Talk:Witchcraft/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1 Archive 2 →

Contents

Witchcraft and the paranormal

I think the section on Witchcraft and the Paranormal is heavy POV influenced. The statement "Modern science has found no evidence to support the claims witchcraft makes about the world or its own efficacy" is not POV free. If fact, modern physics, as well as medicine, accepts almost as axiomatic that observation influences; for this reason, you cannot know both the position and speed of a particle; and all the research showing actual measurable effects of prayer (any flavor) on health, even in double blind situations, also valids some principles of witchcraft. Additionally, the statement about witchcraft and "diabolocal pacts" is NOT a POV free statement, nor representative of common understanding; witchcraft is also seen as using non-malevolent spiritual intervention, or the essence or power of material objects to create its effects. The entire paragraph about traditional European belief seems 1) not to belong to this section and 2) could use a link to blood libel .

way to much christian POV in there, i agree. Gabrielsimon 00:07, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

i agree -- also, my understanding is that the acts most accused witches confessed to during the european witch trial period have very little to do with what ancient european practices may have been like and much more to do with what the christian accusers imagined them to be. in all my research about actual european pagan traditions, there are virtually no claims that black masses or pacts with the devil actually took place. also, most sources i'm aware of indicate that most people accused of witchcraft during this period had little to no actual involvement with pre-christian religions or sorcery of any sort. they were mostly people in the wrong place at the wrong time, people who ran afoul of someone well-connected, or scapegoats for unexplainable natural events. some sources even suggest that the witch trials were a systematic killing of women, a form of gendercide. none of this seems to be reflected in this article. User:Geeksquad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.116.190 (talk • contribs)

Are you looking for the article on European witchcraft perhaps? Jkelly 18:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Witchcraft and belief

I certainly agree that some people do believe in witchcraft. In fact, I explicitly stated this in the material I wrote. I gave examples of two groups of people who used to, and still do, believe that witches can cast magic spells. The problem was that the person who created this entry appeared to strongly believe in the reality of magic witchcraft, and stated the existence of it as definately real. That was not NPOV! I think that if anyone wants to claim that supernatural, magic witchcraft is genuinelly real, they need to demonstrate this, with proper scientific controls to make sure that no fraud or self-deception is taking place. Otherwise, all we can do is say that some people believe in witchcraft, in the same way we say that some people believe in Allah, or Jesus, or Diana, etc. RK

salem witchcraft trials?

Edit: RK, would you go up to a Christian and ask him or her to prove that prayer does indeed work and is valid? Would you require that person to prove that prayer is real? Millions of Christians practice prayer each and every single day. Stating such is a matter of fact and not of opinion. Millions of witches practice magick each and every single day. Stating such is not a matter of opinion but one of fact. Whether we are successful at it or not doesn't matter. That is in fact what we do. Ayla

The trouble with that is that the term 'magic' describes both the activity and the effect, whereas 'prayer' describes only the activity. So, when you say 'witches practice magic' it does carry an implication that magic exists, not merely as a practice but as a force. The challenge will be to come up with some description that documents your beliefs and practices without implicitly validating (or invalidating) them.Cavalorn 16:13, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

to RK,dude, how the heck can you think that you can do magic scientifucally, the two dont reconsile because sciene isnt advanced enough yet. Gabrielsimon 04:47, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, right, science isn't advanced enough yet to be on par with magic, and alchemy and werewolves too in fact. Sorry, but you can't fight POV with POV on Wikipedia. Phil Urich 12:07, 27 April 2005 (UTC)

I don't think saying witches use magic is POV. Please Review the OED definition and Etymology of this word. It is not a given that someone practicing "magic" is by definition doing anything in contradition with known science. In fact the Etymology would seem to suggest that at one time there was no significant difference made between the study of magic and study of the natural world. This is validated by well known history of people like Issac Newton who practiced the Occult side by side with scientific studies. (See the wikipedia entry on this for more info)

The main issue here is the difference between Penn & Teller "Magic", Fairytale Magic, and the NeoPagan definition(s), which are all quite different. NeoPagans and modern witches usually define magic as either "the science and art of causing change to occur in conformity with will" (Crowley) or "the art of changing consciousness at will" (Dion Fortune). Note that the most popular NeoPagan definitions are not supernaturally based, but are mainly about the use of intention to change the world around you. They generally would say that growing a garden is just as "magical" an activity as casting a spell. This may be why a Witch would find questioning a belief in magic as absurd as questioning a belief in prayer. To them, it is more often a methodology, not a thing to believe in per se. So... Instead of trying to either validate or "debunk" a belief in magic, perhaps the article could just make a reference to these commonly accepted modern definitions used by Witches themselves? Yarthkin 03:20 , 6 Apr 2005

Malleus Malificarum

Anyone want to take the time to do a page on the Malleus Malificarum and then link it to the various witchcraft-related pages? --Dante Alighieri

European witchcraft?

Quite a lot about Jewish/Middle Eastern/Biblical witchcraft and attitudes towards, not a lot on European witchcraft. Anyone want to fill in the gaps? —Ashley Y 08:01, Nov 29, 2003 (UTC)

Rant from article

Moved here by —Eloquence 09:25, Jan 31, 2004 (UTC) until it is properly NPOVed and encyclopediafied:

Witchcraft is the practice of folk magic (including herbalism, divination, spellcraft, etc. - sometimes to include midwifery and other "misunderstood" mundane practices), as opposed to a religion in and of itself. That said, however, "modern" Witchcraft (which includes Wicca and other "traditions") is believed by its practitioners to be a religion in and of itself. People have haggled over the term on end, and the best way it may be explained by one of the latter that is fair to the former is that witchcraft (lowercase "w") denotes the practice, while Witchcraft (uppercase "w") refers to the religion. A witch can be of any (or no) religion and is not always necessarily a Pagan. (Someone should clarify this better). Source material for this info includes: The Truth About Witchcraft Today, 1988, Scott Cunningham; The Encyclopedia of Witches & Witchcraft, Second Edition, Rosemary Ellen Guiley, Checkmark Books, 1999, pp. 366, 372-374, 378. ; http://members.aol.com/dissonantia (a large number of the links there are now defunct, but the site includes pertinent snippets from the sites); and various other web sites and book references.

Messy

Kind of a hodge-podge, this article... —Ashley Y 04:32, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)

I have moved text on Neopagan witchcraft here from To The Craft (Religion)because it makes more sense to have distinct entries on this. The way I see it this article should be on the historical, folklore and anthropological defination of witchcraft. Historians and others use the term witchcraft in this sense to mean black magic used to harm others. Thats the way the Britanica article on Witchcraft is defined.

What do other people think?? Obviously this defination has nothing to do with moddern Wicca. Machenphile

Merge

Obviously there was a recent merge with witch, but whoever did it left no notes here about it. In any case, I cleaned up the interwiki links, etc., but there are now two Dutch-language links and two Japanese-language links, and in both cases I don't know which is to be preferred. -- Jmabel 19:04, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I did a rather naive merge and there's still a lot of repeated text. —Ashley Y 21:55, 2004 Jul 3 (UTC)
You also forgot to remove it from Wikipedia:Duplicate articles. Now done. Gdr 18:31, 2004 Jul 4 (UTC)

Extremely messy

OMFG This is a real mess. We actually have about 6 different articles horribly mangled here; it is the intellectual equivalent of a motorway pile-up, with the corpses of knowledge and information strewn across the carriageways. I think I will have a look at how we might get some coherence into this over the next few days. Sjc 04:28, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Would you recommend spinning off articles for each culture? —Ashley Y 05:25, 2004 Jul 14 (UTC)
I think we certainly need to decompose it somehow. Cultural / ethnographic splits would be one line of division, also we might think about witchcraft in its historical context etc. Sjc 10:30, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Partly this is the result of a merge. Perhaps we should consider recasting this as the top level of an article series? -- Jmabel 06:25, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I think this is probably the way to go. I am still thinking about a sensible taxonomy for this as a subject, not the least of my problems being specialist knowledge in a couple of areas of witchcraft, notably Seid (shamanic magic) and wicca, and large blanks in other areas, particularly witchcraft outside of a historical context, e.g. modern notions and implementations of witchcraft etc. Sjc 10:30, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There is a location on Lynhaven River In Virginia Beach, VA that was called "Witchduck". I was taken there 80 years ago by my mother and shown where Grace Sherwood was ducked. It seems to me that this information should be incorporated in the discussion on witchcraft. I am now 86 and just can't hack it. Please read about it at:

http://virginiabeachhistory.org/kyle.html

Thank you. Alison Phillips phillipsacp@comcast.net

Article Series

I went ahead and created the template for the Witchcraft article series that was previously discussed here. The current Witchcraft article presents itself as an anthropological/historical overview of the subject, and so I developed the series around that notion. References to modern witchcraft (e.g., Wicca, Druidry) are, of course, appropriate, but the bulk of such information should remain in their individual articles. I believe that I have enough reference material to rewrite the article on European witchcraft, at the very least, but it will definitely take some time. I may also be able to write about African witchcraft and North American witchcraft as well. Spectatrix 02:32, 2004 Aug 2 (UTC)

I outlined what I have in mind for European witchcraft on Talk:European witchcraft. Please comment there or on my talk page regarding the outline that I posted. I very much welcome suggestions on how I could improve it. Spectatrix 17:39, 2004 Aug 2 (UTC)

Anyone know about Anna Godi apparently the last woman to be executed (hanged?) as a witch in UK? Anyone know details ? esp where? Szczels 12:28, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why would it be relevant? People have been killed by mobs, and arrested, for practicing witchcraft in Africa as of late 2004 (and maybe now in 2005 as well).

i don't get that 'witchcraft series' thing

why is the content from europe also present here? --Jay1 23:55, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Laws and regulations on witchcraft

There should be a legal section, i.e. when did witchcraft cease to be a crime or if some countries still punish people officially for citing spells or causing "cow's milk to dry up"? Even as late as 1748 people in Europe were burned as witches. That was after Newton, steam engines, etc. Truly incredible!

I agree with your suggestion. In Scotland, witchcraft was a criminal offense between 1563 and 1736. Adraeus 01:27, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree, too. And this section could possibly include a subsection on the Salem Witch Trials. WBHoenig 00:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

if you want to know what the churches thought of magic and witchcraft, why not look up the maleus malificarun (spelling?)

youll see how poorly thought out it seemed to be, and yet they took it as seriously as possible Gabrielsimon 22:08, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Disputed tag

Added 'disputed' tag, as the section on European Witchcraft contains many unsubstantiated assertions and theories. One hardly knows where to start. There is no evidence that 'wiccan' (Aelfric) were female, nor that they were 'shamans'. The Church did not attempt to 'exterminate women' (a significant number of witch-hunt victims were men.) There is no evidence that a 'wicce' was ever a healer or counsellor, nor is the comment that all this is 'known from Nordic sagas' at all helpful. The statement that categorising witches into black, white and hedge is misleading is nonsense - hedge witches are a modern invention, whereas 'white witches' or Cunning Folk are the only type of alleged 'witch' for which there is any historical evidence. The whole piece appears to be from a strongly neopagan, feminist POV. It badly needs rewriting. Cavalorn 10:44, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Allegedly bigoted material

Allegedly 'bigoted' material: a section that points out the lack of evidence for commonly asserted theories is being repeatedly removed because, apparently, it does not conform to characteristically neopagan views of the past. This is hardly a neutral point of view. Cavalorn

To claim that "there is no evidence" to support your assertion that witches were not originally healers or shamans requires that you have significantly researched the topic and are the authority on the history of witchcraft. Any such claims require citation regardless. For example, "So-and-so says in his this-and-that book that there lacks evidence..." See Wikipedia:No original research and WP:NPOV. Adraeus 22:33, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have significantly researched the topic, and I am an authority on the subject, albeit not the authority. I'll cite any such statements, though.Cavalorn 23:03, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The proof that witches were historically healers is quite evident. A great deal of witchcraft lore that survives deals with herbs and their uses in healing. If witches weren't healers, they would not have been interested in healing herbs. Example of herblore in witchcraft: http://www.annwnscauldron.com/apothecary/herbs/herbg.html Nortonew
You're seriously citing that as an example? It's a modern compilation with no provenance whatsoever. For that matter, there is no surviving 'witchcraft lore'. The vast majority of what circulates among contemporary pagans is not ancient at all. I refer you to Ron Hutton's work, as well as Owen Davies' Cunning Folk and the compendious Leechcraft by Stephen Pollington [1]. Confusing witches with herbalists is a common mistake. Herbalism was considered Leechcraft, not Witchcraft. Big difference. Cavalorn 23:03, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ron huttons work is suspect at best. his research methods are questionable. Gabrielsimon 23:28, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rubbish. He's a Professor of History at the University of Bristol[2]. Anyone who cares to can check his credentials and his research. Cavalorn 23:30, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Several covens have published the books of lore. Every single one of those books contained information on the use of herbs on healing. If you refuse to accept that as proof that witches were involved in healing, that's your right. However, I feel that this is sufficient proof to warrant the removal of your assertion from the article, and thus I will do so whenever you place it there. Nortonew 23:37, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not one single modern coven can demonstrate any connection to historical witchcraft, so the alleged 'books of lore' are spurious. The earliest one known, Gardner's original BoS, has been taken to pieces and shown to be almost entirely reproduced material. By the way, Wikipedia also has guidelines for the resolution of conflicts of opinion of this kind - you may not have noticed, but the article has already been amended by another Wikipedian. I suggest you read up on Wikipedia some more before making statements like 'I will do so whenever you place it there'. Think about it - if this was really just an endless ping-pong battle of 'yes it is, no it isn't' then nothing would ever get resolved. Cavalorn 23:59, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

this is exactly why you shouldaccept that you are incorrect, as in the simple factthat your general;ization is ludicrious... how can you know anything about covens of witches if you dont know any witches? any way, my p9int is that you should probably just aknoledge your lack of expertise and move on to another article. Gabrielsimon 00:03, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here's information that is posted regarding the history of witches on The Discovery Channel. This information plainly states "In ancient cultures witches were seen as priestesses or wise women with magical powers, who could foresee the future. They had the power of healing and would make 'unguents' (ointments and potions) from herbs."

I'm sure that you will proclaim this to be revision nonsense or some such thing. However, I think more people will be willing to trust The Discovery Channel than they would be willing to trust some self-proclaimed "expert" such as yourself. [3] Nortonew 23:50, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As with much of what gets reproduced in the popular media, this article is full of generalisations and errors, though I've seen worse. You do not seem to understand that it is not a matter of 'who people trust', it is simply a matter of citing sources and providing evidence to back up what is claimed. Cavalorn 23:59, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

then tell me how many witches you know. Gabrielsimon 00:03, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

After 10 years of running one of my country's most successful and respected occult bookstores [4], I know literally hundreds of people who call themselves witches. (Whether it then follows that they ARE witches is, of course, another matter.) Cavalorn 00:07, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

selling books isnt walking the path. Gabrielsimon 00:13, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You asked me how many witches I knew, not what paths I have walked.Cavalorn 00:15, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

knowing witches and having witch customers is differnt. i mean the ones who you know. m sorry, its hard to be clear for me.... Gabrielsimon 00:16, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I know hundreds on a personal level, not just as customers. Having a shop gives you the opportunity to do that. (I've probably served thousands, if we're talking about customers alone.) In any case, you're clearly just looking for some way to persuade yourself that I don't have the right to say what I'm saying, or the expertise to back it up. Well, if it helps, I've presented historical documentaries on TV, lectured all over the country, had articles published and been credited as a contributor in at least one recent book on the origins of Wicca. At the end of the day, though, it's not my opinion that matters, it's the sources I can cite. The only expertise I can really draw on (at least for Wiki purposes) is a broader range of sources than most - sources of better quality than a Discovery Channel webpage. So, never mind my personal views. I've been advised to cite sources for the article, and that's what I'll do. Cavalorn 00:33, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

wicca is only a part of witchcraft. you may have expertise there, but it might not be sayable for witchcradt as a whole. and no, im not trying to disproove your words,, it sould be plain as da what im trying to do. Gabrielsimon 21:25, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ok, ill try to be a little clearer, if you dont walk the path then your not very likly to be an expert on said path. no offense, just l;ogic.

thas not to say that every follower of a path is an expert, but you can probly see what im getting at. Gabrielsimon 00:21, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's not true at all. A theologian is an expert on religion - he doesn't have to be a priest. Similarly, you can be an expert on witchcraft without thinking that you are a witch, or even that witches existed. Academic study is from the outside, and that's the kind of study that encyclopedias deal with. Anyway, where did I say I'm not a witch myself?Cavalorn 00:33, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

a theologan is an expert in religion, but has no access to the oldest texts , or the oral traditions that some keep well guarded. thus, expertise can be said to be lacking. Gabrielsimon 21:25, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Theologians do have access to the oldest texts, and the 'secret oral tradition' card is really just the last resort of hardcore neopagans who have nothing else to fall back on once every single other claim of historical continuity has been investigated and disproved. In any case, one doesn't need to say much about a supposed oral tradition that supports a view of history that has since been shown to be false. It's wise to be very wary about any alleged tradition that seems to support the Margaret Murray contentions, because they're simply wrong and have been shown to be so.
Let me give you an example of how unreliable 'oral tradition' is. The folk singer Ewan McColl wrote a song about gypsies, called 'The Thirty Foot Trailer', all about how Romany life was changing. Within a few years, gypsies were singing it and claiming it was a traditional song!Cavalorn 19:01, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Medea, a witch in ancient Greek mythology, used herbs to restore Jason's father to health. Of course, she also did a lot of other things that were rather nasty. However, this is a plain example of an ancient account of a witch being viewed as a healer. Nortonew 00:25, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No, it's a plain example of someone translating a Greek word into English as 'witch', and you drawing erroneous conclusions from that. You're conflating a mediaeval European concept with a classical Greek one. Medea was a priestess of Hecate. Cavalorn 00:33, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What's plain is the fact that, no matter what evidence anyone produces, you will refuse to accept it. Everyone else in the world accepts that Medea was a witch. You can question that fact if you like, however, I think we are fast approaching the point where every reasonable person will agree that you are wrong. Quite frankly, I don't care what you think. If you post further erroneous statements, I will not hesistate to remove them. Moreover, I'm sure I can easily recruit a thousand or so neo-pagans that would be more than willing to devote a little of their time to keep Wikipedia's entry on witchcraft free of your hostile and inaccurate statements. Nortonew 00:51, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

'Everyone else in the world accepts that Medea was a witch?' I'm amazed that you took the time to consult every single human being on the planet. The word 'witch' didn't exist when Euripides wrote Medea. You only think of her as a 'witch' because that's how the play was translated into English. How much do you know about the differences in approach between Greek magical practice and European? Do you even know what Medea's title was? It's surprising that neopagans are very quick to point out when an original term that was later translated as 'witch' has a different meaning in the original text (for example, the Biblical bit about not suffering a poisoner to live, which was translated as 'thou shalt not suffer a witch to live') and yet assume that every use of the word 'witch' must refer to the same thing when it serves their own ends. You also seem to think that Wikipedia is some sort of propaganda war, and that you can force your own point of view across by recruiting friends. It doesn't work like that, and you really ought to know that already. Did you read any of the introductory pages when you first created your account? Cavalorn 01:07, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

why must you speak in vulger tones? i thoughtthere was also a civillity policey, so he didnt use the exact phrasing he was supposedto, big deal.... Gabrielsimon 01:12, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're right about the civility - we could all benefit from toning this down a notch. However, phrasing is a big deal. Over the course of history, diverse words and ideas become intermingled, blending concepts together that were originally quite different. The study of language is vital to the study of history. Cavalorn 01:15, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

i meant no disrespect, but phrasing, in talk pages, well, why cant we just let it slip, and take what is meant, instead of literal meanings? it might save a few edit wars and such.... Gabrielsimon 01:20, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, here's the thing. In the original Greek, Medea was a pharmakis, a word with the root 'pharma-' meaning drug or poison, as in 'pharmaceuticals'. Medea was a brewer of magic potions, and a priestess of Hecate. That word, pharmakis, was translated into English (much, much later) as 'witch'. So, logically, pointing to Medea as proof that witches were herbal healers is arguing backwards. Cavalorn 01:29, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

to find the truth, often the best way is to look backwards, i see no problem in it, considering thath te link IS there, even in your own words. Gabrielsimon 21:25, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In regards to your latest additions regarding the Pendle witches and such, I would have to agree that those statements are largely correct in their assessment of the common views of witchcraft by people of the dark ages. Gabrielsimon, I would encourage you to leave them intact. Nortonew 00:57, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hecate was the goddess of witches. Even if Medea was a priestess of Hecate, she would still basically be a witch. Do you think Circe was a witch? Do you believe that the concept of witches even existed in Greek culture?

Medea did more than just brew potions in the Greek myths. She cast spells. Obviously pharmakeåus means more than just a brewer of potions.

The confusion concerning the biblical verse referring witches and/or poisoners is due to the fact that the Greek translation of the verse uses the word pharmakeåus, which can mean either witch or poisoner. This was probably because, as can be seen in Greek mythology, Greek witches often poisoned people, (just like Medea - the supposed non-witch). However, the original Hebrew term, m'ka-shay-fah, is most properly translated as sorcerer, or someone who does magic. The whole upshot of this is that Jehovah really did not like witches, (I can't imagine he was too keen on poisoners either). The fact that Saul ran most of the witches out of Israel shows that the Hebrews of that time were hostile to witches and weren't particularly interested in letting them live. I don't know why some modern witches like to talk about how that verse should say poisoners instead of witches.

In regards to the differences between Greek and European witches, how much do you know about geography? Last time I checked, Greece was in Europe. Therefore, Greek witches ARE European witches.

Also, in regards to Medieval European witches, here is a passage from the text "Dæmonology by King James the First. [1597] With Newes from Scotland [1591]" that shows that even the enemies of witches acknowledged a witch's ability to heal.

PHI. But before yee goe further, permit mee I pray you to interrupt you one worde, which yee haue put mee in memorie of, by speaking of Women. What can be the cause that there are twentie women giuen to that craft, where ther is one man?

EPI. The reason is easie, for as that sexe is frailer then man is, so is it easier to be intrapped in these grosse snares of the Deuill, as was ouer well proued to be true, by the Serpents deceiuing of Eua at the beginning, which makes him the homelier with that sexe sensine.

PHI. Returne now where ye left.

EPI. To some others at these times hee teacheth, how to make Pictures of waxe or clay: That by the rosting thereof, the persones; that they beare the name of, may be continuallie melted or dryed awaie by continuall sicknesse. To some hee giues such stones or poulders, as will helpe to cure or cast on diseases

The fact that they believed that the devil gave witches "such stones or poulders, as will helpe to cure or cast on diseases" shows that they believed witches could heal.

This text can be found at sacred-texts.com. [5] Nortonew 03:11, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here's another passage from the same book mentioning healing by witches: "...by these false miracles may be induced or confirmed in the profession of that erroneous Religion: euen as I told you before that he doth in the false cures, or casting off of diseases by Witches."

Even though the writer asserts that the cures are "false", the existence of this passage shows that witches were definitely involved in healing, or at least trying to.

Your statement that there is absolutely no proof that witches were historically seen as healers seems somewhat at odds with these passages. Nortonew 03:25, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yet again, it's misleading to claim that 'Hecate was the goddess of witches' when the concept that existed in Greece was not that of a witch as commonly understood, but of one of the ancestors of that concept. Yes, Greece is part of Europe - what I was getting at, as explained earlier, was that you are mixing up a classical Greek idea with a mediaeval northern European one. Your mistake is to think that because dark-age Europeans believed in 'witches' and the word for what Medea was was translated as 'witch', they were therefore the same thing. Similarly, you're acting as if the use of the word 'witch' to describe Biblical figures meant that there were witches in Biblical times - that all these historical witches were the same thing. Go back to the original texts where possible and find out what the writers were actually talking about, not what the translators chose to call them. For example, the 'witch' of Endor was, apparently, more likely to have been the whore of Endor.
When a translator uses 'witch' as the nearest available concept, it blurs the important cultural distinctions between different practitioners of magic and creates the illusion that 'witches' are a continuous presence.
I've never said that witches weren't occasionally believed to have powers that could be used for people's benefit. There's a difference, however, between being able to cure as well as curse (in the beliefs of the people) and being 'a healer', which is a wholly benign societal role. The prevalent belief is that 'witches' were originally wholly benign and were only portrayed as malefic because of Christian propaganda. And the point that I've been driving at is that there is no such benign portrayal of a witch. Historically, the only 'witches' that are benign (though they charge a fee) are the *white* witches or cunning folk.
Incidentally, that excerpt from Demonologie you linked to is actually a deliberate conflation of cunning folk and malefic witches by King James, who wanted to obliterate *any* magical practice and made no distinction between the two. See Owen Davies' Cunning Folk. To quote: 'What forme of punishment think yee merites these magicians and Witches? For I see that ye account them to be all alike guiltee..' Cavalorn 08:18, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If one defines a witch solely as the archetypal figure that emerged during the Midde Ages, and was to some extent the creation of the Catholic Church, then it would be impossible to find any references that show that the original concept of the witch was beneficial. You are saying that, by definition, the witch is a malefic figure, and then accusing modern neo-pagans of conspiring to alter your definition.

Modern witches, wiccans, neo-pagans, and such do not define the historical witch solely as the witch figure that emerged during the middle ages. They include in the historical definition all of the diverse pre-christian witch-like figures in history. Figures such as Medea, shamans, priests and priestesses of pagan religions, druids, cunning folk, and many others are included in the diverse entities that were amalgamated together in the Middle Ages into the witch figure.

There were definitely people who used herbs and magical rites in pre-christian Europe in a beneficial fashion. They may not have been literally called "witches", but according to the lore passed down clandestinely during the dark Christian ages amongst those who still worshipped the pre-Christain gods, witchcraft had its origins in them. However, as this lore was, by necessity, hidden and often in oral form, no one is going to be able to reference any well known documentation from the Middle Ages to that effect.

Modern pagans are not conspiring to revise history. They are stating that according to the lore they accept as legitimate, the definition of witchcraft fits the practices of known pre-christian entities who were beneficial. These people may not have had the word "witch" applied to them during their time, but they were the people from which descended the beliefs of the medieval people who were the targets of the Christian witch-hunters.

As for the "witch" of Endor, I'm curious as to why you think that Saul would have sought out a whore if he wanted to consult with the spirits of the dead. The reason that translators used the word "witch" in relation to such figures as Medea, Circe, and the something-or-other of Endor, is because all of those people were engaged in doing witch-like things. Obviously, in the period prior to the invention of the word "witch", it would be impossible to find any people called witches. Therefore, when referring to that period, if one is discussing the history and origins of witchcraft, it is reasonable to apply the word "witch" to people who were involved in witch-like activity. Nortonew 18:09, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I am saying that the witch is by definition a malefic figure, because that is exactly what it is, through hundreds of years of history, right back to the first recorded use of the term in Aelfric. The modern revisionist interpretation, in which a witch is held to be a misunderstood pagan figure, is extremely recent and based upon the faulty scholarship of Maragret Murray. It's an article of neopagan faith, not a fact.
From what you write, it is clear that you are accepting many articles of faith as if they were fact. When you refer to 'according to the lore passed down clandestinely during the dark Christian ages amongst those who still worshipped the pre-Christain gods', you are referring to something that does not exist except as an article of faith, which makes me feel like I'm having a discussion with someone who thinks Noah's Ark literally existed. There is simply no evidence for this passing down of clandestine lore at all. The idea was suggested by Margaret Murray and developed by Gerald Gardner, who first claimed to have been the recipient of such lore. However, everything he claimed as ancient proved to be adapted material from other sources. See 'Gerald Gardner and the Cauldron of Inspiration' by Philip Heselton.
The claims for historical continuity of pagan belief as 'witchcraft' have been very thoroughly investigated, by historians, and there isn't any evidence to support them at all. (See 'The Triumph Of The Moon' by Professor Hutton.) The people who were targeted by witch-hunters were not practicing an inherited pagan tradition. That was Margaret Murray's thesis, and it's been discredited. To mention the most obvious flaw in it, Murray took the similarities between the confessions of accused witches as evidence that there was a 'cult' that had consistent characteristics, ranging through western Europe. In fact, the similarities between the confessions are down to the fact that the interrogators employed a checklist, and ticked it off as the victim responded to the accusation.
The point about the whore of Endor is that diviners, sorcerers and the like were often other things as well. To reduce the whole thing to 'witches' is a massive oversimplification.
You can believe what you like about inherited lore in the absence of evidence, but you have no more right to insist that history should be viewed from your faith-based standpoint than a Creationist does. Cavalorn 11:24, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Your original statement claimed "there is no evidence for witches having originally been healers or counselors". Its rather hard to refute this when you claim that every historical reference to a witch wasn't actually talking about witches. However, I'm sure that even you won't have the gall to claim that Shakespeare wasn't talking about witches in his play MacBeth. MacBeth's famous consultation with the witches shows that there must have been at least some cultural history of people seeking out witches for advice.

Another, less known, instance of a character seeking out a witch for advice is in the old legend of the Lambton Worm. There a knight asks a witch for advice in defeating in a dragon.

In both of these tales, the witches aren't portrayed as exactly kind and benevolent, but its definitely an example of witches being sought out as counselors and indicates that witches were considered wise, (if not particularly nice). Nortonew 05:45, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that was my original statement, and I stand by it. If you cast your mind back to the context, it related to a now-deleted assertion that witches were originally pagan healers and counsellors whose role was later distorted by Christians. This is the popular post-Murray belief, and there's no evidence for it.
You have to realise that not every historical reference that seems to be referring to a 'witch' is actually referring to what you are thinking of as a witch. I'd be the last to deny that sifting through the piles of rubbish that have been written about witches is a trying task, but it really is worth doing. Once you've gotten down to the bones, you can clearly see just how much of the popular modern neopagan stance on witches is sheer invention, and how much it depends upon blurring distinctions between different historical figures.
Your sources don't indicate a 'cultural history' in which witches were originally valued counsellors. What they do indicate is a belief that witches had supernatural powers of insight, and a recognition of the use of such a figure as a narrative device. The witches in both the stories you've cited are really there to supply the protagonist with special information. Macbeth suffers the fate of those who consult with malign supernatural powers - the very prophecy he receives proves his undoing. As for John Lambton, the whole obligation to kill the first thing he sees is a familiar folktale ingredient, all the way back to Jepthah in the Bible, and the presence of a 'witch' just makes the resultant curse all the more sinister. So, all that the 'witches' in these stories are doing is fulfilling the familiar narrative role of the Oracle Whose Answer Ends Up Stabbing You In The Back.Cavalorn 09:39, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've come across a couple of sites online that were supposedly written by women who claim that their families have been practicing traditional witchcraft for centuries. Of course, these are just claims and not documentable facts. However, several of them say that their family and the people who come to them for cures and fortune-telling use the word witch. Others say that they prefer other terms. These people tend to be located in the Appalachians, but I've come across something by one in Ireland too. One rather prevalent use of the word witch in a non-malevolent form seems to be in the term "water-witching", which is another name for dowsing.

However, one interesting thing about these peoples' claims is that they tend to view witchcraft much more as a profession than a religion. They claim that many of their ancestors were devout christians, but still practiced witchcraft. I'm sure that you will say that this is merely an example of folk magic, but these people were actually using the term witchcraft. Also, these people do not claim any sort of link back to a pagan priesthood, but they do state that some of their charms use the names of old pagan gods in them.

Again, this is easily disputed evidence as these are simply sites that make no attempt at historical documentation but simply state the experiences of the writers, or at least what they claim are their experiences. I just thought that the claims were rather interesting. Nortonew 04:20, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, every time a new theory comes out, people tend to claim to be the representatives of it. Before the publication of The Triumph of the Moon knocked the bottom out of Wicca's claims to antiquity, people were claiming to have practiced Wicca for centuries, exactly as Gardner described it. Then, when so-called 'Old Craft' became popular, people claimed to have been doing that for years, too. Now that recent research has shed far more light on the Cunning Folk, guess what - people are claiming descent from a hereditary 'Cunning Craft', not that there ever was such a thing.
The evidence suggests that claims to have been practicing 'witchcraft' for centuries always base their definition of 'witchcraft' on whatever is current in academic circles at the time. There is not one single account of a witchcraft tradition being passed down anywhere, until Gardner established a fashion for it. Cavalorn 12:49, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sheesh! Anyone here opinionated? Anyway, I'd whole heartedly agree this article should stick with the current academic viewpoint that Wicca was not a continuous tradition, and that most of the people persecuted as "witches" were neither devil worshippers nor surviving Pagans.

That said, there is an increasing body of evidence about survivals of Neopaganism in Europe - especially in Eastern Europe. Also, there is little doubt that many pagan traditions survived under a thin veil of Christianity. As for myself, I'd question the whole notion of what "survival" means anyway. Was anyone really expecting to find ancient druids continuing the worship of their gods in secret dark groves under the full moon? Now a bunch of people worshiping a Celtic Goddess in the full light of day as a Saint... well, that's a different matter.

Also, from a perspective of both Psychology and Anthropology, what we choose to demonize is always significant. It we review many of the qualities of the archetypal witch (or devil for that matter) there is little doubt that many of the medieval qualities of witches were inspired by demonized aspects of Pagan religions. We may not be able to say that they burned pagans as witches and they survived and started Wicca, but we can certainly say that Paganism was demonized by Christianity and many elements of Pagan belief survived both through being Christianized and/or demonized. When conditions were ripe in society for these movements to arise again, all the seeds were still there and as viable as in the days of the Celts and Ancient Greeks.

So, is witchcraft an ancient or "authentic" religion? I'm not even sure modern Christianity as it is practiced is ancient or "authentic" to its roots either. Either would assume cultural and religious purity, which I feel is probably as elusive as Dorothy Clutterbuck. Either way, I'd say modern witches have as much legitimate claim to the the medieval witch as Christians do to Jesus. Most of these people burned were poor or left few records of their own behind. There is also little doubt that real people were killed, and that it was morally wrong. Whether it was a "holocost of women" or not, it certainly was a form of religiously inspired genocide. Maybe the people killed weren't pagans, but they were demonized all the same, and I suspect many of them did still carry much of the spirit and cultural traditions of their Pagan ancestors even if their belief had faded. Far be it from me to criticise any group of people who'd defend the value of those people's lives and "claim" them as spiritual ancestors.

In short, maybe there's just a little room for the grey area, which acknowedges the value of the human lives which were lost and that there are a group of people which "claim", honor and celebrate those people whether they were really "witches" or not. --Yarthkin 20:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

This is going to be a huge post, but I've been reading through the Malleus Maleficarum and found a whole bunch of important stuff...

After reading through several parts of the Malleus Maleficarum, I believe there is ample evidence therein to state that the witch-hunters of that time differentiated between cunning-folk and witches. Despite of their recognition of the differences between witchcraft and folk-magic, the writer still aknowledged that witches were sought out as healers and advisers by the common people.

Moreover, there are some passages in the Malleus Maleficarum that seem to indicate that witches may have actually really been some form of clandestine pagan clergy, (probably not all witches were, but some of them may have been). It also explains why the church would not have been willing to recognize witches as pagan priests. Since witches had been baptized into the Catholic church, (albeit as babies), they were NOT pagans according to the church. This meant that if the witches were worshipping pagan gods, (as it appears some did - most notably Diana), then they would have to be considered heretics.


Malleus Maleficarum

Malleus Maleficarum

http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/mm/index.htm


Part 3 - Question XIV And without doubt notorious witches, especially such as use witches' medicines and cure the bewitched by superstitious means, should be kept in this way, both that they may help the bewitched, and that they may betray other witches.

--Shows that witches, not just "cunning folk" were considered able to break spells and were used in this fashion. Note it says "notorious witch", much too strong a term to suppose it meant simply cunning folk, especially in light of other passages that speak about folk magic.


Part 3 - Question XXXIV The fifteenth method of bringing a process on behalf of the faith to a definitive sentence is employed when the person accused of heresy is not found to be one who casts injurious spells of witchcraft, but one who removes them.... ...The remedies which she uses will either be lawful or unlawful; and if they are lawful, she is not to be judged a witch but a good Christian.

--Shows obvious differentiation on the part of the writer between folk magic and witchcraft. Thus, the writer does not consider everyone who uses folk magic to be a witch.

But if they are only in some respect unlawful, that is to say, if they are practised with only a tacit, and not an expressed, invocation of devils, such are to be judged rather vain than unlawful, according to the Canonists and some Theologians, as we have already shown.

--Shows that some magic used against witchcraft definitely invoked "devils". Probably not simple folk magic.

For in the Diocese of Spires there is a witch in a certain place called Zunhofen who, although she seems to heal many persons, confesses that she can in no way heal certain others.

-Uses the word witch for a woman that many people go to for aid, despite the fact that the writer has earlier differentiated between witches and people who simply use folk magic.

Who, then, are to be called receivers of such; and are they to be reckoned as heretics? All they, we answer, who receive such archer-wizards, enchanters of weapons, necromancers, or heretic witches as are the subject of this whole work. And such receivers are of two classes, as was the case with the defenders and patrons of such.

-Talks about people not only seeking out witches for occasional healing, but actually keeping them on their payroll!


To sum up. Witch-midwives, like other witches, are to be condemned and sentences according to the nature of their crimes; and this is true also of those who, as we have said, remove spells of witchcraft superstitiously and by the help of devils; for it can hardly be doubted that, just as they are able to remove them, so can they inflict them. And it is a fact that some definite agreement is formed between witches and devils whereby some shall be able to hurt and others to heal, that so they may more easily ensnare the minds of the simple and recruit the ranks of their abandoned and hateful society.

-Witches healing that have committed heresy - probably not simple cunning folk.


Part 2 - Chapter V - Prescribed Remedies for those who are Obsessed owing to some Spell.

But especial care is to be taken that those who are obsessed through witchcraft should not be induced to go to witches to be healed. For S. Gregory goes on to say of the woman we have just mentioned: Her kindred and those who loved her in the flesh took her to some witches to be healed...

-Family takes loved one to witches to be healed of possession.


Part 2 - Chapter I

Devils, therefore, by means of witches, so afflict their innocent neighbours with temporal losses, that they are to beg the suffrages of witches, and at length to submit themselves to their counsels; as many experiences have taught us.

-People seeking counsel from witches, (albeit under duress).

We know a stranger in the diocese of Augsburg, who before he was forty-four years old lost all his horses in succession through witchcraft. His wife, being afflicted with weariness by reason of this, consulted with witches, and after following their counsels, unwholesome as they were, all the horses which he bought after that (for he was a carrier) were preserved from witchcraft.

-Women helped by witches. As the counsels were "unwholesome" its unlikely that the writer meant simple cunning-folk.

they have consulted with suspected witches, and even been given remedies by them, on condition that they would promise something to some spirit; and when they asked what they would have to promise, the witches answered that it was only a small thing, that they should agree to execute the instructions of that master with regard to certain observances during the Holy Offices of the Church, or to observe some silent reservations in their confessions to priests.

-Witches helping people in exchange for those people obeying spirits and disobeying the church. Could this be because the witches were actually some form of pagan clergy trying to convert the people the aided? At any rate, this is not the type of thing simple cunning-folk would ask as payment.

Here it is to be noted that, as has already been hinted, this iniquity has small and scant beginnings, as that of the time of the elevation of the Body of Christ they spit on the ground, or shut their eyes, or mutter some vain words. We know a woman who yet lives, protected by the secular law, who, when the priest at the celebration of the Mass blesses the people, saying, Dominus uobiscum, always adds to herself these words in the vulgar tongue “Kehr mir die Zung im Arss umb.” Or they even say some such thing at confession after they have received absolution, or do not confess everything, especially mortal sins, and so by slow degrees are led to a total abnegation of the Faith, and to the abominable profession of sacrilege.

-Pagans daring to show some slight defiance against a religion they don't believe in? It appears that witches were showing an interest in converting people away from Christianity. This would indicate that they had a motivation to convert people, much like priestesses of a competing faith might.


Part 1 - Question I

...transformed into another kind or likeness, except by the Creator of all things, is worse than a pagan and a heretic. And so when they report such things are done by witches it is not Catholic, but plainly heretical, to maintain this opinion.

-This passage mentions both witches and pagans as if they were not exactly the same thing.


...certain women are condemned who falsely imagine that during the night they ride abroad with Diana or Herodias..

-Witches shown as venerating pagan goddess Diana. So, why did the earlier passage seem to indicate that witches were not pagans?

And those who try to induce others to perform such evil wonders are called witches. And because infidelity in a person who has been baptized is technically called heresy, therefore such persons are plainly heretics.

-Indicates that the reason that the writer differentiates between witches and pagans is because the witches had been baptized! Thus, witches could actually have been pagan clergy, but were not considered so by the Catholic priests simply because they had been baptized as babies. In the eyes of the church, the baptism meant the witches were heretics instead of pagans!


Part 1 - Question 2

But natural bodies may find the benefit of certain secret but good influences. Therefore artificial bodies may receive such influence. Hence it is plain that those who perform works of healing may well perform them by means of such good influences, and this has no connexion at all with any evil power.

-Shows that the writer differentiates witchcraft and other influences. The influences might mean the types used by cunning folk, (however he just might mean medicine).

Moreover, it would seem that most extraordinary and miraculous events come to pass by the working of the power of nature. For wonderful and terrible and amazing things happen owing to natural forces....Therefore a man by his mental influence can change a material body into another, or he can change such a body from health to sickness and conversely.

-Definitely sounds like the writer is talking about healing via magic that is not witchcraft. So, the writer does not consider everyone who heals via magic to be a witch.

Nortonew 03:20, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The point here is consider the source! The term 'cunning folk' was of course not in use throughout history, but the term suffices to identify magic-workers who removed magic effects for those who came to them. The great problem is that the authors of a text like the Malleus Malleficarum are likely to lump the whole lot together and call them 'witches'. To take your points in order...
'Shows that witches, not just "cunning folk" were considered able to break spells and were used in this fashion. Note it says "notorious witch", much too strong a term to suppose it meant simply cunning folk, especially in light of other passages that speak about folk magic.' Not sure why you say 'simply' cunning folk, as there's not much 'simply' about them. They were numerous enough to constitute a plague, extremely varied in character and methods and some of them were very notorious. Besides, history shows again and again that where a society believes in magic, two clear archetypes emerge - the witch and the witch doctor. Witches always have outlandish powers, witch doctors always have the remedy for it. To a Christian clergy, they are both merely 'witches' because they both work with powers that are not those of God. As one source put it, the so-called white witches and regular witches were 'merely confederate Witches'.
'hows obvious differentiation on the part of the writer between folk magic and witchcraft...' No it doesn't. The passage refers to 'the remedies that she uses'. These were not necessarily magical in nature at all. It is also unclear whether methods such as those of the toad doctor were considered folk magic, or just something that happened to work.
'Shows that some magic used against witchcraft definitely invoked "devils". Probably not simple folk magic.' Again with the 'simple'. Folk magic was not 'simple' at all, and I'm not sure where you get the idea that it was. Furthermore, we cannot say what the investigators of the time would have identified as 'an expressed invocation of devils'. If they meant literally calling upon Satan and the like, then these practices would certainly belong in the category of things that it was believed witches did. Can you imagine a magic-worker actually calling devils to her aid? For all we know, it simply referred to any piece of spoken gibberish.
'Uses the word witch for a woman that many people go to for aid, despite the fact that the writer has earlier differentiated between witches and people who simply use folk magic.' Yet again with the 'simply'. There is no 'simply' about it. To the authors of the Malleus Maleficarum, any female magic-worker at all was a 'witch'. You've mistakenly assumed that the 'remedies' described in your very first paragraph were some sort of folk magic that was tolerated by the Church. Since no magic was tolerated at all, one has to find another explanation. One doesn't have to look far for it, since there were herbal and medicinal treatments for ailments believed to be caused by witchcraft. Not every remedy for witchcraft involved magic.
'-Talks about people not only seeking out witches for occasional healing, but actually keeping them on their payroll!' Yep - and places them in the same category as 'archer-wizards' and 'necromancers'. Wouldn't you like to know what an 'archer-wizard' is? I know I would...
'-Witches healing that have committed heresy - probably not simple cunning folk.' Look, would you please go and read Cunning Folk or a similar work of repute on the subject? That ought to cure you of this 'simple cunning folk' misconception.
'People seeking counsel from witches, (albeit under duress).' People went to cunning folk to have stolen items recovered, thieves identified and crimes uncovered. That's what this passage seems to be talking about.
'-Witches helping people in exchange for those people obeying spirits and disobeying the church. Could this be because the witches were actually some form of pagan clergy trying to convert the people the aided?' Only if you have quite staggering powers of imagination. For one thing, this just looks like a regular accusation of the 'naughty things witches did' type. For another, it seems obvious to me that it's a request not to consider the visit a sin and thus not to confess it to the priest, because if that were done, the 'witch' would be in potential trouble.
'At any rate, this is not the type of thing simple cunning-folk would ask as payment.' See above viz. 'simple'. Would it help if we used the more commonly recognised term for a cunning man - white witch?
'Pagans daring to show some slight defiance against a religion they don't believe in? It appears that witches were showing an interest in converting people away from Christianity.' Sorry, but this gave me a real laugh - not at you, but at the passage. The rough translation of the German phrase is 'Put your tongue up my arse', and from the context it doesn't seem the woman saying it knew what it meant. I don't know about you, but I can really see some pissed-off magic worker saying to a client 'And at this point in the Mass, you must say the magic words!' If the practices described even happened - and there is no more reason to suppose they did than to suppose that 'witches' actually celebrated a Black Mass with defiled Hosts and the like - then there is nothing at all pagan about them. They look like mere defiance. (Note that the woman in question did not stop GOING to the Mass.)
'This passage mentions both witches and pagans as if they were not exactly the same thing.' Yes, thankyou. That is exactly what I have been trying to get across. Pagans were merely unenlightened - 'witches' were heretics. Witches were not pagans, nor were they continuing a pagan religion. What they were continuing - at least, the cunning folk / white witches were, since there is no evidence that 'night witches who flew abroad and ate men' existed - was the characteristic pagan approach to MAGIC. In pagan religions, there are magic-workers who help and there are magic-workers who are essentially supernatural monsters. What the Christian church tried to do was wipe out magic completely, because it didn't fit their theology. That meant condemning the white witch and 'satanic' witch alike.
'Witches shown as venerating pagan goddess Diana.' No, you introduced that crucial word 'venerating' yourself. The 'night flight with Diana' was a part of European folklore for centuries. For more information, check out The Emergence of the Christian Witch - there's a link to it in the article.
'Indicates that the reason that the writer differentiates between witches and pagans is because the witches had been baptized! Thus, witches could actually have been pagan clergy, but were not considered so by the Catholic priests simply because they had been baptized as babies. In the eyes of the church, the baptism meant the witches were heretics instead of pagans!' Very creative, but wrong. Let's look at the complete paragraph:
Therefore those err who say that there is no such thing as witchcraft, but that it is purely imaginary, even although they do not :::believe that devils exist except in the imagination of the ignorant and vulgar, and the natural accidents which happen to a man he :::wrongly attributes to some supposed devil. For the imagination of some men is so vivid that they think they see actual figures and :::appearances which are but the reflection of their thoughts, and then these are believed to be the apparitions of evil spirits or :::even the spectres of witches. But this is contrary to the true faith, which teaches us that certain angels fell from heaven and :::are now devils, and we are bound to acknowledge that by their very nature they can do many wonderful things which we cannot do. :::And those who try to induce others to perform such evil wonders are called witches. And because infidelity in a person who has :::been baptized is technically called heresy, therefore such persons are plainly heretics.
'Those who try to induce others to perform such evil wonders.' The writer is clearly talking about the aspiration to perform magic. This is infidelity against God, because it consorts with other powers. Not a single mention of paganism there, and no indication that baptism is what makes the difference between 'witches and pagans' as you assert.
'-Shows that the writer differentiates witchcraft and other influences. The influences might mean the types used by cunning folk, (however he just might mean medicine).' Exactly! The very use of the words 'natural forces' places this whole section outside of the realm of magic, which was believed to be unnatural.
'Definitely sounds like the writer is talking about healing via magic that is not witchcraft. So, the writer does not consider everyone who heals via magic to be a witch.' No, he's talking about the power of 'natural forces' and 'mental influence'. This is not the same thing as magic. In fact, the reason he's describing it here is in order to distinguish it from magic. The obvious reason would seem to be to make a point of separating alchemy from magic - specifically mentioned here as the transmutation of 'one material body into another'. This is probably because the rulers of the time were all in favour of alchemy, since it had the potential to keep them supplied with gold. Gold meant armies, and armies meant terrestrial power. As one commentator put it, the Philosopher's Stone was the atomic bomb of the middle ages.

Cavalorn 10:30, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


First off, sorry if I offended by my referring to cunning-folk as "simple". I didn't mean the word "simple" to imply stupidity or ineffectiveness, but rather to indicate innocence of wrong-doing, (as in 'I simply borrowed the car, I didn't steal it...').

I was rather surprised to see you make the statement "The term 'cunning folk' was of course not in use throughout history...". If the people the writer of the Malleus Maleficarum was referring to as 'witches' didn't call themselves 'cunning folk', what term did they use? Do we actually know for a fact that none of them used the word 'witch'? Its pretty obvious that the word 'witch' was in use at that time.

One somewhat unsettling point has occurred to me as I waded through literature looking for connections between witchcraft and paganism. There are many historical records regarding rather nasty practices by pagan priests involving human sacrifice and such. Unfortunately, recent archeological findings seem to colloborate some of the historical narratives of those practices, including some practices so gruesome that the reports of them were often considered to have been merely propaganda. This is most notably true in cases involving Aztecs and Phoenician Baal worship, so it might not have a direct bearing on European paganism. However, if the historical narratives were true in those cases, it is reasonable to assume that they might have been true in some of the European cases, too.

In this light, if some witches were actually practicing rudiments of surviving pagan rituals, there is the disturbing possibility that the reports of some witches killing and eating children might have some validity. Certainly some pagan rituals were that horrible.

If that is the case, attempting to form a link from the modern practices of neo-paganism and witchcraft to their supposed earlier roots might not be an effort worth undertaking. In fact, it might be more healthy for modern practioners of Earth-centered religions to just declare that their religions are wholly new creations with no links whatsoever to earlier religions that were tainted by practices that would be judged totally abhorrent by todays standards. Nortonew 14:25, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


In regards to witch-archers, I found that section to be very interesting as well. In fact, the Malleus Maleficarum related one account of a witch-archer that bore such a resemblence to the legend of William Tell that I noted it on Wikipedia's entry on William Tell. Nortonew 14:48, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


I spent some more time looking through the Malleus Maleficarum and came across a couple more passages that show more explicitly that the writer believes in magic that is not cast by witches:

But it is expedient to bring these various opinions of the learned Doctors as far as possible into agreement, and this can be done in one respect. For this purpose it is to be noted that the methods by which a spell of witchcraft can be removed are as follows: - either by the agency of another witch and another spell; or without the agency of a witch, but by means of magic and unlawful ceremonies. And this last method may be divided into two; namely, the use of ceremonies which are both unlawful and vain, or the use of ceremonies which are vain but not unlawful.

- This passage definitely states that the writer does not believe that all magic is witchcraft. The statement "...or without the agency of a witch, but by means of magic and unlawful ceremonies..." shows that he believes in magic that is not done by a witch.


We may summarize the position as follows. There are three conditions by which a remedy is rendered unlawful. First, when a spell is removed through the agency of another witch, and by further witchcraft, that is, by the power of some devil. Secondly, when it is not removed by a witch, but by some honest person, in such a way, however, that the spell is by some magical remedy transferred from one person to another; and this again is unlawful. Thirdly, when the spell is removed without imposing it on another person, but some open or tacit invocation of devils is used; and then again it is unlawful.

- This passage again shows a non-witch using magic : "...but by some honest person, in such a way, however, that the spell is by some magical remedy transferred from one person to another..."

Here the writer even called the user of the magical remedy an "honest person", despite the fact that the person was using an unlawful magic.

This demonstrates that the writer did not consider all spell casters to be witches. Yet, in other parts of the Malleus Maleficarum he plainly states that people sought out witches for magical remedies. This is evidence that in this period witches were considered healers. They were plainly considered to be capable of doing nasty things, but they were still sought out as healers. They weren't considered to be solely evil monsters by the entire populace.

The question then is, if a non-witch was considered capable of using magic, and even magic that invokes devils, what was it that was seperating the witches from the magic using non-witches? What was the distinction? As far as I can tell, the main difference was that the witches would curse people for a variety of reasons, while the non-witches would only reflect curses back upon witches.

So it seems that witches were cursers, but were also acknowledged as having the power to heal - some witches even being known for having healed many people, as was seen in other passages earlier. Nortonew 22:26, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And this is one of those situations where you really wish you had access to what the people thought, as opposed to the clergy who were writing things down. You make your point well - it's clear that the authors of the Malleus were well aware of the complex, tangled nature of the magic debate, and to some extent were trying to solve that debate once and for all.
Note, though, that the only option that does not involve 'devils' has to involve transferring the bewitchment to another person. What I think this may be addressing is whether it is legitimate for the recipient of a curse to try to send that curse back to the sender. This would be a very dicey area, theologically, as it's not technically witchcraft, but it does involve magic and is thus unlawful. I suppose it's the equivalent of 'causing harm in self defence'!
The two options that deal with removing the spell altogether are definitely considered 'witchcraft', presumably since in that philosophy, it takes a devil to undo a devil's work.
I can't think of any other magical remedies that involve transferring the spell from one person to another, though it's quite possible that some existed - it's rather reminiscent of the 'Passing the Runes' bit in M R James. Perhaps some people offered to absorb curses (for a fee) by transferring them to themselves by magic, in much the same way that the sin-eaters took on the sins of the dead by eating food from their bodies?
From the theologians' point of view, I guess the question was 'is it witchcraft to pass a spell on to someone else even if you didn't cast it yourself?' To which the answer was evidently, 'well, no, technically that isn't witchcraft, but you're still not allowed to do it.'Cavalorn 18:09, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

The concept of turning a witch's curse back on them seems to be rather widespread. I've seen something similar in a book I read about the practices of Cherokee shaman. They believe that counteracting a curse will shorten the life of the caster. http://www.sacred-texts.com/nam/cher/sfoc/sfoc49.htm

I think that it is especially strange for such a belief to be pervasive considering that I think there is a likelihood that most "curses" were likely the effects of poisons rather than magic. Certainly it would be easier for a wise woman, or cunning-man, to simply cure a person of the effects of poison and declare that the curse was broken, than for them to actually poison the person that they suspected was guilty and then claim that the curse was sent back to them. One would think that they would tend to simply do what was easiest. Nortonew 01:30, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem with this page

I happened to notice that quite a bit of the section entitled "Witchcraft and the paranormal" seems to have been originally taken from a copyrighted entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia. Some changes have been made, but a lot of the text is exactly the same.

I don't know enough about copyright law to know if this material needs to be removed or not. If anyone has some knowledge about this type of thing, they might want to take a look at this.Nortonew 04:31, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Catholic Encyclopedia entry is at: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15674a.htm

The Catholic Encyclopedia is out of copyright and so is now public domain. Quite a lot of Wikipedia articles include content from the Catholic Encyclopedia. It should be credited in the references, however - David Gerard 08:09, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Witchcraft in film, fiction, news, etc.

The subject name characterizes my suggestion.

Some information in this subtopic would include "Hollywood"'s popularization of witchcraft and its effects on the modern view of witchcraft, and perhaps, some information regarding the films featuring witchcraft like The Craft, Hocus Pocus [6], and The Wizard of Oz and its Wicked Witch of the West. Perhaps even the origins of phrases like "hocus pocus" and "abracadabra" could be referenced. Adraeus 11:46, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll get on to it.Cavalorn 17:54, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Needs research and clearer definitions

"It appears that suspected witches, far from being a misrepresented pagan clergy, were hated and persecuted by pagans as a matter of course, a situation analogous to the 'witch' killings in present-day Africa [7]."

This sounds like conjecture, so I removed it. The article may well point to present day attitudes towards magical practices in Africa but it certainly doesn't support the allegation that such practices were common amongst pagans in the past.

Additionally this whole article seems to suffer from a disparate definition of witchcraft. Some are writing from the point of view of current neopagan ideas of witchcraft, while others from the view that witchcraft is basically a device for causing harm to others---precious little from a truly neutral point of view.

All these different people attacking the subject with conflicting perspectives on the topic makes the whole thing severely incohesive. Perhaps the article needs to clearly address what definition of witchcraft is being used? Something that has a hope of encompassing all these varying views.

Ø 21:51, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


Actually, the incredibly long debate on this talk page, under the headings "Allegedly bigoted material" and "Malleus Maleficarum", was basically about trying to nail down a historically accurate definition of witchcraft. If you look through all of that you will see how difficult it can be to arrive at a proper definition. Nortonew 14:59, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


Yeah I saw that but I stopped reading when it started degenerating into a flame-fest. I'll go back and pick through it again when I feel up to wading through the slings to get to the substance.
17:23, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Ø
I'll save you the bother. There is no single, simple, workable definition of witchcraft. The situation is further complicated by the notion of 'witchcraft as pagan survival', which has been academically debunked and yet is still firmly believed in.Cavalorn 13:01, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I hardly expected something simple, but workable? Yes. At the very least a statement clearly defining the various definitions at work in the article would help. Ø 20:14, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Merged from The Craft

Completed a merge from The Craft. Tried to put the chunks in the most logical sections. The one section that I definitely think needs looking at is "Theories of Neopagan Witchcraft". Like many of the sections on this page, there's a lot of overlap with others. Take a look at the edit history for where I put various sections of the merge. I did each logical chunk in a separate edit for my own sanity.--MikeJ9919 20:06, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


Lots of cleanup

Lots of cleanup done. — Stevey7788 (talk) 01:03, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Messy article

I think I why this article is so messy:

  • Past merges that were not well done
  • Many people who are interested in this article have not written this well
  • Messy from the very start

— Stevey7788 (talk) 01:11, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


Let's clean up!

We need to work together and clean this up as a team. First, I recommend organizing the content and then cleaning up the grammar/spelling. Last of all, we need to verify some fishy-looking sections. — Stevey7788 (talk) 21:38, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I moved a lot of stuff to the European witchcraft article to avoid clumping up this article. See this diff - drastic change — Stevey7788 (talk) 21:56, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion: make this a disambiguate page. Dreamingkat 18:46, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

What is up with all the vandalism on this page of late? Are there any provisions for this? Ø 21:20, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

POV

Now, I am not a neo-pagan, but I am quite familiar with Scandinavian history and with Norse mythology and linguistics. This section looks very POV:

The characterization of the witch in Europe is not derived from a single source. Popular neopagan beliefs suggest that witches were female shamans who were made into malicious figures by Christian propaganda. This is an erroneous oversimplification and presumes that a recognizable folklore figure must derive from a single historical precedent (a female, maligned magic-worker). The familiar witch of folklore and popular superstition is a combination of numerous influences.

This section fails to explain why "witch" is the same word as "wicce", i.e. Völva. Linguistically, there IS "a single historic precedent", and the laws and methods that were undertaken against these wicces give a clear picture of malignment and evolution into the modern concept witch.--Wiglaf 29 June 2005 07:45 (UTC)

Where does the idea come from that wicce equals Völva? Cavalorn 1 July 2005 12:58 (UTC)
It's certainly not a standard derivation for the word. If the article was to include such a claim it would need a strong citation to who claims such and an indication that it's not agreed upon by most. DreamGuy 18:57, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
Here is the etymology of the American Heritage Dictionary. It most assuredly gives a single source, but I guess that modern Wiccas have alternative and occult derivations.--Wiglaf 19:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I am confused about what it is exactly you are claiming to be "very POV" with the statement above. The claim that there is a single historical precedent is not proven, and in fact it is not only not proven but not considered to be credible in all the many and varied sources I have read. DreamGuy 20:06, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

To turn your argument against you, I wonder whether it is proven that there are numerous other sources, in addition to the one shown by the American Heritage Dictionary.--Wiglaf 20:13, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Dictionaries aren't the best place for comprehensive information on etymologies of words. You should check sources specific to the topic in question.
Be that as it may, the statement you are complaining about is not focused solely on a definition and origins of the specific word but on the origins of the modern concept. A developing concept can (and in this case very conclusively does) have a great many sources but end up using one specific word from a general geographic location and cultural tradition to describe all instances. Witchcraft in this case is much larger than the one connection you are mentioning. You can read A History of Witchcraft - Sorcerors, Heretics and Pagans by Jeffrey Russell (or any number of other scholarly reference works) for more on this. Our modern concept of witchcraft came to us from parts of traditions of many, many different cultures, including ancient Greeks, Celts, the Jews and so forth. The actual evidence of female shamans having an influence on it is a really rather minor aspect overall, and the Neopagan concept of an active group of female magic practitioners being repressed and persecuted has never been proven and, in fact, can be shown to be a realtively modern invention. In the famous witchcraft trials of Reformation Europe, for example, more males than females were persecuted, and that was an extremely late event in the history of the concept of witchcraft at any rate. DreamGuy 23:30, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Removed "Who's Who" listing

If a list of notable current-day witches is needed, please maintain it in a separate article. I see that such an article has been started and is undergoing copyright review. I have mentioned the note "By Robert Owen Scott Jr. used here with the permission of the copyright holder." on its talk page, Talk:WHO's WHO Leaders Legends of the witchcraft and Pagan community. Please put any further discussion of copyright issues, as well as other issues with the contents of the article, there. Thanks. FreplySpang (talk) 9 July 2005 18:39 (UTC)

Sorry, hit the "rollback" button and then remembered that it automatically fills in the edit summary. Anyway, as I said, the "Who's who" insertion is too much for this overview article. A separate article has been created for it already at WHO's WHO Leaders Legends of the witchcraft and Pagan community and the various issues associated with it should be discussed there. FreplySpang (talk) 9 July 2005 18:42 (UTC)

quit changing your reasons, edit summariesand the first entry here are sepaate reasons, pick one, or i, for one, wont take you seriously Gabrielsimon 9 July 2005 18:45 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the conversation to the talk page. For others' reference, the edit summaries referred to here are: (oldest to newest)
18:34, 9 July 2005 FreplySpang (rm overwhelming, POV and stylistically-mismatched list of "Who's Who" - resolve copyright and other issues at its own article please)
18:37, 9 July 2005 Gabrielsimon (removal reason not accurate, POV doesnt seem to be in this section, tho copyright issues might be resolved by the editor who placed it in thie first place)
18:40, 9 July 2005 FreplySpang m (Reverted edits by Gabrielsimon to last version by FreplySpang)
18:41, 9 July 2005 Gabrielsimon (for r the second time i say, change it to suit your view, dont remove it.)
18:44, 9 July 2005 FreplySpang (The removed material has its own article which is linked from this one; please see this article's talk page Talk:Witchcraft instead of discussing in edit summaries.)
My comments in the edit summaries and those here seem reasonably consistent to me. I didn't go into detail about POV and style because I think the important issue is to create a separate article and discuss it there. FreplySpang (talk) 9 July 2005 18:51 (UTC)

References for this statement

Can anyone give a References for this statement ? : Such witch trials are common among African, Native American, and Asian populations. I am not a historican but in the german Wikipedia there is no mention about this. It would be great if there could be al least some historical events that support this statement. --Mononoke 30 June 2005 00:38 (UTC)

Indigenous peoples

Unfortunately, I have misplaced my print references for the anthropological work done in this area. However, a quick survey of the web produced the following:

Cherokee - Raven Mocker http://www.aaanativearts.com/article969.html

Witch beliefs among the Caddo http://www.accessgenealogy.com/native/caddo/page22.htm

Witch beliefs among the Iroquois http://www.sacred-texts.com/nam/iro/parker/cohl015.htm#fr_25 http://sixnations.buffnet.net/Great_Law_of_Peace/ (reference to the witch, Osinoh)

Navajo http://www.draknet.com/proteus/Navajo.htm http://www.diversityresources.com/rc_sample/indian.html (also note that, in this work on diversity, there is the following general statement: In spite of the enormous diversity in tribal cultures, languages, and religious beliefs of the almost 300 American Indian tribes living within the continental United States, these tribes share a number of fundamental health, illness, and illness prevention beliefs. 12. Natural unwellness is caused by the violation of a sacred tribal taboo; unnatural unwellness is caused by witchcraft.

Wyandot/Huron http://www.axel-jacob.de/no_photos04.html (Leatherlips, accused of witchcraft)

In those cultures where the shaman plays a prominent role in the spiritual life of the community, it is common to enlist the shaman in charms of protection against the use of inimical magic. As I spelled out in my intro, the use of magic to harm another is one of the uses of the term witchcraft, even if the community respects and values supernatural powers.

Parker Whittle 5 July 2005 21:26 (UTC)

Restored reference to the Americas

My notes, above, make it clear that many Native Americans have believed that individuals can cause harm to one another with the use of magic. This is one of the uses of the term witch. Gabrielsimon quietly removed my reference without comment, so I'm putting it back.

Parker Whittle 17:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

but there were no witch trials, no one was ever hunted down and harmed for anything supernatural, until the europeans came , that is. thus i am re removing that reference, as it is in accurate. Gabrielsimon 05:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense. Just do a Google search for 'witch legend "native american"' and you will see that native american lore is full of witches inflicting harm. Native Americans, themselves, attribute many of these legends to the pre-Columbian era. Perhaps a modified statement will suffice.

Parker Whittle 17:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

that is only one tribe, and only after the europeans came. it doenst count. Gabrielsimon 00:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

One tribe!? Cherokee, Navajo, Caddo, Wyandot/Huron, Iroquois, and that was just the start. Please provide references for your claim of post-Columbian origin of witch hunts and witch trials among all Native American peoples Parker Whittle 17:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Reference to Native American trials by ordeal, including witch trials

http://www.accessgenealogy.com/native/tribes/history/indianordeals.htm

The ordeals corresponding closest to the tests to which the name was originally applied were those undertaken to determine witches or wizards. If it was believed that a man had died in consequence of being bewitched, the Tsimshian would take his heart out and put a red-hot stone against it, wishing at the same time that the enemy might die. If the heart burst, they thought that their wish would be fulfilled; if not, their suspicions were believed to be unfounded. A Haida shaman repeated the names of all persons in the village in the presence of a live mouse and determined the guilty party by watching its motions. A Tlingit suspected of witchcraft was tied up for 8 or 10 days to extort a confession from him, and he was liberated at the end of that period if he were still alive. But as confession secured immediate liberty and involved no unpleasant consequences except an obligation to remove the spell, few were probably found innocent. This, however, can hardly be considered as a real ordeal, since the guilt of the victim was practically assumed, and the test was in the nature of a torment to extract confession. emphasis added

One of the common responsibilities assigned to shamans, in general, has been to identify the person responsible for magical harm inflicted on members of a community. Native Americans were not an exception.

Parker Whittle 17:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


again, this was only after eurpoeans came, its not technically traditiona; Gabrielsimon 00:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Where in the article does it state that these beliefs originated after the Europeans came? Parker Whittle 17:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Traditional witch beliefs among the Cherokee

http://www.cherokeenationmexico.com/tsq-three.html

Upon the death of the person and the departure of the first soul, all life processes stop and the other three souls begin to die. In about a week, the liversoul is gradually diffused back into Nature as a life force. Immediately after death, before a significant amount of the liver soul has diffused away, the liversoul is sought by witches to extend their lives. Although its loss to witches does no harm to the first soul or to the living community, it is viewed as a desecration of the corpse so a wake is held to prevent intrusion by witches. Knowing that the death will attract witches, a conjuror may use the wake to attempt to kill a witch, thus eliminating an enemy of the community. The best defense against witch attacks, before and after death are the strength of the victim, if still alive, the strength and magical power of the fire on the household hearth, and the magical power, vigilance and knowledge of the conjuror. emphasis added

Parker Whittle 18:01, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


again, this was only after eurpoeans came, its not technically traditiona; Gabrielsimon 00:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

The article specifically identifies the topic as the beliefs of the ancient Cherokee. References, please. Parker Whittle 17:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Requesting Third opinion and added Wikiquette alert

I have provided ample support for the reference made in the introduction regarding belief in witches among indigenous people of the Americas. Gabrielsimon now simply removes the reference any time I restore it, without any comment. I have made good faith efforts to revise the wording, and to provide references, in to accommodate his objections. I have added requests to Wikipedia:Third opinion (to resolve the issue) and Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts (because his edits are made without comment, now that I have provided ample references to witch beliefs among Native Americans).

Parker Whittle 17:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

References for post-Columbian origin of witch-accusations

Gabrielsimon -- can you provide any support for your assertion that Native Americans "no one was ever hunted down and harmed for anything supernatural" until the Europeans came? If you can't back it up, I'm going to restore my remarks. Witch accusations and witch trials are as universal in time and place as belief in spirits and magic.

Parker Whittle 17:32, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Gabrielsimon, what's with the revert? Have you read the talk page? You haven't responded and made your case, I think you should do that before reverting. Friday 00:28, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

haing taken university courses in native history on this continant, and being counted as one of the natives, i can be sconsidered an expert on this subject. Gabrielsimon 00:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you would discuss the basis for your change here, not on other pages. I've quoted your explanation in bold: "as i have likly said before, tjhe word and idea of witch was not of an origion that is in the american continant , it is a european contiant, and any thoughts to show that it wasnt are misinterpretations and mistranslations. id have left out the mention of the american continents entirely, but i comprimised and inserted " after contact with Europe" instead...". You're talking about the origins of the word "witch"? I don't believe that's the issue here. The paragraph in question explains that "witch" is there being used in the general sense of one who does malevolent magic. This should be clear to anyone reading the entire paragraph. Friday 01:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


in most native american cultures magic isnt malevolant, it simply is, jut as the sun surely shines. i have a headache at the moment which is making it harderthen i like to be eloquent, but i do know that the concept of a witch ( and subeqyuently, witch trials) and the like are european in origion, thus the concept can not have origionated here. Gabrielsimon 01:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I understand. The witches (and witch trials) that you're familiar with are European in origin. Parker Whittle appears to be trying to show you that similiar concepts also existed in non-European places. He's not saying that most aboriginal American magic was bad. He's only saying that the idea of "bad magic" was not unheard of. Would you agree to stop reverting for a while, to re-read what he wrote and think it over? He has provided explanations and sources for you. You have not provided sources, but you've said you're an expert. How about reading what Parker Whittle wrote and giving us an expert's opinion? Friday 01:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

The claim that "in most native american cultures magic isnt malevolant" is missing the point completely. There was belief in magic that was approved of and considered good, but there also was clearly the belief in magic that were considered evil and said to be practiced almost exclusively by marginalized people who were hunted down in witchcraft style persecutions. Please see... heck, pretty much any scholarly book (i.e. not New Age mysticism) on the topic of Native American supernatural beliefs would have this information, but for the sake having some specific books to refer to: Navaho Witchcraft by Kluckhohn, Witchcraft and Sorcery of the American Native People by Walker (ed.), Myths of the Cherokee by Mooney, and Magic, Witchcraft and Religion - An Anthropological Study of the Supernatural by Lehman and Myers. DreamGuy 18:53, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
And, incidentally, I have read all of those, they are all very scholarly, and they all show groups of people thought to be using bad magic and being hunted down for it. The last book has essays from around the world so also covers Africa (extremely well documented, many antrhopologist formed their professional careers on finding traditional witchcraft beliefs of various tribes) and Asia.
Honestly, I have to wonder about people trying to make claims of enough knowledge to be writing encyclopedia articles on topics without having read actual scholarly books. The ones I mentioned so far are just scratching the surface of the ones I own and have read. I could make lists about ten times as long as that for each continent being discussed. I do hope people interested enough in the topic to contribute here take the time to read books like these. DreamGuy 19:15, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for chiming in. I have Lehman and Myers, and have read portions of it. Sadly, it's buried right now in some boxes in storage, otherwise I would have cited it. The focus of my reading has been the likes of Frazer, Campbell, Otto Rank, and Jung. I've read significant portions of Malleus Maleficarum, as well (oy). It seemed not at all controversial to make broad reference to witch beliefs among indigenous populations. For more detailed descriptions, I would have turned to specific scholarly sources (one of the reasons I haven't added any more detail to the article). Parker Whittle 19:36, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
I shouldn't have painted such a broad stroke when I chastised people for not having read scholarly books. It was more targeted to a specific individual and general frustration with an encyclopedia where so many contributors have no qualifications to be trying to weigh in on the topics that they do. You had a lot of decent Internet references above (one I believe quotes Mooney, one of my sources). I had missed reading them when I first came here, as I got here through a link to a specific section and didn't notice the extensive earlier discussion until I scrolled up later.
Lehman and Myers is a good overview, I especially love "Body Ritual Among the Nacirema" as it is an absolute classic in the field... though it's more of a warning against overzealous interpretation of other cultures than actual information about magic, witchcraft and religion. DreamGuy 23:30, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

removed contentious phrase

Per the above discusson, I've taken ", including Africa, Asia and the Americas after contact with Europe" out of the page altogether. I feel that a good case has been made for the "including Africa, Asia and the Americas" version, but it'd be nice to have others weigh in too. I would put it back to PWhittle's version but I'm trying to stick to the one revert rule. Friday 01:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

With another editor chiming in above, it looks to me like this doesn't need to still be taken out. We've got only one editor who objects, with no clear reason given, against a few other people making good points to support it. Friday 19:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Added witchcraft template

Perusing the European witchcraft article, I noticed the witchcraft template, and added it to the main article. Most of the other pages remain to be written. Perhaps placing the template here will encourage that process. I'll see what I can do, myself. Parker Whittle 19:28, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Etymology: video = witch

After placing a comment on the contributor's talk page asking for a source for the claim that witch could have derived from video, he responded with an email explaining how he came up with the idea. This obviously falls under the concept of Wikipedia:No original research, so is not a valid reason for its inclusion here. He further provided a link to a website that he claimed as another source for the idea and said he would add it (I would note here that all additions of video-related information appear to be the same editor, first as an IP address, then under one newly-created account, and then on yet another newly-created account, as the second named account mysteriously did what the person using the first named account said he was going to do, and none of them have any other edit history).

The claims on that page cited as a reference come from someone named "Tom Johnson," which as far as I know would just mean some other person with no known background had done his own original research. But then I tried to search the information and found another page (see [8]) where the the same information is quoted but it is claimed that the original information came from some unknown author and that Tom Johnson just made some comments about it. (Although there is a confusing bit where they say that part of it was initialed TJ, and then a Tani Jantsang is mentioned earlier, so the "Tom Johnson" may be an error...)

At this point we only have the claims of a new Wikipedia editor and some completely unknown individual), both of whom have completely unknown (and likely no) qualifications for making statements about the etymology of words. Between our policies banning original research and demanding sources and verifiability, I cannot see how the suggestion that witch might have derived from video -- against all other sources of its etymology -- can possibly be justified in being placed here. Thus I have removed it.DreamGuy 22:24, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

DreamGuy, about that edit...

Oxford says differently to your claim that "witch" and "wicca" are different words. Old English is the direct ancestor of Modern English, not another language from which it borrowed words (that would be Old French), and "wicca" is the Old English word for "witch" that has since changed into the latter. That you just blindly reverted my edit without paying attention to the obvious fact that I had made basically positive edits to the article in the same edit would indicate that it was either a revenge revert that you made as soon as you realised that I (with whom you have conflicted in the past) made an edit to an article I don't usually frequent, or a feeble attempt to increase your number of edits by splitting the one task into two.elvenscout742 01:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, elvensco, but Old English words are absolutely not the same thing as modern English words (unless you happen to find a rare matching pair that hasn't changed at all). "Witch" is not the same word as "wicce" and in fact anyone looking at the two words can see that. It was not a blind revert or a revenge revert. Please give your accusations a rest. DreamGuy 23:56, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
The word has gone through changes, yes, explaining the difference in appearance. It is just a technicality, as the ModE word does not "derive from" but rather "originate as" the OE word. Surely neither of us are in a position to argue with Oxford, hmm? English cannot derive words from English as though it were a separate language.elvenscout742 00:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Modern English most certainly can derive from Middle and Old English. They are different. DreamGuy 00:41, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
This is probably the most silly dispute I have ever read. There is nothing unusual in calling a word the "same" as an earlier form in an earlier version of the language.--Wiglaf 00:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
You see, DreamGuy? Once again the consensus seems to be against you, and once again it is over a minor technicality that you have blown out of proportion.elvenscout742 13:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Wicca and witchcraft are different. Scholars who study either one distinguish it from the other, as do many practicioners. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Request for references

Trying again

Gabrielsimon, can you provide references for the claim that with trials and witch hunts among Native Americans occurred most frequently after contact with Europeans? I know that you've already been reminded of this, but I will try again: You will find that your edits will meet with more success if you add comments to the Talk page corresponding to the article, and cite references. Parker Whittle 17:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


REFERENCES!

Gabriel, you really should stop making edits without comment, especially when you have been asked at least twice, now, to produce references in support of your claim. If you can't produce references, the claim will be removed. You want to make an edit, then be prepared to back it up. Parker Whittle 19:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, please do provide references. Your own assertions of being an "expert" are not going to be considered sufficient in the eyes of most editors. Friday 19:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Gabriel, the strong consensus of the editors here expect actual scholarly references for the claim you keep adding in, especially considering the many references already provided above that dispute it. You do not appear to even be trying to work with anyone else. DreamGuy 23:56, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

RfC

I added an RfC [9] to verify the claim that Native American with hunts/trials originated or intensified as a result of contact with the Europeans. I'm hoping that this can resolve the matter without perpetuating the revert war. Parker Whittle 20:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

sounds good. if it helps btw, im operating out from oral histories ive been told. (quite q few of them) Gabrielsimon 20:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that does help quite a bit. Oral histories you've been personally told are not verifiable, thus they can't be used as sources. All of this is explained very nicely in the various policies people have been trying to get you to read, such as WP:V and WP:NOR. Friday 20:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm only interested in having a good article here, not in debates, so I'm doing everything I can to come to a resolution. Unrecorded oral histories are not considered a reliable source (especially in reference to historical fact). You would do a great deal to resolve this conflict yourself, Gabriel, if you could provide reliable sources, yourself. Please refer to the Wikipedia:Cite sources guideline, especially the section entitled When there is a factual dispute [10]. A disputed claim that cannot be sourced may be removed. I've been rather accommodating, Gabriel. Please try to pitch in constructively to the production of a better article. Parker Whittle 20:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

it would seem to me that being told the history ofa people by one or more elders who have spent thier lives keeping the history alive, through retelling, would count forsomething, considering thats the traditional way of keepinghistory alive in native cultures. in this diverse world, would printed medium only be considered kind of excluwitory? Gabrielsimon 20:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

They would be, if collected by scholarly sources, published, and then cited in that form as so-and-so said and contrast with all the so-and-sos who say differently. But then considering the topic being discussed I don't know how oral histories would even be relevant. One person is going to claim that some relative told them that witchcraft style persecutions didn't start until after the Europeans came, contradicting the evidence collected by a large number of scholars in books already published (and cited above)? How is one person's claim from one family in one tribe going to compare with all the actual cited eveidence already out there? It's just another example of original research whether it's you making the claim or your grand-aunt. DreamGuy 00:02, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

what i am referring to is how and if etc about witchcraft in this continanet before the contact with europeans. that is why the oral histories of the native 's are usefull. Gabrielsimon 00:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Historians and cultural anthropologists make heavy use of oral histories, especially when they are the only accounts available. Naturally, an oral history isn't anywhere near as reliable, when looking for historical fact, as a primary source, or even a secondary source. Stories change over time, and the period of time we're talking about here -- 500 years, is a long time for prejudices and mistakes to enter into the retelling. It's a multigenerational game of telephone. Regardless, when you cite oral histories as something you've been taught personally, then that's not much better than hearsay. Anyone can claim someone told them about some rich oral tradition. Anybody can simply fall back on their education and claim to be an authority. That's easy. Writing good encyclopedia articles is harder than that -- you really do need to provide a documented source to back up what you're saying. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Parker Whittle 00:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

when dealing with native americans, the oral histories are typically the primairty source. also, taditions like srtoryteller ( wich is sometimes history keepr) pride themselves of not changing things from generation to generation. Gabrielsimon 00:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

For obvious reasons, by definition, an oral history cannot be a primary source for events that occurred before the teller's lifetime. And one can only determine the accuracy of a story with independent verification. Without verification, oral history is generally not a very reliable record of historical events. Regardless, you miss the point: oral histories personally passed on to a Wikipedia editor do not qualify as a reliable source. The rest of the community has no way of telling the difference between your oral histories, and hearsay. You need to provide references to published works of some kind. Parker Whittle 00:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Gabriel, I know you've been referred to it numerous times, but it's particularly relevent to this discussion -- the Wikipedia:No original research policy specifically requires documented sources. Oral histories that have been documented by acknowledged scholars may be cited. Oral histories personally told to you is original research. Parker Whittle 01:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


as i have stated, thats quite exclusitory and rather mean spirited, not to mention unfair. Gabrielsimon 01:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

You can write whatever you like on your own website and no one will ask for sources. However, on this site, we're making an encyclopedia, and thus we have certain standards. Your own opinion that the guidelines here are inappropriate does not magically change the rules. Friday 01:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Fair or not, it's an official policy of the Wikipedia. If you've got a beef with the official policies, take it up with the appropriate parties. You cannot unilaterally decide to violate the policies simply because you don't consider them fair. And this is not the place to dispute them. Each policy has its own discussion relating to its merits, or lack thereof, so I suggest you take it there, and leave those who wish to comply with the rules in relative peace. Parker Whittle 01:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

its rather discrimionatory to sasy that thousands year old traditions of keeping records orally should bve trumped by some ivy league person who doesnt even understhand thel anguage these tales are told in as a firstlanguage. Gabrielsimon 01:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Again, take it up as an issue on the policy's discussion page. This is not the place to debate the clearly stated rules. Comply with them, or try to change them, but violating them won't get you anywhere. Parker Whittle 01:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

So, Gabrielsimon... Devil's advocate here... If I say that I have a long oral tradition in my family that says witches were being hunted down and killed on the North American continent long before Europeans showed up -- thus directly contradicting the oral traditions you claim to have -- would you believe me? Can I use that as proof that you are wrong? Should all of Wikipedia change to accept the fact that I now suddenly have oral histories supporting any claim I make on any article? How about a long oral history that that the sun used to be sky blue and unless it was a cloudy day you couldn't see it because it blended in with the background of the sky...? Would you accept that? Could I put that in the sun article as accepted fact, that the sun absolutely was blue and who cares what the silly scientists and actual documented sources said? Why or why not?DreamGuy 03:29, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

absurdity aide, an oral tradition would have to be european descended from your family, if what mnemory serves, so no such story would even come up.

 in any case, im perfectly will9ing to  tell the names of the elsers i got the stories from, though my gradfather and a few others arent alive anymore.

Gabrielsimon 03:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Don't speculate about my ancestry or try to change the topic... Would my claims be valid reasons to modify contents of Wikipedia articles or not? DreamGuy 04:27, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

ancestry has everything to do with this, if you have elders, of the sort that im referring to, then thier word is to be trusted, but its completly obvious that you dont. please stop being rude by proxy. Gabrielsimon 04:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Gabe, let's be perfectly blunt here: "Because I said so" is not a sufficient standard of proof for anything, especially an encyclopedia. Neither is "I'm right and everyone else is wrong," as you seem to be saying about the documented proof being put forward. Until you understand either of these two obvious points you will get nowhere, no matter how much personal indignation you work yourself up into. --Calton | Talk 05:16, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Comment from FuelWagon

Gabrielsimon, someone told you a story about witchcraft and native americans. That you attribute it to a thousand year old tradition of oral history is trying to make this out to be more than it is: someone told you a story about witchcraft. There are numerous cultures that don't have writen histories that have been documented and studied by folks whose job it is to investigate a story and track it back as far as possible to see if it is accurate. Someone told you a story. No one investigated it. If you did, that qualifies as original research. If not, then it is simply heresay. If you wish to investigate and publish a book/website about it, go for it, but that precludes you from publishing your own material on wikipedia. This sort of thing needs a verifiable source. And just because it isn't in wikipedia doesn't mean it isn't true. It just means it doesn't fit teh policies put in place so that heresay around disputed topics is not allowed to reported as fact. Someone may document this oral history in the future, and then you can add the information at that time. For now, it really cannot stay. FuelWagon 06:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Split section

I split a section on distinguishing witchcraft from other forms of magic into two other sections, both of which already existed: Practices typically considered to be witchcraft, and Witches in modern culture. The distinctions between folk magic, ceremonial magic, and religious magic are most commonly used in modern occult communities. The discussion of the malefic nature of witchcraft seemed perfectly suited for the Practices section. Parker Whittle 05:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

There was also a reference to witchcraft as a term applied to all forms of magic outside one's own religion. I expanded this comment and moved it to the introduction, as one of the senses of the term. Parker Whittle 06:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Removed Third Opinion and Wikiquette alert

Things appear to have settled down. I have removed the Wikipedia:Third Opinion and Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Parker Whittle 05:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Reverted unsourced claim in intro

I removed the following phrased from the intro: "compounded by the tenet of secrecy held by most witches prior to the 1940s". This statement either implies the loosely organized neo-pagan witchcraft movement in the West (in which case it's not appropriate in a broad statement about witchcraft throughout history), or it implies that witchcraft implies an organized pagan religion prior to its 20th Century origins (which has been rejected by the majority of historians and anthropologists). --Parker Whittle 15:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Witches - derived from belief in quasi-bacteria?

I recall reading somewhere - alas, I don't remember the source and can't find it - that the prosecution of "witches" was originally (?) the prosecution of *belief* in witches, which were evidently some sort of invisible fairy-like creature that caused disease (sorta like bacteria). This was antithetical, thus quashed, and then outgrew itself.

Has anyone else heard this version of things, and can either substantiate or refute it?--Sai Emrys 19:57, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

While I can't verify anything specific to your reference, I'm reading an article in 'Uncle John's Bathroom Reader Plunges into History' (pp. 204-205) about a pyschological phenomenon called 'St. Vitus' Dance' or 'Dancing Plague'. Characterised by uncontrollable muscle movements (almost like a dance), it was a mental 'pressure valve', along the lines of mass hysteria, that helped to ease the pressure of the medieval 'daily grind'. DarkMasterBob 22:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The Craft != Witchcraft

Just an FYI, historically 'The Craft' is nomenclature for Freemasonry, the term was incorporated (along with rituals, symbols, theologies and philosophies) by Gardner when he created his hack cult, which often is intertwined in such a confusing mess that even devout practitioners can't differentuate the two, with Witchcraft.

It's a shame that no one editing this article had the insight to look at the historical taxonomy in use, or the fact that prior to 1954 'The Craft' was only used by Freemasons and spin off co-freemasonic organisations to refer to the 'Workings'. Jachin 17:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking of putting mention of this in the Wicca article. Remember, however, as much as Gardner's version of events is debated, it is not disproved. You can say the term may have been incorporated by Gardner... And describing Wicca as a 'hack cult' is not liable to make you popular. Fuzzypeg 03:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Science verdict: witchcraft does not exist.

The article intro should make it clear that witches and magic do not exist according to established academical science. There has never been scientifically testable proof that people can harm others by the power of words (spell and curses) nor that it is possible to fly on brooms. The only power all kind of those frog and snake and hanged man rope soups contain is the result of their chemical and biological properties. Thus the article should clearly declare that witchcraft does not exist and it is mere fantasy.

I agree with you that it does not exist. However, here on Wikipedia, we try to adhere to the principle of NPOV and let people make up their own minds about what to believe or not. You could say exactly the same thing about religious rites, such as the holy communion, but I guess many people would not appreciate to see such statements in its intro.--Wiglaf 11:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

In the same way, science can prove that the Christian god doesn't exist, but Christians all over the world would be enraged if they saw that here. Witchcraft is on EXACTLY the same level as any religion, and if you argue against one religious belief, you have to argue against ALL religious beliefs. I'd be quite interested in seeing an article of that type, but it would only serve to annoy religious people everywhere.--Jcvamp 21:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

As a point of fact, science cannot "prove that the Christian god doesn't exist" – scientific proof doesn't work this way (this topic should more properly be titled Science verdict: we have no evidence for the existence of witchcraft to avoid sniggers from people who know something about science). This isn't just a question of not enraging people. This is an unresolved and unresolvable debate. Sure there's plenty of sound and fury from people trying to "prove" one way or another, but I would like to think that at Wikipedia we aspire to more useful things. Fuzzypeg 11:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Then at the very least, it should be described as a belief system; currently the article opens: "Witchcraft, in various historical, religious and mythical contexts, is the use of certain kinds of supernatural or magical powers". This should be modified to something along the lines of: "...contexts, is the belief in use of certain kinds of supernatural or magical powers". While some may certainly believe in it's existence, that alone certainly doesn't validitate it's existence.

Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the date. Now, you may manage to word it unobtrusively and in such a way as to keep a neutral tone (the example above doesn't work though, since witchcraft is properly a practice, not a belief). It's not necessary, though. People aren't going to mistakenly believe or disbelieve in magic on the basis of reading this article. After the opening section the article goes on to describe different beliefs regarding witchcraft, so it should be obvious that the reader is permitted to make up their own mind. Lets assume a small modicum of sophistication amongst our readers, and not dumb things down completely. Fuzzypeg 11:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
This bit about the supernatural would be my main issue. I'm not sure that is a given. It certainly isn't true for modern people who choose to call themselves witches. As another person pointed out the whole concept of the supernatural is a Christian concept, and quite alien to the Thealogy of modern witches who do not believe in a "higher" force than nature. Even for the witch of folklore, much of the witches powers were attributed to herbs, potions, and "witches brews". "Eye of newt" although somewhat odd, isn't necessarily supernatural.
If one assumes a witches are supernatural, then perhaps one could claim that is antithetical to science, but given the number of scientists (both past and present) who dabble in the Occult or Witchcraft, I don't one can make that case. One can say that the Medieval witch was assumed to be supernatural, but surely the concept of witches goes far beyond that simple definition. For example, refer to the OED for a definition which does not require a supernatural assumption. --Yarthkin 13:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
In addition to agreeing with Fuzzypeg's points, let me add that it is an empirical fact that witches and witchcraft do exist; any claim that science "proves" that they do not exist is fundamentally unscientific. The question is not whether or not witches and witchcraft exist; the questions are, why? what do they actually do? and what does it mean? In fact there has been a good deal of academic literature addressing just these questions. One would hope that an encyclopedia article would be based on actual research of this vast body of literature. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I made the wrong arguement there. It would have been better for me to say that science also can't prove the existence of the Christian god, therefore 'disproving' Christianity on the same basis as the argument supposedly disproves the existence of Witchcraft. Sorry about that.

Anyway, the overall point was that all religions and practices are on the same level. By this time my argument is probably irrelevant, but there you go.--Jcvamp 01:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course many Christians don't expect the veracity of their beliefs to proven - many even seem to feel that faith with no proof is more "worthy" than having any kind of confirmation. Witches on the other hand are often quite familiar with magic, have met their gods personally and so on. Many of us take a rather critical approach to religion and expect our beliefs to be confirmed. Until they're confirmed they're not really beliefs actually, they're more like experiments. Anyway, trying to tell a witch that magic doesn't exist is like trying to tell an electrician that electricity doesn't exist. 'Tis all so known, well-proven and explained, that those who doubt it doubt it all in vain. I don't really expect you to believe me; I'm just trying to give you an idea of how the argument comes across to us. Fuzzypeg☻ 04:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Witches of Medieval Times

The Term 'Supernatural' in Reference to Witchcraft

When talking about the neo-pagan religion of Witchcraft, or the practice related to the aforementioned, the word 'supernatural' doesn't tie in with the belief systems.

Everything in Witchcraft is viewed as part of nature, including the deities. For something to be above nature, in a religious Witchcraft context, would be impossible.

Ironically, the Christian god is seen to be above nature (aka supernatural), therefore to communicate with him, a supernatural entity, is a supernatural practice. Prayer, therefore, is actually more of a supernatural practise than magic. Yet, due to the ambiguity, and the plethora of meanings attached to the word Witchcraft, people view what Witches do, even in the religious sense, as supernatural.--Jcvamp 21:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Separate into sections

I think that the section on witchcraft should be split. There should be an article on witchcraft as a practice and spiritual path, and another separate one on witchcraft in the witchhunts, diabolism, warty-nosed crone, sense of the word.

I think it's important to draw a distinction between the two. Witchcraft as it was seen by the church in the middle ages, and as it is still portrayed in films, stories and other entertainment media, is a totally separate thing to the real practice.

This page could be used as a disambiguation page, and link to pages called 'Witchcraft (the practice)' and 'Witchcraft (classic image)' or something like that. --Jcvamp 14:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


I thoroughly agree with this comment. there is a middle ages style view of witchcraft, and a more modern one. It doensn't matter whether or not the term "witch" was originally malefic or not. The simple fact is that the term has come to mean something else entirely, as well as its original meaning. There is a certain display of bigotry and contempt in the assertion and accusation that neo-pagans are attempting to re-write history through an illigitimate use of the term, and a certain conservative resistance to the natural change and evolution of language, culture, and spiritual meanings. The fact is that the term "witch" (if it didn't before, which is debateable) now also has a neutral or positive meaning besides the archetypal image the term presents us with.
As such, in its current form, I consider this article to be heavily POV influenced. The only way I can see of resolving this is to have the article specifically reference the older interpretation of the term only, and a new article created to explain the term in a more modern sense, which can then be written in such a way as to offer an accurate and unbiased explanation of the belief systems and spiritual paths of a great many people, without making it appear that they are all awful people that have clearly been misguided (which believe it or not is the impression this article gives (whether my accident or by design), which is a POV in itself)

Crimsone 22:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

There is an article on "witchcraft as a spiritual path"; Wicca. The changing usage of the word "Witchcraft" is part of the history of witchcraft, and it is not obvious to me why this article cannot reflect that. Jkelly 04:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Wicca and Witchcraft are not synonymous. Wicca refers specifically to Witchcraft descent from the Gardnerian tradition. There are other forms that aren't but are still types of religious Witchcraft, nonetheless. Also, Witchcraft isn't always spiritual. Some people practise Witchcraft in a none religious context.

Witchcraft can be compared to meditation. Some people meditate on spiritual matters, and incomporate it into their religious practices, whilst others meditate to centre their mind. The only difference is, Witchcraft is often defined as a religion in and of itself. --Jcvamp 00:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I, once more, am in agreement with Jcvamp. Witchcraft as a spiritual path IS NOT the same as Wicca, and has NOTHING to do with Wicca. Furthermore, witchcraft in the modern sense of the term does not have to be spiritual, and can in fact be a system of practicing magic that can be applied to followers of various religious, which can even give rise to Christian or Jewish witches!
While this article can and should indeed make comment on the changing usage of the word "Witchcraft" as part of the history of witchcraft, I feel that to conclude that the term was stolen and illegitimately adopted by neo-pagans to by, inaccurate and misleading - partly due to society's part in accepting this definition of the word to a large extent, and otherwise due to the fact that to call it illegitimate (though the word was never used, it's is implied) is strongly POV - who is to say whether the changing use of a word is right or wrong? The whole article presents an air of contempt towards neo-pagans (again, whether rightly or wrongly) in this respect, and in other respects it fails to give full information on what withchcraft is today in a modern sense - concentrating on the bad and ignoring the good. I feel that this article concentrates more on history than it does on modern witchcraft also, which discredits witchcraft as a subject in itself (which as previously mentioned, is a huge subject (with at least some crossover, but often holding slightly different perspectives)
Witchcraft in the modern sense, as I'm sure you would appreciate, is a vast subject, and also many varying points of view aver what it acctually is. To split the article in the way suggested would not only make this one more credible, but would allow this article to to loose what is it's apparently extremely contentious (to some) and contraversial nature, while the new article on modern witchcraft would be able to accurately reflect the views and beliefs of a great many people around the world today, along with the associated controversy and disagreement on it's talk page (which currently lives on this talk page instead), and would be able to do so without bias (which this article cannot, whether this is intended, un-intended, or otherwise). Of course, it would also mean that the people visiting Wiki would be able to choose whether they wanted to know about the historical term "witch" and it's meaning, or the modern practice and meaning of "Witchcraft", which currently isn't possible (and being two entirely different subjects, it should be).
My original comment on this matter (above) still stands in my opinion, as does Jcvamp's original comment on this issue, regardless of whether or not there is already a page on Wicca, as Wicca is unrelated to this issue. As I'm sure you are aware Jkelly, I have already seen the Wicca article in full, and even discussed the removal of links and a small edit. (so no offense basically, I'm just argueing for what seems correct according to what I know, as I'm sure you appreciate) Crimsone 02:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

This currently seems to be a two man petition. If no one will address this subject, it might basically have to fall down to us. I don't know what the policy is on making major changes to articles, but, I am strongly considering at least attempting a rewrite and posting it here (on the talk page), along with an article on Witchcraft as the modern practice; then, perhaps, people could vote about their inclusion.

The article on Wicca could be noted as a 'see also' but with an explanation that it is a variety of Witchcraft stemming from Gardnerian, rather than a synonym.

I think that this way we can include a lot more relevant information, and tidy up the remaining articles. The article at the moment is all over the place and it's hard to determine which sense of the word witchcraft is being used.--Jcvamp 23:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

There are two guidelines about making major changes to articles that I think apply here. One is Wikipedia:Consensus, and the other is WP:BOLD. I contend that creating an article Witchcraft as a modern practice is not a good idea, because it is likely to run afoul of WP:NOR and WP:RS. I suggest that a major clean-up of this article, taking a global perspective and with scrupulous referencing, would be an excellent first step. Removing unreferenced claims would shorten the article significantly. If it turned out that the resulting article was too long, ideally because a great deal of verifiable research had been put into it, that is an appropriate time to discuss what sub-articles should be created. Jkelly 23:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Seems a very long-winded way of reaching the inevitable (if of course a stage where the subject is discussed in depth can ever be reached on this subject through this method). That said, if what's how wiki does things, then that's how things are - though I have to consider that it's probably one of the reasons that many people who know what they are talking about stay away (not that I'm saying that anyone in particular doesn't know what they are talking about. I'm talking about the general reluctance of people to participate). Sounds to me to be very much like a 'red tape' procedure for it, especially considering that the proposed resolution to this problem involves no loss of information, but purely a clarification of meaning and the addition of information through splitting what is effectively a small part of one very long article and expanding on it in a NPOV.
I'm used to red tape and understand it well, but none the less evemn I'm having trouble with that concensus rule, and how it can be applied (for example, there are only three of us discussing this possible split, and two of us are for it while one is against. Or alternatively, could we assume that anybody who may not even have seen this discussion but has discussed this article previously that appears as though they would have been against a split of the article in fact would have been?
None the less, should I ever have the time or inclination, I guess I'll make steps towards re-writing the entire article from a NPOV, keeping all the same information, clarifying it, and adding information about witchcraft in a modern sense of the word that would probably end up being an article in its own right anyway If allowed to exist at all.
My apologies if this last statement sounds strong, but in my opinion, it's this sort of thing that cause great ideas like this (wikipedia) to fail. Still, given enough time and I'll give it a go for the sake of accuracy and fairness.
Common sense I feel, would dictate that the history of the term witch, and modern witchcraft are two very different subjects (one is an accusation of allegiance with the devil, and a thing to call someone you don't like, and the other is a system of magick, religion, or spiritual practice in it's own right.)Crimsone 20:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
No need to apologize. In fact, this is precisely what I thought was relevent about Wikipedia:Consensus; I wasn't proposing a three-person vote, but to note that it encourages reaching consensus through discussion. I think that we all agree that this article is not in the best shape that it could be. It seems that I am concerned that the proposed article is just going to "spread the mess around" and that you are concerned that a massive overhaul of the article sounds like "red tape", or unnecessarily delay improvement. Is this a fair summary of the conversation? Jkelly 20:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Speaking of creating articles in order to help this one improve, what do you think of the idea of creating Sybil Leek and moving all of the information about her there? Those bibliographies in the middle of the article are... an odd editorial decision. Jkelly 20:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

My sincere aplogies for this brief response - when I have a little more time I'll answer in more detail. I agree that this article is not in the best shape it could be in, and I doubt that theres a single person anywhere that would argue aginst that. While you are correct with regards to your summarisation of this discussion, I feel you have missed one key point of concern on my part, and so to summarise, in a clear, visible and obvious way....

Against - concerns that proposed article would just "spread the mess around"
For - concerns that this article is in a mess partly because it talks of two entirely different subjects, creating a situation where on is misrepresented and to fully clean up this article before splitting it into two articles (one for each distinctly different subject) would be an unessecary and counter-productive delay to its improvement.

While I appreciate that to start with the new article may be quite messy, it would mean that this article would be immediately cleaner, and would be far easier to refine properly, and so it would be less of a case of spreading the mess around, and more a case of cleaning up and moving the mess, leaving a far cleaner article for the future which would have far less controversy, and remain far cleaner, while at the same time give a fair hearing to a subject which currently seems to appear to be very briefly discussed from a biased POV in this article. (and thanks for understanding my previous comment. A lesser person might have dismissed it as a rant, so yes, Thankyou) Crimsone 08:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Will look at the Sybil Leek stuff a little later and edit this comment to air my thoughts on it :) Crimsone 08:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Personal Vendetta edit and re-edit

I previously added the highly informative works of a one Robin Artisson to the page and returned weeks later to see that it was deleted. All of my other contributions remained except for the two references to the author. I have re-added them because they are both veritable and valid sources for the topic at hand. I surmise that they were only removed out of personal enmity by peoples with a vendetta against the author.

What information was actually added to the article from this author? Wikipedia is not a collection of links. If the links you provided actually reference sources used in the article, that's fine, but we're not here as an advertising resource for some guy with a Cafepress operation. [Please note: I have had dealings with this particular author before, none of them pleasant. My objection here, however, is limited to the fact that the links provided add nothing of substance to the article.] -- SwissCelt 15:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Information from the author's website and book have been added to the article. There should no longer be any issue as to whether his work should be presented. The person in question who removed Robin Artisson's link and book (which, I repeat, are now properly represented in the article) has a personal grudge against the author, an author who is well-known and respected amongst the witchcraft community. His work has every right to appear here and I have every right to add it. Toadsboon 01:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
And I have every right to complain, edit, revert, or do whatever I feel necessary to ensure the viability and usability of this project (Wikipedia, that is). That said, now that actual source information has been used, I withdraw my objection. Again, my objection was to using this article as a forum for linkspam. That's not the purpose of this project. -- SwissCelt 06:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Everything should be fine now then? Toadsboon 06:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, yes, but I'm not the only one here. Also note that I was not the only one to revert that edit. I was simply the latest to do so. -- SwissCelt 06:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Now that there's a reason to credit Robin Artisson, it would be obvious that any further removal would be due to a blatant agenda. Would you agree? As much as I don't consider Rae Beth a valuable source, you do not see me deleting her mention. Toadsboon 19:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

While I have only taken the briefest of looks at the large amount of material that has been added to this article, I think that it is worth pointing out a few Wikipedia guidelines. Toadsboon, thank you for your contributions and I hope that you enjoy contributing here. There are some important things to consider, however. The first, in re: your "agenda" comment, is to always assume good faith. For instance, I am not going to always agree 100% with, as an example, SwissCelt's editing, but it makes sense for both of us to proceed from a belief that the other is genuinely attempting to improve the article. Please keep this in mind. Secondly, please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources; there is certainly room for reasonable people to disagree what constitutes a reliable source for this article. Thirdly, it is likely that an editor will object to this much of this article being devoted to Britain, and move some of the material to European witchcraft or even Wicca, with the only agenda being keeping things in their proper place. Again, welcome to Wikipedia, and please consider the above as you get accustomed to editing here. Jkelly 20:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
After taking a closer look, it seems that you pasted in what read like a personal essay into the article, and then referenced it as belonging to Robin Artisson (article is at AfD. When we cite sources, they need to be verifiable and pass our reliable sources criteria. Also, when editing Wikipedia, please strictly avoid using the first person. This article needs quite a bit of work, but I'm afraid that the addition was not an improvement. Jkelly 00:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's appropriate to present such large quotes from a single author (I presume they are direct quotes - they were presented that way). If Robin Artisson is the only source of this information on British witchcraft then the article would need to say that this was the case and give some pretty strong explanation of why a single isolated source could be considered authoritative. On the other hand, if other authors give the same or similar information, then lets get some comparitive views going! Just plomping several pages worth of someone's book in the middle of Wikipedia looks completely unprofessional, and doesn't cut it. Also, when I started reading the text I kept looking for references. There are a lot of assertions in that text that need sources given so that they can be independently verified. If they can't be independently verified then the material is certainly not suitable for dumping into Wikipedia en-masse. The material is really interesting, but better kept as a book reference or an external link, in my opinion. You also avoid accusations of plagiarism that way. Fuzzypeg 02:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay. That's reasonable. I'm going to re-read the article and check for sources to the author Rae Beth because it's been bothering me that she's listed as a source when she doesn't even know her...ahem nostril from a hole in the ground. If there's a reference to hedgewitchery in the article, then take notice that her definition of the term is her own and not the proper meaning. If I feel she hasn't contributed to this, then I'm going to remove her name from the booklist. Toadsboon 01:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Jewish witchcraft: Magery? Jewitchery??!

This section makes no sense to me.

Hebrew mysticism has spread widely throughout Europe for at least a thousand years now - it would be hard to find any ceremonial magic that wasn't influenced in some way. The cities of Toledo and Fez were melting pots in which there was a lot of this kind of cultural transfer; more recently people such as Eliphas Levi and (perhaps most importantly) the Golden Dawn have brought Hebrew magical influences to great prominence in almost all neopagan magic (although whether that can still be considered "Jewish", I don't know). The old grimoires are often Hebrew in basis.

I, and most of the witches I know, knowingly incorporate various elements of Qabalah (which is Hebrew mysticism) into our magic. It would seem almost inescapable for any tradition that's come out of Europe in the last eight hundred years or so! Magery, Jewish Witchcraft, and Jewitchery are quite uncommon terms and seem to imply something more specialised. I'm not really the expert on "Jewish witchcraft" - could someone else perhaps try to make this distinction a bit clearer? I could try if no-one else is willing... Fuzzypeg 03:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Inquiry

What has Nathaniel J. Harris contributed to this article to have his laughable book listed? I would ask the same about Starhawk but I see references. Toadsboon 18:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi. There's no need to be demeaning. That said, I understand your question to be "Is there a compelling reason to mention a book that is not used to reference this article?" and my response is "No, there is not". Jkelly 19:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry. I removed it. If someone feels it must be there then let them give convincing reasons. :) Not a big deal. Toadsboon 19:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Robin Artisson's book now has an ISBN (1411686314), so if many other books in of the same category can remain, his will be put back up. No more fighting.. if you have a book of your own and you loathe R.A., by all means put it up yourself. --Toadsboon 08:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Relevance?

How are the following sites relevant to this article?

Toadsboon 05:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

IMO, they're not relevant. Thank you for removing them. -- SwissCelt 05:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Reverted 23 January 2006 edits

I reverted several edits from today (23 January) because the most recent attempt to revert vandalism included with it a website which not only contributes nothing to the article, but one for which Wikipedia explicitly has no entitlement to use. The author of the website question has stated publicly that he does not authorise this project to use his copyrighted materials. That should settle the question. -- SwissCelt 05:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

then what of the three links I posted above that have no relevance to the article? Why not delete them? Toadsboon 05:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to be bold and delete them yourself. I'll back you on it. -- SwissCelt 05:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Done. Toadsboon 05:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course, ladies and gentlemen, you realize that "If you wish to delete the link, use a non-bogus reason" is itself a bogus reason to revert an edit. I was clarion in my reasons for reverting this article. I don't appreciate the actions of a "shoot first, ask questions later" administrator in undoing that action without first consulting this discussion page. Had (s)he done so, my reasons for reverting would have been clear. (Of course, studying the article history would also have revealed this, but let's not ask too much.) -- SwissCelt 05:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately you're wrong on this and should not speak for other people. Observe: http://www.thecrookedheath.com/elder/perm.htm Toadsboon 06:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
No, I believe I'm correct. Please see the author's open letter explaining why he has withdrawn his support of Wikipedia. Because he obviously will not release copyright to us, there's no reason for his work to be linked to this article. Again, Wikipedia is not a collection of links. -- SwissCelt 07:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
You aren't correct. Robin Artisson says, in that open letter, that he withdrew support from the 'Robin Artisson' article that was here. He never says that Wikipedia can't use a link to his site at the Witchcraft article. In fact, his content usage policy clearly says that as long as a website isn't hosting illegal material- and I daresay Wikipedia isn't- that they can link to him.Jontelpo


By the way, the history clearly shows that I deleted ONE link. Please don't accuse me of something I did not do, Calton. Also, I've been here in talk. Where are you??? -- SwissCelt 05:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Looks like I compared multiple versions and not just two, for which I apologize.
"If you wish to delete the link, use a non-bogus reason" is itself a bogus reason to revert an edit. That's not right; that's not even wrong. You realize, of course, by this reasoning your reversion is equally wrong -- or equally right. Puts you in a bit of a quandry, doesn't it? Unless, of course -- let's get meta! -- that that statement is itself bogus, but I really don't need that intellectual headache right now.

And yes, your edit summary of "Sorry, but Wikipedia does not have permission to use this copyrighted material" to justify removal of a LINK is too ludicrous for words. Would you mind explaining how a LINK is "copyrighted material"? Since this rationale doesn't pass the giggle test, this should be good. --Calton | Talk 06:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Response to Calton

No, I reverted the first time because your stated reason was so breathtakingly and obviously bogus that it defied reason (see chutzpah)
Hmmm, maybe you'd also like to note that my stated reasons were stated on the talk page all along (look here, please!), and that Wikipedia is not a collection of links. There was no reason for that link to be in the article, as the website author prohibits its contents from being republished on Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robin Artisson), and several people have been aiming to rid the article of miscellaneous linkspam.
Considering that you were numbering your reverts in the edit summaries, it seemed clear to me that you were counting on using the Three-Revert Rule as tactical cover for your actions.
In that case, I would also refer you to WP:AGF. I was numbering my reverts so that the person who called me a "dumbass" would have no reason to mistakenly accuse me of violating 3RR. My actions were not a "tactical cover"; on the contrary, I was operating as openly as I possibly could.
Make a coherent, non-bogus argument on the Talk page, one that at least passes the giggle test.
Perhaps now you'll see I've done so. It frankly flabbergasts me that you've apparently not seen it yet, but perhaps now you will, as I'm reprinting this comment on that page. Salve! -- SwissCelt 06:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Truth be known, Scarespite and EVERYTHING on thecrookedheath.com website including hosted pages is mine to do with whatever I please. RA does not pay for Scarespite or anything he has on the site-- I do. The links belong to me and I say they can be here if wanted. 66.25.255.95 03:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Code of Hammurabi!?

I took a look at the Code of Hammurabi, translated by L. W. King, at the Yale website, and I certianly didn't find the quote that's here. What I found that is most similar was: "If any one bring an accusation against a man, and the accused go to the river and leap into the river, if he sink in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river prove that the accused is not guilty, and he escape unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser." That's probably a different translation of the same clause, but I'd like to see a reference to the translation that the article refers to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fireballmage (talk • contribs)

This law (the second law) is translated in the Catholic Encyclopedia as
If a man has laid a charge of witchcraft and has not justified it, he upon whom the witchcraft is laid shall go to the holy river; he shall plunge into the holy river and if the holy river overcome him, he who accused him shall take to himself his house.
What the source of this translation is, is not mentioned. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia gives a slightly different translation:
The first two sections of the Code of Hammurabi are as follows: "1. If a man has laid a curse (kispu = keshaphim) upon (another) man and it is not justified, he that laid the curse shall be put to death. 2. If a man has put a spell upon (another) man and it is not justified, he upon whom the spell is laid shall go to the holy river; into the holy river shall he plunge. If the holy river overcome him (and he is drowned), the man who put the spell upon him shall take possession of his house. If the holy river declares him innocent and he remains unharmed the man who laid the spell shall be put to death. He that plunged into the river shall take possession of the house of him who laid the spell upon him." Not a word is said here of a female that weaves a spell, but probably the word "man" in the Babylonian is to be taken as including male and female (so Canon C. H. W. Johns in a private letter, dated December 22, 1912).
This second quote sounds like it's a reasonable translation, assuming that kispu really does correspond to keshaphim, which is the same root as the word for sorceror in the Torah. Fuzzypeg 05:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
This second translation looks like it's more authoritative than that from the Catholic Encyclopedia; also it's more complete. So I've changed the article to use this quote, but in the reference I've directed readers to the other two translations as well, for comparison. Fuzzypeg 06:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)