Talk:Witchcraft/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Witch and witchcraft: two Wikidata items, and a problem

I came across this problem by a roundabout route, but it seems best to set it out in a more logical order.

Witchcraft is in a Wikidata item with 59 entries: wikidata:Q259745. There's one rather glaring omission - German. That's because the German article is in a different Wikidata item altogether: wikidata:Q1616828, with 57 entries. Some languages are in both Wikidata items, for varying reasons. (1) nl:Hekserij is in Q259745; but the Dutch redirect nl:Heks (persoon) to it is in Q1616828. (2) fr:Sorcier is in Q1616828 but fr:Sorcellerie is in Q259745. (3) Witchcraft is in Q259745, as is simple:Witchcraft; but simple:Witch is in Q1616828.

(Witch redirects to Witchcraft. English 'witch' and German 'de:Hexe' are one-for-one equivalents in both directions; but, 'witchcraft' and 'Hexe' are in different Wikidata items.)

DAB page Ragana equates lt:Ragana and lv:Ragana; but the former is in Q1616828 and the latter is in Q259745. (This was where I spotted the problem.) Some pictures, e.g. File:Baldung Hexen 1508 kol.JPG are used in both groups.

Q259745 (which includes the English article Witchcraft} does not link in any way to 11 articles in Q1616828.

IMO this is too complex a problem for a WP:BOLD attempt by any single editor, and requires discussion and consensus. I recognise that problems in non-English Wikis are not our concern, but we can at least set our own house in order. One solution might be to turn the redirect Witch into a standalone article and to add it to Q1616828, which would have no impact on non-English Wikis but would help English readers to find articles in those other languages, and I propose it. Other editors may have other opinions; the discussion is open.

I am notifying the WP:WikiProjects listed on this Talk Page of this discussion. Narky Blert (talk) 21:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Footnote. I have just discovered some ancient history, from 2004-2007 - Talk:Witch#Merge and Talk:Witch#Merge again. Narky Blert (talk) 21:50, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

About Withcraft

Why would witch craft be considered bad yet it involves use of only nature William POWERZ (talk) 11:09, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

@William POWERZ: Because the term is complex and has a variety of possible meanings, the "benign nature (worship/use/harmony)" meaning only appearing within the past 200 years. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:41, 22 December 2018 (UTC).

If only you guys knew what it would feel like coz its all the same be it a witch or a Christian, a Muslim, any religion is supposed to be respected and if u disguise it then just stay away but don't oppose it

Ian Thomson try to understand this situation its like you are opposing a religion please put your self in their shoes and your religion is being opposed just think about it

If there was a way then I would like to know The Late Bridget Bishop's children so that I could get to know all the accusations made against her and I promise I will let you know that she was not bad at all . — Preceding unsigned comment added by William POWERZ (talk • contribs)

The word "witchcraft" was used long before any religions calling themselves "Witchcraft" can be shown to exist. That's not the fault of people who don't belong to Witchcraft religions. We don't remove pictures of Muhammad just because some Muslims don't like them, we don't say the world is only 6000 years old just because some Christians believe it's so, we're not going to deny the historical use of certain words just because some some new religious movements use a homographous name.

For the third time, this is not a forum. No one here knows any of Bridget Bishop's descendants, this is not a place to meet them.

You really don't seem to get what the purpose of this site is. I'm going to explain on your talk page again. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:41, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Canada witchcraft AD 2018

Still grounds for prosecution. See https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45983540 Zezen (talk) 00:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

The use of "white peoples" term

In the article, the following text: "In the modern era, especially among younger, urban and white peoples in America and Europe, the word may more commonly refer to benign or positive practices of modern paganism"

The term "white peoples" can be problematic out of US and British contexts, because it implies that people that are white (white skin) would have similar point of view in this regard, which is emphasized by the use of America which in this case is unclear if it refers to the USA or to the Continent (like in the term Europe), which makes it even harder to understand from outside the aforementioned contexts. --Raspacorp (talk) 21:41, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Requesting help in article expansion

Hi,

Requesting you to have a look at

• Superstitions in Muslim societies and also Talk:Superstitions in Muslim societies

Requesting article expansion help, if above topics interest you.

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 06:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

“Witch” refers to a woman. Say so.

When will the authors acknowledge the obvious, that the term “witch” refers to a woman? The article goes on, paragraph after paragraph, without saying so. That’s a disservice to readers.

--- I agree. Also, a correction needs to be made. The verse listed in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witchcraft#Judaism -- "that witches are to be put to death (Exodus 22:17)." is incorrect. it is Exodus 22:18 2001:558:6042:B:451:549A:F39A:85E3 (talk) 14:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC) Matthew 11/11/2020

May I ask why you made two consecutive edits, as though they are written by two people agreeing with one another? Netherzone (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I didn't. My comment begins after the --- The text before that belongs to somebody else, hence why I typed "I agree." I wouldn't be agreeing with myself. 2001:558:6042:B:451:549A:F39A:85E3 (talk) 07:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)Matthew

It is interesting that the page history, and user contributions shows them coming from the same IP address one minute apart. Just wondering how could that be? Netherzone (talk) 14:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Tis witchcraft, no doubt (as going through the page history the IP is correct and the question seems to have just popped in). As to the question see Witch (word). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:05, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Magic! Netherzone (talk) 14:17, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what you are looking at, but your conclusion is invalid. The Witchcraft talk page was archived on October 27th of this year, showing the initial comment: http://web.archive.org/web/20201027092907/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Witchcraft 2001:558:6042:B:451:549A:F39A:85E3 (talk) 05:15, 13 November 2020 (UTC)Matthew

as to the definition of witch, google "define witch": "a woman thought to have magic powers, especially evil ones, popularly depicted as wearing a black cloak and pointed hat and flying on a broomstick." 2001:558:6042:B:451:549A:F39A:85E3 (talk) 05:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)Matthew

Hi Matthew, I left you an apology on your talk page. I made a mistake, and am sorry about that. Please accept my apologies. Netherzone (talk) 05:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, it's all right. You seem kind-hearted (not a witch - at least, not an evil one ;)) 2001:558:6042:B:451:549A:F39A:85E3 (talk) 06:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC)Matthew

There's no male "witches". They're Warlocks or Wizards. 139.138.6.121 (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Men and women were both accused of being witches during the witch-hunts. In Iceland, 92 per cent of those prosecuted for witchcraft were men. In the modern world, some of the most well-known witches have been men, such as Gerald Gardner, the founder of Wicca. Take a look at the book Male Witches in Early Modern Europe or the article "The long and underappreciated history of male witches – and the countries where more men were prosecuted for witchcraft". Nosferattus (talk) 17:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Intro should more clearly state that witchcraft is a belief

The introduction reads as if any of those things that are mentioned are real, e.g. "...those who use supernatural means to communicate with spirits, deities or ancestors." This sounds like there actually are supernatural mean that can be used and like one could really communicate with spirits or gods, not to speak of that also the existence of spirits and gods is only a belief. This also applies to the very first sentance "Witchcraft (or witchery) is the practice of magical skills, spells, and abilities." There are no such things as magical skills, spells, and abilities... I understand that witchcraft is a very important part in many religions, cultures, ethnicities, and throughout history, and that many people believe in it. I also understand that it is a very important topic. But in my opinion the article should not suggest that one can actually e.g. use supernatural powers to talk to dead ancestors. I'm speaking of the introduction here not of the following chapters. Also, let's not forget that tens of thousands of people have been killed in fight of an imaginary evil in the middle ages in europe alone (I just focussed on Europe here, because I live here and I know about the middle age witch hunts. Would be even better to inlcude all victims worldwide in all times). In my opinion, this is worthy to be mentioned in the introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:6020:17ec:fc00:df3:9ac4:4056:d694 (talk) 08:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

The article reads just fine and does not require additional subtext to reaffirm that is is in fact, a belief or religious following, as most readers have made this determination themselves before reading the article. The addition to any of this just deteriorates the article itself and should not be added. (Also added spelling corrections to above post.) --Sovereign Rob (talk) 18:00, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Please don't edit others' comments (WP:TALKO guideline). User:10mmsocket undid those changes. DMacks (talk) 21:03, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

When talking about something that is imagined to exist, I think a pretty good approach is to say, "According to belief system X, A is B" or "In belief system X, A is B". For example, the article for Mary, mother of Jesus begins, "According to the gospels of Matthew and Luke in the New Testament, Mary was a first-century Jewish woman of Nazareth."

Yesterday this article began, "Witchcraft is the practice of what the practitioner ("witch") believes to be supernatural skills and abilities, such as the casting of spells and the performance of magical rituals." But if that were true, then witchcraft would be objectively real, since some people really do believe they are using supernatural skills and abilities. What this article needs to capture is the idea that witchcraft is a phenomenon that exists according to certain worldviews.

I've changed the first line to: "According to various cultural worldviews, witchcraft is the use of supernatural powers, usually to do harm. Someone accused of witchcraft is called a witch."

I avoided saying "According to various cultural worldviews, witchcraft is the use of supernatural powers by a witch, usually to do harm" because that would define witchcraft using the word witch, which is circular. I also think it is very important to mention that, according to the European way of thinking about witches, witches are typically women (with many exceptions). The word "witch" comes from wicce, "female sorcerer" in Old English.[1] Singh notes that the correlates of European witchcraft in other cultures (which also get called 'witchcraft' these days by some anthropologists) are not as gendered: "I did not find strong evidence that witches [across the cultures he studied] are more frequently women than men" ("Magic, Explanations, and Evil", p. 5).

I admit I don't love the phrase "cultural worldviews." However, "According to various cultures" doesn't seem exactly right, and "According to various worldviews" doesn't register that these beliefs span whole cultures. Omphaloscope talk 14:48, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Pop culture claim

In regards to "positive" witchcraft, the lead currently says that "this reversal in nomenclature is primarily a modern, Western, popular culture phenomenon." which is cited to "Ankarloo & Clark, 2001" (with no page number). There are two problems with this:

1. Ankarloo & Clark 2001 is an academic book about the ancient history of witchcraft. The book has nothing to say about modern witchcraft and neither "pop culture" nor "popular culture" appear anywhere within the book.
2. The claim that the nomenclature of "positive" witchcraft is primarily a pop culture phenomenon seems dubious as it discounts the entire neopagan religious movement. Such a strong claim requires strong evidence and sourcing. It seems more likely that the change in nomenclature is primarily due to the neopagan rehabilitation of witchcraft, which has in turn influenced popular culture.

It would probably be safer to just simplify the sentence to say "this reversal in nomenclature is primarily a modern, Western phenomenon", which should be uncontroversial. The citation to Ankarloo & Clark 2001 should be removed either way. Nosferattus (talk) 06:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The proposed phrasing is correct, but there has also been a surge in use of the term "witch" in pop culture. I don't have the book on hand so can't check it; but it is WP policy to WP:AGF about published cites unless there is good reason to believe it was accidentally added, or added with intent to deceive. I'll see about adding a different cite, to be certain. ETA: I thought we had pop culture stuff in this article. Looks like not. Let me see what other articles have. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@CorbieVreccan: There is some brief discussion of popular culture in the article but I don't think our current lead summarizes it well. What about something like:

"...this reversal in nomenclature is primarily a modern, Western phenomenon. Positive depictions of witchcraft in popular media have led to growing interest in witchcraft and Neopagan religions among Western youth."

You could either cite the last sentence to [2] and [3] or leave it uncited as it is an accurate reflection of the cited text in the body. I'm going to take another look at Ankarloo & Clark 2001 and see if I can find anything of relevance. I have a PDF of the entire book. I can probably send you a copy if you need it. Nosferattus (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't need to see it. If you can find a cite please just go ahead and add it. Thanks. ETA: Though I think I would tweak the phrasing a bit to be more along the lines of: "...this reversal in nomenclature is primarily a modern, Western phenomenon. Recent depictions in popular culture of "witchcraft" as positive magic (and "witches" as positive or neutral figures) have led to a growing interest in Neopagan religions and occult practice among Western youth." - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Maybe a bit wordy, but sounds OK to me. By the way, I skimmed through Ankarloo & Clark again, especially the introduction which is where I suspected any mention of modern witchcraft or popular culture might lurk. Unfortunately it is bone dry and has nothing to say about modern Western witchcraft, neopagan religions, or popular culture. The only thing I could find was this passing mention on page xiv:

"A society where magic is prevalent is always open to borrowing new procedures from other societies, as it is always the next spell or ritual that is potentially the most effective. This observation may help to explain the heavy dependence on orientalism of our Western magical lore from Madame Blavatsky to the New Age."

So it definitely fails verification. This led me to investigate the history of the citation being added. I tracked it back to [4] where it is given as a citation for the sentence "The belief in and the practise of magic has been present since the earliest human cultures and continues to have an important religious and medicinal role in many cultures today." Clearly the citation was meant to support the first half of that sentence, not the second half, as Ankarloo & Clark is a definitive source on the ancient pre-history of magic and witchcraft. Eventually, the first half of the sentence disappeared from the article entirely and the second half morphed into something completely different. Nosferattus (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I updated the lead per your suggested wording. The only change I made was to drop the scare quotes, as they seemed unnecessary. (I don't think many people would assume that Harry Potter is an accurate depiction of the practice of witchcraft.) Thanks for the constructive feedback. Nosferattus (talk) 02:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@CorbieVreccan: This edit seems to make things more confusing. First it says that in the modern era positive witchcraft is a concept that is used by "popular culture authors". Then it says that the concept is primarily used by "Western youth" and "adherents of modern Pagan traditions", which seems to contradict the first sentence, or at least what the first sentence implies (that the change is mainly within the realm of pop culture). I also feel that the new wording is chronologically backwards, as it mentions neopagan religions last and pop culture first. The reclamation of witchcraft by neopagan religions happened first (largely in the 50s and 60s thanks to the 1951 repeal of the Witchcraft Act of 1735), then spilled into the New Age movement (through books like The Spiral Dance). These ideas were then recycled into 1990s and 2000s pop culture, which in turn caused a resurgence of interest in neopagan religions. Nosferattus (talk) 06:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

We have sourcing for pop culture in the body; I've added those sources to the lede. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:09, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@CorbieVreccan: Please read my comments above, which have nothing to do with sourcing. I've never argued that positive witchcraft is not perpetuated and popularized by pop culture or that we lack sources to that effect. My objection is that the wording gives undue weight to pop culture and makes it sound like positive witchcraft is originally or primarily a pop culture phenomenon, which isn't accurate. Positive witchcraft is the central component of Wicca, which has about a million practitioners in the US alone.[5] That's at least 10 times more people than were executed in the entire history of witch-hunting. And as the Daily Mail breathlessly exclaims "Witches now outnumber Presbyterians in America" (which is probably an exaggeration, but not by much).[6] And while a lot of people believe that modern witchcraft is mostly attributable to J. K. Rowling, its true history is a lot bigger and more complex (and predates its rise in pop culture by 50 years). I don't object to having a sentence about pop culture in the lead, but it should appear after discussion of neopaganism and the New Age movement and should not imply that positive witchcraft originated in pop culture. I also feel like the article as a whole does not give sufficient weight to modern witchcraft, given its prominence in modern religious practice. I would love to hear your thoughts on these issues. Nosferattus (talk) 21:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

The lede is only meant to touch on all of these things. The body of the article is where readers go to see details about numbers and history. I think the current phrasing is fine and anyone who finds it confusing can simply read the article. If they find the lede confusing the way it stands, they're going to have comprehension problems we can't fix by shifting wording. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Note that "popular culture" and "pop culture" differ in connotation. 19th-century folk music is a typical example of popular culture (culture made by the working class, not the elites) but pop culture is typically commercial cultural products made by powerful companies for mass consumption. I don't think Wiccanism is mainstream enough to count as "pop culture", though it might count as popular culture or folk culture. Omphaloscope talk 14:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

rules of witchcraft

does any one know anything about it or if someone knows a site that I can go to to look it up? Andrewp83 (talk) 02:28, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

The first rule of witchcraft is: you do not talk about witchcraft. The second rule of witchcraft is: you DO NOT talk about witchcraft! Nosferattus (talk) 18:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Edits to introduction

CorbieVreccan mentioned that some key information has been deleted from the introduction and suggested that we discuss this here. I did remove some information so let me explain my thinking. Here is the main edit that removed material: [7].

Deleted concepts and themes:

• casting of spells: I think this is already sufficiently contained in the idea of harming people by supernatural means. Of course it's definitely worth mentioning spells but we do so later in the article.
• Difficulty of defining the term: We can, and do, define the term by explaining that it includes a wide range of practices, and the term has changed meaning over time. The term is not easy to define but I doubt this worth mentioning in the introduction. What old word is not afflicted by similar difficulties? I think it is worth mentioning this challenge only if we elaborate, which Russell (the author originally cited) does by giving a diagram of how the extension of witchcraft overlaps with religion and science.
• Historically, the most common meaning is the use of supernatural means to cause harm to the innocent; this remains the meaning in most traditional cultures worldwide: I looked in the page history and saw that this claim had been significantly altered without changing the references, so I doubted that the references really supported it. At any rate, the meaning of 'people who supernaturally harm the innocent' is already mentioned.
• notably the Indigenous cultures of Africa and the African diaspora, Asia, Latin America, and Indigenous Nations in the Americas. This article and Singh's article make clear that something analogous to witchcraft can be found in a very large number of cultures on all continents, so I didn't see the need to list all of the cultures here. "Many other cultures" seems enough. I wasn't sure what the "indigenous cultures of the African diaspora" were since 'indigenous' means "originating or occurring naturally in a particular place".
• Belief in witchcraft is often present within societies and groups whose cultural framework includes a magical world view. On reflection this is worth saying and I have restored it.
• But this reversal in nomenclature is primarily a modern, Western, and pop culture phenomenon, most prevalent among Western youth and adherents of modern Pagan traditions like Wicca. This sentence didn't add much that wasn't already said in the previous sentence, "In the modern era, some may use witchcraft to refer to benign, positive, or neutral metaphysical practices, such as divination, meditation, or self-help techniques found in the modern Pagan and New Age movements." The deleted sentence calls this a "reversal" in nomenclature (but I'm not sure that's quite true) and a "pop culture" phenomenon (I'm not sure that is true either).

These are just my opinions, and though I've tried to explain my thinking, they are somewhat subjective. My intuitions may be faulty. If you disagree with any of my revisions, or if I said anything incorrect, please of course feel free to edit the article. Omphaloscope talk 20:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree that most of these changes are improvements, as the previous lead was rather wordy and convoluted. The new version reads more smoothly and doesn't feel as cobbled together. I made a few minor changes, which I hope are further improvements. It would also be good to review the referencing in the lead since the wording has changed a lot over the years. For example, I don't think the Toronto Star article is still acting as a useful citation. Nosferattus (talk) 04:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Nosferattus. A small suggestion: you've changed 'today' to 'modern' to avoid relative time. However, 'modern' is also used earlier in the introduction to mean 'the period from 1600 to the present'. Maybe we could be more specific and say around when this started? Do you happen to know if it was around 1950 with the birth of Wicca? Maybe "in the second half of the 20th century" is specific enough, if it's hard to put a finger on exactly when the positive meaning of 'witchcraft' caught on. Omphaloscope talk 11:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Good catch. I changed "modern" to "contemporary", since contemporary history generally means the end of WWII until today. Nosferattus (talk) 15:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

There should be some mention of the terms 'black magic' (which overlaps with witchcraft) vs 'white magic', and 'witch' vs 'cunning folk/white witch'. As the article makes clear, 'witchcraft' traditionally meant doing harm by magic or supernatural means. Given this, I think we should briefly mention the other side of the coin: the belief that magic could also be used to do the opposite, to help. This important distinction and parallel belief is mentioned in the main body, but not in the lead. It could also be noted that some cunning folk were accused of witchcraft.

Per MOS:INTRO, the lead should also briefly mention witchcraft practices, and the result of witchcraft accusations (witch hunts, witch trials and executions), both of which have their own sections and which make up a significant part of the article. ~Asarlaí 20:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but according to our article, there was never a strong distinction between "witches" and "cunning folk" (except perhaps in folklore). Medieval European Christians made little to no distinction between "black" magic and "white" magic, as these are modern terms and concepts. They were more concerned with what was heretical and what was not heretical. (For example, some renaissance philosophers argued that natural magic was not heretical and thus should not be persecuted by the church.) In the modern world, self-identified witches may practice both black magic and white magic. I'm not opposed to mentioning cunning folk in the lead, but they should not be presented as a simple opposite to witches, as the relationship is complicated by context and time period. Nosferattus (talk) 00:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Re the sentence, "European witch-hunts and witch trials in the early modern period led to tens of thousands of executions - almost always of women who did not practice witchcraft." The bold part makes sense, and should be kept, as long as we also explain that the term 'witchcraft' can refer to certain rituals that are thought of as witchcraft by their participants. Currently, the article defines witchcraft as the use of supernatural forces to do harm - i.e., something that does not really happen, but is only thought to happen. Since witchcraft cannot really happen, then there is no point in saying that most of the accused women did not practice it. This needs to be cleared up. I suggest introducing the idea earlier in the article that there were in fact witchcraft-like rituals in early modern Europe, and then to change the bolded clause to read "only a small number of whom were involved in witchcraft-like rituals". Another approach is to remove this new information from the introduction since it is covered well enough in the body of the article. Omphaloscope talk 22:22, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Section on contemporary depictions

I think a brief mention of Harry Potter is appropriate, but surely this article cannot address every allusion to witches in popular music, politics, etc. The section seems to have been copied in from another source (a paper for school)? I would invite the author to significantly condense this section, maybe to one paragraph. Omphaloscope talk 20:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Fairies are real and only the identification of them as demons is wrong?

In a similar vein to the top thread on this page (as of the time of my writing), can we reword Many English "witches" convicted of consorting with demons may have been cunning folk whose fairy familiars had been demonised;[45] to not sound like fairies are real things that cunning folk actually consorted with? (Just like it would be inappropriate to if an article said something like Many people were convicted of witchcraft because the Martians they communicated with were regarded as demons, as if Martians were real.) Maybe ...folk whose supposed fairy familiars had...? -sche (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

(This would be less of an issue if the section established prior to that sentence that the people only thought they were communicating with fairies; maybe the sentence Some of those who described themselves as contacting fairies... was formerly higher up?) -sche (talk) 20:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Harm

There seems to be a perennial issue on this article with the introduction and the use of the word "harm". Let me start by saying that I don't disagree with the definition, nor do I want to see this article become muddled in historical revision or anachronism, but it's obviously an incomplete summary of the article's subject, as read from the body. Even outside of 20th century "Wicca" witch, there has always been a broader definition which included healing and fortune-telling. It says so in Malleus Maleficarum and other anti-witch treaties. As the article goes into length to discuss it, I think it should be reflected in the first line. I propose "witchcraft is the use of magic or supernatural powers, usually to harm others, but also as a form of folk-remedies or divination" or even softer still. I believe there are sufficient sources in the body to support this broader definition and I'd even be willing to bet that the current sources in the first sentence elaborate on this further without the need to find others (although I don't have access to them). If possible, the first sentence can go into greater length to differentiate the pejorative and folk meanings, but they are both there and are both the subject of this article. Please let me know your thoughts. 24.251.106.103 (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I find this persuasive and I changed the definition to "the use of magic, usually to harm but sometimes to heal." User:Asarlaí has suggested that this should be changed: "This article is primarily about the traditional meaning, which is harmful magic in all cultures that use the term; we shouldn't mix up the traditional meaning with Wicca" (edit summary). I agree that the article is primarily about the traditional meaning, but I think the anonymous commenter's point stands, that there were 'good witches' even according to the Renaissance meaning. In fact, the definition of witchcraft at the beginning of this article cites the historian Keith Thomas, who wrote: "'At this day', wrote Reginald Scot **in 1584, 'it is indifferent to say in the English tongue, "she is a witch" or "she is a wise woman".'** Nevertheless, it is possible to isolate that kind of 'witchcraft' which involved the employment (or presumed employment) of some occult means of doing harm to other people in a way which was generally disapproved of. In this sense the belief in witchcraft can be defined as the attribution of misfortune to occult human agency. A witch was a person of either sex (but more often female) who could mysteriously injure other people." This historian "isolates" the negative meaning, while acknowledging that the term in fact covered both harm and healing. So in fact it is not only in deference to Wicca that the concept of healing should perhaps be mentioned at the start of the article. - Omphaloscope talk 23:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I only restored the long-standing wording, I haven't suggested changing anything. As you say, this article is primarily about the traditional and most common meaning of "witchcraft". The academic sources note that the traditional meaning is "harmful magic", and that it is still the most common meaning in English, no matter what culture. We cite experts like Ronald Hutton, who says the standard definition of a 'witch' is "someone who causes harm to others by mystical means", and says this is the "established scholarly consensus" among historians, anthropologists etc.
Both Hutton and Thomas say that churchmen sometimes lumped together any 'magic-workers' and 'healers' as 'witches' – but as a way of smearing them. Reginald Scot (1584) also lumped together 'witches' and other 'magic-workers', for a different reason: he was against the belief in witchcraft and magic, wanted to disprove it and to stop witchcraft prosecutions. He says on the same page "sometimes a murtherer with poison is called a witch ... sometimes they are called witches in common speech that are old, lame, curst, or melancholike, as a nickname". I haven't seen any sources that folk healers were widely called 'witches'. Hutton says some healers were denounced as witches, but "seem to have made up a minority of the accused in any area studied", while Thomas says "generally speaking, the cunning folk and the maleficent witches were believed to be two separate species".

Beginning by saying "witchcraft means both harmful and helpful magic" gives too much prominence to a new, minority, re-definition used by some Wiccans and some of the entertainment industry. The lead already notes that some Wiccans call their healing practices 'witchcraft' (which comes from the witch-cult hypothesis). This article touches on Wicca, but that's not what it's all about. The vast majority of it is about the traditional meaning. Wicca has its own article.

Unfortunately, sometimes anonymous editors do a drive-by and change the wording without any discussion, usually to bring it in line with their religious views. This kind of thing happens on many hot-topic articles. Maybe that could be solved with an editnotice or giving the article some light protection? (CorbieVreccan?). ~Asarlaí 15:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I was also thinking we might want to semi the article. Or more? Taking suggestions, and co-signing Asarlaí's points about the focus and content. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

OK, I hadn't seen the latest IP disruption. Checking the protection logs, the last semi was for three months, so I've semi-protected the page for six months. (As I also edit here, if anyone has issues with me pushing the button, feel free to take it up with us here, or at WP:RFPP.) Let's see how that goes. It will stop the IP disruption, but some of the recent disruptive editors still have access. Sourcing and consensus are clearly against merging neopagan, western, and pop culture content into the main body or lede of this article. There is a hidden notice there now, but an editnotice might be better. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm persuaded by Asarlai's argument. Thanks to both of you for being on top of this. – Omphaloscope talk 19:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kiannagorman. Peer reviewers: Rolarreola.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Foxx Molinari. Peer reviewers: Mooddan2, Coovmich.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 May 2019 and 30 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): RachSea99.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2019 and 20 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Salcid01.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 February 2021 and 14 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Roder.chap.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Missing perspectives: Unjust persecution of witches through the centuries; and fiction versus nonfiction

The demonization of witchcraft by organized religions seems to get fairly short shrift in the article. There are mentions about how all the abrahamic religions tell their followers to hate on witches, up to and including advocacy of murdering them; and the sections about individual countries discuss various "witch-hunts" that resulted in the ignorant organized religious people killing many people accused of witchcraft. But there is no text that ties it all together, or that calls the suppression and murder of the believers in witchcraft as an unjust and intolerant mass movement, akin to modern genocides.

Similarly, the article draws no distinction between people who actually believe in supernatural powers (such as indigenous people, Middle Ages peasantry before the Age of Enlightenment, or modern Wiccans), versus fictional works (like Harry Potter, Dracula, or Sword-and-sorcery novels) in which the author themself does not believe in witchcraft, but their writings use the fictional idea of witchcraft as an element of the plot. It seems to me that the use of witchcraft in fiction is far more prevalent today than a literal belief in it, but this is also not apparent in the article. Gnuish (talk) 07:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

All due respect, this sounds like the Witch-cult hypothesis, a discredited neo-Pagan anachronism that holds 'witches' were at some point an existing and oppressed group. There's little to no historic evidence to support that there was ever an endonymic group of 'witches' or that the victims of witch-hunts were anything more than ordinary people who never considered themselves to be 'witches', except under duress. I think using the term 'genocide' here is incredibly disrespectful to both the victims of witch hunts, and to the victims of actual genocides. 2600:8800:2396:1B00:45E2:11C9:290B:57B (talk) 17:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Actually, Abrahamic religions hold that witches don't exist. The Catholic Church during the Witch Hunts, for example, excommunicated anyone who participated though since almost everyone participating was Protestant that had little effect. Also, the article does specify things such as Wicca as well as pre-Enlightenment Europe. What article does fail at, however, is that it claims that mostly women were accused of witchcraft when in actuality the victims of witch hunts were mostly men. Though, it may be intended to refer to most of the people thought to be witches by their local communities were women whereas most of the people targeted by organized witch hunts were men (as part of the scam to steal their land and possessions). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.180.196.32 (talk) 04:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Support for Witches and Literary Stereotypes of Women

Greetings Wiki Community,

I am contacting you regarding the contribution of information relating to the United Kingdom subcategory found within this Wiki page. Evidence surrounding witchcraft literature during the 19th and 20th centuries from Ronald Hutton’s research on Witches and Cunning Folk in British Literature (1800–1940) may add ample documentation toward the subject at hand. Hutton is a published author and credible professor at the University of Bristol, specializing in paganism and British folk customs.

Hutton’s study provides several examples of literature spanning imagery of the witch figure labeled as heroine, victim, and villain. I plan to add examples from the work of the Brothers Grimm and German author Wilhelm Meinhold in demonstration of the punishment by injury or death of the “witch villain” within popular British folkloric tales. I will add literary examples of torture toward witches as illustrated by the works of Friedrich Spee and John Gaule demonstrating the witch as a victim of social cruelties. Finally, I will add information using female liberation as a metaphor in support of the witch portrayed as a heroine using Stella Benson’s scholarly work Living Alone.

I believe these examples of evidence will contribute to the Wiki article on Witchcraft in a meaningful way, supplementing information to a current webpage with room for additional research, data, and material to fully explain the subject. Altogether my contribution will span about 200-300 words!

If anyone would like to comment on these changes, please let me know on this Talk Page or on my Talk Page. Roder.chap (talk) 22:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Roder.chap: The United Kingdom section is already the longest section in the entire article. Adding 300 words to it would cause the article to be unbalanced, in my opinion. Instead, why don't you create a new section of the article called "Witches in literature" (similar to the existing "Witches in art" section). After all, it sounds like you are only dealing with fiction, while the existing United Kingdom section is non-fiction based. Also you mentioned you would be incorporating material from Germany as well, so it would not be solely focus on the U.K. Nosferattus (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Keep in mind to separate the women thought to be witches by their local communities from the men who were the primary targets of the organized witch hunts to steal the mens' possessions and any land they had. It was "popular" enough that local nobles or officials sometimes hired "witch hunters" to target men in their community to seize what those men had for themselves post-mortem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.180.196.32 (talk) 04:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Salem Witch trial engraving.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2022

Dear Wikipedia users please review the following paragraph which contains wrong information as following

Islam Main article: Islam and magic See also: Islam and astrology and Superstitions in Muslim societies

-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_

The wrong Information is

Divination and magic in Islam encompass a wide range of practices, including black magic, warding off the evil eye, the production of amulets and other magical equipment, evocation, casting lots, and astrology.[135]

The right Information is

Divination and magic is totally forbidden in Islam and it is counted as one of the most dangerous crimes that deserves the punishment of execution. In the Holy Quran the sacred book of Islam "as it is believed that this book is only a speech of The Lord of Earth and heaven, the creator of Angels and Mankind to human. It is saved between Muslims without any form of modification by adding or changing or removing to a letter or a word of its contents since it was received by God messenger Mohamed the last prophet via the Angel Gabriel"

God Said: They ˹instead˺ followed the magic promoted by the devils during the reign of Solomon. Never did Solomon disbelieve, rather the devils disbelieved. They taught magic to the people, along with what had been revealed to the two angels, Hârût and Mârût, in Babylon.1 The two angels never taught anyone without saying, “We are only a test ˹for you˺, so do not abandon ˹your˺ faith.” Yet people learned ˹magic˺ that caused a rift ˹even˺ between husband and wife; although their magic could not harm anyone except by Allah’s Will. They learned what harmed them and did not benefit them—although they already knew that whoever buys into magic would have no share in the Hereafter. Miserable indeed was the price for which they sold their souls, if only they knew! (2:102 The Holy Quran)

And in Sahih Muslim book which is considered the second most authentic book which gathered Prophet Muhammad Teachings it is stated in the Chapter of Prohibition of Consultation with Soothsayers and diviners that the Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) said, "He who goes to a diviner and believes in him, his Salat (prayers) will not be accepted for forty days."

And it was clarified by Malik ibn Anas a Muslim jurist, theologian, and traditionalist. The Establisher of one of The major Sunni school of thoughts in Islam, which is meant of giving the right interpretation of the Holy Quran and The Prophet Muhammad teachings and assigning the right Islamic Judgments to the cases. In his book The Muwaṭṭa, the first legal work to incorporate and combine The Prophet Muhammad teachings and Islamic law as revealed in the Quran: Malik said, "The sorcerer is the one who uses sorcery for himself and no one else uses that for him. It is like the one about whom Allah, the Blessed, the Exalted, said in His Book, 'They know the one who devotes himself to it will have no share in the Next World.' (Sura 2 ayat 102) I think that that person is killed if he does that himself."

-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_

-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_

The wrong Information is

Legitimacy of practising witchcraft is disputed. Most of Islamic traditions distinguishes magic between good magic and black magic. al-Razi and Ibn Sina, describe that magic is merely a tool and only the outcome determines whether or not the act of magic was legitimate or not.[136]

The right Information is

Islam recognizes that there is other intelligent lives aside from human, and it was referred by the Holy Quran to some of these creatures with details about their capabilities and behavior. But the only permitted communication is between a human and his creator which communicate with us via Prophets, Holy Books and Prayers Only. There is no permitted practices of magic in Islam of any kind. There is no permitted relations between Muslims and any spiritual existence except for God the Lord of Earth and All Creation not even with the Angels of God. The message of God to human in his holy books, seems to be the same ever since as far as we go back in research as an Example of this appear in the information of the Holy Bible and the Holy Quran

26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, 27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. 28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. 30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. 36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. 37 For with God nothing shall be impossible. 38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

— Luke 1:26-38 - the Holy Bible

19:16 And mention in the Book ˹O Prophet, the story of˺ Mary when she withdrew from her family to a place in the east, 19:17 screening herself off from them. Then We sent to her Our angel, ˹Gabriel,˺ appearing before her as a man, perfectly formed. 19:18 She appealed, “I truly seek refuge in the Most Compassionate from you! ˹So leave me alone˺ if you are God-fearing.” 19:19 He responded, “I am only a messenger from your Lord, ˹sent˺ to bless you with a pure son.” 19:20 She wondered, “How can I have a son when no man has ever touched me, nor am I unchaste?” 19:21 He replied, “So will it be! Your Lord says, ‘It is easy for Me. And so will We make him a sign for humanity and a mercy from Us.’ It is a matter ˹already˺ decreed.”

— Surat Maryam - the Holy Quran

2:97 Say (O Muhammad Peace be upon him): "Whoever is an enemy to Jibrael (Gabriel) (let him die in his fury), for indeed he has brought it (this Quran) down to your heart by Allah's Permission, confirming what came before it [i.e. the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)] and guidance and glad tidings for the believers.

— Surat Baqarah - the Holy Quran

-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_

-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_

The wrong Information is

Al-Ghazali, although admitting the reality of magic, regards learning all sorts of magic as forbidden.[136] Ibn al-Nadim argues that good supernatural powers are received from God after purifying the soul, while sorcerers please devils and commit acts of disobedience and sacrifes to demons.[137] Whether or not sorcery is accessed by acts of piety or disobedience is often seen as an indicator whether magic is licit or illicit.[138] Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, a disciple of Ibn Taimiyya, who became the major source for Wahhabism, disregards magic, including exorcisms, entirely as superstition.[139] Ibn Khaldun brands sorcery, talismans, and prestidigitation as forbidden and illegal.[140] Tabasi did not subscribed to the rationalized framework of magic of most Ash'arite theologians, but only offered a wide range of rituals to perform sorcery. Yet he agrees that only magic in accordance with sharia is permissible.[136] Most of Islamic traditions distinguishes magic between good magic and black magic. Miracles belong to licit magic and are considered gifts of God.

The right Information is

Magic as defined as the power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces is totally prohibited in Islam and there is no any kind of Magic practices is allowed.

-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_

-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_

The wrong Information is

The reality of magic is confirmed by the Quran. The Quran itself is said to bestow magical blessings upon hearers and heal them, based on al-Isra.[141] Solomon had the power to speak with animals and jinn, and command devils, which is only given to him with God's permission.[Quran 27:19][142] Surah Al-Falaq is used as a prayer to God to ward off black magic and is, according to hadith-literature, revealed to Muhammad to protect him against Jann the ancestor of the jinn[143] Muhammad was falsely accused of being a magician by his opponents.[Quran 10:2][144] The idea that devils teach magic is confirmed in Al-Baqara. A pair of fallen angels named Harut and Marut is also mentioned to tempt people into learning sorcery.

The right Information is

The reality of magic is confirmed by the Quran as an evil force and an a dangerous lethal enemy to human in many verses of the Holy Quran.

20:69 Cast what is in your right hand, and it will swallow up what they have made, for what they have made is no more than a magic made. And magicians can never succeed wherever they go.” — Surat Baqarah - the Holy Quran The above conversation between God and prophet Moses in the event of meeting sorcerers. The same incident also mentioned in the Holy Bible.

10 So Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and did just as the Lord commanded. Aaron cast down his staff before Pharaoh and his servants, and it became a serpent. 11 Then Pharaoh summoned the wise men and the sorcerers, and they, the magicians of Egypt, also did the same by their secret arts. 12 For each man cast down his staff, and they became serpents. But Aaron’s staff swallowed up their staffs.

Exodus 7:10–12

Note There are nearly 600 years between Prophet Muhammad and Prophet Jesus according, and each holy script sent in different location with different language more than 1000 years back from year 2022 at a time where no any way of communication and transportation aside from animals

-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_

-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_

The wrong Information is

Scholars of the history of religion have linked several magical practises in Islam with pre-Islamic Turkish and East African customs. Most notable of these customs is the Zār.[145][146]

The right Information is

The Zār is pure magic rituals and it is not connected to Islam by any way. Due to the strong tie between God and Man that is developed by Islamic religion, and the self-spiritual purification guidelines which is obligatory on Muslims by not committing sins that harm the person himself or other people or any animal or living creatures or planet or land. Muslims are not allowed to fight or solve the problems which is caused by magic or the effect of evil spirituel force in the same way. The only possible way is by praying to God, even the Quranic script which is known to be read to fight the evil spirits says the following:

In the name of God "Allah", the Merciful, the Compassionate Say, ˹O Prophet,˺ “I seek refuge in the Lord of the daybreak from the evil of whatever He has created, and from the evil of the night when it grows dark, and from the evil of those ˹witches casting spells by˺ blowing onto knots, and from the evil of an envier when they envy.”

- Surah Al-Falaq - The Holy Quran

In the name of God "Allah", the Merciful, the Compassionate Say, ˹O Prophet,˺ “I seek refuge in the Lord of humankind, the Master of humankind, the God of humankind, from the evil of the lurking whisperer— who whispers into the hearts of humankind— from among jinn and humankind.”

- Surah An-Nas - The Holy Quran

In the name of God "Allah", the Merciful, the Compassionate 2:255 Allah! There is no god ˹worthy of worship˺ except Him, the Ever-Living, All-Sustaining. Neither drowsiness nor sleep overtakes Him. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. Who could possibly intercede with Him without His permission? He ˹fully˺ knows what is ahead of them and what is behind them, but no one can grasp any of His knowledge—except what He wills ˹to reveal˺. His Seat1 encompasses the heavens and the earth, and the preservation of both does not tire Him. For He is the Most High, the Greatest.2

- Surah Al-Baqarah - The Holy Quran

It was stated in Sahih al-Bukhari which is Regarded as the most authentic and authoritative book gathered Prophet Muhammad Teachings, as Narrated by Abu Huraira: Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) ordered me to guard the Zakat revenue of Ramadan. Then somebody came to me and started stealing from the foodstuff. I caught him and said, "I will take you to Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)!" Then Abu Huraira described the whole narration and said: That person said (to me), "(Please don't take me to Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) and I will tell you a few words by which Allah will benefit you.) When you go to your bed, recite Ayat-al-Kursi, (2.255) for then there will be a guard from Allah who will protect you all night long, and Satan will not be able to come near you till dawn." (When the Prophet (ﷺ) heard the story) he said (to me), "He (who came to you at night) told you the truth although he is a liar; and it was Satan."

-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Galal81 (talk) 09:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Galal81: You must provide reliable secondary sources. Religious books are not one of them. Wretchskull (talk) 09:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Wretchskull: I have referred to the wrong information from Islamic Law books such as Sahih al-Bukhari Book by Muhammad al-Bukhari, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim by Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj and Muwatta Imam Malik (711–795) written in the 8th-century, is the earliest collection of hadith texts comprising the subjects of Islamic law. The Holy Books scripts that I used as information to show the context not as a reference. I did not really understand your point are you native English speaker Galal81 (talk) 09:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Wretchskull: the current content looks well sourced. (t · c) buidhe 04:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2022

From the witching community, this article seriously needs editing. Please remove, 'witchcraft is usually used to harm others ' then remove protections or hand them over to someone that knows what witchcraft is and isn't stereotyping, discriminating or outright lying. If this was done on the christian pages, I'm sure there would be an uproar.

If you would like to educate yourselves, add kitchen witch, hedge witch, green witch, divination and practices most witches do use. 92.3.20.72 (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done - You can also read the rest of the lede which guides the reader to the Wicca article which discusses the modern form of witchcraft. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

The lead is strongly biased towards traditional definitions of witchcraft, rather than the witchcraft practiced as a religion by over a million modern pagans. In fact, it seems to largely dismiss modern ideas about witchcraft, saying only that that "some Modern Pagans and New Agers... use the term witchcraft". The IP is correct that if any other religious practice were treated as such on Wikipedia, there would be an uproar. This also goes against Wikipedia policy, as WP:NPOV requires that an article cover all aspects of a topic in proportion (as far as possible) to their coverage in reliable sources. I believe there are vastly more books about the modern practices of witchcraft, Wicca, neopaganism, etc. than there are books about historical witchcraft. At the very least, the article should be balanced between the two aspects. Nosferattus (talk) 20:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I tweaked the last paragraph of the lead slightly so that it doesn't sound as dismissive of modern witchcraft. I agree though that it should also be mentioned in the lead sentence, or at the very least somewhere in the lead paragraph. It doesn't make sense that you have to go down to the fourth paragraph before modern witchcraft is even mentioned. This is a disservice to our readers. Nosferattus (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done This is not the Modern Paganism or Wicca article. The lede addresses the global view - including that of Indigenous, African and other traditional cultures. We should not bias the lede to the white American/Western pop culture view preferred by Nosferattus and the IP. Biasing to pop culture is a disservice to those cultures, who have more solid sourcing and standing than the neopagan ones. Sure, there are tons of mass-market paperbacks out there cashing in on the newage and neopagan market. That doesn't change that the redefinition is recent and neither universal nor global. Go to a village in Africa and declare yourself a Witch. Or onto a reserve. Additionally, there are modern Pagan groups of Euro background - notably the revivalist, ethnic traditions - that use traditional, cultural terms and also strongly reject the term "witch" and "witchcraft", for the same reasons as do the Indigenous groups. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Your characterization of positive witchcraft as simply "pop culture" is misinformed and offensive. Pop culture witchcraft is a recent effect of the widespread reclaiming of witchcraft by neopagan groups who are both sincere in their beliefs and are a sizable religious community worldwide. And yes, it is global. There are numerous Wiccan and neopagan groups in Latin America, the Caribbean, and even Africa. And the literature for and about neopaganism consists of far more than mass-market paperbacks. Nosferattus (talk) 16:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

It is worth emphasizing that it's not the stance of this article that witchcraft is inherently harmful. It's an encyclopedia entry that is trying to neutrally describe how witchcraft is conceived by various cultures. Like the article on God, it describes something that exists according to various belief systems. That article begins, "In monotheistic thought, God is usually conceived of as the supreme being, creator, and principal object of faith" (my italics). Or compare the start of Satan: "Satan, also known as the Devil, ... is an entity in the Abrahamic religions that seduces humans into sin or falsehood" (my italics). The introduction of this article ought (I think) to convey roughly this idea: "In various traditional belief systems, witchcraft is normally conceived of as the supernatural infliction of harm, this remains the meaning of the term in anthropology, and in some modern Western belief systems, it is conceived as benevolent." It would be seriously misleading about the history of the concept of witchcraft to construe the term as positive from the get-go. I don't think any contemporary Wiccans should take issue with that - am I wrong? An interesting contrast is with the article on the term Queer. That term has also undergone a significant shift in meaning from negative to positive, and so the article focuses on the positive meaning from the get-go while explaining the evolution ("Queer is an umbrella term for people who are not heterosexual or are not cisgender. Originally meaning "strange" or "peculiar", queer came to be used pejoratively against those with same-sex desires or relationships in the late 19th century. Beginning in the late 1980s, queer activists, such as the members of Queer Nation, began to reclaim the word..."). The difference with "Queer" is that the transformation has already occurred and the positive meaning is the dominant one in the English-speaking world (or at least, the article reflects this assumption). But "witchcraft" in nearly all non-Wiccan contexts still has a negative meaning. People making dictionaries and encyclopedias have a responsibility to accurately describe this usage. I would prefer if the article began with something like "Witchcraft in many cultures is" or "In many Western belief systems beginning in the Middle Ages, witchcraft is" to make utterly clear that this article is just describing other people's belief systems. "Witchcraft traditionally means..." doesn't quite stress this clearly enough if you ask me, but I'll let others change it if they agree. - Omphaloscope talk 12:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I do think Nosferattus raises an important issue - how to balance the article between historic negative and contemporary negative and positive uses? Moreover, does the Wiccan community deserve a little more say here given that this is a term they apply to themselves? I'm comparing "witchcraft" with the word queer. A case could be made that the term "queer" is historically negative and continues to be negative in much of the English-speaking world, but the fair point could be made that the queer community's own conception of what the word means deserves prominence. This is not just yet another word in their vocabulary, it's part of their self-conception. Could an analogous case be made for the positive Wiccan use of "witchcraft"? That perspective might at least motivate slightly expanding the discussion of the positive meaning in the lede, making the rest of the lede more concise so that the Wicca section doesn't seem like an afterthought (my preference), or signaling a little more clearly in the beginning that this is a contested term with different meanings across space and time. It seems that there are two important values here: (1) neutrally describing the issue in a way that does not privilege the contemporary West over other perspectives, and (2) respectfully describing a term that is part of a marginalized group's self-understanding. There is, I think, a way to balance these two needs. - Omphaloscope talk 12:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs to clarify the context of each definition and emphasize that different valid definitions exist from the beginning of the article (as the Encyclopedia Britannica article on witchcraft does). Simply saying "traditionally" and then mentioning contemporary witchcraft in a single sentence at the end is a very skewed presentation. Nosferattus (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Saying that modern pagans are involved in the "reclaiming of witchcraft" makes me wonder if you've even read the sources. That modern usage is a redefinition, not a reclaiming, no matter what ahistoricism those groups engage in. (And yes, I'm quite familiar with their beliefs.) You can't reclaim something that never meant that in the first place. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

See Reclaiming (Neopaganism) as well as Enchanted Feminism: The Reclaiming Witches of San Francisco. If you're not aware of the political context of Wicca as a reclamation of witchcraft, I'm not sure I can believe your statement that you are "quite familiar with their beliefs". See also Witches, Midwives and Nurses: A History of Women Healers and Witches, Sluts, Feminists. Nosferattus (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

LOL, of course I know about that stuff, and the other California hippie, radical faerie, feminist, and other counterculture strains. I read that stuff back when it was first published, and have spent time with some of the individuals who authored it. Almost all of that stuff played fast and loose with history, caring way more about "personal empowerment" than fact-checking, and has never been representative of even the Neopagan communities as a whole - just a particular subculture thereof. (FWIW, some of those authors are now embarrassed by the mistakes they made back in their 20s, and have had rude awakenings when meeting members of traditional cultures.) Again, people can go read about their redefinitions and repeated misinformation in their articles. The members of that subculture didn't "reclaim" "Witch", they redefined it, and repeated the false histories they'd been told by their Wiccan teachers. In the intervening years, better research has been published. Now, more worldwide, and less Eurocentric, perspectives are available. The 'pedia needs to reflect these improvements and corrections. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any thoughts on the 'queer'-'witchcraft' analogy? - Omphaloscope talk 23:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The only comparison I'd make is that the usage of "queer" as a positive or neutral descriptor, started as in-group then became pop culture. Usage by those outside the relevant communities is not as comfortable as many think. Many younger people, and straight people, who lack the historical understanding mistakenly believe it's a neutral word. Lacking context, many don't understand that in some places it's still a killing slur. It also lacks global context for many English-only speakers. Aside from that, it's not the best comparison. Let's focus on this topic and the global sources relevant to it. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Nosferattus, please see my comment in the discussion under "Harm". I agree with CorbieVreccan that we shouldn't mix up the traditional and most common meaning with the Wiccan alternative meaning. Wicca has its own article. The lead of Witchcraft mentions Wicca at the top ("For the modern pagan religion, see Wicca") and at the bottom. But, if editors think that's not enough, then I wouldn't be against mentioning Wicca very briefly at the end of the first paragraph aswell. I would be against including it in the first couple of lines, as that's not what this article is about. ~Asarlaí 12:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

When the lede is read as a whole, right now Wicca is the last thing mentioned before the first sentence, and the last thing mentioned before the body text. It sandwiches the entire lede. I really think that's sufficient. Any more would be undue weight. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Asarlaí and CorbieVreccan: While the "harmful magic" definition is likely the most common, I disagree that our current lead properly reflects the balance of competing definitions used in current academic sources (especially if you are including religious studies and feminist studies). Ronald Hutton, Professor of History at the University of Bristol, who has written several books about witchcraft, presents a good overview of the tension between the different definitions, which I think would be useful for informing our discussion here:

The standard scholarly definition of [a witch] was summed up in 1978 by a leading expert in the anthropology of religion, Rodney Needham, as 'someone who causes harm to others by mystical means.' ... That usage has persisted till the present among anthropologists and scholars of extra-European peoples ... 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 to still be the most widespread and frequent. The others define the witch figure as any person who uses magic (although those who employ it for beneficial purposes are often popularly distinguished as 'good' or 'white' witches); or as the practitioner of a particular kind 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 and courtesy, as well as scholarship ... Although the latter two are distinctively modern senses of the word, rooted in the nineteenth century but flowering in the late twentieth, the others are both many centuries old.

— Hutton, The Witch: A History of Fear, from Ancient Times to the Present, Yale University Press, 2018

We need to present all these conflicting definitions with proper context, not awkwardly shoe-horn the subject into one definition which doesn't reflect actual usage in the balance of sources. A hatnote and brief sentence about Wicca at the end barely scratches the surface. And as Hutton argues, the idea of witchcraft as simply the practice of magic (regardless of whether it is harmful, neutral, or beneficial) isn't a modern, pop-culture invention. This definition has been around for many centuries, it just happens to be quite popular at the moment. Nosferattus (talk) 19:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

All of these perspectives are already covered in the article, from a variety of angles. What's not here is linked to via other WP articles. Hutton is not the sole source or authority on the issue, especially as he's a participant observer in the communities he writes about. I suggest you WP:DROPTHESTICK. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that Ronald Hutton is a witch or practices witchcraft? Nosferattus (talk) 00:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I think Nosferattus is making an interesting point about the opening paragraph. Even if the more positive meanings of 'witchcraft' are covered in other articles, or in the body of the article, it still may well be that the opening paragraph is skewed and inaccurate; I would like to know more. As I see it, we don't need to take a stand on the issue, but should neutrally record a number of positions, at least those in widely respected academic scholarship. It wouldn't be especially neutral to frame the meaning of 'witch' in a way that contradicts Hutton. Better to remain agnostic, and if his position is well respected, to simply cite him, and perhaps other participants in the debate. I'd be glad to continue discussing the matter. Omphaloscope talk 20:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Ronald Hutton has a history of participation in the UK Neopagan community. I don't know how he currently self-identifies. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Can you provide a source for that? Regardless, we are already citing Hutton for our lead sentence, but we are cherry-picking his quotation misleadingly. If you read the full quotation, he is arguing that the "harm" definition is not the only valid definition, and in fact, it's not even the only traditional definition. You can shoot down Hutton if you like, but it would be more useful to present other sources with more perspectives if you disagree with Hutton's perspective. Nosferattus (talk) 16:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Again, you seem new to all this. It's in his article and multiple books by and about him, including the sources in his article. It's common knowledge about him. Go read his article and the sources, and Triumph of the Moon to start. You could also go into archived publications and see accounts of his activities. He is not a neutral observer. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Aren't there reliable historians of Christianity who happen to also be Christian? I'm genuinely uncertain why Hutton's Wiccanism could reasonably be taken to invalidate peer-reviewed scholarship that he published in a reputable venue. Am I missing something? Still, we needn't rely on Hutton's word alone. Do his sources speak for themselves? Moreover, can we find other historians who concur with him? If it's just Hutton who makes these assertions, then we probably don't have strong-enough evidence to alter the current thrust of the article. On the other hand, if there is substantial evidence, from multiple historians, that even in medieval Europe, witchcraft had a positive and negative valence, then it may be necessary to alter the article's opening claim – not to placate members of any contemporary religions, but to faithfully get the history right. Omphaloscope talk 02:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Allow editing to remove obvious bias

Please allow editing of this page by people who are less biased. 49.196.235.200 (talk) 13:49, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protection

As is the pattern, as soon as the protection expired, the same pattern of unsourced / OR / opinion edits without engaging on talk resumed. I am going to reinstate the semi-protection. As I also edit here occasionally, if anyone has an issue with this, please feel free to bring this up here or at WP:RFPP. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 16:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Short description

Since there seems to be disagreement about the wording of the short description, I'd like to survey editors for their opinion on the best wording:
A. Practice of magic, usually to cause harm
B. Practice of magic
If you have another suggestion, feel free to propose it. Nosferattus (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• Prefer B - The short description is mainly intended for identifying the subject and disambiguating it in searches. The current wording (A) doesn't work well for this and is misleading. It suggests that this article is only about witchcraft as traditionally defined in anthropology and monotheistic religions. However, the scope of this article also includes modern Paganism, in which witchcraft is a non-harmful religious practice utilized by millions of people worldwide. Judging by the previous discussions on this talk page and the article's editing history, it is clear that many (perhaps most) of the article's readers are expecting it to include this context, and find wording like "usually to cause harm" jarring and unexpected, especially without context. Since the context of the term witchcraft is not given in the short description, it doesn't make sense to use a limited, traditional definition rather than a broader definition that includes the full scope of the article, especially when that limited definition is less concise and unnecessarily detailed for the purposes of a short description. Nosferattus (talk) 19:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
• A. Practice of magic, usually to cause harm accurately summarizes the lede, which we have arrived at by consensus. The only "disagreements" are the usual vandalism or disruption by those who haven't read the talk page or sources, or who don't respect policy. You don't need to keep bringing this stuff up over and over again in slightly different ways. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:42, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Inaccurate

I'm not the first person to say this, but witchcraft was not used to harm. This page is inaccurate and they've made it unable to edit, purposefully I'm quite sure. False information like this is the exact reason the witch trials happened to begin with, and it's now 2023, and I feel like people are still living in medieval times. Witchcraft was most often used to heal, and witches are credited with protecting crops, livestock, and healing sick people of the villages. Everyone knew if you had an illness, or any problem, go see the village witch! It wasn't until white "christian" colonizers came along and pumped fear into everyone that witches became seen as "evil." This page NEEDS to be updated and corrected as this is just completely false information that does nothing but harm, which witches never did. It's more than high time that people evolved their brains beyond the dark ages. Witchfairy2802 (talk) 00:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

First, the witch trials in the early modern period have nothing in common with the Middle Ages, since there was no systematic persecution of "witches" prior to the 16th century. The trials are partially seen as a side-effect of the Reformation. Second, what sources do you have to support your narrative? Dimadick (talk) 09:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Comments: It would be interesting to get some sourced confirmation of claims. There is a multitude of sources that some "perform black magic, using rituals similar to voodoo, and cast spells and incantations to bring harm." Other sources link black or dark magic directly to witchcraft. I am sure there are some "charmed Ones" that only do good but that require sourcing.

A 1986 Court of Appeals decision ruled that Wiccan was a religion. Followers, "Wicca for Life", claim "Wicca opposes the use of negative, harmful magic and discourages people from hurting others physically or emotionally". The supposed negativity of "witchcraft" has reportedly caused many "witches" to call themselves Wiccans. The dictionary entry for witch (also sorcerer): is "a woman (or man) believed to have often harmful supernatural powers".

If there is "completely false information" there would need to be multiple reliable and independant sources. -- Otr500 (talk) 01:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

"and cast spells and incantations to bring harm" That is reminiscent of curses, and we do have an article on curse tablets from the Greco-Roman world. With people trying to use spells against their opponents, "spells ranged against thieves, and business and sporting rivals". Dimadick (talk) 06:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Witchcraft

I am a person who does witchcraft and it’s definitions like this that make me mad. WITCHCRAFT IS NOT ALWAYS USED TO HARM. There are so many people who do gold with witchcraft. It’s a practice of magic, that’s the definition. Get your facts straight, thank you. 174.100.10.18 (talk) 00:13, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The article you're looking for is Wicca. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 10:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2023

106.51.166.180 (talk) 10:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

witchcraft is not used to harm others. ai would request that be corrected. its simply using nature to get energies and powers from and transformation

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 11:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Changes without consensus

@Randy Kryn: please read the sources and talk page. Editors have worked hard to come to the version we have. You will need consensus for the changes you want to make. Also, this is not a BLP. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 23:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Witches are people. I’m a witch. I’m not Wiccan. Are you enjoying attacking my religion? My ancestors were burned at the stake (yes really and I can prove it through my ancestry). This is hate speech. Remove it now. 68.229.102.219 (talk) 00:14, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

As I said on user talk: The article is based on the solid sources, and a worldwide view, not just recent, western beliefs (post Gerald Gardner) that have redefined the word in a few cultures. Traditional cultures see it very differently, and we need to represent a worldwide, well-researched view, not the dreck you'll find at a newage store or in clickbait. The other views are thoroughly covered on the 'pedia as well. Read both the article and the links.

Any innocent you are concerned about being harmed for calling themselves a witch (as was probably the case with the IP's ancestors) should be aware it's not a neutral word, and they should do their research before calling themselves this. Most newage and neopagan books are written by amateurs and contain all kinds of misinformation, leading to well-intentioned, but inaccurate ideas about both history and diverse cultures. Best wishes, - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:03, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Witchcraft is not intended to “harm others”. It is intended for personal power!

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 post is an insult to witchcraft! 74.75.145.117 (talk) 03:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

This article includes the history of witchcraft, which was stigmatised at the time.

Nicerbep (talk) 13:12, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Nicerbep, I think the anon's point is that the lead is wrong; hence is unbalanced. Some witchcraft is intended for positive purposes (white magic vs. black magic), and this spans further back to subjects like Shamanism. The connotations of witchcraft as simply negative are also outdated, despite the fact that it isn't the first word related to (neutral) divination. 2A00:23C4:41A:9601:5024:97B:369B:2DAB (talk) 23:29, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

(The "Witchcraft traditionally means the use of magic or supernatural powers to harm others" part. At the same time, I think specifically when the word "witchcraft" came into use it was like a word with negative connotations, but that is no longer completely true today. 2A00:23C4:41A:9601:5024:97B:369B:2DAB (talk) 23:30, 27 November 2022 (UTC) )

(At that point, it comes down to the philosophy of what the subject of this article really is about; is it solely about witchcraft with loaded negative connotations, and where do we blur the lines between subjects like healing magic, modern divination (e.g. tarot card readings not intended to harm) New Age Movements; but society has historically used the term negatively (like a sociological moral panic); such as in the 1597 book Daemonologie by King James VI and I. 2A00:23C4:41A:9601:5024:97B:369B:2DAB (talk) 23:35, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

"New Age Movements" Some of these are continuing the traditional beliefs of western occultism, but I am not certain if there is a strong connection between their rituals and traditional conceptions of witchcraft. Dimadick (talk) 15:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@Dimadick: Why does that matter? There are at least 1.5 million people in the US alone who identify as Wiccan. The central tenant of Wicca is the practice of (modern beneficial) witchcraft. Witchcraft is also a defining element of millennial culture (at least for women). At what point does the modern concept of witchcraft become important enough to warrant integration into this article? According to WP:WEIGHT an article on witchcraft should cover all the aspects and meanings of witchcraft "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". Given that there are literally thousands of published books about modern witchcraft (not to mention countless articles on the web), I don't understand why it is so staunchly excluded from the scope of this article (with a few token exceptions). I suspect there is some age and gender bias happening here, as I doubt the demographics of the people controlling this article are very similar to the demographics of the people reading it. But I digress. My question is: At what point does the modern concept of witchcraft become important enough to warrant integration into this article? Nosferattus (talk) 16:15, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd say the connection between New Age adherents and "witchcraft" is not with the traditional meaning, or even with the more traditional Wiccan strains, but with the pop culture, self-helf, affirmations and charms as "spellcraft" type. Sort of the "white witchcraft" Wicca-lite of dabblers, spell kits with crystals advertised next to glitter makeup and Hello Kitty. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

If you wanna talk about the history of my religion, and the persecution of my people, go ahead and put it in the history section. It does not belong in the second sentence, stated as fact. This is hate speech. Remove it now. 68.229.102.219 (talk) 00:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Maybe this page title should be changed to Witch (traditional)? I'm not entirely sure what to do if the current scholarly definition of witch is that it is harmful (is this up-to-date and true, is it euro-centric?), but its clear that the term witch has been used for a long time for occultist practices as well. I've run into these issues before and as a lay-user of Wikipedia it can be quite confusing when the modern term for something leads to a Wikipedia page for something completely different. Poketama (talk) 02:23, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I would support such a change in the page title. I have a close friend who calls herself a witch. Met some of her friends with whom she practices the customs of her craft. All lovely people. No different from bunch of Presbyterians practicing their craft, but with prettier ornamentation. I felt no threat. Nor would anybody else. While this article is obviously valuable, it doesn't describe my friend and her friends. HiLo48 (talk) 03:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Problem is, when more people became aware (in the 1980s and 1990s) that Wicca had been invented in the 1940s/50s, a lot of people focused on calling their practices "Traditional Craft". Some had emphasised "Craft" over "Wicca" all along. Hence: Traditional witchcraft. For the most part, the groups are pretty similar. Identical, even. But some insist they are not. I'm sure your friend is lovely. I know many like her. But if she introduces herself to people from living cultures that never had to invent this stuff, likely they will not see her as lovely, no matter how much she insists she doesn't mean it like that. She should be aware that "witch" as a positive thing is not a "reclamation" but a redefinition. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Except the concept of "good" vs "wicked" witches is already present in the article predating your assumed origination by at least decades. And the idea that witchcraft meets condemnation is introduced exactly 2 sentences later if we don't impose it as moral condemnation in the lead. Darker Dreams (talk) 18:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

It's not so much that witchcraft that has been redefined in the world outside, it's been radically redefined here at Wikipedia: Old revision of Witchcraft. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 19:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

witchcraft is not used to harm others! Stop, forcing your opinions down other peoples throats! There are many things in life that harms, others, and witchcraft is not one of them. Witchcraft is about personal empowerment 174.162.157.131 (talk) 20:02, 1 May 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.

I'm sure others are offended too...

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 "information" is offensive if another religion was described with such discrimination it would be taken down! BB x 2.125.129.51 (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

You are welcome to feel how you like. But no, we have things somewhere on WP that will likely offend everyone in some way. WP:NOTCENSORED. DMacks (talk) 17:03, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

OK, let’s try and experiment. How about you go to the page about the Jewish people. They have been persecuted throughout history, much like witches have, so that’s a fair example, seeing how they suffered at the hands of the nazis, and we suffered at the hands of white Christians (eg burned at the stake). Now go say in the second sentence that they are evil. Or causing harm. Or greedy. How do you think that would go over. Really good right? Stop attacking my people. Get this hate speech removed now. FYI, not all witches are Wiccan. 68.229.102.219 (talk) 00:10, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

The article you're looking for is Wicca. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 10:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Not all witches are Wiccan. Which raft is a religion. Seeing this kind of discrimination over and over on Wikipedia of all places is disgusting. It’s hate speech. Remove it now. If you wants to mention, it’s negative connotations in history, do that in the history section! Not at the opening! Second sentence. Disgusting. 68.229.102.219 (talk) 00:03, 19 May 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.

Witch craft is not evil!

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.

---

Withcraft is not evil although i can be used to hurt others that rarely ever happens! Please change thay begining part I am a witch and it hurt me deeply to see witch craft be so demonized like that. 2604:6400:460E:2A01:2D77:59A0:D888:3623 (talk) 05:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

The article you're looking for is Wicca. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 10:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

yes i understand that you are and u hurt people but some witches make people's lives hell and can create sickness like depression and anxiety Lee gwebityala (talk) 12:09, 22 May 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.

Witchcraft is not meant for harm

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.

---

It is traditionally used for quite the opposite. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written in a neutral point of view, right? This seems pretty negative towards this religion and belief system. Ashertheaxolotl (talk) 07:52, 16 July 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.