Talk:Witchcraft (disambiguation)
 | Disambiguation | |||
| ||||
Neutrality of summary[edit]
Until a recent reversion, there was an attempt to change the content of the page to again read Witchcraft, traditionally and worldwide, usually means the use of malevolent magic.
This summary reflects the stance taken and topics covered in the current Witchcraft article, but there has been much discussion about renaming that partial article and instead redirecting from "Witchcraft" and maybe "Witches" not to that article, but to their respective disambiguation pages. Witchcraft did have some material on contemporary witchcraft tagged-onto it, but that has since been moved to other articles such as Neopagan witchcraft, and this partial article should perhaps no longer be the default target for numerous search terms, when its subject may well not be what the unsuspecting reader or editor was looking for.
Darker Dreams changed the summary to more neutral wording: "Witchcraft" refers to worldwide historical and traditional beliefs about witchcraft."
with the edit summary: How about we let the article speak for the article instead of pushing points of view that are being debated onto other pages, especially since current consensus seems to be that page should be proposed for move.
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." Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 10:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
@Nosferattus: The witchcraft article aims for a global scope. That is the point of using "worldwide" in the description. The neopagan redefinition is largely confined to western, white, English-speaking cultures. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 17:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- @CorbieVreccan: While it is true that "positive" witchcraft is much more common in western, white, English-speaking cultures, it also exists in significant amounts within other cultures, especially Latin America. There is a thriving Wicca community and witchcraft market in Mexico City, Catemaco in eastern Mexico has an annual witchcraft festival, and there is the Comunidad Pagana de México—Hermandad de la Diosa Blanca, an umbrella organization for pagan groups in Mexico. There is also the reclaiming of Brujería by the Afro-Latin diaspora (again blurring the lines between "malevalent" and "positive" witchcraft). And while I'm sure all these groups may be influenced by western, white, English-speaking cultures, that doesn't negate their existence. Nosferattus (talk) 18:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- No need to negate their existence, but they're still in the minority compared to traditional cultures in those countries and worldwide. "Worldwide" or "global" should be indicated in the definition. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 18:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- I concede your point, but would also argue that "witchcraft" itself is a Western concept, often poorly mapped onto other cultures for the convenience of Western academics. I just don't see a clear divide between "malevolent" witchcraft being global and "positive" witchcraft being relegated to Western, white, English-speaking cultures. Yes, one idea is more global, but not to the extent that it warrants being defined with that term, IMO. Nosferattus (talk) 18:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- I urge you to read the whole Witchcraft article, and the linked articles in the culture sections. Basically, everything that is not about neopaganism. I understand your viewpoint, I really do. I really do understand believing the Witchcult theory and then having to accept it was not true. I know what that is like. I am asking you to approach this with fresh eyes and try to understand this from the perspective of people from other cultures. We have to represent the global view here. Which we are doing a better job of doing. But it does no favor to Neopagans to confuse the definitions. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- Fine. Have it your way. Now that Wicca and Neopagan witchcraft have been completely expurgated from the witchcraft article, we might as well minimize their scope here as well. It's funny to me that no matter how large Wicca grows, or how influential its ideas become, or how many books are written about it, it will never be taken seriously or given any weight. Personally, I don't think the debunked witch-cult theory has any relevance to the issue. If a million people call what they do "witchcraft" and a thousand books about "witchcraft" agree with them, that should count for something. Wikipedia isn't just the encyclopedia for anthropologists after all. And what happens when people start persecuting Wiccans in Africa (yes, they exist) as malevolent witches? Will we still pretend they have nothing to do with each other? Nosferattus (talk) 22:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- Look, I am trying to discuss this with you like a reasonable person, but you keep devolving into the WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS and WP:BATTLEGROUND attitudes here. This is not about using the 'pedia to change definitions to fit with Neopaganism, but to document usage worldwide, whether or not we agree with it, whether or not we like it. Until you understand that this is going to be difficult for you. OK, I'm reverting your change, then. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 23:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- @CorbieVreccan: The only wrong I'm trying to right is your persistent disregard for due weight and your apparent bias against any point of view other than your own. I'm not arguing that Neopaganism is THE CORRECT point of view. I'm arguing that it is a point of view. But apparently that's a bridge too far. Nosferattus (talk) 23:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- But it's not my own view or undue weight, it's all the non-Neopagan sources. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 00:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
- Except... it's not. You've just chosen to ignore any sources that disagree with you. Darker Dreams (talk) 00:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
- But it's not my own view or undue weight, it's all the non-Neopagan sources. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 00:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
- @CorbieVreccan: The only wrong I'm trying to right is your persistent disregard for due weight and your apparent bias against any point of view other than your own. I'm not arguing that Neopaganism is THE CORRECT point of view. I'm arguing that it is a point of view. But apparently that's a bridge too far. Nosferattus (talk) 23:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- Look, I am trying to discuss this with you like a reasonable person, but you keep devolving into the WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS and WP:BATTLEGROUND attitudes here. This is not about using the 'pedia to change definitions to fit with Neopaganism, but to document usage worldwide, whether or not we agree with it, whether or not we like it. Until you understand that this is going to be difficult for you. OK, I'm reverting your change, then. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 23:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- Fine. Have it your way. Now that Wicca and Neopagan witchcraft have been completely expurgated from the witchcraft article, we might as well minimize their scope here as well. It's funny to me that no matter how large Wicca grows, or how influential its ideas become, or how many books are written about it, it will never be taken seriously or given any weight. Personally, I don't think the debunked witch-cult theory has any relevance to the issue. If a million people call what they do "witchcraft" and a thousand books about "witchcraft" agree with them, that should count for something. Wikipedia isn't just the encyclopedia for anthropologists after all. And what happens when people start persecuting Wiccans in Africa (yes, they exist) as malevolent witches? Will we still pretend they have nothing to do with each other? Nosferattus (talk) 22:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- I urge you to read the whole Witchcraft article, and the linked articles in the culture sections. Basically, everything that is not about neopaganism. I understand your viewpoint, I really do. I really do understand believing the Witchcult theory and then having to accept it was not true. I know what that is like. I am asking you to approach this with fresh eyes and try to understand this from the perspective of people from other cultures. We have to represent the global view here. Which we are doing a better job of doing. But it does no favor to Neopagans to confuse the definitions. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- I concede your point, but would also argue that "witchcraft" itself is a Western concept, often poorly mapped onto other cultures for the convenience of Western academics. I just don't see a clear divide between "malevolent" witchcraft being global and "positive" witchcraft being relegated to Western, white, English-speaking cultures. Yes, one idea is more global, but not to the extent that it warrants being defined with that term, IMO. Nosferattus (talk) 18:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- No need to negate their existence, but they're still in the minority compared to traditional cultures in those countries and worldwide. "Worldwide" or "global" should be indicated in the definition. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 18:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Move discussion in progress[edit]
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Witchcraft which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC)