Talk:Witchcraft

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Witchcraft was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

differences of all magic titles!!![edit]

SORCERY: the study of using good and(or) evil magic power that in which you posses and carry and create the power from the sorcerers hand(s). SORCERER: a male who studies sorcery, a sorcerer who uses good magic is a LIGHT SORCERER, while for evil is a DARK SORCERER. SORCERESS: a female who studies sorcery same as sorcerer, good is light as evil is dark. WIZARDRY: the study a magic used, carried, or created by staff or a wand used by a wizard. Same as sorcerer good is light as evil is dark. WIZARD: male or female who studies wizardry. WITCHCRAFT: the practice of the Pentagon and(or) using mainly potions, spells, curses, healings but although all the forces of magic (sorcery, wizardry, witchcraft and satan worship) all use these witchcraft use it many ways. WITCH: a male or female who studies witchcraft although males usually go by mitch meaning male witch or they normaly study other forces, but an evil male witch is called a WARLOCK while an evil female witch is a DARK WITCH or WICKED WITCH. But same goes as the others good is light and evil is dark. SATANISM: is the religion worshiping a creater of peopel but not the same satan as from Christianity. SATAN WORSHIP: is the worship of the Christian satan AKA fallen Angel. !!!!-message me for more info or ask a question-!!!! TruthTeller197508 (talk) 04:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Cite reliable sources for your claims, please. They appear to be your personal beliefs and that's about it. Wikipedia is not a forum, nor a pulpit. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here, here, here, and here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 00:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Russia section[edit]

Shouldn't historical and anthropological descriptions of witchcraft cite sources from historical and anthropological sources? Why then are we treating this author Judika Illes as reliable when it's obvious that a lot of what she's written on the subject is bunk? Her descriptions of witches in pre-Christian Russia is impossibly detailed, considering that nothing about these beliefs was written down before the Christianization of Russia, and thus highly suspect! While some of them may conceivably contain a grain of truth based on extrapolation from current Russian folk tales and practices, it seems just as likely that they were entirely fabricated by a quack. A quick look at her Wikipedia entry pretty much sums up my point: the only training she's had is in English, communication, and aromatherapy! Nothing even close to the realm of anthropology or religious studies. She may be a practitioner of modern magic and miscellaneous spirituality, but I would not consider her a valid source on pre-Christian Russian paganism, especially something as specific and covert as witchcraft. 173.57.54.188 (talk) 05:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The Illes book is marginal--Booklist (by professional librarians ) says "Academic libraries with extensive witchcraft collections may wish to consider this volume if only for the bibliography. Public libraries seeking a popular reference work on witchcraft could do much worse than this one." To read some serious scholarship on Russian witchcraft look at Ryan, William Francis (1999). The Bathhouse at Midnight: An Historical Survey of Magic and Divination in Russia. Penn State U. Press. p. 75.  [it has some of the same stories]. Rjensen (talk) 05:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Non-global representation in intro[edit]

I've made a few edits to try and improve the global representation and a few other issues, mainly in the intro.

The key issue is, it is very poor in its characterization of the topic. Academics routinely emphasize the diversity of belief, and the difficulty of definition, but we say none of that. Therefore the current intro is basically a view through Western eyes and not much more. It describes "faculties" (skills), but the existence of such "faculties" is at best one view of several significant views, and most texts emphasize the difficulty of defining witchcraft, and the pitfalls of imposing a Western concepts and distinctions that poorly reflect non-European "witchcraft" concepts. In addition the existence of such skills must not be assumed - presumably the authoritative view on existence would be that they have not been proven scientifically. Words such as "superstition", "occult", "sorcery" and the like are not the same as "witchcraft" either, across cultures, but this crucial aspect of mistranslation is never mentioned either.

I'm also going to have a go at reducing globalization issues in the body too, by moving a few sections around.

I've had a go. Please help to improve it :) FT2 (Talk | email) 05:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)