Witchcraft was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology
This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal
This article is within the scope of the Women in Religion WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women in religion. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Women in ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject Women in ReligionTemplate:WikiProject Women in ReligionWomen in Religion
This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OccultWikipedia:WikiProject OccultTemplate:WikiProject OccultOccult
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neopaganism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neopaganism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeopaganismWikipedia:WikiProject NeopaganismTemplate:WikiProject NeopaganismNeopaganism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
This article is supported by the Countering systemic bias WikiProject, which provides a central location to counter systemic bias on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.Countering systemic biasWikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic biasTemplate:WikiProject Countering systemic biasCountering systemic bias
This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Current consensus on article scope:
This is a broad-concept article. Subjects not specifically covered in other articles must be included here, including presence in folklore and variation between cultures/regions. Topics covered in other articles, such as neopagan witchcraft or specific regional views of witchcraft, should be introduced briefly with a link to those articles.
Current consensus on organization:
This article was historically prone to regional bias. Content pertaining to particular regions was spun out in summer/autumn of 2023.
Current consensus on the form of the first paragraph:
The first paragraph should begin with the specific sentences agreed on in this RfC
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Text and/or other creative content from Contemporary witchcraft was copied or moved into Witchcraft on 16 March 2017. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
Looking for a quote I remember from a source but don't seem to have saved anywhere and found this;
The Practice of Witchcraft and the Changing Patterns of its Paraphernalia in the Light of Technologically Produced Goods as Presented by Livingstone Museum, 1930s - 1973 Friday Mufuzi Lusaka National Museum, Zambia [1]
"The paper demonstrates that western consumer goods were not only used by the general populace to transform their lifestyle from the traditional to western style but also by witchcraft practitioners to enhance their power and authority through the ‘modernisation’ of their paraphernalia thereby making them more potent"
"the paper posits the thesis that witchcraft is a theory of power and authority and practitioners believed that it possessed energies that could protect them against any kind of harm from their perceived enemies, and that it had the power to protect whatever wealth had been accumulated from destruction by supposed enemies"
"Studies on witchcraft in colonial Africa in general and Zambia in particular have focused on explaining the phenomenon in terms of the primitiveness of the practice and its practitioners.1 Most probably, this was done in order to justify colonialism in the area. During this era, the western world considered itself duty bound to carry the burden of ‘civilizing’ Africans through the introduction of western civilization, which in essence meant Africans embracing European lifestyles and abandoning their indigenous culture and belief systems, including witchcraft, replacing it with Christianity."
"Peter Geschiere’s study on witchcraft in postcolonial Cameroon [...] lucidly posits that witchcraft covers perceptions of underhand efforts made by the powerful to accumulate resources and wealth, and secret attempts by the weak in society to equalise or eliminate such perceived inequalities in power through occult means.1"
Through my work I have recently found myself incidentally fascinated by African witchcraft and I'm slowly amassing a body of work to update the Witchcraft in Africa article. I've been monitoring the talk page for this article for quite some time — your extensive patronage to this page I've long admired — and I feel that I should flag this now. Afterthought: you may enjoy reading this article. Jondvdsn1 (talk) 12:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know there's been a lot of discussion of the lede, so please forgive me if this is out of turn, but to my mind, the opening sentence involves a mistake: "Witchcraft, as most commonly understood in both historical and present-day communities, is the use of alleged supernatural powers of magic." When believers in witchcraft say, "That is witchcraft," they are not saying that someone is making use of allegedly supernatural powers. They are saying that someone is making use of supernatural powers, period.
It is a bit understandable why someone added 'allegedly'. I think we can all agree that part of the challenge of getting this right is that we want to describe and define something that only exists according to certain worldviews, without saying on behalf of Wikipedia that this thing is real. So we need to say something like: "According to certain worldviews, witchcraft is...." There is a temptation to hedge even further, to distance the encyclopedia from any implication that witchcraft is real, by adding an adverb like "allegedly". But this actually makes the statement incorrect. When you write, "As most commonly understood in worldview X, [ ... ]," the words after the comma describe the world according to that worldview.
For the sake of accuracy, as well as clarity and brevity, the word 'alleged' should, in my opinion, be removed from the first sentence.
Compare the opening line of the article on God: "In monotheistic thought, God is usually viewed as the supreme being, creator, and principal object of faith." It would be a mistake to change this to: "In monotheistic thought, God is usually viewed as the allegedly supreme being, creator, and principal object of faith." In monotheistic thought, God is not merely the allegedly supreme being; according to that kind of thought, God really is the supreme being.
I tend to agree with Malibu Sapphire, Red Rock Canyon, and Cursed Peace that "the alleged use" makes more sense than "the use of alleged" because that way it covers both people who genuinely believe to be using "alleged" supernatural powers and those who are falsely alleged to use supernatural powers. I personally don't think the switch would imply that witchcraft-derived supernatural powers are objectively real. Pliny the Elderberry (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The word "alleged" was added in this diff: special:diff/1166760498. In this edit, an editor defended the addition of "alleged": special:diff/1179714382. I mentioned the original edit in this discussion: Talk:Witchcraft/Archive 6#The Reality of Witchcraft. The concern of editors who add the word "alleged" in this place is that if we were not to add it, we would be saying that magic is real. It's literally a forced disclaimer. A better mockup analogy with the God article sentence than the one you've made would be: "In monotheistic thought, God is usually viewed as the alleged supreme being, alleged creator, and principal object of faith." We must allegedly add "alleged" before "supreme being" and "creator" because otherwise we would be saying that there really is a supreme being and a creator. —Alalch E.17:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree wholeheartedly, @LadyNyx666. I practice some forms of witchcraft as well. But as I’ve been saying, it shouldn’t say that it’s always good. It shouldn’t say that it’s bad, either. It shouldn’t swing to either side of the argument. Shadestar474(talk)20:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is wild. I was told this was supposed to be unbiased. Saying witches have intent to harm people is very skewed. Witches basically served as nurses and midwives at one time. They kept communities healthy and were demonized for it by Christian’s who wanted power. I’m just asking you to make the wording unbiased. Witchcraft isn’t a joke. LadyNyx666 (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LadyNyx666: This article isn't about your practice. This article is about traditional and historical views of witchcraft. There is a separate article on Neopagan witchcraft, which was invented in the 1950s and is most likely what you practice. They are, according to sources, not related. Skyerise (talk) 22:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was waiting for the "but I give money to wikipedia" comment to appear, and it magically appeared! I think the encyclopedia will survive. Netherzone (talk) 04:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LadyNyx666: If you can't figure out that a single word can refer to two different things and that therefore there will be two different articles about those two different things, then we don't need your input. Skyerise (talk) 11:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about Malificarum, not neo-paganism. As other have said, we have a separate article for that. and all cultures have malicious magic, so to claim that it only refers to a 19th European esoteric tradition is, "ethnocentric". Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you shouldn't name yourself after a term used to demonize people back then. Reclaiming is fine, but as long as your movement has not received scholarly attention, Wikipedia will not include your movement as Wikipedia is not about you as per WP:NOTABOUTYOU. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree, I find this article's introduction to have a very prevalent bias (whether it's intentional or not) compared to other Wikis on religion. The word "alleged" isn't used in other articles on pseudosciences, they're just described as belief systems. And it's describing witchcraft as inherently negative, which is not only untrue, but the most prevalent bias I've seen in a wiki article to date, especially one this popular. If anyone knows how I else I can report this for bias, please let me know JoeyTheHorrorBoy (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JoeyTheHorrorBoy, I suggest you read through the all of the discussion archives. There have been many discussions about such matters, over a long period of time. The results of which were resolved through consensus and the article has been stable for some time. Netherzone (talk) 00:28, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply. I have read through every discussion archive currently accessible under this page, and none have mentioned redirection (although some have mentioned bias before me). If there is a way to get more information , please let me know. I'm sure this article has been discussed & edited many times, but the phrasing & redirection issue are still here; I'm not reading an old version of the article. I'm not saying that works hasn't been done to stabilize the article, but I see an issue, so I'm commenting on it. I hope to see continuous improvement, as I and others still see an issue with it JoeyTheHorrorBoy (talk) 00:35, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The topic of this article is notNeopagan witchcraft. It is witchcraft as viewed by 99% of the people throughout 99% of history. Starting in the 1930s, a different, non-historical view emerged. That view is represented in the articles Neopagan witchcraft and Wicca, which are essentially made-up views based on a debunked historical theory. You are arguing that this article should be changed based on a falsehood. Not gonna happen. The hatnote at the very top of the article explains exactly what the scope of the article is, and where to find information about related topics which are outside that scope. Basically, there is no problem here, the different meanings have been intentionally split with a clear explanation for those who read from the top and don't skip the hatnote. So, don't skip the hatnote, use it to find the article on the topic you want to read about. It's that simple. Skyerise (talk) 05:19, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Witchcraft was used as a form of medicine centuries ago, typically pursued by women who couldn't obtain medical qualifications. The masses didn't believe this, which can absolutely be cited, but you can't just lie and claim that witchcraft changed overnight with the neopaganism movement. Witchcraft isn't inherently based in any religion; Paganism, Neopaganism, and Wicca are religions that incorporate witchcraft, but the practice itself is purely spiritual, not religious. And no, not 99% of the world perceived witchcraft as evil.Please do your research before you claim to know what you're talking about; your bias is no use on this site JoeyTheHorrorBoy (talk) 15:01, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And none of those actually support your argument. I guess we're done here - I won't be reviewing any more of the stuff you hastily dig up on google. MrOllie (talk) 15:33, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What Skyerise is writing here is in agreement with mainstream academic sources (which are already cited in the article). What you are writing here sounds more like the Witch-cult hypothesis, which has been rejected by modern historians. MrOllie (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article's organization is confusing & unclear. This article is about the public's reception to Witchcraft, as the blurb below the title disclaims, and yet the title of the article doesn't include this; this is the *first* result when googling Witchcraft, and it shouldn't be. A general phrase should have a general page, redirecting to this page causes a lack of education on the subject and a bias on its purpose JoeyTheHorrorBoy (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Read the hatnote, right at the top, the first thing the reader should read, to find that there are multiple definitions of the topic. However, the sources are clear that what is described in the lead paragraph is the primary meaning of the word as written about in reliable academic sources, which is what we follow, not "New Age" sources. The articles on more limited, specifically modern, re-interpretations are clearly described and linked both in the hatnote and the last (fourth) paragraph of the lead section. How unclear can the organization of an article with a nested table of contents be? Skyerise (talk) 05:29, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.,_early_1900s,_Central_Africa,_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo,_Pende_people,_wood,_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG){kind=small}
.png){kind=small}
