Talk:Witchcraft

Stating that witches are evil and intend to harm people needs to be removed. LadyNyx666 (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Few interested editors will see this message on your own user talk page. It might be better placed on the article's talk page at Talk:Witchcraft. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 20:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Good point, @Esowteric. I’ll move it. Shadestar474 ^(talk) 20:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly, @LadyNyx666. I practice some forms of witchcraft as well. But as I’ve been saying, it shouldn’t say that it’s always good. It shouldn’t say that it’s bad, either. It shouldn’t swing to either side of the argument. Shadestar474 ^(talk) 20:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

The article is based on scholarly opinion in reliable sources. Please read through the talk page archives where such issues have been discussed to death by experienced editors with knowledge of the field. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 20:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

So… you’re telling me what my practice is? LadyNyx666 (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

This is wild. I was told this was supposed to be unbiased. Saying witches have intent to harm people is very skewed. Witches basically served as nurses and midwives at one time. They kept communities healthy and were demonized for it by Christian’s who wanted power. I’m just asking you to make the wording unbiased. Witchcraft isn’t a joke. LadyNyx666 (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

@LadyNyx666: This article isn't about your practice. This article is about traditional and historical views of witchcraft. There is a separate article on Neopagan witchcraft, which was invented in the 1950s and is most likely what you practice. They are, according to sources, not related. Skyerise (talk) 22:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

lol again telling me what you think I practice rather than asking. I give Wiki money every year and have for at least 10 years. That’s over. 2605:59C8:895:1800:2161:5AA9:1FB8:7331 (talk) 01:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Good Riddance. The last think we need is someone using money to get his way in editorial work. Dimadick (talk) 04:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I was waiting for the "but I give money to wikipedia" comment to appear, and it magically appeared! I think the encyclopedia will survive. Netherzone (talk) 04:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

@LadyNyx666: If you can't figure out that a single word can refer to two different things and that therefore there will be two different articles about those two different things, then we don't need your input. Skyerise (talk) 11:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

This article is about Malificarum, not neo-paganism. As other have said, we have a separate article for that. and all cultures have malicious magic, so to claim that it only refers to a 19th European esoteric tradition is, "ethnocentric". Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

@Dimadick and Skyerise: Last time I checked, Wikipedia:Civility was still a policy here. Nosferattus (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you shouldn't name yourself after a term used to demonize people back then. Reclaiming is fine, but as long as your movement has not received scholarly attention, Wikipedia will not include your movement as Wikipedia is not about you as per WP:NOTABOUTYOU. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I completely agree, I find this article's introduction to have a very prevalent bias (whether it's intentional or not) compared to other Wikis on religion. The word "alleged" isn't used in other articles on pseudosciences, they're just described as belief systems. And it's describing witchcraft as inherently negative, which is not only untrue, but the most prevalent bias I've seen in a wiki article to date, especially one this popular. If anyone knows how I else I can report this for bias, please let me know JoeyTheHorrorBoy (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

@JoeyTheHorrorBoy, I suggest you read through the all of the discussion archives. There have been many discussions about such matters, over a long period of time. The results of which were resolved through consensus and the article has been stable for some time. Netherzone (talk) 00:28, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I have read through every discussion archive currently accessible under this page, and none have mentioned redirection (although some have mentioned bias before me). If there is a way to get more information , please let me know. I'm sure this article has been discussed & edited many times, but the phrasing & redirection issue are still here; I'm not reading an old version of the article. I'm not saying that works hasn't been done to stabilize the article, but I see an issue, so I'm commenting on it. I hope to see continuous improvement, as I and others still see an issue with it JoeyTheHorrorBoy (talk) 00:35, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

The topic of this article is not Neopagan witchcraft. It is witchcraft as viewed by 99% of the people throughout 99% of history. Starting in the 1930s, a different, non-historical view emerged. That view is represented in the articles Neopagan witchcraft and Wicca, which are essentially made-up views based on a debunked historical theory. You are arguing that this article should be changed based on a falsehood. Not gonna happen. The hatnote at the very top of the article explains exactly what the scope of the article is, and where to find information about related topics which are outside that scope. Basically, there is no problem here, the different meanings have been intentionally split with a clear explanation for those who read from the top and don't skip the hatnote. So, don't skip the hatnote, use it to find the article on the topic you want to read about. It's that simple. Skyerise (talk) 05:19, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Witchcraft was used as a form of medicine centuries ago, typically pursued by women who couldn't obtain medical qualifications. The masses didn't believe this, which can absolutely be cited, but you can't just lie and claim that witchcraft changed overnight with the neopaganism movement. Witchcraft isn't inherently based in any religion; Paganism, Neopaganism, and Wicca are religions that incorporate witchcraft, but the practice itself is purely spiritual, not religious. And no, not 99% of the world perceived witchcraft as evil.Please do your research before you claim to know what you're talking about; your bias is no use on this site JoeyTheHorrorBoy (talk) 15:01, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

"Do your own research." Not how this works. It is you who has to provide sources for the changes you want to make. The burden of proof is on you. See WP:BURDEN. Skyerise (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

https://www.history.com/topics/folklore/history-of-witches

https://stories.uq.edu.au/art-museum/2019/witches-in-history/index.html

https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/learn/histories/journey-into-witchcraft-beliefs/ JoeyTheHorrorBoy (talk) 15:21, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

The history channel also says that aliens built the pyramids. We'll stick with academic sources, thanks. MrOllie (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

https://orias.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/2011-moulton-ppt.pdf

https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/private-lives/religion/overview/witchcraft/

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/713111 JoeyTheHorrorBoy (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

And none of those actually support your argument. I guess we're done here - I won't be reviewing any more of the stuff you hastily dig up on google. MrOllie (talk) 15:33, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

What Skyerise is writing here is in agreement with mainstream academic sources (which are already cited in the article). What you are writing here sounds more like the Witch-cult hypothesis, which has been rejected by modern historians. MrOllie (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

YES! remove the idea that witches harm people through supernatural forces- it is an idea that perpetuates violence and discrimination towards those who do not follow a conservative Christian organized religious lifestyle. it is FALSE. it is discriminatory and dangerous. 2601:643:8582:1F70:A16C:5BBB:4AB9:DB69 (talk) 14:46, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

No it is not, as you are talking about Neo Pagans, we have a whole article on that, this is about traditional witchcraft. Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

IP 2601..., This has been discussed multiple times and consensus has been reached on the content of this article. If you were to read the talk page discussions and archives you will see that the topic of this article is based on mainstream, reliable academic sources about traditional witchcraft. There is no "conservative Christian organized religion" conspiracy here that's perpetuating falsehoods. As suggested above, Neopagan witchcraft, Wicca, Modern paganism and Witch-cult hypothesis are probably what you are looking for. Netherzone (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi Netherzone! I just wanted to ask if you meant mal-placed as in I should see if the edit I made fits in a different section of the page? Maybe putting it under the modern witch-hunts heading? Or if you meant something else? Sullyaire (talk) 16:28, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Who is Silvia Federici? Is she a major scholar in the field? Are her views shared by other experts in the economic development of early modern Europe? "Witch hunts contributed to the establishment of modern capitalism in Europe" is a somewhat odd claim, and it's not clear that it's important or widespread enough a belief to belong in the article. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 05:45, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

See wp:undue. Slatersteven (talk) 08:10, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry I should have included more from her book to give context to my edit and what Silvia Federici's argument is! She is a well-established scholar in women's history and a political theorist. In two of her books, Caliban and the Witch and Witches, Witch-hunting and Women, she looks at the exploitation of women and the expropriation of their land and labour as a driving factor for the transition from feudalism to early forms of capitalism. I thought it was important and quite relevant to include the consequences of witch-hunts, not just in terms of their social impact, but also how it brought about/contributed to economic change too. Federici's reading of witch-hunts shows what was at stake for women, who were directly targeted, and for the formation of economic systems. Sullyaire (talk) 19:31, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

It was mis-placed because it was plunked in the middle of a paragraph about accusations. I also agree with the editors above that it is giving undue weight to one person's theory as seen thru the lens of marxism. Netherzone (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see your point. I think it might fit better under the modern witch-hunts subsection? Or better yet the page on 'witch trials in the early modern period'? Sullyaire (talk) 19:50, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I think the content fits better and belongs on the Silvia Federici article in the "Scholarly contributions" section (rather than the witchcraft articles.) Netherzone (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm a new user here so I'm just curious why this might not fit on this article? (Just so I know for future editing!) Sullyaire (talk) 19:25, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is for summarizing mainstream accepted knowledge. New ideas that haven't yet reached wide acceptance usually do not belong on general articles, particularly not when cited to primary sources. MrOllie (talk) 19:47, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Reading the article and the talk section gives me the idea that people think witchcraft is actually real? As in magic and spells are real. We can talk about beliefs all day, but this isnt the place for opinions. Surely if it were real thered be some source you could link to? Lines like "Most of these societies have used protective magic or counter-magic against witchcraft" posits some logical, coherent physical system called "magic". Again, whilst not trying to offend anyone, we all know magic isnt real. 147.161.143.33 (talk) 08:26, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I think the article is generally fine. Right before the sentence you quote, the lead makes clear that this article is about the belief in magic, not the reality of magic. "The belief in witches has been found throughout history in a great number of societies worldwide", and even states directly that witchcraft is largely imaginary (I assume the "largely" is there to except purely psychological effects, or use of plants/chemicals that was actually effective). Most of the article consists of descriptions of the practices of believers. It would be tedious and repetitive to add "magic isn't real" or insert "alleged" to every single sentence in the article. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 10:28, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Right, we do not imply it is real. Also lets not forget, that the modern religion is not more or less real than any other religion. Thus should have the same status. Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

There have been several discussions on the talk page and archives about this, it was determined by consensus that the article should not imply that witchcraft and/or magic is real, or that witches have supernatural powers. The article seems OK and has been fairly stable for a while. Netherzone (talk) 11:14, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

"In these societies, practitioners of helpful magic provide (or provided) services such as breaking the effects of witchcraft, healing, divination, finding lost or stolen goods, and love magic."

Ill say it again, magic isnt real. Nobody can provide magical services. Wasnt it "determined by consensus that the article should not imply that witchcraft and/or magic is real, or that witches have supernatural powers."?? 147.161.143.33 (talk) 11:38, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

The context of that is societies that believed in magic used magic to counter magic. "Most societies that have believed in harmful or black magic have also believed in helpful or white magic." we do not say it was real, we say people believed in it. Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Thats correct, but your quoted line precedes mine. In the line Ive quoted, "believed" is not mentioned anywhere. It also mentions "love magic" as if it were a concept, and not just fantasy. Magic is not real. Why is it easier to write as if magic were real? How much effort is it really saving? Im dubious about the initial justification for granting credence to these delusions about reality 147.161.143.33 (talk) 13:30, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

NO, because it is talking about the societies in the line before it. We expect our readers to be able to read context. My last word on this is read wp:bludgeon. Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

No what? You keep mentioning context as if it qualifies everything thereafter as a belief - it doesnt 147.161.144.255 (talk) 14:17, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

The article is clear enough about this already. We don't need to embed a disclaimer in every sentence. MrOllie (talk) 14:19, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

seriously how many words are you saving? one or two? there arent many places it occurs. why such opposition to it? im not proposing a rewrite of the entire article, only the places where we seem to flirt with language that suggests magic is real, "but its ok because we said its not real elsewhere".... why even be in the position in the first place? Id say its because there are people contributing to this article who actually believe this stuff is real and expect us to believe it too 147.161.143.33 (talk) 15:02, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

This would be an easy fix - by stating: "In these societies, practitioners of helpful magic provide (or provided) services believe their services provide such as breaking the effects of witchcraft, healing, divination, finding lost or stolen goods, and love magic."

If everyone is good with that revision, I'll change the sentence for clarification sake. If there is opposition to this minor rewording, I will leave it as is. Netherzone (talk) 19:04, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I say WP:Be bold and go for it. It's better than the current wording. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:07, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

If we must so as to avoid confusing people, we must, but I would caution about over-egging the cake. Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I think that change is for the worse. The current wording reflects how magic is discussed in sources. Throughout much of world, across thousands of years of human history, people could and did go to their local cunning man, witchdoctor, or priest-wizard to receive certain services. They were generally ineffective, but that doesn't change the fact that this is a thing that happened. I don't think it suggests that magic is real to plainly describe what these people were doing. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 10:50, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

is "traditionally" not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Relative_time_references ? is ok? ~2025-34071-78 (talk) 19:39, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

I think you meant MOS:RELTIME or MOS:REALTIME. "Traditionally" is specifically called out in that section several times. The section even says ""Traditional" is particularly pernicious." It looks like there was a whole committee discussion about what the opening should be, so I'm not sure why no one else seems to have noticed that. Maybe those discussions consensus overrides guidelines? ~2025-43843-26 (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

The first few sentences are a bodged together compromise resulting from lots of complaints, disruption, and then a long and involved discussion. Personally I think it's terrible prose, with the combination of "Traditionally" and "remains the most common meaning" basically saying "this is what it used to mean but it still does". But even if it's not perfect, it's not worth getting another RFC going to change consensus. In regards to that MOS section, I don't know if it applies here, because "traditionally" is being used as a summary, and the body of the article does go into more detail about where and when specifically we're talking about. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 07:57, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

The statement about it "remaining the most common meaning" is certainly debatable, but I agree its not worth a new RFC. Nosferattus (talk) 05:19, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

@Slatersteven, I can see a 2023 RfC on the first paragraph, would you be okay with me reinstating the other changes? The lead currently goes into undue detail on medieval Europe, and has very little about anywhere else. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 11:52, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

You need to be clear, as to what changes you wish to make. Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

The changes here excluding those to the first paragraph (ie. leaving the first paragraph alone). Re Accusations are often rooted in social tensions., there's Throughout the world, accusations of witchcraft are often linked to social and economic tensions. in the body along with other content supporting that. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 12:01, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Why remove sourced content and replace it with unsourced content? Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Nothing's unsourced, it's cited in the body. The content removed re medieval Europe is also in the body, but we can put it in an {{efn}} if you prefer? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 12:22, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

And I am unsure that "most recent" equates to all. So it needs (assuming we need it in the lede) rewriting, to not put what is an opinion as if it's a fact. Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Where are you seeing "most recent"? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 12:30, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

The body, and with that I think it is time for others to join in. Slatersteven (talk) 12:32, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

"most recent" doesn't appear in the body? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 12:36, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Did you mean "more recent"? I assume you think the changes are POV? pg 70 of Wiley's Handbook on Anthropology in Africa says

One of the things that distinguishes Africanist scholarship on witchcraft is its focus on what could be considered the more positive dimensions of witchcraft ideas and practices, specifically two: (i) especially in older, structural functionalist ethnography, the emphasis on maintaining social and cosmological order and (ii), in more recent ethnographies, witchcraft as a critical commentary on, and even a practical impediment to, the excesses of post‐colonial capitalism and the violence of everyday life; for some, witchcraft can be read as a popular cultural critique not unrelated to other cultural critiques, such as Marxism.

(it then goes into more detail). The negative aspects are how accusations are dealt with, and to a lesser extent the effect on development and Africa's image. We mention witch hunts in the lead. For Witchcraft in Africa and the body of this article I’ve tried to find an overview source that discusses how witchcraft is 'remedied' but have struggled. AFAICT from specific examples it ranges from mob violence, poison trials, court remedies like fines, ostracisation, to attempting to cure the 'witch' w traditional medicine etc. There are on this sort of thing, and more at HeinOnline (I was cautious about these sources as they're edited/published by student bodies, but tbf they’ve got a hell of a lot of cites) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 10:28, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

@Slatersteven, can I go ahead with the changes outlined here? Btw I've added more to the body on accusations, violence, and legal perspectives Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 23:43, 31 May 2026 (UTC)