Talk:Witch-hunt

Cereal crops

Why do we have to use the awkward "cereal crops" when there's a perfectly good word "corn" available? Are we dumbing Wikipedia down here? Assuming that "corn" will always mean maize, not other cereals, "America" will always mean the US, not the continents of North and South America, and "root canal" will always mean endodontic therapy, not the anatomical structure? That "Nike" will always be a brand of shoe and never a Greek deity? Fuzzypeg★ 02:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

McCarthyism

personaly i think witchcraft is a load of rubbish I removed a paragraph saying that the word witchhunt has been applied to describe McCarthyism, as it has no source, but I search Google and I see that some people really use this word, eg see [2] or [3]. I am not sure whether this is something that should be included in this or another article. What do you think? NerdyNSK (talk) 03:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

McCarthyism was very famously termed a 'witch-hunt', and is largely responsible for the modern popularity of the term. It's well worth including in this article, and it shouldn't be too hard to track down a reliable source. Fuzzypeg★ 21:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I see that you have found two references to books, thanks for referencing the article. NerdyNSK (talk) 12:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Checking these books on Google Books, I read that in page 229 of The Path of the Devil book, Jensen writes that framing McCarthyism as a witchhunt is often used as a political strategy in discrediting McCarthyism. I think this info should be included in the paragraph to show that calling McCarthyism a witchhunt cannot be assumed to be simply an apolitical, neutral, or scientific fact, but is often associated with politics, personal perceptions, and socially constructed realities. Also, it would be a good idea when referencing books to include the pages where you found the information that supports the paragraphs in our article. Thanks again for helping to find the references, I just wanted to improve it. NerdyNSK (talk) 12:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)♥☻☺♦♣♠•◘○☺0o♀♪♫☼►◄↕‼¶§▬↨↑↓→←∟↔▲▼

Seems like we're already taking sides on McCarthyism: "McCarthyism is the politically motivated practice of making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence." I think that, at this point in history, McCarthyism is sufficiently discredited that we need not make the pretence of scientific objectivity, any more than we are obliged to take a non-judgemental view of the witch trials. --Forrest Johnson (talk) 15:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"Sufficiently discredited" by whom? The far-left? The same far-left that coined the term "McCarthyism" and that started referring to government hearings as "witch trials"? FYI, there have been many good books published in the last few years which vindicate Senator McCarthy. Clearly your intent is to politicize this article, not to make it more relevant to its subject.

Regarding your statement about not taking a "non-judgemental view of the witch trials," there are a few notable authors who suggest that the witch hunts weren't entirely without justification, such as Colin Wilson and Montague Summers. You may not agree with them, but their views should be fairly represented if the intention is to create a balanced article. Is your intent to create a balanced article? Or do you see an encyclopedia as being a soapbox for its authors? Bowdlerized (talk) 23:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Concerning the apologists for Joseph McCarthy: "These viewpoints are considered revisionist by most credentialed scholars. Challenging such efforts aimed at the "rehabilitation" of McCarthy, historian John Earl Haynes argues that McCarthy's attempts to "make anti-communism a partisan weapon" actually "threatened [the post-War] anti-Communist consensus," thereby ultimately harming anti-Communist efforts more than helping. With regard to Coulter's views in particular, the response among scholars has been all but universally negative, even among authors generally regarded as conservative or right-wing."

If you think this characterization is unfair, you should probably go and change the article. If, on the other hand, you really think that McCarthy got a bad rap and that the witch trials were justified, where's the problem? --Forrest Johnson (talk) 18:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

This article needs more mention of hysterias and moral panics that result in individual persecutions, like the anarchist imprisonments and executions of the late 1800's and early 1900's, the satanist sex abuse witch hunts of the 1960's, 70's, and 80's, the mass imprisonments and sex offender registrations of the 1990's and 2000's, etc, in addition to the famed mccarthyism of the 1950's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.217.107 (talk) 03:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Why? Bowdlerized (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Adding petition link

There is a petition going for the woman accused of witchcraft in Saudi Arabia: www.petitiononline.com/AIDFAWZA/petition.html Do you think we can include it in the text discussing the case? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.39.17 (talk) 14:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Excuse for seizure of property?

I don't see anything in this article about using accusations of witchcraft as a pretense for seizing someone's property, thereby enriching the local medieval government and/or accusers. Does that belong in another article or what? Tkech (talk) 02:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

You may possibly find something about confiscations at Witch trials in Early Modern Europe, but with a quick search I couldn't see anything. There needs to be a whole lot more information added about the various factors that encouraged the hunts, and confiscations were indeed an element in some places. We should be careful, though, not to over-generalise these factors: confiscations, for example, were only legally enacted in certain countries and certain periods. Many other contributing factors to the witch craze at various places and times have also been proposed. Fuzzypeg★ 22:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

A good deal of property changed hands as a result of the Salem witch trials. In the 19th Century this was a common explanation for the Salem witch scare, but it fails close scrutiny, and most historians today consider it at most a secondary motive. --Forrest Johnson (talk) 15:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested articles

On Wikipedia:WikiProject Netherlands/Article requests are three article requests related to witch trials in the Netherlands, maybe some of this article's editors could help create them?

• Anna Muggen (requested since 12 November 2007)
• Triene Langheldes (requested since 12 November 2007)
• Witch hunt in the Netherlands (requested since 23 July 2007)

Thanks, Ilse@ 15:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Ortodox witch trials missing!

The article informs about catholic and protestant witch trials, but lacks coverage about witch trials in ortodox Europe, such as Russia. According to Russian language wikipedia, they did ecxist, although they were not as known or large as in Western Europe. Perhaps someone with knowledge can fix this? There should be specific articles about the most famous witch trial in Russia, etc, but the subject should at least be mentioned here. --Aciram (talk) 10:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. If I stay bored long enough, maybe I'll do it. In the meantime, perhaps you can provide a few interesting links to get started with? Qwasty (talk) 06:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is one link from Russian wikipedia: http://asher.ru/library/religen/hunting If the articles is stub-started, they can always be expanded later, perhaps by people with book-references. --Aciram (talk) 00:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Lynching in the 19th-century

I have added : However, even after legal trials and executions had stopped, the belief in witches resulted in lynchings in the 19th-century, such as the cases of Anna Klemens in Denmark 1800, Krystyna Ceynowa in Poland 1836, and Dummy, the Witch of Sible Hedingham in 1863 in England. Perhaps there should be a section about the witch lynchings of the 19th-century? Not to mention the case of Barbara Zdunk (1811), although just as dubious as the case of Anna Göldi, took place in the 19th-century. --85.226.41.31 (talk) 12:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia witch-hunt

This american site: [Saudi] talks about another person sent to death for witchcraft in Saudi Arabia.Agre22 (talk) 12:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)agre22

See also

• Talk:Witch trials

Chuck Norris

Yes, the source does name him. Yet a single child's mistaken identification in a very large case doesn't really rise to the level of a witch hunt. The source names Norris as just one out of several wildly implausible identifications that child had made (including four nuns). It constitutes a WP:SYNTH violation to assert that Norris himself was the subject of a witch hunt on the basis of that. The employees of the center were the real targets of the case. Durova⁴¹² 06:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about a single child's misidentification. It is an example accusation from over 350 accusers in this case centering around magic rituals. Similar ridiculousness occurred in the Salem witch trials, where prominent public figures were being accused, which led to the end of the witch-hunt. The information is factual, so its deletion was reverted. Qwasty (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the assertion that the accusation against Chuck Norris led to the dismissal of the case? If so, please expand the statement to clarify that. Otherwise it's WP:SYNTH. Durova⁴¹² 17:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about. I don't see any assertions you mention. Where does the article say "the accusation against Chuck Norris led to the dismissal of the case"? I'm looking at the United States section. Is that where you're looking? Qwasty (talk) 01:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You wrote "Similar ridiculousness occurred in the Salem witch trials, where prominent public figures were being accused, which led to the end of the witch-hunt." Unless you have sourcing to specifically make that comparison, it's a violation of the original synthesis clause. It's probably also a WP:UNDUE violation unless several reliable sources really specify that that child's identification of this actor was a turning point in the case. If it's allowable then the statement needs to be contextualized; the entire paragraph needs to be contextualized. That trial ended twenty years ago and most readers under the age of forty or outside the United States are unlikely to understand the background. Imagine yourself in the position of such a reader, click on the link to the article about the trial, and read its first paragraph. The inclusion of any living person's name in connection to this article's summary paragraph needs to be expressed with the utmost caution, due to the issues which predominated at that trial. If it isn't really necessary to name him, probably it's better that we not do so. Durova⁴¹² 04:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You're talking about a phrase on this page, NOT the USA section of the article, so I won't address that part of your comment. The summary is factual and relevant to the article.

The context is correct: Chuck Norris was identified in the same manner as all the other accusations listed (and unlisted). The fact that Chuck Norris actually exists, while the witches and corpses do not, is irrelevant.

Most of the cases in this article are hundreds of years old, so the fact that this one is over 20 years old is irrelevant.

The background of this case is available in the trial's main article page and in that article's citations. I suppose you could add more information, by why would you want to when the article is long as it is, and there's a dedicated article for McMartin trial already?

It seems you are still looking for reasons to remove this fact. Unless you can find one that's more solid, I think it is very notable, and adds some depth to understanding the nature of the accusations, and so should not be removed. Qwasty (talk) 18:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

<moved>

I removed Chuck Norris a while ago and gave a good reason: this is a very short summary of a six year long trial. One mistaken mention in a massive trial does not warrant a place in a summary. Chuck Norris has a place in the article concerning this trial, but the mention is much to trivial to be repeated here. Further more, the text says: "The victims were accused of satanic ritual abuse in underground tunnels, involving flying witches, Chuck Norris..." That is a total misrepresentation of the facts and the case: the facts, as far as I've read the reference given, are he was pointed out on a photo by one kid, but it turned out he had NO involvement. Mentioning him here is very misleading to readers of Wikipedia and sensation seeking imo, so please stop adding him without any proper justification (the fact a reference exists is not a reason to add him). Joost 99 (talk) 11:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

This section is not for discussion of Chuck Norris. There is already a section for that, where the issue was already resolved. If you have more to add, add it there. Qwasty (talk) 18:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

<moved>

Sorry I missed this part of the discussion, so I moved it. But reading this, the issue was not "resolved" as you state, it was just abandoned. The reason User:Durova and I have given for removing him are very reasonable: his mention in the trial is trivial in this case. He already has a mention in the McMartin preschool trial where it belongs.

You say it "...adds some depth to understanding the nature of the accusations, and so should not be removed". How can mentioning Chuck Norris add depth to accusations in a child abuse case that has nothing to do with him. It only adds confusion. It would only add depth when put into context, which clearly cannot be done in a summary. So please explain yourself further, because what you are saying makes no sense to me. Joost 99 (talk) 19:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Joost 99 and Durova. To be precise, the source doesn't even claim Chuck Norris was involved - a child pointed to an image of Chuck Norris. Did the child recognize him? Dubious. Saying "I was abused my a man who looked like this" isn't saying "I was abused by Chuck Norris." And while we're at it, the source also doesn't mention "flying witches". The only mention of witches by that source was "female teachers dressed at witches". Huon (talk) 23:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about Chuck Norris. That's why the entire sections are being blanked. I'm not going to discuss Chuck Norris unless the sections cease being completely blanked. Until then, it's irrelevant. Qwasty (talk) 09:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Relation to plague?

A History Channel program (I know, but this one sounded okay) suggested a direct link between the plague and witchcraft. In Germany specifically, flagellants had dominated the scene as the plague was running its course. The church was afraid to stop them. After they became corrupt, the church helped stop them. Then the people turned to witchcraft to explain the plague. The idea that the devil might be involved seemed to have merit, since no one had any real idea how the plague spread. About the same time, the Germans decided that the Jews were involved and tortured confessions out of them to "prove" it, and pogromed the survivors into Poland. All plague-related. Haven't found anything reliable online yet that corresponds, but IMO it sounds credible for that single time frame, 14th century or so. Student7 (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The article already contains some information on this. It's a plausible example of god of the gaps. Qwasty (talk) 03:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

United Kingdom (Misleading)

The Witchcraft act of 1973, according to the BBC[4] was designed to get rid of suspicion of Witches and did not criminalise being a witch, instead criminalising the claiming to have such abilities. It's somewhat problematic to use this as a United Kingdom section in "Witch-hunt" since it looks like the UK was prosecuting witches up to the 1950s. None the less, the Jane Rebecca Yorke case did have some unexplained oddities associated with it, and it was knowledge of a military secret which drew the authorities attention to her, so I don't think it should go, but I did add to the top of it a clarification on the purpose of said act, hopefully a more experienced editor can resolve these problems further. 82.132.136.205 (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The headline figure of 100k should also be weighted against claims that only 2 witches were recorded to be burnt in the UK and a total of 500 punished by death on conviction for witchcraft; as claimed in QI. I don't have proper sources I'm afraid. The 100k figure is very shaky to say the least but the header doesn't make this clear: the trials reported would be the ones where convictions were made, this would seriously skew the figures arrived at. Pbhj (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what headline you're referring to, but the 100k deaths are an estimate for all of Europe. The relevant footnote gives various estimates and explains the reasoning behind them. Huon (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I tried to fix it. Under the heading "witch-hunt", we need to clearly distinguish

• persecution and execution of witches sponsored by the law. This is mostly historical, except in Saudi Arabia and possibly countries like Cameroon and Togo
• lynching of witches by mobs. This is ongoing in Africa and India
• legislation that puts fines or mild prison terms on "defrauding the public" with claims of occult powers. These aren't literal witch-hunts, and nobody dies
• moral panics like the "ritual abuse" thing in the USA. These are a bit "like" witch hunts, but not literal witch hunts and again, nobody dies, although careers were ruined and long prison sentences would have been involved if the charges hadn't been dropped
• "witch-hunt" as a mere metaphor, as in McCarthyism

strictly, only the first two items are the topic of this articles, although the others may of course be mentioned. --dab (𒁳) 07:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

we get it already, Chuck Norris is an internet meme, and it is hilarious that he was mentioned in connection with the ritual abuse thing. It's funny, but it's not relevant. --dab (𒁳) 21:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Chuck Norris specifically should be removed but the SRA moral panic was in some cases a literal witch hunt, I would say at least as applicable as McCarthyism (to which it has been compared). In fact, I would suggest taking the focus off of the McMartin trial and broadening it out to the entire phenomenon. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

No, the SRA panic was not "a literal witch-hunt". Neither was McCarthyism. If you want to introduce a expand the section of "metaphorical use", citing evidence that SRA and McCarthyism have been compared to witch-hunts, that would be fine with me. But please stop including these items into the section on contemporary actual witch-hunts in Africa, India and Arabia.

The mention of these issues at Witch-hunt#Metaphorical_usage is entirely WP:DUE. Note how we have no article on witch-trials in Saudi Arabia. This here is the only article that discusses them. The SRA thing, by contrast, has a full set of insanely detailed articles dedicated to it. It is tangential to this topic, an can just be linked.

• witch-hunts: "this woman is a sorceress, kill her"
• SRA panic: "this woman has raped our children because she is an evil godless satanist. sue her ass."

I recognize that the SRA panic has been compared to witch-hunts. I also recognize that both SRA and witch-hunts qualify as moral panic and are thus related phenomena (of a category to be discussed at the moral panic article). But I dispute your claim that "the SRA moral panic was in some cases a literal witch hunt" and would ask you to cite WP:RS to the effect before reverting.

--dab (𒁳) 12:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I won't revert, but I will say that "literal witch hunt" is in some cases accurate - children were provoked to say they were abused by women doing magic (witches) and this led to a criminal investigation (a hunt). When you say mentioning SRA and McCarthyism is WP:DUE, do you mean it is DUE weight to mention them and therefore should be included, or UNDUE weight to mention them and should therefore be removed? If we don't have a section discussing the metaphorical uses, which are dominant in North American and Europe, then the page is missing something. I don't mind the more detailed summary of the SRA moral panic being removed, but how would you feel about a single, sourced sentence or list of modern examples of things called witch hunts? Much as we're not a dictionary, the political and criminal implications of witch hunts are part of the idea. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

sorry, but this is not a literal witch-hunt. A literal witch-hunt is when those doing the hunting believe they are hunting actual sorcerers. When I say DUE I mean that SRA and McCism should be mentioned but under "metaphorical". Since we already do have such a section and I am not proposing to remove it, I don't quite see why you are proposing we should have one. The fact that "witch-hunt" in colloquial use mostly refers to moral panic in general is a mater for disambiguation. --dab (𒁳) 08:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thinking about this, there may be grounds for arguing that witch-hunts do not just happen in the third world but also within religious extremism as it exists in developed countries. But it cannot be argued that witches are persecuted in court in any western democracy, because there simply isn't any basis for that. Still there are enough religious nutcases in the west to stage "literal witch-hunts" on their own authority. Now this needs to remain in perspective. In India we are looking at a severe social problem with 150 women dead each year. In US Christian fundamentalism, we will probably be hard put to find a single witch killed in 50 years. In fact, the best instance of Christians "persecuting" what they apparently thought were witches is this (from Religious discrimination against Neopagans):

In 2006, members of "Youth 2000", a conservative Catholic organisation, on visit to Father Kevin Knox-Lecky of St Mary's church, Glastonbury, attacked pagans by throwing salt at them and told them they "would burn in hell". Knox-Lecky apologized and said he would not invite the group again. The police warned two women and arrested one youth on suspicion of harassment. ["Pagans are a-salt-ed". The Sun. http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006510299,00.html.  Shaikh, Thair (2006-11-04). "Catholic marchers turn on Glastonbury pagans". The Guardian (London). http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1939477,00.html. Retrieved 2010-05-22. ]

So salt was thrown at presumed pagans or sorcerers. This is a hilarious example of a magical worldview on the Christian side, but I think that's about as bad as it gets. --dab (𒁳) 09:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Your argument implies that a witch hunt only exists of an actual witch exists - which would discount any witch hunt in which the hunters thought someone was a witch when the person themselves disagrees. I find it a curious interpretation - but do agree that it is more justified to put McCarthyism and the SRA moral panics in the metaphorical uses section. So I consider that settled (pending the other talk page sections I have yet to review) - brief mention in the "metaphorical" section.

Your point about fundies in the developed world requires sources - ideally not newspaper articles but rather books and scholarly papers. I'm guessing there's a source out there that discusses witch/pagan perceptions within the developed world, but I don't think using newspapers is a good idea. All is dependent on finding reliable sources but I'd very much rather the newspaper references not be used. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

RLEK figures for India

"200 per year, or a total of 2,500 in the period of 1995 to 2010"

I realize this doesn't compute (2,500 in 15 years would amount to 166 per year), but it's what the study says, and these are probably rough estimates anyway. --dab (𒁳) 07:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

ah, correction, one source says "150-200". The other apparently picked the higher figure (tabloid journalism). --dab (𒁳) 07:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

No literal witch-hunts are known to have taken place in the United States

I have removed the phrase "No literal witch-hunts are known to have taken place in the United States.", added 22:44, 18 September 2010 by Dbachmann:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Witch-hunt&oldid=385617056

Qwasty (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I discovered a similar phrase inserted in the UK section. It doesn't make any sense where it was placed, so it was removed also. Qwasty (talk) 23:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

UK section undue weight tag

Dbachmann has placed an undue weight tag on the UK section. To provide a place for discussion, I've made this section. Since Dbachmann didn't make this section, I'll wait a period of time for an explanation of the tag before I remove it. Qwasty (talk) 23:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

USA section undue weight tag

Dbachmann has placed an undue weight tag on the USA section. To provide a place for discussion, I've made this section. Since Dbachmann didn't make this section, I'll wait a period of time for an explanation of the tag before I remove it. Qwasty (talk) 23:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Africa - Real witches?

Is it still a witch-hunt if you find actual witches? How should this be incorporated into the article? Our Africa section is pretty f'd up, but it turns out that Africa itself is even more f'd up:

• Persecution of people with albinism
• Adam (unsolved Thames murder case)
• [5]
• Muti#Mutilation
• Medicine murder
• Witchcraft#Africa

So, from the list above, you can see that Africa has "real" witches, and sometimes there's a hunt for them, and sometimes there isn't. Sometimes they're the usual suspects - Africans - but they live in the UK. Most of the article deals with the kind of witches that don't exist, including in Africa. What do we do with the ones that DO exist? Does the phrase "witch hunt" only apply to imaginary witches?

Clearly, some witch hunts are searching for real witches in the context of criminal investigations, with no element of moral panic or mass hysteria. How should the article represent those? Opinions?

Qwasty (talk) 06:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

sheesh, man, the definition of "witch-hunt", and the fact that the SRA and UK law do not qualify, have been discussed at length just above. You simply ignored the discussion and restored the content. Now you have the nerve to ask for an explanation for what has just been explained in detail. Pull your own weight please.

Preferably, read the article first. A "real witch-hunt" is not a hunting of "real witches", it is persecution motivated by real belief in witches on the part of the persecutors. Sorry, but your "contributions" are just confused. --dab (𒁳) 11:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

This section is about Africa. I see no section about UK SRA. If you want a section about UK SRA, create one. Also, please keep your hostility to a minimum. Qwasty (talk) 18:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Revert war

The current revert war seems rather pointless. The UK section's content was almost entirely a duplicate of stuff already mentioned in the "End of European witch hunts" section. I've moved what little non-duplicate content the UK section had to that place. The US section conflated, as Dbachmann pointed out, the literal witch-hunts of Africa and India with the metaphorical use of the term. The closest the pre-school trial comes to a literal witch hunt is claims that some of the accused wore witch costumes, and that one flew through the air. But that wasn't what they were accused of, and it's rather irrelevant to the moral panic and the trial itself. Thus I've added two sentences to the "metaphorical use" section, backed up by the one source that actually discusses the trial in connection with witch hunts (the others didn't even mention the term). The other changes, such as moving a paragraph from the history section to the lead, seemed uncontroversial. Huon (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

well, no case has been made as to why the SRA topic should be duplicated in both the "metaphorical" section and another "United States" section. In fact, no coherent case has been made whatsoever, so that as far as I can see we're just looking at disruption based on a personal whim. There is no way you can argue with that. --dab (𒁳) 15:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree that it's unnecessary duplication. Keep SRA to the metaphorical section along with McCarthyism - which requires its own source and a sentence or two for context. SRA was compared to McCarthyism which was itself called a witch hunt, an interesting chain that should be referenced for each link. Right now SRA has a see also and a sentence, but McCarthyism has only the see also, which leaves it lacking context. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The United States section is not about SRA. Both the western nations sections, UK and USA, are being blanked despite being highly notable. The facts of the sections are not even controversial. The cases cited are frequently referred to as witch-hunts by researchers. The reverts dbachmann is doing are not just affecting those two sections, or just mentions of SRA. It's also wiping out numerous other edits by other users, as well as approved bots. As such, any other discussion is a red herring, and I maintain that such destruction is vandalism and entirely unjustifiably. Qwasty (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the US and UK sections is that they're not really about "modern witch hunts" in the non-metaphorical sense, under which they're grouped. If you claim they are, provide reliable sources that say so. As I mentioned above, sourcing for the SRA "witch hunt" is rather poor.

Regarding "vandalism", you should assume good faith. If three editors disagree with your reasoning, you should probably explain it instead of just reverting on your own. And for the record, all the other users' edits I found included in Dbachmann's reverts was this one, which you reverted just as happily and even declined to discuss, and the bot edit reverted was this, which mainly consisted of capitalizing template names (utterly irrelevant), dating the tags on the sections that were removed anyway, and moving a single semicolon. In order to make you happy, I'll move the semicolon when I revert to the version that appears closer to achieving consensus. Then the bot edits won't be lost. And since I'll remove what Joost 99 removed, his edits won't be lost either. So much for red herrings. Will you now discuss the merits of your own reversals? Huon (talk) 18:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

If anything the McMartin trial should be folded into a general comment on the SRA moral panic since there were many trials that involved essentially the same issues. The SRA moral panic did involve a small amount of hunting-of-witches (dubiously, really only the nutter Christian right thought there was actual witches involved) but it was mostly about child abuse and crimes (and underneath it all, fear and shoddy interviewing techniques). It certainly wasn't a witch hunt the same way the Spanish Inquisition was a witch hunt. The term "witch hunt" was certainly applied, but as a metaphor rather than a literal hunt-for-witches which is why it's appropriate to place it in the metaphor section. The information on the UK (this version) should probably be integrated into the history sections on Early Modern Europe and End of European witch hunts in the 18th century (which is a very awkward title) rather than being a standalone. It does show an interesting progression, but one easily captured in a single line in the latter section.

Note that dbachmann is not engaging in vandalism, please review the definition. And there are now three people who are arguing against your revert, so please try to drum up consensus here first rather than brute-forcing it through. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The witch hunts evolved, rather than ended definitively. The UK section in particular illustrates this most nicely. Huon asks for cites, which I was in the process of adding before every edit I've made was reverted, even edits that have nothing to do with the UK and USA sections. Both the UK and USA sections are relevant and notable enough that even if you hold a definition of witch hunt that includes persecution of witchcraft as long as it avoids the use of the word "witch", still belongs in the article. Arbitrarily cutting off a continuous evolution of witch hunting when it envelopes western nations is censorship. Qwasty (talk) 19:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Dbachmann was instantly insulting and hostile, and even engaged in a red herring smear campaign, all without responding to my request for civil discussion. An assumption of good faith in the face of such aggression is clearly contrary to reality. Dbachmann clearly has a confrontational character which is his problem to overcome, not mine. Since these attempts to censor mention of modern western nations come from him, the onus is on him to make a case for why they should be removed. Name calling and insinuations of stupidity do not count. Qwasty (talk) 19:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Mass reverts of unrelated edits will be undone unless relation and justification is presented. Reverting simply because the edits were done by myself, the bots, or users other than Dbachmann will not be accepted. Qwasty (talk) 19:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I think if you tried to revert to your preferred version, you would find yourself at the WP:3RRN for edit warring and quickly blocked. Your statements about the evolution of witch hunts are currently unsubstantiated original research, though if you still have those references and present them for review, or draft a possible section in a subpage, you could ask other editors what they thought, if it was appropriate for this page or somewhere else. Your proposed definition of witchcraft is either unclear to me, or idiosyncratic to the point of being inappropriate. If you want your concerns to be taken seriously, I would strongly suggest you civilly provide your sources and suggestions for review rather than insisting you've been persecuted and that dab is a bad editor. If you have sources that are explicit on the point, it's quite possible we could integrate a modern section about the UK or US indicating evolution into modern times - but that depends on the sources. The other possibility is, if there are sufficient sources, a separate page could be created on the contemporary uses of the term "witch hunt". WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Reverting me (and minor improvements by Dbachmann, and the edit by Joost 99) took how much of your time, five seconds? I hope it won't stop you from adding those sources. By the way, I wasn't just reverting everything. How about you not doing so, too? The issue Dbachmann, WLU and I have is that the UK and US sections are blatantly misplaced. An act banning fraudulently claiming to be a witch isn't an "evolution" of an act imposing the death penalty for being a witch, it's definitely an end to prosecuting witches. Concerning the US pre-school trial, "witches" were about as prominently mentioned as goat-men - and somehow I doubt you'd say it was literally a hunt for goat-men, or that anybody but the schizophreniac who uttered these claims believed them. People were accused of sexual abuse of children, which is (to the best of my knowledge) unrelated to historical witch hunts. It was a moral panic, sure - but not a literal hunt for witches, and I don't see Salem "evolving" into the pre-school trial with a short intermission of about 300 years - except as another instance of a moral panic, but that's not what this article is about. If this revert war did actually mangle some of your edits not related to the UK and US sections, please point them out - I compared article versions and didn't find significant changes (other than the changes by Dbachmann and myself, some of which I explained above and the rest of which seemed uncontroversial), though I may easily have missed something. Huon (talk) 20:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there's several books that make the explicit comparison and the motivation alleged on (by? of?) the alleged abusers was explicitly satanic, based on accusations of ritual and worship rather than sexual. David Frankfurter's book Evil Incarnate might have some stuff, and Satan's Silence too but I don't have time to re-read them. I'm guessing there are some pretty explicit parallels that could be made, and have been made, in these sorts of sources. In my informed opinion (i.e. I've read books) I would say there was a search for actual witches - but I won't make the case until I can cite some explicit sources. But certainly, the McMartin and other moral panic victims (i.e. the defendants) were charged with child abuse and not witchcraft - and in the legal system rather than a lynch mob. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd say there's a distinction to be made between witches and Satanists. While "praying to Satan" may have been part of the moral panic, in my opinion it would only rise to the level of an actual witch hunt if Satan was widely believed to have answered the prayers (or there was a similar belief in other supernatural occurrences). I hope that wasn't part of the McMartin scare, but I'll be convinced otherwise if reliable sources say so. Frankfurter quotes MacFarlane speaking about "what they [the Satanists?] perceived as magic" - that seems to indicate that MacFarlane didn't perceive it as magic, and thus didn't actually believe witches were involved. Huon (talk) 22:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I can see we're getting some discussion going FINALLY! Thank you Huon, WLU, and Joost. However, you're all discussing several issues at random, which makes it difficult to reach conclusions. Could you please either make a section for each specific issue, paragraph, or section you've identified as needing discussion, or use one I've already created, so we can focus the discussion on reaching a definitive conclusion? Once we have focused dialog, we can hopefully proceed methodically and constructively towards a polished and informative article.

I don't want to have to undo any more reverts now that we have some hope for a focused discussion. From there, the changes should be one at a time, based on the conclusion of each discussion. Once again, thank you for bringing some communicative sanity to this article, and hopefully ending the revert war.

Qwasty (talk) 06:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ My overall reading of this section is that there are three, possibly four editors who are not convinced the page needs to be changed, in which case you need to make the case that it needs adjustment. So I would suggest, in the interest of clarity, you start a new section in which you detail what needs to change and what sources you base this on. Keep in mind that you need consensus for changes - it is not guaranteed your changes will be acceptable. Right now I don't have the sources needed to support the assertion that the SRA moral panic was a literal witch-hunt, nor do I have sources to greatly expand McCarthyism as a metaphorical use. In fact, I agree that the latter is unnecessary. So right now, I'm unconvinced the page needs to change but depending on your sources I may come to agree that your edits are justified and appropriate. But the sources come first and I've yet to see them. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

What a waste of space over a non-issue. I guess Qwasty has finally stopped crying "vandalism" in his reverts, and this after having been asked to a mere four times.

Asked for a justification of his edits, we are finally presented with the theory that "The witch hunts evolved, rather than ended definitively". Now this is extremely interesting. I would be willing to devote a detailed discussion to such views if they can be shown to have any credibility. Fortunately, the claim that "Arbitrarily cutting off a continuous evolution of witch hunting when it envelopes western nations is censorship" can easily be measured against the relevant academic literature. Show us a monographic scholarly treatment of the European witch-hunts that includes 20th century US legislation, and we can go forward with this. --dab (𒁳) 14:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the current version initiated by Huon is fine, looking at the lay-out, since no significant info was removed. It makes a clear logical distiction between present/past and real/metaphorical. The McMartin trial seems more metaphorical than real. The Metaphorical section can be improved, as WLU already stated. Joost 99 (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Cries of "censorship" and "vandalism" when this is manifestly not is irksome, for the accused person and spectators. The longer this goes without sources being presented, the less likely I am to take it seriously and the more irritated I plan on becoming. Qwasty, up until this point WP:AGF has been the reason I'm listening. If you don't present your sources ASAP rather than complaining inappropriately of censorship and vandalism, I'll lose interest. It is insufficient to assert, one must substantiate. You've received a polite audience until this point, please be courteous and provide the sources you mentioned yesterday. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue against the removal of numerous edits simultaneously. Please make a section about what you want cited, and stop obliterating the article before your requests can be met. So far, the Dbachmann reverts are affecting the intro, history intro, modern witchhunts intro, Africa, UK, USA, and many or all the other sections too. I will continue to undo these mass reverts. I don't think it's useful to argue who is responsible, since it achieves nothing and delays useful discussion. I want a better article, and I am willing to reason with reasonable people, only. If this is to move forward, the revert vandalism MUST STOP and focused, specific discussion MUST BEGIN. Whenever you're ready. Qwasty (talk) 17:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you really think those reverts were "made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia"? That's what vandalism means here. See also "What is not vandalism. Several people have explained this to you. Please stop characterizing edits that were not done in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia as vandalism. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Based on the current page I see no reason to make any changes so until you provide sources I'm just going to ignore your talk page comments but I almost certainly will revert your edits to the main page. It seems you're more interested in arguing and being an aggrieved party than actually improving wikipedia, and I don't feel like wasting more of my time. Wikipedia is not therapy. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree; there's obviously consensus of all involved (excluding Qwasty) that Dbachmann's version is a better starting point for further improvements to the article. Qwasty, why don't you take your own advice and explain why you disagree with all those changes instead of reverting them all at once? Huon (talk) 19:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

there wasn't any valid proposal to form a consensus upon in the first place, the sad thing is that it takes a lengthy discussion to deal with every random piece of nonsense posted by random kids. This is the "Randy in Boise" effect, and Wikipedia suffers from it badly. --dab (𒁳) 11:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Edited lead

I tweaked the lead a bit - mostly I like the idea of a brief referral to McCarthyism as an iconic (in the West, probably the iconic) example. I think it's a reasonable balance between a lengthy discussion on one side and a complete absence on the other. Any thoughts? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think any example is necessary in the introduction, just the general use of the term (but my edit gave that opinion away ;-). I do wonder if there is a one-on-one link with moral panic as the intro now suggests. I don't see every metaphorical witch-hunt being based on moral panic. Joost 99 (talk) 15:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Meh, I see your point and it could be adjusted to be a little more general (had a go here). I think there's merit in including the example, you don't, shall we wait for more input?

Also note changes to the info on the UK acts - it was pretty repetetive and it's arguable whether it's more appropriate to include it here, or in the witchcraft article. Obviously the Acts form (in the UK) the legal basis for actual witch hunts and persecution, but are not witch hunts in and of themselves. Could probably be shortened but the previous tagged section wasn't necessary, was poorly sourced and quite tangential - far more appropriate to be a mention in History than a stand-alone section. Too much emphasis on a single country, and an only tangential issue in that country (for this page at least). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I like the current short mention of McCarthyism in the lead; it's probably the most well-known example. I also agree with the removal of the British consumer protection history which was rather off-topic. Huon (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I added some cotinental references, although this paragraph may become to much of a list of executions (but I don't know enough to write a more informative text). Thanks for adding "often" to moral panic. Joost 99 (talk) 20:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I support a brief discussion of the metaphorical use in the lead -- after all, it is the metaphorical use that triggered all the edit-warring nonsense above. It's always a good idea to show up front that the article is already aware of such things. Since most confused or clueless edit-warriors only ever read the introduction, it's a good thing to have the introduction tell them that we know already. Of course this will never prevent the hard core of this demographic but it should at least be enough to reduce the bulk of well-meaning additions. --dab (𒁳) 09:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Schönau witch burning?

I just removed the following paragraph from the article:

There are also reports of a local witch burning near Schoenau Germany in 1906. There is a tree with a plague in front of it telling the story of the 1906 burning.

That's unsourced. There are about half a dozen places called Schönau in Germany (plus one Schœnau now in France which at that time would also have been part of Germany). I've looked up the German Wikipedia articles of the most likely candidates; no mention of such a plaque. And by 1906 they'd all have been part of the German Empire for more than three decades, and even backwaters such as the Black Forest would probably have been reached by the imperial bureaucracy, making such an occurrence rather unlikely. If we knew which Schönau is supposed to be the right one, I could try a more focused search, but right now there's too little information. Huon (talk) 12:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. This is probably just nonsense. If it isn't, a decent reference is needed. Thanks for spotting this. --dab (𒁳) 09:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

"Africa"

Territories settled by Bantu peoples are shown in orange.

Lumping the African witch-hunts simply under "Africa" imho shows a sort of western-centric lack of resolution of the continent. For one thing, as far as the article is aware, this concerns sub-Saharan Africa exclusively. If there are North African witch-hunts, we would need some references for them, and then it would still be questionable to lump them with the Sub-Saharan ones.

Secondly, even Sub-Saharan Africa isn't a unity, and is home to a wide variety of unrelated cultures. From the material in the article, all instances of witch-hunts we are aware of seem to occur within Bantu societies. Bantu tribes form the majority of Sub-Saharan peoples, but they are still only one group among several. It would be interesting to learn whether there are also non-Bantu witch-hunts in Africa. --dab (𒁳) 09:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Back to SRA, anthropological background and causes

The SRA moral panic is probably highly relevant to an understanding of the social dynamics of a moral panic in general: the fact that the accusations spiralled into a bizarre fantasy on Satanism and occult ritual seems to indicate that this sort of mass hysteria is an inherited mode of social behaviour has a number of hard-wired traits (closely associated with cultural universals like the belief in sorcery and the expulsion of unfit members from the group). A discussion of this would need to be based on expert literature, of course, but this would be valid material for the "sociological causes" section. If you read the article, almost all of that section currently focusses on the Early Modern witch-craze in particulars and is as such misplaced in this article. --dab (𒁳) 10:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It turns out that there is an entire academic controversy surrounding this, dating to the 1970s. It is typical of the way Wikipedia articles are compiled that such items are missed completely even in comparatively well-developed articles. People pile up factoids but nobody bothers to research the history and focus of academic discourse. The result is that astoundingly poor articles keep passing "FAC" because neither the writers nor the reviewers have a good grasp of the topic and focus on enforcing proper footnote formating and the like instead. And of course most of the time people cannot focus on compiling a well-researched article because they keep getting distracted by semi-literate "contribution" as in the "Qwasty" case above. --dab (𒁳) 11:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Sub-Saharan Africa

The Sub-Saharan Africa section is far too long. A paragraph could be included here, and the rest moved to a separate article. I would also like to see a lot more WP:RS used in this section.--Taiwan boi (talk) 10:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Much of the less-sourced text in that section seems to be copied from this PDF. It is indeed much too detailed, especially compared to the rest of the world. Furthermore, it was a blatant copyright violation. I've undone the addition. Huon (talk) 16:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Good work spotting that.--Taiwan boi (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I note that the PDF itself isn't even a WP:RS. It's a POV screed from a neo-pagan group which (incredibly), seems to think that African witchcraft has something to do with the late 20th century Western neo-pagan movement which involves post-menopausal housewives burning scented candles and wearing funny bracelets. The best part of the entire PDF is the three links to the UNHCR/UNICEF, and if we're going to use anything we should use them.--Taiwan boi (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Anacronistic Exodus 22:18 reference

The section Classical Antiquity contains the line
and Exodus 22:18 prescribes "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"
where this is actually a deliberate mistranslation of what should be rendered "poisoner". The first appearance of "witch" here is the KJV completed 1611. The rest of the bible references are correctly dated, I think, though I have little knowledge of such things beyond this particular example. Does the line remain relevant if it is moved to the Early Modern Europe section or is it better simply removed/left where it is. Diysurgery (talk) 00:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Vary accurate observation - actually the line better translates as "you will not make use of potion-makers" (the actual word used is "φαρμακός", roughly equivalent to "pharmacist"). There is nothing there about killing.

Additionally, Deuteronomy 18:10-12 says nothing about sorcery or witchcraft, and actually lists all the different types of divination - predicting the future, the equivalent of modern fortune-telling. Stressing again, predicting the future not changing it.

Kingdoms 1 28 also refers to soothsayers - again, predictors and not magicians. I believe a deletion of the whole section is in order. I will do it shortly if no-one objects Causantin (talk) 17:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd like a reliable source for that. It's not just the KJV which translates that passage as a command to kill witches; Martin Luther (1545) does the same: Die Zauberinnen sollst du nicht leben lassen. - roughly "You shall not let the sorceresses live." The more modern NIV says: "Do not allow a sorceress to live." I find it hard to believe that the translators of the NIV deliberately mistranslated that line - why would they? Besides, wouldn't the original of Exodus be in Hebrew rather than Greek? Huon (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Witch Hunt in Orthodox Russia

Is there any reliable sources about numerous witch trials, huntings, burnings, etc, in Russian tsardom? Until you find them, I will remove word Russia from "Eastern Europe (Poland and Lithuania, Hungary and Russia)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.245.156.3 (talk) 14:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

They would call protestants "witches" and then burn them at the stake. This happened on occasion in Russia, particularly in a power struggle in the 1500s.207.119.111.48 (talk) 15:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Joe Paterno

Maybe you should add section for Joe Paterno. This is a classic Witch Hunt!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.128.124.50 (talk) 19:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Since Paterno is unlikely to be hanged or burned at the stake, it's hardly a "classic" witch hunt. Anyway, at the very least we would need a reliable source calling it that - and even then I'd say Paterno is simply too insignificant an example. Huon (talk) 21:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Anneken Hendriks' burning picture

This tekst is intended as an explanation why I removed an illustration, namely file "Witch-scene4.JPG". I already posted one, but it apparently has not appeared. So, let me repeat briefly - this picture actually is not related to witch-hunt. It features burning of a XVI-century Dutch Anabaptist Anneken Hendriks (also spelled Heyndricks), who was charged by the Spanish Inquisition with heresy and not with witchcraft. An account of her martyrdom is given in the Matyrs Mirror. To read it, please visit the linked Wiki article and follow its first external link; the Anneken Heyndricks story is on page 872.

A.Tarantoga (talk) 05:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Herbal Healers

This is the only medicine there was. The section describing witches delivering babies is an agrandised biased portail. Herbal practitioners did not equal witch or witch trial.207.119.111.48 (talk) 15:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

There's a source for that paragraph; is that source incorrectly represented? I have but little doubt about the shape a malpractice suit against a "herbal practicioner" would take during the height of the witch craze. That says little about the validity of herbal remedies but much about the power of moral panics and the human desire to blame someone. Huon (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)