Massive fight over "witchcraft"

[Bbb23sucks]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Witchcraft

The lead of the article began by describing it as "magic used to harm others". A bunch of people got upset by this, and went to the TP with (presumably) large amounts of sockpuppets. Now their also fighting over a potential page move.

[rubricatedseedpod]

This is the kind of Wiki drama I enjoy. No financial conflicts of interest or serious political projects, no meta-points about Wikipedia or years-old feuds between careerists, just a carnival of bad opinions. Of course any argument about the accuracy of characterisations of "witchcraft" involves the false premise that there is any meaningful thing to which those characterisations refer in the first place. The nonsensicality of the Christian thesis which forced together various divergent practices, real and imaginary, under this name in order to condemn them, is no less present in its "Wiccan" antithesis, dreamt up by nudists in the early 1920s.

[rubricatedseedpod]

Taking a scroll through the article, it's atrocious how much random information it jumbles together under one title, sticking Japanese folklore in the same section as stuff about the killing of African children, and a diatribe about Russian superstitions. It's a good example of a problem symptomatic of articles that attempt to survey too broad or subjective a topic for the encyclopaedic style: the total muddling of categories, between things that have shared origins, things that are related by an ongoing process of exchange with each other, things that are merely similar to each other, things that are lumped together due to convention, and things that just happen to have been given the same name. Thanks to Wikipedia and its promoters, the litter of accidental and bizarre suggestions conceived through such poor work are eventually born into the popular consciousness and gain a life of their own as firmly held beliefs.

In the Philippines, as in many of these cultures, witches are viewed as those opposed to the sacred. In contrast, anthropologists writing about the healers in Indigenous Philippine folk religions either use the traditional terminology of these cultures, or broad anthropological terms like shaman.

What if the first western anthropologists in the Philippines, at their convenience, had chosen different initial terms for these ideas? The article confuses the difference between cultures who hate witches and cultures who like witches with the difference between cultures whose good "magical" figures were dubbed "witches" by English people and cultures whose bad "magical" figures were dubbed "witches" by English people. The debate is fruitless because no-one knows exactly what they're talking about. They don't know what they're talking about because they aren't talking about one thing at all.

[ericbarbour]

Taking a scroll through the article, it's atrocious how much random information it jumbles together under one title, sticking Japanese folklore in the same section as stuff about the killing of African children, and a diatribe about Russian superstitions. It's a good example of a problem symptomatic of articles that attempt to survey too broad or subjective a topic for the encyclopaedic style: the total muddling of categories, between things that have shared origins, things that are related by an ongoing process of exchange with each other, things that are merely similar to each other, things that are lumped together due to convention, and things that just happen to have been given the same name.

Look at the archives of the talkpage. People have been fighting over it since 2004. Brutal editwars always lead to shredded and LONG articles, as I keep pointing out.

And in recent months, one account has been fighting off one "offended" wiccan after another. He (?) appears to be an expert on jumping spiders. What is Nosferattus doing on this article? This is nothing too--editwarring was even more brutal in the 2006-2010 period.

[rubricatedseedpod]

Sent to DRN the other day. It's insane that Esowteric is continuing to push the idea that the lack of neopagan POV is a form of “systemic bias.” If anything, emphasis on neopagan ideas would be more symptomatic of the editorship's pathological demographics.

[Bbb23sucks]

Sent to DRN the other day. It's insane that Esowteric is continuing to push the idea that the lack of neopagan POV is a form of “systemic bias.” If anything, emphasis on neopagan ideas would be more symptomatic of the editorship's pathological demographics.

Lol. Wonder if it'll eventually go to ArbCom.

[rubricatedseedpod]

the total muddling of categories, between things that have shared origins, things that are related by an ongoing process of exchange with each other, things that are merely similar to each other, things that are lumped together due to convention, and things that just happen to have been given the same name.

I have hope that at least Vaticidalprophet isn't muddling them. Here he manages to make the key distinction between three confliciting grounds (more than just definitions) for the notion of "witchcraft," each of which may relate to the others through the definitions it produces:

Following paragraphs could expand upon folkloric, anthropological, and religious understandings. These would be clearly linked and hatnoted to subtopics, including the Folkloric understandings of witchcraft-type article currently at the "Witchcraft" title, the Witch (archetype) article Skyerise is as-I-understand-it [as-you-overhyphenate-it] interested in writing (please tell me if I'm mischaracterizing this thought -- I do think an article on psychological/archetypal understandings of "the witch" is a great idea, though), and contemporary-witchcraft-related articles

Here we have clear-ish recognition of the distinctness of the following kinds of "understandings":

1. "Folkloric" and "religious" understandings – This might refer to the mythological figure of a witch in seperation from attempts to become one, or claims to a historical basis for the knowledge of it. Otherwise it might refer to an actual social role such as "cunning folk" or whatever the fuck.
2. "Anthropological understandings" – It is right to use the plural in this case, since when anthropologists talk about witches, they are most often only borrowing the term to study a seperate culture, unless they are working in the term's original Western context. Though some anthropological theories may be trying to establish a causal link or make a serious functional comparison with other witchcrafts around the world, (example, example, example) it seems the term is most often picked out due to resemblance or convinience. According to WPO's resident anthropologist, Anyone who's read E.E. Evan-Pritchard's classic "Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic Among the Azande" can see that he knew darn well that the title of his book, (and the terminology he used inside: 'witches', 'oracles', 'seances' etc) was potentially misleading.
3. "Psychological understandings" or the "archetype" of witchcraft (example, example) – Rather than grounding the value of the notion on historical or functional connections, these theories usually argue that the disposition to create "witches" as a social role exists somewhere in human nature. All "archetype" theories are susceptible to being completely insane and delusional, which has a long tradition going back to Jung, but they're probably still a notable topic.

The discredited witch-cult hypothesis is missing from Vaticidalprophet's statement, but that already has its own article so I guess it didn't bare mentioning. Another thing he doesn't express is that these "understandings" are more closely related by etymology than by any coherent object of understanding. But overall, this is an uncharacteristically lucid take, and it is good to see the discussion slowly refining itself past the "good versus bad" nonsense, as Skyerise had called for earlier. Could this dispute miraculously be turning into something productive? Sadly, this being Wikipedia, we can expect a few factors to prevent it:

1. Everyone in the peanut gallery is too lazy to put in the work of seeking or reading the sources that could support a less clouded version of the article. Neither Vaticidalprophet or Skyerise have mentioned any sources in their statements. They're freestyling no less than we are here.
2. Everyone who would be industrious enough to do that work will be scared off by the peanut gallery, thanks to the dangers of having so many eyes on one page, and the mystery of DRN's temporary siege on the article. Esowteric had to ask, P.S., Mr Moderator: I take it that if we spot changes to the article, they should be reverted (?). The obsucrely-located DRN Rule A #4 doesn't really tell you what should be done with edits by non-parties, and it's nothing but an essay anyway. Perhaps this vaugness is intentional: if the answer to Esowteric's question is yes, that would make DRN a potential tool for abuse; if the answer is no, that would make it impotent on highly active articles.
3. The more rigorous the analysis, the longer it will be, and the more people will tl;dr it. Usually, long and considered comments are made even more dangerous by the constant abuse of the essay known as WP:BLUD, but a virtue of DRN is that its stratified structure treats that particular wiki-illness.
4. At least one side of the dispute stands to benefit from the confusion, as it generates opportunities to accuse the opposing viewpoint of bigotry or crude understanding.

Esowteric is an example of factor #4. Along with the stuff about systemic bias, watch the key words in his latest comment, where a prefered version of the article is called inclusive and "inviting". These words provoke panic in the mind of a careerist Wikipedian. Ridiculous assertions of what is and is not bigoted hold no sway over the editor who sees no loss in moving to a fresh sock, but despite its anonymity and general thanklessness, Wikipedia has produced a breed of editors who value their on-wiki reputation more than life itself, so that the retrocausal power of future RFAs looms over every discussion, with all the usual unhelpfulness and shalow scrutiny of an RFA oppose voter haunting the minds of participants.

In any case this is an unusual and interesting situation for DRN, which is only meant to handle disputes with a small number of parties.

[ericbarbour]

According to WPO's resident anthropologist, Anyone who's read E.E. Evan-Pritchard's classic "Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic Among the Azande" can see that he knew darn well that the title of his book, (and the terminology he used inside: 'witches', 'oracles', 'seances' etc) was potentially misleading.

Please, never take Andythegrump's ravings seriously. Nor at face value.

He's not out to "improve" WP . He's out to fuck things up.

Lol. Wonder if it'll eventually go to ArbCom.

COUNT ON IT.

[Bbb23sucks]

Lol. Wonder if it'll eventually go to ArbCom.

COUNT ON IT.

I CALLED IT

HAHAHA

I have no problem with Arbcom accepting cases [...]

This implies that there are Arbs that think that ArbCom should not accept cases at all. What point would it even pretend to have then?

[rubricatedseedpod]

I CALLED IT

HAHAHA

holy shit