Talk:Witchcraft/Archive 2

message: In the french wikipedia, sorcellerie (witchcraft) and sorcière (witch) are separate articles.  Why not here?  juppiter     talk #c 15:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you have separate articles for Carpentry and Carpenter? Freemasonry and Freemason? Priesthood and Priest? Archery and Archer? You get the idea. I don't read French, but I think we need a better reason to split than "why not?". Fuzzypeg☻ 04:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split? 

message: The terms witchcraft and witch are controversial, with a complicated histories. Witchcraft is viewed differently in different cultures around the globe. Used with entirely different contexts, and within entirely different cultural references, it can take on distinct and often contradictory meanings.
How helpful is this?  It sounds so very vague to me.  Is it necessary?  How much information does this contribute?  Why is the term witchcraft anymore "contraversial", or the history of "witch" anymore complex than any other term?  I am not saything that the statement is false, but I think the paragraph ought to attempt to provide some brief answer to these questions if it is to really be informative.  Lostcaesar 04:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's because there are various groups of people who see the terms as having different connotations - for example, An extremeist or fundamentalist christian may see it as negative "devils work", while a person who would consider theirself a witch in todays sense would quite rightly claim this view to be a complete load of tripe when applied to him/her as a description of his/her spiritual practise. Little further information is needed as it speaks for itself upon further reading of the article, or is otherwise simply general knowledge. Crimsone 21:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The intro paragraph has had numerous accretions over recent months, which haven't really been worked together properly. I've tried to reword the difficult bits. In the process I've removed the word "controversial"; the controversy is clear enough from the information given. Fuzzypeg☻ 04:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro paragraph 

message: I've almost completely rewritten the etymology paragraph based on scholarly sources.  The previous version was frought with absurdity and unexplained idle speculation.  Specifically,
::The origins of the term witch are highly disputed.
No they aren't.  This is a well-attested word throughout the history of English literary canon all the way back to the earliest available Old English sources.  Pre-literary history is of course heavily conjectural, but this is necessarily so, and so hardly notable.
::That the word derives directly from Old Trafford is hard to doubt
Uh, vandalism?  Seems to have stuck around for quite a while, too.
::but the origins of the Old English words are more problematic.
Yes, like I said, total and complete absence of evidence (regarding Proto-Germanic vocabulary) tends to do this.  The fact that there is essentially no extant Proto-Germanic canon is not, however, any more notable or confounding here than it is for any other given Old English etymology.
::Contraction of witega ('wise man, prophet') is possible.
How?  And according to who?  I have never in my life encountered this form of contraction in Old English historical linguistics.  /tej/->/tʃ/ in a medial syllable is as far as I know completely unattested as a Germanic sound change.
::Low German contains wicker (soothsayer).
Okay, I'll take this at face value and presume it's true.
::Other possible connections include the Old English wigle (divination)
Again, wiglian,wigle,wiglung, etc. being cognate with wiccian, wicce, wicca, etc., stretches the imagination and the possibilities available within the domain of Germanic and even Indo-European sound change so much that we might as well just presume every word beginning with w in the entire Proto-Germanic vocabulary is cognate to wicca/wicce at that point.  It's idle speculation.
::the Proto-Germanic *wikkjaz (necromancer)
Now this actually makes perfect sense, as an exception here.
::the Gothic weihs (holy)
One supposes it's conceivable, but no etymological source I have consulted mentions this, and given its profound philological remoteness (an extinct East Germanic form of different meaning) from Old English wicce/wicca, it comes off as just more idle speculation.
::and the English words victim (in its original meaning for someone killed in a religious ritual)
Victim did not enter the English language until the Early Modern era, and it entered via Latinate origins.  How exactly does this relate to a Germanic word from a thousand years earlier?
::and wicked.
Wicked may have been derived from wicce/wicca during the Middle English period.  But even if this is so, it certainly doesn't say anything about the origin of Old English wicce/wicca itself.  
::Many Neopagan sources assert that because the root wik- is associated with words meaning "to bend", the original meaning of the word was "one who bends the natural order" (by using magic). [1].
One supposes they can assert whatever they want.  Spurious etymologies can be socially significant, I guess.
:::You wrote: "the origins of the Old English words prior to the inception of Germanic literary canon are necessarily more problematic."  What is the "Germanic literary canon"?  Is this Beowulf and some old law codes?  To a non-linguist this sentence was difficult to understand.  Lostcaesar 14:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The original passage stated that the etymology was "highly disputed", which is absurd given the extent of its attestation.  Nevertheless, this was my attempt to translate the notion that there's some grounds for debate regarding the origin of witch into a meaningful point.  Because witch is well-attested for all of written history (as far as Germanic is concerned), the only way that one could argue there's any basis for contention regarding etymology is by asserting that its prehistory is unclear.  Which it might or might not be as far as purely theoretical etymology goes (i.e., etymology within theoretical Proto-Germanic).  It's beyond the scope of this article to look into the relative credibility of reconstructed Proto-Germanic cognate forms, I'd say, though.  So I may just ditch the suggestion that there's grounds for questioning the etymology altogether, for simplicity's sake. --Yst 14:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: I've reverted two recent additions to the Spell Casting section. One was about spells requiring three components, one of which was "a material component, such as bits of naughty, 'wild,' obscure, or arcane substances"! This is not a belief I've come across in the Wiccan or wider occult community. Vocals, gesticulations and objects may be helpful sometimes, but you can cast spells without any of them. The other section was about focus on the Goddess. I would suggest that this is not actually about spell-casting, and as it is specific to certain forms of Neopagan witchcraft it belongs in that section. It also strikes me as somewhat misleading because it says that the Goddess is more important than magic, however in Wicca at least our relationship with the Goddess is so closely tied to magic that the two are nearly inextricable. Fuzzypeg☻ 04:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spell casting edits 

message: Hello, I'm new here and certainly don't know what I'm doing.  I added the second paragraph down on the witchcraft page and haven't the faintest clue how to put word links in there or anything if someone wants to clean up the post...or tell me whether or not it's even appropriate? Dissonantia  [ps - Re: the Malleus Maleficarum page, if one hasn't already been worked on, I'm willing to give it a shot!  Will explore this site more on Friday, but this is my first time here, and I think it's a wonderful concept!!] 
::Welcome to Wikipedia!  There are many places to get help, but unfortunently posting on a talk page for info of this nature is not reccommended.  You can place the text  on your talk page and someone will help you.  Also, you can view the quick quide to wikitext for formatting, etc. help.  And yes, it is a wonderful concept. WBHoenig 00:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New here

message: Note: This article has a very small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and currently would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 22:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Re-Review and In-line citations 

message: I take exception that the site spellwerx.com is listed in the external links because it promotes "spells for payment", and most pagans frown on this practice. I've added two sites actually run by witches that may add a bit of balance to this page. magialuna 01:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: in the popular culture section, there is only a short description of the general popular perception of witches. is there any information on how witches came to be known as old women with pointy hats, green skin and warts who stir cauldrons? do any of these things have historical roots?
i think answers to these would help the article. Bigdan201 08:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. My pop-culture witchcraft knowledge obviously isn't up to scratch! I've changed the article. Fuzzypeg☻ 22:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: good idea. A plain list of titles helps nobody. Totnesmartin 16:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have begun the edit so please dont revert it anyone, i havent got time at the moment to finish it, however if you think it needs to be changed please explain why here. Grey witch 22:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well i have done some more work but now that its taking shape im not sure where to go with it, most of the famous depictions of witches are both books and movies so what should i do? Keep them seperate? Create an extra category which is just for things that are both movie and book? Grey witch 00:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Go with the more famous version. if they're equally famous (how do we work that out?), put them in the first version they came in, eg: "My Stepmother is a Hedgewitch was a best-selling 1995 novel by Frank L Rowling. It became a succesful film in 2007". Totnesmartin 14:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks that makes a lot of sense, i will keep it in mind. Grey witch 20:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  witches in popular culture 

message: I disagree with the recent photo addition. This article is about witchcraft all over the world, and starting it off with a photo depicting a completely Western stereotype is a bad—and ethnocentric—representation. Furthermore, using a picture that represents a stereotype in itself, and a specifically negative one at that, goes against any educational values that this article may have. This photo represents something that has very little to do with witchcraft as it is viewed and practiced on a global scale, and it belongs on the Broadway article more than it does here. I would like to remove it, but wanted first to see what others think. Thanks, romarin [talk ] 05:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved it down to the "popular culture" section, where I think it is appropriate. Fuzzypeg☻ 21:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So now we need a new top picture. Hopefully not a crass stereotype. Totnesmartin 21:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New photo 

message: In Old English, wicca and wicce may not have blah sense now lost to modern scholars 
What in the world is "may not have blah sense" supposed to mean? I'd correct the article, but I'm not sure what it's supposed to say in the first place; I'm pretty sure "blah sense" isn't right, though.
:"blah sense" is, if anything, probably vandalism.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 02:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "blah sense?" 

message: I've heard Irish folklore says witches can turn in to a cat 8 times before being unable to change back. Can somebody confirm? Include it?  Trekphiler 11:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can neither confirm nor deny   ;-Þ   but I can say it's not a relevant piece of information. There are millions of scraps of folklore about witchcraft, and we want this article to be a broad survey of the subject, not a comprehensive list. Cheers, Fuzzypeg☻ 05:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luck of the [[Ireland|Irish]]

message: OK. Can I have a citation of real (rather than claimed or alleged) practitioners of witchcraft, as 
defined in this article, including paranormal magic. Otherwise I'm removing references within the article, because they don't exist. - MrArt 00:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's one: Evelyn Paglini. She was a regular on Coast To Coast AM. 205.240.144.220 07:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Modern practitioners' 

message: Keep in mind the belief and the practice of witchcraft still exists in many parts of the world (outside of Europe,North America, Australia & New Zeland). 
(Now whether they have actually paranormal powers is another issue and topic.)
Bill (Feb 7, 2007)
:Yes, however I believe the development of witchcraft in Europe will continue to be the most prominent theme in the article. You see, "witchcraft" is a very amorphous concept, which has had quite widely varying definitions to different people at different times. So much of the meaning of the term comes from Euro-centric folklore, demonology and the hysteria of the witch-hunts, that any practices from other cultures to which we apply this term end up being coloured by our European stereotypes. In many ways, it would be better to avoid using the term "witchcraft" where possible in non-European cultural contexts; however we should of course document those cases where the term has (historically) been or is used. Fuzzypeg☻ 20:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-European witchcraft

message: A good site seems to be www.witchcraftspellsnow.com. Would it be ok to add that to the links? The webmaster is a Priestess and explains the beliefs of Wicca. Probably the most amazing thing on this website, which I have seen linked on other Witchcraft sites is her famous Top 50 Witchcraft Myths page. I figured it would be a good link to add because of that one page alone. The article really doesnt go into common myths about witchcraft all that much which is a big topic for those new to witchcraft. The page with the top 50 witchcraft myths is http://www.witchcraftspellsnow.com/top50witchcraftmyths.htm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.109.65 (talk • contribs) 
:I can't say I share your enthusiasm about the top 50 myths page. I've had a look at this site and removed it from the external links in the past. There are two main things I don't like about this site: 1) The "priestess" claims to be Wiccan, yet offers spells over the internet for money, which indicates that she has no connection to any traditional or ethical form of Wicca. She is unlikely to be doing much good for her customers (although stranger things have been known), and this is forbidden in Wicca. If she were truly an initiate she would be regarded as an oath-breaker and ostracised. 2) The website is not an encyclopedic source of... anything, really. It's a commercial site for selling "spells" to misdirected people who think another entry on their credit card bill will make their lives better. It is linkspam, and inappropriate under Wikipedia's external links policy. Fuzzypeg☻ 22:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed external link

message: "Since Gardner's death in 1964 the "Wicca" cult that Gardner claims he was initiated into has attracted many initiates, becoming the largest of the various "witchcraft" traditions in the Western world. Members of the cult have steadily been claiming to to be real "witches" for the past forty years, a notion further disseminated by such fictional television dramas as Charmed. However in truth a Wiccan is about as genuine a "witch" by initiation into the cult as a Grand Wizard is a "wizard" by initiation into the K.K.K. "
This section of the article uses blatently defaming words and comparisons, and should have no place in this particular article.  While I do believe that Wicca should definitely be presented in this article, as it does play a huge role in the modern understanding of present-day witchcraft, it should be done briefly, fairly, and with a more unbiased and less slanderous tone than what is presented.  I do not yet know what could be done to improve the paragraph/area, and that is why I am bringing it up here, so that hopefully we can peacefully come to a consensus as to how to correct it. :-)
(I apologize in advance if I do/have done something inappropriately, or do not/have not follow(ed) convention.  I am quite new at this (having only just created an account upon encountering this particular piece.)
LilyRain 18:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're fine, no need to apologise. I'm not sure how I allowed that section to creep in under the radar! Thanks for bringing it to our attention, and it's been dealt with in the only reasonable way possible, by deleting it. Keep up the good work! Fuzzypeg☻ 01:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed inappropriate and unascribed "information" about "warlocks" again. Please, no more fluffy insertions, whoever you are.KitMarlowe2 23:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your attempts to shoehorn in this erroneous, non-Gardner usage of the term "warlock" continue to astonish me. You claim to be a Wiccan but apparently know few of the fine points of the history of your own cult. KitMarlowe2 16:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are not one to be talking, as your talk page shows that in the past, you have been adding non NPOV information to Wicca and other articles related to witchcraft. Nol888(Talk)(Review me please) 16:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Be that as it may, I continue to find Fuzzypeg's dealings with my attempted amendments warped by his blatantly biassed Wiccan zealotry, which I would have thought would be unacceptable on a site that claims to be encyclopedic. F.peg NPOV? Hardly. KitMarlowe2 22:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool off, go look at WP:NPA, and realise that this editorial comment you added into the article itself "(although why this arcane and basically unsupported piece of information should be included here, only the poster would know.)" is over the top and violative of a number of guidelines in wikipedia.  I think you are showing yourself to be getting heated, and are now resorting to insults because others disagree with you.--Vidkun 22:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When one is confronted by a rigid, partisan advocacy for an historically undocumented,demonstrably inaccurate statement that has been adopted by a major website posing as an impartial encyclopedia, I think it fairly natural that one would get hot under the collar, yes. (And since when has speaking plainly and honestly been considered "insulting"?) I have repeatedly requested some kind of respectable chapter and verse for the implications that the term "warlock" has "always" been a disparaging one in wicca and that male witches are "*always* called witches *never* warlocks", and have been fobbed off with one pathetic reference to a website dealing with hearsay and opinion laid down as law set in stone (the latter a typical Wiccan failing, I might add). Yes, I am angry, not to mention disappointed, that you all appear to be knuckling under to this kind of shoddiness - I see your witchcraft and wicca sites as frankly a mess, infested with fluff, and unworthy of the rest of the cyclopedia. KitMarlowe2 15:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You still don't get the point, do you?  Please, go cool down, quit throwing around words and phrases like pathetic, the latter a typical Wiccan failing, knuckling under, all of which are personal attacks.  You think the info is bad, and that you are going to have to keep reverting etc, and that it's based on one person's bias?  Take it up with an arb, then, because your constant complaining here is getting less and less information oriented, and more and more editor oriented.--Vidkun 16:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm afraid I - and possibly others who read this exchange - get the point all too clearly. Obviously you can do as you will with your own site, and that is your prerogative. But that does not mean that I agree with you or your censorious policies. But I do agree with the tenor of your response; this conversation has gone on far too long; I will cease my badgering, having run out of time and patience, not to mention respect for your endeavor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.167.89.101 (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wicca = Cult irrelevant (& biased) in this article 

message: The section on Europe could be made shorter to aid legibility. 
I suspect that most of what is said here is already in the articles on "Witchcraft in Europe" or "Witch-hunt".DanielDemaret 09:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. We want to keep a summary here, but excessive detail can be merged into Witchcraft in Europe or Witch-hunt. This article should eventually be expanded to include the concept of "witch" from many perspectives: European historical, but also non-European anthropological, mythical, modern, etc. This article should be a survey of the different uses of the word. Fuzzypeg☻ 21:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Great. Any chance that I can ask you to do this? I am too lazy to be a good writer. I read a lot more than I write. DanielDemaret 08:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  By Witchcraft in Europe I think that I may have been thinking of the article European witchcraft DanielDemaret 08:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Witchcraft in Europe 

message: I have added to the Etymology section a cut-and-paste of the entire section from the article on Wicca. This is in pursuit of a general shortening and tidying of that article, and also because the etymologies are so much intertwined that it seems silly to have a detailed discussion in two separate places. I realise this makes this section very long (and possibly repetitive.) Perhaps there needs to be an entirely separate article on the etymology of witch/withcraft/Wicca? I will happily migrate this text to such a page, if people think this is the right idea. Please do not just do a straight revert of this: I do realise it leads to an untidy and over-long section, but I believe this material belongs together. I will put this page on watch, and happily join a discussion here or on my talk page. Many thanks! Kim dent brown 19:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please go for it, Kim. I fully support you creating a new article on the etymology which other articles can link to to reduce redundancy. I am just too lazy to do it myself. DanielDemaret 08:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have done so. New page is at Witch (etymology). This has removed about 5k from this article, bringing it down to about 37k. I have removed most of the text from here, leaving only a short section, but all of the text is faithfully copied over to the new article. However the new article will need some work - especially from someone who knows about etymology and can cite the literature!! Kim dent brown 09:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology section 

message: Is witchcraft Related to satanism? I hear that a lot.  I Do Know God Condemns black magic But condones White.user:Bloodsource
:This isn't really a question for the discussion page here: I will reply on your own User:talk page. Kim Dent-Brown 21:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Query re: Witchcraft and satanism

message: This has been the justification for removing a few sections of the article recently. I agree with some of the deletions; in particular there was an addition under the Spellcasting heading that seemed only intended to insert a spam link as a reference. However this argument is only valid so far. Neopagan witchcraft may be "historically anachronistic" in the sense that it doesn't strongly mirror older practices or conceptions of witchcraft, however the descriptions of neopagan witchcraft are in fact pretty faithful descriptions, and they should remain in the article. I'd be happy if they were more segregated into their own section, rather than popping up in lots of little places around the article, and in fact that would happen according to my vision for the article.
I would like to see this article track the historical development of the concept, drawing on the work of Eva Pocs, Carlo Ginzburg, E. William Monter and so on. It would start with proto-witchcraft (ancient witchcraft in all but name) and move forward through the witch-trials and the development of the diabolical Sabbath stereotype, cunning-craft and the various horsemen's, millers' and masons' guilds, 19th and early 20th century literary additions such as Charles Leland and Margaret Murray, application of the term to non-European cultures by anthropologists, and finally neopagan witchcraft.
Anyway, deletion of large sections of text should generally be accompanied by a fairly comprehensive explanation of why, and some discussion is generally appreciated before major changes to an article. Thanks, Fuzzypeg☻ 22:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Historically anachronistic" 

message: Someone has suggested including the separate article "Russian Witchcraft" in the "Witchcraft" article. I see no reason not to do this, and nobody else seems to have raised an objection. So I shall attempt to do this. If anyone finds this objectionable, he or she is welcome to revert the material to its original status. Pahuson 05:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for bringing this material in. I've blanked the original page and turned it into a redirect aimed at the Witchcraft#Russia section. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 07:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Russian Witchcraft" 

message: I recently removed what I considered to be an "essay": view diff here, and I believe I may not have explained my reasons clearly enough in the edit comment.
I noted this was largely about Wicca and thus more appropriate to that sub-section, or indeed the Wicca article, since the Witchcraft article is about witchcraft historically and anthropologically, as well as the many modern varieties in different cultures. Wicca is only one modern variety. The "cited colour association" I said was atypical referred to the associations given to the colour white: supposedly most associated with the Moon, but also associated with the elements of air and fire. Now first off, witchcraft worldwide and throughout history has a huge number of associations with the colour white, and in traditional European witchcraft I would venture to suggest that white is most commonly associated with the witches' Goddess, death, and perhaps winter. Certainly air and fire seem quite atypical. That Lexies and Gards are less likely to call themselves "White" might possibly be true, but even with my knowledge of these communities I couldn't be sure of this. This looks like original research, and is a classic case of an assertion that needs to be supported by cited evidence. "Green Witches" may be a term that has some usage in the United States; it's certainly uncommon here. But I would suggest that the description you've given of the people you then term Green Witches, "focus their energies on natural healing through ancient herbal remedies and the channeling healing energy", actually applies to just about all people who call themselves "witches", and few of these would claim to be any particular colour. I'm not saying any of this is wrong; it just seems to be overly specialised for this section of the article, and atypical within the greater scope of world witchcraft practices. Fuzzypeg☻ 06:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop. Calm down. I understand that you believe yourself to be somewhat of an expert on this subject matter and I appreciate and respect whatever additional perspective you bring to the table on this. I am sure that there is a good deal I can learn from you. There is nothing to be gained by diminishing or degrading the contributions of other pieces of the whole. Ponder that, please. The commentary regarding white witches is sourced. Green witchery pre-dates modern Neo-Paganism, which is why the information, to my mind, belongs here. The term does not apply to "just about all people who call themselves witches" - this is a very distinct, seperate and secretive group that embraces an unique set of ancient traditions. I, daresay, that green witchery is probably not as "uncommon" as you think it is in New Zealand or anywhere else. It's simply more "out of the closet" in the U.S. I do not see the mention of this distinction as an "essay". It was a few sentences, that will hopefully spark an article on an important subject matter, when the time is right. This and all other articles on Wikipedia are crafted for the edification of the general public. I do not think it is wise to limit available information based upon internal differences. I see how my energy agitates you and I am sorry for that. It surely is not my intent to cause you any discomfort. Again, I wish you nothing but good will. MegaMom 08:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My recent reversion of "essay" 

message: I've just removed the following section from the article:
:In Anglo Saxon England male & female Witches/Sorcerers/Sorceresses were called Lyblæca (M) Lybbestre (F) with specific laws enacted against them. 
:"Those who swear falsely and are Lyblác let them be forever cast out of all commission with God, unless they turn to right repentance." King Edmund 1st 939-946 A.D. 
:Also: The Laws of Alfred, Guthrum, and Edward the Elder : If Witches (lyblács) or diviners be found let them be driven from the country or let them totally perish within the country, unless they desist.
:The Anglo-Saxon laws of the time make definite distinctions between heathen practices and those of Lyblác Witchcraft. Heathen practice being tolerated much longer than that of the Lyblác. Although some may say that Witchcraft itself is a much older and earlier tradition (as wrongful interpretations have been made so many times over so many years with regards to its practices) we can see an example of this by reading one such "Interpretation" of Exodus 22:18 which states:
::"Thou shalt not suffer a Witch to live."
:The verse however does not tell the whole truth? The word with which the verse associates as the meaning of "Witch" is "kashaph" and in fact actually means poisoner or those who kill by poisoning. The only connection it can have with "Wiccercræft" is the use of baneful herbs with which if one were not proficient enough in their use they could easily kill, so the connection was made and the wrong translation added and the rest is history as they say. The verse should actually read:
::"Thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live."
:and has nothing to do with Lyblác Anglo Saxon Witchcraft or any Witchcraft for that matter but served to "rally" some against solely honourable and well intentioned practitioners of a developing magical craft, that has lead us all to the point at which we find ourselves today.
My problems with this text are as follows:
#It is written as an essay with no citations to demonstrate that Lyblác Witchcraft is particularly more significant than other forms (or names) of witchcraft. How common was this term? was it any more common than the other terms? Why is "lyblác" more worthy of mention in the article than, say, "brujeria"?
#There is much analysis and interpretation in the text that seems to be original research, and thus unsuitable for Wikipedia. The only interpretations of data allowed within Wikipedia are the interpretations made by reliable sources (in general, published authors).
#The details about kashaph are discredited. I believe Reginald Scott first made the claim that this word should be translated "poisoner", however scholars of Old Testament Hebrew seem to be of the consensus that this is not correct: "sorceress" is the closest translation. There have been a couple of discussions about that which you should find in the archives to Talk:Witchcraft or Talk:Wicca.
#The text seems largely intended to advertise "Lyblác Anglo Saxon Witchcraft", a reconstructionist tradition which originated in 2003 as an offshoot of Seax Wica. This tradition may be worth including in the article, but as I noted with a previous edit comment, we need to see citations attesting to its significance as a tradition. There are hundreds of such traditions, offshoots of offshoots of Wicca, all valuable, but we can't list them all. Why does this particular tradition stand above them all?
Thanks. Fuzzypeg☻ 01:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad you grasped this nettle Fuzzypeg as this section had troubled me too. The problem was that the contribution by  80.195.241.122 was not the usual illiterate and garbled rubbish that these pages attract! Therefore I held back from challenging it, although it struck me too as possible original research and definitely too detailed for this article. So I support your reversion, but would encourage  80.195.241.122 to write up an article (with proper sources on Lyblác Anglo Saxon Witchcraft, with links to Seax Wica. This will put this information in its proper context. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 08:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He/she would have to register first though - anon IPs can't create articles. Totnesmartin 10:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lyblác 

message: I just did a big removal of info, replacing it with a brief summary of trends. I probably went overboard I'm sorry, but I think we need to adopt a new approach for this section:
*We do not need to mention every film or novel that depicts witchcraft.
*We mention particular depictions that have been historically important, generally in determining the stereotype that later depictions follow.
*We organise the section as a narrative of how the popular stereotype has developed and changed, rather than organising it as a list separated into film, TV, novels, anime (!) etc.
Thanks, Fuzzypeg☻ 01:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's currently a trend in Wikipedia to delete trivia lists and "In popular culture" articles, so your suggestions are probably the way to go. Start with folklore (folklore is popular culture, folks!) and build it from there until we get to today. But no lists of cartoons mentioning Gandalf, please. Totnesmartin 10:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thoroughly agree with Fuzzypeg's reasoning and actions. I automatically assume the worst when I read an article or section headed 'X in popular culture'. My favourite bit (now happily excised) from this article was: "Roald Dahl's novel, The Witches, features large numbers of witches." Well quite! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 10:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I recently split "King Kong in popular culture" (not worth linking to, honestly) from King Kong. It was 60% of the article! Totnesmartin 11:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Witchcraft in popular culture