Talk:Witchcraft

	This Magic related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Conservapedia

I feel like we should copy and paste the Conservapedia article on witches here. According to them, freedom of religion is denied because witchhunts are against the law. ^{— Unsigned, by: SuidAkrA743 / talk / contribs}

According to one parodist at Conservapedia, you mean. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I had sources for what I wrote

Godot took material out and wrote, "if you do not know what you are saying, don't say it."
I did know what I was saying and if Godot had checked in dictionaries she would have found out.

A man who acts similarly is a wizard or warlock or simply a male witch .

Godot seems to have an agenda:-

1. Criticising misogynist men who use religion to put women down and mistreat women is OK.
2. By contrast other criticism of religion is irresponsible criticism of something good.

I'm sure men who have been persecuted because some religious people thought they were wizards, warlocks, sorcerers care about this as do their relatives. Godot is biased and isn't a reliable authority. Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

If your point hinges on a dictionary, then it's almost certainly too trite to be worth making or so blindingly obvious that you don't need to say it. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 10:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Just curious where I have ever argued disinterest in the persecution of male witches?--Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 20:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

That's an intentional or unintentional misrepresentation. I never wrote you are disinterested in persecution of male witches, I wrote you appear to try and prevent criticism of religion unless it's criticism of religious misogyny. You may care about persecution of male witches, you probably do. You care more about covering up the fact that religiously motivated people have persecuted men as well as women. Proxima Centauri (talk) 06:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

This old version of the article could give naïve readers the impression that only women are persecuted as witches. You mention persecution of women under Christianity, you mention witches among the Navajos, this becomes obvious in a later version of the article. Since the term witch generally refers to a woman inexperienced readers may assume incorrectly that women were persecuted among Christians (true), that mainly women were accused of witchcraft among the Navajo (false) and that the Navajo are just one example of a worldwide pattern. Here, here and here I pointed out that men are also sometimes the victims of sorcery related persecution. You reverted it. All this gave me the impression you wanted to highlight persecution of women by misogynist men and overlook victimisation of men. If that was a false impression I’m sorry. Proxima Centauri (talk) 12:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Question on Lede

The opening sentence on this article feels off, but I'm not sure if it's just me. I feel like it needs some restructuring or needs some is/as adjusted. Do any of these read better? "Witchcraft, as formally defined by anthropologists and those who study religions, is the use of rituals and magic to accomplish some kind of ends on this earth, most often curses." Or: "Witchcraft is formally defined by anthropologists and those who study religions as the use of rituals and magic to accomplish some kind of ends on this earth, most often curses." Or: "Witchcraft is the use of rituals and magic to accomplish some kind of ends on this earth, most often curses, as formally defined by anthropologists and those who study religions." Abyssal (talk) 06:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Should probably have been "as", not "is" (which spell checks can't catch). Have corrected that one, but added an "is" as per your second suggestion as it makes for a proper sounding sentence. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Can we put this page on the Pseudoscience category?

I think yes, since witchcraft does qualify as a pseudoscience (at least from my point of view). I am an atheist but I hate witchcraft since it doesn't really work. MadPunisher36 (talk) 03:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Pseudoscience is any formal field that claims to be scientific but isn't, at least from my point of view. You also have the demarcation problem. Anyway, do you know any witchcraft practitioners who claim to be "conducting science"? If they are, then it's pseudoscience. If they aren't, then it's not. Carthage (talk) 04:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Witchcraft is a lie, those practices are not even supported by science, if they were it would be taught at (nearly) every school. MadPunisher36 (talk) 04:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

OK, but how many witchcraft practitioners claim it to be "science"? That's the relevant factor in whether obvious bullshit (YMMV of course) is pseudoscience or not. Carthage (talk) 04:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I have a huge hatred for witches because of a childhood trauma, and it is sad for me to not see enough anti-witch content on internet that comes from atheists. we must show to the world how is witchcraft in reality MadPunisher36 (talk) 04:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)