![]() | Text and/or other creative content from Contemporary witchcraft was copied or moved into Witchcraft on 16 March 2017. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Witchcraft was copied or moved into Contemporary witchcraft on 16 July 2023. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Section headed 'Criticism' repeatedly uses the word "many" - "many criticisms", etc. - without citing sources.
The article has had 'references needed' tags on it for a while now, and although some sections have citations (eg to Marion Green's work) others do not. I'm concerned that there are sections describing different strands and traditions which seem to me to be very similar, and with no descriptions or citations to distinguish between them. I've heard of Hedgewitches of course, and there's a citation to confirm the term. But some of the other sections seem very tenuous.
May I propose that, if these sections are not expanded and justified with citations, they should be deleted or merged into a single paragraph? In the absence of some quality control this article is falling well short of the standards we are reaching in some of the other related articles in this area. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 16:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Found under Chochrane/Bowers: "Roy Bowers, a.k.a. Robert Cochrane (1931–1966), founded "Cochrane's Craft" in opposition to Gardnerian Wicca." Where is this referenced? I've never read that his practice was reactionary. Lulubyrd ( talk) 19:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Just adding this to clarify Midnightblueowl's recent edit comment: "Pagan" with a capital P is conventionally reserved for the modern religious movement; "pagan" with lower-case p is used for the ancient religions of the pre-Christian world, especially when compared to Christianity. Hence terms like "pagan antiquity". Fuzzypeg ★ 03:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Didn't this used to be titled Contemporary witchcraft or Contemporary Witchcraft? I don't see what the words "practice of" add to the meaning, since the practice of witchcraft is witchcraft and vice-versa, just as dancing is the practice of dancing, and the practice of dancing is dancing. Why so cumbersome? Fuzzypeg ★ 03:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
This article was in dire need of clean up. I've tided up grammar, spelling mistakes (of which there were many), and general wordiness of sentences. I also took out sentences which I felt had no place or relation to the paragraph/sub-heading in question. Please feel free to check. Xxglennxx ( talk) 19:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I've adopted the Kitchen Witchcraft page and wanted to know if there was a consensus on the differences between hearth witchcraft/hearthcraft, cottage witchery, and kitchen witchery. One book I'm using right now ("The Way of the Hedge Witch" by Arin Murphy-Hiscock) does distinguish between hearthcraft and kitchen witchcraft, but also lumps hearthcraft and hedge witchcraft together, which clearly this article doesn't do. I understand that many of these paths blend together and may be very self-defined. Are kitchen and hearth witchcraft close enough to be lumped under some version of cottage witchcraft, or are there tangible differences that require each to have their own page? Alesta Starbreeze ( talk) 17:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I am confused by this page. Is it presenting personal beliefs has fact? Or is it presenting historical revisionism under the guise of spirituality? The last time that people revised history i recall that it didnt end terribly well for them. Also the Sabbatic Witchcraft sub section needs a total rewrite in that the sources used have a personal and financial interest in maintaining the illusion of this non existent history that exists only in their own minds. Either a rewrite or rock solid references that dont entail the personal opinons of the guys who profit from the books on non existent sabbatic witchcraft. Thanks. Ickesshadow ( talk) 18:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
This page has multiple problems, has had little attention other than some tinkering for the past couple years, and most of the material in it is from the early years of Wikipedia when standards weren't nearly as high as they are now. With this in mind, I'm undertaking some significant revisions to begin to bring the page up to current standards. Autumnalmonk ( talk) 10:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
All the major
religions discussed on Wikipedia have a section (or group of sections) describing their respective movements before going into history or expending on specific sects/traditions. We should do the same. This not only allows us to define what binds greater Witchcraft together as a single definable unit, but will also allow us to expand upon the differences of opinion on the matter within the community without cluttering the main introduction.
Sowlos (
talk) 10:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
20:55, 23 August 2012,
Thrissel
removed a "see more..." paragraph irrelevant to the section from
Hedge Witchery. Its content, however, is not irrelevant to the whole article and contains an external link to a document archive maintained by the University of Edinburgh. I have moved that link to the External links section.
Sowlos (
talk) 00:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Contemporary witchcraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.orakels.org/media/occult/Wicca/Interview_with_Andrew_Chumbley.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Contemporary witchcraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Back in 2008, a proposal was made that this article be merged into Witchcraft. At the time I opposed this move, but looking back on it now, it does seem to be the logical choice. This article is in a terrible mess and there is no clear definition of what "Contemporary witchcraft" is; is it just Wicca and the Cultus Sabbati or does it also refer to ongoing beliefs about witchcraft in parts of the world like Africa? I am unaware of any academic material explicitly discussing "Contemporary witchcraft" in this manner and thus I see no reason for Wikipedia to do so. We already have specific articles dealing with Wicca and the Cultus Sabbati, and these are also discussed briefly in the Witchcraft article. That leaves this article totally superfluous, so if there are no serious objections then I would like to go ahead and merge them. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 17:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
The above merge discussion was closed by its proposer and therefore was implemented without consensus and is invalid, so I have reversed it. Discussion is talking place at Talk:Witchcraft#Proposal. Skyerise ( talk) 11:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
############ NOTE ############ This article is primarily about the traditional and most common meaning of 'witchcraft' worldwide, which is the use of harmful magic. Newer positive meanings are mentioned here, but are not the focus of the article. The modern religion is covered on the article WICCA. ###############################And it would greatly help if the two distinct cases (modern and pre-modern) could be split (as they originally were) to fix such big issues. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 13:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Then there was this very little discussed 2007 merge of "Witch" which may contain content useful for this page. Randy Kryn ( talk) 13:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
The title, "Contemporary witchcraft" and short description, "Various traditions of witchcraft practiced in the present day" are going to age (how far back does the present day go in these times of rapid change?). Could we rename the page "Modern witchcraft" or short description "Various traditions of witchcraft practiced in the modern age"? Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
As I said at Talk:Witchcraft#Going forward..., if you want to have an article about 'Witchcraft' as some neo-pagans re-define it, I suggest it be named Neopagan Witchcraft or something similar; preferably capitalized as we're talking about a religion. It could be an overview of Wicca and " Traditional Witchcraft". Although the latter article notes that "Religious studies scholars consider it to fall under the umbrella or broad category of Wicca". Nevertheless, "contemporary witchcraft" isn't the right name for an article about neo-paganism, because it would also have to include all the contemporary cultures that still define witchcraft as malevolent magic, which is the most common meaning worldwide. So you'd be mixing together two completely different things. – Asarlaí ( talk) 11:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Previously I proposed to merge Traditional witchcraft into Wicca, but with the change of title to [[Neopagan witchcraft, I think this article would be a better place for merging, as there is already quite a bit of duplication. Plus this would get rid of the confusing use of the word "traditional". Skyerise ( talk) 13:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
The new lede, revised by
Asarlaí, reads: Neopagan witchcraft is a description used by some neo-pagans for their religious beliefs and practices. These traditions began in the mid-20th century and were influenced by the witch-cult hypothesis; a now-rejected theory that persecuted witches had actually been followers of a surviving pagan religion. Religious studies scholars class the various 'neopagan witchcraft' traditions under the broad category of Wicca, although not all practitioners describe themselves as 'Wiccan'.
I haven't checked any reliable sources, but intuitively I would say that Wicca is a type of neopaganism, rather than the other way around, as stated here. Wicca, is surely not a broad category but an instance (?)
And, while re-education efforts are of course welcome, I'm reminded of the botched video game translation, " All your base are belong to us", or in this case "all your views on witchcraft are belong to us." Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 13:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
The following link is archived at the Wayback Machine, and the links on that home page are also archived and show:
Walking the Hedge is archived but unusable. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 14:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
The current lead section provides no information about what neopagan witchcraft is other than a "description of a practice", which is completely unhelpful (and violates MOS:LEADSENTENCE's advice against describing the subject of an article as a word or term or description rather than just describing the subject itself). There's actually more information about what neopagan witchcraft is in the lead of witchcraft than here. And yes, I realize I'm just criticizing and not helping, lol. Nosferattus ( talk) 21:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Neopagan witchcraft is the practice of magic and exercise of supernatural powers, within a neo-pagan traditional framework or belief system, in which some neo-pagans engage.Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 07:03, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
"the exercise of supernatural powers"wrongly implies that they actually exist, and
"in which some neo-pagans engage"is redundant if we already include the words
"the practice of..."(to practice something is to engage in it). – Asarlaí ( talk) 10:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
References
The word witch is defined so differently by different people that a common definition seems impossible. "A witch," you may be told, "is someone with supernatural powers," but revivalist Witches do not believe in a supernatural. "A witch," you may be told, "is anyone who practices magic," but revivalist Witches will tell you that Witchcraft is a religion, and some will tell you that magic is secondary. "A witch," you may be told, "is a worker of evil," but revivalist Witches will tell you that they promote the good. The historian Elliot Rose observed that the word witch is "free to wander, and does wander, among a bewildering variety of mental associations," and the occultist Isaac Bonewits has asked:Is a "witch" anyone who does magic or who reads fortunes? Is a "witch" someone who worships the Christian Devil? Is a Witch (capital letters this time) a member of a specific Pagan faith called "Wicca"? Is a "witch" someone who practices Voodoo, or Macumba, or Candomblé? Are the anthropologists correct when they define a "witch" as anyone doing magic (usually evil) outside an approved social structure?
@ Skyerise: Some of these flags... I'm not sure what you want cited. For instance in the "traditional witchcraft" section, you want a cite on the redefinition of the word. This entire edit marathon we've been going through is due to the fact these groups redefined the word. We have tons of cites about that. If you think we need one there, too, add it. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 20:26, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
There's a discussion about moving the article Witchcraft to Witchcraft (classical) and moving Witchcraft (disambiguation) to Witchcraft instead, at Talk:Witchcraft#Requested move 19 July 2023. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 07:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from Contemporary witchcraft was copied or moved into Witchcraft on 16 March 2017. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Witchcraft was copied or moved into Contemporary witchcraft on 16 July 2023. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Section headed 'Criticism' repeatedly uses the word "many" - "many criticisms", etc. - without citing sources.
The article has had 'references needed' tags on it for a while now, and although some sections have citations (eg to Marion Green's work) others do not. I'm concerned that there are sections describing different strands and traditions which seem to me to be very similar, and with no descriptions or citations to distinguish between them. I've heard of Hedgewitches of course, and there's a citation to confirm the term. But some of the other sections seem very tenuous.
May I propose that, if these sections are not expanded and justified with citations, they should be deleted or merged into a single paragraph? In the absence of some quality control this article is falling well short of the standards we are reaching in some of the other related articles in this area. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 16:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Found under Chochrane/Bowers: "Roy Bowers, a.k.a. Robert Cochrane (1931–1966), founded "Cochrane's Craft" in opposition to Gardnerian Wicca." Where is this referenced? I've never read that his practice was reactionary. Lulubyrd ( talk) 19:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Just adding this to clarify Midnightblueowl's recent edit comment: "Pagan" with a capital P is conventionally reserved for the modern religious movement; "pagan" with lower-case p is used for the ancient religions of the pre-Christian world, especially when compared to Christianity. Hence terms like "pagan antiquity". Fuzzypeg ★ 03:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Didn't this used to be titled Contemporary witchcraft or Contemporary Witchcraft? I don't see what the words "practice of" add to the meaning, since the practice of witchcraft is witchcraft and vice-versa, just as dancing is the practice of dancing, and the practice of dancing is dancing. Why so cumbersome? Fuzzypeg ★ 03:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
This article was in dire need of clean up. I've tided up grammar, spelling mistakes (of which there were many), and general wordiness of sentences. I also took out sentences which I felt had no place or relation to the paragraph/sub-heading in question. Please feel free to check. Xxglennxx ( talk) 19:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I've adopted the Kitchen Witchcraft page and wanted to know if there was a consensus on the differences between hearth witchcraft/hearthcraft, cottage witchery, and kitchen witchery. One book I'm using right now ("The Way of the Hedge Witch" by Arin Murphy-Hiscock) does distinguish between hearthcraft and kitchen witchcraft, but also lumps hearthcraft and hedge witchcraft together, which clearly this article doesn't do. I understand that many of these paths blend together and may be very self-defined. Are kitchen and hearth witchcraft close enough to be lumped under some version of cottage witchcraft, or are there tangible differences that require each to have their own page? Alesta Starbreeze ( talk) 17:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I am confused by this page. Is it presenting personal beliefs has fact? Or is it presenting historical revisionism under the guise of spirituality? The last time that people revised history i recall that it didnt end terribly well for them. Also the Sabbatic Witchcraft sub section needs a total rewrite in that the sources used have a personal and financial interest in maintaining the illusion of this non existent history that exists only in their own minds. Either a rewrite or rock solid references that dont entail the personal opinons of the guys who profit from the books on non existent sabbatic witchcraft. Thanks. Ickesshadow ( talk) 18:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
This page has multiple problems, has had little attention other than some tinkering for the past couple years, and most of the material in it is from the early years of Wikipedia when standards weren't nearly as high as they are now. With this in mind, I'm undertaking some significant revisions to begin to bring the page up to current standards. Autumnalmonk ( talk) 10:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
All the major
religions discussed on Wikipedia have a section (or group of sections) describing their respective movements before going into history or expending on specific sects/traditions. We should do the same. This not only allows us to define what binds greater Witchcraft together as a single definable unit, but will also allow us to expand upon the differences of opinion on the matter within the community without cluttering the main introduction.
Sowlos (
talk) 10:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
20:55, 23 August 2012,
Thrissel
removed a "see more..." paragraph irrelevant to the section from
Hedge Witchery. Its content, however, is not irrelevant to the whole article and contains an external link to a document archive maintained by the University of Edinburgh. I have moved that link to the External links section.
Sowlos (
talk) 00:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Contemporary witchcraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.orakels.org/media/occult/Wicca/Interview_with_Andrew_Chumbley.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Contemporary witchcraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Back in 2008, a proposal was made that this article be merged into Witchcraft. At the time I opposed this move, but looking back on it now, it does seem to be the logical choice. This article is in a terrible mess and there is no clear definition of what "Contemporary witchcraft" is; is it just Wicca and the Cultus Sabbati or does it also refer to ongoing beliefs about witchcraft in parts of the world like Africa? I am unaware of any academic material explicitly discussing "Contemporary witchcraft" in this manner and thus I see no reason for Wikipedia to do so. We already have specific articles dealing with Wicca and the Cultus Sabbati, and these are also discussed briefly in the Witchcraft article. That leaves this article totally superfluous, so if there are no serious objections then I would like to go ahead and merge them. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 17:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
The above merge discussion was closed by its proposer and therefore was implemented without consensus and is invalid, so I have reversed it. Discussion is talking place at Talk:Witchcraft#Proposal. Skyerise ( talk) 11:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
############ NOTE ############ This article is primarily about the traditional and most common meaning of 'witchcraft' worldwide, which is the use of harmful magic. Newer positive meanings are mentioned here, but are not the focus of the article. The modern religion is covered on the article WICCA. ###############################And it would greatly help if the two distinct cases (modern and pre-modern) could be split (as they originally were) to fix such big issues. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 13:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Then there was this very little discussed 2007 merge of "Witch" which may contain content useful for this page. Randy Kryn ( talk) 13:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
The title, "Contemporary witchcraft" and short description, "Various traditions of witchcraft practiced in the present day" are going to age (how far back does the present day go in these times of rapid change?). Could we rename the page "Modern witchcraft" or short description "Various traditions of witchcraft practiced in the modern age"? Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
As I said at Talk:Witchcraft#Going forward..., if you want to have an article about 'Witchcraft' as some neo-pagans re-define it, I suggest it be named Neopagan Witchcraft or something similar; preferably capitalized as we're talking about a religion. It could be an overview of Wicca and " Traditional Witchcraft". Although the latter article notes that "Religious studies scholars consider it to fall under the umbrella or broad category of Wicca". Nevertheless, "contemporary witchcraft" isn't the right name for an article about neo-paganism, because it would also have to include all the contemporary cultures that still define witchcraft as malevolent magic, which is the most common meaning worldwide. So you'd be mixing together two completely different things. – Asarlaí ( talk) 11:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Previously I proposed to merge Traditional witchcraft into Wicca, but with the change of title to [[Neopagan witchcraft, I think this article would be a better place for merging, as there is already quite a bit of duplication. Plus this would get rid of the confusing use of the word "traditional". Skyerise ( talk) 13:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
The new lede, revised by
Asarlaí, reads: Neopagan witchcraft is a description used by some neo-pagans for their religious beliefs and practices. These traditions began in the mid-20th century and were influenced by the witch-cult hypothesis; a now-rejected theory that persecuted witches had actually been followers of a surviving pagan religion. Religious studies scholars class the various 'neopagan witchcraft' traditions under the broad category of Wicca, although not all practitioners describe themselves as 'Wiccan'.
I haven't checked any reliable sources, but intuitively I would say that Wicca is a type of neopaganism, rather than the other way around, as stated here. Wicca, is surely not a broad category but an instance (?)
And, while re-education efforts are of course welcome, I'm reminded of the botched video game translation, " All your base are belong to us", or in this case "all your views on witchcraft are belong to us." Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 13:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
The following link is archived at the Wayback Machine, and the links on that home page are also archived and show:
Walking the Hedge is archived but unusable. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 14:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
The current lead section provides no information about what neopagan witchcraft is other than a "description of a practice", which is completely unhelpful (and violates MOS:LEADSENTENCE's advice against describing the subject of an article as a word or term or description rather than just describing the subject itself). There's actually more information about what neopagan witchcraft is in the lead of witchcraft than here. And yes, I realize I'm just criticizing and not helping, lol. Nosferattus ( talk) 21:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Neopagan witchcraft is the practice of magic and exercise of supernatural powers, within a neo-pagan traditional framework or belief system, in which some neo-pagans engage.Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 07:03, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
"the exercise of supernatural powers"wrongly implies that they actually exist, and
"in which some neo-pagans engage"is redundant if we already include the words
"the practice of..."(to practice something is to engage in it). – Asarlaí ( talk) 10:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
References
The word witch is defined so differently by different people that a common definition seems impossible. "A witch," you may be told, "is someone with supernatural powers," but revivalist Witches do not believe in a supernatural. "A witch," you may be told, "is anyone who practices magic," but revivalist Witches will tell you that Witchcraft is a religion, and some will tell you that magic is secondary. "A witch," you may be told, "is a worker of evil," but revivalist Witches will tell you that they promote the good. The historian Elliot Rose observed that the word witch is "free to wander, and does wander, among a bewildering variety of mental associations," and the occultist Isaac Bonewits has asked:Is a "witch" anyone who does magic or who reads fortunes? Is a "witch" someone who worships the Christian Devil? Is a Witch (capital letters this time) a member of a specific Pagan faith called "Wicca"? Is a "witch" someone who practices Voodoo, or Macumba, or Candomblé? Are the anthropologists correct when they define a "witch" as anyone doing magic (usually evil) outside an approved social structure?
@ Skyerise: Some of these flags... I'm not sure what you want cited. For instance in the "traditional witchcraft" section, you want a cite on the redefinition of the word. This entire edit marathon we've been going through is due to the fact these groups redefined the word. We have tons of cites about that. If you think we need one there, too, add it. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 20:26, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
There's a discussion about moving the article Witchcraft to Witchcraft (classical) and moving Witchcraft (disambiguation) to Witchcraft instead, at Talk:Witchcraft#Requested move 19 July 2023. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 07:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)