Talk:Witchcraft/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

RFC on Lede Section on Witchcraft

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is a three-part RFC on reworking the article on Witchcraft, beginning with the opening sentences.

Please reply to each of the questions about the introduction to the article in the Survey with a brief statement. Please do not reply to other editors in a Survey section. That is what the Discussion section is for. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

First Sentence

Which of the following opening sentences, A, B, C, D, or E, should be used to introduce the article on Witchcraft?

• A: Witchcraft is the exercise of supernatural power.
• B: Witchcraft is the exercise of certain types of supernatural powers.
• C: Witchcraft is a type of magical practice.
• D: Witchcraft, as most commonly understood in both historical and present-day communities, is the use of alleged supernatural powers of magic, generally stereotyped as doing harm or evil.
  • D.a: Witchcraft, as most commonly understood in both historical and present-day communities, is the alleged use of supernatural powers, usually to do harm or evil. (proposed by CorbieVreccan below, added by Loki (talk) 17:42, 20 August 2023 (UTC))
• E: Witchcraft has a wide range of meanings based on historical, anthropological, religious, folkloric, and mythological contexts.

Survey on First Sentence

• E Sources support a range of meanings for "witchcraft" beyond the purported use of supernatural magic. If this is to be a "broad concept" article it needs to introduce the concept broadly and not immediately corner it into this limited selection of the definitions provided in sources. Darker Dreams (talk) 06:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• D generally this is how it is seen outside of the western world. Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• E per Darker Dreams: leaves the definition open for more detail, addresses the concept broadly and acknowledges variability in definition. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 17:02, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• B Witchcraft, defined globally, doesn't include healing. So saying it's only some kinds of supernatural powers is a good addition. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  would you consider supporting D as a second choice? 208.87.236.201 (talk) 02:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I think "stereotyped" is too open to interpretation. While it applies to healers falsely accused and murdered during witch hunts, it could also be interpreted as "witches" are doing (or trying to do) good, and it's only a false stereotype that says some are trying to do harm. Still wordy, but maybe if it were tweaked to:

D.a: Witchcraft, as most commonly understood in both historical and present-day communities, is the alleged use of supernatural powers, usually to do harm or evil. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

• Strong D the fact that this has gotten as far as it has is a travesty. 208.87.236.201 (talk) 01:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
• D I would support a modified version of D. E gives a false balance, while the others imply that people accused of being witches actually practiced witchcraft. It seems to me that most such accusations are false. Pliny the Elderberry (talk) 06:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
• D While acknowledging that scholarly consensus is that witchcraft is malevolent, it usefully qualifies this regarding stereotyping, addressing the many strongly-held talk page missives this article receives over perceived or even gross negative bias. I note also that Ronald Hutton, an eminent scholar in this field, notes that there are actually very few working in this field, so "scholarly consensus" is not to be read and overweighted as "lots of scholars". E is too vague and wordy. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 09:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
• Strong B If you look up the definition of witchcraft in the Oxford dictionary, it merely mentions that it's the use of supernatural powers. Option E is very wordy and Option D would be more useful as the second or third sentance. Options A and C are good options but B is the most on the nose. I see witchcraft much the same as using The Force or having a superpower: whether or not its real, the definition of what it claims to be remains. Explaining the alleged-ness should follow. Listen1st (talk) 19:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
• B changed to D.a - this is the common meaning. D is inaccurate because of the word stereotyped. I could live with the alternative D.a proposed above. Netherzone (talk) 05:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
• D.a the amended form of D suggested by CorbieVreccan. A, B, and C are vague and Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. Conveying the "allegedness" early avoids later problems (as I've argued below). D makes later "additional statements" redundant, so it ends up being more concise than starting out vague. – Scyrme (talk) 20:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
• Strong D.a per CorbieVreccan and Scyrme. Indigenous girl (talk) 23:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose all RfC options in favor of the current revision. The first paragraph is actually pretty good now, and much better than what would come out of implementing any of the options. Even the Britannica quote, while unusual (usually we would prefer not having a quote in the first paragraph), is reasonable.—Alalch E. 01:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  The current revision is similar to having E+D+Z+0 (or, rather than 0, + a number of additional statements not listed below). Would you say the wording of the second sentence of the current revision is much better than D.a or D? – Scyrme (talk) 02:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  Agree. I don't really see any issue with the current lead, as it seems both more descriptive and comes across as more neutral than any of the options listed above. I think that it makes sense for a broad term such as "witchcraft" to have a somewhat all-encompassing lead to appropriately describe the definition/usage throughout history. Frost.xyz | (talk) 22:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

• B if we're adding a qualifying statement, because witchcraft only means certain kinds of supernatural power ... or D.a if we're not adding a qualifying statement, because this is the most common and widespread meaning and is the article's focus. "Stereotyped as doing harm" wrongly implies that the idea is just a negative stereotype – see the discussion above. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 10:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
• D.a Looks good to me! (Alerted to this by a post at WP:FTN). jps (talk) 17:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
• D or D.a as a second choice. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

*Other Witchcraft is an ancient natural healing tradition, still in practice today. Underwoods Witch (talk) 02:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC) user indef-blocked by Lourdes for trolling. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:33, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• What's practiced today is not ancient in any way. There are photographs older then modern witchcraft. And movies older then the specific Wiccan spin on the concept. Trying to manufacture a link to an older, unrelated concept is very common with new religions to launder mystique or respect on to themselves and it's no different with this one. The fact that that link is widely and nearly universally discredited in reliable sources would mean implying it was factual in articlespace would be a NPOV violation. 50.234.188.27 (talk) 12:42, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• C (>B>A>E>>>>D): The most important quality of witchcraft is that it's a type of magic. It's not just a supernatural practice but specifically magical. Other than that, I don't think the sources support any view on witchcraft being so overwhelming it should be specifically called out in the lead as D does. Loki (talk) 02:33, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
• D Seems to hit most of the key points. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
• E is maybe okay. D is laughable: as if the phrase "witchcraft" was/is "understood" in any way at all in the majority of contexts! small jars tc 23:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
• D.a or D or E — C is just about acceptable, but A and B both imply supernatural powers actually exist. ~ Argenti Aertheri^(Chat?) 03:04, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
• D.a. Clearest and most accurate. A and B both imply witchcraft is objectively proven and seem to be written to please the Wicca/neopagan crowd in an unacceptably POV way. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 00:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
• E Simplest and the best. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose E, which is overly cautious and doesn't say anything substantial about the subject. The sentence is almost tautological and could be applied to many different subjects: "marriage has a wide range of meanings based on historical, anthropological, religious... contexts" - suicide, chastity, fasting, bowing your head, praying, etc. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:52, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

  Agree. Oppose E. I understand the thinking behind it but it become so meaningless, that it doesn't convey anything at all to our readers. Reading the lead will make it clear there is a range of meanings (but a few prominent global/historical ones). Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 23:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

• B with strong opposition to D and E. It is succinct, accurate and operated on the principle of least surprise. Any reference to witchcraft as stereotypically evil in the lead sentence is to unduly apply a pejorative. Leave that to the body. It may also be Eurocentric and, to a large extent, recentism as the term is widely used for healing magic and suchlike, and retroactively applied to rootworkers and other traditionalists. E might as well say, 'Witchcraft is an English noun.' B aligns with common understand, dictionary references and a global perspective. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 21:10, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
• Da per Slatersteven. The whole "benign witch" concept is a recent thing that has only really taken off in the West, and we need to avoid making wikipedia more Western-centric than it is. Futher, the argument that "it's offensive to witches" is invalid; there's a lot on Wikipedia that people of many religions find offensive and we don't kowtow to their demands either. Strong oppose to E or C. DontKnowWhyIBother (talk) 21:23, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

  Can you or one of the other similar-voting editors explain the "recent" concept, please? The idea that the modern English word, witch, has always and intrinsically implied evildoing seems extremely narrow. How far back are you going for "recent"? Cheers, Last1in (talk) 23:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

• B or C. A is just inaccurate: there are many types of supernatural powers that are not witchcraft. D is far too wordy. E conveys no actual information. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
• Strongly support E. Normally we'd want the first sentence to be a self-contained, straightforward definition. But withcraft carries different meanings across societies and cultures (sometimes even incompatible meanings); that's important context, and therefore should come first. This first sentence is an important foundation that the current rest of the paragraph builds upon. The problem with D/D.a is that it breaks this buildup; it replaces Historically and traditionally (the current second sentence) with something straightforwardly inaccurate, (historical and present-day communities). Many present-day communities don't fear witchcraft, or earnestly associate it with evil, because they don't believe it even exists. They see it as a relic of ancient times, which is encapsulated in the current second sentence, not any of the proposed ones. And most who do believe in it today, no matter what we think of them, don't believe they're evil either. Proposals are all a downgrade from the status quo. Our first paragraph should remain framed around its mythological essence, rooted in history and tradition; modern interpretations are far more complex and better addressed separately later in the lead, as they are now. DFlhb (talk) 09:00, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
• No change - lead is fine as it is. Skyerise (talk) 11:49, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Second Sentence

The article for witch has been merged with witchcraft. Which of the following opening sentences, X, Y, or Z, should follow the above sentence to introduce this aspect:

• X: Someone who uses witchcraft, or believes they are doing so, is a witch.
• Y: Someone who uses witchcraft, or is believed to do so, may be termed a witch.
• Z: A witch is a practitioner of witchcraft.

Survey on Second Sentence

• Z covers both accusations and self reporting without specifically attributing truth to any claim (positive or negative) of "witch." If an individual does not practice witchcraft (regardless of which definition), they aren't a witch. I could see "practice" being substituted with other words, like "perform" or "engage in." Darker Dreams (talk) 06:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• Z keeps it short. Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• Z: MOS:CONCISE. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 17:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• X: We cannot say in wikivoice that supernatural powers are real, we cannot say in wikivoice that some people have supernatural powers. The only way we can have an opening sentence about supernatural powers is with a qualifier like this following immediately after. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  I may amend this, as well as the next bit, if the first sentence shifts to something that has the "alleged" or an equivalent in it. Let's see how it sorts out over the next few days. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 00:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• X per Corbie. 208.87.236.201 (talk) 02:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
• Strong Y I believe most "witches" are falsely accused; to imply they actually use(d) or believe(d) they use(d) witchcraft is harmfully misleading. Fear of witches is a scapegoating practice, and this must be made clear rather than reified. Pliny the Elderberry (talk) 06:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
• Y: Per Pliny the Elderberry, a great many were falsely accused of witchcraft, and also per CorbieVreccan, we can't use wikivoice to state or imply that supernatural powers are real, without appropriate evidence. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 09:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
• Z This option is more direct. Explanations can come later in the lede and/or in the article. Listen1st (talk) 19:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
• X - clear and direct, the encyclopedia cannot claim that people having supernatural powers is a reality. Netherzone (talk) 05:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
• Y. I agree that it's important to emphasise that many "witches" have been and are falsely accused, especially if it follows D. I don't think any of these in isolation imply that supernatural powers are real, and they might only be taken to suggest that by someone who already believes that. If this sentence were to follow D it would have already been made clear that supernatural powers are "alleged" regardless of which of these is used. Z is the most likely to imply the reality of supernatural powers; unlike X and Y it carries no suggestion of doubt (as would be communicated by referring to belief) and if it were to follow A or B it would actually affirm that supernatural powers can be practiced (thereby implying that they are real). – Scyrme (talk) 20:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
• Comment None of these include individuals from cultures where an individual may identify as a witch but not perform 'witchcraft', in particular Native American cultures. For example, within Cherokee culture there are folks who were/are witches but did not dabble in witchcraft, their actions were different and were/are rooted in causing harm to others. The same can be said for a good number of other communities as well. I was going to offer that it is a self-description but of course that does not apply to what happened in the colonies or in Europe. So I don't know what would be best, I just know that the available options do not work if the word witchcraft is used. Indigenous girl (talk) 23:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  Think of something to propose, then :) Others are tweaking the suggestions mid-stream; you can, too. It doesn't even have to be the second or third sentence if it doesn't flow there. But maybe something concise for the lede to address this, then go into it more fully in the Cherokee section in the body? - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 00:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  I have some serious personal stuff going on right now and don't have the spoons to formulate anything. Sorry. Indigenous girl (talk) 01:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  • • • We all have lives outside Wikipedia. Consider going on a wiki-break while you concentrate on your personal or family-related problems. Personally, I feel that my editing judgement was impaired during periods of emotional anguish or intense depression. I assume the same may be true for my fellow editors. Dimadick (talk) 17:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
• X seems to have it right. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
• Y See below (Original vote misread the options: replacing instead of striking it b/c there were no replies to it so far.) X and Z take a realist position towards witchcraft (i.e. you can actually be a witch if you have the requisite supernatural powers), which I think is not right here. It's also important, IMO, to convey to the reader somehow that "witch" is often an accusation and relatively rarely a self-identified label. Therefore, Y. Loki (talk) 03:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Slight amendment to my vote, since it appears D is winning above: Z if D or D.a, otherwise Y. Both D and D.a already take a skeptical stance towards witchcraft and so in those cases the simplest option is best. Loki (talk) 03:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

• Z Short and simple. The other options get a bit tangled. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
• X+Y Someone who believes they use witchcraft, or is believed to do so, may be termed a witch. Includes false accusations, while not implying they might actually have magic powers. ~ Argenti Aertheri^(Chat?) 03:16, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
• Z Again, simplest is best. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Z. Simple, clear, unbiased. It seems to me that it is indisputable regardless of context, and works best with any 1st sentence.Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 23:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Z. X and Y look seem wrong to me. One who believes they use magic (X) is not a witch, just like one who believes they have superpowers is not a superhero. Someone who is believed to use witchcraft may be termed a witch (Y) just like someone who is believed to be a physician may be called doctor - but no, they are not a witch and not a doctor if they don't actually practice witchcraft and medicine. A witch is a practitioner of witchcraft: it doesn't say much but is correct. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
• Z as the status quo and as the simplest version. DFlhb (talk) 09:00, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
• No change - lead is fine as it is. Skyerise (talk) 11:49, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Additional Statements

Which of the following additional statements should be included in the opening paragraphs:

• 0: (No additional qualifiers or definitions in lede)
• 1: Traditionally, "witchcraft" means the use of magic or supernatural powers to inflict harm or misfortune on others, and this remains the most common and widespread meaning.
• 2: Traditionally, "witchcraft" means the use of magic or supernatural powers to inflict harm or misfortune on others, and this remains the most common and widespread meaning, albeit with notable exceptions.
• 3: For much of the Christian era, this was associated with doing harm to others and the worship of Satan.
• 4: In some contexts, it may be viewed as beneficial, benign, or appropriate.

Survey on Additional Statements

• 0 no additional qualifiers needed in the opening statement. Additional qualifiers can be added to specific definitions, but adding them here narrows it from "broad concept" to specific concept, and some qualifiers represent specific bias against certain definitions. Darker Dreams (talk) 06:55, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• 4 as this is how it is viewed by most (if not all) modern witches. Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  That is a poor argument. 208.87.236.201 (talk) 02:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

• 2: again, leaves things open. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 17:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• 1. For anyone who respects the Indigenous, African, Afro-diasporan, and other traditional, global meanings that have never been redefined, we need this. Another bit further down, and the hatnotes can acknowledge, explain, and link to, the neopagan, literary, and pop culture variations. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• 1 all of the others come from either a Western bias or presentism. 208.87.236.201 (talk) 02:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
• 0 if D is picked, otherwise 2. 2 doesn't give false balance or centralize Western culture, but still acknowledges the existence of Brujería, popular culture "good witches", and Neopagan witchcraft. Pliny the Elderberry (talk) 06:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
• 0 if D is chosen, otherwise 4. 1 and 2 (with emphasis on malignance) are part of the reason we are here now, and in the mess we are in. And no, I'm not looking for a false balance. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 10:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  You can say that all you want, but false balance is false balance. 2603:7000:C00:B4E8:315E:BA69:522B:4431 (talk) 14:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• 1 Further elaboration in the body of the article can be useful but Option 1 is fitting for the lede. Listen1st (talk) 19:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
• 1 - this is the global definition, and includes African and Indigenous perspectives. Netherzone (talk) 05:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
• 0 if D otherwise 2, of these options. The argument that 1 encompasses all African, afrodiasporan, and indigenous perspectives is plainly wrong. eg. Afro-Carribean brujeria and Yoruba àjé both of which have been interpreted as "witchcraft". Acknowledging these exceptions does not exclude global perspectives, it includes more global perspectives. I would actually prefer rewording it more concisely:
  2.a: With some exceptions, the most common and widespread meaning of "witchcraft" remains the use of magic or supernatural powers to inflict harm or misfortune on others.
  Like "albeit" using "some" doesn't overstate the exceptions and this phrasing otherwise coveys the same meaning. Unless D is chosen "0" just pushes this dispute to sentences further down the article, it doesn't help resolve anything. D makes 2 redundant and repetitive. – Scyrme (talk) 20:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC) (Edit: removed "notable" as it's implied by mentioning them.) – Scyrme (talk) 15:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  Witchcraft is definitely acknowledged, practiced, and talked about in African and Afro-Diasporic communities, including Yoruba and Afro-Cuban. But all the Yoruba, Lucumi and Santeria initiates I know define "witchcraft" as harmful magic / harming the innocent / harming one's own community. They don't call themselves witches, and it's dangerous to accuse someone of these activities by calling them a witch. But maybe I misunderstood what you're saying. Whatever conveys this clearly to a general audience. Best wishes, - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  I didn't mean to suggest that a more benign or ambivalent view is a majority view in Afro-Carribean or Yoruba communities, if that's what you thought. – Scyrme (talk) 00:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• 1 Additional, more contemporary meanings, can be acknowledged later. Favoritism should not be given toward contemporary American and Euro neopagan movements. This is for a global audience. Indigenous girl (talk) 00:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  1, like 2, seems redundant and repetitive to include after D. – Scyrme (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  I'm only attached to D.a. If something else is chosen that 1 would be nice. Indigenous girl (talk) 01:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• 1, if this detail isn't in the first sentence. This is the main meaning of the term worldwide, both today and in the past. That statement is supported by numerous academic sources, and is the main focus of the article. Neopagan witchcraft is acknowledged further down the lead, and there are hatnotes to guide readers. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 10:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
• 0 but only because I can't support any of the current options. Maybe I could support a different sentence but I'm not sure what it could be. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
• 3+4, combined like this: For much of the Christian era, this was associated with doing harm to others and the worship of Satan. However, in some non-Christian contexts, witchcraft may be viewed as beneficial, benign, or appropriate. (Or I'd also accept 2, but prefer 3+4.)Loki (talk) 02:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
• 1 Something along these lines if not already featured in the lead; otherwise it is unnecessary. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
• 2, modified: Traditionally, "witchcraft" means the use of magic or supernatural powers to inflict harm or misfortune on others, and this remains the most common and widespread meaning, albeit with notable some exceptions. I know it's WP:IDONTLIKEIT but including "notable" makes those views seem more important than they historically are. ~ Argenti Aertheri^(Chat?) 03:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  Thinking about it, explicitly saying they are "notable" is a bit superfluous. That they are mentioned already implies they are notable since mentioning them is noting them. – Scyrme (talk) 15:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• 1 unless covered in lead already, then 0. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• 1 correct and inclusive for the reasons explained by other users.Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
• 1, strong oppose to 4 DontKnowWhyIBother (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
• 1. My understanding of English tradition is that the difference between "cunning folk" and "witches" was simply that the latter used their powers to harm someone. Witchcraft wasn't a specific set of powers or practices, but rather the malevolent use of any supernatural power. The meaning has broadened to some degree, and includes non-English traditions, but the word often still carries that older meaning. Much of the article is about the historical European meaning, so it's worth mentioning early in the lead. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 00:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
• Keep current first paragraph. It's a well-written, well-rounded introduction to the topic. As I argued above, we don't need to start off the lead by trying to define what witchcraft means today (like 1 or 2 do). Our writing shouldn't "trip over itself", by trying to mention things before establishing proper context. One thing at a time. The historical meaning of witchcraft is complex enough that we don't need to jump back-and-forth and introduce anachronisms; mention traditional meanings first, then modern ones after. 3 and 4 are also bad; what does Christian era mean? In some contexts it's benign? What contexts? I'm getting a "written-by-committee" vibe here. DFlhb (talk) 09:00, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
• No change - lead is fine as it is. Per DFlhb, just above. Skyerise (talk) 11:49, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

We need to stop thinking in terms of only western culture. Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

• Agree. The top-level statements should represent global culture. The article already cites Evans-Pritchard's pioneering work in Africa (1937); there is no justification for a Western-centred view of the subject, beyond confusion with modern Western Wicca. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• Agree. The global and traditional view has always been my goal here. "Traditional" as in extant, living cultures who maintain their traditions, especially Indigenous peoples' cultures, African, Afro-diasporic, Gaelic, etc. Also, Wikipedia is written for a general audience. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

• Agree. Indigenous and global cultures should be included in the encyclopedia, not just western perspectives or modern interpretations. Netherzone (talk) 05:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

This whole discussion is a travesty for three main reasons:

• First off, this whole discussion started based on an argument from a small group of known Fringe POV pushers whose entire argument was that seeing their religious beliefs presented as "evil" might offend them. Thing is, Wikipedia articles are not written based on religious sensibilities; there have been arbitration cases about this. The fact that modern witches don't consider themselves evil is a completely invalid argument.
• Presentism. Modern "witches" are followers of a very recent movement, while this page is about the historical views of witchcraft throughout history. Historically, witches were seen as malevolent, and this was the case for a long time until a small group of neopagans decided to adopt the term for their newly-invented religion. A small group of fringe beliefs does not overwrite thousands of years of history.
• Blatant Western bias. Aside from the relatively small neopagan communities across Europe and North America, much of the world that still believes in witchcraft considers it evil. Even indigenous societies who believe in magic have different terms for beneficial magic (usually portrayed as some form of shamanism) and harmful magic (usually called witchcraft). The idea of a "good witch" is a uniquely Western phenomenon, and a recent one at that. 208.87.236.201 (talk) 02:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I believe that this article should be a broad concept article about malevolent witchcraft and belief in its existence. As discussed ad nauseam, this is a very broad topic because cultures all over the world have a fear of malevolent magic and its practitioners ("witches"). They also seem to have an inclination to soothe the anxiety of a sometimes hostile reality by finding scapegoats ("witches") to explain and try to eliminate misfortune. These are the topics I believe should be explored in this article. Though I do not doubt that some people have practiced and do practice malevolent witchcraft, I believe that the vast majority of "witches" are mere scapegoats. To imply that most "witches" actually practiced malevolent witchcraft is misleading and potentially harmful. Neopagan witchcraft and popular media "good witches" are distinct topics and only merit brief discussion as cultural outgrowths of historical fears of witchcraft. Neopagan (benign) witchcraft has its own article, and deep discussion of it should happen there. This page simply has a different topic. Pliny the Elderberry (talk) 06:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

"to have an inclination to soothe the anxiety of a sometimes hostile reality by finding scapegoats" I assume that it is the same basic idea as the modern moral panic. People feel that their specific community or society in general are under threat or under attack, so they seek the people "responsible" for the threat. And some kind of religious minority, ethnic minority, subculture, or the local outcasts will inevitably be targeted for demonization, persecution, or execution. The main difference in the modern era is that the printing press and the mass media are spreading alarmist ideas and paranoia in a faster way and to a greater geographic extent than the local authorities of the manuscript era. Dimadick (talk) 17:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Describing readers and editors who are concerned about the perceived negative bias as "a small group of known Fringe POV pushers" is untrue, dismissive and unhelpful, and it one of the main reasons that we are here now, and in this unholy mess. I can remember the time (just a few weeks back) when both the leading sentence and the short description were about the malignancy of witchcraft, and tag-teaming pushes are still being made to include such definitions in disambiguation pages, and to include lengthy passages about malignance in associated ("satellite") articles. In addition and as noted by Skyerise, in the past, numerous terms about contemporary witchcraft (which is generally benign) were redirected by an editor to point to the Witchcraft article about malignancy. What we need, instead, is some form of compromise that does not create a false balance, and yet still satisfies all (or most of) the parties involved.

Since much discussion has become buried, please forgive me for repeating myself (from the talk page section on systemic bias above): 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. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 10:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

As a side note, while there may be relatively few people into neopagan witchcraft, there are many more who identify or are identified as neopagans. I would also suggest (though I have no citations to offer) that many new agers and neopagans probably practice such things as candle magic and sympathetic magic, even if they don't realise they are doing so. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 10:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Hutton's definitions, I don't think they necessarily conflict with the content of this article, which I, again, believe to be a broad-concept article on malevolent witchcraft. He says that understanding "witchcraft" to mean 'malevolent magic' is "the most widespread and frequent" definition and "the mainstream scholarly convention". As such, I find it entirely appropriate to have an article on malevolent witchcraft, just as Hutton wrote a book on the topic. The next definition is "witchcraft" as designating any use of magic. I don't deny that the word has been used in this extraordinarily broad sense, but because it is so broad it is not particularly meaningful as a definition. Moreover, I would suspect it to derive from a more specifically Christian bias against any supernatural practice detached from the Christian god. Third is witchcraft as the practice of a "nature-based Pagan religion". There is already an article for this, and it is good and proper that a distinct and distinctly rich topic have its own, separate article. Finally, witchcraft as "a symbol of independent female authority and resistance to male domination" seems to me to be first and foremost a prominent characteristic of Neopagan Witchcraft, best discussed at length on that page. Since fears of malevolent witchcraft, especially in Europe, often seem to have a strong misogynistic element to them I could definitely see such reinterpretations also being discussed in this article, but I do not think it to be of first-paragraph importance. It might well warrant its own article ("Feminist (Re)Interpretations of Witchcraft" or something like that), but it seems, again, to not be of front-and-center importance to this, an article on malevolent witchcraft. Pliny the Elderberry (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Then, if Witchcraft is not to be a broad and inclusive article, but an article about malevolent witchcraft, aren't we back to the proposal that the article be renamed, for example to Witchcraft (malevolent)? Or Historical and traditional views on witchcraft? Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 19:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

No, because at that point someone would likely drag you to ANI for bludgeoning and POV pushing. 2603:7000:C00:B4E8:315E:BA69:522B:4431 (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

"Finally, witchcraft as "a symbol of independent female authority and resistance to male domination" seems to me to be first and foremost a prominent characteristic of Neopagan Witchcraft, best discussed at length on that page. " The source does not say "Neopagan definitions emphasize female empowerment. " it says this is a full, independant definition on its own.

I agree with Esowteric's point; if we're pushing this article back towards a single definition, whatever the justification, then it is no longer "broad concept." - Darker Dreams (talk) 20:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Magic and Witchcraft are not the same thing. Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose all options. Wikipedia is not obligated to modify an article because it conflicts with a person's religious beliefs. Countless articles and talk pages have had people try to reframe Wikipedia's coverage with a given religion's views. This is another instance of that. The fact that we've humored such attempts for this long is becoming absurd, and trying to frame it as a systemic bias issue is distasteful. I'll also reiterate an example that I previously used: Witchcraft is to Neopaganism as Satan is to Satanism. Not only does neopaganism not have a claim of "ownership" over the concept of witchcraft, but it's not even the most prominent aspect of witchcraft. Imagine if Satanists (which is also a legitimate social/religious movement) started campaigning to remove the "evil" aspects from Satan because it was discriminatory against them. That would be ridiculous, and yet it's essentially what's happening here. If people want to identify as witches, then more power to them. But this article is here to cover witchcraft as a whole, not the conception as understood by a specific modern religious movement. I object to this RfC, where all options would effectively bring it away from the former and toward the latter. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is obligated, by its core tenants, to report the information in reliable sources. It's been repeatedly shown that the sources which provide for this definition also acknowledge multiple other definitions as valid. Not as fringe theories that must be discredited, but as definitions which they are not using for their discussion. Quoting, yet again, Ronald Hutton from The Witch: A History of fear, from ancient times to the present (which is, by the title, clearly just about this definition) "All [four definitions] 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." The RFC and those engaged in this ongoing dispute have not once sought removal of the "evil" definitions of witchcraft from the article. Saying they have is plainly false. What has been actively removed or suppressed across Wikipedia are those other, cited, definitions. - Darker Dreams (talk) 22:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

This should really be brought to arbcom, the amount of time wasted over this just because 4 editors want to protect the religious feelings of a tiny group of people is ridiculous. 2603:7000:C00:B4E8:315E:BA69:522B:4431 (talk) 14:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

It looks more like promotion than protection. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

"Countless articles and talk pages have had people try to reframe Wikipedia's coverage with a given religion's views." More to the point, we have had editors wishing for the articles to comply with either their own religious or ideological convictions, or with those of an ethnic group with which they empathize. But Wikipedia was never intended as a way for editors to preach to its readers. We reflect what the sources say, in the most impersonal way possible. Dimadick (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Thebiguglyalien in objecting to this RfC. We're here because people don't think the lead reflects modern-day beliefs (~19th century is the modern era, comparatively speaking). So why are we discussing any changes to the first paragraph, rather than to the last paragraph(s)? Did people miss that when Ronald Hutton gives his four definitions in his Introduction, he describes them as having validity in the present, and only as Anglo-American senses? That a few paragraph above it, he brings up a "standard scholarly definition", which he defines as mainstream and as the most widespread and frequent form of witchcraft, which he accepts and bases the rest of his book on, and which matches well with our first paragraph? Darker Dreams, you may have missed that when Esowteric brought up Hutton, it wasn't to highlight his scholarship, but to call him deliberately partial, and dismiss him out of hand as a deliberately biased and religiously adher[ing] to said scholarly definition, a straightforward BLP violation (since Hutton is alive) without supporting sources? Admins should have stepped in here a long time ago, when accusations of Concerted efforts at outreach or POV pushing, of other editors religiously insist[ing], and copy/pastes of ChatGPT output that completely misrepresents Hutton's views, started flying around. DFlhb (talk) 09:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm perplexed no one's brought it up yet. But aren't we here solely because of WitchTok? In other words, people who would say "it's about spirituality, not religion" (for some, anyway), and make money off of selling tarot readings, "potions", "magical crystals" on Etsy, etc to their audience? That's weapons-grade WP:FRINGE, and is hard to assimilate even to Wicca (despite some of these marketers calling it that), let along to this article about a cross-cultural archetype that dates back many thousands of years. DFlhb (talk) 22:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Are we here because of WitchTok? What makes you think that? Loki (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

US survey

The article text at Witchcraft § Modern paganism: "A survey published in 2000 cited just over 200,000 people who reported practicing Wicca in the United States."

Is this really necessary? Why provide two decade old stats only for Wicca and only in the United States? It's both outdated and US-centric, as well as strangely specific for what should be a broad summary section of the topic. – Scyrme (talk) 06:54, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary, I just didn't cut it. - Darker Dreams (talk) 07:15, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Would you (or anyone else) object to cutting it? – Scyrme (talk) 12:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't object per se, but it perhaps does belong in the as yet not created Witchcraft in North America daughter article. Something I've been putting off since it is complicated by the existence of articles like Witchcraft in Colonial America and perhaps others. Should they be merged into the new article, or should they be daughter articles of the new article... We should probably at least start a stub for Witchcraft in North America so we can have that discussion somewhere other than here. Skyerise (talk) 12:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't object. I don't know if there's a newer version that would be better. I obviously have a pretty expansive view of what should be covered, but between this article, the colonial article, the neopagan witchcraft article I see outlines for "Witchcraft in North America" and "Witchcraft among Indigenous North American People" (or some variation on those titles) each being full articles that interlink. - Darker Dreams (talk) 12:55, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

If this information does belong in another article or would belong to a new article that you (or anyone else) intends to write it can always be copied over from an old revision so its removal shouldn't cause a problem with that.

I don't think it would be especially relevant even to other articles because it's over 2 decades old. There are some contexts where old figures could be relevant, like a table which gives figures for different dates or a section/paragraph which is specifically about the early 2000s. In most contexts it would be better to find and reference some more recent figures. I'd be suprised if more recent data wasn't available.

I don't intend to get involved in handling the daughter articles. I'll leave to you all to judge whether copying it into another article is warranted. For now, I've removed the line. – Scyrme (talk) 17:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Doing a very quick search I found this which states the figure 342,000 for Wicca in 2008. Still outdated, but less so. As a note, the figure it gives for 2001 is only 134,000; far below the 200,000 figure that was given in by the line I removed. – Scyrme (talk) 18:01, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Indigenous traditions suppressed as 'witchcraft'

Here's a short list, not necessarily inclusive, of some specific indigenous spiritual traditions that have encountered suppression and been labeled as "witchcraft" or similar derogatory terms:

1. Yoruba Religion (Ifa and Orisha Traditions): In Africa, particularly in Nigeria and the Yoruba region, the Yoruba religion, which includes Ifa and Orisha traditions, was often stigmatized as witchcraft during the period of European colonialism.

2. Hopi Katsina Cult: Among the Hopi people of North America, their Katsina cult, which involves the worship of spirit beings called Katsinam, was sometimes labeled as witchcraft by European settlers.

3. Dineh (Navajo) Spiritual Practices: The spiritual practices of the Navajo (Dineh) people, including traditional ceremonies like the Night Chant and the Mountain Chant, were misunderstood and sometimes wrongly characterized as witchcraft by non-Native authorities.

4 Santería and Candomblé: In various parts of the Caribbean and South America, the syncretic religions of Santería (Cuba) and Candomblé (Brazil) were often labeled as witchcraft by colonial powers and missionaries. These religions blend elements of African spirituality with Catholicism.

5. Traditional Aboriginal Dreamtime Beliefs: The diverse spiritual beliefs and Dreamtime stories of Australian Aboriginal peoples were sometimes mischaracterized as witchcraft by European colonizers.

6. Shamanic Practices in Siberia: Indigenous shamanic traditions among the indigenous peoples of Siberia, such as the Evenki and the Yakut, were often branded as witchcraft by Russian authorities during periods of colonization and Soviet rule.

7. Mayan and Aztec Religions: The indigenous spiritual practices of the Mayan and Aztec civilizations in Mesoamerica were condemned as witchcraft by Spanish conquistadors and Christian missionaries during the colonial period.

8. Pagan Traditions in Europe: While not indigenous in the same sense, various pagan and folk traditions in Europe, such as Druidry, Norse Heathenry, and folk magic, [some of which] were persecuted and labeled as witchcraft during [Roman] witch hunts and [others] during the [later] Christianization of Europe [and Christian witch-hunts].

This is an important point that elucidates the range of the types of traditions and practices defined as 'witchcraft' over the course of history. Any history of witchcraft needs to include this global phenomenon, not all of which was carried out by Christians. The idea that we should exclude this material which helps to elucidate the difference between "acceptable" non-Christian traditions and unacceptable "witchcraft" leaves a great big void in the article which deprecates the cultures and traditions, some of which are still attacked as "witchcraft". Skyerise (talk) 15:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I am unsure 8 is true (which makes me rather suspicious of the rest), there is no evidence that druids survived past the 7thC. So we would need to top their RS for these claims. Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

The Druids were suppressed in Gaul by the Romans under Tiberius (reigned 14–37 ce) and probably in Britain a little later. In Ireland they lost their priestly functions after the coming of Christianity. It's well-known that even the pre-Christian Romans suppressed witchcraft as maleficium. Skyerise (talk) 15:57, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

As I said bring some RS to the debate. Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Plenty of sources at Druid#History of reception. It's not my responsibility to educate those who are unfamiliar with history and are unwilling to take the time to look at our own articles on the topics. Skyerise (talk) 16:03, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Witchcraft does not appear once in that, nor does hunt trial or persecuted. That is what you need sources for the claim the Druids were persecuted as part of the European witch hunts. Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Anyone who knows anything about history knows that maleficium was the Roman word for witchcraft, that the Romans made druidry illegal under the legal code of maleficium and then proceeded to hunt down the druids until they were essentially considered extinct. I don't have time to accede to your demand that I educate you in undisputed historical fact just because the Romans (unsurprisingly) didn't speak English. Skyerise (talk) 16:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I've fixed my sentence above, since it was being misread. Skyerise (talk) 16:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Everyone knows the Romans suppressed the druids. But as Slatersteven said, we would need good academic sources that the Romans condemned druidry as maleficium or witchcraft. Also, if someone condemns something as witchcraft, it means they see witchcraft as something bad. It doesn't mean that the thing is witchcraft. We then need to think about what the persecutor believes witchcraft to be. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 16:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Maleficium generally referred to actions or rituals intended to cause harm or suffering. "Human sacrifice", the accusation leveled against the Druids, fell under the legal definition thereof. [1] Skyerise (talk) 17:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Several of these have reliable sources already provided including featuring in other articles.

Here is literally what I can immediately grab off the top of my head;

1. One of the links provided in the lead addresses this, this is yet another article, and was one of the top hits on a Google search for Nigeria, Yoruba, witch. see also: Iyami Aje, which is not a topic represented either here or in the Witchcraft in Africa article as it stands.

4. The Witchcraft in Latin America article pretty directly dives into this.

6. There was previously a whole section on this in the main Witchcraft article which I tried to use as a basis for the AfD'd split I tried to do. I don't see the material right off in the European Witchcraft article.

7. One of the links I added to the lead specifically talks about the Andean people.

9. While every part of the Papau New Guinea coverage on Wikipedia addresses the massive witch-hunting problems in that region, there is no mention of the Milne bay witches. You can find information on them in another of the links I provided for the lead, and they can be further verified elsewhere.

Add this onto much-cited authors saying there are other definitions and hopefully you see why the literal months of being shouted down about definitions other than "malefic" and "Neopagan" existing has seemed absolutely bizarre. - Darker Dreams (talk) 08:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

And I am now going through one of them to remove the crap sourcing. Slatersteven (talk) 10:15, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I checked there is valid sourcing on the part I was referencing (Aje as "wise woman," translated as witch). Please, let me know if you don't think that's sound. - Darker Dreams (talk) 10:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Historical order

As a historian, I must object to taking things out of historical order in order to maintain the view that witches have been considered malefic since the beginning of time. This is simply not historically accurate, and history should always be presented in historical order to prevent just this sort of POV-pushing. Also, please review WP:SCAREQUOTES. Their use is against guidelines because it is a subtle form of POV-pushing and I am tired of removing them. Skyerise (talk) 13:39, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

To be more historically accurate, the words 'witch' and 'witchcraft' didn't exist until the Middle Ages, only various non-English words that have now been translated as 'witch'. Anyway, the content was put in the same order as it was in the book. I've no problem with switching it round. And not every set of quote marks are scarequotes; it's normal to put quote marks around specific terms when discussing them, partly to highlight them, like 'witch'. But yes, it can be easy to overuse them sometimes. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 13:57, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

No, that's not a normal writing style, unless you are introducing a term with introductory language (e.g. "the term 'witch'"). This is an academic source, not a neopagan one, and so if the source uses the term 'witch', it is not our place to question it. Find opposing points of view in quality sources, yes, but implying that we are second-guessing our source is right out. Skyerise (talk) 14:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, there are numerous academic sources that equate forms of shamanism suppressed by politico-religious authorities with witchcraft and its suppression. The older version of this very article cherry-picked quotations and laws against 'witchcraft' in China and Korea, which when looked into in detail were related to shamanic traditions. I have supplied that background information about the traditions being suppressed in Asian witchcraft, putting the prohibitions in their historical and political context. Skyerise (talk) 14:07, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Movement of sections to after by region

I'm not sure that moving Practice and other sections after the By region section is an improvement. Was this discussed somewhere? Skyerise (talk) 11:43, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Was not discussed. The "practices" section especially make some bold, broad statements that... frankly don't seem entirely supported by the sources. The other sections that follow build on that. They are very much the universal malefic witchcraft, sourced to Hutton among others, that even Hutton explicitly rejects. I pulled the religion and region sections forward to help build a broader image of witchcraft. I don't know what exactly to do with those sections ultimately - but putting them first is the antithesis of building a broad concept. - Darker Dreams (talk) 12:01, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, they are almost completely about European witchcraft, so what is not already at that article could be moved there. It's not clear to me that the witchcraft of different continents are similar enough to summarize, since very little effort has been made to describe the practices in the daughter articles other than the European one, and no effort has been been to contrast the differences. So carry on, it'll get sorted eventually. Skyerise (talk) 12:08, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

A section covering widespread, cross-cultural witchcraft beliefs should obviously come before sections that delve into regional and cultural-specific beliefs. So I'll move that back. The "Practices" section is not almost completely about European witchcraft. Most of it is sourced to Hutton, and I encourage you to read the cited pages yourselves. He clearly thought the witchcraft beliefs of different continents had a lot of similarities, and he outlined those. Differences are mentioned, but certainly they could be expanded. Everything in that section is entirely supported by the sources. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 12:21, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

If it was broad-based and not entirely focused on malefic witchcraft I'd agree that putting it first made some sense. But, given that it is entirely malefic, and Hutton makes the point that in a book about malific witchcraft that it does not represent all witchcraft... no, it's not obvious it's a good starting point. And the evidence is in the author's own words. - Darker Dreams (talk) 12:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, if that is the case, it should be written again from scratch perhaps before moving back closer to the beginning of the article. I've always disliked precisely how that material is broken into sections rather than presenting an integrated view. Skyerise (talk) 12:55, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

'Malefic witchcraft' is the topic of this article. Neopagan witchcraft is a separate article. We had lengthy debates, a move request, dispute resolution and an RFC about this. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 12:55, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I think that is an absolutely artificial distinction that was maintained by the misuse of admin tools as revealed in the recent arbitration. The very fact that one has to say "malefic witchcraft" to make that point suggests that not all witchcraft is malefic, even if Neopagan witchcraft is excluded. All we decided in the RfC was the how the first few sentences should read, and the removal of malefic from the first sentence to later in the first para is telling, IMO. Skyerise (talk) 13:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Then I guess we'll need to have another RFC. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 13:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Maybe, but I think we should have discussion first to see what the consensus is. That premature page move requests before a proposed article title had been fully discussed did more harm than good, IMO. Skyerise (talk) 13:15, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

If yourself and Darker Dreams don't acknowledge a consensus from the discussions, don't see the move request and dispute resolution as having any weight, don't see the last RFC as applying to the article as a whole, and intend to re-write the article to make it equally about neopaganism etc, then we're at an impasse and another intervention is the only way forward. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 13:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

See, I'm really tired of being mischaracterized. This has nothing to do with neopagan witchcraft. This has to do with forms of historical and traditional witchcraft, particularly in Africa and South America, which form a cultural heritage not considered malicious, as has been pointed out in sections above by Darker Dreams. I for one have no interest in pushing European neopagan views into this article. I am for having complete coverage of all traditional views, though, particularly those related to cultural heritages that don't consider themselves malefic. Skyerise (talk) 13:56, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

If there are Indigenous groups who have long practised something they and others call "witchcraft", and it isn't deemed malefic, then of course that should be covered here. I mean genuine historical-traditional practices that are widely called "witchcraft", not "neopagan witches/Wiccans who happen to be from Indigenous communities". But it has to be in the article first before we can start rewriting the article to reflect it. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 14:08, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, there are already a couple of examples in Witchcraft in Asia, particularly in the India and China sections, about the suppression of a variety of practices indigenous to India by Jesuits, apparently continued by Christian Indians, and about the suppression of shamanic practices as witchcraft during the Western Han Dynasty. The Korean section also outlines more recent suppression of Korean shamanic practices in which they are also referred to as witchcraft. And some of the sources proposed by Darker Dreams with respect to traditional African witchcraft practices now facing persecution in Africa, primarily it seems due to inter-tribal conflicts also would seem to have nothing to do with neopaganism. These have more to do with traditional Pagan communities which have survived into modern times. Someone above suggested this should all be covered in Christianization, but that is a much broader article and I see no reason not to include the interaction of Christianization specifically vis a vis witchcraft in this article. None of the editors which CV painted as supporting a "Neopagan agenda" have added anything about Neopaganism to the article. In fact, I tried to remove all mention of it, but you returned it to the article yourself! rSkyerise (talk) 14:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Christians have condemned many many things as witchcraft. Some of them used to condemn Dungeons & Dragons as witchcraft. Should we then add D&D to witchcraft practices? Who knows what'll be next. That's an extreme example, but you see the point I'm making. We can't base this article on 'whatever Christians say witchcraft is', nor can we base it on 'whatever Wiccans say witchcraft is'. The most widespread and most common scholarly definition is what matters most. That definition is malevolent magic. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 15:17, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, neither the persecutions in the Western Han Dynasty, nor the hereditary kitsune-families of Japan fall into that category. And D&D is just a red herring. Skyerise (talk) 15:21, 20 September 2023 (UTC)re

So you're saying we should include shamanism as witchcraft, just because some people have condemned it as witchcraft? Do you not agree that the most widespread and most common scholarly definition of witchcraft is what matters most? – Asarlaí ^(talk) 15:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm saying that history should be presented as it occurred, rather than in some kind of sanitized retrospective. If that means including the fact that for much of history, shamanism experienced persecution as "witchcraft", that excluding that from the article smacks of historical revisionism. Skyerise (talk) 15:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I do not agree the most common scholarly definition matters most. Neither does Wikipedia.

It does matter, but even if malefic witchcraft were stated as the singular academic definition of witchcraft, policy says Wikipedia is not a scientific journal. (And, to be excruciatingly clear, we have exhaustively, repeatedly proved the sources do NOT say malefic witchcraft is the only definition, even when that is the subject of their focus at the time.)

So, even if there were no other academic definitions, the presence in pop-culture of Glenda, Sabrina, and Harry Potter should bend the shape of Wikipedia coverage away from being monolithically malefic. Honestly, given the style guidelines for wikipedia indicate "principle of least astonishment," broad pop-culture coverage is just as reasonable as the primary topic. But we're not even in the same time zone as that.

Meanwhile, the sources make clear malefic witchcraft is just one of multiple definitions. Reliably cited, verifiable information is supposed to be put into an article. Acknowleding it should be in the article in which it is best contained. Some of those definitions (well, one; Neopagan) have coherent coverage in separate articles. Some just don't.

Now, because it has been claimed before; statements that all aspects outside "malefic" are "Neopagan" is flagrant, utter, uncitable, unsupportable nonsense. Moreover, trying to shove everything that is not malefic witchcraft into an article with a disambiguator to leave the un-disambiguated primary article as purely malefic witchcraft seems like the absolute definition of of wp:undue. Similarly, having the primary article be centered on the "malefic" definition while other definitions are hung on individual regional articles like they're each local aberrations is also wp:undue. Putting big blocks of text describing in excruciating detail all the details about malefic witchcraft, then sticking a line or two at the end of each section that effectively says only "there are these other definitions too;" also wp:undue.

So, I've made several attempts at different methods of resolution. I started by trying to include information more coherently here; first by surfacing the minimal coverage that existed. I attempted to respect that this was a coherent article on one definition and tried to create other articles. You opposed creation of separate articles for other definitions. (I believe the summary of your article edit on that was "undermine the entire premise of the article." "POV fork" was thrown out a lot. Strikingly, I got banned from editing the article in the middle of the AfD; removing the only person trying to build the house before it was demolished.)

Which brings us all right back here. Finding a way to put cited material in the non-disambiguated (primary) article for the topic. - Darker Dreams (talk) 05:11, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Why should it be rewritten from scratch? – Asarlaí ^(talk) 13:05, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Statements that all Neopagan Witches are Wiccan are Unsourced

There have been repeated efforts to push the idea that all Neopagan witches are part of Wicca. I just cleaned up statement that sourced this claim to Adler in Drawing Down the Moon (the book does not say that). Multiple sources have been provided for this article and the Neopagan Witchcraft article that establish the opposite. Regardless of what any editor thinks "consensus" is, such claims need sourcing. I would think such sources should demonstrate more than passing familiarity with Neopagan movements - but any source is more than exists for that claim now. Darker Dreams (talk) 23:53, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Comment here so this doesn't get auto-archived, because people are still trying to push other types of witchcraft into "Neopagan" without (and against) sourcing. - Darker Dreams (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Because this was a major point of contention that got a lot of voicing in various discussions, I'm going to keep this note from being auto-archived for a little longer. I'm also going to repeat in short something I said before that did get auto-archived to Archive 8 - One of the core conflicts in the content/lead disagreement appeared (to me) to be the contentions that a) all positive references to witchcraft are the result of Wicca, and b) that modern development and connection to Wicca means they should be tied to Neopagan witchcraft. The problem is that connection is uncited, and pop-culture appearances of "good witches" in contrast with "evil witches" predates the accepted beginning of Neopagan witchcraft. This is especially true for Wicca which has a generally accepted historical start date after 1930. That makes suggestions that 1900's and 1920's portrayals of witchcraft are influenced by Neopaganism in general and Wicca in particular frankly wp:extraordinary. Darker Dreams (talk) 01:25, 23 September 2023 (UTC)