Talk:Witchcraft

Removed an essay about cunning folk vs witches

I've removed the following WP:ESSAY from the article:

Records from the Middle Ages, however, make it seem that it was, quite often, not entirely clear to the populace whether a given practitioner of magic was a witch or one of the cunning-folk. In addition, it appears that much of the populace was willing to approach either of these groups for healing magic and divination. When a person was known to be a witch, the populace would still seek to employ their healing skills; however, as was not the case with cunning-folk, members of the general population would also hire witches to curse their enemies. The important distinction is that there are records of the populace reporting alleged witches to the authorities as such, whereas cunning-folk were not so incriminated; they were more commonly prosecuted for accusing the innocent or defrauding people of money.

The long-term result of this amalgamation of distinct types of magic-worker into one is the considerable present-day confusion as to what witches actually did, whether they harmed or healed, what role (if any) they had in the community, whether they can be identified with the "witches" of other cultures and even whether they existed as anything other than a projection. Present-day beliefs about the witches of history attribute to them elements of the folklore witch, the charmer, the cunning man or wise woman, the diviner and the astrologer.

If anyone can find anything useful that's not already elsewhere in the article, feel free to try to work it into the article. I can't see anything of value, myself. My main problem with all this is that it claims there was a hard distinction between cunning folk / healers / diviners on the one hand, and witches on the other. There was no such hard division. Many cunning folk were quite willing to curse, and many cunning folk (and their counterparts in other countries) ended up being accused of witchcraft. This is stated and cited elsewhere in the article, so I won't bother giving citations here. The essay continues to talk about the 'confusion' that the mix-up of witches and cunning-folk has caused, and it separates charmers, cunning men/women and diviners, as though they were three separate occupations; they are, in most cases, all the same thing. Fuzzypeg★ 11:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Anyone can practice witchcraft

There was a load of old waffle at the end of the article posturing itself under the title Atheisim. As someone felt that I was deleting something of some import I've reinstated it. However as the references are so non-specific as to be almost completely meaningless, I've rewritten in an equally significant manner just to show what a load of old tosh it is.Mighty Antar (talk) 18:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Antar, without prejudice to the merits of the section itself (I haven't inspected every word but will do so shortly) your approach here isn't too friendly. Waffle...posture....meaningless...tosh.... Somebody wrote it, and a group of other editors thought there was sufficient that merited it staying. You would improve the article, and the atmosphere here, by staying collegial and by not posting in such a way as to guarantee bad feeling. This kind of approach is bad enough at the end of a content dispute but it's certainly not a good way to kick one off! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 18:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry old chap, I visited and edited the witchcraft page after reading this news article. [[1]] I wasn't looking for intellectual debate, merely checking any reference to the type of appaling human behaviour which one would hope would have long been consigned to history. As an atheist, I was understandably drawn to the paragraph entitled Atheisim. I expected that this paragraph and its sources would have some illuminating relevance to atheisim. It clearly doesn't, it simply states anyone can practice witchcraft which was why I improved the article by deleting it.Mighty Antar (talk) 19:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Well if you didn't come looking for intellectual debate you came to the wrong place....<g>! As I said, I have no view on whether the material you removed could be improved - in fact I think it's virtually certain that it could. I think the thrust of the section was to distinguish witchcraft as a religious belief system (involving belief in gods of some sort) from other senses of witchcraft as a set of practices not involving any beliefs in external deities. There are good sources for this sort of distinction but I'm sure it could be better set out with better sources. I will try to do so and so will others, I'm sure. Incidentally the horrific news article you cite might be a good addition to the sources further up about witchcraft in Africa. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello! There are paragraphs here on Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. Removing the paragraph on atheism is inappropriate in light of the sources since Wikipedia does not censor information. I will add more information to the paragraph to balance the article; however, I would request that you kindly revert the changing of the heading. With regards, Anupam^Talk 20:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Anupam, if you can come up with a more encyclopaedic heading then by all means edit the article yourself and put one in! I agree it's a bit ungainly at the moment and if you don't, I'm sure someone else will soon. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Kim Dent-Brown! I thought the previous heading was acceptable as each heading in this article refers directly to the religion. For example, there are headings on "Judaism" and "Islam." I would like User:Mighty Antar to self-revert. However, if he does not, I can make the revert myself. Thanks for your comments! With regards, Anupam^Talk 22:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello all. Not that I see it as in anyway pertinent to the edits I've made, but I would point out to those above that whilst Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are all religions, Atheisim is not a relgion. Likewise is their some rule that if you include one religion in a vaguely related article you have to include the entire set? I haven't censored and I'm not interested in censoring anything. As I implied in my first edit, the references given demonstrate absolutely no meaningful symbiosis between Atheisim and Witchcraft. You may as well have headed the section Ford Galaxy and said some people who practice witchcraft can also drive Ford Galaxys. They could and may well do, witches may even favour Ford Galaxys over other types of car, but unless you provide a source which demonstrates otherwise, it really has nothing to do with this article.Mighty Antar (talk) 00:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree Mighty, what the current sections named after religions address, is how the subject of witchcraft is/was treated by those religions. How witches address Atheism doesn't really follow. Atheism is a philosophy, not a religion per se, and taken as a participate in theological discourse, Atheism is at a unique disadvantage. I think that warrants a measure of extra care in circumstances like this. I'm not convinced this article needs to indulge speculation about Atheist magical praxis.

Regarding the cites, whitemagic.com fails WP:RS if anything does. The quote:

“Witchcraft is a lifestyle choice not a spiritual belief system (even an atheist can be a witch).”

directly contradicts Buckland's point:

“The point is, if all you want to do is cast spells and work magic, you do not need to become a Witch, since Wicca is first and foremost a religion. There are many books on working magic, of all types, that have nothing to do with Witchcraft.”

Weiser Field Guide to Witches Non-Wiccan Witches, (p.30), was chosen in lieu of Atheist Witches, (p.21), to further contradict Buckland's use of Witch and Wicca as synonymous.

The term was invented in response to the now-common assumption that all modern witches are Wiccan. Non-Wiccan witches may belong to any tradition other than modern Wicca... [or] to any spiritual or religious tradition or none—agnostic or atheist witches are typically considered non-Wiccan.

— Judika Illes, 'The Weiser Field Guide Series', "Non-Wiccan Witches", p.30

Fnord Galaxy: Hope it helps clarify the (non-symbiotic) meaning for "Non-Wiccan Witches" who don't necessarily / necessarily don't hold to Wiccan Duotheism proper. I can certainly see why Atheism would prefer to opt-out.

As atheists, these witches do not acknowledge a Supreme Creator or the Wiccan conception of a Lord and Lady; but work their magic using Earth's natural powers and energies. Some may work with elemental spirit such as land spirits or fairies.

— Judika Illes, 'The Weiser Field Guide Series', "Atheist Witches", p.21

I'm reminded of Scientific Pantheism/Naturalistic Pantheism. They wag a finger at the magic, spirits, fairies... Actually, all of the above except Earth and nature,^symbiosis but they admire the ritual savvy.

 References

—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 17:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Kim Dent-Brown, I have changed the subject heading per your request and have also balanced the section to reflect attitudes concerning atheism and witchcraft, which User:Machine Elf 1735 brought up in his/her last post. The only reason the website "whitemagic.com" is given in the article is to demonstrate the attitude of practitioners of witchcraft towards atheism, which is why the content in the article is attributed to that organisation; the other sources in the article are published by the Cambridge University Press, University of Nebraska Press, etc., which meet WP:RS. User:Mighty Antar is welcome to add information about "people who practice witchcraft driv[ing] Ford Galaxys" so long as they are sourced per WP:V. I do not see that analogy as particularly helpful here. Moreover, the heading "Anyone can practice witchcraft whether or not they follow spiritual or religious tradition" is not encyclopedic; discussing other religious traditions in that section is unhelpful, especially when the references discuss atheism in particular. The religious traditions regarding Hinduism, for example, can be added under the section for that religion in the article. If anyone objects to the latest revision, please discuss here rather than reverting so we can come up with a revision, which we can implement to the satisfaction of all of the parties present here. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 21:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Good to see some material inserted that actually relates witchcraft and atheisim, but inserting new material doesn't make the original statement any more meaningful than it was before. Statements that link two words e.g. Atheisim and witchcraft remain waffle unless there is actually some material link between the two words worthy of note. Perhaps if I add a section on Toyota sprint cars with this link [[2]] you'd have some vague idea of where I'm coming from. Mighty Antar (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Mighty Antar, thanks for your approval of the latter insertions. As far as the sentences you removed, I revised them as well as the heading so they read more closely to the original quote. What do you think? I look forward to hearing from you soon. User:Machine Elf 1735, before editing, please attempt to collaborate here on the content so we can build consensus. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 07:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Were there any witches between 600 AD and 1870?

There is nothing on whether or not there were real witches during the witchcraze and and the middle ages. Aside from the so-called "witchdoctors" in Scotland, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of them being any more than a myth.Ericl (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Djambe redirect

Djambe redirects here, but it's not present in the article. Djambe is the witchcraft-creature that lives inside people, belonging to the Maka in Cameroon. We are learning about it in class (From the Modernity of Witchcraft ethnography. Does it belong somewhere in the article? Semitones (talk) 02:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Japanese witchcraft

The section about japanese witchcraft says that the two types of familiars used by japanese witches, supposedly, are foxes and snakes. However, the image immediately to the right talks about a 'cat witch'. This is not coherent! If there is such a thing as a cat witch in japanese folklore or in modern witchcraft practice, we should be able to find sources and be able to include information about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.126.137 (talk) 03:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)