind of what they had to offer." — This is saying that religious authorities tried to smear cunning folk by associating them with witchcraft, something negative, but that the masses didn't buy into it.


 * Gaskill, M. (2010). Witchcraft: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press. pp. 52, 88...
 * "The stereotype of the female witch, particularly the malevolent crone, was thus powerfully reinforced. In most witch-trials, however, misfortunes were not randomly blamed on women who looked like witches." — This is about the look of the archetypal witch.


 * Hallen, B., Sodipo, J. O. (1997). Knowledge, Belief, and Witchcraft: Analytic Experiments in African Philosophy (registration required). Stanford University Press. p. 96...
 * "In both Africa and the West, the witch personality stereotype is that of someone who is anti-social, deliberately, excessively and destructively malevolent and ... secretive." — This is about the personality of the archetypal witch.

As you can see, most of the sources are talking about the stereotypical image of a witch. None of them say that witchcraft meaning harmful magic is 'just a stereotype'. So the phrase should be removed from the sentence. The sources could be used to add more to the main body about the stereotypical image of witches. – Asarlaí  (talk) 16:55, 27 July 2023 (UTC)


 * This is good stuff for the DRN —Alalch E. 18:07, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The DRN is about how much prominence the neopagan meaning should be given. This is a separate issue about the word "stereotyped". – Asarlaí  (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)