Talk:Witchcraft/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: Are you looking for the article on European witchcraft perhaps?  Jkelly 18:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Witchcraft and the paranormal

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Witchcraft and belief

message: 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)
thread_title: Article Series

message: why is the content from europe also present here? --Jay1 23:55, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: i don't get that 'witchcraft series' thing

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree, too.  And this section could possibly include a subsection on the Salem Witch Trials. WBHoenig 00:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Laws and regulations on witchcraft

message: 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)
thread_title: Disputed tag

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Possible copyright problem with this page 

message: 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 , 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)
replies: text: Sounds good. I'll get on to it.Cavalorn 17:54, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Witchcraft in film, fiction, news, etc. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merged from The Craft 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Messy article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Let's clean up! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Restored reference to the Americas 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reference to Native American trials by ordeal, including witch trials 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Traditional witch beliefs among the Cherokee 

message: 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)
thread_title: Requesting Third opinion and added Wikiquette alert

message: 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)
thread_title:  removed contentious phrase 

message: 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)
thread_title: Added witchcraft template

message: 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)
thread_title: Trying again

message: I added an RfC  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: RfC

message: 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)
thread_title: Comment from FuelWagon

message: 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)
thread_title: Split section

message: 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)
thread_title: Removed Third Opinion and Wikiquette alert

message: 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)
thread_title: Reverted unsourced claim in intro

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Witches - derived from belief in quasi-bacteria? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: The Craft != Witchcraft 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Term 'Supernatural' in Reference to Witchcraft 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Everything should be fine now then? Toadsboon 06:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Personal Vendetta edit and re-edit 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Jewish witchcraft: Magery? Jewitchery??! 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Inquiry 

message: How are the following sites relevant to this article? 
* http://www.reclaiming.org/
* http://www.avalonia.co.uk/
* http://www.silverbroom.com/
Toadsboon 05:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO, they're not relevant.  Thank you for removing them. -- SwissCelt 05:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance? 

message: :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)
thread_title: Response to [[User:Calton|Calton]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Code of Hammurabi!?