Talk:Witchcraft

I tried to add some form of explanation to the lead as to what neopagan witchcraft is as the lead provides no explanation whatsoever and does not distinguish it from the "harmful" witchcraft discussed in the first three paragraphs. I thought this would be helpful, especially since this difference seems to be a common point of contention on the talk page. However, my additions were immediately reverted as "fringe". The fact that neopagan witchcraft exists and what it entails is not "fringe". I'm happy to modify my content to be as rigorous and verifiable as possible, but there has to be some way to describe neopagan witchcraft (besides just calling it a "belief" or "practice") without violating the policies of Wikipedia. Here is the paragraph that I tried to add:
Starting in the 1930s, followers of certain types of modern paganism began to identify as witches and reclaimed the term "witchcraft" as part of their beliefs and practices.^[1][2][3] Neopagan witchcraft may combine aspects of magic, nature worship, divination, and herbalism,^[4] and is typically practiced with the goal of self-help or healing.^[5][6] Other neo-pagans avoid the term "witchcraft" due to its negative connotations.^[7]

Please let me know how this content can be improved or if it's fine as is. Nosferattus (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Do not change redefined. Slatersteven (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

OK, I changed reclaimed back to redefined. Seems like a very minor distinction, but whatever. Nosferattus (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

How would you feel about the term reappropriated? Nosferattus (talk) 22:17, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Reappropriation usually means that a group is changing the meaning of a pejorative term for that same group.

But the POV of historians and anthropologists is that historical witchcraft is distinct from neopaganism. The article should not conflate the two, even in minor ways. MrOllie (talk) 22:46, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, historical witchcraft is distinct from neopaganism, but the group being demeaned is the same: women. There are plenty of academic sources stating that modern witches have "reclaimed" the word. Here are a few examples:

• "There is little doubt that the reclaiming of the word witch is a powerful act of opposition and identity creation for many in the movement."^[1]
• "... many feminists, both female and male, have reclaimed the word witch to describe themselves as a political statement in recognition of the history, since the Middle Ages, of the oppression of women and folk healing by male-dominated society and medicine."^[2]
• "Recently, however, female-centric spiritual movements have reclaimed the word witch, viewing it as a stereotype that can be turned on those who use it pejoratively."^[3]
• "Today's witches have reclaimed the word 'witch,' using it in a positive sense to revivify what they see as ancient occult practices being used in a modem context."^[4]

I could only find one academic source that says modern witches have "redefined" witch or witchcraft, and ironically this source also uses "reclaimed":

• "They also reclaimed the word witch, redefining it as a term for rebellious, brave, and independent women."^[5]

But perhaps there are other sources I have overlooked. Nosferattus (talk) 07:56, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

My change of 'redefined' to 'reclaimed' has been reverted 3 times now by Slatersteven. The sources clearly favor 'reclaimed' and no one has presented evidence to the contrary. Arguing about the semantics of the word 'reclaimed' is original research and not convincing anyway. This is clearly the term that academics consistently use to describe the recent evolution of the terminology. As WP:Verifyability states: "content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, experiences, or previously unpublished ideas or information." Nosferattus (talk) 16:47, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

This page is about witchcraft, not witch. Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Actually, witch redirects here and is one of the topics of the article, bolded in the second sentence of the lead, and called-out in a hatnote. This was done by consensus long ago. I'm sure it's somewhere in the talk page archives. Skyerise (talk) 17:35, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

OK, so then there seems to be no valid objection to this change. Slatersteven (talk) 17:52, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Which change? If we are talking about using "reclaimed", that relies on the debunked Witch-cult hypothesis. Those redefining the word may have believed they were reclaiming it, but they were mistaken, so it should stay "redefined". You can't reclaim something that was never yours: modern neopagan witches don't accept the negative magic definition, which is the only definition that existed prior to the redefinition that might be available to be "claimed" or "reclaimed". Only evil witches could "reclaim" the original definition of witchcraft or witch. If you mean, should we add a brief gloss or definition to the last paragraph of the lead, that's not something I would object to, as long as it is brief and doesn't use the word "reclaimed". Skyerise (talk) 18:07, 6 March 2025 (UTC)]

We have RS saying it, we need RS to challenge it, What with have is assertions. Slatersteven (talk) 18:16, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

@Skyerise: Your explanation of what "reclaimed" means doesn't make sense to me. All reclaimed terms were negative before being reclaimed; it doesn't mean that the group reclaiming the term actually has to embody those negative qualities (or even belong to the original group). For example, women don't have to have lots of sex to reclaim the term "slut". And the most famous example of someone reclaiming the word "fag" was by a woman. Regardless, Wikipedia follows reliable sources. If reliable sources say that modern witches have reclaimed the term, that's what Wikipedia should say as well. Nosferattus (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

@Nosferattus: then it belongs in the Neopagan witchcraft article, not here. Skyerise (talk) 23:32, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Maybe as an attributed opinion, not a fact. Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Why not as a fact? Are there any reliable sources that dispute it? Nosferattus (talk) 16:36, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

The problem is this claim of reclaiming is (in a sense) a neologism that compares an ancient accusation with modern neopaganism. As such the two things are distinct, and we cannot imply they are not. Thus we need to make sure we do not conflate the two, that some poor woman killed for being a witch has no real connection with modern witches. Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I've returned the lead to the state it was a few days ago, plus the few changes in grammar. Under the principle that the lead should reflect the body, I don't think we need more about neopagan witchcraft than those bare couple sentences. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:04, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

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)