Talk:Witchcraft/Archive 9

Please be aware of the DRN rules and moderator advice
Please be aware that due to the ongoing dispute resolution case, DRN Rule A now applies. We are advised by the moderator not to discuss the matter on talk pages, and to treat the article as if it were fully protected.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   19:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC)


 * This full protection and suspension in editing applies to connected articles, as well, but people have been editing away. I avoided the articles for awhile, but there is some serious bias happening, with other "witchcraft" articles being used to push through the things did not gain consensus here. This is a problem. I want to respect the hold on editing, but misinformation is being put into article space, with the same users edit-warring to keep it there. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 22:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I know that ChatGPT gets a bad press
I know that ChatGPT gets a bad press, but maybe they can tell us a thing or two about this vexed subject of witchcraft, as an impartial witness?

'''[Querent]: ChatGPT, what is witchcraft? Please provide sources.'''

[ChatGPT]: Witchcraft is a complex and historically diverse topic that encompasses a range of beliefs, practices, and cultural expressions. It has been understood and defined in various ways across different cultures and time periods. Below, I'll provide a general overview of witchcraft and its historical context, along with some sources for further reading.

Witchcraft Overview:

Witchcraft typically involves the use of magical or supernatural powers for various purposes, such as healing, divination, protection, or influencing events. It often involves rituals, spells, and interactions with spirits or deities. Throughout history, accusations of witchcraft have led to persecution and trials, resulting in the suffering and death of many individuals, particularly during the European witch hunts of the 16th and 17th centuries.

Sources for Further Reading:

"The Witch: A History of Fear, from Ancient Times to the Present" by Ronald Hutton This book provides a comprehensive exploration of witchcraft through history, tracing its origins and evolution across different cultures and periods. It also delves into the social and cultural contexts that contributed to the fear and persecution of witches.

"Witchcraft and Magic in Europe: Ancient Greece and Rome" edited by Bengt Ankarloo and Stuart Clark This is the first volume of a series that examines witchcraft and magic across different time periods in Europe. It covers the ancient Greek and Roman perspectives on magic and witchcraft, offering insights into the historical roots of these practices.

"The Witch-Hunt in Early Modern Europe" by Brian P. Levack This book focuses specifically on the European witch hunts of the early modern period (approximately 1450-1750). It examines the social, cultural, and religious factors that contributed to the witch hunts, as well as the legal and judicial processes involved in prosecuting alleged witches.

"The Encyclopedia of Witchcraft and Demonology" by Rossell Hope Robbins This encyclopedia provides a comprehensive overview of witchcraft, demonology, and related topics. It covers historical and cultural aspects of witchcraft, as well as the beliefs and practices associated with it.

"Witchcraft Today" by Gerald Gardner Gerald Gardner is known for his role in popularizing modern Wicca, a contemporary pagan religious movement that draws on elements of witchcraft and nature spirituality. In this book, Gardner discusses his beliefs and practices related to witchcraft and Wicca.

Academic Journals and Articles:

Academic journals such as "Magic, Ritual, and Witchcraft" and "The Pomegranate: The International Journal of Pagan Studies" often feature articles and research papers that delve into various aspects of witchcraft, its historical context, and its contemporary expressions.

Remember that witchcraft is a multifaceted topic, and definitions and interpretations may vary depending on cultural, historical, and individual perspectives. The sources mentioned above can provide valuable insights into the subject, but it's important to approach the topic with an open mind and a willingness to engage with diverse viewpoints.

[Querent]: Is witchcraft the use of malevolent magic?

[ChatGPT]: Witchcraft can encompass a wide range of practices and beliefs, and it's not limited to just malevolent magic. The perception of witchcraft as exclusively malevolent magic is a stereotype that has been perpetuated in various cultural narratives, but it's an oversimplification of a complex and diverse phenomenon.

Throughout history, witchcraft has been associated with both positive and negative practices. Some practitioners use witchcraft for healing, protection, divination, and other beneficial purposes. These individuals may be referred to as healers, shamans, or wise folk, depending on the cultural context.

On the other hand, accusations of malevolent witchcraft have also been a part of historical witch hunts and trials, often fueled by fears and misunderstandings. These accusations sometimes led to the persecution and execution of individuals based on the belief that they were practicing harmful magic or making pacts with malevolent spirits.

In modern times, many practitioners of witchcraft, particularly within Wicca and contemporary pagan traditions, emphasize the ethical use of magic and emphasize a "harm none" principle. However, even within these modern practices, there can be diverse interpretations and practices that incorporate both positive and potentially harmful magical actions.

In summary, witchcraft is a complex and multifaceted topic that encompasses a range of magical practices and beliefs, including both positive and potentially malevolent aspects. The portrayal of witchcraft as solely malevolent magic is a stereotype that does not accurately capture its historical or contemporary reality.

[Querent]: What are the four types of witchcraft that Ronald Hutton mentions?

[ChatGPT]: Ronald Hutton, a historian and scholar specializing in the study of folklore, paganism, and witchcraft, discusses four main categories or types of witchcraft in his book "The Triumph of the Moon: A History of Modern Pagan Witchcraft." These categories reflect the different strands of witchcraft that have emerged in modern times. It's worth noting that these categories are not universally accepted or agreed upon, but they provide insight into the diversity of modern witchcraft practices. The four types of witchcraft he mentions are:

Survivalist Witchcraft:

This category refers to the belief that certain pre-Christian pagan beliefs and practices have survived through the centuries in rural and folk traditions. This type of witchcraft emphasizes continuity with ancient spiritual practices and often involves working with local spirits and folk magic. It is linked to the concept of "folk witchcraft" and the idea that remnants of ancient pagan traditions are present in folklore and local customs.

Coven Witchcraft (Traditional Witchcraft):

This type of witchcraft is associated with the concept of covens, which are organized groups of practitioners who follow specific traditions, rituals, and magical techniques. Traditional witchcraft often emphasizes the practice of magic, working with spirits, and connecting with ancestral traditions. It is sometimes contrasted with Wicca, as traditional witchcraft tends to be less structured and more focused on regional or family-based practices.

Revivalist Witchcraft (Wicca):

Revivalist witchcraft refers to the modern pagan movement known as Wicca. Wicca was popularized by figures like Gerald Gardner and Doreen Valiente in the mid-20th century. It draws inspiration from a mixture of folklore, ceremonial magic, and ritual practices. Wicca often involves working with deities, practicing rituals according to a specific structure, and following a set of ethical principles. It has various traditions and branches, each with its own practices and beliefs.

New Age Witchcraft: New Age witchcraft encompasses a wide range of eclectic, modern, and often syncretic spiritual practices. It draws from various sources, including astrology, crystal healing, divination, energy work, and more. New Age witches often emphasize personal empowerment, self-discovery, and spiritual growth. This category is more loosely defined and can incorporate elements from different spiritual traditions.

It's important to recognize that these categories are not rigidly defined and often overlap. Witchcraft practices can be highly individualized, and practitioners may draw from multiple sources and traditions. Hutton's categorization provides a framework for understanding the diversity of modern witchcraft movements and the ways in which they draw on historical, folkloric, and contemporary influences.

'''[Querent]: Ronald Hutton writes that witchcraft, as most commonly understood in both historical and present-day communities, is the use of alleged supernatural powers of magic for malevolent purposes. Is that correct?'''

[ChatGPT]: I apologize for any confusion, but the statement you've provided does not accurately reflect Ronald Hutton's viewpoint on witchcraft. Hutton is known for his scholarly and nuanced approach to the study of witchcraft, and he emphasizes the diversity of practices and beliefs associated with witchcraft throughout history and in modern times.

While witchcraft has been associated with both positive and negative purposes, Hutton does not categorically state that it is commonly understood as the use of supernatural powers for malevolent purposes. In fact, he addresses the complexity of witchcraft beliefs and practices, including its positive aspects such as healing, divination, and protection, as well as its negative associations stemming from historical witch hunts and persecutions.

It's important to approach any scholar's work with accuracy and context. Ronald Hutton's writings provide a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of witchcraft that considers its multifaceted nature across cultures and time periods.

 Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   18:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)


 * ChatGPT usually involves different sources it scanned online until a specific time-period. Especially regarding matters of evaluation of a certain subject, ChatGPT usually fails. For example, "Is witchcraft the use of malevolent magic?" requires a human reader, since the term might have different meanings depending on subject. We can use ChatGPT as a research tool in private, but I don't see how it can help or how it is an "impartial witness". Since it is not, it is a word calculator similar to an auto-correction which uses words once entered somethere in the sources it scans through. It is not a self-conscious emotionless being as AI are portrayed in popular culture. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)


 * That may be true, but compared to most Wikipedia editors, ChatGPT has read all the books, all the way through, whereas many WP editors stop reading once they have found the quote they are looking for. Skyerise (talk) 19:30, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * ChatGPT is only working out what the next word should be, it does not understand what it is looking at nor what the contents of its output mean. At best it is systematically biased by whatever is on the internet, at large part of which wouldn't be considered reliable by Wikipedia standards (social media, wordpress, blogs, whatever reddit falls under). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Damn stochastic parrots. Skyerise (talk) 13:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Systemic bias
Until recently, after yet more heated discussion, the opening sentence of the lede of Witchcraft (which purports to be a WP:BROADCONCEPT primary article) read Witchcraft traditionally means the use of magic or supernatural powers to harm others. and the short description read, Practice of magic, usually to cause harm. The lede still vigorously supports this view, with no less than six five references back-to-back in one place. And that is still the stance that established editors at the article maintain. Since Witch also redirects to this negative article, I believe that this introduces systemic bias into the whole field.

also noted elsewhere that The article wasn't split. Some editor in 2017 basically redirected all the contemporary witchcraft links to witchcraft, effectively deleting Contemporary witchcraft without merging the bulk of the article anywhere. This was simply reversed and a small amount of relevant material was then merged to the resurrected article.

In a satellite article, Witchcraft (disambiguation) also reads: Witchcraft, traditionally and worldwide, usually means the use of malevolent magic.

Concerted efforts at outreach or POV pushing have also been made at other satellite articles such as Neopagan witchcraft (formerly Contemporary witchcraft). Until reverted (again), a lengthy segment was added which began Traditionally, "witchcraft" generally means the use of magic or supernatural powers to inflict harm or misfortune on others, and this remains the most common and widespread meaning ...: Edit difference. This is an example of why the earlier requested move was brought (after perennial and frequent reversions and heated discussions).

As for the sources used to reinforce the "scholastic consensus" and to preserve this biased state of affairs, Ronald Hutton, for one, is being deliberately partial (writing only about witchcraft in its destructive manifestations). In The Witch: A History of fear, from ancient times to the present, he says after the "What is a witch?" quote: That is, however, only one current usage of the word. In fact, Anglo-American senses of it now take at least four different forms, although the one discussed above seems still to be the most widespread and frequent. The others define the witch figure as any person who uses magic ... or as the practitioner of nature-based Pagan religion; or as a symbol of independent female authority and resistance to male domination. All have validity in the present, and to call anybody wrong for using any one of them would be to reveal oneself as bereft of general knowledge, as well as scholarship. ... [I]n this book the mainstream scholarly convention will be followed, and the word used only for an alleged worker of such destructive magic. So, it would seem that "scholarly convention" is deliberately biased and religiously adhered to.

Even Ronald Hutton, The Witch: A History of fear, from ancient times to the present, pp 168, 177, 183, 194, 206 talks of stereotypes in the 1300s and 1400s about the harmful and Satanic nature of witchcraft and the fear of such things.

This might be likened to a scholar writing a thesis on Christianity based on a partial study of Southern Baptists or Christian Nationalists. Of course the conclusions are going to be skewed and unflattering and support "scholastic consensus" or "scholastic convention".

There have been recent talk page discussions where it was suggested that Witchcraft be moved elsewhere and that "witchcraft" should be pointed instead to Witchcraft (disambiguation) (and later that something similar be done for "witch" that currently redirects to Witchcraft). I noticed how difficult it was to come up with a hypothetical new title for this article that summed-up its main topics, which the hat note depicts as "worldwide historical and traditional views of witchcraft". Witchcraft (historical)? Witchcraft (classical), suggested by ? Witchcraft (scholarly consensus)? However, since the scholarly sources by convention are partial and depict witchcraft as malevolent, perhaps the closest appropriate title that could be chosen, as suggested by would be Evil witchcraft or Witchcraft (evil). Witchcraft (malevolent) had also been on my own mind.

To zealously promote the subject with an overarching theme of historical and indigenous witchcraft as being malevolent according to scholarly consensus, and to dismiss and effectively exclude later (often benign) movements and religions as being ill-founded or illegitimate, makes the article unfit to be the primary topic, and the inclusion of material on modern witchcraft traditions and religions untenable, and the source of much confusion and animosity, as the talk page history amply attests. This is not scholastic consensus but something else masquerading as scholastic consensus.

Something else to think about is that things were not always this way. See this , when the subject was treated very differently and more inclusively (though, of course, the article will have been "improved" over time as well), and check out the sources used in the past.

Regarding false balance, please see Talk:Witchcraft.

An alternative proposal – which is, of course, tongue-in-cheek but does note concerted attempts to make sure readers and editors are aware that the most common scholarly opinion about witchcraft historically and worldwide is that it is intended to cause harm and malevolent – would be to template all relevant articles with a "Wiki Health Warning", that: "Witchcraft is malevolent. Dabbling in these arcane arts may seriously damage your mental health." ... because (if you'll permit me a little poetic licence) that is, in effect, what is happening.

 Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   07:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "would be Evil witchcraft or Witchcraft (evil) " And what would be the difference from black magic (evil magic)? Dimadick (talk) 08:26, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * They should probably be merged. Nigromancy or black magic, aka maleficium were legal terms which were created to prosecute witchcraft. These details belong at whatever title the article ends up at. Skyerise (talk) 08:29, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "Witchcraft is malevolent. Dabbling in these arcane arts may seriously damage your mental health." We do not have such warnings for other harmful superstitions, such as Christian fundamentalism, biblical literalism, biblical inerrancy, or Young Earth creationism. What is the difference between different kinds of superstitious beliefs? Dimadick (talk) 08:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but the point I was trying to make is that all this pushing of malevolence at Witchcraft and associated articles and pages is, effectively, the same sort of thing as templating.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   10:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * My primary complaint is the single sentence in the lead, which I've removed. The initial definition should be inclusive of each of the following paragraphs. The next paragraph explicitly mentions 'evil', the third 'harm' - no problem with this. The fourth paragraph can't properly stand out as non-malevolent when it is already tarred with the systemic bias of that strong and not adequately cited sentence. Five different experts agreeing don't establish that "this remains the most common and widespread meaning" - we'd need a linguistics usage analysis type source to establish that. The way it is attempted to be supported is synthesis. If a proper supporting source is found, it could be readded after the paragraph about modern witchcraft. Introducing it in the first para muddies the lead with obvious bias. Skyerise (talk) 13:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "My primary complaint is the single sentence in the lead, which I've removed" - So, because you don't like the fact that malevolent magic is the most common and widespread meaning of "witchcraft" worldwide, you decided to just delete that from the lead? along with the five high-quality academic sources supporting it? Shocking behavior, which I've rightly reverted.
 * "Five different experts agreeing don't establish that 'this remains the most common and widespread meaning' - Yes it does. It seems you're trying to move the goalposts. – Asarlaí  (talk) 13:29, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "Move the goalposts? Hopefully awaiting the time when professional contractors move in to level and re-turf the playing field.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   13:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph is neutral. The second talks about accusations of malevolent magic in medieval times, which was the trend at the time. The third paragraph talks about it often being associated with harm, and gives some more examples. Then the last paragraph discusses some of the alternative contemporary usage. It's fine. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:00, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No, the first paragraph is not neutral. It does not cover even the range of meanings in the dictionary, much less the evolution of views over time. A robust BROADCONCEPT article would do both. See next section. Skyerise (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I fear you are expecting slightly too much of the first paragraph, i.e. "Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead." MOS:FIRST. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The summary of the new section would be the second paragraph. Just like the other summary paragraphs. It's necessary to comprehend the range of views before going on to describe individual types and periods. Skyerise (talk) 14:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * , you are editing against consensus, while discussion is going on. You have been blocked for this before. We are, and have been, working very hard on this. It is inappropriate for you to go in and make wholesale changes that you don't have consensus for. This view is not just historical, and not just due to "Christians". You are privileging a Western, white view that leaves out traditional and Indigenous cultures worldwide. Those cultures never redefined this word or concept. Only those who bought the witch cult theory did. As for "white witches" and such - that's a modification that, by it's very modifiers, indicate the negative status of the word/concept it modifies. This isn't my preference or choice, it's just what we are documenting. Stop the POV push. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 18:26, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't forget: Consensus can change. Skyerise (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * As Idries Shah once wrote, in cases like this it sometimes helps to transpose an issue into more familiar terms. So, you could, for example, substitute in words like "Christians", "Muslims", or "My old dad". And then see how you feel. If that doesn't work, then substitute in your own self.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   14:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I suggest we add subsections for the relevant components of the observed systemic bias. Two I've started below: "Views over time" and "Definition vs stereotype". There may be additional components of systemic bias to call out. Skyerise (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Views over time
One thing that I notice that the article does not include, and that is the evolution of views of witchcraft over time. A section early in the article should be written to cover this. Then the flat statement in the first paragraph should be expanded to summarize the contents of the new section, rather than just get stuck on a single superstitious definition. Skyerise (talk) 13:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Definition vs stereotype
It seems disingenuous to cherry-pick sources for a "definition" while ignoring sources which differentiate between a more basic definition and the stereotypical projection of qualities and intent. Since many sources (I've only presented a sampling) make this differentiation, it certainly deserves further analysis and a better presentation, but an integrated article works better if we make this distinction. Also, where is the scientific opinion on the reality of even the basic definition, much less the definition + stereotyping? Skyerise (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I mean, really, wouldn't something like: "Witchcraft is an imaginary use of imaginary powers, stereotyped in the imagination of some societies as causing harm or being intended to cause harm, which harm is also imaginary." be more accurate? Skyerise (talk) 16:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Even Ronald Hutton, The Witch: A History of fear, from ancient times to the present, pp 168, 177, 183, 194, 206 talks of stereotypes in the 1300s and 1400s about the harmful and Satanic nature of witchcraft and the fear of such things.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   16:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Jean La Fontaine wrote that the "stereotype of evil appears not to have been closely connected to the actions of real people except when it was mobilised against the current enemies of the Church." Skyerise (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Editorial directives in HTML remarks
25 November 2021 page top HTML comment [formatting removed]:

Later on the page top HTML comment changed to:

on 8 July 2023, the page top HTML comment changed to:

That doesn't sound very inclusive of a primary article on "Witchcraft" to me.

Hat-tip to Skyerise for spotting this.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   20:15, 21 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The idea of folkloric witchcraft has been around for over a millennium, and it is still what most people worldwide would associate with the word, so it is not undue to give it precedence even in an article that is a broad overview of witchcraft. The article still includes it, but making it literally 50/50 would result in undue weight. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:08, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's also a matter of a global perspective vs Western one and the risk of systemic bias. Wicca is a distinctly Western phenomena; witchcraft more generally, as determined by anthropologists, is a global one. There is more material on Western witchcraft and Wicca because of the Western world looking inward on its own past and into its own contemporary beliefs, whereas witchcraft in more marginal societies globally remains still largely the preserve of anthropologists. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The overarching (and overbearing) theme of this partial article is that of "malevolence". In fact, another editor has created Witchcraft (diabolic), which does appear to be a far more appropriate location for the material here, and which needs no "systemic bias" or "unbalanced" templates.
 * As for balance: "making it literally 50/50" is a straw man argument. That's not what I'm looking for, nor what we now get: "touched on and linked further down" [emphasis added].  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   08:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No, (diabolic) is an example of a really badly thought out, non neutral piece of parenthetical disambiguation for something that doesn't even need disambiguating in the first place. For starters, "diabolic" is a reference to the devil, which is a specifically Christian conception, and not applicable to many relevant societies. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Witchcraft (diabolic) is a duplicate of this article. A POV fork. It's a policy violation and should be deleted. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 19:14, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Use of the word "traditional[ly]"
The word "traditional[ly]" is used 17 times in the article, including the lede. Perhaps "historical[ly]" might be used instead, where appropriate? See MOS:RELTIME. Expressions like "former(ly)", "in the past", and "traditional(ly)" lump together unspecified periods in the past. "Traditional" is particularly pernicious because it implies immemorial established usage." (and suggests an appeal to authority).  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   08:54, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor advised: "'It's bad' is not much of a tradition."  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   09:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Dummy edit to make sure that this thread is not archived while dispute resolution is going on.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   06:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)


 * As I keep having to remind people, "traditionally" and "historically" are not interchangeable. In a global sense, "traditionally" has to do with living tradition, and the way all the communities, well, traditionally and still, define things. This has been confused by the neopagan redefinition, since the 1940s, of some Wiccans calling what they do "traditional witchcraft". Wiccan teachers, for decades, either didn't know, or chose to obfuscate, the fact this was a redefinition, only shared by a minority. But, depending on perspective, some users are using the word differently than others. As the global majority's traditions are contemporary, and shouldn't be past-tensed, we can't just swap in "historical". When this is done, living cultures (Indigenous, African, Afro-Diasporic, etc) are disappeared. Please don't do this. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 20:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Um, 'scuse me but within some living Native American communities witches are seen as malevolent. These belief origins are precolonial, we just stole your word. There are historical, precolonial figures like Jug Woman and Raven Mocker and taboos up to contemporary times. The erasure/part-tensing is not appropriate or necessary. I am unsure as to why the views of the global Indigenous community is being pushed back on. Indigenous girl (talk) 23:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear; no one is saying that malevolent witches are not a definition of witchcraft. Certainly not saying so about the Indigenous community, nor otherwise. What is being pushed back on is that it is not a the sole, universal definition within Indigenous communities. What is being pushed back on is that the only other definition is European Neopaganism. We understand that malevolant witchcraft is the sole definition within some, many, possibly even (though I don't know if we have a census to make this claim) most Indigenous communities. However, what is being pushed back on is that it is the definition in all such communities - which is provably, citeably, described by Indigenous researchers in multiple parts of the world, untrue. Darker Dreams (talk) 00:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree that context matters and replacing every use of "traditionally" with "historically" isn't appropriate. However, this isn't about "past-tensing" or "pushing back" on global indigenous views. The point is precisely that "traditionally" is not interchangable with "historically". It's also not interchangable with "conventionally", "popularly", "normally", "ongoing", and other words which may be more appropriate depending on the context. (As Esowteric said, where appropriate.) The pervasive view that witchcraft is a harmful practice is less a tradition, and more a norm or convention. "Historically" was suggested because it seemed to be the appropriate word for some cases where it past usage was stressed. If stressing ongoing usage was the point, then evidently this was not clear to everyone and perhaps the wording may be better adjusted in some other way.
 * Neopagans aren't the only people who maintain a different view of witchcraft. The reappraisal and reclaimation of witchcraft has a long history in feminism. (For example, Margaret Murray, Barbara Ehrenreich, and Silvia Federici.) It's also pretty clear that the popular English-language understanding of "witchcraft" has changed significantly, and does not necessarily carry a negative connotation even among the general public. Arguably, it has not always been used negatively even in the past, as Darker Dreams has noted several times elsewhere on this talk page. It is simply factually wrong to frame it as though a small minority of neopagans are the only people who dissent from an otherwise universal view. In regards to living non-European traditions, the article itself notes that the syncretic Afro-Carribean tradition of brujería encompasses both helpful and harmful practices. This also happens to be one of unamibguous cases of where applying the term "witchcraft" in translation clearly is appropriate, since it explicitly takes on the spanish word for "witchcraft". It should not be assumed that non-European cultures universally share the view that "witchcraft" is harmful by definition.
 * I'd also be careful about how the views of global majority are interpreted, both because actual data on global views is too limited to conclusively confirm that a majority of people believe in the reality of witchcraft to begin with, and because it's questionable what counts as "witchcraft" when applying that term globally.
 * Arguably, there's a eurocentric bias in how the term "witchcraft" has been used to translate concepts in non-European cultures. Since historically Europeans have equated "harmful magic" with "witchcraft", they translated non-European concepts which were both "harmful" and "magical" as "witchcraft". It a bit circular to point to non-European cultures as a reason to define "witchcraft" as "harmful" when Europeans were the ones who applied this definition to the concepts/practices/beliefs of other cultures in the first place. Had Europeans applied the term differently, for example by equating any folk magic with "witchcraft", the views of the global majority on what we call "witchcraft" would look very different. (I hope that was clear.) – Scyrme (talk) 00:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * http://earlham.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/witches-and-new-christians.pdf
 * https://brill.com/view/journals/mtsr/33/3-4/article-p381_6.xml
 * Darker Dreams (talk) 00:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The entire reason I brought this point up is that there seems to be little consideration to communities outside of Europe and dominant culture North America. Indigenous girl (talk) 00:45, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I, for one, would love to see increased Indigenous coverage on the topic. If you have sources of verification and enough material I suggest (encourage!) creating a either a "Witchcraft in (XYZ culture)" or -if you don't feel there's enough material specific to one culture- "Witchcraft in Indigenous cultures." Care needs to be taken with the second one that you're not projecting one (or a few) culture's POV as all Indigenous cultures. That material would then be available to be part of the broad coverage in this article (and others) to help balance coverage overall. Darker Dreams (talk) 02:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * , you mention some feminists "reclaiming" witchcraft. They didn't re-claim it, they, re-defined it based on a debunked theory promoted by Margaret Murray. Europeans didn't merely equate witchcraft and harmful magic, that's what the term meant. – Asarlaí  (talk) 12:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The views of later feminists don't owe much, if anything at all, to Margaret Murray's witch-cult hypothesis and I'm aware that the latter is now discredited. I mentioned Murray only to illustrate that feminist literature/views about witchcraft date as far back as the early 20th century.
 * "Reclaiming" is taking a term which is originally a perjorative defined by others (in this case, "witch") and embracing it, making it your own. That's exactly what this is even by your own description, so I don't understand the objection unless you think "reclaiming" implies a reclaimed word has to have been 'your own' to begin with before becoming a perjorative, but this is refuted by looking at basically any reclaimed perjorative. It's also often explicitly framed as "reclamation" by feminists themselves, regardless of whether you agree with their assessment. (eg. ) – Scyrme (talk) 13:44, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * They're attempting to claim and re-define it. To re-claim something it must have been yours to begin with. – Asarlaí  (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Your literal interpretation of the morphology of the word does not change how the word is actually used, particularly in relation to slurs which target marginalised groups who did not coin those slurs in the first place. If you prefer words to always have their most literal meaning, you can interpret the "re" in "reclaim" as referring to bringing a perjorative "back into acceptable usage", as the article puts it. – Scyrme (talk) 17:51, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Darker Dreams I really have no desire to write an article on the topic but thanks for the idea and encouragement. I don't wish to have a bunch of folks come in and attack Native culture, People or myself because of how a word is used by some communities. I simply don't have the spoons to play wack-a-mole. Indigenous girl (talk) 15:40, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I finally found this book in my (very messy) personal library (knew it was there somewhere): Witchcraft in the Southwest: Spanish and Indian Supernaturalism on the Rio Grande, by Marc Simmons, University of Nebraska Press, Bison Books. It's older, first edition originally published in 1974. There are dozens of accounts from the various Puebloan peoples (Laguna, Acoma, Zuñi, Cochiti, Jémez, Nambé, etc. etc.) as well as Navajo and Apache that witches are seen as malevolent, as they were represented in the article before the recent drama and edit warring. Although it's an older book, it is very well referenced in regards to Indigenous witchcraft, and how witchcraft was/is perceived by these cultures. It has an excellent bibliography. I don't want to cause any additional drama, however if the community decides to improve the section on non-European cultures, it may be a useful resource to expand that section. Netherzone (talk) 16:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * For many reasons I don't want (or think we need the hassle of) a standalone article on "Indigenous witchcraft". But if you want to add some brief examples of Nations/tribes views to the section, as I just did, maybe that source would be helpful. Also if that book or others could be an additional source. Especially if you have any post-2000 examples or statements. This perspective is current, but not often written about, so most of the usable sources are by anthros and not as recent as I would like. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 20:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that we don't need a stand alone article. I'll look at what you have added and determine if it would make sense to expand with a few brief examples. I also think I recall finding some articles on JSTOR that are more recent than the book. Netherzone (talk) 23:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I added some bits from the journal article you listed below. Thanks for posting that! - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 00:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If I find anything else of relevance I will post it on this talk page. Netherzone (talk) 00:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @CorbieVreccan, I just found this: in the Wikipedia Library. It may be of interest, and it is current. Ritual Closure: Rites De Passage and Apotropaic Magic in an Animate World. By: Walker, William H., Berryman, Judy, Journal of Archaeological Method & Theory, 10725369, Jun2023, Vol. 30, Issue 2 Netherzone (talk) 01:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * And also found this: here is the stable JSTOR link:  Women on Top: The Love Magic of the Indian Witches of New Mexico, Ramón A. Gutiérrez, Journal of the History of Sexuality, Vol. 16, No. 3, Latin American Sexualities (Sep., 2007), pp. 373-390 (18 pages) Netherzone (talk) 01:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @Scyrme You said, "It a bit circular to point to non-European cultures as a reason to define "witchcraft" as "harmful" when Europeans were the ones who applied this definition to the concepts/practices/beliefs of other cultures in the first place. Had Europeans applied the term differently, for example by equating any folk magic with "witchcraft", the views of the global majority on what we call "witchcraft" would look very different." Except we chose the term. There are individuals within community who perform/practice/participate in other activities of a spiritual nature that do not fall under the umbrella of witch because they aren't malevolent. Indigenous girl (talk) 16:07, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that the term is used that way now, but the terms indigenous communities originally chose to use were terms in their respective native languages. Perhaps in some cases indigenous communities independently chose to translate their own native words this way, but I doubt that's universally true given the history of colonists, including the English, imposing their languages onto other nations. I admit I don't know for certain, which is why I said "arguably". You probably know more than I do. (I hope you don't mind, I added tq to your message to make the quoted part more distinct from the rest.) – Scyrme (talk) 17:51, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * First off, I am not speaking about the global Indigenous community I am speaking specifically to what is now known as North America. Of course we had and have terms in our own language. When we translate them we use terms of our choosing. In communities where the language was lost, those communities chose English words as replacements. Colonists heard stories of Granny Squannit and called her a witch, the term did not stick with the Wampanoag because she wasn't a badnick however witch was and is used for folks using negative...stuff. The term was used by Mather and Calef in The Witchcraft Delusion in New England to refer to John Indian and his wife Tituba, "By some Persons, these Indians have been supposed to belong to the Aborigines of our Country and to have obtained their knowledge of Witchcraft from the Indian Powows." so yes, the term was used by colonizers in a pejorative manner for folks who supposedly knew a little conjuring or what have you, which was normal within community. I'm not referring to this type of use. Indigenous girl (talk) 20:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "I'm not referring to this type of use" You weren't, but I was. When I initially suggested eurocentric bias earlier I was thinking of this type of use. To (hopefully) clarify, a lot of literature/scholarship has been published by (and for) Europeans and colonists about other cultures from a European/colonist perspective, translating or describing practices with terms like "witchcraft", "cult", "demon", "idol", "superstition", "delusion", etc. which people of those cultures would not use or would use under the influence (or coercion) of colonists and missionaries.
 * As you say, alongside this there are indigenous communities who have adopted English and translate/describe their own cultural concepts in these terms of their own volition without it being an imposition. I don't intend to deny the agency of indigenous people, and I apologise if I have done so.
 * My point was only that, as I said, we should be "careful". When some concept or practice is translated as "witchcraft", it matters who is doing the translating and why they are translating it that way. If we aren't careful, we end up repeating the sort of usage I was referring to alongside the sort of usage you were referring to as though the two are without difference, effectively allowing the former to speak on behalf of the latter, muddling up how the latter actually understand these topics and leaving us prone to misinterpretations. – Scyrme (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Those of you with access to JSTOR may find this article of interest: Hopi Indian Witchcraft and Healing: On Good, Evil, and Gossip. By: Geertz, Armin W., American Indian Quarterly, 0095182X, Summer2011, Vol. 35, Issue 3. It states therein:
 * To the Hopis, witches or evil-hearted persons deliberately try to destroy social harmony by sowing discontent, doubt, and criticism through evil gossip as well as by actively combating medicine men.
 * Individuals who act suspiciously, are unfriendly, have been seen crying for no apparent reason, or have mysterious things happen around them are assumed by Hopis to be witches or sorcerers (I will call them witches for short, both male and female). The stories about them are legion, and the Hopis constantly talk about them, eternally trying to guess who they are and what they are up to. They are called popwaqt, the plural of powaqa, "witch" or "sorcerer." They are unequivocally evil, casting spells, causing illness, killing babies, and destroying the life cycle. They practice powaqqatsi, the "life of evil sorcery." The Hopis call them kwitavi, "shit people."
 * The term powaqa means a "person who transforms."[2] The root, powa, implies change, for good or for bad. By extension, a powaqa is one who transforms his or her environment to evil ends. More precisely, a witch is a person who kills close family relatives in order to prolong his or her own life by four years. By killing, I mean causing through occult means an unnatural death, such as stillbirth, infants dying of ordinary illnesses, or healthy adults suffering from strange illnesses. Witches are also the occult cause of unusual circumstances, such as hailstorms on a sunny day, extreme drought, or people suffering bad fortune. And quite a bit more. If of interest to this discussion, the permalink is HERE. I'm pretty sure you need to be logged into the WP Library to read it. Netherzone (talk) 23:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Going over this now. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 20:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Further, I have added the above here for two reasons, these words are in the language of the Hopi people, and I do not think these beliefs are necessarily driven by European notions of witchcraft. I also do not think they are used as systemic bias against New Age witches, NeoPagans nor Wiccans. Netherzone (talk) 23:40, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we've pretty comfortably established that the primary definition among Indigenous North American cultures appears to be witchcraft as evil. Without a census of beliefs or a counter-example to disprove it, I don't think that's going to be argued. No one has ever argued that a definition of witchcraft as evil isn't a valid, accepted perspective. I think more than enough material has been brought forward for the people who keep bringing that material forward to create a sub-page for North American Indigenous Beliefs on Witchcraft; which can then be summarized and linked from a broad concept page.
 * It feels like examples of Indigenous North American perspectives continue to be brought forward because there is a sense that it should influence the central point of view of this article. By contrast, I don't think that this article should center on any one cultural perspective. It doesn't matter whether that is Anglo-European (Christian), Neopagan, or Indigenous North American. As a reminder; Indigenous North American is not the singular voice for Indigenous people, just like Anglo-European Christian is not the singular voice for the world. There are examples of Indigenous "positive Witchcraft" as close as Latin American which would be directly overridden by that assumption.
 * Edit to add; this belief by the Hopi almost certainly isn't driven by European notions of witchcraft. However, they could be the basis for bias (or subscribing to existing systemic bias) against New Age witches, NeoPagans, or Wiccans, and would represent bias/systemic bias if stated out of context in Wiki Voice. - Darker Dreams (talk) 00:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Scyrme I'm pretty confident I understand the differences between colonial imposed vernacular and chosen vernacular. I mean, generally it's all about context. If the word is being used by community then that is their given choice. If it's used toward community then it's not.
 * @Darker Dreams I personally brought up the point of the use in culture not because I believe it is of central import but because I felt it and other cultures and communities have been ignored.
 * I'm actually very confused about who specifically, as a community, group of individuals or singular individuals, identified themselves as having used witchcraft. Not who others identified them as having used it but they themselves specifically used the term. As practitioners of in the historical record. Indigenous girl (talk) 00:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to have a conversation about "self defining" in cultures outside of Europe because the term was spread in a specific (Anglo-European Christian) culural context that directly impacted how different groups were exposed to it. For example, the modern Latin American understanding of Bruja is a result of colonial imposition, but modern Brujas actively claim it - so, does that count? Meanwhile, even groups like the Hopi who chose the term as translation for evil did so based on an understanding of European languages that came from colonial forces that included Christian missionaries intent on conversion and cultural imposition - and consequently presented the term in a specific context.
 * Within Europe there are cases where you find "neutral" or "positive" definitions in folklore and traditional knowledge, some of that is discribed in the existing article regarding Russia and the Slavic parts of the content. Darker Dreams (talk) 02:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Darker DreamsI mean within Europe. Great Britain perhaps. I'm also befuddled about why the article claims that all participants in witchcraft in Europe were solely involved with the goddess Diana. That seems a little weird to me. So was/is it like a little sect or something of Diana followers and followers of say Abnoba clearly not participants in witchcraft? Because as things stand in the article it's a bit confusing. Does this mean that people that do/did folk magic who were dedicated to say house gods or goddesses not participants in witchcraft because no Diana? What about people who clearly did not identify as witches but were later designated as witches by anthros or historians? That's sort of revisionist and really not fair. In Russia, from reading the article and looking at further sources I wouldn't say that people were known specifically as 'witches', there were a variety of different roles or practices and they don't translate to witch and their skills don't translate to witchcraft. Also Russia is pretty huge and encompasses a lot of different peoples and the borders changed and include(d) countries/areas like Lithuania, Finland and Mongolia. Indigenous girl (talk) 03:39, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * These are absolutely valid confusions and I would love to see them clarified in complete articles with proper citations.
 * In very short, uncited form; no, they were not all involved with Diana. There was a theory called the witch-cult hypothesis where people thought there was a single big fertility/goddess-based (ie; Diana, Aradia, and a couple other names are commonly used here) pre-Christian religion that survived as "witchcraft" and suppression of that was the major driver of the witch trials. This has been definitively and repeatedly disproved. Instead, there were a lot of different local beliefs. "Witchcraft" ended up being a mix of traditional knowledge, folklore, and "magic" practiced as folk religion to varying degrees in different parts of the continent... and overall was a pretty minor consideration in the sweep of things happening in Europe. (Again; not what was being suppressed with the witch hunts.) - Darker Dreams (talk) 04:02, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification! As the article stands it seems very bizarre, like "witchcraft" dedicated to Diana was/is some colonizer practice originating in the Mediterranean that came in and tried to displace local practices. Which at face value did not seem particularly nice to me. I know that folk beliefs/practices still exist in some areas from traveling and those people are just regular so I thought maybe they were hold outs from oppression or something from that. Obviously this isn't a topic I know a lot about but I find it interesting. So I am going to hit the stacks and research. Indigenous girl (talk) 14:53, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Darker Dreams...Ummm, Hopi land is quite isolated and it is seriously doubtful this is a basis for bias (or subscribing to existing systemic bias) against New Age witches, NeoPagans, or Wiccans. Netherzone (talk) 03:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Being isolated means it's less likely for that bias to be relevant; it doesn't mean it can't exist. It also doesn't mean that if, as I continued, if it were expressed as fact in Wiki-voice without context it wouldn't serve that purpose. Darker Dreams (talk) 03:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Article length
At over 186 kB, this article is too big. We should also be discussing how to split it. Skyerise (talk) 14:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Or cut content do we need 6 paragraphs on "European witch-hunts and witch-trials" when we have two articles covering it? Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly. It's also covered in European witchcraft. There is also Asian witchcraft and I think one for the Americas? I can't remember the name. Skyerise (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * At 72 kB of readable prose, the article is long but not so long that splitting is required. This is a type of a complex topic that warrants a longer article. 186 kB of markup size is irrelevant. Only readable prose counts under WP:SIZERULE. I'm against any ideas about what to do with the article that are based on size, at this time.—Alalch E. 15:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * So do you think European witchcraft and Asian witchcraft should be merged here? There seems to be a lot of duplication. Shouldn't they be section redirects? Skyerise (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Where we have a separate article we only need a brief (one-paragraph) intro. Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. I see that the Asian section in By region doesn't even have a paragraph, while the European section, even though there is an article, has a huge section even subdivided by country. Why the disparity? Skyerise (talk) 15:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Europe two sub-articles and 5 paragraphs then subdivided (again) into 6 subsections many with additional sub-articles, and 2 or 3 paragraphs. Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * And strangely, European witchcraft fails to cover any country other than Britain? Skyerise (talk) 16:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I've now added Italy and Spain to that article, but the better subdivided coverage of Britain should also be merged there. Skyerise (talk) 16:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the Britain subsections belong there (e: not simply because of size, but due to organizational/hierarchy concerns).—Alalch E. 16:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, the "Witches in art" and "Witches in fiction" discuss only European art and fiction, so should also be moved to European witchcraft. Skyerise (talk) 11:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Where we have a main article about a topic which is organizationally a daughter article to another, broader article (parent article), we need a summary in the parent article (this article) that is no shorter than two nicely written and effectively summarizing paragraphs (sections should strive to include more than one paragraph), and no longer than what a fully fleshed out lead, usually four medium-size paragraphs, would be. I completely disagree that we only need a brief (one-paragraph) intro. That is way too short. Ideally, since the lead is already a summary of a topic, the sumamry of a daugher article in the parent article should be similar to the lead of the daughter article, and when it can be essentially identical (sometimes, not always, depending on the context), WP:SYNC applies (lead transclusion).—Alalch E. 16:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The length of the parent article summary is subject to editor discretion, as Alalch notes, and I agree that lead length could be a generally good rule of thumb to follow. This aligns with what is broadly advised just above WP:SUMMARYHATNOTE in the WP:SUMMARY guideline. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:28, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to remove the exclusively European material that has been merged to European witchcraft, as already discussed in the section Article length, as long as no one objects. Does anyone object? Skyerise (talk) 21:12, 4 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Do you mean removing everything under the headings Britain, Italy, Spain, Witches in art and Witches in fiction? I think they should be trimmed down so we're left with only the key points, but I don't think we should remove everything. We should remove the country sub-headings and have a summary of Europe in general. But if something in a particular country stood out in some way, I think it should be kept in. – Asarlaí  (talk) 22:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course we should have a couple paragraph summary along with the main article link. That's pretty standard. Skyerise (talk) 13:56, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have been bold and made the changes. The summary of European witchcraft is still too long; the art and fiction summary may be too short or not inclusive enough, and the individual Asian countries should be moved to Asian witchcraft, but that article needs a longer lead to be used as the summary here. Skyerise (talk) 14:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * What is the long-range goal for this article as whole, once the regional sections are largely split off, assuming each region still has a brief summary left, along with a "see main" note? Which sections do we have consensus to keep here? - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 22:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Good question. Global history and then summaries? What I see is many folks coming in, not only for neopov reasons, but because despite looking long and robust, the global coverage is quite sparse. Once expanded - how many countries are there now - well, regions seem the way to do it to make it easier for new editors to add a region in the realm of their expertise without the distraction of trying to keep a balance with the other regions. OTOH, we have almost nothing about witchcraft in Oceania as yet... Skyerise (talk) 22:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I am still thinking about the Americas section. It's very long, granted. While it doesn't make sense to have the Americas left lonely in the article if every other region is moved, I don't want this done while people are taking some time away, and we're still working on the section, let alone ready to decide on what would go in an article and what should stay as summary. Two contributors with experience in the Indigenous field have said they're busy right now, and I'm not pleased to have had my writing time used up by being dragged to drama boards when I could have been editing. Also, if and when that section is moved, there will be many redirects to be taken care of, and the usual pov concerns to be looked after when doing them. I might ping someone with autowikibrowser to help when the time comes. I'd prefer the section be left alone until Indigeous girl and Netherzone have more time to confer and edit, but I'm not pinging them as I don't want them to feel pressured. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 22:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep. That's why I tagged it instead of being bold. Not in a hurry on this one... Skyerise (talk) 23:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Origin of witches
Something I don't understand. If there was no "witch cult" prior to neopagan witchcraft, how did witches become witches?

Was it something like how cunning-folk and folk healers passed down their practices? Was there a separate tradition of witches doing the same thing? No, because there was no "witch cult". Given this logical paradox, I can only conclude that any individual "witch" must have been trained and started out as a folk healer, and then either was accused of or went of their own accord to the "dark side". Otherwise, there being no "witch cult" from which they might have learned their skills, we would have to conclude that there were no actual witches at all. Is anyone aware of any sources that cover this - how medieval witches learned to be witches without a "witch cult"? Skyerise (talk) 10:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)


 * It didn't need to be 'cunning'; activities as grounded as midwifery ran afoul ... "female midwives trained to assist in childbirth became a particularly vulnerable group" . Early female doctors were also swept up in proceedings. This source highlights "father, brother or spouse" as a frequent source of medical knowledge. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Other sources suggest the entire healer angle is overemphasized. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Skyerise (talk) 11:02, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No idea. I assume something biblical used as an excuse to target strong women. Maybe women passed on their knowledge about healing herbs or some such folk medicine and there it was, a readymade excuse to deny them personhood. Who was the first person accused of being a witch? Probably someone another woman felt inferior to, and the cycle began. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I have no answer, nor reliable sources for that, Skyerise. However, I will note that spiritual alchemy historically and depth psychology in modernity in the the Occident, and certain strands of Sufism (such as the Uwaisi) and Illuminationism in the Orient, have claimed access to imagination (as distinct from fancy or fantasy), intuition (or inner-tuition), inner guidance and even inner guides, and (more generally) to soul, often seen as a companion in life. So perhaps something similar might be claimed by some who became witches, without an unbroken chain of initiation by living "teachers"? Is there any evidence for this? Is there any possibility that their alleged use of hallucinogens such as mandrake played a part in this process? I would expect, if this were the case, that this knowledge would have been handed-down in oral, and perhaps later written, tradition – or to be conspicuously absent.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   11:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If the evidence in other fields such as the religious is anything to go by, it's possible that all manner of practices would have become ritualised over time, and groups might form around those rituals, bridging the gap.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   11:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)


 * We should try not to let this talkpage become a place for general debate and discussion (per WP:NOTFORUM). However, I will respond just to say that your question is somewhat answered in the article already, in the sections Concept, Witchcraft & folk healers, and Accusations of witchcraft. The scholarly consensus is that there were very few actual witches, i.e. people who tried to inflict harm by magic. The sources note that most accused weren't magical healers or midwives either, altho' they were slightly more likely to be accused. I think this is the key paragraph: –  Asarlaí  (talk) 11:28, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think are starting out from a flawed premise, but this is not a forum. 11:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think what we are doing here is thinking about which avenues of research might perhaps help to fill some of the gaps in our (limited) understanding.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   11:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Precisely. This question is intended to lead to discussion about improving the article by closing gaps in the coverage of the topic. Skyerise (talk) 11:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Then we need to go by what RS say, not what we think. My reading is (per Cohen) that witches did not come from anywhere, they were invented to fit a scapegoat mechanic, a way of societies to blame the victims for their misfortune "well she was a witch, she turned me into a newt). In more primitive societies (per the above) it was a way of blaming someone for your misfortune. Slatersteven (talk) 11:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I get that, but the lead of the article, at least historically if not traditionally, doesn't really make this all that clear. Skyerise (talk) 12:05, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Lets wait till we have solved one lede issue before starting another. Let's not confuse matters. Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Waiting with bated breath for that RfC to conclude.... Skyerise (talk) 12:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is now COMPLETELY DISCREDITED
I really feel like this was written by someone Christian who hates women. This just perpetuates harmful stereotypes and is wrong. Witches don't even believe in the devil. Witches follow the seasons, the moon, heal and help others, treat animals with respect and literally harm no one and nothing. We are all children of the earth just some are more in tune with it. 73.62.216.40 (talk) 15:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I am going to be super nice and not delete this as soapboxing and just answer. That is how modern witches define themselves, there is no evidence for this being what they were beofre Murrey And Fraser invented it. I woud also point out this is a very Western-centric version of witchcraft. Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I would leave this post in place, because it illustrates why, in part, we are now engaged in a mediation process and a request for comment has been launched.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   15:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's important to note how wikipedia works - in that Wikipedia is not devoted to trying to find some "universal, ultimate truth" in the world. There are many, many definitions for witchcraft, and while we (as society) have an objective definition for things like the speed of light, we do not have a singular, objective definition for witchcraft. So how does Wikipedia work in these circumstances? We work off of references and citations. And in this case, the vast, vast amount of references to "witchcraft" are historical accounts of various evils being caused by it. Does that mean Wikipedia is saying "witchcraft" is evil? No, it's just pointing out that that was it's main association for hundreds of years. A MINOTAUR (talk) 18:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * We all agree that sources must be used and we must report what those sources say. The core of this argument is how those sources are being used. No one is arguing against a definition of witchcraft being use of supernatural abilities to cause harm. The problem is that some people are arguing that is the *only* definition, or the only one that merits serious coverage. The sources do NOT support that. In fact, the very same sources that are used to justify the (unargued) negative definition spend at least some time explicitly acknowledging those other definitions exist and are being deliberately excluded for that particular paper/article/book/conversation. Hutton, widely referenced, acknowledges FOUR total definitions in a book titled explicitly to be about this one. For some reason, Wikipedia has struggled to accept that there are even two definitions. Further, some of the sources provided argue that there is scholarly disagreement about this definition. The main point of contention being that such singular definition is overly tied to Eurocentric historical understanding. However, you'd never know any of that from the way these sources are being used in this article. And that's a problem. Darker Dreams (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey Darker Dreams, I'm going to agree with you here regarding Hutton, Hutton states, Anglo-American senses of it now take at least four different forms there's that pesky Anglo-American. This should not be a source for world view. Indigenous girl (talk) 00:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Two things; A) Regarding Anglo-American focus "...rather than introducing their own cultural bias, [editors] should seek to improve articles by removing any examples of cultural bias that they encounter, or making readers aware of them." Understanding that there are indigenous and worldwide perspectives in addition to Anglo-American perspectives does not mean we entirely eject Anglo-American perspectives just because they are Anglo-American. B) Examples being provided of a given definition in indigenous and worldwide perspectives does not make that definition the universal worldwide or indigenous definition. "For years, self-identified witches have demanded the public acknowledgement of witchcraft as “religion” in Nigeria." "I challenge the notions that witchcraft and sorcery invariably lead to violence, that there is only one type of witchcraft and sorcery, and that what is labelled witchcraft and sorcery in English is entirely superstitious nonsense. [...] [T]he flying witches of Milne Bay are legendary and Milne Bay itself has been described anecdotally as the witchcraft centre of [Papua New Guinea]. [...] [V]iolence against women is much less in this province where witchcraft is highly articulated, and it is said to empower and contribute to the status of Milne Bay women." "By the very definition of witchcraft that the Spanish created in the Andes, the practice by Andean women of their religion and the maintenance of their culture was construed as witchcraft." Yes; evil witchcraft is a valid definition. I have never - not once - argued otherwise. It is not, worldwide, the only valid definition. - Darker Dreams (talk) 11:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "does not make that definition the universal worldwide or indigenous definition" When I was 10- or 11-years-old, a school teacher emphasized to my class that there is never any universally-agreed definition or understanding of any topic. Whatever the local consensus of a majority is, there is always someone who has another perspective. When I was 15-years-old, a history teacher taught me that the seemingly "unbiased" primary sources that we were using were mere reflections of their authors' political and social convinctions. And that we should never trust any writer of upper-class origins to tell us about the actual living conditions of the lower classes of their era. Because that writer never experienced them. Universally-agreed truths and unbiased opinions are rarer than unicorns. Dimadick (talk) 18:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Something similar was found with earlier Orientalist scholars studying Sufi mysticism and writing studies of Sufism rather than studies in Sufism. These are, at least to the Sufis themselves, two very different approaches and they would argue that the Sufi Way cannot be properly understood from outside the school (tariqa) or circle (halqa). Fortunately we now have some straddling the divide who can write with more authority.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   18:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

The original post here should've just been deleted. "Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject" and "Article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles". There is the RFC now to sort this out. – Asarlaí  (talk) 19:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)


 * You don't think the frequency with which this page recieves complaints, including that it reads like Christian anti-Pagan propaganda, is indicating there is an improvement that needs made? You may not like the message, I don't really care for the delivery. Doesn't mean that it isn't a pretty clear indication of a problem that needs addressed. Someone compared this to the disagreement abiut whether there should be images on the page about Mohamad. Except it's not; this page, as you have repeatedly argued for it to read, says [name of religion] is generally viewed as evil. And other definitions are pushed to the 3rd or later paragraph after expanding on that or put in hatnotes... I'd like to say I'm not sure how that hasn't been acknowledged as a pretty glaring indication of a problem with what's being considered "primary use."however, the amount of energy that I've had to put in to trying (and failing) to get sourced material included correctly in this or any article on the subject makes that pretty clear. Darker Dreams (talk) 20:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You don't think the frequency with which this page recieves complaints ... is indicating there is an improvement that needs made?
 * See: any page about pseudoscience, or far right figures, or multi-level marketing companies, or nationalist sticking points, etc etc etc. @2600:1014:B1AC:2511:A8E6:8328:20D2:8D98 (talk) 12:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS ... you're comparing all that to people looking for information on a religion and other topics with academic coverage and affirmative acknowledgement even when not being directly addressed. - Darker Dreams (talk) 16:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If hundreds of christians came in and began complaining at talk:Christianity that the page was biased against them, would you honor those requests?2600:4040:475E:F600:4D46:35AC:C95A:1167 (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If the opening or second sentence of the article on Christianity was "Historically and traditionally, belief in Christianity has caused harm and misfortune to others," I think it would be changed pretty quickly and without much dispute that moving, removing, or contextualizing that text needed to happen. I feel pretty comfortable that's true for most other religions. - Darker Dreams (talk) 05:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * We've dealt with racism for thousands of years as witches. This is to be expected. Underwoods Witch (talk) 05:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * For clarity; that's not racism, it's religious bias. And 'thousands of years' is... overstated. - Darker Dreams (talk) 05:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Books that are thousands of years old discuss witchcraft, how is that overstated? We are an ancient amd maligned people. You don't need to throw more witchphobia out there. I'm going to weave a cantrip to protect this article from the uninitiated. Underwoods Witch (talk) 05:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Its not, the overstatement is to claim that something that was invented in the 19thC dates back 1000's of years. Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, uninitiated here... your cantrip didn't work, perhaps you should try again? If it works it will be the most exciting innovation in wikiediting since the undo button. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 14:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly, helpful IP editor [re - all controversial topics get vandalized/trolled]. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 21:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * For the record, I am not Christian, nor am I anti-Pagan, nor do I hate women. Netherzone (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Which is the case for myself, as well, as well as others who've been mischaracterized here. With no disrespect intended to the particular IP editors who have been very helpful here, emotional screeds by IPs and WP:SPA accounts are nothing new. Happens on every talk page for any topic that is even vaguely controversial. That's why some talk page wind up needing semi-protection, unfortunately. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 21:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Why do you insist healers are evil then? Seems like a bias against someone. Its asinine that this title doesn't just redirect to Wicca. Underwoods Witch (talk) 01:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No one is insisting that healers are evil. Quite the contrary. Netherzone (talk) 03:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you agree, it looks like we have consensus that Witchcraft is a force of good and evil should be removed from this. Underwoods Witch (talk) 05:33, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No, what you have is an agreement that one aspect of witchcraft is not evil. Not all witches were healers, hell read some of those books and see how they defined witchcraft, its often not healing. Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Underwoods, you are misunderstanding me, WP is an encyclopedia and we go by what reliable sources say, not what our personal opinions or belief systems are. Netherzone (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * One of the main problems with this discussion is that people keep taking things personally and reacting emotionally. It is more productive here to take a detached view, it helps to maintain a NPOV. Netherzone (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Who is being emotional? I get it that witches are often women, so accusations of being "emotional" or "hormonal" are often tossed around to dismiss women's opinions. Please, keep the microaggressions out of this, and make it about content not people. Underwoods Witch (talk) 17:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Again you are misunderstanding me, Underwoods, my comment has nothing to do with gender - and by the way, all genders have emotions. Netherzone (talk) 18:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I understood you just fine. You used a common tactic to dismiss women, and then doubled down on it. Just comment on content, don't try to guess what other editors are feeling, or your bias will show again. And no, I don't care to hear whether you have friends who are women :eyeroll: Underwoods Witch (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * More or less with UW here. Accusing your opponents of being emotional is a pretty obvious personal attack.
 * Indeed, all genders have emotions; in fact all people have emotions. Including you. The idea that you and your allies are being detached and rational while your opponents are just emotional is patently silly, and while I don't think you intended this, it very often is wielded in a sexist way. Loki (talk) 23:27, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Friends, it does not seem like this section is going anywhere productive, and given I believe we are all here in good faith to build an encyclopedia it may be best to just step back and let the RFC run it's course. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 02:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi friend, the rfc is about the lede only Underwoods Witch (talk) 02:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Lets not mock, especially a now banned user, we do not grave dance. Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Article organization
It seems to me that the article should be organized by region, with the history of witchcraft in the region and contemporary events in chronological order in each regional section. This makes sense because the daughter articles are also broken out into regions. Alpha order is probably not the best, I have no desire to bury the European witch trials after Asia, so I propose the following order:


 * Middle East
 * Europe
 * North America
 * Indigenous North America
 * Colonial North America (there is already a daughter article for this, Witchcraft in Colonial America)
 * Africa (necessary to understand the influence on Latin America traditions)
 * Latin America (including Central and South America)
 * Asia
 * Oceania

This has the advantage of introducing the origins of the Judeo-Christian background first; then its effects on Europe and North America. It's probably important to put pre-Christian indigenous beliefs first, to the extend that they are known, since Christianization may have altered indigenous perceptions. The details about witch hunts in the individual states should be moved to Witchcraft in Colonial America, etc.

As for the subsequent sections, Witchcraft in Africa needs to be started, and because of the great influence of African traditions on Latin America, should probably go before Witchcraft in Latin America, which is really, really bad and needs a lot of work. Not really my area of expertise, which is mostly Asia. Currently there is so little material on Oceania that it may as well all stay in this article for now, with a redirect to the section from Witchcraft in Oceania. Skyerise (talk) 12:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I broadly agree. I think a lot of region-specific content should be moved into their regions, including the whole section on "Historical and religious perspectives" and some of the section on "Thwarting witchcraft". Most of the other sections are more general/worldwide so they can be left as they are. I suggest this layout:
 * Concept
 * Etymology
 * Practices
 * Thwarting witchcraft
 * Accusations
 * Historic witch hunts and witch trials
 * Modern witch hunts
 * Witchcraft and folk healers (this could be broadened)
 * By region
 * Middle East (including most of the content from "Historical and religious perspectives")
 * Europe
 * Ancient Roman world
 * Medieval and early modern Europe
 * North America
 * Indigenous North America
 * Colonial North America
 * Africa
 * Latin America
 * Asia
 * Oceania
 * Demographics and surveys
 * Neopagan Witchcraft
 * Witches in art and fiction
 * – Asarlaí  (talk) 13:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Rather than have neopagan as a separate section (implying it is worldwide, I am unsure it is that widespread outside Europe and north America) in include is in subsections "modern Europe" and "modern America". Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with this proposal by Slatersteven about integrating modern witchcraft. I'm also not sure that the "Thwarting" section is globalized enough to justify having it as one of the introductory sections, I would think it should go in the European section. Skyerise (talk) 13:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I assumed "modern witch-hunts" would cover Africa (about the only place they still occur). But its an awkward title. Maybe just call it witch-hunts? Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd say that material should simply be moved into the relevant regional sections. There are also still witchhunts in India and Nepal; it's not just Africa. Skyerise (talk) 13:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think Neopagan Witchcraft should be merged into the regional sections. Firstly, it's international and not easy to split it into Europe, North America and Australia without repeating ourselves. Secondly, those regional sections are about the traditional meaning of witchcraft; adding Wicca (etc) into that wrongly implies they're the same thing.
 * Cultures worldwide have similar beliefs about what witches do (summarized under "Practices") and how to deal with alleged witches/witchcraft (summarized under "Thwarting witchcraft"), so we need overview sections for those. Culture-specific beliefs and practices can be covered in more detail under the regional sections. – Asarlaí  (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Genuine question, is there any sources for neopagan witchcraft outside the West (Europe, North America and Australia etc)? If not, then any section for neopagan witchcraft needs to make it clear this is a Western occurrence. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 23:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it should be integrated as Slatersteven suggests. Wicca is entirely a British creation, and that's where it should be covered. The fact that it was adopted and adapted in the US as well as other English-speaking countries should be mentioned as appropriate in the other sections. Adoption in non-English speaking countries could be supported by the translation and publication of books on the topic by publishers local to the country in question. Skyerise (talk) 15:28, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Witchcraft in Africa
As there have been no objections to this split proposal, I have gone ahead and executed it. The lead in the new article has been used for the summary. It most likely needs improvment in both places. I've proposed an updated lead at Talk:Witchcraft in Africa. Skyerise (talk) 19:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)


 * So we're right in the middle of an RFC about what kind of tone to use on this article, and you just split off a good section of it and wrote it in the tone you want to adopt on this article (against what looks to be the current RFC consensus), right after being dragged to ANI for moving an article in the middle of a move request?
 * Further, you blatantly included multiple religious traditions under the scope of "Witchcraft" without using sources in direct violation of WP:SYNTH.
 * Am I getting that right? DontKnowWhyIBother (talk) 23:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Please feel free to conform the article to your expectations. The RfC only covers the lead. This is a collaborative project. I fully expect y'all to ruin my wonderful work. Have at it! Enjoy! I'm not even watching it anymore though, so don't expect to get a rise out of me when you do. Skyerise (talk) 23:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * P.S. You've got some of your facts wrong. Skyerise (talk) 23:30, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * A completely reasonable split, and the objections raised above are irrelevant.—Alalch E. 23:03, 2 September 2023 (UTC)