Talk:Witchcraft#Merge "witch (word)" here

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 obviously want to respect the democratic process employed above, and if that has to be prioritized, so be it, but please reconsider. Omphaloscope talk 17:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

: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)

: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)

:It’s complex, but we do need to avoid saying magic is real. Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Stating that witches are evil and intend to harm people needs to be removed. LadyNyx666 (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

:Few interested editors will see this message on your own user talk page. It might be better placed on the article's talk page at Talk:Witchcraft. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 20:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

::Good point, @Esowteric. I’ll move it. Shadestar474 ^(talk) 20:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

: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)

:The article is based on scholarly opinion in reliable sources. Please read through the talk page archives where such issues have been discussed to death by experienced editors with knowledge of the field. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 20:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

::So… you’re telling me what my practice is? LadyNyx666 (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

:::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)

::::{{ping|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)

:::::lol again telling me what you think I practice rather than asking. I give Wiki money every year and have for at least 10 years. That’s over. 2605:59C8:895:1800:2161:5AA9:1FB8:7331 (talk) 01:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

::::::Good Riddance. The last think we need is someone using money to get his way in editorial work. Dimadick (talk) 04:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

:::::::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)

::::::{{ping|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)

::::::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)

:::::::{{ping|Dimadick|Skyerise}} Last time I checked, Wikipedia:Civility was still a policy here. Nosferattus (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

:::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)

: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)

::@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)

:::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)

::::The topic of this article is not Neopagan 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)

:::::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)

::::::"Do your own research." Not how this works. It is you who has to provide sources for the changes you want to make. The burden of proof is on you. See WP:BURDEN. Skyerise (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::https://www.history.com/topics/folklore/history-of-witches

:::::::https://stories.uq.edu.au/art-museum/2019/witches-in-history/index.html

:::::::https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/learn/histories/journey-into-witchcraft-beliefs/ JoeyTheHorrorBoy (talk) 15:21, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::The history channel also says that aliens built the pyramids. We'll stick with academic sources, thanks. MrOllie (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::https://orias.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/2011-moulton-ppt.pdf

:::::::::https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/private-lives/religion/overview/witchcraft/

:::::::::https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/713111 JoeyTheHorrorBoy (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::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)

::::::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)

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)

: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)

::I've tweaked the hatnote to better clarify the scope of this article and also match the wording in the lead. Hope that helps. Nosferattus (talk) 03:17, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

I tried to add some form of explanation to the lead as to what neopagan witchcraft is as the lead provides no explanation whatsoever and does not distinguish it from the "harmful" witchcraft discussed in the first three paragraphs. I thought this would be helpful, especially since this difference seems to be a common point of contention on the talk page. However, my additions were immediately reverted as "fringe". The fact that neopagan witchcraft exists and what it entails is not "fringe". I'm happy to modify my content to be as rigorous and verifiable as possible, but there has to be some way to describe neopagan witchcraft (besides just calling it a "belief" or "practice") without violating the policies of Wikipedia. Here is the paragraph that I tried to add:

{{xt|Starting in the 1930s, followers of certain types of modern paganism began to identify as witches and reclaimed the term "witchcraft" as part of their beliefs and practices.{{cite book |last=Doyle White |first=Ethan |title=Wicca: History, Belief, and Community in Modern Pagan Witchcraft |publisher=Liverpool University Press |pages=1–9, 73 |year=2016 |isbn=978-1-84519-754-4 }}{{Cite journal |last1=Berger |first1=Helen A. |last2=Ezzy |first2=Douglas |date=September 2009 |title=Mass Media and Religious Identity: A Case Study of Young Witches |journal=Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion |volume=48 |issue=3 |pages=501–514 |doi=10.1111/j.1468-5906.2009.01462.x |jstor=40405642| issn = 0021-8294 }}{{cite contribution |contribution=An Update on Neopagan Witchcraft in America |last=Kelly |first=Aidan A. |author-link=Aidan A. Kelly |title=Perspectives on the New Age |editor1=James R. Lewis |editor2=J. Gordon Melton |pages=[https://archive.org/details/perspectivesonne0000unse_m6u6/page/136 136–151] |publisher=State University of New York Press |location=Albany|year=1992 |isbn=978-0791412138 |url=https://archive.org/details/perspectivesonne0000unse_m6u6 }} Neopagan witchcraft may combine aspects of magic, nature worship, divination, and herbalism,{{cite book |last1=Dunwich |first1=Gerina |title=Wicca A to Z: A Modern Witch's Encyclopedia |date=1997 |publisher=Carol Pub. Group |location=Secaucus, N.J. |isbn=0806519304 |page=148}} and is typically practiced with the goal of self-help or healing.{{cite book |last1=Ezzy |first1=Douglas |editor1-last=Gale |editor1-first=Fran |editor2-last=Bolzan |editor2-first=Natalie |editor3-last=McRae-McMahon |editor3-first=Dorothy |title=Spirited Practices: Spirituality and the Helping Professions |date=2020 |publisher=Routledge |location=New York |isbn=9781741750614 |pages=548–570 |chapter=Wiccan spiritual practice}}{{cite book |last1=Lewis |first1=James R. |title=Magical Religion and Modern Witchcraft |date=1996 |publisher=State University of New York Press |location=Albany, N.Y. |isbn=0791428893 |pages=156–159}} Other neo-pagans avoid the term "witchcraft" due to its negative connotations.{{cite book |last1=Lewis |first1=James |title=Magical Religion and Modern Witchcraft |date=1996 |publisher=SUNY Press |page=376}}}}

{{reflist}}

Please let me know how this content can be improved or if it's fine as is. Nosferattus (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

:Do not change redefined. Slatersteven (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

::OK, I changed reclaimed back to redefined. Seems like a very minor distinction, but whatever. Nosferattus (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

::How would you feel about the term reappropriated? Nosferattus (talk) 22:17, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Reappropriation usually means that a group is changing the meaning of a pejorative term for that same group.

:::But the POV of historians and anthropologists is that historical witchcraft is distinct from neopaganism. The article should not conflate the two, even in minor ways. MrOllie (talk) 22:46, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Yes, historical witchcraft is distinct from neopaganism, but the group being demeaned is the same: women. There are plenty of academic sources stating that modern witches have "reclaimed" the word. Here are a few examples:

::::* "There is little doubt that the reclaiming of the word witch is a powerful act of opposition and identity creation for many in the movement."{{cite book |last1=Magliocco |first1=Sabina |title=Witching Culture: Folklore and Neo-Paganism in America |date=2004 |publisher=University of Pennsylvania Press |location=Philadelphia |isbn=0812202708 |page=190}}

::::* "... many feminists, both female and male, have reclaimed the word witch to describe themselves as a political statement in recognition of the history, since the Middle Ages, of the oppression of women and folk healing by male-dominated society and medicine."{{cite book |last1=Lewis |first1=James |title=Magical Religion and Modern Witchcraft |date=1996 |publisher=SUNY Press |page=376}}

::::* "Recently, however, female-centric spiritual movements have reclaimed the word witch, viewing it as a stereotype that can be turned on those who use it pejoratively."{{cite book |last1=Oakes |first1=Jason Lee |editor1-last=Rycenga |editor1-first=Jennifer |editor2-last=Whiteley |editor2-first=Sheila |title=Queering the Popular Pitch |date=2006 |publisher=Routledge |location=New York |isbn=1136093788 |page=52 |chapter=Queering the Witch}}

::::* "Today's witches have reclaimed the word 'witch,' using it in a positive sense to revivify what they see as ancient occult practices being used in a modem context."{{cite journal |last1=Hume |first1=Lynne |title=Witchcraft and the Law in Australia |journal=Journal of Church and State |date=1995 |volume=37 |page=142}}

::::I could only find one academic source that says modern witches have "redefined" witch or witchcraft, and ironically this source also uses "reclaimed":

::::* "They also reclaimed the word witch, redefining it as a term for rebellious, brave, and independent women."{{cite book |last1=Berger |first1=Helen A. |last2=Leach |first2=Evan A. |title=Voices from the Pagan Census: A National Survey of Witches and Neo-pagans in the United States |date=2003 |publisher=University of South Carolina Press |location=Columbia |isbn=1570034885 |page=13}}

:::: But perhaps there are other sources I have overlooked. Nosferattus (talk) 07:56, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist}}

:::::My change of 'redefined' to 'reclaimed' has been reverted 3 times now by Slatersteven. The sources clearly favor 'reclaimed' and no one has presented evidence to the contrary. Arguing about the semantics of the word 'reclaimed' is original research and not convincing anyway. This is clearly the term that academics consistently use to describe the recent evolution of the terminology. As WP:Verifyability states: "content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, experiences, or previously unpublished ideas or information." Nosferattus (talk) 16:47, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::This page is about witchcraft, not witch. Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::{{yo|Slatersteven}} Actually, witch redirects here and is one of the topics of the article, bolded in the second sentence of the lead, and called-out in a hatnote. This was done by consensus long ago. I'm sure it's somewhere in the talk page archives. Skyerise (talk) 17:35, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::OK, so then there seems to be no valid objection to this change. Slatersteven (talk) 17:52, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::{{yo|Slatersteven}} Which change? If we are talking about using "reclaimed", that relies on the debunked Witch-cult hypothesis. Those redefining the word may have believed they were reclaiming it, but they were mistaken, so it should stay "redefined". You can't reclaim something that was never yours: modern neopagan witches don't accept the negative magic definition, which is the only definition that existed prior to the redefinition that might be available to be "claimed" or "reclaimed". Only evil witches could "reclaim" the original definition of witchcraft or witch. If you mean, should we add a brief gloss or definition to the last paragraph of the lead, that's not something I would object to, as long as it is brief and doesn't use the word "reclaimed". Skyerise (talk) 18:07, 6 March 2025 (UTC)]

:::::::::::We have RS saying it, we need RS to challenge it, What with have is assertions. Slatersteven (talk) 18:16, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::{{ping|Skyerise}} Your explanation of what "reclaimed" means doesn't make sense to me. All reclaimed terms were negative before being reclaimed; it doesn't mean that the group reclaiming the term actually has to embody those negative qualities (or even belong to the original group). For example, women don't have to have lots of sex to reclaim the term "slut". And the most famous example of someone reclaiming the word "fag" was by a woman. Regardless, Wikipedia follows reliable sources. If reliable sources say that modern witches have reclaimed the term, that's what Wikipedia should say as well. Nosferattus (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::{{yo|Nosferattus}} then it belongs in the Neopagan witchcraft article, not here. Skyerise (talk) 23:32, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Maybe as an attributed opinion, not a fact. Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Why not as a fact? Are there any reliable sources that dispute it? Nosferattus (talk) 16:36, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::The problem is this claim of reclaiming is (in a sense) a neologism that compares an ancient accusation with modern neopaganism. As such the two things are distinct, and we cannot imply they are not. Thus we need to make sure we do not conflate the two, that some poor woman killed for being a witch has no real connection with modern witches. Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:I've returned the lead to the state it was a few days ago, plus the few changes in grammar. Under the principle that the lead should reflect the body, I don't think we need more about neopagan witchcraft than those bare couple sentences. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:04, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

{{Discussion top|reason=The result of this discussion was no consensus. Leaning to not merged after more than a month of discussion. It seems to me that the etymology section is reasonably short with a link to the far more detailed article about the word. Looking over them both, they are clearly two distinct topics and I am not seeing a violation of WP:NOTDICT. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:29, 6 April 2025 (UTC)}}

I see nothing useful at witch (word) that is not already covered by the Etymology section or at witch (disambiguation). Paradoctor (talk) 17:16, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

• In that case, the etymology section here is too long. This article is supposed to be about the traditional concept of witchcraft, not the word. There's no reason for us to have 4 paragraphs about etymology here. Nosferattus (talk) 06:29, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
• : That's a separate issue. The question here is whether/what to merge from "witch (word)". Paradoctor (talk) 12:54, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
• Agreed. witch redirects here already, and this article contains the etymology of the word, like many similar articles. witch (word) doesn't need to exist separately, anything that exists there can be included here instead. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 08:49, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
• We are not a dictionary. Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
• I'm not sure.★Trekker (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
• : Not sure if this is a response to Slatersteven, but we are very sure that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. There are some articles explaining terms and where and how they appear, but they should not exist. And entries about terms should exist either, except it is a notable phrase of encyclopedic relevance. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:13, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Words can be notable and of encyclopedic relevance. Many slurs for example (which some women may argue "witch" is) are notable. I'm personally leaning towards redirecting this page but if there was expansion on it I think it could theoretically be shown to be notable.★Trekker (talk) 13:07, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

• I was initially going to oppose the merge, since a witch and witchcraft are two different concepts. But the article on the word witch is not only a dictionary entry rather than an encyclopedic one as per WP:NOTDICT, but the article is almost identical in meaning. In short: Support. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:11, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
• I support merging anything in the etymology section not already covered and merging the History > Middle Ages material about the first recorded use. I don't see that the rest is really about the word but is rather a coatrack for material about healing and white witches, etc. and the further one reads, the less about the word itself it is. I believe all that information is in the main article or the appropriate subarticle, but that should be checked as perhaps there is info missing from one subarticle or another. So merge to witchcraft and its subsarticles where appropriate. Skyerise (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose (unless scope of article is expanded to include neopagan witches) - This article is not about the word witch (or the word witchcraft), nor should it be. If the two articles currently overlap in content, that should be resolved by cleaning up the respective articles. If this article really is about anything related to witches and witchcraft, then all the arguments that we can't include content about neopagan witchcraft here are bogus. Nosferattus (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
• : Both articles have now been cleaned up to remove overlapping content. Nosferattus (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
• :: And I have restored the long-standing etymological content here pending the outcome of this merge discussion. You know better than to remove long-standing material during a merge discussion. If not, the relevant guideline is WP:STATUSQUO. Skyerise (talk) 15:58, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::: I was just [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Witch_%28word%29&diff=1278622630&oldid=1278571296 following your lead]. Nosferattus (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::: The material I removed there was off-topic, didn't address linguistic usage. All material about word usage remains intact, and I have not merged it anywhere either. Skyerise (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
• : {{tq|not about the word witch (or the word witchcraft)}}
• : Wrong on both accounts. For one, witch is an {{tl|r from subtopic}} pointing here, so this article is {{em|also}} about the term "witch", where it denotes practitioners of witchcraft. More to the point, the etymology of terms denoting the article's subject is an entirely valid part of an article, given sufficient source support. Paradoctor (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::Quoting WP:NOTDICT: "Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing, etc., whereas a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom, or a term and its meaning(s), usage and history. In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject, such as Macedonia (terminology) or truthiness." Yes, this article is about the traditional concept of witches. It is not, however, about the word witch. And even if this article did include the word witch in its scope, that doesn't mean there can't be a subarticle specifically about the word if there are sufficient sources to create one. Nosferattus (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::NOTDICT is about notability, not article content. WP:NOTDICT is exactly the reason for this merge proposal!
• :::Also, you need to distinguish between "witch" and "witch (word)". This discussion is about the latter. Paradoctor (talk) 16:41, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::According to WP:NOTDICT, either a word is notable enough to have a Wikipedia entry about the word, in which case witch (word) should be preserved, or the word is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia entry about the word, in which case witch (word) should be deleted. In neither case should the scope of this article be expanded to include the word (which entails both historical and modern usage, not just etymology). If we did merge the articles, that would necessitate also including content about neopagan witches (which has been repeatedly and relentlessly forbidden here). The millions of people who currently use the term 'witch' in non-historical contexts have just as much of a claim to the word as anthropologists and historians do. So if this article is about 'witches' broadly, it would need to address all uses of the term. I'm not entirely opposed to that idea, but it's a bigger discussion. Nosferattus (talk) 16:54, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::{{tq|witch (word) should be deleted}} What you do think is going to happen when the merge is done? 🤷
• :::::{{tq|the scope of this article be expanded}} No one is asking for that but you.
• :::::{{tq|we did merge the articles, that would necessitate also including content about neopagan witches}} Now that is nonsense.
• :::::{{tq|people}} Sources. See also WP:BFDI.
• :::::{{tq|bigger discussion}} From what I've seen, one is due, but this is not that. So please don't raise here again, k? Paradoctor (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::If your intention is to simply delete witch (word), without merging its content here, then you should create an AFD discussion, not a merge discussion. Nosferattus (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::{{tq|delete witch (word), without merging its content here}} Would you kindly take care to read what I actually {{em|say}}? Because that is not what I said, and neither does it follow from anything I said. Paradoctor (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::So would you favor deleting the content in witch (word) that addresses modern uses of the word distinct from anthropoloical/historical uses? Or would you favor merging that content into this article? Nosferattus (talk) 17:45, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::As semantics clearly are an issue here, and I'm not a subject matter expert, it would be helpful if you quoted an example of content you think can't be added here. Paradoctor (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::For example, the sentence beginning "Contemporary dictionaries currently distinguish four meanings of the noun witch, including...". Nosferattus (talk) 16:48, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::::Since witch redirects to this article, it would be perfectly appropriate to include in the etymology section, then Witch (word) would simply redirect to {{section link|Witchcraft#Etymology}} or a subheading could be added to that section for witch: this article has long been the main article for Witch as well as for Witchcraft. Skyerise (talk) 17:20, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::::I would keep it, but without prejudice, deferring to editorial consensus.
• ::::::::::::IMO, this is not "content about neopagan witches". The term is used here, not defined or otherwise discussed.
• ::::::::::::Is there other content you deem requiring preservation that wouldn't make the cut, in your opinion? Paradoctor (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::{{yo|Nosferattus}} Done. Nominated it for deletion. Be careful what you ask for, you may get it. Skyerise (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. Suggest instead renaming Witch (word) to Witch (witchcraft) and add an appropriate cleanup template at top. Witch deserves its own article as an occupation or folklore entity. As examples in the encyclopedia, Acting links to Actor, Plumbing links to Plumber, etc. 5Q5|^✉ 13:57, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
• :{{yo|5Q5}} what you suggest already exists at Witch (archetype). Skyerise (talk) 14:01, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::Thanks but I note the Witch (archetype) article has no information on modern witches who go by that term so it is limited and is perhaps one of the reasons why the Witch (word) article was created -- to fill that void. That the Witch (archetype) article is not easily available by way of an inline link at the top of the Witchcraft article as I write this indicates there is a deficiency there. There is only an art and literature section link at the article bottom. I'll withdraw from this discussion. 5Q5|^✉ 12:48, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::{{yo|5Q5}} Modern witches are covered at Neopagan witchcraft, which is also a redirect target of Witch (modern) and Witch (contemporary). Skyerise (talk) 12:53, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose per the discussion above via @Nosferattus. The word itself has enough history and baggage that it should have its own article, which is different from though related to the practice of the magical arts of witchcraft, which this article is about. FULBERT (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

::Same question to you as to Nosferattu: Can you point to content you deem requiring preservation that wouldn't make the cut? Paradoctor (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose: one could argue that parts of the word article fall under WP:COATRACK, but then there is plenty of research from modern linguistics about the valency of the word witch (in particular, vs. "wizard") as a pejorative/sexist label which wouldn't be appropriate in an article about witchcraft. A good hatnote on the latter article would help: something like "this article is about beliefs in the practice of magic. For the history and linguistics of the term "witch", see..." UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:22, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
• Support merging anything useful and redirecting, per WP:NOTDICT and comments by Paradoctor and Skyerise. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 15:21, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
• Support as witchcraft basically covers the same concept of the word. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 15:07, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
• Strong oppose: that would be the same as merging Mathematician with Mathematics - makes no sense as one is much broader than the other. Afonso Dimas Martins (talk) 11:26, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• :A witch is one who performs witchcraft which is already covered here. The example of Mathematician with Mathematics with this is absurd. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 14:51, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::{{ping|AimanAbir18plus}} Regardless, the word "witch" is a distinct topic from witches and witchcraft. Just like Jew (word) is different than Jews, God (word) is different than God, and Fart (word) is different than Flatulence. Witch (word) isn't about witches, it's about an English word. Nosferattus (talk) 17:19, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

{{Discussion bottom}}