Jump to content

Talk:Witchcraft/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Underscores

Resolved

Many underscores (like so) have been added in referenced quotations that are not present in the sources, to add emphasis and "metaphorically underscore" the editor's stance, which seems wrong to me. It's another form of editorialising. As well as this, the manual of style says: "Generally, do not underline text or it may be confused with links on a web page." Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 13:50, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Addendum: Changing the underscores to bold text is not the answer, either. As Wikipedians it is not our place to add our own emphasis, or to make a point, especially not in direct quotations. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 14:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
I agree. Just use the quotations verbatim. If some of the material is irrelevant, elide it with ellipses. Nosferattus (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
I have fixed it. We do not change the style in a quotation. Material should be bolded or underlined only if it is in the source. The best way to make a point clear is to not overquote. Skyerise (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Short description

Consolidating here. We've gone back and forth on several phrasings in the long discussions above. Current form as of this post:

  • Type of magical practice

My concern with these is that we shouldn't state in Wiki-voice that everyone who claims to have supernatural powers actually has them. I'm also not sure that all readers will understand, or agree, with how "magic" is defined here (see linked disambig). Occultists came up with the "magick with a k" spelling to distinguish magic (supernatural) and ceremonial magic from stage magic (magic (illusion)). Some readers may still go to stage magic in their minds. We need to think outside the "everyone knows what pagan magic is" box with this. What can we use instead of "magic"? Metaphysical? Occult? - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 20:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Maybe occult would be a possible word to introduce. Or supernatural. It's the same with what everyday people think of "imagination", ie mere fantasy. Henry Corbin, too, had to resort to the word "imaginal" (and the imaginal world, mundus imaginalis) to describe "real" or "active" imagination, and was at pains to make the distinction. And Jung didn't help by using the word fantasy when he meant active imagination. Others also talk of the "lost knowledge of the imagination". Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 20:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't think you can (nor can you be expected to) come up with a short definition that will please everybody (those who believe, those who know, those who are staunch materialists, and those who have an opinion). "Knowledge is something which you can use. Belief is something which uses you." "Opinion is usually something which people have when they lack comprehensive information." ~ Idries Shah, Reflections. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 20:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Personally, I'd avoid using the word "mystical", because to many that means subordinating or annihilating the ego and surrendering to the will of a supreme being, and to others it might mean pink unicorns. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 20:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
I do think of unicorns (pink or otherwise) when I hear of "mystical". What does the term have to do with a supreme being? Dimadick (talk) 21:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Islam section

Should we further move the Islam section? I feel like it doesn't fit the narrow definition of "Witchcraft" we tend to agree this article should focus on, since magic had a rather ambivalent role in Islamic culture prior to the rise of contemporary Salafism/Wahhabism. The boundaries between magic and "witchcraft" (magic performed with evil entities) are fluent. We often tend to merge Islam with Judeo-Christian tradition, overlooking that Islam was much more influenced by Asian and African traditions (which usually lacks the duality of nature/magic) than (Western) Christianity was. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 10:58, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

This article should clearly be about all witchcraft. If people want to focus on Witchcraft in Medieval Europe, or New-Age witchcraft, well those are mere subtopics of witchcraft and could have their own dedicated pages. It should be noted that "modern" witchcraft is extremely live and well in some parts of the world, and not in the cutesy New Age sense of the meaning. If you are an persecuted albino person living in Africa, the superstition around witchcraft is a matter of life and death. It's a serious subject in need clarity. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

What, no mention of the TV fantasy drama "Charmed"?

There were 178 hour-long episode of Charmed in which the heroines, three sisters known as The Charmed Ones, were cast as "good witches" fighting demons and warlocks. It's still seen in reruns. 2600:8801:BE01:2500:1047:BD5C:178A:73C1 (talk) 16:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

See Neopagan witchcraft. Skyerise (talk) 17:09, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Mystical

In Western esotericism, mystical is contrasted with magical. Mystical refers to inner experience, magical to outer effects. Witchcraft is not typically referred to as 'mystical'. Skyerise (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 19 July 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved per WP:SNOW. starship.paint (exalt) 02:27, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

– The current article has created contentious discussion regarding how to focus this article between various versions of the words Witch and Witchcraft. Primary divisions between topics seems to agree with some reasonable classifications/divisions. (Bonewits's classifications include; Neopagan, Classical, Gothic/Diabolical, Ethnic, etc.)[1] Tentative consensus was reached around separating the types, and allowing each to be addressed on their own sub-pages. However, leaving one as the primary topic will continue to feed this confusion and conflict. Other potential titles for what is currently the main Witchcraft page have been suggested, including (scholarly consensus) and (historic), however these potentially present additional value judgements beyond those necessary for deconfliction. Given the intent to focus the article on use of evil magic and worldwide persecution (gothic) or (diabolical) might instead be appropriate, leaving the classical subheading to Cunning folk (a comparison Bonewits is quoted as making). Regardless, the current name lacks clarity of topic, creating unnecessary conflict among readers and editors and producing disruption to article improvement. Darker Dreams (talk) 19:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC) Darker Dreams (talk) 19:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Adler, Margot (2006). Drawing Down the Moon; Witches, Druids, Goddess-Worshippers, and Other Pagans in America. Penguin Books. pp. 66–67.
To cut to the chase: here is the entry at Witchcraft (disambiguation): Witchcraft, traditionally and worldwide, usually means the use of malevolent magic." and it points to this partial article which says the same thing. Inclusion of contemporary witchcraft is simply untenable, and thus this article does not represent the full picture about witchcraft.
Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 20:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Until recently, after a heated discussion, the opening sentence of the lede of Witchcraft read Witchcraft traditionally means the use of magic or supernatural powers to harm others. and the short description read, Practice of magic, usually to cause harm. And that is still the stance that established editors at the article maintain. Since Witch also redirects to this negative article, I believe that this introduces systemic bias into the whole field. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 21:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Soft oppose. I don't know to what extent the term Witchcraft (classical) is recognised in the literature, and to what extent we should have so many articles about the various types of way witchcraft. If truly such a term exists, with a substantive amount content, then I think it would be good to create a page for that. But I think there's no need to move anything nonetheless. Why not just create a page there, and edit it? Dawkin Verbier (talk) 08:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Have left a message about this discussion at all the wikiprojects shown on this talk page. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 21:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  • Oppose. It is inappropriate to reframe Wikipedia's coverage of a topic based on a specific religious movement's understanding of the topic. I think it's particularly telling that one of the proposals among the editors proposing this change was to split off some of the coverage with the parenthetical "(scholarly consensus)" as if that's not the main factor to determine whether coverage is due. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I've been watching this article for a long time, and was quite surprised to see the recent edit warring and POV pushing. I oppose renaming the article as it has been a WP:BROADCONCEPT article for a long time and see no need to "fix" it by renaming to align with certain more recent points of view. The article follows Wikipedia's naming conventions, and it is the WP:COMMONNAME of the subject. It is fine that it encompasses the scope of historical, traditional as well as modern and contemporary. BTW, I did some checking online and in off-line books, and the modern/contemporary Puebloan peoples' views on witchcraft appear to align with the traditional interpretation, similar to that of their neighbors, the Navajo. I disagree that this is a "negative" article. Netherzone (talk) 00:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose The point of view of new religious movements doesn't trump decades of academic coverage.★Trekker (talk) 01:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose: This would just be formalizing a WP:FALSEBALANCE. Not only are things like Wiccan religion and Neopaganism marginal topics to the overall subject of witchcraft past and present, I'm not even convinced that witchcraft is a particularly prevalent term for either of those. If you mean Wiccan religion or Neopaganism, you use those terms. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
As for the lack of prevalence of the term, a quick Google book search for modern witchcraft would suggest otherwise. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 08:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
I'll admit that there are more people wittering about Wicca than I expected, but I still see little cause for confusion between these topics. There are already naturally disambiguated and people searching for Wicca search for that. It's that simple. Any child who has read fairy tales knows what the general concept of witchcraft is, and that it is distinct from a modern neopagan belief system. Hence the almost non-existent traffic between the two pages. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
@Iskandar323: "Marginal topics"? You've got to either be kidding or living under a rock. Nosferattus (talk) 15:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
If I am living under a rock where I don't have to hear about Wiccan beliefs then I count myself bloody lucky. I'd sooner go back to worshipping Odin, the all-father, than follow some absolute lunatic of a retired British civil servant as my prophet and indulge in some weird hobbyist mishmash of ancient religions. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Yep, it's about as wacky as any other religion! Nosferattus (talk) 16:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is an example of concerted efforts at outreach or POV pushing, here at Neopagan witchcraft (formerly Contemporary witchcraft). It begins Traditionally, "witchcraft" generally means the use of magic or supernatural powers to inflict harm or misfortune on others, and this remains the most common and widespread meaning ...: Edit difference. This is an example of why this RM was brought (after perennial and frequent reversions and heated discussions). All your wiki are belong to us. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 08:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Support - I'm not sure the article needed to be split, but since it has, this article is no longer the primary topic and needs disambiguation. Nosferattus (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
    • The article wasn't split. Some editor in 2017 basically redirected all the contemporary witchcraft links to witchcraft, effectively deleting Contemporary witchcraft without merging the bulk of the article anywhere. This was simply reversed and a small amount of relevant material was then merged to the resurrected article. Skyerise (talk) 15:49, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I'm usually not bullish on WP:BROADCONCEPT articles, but "historical" or "classical" witchcraft seems like a clear case to me where there's no difficulty finding WP:HQRS treating the topic comprehensively, and the movement is evidently the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Furthermore, there's no reputable scholarly support for any continuity between historical witchcraft and Wicca/Neopaganism, so those should be covered in separate articles that only warrant a mention here as others have said. Discussions of WP:FRINGE, ahistoric reconstructionist movements are as WP:UNDUE here as they are on e.g. Ancient Greece or Ancient Egypt related topics, WP:ONEWAY applies to pseudohistory regardless of whether it originates from a new religious movement or not. - car chasm (talk) 15:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
    • @Carchasm: The problem is that the history of witchcraft is not the history of an actual practice, it's the history of a made-up Christian concept. Neo-pagan witchcraft is an actual thing practiced by over a million people. Saying that the made-up Christian concept is more important than an actual widespread religious practice is a bit problematic, as this talk page attests to. Nosferattus (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
      This article refers to the topic studied by historians and anthropologists, which is not exclusive to Christianity or WP:MADEUP, as the article itself already explains in detail. Perhaps you might want to read it yourself, you might learn something new from some of the cited sources about a topic that seems to interest you! But regardless, the fact that roughly a million people since the mid-20th century happen to have appropriated this academic terminology for their own use based on a now-widely discredited historical theory is marginal, and of interest mostly to this small minority WP:POV, whereas the scholarly consensus on an academic topic is potentially of interest to a much wider audience. Many Christians or members of other religions also often find wikipedia pages covering topics that contradict their religious beliefs, we don't give them more weight because they call themselves "religion" instead of something else. - car chasm (talk) 16:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
      • @Carchasm: Considering that I'm the 8th highest contributor to this article and you're just a drive-by talk-page voter, I'm glad you could mansplain the topic to me. The fact is, the word "witchcraft" does not have the same meaning and connotations that it did 100 years ago. Wikipedia shouldn't pretend otherwise. Nosferattus (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
        I'm not a man, but anyway, thanks for your contributions to the project! Please don't try to use them to pull rank though, if I claimed expertise on every page I've contributed more than 2.6% of I'd be a subject matter expert on an absurdly wide range of topics indeed, but I'd have an uphill battle convincing anyone of that! This article, however, which I haven't felt the need to contribute to yet (I think...?), is exhaustively sourced with WP:RS, demonstrating the broad meaning of witchcraft is still in use today, and those sources are what should be considered. - car chasm (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
        @Carchasm: I've struck "mansplain" from my comment. I'm not trying to pull rank. I'm reacting to your belittling comment suggesting that I have never even read the article that I'm arguing about. Nosferattus (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The traditional and still most common and widespread meaning of "witchcraft" worldwide is malevolent magic. That's supported by several high-quality academic sources in the lead. Clearly this traditional meaning is the primary topic. The recent re-definition used by some neo-pagans has its own article at Neopagan witchcraft, and there are hatnotes to guide readers to the right articles. I wholly agree with Thebiguglyalien who said it's "inappropriate to reframe Wikipedia's coverage of a topic based on a specific religious movement's understanding of the topic", and with Iskandar323 who noted it would be formalizing a false balance. – Asarlaí (talk) 20:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'd support a move to Evil witchcraft or Witchcraft (evil). Skyerise (talk) 17:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes, that is the issue in a nutshell! Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
That's why I recommended an RfC. It wasn't clear that the defining distinction was clear yet. Skyerise (talk) 18:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
A first RfC to choose from a list of names, as you suggested, I think (?) Yes. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
The idea would be shot to ribbons, or go down like a lead balloon, but this article deserves tagging: systemic bias and unbalanced. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes, that's why I instead added it to WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias. Skyerise (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
(Sorry for repeating this here): Ronald Hutton, for one, is being deliberately partial (writing only about witchcraft in its destructive manifestations). In Ronald Hutton, The Witch: A History of fear, from ancient times to the present, the author says after the "What is a witch?" quote: That is, however, only one current usage of the word. In fact, Anglo-American senses of it now take at least four different forms, although the one discussed above seems still to be the most widespread and frequent. The others define the witch figure as any person who uses magic ... or as the practitioner of nature-based Pagan religion; or as a symbol of independent female authority and resistance to male domination. All have validity in the present, and to call anybody wrong for using any one of them would be to reveal oneself as bereft of general knowledge, as well as scholarship. ... [I]n this book the mainstream scholarly convention will be followed, and the word used only for an alleged worker of such destructive magic. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)


  • Close? Anyone uninvolved here who can close this RM (snowball oppose) so that a new one can be opened? Thanks. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
    Agree with snow close, but the title you propose is unwieldy and unnecessary. Consensus from this discussion is that the current title is fine. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 18:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
    Uninvolved Comment - There are two "Support" comments, so the article cannot be speedy closed. Let the discussion run its natural course, which could change in time. A new discussion is not needed to chose a different title, but as of now, there is no support to change the title; a new discussion soon after the close would likely be closed as "too soon". To close this discussion early, the nominator who has not made any further comments to this point, would need to withdraw their nomination. BilCat (talk) 22:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
    My mistake, as the request was for a snowball close, not a speedy close. If the article is close as Oppose, a new move wouldn't be appropriate so soon after the close. Again, the only other option is for the nominator to withdraw the nomination. But at this point, their is also no support for a another title, so a new discussion is also likely to fail to reach a consensus. BilCat (talk) 22:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is the primary topic, moving it away would be along the lines of trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:12, 21 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.

Is this a WP:BROADCONCEPT article or not?

Most of the people arguing against renaming this article above contend that it is a WP:BROADCONCEPT article. If that is the case, it needs to include some mention and summarization of Wicca and Neopagan witchcraft as related topics (which I tried to do but was reverted). If, however, it is a narrow-concept article, it should be renamed to clarify its scope. Nosferattus (talk) 17:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

The problem being addressed is frequent complaints from Wiccan and Neopagan witches about being included in an article that starts out by defining witchcraft as malevolent. Unless 'malevolent' is removed from the overarching definition of the page, I would say that it is not a BROADCONCEPT article, regardless of it being the primary definition, and should be moved to Witchcraft (evil). Skyerise (talk) 17:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
I thoroughly agree and Witchcraft (malevolent) crossed my mind more than once. To zealously promote the subject with an overarching theme of historical and indigenous witchcraft as being malevolent according to scholarly consensus, and to dismiss later (often benign) movements and religions as being ill-founded or illegitimate, makes the article unfit to be the primary topic. As the talk page amply attests, there is an apparent intolerance here masquerading as scholastic consensus. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
To clarify my comment above, for this to be a BROADCONCEPT article, witchcraft would have to be defined in terms which are inclusive of all its definitions, omitting characteristics which are not common to all the word's senses. Because it has not been so defined, instead choosing to focus on the primary definition's inclusion of malevolence, it fails to live up to BROADCONCEPT standards. Skyerise (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
I agree that the summary was useful. The topics might be distinct, but that distinction still needs explaining on this page, even if the only connection is Wicca borrowing terms, symbolism and tropes from 'witchcraft'. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
The hatnote defines the scope of the article and directs seekers for information outside that scope to the more robust and complete articles and is Working as intended. Skyerise (talk) 19:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
@Skyerise: Even if this article were renamed to Witchcraft (malevolent), which doesn't seem likely to happen, I would argue that Wicca is still clearly a reaction to the history of "malevolent" witchcraft persecution and still warrants discussion, albeit brief. Same for the witch-cult hypothesis and Neopagan witchcraft. There is no way that the scope of these various articles can be cleanly and completely separated. Nosferattus (talk) 19:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Actually, there are several ways that could be accomplished. The status quo is one of them. I'd say the two sentences at the end of the lead section are quite sufficient. Skyerise (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
No, the first step is that you allow someone to summarize the relationship in the body (instead of reverting it); only then can you add it in the lead. You are putting the cart before the horse. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
See WP:BRD. Discussion is a necessary part of the process. The question that needs to be addressed is: How can we modify the article so the the material is not plopped into the middle of a non-neutral context. Skyerise (talk) 20:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
You are having a discussion here about how the article should be scoped. At present, it already has all this explained in the lead, but not in the body. That's a violation of MOS:LEAD. The article ends in the present-day section talking about witchcraft in Africa, which is the end of the third paragraph, and then there is a blank void on the page where the section summing up Wicca and Neo-paganism should be, corresponding with the fourth paragraph in the lead. So you're saying leave the article broke? Iskandar323 (talk) 20:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
No, I'm saying that those who want to include the material have to figure out how to make the context WP:NPOV first. Skyerise (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
You're trying to have a rather esoteric discussion about whether the article is framed too much in terms of 'malevolent' magic, but witchcraft is first and foremost just a term that has had very associations with it pertaining to different cultures. Wicca is just another thing in the 20th century that has come along and piggybacked off the term, and it's already sitting there in the lead, but now, not in the body. What exactly was wrong with the perfectly adequate, brief summary that @Nosferattus added helping explain the linkage between witchcraft (broad concept) and Wicca? Iskandar323 (talk) 20:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm not "trying to have a discussion", I am having a discussion. Since you object to the inclusion of Wicca in the lead, I've removed it. Skyerise (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
The hatnote reads "This article is about worldwide historical and traditional views of witchcraft". Is Wicca worldwide? Is it historical? It is a "traditional view"? No, no, and no. Out of scope. Skyerise (talk) 20:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
So we've solved the problem of Wicca being associated with malevolent witchcraft by eliminating Wicca's association with witchcraft entirely?? Something tells me this solution won't last long. Nosferattus (talk) 20:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
But isn't the scholarly view of Wicca that it is both ahistorical and non-traditional? And isn't the topic of the article historical and traditional views? Could you explain why Wicca fits the scope? Skyerise (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
It doesn't fit the scope, but per the lede we should probably have a brief section clarifying and redirecting people, yet again. Because people are still going to look for Wicca etc here no matter how bold the hatnotes. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 23:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
@Iskandar323: About the missing section: There used to be a brief section on Wicca there, but someone (Skyerise, IIRC) moved it. To Neopagan witchcraft, I think. I think it would be appropriate to again have a brief section there (briefer than before) that expands a bit on the last para of the lede, with links to Neopagan Witchcraft, Wicca, Witch-cult hypothesis, etc, if nothing else to further distinguish the redefinition and redirect people who come to the article looking for that content. I don't think it would once again confuse the two, but would align with policy by filling out what is mentioned in the lede, and redirect those who don't pay attention to the lede but go paging through looking for Wicca. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 23:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

After reading this whole thread and looking at the diffs, I am in agreement with Iskandar323 and Nosferattus that we should have a brief section and have added back the section Nosferattus added. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 23:49, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

But that is outside the clearly defined scope of the article which you have made a point of repeating over and over "historical and traditional views of witchcraft" - which is what you have been at pains to make all the disambiguation pages say as well, Is that now not the scope of the article? Are you now asserting that Wicca's views fall under "historical and traditional"? You can't have it both ways. The article is either completely inclusive and unfortunately written in a very WP:POV manner for a BROADCONCEPT article, or neopagan witchcraft and Wicca are out of scope, Which is it? Seems like you are changing your tune. aSkyerise (talk) 01:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
If I may be so bold, Neopagan Witchcraft is tangentially relevant to discussions about the cultural concept of witchcraft, roughly as much as Satanism is relevant to the article on Satan. Just as Satanism has reinterpreted Satan from a malevolent being to a sympathetic being, so has Neopagan Witchcraft reinterpreted a belief in the existence of harmful occult spellcasting into a belief in the existence of positive occult spellcasting. It may not have a whole lot to do with the original subject, but insofar as it is inspired to some degree by the original subject it merits as much commentary as witchcraft in fiction. If nothing else, it provides a good opportunity to discuss the debunked witch-cult hypothesis. Pliny the Elderberry (talk) 03:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Precisely, it may not be within the core scope, but it is a sufficiently related subject to be mentioned as tangentially related, as well as differentiated, due to the obvious risk of confusion on account of the overlap in terminological usage. As Pliny notes, the witch-cult hypothesis also is a now debunked hypothesis about witchcraft itself, and so does definitely have a place here, and it is best contextualised within the framework of a mention of the movement that birthed it. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
I've notified The Signpost that they may want to cover this as a news story: how's Fictional but dead practitioners of malevolent magic used to smear the very real and non-malevolent living. Or maybe Cabal of Wikipedia editors reinforce negative coverage of living people using the ghosts of persecuted women falsely accused of witchcraft, which they deny exists. Skyerise (talk) 07:46, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
@Jayen466: Is this up your street? Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 07:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
@Skyerise, you know that I have a lot of respect for you, but in this case I think you are fanning the flames and exaggerating. It does not seem that what you are proposing a news story: how's Fictional but dead practitioners of malevolent magic used to smear the very real and non-malevolent living. Or maybe Cabal of Wikipedia editors reinforce negative coverage of living people using the ghosts of persecuted women falsely accused of witchcraft, which they deny exists. is going to help move this discussion towards consensus. To my mind it just deepens the divide. You are of course entitled to do and think what you wish, but in this case I think it is unwise to exacerbate the situation and escalate matters. Netherzone (talk) 21:04, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Skyerise is a thoughtful, sensible, knowledgeable, resourceful, studious, intelligent, approachable, and pleasant editor who has made a great many useful contributions across so many articles. I think perhaps her proposal that events here could be newsworthy might be a measure of her frustration in the face of concerted, and at times adversarial, opposition. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 22:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I agree she is all those things which is why I respect her, however should not our common goal here be to come to consensus peacefully and collegially? Netherzone (talk) 23:19, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Let s/he who has not missed the mark cast the first stone:

"POV pushing against consensus"

At an ongoing edit warring noticeboard case, evidence has been presented, with the dismissive and frequent claim of "POV pushing" "against consensus":

Quote: (see here). I undid that, they removed the sentence again, I restored it, then they removed it again.

Ask yourself which is the more collegial, if errant:

  • "remove the primary example of systemic bias; this is also not cited correctly - it is not sufficient to provide five citation to prove "most widespread now", it would require say a linguistic survey, etc" (Skyerise).
  • Or "what the hell is this?" (Asarlaí).
  • Or "establish that most reliable academic sources don't consider malevolence part of the definition of witchcraft, but rather a stereotype projected by others" (Skyerise).
  • Or "unexplained removal of detail supported by numerous academic sources" (Asarlaí).
  • Or "NOT removed, rather QUALIFIED" (Skyerise).
  • Or "Skyerise, respect the consensus we've reached through this process." (CorbieVreccan).

Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 07:40, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@Esowteric, I know you mean well, but please don't try to draw me into the drama. I made a friendly comment to a Wikipedian who I happen care about. Netherzone (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
@Netherzone: Thanks! I'd strike the comment, but I feel too much time has gone by for that to have much of an effect... Skyerise (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Sorry about that, Netherzone. I didn't mean to meddle. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 14:42, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

More discussion about the lede

@Skyerise: I did not revert anyone. So what's with more of your hitting undo when I, without changing the meaning, cut down on the excess verbiage? Your odd edit summary: Undid revision 1166785522 by CorbieVreccan (talk) let's not interrupt the collaborative process which is how we arrive at a new consensus; improve, don't revert. You going back and forth with one person on here is not a "new consensus". You are still at the 3RR board for this. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 20:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

One revert does not an edit war make. Sure, your revert is a partial revert. It's still a backwards step. Skyerise (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
I didn't revert anyone. I dealt with the over-wordiness and clumsiness. Is the bit I removed sourced? Anyone? - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 21:08, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
The lede has a lot of cites because they were demanded to prove the most common definition. Flagging as over-cited is a common POV push move, because the next move would be to wait and then say it's not sufficiently sourced. All anyone has to do is wade through talk and they will see why every one of the cites is there. The flag was disruptive and I have removed it. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 21:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
To avoid an "excessive citations" tag, they can be grouped together: ref *cite1 *cite2 ... /ref, with the bullet points each on a new line. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 21:23, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Excessive citation are also connected with POV-pushing, original research, and synthesis. Removing tags without fixing the problem is something that has stock warnings. Should I give you one? Removing it is also your second revert. Even partial reversions count as reverts, and any removal is always a revert. To quote WP:REVERT: "The three-revert rule (part of the edit warring policy) limits the number of times an editor can revert edits (including partial reversions) on a page." Skyerise (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Knowledge, Belief, and Witchcraft

A quote was requested from this book. You can read it here. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 13:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

British or American spelling?

The page seems to currently use both varieties - search for 'ised' and 'ized'. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Could we defer to the dialect used by a predominance of the scholars cited (or translated)? Is British English preferable, since it's more of an "Old World" topic? Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 09:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Probably. Britain (incl. England, Scotland, Wales) appears more than N. America. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Per MOS:RETAIN, the article should use whatever version of English it first used. The earliest version of this article with a spelling variant used "characterize" and not "characterise", so American spellings are what this article should be using. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:34, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
MOS:RETAIN says to follow the first post-stub version, which I do not think that earliest version qualifies as, not that I want to be particularly WP:BURO about it. However, as noted above, the topic does have strong national ties to the British Isles, where the terminology derives from. The history of witchcraft in North America is only an inheritance by way of the cultural phenomenon in the British Isles and the wider Europe continent. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Just to note, -ize/-ise is not AmEng vs BrEng, per Oxford spelling. If the earliest version with a spelling variant uses -ize, that implies Oxford English as much as it does AmEng. (I have watched the rest of the discussions since my earlier contributions and...not touched most of them so far.) Vaticidalprophet 14:40, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Mixed -ise/-ize could be Oxford spelling or it could be simple inconsistency. It would depend on which words use -ize. Oxford spelling reserves it only for words with Greek etymology, but my understanding is that American English utilises -ize more widely. – Scyrme (talk) 04:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Summing Up the Problem

I'd like to, if I may, sum up the disagreement we have as it stands. This article is about malevolent witchcraft, which was practiced by exceedingly few people but has globally been a significant cultural anxiety. Our discussions, for the most part, agree that neopagan witchcraft and Harry Potter style witchcraft portrayed in (mostly Western) popular culture are related in name and general aesthetics only. Thus, they are only mentioned to explain how they grew out of the cultural concept of malevolent witchcraft. The disagreement now centers around whether an article about malevolent witchcraft needs to be labeled as such, or whether, per WP:COMMONNAME, "witchcraft" is already commonly understood to refer to malevolent spellcasting. Of the people who have voted on the matter, four believe that specification is needed and ten (excluding the "soft oppose") believe that it goes without saying. I think a fair bit of the disagreement may come from how you understand this article to be a WP:BROADCONCEPT article. I believe that those who support specification are worried that if this article is a broad concept, then it is an article about all practices known as "witchcraft". As such, an overwhelming focus on malevolent witchcraft may be seen as biased. However, the way I understand the article and the way that I believe those who are opposed to specification see it is as a broad concept article about malevolent witchcraft and all of its related socio-cultural phenomena (witch hunts, etc.) around the globe. Under this understanding positive/neopagan witchcraft does not fall under the broad concept because it is a novel phenomenon, related in name and some general aesthetics only. It deserves mention, but only as a distinct cultural phenomenon loosely inspired by the cultural concept of witchcraft. The article then, is not biased towards malevolent witchcraft and against neopagan witchcraft because it is specifically an article about malevolent witchcraft. The question, then, returns to whether we need to specify that this article is about malevolent witchcraft or whether witchcraft is already commonly understood to refer to malevolent magical practices, even if a noteworthy countercultural spiritual movement has appropriated and reinterpreted the term. Pliny the Elderberry (talk) 01:11, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the attempt at summarization and I think that it's a reasonable attempt at doing so.
However, a relevant point that is missed is that there aren't just two relevant definitions. As @Esowteric pointed out previously; Ronald Hutton, in The Witch: A History of fear, from ancient times to the present, the author says after the "What is a witch?" quote: "That is, however, only one current usage of the word. In fact, Anglo-American senses of it now take at least four different forms, [...] The others define the witch figure as any person who uses magic ... or as the practitioner of nature-based Pagan religion; or as a symbol of independent female authority and resistance to male domination. All have validity in the present, and to call anybody wrong for using any one of them would be to reveal oneself as bereft of general knowledge, as well as scholarship." (emphasis mine. And Hutton isn't alone in acknowledging additional forms of "witch" and "witchcraft" academically. The "evil witch of witch trials" is just the most studied form.
There are already in the article (buried in the section on Russia), references to the "any person who uses magic," every article about cunning folk or similar figures includes at least a mention that they have been called "witches" at some point (both positively and negatively). Witchcraft in Latin America similarly describes such a neutral "witch." I don't know as there is any attempt in Wikipedia at a "feminist" witchcraft article - it seems like every attempt has been subsumed into Neopaganism. Darker Dreams (talk) 01:55, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Witch (word) is a distinct page on Wikipedia that can be defined differently. Ronald Hutton's definition pertains to the word "witch" specifically, not "witchcraft". Different word, different page, different possibilities for exposition. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Witch redirects to this article, not Witch (word). Darker Dreams (talk) 08:31, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
We then that sounds like a separate discussion that could well be had. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:55, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Witch redirects here because this is the main topic. I'm not even sure that Witch (word) should be an article given WP:Dictionary. And, given that policy, I don't know how you separate Witch from Witchcraft. Darker Dreams (talk) 09:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
You would separate the two by using definitions such as the one provided above. The term witch has expanded outwards and become broader far more rapidly than witchcraft itself. It is as strongly associated with literary and popcultural associations and stereotypes, including the black pointed hats and broomsticks, as it is anything to do with either medieval superstitions or anthropological witchcraft. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:55, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Ok, I just had a fridge moment that may explain my emotional reaction to this conversation. Essentially, the article as it stands feels like it's taking a position in Wikipedia official voice on Religious debates over the Harry Potter series, Satanic panic, and similar discussions without being open that's even what is under discussion. Darker Dreams (talk) 02:38, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
It does feel like taking Satanic panic and turning it into an article that states that people were legitimately doing satanic rituals with D&D or whatever. SilverserenC 02:40, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Wiccan is Wicca, witchcraft is witchcraft. No need to add more adjectives. Wiccans can call themselves witches, but they aren't. Skate or get fatally injured (talk) 04:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Harry potter isn't about witchcraft either; it's about "wizardry" right? Men are wizards and women are witches, but I don't believe the word witchcraft is actually ever used. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:05, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Google book search for 'modern witchcraft' (without the quotes). Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 07:18, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes, and they spell 'Natural Magick' with a 'k' ... what's the point? That the popular literature itself uses the term "modern witchcraft" shows that either the authors or the editors or both are cognizant that the topic needs to be clear and naturally disambiguated from "witchcraft" in general, lest it be a source of confusion/conflation. Both contemporary witchcraft and modern witchcraft exist and redirect to Neopagan witchcraft, so job done. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:02, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
They spell "magick" with a "k" as a deliberate archaism to distinguish their practices from stage magic and illusions; it's not an uncommon convention among practitioners. While I'm likewise not sure why the Google book search results a relevant here, I'm also not sure what your point is about the use of the -k.
As Religious debates over the Harry Potter series notes, the franchise was condemned for promoting "witchcraft", regardless of the extent to which it actually discusses witchcraft, so it doesn't matter if the word really was used. (Which, btw, it was; eg. in the full name of the school: "Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry".) It doesn't make a difference to Darker Dreams' point. – Scyrme (talk) 10:13, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
I merely include a google search as an indication that when people wittingly or unwittingly search for "witchcraft" or "witch" either in a search engine or at Wikipedia, they are just as likely to be looking for contemporary witchcraft as for theories about witchcraft in antiquity or in other cultures (about which they may be unaware). And yet they are directed to the latter partial (as opposed to impartial) coverage by default. Even, if I may be so bold as to say it: directed there (and psychologically conditioned) by design. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 10:38, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Stereotypes are like that. They are intentionally propagated by a few who wish a subject to remain maligned, along with larger numbers of those who simply do it innocently or unconsciously. That's precisely why we have a project for addressing systemic bias, because it is a self-fulfilling loop which is extremely hard to break. Skyerise (talk) 12:11, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

The Reality of Witchcraft

I find the really problematic systemic bias is that the article doesn't question the reality of the definition at all. It seems to assume that "traditional" witches and their witchcraft were/are real. This is a view which is simply not accepted by science. The closest we have to a scientific view of what a witch actually refers to would be rooted in Carl Jung's theory of archetypes (e.g. [1]). If a "traditional" witch were a real thing, we should be able to point to a list of real, actual, witches. Can anybody come up with such a list? NO. Because the worldwide scientific consensus on witchcraft is that it was and is the product of the fevered imagination of an uneducated or poorly educated populace. Any other fictional or imaginary subject would be defined as such from the start. Yet the article doesn't even mention this. The words 'archetype', 'imaginary', 'imagination', 'projection' are not to be found. The article is taking a stance that witchcraft is REAL. That's unbalanced. Skyerise (talk) 10:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I think you're onto something there, Skyerise. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I can't see why modern 21st-century editors would base the whole article on an assumption that the "worldwide historical and traditional" definitions of witchcraft refer to a hard objective reality rather than a more subjective psychological reality. I mean - it's a great article about those "historical and traditional" views - but it's not a great or comprehensive article on the entirety of the subject of witches and witchcraft, as it leaves out the scientific and psychological views. This is why it should be renamed to indicate precisely what its scope is. Or completely rewritten from the top down to include the scientific and psychological views from the get-go in the lead. Skyerise (talk) 12:34, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
I can sense hackles being raised even as you speak, Skyerise. Maybe the idea could be developed as a separate article? If so, and you feel the urge: run with it. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:42, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Well, I typically create new articles in my own sandbox, but if others are interested in participating I could make it a WP:DRAFT so that you and others could also help build it. Up for it? Skyerise (talk) 12:51, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Do whatever you feel works best for you, Skyerise. My study has not included reading through Jung's works themselves, but through the filters of those who have written about, or studied with, Jung and early followers (from whose works I've pulled thousands of quotes to use in a related Facebook group I caretake).[a] So I can't promise anything, but I will do my best to contribute. Note [a]: On depth psychology, Illuminationism, and western esotericism.
"If it proves impossible legally to compel the ruling power to change the ways it governs us, and if for various reasons those who reject this power cannot or do not wish to overthrow it by force, then the creation of an independent or alternative or parallel [society] is the only dignified solution ..." ~ Ivan Jirous, Parallel Polis: An Inquiry. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Nice quote! Skyerise (talk) 13:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Well they kind of did, they were even tried for it. The question surely is did Malificarum exist, did magic work? Not did the foolish and the silly believe in it. Can you give a specific example of where we say magic works? Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
It's implied by the factual tone and the absence of balancing views. Skyerise (talk) 15:35, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Unsure it is, but I do agree we maybe we need to have a bit stronger wording about how magic in fact does not work. Such as a quote from Cohen, Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Sounds good. Perhaps you could add it. Skyerise (talk) 15:42, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Please no, we don't need a disclaimer that magic, of all things, does not work. Not encyclopedic to use such disclaimers. Imagine a printed encyclopedia. —Alalch E. 15:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
We now have "alleged supernatural" in the lead. Anything supernatural is by definition something that is alleged. —Alalch E. 15:48, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Dear gods, did someone mention WP:FRINGE? Now we're done for! Edit summaries containing the words "lunatic charlatans" and "cosmic woo" are a giveaway. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 15:51, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Not to people who believe in it its not. Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Here's an interesting source which discusses opinions on the unreality of witchcraft. [2]. Skyerise (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
It's interesting that many of the disbelievers are mentioned in the article, but only that they thought it wrong to persecute witches, without any explicit mention of the fact that they did so because they believed that witchcraft is unreal. Skyerise (talk) 15:54, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Dummy edit to make sure that this thread is not archived while dispute resolution is going on. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 09:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Is magic real?

"What [Sir James George Frazer, in The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion] calls magic is the effort to conjure with the invisible world, whether intentional or not. While magical thinking—the assumption that my thoughts or actions can have an effect on the other—may strike us as naive and misguided, we have to recall the power of complexes, projections, scapegoating, psychic possession, and transference phenomena, which Jung helped identify, to admit that, indeed, there is such movement of invisible energy for which the word magic was once used." ... "Frazer's magic is primary psychic process".

~ James Hollis. The Archetypal Imagination (Carolyn and Ernest Fay Series in Analytical Psychology) (Kindle Location 417). Kindle Edition.

Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:47, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

For which there is no evidence, so no. Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
See Magical thinking and God of the gaps. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
So if we agree that there is no evidence, why do we present 'witchcraft' in a way that implies it is both real and malevolent in this article? Skyerise (talk) 13:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
I am unsure we do. Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Well, it has no reality in a mechanistic worldview, but it does have a certain reality in the realm of psyche, the metaphorical, the imaginal, and the archetypal, (which some may think of as the spiritual). PS: Synchronicity is acausal meaningful coincidence. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 13:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
I think that is where the problem lies, believing in magic is real, and people practicing magic is real. That does not mean it actually has to ability to achieve anything. Thus magic is not real, only the belief in it is. Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps we have to be careful here. We don't go around all the religious articles using qualifiers like "alleged", "superstitious"; etc, where even wp:fringe dare not go.
Do "mythical Sky Gods" get a pass, but not (say), the Great Mother or the anima mundi? Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 13:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes, but this article is restricted to "worldwide historical and traditional views of witchcraft", which there is is general agreement was not based on any historical "witchcraft religion". Witchcraft, to whatever extent it historically existed, was an ad-hoc collection of methods without any religious basis, except perhaps an opposition to enforced Christianity. Skyerise (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
God, so do we say (in thE lede of this article) "rejects the belief in any magic"? or "view knowledge concerning magic as derived from faith", as similar language is used in conjunction with hpeepls view of god. So (in that rep[sct) this page is less neutral, as it does not really present the idea that many experts do not accept the reality of magic. Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Case opened on dispute resolution noticeboard

I have opened a case on the dispute resolution noticeboard at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Witchcraft. I have included as participants anyone that appeared to have expressed an opinion during ongoing discussions either as a !vote or more than once and had not indicated in some part of the discussion they do not want to be considered a participant. I apologize if you feel that you have been included inappropriately; I wanted to ensure that participation was widely inclusive. I also apologize if you would like to have been included and were not; I set a standard at the start for selecting names that I felt would be least likely to be biased towards any particular point of view. Darker Dreams (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

It seems that not all the editors who have made comments on this talk page were pinged or their names added to the DRN. Netherzone (talk) 20:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Can Darker Dreams add more names, or can users do it themselves? Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 21:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
I've added you, Netherzone Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 21:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
The person who filed the DRN needs to read through the talk page comments and add ALL the editors who contributed to the discussion, not a selection of editors. There were several who participated who were not alerted to the DRN. I am not saying that this was done deliberately, but without giving ALL editors the chance to participate, it could be perceived as gaming the system or a variant of forum shopping. Netherzone (talk) 21:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Can we tone it down a little and do some WP:AGF here? There are a lot of accusations of misbehavior flying around this conversation and I explained above why I included who I did and excluded who I did. I interpreted your comments here as wanting to not be involved. If that was an error I already provided an apology. If you need another specific apology; I'm sorry. I misunderstood your previous statement. The other individuals I did not include are those who restricted themselves entirely to the American/British English conversation (@Rreagan007:) and someone with a single drive-by agreeing with me (@Silverseren:). Anyone else missed was exactly that; missed among all these walls of text. And all of this is why the first thing I did after opening the notice was to place this announcement under a new heading to ensure anyone following the page / conversation would see it. Darker Dreams (talk) 22:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Tone it down? I think you are misunderstanding my intentions here, @Darker Dreams. I said I am not saying that this was done deliberately, but without giving ALL editors the chance to participate, it could be perceived as gaming the system or a variant of forum shopping. I am here in peace. Netherzone (talk) 22:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm just getting tired of it feeling like someone is going to lob "POV pushing" accusations at anything I try to do to improve this page/situation, and something[3] has me a little on edge about the whole situation. Darker Dreams (talk) 22:36, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Witchcraft/Archive_6&oldid=1173915727"