Talk:Witchcraft

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Witchcraft article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
Good article Witchcraft has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
February 3, 2006 Good article nominee Listed
Cleanup Taskforce article This article has been improved by the Cleanup Taskforce to conform with a higher standard of quality. Please see its Cleanup Taskforce page for more details on this process, and possible ideas on how you can further improve this article!
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Witchcraft as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Ukrainian language Wikipedia.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2


Contents

[edit] additional material

I find it surprising that this article does not reference any of the work done by Keith Thomas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.235.145.143 (talk) 13:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, there are plenty of really good sources available, but hardly anyone seems to look further than Ronald Hutton. I've been intending to make some improvements to this article for a long time, probably mainly relying on Eva Pocs, Carlo Ginzburg, E. William Monter, Bengt Ankarloo and so on, since I don't actually own a copy of Thomas' Religion and the Decline of Magic, but if you have access to the book, then why not be bold and start to add some info from him yourself? I've been meaning to improve this article for years (literally!), but I can't see much free time opening up in the near future. We'd love your help... Fuzzypeg★ 05:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

New material includes links to sources.24.168.227.29 21:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


Linda Blair entry - funny, but this isn't the place... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.143.237 (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

Do we need an "overview" section? The introduction should be the overview. I suggest removing "==Overview==" header to merge it with the intro. Totnesmartin 21:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Add "Critical resources" section

Any objections to adding a "Critical resources" section with the following link?:

Thanks for your input. --Sdiekmann 16:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Not entirely convinced about the quality of the translations in the NASB. Someone who "divines by spirits" is not really the same thing as a spiritist or medium, for instance... But that's OK. Now, we already have sections regarding witchcraft as addressed in the old and new testaments. Try improving these sections first, and if it expands large enough to warrant its own section, we can split it out. One approach might be to add a couple more particularly relevant examples of biblical prohibitions against witchcraft, and include a link to that page in the reference.
What would be really good, though, is if you could find some discussion and interpretation of these verses by a notable church person, or even better, a range of views. There's only so far we can go with listing quotes from the Bible. Fuzzypeg☻ 22:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions. I'll see what I can come up with. --Sdiekmann 02:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Majority of accused were women

I've just added this statement back to the article. Old discussion around this between me and User:DreamGuy can be found at Talk:Witchcraft/Archive 2#Majority of accused witches were women. Barstow estimates 80% of accused and 85% of executed were women; Gibbons estimates 75-80% of accused were women. If anyone wants to remove this statement again, please provide concrete references rather than vague gestures at "the authors I've read", and we can argue it out. Fuzzypeg☻ 22:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


You'd think with the popular book Malleus Maleficarum in the medieval period, and how the church believed in general, because of Eve, that women were more prone to sin than the superior man was, would be enough proof that women were more likely thought of as witches & executed for it than men. Lets not include most depictions of medieval witches are very much female. Xuchilbara (talk) 00:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and of course now that the documented witch trials are being analysed, it's possible to make some good guesses at the actual statistics.  Fuzzypeg  talk  02:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] witches

okay are witches real or fake i want u to discusses this with a friend or a family memberso thats the big talk and even though it's not big trust me it is and who knows u could find out that your friend is a witch —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.189.192 (talk) 04:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This type of question belongs in a place like Yahoo! Answers, not here. However, you are certainly welcome to read the article; that might answer your question. Elle (talk) 05:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I belive that no site can explain if witchcraft is real or not because some sites say it is real and some say its not,Sounds reasonable. Read the history section in a library. --Condolence "(talk)" 03:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New bunch of witchcraft-related articles

Hello folks, just wanted to highlight some contributions by an enthusiastic new editor. This talk page seemed the most obvious place to put this, as I know there are a lot of people with this on their watchlists. While I don't want to discourage an obviously keen contributor, I was just a little concerned that the large number and similar nature of these articles is a source of worry to me: I'm not sure what the answer is (or even if I need to be worried!) but thought I'd ask for some community feedback as a first step. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 17:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

notability is not established, nor is the suggested difference from the (wide, fuzzy) field of Wicca. 13:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


--- HI guys, not sure what Im doing but as a Greenwitch PLEASE do not delete that new stuff or put it with Wicca. I am a witch, not a Wiccan, there IS a difference! I'd love to see the contemporary witchcraft stuff be kept and added to, please do not delete it! - A concerned Witch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.70.147.38 (talk) 23:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

HUH? I'd really like it if you guys at least explained what we do wrong if we do something wrong and what the right thing to do is!!!!! Not everyone is good with comuters you know! PS Hedgewitches and Greenwitches and such are all different and valid paths! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.70.147.38 (talk) 23:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Versnel qoute

I've removed the following quote from the article:

H. S. Versnel writes: "Anthropologists in particular have argued that no meaningful contrast between religion and magic can be gained from this approach and that our notion 'magic' is a modern-western biased construct which does not fit representations of other cultures."[1]

...since it's missing the required context to explain what he's talking about. The point it seems intended to make in the article is that magic and religion have no distinct boundary, but that's not exactly what Versnel is saying. He's saying that the Frazerian hard distinction between magic and religion based on intentions and methods has fallen out of favour, but that he still finds useful distinctions can be drawn between the two. Little of this is conveyed by the quote, and it might be possible to expand the segment so it better explains his point, but I'm not even sure whether that point needs to be made. If someone else feels they want to work this in to the article, go for it. Fuzzypeg★ 21:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] maleus maleficrum

This is the best known (i.e., the most infamous) of the witch-hunt manuals. Written in Latin, the Malleus was first submitted to the University of Cologne on May 9th, 1487. The title is translated as "The Hammer of Witches". Written by James Sprenger and Henry Kramer (of which little is known), the Malleus remained in use for three hundred years. It had tremendous influence in the witch trials in England and on the continent. This translation is in the public domain. The Malleus was used as a judicial case-book for the detection and persecution of witches, specifying rules of evidence and the canonical procedures by which suspected witches were tortured and put to death. Thousands of people (primarily women) were judically murdered as a result of the procedures described in this book, for no reason than a strange birthmark, living alone, mental illness, cultivation of medicinal herbs, or simply because they were falsely accused (often for financial gain by the accuser). The Malleus serves as a horrible warning about what happens when intolerence takes over a society. Although the Malleus is manifestly a document which displays the cruelty, barbarism, and ignorance of the Inquisition, it has also been interpreted as evidence of a wide-spread subterranean pagan tradition which worshiped a pre-Christian horned deity, particularly by




____________________+++++_________________ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.61.173.116 (talk) 03:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Something needs to be added

I believe there needs to be something added to the witchcraft page. How can I post it without getting into trouble?

What I belive needs to be added:

Witchcraft applies to both women and men but the term witch means a woman with powers. A wizard is a male with powers.

If it hasn't already been added or needs to be added can I add it?

--Condo lence 08:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the third paragraph of the article? It's not true that the term witch means a woman with 'powers'; it can equally mean a man, and there have been many examples of men either being accused of being 'witches' or claiming to be 'witches', both historically and in the current day. The only reason why people think of witches as female is because there were more women than men accused of witchcraft, and the stereotypical witch in fairy stories is female. In our 'enlightened' age people think of witches as the characters in fairy stories rather than as real people, and they look no further than the fairy story stereotypes.
A 'wizard' is a slightly different stereotype with different connotations, and it's not simply the masculine corollary of a witch. I think the article is fine as it stands, in regards to explanations of witchcraft and gender. Fuzzypeg★ 21:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I read in a webster's dictionary on the term witch. It said: Witch- a woman with powers and is believed to assosiate with the devil. Then i looked up wizard: wizard- a man with powers. Men were accused for doing witchcraft for revenge or simply because someone didn't like someone. When it comes to cartoons and when men are into witchcraft they are called wizards. Look at all the websites about witches, they will all be women. But if you look at the websites about witchcraft it'll have men and women.

Every book I seen on witches had women on it. The movie the craft had women witches not men. in old times i assure you that women were considered witches and men considered wizards. Most people i asked said the same.--Condo lence 18:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

For a start, I can assure you Websters dictionary didn't say that; they have some understanding of grammar! Try looking it up again: witch and wizard.
You will notice that they say a witch is especially a woman (which is exactly what this article says, discussing stereotypes), but they do not say that witches are exclusively women: "one that is credited with usually malignant supernatural powers": "one" means a person. That is, man, woman or child. Or possibly a ghost or some other supernatural entity. Whatever.
Another point is, you say men were accused of witchcraft just because someone didn't like them. How do you know? And how do you know it's any different with women?
Another point: you say you're getting your information from cartoons and popular movies and "people you asked". No wonder you're barking up the wrong tree. You're seeing exactly the stereotype "witch" that I talked about in my previous comment. I see images on television of arrogant American idiots carving up foreign countries to suit their own greed all the time, and some of the people I talk to think that Americans are all arrogant and ignorant. But that's the stereotype, not the reality, and I know plenty of Americans who prove it wrong. We can't go around believing fantasy stereotypes.
When talking about real people (historical or current-day) claiming to work magic, cast spells and so on, or accused of doing so, there are a few terms that regularly come up. One is 'witch', and this applies equally to men and women. In Scotland they sometimes used the term 'warlock' for male witches, but these were still technically 'male witches'. In the field of anthropology, the common term used to be 'witch' (for men and women), but it is now more common to talk about 'sorcerers' and 'sorceresses'. It is only when we get to a quite specific area of English witchcraft that we start to find the terms "cunning man", "cunning woman", "wise woman", "wizard", "girdle-measurer" and so on. Of these terms "cunning man" and "cunning woman" were most common, but it was also common practice to call them 'witches', again men as well as women. See Alan Macfarlane Witchcraft in Tudor and Stuart England appendix 2 for a discussion of the names given to magic workers in England.
That term 'wizard' (wise-ard) has entered popular imagination largely as the fictitious stereotype of a T. H. White Merlin-type figure with a staff and a wide-brimmed pointy blue hat with silver stars and moons on it. It is uncommon nowadays for anyone to call themselves (or any other non-fictitious person) a wizard. It is only normal in children's stories for wizards to be seen as the counterparts of witches. Fuzzypeg★ 01:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WITCHCRAFT

WITCHCRAFT SUCKS !!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.106.180 (talk) 21:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Must be a bad experience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.231.185.64 (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Has Anyone Heard of a Book Of Shadows,If so please reply!!

Bold text

Anyone who has heard of it reply... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.38.79.69 (talk) 22:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

At your service. A book of shadows or B.O.S is a book that a practitioner uses to write down spells or information on the practice. Maybe someone else can give you a better description. --Condo lence 18:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's an entire article on it: Book of Shadows. Fuzzypeg★ 01:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Witchcraft the religion

This is what I am frequently told by Neopagans who want to label their religion this, when its a broad term. Appearently, they have not read the historical references to witchcraft and are not aware that witchcraft usually refers to harmful magic. Furthermore they seem to believe magic equals religion, when no ancient "pagan" religion, culture, nor academic definition fits this.(I could cite god upon god myths from various religions that reflect that magic does not equal religion and is more of a "tool".) I think this should possibly be stated in the article, about the stark contrast between Neopagan definition and the academic.

I'm also very unsure of the section of Polytheistic reconstructionism. Many recons reject Neopaganism and the labels, calling oneself a "witch" and using "witchcraft" would just not be common practice. I know of no recon that does this, or tries to reconstruct any form of witchcraft. Xuchilbara (talk) 00:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Re the first point: I think the article actually makes the difference between historical and neopagan definitions of witchcraft explicit. If you think that neopagans are incorrect to label their religion as witchcraft, and can find a reliable source whom you can cite in support of this, go ahead.
I have more sympathy on the reconstructionism front. My understanding of this is that it seeks to revive historically existing religions such as the faiths practiced by the Romans or Norse. I don't know of any historically existing witchcraft religion, and therefore there can be no reconstruction of one! How do you suggest we amend this section? Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 06:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
To interject, you might want to check out Völva and, afterwards, Seid. Both are integral elements of the society of the pre-Christian Germanic peoples; the Anglo-Saxon equivalent being the ultimate origin of our term "Witch" from surviving elements of Anglo-Saxon paganism. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

If we have some good references, especially on the Seid part we may be able to expand the section. Xuchilbara (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that's a point that Ronald Hutton makes in Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles, that no historical pagan religion blurs the distinction between religion and magic. Don Frew countered with the obvious example of classical Theurgy (though there are plenty of other good examples)(Frew, Ethnologies issue 1, Canadian Folklore Society), which was eventually accepted by Hutton (in Triumph of the Moon) despite initially kicking up a huge fuss and rather vilifying (through misrepresentation) poor Frew (Hutton "Paganism and Polemic" in Folklore journal). In Witches, Druids and King Arthur Hutton actually devotes a substantial number of pages (starting about p. 100) to discussing Theurgy and its blurring of religion and magic, and even credits Frew for having alerted him to the idea! (or maybe that credit was in Truimph; can't remember.) Unfortunately, Hutton makes a number of false starts with his history of magic; he does better on the front of popular literature and culture. Of course magic does not equal religion, but let's not imply from that that there was never a close relationship between the two.
Regarding 'witchcraft' usually referring to harmful magic, that's a bit misleading. It wasn't uncommon for it to refer to beneficent magic. Witchcraft was certainly illegal, and any such art, for the purposes of healing or harming, was (in theory) dealt with equally by the courts: regardless of its supposed purpose it came from Satan and was evil. Early accounts of accused witches generally indicate more benevolent than malevolent intentions; the stories of roasting babies, kissing the devil's arse, sinking ships and stealing men's potency increased as the sabbath stereotype became entrenched in Europe, and particularly as torture began to be more extensively used. Even still, the term 'witch' retained an element of ambivalence. Alan Macfarlane gives a good explanation of the application of the terms 'witch' and 'witchcraft' in Witchcraft in Tudor and Stuart England Appendix 2. Basically, 'witch' or 'white witch' remained common terms for beneficent cunning folk, even despite the awful legal implications overhanging the term.
'Witch' is an English term, and in England it was widely used for cunning folk, those who were not malevolent, and indeed were mostly God-fearing Christians...
...And this brings us back to that other point about examples of magic blurring with religion. Many of these cunning folk who had interactions with the fairies and familiars also reported interactions with angels or other divine beings: there was often a strong element of religiosity to their beliefs and experiences. One example is Andro Man and the angel Christsonday who appeared to him. See Emma Wilby's Cunning Folk and Familiar Spirits for more examples. Looking further afield across Europe we find people like the benandanti, the călusari and a Livonian 'werewolf' all claiming that they fought magically for the fertility of the land as part of a divine calling: they had been called on by God to do His work. The church-men who interrogated them were clearly mystified by this, yet these folk-sorcerers proudly stuck by their guns, totally convinced of their divine mandate.
I realise the Witchcraft article is currently lacking a lot of this information, but I'm a busy man and I haven't had a chance to devote the time it deserves... But I suggest you have some more reading to do before you draw conclusions about the lack of precedence for anything resembling religious witchcraft... Fuzzypeg★ 04:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)