Talk:Witchcraft

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

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. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 06:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I had sources for what I wrote[edit]

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[1] or warlock [2] or simply a male witch [3].
  1. wizard
  2. warlock
  3. 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. Star of David.png 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?--Green mowse.pngGodot 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[edit]

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)