Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

"WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR.

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups. Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN. Do you need assistance? Would you like to help? Request dispute resolution If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible. This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion. We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves. The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor. Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice. Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session. Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc. If you need help: If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you. This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy. For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page. Become a volunteer We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input. Volunteers should remember: Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants. Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute. Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits. Open/close quick reference To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}} To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Jessica Nabongo	New	Log6849129 (t)	2 days, 16 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 10 hours	Valereee (t)	2 days, 1 hours
Neith	New	Potymkin (t)	2 days, 13 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 15 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 15 hours
Existential risk studies	Closed	JoaquimCebuano (t)	20 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	19 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	19 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 19:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Current disputes

The Exodus

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Potatín5 on 22:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute The Exodus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Potatín5 (talk · contribs) Ermenrich (talk · contribs) tgeorgescu (talk · contribs) A. Parrot (talk · contribs) Iskandar323 (talk · contribs) Wdford (talk · contribs) Nishidani (talk · contribs) Dispute overview This issue surrounds the way our article on The Exodus presents the minority view that regards the Biblical account as representing a historical event (at least in its most essential elements). In its current version, the article claims that this position is completey marginal and limited only to fundamentalist circles, but I have disputed the factuality of this claim and argue that there are in fact some WP:RS which indicate that there exists some mainstream scholars (even if only a minority) who argue that the Exodus account is generally historical. I have thus argued that their opinion should also be included among the range of mainstream scholarly opinions on the historicity of the Exodus account, even if I acknowledge that it should be presented with due weight in respect to other, more majority positions within scholarship. My proposal has been rejected by other editors on the grounds that they consider this 'Biblical maximalist' position to fall under WP:FRINGE, and so they don't think that it belongs to the range of mainstream scholarly views on the subject. We have been debating this issue for five days in the Talk page, but no agreement has been reached on whether this 'Biblical maximalist' view should be regarded as a fringe view or whether it should be regarded as another mainstream scholarly view (even if a minority one), and as to how it should be described and presented in the WP article. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? [1] There has been an extensive discussion involving multiple editors. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I am open to find consensus on how to best describe and represent the minority view that regards the Exodus as a historical event in the article, and other editors appear to be open to this possibility as well. I think a resolution could be brought simply by introducing new voices who can read the exchange and comment. Summary of dispute by Ermenrich Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I believe the summaries by Iskandar and A. Parrot of the central issue already summarize it fairly well. However, we currently have a source that satisfies WP:RS/AC that is quoted in the article that says: Grabbe, Lester L. (23 February 2017). Ancient Israel: What Do We Know and How Do We Know It?: Revised Edition. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 36. ISBN 978-0-567-67044-1. "The impression one has now is that the debate has settled down. Although they do not seem to admit it, the minimalists have triumphed in many ways. That is, most scholars reject the historicity of the 'patriarchal period', see the settlement as mostly made up of indigenous inhabitants of Canaan and are cautious about the early monarchy. The exodus is rejected or assumed to be based on an event much different from the biblical account. On the other hand, there is not the widespread rejection of the biblical text as a historical source that one finds among the main minimalists. There are few, if any, maximalists (defined as those who accept the biblical text unless it can be absolutely disproved) in mainstream scholarship, only on the more fundamentalist fringes." While a bit more discussion of such scholars (namely Hoffmeier) may be in order, I believe the OP is confusing support for some sort of historical core of the story with support for its general historicity.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC) @Ixtal:, I do believe that the section accurately reflects scholarly consensus. The only thing that might be changed is the inclusion of a sentence or two on what the extreme minority who argue that the Exodus happened more or less as in the Bible (so-called "maximalists") have to say. I am not convinced that this is necessary due to WP:DUE and WP:FALSE BALANCE, but I might be persuaded.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC) @Robert McClenon:, I believe that you are correct on your first two points. There are no other content disputes that anyone has brought up and the issue is whether to further describe scholars belonging to the "maximalist" camp and/or whether to keep the content sourced to the source I've quoted above about they're being "few, if any" mainstream scholars of this opinion, "mostly on the fundamentalist fringe". As I have no desire to change anything about the current wording, I have nothing to add for your third point.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC) I also disagree with the new proposed wording by Potatin - he has essentially just removed the statements of fringe and fundamentalist (as well as "few, if any mainstream scholars") from the current wording of the article. I do not believe that is acceptable.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC) Summary of dispute by tgeorgescu Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I don't have input right now, but I would like to recommend three sources: Enns, Peter (10 January 2013). "3 Things I Would Like to See Evangelical Leaders Stop Saying about Biblical Scholarship". Peter Enns. Retrieved 9 July 2023. Greenberg, Moshe; Sperling, S. David (2007). "Exodus, Book of.". In Skolnik, Fred; Berenbaum, Michael; Thomson Gale (Firm) (eds.). Encyclopaedia Judaica. Vol. 6 (2nd ed.). pp. 612–623. ISBN 978-0-02-866097-4. OCLC 123527471. Retrieved 29 November 2019. Current scholarly consensus based on archaeology holds the enslavement and exodus traditions to be unhistorical. Herzog, Ze'ev (29 October 1999). "Deconstructing the walls of Jericho". Ha'aretz. Archived from the original on 11 August 2021. Retrieved 13 January 2022. These are WP:RS/AC-compliant, and written for a broad audience. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC) Summary of dispute by A. Parrot Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Many scholars believe there may have been a very slight historical basis for the Exodus, meaning some small group of Semitic-speaking people migrated from the Nile Delta into Canaan and joined the "mixed multitude" of peoples that later formed the Israelite ethnic group, and that the dim folk memory of this event gave rise to the Exodus legend centuries later. But my impression of the scholarly field is that that position is distinct from a much more minority position (exemplified by James K. Hoffmeier, but with a few other scholars who seem like they may support it) that a substantial proportion of the events described in the biblical Exodus story is historical. Unfortunately, although some sources state which views are more widely held in the scholarly field, they don't clearly distinguish between the two positions I just described. That ambiguity in the sources is at the root of this dispute, and I don't know how to handle it. A. Parrot (talk) 03:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC) Ixtal: I believe the section largely reflects the scholarly consensus. Ideally, I would like there to be a sentence that clarifies the distinction between the two positions I described (the latter of the two being the "extreme minority" position that Ermenrich mentions), precisely to prevent people from conflating the two, as I think Potatín5 is doing. But in the absence of sources that serve that purpose, the section can stand more or less as it is. A. Parrot (talk) 19:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Iskandar323 There is an ongoing discussion over how the different scholarly perspectives might best be presented, however, there is no real outstanding dispute over whether exodus is "generally historical". That is already obviously not the case and the motion to include that within the bracket of mainstream scholarship has had a clear consensus form against it. If the aim of this dispute resolution case is to push that particular language then it is just an attempt to bypass the local consensus that has already formed. If it is simply to discuss wording more generally then that could be done here, but it could just have been done on the main talk page under a new thread. While one change was attempted on the page mid-discussion, no actual proposed rewording has been proposed to date on talk; instead the discussion has got bogged down in and somewhat hamstrung by the lack of acceptance by the OP here that scholars acknowledging a historical core/nucleus or elements of a story does not equal it being 'generally historical', which is a leap that keeps being made despite no other editors agreeing with it. Discussion can only thrive if editors are not glued to their positions, and are open to absorbing input from others. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:52, 9 July 2023 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Wdford Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Mainstream scholarship holds that the Biblical exodus is a myth, because there is zero evidence for such a major and miraculous event. No archaeological traces of people in the desert, no records of plagues and parting of seas and mass migrations of freed slaves etc. This editor clings to the cherry-picking of fringe suggestions to keep his/her POV alive, together with mush from YouTube videos and PBS blogs. It is hardly a debate, more of a straw-clutching hobby. Wdford (talk) 13:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Nishidani Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The Exodus discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note I'll be glad to moderate this discussion and am waiting for responses by Wdford and Nishidani on the dispute. If they do not provide such a statement above within 48h I will proceed nonetheless. I remind editors that offline or paywalled sources are welcome and useful in such disputes but encourage them to use online or otherwise easily accessible sources when possible. Otherwise, please provide quotations of the cited sources where relevant using {{hidden archive top}} to collapse the quotations. From my understanding of Biblical/Abrahamic scholarship minority views can be nuanced and so believe there is benefit to be gained from looking at the RS in this forum to improve the wording with which we cover them. I will make a further comment soon on what format the discussion will use as I want to prevent the many sources from becoming unwieldy. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 16:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC) Zeroth statement by volunteer (Exodus) I'll clear a few preliminary matters first. Most importantly, read the rules we will be operating under during this discussion. Also, remember to comment on content and not conduct. We're here to improve the article and not to deal with conduct issues. Finally, please be civil and concise as much as possible. The clearer and more straight-forward you are the better the discussion will be. Now, on to the dispute. I'm not sure how much discussion can or will be had on this matter, so I would appreciate if involved editors could state if they believe A) if the Origins and historicity section of the article accurately reflects academic consensus B) if not, which subsections do not do so and to which degree. I am not asking for editors to provide sources or names as of yet as I'm just trying to gauge how much potential for a compromise updated wording there is.— Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 19:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (Exodus) Please add your response in a section titled "Zeroth statement by YOUR USERNAME" in a level 4 heading @Ixtal: I think that the section reflects much of the current scholarly consensus, but not entirely. My issue is that the section only discusses two positions, which are those who view the Exodus as having a small kernel of truth and those who view it as entirely mythical. I have previously provided sources (Na'aman, Faust) indicating that there also exists a third position within mainstream scholarship which argues for more substantial historicity of the Biblical account. Although I know that this is a more minority position, it still remains part of the range of scholarly opinions on the subject. In that sense, I tend to agree with Ermenrich's initial suggestion that we could add a sentence or two discussing this minority position in the section.--Potatín5 (talk) 07:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC) Zeroth statements by Wdford (Exodus) @Ixtal: This is NOT "a third position within mainstream scholarship". This is a fringe position outside of mainstream scholarship, which is supported by a handful of scholars based on very tenuous grounds which do not include actual evidence. We can include a sentence mentioning the existence of these views provided it incorporates the word "fringe". Wdford (talk) 12:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC) First Statement by Acting Moderator (Exodus) My first question is whether there are any content issues about the article other than the views of mainstream scholars about the historicity of the Book of Exodus account. It appears that the only disputes are what the article should say about the views of mainstream scholars on the historicity of the biblical account. I would like to be sure that that is the scope of this content dispute. Second, the article describes two mainstream viewpoints, and a biblical maximalist viewpoint that the account is largely true. Is the disagreement about how we should characterize the maximalist viewpoint, whether we should characterize it as a minority viewpoint or as a fringe viewpoint? Third, if you want something changed in the article, please state briefly what you want changed in the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC) Statement 1.1 by Acting Moderator (Exodus) Only one editor has replied to my questions. Do the editors want moderated discussion? It appears that the issue is what the article should say is the view of mainstream scholars about the biblical maximalist viewpoint that the account is largely true. What do you think that the article should say? Robert McClenon (talk) 12:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC) First statements by Editors (Exodus) @Robert McClenon:I think that the article should state that there are some mainstream biblical scholars, even if only a minority, who hold to a somewhat more maximalist viewpoint on the historicity of the Exodus than the two positions that the WP article currently describes.--Potatín5 (talk) 16:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC) @Wdford: I previously proposed the wording "A minority of scholars considers that the biblical core of the Exodus narrative is basically reliable and reflects an important event in the early history of Israel". Potatín5 (talk) 13:27, 23 July 2023 (UTC) @Wdford: I would support your proposal as well. Potatín5 (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC) Second Statement by Acting Moderator (Exodus) Two editors have made statements about what the article should say about the biblical maximalist position. The two concepts are not that far apart, so I will ask the two editors to work with each other for a few days, in the space for Discussion, to see if they can work out a statement that they can agree on about the small minority of mainstream scholars. (Yes, this means that you may and should go back-and-forth. Sometimes we will try back-and-forth discussion, including now.) Robert McClenon (talk) 04:54, 24 July 2023 (UTC) Second Statements by Editors (Exodus) Third Statement by Acting Moderator (Exodus) Each editor who has an idea on what the lede section should say about the biblical maximalist viewpoint is asked to provide their proposed sentence or sentences here. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC) Third Statements by Editors (Exodus) Discussion by Editors (Exodus) Back-and-forth discussion (Exodus) I think there is now a blindingly clear consensus here, that the reliable sources are unambiguous on this matter. This editor is pushing his/her POV upstream, and there is actually very little to discuss. If this editor presents a proposed sentence for inclusion in the article, then we can fix that sentence and agree upon the wording. Beyond that, we can close this "discussion" anytime - it is going nowhere. Wdford (talk) 10:39, 15 July 2023 (UTC) We need to distinguish between a "mainstream author who holds a fringe position on this aspect" versus "an author who holds a mainstream position on this aspect". We should not use loose wording which inadvertently creates the impression that the position of the Exodus being historical fact is in any way a mainstream position - it is totally fringe, and should be reflected as such. Sometimes historians who are normally considered to be mainstream, also hold personal opinions which are totally fringe - especially where religion is concerned. This editor needs to propose specific wording to be included, which can then be debated and corrected. Wdford (talk) 10:01, 23 July 2023 (UTC) This proposed wording from Potatin5 is much too fringe. I propose instead, the following sentence: "In addition, there are also a very few scholars who acknowledge "that there is presently no known direct evidence for Israel's presence in the Nile Delta during the second millennium", but who nonetheless believe that "one can make a case for the plausibility of the biblical reports based on the supporting evidence". Wdford (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:January 6_United_States_Capitol_attack#Histrionic_language

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Darknipples on 03:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Talk:January 6 United States Capitol attack#Histrionic language (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Darknipples (talk · contribs)
• The Four Deuces (talk · contribs)
• Dumuzid (talk · contribs)
• 3Kingdoms (talk · contribs)
• Feoffer (talk · contribs)
• Khajidha (talk · contribs)
• Zaathras (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is currently a content dispute between myself and The Four Deuces|TFD on the January 6 United States Capitol attack talk page (section Histrionic language). IMO, the dispute is whether or not reliable sources have said/say "Prosecutors alleged that the Proud Boys planned to breach the capitol".

This Dispute began more or less on 10 July 2023 05:13, when TFD stated "But no evidence has been found that the breach was planned or was part of any wider plan." to another editor. I disagreed, stating that numerous RS contradicted them, and we've been going back and forth since. I provided RS that IMO met the standard for WP:V, but TFD still rejects the sources. The dispute seemed to take a turn on 22 July 2023 04:44, when TFD commented on the article TP "Your position seems to be that because there is no proof the Capitol attack was not planned, that is proof it was.", then went on to say "But they don't explain when that decision was made. Most likely it was made moments before the building was breached." without a citation or RS.

At that point I requested "It's fine if you disagree, but please don't make misleading statements like this." and reiterated what sources said in case they just didn't read them. TFD then said on the article TP "Nothing in what you have presented says that the Proud Boys planned to attack the Capitol Building before 1/6 or that anyone has made that claim. Why not just say that despite no evidence, it's what you believe?" 19:38, 22 July 2023.

After that I responded on the article TP and tried to clarify one last time and asked if they wanted to agree to disagree or come to DRN, and to enjoy the rest of their weekend 05:15, 23 July 2023. After that I went to TFD's personal talk page to again ask them to stop making it personal 05:29, 23 July 2023. On the article TP they replied "You are just repeating what you said before. You have no source that says what you believe". I then notified them for DRN on their TP 21:40, 23 July.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I'm not trying to insert this content in the article at this point. I would simply like a neutral editor to look at the dispute and determine whether there is or isn't RS that meets the standard requirements of WP:V for "Prosecutors alleged that the Proud Boys planned to breach the capitol". While I still AGF in TFD it seems obvious to the point that when I try to look at it from an outside perspective it almost seems like gaslighting, but TFD is too experienced and intelligent for that.

Summary of dispute by The Four Deuces

There is a disagreement over whether the incursion into the Capitol Building by the Proud Boys was planned before 1/6 or undertaken opportunistically on the day. Determining which it was will help us in its description.

Count I (seditious conspiracy) of the third superceding indictment, on which the Proud Boy leaders were convicted, does not say that any plan was made to breach the Capitol Building before 1/6. No evidence that it was planned before 1/6 has ever been found and the Department of Justice has not made that claim.

Evidence was provided however from the Proud Boys document "1776 Returns", that they may have planned to breach and occupy six congressional office buildings, the Supreme Court building and CNN's offices. But the report does not mention the Capitol Building itself.

A journalist with 'Politico concluded that the term "The Winter Palace" in a section of the "1776 Returns" called "Storm the Winter Palace" is "a euphemism for the Capitol — as well as an allusion to the Russian Revolution."[6] I have never seen it used to refer to the Capitol before.

The best evidence DN has provided is an agreed sentencing report, where a lower level Proud Boy said, "At least as early as Jan. 4, 2021, [he] was aware that the Ministry of Self Defense’s leaders were discussing the possibility of storming the Capitol."[7]

Editors may differ on their conclusions when the decision was made to storm the Capitol Building based on the evidence and their understanding of the psychology of right-wing extremists and of crowd behavior. But we must be guided by the conclusions reported in reliable sources, none of which say the breach of the building was planned before 1/6.

TFD (talk) 10:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Dumuzid

Let me begin with a brief apology, as I know my incessant questioning can make me seem an annoying pedant, but in cases like this I think it important to actually get to the crux of the disagreement. That said, we have agreed facts here: the Capitol was breached; many people have been convicted for various aspects of that breach; and a very few people have been convicted of conspiracy with regard to the breach. My basic understanding of the position of TFD (and perhaps 3Kingdoms?) is that the conspiracy sprang up, organically and opportunistically, immediately preceding the event. Thus, there was no long term plan specifically involving breaching the Capitol. This is a reasonable position. The New York Times noted that there was no direct evidence which "set forth an explicit plan to storm the building or to forcibly disrupt the election certification taking place inside." The indictment which TFD helpfully linked dates the conspiracy to beginning in December of 2020, and describes plans for using force, but it is not alleged that a Capitol breach was specifically planned. I think this is a fair point as far as it goes, but there is a danger in leaning on this too heavily. The convictions (as well as reliable sources) tell us there was a plot to use force to hinder government activities going back at least to December 2020. The 1776 Returns document also tells us that attacking specific buildings is also contemplated. As TFD again rightly points out, some have identified the "Winter Palace" in that document as a reference to the Capitol--which certainly makes sense to me. But I don't think we have enough at this time to make that equation. This is all a long way for me to say that while I think it's proper to note that there was no direct evidence of a plan to attack the Capitol, we have to take pains to make sure to say that violence was planned well ahead of time, and breaching buildings was contemplated, if not outright planned. Thanks to all, and I think we can come to some sort of agreement here that makes everyone equally irked. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by 3Kingdoms

Dumuzid accurately describes my position above. My central focus has been the idea that breaching the capital was planned which I do not find supported. There were definitely people and groups there itching for a fight, but given how (relatively) quickly and meekly the rioters left after a few hours, that no police officers were shot, and that many once in, just meandered around with little idea of what to do makes clear to me that it was not planned. Also a source I posted says that the FBI has not found such plans for the breach either. Sources do show that in December there were plans to try something to disrupt the counting of electors. Be it the Oath Keepers hope that Trump would make them a militia or that the March to the capital was intended to be a show of force to pressure and intimidate Pence to throw out the electors. These should be included since they are evidence for the conviction of seditious conspiracy that have happened, but as TFD and myself point out even that is not proof of the attack being planned let alone use the term coup or domestic terrorism. I hope that clears it up. Cheers!

Summary of dispute by Feoffer

I'm a little surprised to see this at DRN, this will probably be resolved by future RFC about terminology, not by resolution between a handful of editors. TFD argues: whether the incursion into the Capitol Building by the Proud Boys was planned before 1/6 or undertaken opportunistically on the day. Determining which it was will help us in its description.. I see the question as fundamentally flawed and unhelpful. Their crime, conspiracy, already includes within it the requirement of planned and premediation. Per verdict: "Conspirators plotted to oppose by force the lawful transfer of power", you can't be found guilty of an unplanned conspiracy.

TFD presents a very inventive argument that, in essence says, "The attack wasn't planned unless there was an explicit plan in place on Jan 5 that was followed precisely on Jan 6." But that's a made up standard -- a crime doesn't become 'unplanned' just because the criminals "call an audible" and adapt tactics in real time. Feoffer (talk) 22:46, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Khajidha

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I don't see how this has become such a problem. Whether or not the Proud Boys specifically planned to breach the Capital prior to January 6th seems rather irrelevant to me. There's a common saying that "no plan survives contact with the enemy". The PBs went to DC to disrupt the electoral count, EVERYTHING that happened after that is the consequence of their being there. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Zaathras

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I made one post 11 days ago, in which the point was abundantly clear. Not sure what else I have to offer beyond that. Zaathras (talk) 02:23, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Talk:January 6_United_States_Capitol_attack#Histrionic_language discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

• Volunteer Note I'll be happy to moderate this dispute, just waiting on summaries from the other editors involved before we start. @Darknipples: You need to notify all of the users involved by using {{subst:drn-notice}} on their talk pages, which hasn't been done. I invite reliable sources to be linked, including paywalled sources, which support your claims. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 10:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I have notified the 4 remaining editors that haven't responded yet [8] - [9] - [10] - [11]....I will provide RS regarding the Dispute after I have some time to narrow it down. Should I only use RS that was provided during the discussion? I feel the DOJ release on Tarrio's indictment (similar to Donohoe's) is relevant, but I didn't get a chance to offer it before the discussion was closed by editor Sameboat. Cheers. DN (talk) 21:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@Darknipples: I'm fine with RS that wasn't provided in the discussion. IMO Sameboat's closure was premature, there was a pending question from Dumuzid and discussion was still productive. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Just wanted to chime in to say I agree the close was a bit premature; I felt like we were getting somewhere, even if slowly. That said, all due respect to Sameboat because those ideologically freighted discussions can go south quickly. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 02:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

It's important to determine the issue before proceeding. The dispute arose when DN took issue with my statement, "But no evidence has been found that the breach was planned or was part of any wider plan." [07:09, 10 July 2023][12] I later clarified this to say, "But no evidence has ever been provided that there was a plan before 1/6." [12:08, 15 July 2023][13]

I have never claimed that the decision to enter the building was made on 1/6 and do not have to prove that claim in order to rebut the claim that the incursion was planned before. Based on my limited knowledge of extremism and crowd psychology, I think that is the most likely circumstance, but that's not the same think as saying it is established fact.

Foeffer, in a rather rude and demeaning analysis of my comments, says it is irrelevant when the decision was made. But that's not the subject of the dispute, Furthermore, in fairness, DN seems to agree that it is relevant to how we describe the events of 1/6, otherwise they would not have brought the dispute to DRN. While morally, it may make no difference when the decision was made, it is important for any article that is supposed to explain what happened, rather than to assign guilt to individual participants.

I suggest therefore we narrow the scope of the discussion to whether the sources say the decision to enter the building was made before 1/6. If we want to discuss whether that is relevant, that can be done elsewhere.

Incidentally, I have provided all the links I find relevant in my summary. Since the dispute is about a claim that DN made, it's really up to them to provide evidence. It's not up to me to provide evidence that there is no evidence to support their claim. TFD (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Part of the issue of the dispute seems to be that you appear to be arguing issues that may not necessarily be content related. My only concern is what RS says. I do not wish to "assign guilt" or interpret "conclusions" of sources. You seem to claim that there is no RS that meets WP:V requirements to consider adding content that says..."Prosecutors alleged that Proud Boys planned/conspired to breach the capitol". Regardless of whether they won the case or not, according to RS, that seems to be what prosecutors have alleged. If you look at your own source, under count one for conspiracy "Manner and means" #28, on page 9, section f and section h say...

(f.) Engaging in meetings and encrypted communications in Washington, D.C., in the days leading up to January 6, and on the morning of January 6, to plan for the January 6 attack; (h.) Directing, mobilizing, and leading members of the crowd onto Capitol grounds and into the Capitol;

Perhaps this will help clarify and narrow the scope to a more manageable degree. DN (talk) 20:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand your comments. Are you now agreeing with me that reliable sources say the incursion into the building could have been planned on the morning of January 6? If so, we're done. TFD (talk) 21:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

To my knowledge that wasn't your previous stance. You have made statements that claim there is no RS and no proof. That prosecutors did not allege there was planning to breach the capitol. I feel we should allow the moderator a chance to help us clarify this dispute and possibly help us avoid making these same mistakes moving forward. So to answer your question, we are not done. DN (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I said, "no evidence has ever been provided that there was a plan before 1/6." [12:08, 15 July 2023] If you agree with that statement, then there is no dispute. TFD (talk) 22:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry if I sound pedantic, but it seems like you disagree with the quality of evidence provided by prosecutors, rather than whether or not evidence provided by the prosecutors exists. Are you saying the prosecutors did not provide any evidence to the effect that "there was planning/conspiracy to breach the capitol"? DN (talk) 22:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I certainly do not disagree with the quality of evidence and wonder how you could come to that conclusion. The prosecution did not claim the incursion into the Capitol Building was planned before 1/6 and provided no evidence it was. If you agree with that statement then there is no dispute. TFD (talk) 23:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I believe that I just pointed out, in your source, where prosecutors did claim "the incursion into the Capitol Building was planned before, and on 1/6."

(f.)"in the days leading up to January 6, and on the morning of January 6, to plan for the January 6 attack"

(h.)"Directing, mobilizing, and leading members of the crowd onto Capitol grounds and into the Capitol"

I have more sources which I provided during the dispute that I'm willing to provide here, but I would like to wait to see if the moderator cares to comment at this point. DN (talk) 23:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

So can we say that the dispute is whether or not the sources say the incursion was planned BEFORE 1/6? TFD (talk) 23:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

As I just said, I would like to wait to see if JML1148 cares to weigh in on what has been said so far, as well as what the indictment says, before we move on to the sources, if that's OK with you. DN (talk) 01:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Since you brought this to dispute resolution, you should be able to state what the dispute is. I thought you were saying that sources say the incursion into the Capitol Building was planned BEFORE 1/6. If that is not your position, then there is no dispute and hence no reason to bother JML1148 any further. TFD (talk) 01:16, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

So should I take that as a no? Look, I'm not in charge here, nor have I ever had to do this before with another editor, so please consider that. If you don't want to participate, that's your choice. I'm fine discussing this with JML1148 on my own if that's what you prefer. DN (talk) 01:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

@Darknipples: I concur with TFD's statement that you should be able to state what the dispute is. Honestly, both of you have changed my understanding of what the dispute here actually is, so I'm going to ask a very direct question. Darknipples and The Four Deuces: Do you agree with the following statement: "Reliable sources state that there was no planning before 1/6." JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 02:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

No, reliable sources do not state there was no planning before 1/6. They also do not state there was planning. There is insufficient evidence to make the determination. TFD (talk) 03:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, I thought I had already made my opinion of the dispute clear at the beginning. To answer your question, do "Reliable sources state that there was no planning before 1/6."? No. I would like to add that, IMO, the indictment seems to indicate that there was planning "in the days leading up to January 6, and on the morning of January 6" that also includes "leading members of the crowd onto Capitol grounds and into the Capitol". DN (talk) 03:16, 26 July 2023 (UTC) I meant to add at the end "...according to prosecutors"...DN (talk) 03:42, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Please excuse me for barging in, but I think perhaps I can get us there via a shorter method. JML1448, you are on the exact right track, but it would be important to say planning of what and by whom. Those make big changes to how the question must be answered. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 03:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Planning to enter the Capitol building by the Proud Boys. TFD (talk) 07:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, so now that I understand more what this 'dispute' is about, I think of it less as a dispute and more as a collaborative attempt to pin down the timeline. TFD, I'm sorry you interpreted my response as rude and your point that DN started this discussion is well-taken.

Feoffer (talk) 08:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks TFD. I apologize again for seeming pedantic, and if you'd prefer I just stop, I certainly will. But would you agree with me that the Proud Boys planned and prepared in advance of January 6 to use some sort of force on that day? Dumuzid (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but that's not the issue of the dispute. TFD (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed! And this is what I mean about pedantry. I am trying to go step-by-step to identify where the crux of the disagreement (and agreements!) lie. I honestly think we can get to a version that is equally offensive to all, and therefore good enough. Would you agree with me that the Proud Boys contemplated building takeovers previous to January 6 in the abstract? I.E., not necessarily the Capitol? Dumuzid (talk) 16:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Let's hold off on arguing the dispute until we can agree what it actually is. @Darknipples: Can you please state what the dispute is, in one sentence, without giving a POV? JML1148 (talk | contribs) 01:18, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I will attempt to reiterate and clarify the dispute here. TFD states "No, reliable sources do not state there was no planning before 1/6. They also do not state there was planning. There is insufficient evidence to make the determination." I find this confusing and inaccurate. I am disputing TFD's claim that RS "do not state that there was planning" because I believe it is inaccurate, and that sources going back to 2021 seem to contradict that claim. Here are 2 sources in the months right after the attack, Politico and WaPo.. I believe they (TFD) have also stated that prosecutors have not alleged there was evidence of planning by the Proud Boys to breach the capitol "Before" 1/6, which may also be innacurate, but they have also claimed there is "insufficient evidence to make that determination", which is the confusing part. Are they claiming reports by RS state "there is insufficient evidence to make that determination", or is that just their personal opinion? If there is RS that supports this claim, they have not presented it to me as of yet, unless they felt the indictment supports that claim, in which case it would be helpful if they cited those specific statements and the location of those statements within the indictment document. Does this help? DN (talk) 15:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC) I am disputing TFD's claim that there are not reliable sources that say "Prosecutors alleged the Proud Boys planned the Jan 6 attack prior to that day, including evidence that there was a discussion/communication about breaching the capitol building that occurred prior to Jan 6th". Apologies for not being able to put it as succinctly before now, I have have been struggling to understand TFD's claims, and I sincerely hope this finally explains it on my end. Cheers. DN (talk) 03:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

DN -- again, forgive the intrusion, but I think what we're dealing with here is varying levels of generality. I agree with you that there was planning in advance. But would you agree with me that evidence specifically for a Capitol breach in the manner it occurred on January 6 is scant at best? Dumuzid (talk) 15:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Do you think you can summarize the dispute in one sentence? And could you hold off providing evidence and arguing your case until we know what the dispute is? TFD (talk) 15:54, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I concur with this statement. If we cannot work out what the dispute actually is, then I'm going to have to close this as failed. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:10, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

JML1148 I would appreciate some help here. I know Dumuzid is trying to help, but I feel like they may be unintentionally sidetracking us and accidentally acting as moderater, no offense Dumuzid. TFD, I have tried to clarify the dispute by pointing out which statements and claims you've made that I find inaccurate and or confusing. Would it be possible for you to look that over and be more specific about what isn't clear instead of just asking me to try to boil everything down into one sentence, please? DN (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Message received! I'm out. Have a nice day all. Dumuzid (talk) 16:46, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: DN made you a party in this, and I believe that your comments have helped significantly in working out actually what the dispute is. I also don't understand DN's comments that you are "unintentionally sidetracking us", and I invite you to continue commenting. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:07, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

JML -- I appreciate the vote of confidence, but I think DN is well within their rights to point out I am being a bit of a kibitzer. As such, I am happy to leave things in your capable hands! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:34, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Zeroth statement by moderator (January 6)

For now, just waiting for 3Kingdoms and Khajidha to provide their summaries. Before we start, I want to go over a few things. First please read the rules that this discussion will be operating under. Please keep in mind that we are dealing with a contentious topic, and to comment on content, not contributors. As always, please be civil, clear and concise in your comments. Regarding the dispute, I want Darknipples and The Four Deuces to provide all of the sources that you believe support your claims. They do not have to be from the original talk page discussion, and please quote where your opinion is supported. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:21, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

First statement by moderator (January 6)

I'm trying to work out what the dispute actually is, and I think the discussion above is getting closer to that. As I've already stated, let's hold off on arguing the dispute until all parties agree on what the dispute is. My current understanding is that the dispute is if reliable sources state that the Proud Boys planned to enter the Capitol Building before 1/6. TFD's view is that there is insufficient evidence to make a determination. DN's view is that there are reliable sources to back up the claim. Is this correct? JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I think so. We may be on track now that I have made another attempt to clarify the dispute. We shall see. DN (talk) 04:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree but with a modification. It's not that I think there is insufficient evidence, just that reliable sources do not claim that the Proud Boys planned to enter the building before 1/6.

While I think that is what you meant, evidence can mean either of two things: the sources we use to support information in articles or the actual evidence to form a conclusion. I just want to be clear that the dispute is over the conclusions reported in reliable sources rather than how we individually might decide the facts. TFD (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean by conclusions? Would you agree that if something is not explicitly stated in a source, or at least referenced in relative terms, it shouldn't be assumed? DN (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Please don't ask rhetorical questions. TFD (talk) 21:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

You are assuming it's rhetorical. It is not. DN (talk) 06:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry - how is this a rhetorical question? JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 11:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

• Good, it seems we have finally came to an agreement about what the dispute actually is. It's quite narrow, so I ask that we stay on topic. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
• I do not agree to TFD's modification. "I agree but with a modification. It's not that I think there is insufficient evidence, just that reliable sources do not claim that the Proud Boys planned to enter the building before 1/6." I have been consistently clear that the dispute is over whether sources that state that "prosecutors have alleged prior planning before 1/6" exist. It's not about "what sources claim or conclude", it's about "the existence" of RS that states prosecutors have alleged and provided evidence of planning by PB prior to Jan 6. I tried asking them to clarify what they mean by that and they did not agree or provide an answer. Instead they accused me of asking rhetorical questions. DN (talk) 06:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

  Excuse me if I did not understand your position. You agree, "reliable sources do not claim that the Proud Boys planned to enter the building before 1/6." You disagree with "prosecutors do not claim that the Proud Boys planned to enter the building before 1/6." TFD (talk) 10:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

  It's quite alright, and I do appreciate your patience and continued participation in attempting to find a resolution. Outside of RS reports regarding prosecutorial arguments and evidence, I have no concerns with claims or conclusions made by RS here. I believe I have boiled down the dispute into one statement listed below, at everyone's request...

"Prosecutors have argued and provided evidence that planning to breach the capitol took place prior to Jan 6th by the Proud Boys."

If you still disagree that this statement is supported by RS, would you be willing to continue towards a resolution? If you agree that this statement is supported by RS, then you are correct that there is no dispute. DN (talk) 20:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

• This dispute started after you disagreed with TFD's statement, "But no evidence has been found that the breach was planned or was part of any wider plan." You disagreed with this, providing sources. Has the disagreement changed from the breach being planned at all to just prosecutor alleging planning? JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 11:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

  Correct (see below - it has always been about what RS reports in regard to prosecutorial arguments and evidence....DN (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC)), and thank you for your patience. I don't think the dispute has changed much at all, aside from specifying "prior to Jan 6th". Since the start of this dispute I have stated that it is about whether prosecutors have alleged and presented evidence of planning to breach the capitol by the Proud Boys according to RS. We have since clarified/amended "planned before Jan 6th". I apologize to you and TFD for not making that clear at the beginning. I believe I have boiled down the dispute into one statement listed below, at everyone's request.

"Prosecutors have argued and provided evidence that planning to breach the capitol took place prior to Jan 6th by the Proud Boys."

I have provided this summary statement of the dispute to TFD in my response to them above, and asked if they still dispute that it is supported by RS, and if so, if they are willing to continue to participate. If they agree that statement is supported by RS, then we can both agree that there is no dispute. DN (talk) 20:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Then you agree that no reliable sources say the breach of the building was planned before 1/6? That's not in dispute and will not be discussed here. TFD (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I may finally understand what you mean, if not, hopefully JML1148 is still willing to help. I am stating reliable sources have "reported" evidence presented by prosecutors. I am not claiming reliable sources "agree with the prosecutors" if that is what you mean. Your statement that "no evidence has been found that the breach was planned prior to 1/6" is the focus of my dispute because RS has "reported" prosecutors have evidence the Proud Boys discussed breaching the capitol prior to 1/6. If you concur that prosecutors have presented evidence that proud boys discussed breaching the capitol prior to 1/6 as "reported" by RS, then we have no dispute. DN (talk) 02:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I accept your re-wording of the dispute and we can go ahead with that. In my opinion, prosecutors have not so argued or presented such evidence. TFD (talk) 02:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Witchcraft

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Darker Dreams on 22:12, 25 July 2023 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Witchcraft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Darker Dreams (talk · contribs)
• Asarlaí (talk · contribs)
• CorbieVreccan (talk · contribs)
• Esowteric (talk · contribs)
• Skyerise (talk · contribs)
• Randy Kryn (talk · contribs)
• Historyday01 (talk · contribs)
• Vaticidalprophet (talk · contribs)
• VenusFeuerFalle (talk · contribs)
• Dimadick (talk · contribs)
• Nosferattus (talk · contribs)
• Pliny the Elderberry (talk · contribs)
• Ffranc (talk · contribs)
• Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs)
• Iskandar323 (talk · contribs)
• Dawkin Verbier (talk · contribs)
• StarTrekker (talk · contribs)
• Carchasm (talk · contribs)
• Walt Yoder (talk · contribs)
• Zxcvbnm (talk · contribs)
• Slatersteven (talk · contribs)
• Alalch E. (talk · contribs)
• Netherzone (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There appear to be two perspectives on how this article, and all surrounding articles, should address the topic:

1) There are two versions of witchcraft. First is the version studied in anthropological texts which derives from witch hunts and other forms of violence and discrimination and has reflections worldwide leading to ongoing discrimination and violence. The second is a result of the 20th century neopagan movement and casts witchcraft in a more positive, or neutral, light. Because the negative definition of witchcraft is more widely studied in academic texts it should be given primary coverage.

2) Objects to the above on one or both of two points; a) There are multiple definitions of witchcraft. "Evil," "gothic," or "diabolical" witchcraft is clearly one, Neopagan witchcraft another identified type. However, at least some other definitions extend beyond these two and are legitimate topics of coverage. b) While anthropological academia has focused on "evil," "gothic," or "diabolical" witchcraft for a number of reasons, some of which include systemic bias, the prevalence of other types of media (ex, Harry Potter Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry) make these definitions at least equally relevant for a general purpose encyclopedia.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:Witchcraft#Ridiculous! Talk:Witchcraft#Proposal Talk:Witchcraft#Requested_move_19_July_2023 Talk:Witchcraft#Systemic_bias Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Skyerise_reported_by_User:Asarlaí_(Result:_Full_protection_for_three_days)

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I hope some formalized, structured conversation can help bring clarity, and clarity will pave a way forward for this article and more general subject coverage.

Summary of dispute by Asarlaí

The traditional, most common and most widespread meaning of "witchcraft" is the use of malevolent magic. That's still the primary meaning in Western and non-Western cultures, and several high-quality academic sources in the lead back that up. So that's what the article is primarily about, and has been for years.

In the last century, a theory became popular that accused witches (in Europe) were actually followers of a pagan religion that had survived underground; that witch trials were an attempt by Christians to stamp-out this supposed religion. The theory is now utterly disproven, and is seen as pseudo-history. However, some Western occultists/neopagans believed it and used it as the basis for Wicca. Some now call themselves 'Witches' and their practices 'Witchcraft'. This re-definition, used by a minority of neopagans, has its own article at Neopagan witchcraft. It's briefly covered at Witchcraft, and there are hatnotes to guide readers to the right articles.

However, a few editors have tried to make the Witchcraft article fit the pseudo-historical POV. They're pushing the mistaken belief that "witchcraft" was originally a positive or neutral term and was just demonized by Christians; that the "malevolent witch" is just a "stereotype". The academic sources don't back that up. There was a request to move Witchcraft so that the main meaning (malevolent magic) is no longer the main topic. At least 11 editors were against, and only 4 editors were for it - the same four who've been pushing this minority view. Some of the opposing editors noted: "It is inappropriate to reframe Wikipedia's coverage of a topic based on a specific religious movement's understanding of the topic", "The point of view of new religious movements doesn't trump decades of academic coverage", and "This would just be formalizing a WP:FALSEBALANCE".

The failed move request should've been the end of it. Consensus is that the Witchcraft article should be about the main meaning of the term: malevolent magic. But those few editors haven't accepted this, so here we are. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 18:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by CorbieVreccan

As has been outlined by: Asarlaí, Walt Yoder and Iskander323 and agree with Car chasm that this is largely forum shopping because the filer doesn't like how the RfC went and he and three others are refusing to respect the consensus.

The RfC was snow closed with consensus for the article name and form we had before the WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS POV-push by the Neopagans contingent.[14] The scholarly and global sources support that:

1. The global view is that Witchcraft is an attempt to use metaphysical means to harm the innocent.

2. While there is a minority viewpoint that has redefined witchcraft to mean positive magic, that is only the view among predominantly white, western people; it is based on a debunked theory that only a subset of even those people ever adopted. However, the article has always addressed this minority viewpoint and directed readers to articles on those topics.

After the edit-warring that led to the RfC, the "Witches are good" neopagan faction initially seemed to accept the consensus, and worked on the articles: Neopagan witchcraft and Wicca. This seemed to solve the problem.

But as soon as the RfC indicated some preference for Witchcraft being broad concept, things got weird. The neopagan advocates (Darker Dreams, Skyerise, Esoterwich, and sometimes Randy Kryn and Nosferattus) are now ignoring the consensus, and edit-warring to make "witchcraft" into a neutral term and rewrite the Witchcraft lead with that agenda. Even though this was rejected in the RfC and in the sources. Skyerise resorted to 4RR.[15] Then she falsely claimed any edit to improve flow or wording, if done by someone she sees as an enemy, is a "revert" and tried to say others are the ones revert-warring.[16] In general, she has been wikilawyering like this and trying to wear people down on talk pages.

I only watch this article because those pushing the neopagan pov continually make the false claim that the majority definition of witchcraft is only "in the past", or due to "oppressive Christians" and then they cite white, western, often pop culture examples of the neopagan redefinition. They continually and repeatedly ignore or dismiss as irrelevant the Indigenous, African, and other non-white, non-Western cultures who never redefined the term. This makes it an issue of cultural and ethnic bias concerns. Wikipedia is for readers from all cultures, not just white people. Some of the pov-pushers were even upset that, after they notified Neopagan and occult wikiprojects about this, I notified the wikiprojects for some of the cultures discussed in this article. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 23:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Esowteric

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

It's early morning here and I have yet to gather my thoughts. Most of what I have to say is contained in the following talk page "essay" that I wrote, before templating the article for "systemic bias" and as "unbalanced":

• Talk:Witchcraft#Systemic_bias.

Also see:

• Talk:Witchcraft#Discussions_elsewhere, a list of discussion or attempted enforcement off the article talk page.

Note: We have been repeatedly advised that it would a good idea to take these big, thorny issues to dispute resolution, and thankfully here we are. This is not an "unnecessary case of WP:FORUMSHOPPING", nor "an apparent attempt to circumvent WP:RNPOV", nor can it be yet again dismissed as dastardly "POV pushing", and I hope that this necessary resolution process is not closed down.

Addendum: And WP:FALSEBALANCE is a straw man fallacy. I'm asking for equity, perhaps, not equality; and am appealing to the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law.

As for dismissing modern neopagan movements and religions as of negligible interest, please see Talk:Witchcraft#Pageview statistics and Google Trends.

Thanks a lot. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 06:29, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Skyerise

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I came to attempt to resolve this issue after reading many complaints (many of them now archived) on the article talk page about negative bias. Reading the article, I find that the bias is firmly established in the lead. The first problem is that malevolence is not common to the four or so (depending on the source) definitions of witchcraft. The second problem is that attributing 'malevolence' to witchcraft implies that witchcraft is real. Modern sources covering the witch trials rightfully acknowledge that those accused of 'witchcraft' were victims of persecution, that they were not actually practitioners of "malevolent witchcraft". Modern science says that magic and witchcraft are at the very least non-functional, perhaps even non-existent.

It is not possible for a non-existent thing to have qualities. When a thing is imaginary, any qualities it is thought to have must arise from projection and stereotyping. Nearly all of the in-depth sources cover these questions in their discussion of the definition, yet the gatekeepers of this article have exerted quite a bit of effort to maintain the definition in a form which leaves the reader wondering whether Wikipedia thinks all witchcraft is both real and malevolent, which is not the case. This is also true of the contemporary worldwide aspect of the article: we all know 'witchcraft' throughout the world is incapable of effecting supernatural malevolent events: any "real" cases of "witchcraft" turn out to have perfectly mundane explanations such as poisoning.

I think it is a great article on "historical and traditional views on witchcraft", but it is NOT a WP:BROADCONCEPT article. I believe the easiest solution is to disambiguate the article as such and move it, making the main 'witchcraft' and 'witch' pages dab pages. The recent requested move was put forward too quickly and the name proposed didn't properly reflect the restricted scope of the article, but perhaps more discussion would lead to a better title. However, if the article remains the primary article, it must be made more explicit in the lead that the quality of malevolence ascribed to witchcraft is projection or stereotyping on the part of the viewer onto a screen provided by historical ignorance. Skyerise (talk) 12:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Randy Kryn

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

A witch is a female human being. To coin a phrase. The vast majority of those millions of human beings, likely including tens of thousands of Wikipedia readers, are very nice, nature loving, and peaceful in practice and deed. Yet when they, or their friends and family, search Wikipedia they find that they are labeled with maybe the worse defamation existing on this site. Defamation about their character, their practices, their beliefs and their being. Let's put an end to that here. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Historyday01

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Vaticidalprophet

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

The purpose of Wikipedia is to serve the reader; all else is secondary. The complaint of the editors who defend that the article at this title should be an article about one kind of witchcraft and not a BROADCONCEPT or disambig is that readers keep coming and complaining that they expect the article titled 'Witchcraft' to be a BROADCONCEPT. All else in this dispute is an overspill of that. Vaticidalprophet 03:32, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

—

I will clarify a little, though the above is what I consider the core of the matter.

There is broad consensus that there should be a broad-concept article at the title "Witchcraft". There is substantial disagreement as to whether the existing article is a broad-concept article (because it discusses a variety of presentations of a traditional/folkloric understanding of witchcraft) or not (because it focuses near-exclusively on the traditional/folkloric understanding of witchcraft). It is evident (ibid) that readers seem to skew towards the second position. There are additional facets to this dispute, such as whether presenting witchcraft as anything other than universally malevolent is "systemic bias", or whether the article in its current state presents malevolent-witchcraft as "real" in a way not compatible with common interpretations of WP:FRINGE.

There is an unfortunate amount of animus here. People arguing for the former position generally posit that this is the only scholarly understanding of witchcraft, which does not seem to track with existing scholarship, and have acted with hostility towards alternative positions. I have been broadly aware of much of this discussion and was an early commentator, but have participated quite little due to the intensity of the environment. Vaticidalprophet 11:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by VenusFeuerFalle

If we decide that witchcraft should focus on the Christian definition on witchcraft or blackmagic, we need to re-evaluate other sections as well. For example, although some Muslim scholars distinguishes between licit and illicit magic, there is no concept of "black magic", as there is no good/evil light/shadow dualism in Islam.

Summary of dispute by Dimadick

The dispute has been going in circles for a while. One faction of editors supports the view that witchcraft is effectively synonymous with black magic (evil magic) and that the text should reflect this view. The second faction of editors supports covering the Neopagan witchcraft of the 20th century and its perceived origins in the 19th-century version of ceremonial magic, Western esotericism, and the ancient tradition of Hermeticism. None of these were particularly malevolent in nature. In additions, editors (including myself) have been discussing the various depictions of witchcraft in fiction, and whether they reflect or shape social attitudes towards the topic. In particular, the depictions of both good witches and evil witches in fiction, since at least the publication of the Oz series (1900-1963). Dimadick (talk) 23:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Nosferattus

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

The dispute is about whether the witchcraft article should include only the concept of malevolent witchcraft, or should be a broad article covering all aspects of witchcraft, including Neopagan witchcraft and various popular conceptions that are not necessarily malevolent. The scope dispute arose from an earlier dispute about whether or not the lead sentence and short description should describe witchcraft as "causing harm". Nosferattus (talk) 14:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Pliny the Elderberry

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

There are two main disagreements here: whether witchcraft is commonly enough understood/defined to be malevolent in nature for the article title to go without qualification (ex. "Witchcraft (malevolent)") and whether or not it represents an unconscionable (and unprofessional) bias that the main "witchcraft" article is an article about malevolent witchcraft. The majority opinion is that it is a broad concept article about malevolent witchcraft, and that "witchcraft" is still commonly understood in cultures throughout the world to primarily refer to malevolent magic, even if this is no longer a hegemonic viewpoint in Western culture. The minority opinion is that "witchcraft" is too ambiguous a term to go without qualification and that prominently describing "witchcraft" as typically malevolent in nature on the main "witchcraft" article represents an unconscionable bias in favor of anti-witchcraft beliefs and creates a hostile, discriminatory environment against modern witches. There's a lot more to the debate but those seem to be the core issues. Pliny the Elderberry (talk) 04:46, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Ffranc

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Thebiguglyalien

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Iskandar323

There is a slight air of WP:RGW to this dispute - principally that it is being asserted that the page maligns neopagan religious types that identify with witchcraft. Wikipedia maligns the ideals and beliefs of many peoples of faith and does so unswervingly because of WP:NOTCENSORED, and because of the sentiment conveyed at WP:GOODBIAS. Wikipedia follows the scholarship, and here we have historical experts such as Ronald Hutton saying of the subject, here regarding the term "witch", that "the mainstream scholarly convention will be followed, and the word used only for an alleged worker of such destructive magic." Despite the presence of such very transparent statements in scholarly literature, the page has got bogged down in questions over whether it is being well, "fair", I guess, towards Neopagan witchcraft, which is already naturally disambiguated as a separate term. There is no reason why this can't be referred to on the main page for witchcraft, in the sense that it is a corpus of belief derived from notions and themes related to the centuries-old European tradition of quasi-religious conceptions around witchcraft, but it is daft WP:FALSEBALANCE to suggest that a contemporary neopagan faith system somehow vies for the base name with the self-explanatory and readily understood conception of witchcraft in scholarship, history and overwhelmingly in literature up until the very late stage of the 20th century. The term "witchcraft" is understood by most people in a matter of fact way, as is evident from the presence of profiles on it on even government websites to give an overview into why there were historic witchcraft acts, etc. Likewise, you don't see Britannica confusing concepts.

Summary of dispute by Dawkin Verbier

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by ★Trekker

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I have not been overly involved in this dispute, all I can add is that it seems to me that modern witches/wiccans and similar have a view of "historical “witchcraft”" which is more based on religious interpretations than research and consensus from historians, in truth there is pretty little actual evidence/remains of “witchcraft” beyond accusations from hostile parties.★Trekker (talk) 08:26, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Carchasm

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

This DRN thread is unnecessary case of WP:FORUMSHOPPING in an apparent attempt to circumvent WP:RNPOV, the RFC was a WP:SNOW close due to overwhelming consensus towards the majority view, which is also what is represented in WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Request WP:SNOW close of this noticeboard thread. - car chasm (talk) 01:19, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Walt Yoder

I am only "involved" in the most tangential way. I voted in a RM that was (non-controversially closed). The result of the discussion was that witchcraft is a broad-concept article, and editors who insist otherwise are being tendentious in the face of clear consensus.

From a (partial) read of the talk page, the problem seems to be a small number of very-loquacious editors that feel we must avoid even hinting that contemporaneous practitioners of "witchcraft" might be associated with a practice viewed as evil. This is ludicrous. Historically, witchcraft was viewed as evil. And a broad-concept article must acknowledge that. Walt Yoder (talk) 21:56, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I was very tangentially involved in this, but my belief echoes a lot of the other editors here in that the historical definition of witchcraft is in fact evil magic. Devoting a large part of the article to the idea that it is good magic would be undue weight of a fringe viewpoint. Wikipedia is only meant to follow what the sources say about what people believed or believe, not to push some idea or another about what it should be. That falls into WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS territory. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:50, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Slatersteven

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Fiction and fact are not the same, so any "pop culture decisions of witchcraft" should be in a cultural or recreation section, and not part of the wider article (which should be about the practice and belief in witchcraft as a real force). Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Also (as far as I was aware) the dispute over the efficiency of magic, can we imply it works., or is it just a belief with no foundation in reality? Slatersteven (talk) 10:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Alalch E.

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Witchcraft can't be primarily defined as a stereotype or as coming from a stereotype. If there is an idea that there are people who practice magic and that a subset of those people use magic maliciously, that does not provide a functional basis for a stereotype. It's true and real that some people believe that there are certain people who practice magic. Going from there, it's mandated that people will also believe that, as people usually do things they do to both good and evil ends, some of those magic practitioners use magic for evil (witches). Given that people will identify people as magic practitioners when those people did not (but they could have, and it is true and real that some sometimes have) in fact exhibit behaviors that come from attempting to use magic stemming from a belief in the efficacy of magic on their part ("material magic practitioner"), i.e. they will misidentify material magic practitioners, they will also misidentify witches. They will also correctly identify a material magic practitioner that is specifically not guided by ill intent as a magic practitioneer, but will misidentify them as a witch. They will then, also, of course, sometimes correctly identify a "witch", that is, a material magic practitioner that is in fact guided by ill intent; as long as such individuals exist; and they did and do exist at times and places. At the same time they will seek good magic practitioners to help them with the bad magic stuff. None of this, so far, is about a stereotype. Only if we take a real group of people, like women, and say something general about women, such as "women have a natural propensity toward witchcraft (even if not all women are witches)", do we get a stereotype. But to be able to form such a stereotype, the notion of witchcraft as magic performed with evil intent must exist. So I lean toward defining witchcraft primarily as this notion. Because it helps understand other things, that "narratively" have to come later to be well understood.

Material magic practitioners will sometimes self-identify as a witch; when they do so in a certain (sub-)cultural framework it has the character of a reappropriation. They will profess that they are not evil and that those individuals who were called witches historically were all or generally non-evil, but that they were indeed witches, but that the association of witchcraft and malevolence is where the misidentification lies. But to understand that process, you need to understand what came before.—Alalch E. 17:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Netherzone

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I agree with several editors that this DRN is an unnecessary waste of time and was primarily opened because the filer was discontented with the consensus-based outcome of the RfC. I disagree with the way some editors bulldozed the article while discussion was in progress on the talk page rather than showing more restraint. I believe this behavior was fueled by an intention to right great wrongs WP:RGW. WP goes by what high quality reliable sources say whether or not one may personally disagree with them. These factors polarized the discussion into good vs. evil, which was unnecessary. Before all of the recent disruption, the Witchcraft article was a fine example of the broad concept of historical and traditional witchcraft. It was not written as an affront towards neopaganism and Wicca, however some editors interpreted it as such perhaps due to emotions and personal belief systems getting in the way. Netherzone (talk) 02:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Witchcraft discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Statement by Volunteer (Witchcraft)

There are a few problems with this case request. The first, and least serious, is that the filing editor has not notified the other editors. This could be remedied by providing them with notice. Several of the editors have responded, because a notice of this filing was made on the article talk page (which is good but not enough). The second problem is that 22 editors have been identified. DRN is a noticeboard for moderated discussion of content disputes involving a few editors. The usual type of moderated discussion is not likely to be feasible with 22 editors, which might be like trying to herd 6 sheep, 3 llamas, 4 goats, 3 rabbits, 1 border collie, 1 donkey, and 4 cats. The third problem is that the filing editor has already used a Requested Move that was closed early, and this appears to be a request to discuss a topic where a consensus process has already been used. DRN is not a means of overriding a consensus or of attempting to change a consensus by bludgeoning. I would normally close this discussion at this point. However, I will leave this discussion open for another day or two to see if there are any useful suggestions for how to go forward (as opposed to simply discussing). The purpose of discussion here is to improve the article, so any ideas should focus on article content. This discussion will probably be closed in one or two days, but is open for brainstorming for now. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Additional Statements by Editors (Witchcraft)

Statement by Darker Dreams

I am unclear what participants have not been notified. All those listed here have templated talk pages or removed the template themselves. Please advise.

While the move request was overcome by consensus it is now being used as a way to close down all discussion of reliably sourced material which does not agree specifically with the existing framework of the Witchcraft article; even beyond that article.

I don't know how to help with the unwieldy size. Darker Dreams (talk) 00:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

--

Regarding the size:

Looking at the statements above, several editors state "they are only tangentially involved." They have been notified and may participate actively or may choose to remain "tangentially involved" and reduce the effective size of the discussion.

I don't know what the background for the A, B, C, and D rules for DRN are. Looking at the other ongoing discussions, the standard seems to be C. Comparing the rule sets, there are some key versions that seem like they can be can be used to keep the situation manageable. Specifically, reducing cross-talk (5) and enforcing timeliness (9).

Discussion Rules Proposal Draft

Be civil and concise.    Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia and is essential in dispute resolution.  Uncivil statements may be collapsed.     Overly long statements do not clarify issues.  (They may make the author feel better, but the objective is to discuss the article constructively.)  Overly long statements may be collapsed, and the party may be told to summarize them.  Read Too Long, Didn't Read, and don't write anything that is too long for other editors to read.  If the moderator says to write one paragraph, that means one paragraph of reasonable length.  If the moderator says one sentence, that does not mean a run-on sentence.   Do not report any issues about the article or the editing of the article at any other noticeboards, such as WP:ANI or Arbitration Enforcement.  Reporting any issue about the article at any other location is forum shopping, which is strongly discouraged.  Any old discussions at any other noticeboards must be closed or suspended. If any new discussions are opened elsewhere while discussion is pending at DRN, the mediation at DRN will be failed.    Comment on content, not contributors.    The purpose of discussion is to improve the article, not to complain about other editors.  (There may be a combination of content issues and conduct issues, but resolving the content issue often mitigates the conduct issue or permits it to subside.)  Uncivil comments or comments about other editors may be suppressed.   "Comment on content, not contributors" means that if you are asked to summarize what you want changed in the article, or left the same, it is not necessary or useful to name the other editors, but it may be important to identify the paragraphs or locations in the article. It isn't necessary to identify the other editors with whom you disagree.   Discuss edits, not editors.  This means the same as "Comment on content, not contributors".  It is repeated because it needs repeating.   Do not edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress, with reasonable exceptions.  If the article is edited by a party while discussion is pending at DRN, the mediation at DRN may be failed.  One reasonable exception is the reverting of vandalism.  If there has been edit-warring over versions of the article, the moderator will not select which version is the "right" version to be displayed during moderated discussion. Simply stop edit-warring. The purpose of moderated discussion is to select between versions of the article, and the moderator will not act as an arbitrator.   Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion to statements by other editors unless the moderator gives permission; that is, do not reply to the comments of other editors.  That has already been tried and has not resolved the content dispute.  Address your comments to the moderator and the community except in a section for back-and-forth discussion, replies to other editors or back-and-forth discussion may be collapsed by the moderator and may result in a rebuke.  Do not communicate with the moderator on their user talk page. This is seen by other editors as trying to run around them. If you have a question or request for the moderator, ask it at DRN.   Please inform DRN if there is interaction on this subject with editors who are not taking part in the DRN.   It would be better not to discuss the article on the article talk page or on user talk pages while moderated discussion is in progress; because discussion elsewhere than at DRN may be overlooked or ignored.   The moderator may, at their discretion, provide a section for back-and-forth comments.  Keep your comments in that section, so that anyone else can ignore them.  Comments in the back-and-forth section, like everywhere else, must be civil. Back-and-forth conversation may be closed if discussion in this area becomes unproductive or distracting. Participants may request back and forth discussion, but opening such a section remains the discretion of the moderator.   The moderator may not have any background knowledge about the subject.  It is the responsibility of the editors, who are familiar with the subject matter, to inform the moderator about the subject matter, just as the purpose of the article is to inform the readers about the subject matter.   Be specific at DRN .  Do not simply say that a section should be improved, but tell what improvement should be made.  Do not simply say that "All viewpoints must be discussed", but identify the missing viewpoints.  If you say that the article has BLP violations, specify how they can be corrected.   Other editors who are not listed as participants may take part in discussion in the same way as listed participants.  Other editors are still required to address their comments to the moderator and the community, not to respond to the listed participants.    Other editors may request to be listed.  The moderator may decide to list any other editors who have been participating.  It doesn't really matter if an editor is listed.   Every participant is expected to check on the case at least every 48 hours and to answer questions within 48 hours. It is the responsibility of every participant to keep the moderator informed as to whether they will take any wikibreaks or be absent due to real life.  Discussion will continue in the absence of a participant, but will not result in any decisions that an editor who has notified the moderator of their absence cannot participate in.

I don't know if either of those items are helpful, but they are attempts to solve the problem presented. - Darker Dreams (talk) 11:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Vaticidalprophet

I want to clarify the "move discussion"/"RfC" (interesting conflation there) being discussed by some participants, and summarized by Robert McClenon from those descriptions as The third problem is that the filing editor has already used a Requested Move that was closed early, and this appears to be a request to discuss a topic where a consensus process has already been used. I'm clarifying this as a person vaguely involved in the dispute, but moreso as someone who's responded to some-triple-digits-number-of RMs and RM/TRs and has a good working sense of their diversity.

An RM was opened on 19 July with a specific proposed title, "Witchcraft (classical)", for the article currently titled "Witchcraft". The discussion was trainwrecked by disagreement about what title the article would be at even if it was moved and by diverging oppose reasons ("this article is exactly what it's expected to be" vs "it's not, but that title is the wrong one"). A supporter of the move, of which there were several (more than the total participation most RMs get, and certainly more than any RM closed snow-oppose (as opposed to normal-oppose) I've ever seen of many), explicitly requested it be closed early due to the malformation of the original RM, as what he called a "snowball close", with the intent of continuing to workshop titles. This was done with his exact wording.

"Snowball close" here doesn't clearly correspond to the term as traditionally used in RMs. If I saw a similar RM on a subject I have no involvement or interest in, it would likely be closed "no consensus". I'd also note in that hypothetical closing statement that the discussion was almost entirely subscribed by people already involved in the dispute, whose opinions on the matter were well-known by that point, and suggest something like leaving more WikiProject messages. (Object-case, this is obviously impacted by the fact I think like 50 wikiprojects have been notified at this point and are all very sick of it, but that's why we're here.)

I am also disappointed by the continued conflation of "people saying the article titled 'Witchcraft' should be about multiple things commonname-d as 'witchcraft' are saying the witch cult literally existed". Vaticidalprophet 03:30, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Esowteric

Thanks for your time and consideration, as volunteer here. I appreciate your dilemma.

However, I don't see how we can be called upon to inform and list all potentially concerned editors, only to then be told that "DRN is a noticeboard for moderated discussion of content disputes involving a few editors." Aren't the two demands mutually exclusive?

Is it not possible to instead focus on the two prominent opposing camps, viz the gatekeepers Asarlaí and CorbieVreccan on the one hand, and those they identify as dissenters, or who self-identify as dissenters, on the other, including but not limited to Darker Dreams, Skyerise, Esowteric, Randy Kryn and Nosferattus?

If this case is not heard, then the perennial and frequent issues visitors raise in heated talk page discussions, and reversions by editors, are not going to go away; things will only become more entrenched and righteous than ever.

---oOo---

I'm very disappointed by the intransigence and hostility shown by the two main gatekeepers at Witchcraft and associated pages, Asarlaí and CorbieVreccan, and I really don't think that anything I or others can say or do is going to bring about even minor paradigm shift. Perhaps despair is not too strong a word to use in this post-truth era?

They dismiss the concerns of the many readers who come looking for material on modern witchcraft and keep opening up talk page discussion threads about the article's negative bias (notably and most controversially in the first sentence of the lede, and until recently in the short description); they resist and revert changes by other editors aimed at rectifying the situation in a more nuanced way (that is, beyond the blinkered and monochromatic view that "The Scholars are on our side!"); they try to shut down legitimate dissent; and they are concerted in their efforts not only to make sure that other views are not represented in the article, but that their own partial view, that witchcraft is malevolent, is spread far and wide in satellite articles and pages.

I'm sorry, but this is all I have to offer right now:

• Talk:Witchcraft#Systemic_bias.

Update: I would be quite happy to go along with Skyerise's proposals below.

Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 07:54, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

:There is no "negative bias". Scholars do agree that the traditional and still most widespread meaning of "witchcraft" is malevolent magic. Do you think they're wrong? If readers looking for Neopagan Witchcraft are brought to the article by mistake, there are hatnotes explaining what the article is about and guiding them to Neopagan witchcraft. So what's the problem? – Asarlaí ^(talk) 12:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC) (moved below)

We should really stay in our own lanes here. However, the short answer to that from the field of medicine would be that prevention is better than cure, or from the field of quality assurance: get it right at source, rather than attempting to fix it further down the line. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:53, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Skyerise

Both Asarlaí and CorbieVreccan have assumed my position. But they are both incorrect and presenting strawmen. I am not here to promote the POV of Neopaganism. My concern is quite simple: I agree with those who divide the topic into "tradition/historical" and "modern/neopagan". I agree that they are two different things. I made explicit the hatnote describing exactly what the divide is. While I didn't get it right the first time, with the help of the aforementioned editors, it was improved and there have been no further arguments about the current wording.

At the same time, I removed the mentions of "modern/neopagan" witchcraft and Wicca from the article. If that material is removed, in accord with the hatnote, then I have no problem with the definition of witchcraft as intended to cause harm. However, the aforementioned editors insisted on returning the off-topic material to the article, and have shown that they are willing to tag-team edit war to keep it there.

So, my position is that if the consensus is to include the material despite the hatnote, then the definition in the lead paragraph must be broadened to be inclusive of both traditional and modern witchcraft, the only difference being the assumption of negative intent. I would actually prefer that we rely on the hatnote and remove the material about modern witchcraft. Then there is no dissonance between the definition and what is included in the article.

It is possible that this article should also be renamed and moved. I was involved in discussions about this when another editor prematurely opened the move request before there was consensus about what the new name should be. So, I'd suggest that we first just find out what the consensus is about the unclear division of the article and inclusion of material on a separate topic than historical malevolent witchcraft. If the decision is to keep the off-topic material, then we must have a discussion of how to reword the first paragraph of the lead to be inclusive of it. Once these issues are resolved, there should be another discussion about potential new titles, if there is still an interest in that, followed by an RM to see if there is a consensus to make that move.

In closing, I'd like to say that the article does a good job of covering its topic, and the problem only arises due to an insistence on including material, no matter how little, that relates to a topic that uses a different definition of witchcraft. If Asarlaí and CorbieVreccan, who already agree that there are two different topics, would agree to a clean division by not discussing the second topic at all in Witchcraft except in the hatnote, well, then I'd be done here. I can't speak for the other editors: not all will be happy with this solution, but it is the one that requires the least changes to the article under discussion. Skyerise (talk) 11:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

My position is supported by WP:TOPIC, which states "The most readable articles contain no irrelevant (nor only loosely relevant) information" (emphasis added). Given the definition in the lead and the clearly stated hatnote, modern witchcraft and Wicca would fall under "loosely related" in my opinion. When a clear hatnote specifies the scope, the article should not attempt to be inclusive of topics outside that scope. There has been an argument put forward that the reader might expect some coverage in the article after failing to read the hatnote, but this can be handled by putting links to the "expected" information in the 'see also' section, which is precisely where the reader will be when they fail to find the information they expect. Skyerise (talk) 12:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd also like to note that Asarlaí (below) has cherry-picked responses to establish an imaginary consensus against this position. Perhaps there are 5 opposed, but there are clearly 2 for my proposal, and there are a number of editors who haven't stated their position on this. Given the number of editors involved, there is a clear possibility that my proposal may yet be accepted by a majority of editors as the simplest and least controversial solution to the dispute. I propose that the moderator frame the question in a neutral way for a clear response from all parties so we can at least see which way the wind is actually blowing on this proposal. Skyerise (talk) 13:11, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Asarlaí

This dispute isn't about whether witchcraft is/was real, or whether accused witches were really doing witchcraft. It's about whether the neopagan meaning should be equally represented on the article Witchcraft.

Scholars agree that the traditional and still most widespread meaning of "witchcraft" is malevolent magic. So that's what the article is primarily about. I refute claims that the article has a "negative bias". It's merely discussing a particular belief. The only way someone could see it as "biased" is if they disagree with the scholarly consensus. If readers looking for Neopagan Witchcraft are brought to the article by mistake, there are hatnotes explaining what the article is about and guiding them to Neopagan Witchcraft. So I don't see the problem.

Skyerise suggests resolving the issue by removing everything about Neopagan Witchcraft from the article, leaving only the hatnote. This was discussed. Only Esowteric agreed, everyone else in the discussion disagreed.

• Iskandar323: "The topics might be distinct, but that distinction still needs explaining on this page ... it may not be within the core scope, but it is a sufficiently related subject to be mentioned as tangentially related, as well as differentiated."
• Pliny the Elderberry: "Neopagan Witchcraft is tangentially relevant to discussions about the cultural concept of witchcraft, roughly as much as Satanism is relevant to the article on Satan. ... It may not have a whole lot to do with the original subject, but insofar as it is inspired to some degree by the original subject it merits as much commentary as witchcraft in fiction."
• Nosferattus: "Even if this article were renamed to Witchcraft (malevolent), which doesn't seem likely to happen, I would argue that Wicca [...] still warrants discussion, albeit brief."
• CorbieVreccan: "It doesn't fit the scope, but per the lede we should probably have a brief section clarifying and redirecting people."

Instead of accepting this consensus, Skyerise "notified The Signpost that they may want to cover this as a news story".

I agree that the Witchcraft article should only have the bare minimum on Neopagan Witchcraft, but it still needs to be mentioned briefly in the article. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 13:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Slatersteven

There is another issue, this is far too broad as it seems to be about many different issues. Thus I am not (for example) involved in much of what is in dispute. Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Nosferattus

Partially in response to Robert McClenon... This dispute is much more complicated than a requested move. The essential issue is that the article has been gatekept for years to define witchcraft as malevolent magic. Since the number of people who practice witchcraft as a religion has risen from a few thousand in the 1990s to well over a million,[17] the use of "witchcraft" in both reliable sources and popular conception has changed greatly in the past 10 years. Rather than acknowledging this change and broadening the definition to encompass both the traditional academic definition and contemporary usage, the gatekeeping has only intensified. The gatekeepers have adopted a siege mentality and believe that anyone espousing that witchcraft can mean anything other than malevolent magic is a Wiccan POV-pusher and that the only reliable sources that matter are academic sources not associated with Neopaganism (using the circular logic that Neopagan-associated sources are biased). This is essentially a clash of two different POVs, but rather than trying to accommodate both POVs in the article (as WP:NPOV would suggest), one side believes that only their POV is valid and has essentially shut the other one out. Rather than addressing this core problem, Skyerise has decided that the only solution is to completely split the topic into 2 mutually exclusive scopes (thus the requested move). However, most editors don't agree with this solution and there isn't consensus to implement it. So we're basically still left with the original dispute. What is needed is some mediation to figure out how the lead of witchcraft can properly reflect the balance of all reliable sources. I'm afraid that the two camps have become too entrenched to reach compromise without some sort of mediation from uninvolved 3rd parties. Nosferattus (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Second statement by volunteer (Witchcraft)

First, I was mistaken about notice to editors, and have struck out that assertion. Second, User:Darker Dreams says that the Requested Move closure is being used to shut down further edits to the article, and wants to know what to do next. I see that there has been a great deal of back-and-forth discussion that has ultimately not resolved anything, and more than one editor has suggested that moderated discussion may be the way to resolve this dispute. I am willing to try to conduct moderated discussion, partly as an experiment, and partly because the situation seems to be already a mess, and the worst that can happen is to change the shape of the mess. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:12, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Please read the rules. If you continue to take part in this case, you are assumed to be agreeing to the rules. I will restate a few points. Be concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Do not reply to the posts of other editors except the moderator. Lengthy back-and-forth discussion has been going on and has not resolved the issues. Address your comments to the moderator (me) and the community. Any earlier back-and-forth discussion will be ignored. After this point, back-and-forth discussion may be collapsed. Do not edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress. The article is currently protected due to edit-warring, but the protection will expire, but treat the article as fully protected anyway. Back-and-forth discussion has not worked. Be Specific at DRN.

The introduction to this noticeboard says that DRN is normally used for content disputes that may take two to three weeks to resolve. This dispute may take a few months to resolve. The moderator will decide at what pace we should be making progress.

There are several different concepts of "witchcraft". This article, which is the principal article on witchcraft, should provide at least an introduction to all of them. Although it is often preferred to write the body of an article first and have the lede section summarize the article, what we will try here is to rework the lede section of the article, to try to get rough consensus that the lede section provides a broad concept. So what I am asking is for each editor who has an idea of how to reorganize the article to state briefly how they want to reorganize the lede section. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:12, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Second statements by editors (Witchcraft)

Statement by Nosferattus

Scholars agree that there are multiple definitions of witchcraft (see especially Ronald Hutton and Marion Gibson). Why can't the lead paragraph of the article reflect that? According to MOS:OPEN: "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific." Surely there must be some compromise that would be amenable to both sides of this dispute. Is there any wording that anyone can propose that might bridge the divide? Nosferattus (talk) 17:21, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Second statement by Skyerise

I would like to note that when the article was listed as GA in 2006, the lead read as follows:

Witchcraft, in various historical, religious and mythical contexts, is the use of certain kinds of supernatural or magical powers. A witch is a (sometimes specifically female) person who engages in witchcraft.

The term witchcraft (and witch) is a controversial one with a complicated history. Witchcraft is viewed differently in different cultures around the globe. Used with entirely different contexts, and within entirely different cultural references, it can take on distinct and often contradictory meanings.

All of which, as far as I can tell, is still true. It was an incomplete lead, but it addressed the issue. Skyerise (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

For completeness, when it was delisted in 2009, the lead read:

Witchcraft, in various historical, anthropological, religious and mythological contexts, is the use of certain kinds of supernatural or magical powers. Witchcraft can refer to the use of such powers in order to inflict harm or damage upon members of a community or their property. Other uses of the term distinguish between bad witchcraft and good witchcraft, the latter involving the use of these powers to heal someone from bad witchcraft. The concept of witchcraft is normally treated as a cultural ideology, a means of explaining human misfortune by blaming it either on a supernatural entity or a known person in the community (Pócs 1999, pp. 9-12). A witch (from Old English wicce f. / wicca m.) is a practitioner of witchcraft.

which also acknowledges the range of meanings. Skyerise (talk) 17:44, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Additional response to Asarlaí and Iskandar323: You have both brought up Britannica. But Britannica covers the imaginary nature of witchcraft and stereotyping in the second half of its current lead paragraph:

[...] Witchcraft thus defined exists more in the imagination of contemporaries than in any objective reality. Yet this stereotype has a long history and has constituted for many cultures a viable explanation of evil in the world. The intensity of these beliefs is best represented by the European witch hunts of the 14th to 18th century, but witchcraft and its associated ideas are never far from the surface of popular consciousness and—sustained by folk tales—find explicit focus from time to time in popular television and films and in fiction.[18]

Britannica has adapted to the times; we have not. Skyerise (talk) 22:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Second statement by Esowteric

Mr Moderator, friends: I, too, noted how very much differently historically-older revisions of the lede were. Whereas the current version leads with witchcraft being seen traditionally and ethnically as malevolent, which pre-defines and "colours" the whole article, these earlier versions were much more inclusive and "inviting" toward material about contemporary witchcraft.

If we do not make an attempt to clearly define witchcraft in the first sentence of the lede ("Witchcraft is ...") then I feel that would create a vacuum, and sooner or later another editor would come along and replace it with their own definition. I see nothing wrong with the 2006 (GA) version that Skyerise kindly provided:

Witchcraft, in various historical, religious and mythical contexts, is the use of certain kinds of supernatural or magical powers. A witch is a (sometimes specifically female) person who engages in witchcraft. [...]

Perhaps it should also use a word like "cultural", too.

If the article is to be broad, as you suggest, then I do see that negative connotations would have to have a place, but not a dominant place, in the lede, along with some mention of modern/neopagan witchcraft. The short description, too, should neutrally reflect the broad nature of the article.

We may also have to think about the few qualifying words about stereotyping in the lede, recently introduced and not yet reverted, as this may be another contentious issue.

The witch-cult hypothesis will have to feature in the article, and some mention may or may not be needed in the lede as a pre-amble to mention of modern movements.

I'm not a subject expert, so please guide me here, but I was thinking of something along the lines of:

"In the early 1900s, Margaret Murray proposed what became known as the witch-cult hypothesis, the idea that an underground pagan religion had survived in the Christian era. This has since been debunked, but it gave rise to a growing interest in neopaganism and the foundation of contemporary witchcraft movements and religions such as Wicca."

Addendum: I am aware that DRN Rule A now applies here, and that we need to listen carefully to all points of view expressed, and take care not to misrepresent our own point of view, nor that of other parties in this dispute.

Thank you. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:59, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Second statement by Vaticidalprophet

(third, really)

I also think the c. late 2000s lead is a good starting point. Funnily enough, the sweeps-era/delisted lead is a fair bit better (less paradoxical if you know the history of GA in the era, but this is not a GAN historiography). A modification of both could be a reasonable first paragraph, along the lines of:

Witchcraft, in various historical, anthropological, religious and mythological contexts, is the use of certain kinds of supernatural or magical powers. A witch (from Old English wicce f. / wicca m.) is a practitioner of witchcraft. In many traditional and folkloric contexts, witchcraft refers to the use of such powers in order to inflict harm or damage upon members of a community or their property. Other uses of the term distinguish between "bad witchcraft" and "good witchcraft", including the ability of the latter to defend against the former. Witchcraft and witches are viewed differently in different cultures around the globe and in different time periods; the terms can take on distinct and often contradictory meanings.

Following paragraphs could expand upon folkloric, anthropological, and religious understandings. These would be clearly linked and hatnoted to subtopics, including the Folkloric understandings of witchcraft-type article currently at the "Witchcraft" title, the Witch (archetype) article Skyerise is as-I-understand-it interested in writing (please tell me if I'm mischaracterizing this thought -- I do think an article on psychological/archetypal understandings of "the witch" is a great idea, though), and contemporary-witchcraft-related articles. Vaticidalprophet 18:55, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

There are editors I have held in high regard taking multiple positions in this dispute. I have been disappointed by the assumptions of many. That is the most I will for now comment on discontent; but there is more discontent than content in this content dispute. Vaticidalprophet 06:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Second statement by Darker Dreams

I believe the opening to the lead should start with acknowledgement that witch and witchcraft have a variety of meanings. Drawing from user:Vaticidalprophet's proposal and the last version of the witch article before its merge.[19]

Witchcraft has a wide assortment of meanings, depending on the culture and the context in which it is presented. A witch is a practitioner of witchcraft.

Of note; I am not including supernatural or magical powers in the opening statement. I believe introduction of that aspect requires too much discussion and diverges too quickly into the sub-topics to be covered in the lead.

From there I believe those meanings should be laid out, generally using a single sentence per definition. These meanings include, but are not limited to;

1. use of supernatural or magical powers to harm others. (This may or may not be acknowledged as the primary anthropological definition and focus of study at this point.)
2. adherents of certain Pagan religions including, but not limited to, Wicca.
3. folk healers and users of traditional knowledge.
4. etc.

I believe that should be the entirety of the lead section. Darker Dreams (talk) 23:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

If there are other sections, such as archetypal use (re user:Skyerise's apparent proposal) or use in fiction - which would be appropriate if kept neutral - I would summarize those ideas in short statements or single sentences following the definitions. Darker Dreams (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Second statement by CorbieVreccan

1. Versions of the lede from years ago are irrelevant. What matters is the sourcing and current consensus, which is for the version of the lede we had before the Neopagan POV push.
2. The Neopagan POV pushers here know the consensus and sources matter, and some have expressed that, just as they are ignoring the consensus of the page-move discussion, they plan to just revisit this "in a year or so" hoping that page hits and IP complaints from neopagans will once again support going through all of this again.
3. This will not be resolved as long as we have WP:RGW POV-pushers on the article and connected articles who still believe the thoroughly debunked witch-cult theory and demand we write text in Wikivoice that assumes this debunked theory is real. This won't be resolved by writing fiction. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 23:34, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Third Statement by Moderator (Witchcraft)

If I have correctly assessed the positions of the editors here, there appear to be two different ideas as to how the lede section should describe the topic of witchcraft, and so two ideas as to how the article should be organized. I will try to summarize, and if the editors disagree with my summary, they should explain. The first idea is that most twenty-first century reliable sources who refer to witchcraft are referring to black magic or malevolent witchcraft, and that the article should focus primarily on black magic and the belief in black magic. The second idea is that in the twenty-first century, there are multiple concepts of witchcraft, including the early modern concept of malevolent witchcraft that resulted in witch hunts, modern neopagan religions that characterize their practice as witchcraft, and the folkloric ideas of other cultures. The main difference appears to be whether to give primary attention to the belief in black magic, or to give approximately equal attention to the belief in black magic, and to modern neopagan religions. Is my characterization of the two viewpoints correct? Will each editor please state which viewpoint they have, or whether there is another viewpoint that you hold? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:50, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

As a side matter, the reality or unreality of witchcraft should not be an issue. The belief in malevolent witchcraft is very real, as the victims of witch hunts know. I don't think that it is an issue here, but am just restating it.

After the editors have declared which viewpoint they have, and how they would like the article to describe the viewpoints, then we can develop two competing versions of the lede section of the article, and then choose between them. If there is a third viewpoint, then there is a third viewpoint.

To answer a question, if another editor, either one of the editors in this discussion or another editor, edits the article, should you revert the edit? No, unless the edit was vandalism. You should not edit the article while discussion is in progress, and should ignore any other good-faith editing of the article.

Are there any questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:50, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Third Statements by Editors (Witchcraft)

Third statement by Vaticidalprophet

I'll await further commentary, but I'd describe the approximate 'camps' as such:

• Camp 1: A broadly-construed "folkloric witchcraft" is the primary topic for witchcraft. This includes early-modern witch hunts, witches as "evil magic-users" in societies that also believe/d in "good magic-users", and contemporary concepts of malevolent witchcraft associated particularly with sub-Saharan Africa (see e.g. our articles Witchcraft accusations against children in Africa and Witchcraft in Ghana -- though we don't cover this well in general, and our discussion of it in the Witchcraft article too is frankly poor). The Witchcraft article is a "broad-concept article", because it deals with all these subjects. Attempts to broaden its scope are inappropriate, for reasons expressed such as systemic bias, a focus on this meaning in earlier scholarship in particular, and the idea that broader scopes are inherently motivated by specific pseudohistorical beliefs.
• Camp 2: There is no obvious "primary topic" for witchcraft in 21st-century reliable sources. Multiple scholarly fields discuss the term in different contexts, and individuals mean very different things when they use it. The current article's focus on "folkloric witchcraft, broadly construed" is a narrower scope than reflected in present sourcing or than readers would expect to find at the title "Witchcraft". Other common subjects of discussion in reliable sources include new religious movements and their own influences (e.g. particular pseudohistorical beliefs), psychological/anthropological research on why witchcraft is a popular concept, and the representation of witchcraft in fiction.

I have tried to describe each camp as neutrally as possible. #2 in particular could be trivially split into "about one camp per person" -- I have the very strong impression most people who think there's something wrong with the present scope have different and often contradictory ideas for the ideal scope. My thought, as can be extrapolated from the way I've presented both broad beliefs, is that we should probably split out a lot more articles. The recent un-merging of Neopagan witchcraft is such an example; I've similarly uncovered huge coverage gaps around our presentation of folkloric witchcraft in Africa, which is a subject nominally within the current article's scope (and used as an example of why it shouldn't have its scope changed) but undercovered both there and elsewhere. Vaticidalprophet 07:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

—

I've been focusing on keeping my summaries short, but the sprawling is happening with or without me.

My stance, to still make it as concise as I can:

• Per camp 2, there is no obvious "primary topic" for witchcraft in 21st-century reliable sources.
• "Folkloric understandings of witchcraft" is itself an extremely broad-concept subject (but not the entire broad concept of "witchcraft") and should itself have vastly more subarticles. Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe is not the same thing as the concepts and folklore that colonists translated in English as "witch" from different cultures, which themselves are very different concepts to one another that cannot be broadly painted as "non-Western cultures" -- that's the supermajority of the world population!
• The resplitting of "Neopagan witchcraft" is an unmitigated good, though I still wonder if this is the title most readers are looking for.
• We could easily sustain a double-digit number of subarticles, covering vastly different topics with nothing more than an Anglophone name in common, that would all be core enough to put on a single disambig. This is a huge topic.
• I think the topic is too huge to sustain a BROADCONCEPT proper rather than a disambig, but I'm working from the BROADCONCEPT perspective because it seems to be the current area of interest.

Vaticidalprophet 13:26, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Third statement by Esowteric

Thank you, Mr Moderator and friends.

My overall position is that I will happily consider and accommodate myself to any proposal offered so far, of witchcraft in its broader sense, other than one in which the article is presented with an overarching, overshadowing and overbearing theme of malevolence. And if consensus goes against this possibility, then I will accept that decision.

---oOo---

I don't want to have to do it, since I'm attempting to abide by DRN Rule A, and also to move on with the discussion here, but to counter the straw man fallacy presented of me as one of the reprobate "neopagan POV pushers", I would again clarify:

"I do see that negative connotations would have to have a place, but not a dominant place, in the lede, along with some mention of modern/neopagan witchcraft." I am not looking for equality here, simply fair and proportional representation of "witchcraft" in its broadest appreciation in the 21st century, beyond the cloistered halls of traditionalist and orthodox scholasticism.

If that can be achieved, then material covering modern neopagan and witchcraft movements and religions have a place in the article after the lede and after treatment of the "traditionalist" material. If the lede remains heavily weighted, especially in the first sentence and short description, and heavily weighted in satellite articles and disambiguation pages, toward the view of witchcraft as malevolent, then I see the inclusion of modern material as untenable, since it is not, generally speaking, in any way malevolent.

As I also said earlier, and repeat here since it was ignored in all the talk of "neopagan POV pushers": in my opinion, for what little that is worth, "The witch-cult hypothesis will have to feature in the article, and some mention may or may not be needed in the lede as a pre-amble to mention of modern movements." Furthermore, I presented a snippet from a proposed lede which stated that this hypothesis has "since been debunked". I do not at all deny the pseudo-historical basis of the modern movements and religions.

(For the record, my primary interest in the past has not been neopaganism but Sufism, and more recently illuminationism and depth psychology).

To reiterate: my overall position is, then, that I will happily consider and accommodate myself to any proposal offered so far, of witchcraft in its broader sense, other than one in which the article is presented with an overarching, overshadowing and overbearing theme of malevolence. And if consensus goes against this possibility, then I will accept that decision.

(As a parenthetical comment, it's interesting to compare and contrast how Professor Ronald Hutton's ideas are currently represented in the lede with this useful video interview: "Magic in Paganism, Wicca, Druidry with Prof Ronald Hutton". Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 11:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC))

Thank you once again. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 08:07, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Third statement by slatersteven

On the subject of black VS white magic

Prior to the 19thC witchcraft (and often magic in general) was seen as black, maleficarum (when they did not say it did not even exist).

In the 19thC Fraiser and Murrey decided that witchcraft was, in fact, the survival of a "witch cult" suppressed by the Christian church, and was not black magic, this was accepted up until about the mid 20thC as the standard view. It is this that most (all?) versions of modern witchcraft (and indeed satanism) are based. But not (it seems in the rest of the world)

Post-mid 20thC this view has been widely condemned as (in essence) wishful thinking with no basis in reality, and that witches were (to put it crudely) sad old ladies (in fact not always, but that is the common image, the old crone) who were not even witches (and maybe just old and lonely, victims of social problems). Again this seems to be a western view, and in many other places witchcraft is still seen as malevalant, and distinct from "white magic".

It's all a bit too nuanced for the lede. Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Third statement by Darker Dreams

My position is that there are at least three types of "witchcraft" to discuss - neopagan, diabolic (historical malicious witchcraft belief in which has driven witch hunts), and traditional/folkloric/etc.

I do not agree that "The main difference appears to be whether to give primary attention to the belief in black magic, or to give approximately equal attention to the belief in black magic, and to modern neopagan religions." This is how the discussion has been inaccurately characterized by others; however, it inappropriately simplifies all definitions outside "black magic" to "Neopagan." Folkloric traditions, for example, can be shown prior to Christianization in multiple places in Africa, the Americas, Oceania, and even parts of Europe (not invoking the witch cult). Darker Dreams (talk) 10:08, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I have real issues with the fact it was announced that compromise language has been worked out on other witchcraft-related articles where it arguably doesn't even belong. While I can see a need to address the stereotypes and conflicts that have come because the definition of "the use of magic or supernatural powers to cause harm and misfortune to others" exists, but I am not clear why it requires prominence in the Wicca or Neopagan Witchcraft pages. More frustratingly; two of the individuals involved with this addition have been listed parties in this dispute but have had limited participation in this discussion, and have accused me of POV pushing on other articles. Darker Dreams (talk) 15:50, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Third statement by Skyerise

I object to characterizations made by CorbieVreccan, especially their repeated labeling of editors as "Neopagan POV pushers". CorbieVreccan's second statement does not address the content issue, but merely hurls accusations. I request that it be struck and that this user be warned that we are supposed to be discussing content, not contributors, and that if this attitude continues, that this editor be removed from the moderation as having a non-productive attitude.

I, for one, am not a Neopagan or a witch, and do not believe in the witch-cult hypothesis. I'm not sure anyone else here does either (show of hands?), yet CorbieVreccan seems to believe that by accusing editors of this, it invalidates their positions. I don't even think these accusations are true. In any case, these kinds of comments are not helpful and the user should be warned. Skyerise (talk) 12:23, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

And what's with the stalking of my conversations with other editors. Isn't CorbieVreccan an admin? Is this appropriate behavior for an admin? Sorry to bring this up here, but I don't want to be accused of WP:FORUMSHOPPING if I take the stalking issue to another venue. Skyerise (talk) 12:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Now, back to the actual topic: Asarlaí, Iskandar323, and I seem to have worked out a compromise wording at Wicca based on the most recent EB article, which I've also transferred to Neopagan witchcraft in the same context. That wording goes:

Historically, the term "witchcraft" has meant the use of magic or supernatural powers to cause harm and misfortune to others. According to Encyclopedia Britannica, "Witchcraft thus defined exists more in the imagination of contemporaries than in any objective reality. Yet this stereotype has a long history and has constituted for many cultures a viable explanation of evil in the world."

References

I suggest this second sentence be added to the lead paragraph at Witchcraft. I also think the two sources used here for the first sentence are completely adequate, but if other editors insist on 7 citations... Skyerise (talk) 12:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Reply to @Darker Dreams: Yes, I completely agree with the fact that this material should actually be removed from those articles rather than qualified. Yet after many reverts of my edits accompanied by repeated accusations of POV-pushing and a report against me for 3RR, I feel intimidated into not removing the material more than once, and I was reverted the first time I tried to remove it. So the compromise wording might be useful to resolve this dispute, but it should be removed from Neopagan witchcraft and Wicca. When other editors in this dispute started changing Wicca, I asked that it be protected, but that request was ignored, so here we are... Apparently those articles are not covered by this DR, and I would have no problem with you removing those two sentences altogther. Skyerise (talk) 16:00, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Talk:1st Armoured Division (United Kingdom)‎

– New discussion.

Filed by EnigmaMcmxc on 23:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Talk:1st Armoured Division (United Kingdom) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• EnigmaMcmxc (talk · contribs)
• Buckshot06 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Staying as neutral as possible (until my opinion is requested): An on and off again dispute about where content (on British Cold War armoured divisions) should go, which has been going on since 2020. It is currently focused on this page (which has included both of us edit-warring), but has included 1st (United Kingdom) Division, ‎2nd Armoured Division (United Kingdom), 2nd Infantry Division (United Kingdom) and a host of others that contain links to these various articles. An RFC was previously attempted but did little to stem the disagreement (it created more of a ceasefire). Various reviews of the articles appear to have developed a consensus on where the content should go, based on discussions around lineage. A new discussion was recently had on the talkpage, which has hit a deadend.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2nd Armoured Division (United Kingdom), [[20]], [[21]], Talk:1st (United Kingdom) Division, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/1st Armoured Division (United Kingdom), Talk:1st Armoured Division (United Kingdom)

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

This is a discussion that has been going on since 2020 and has recently intensified. We all need to discuss what the sources state and establish consensus on the matter.

Summary of dispute by Buckshot06

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

The British Army established two armoured divisions in 1939. 1st Armoured Division was established in 1939, then disbanded 1945. It was reestablished in 1978, and disbanded in 2014. 2nd Armoured Division was established in 1939, and destroyed in 1941; reestablished in 1976, disbanded 1982.

An adequate history for both periods of history, Second World War, and postwar, belongs at both the articles 1st Armoured Division (United Kingdom) (1939-45 and 1978-2014) and 2nd Armoured Division (United Kingdom) (1939-41 and 1976-82). But when I try to add referenced text about the later period(s), EnigmaMxmxc removes it. He has advanced no sources arguing that the second periods of existence in the late 1970s represent a total and qualitative break from the Second World War periods of existence (sometimes termed a break in the 'lineage'), but will not allow me to add text regarding the later periods. We're in a revert war. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by EnigmaMcmxc

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

The sources outline that the 1st and the 2nd Divisions underwent various name changes during their long existences. During the Cold War, both these formations were labeled as armoured divisions. The sources (cited in all the articles and on the talkpages) indicate that there was no break in lineage when they were renamed; they were the same formation, they maintained the same history, the same insignias etc. For example, Buckshot asserts the 1st Armoured Division was reestablished or formed in 1976. Multiple sources state otherwise, such as the The British Army's website.

Separate to these two formations, were two armoured divisions (1st and 2nd Armoured Division) that were formed in the 1930s and had ceased to exist by the end of the Second World War. No source states that these two formations were reformed or that they had anything to do with the Cold War armoured divisions (even if they shared the same name). These two formations even existed at the same time as the 1st and 2nd Divisions (when they were infantry formations). The sources (cited in all the articles) support the point of these all being separate formations. Buckshot has asserted otherwise and has not provided a single source in over two years of making this claim, hence why his edits keep getting reverted.

During the review process for the 1st and 2nd Div and the 1st and 2nd Arm Div articles (linked above), editors have continually made this point that despite similar names these are all different formations. I have compiled with that established consensus, which is also in line with what the sources state. Buckshot asserts that despite multiple reviewers making this point, there is no consensus. He has fashioned no source to establish why that consensus is wrong.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Zeroth Statement by Moderator (1st Armoured)

I will try to moderate this dispute. Please read the ground rules. Do you agree to moderated discussion subject to the rules? Be civil and concise. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address your comments to the community and the moderator (me) as the representative of the community. Now, will each editor please state concisely what in the article you either want changed, or what you want left the same that the other editor wants changed? At this time, I am only asking what you want changed, and not why. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for moderating and I agree to follow the rules. My position is that the status quo needs to be maintained on all the above mentioned articles.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 05:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Zeroth Statements by Editors (1st Armoured)

I categorically reject the suggestion that removal of the two later periods of history has been specifically endorsed by any consensus of editors. Concisely, I believe a history for both periods, Second World War, and postwar, belongs at both the articles 1st Armoured Division (United Kingdom) (1939-45 and 1978-2014) and 2nd Armoured Division (United Kingdom) (1939-41 and 1976-82). Buckshot06 (talk) 11:23, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Talk:1st Armoured Division (United Kingdom)‎ discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

• Volunteer Note - The other editor has not been notified of this filing. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:09, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

  Apologies, I was under the impression that it would automatically alert after typing usernames in.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:49, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note - It isn't clear to me from reading this filing and the article talk page what the issue is. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:09, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I looked at EnigmaMcmxc's contributions and came here, though yes, I was not notified: is my summary clear as to what I believe should be the policy? Buckshot06 (talk) 05:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I tried to provide a neutral overview, although I have just entered a summary section for myself so hopefully my position in this dispute is clear also.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Rape in Islamic law

– New discussion.

Filed by 1Firang on 12:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Rape in Islamic law (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• 1Firang (talk · contribs)
• Pathawi (talk · contribs)
• Iskandar323 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

An editor, Pathawi is repeatedly removing sourced content believing that others should, "chime in" but only one other editor, Iskandar323 responded with a suggestion which I incorporated but it is still being removed by Pathawi.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:Rape in Islamic law#Removal of sourced content falsely claiming it was discussed

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Consider the opinion of all involved editors, reword the sentences as per suggestions and add the sentences back.

Summary of dispute by Pathawi

I first objected on 17 July. These objections have remained unaddressed, despite restatement: 1) The source explicitly deals with a specific historical period, & the citation should reflect that. 2) The source does not make a categorical statement about "Islamic law" on the consent of enslaved women, but rather says that jurists from the era did not address consent as 'a key "moral-legal concern"'. 1Firang (talk · contribs) has reintroduced the content multiple times, but never addressed either issue. I have a newer concern: 1Firang subsequently added the same sentence (or a version with one clause removed) to other pages, including on 26 July to History of slavery in the Muslim world. I removed the edit, and directed other editors to the ongoing discussion at Talk:Rape in Islamic law in the edit summary. Following a short debate, I again mentioned to editors following Talk:History of slavery in the Muslim world the original location. I think it's reasonable to wait a few days to allow others to weigh in.

I have further concerns, & wonder if this process is the right one: 1Firang has a history of tendentious editing. This has led to a topic ban on issues concerning India and Pakistan broadly, in part due to promotion of Islamophic conspiracy theories. Prior edits introduce "sourced material" about Islam in which the source does not sustain the text introduced. An admin has given 1Firang a "last warning" for tendentious editing at Rape in Islamic law. 1Firang has responded to criticisms of the accuracy of citations by complaining that other editors will not allow content critical of Islam—not the subject of the sources. This makes me think that we're dealing with Righting Great Wrongs. Since their last warning, 1Firang has sought advice at the Teahouse and the Village pump. At both locations, multiple other editors have suggested that they are in violation of the topic ban or its spirit, & have urged 1Firang to find other areas for editing.

Summary of dispute by Iskandar323

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Rape in Islamic law discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

This is the sourced content being removed by Pathawi repeatedly.