This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
I find it surprising that this article does not reference any of the work done by Keith Thomas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.235.145.143 ( talk) 13:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
New material includes links to sources. 24.168.227.29 21:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Linda Blair entry - funny, but this isn't the place... —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
80.189.143.237 (
talk) 20:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Do we need an "overview" section? The introduction should be the overview. I suggest removing "==Overview==" header to merge it with the intro. Totnesmartin 21:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Any objections to adding a "Critical resources" section with the following link?:
Thanks for your input. -- Sdiekmann 16:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I've just added this statement back to the article. Old discussion around this between me and User:DreamGuy can be found at Talk:Witchcraft/Archive 2#Majority of accused witches were women. Barstow estimates 80% of accused and 85% of executed were women; Gibbons estimates 75-80% of accused were women. If anyone wants to remove this statement again, please provide concrete references rather than vague gestures at "the authors I've read", and we can argue it out. Fuzzypeg ☻ 22:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
You'd think with the popular book
Malleus Maleficarum in the medieval period, and how the church believed in general, because of Eve, that women were more prone to sin than the superior man was, would be enough proof that women were more likely thought of as witches & executed for it than men. Lets not include most depictions of medieval witches are very much female.
Xuchilbara (
talk) 00:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
okay are witches real or fake i want u to discusses in this with a friend or a family memberso thats the big talk and even though it's not big trust me it is and who knows u could find out that your friend is a witch —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.189.192 ( talk) 04:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I belive that no site can explain if witchcraft is real or not because some sites say it is real and some say its not,Sounds reasonable. Read the history section in a library. -- Condolence "(talk)" 03:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Witches are not a myth at all. Witchcraft is a very real religion just like Christianity or Judaism. The religion most Witches belong to is Wicca, a feminist, nature-oriented, very misunderstood religion based on the Old Religion of ancient Europe. But I agree with Seaj11, this is not the place for a discussion on whether Witches are a myth or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.191.78.254 ( talk) 17:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
"most Witches belong to Wicca" is incorrect, Witchcraft and Wicca are not synonymous nor interchangeable and there was no "Old Religion" of ancient Europe. There are non-Wiccan witches and Wiccan witches, and a considerable amount of Witches are non-Wiccan. Unless you have numbers saying otherwise. 24.12.78.197 ( talk) 04:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)K.W.
Haha old religion of Europe could apply to many, as it wasn't centered (and the fact that Romans at one point controlled "Ancient Europe." But yeah I agree Wicca and other Witch-based (or pagan or nature etc.) religions are just that: religions. I mean you could say that magic isn't real and stuff, but the existence of people claiming to be witches (as a religion) is true. 69.85.153.126 ( talk) 04:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
witches are real but not in the terms that most people think of them. we use magick but not like making red sparkes flying out of finger tips or flying and all that others stuff there are wiccan witches as sinebot said but all the witches i know ( around 10) practice somthing of a mixture of similar religions one worships hindu gods another worsips pan as the oak king hades as lord of shadows aapollo as god of the sun artimas as the maiden and hera as the mother i am not sure who she worships as the crone but i practice under a modifyed version of the wiccan rede paganism witchcraft and alcamey.
we have magick but it is less obvious. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.217.87.224 (
talk) 19:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello folks, just wanted to highlight some contributions by an enthusiastic new editor. This talk page seemed the most obvious place to put this, as I know there are a lot of people with this on their watchlists. While I don't want to discourage an obviously keen contributor, I was just a little concerned that the large number and similar nature of these articles is a source of worry to me: I'm not sure what the answer is (or even if I need to be worried!) but thought I'd ask for some community feedback as a first step. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 17:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
--- HI guys, not sure what Im doing but as a Greenwitch PLEASE do not delete that new stuff or put it with Wicca. I am a witch, not a Wiccan, there IS a difference! I'd love to see the contemporary witchcraft stuff be kept and added to, please do not delete it! - A concerned Witch. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.70.147.38 (
talk) 23:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
HUH? I'd really like it if you guys at least explained what we do wrong if we do something wrong and what the right thing to do is!!!!! Not everyone is good with comuters you know! PS Hedgewitches and Greenwitches and such are all different and valid paths! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.70.147.38 ( talk) 23:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the following quote from the article:
...since it's missing the required context to explain what he's talking about. The point it seems intended to make in the article is that magic and religion have no distinct boundary, but that's not exactly what Versnel is saying. He's saying that the Frazerian hard distinction between magic and religion based on intentions and methods has fallen out of favour, but that he still finds useful distinctions can be drawn between the two. Little of this is conveyed by the quote, and it might be possible to expand the segment so it better explains his point, but I'm not even sure whether that point needs to be made. If someone else feels they want to work this in to the article, go for it. Fuzzypeg ★ 21:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
This is the best known (i.e., the most infamous) of the witch-hunt manuals. Written in Latin, the Malleus was first submitted to the University of Cologne on May 9th, 1487. The title is translated as "The Hammer of Witches". Written by James Sprenger and Henry Kramer (of which little is known), the Malleus remained in use for three hundred years. It had tremendous influence in the witch trials in England and on the continent. This translation is in the public domain. The Malleus was used as a judicial case-book for the detection and persecution of witches, specifying rules of evidence and the canonical procedures by which suspected witches were tortured and put to death. Thousands of people (primarily women) were judically murdered as a result of the procedures described in this book, for no reason than a strange birthmark, living alone, mental illness, cultivation of medicinal herbs, or simply because they were falsely accused (often for financial gain by the accuser). The Malleus serves as a horrible warning about what happens when intolerence takes over a society. Although the Malleus is manifestly a document which displays the cruelty, barbarism, and ignorance of the Inquisition, it has also been interpreted as evidence of a wide-spread subterranean pagan tradition which worshiped a pre-Christian horned deity, particularly by
I believe there needs to be something added to the witchcraft page. How can I post it without getting into trouble?
What I belive needs to be added:
Witchcraft applies to both women and men but the term witch means a woman with powers. A wizard is a male with powers.
If it hasn't already been added or needs to be added can I add it?
-- Condo lence 08:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. I read in a webster's dictionary on the term witch. It said: Witch- a woman with powers and is believed to assosiate with the devil. Then i looked up wizard: wizard- a man with powers. Men were accused for doing witchcraft for revenge or simply because someone didn't like someone. When it comes to cartoons and when men are into witchcraft they are called wizards. Look at all the websites about witches, they will all be women. But if you look at the websites about witchcraft it'll have men and women.
Every book I seen on witches had women on it. The movie the craft had women witches not men. in old times i assure you that women were considered witches and men considered wizards. Most people i asked said the same.-- Condo lence 18:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
(Insert Note: "warlock" is indeed a Scottish term, but it in its original usage, it meant "oath-breaker.) Wolfpeaceful ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC).
In the movie's of Harry potter, the teacher's (staff) use the terms Wizard and Witch. In all movie's i've seen a witch is always a woman, and a man is always a man. The terms Witch and Wizard define if an individual thats into witchcraft is a man or a woman. Everyone I know thinks of a witch is a woman and a wizard of a man. The terms wizard has been used long before this time. You know the story about King Author, the wizard in it Was a man. Or how about The wizard of Oz. Also a man. The witch in the wizard of Oz was a woman. -- L Condolence _ 23:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't mean to be rude, but please! You are getting your information from popular movies and Harry Potter books! These are works of fiction, not valid sources! The Craft's Witchcraft is fiction made up of a combination of mythology, stereotypes, and common misconceptions, while Harry Potter is a fictional creation derived from a variety of myths and the author's imagination. And everyone you know seems to be under a popular misconception. A "Witch" is a person, man or woman, who practices magic through rituals such as herbalism, candle magic and invoking deities. A "wizard" is a mythological person who practices magic that defies or manipulates the laws of nature. It is true that in fiction, a wizard is usually a man, but this is fiction. I do not know of any people calling themselves wizards today, but i do know many people, both male and female, who live in the modern world and call themselves Witches.
If men can be witches, then why is Wicca a woman based religion? Come on, sure there have been men considered witches, but the terms today (as Websters and most would consider) is that witches are women. Honestly, the amount in history, fiction, and popular culture vastly engulfs the amount of males called witches instead of wizards or warlocks or sorcerers. I guess if religiously a man CAN become a witch, then it should be both, but nowadays I'm unsure if pagan religions would even consider him as such. That would end the argument. 69.85.153.126 ( talk) 04:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Bold text
Anyone who has heard of it reply... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.38.79.69 ( talk) 22:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
At your service. A book of shadows or B.O.S is a book that a practitioner uses to write down spells or information on the practice. Maybe someone else can give you a better description. -- Condo lence 18:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
This is what I am frequently told by Neopagans who want to label their religion this, when its a broad term. Appearently, they have not read the historical references to witchcraft and are not aware that witchcraft usually refers to harmful magic. Furthermore they seem to believe magic equals religion, when no ancient "pagan" religion, culture, nor academic definition fits this.(I could cite god upon god myths from various religions that reflect that magic does not equal religion and is more of a "tool".) I think this should possibly be stated in the article, about the stark contrast between Neopagan definition and the academic.
I'm also very unsure of the section of Polytheistic reconstructionism. Many recons reject Neopaganism and the labels, calling oneself a "witch" and using "witchcraft" would just not be common practice. I know of no recon that does this, or tries to reconstruct any form of witchcraft. Xuchilbara ( talk) 00:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
If we have some good references, especially on the Seid part we may be able to expand the section. Xuchilbara ( talk) 18:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Is this article neutral in its presentation? Although Witchcraft has been seen has "real" in the middle ages and up to the 1700's can the article's presentation of Witchcraft practices has real be taken seriously?! Example: If a nutter turns up a Witchfest festival with the intention of killing the attendees with a claw hammer, will the attendees stop the attacker using their "witchcraft"? No of course not. Can the practices be wordrd a bit more pragmatically to ensure its neutral and not POV please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.24.217 ( talk) 17:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Witchcraft is real. You don't have to believe that Witches are actually capable of doing magic, but it cannot be denied that there is a community of people who define their religion as Witchcraft or Wicca and who believe that they are practicing magic. This cannot be denied anymore than it can be denied that Christianity "exists". If as you say this article is saying that Witchcraft exists, it is perfectly neutral as it is simply presenting an accurate if little-known fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.191.78.254 ( talk) 17:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
What about the belief that technology or certain/various modern inventions are actually witchcraft or synthetic witchcraft? Surely lasers, and microwaves are magic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.180.13 ( talk) 15:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I know the article will be deleted,Due to lack of info, but I thought i would come here for assistance to improve the article.-- Condalence ( 01:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
The terms 'witch' and 'witchcraft' have complex histories and connotations in a number of different fields, and there is no other word that shares all of these connotations. 'Sorcery' is another word describing the use of magic, as are 'wizardry', 'magery', 'magic', 'conjuration' and 'enchantment', but none of these have the same precise set of meanings. I have therefore removed the statement from the lead that 'sorcery' is often seen as the same thing.
In anthropological terminology a sorcerer employs ritual tools and actions to effect maleficium, while a witch does not; her/his maleficium comes not from any ritual actions but from an indwelling evil quality. Often someone accused of 'witchcraft' (the anthropologists' term, not generally the term used in the culture being observed) is not even aware of being a 'witch'.
In historical terminology a sorcerer is one who performs magic, and it has a darker connotation than 'magician'; there were those magicians who worked with 'natural magic', which they claimed was perfectly fine, since it was only effective through the power of God, and by the will of God. All magic eventually became frowned upon, but the term 'magician' tends to have preserved more of its beneficent sense, linked with these forms of high magic (and stage magic), while terms like 'sorcerer' are much more ambivalent. Sorcerers were seen as receiving their powers from the Devil, like witches, but the word 'sorcery' hasn't accumulated those other parts of the witchcraft stereotype: the witches' sabbath, flying on broomsticks, mostly women, etc., etc.
The words 'witch' and 'witchcraft' have such complex connotations, intimately wound up in the history of the witch-trials, popular depictions and scholarly uses of the term, that I believe the most important purpose of this article is to explain that history and those connotations. Conflating it with sorcery in the first paragraph won't help. Fuzzypeg ★ 05:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
indeed. witchcraft is maleficium specifically. This isn't a Christian invention in an attempt to discredit paganism, but an anthropological constant found in all cultures. The "re-claiming" of witch as a self-designation is a post-WWII phenomenon and needds to be discussed separately. -- dab (𒁳) 10:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
This text, translated by the Anglo-Saxon scholar Audrey L. Meaney, is the only properly sourced translation I could find of this passage. It is referred to by Sarah Semple (see citation) in the same context as in the text. This passage replaces a previous translation of the same passage, which gave neither the references from Ælfric nor a source for the translation. Please do not remove it. Additional references to Meaney can be found in the book Superstition and Popular Medicine in Anglo-Saxon England, edited by D. G. Scragg, (1989) which includes an article by her entitled "Women, Witchcraft and Magic in Anglo-Saxon England". Thanks, Mathsci ( talk) 13:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I've been meaning to give this article an overhaul for years, and now, being home sick from work, I've made a start. Mainly I'm adding rather than removing material at the moment, and since the current sections aren't really laid out in a conducive manner, it may look a little funny for a while. Some of the themes previously covered in the article (but not clearly referenced) will probably change form a bit, since I'll have to reword them to follow the cited sources. Currently there's a strong influence of Neopagan witchcraft on much of the article, not obvious, but it seems to cause a bit of imbalance in some of the wording (and a preponderance on 'religious' witchcraft!); I'll try to get this better segregated and explained so the article is more neutral.
Another thing: I realise that I'm adding a fair bit of material relating to European witchcraft, and we have an article for that. The thing is, witchcraft, being an English word, is so caught up in European history and concepts that it's not at all easy to take the Euro-centrism out of it. Some of this info could possibly be reorganised into the other article once we see how things are taking shape, but in the mean time I'll be mainly working here.
Cheers all! Fuzzypeg ★ 05:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I removed a sentence in the lead that read 'There are also such people called "wizards", who have equal powers to witches, but are male.' I did this for several reasons:
the confusion of healers or " cunning folk" with witches is entirely modern, and apparently a product of neopaganism. Historically, i.e. in any period prior to the 20th century, a witch is an evil magician, doing harmful magic. The rather dubious claims in this article that the witch-hunts were directed against "healers" in particular, even if true, simply establish that the accusations were false, i.e. that the people accused of witchcraft were not in fact witches. It doesn't show that there was such a thing as a "good witch", which prior to Murray was a contradiction in terms. We need to keep Romanticist/Neopagan speculation clearly distinct from the topic of witchcraft proper: it's got its own section and should be discussed there. If you consult MW s.v. "witch",
Or, in the American Heritage Dictionary,
this article is entirely about meaning (1), it is not about ugly old women, nor about alluring girls, nor about practicioners of Wicca. The "usually" is due to the Romanticist (pre-Wicca, 1830s-1920s) theories of a witch-cult, which should be addressed here, but also in a separate section.
dab (𒁳) 16:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I'll try to review your material with a little more sensitivity, Fuzzypeg, but I am afraid you are mistaken here. Witchcraft is, first and foremost, the notion of a supernatural threat in folk belief. A witch-hunt is an action triggered by such fears. Claiming that there is such a thing as a "good witch" is a misleading play on terminology, and as such a matter for disambiguation. The point is that this article is to be addressing a topic of anthropology (ethnology), not Neopaganism or fantasy literature. If we're going to fix ethnological sources with neopagan or literary discussions, the result will be a single confused mess. So ""witches" were often cunning folk seen in a negative light." -- well, yes, the significant bit here being "negative light". Calling a "cunning person" a witch implies the allegation that they are doing harmful magic. Now from the point of view of this cunning person this may be a true or a false allegation. If it is a false allegation, it's simply that, the allegation that somebody is trying to perform harmful magic (witchcraft) who is not in fact doing this. By no means does this translate to the claim that cunning people are "good witches". Please. -- dab (𒁳) 17:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate these points, and it was my intention to take this angle into account in the "good witches" section (which could also get a different title). I still get the impression that you are attempting to spin things, in the sense of making the usual appear marginal, and the marginal usual. If we can agree on the "usually" for now, the proper course is to write the article as addressing the "usual" concept, and include a section on "exceptional cases and minority views". Your quote regarding the "distinction between witchcraft and sorcery" isn't relevant here, since it doesn't distinguish harmful from helpful magic. Of course, both the sorcerer and the witch did harmful magic, while the neutral term would have bee "magician". Again, I appreciate your familiarity with the literature, but the problem appears to be that you are trying to employ this familiarity in order to twist the article to fit your ideology. I am not familiar with the works of E. William Monter, Carlo Ginzburg, Gustav Henningsen, Emma Wilby, "etc. etc." but it does appear significant that Ginzburg-Pócs regularly appear in the context of Neopagan pseudohistory. This may be through no fault of their own. -- dab (𒁳) 17:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
There is no evidence that witches or sorcerers did harmful magic. The evidence is that during the witch hunts the Christian church accused people who may or may not have been witches, good or bad, of practicing harmful magic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.191.78.254 ( talk) 17:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
regarding the summary,
-- dab (𒁳) 17:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
excellent. So these are "new and amazing" breakthroughs of the 1990s. I do not contest that their subject matter is on topic here. The question is, what is their relative weight, how was Ginzburg's "hidden schamanistic culture" received over the past 18 years since he published this, and how did any of this affect the mainstream view of the topic. Remembering, of course, that Wikipedia is supposed to give an account of mainstream opinion, with mentions of notable minority views, given weight relative to their respective notability.
To avoid confusion: the point under scrutiny here isn't whether witchcraft has "pre-Christian roots". It does. The question is whether these roots were "more benign", i.e. whether Christianization has turned "good magic" into "evil magic". It appears the main contribution of Ginzburg was the discovery of the benandanti, establishing that there was an actual belief in (evil) witchcraft in the rural population. These benandanti weren't witches, they were combatting witches. Their "diabolical stereotypes" according to Ginzburg are by no means "corruptions of more benign pre-Christian beliefs", they much rather are themselves pre-Christian "shamanistic" beliefs. -- dab (𒁳) 17:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your detailed and well-informed reply. I begin to understand what is going on here, and I assure you that I am aware that the burden of pulling my own weight lies with myself here. I think you assume that my criticism goes further than it actually does. Let me address a few points:
Let me outline the gist of what I want:
-- dab (𒁳) 17:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
ok, here's a suggestion: This entire topic of folk magic, devins-guerisseurs etc. is without doubt highly notable, and also closely related to the topic of witchcraft, since, as the article is already aware, anyone capable of healing by magic will likely be deemed just as capable of harming as of healing. Nevertheless, the topic isn't identical. We have the articles white witch, cunning folk and folk magic, which may themselves be partly overlapping in scope. The discussion of this "benevolent witchcraft" belongs there, not here. What does belong here is a discussion of the relation between "harming and healing". This achieved by a "white witch" section which has as its {{ main}} article the white witch article. -- dab (𒁳) 18:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I can't believe we're still living in an age when witchcraft is still defined as harming someone or something. When Wikipedia is, unfortunately, sometimes the only source that people look to when trying to learn information, and what they see is:
Witchcraft, in various historical, anthropological, religious and mythological contexts, is the use of certain kinds of supernatural or magical powers in order to inflict harm or damage upon members of a community or their property. The concept of witchcraft is normally treated as a cultural ideology, a means of explaining human misfortune by blaming it either on a supernatural entity or a known person in the community.[1]
it is no wonder we have so much hate and intolerance for each other in the world. As a Pagan scholar, it is ridiculous to think that pre-Christian religions were not demonized after the onslaught of the world's current religion. Look at any of the Mesopotamian religions to see how their myths were later distorted.
I simply suggest that we change the paragraph to:
Witchcraft, in various historical, anthropological, religious and mythological contexts, is the belief in certain kinds of supernatural or magical powers, often in the form of energy work, medicinal herbs, divination, etc. In recent Christian theology, as exemplified by the Inquisition and Witch Trials, the concept of witchcraft is normally seen as a means of explaining human misfortune by blaming it either on a supernatural entity or a known person in the community. [2] A witch (from Old English wicce f. / wicca m.) is a practitioner of witchcraft.
It is mentioned MUCH later, to my dismay, in the article that "modern witches" still exist, and that Paganism and Wicca are some kind of reclaiming religions.
If you look at the page of Mormonism, for example, you do not see how some of their sects rape their women and abuse their children, but in fact it is a general explanation of what Mormonism is. Witchcraft should be the same, especially because some people do consider it their religion, whether YOU think it's politically correct or not.
People are still being burned as "witches" today, and I can't believe you can live with yourself by writing that all witches harm people in their communities. The amount of ignorance and intolerance in a monolithic world sometimes makes me sick.
If a woman can sue her library for making her attend an event that promoted "witchcraft" (aka Harry Potter) through the ACLU, I'm pretty sure I can sue Wikipedia for violating my religious beliefs as well.
Aaatkins ( talk) 08:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC) 28 December, 2008 Aaatkins
I would like to know your evidence for witchcraft that proves it is, originally, harmful to humans, and that is not a Christian source. This is impossible, because all the old resources available are Christian or are Christian-influenced. (Please see Dominant Religious Lens for further inquiry.)
For example, Slrubenstein, one cannot claim that this article is a "neutral point of view" because "Native Americans" had no single language or culture, and in fact this is an ignorant term placed on all natives of the "Americas." The Christian conquerors first imposed their idea of witchcraft onto Native American beliefs that have no correlation in English or Spanish culture or language. As for "Latin America," this is a recent term given by, again, Christian conquerors of the "New World." They brought their preconceived ideas with them, one of which, witchcraft, sticks out among the many because of its extreme negativity in the bible. This cultural idea can be traced back to the Inquisition and beyond.
There is no "neutral point of view" when writing in the Christian conqueror's language of English. The authors should at least admit this when dealing with terms that have been distorted throughout history and that are perpetuated in Christian American consciousness. Besides this fact, this is a religious movement for some people, whether you think it is "right" or not. One, as a rule, should tread carefully when writing about religious movements. Faith cannot be reduced to terms like the entries found on Wikipedia, especially when dealing with primarily oral traditions.
P.S. Clearly because you do not read/care about about modern affairs of witchcraft, the ACLU event I was referring to was a librarian suing her library, through the ACLU, because she said Harry Potter contained "witchcraft" and she should not be forced to attend a book release party because witchcraft is "against her religious beliefs." So yes, the ACLU does sue on behalf of ignorant people.
Aaatkins ( talk) 10 February 2009
I think that the last phrase in the sentence "Witchcraft, in various historical, anthropological, religious and mythological contexts, is the use of certain kinds of supernatural or magical powers in order to inflict harm or damage upon members of a community or their property" violates NPOV because it defines "witchcraft" as having an intent to harm. The sentence goes beyond defining witchcraft (the practice of witches) and makes a moral judgment. Dorje ( talk) 19:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
So, by the definition you just used, witchcraft is used to harm or HEAL. Yet this is not mentioned in the first sentence, the one that most people are most likely to read. I also agree that is a moral judgment. ( talk) 23 February 2009
I have a real problem with Ginzburg and Pócs making claims that are treated by this article as if they were facts just because they said them. Obviously there is much controversy in the field. I think we need to be very careful about giving too much weight to two relatively obscure authors in foreign countries who seem to be at odds with the rest of the world. We can certainly present their views, but not at the expense of confusing people into thinking that their opinions are what most academics believe or, worse, that they are outright facts. I removed a section in the lead that counted on those two to support a claim I know most academic sources on this topic disagree with, or at least would not phrase in such a way. Witchcraft accusations got lots of people, but it certainly was not primarily "good witches" as much as heretical sects (often Christian who would be appalled to be thought of as practicing witchcraft and were only accused of it for religio-political reasons) and pretty much anyone who made an easy target. Most sources deny any large scale practicing witches at the time, and that's a feature of many pseudohistorical accounts written by relatively modern sources to dry to create impressive sounding histories to things they thought up on the spot.
I see that this has been discussed somewhat already above, but I am just weighing in to strongly encourage that we not rely on those sources in any major capacity and that we always follow WP:NPOV (and particularly WP:UNDUE) so as not to mislead our readers. If we present a claim and the major academic sources say otherwise, we need to include the majority view and let people know that others disagree but that they are not the prevailing view. DreamGuy ( talk) 19:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
And another one: Jenny Gibbons was being used as a source. She claimed an MA, but who knows if that's accurate or what her credentials are to be writing on the topic of witchcraft. The source being referred to was some pagan newsletter, not an academic journal. And in fact the only source we had was of an archived page (questionable to begin with) of some clearly WP:RS-failing site claiming to have reprinted this article from another newsletter, with no info on if such use was approved or not. More importantly the essay had two features: advocacy of the neopagan movement (not of note for encyclopedic sourcing purposes) and presenting info she said she read in other studies. If we want to have a WP:RS for this info, how about we link to the original sources instead of some third hand account? And the factualness of the sources seems dubious anyway, because it seemed to contradict well known reliable sources... or perhaps the facts were buried under a mass of neopagan terms (many of which are known to refer to theories known be historically false) and, if it were possibel to dig underneath all that and read between the lines to what the sources she wa using really said, maybe they'd be right. But no reason to make our readers have to dig through all that. DreamGuy ( talk) 19:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I've gone and looked at the two points for which Gibbons is being used as a source -
Let's look at what Gibbons has to say about these two items -
Her statement, which was cited to support two statements in this article, doesn't seem to be part of an advocacy or an intentional burying beneath neopagan terms.-- Vidkun ( talk) 19:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Any alleged reasons for the stereotypical hat? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.240.247.250 ( talk) 20:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
--yes, read here: [12] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfpeaceful ( talk • contribs) 19:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
--actually, you're wrong... the more modern term is "pagan" but they actually used both terms to refer to country-dwellers... pagani/paganus is the older Latin term, and Latin was widely taught in europe in the UK during the time era mentioned below.... But that's beside the point... and its not dubious... its just not the best website resource... it might be better for you to go to the library and find an actual rectangular book related to the clothing of the 14th to 16th centuries. You might also want to check into regional united kingdom folk magick for that same era. i'm sure you'll find some interesting overlaps. 70.61.247.31 ( talk) 21:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Try this:
( [13]) Totnesmartin ( talk) 19:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
--well that's kind of what the article I pointed to, talks about.... just not in great detail. As for the jews, they used a different form of hat, that does not resemble what one would commonly think of when thinking of a witches' hat. 70.61.247.31 ( talk) 21:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
I find it surprising that this article does not reference any of the work done by Keith Thomas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.235.145.143 ( talk) 13:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
New material includes links to sources. 24.168.227.29 21:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Linda Blair entry - funny, but this isn't the place... —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
80.189.143.237 (
talk) 20:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Do we need an "overview" section? The introduction should be the overview. I suggest removing "==Overview==" header to merge it with the intro. Totnesmartin 21:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Any objections to adding a "Critical resources" section with the following link?:
Thanks for your input. -- Sdiekmann 16:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I've just added this statement back to the article. Old discussion around this between me and User:DreamGuy can be found at Talk:Witchcraft/Archive 2#Majority of accused witches were women. Barstow estimates 80% of accused and 85% of executed were women; Gibbons estimates 75-80% of accused were women. If anyone wants to remove this statement again, please provide concrete references rather than vague gestures at "the authors I've read", and we can argue it out. Fuzzypeg ☻ 22:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
You'd think with the popular book
Malleus Maleficarum in the medieval period, and how the church believed in general, because of Eve, that women were more prone to sin than the superior man was, would be enough proof that women were more likely thought of as witches & executed for it than men. Lets not include most depictions of medieval witches are very much female.
Xuchilbara (
talk) 00:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
okay are witches real or fake i want u to discusses in this with a friend or a family memberso thats the big talk and even though it's not big trust me it is and who knows u could find out that your friend is a witch —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.189.192 ( talk) 04:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I belive that no site can explain if witchcraft is real or not because some sites say it is real and some say its not,Sounds reasonable. Read the history section in a library. -- Condolence "(talk)" 03:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Witches are not a myth at all. Witchcraft is a very real religion just like Christianity or Judaism. The religion most Witches belong to is Wicca, a feminist, nature-oriented, very misunderstood religion based on the Old Religion of ancient Europe. But I agree with Seaj11, this is not the place for a discussion on whether Witches are a myth or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.191.78.254 ( talk) 17:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
"most Witches belong to Wicca" is incorrect, Witchcraft and Wicca are not synonymous nor interchangeable and there was no "Old Religion" of ancient Europe. There are non-Wiccan witches and Wiccan witches, and a considerable amount of Witches are non-Wiccan. Unless you have numbers saying otherwise. 24.12.78.197 ( talk) 04:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)K.W.
Haha old religion of Europe could apply to many, as it wasn't centered (and the fact that Romans at one point controlled "Ancient Europe." But yeah I agree Wicca and other Witch-based (or pagan or nature etc.) religions are just that: religions. I mean you could say that magic isn't real and stuff, but the existence of people claiming to be witches (as a religion) is true. 69.85.153.126 ( talk) 04:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
witches are real but not in the terms that most people think of them. we use magick but not like making red sparkes flying out of finger tips or flying and all that others stuff there are wiccan witches as sinebot said but all the witches i know ( around 10) practice somthing of a mixture of similar religions one worships hindu gods another worsips pan as the oak king hades as lord of shadows aapollo as god of the sun artimas as the maiden and hera as the mother i am not sure who she worships as the crone but i practice under a modifyed version of the wiccan rede paganism witchcraft and alcamey.
we have magick but it is less obvious. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.217.87.224 (
talk) 19:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello folks, just wanted to highlight some contributions by an enthusiastic new editor. This talk page seemed the most obvious place to put this, as I know there are a lot of people with this on their watchlists. While I don't want to discourage an obviously keen contributor, I was just a little concerned that the large number and similar nature of these articles is a source of worry to me: I'm not sure what the answer is (or even if I need to be worried!) but thought I'd ask for some community feedback as a first step. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 17:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
--- HI guys, not sure what Im doing but as a Greenwitch PLEASE do not delete that new stuff or put it with Wicca. I am a witch, not a Wiccan, there IS a difference! I'd love to see the contemporary witchcraft stuff be kept and added to, please do not delete it! - A concerned Witch. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.70.147.38 (
talk) 23:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
HUH? I'd really like it if you guys at least explained what we do wrong if we do something wrong and what the right thing to do is!!!!! Not everyone is good with comuters you know! PS Hedgewitches and Greenwitches and such are all different and valid paths! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.70.147.38 ( talk) 23:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the following quote from the article:
...since it's missing the required context to explain what he's talking about. The point it seems intended to make in the article is that magic and religion have no distinct boundary, but that's not exactly what Versnel is saying. He's saying that the Frazerian hard distinction between magic and religion based on intentions and methods has fallen out of favour, but that he still finds useful distinctions can be drawn between the two. Little of this is conveyed by the quote, and it might be possible to expand the segment so it better explains his point, but I'm not even sure whether that point needs to be made. If someone else feels they want to work this in to the article, go for it. Fuzzypeg ★ 21:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
This is the best known (i.e., the most infamous) of the witch-hunt manuals. Written in Latin, the Malleus was first submitted to the University of Cologne on May 9th, 1487. The title is translated as "The Hammer of Witches". Written by James Sprenger and Henry Kramer (of which little is known), the Malleus remained in use for three hundred years. It had tremendous influence in the witch trials in England and on the continent. This translation is in the public domain. The Malleus was used as a judicial case-book for the detection and persecution of witches, specifying rules of evidence and the canonical procedures by which suspected witches were tortured and put to death. Thousands of people (primarily women) were judically murdered as a result of the procedures described in this book, for no reason than a strange birthmark, living alone, mental illness, cultivation of medicinal herbs, or simply because they were falsely accused (often for financial gain by the accuser). The Malleus serves as a horrible warning about what happens when intolerence takes over a society. Although the Malleus is manifestly a document which displays the cruelty, barbarism, and ignorance of the Inquisition, it has also been interpreted as evidence of a wide-spread subterranean pagan tradition which worshiped a pre-Christian horned deity, particularly by
I believe there needs to be something added to the witchcraft page. How can I post it without getting into trouble?
What I belive needs to be added:
Witchcraft applies to both women and men but the term witch means a woman with powers. A wizard is a male with powers.
If it hasn't already been added or needs to be added can I add it?
-- Condo lence 08:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. I read in a webster's dictionary on the term witch. It said: Witch- a woman with powers and is believed to assosiate with the devil. Then i looked up wizard: wizard- a man with powers. Men were accused for doing witchcraft for revenge or simply because someone didn't like someone. When it comes to cartoons and when men are into witchcraft they are called wizards. Look at all the websites about witches, they will all be women. But if you look at the websites about witchcraft it'll have men and women.
Every book I seen on witches had women on it. The movie the craft had women witches not men. in old times i assure you that women were considered witches and men considered wizards. Most people i asked said the same.-- Condo lence 18:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
(Insert Note: "warlock" is indeed a Scottish term, but it in its original usage, it meant "oath-breaker.) Wolfpeaceful ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC).
In the movie's of Harry potter, the teacher's (staff) use the terms Wizard and Witch. In all movie's i've seen a witch is always a woman, and a man is always a man. The terms Witch and Wizard define if an individual thats into witchcraft is a man or a woman. Everyone I know thinks of a witch is a woman and a wizard of a man. The terms wizard has been used long before this time. You know the story about King Author, the wizard in it Was a man. Or how about The wizard of Oz. Also a man. The witch in the wizard of Oz was a woman. -- L Condolence _ 23:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't mean to be rude, but please! You are getting your information from popular movies and Harry Potter books! These are works of fiction, not valid sources! The Craft's Witchcraft is fiction made up of a combination of mythology, stereotypes, and common misconceptions, while Harry Potter is a fictional creation derived from a variety of myths and the author's imagination. And everyone you know seems to be under a popular misconception. A "Witch" is a person, man or woman, who practices magic through rituals such as herbalism, candle magic and invoking deities. A "wizard" is a mythological person who practices magic that defies or manipulates the laws of nature. It is true that in fiction, a wizard is usually a man, but this is fiction. I do not know of any people calling themselves wizards today, but i do know many people, both male and female, who live in the modern world and call themselves Witches.
If men can be witches, then why is Wicca a woman based religion? Come on, sure there have been men considered witches, but the terms today (as Websters and most would consider) is that witches are women. Honestly, the amount in history, fiction, and popular culture vastly engulfs the amount of males called witches instead of wizards or warlocks or sorcerers. I guess if religiously a man CAN become a witch, then it should be both, but nowadays I'm unsure if pagan religions would even consider him as such. That would end the argument. 69.85.153.126 ( talk) 04:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Bold text
Anyone who has heard of it reply... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.38.79.69 ( talk) 22:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
At your service. A book of shadows or B.O.S is a book that a practitioner uses to write down spells or information on the practice. Maybe someone else can give you a better description. -- Condo lence 18:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
This is what I am frequently told by Neopagans who want to label their religion this, when its a broad term. Appearently, they have not read the historical references to witchcraft and are not aware that witchcraft usually refers to harmful magic. Furthermore they seem to believe magic equals religion, when no ancient "pagan" religion, culture, nor academic definition fits this.(I could cite god upon god myths from various religions that reflect that magic does not equal religion and is more of a "tool".) I think this should possibly be stated in the article, about the stark contrast between Neopagan definition and the academic.
I'm also very unsure of the section of Polytheistic reconstructionism. Many recons reject Neopaganism and the labels, calling oneself a "witch" and using "witchcraft" would just not be common practice. I know of no recon that does this, or tries to reconstruct any form of witchcraft. Xuchilbara ( talk) 00:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
If we have some good references, especially on the Seid part we may be able to expand the section. Xuchilbara ( talk) 18:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Is this article neutral in its presentation? Although Witchcraft has been seen has "real" in the middle ages and up to the 1700's can the article's presentation of Witchcraft practices has real be taken seriously?! Example: If a nutter turns up a Witchfest festival with the intention of killing the attendees with a claw hammer, will the attendees stop the attacker using their "witchcraft"? No of course not. Can the practices be wordrd a bit more pragmatically to ensure its neutral and not POV please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.24.217 ( talk) 17:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Witchcraft is real. You don't have to believe that Witches are actually capable of doing magic, but it cannot be denied that there is a community of people who define their religion as Witchcraft or Wicca and who believe that they are practicing magic. This cannot be denied anymore than it can be denied that Christianity "exists". If as you say this article is saying that Witchcraft exists, it is perfectly neutral as it is simply presenting an accurate if little-known fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.191.78.254 ( talk) 17:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
What about the belief that technology or certain/various modern inventions are actually witchcraft or synthetic witchcraft? Surely lasers, and microwaves are magic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.180.13 ( talk) 15:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I know the article will be deleted,Due to lack of info, but I thought i would come here for assistance to improve the article.-- Condalence ( 01:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
The terms 'witch' and 'witchcraft' have complex histories and connotations in a number of different fields, and there is no other word that shares all of these connotations. 'Sorcery' is another word describing the use of magic, as are 'wizardry', 'magery', 'magic', 'conjuration' and 'enchantment', but none of these have the same precise set of meanings. I have therefore removed the statement from the lead that 'sorcery' is often seen as the same thing.
In anthropological terminology a sorcerer employs ritual tools and actions to effect maleficium, while a witch does not; her/his maleficium comes not from any ritual actions but from an indwelling evil quality. Often someone accused of 'witchcraft' (the anthropologists' term, not generally the term used in the culture being observed) is not even aware of being a 'witch'.
In historical terminology a sorcerer is one who performs magic, and it has a darker connotation than 'magician'; there were those magicians who worked with 'natural magic', which they claimed was perfectly fine, since it was only effective through the power of God, and by the will of God. All magic eventually became frowned upon, but the term 'magician' tends to have preserved more of its beneficent sense, linked with these forms of high magic (and stage magic), while terms like 'sorcerer' are much more ambivalent. Sorcerers were seen as receiving their powers from the Devil, like witches, but the word 'sorcery' hasn't accumulated those other parts of the witchcraft stereotype: the witches' sabbath, flying on broomsticks, mostly women, etc., etc.
The words 'witch' and 'witchcraft' have such complex connotations, intimately wound up in the history of the witch-trials, popular depictions and scholarly uses of the term, that I believe the most important purpose of this article is to explain that history and those connotations. Conflating it with sorcery in the first paragraph won't help. Fuzzypeg ★ 05:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
indeed. witchcraft is maleficium specifically. This isn't a Christian invention in an attempt to discredit paganism, but an anthropological constant found in all cultures. The "re-claiming" of witch as a self-designation is a post-WWII phenomenon and needds to be discussed separately. -- dab (𒁳) 10:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
This text, translated by the Anglo-Saxon scholar Audrey L. Meaney, is the only properly sourced translation I could find of this passage. It is referred to by Sarah Semple (see citation) in the same context as in the text. This passage replaces a previous translation of the same passage, which gave neither the references from Ælfric nor a source for the translation. Please do not remove it. Additional references to Meaney can be found in the book Superstition and Popular Medicine in Anglo-Saxon England, edited by D. G. Scragg, (1989) which includes an article by her entitled "Women, Witchcraft and Magic in Anglo-Saxon England". Thanks, Mathsci ( talk) 13:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I've been meaning to give this article an overhaul for years, and now, being home sick from work, I've made a start. Mainly I'm adding rather than removing material at the moment, and since the current sections aren't really laid out in a conducive manner, it may look a little funny for a while. Some of the themes previously covered in the article (but not clearly referenced) will probably change form a bit, since I'll have to reword them to follow the cited sources. Currently there's a strong influence of Neopagan witchcraft on much of the article, not obvious, but it seems to cause a bit of imbalance in some of the wording (and a preponderance on 'religious' witchcraft!); I'll try to get this better segregated and explained so the article is more neutral.
Another thing: I realise that I'm adding a fair bit of material relating to European witchcraft, and we have an article for that. The thing is, witchcraft, being an English word, is so caught up in European history and concepts that it's not at all easy to take the Euro-centrism out of it. Some of this info could possibly be reorganised into the other article once we see how things are taking shape, but in the mean time I'll be mainly working here.
Cheers all! Fuzzypeg ★ 05:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I removed a sentence in the lead that read 'There are also such people called "wizards", who have equal powers to witches, but are male.' I did this for several reasons:
the confusion of healers or " cunning folk" with witches is entirely modern, and apparently a product of neopaganism. Historically, i.e. in any period prior to the 20th century, a witch is an evil magician, doing harmful magic. The rather dubious claims in this article that the witch-hunts were directed against "healers" in particular, even if true, simply establish that the accusations were false, i.e. that the people accused of witchcraft were not in fact witches. It doesn't show that there was such a thing as a "good witch", which prior to Murray was a contradiction in terms. We need to keep Romanticist/Neopagan speculation clearly distinct from the topic of witchcraft proper: it's got its own section and should be discussed there. If you consult MW s.v. "witch",
Or, in the American Heritage Dictionary,
this article is entirely about meaning (1), it is not about ugly old women, nor about alluring girls, nor about practicioners of Wicca. The "usually" is due to the Romanticist (pre-Wicca, 1830s-1920s) theories of a witch-cult, which should be addressed here, but also in a separate section.
dab (𒁳) 16:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I'll try to review your material with a little more sensitivity, Fuzzypeg, but I am afraid you are mistaken here. Witchcraft is, first and foremost, the notion of a supernatural threat in folk belief. A witch-hunt is an action triggered by such fears. Claiming that there is such a thing as a "good witch" is a misleading play on terminology, and as such a matter for disambiguation. The point is that this article is to be addressing a topic of anthropology (ethnology), not Neopaganism or fantasy literature. If we're going to fix ethnological sources with neopagan or literary discussions, the result will be a single confused mess. So ""witches" were often cunning folk seen in a negative light." -- well, yes, the significant bit here being "negative light". Calling a "cunning person" a witch implies the allegation that they are doing harmful magic. Now from the point of view of this cunning person this may be a true or a false allegation. If it is a false allegation, it's simply that, the allegation that somebody is trying to perform harmful magic (witchcraft) who is not in fact doing this. By no means does this translate to the claim that cunning people are "good witches". Please. -- dab (𒁳) 17:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate these points, and it was my intention to take this angle into account in the "good witches" section (which could also get a different title). I still get the impression that you are attempting to spin things, in the sense of making the usual appear marginal, and the marginal usual. If we can agree on the "usually" for now, the proper course is to write the article as addressing the "usual" concept, and include a section on "exceptional cases and minority views". Your quote regarding the "distinction between witchcraft and sorcery" isn't relevant here, since it doesn't distinguish harmful from helpful magic. Of course, both the sorcerer and the witch did harmful magic, while the neutral term would have bee "magician". Again, I appreciate your familiarity with the literature, but the problem appears to be that you are trying to employ this familiarity in order to twist the article to fit your ideology. I am not familiar with the works of E. William Monter, Carlo Ginzburg, Gustav Henningsen, Emma Wilby, "etc. etc." but it does appear significant that Ginzburg-Pócs regularly appear in the context of Neopagan pseudohistory. This may be through no fault of their own. -- dab (𒁳) 17:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
There is no evidence that witches or sorcerers did harmful magic. The evidence is that during the witch hunts the Christian church accused people who may or may not have been witches, good or bad, of practicing harmful magic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.191.78.254 ( talk) 17:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
regarding the summary,
-- dab (𒁳) 17:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
excellent. So these are "new and amazing" breakthroughs of the 1990s. I do not contest that their subject matter is on topic here. The question is, what is their relative weight, how was Ginzburg's "hidden schamanistic culture" received over the past 18 years since he published this, and how did any of this affect the mainstream view of the topic. Remembering, of course, that Wikipedia is supposed to give an account of mainstream opinion, with mentions of notable minority views, given weight relative to their respective notability.
To avoid confusion: the point under scrutiny here isn't whether witchcraft has "pre-Christian roots". It does. The question is whether these roots were "more benign", i.e. whether Christianization has turned "good magic" into "evil magic". It appears the main contribution of Ginzburg was the discovery of the benandanti, establishing that there was an actual belief in (evil) witchcraft in the rural population. These benandanti weren't witches, they were combatting witches. Their "diabolical stereotypes" according to Ginzburg are by no means "corruptions of more benign pre-Christian beliefs", they much rather are themselves pre-Christian "shamanistic" beliefs. -- dab (𒁳) 17:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your detailed and well-informed reply. I begin to understand what is going on here, and I assure you that I am aware that the burden of pulling my own weight lies with myself here. I think you assume that my criticism goes further than it actually does. Let me address a few points:
Let me outline the gist of what I want:
-- dab (𒁳) 17:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
ok, here's a suggestion: This entire topic of folk magic, devins-guerisseurs etc. is without doubt highly notable, and also closely related to the topic of witchcraft, since, as the article is already aware, anyone capable of healing by magic will likely be deemed just as capable of harming as of healing. Nevertheless, the topic isn't identical. We have the articles white witch, cunning folk and folk magic, which may themselves be partly overlapping in scope. The discussion of this "benevolent witchcraft" belongs there, not here. What does belong here is a discussion of the relation between "harming and healing". This achieved by a "white witch" section which has as its {{ main}} article the white witch article. -- dab (𒁳) 18:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I can't believe we're still living in an age when witchcraft is still defined as harming someone or something. When Wikipedia is, unfortunately, sometimes the only source that people look to when trying to learn information, and what they see is:
Witchcraft, in various historical, anthropological, religious and mythological contexts, is the use of certain kinds of supernatural or magical powers in order to inflict harm or damage upon members of a community or their property. The concept of witchcraft is normally treated as a cultural ideology, a means of explaining human misfortune by blaming it either on a supernatural entity or a known person in the community.[1]
it is no wonder we have so much hate and intolerance for each other in the world. As a Pagan scholar, it is ridiculous to think that pre-Christian religions were not demonized after the onslaught of the world's current religion. Look at any of the Mesopotamian religions to see how their myths were later distorted.
I simply suggest that we change the paragraph to:
Witchcraft, in various historical, anthropological, religious and mythological contexts, is the belief in certain kinds of supernatural or magical powers, often in the form of energy work, medicinal herbs, divination, etc. In recent Christian theology, as exemplified by the Inquisition and Witch Trials, the concept of witchcraft is normally seen as a means of explaining human misfortune by blaming it either on a supernatural entity or a known person in the community. [2] A witch (from Old English wicce f. / wicca m.) is a practitioner of witchcraft.
It is mentioned MUCH later, to my dismay, in the article that "modern witches" still exist, and that Paganism and Wicca are some kind of reclaiming religions.
If you look at the page of Mormonism, for example, you do not see how some of their sects rape their women and abuse their children, but in fact it is a general explanation of what Mormonism is. Witchcraft should be the same, especially because some people do consider it their religion, whether YOU think it's politically correct or not.
People are still being burned as "witches" today, and I can't believe you can live with yourself by writing that all witches harm people in their communities. The amount of ignorance and intolerance in a monolithic world sometimes makes me sick.
If a woman can sue her library for making her attend an event that promoted "witchcraft" (aka Harry Potter) through the ACLU, I'm pretty sure I can sue Wikipedia for violating my religious beliefs as well.
Aaatkins ( talk) 08:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC) 28 December, 2008 Aaatkins
I would like to know your evidence for witchcraft that proves it is, originally, harmful to humans, and that is not a Christian source. This is impossible, because all the old resources available are Christian or are Christian-influenced. (Please see Dominant Religious Lens for further inquiry.)
For example, Slrubenstein, one cannot claim that this article is a "neutral point of view" because "Native Americans" had no single language or culture, and in fact this is an ignorant term placed on all natives of the "Americas." The Christian conquerors first imposed their idea of witchcraft onto Native American beliefs that have no correlation in English or Spanish culture or language. As for "Latin America," this is a recent term given by, again, Christian conquerors of the "New World." They brought their preconceived ideas with them, one of which, witchcraft, sticks out among the many because of its extreme negativity in the bible. This cultural idea can be traced back to the Inquisition and beyond.
There is no "neutral point of view" when writing in the Christian conqueror's language of English. The authors should at least admit this when dealing with terms that have been distorted throughout history and that are perpetuated in Christian American consciousness. Besides this fact, this is a religious movement for some people, whether you think it is "right" or not. One, as a rule, should tread carefully when writing about religious movements. Faith cannot be reduced to terms like the entries found on Wikipedia, especially when dealing with primarily oral traditions.
P.S. Clearly because you do not read/care about about modern affairs of witchcraft, the ACLU event I was referring to was a librarian suing her library, through the ACLU, because she said Harry Potter contained "witchcraft" and she should not be forced to attend a book release party because witchcraft is "against her religious beliefs." So yes, the ACLU does sue on behalf of ignorant people.
Aaatkins ( talk) 10 February 2009
I think that the last phrase in the sentence "Witchcraft, in various historical, anthropological, religious and mythological contexts, is the use of certain kinds of supernatural or magical powers in order to inflict harm or damage upon members of a community or their property" violates NPOV because it defines "witchcraft" as having an intent to harm. The sentence goes beyond defining witchcraft (the practice of witches) and makes a moral judgment. Dorje ( talk) 19:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
So, by the definition you just used, witchcraft is used to harm or HEAL. Yet this is not mentioned in the first sentence, the one that most people are most likely to read. I also agree that is a moral judgment. ( talk) 23 February 2009
I have a real problem with Ginzburg and Pócs making claims that are treated by this article as if they were facts just because they said them. Obviously there is much controversy in the field. I think we need to be very careful about giving too much weight to two relatively obscure authors in foreign countries who seem to be at odds with the rest of the world. We can certainly present their views, but not at the expense of confusing people into thinking that their opinions are what most academics believe or, worse, that they are outright facts. I removed a section in the lead that counted on those two to support a claim I know most academic sources on this topic disagree with, or at least would not phrase in such a way. Witchcraft accusations got lots of people, but it certainly was not primarily "good witches" as much as heretical sects (often Christian who would be appalled to be thought of as practicing witchcraft and were only accused of it for religio-political reasons) and pretty much anyone who made an easy target. Most sources deny any large scale practicing witches at the time, and that's a feature of many pseudohistorical accounts written by relatively modern sources to dry to create impressive sounding histories to things they thought up on the spot.
I see that this has been discussed somewhat already above, but I am just weighing in to strongly encourage that we not rely on those sources in any major capacity and that we always follow WP:NPOV (and particularly WP:UNDUE) so as not to mislead our readers. If we present a claim and the major academic sources say otherwise, we need to include the majority view and let people know that others disagree but that they are not the prevailing view. DreamGuy ( talk) 19:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
And another one: Jenny Gibbons was being used as a source. She claimed an MA, but who knows if that's accurate or what her credentials are to be writing on the topic of witchcraft. The source being referred to was some pagan newsletter, not an academic journal. And in fact the only source we had was of an archived page (questionable to begin with) of some clearly WP:RS-failing site claiming to have reprinted this article from another newsletter, with no info on if such use was approved or not. More importantly the essay had two features: advocacy of the neopagan movement (not of note for encyclopedic sourcing purposes) and presenting info she said she read in other studies. If we want to have a WP:RS for this info, how about we link to the original sources instead of some third hand account? And the factualness of the sources seems dubious anyway, because it seemed to contradict well known reliable sources... or perhaps the facts were buried under a mass of neopagan terms (many of which are known to refer to theories known be historically false) and, if it were possibel to dig underneath all that and read between the lines to what the sources she wa using really said, maybe they'd be right. But no reason to make our readers have to dig through all that. DreamGuy ( talk) 19:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I've gone and looked at the two points for which Gibbons is being used as a source -
Let's look at what Gibbons has to say about these two items -
Her statement, which was cited to support two statements in this article, doesn't seem to be part of an advocacy or an intentional burying beneath neopagan terms.-- Vidkun ( talk) 19:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Any alleged reasons for the stereotypical hat? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.240.247.250 ( talk) 20:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
--yes, read here: [12] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfpeaceful ( talk • contribs) 19:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
--actually, you're wrong... the more modern term is "pagan" but they actually used both terms to refer to country-dwellers... pagani/paganus is the older Latin term, and Latin was widely taught in europe in the UK during the time era mentioned below.... But that's beside the point... and its not dubious... its just not the best website resource... it might be better for you to go to the library and find an actual rectangular book related to the clothing of the 14th to 16th centuries. You might also want to check into regional united kingdom folk magick for that same era. i'm sure you'll find some interesting overlaps. 70.61.247.31 ( talk) 21:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Try this:
( [13]) Totnesmartin ( talk) 19:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
--well that's kind of what the article I pointed to, talks about.... just not in great detail. As for the jews, they used a different form of hat, that does not resemble what one would commonly think of when thinking of a witches' hat. 70.61.247.31 ( talk) 21:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)