Witchcraft was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology
This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal
This article is within the scope of the Women in Religion WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women in religion. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Women in ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject Women in ReligionTemplate:WikiProject Women in ReligionWomen in Religion
This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory, conspiracy theories, and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OccultWikipedia:WikiProject OccultTemplate:WikiProject OccultOccult
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neopaganism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neopaganism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeopaganismWikipedia:WikiProject NeopaganismTemplate:WikiProject NeopaganismNeopaganism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
This article is supported by the Countering systemic bias WikiProject, which provides a central location to counter systemic bias on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.Countering systemic biasWikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic biasTemplate:WikiProject Countering systemic biasCountering systemic bias
I agree wholeheartedly, @LadyNyx666. I practice some forms of witchcraft as well. But as I’ve been saying, it shouldn’t say that it’s always good. It shouldn’t say that it’s bad, either. It shouldn’t swing to either side of the argument. Shadestar474(talk)20:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is based on scholarly opinion in reliable sources. Please read through the talk page archives where such issues have been discussed to death by experienced editors with knowledge of the field. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs20:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is wild. I was told this was supposed to be unbiased. Saying witches have intent to harm people is very skewed. Witches basically served as nurses and midwives at one time. They kept communities healthy and were demonized for it by Christian’s who wanted power. I’m just asking you to make the wording unbiased. Witchcraft isn’t a joke. LadyNyx666 (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LadyNyx666: This article isn't about your practice. This article is about traditional and historical views of witchcraft. There is a separate article on Neopagan witchcraft, which was invented in the 1950s and is most likely what you practice. They are, according to sources, not related. Skyerise (talk) 22:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
lol again telling me what you think I practice rather than asking. I give Wiki money every year and have for at least 10 years. That’s over. 2605:59C8:895:1800:2161:5AA9:1FB8:7331 (talk) 01:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was waiting for the "but I give money to wikipedia" comment to appear, and it magically appeared! I think the encyclopedia will survive. Netherzone (talk) 04:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LadyNyx666: If you can't figure out that a single word can refer to two different things and that therefore there will be two different articles about those two different things, then we don't need your input. Skyerise (talk) 11:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about Malificarum, not neo-paganism. As other have said, we have a separate article for that. and all cultures have malicious magic, so to claim that it only refers to a 19th European esoteric tradition is, "ethnocentric". Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you shouldn't name yourself after a term used to demonize people back then. Reclaiming is fine, but as long as your movement has not received scholarly attention, Wikipedia will not include your movement as Wikipedia is not about you as per WP:NOTABOUTYOU. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree, I find this article's introduction to have a very prevalent bias (whether it's intentional or not) compared to other Wikis on religion. The word "alleged" isn't used in other articles on pseudosciences, they're just described as belief systems. And it's describing witchcraft as inherently negative, which is not only untrue, but the most prevalent bias I've seen in a wiki article to date, especially one this popular. If anyone knows how I else I can report this for bias, please let me know JoeyTheHorrorBoy (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JoeyTheHorrorBoy, I suggest you read through the all of the discussion archives. There have been many discussions about such matters, over a long period of time. The results of which were resolved through consensus and the article has been stable for some time. Netherzone (talk) 00:28, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply. I have read through every discussion archive currently accessible under this page, and none have mentioned redirection (although some have mentioned bias before me). If there is a way to get more information , please let me know. I'm sure this article has been discussed & edited many times, but the phrasing & redirection issue are still here; I'm not reading an old version of the article. I'm not saying that works hasn't been done to stabilize the article, but I see an issue, so I'm commenting on it. I hope to see continuous improvement, as I and others still see an issue with it JoeyTheHorrorBoy (talk) 00:35, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The topic of this article is notNeopagan witchcraft. It is witchcraft as viewed by 99% of the people throughout 99% of history. Starting in the 1930s, a different, non-historical view emerged. That view is represented in the articles Neopagan witchcraft and Wicca, which are essentially made-up views based on a debunked historical theory. You are arguing that this article should be changed based on a falsehood. Not gonna happen. The hatnote at the very top of the article explains exactly what the scope of the article is, and where to find information about related topics which are outside that scope. Basically, there is no problem here, the different meanings have been intentionally split with a clear explanation for those who read from the top and don't skip the hatnote. So, don't skip the hatnote, use it to find the article on the topic you want to read about. It's that simple. Skyerise (talk) 05:19, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Witchcraft was used as a form of medicine centuries ago, typically pursued by women who couldn't obtain medical qualifications. The masses didn't believe this, which can absolutely be cited, but you can't just lie and claim that witchcraft changed overnight with the neopaganism movement. Witchcraft isn't inherently based in any religion; Paganism, Neopaganism, and Wicca are religions that incorporate witchcraft, but the practice itself is purely spiritual, not religious. And no, not 99% of the world perceived witchcraft as evil.Please do your research before you claim to know what you're talking about; your bias is no use on this site JoeyTheHorrorBoy (talk) 15:01, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And none of those actually support your argument. I guess we're done here - I won't be reviewing any more of the stuff you hastily dig up on google. MrOllie (talk) 15:33, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What Skyerise is writing here is in agreement with mainstream academic sources (which are already cited in the article). What you are writing here sounds more like the Witch-cult hypothesis, which has been rejected by modern historians. MrOllie (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
YES! remove the idea that witches harm people through supernatural forces- it is an idea that perpetuates violence and discrimination towards those who do not follow a conservative Christian organized religious lifestyle. it is FALSE. it is discriminatory and dangerous. 2601:643:8582:1F70:A16C:5BBB:4AB9:DB69 (talk) 14:46, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IP 2601..., This has been discussed multiple times and consensus has been reached on the content of this article. If you were to read the talk page discussions and archives you will see that the topic of this article is based on mainstream, reliable academic sources about traditional witchcraft. There is no "conservative Christian organized religion" conspiracy here that's perpetuating falsehoods. As suggested above, Neopagan witchcraft, Wicca, Modern paganism and Witch-cult hypothesis are probably what you are looking for. Netherzone (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Defining neopagan witchcraft
I tried to add some form of explanation to the lead as to what neopagan witchcraft is as the lead provides no explanation whatsoever and does not distinguish it from the "harmful" witchcraft discussed in the first three paragraphs. I thought this would be helpful, especially since this difference seems to be a common point of contention on the talk page. However, my additions were immediately reverted as "fringe". The fact that neopagan witchcraft exists and what it entails is not "fringe". I'm happy to modify my content to be as rigorous and verifiable as possible, but there has to be some way to describe neopagan witchcraft (besides just calling it a "belief" or "practice") without violating the policies of Wikipedia. Here is the paragraph that I tried to add: Starting in the 1930s, followers of certain types of modern paganism began to identify as witches and reclaimed the term "witchcraft" as part of their beliefs and practices.[1][2][3]Neopagan witchcraft may combine aspects of magic, nature worship, divination, and herbalism,[4] and is typically practiced with the goal of self-help or healing.[5][6] Other neo-pagans avoid the term "witchcraft" due to its negative connotations.[7]
^Doyle White, Ethan (2016). Wicca: History, Belief, and Community in Modern Pagan Witchcraft. Liverpool University Press. pp. 1–9, 73. ISBN 978-1-84519-754-4.
^Berger, Helen A.; Ezzy, Douglas (September 2009). "Mass Media and Religious Identity: A Case Study of Young Witches". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 48 (3): 501–514. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2009.01462.x. ISSN0021-8294. JSTOR40405642.
^Kelly, Aidan A. (1992). "An Update on Neopagan Witchcraft in America". In James R. Lewis; J. Gordon Melton (eds.). Perspectives on the New Age. Albany: State University of New York Press. pp. 136–151. ISBN 978-0791412138.
^Dunwich, Gerina (1997). Wicca A to Z: A Modern Witch's Encyclopedia. Secaucus, N.J.: Carol Pub. Group. p. 148. ISBN 0806519304.
^Ezzy, Douglas (2020). "Wiccan spiritual practice". In Gale, Fran; Bolzan, Natalie; McRae-McMahon, Dorothy (eds.). Spirited Practices: Spirituality and the Helping Professions. New York: Routledge. pp. 548–570. ISBN 9781741750614.
^Lewis, James R. (1996). Magical Religion and Modern Witchcraft. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press. pp. 156–159. ISBN 0791428893.
^Lewis, James (1996). Magical Religion and Modern Witchcraft. SUNY Press. p. 376.
Reappropriation usually means that a group is changing the meaning of a pejorative term for that same group.
But the POV of historians and anthropologists is that historical witchcraft is distinct from neopaganism. The article should not conflate the two, even in minor ways. MrOllie (talk) 22:46, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, historical witchcraft is distinct from neopaganism, but the group being demeaned is the same: women. There are plenty of academic sources stating that modern witches have "reclaimed" the word. Here are a few examples:
"There is little doubt that the reclaiming of the word witch is a powerful act of opposition and identity creation for many in the movement."[1]
"... many feminists, both female and male, have reclaimed the word witch to describe themselves as a political statement in recognition of the history, since the Middle Ages, of the oppression of women and folk healing by male-dominated society and medicine."[2]
"Recently, however, female-centric spiritual movements have reclaimed the word witch, viewing it as a stereotype that can be turned on those who use it pejoratively."[3]
"Today's witches have reclaimed the word 'witch,' using it in a positive sense to revivify what they see as ancient occult practices being used in a modem context."[4]
I could only find one academic source that says modern witches have "redefined" witch or witchcraft, and ironically this source also uses "reclaimed":
"They also reclaimed the word witch, redefining it as a term for rebellious, brave, and independent women."[5]
^Magliocco, Sabina (2004). Witching Culture: Folklore and Neo-Paganism in America. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. p. 190. ISBN 0812202708.
^Lewis, James (1996). Magical Religion and Modern Witchcraft. SUNY Press. p. 376.
^Oakes, Jason Lee (2006). "Queering the Witch". In Rycenga, Jennifer; Whiteley, Sheila (eds.). Queering the Popular Pitch. New York: Routledge. p. 52. ISBN 1136093788.
^Hume, Lynne (1995). "Witchcraft and the Law in Australia". Journal of Church and State. 37: 142.
^Berger, Helen A.; Leach, Evan A. (2003). Voices from the Pagan Census: A National Survey of Witches and Neo-pagans in the United States. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press. p. 13. ISBN 1570034885.
My change of 'redefined' to 'reclaimed' has been reverted 3 times now by Slatersteven. The sources clearly favor 'reclaimed' and no one has presented evidence to the contrary. Arguing about the semantics of the word 'reclaimed' is original research and not convincing anyway. This is clearly the term that academics consistently use to describe the recent evolution of the terminology. As WP:Verifyability states: "content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, experiences, or previously unpublished ideas or information." Nosferattus (talk) 16:47, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Slatersteven: Actually, witch redirects here and is one of the topics of the article, bolded in the second sentence of the lead, and called-out in a hatnote. This was done by consensus long ago. I'm sure it's somewhere in the talk page archives. Skyerise (talk) 17:35, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Slatersteven: Which change? If we are talking about using "reclaimed", that relies on the debunked Witch-cult hypothesis. Those redefining the word may have believed they were reclaiming it, but they were mistaken, so it should stay "redefined". You can't reclaim something that was never yours: modern neopagan witches don't accept the negative magic definition, which is the only definition that existed prior to the redefinition that might be available to be "claimed" or "reclaimed". Only evil witches could "reclaim" the original definition of witchcraft or witch. If you mean, should we add a brief gloss or definition to the last paragraph of the lead, that's not something I would object to, as long as it is brief and doesn't use the word "reclaimed". Skyerise (talk) 18:07, 6 March 2025 (UTC)][reply]
@Skyerise: Your explanation of what "reclaimed" means doesn't make sense to me. All reclaimed terms were negative before being reclaimed; it doesn't mean that the group reclaiming the term actually has to embody those negative qualities (or even belong to the original group). For example, women don't have to have lots of sex to reclaim the term "slut". And the most famous example of someone reclaiming the word "fag" was by a woman. Regardless, Wikipedia follows reliable sources. If reliable sources say that modern witches have reclaimed the term, that's what Wikipedia should say as well. Nosferattus (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is this claim of reclaiming is (in a sense) a neologism that compares an ancient accusation with modern neopaganism. As such the two things are distinct, and we cannot imply they are not. Thus we need to make sure we do not conflate the two, that some poor woman killed for being a witch has no real connection with modern witches. Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've returned the lead to the state it was a few days ago, plus the few changes in grammar. Under the principle that the lead should reflect the body, I don't think we need more about neopagan witchcraft than those bare couple sentences. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:04, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge "witch (word)" here
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was no consensus. Leaning to not merged after more than a month of discussion. It seems to me that the etymology section is reasonably short with a link to the far more detailed article about the word. Looking over them both, they are clearly two distinct topics and I am not seeing a violation of WP:NOTDICT. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:29, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, the etymology section here is too long. This article is supposed to be about the traditional concept of witchcraft, not the word. There's no reason for us to have 4 paragraphs about etymology here. Nosferattus (talk) 06:29, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. witch redirects here already, and this article contains the etymology of the word, like many similar articles. witch (word) doesn't need to exist separately, anything that exists there can be included here instead. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 08:49, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if this is a response to Slatersteven, but we are very sure that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. There are some articles explaining terms and where and how they appear, but they should not exist. And entries about terms should exist either, except it is a notable phrase of encyclopedic relevance. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:13, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Words can be notable and of encyclopedic relevance. Many slurs for example (which some women may argue "witch" is) are notable. I'm personally leaning towards redirecting this page but if there was expansion on it I think it could theoretically be shown to be notable.★Trekker (talk) 13:07, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was initially going to oppose the merge, since a witch and witchcraft are two different concepts. But the article on the word witch is not only a dictionary entry rather than an encyclopedic one as per WP:NOTDICT, but the article is almost identical in meaning. In short: Support. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:11, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support merging anything in the etymology section not already covered and merging the History > Middle Ages material about the first recorded use. I don't see that the rest is really about the word but is rather a coatrack for material about healing and white witches, etc. and the further one reads, the less about the word itself it is. I believe all that information is in the main article or the appropriate subarticle, but that should be checked as perhaps there is info missing from one subarticle or another. So merge to witchcraft and its subsarticles where appropriate. Skyerise (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (unless scope of article is expanded to include neopagan witches) - This article is not about the word witch (or the word witchcraft), nor should it be. If the two articles currently overlap in content, that should be resolved by cleaning up the respective articles. If this article really is about anything related to witches and witchcraft, then all the arguments that we can't include content about neopagan witchcraft here are bogus. Nosferattus (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I have restored the long-standing etymological content here pending the outcome of this merge discussion. You know better than to remove long-standing material during a merge discussion. If not, the relevant guideline is WP:STATUSQUO. Skyerise (talk) 15:58, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The material I removed there was off-topic, didn't address linguistic usage. All material about word usage remains intact, and I have not merged it anywhere either. Skyerise (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
not about the word witch (or the word witchcraft)
Wrong on both accounts. For one, witch is an {{r from subtopic}} pointing here, so this article is also about the term "witch", where it denotes practitioners of witchcraft. More to the point, the etymology of terms denoting the article's subject is an entirely valid part of an article, given sufficient source support. Paradoctor (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting WP:NOTDICT: "Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing, etc., whereas a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom, or a term and its meaning(s), usage and history. In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject, such as Macedonia (terminology) or truthiness." Yes, this article is about the traditional concept of witches. It is not, however, about the word witch. And even if this article did include the word witch in its scope, that doesn't mean there can't be a subarticle specifically about the word if there are sufficient sources to create one. Nosferattus (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NOTDICT is about notability, not article content. WP:NOTDICT is exactly the reason for this merge proposal!
According to WP:NOTDICT, either a word is notable enough to have a Wikipedia entry about the word, in which case witch (word) should be preserved, or the word is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia entry about the word, in which case witch (word) should be deleted. In neither case should the scope of this article be expanded to include the word (which entails both historical and modern usage, not just etymology). If we did merge the articles, that would necessitate also including content about neopagan witches (which has been repeatedly and relentlessly forbidden here). The millions of people who currently use the term 'witch' in non-historical contexts have just as much of a claim to the word as anthropologists and historians do. So if this article is about 'witches' broadly, it would need to address all uses of the term. I'm not entirely opposed to that idea, but it's a bigger discussion. Nosferattus (talk) 16:54, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
witch (word) should be deleted What you do think is going to happen when the merge is done? 🤷
the scope of this article be expanded No one is asking for that but you.
we did merge the articles, that would necessitate also including content about neopagan witches Now that is nonsense.
delete witch (word), without merging its content here Would you kindly take care to read what I actually say? Because that is not what I said, and neither does it follow from anything I said. Paradoctor (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So would you favor deleting the content in witch (word) that addresses modern uses of the word distinct from anthropoloical/historical uses? Or would you favor merging that content into this article? Nosferattus (talk) 17:45, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As semantics clearly are an issue here, and I'm not a subject matter expert, it would be helpful if you quoted an example of content you think can't be added here. Paradoctor (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For example, the sentence beginning "Contemporary dictionaries currently distinguish four meanings of the noun witch, including...". Nosferattus (talk) 16:48, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since witch redirects to this article, it would be perfectly appropriate to include in the etymology section, then Witch (word) would simply redirect to Witchcraft § Etymology or a subheading could be added to that section for witch: this article has long been the main article for Witch as well as for Witchcraft. Skyerise (talk) 17:20, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would keep it, but without prejudice, deferring to editorial consensus.
IMO, this is not "content about neopagan witches". The term is used here, not defined or otherwise discussed.
Thanks but I note the Witch (archetype) article has no information on modern witches who go by that term so it is limited and is perhaps one of the reasons why the Witch (word) article was created -- to fill that void. That the Witch (archetype) article is not easily available by way of an inline link at the top of the Witchcraft article as I write this indicates there is a deficiency there. There is only an art and literature section link at the article bottom. I'll withdraw from this discussion. 5Q5|✉12:48, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the discussion above via @Nosferattus. The word itself has enough history and baggage that it should have its own article, which is different from though related to the practice of the magical arts of witchcraft, which this article is about. FULBERT (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: one could argue that parts of the word article fall under WP:COATRACK, but then there is plenty of research from modern linguistics about the valency of the word witch (in particular, vs. "wizard") as a pejorative/sexist label which wouldn't be appropriate in an article about witchcraft. A good hatnote on the latter article would help: something like "this article is about beliefs in the practice of magic. For the history and linguistics of the term "witch", see..." UndercoverClassicistT·C14:22, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Adding to Accusations of witchcraft section
Hi Netherzone! I just wanted to ask if you meant mal-placed as in I should see if the edit I made fits in a different section of the page? Maybe putting it under the modern witch-hunts heading? Or if you meant something else? Sullyaire (talk) 16:28, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Who is Silvia Federici? Is she a major scholar in the field? Are her views shared by other experts in the economic development of early modern Europe? "Witch hunts contributed to the establishment of modern capitalism in Europe" is a somewhat odd claim, and it's not clear that it's important or widespread enough a belief to belong in the article. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 05:45, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I should have included more from her book to give context to my edit and what Silvia Federici's argument is! She is a well-established scholar in women's history and a political theorist. In two of her books, Caliban and the Witch and Witches, Witch-hunting and Women, she looks at the exploitation of women and the expropriation of their land and labour as a driving factor for the transition from feudalism to early forms of capitalism. I thought it was important and quite relevant to include the consequences of witch-hunts, not just in terms of their social impact, but also how it brought about/contributed to economic change too. Federici's reading of witch-hunts shows what was at stake for women, who were directly targeted, and for the formation of economic systems. Sullyaire (talk) 19:31, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was mis-placed because it was plunked in the middle of a paragraph about accusations. I also agree with the editors above that it is giving undue weight to one person's theory as seen thru the lens of marxism. Netherzone (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I see your point. I think it might fit better under the modern witch-hunts subsection? Or better yet the page on 'witch trials in the early modern period'? Sullyaire (talk) 19:50, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the article and the talk section gives me the idea that people think witchcraft is actually real? As in magic and spells are real. We can talk about beliefs all day, but this isnt the place for opinions. Surely if it were real thered be some source you could link to? Lines like "Most of these societies have used protective magic or counter-magic against witchcraft" posits some logical, coherent physical system called "magic". Again, whilst not trying to offend anyone, we all know magic isnt real. 147.161.143.33 (talk) 08:26, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article is generally fine. Right before the sentence you quote, the lead makes clear that this article is about the belief in magic, not the reality of magic. "The belief in witches has been found throughout history in a great number of societies worldwide", and even states directly that witchcraft is largely imaginary (I assume the "largely" is there to except purely psychological effects, or use of plants/chemicals that was actually effective). Most of the article consists of descriptions of the practices of believers. It would be tedious and repetitive to add "magic isn't real" or insert "alleged" to every single sentence in the article. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 10:28, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right, we do not imply it is real. Also lets not forget, that the modern religion is not more or less real than any other religion. Thus should have the same status. Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There have been several discussions on the talk page and archives about this, it was determined by consensus that the article should not imply that witchcraft and/or magic is real, or that witches have supernatural powers. The article seems OK and has been fairly stable for a while. Netherzone (talk) 11:14, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"In these societies, practitioners of helpful magic provide (or provided) services such as breaking the effects of witchcraft, healing, divination, finding lost or stolen goods, and love magic."
Ill say it again, magic isnt real. Nobody can provide magical services. Wasnt it "determined by consensus that the article should not imply that witchcraft and/or magic is real, or that witches have supernatural powers."?? 147.161.143.33 (talk) 11:38, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The context of that is societies that believed in magic used magic to counter magic. "Most societies that have believed in harmful or black magic have also believed in helpful or white magic." we do not say it was real, we say people believed in it. Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thats correct, but your quoted line precedes mine. In the line Ive quoted, "believed" is not mentioned anywhere. It also mentions "love magic" as if it were a concept, and not just fantasy. Magic is not real. Why is it easier to write as if magic were real? How much effort is it really saving? Im dubious about the initial justification for granting credence to these delusions about reality 147.161.143.33 (talk) 13:30, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No what? You keep mentioning context as if it qualifies everything thereafter as a belief - it doesnt 147.161.144.255 (talk) 14:17, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
seriously how many words are you saving? one or two? there arent many places it occurs. why such opposition to it? im not proposing a rewrite of the entire article, only the places where we seem to flirt with language that suggests magic is real, "but its ok because we said its not real elsewhere".... why even be in the position in the first place? Id say its because there are people contributing to this article who actually believe this stuff is real and expect us to believe it too 147.161.143.33 (talk) 15:02, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This would be an easy fix - by stating: "In these societies, practitioners of helpful magic provide (or provided) services believe their services provide such as breaking the effects of witchcraft, healing, divination, finding lost or stolen goods, and love magic."
If everyone is good with that revision, I'll change the sentence for clarification sake. If there is opposition to this minor rewording, I will leave it as is. Netherzone (talk) 19:04, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that change is for the worse. The current wording reflects how magic is discussed in sources. Throughout much of world, across thousands of years of human history, people could and did go to their local cunning man, witchdoctor, or priest-wizard to receive certain services. They were generally ineffective, but that doesn't change the fact that this is a thing that happened. I don't think it suggests that magic is real to plainly describe what these people were doing. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 10:50, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you meant MOS:RELTIME or MOS:REALTIME. "Traditionally" is specifically called out in that section several times. The section even says ""Traditional" is particularly pernicious." It looks like there was a whole committee discussion about what the opening should be, so I'm not sure why no one else seems to have noticed that. Maybe those discussions consensus overrides guidelines? ~2025-43843-26 (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first few sentences are a bodged together compromise resulting from lots of complaints, disruption, and then a long and involved discussion. Personally I think it's terrible prose, with the combination of "Traditionally" and "remains the most common meaning" basically saying "this is what it used to mean but it still does". But even if it's not perfect, it's not worth getting another RFC going to change consensus. In regards to that MOS section, I don't know if it applies here, because "traditionally" is being used as a summary, and the body of the article does go into more detail about where and when specifically we're talking about. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 07:57, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.,_early_1900s,_Central_Africa,_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo,_Pende_people,_wood,_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG){kind=small}
.png){kind=small}
