Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 234

Witchcraft

– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Darker Dreams on 22:12, 25 July 2023 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Witchcraft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Darker Dreams (talk · contribs) Asarlaí (talk · contribs) CorbieVreccan (talk · contribs) Esowteric (talk · contribs) Skyerise (talk · contribs) Randy Kryn (talk · contribs) Historyday01 (talk · contribs) Vaticidalprophet (talk · contribs) VenusFeuerFalle (talk · contribs) Dimadick (talk · contribs) Nosferattus (talk · contribs) Pliny the Elderberry (talk · contribs) Ffranc (talk · contribs) Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) Iskandar323 (talk · contribs) Dawkin Verbier (talk · contribs) StarTrekker (talk · contribs) Carchasm (talk · contribs) Walt Yoder (talk · contribs) Zxcvbnm (talk · contribs) Slatersteven (talk · contribs) Alalch E. (talk · contribs) Netherzone (talk · contribs) Dispute overview There appear to be two perspectives on how this article, and all surrounding articles, should address the topic: 1) There are two versions of witchcraft. First is the version studied in anthropological texts which derives from witch hunts and other forms of violence and discrimination and has reflections worldwide leading to ongoing discrimination and violence. The second is a result of the 20th century neopagan movement and casts witchcraft in a more positive, or neutral, light. Because the negative definition of witchcraft is more widely studied in academic texts it should be given primary coverage. 2) Objects to the above on one or both of two points; a) There are multiple definitions of witchcraft. "Evil," "gothic," or "diabolical" witchcraft is clearly one, Neopagan witchcraft another identified type. However, at least some other definitions extend beyond these two and are legitimate topics of coverage. b) While anthropological academia has focused on "evil," "gothic," or "diabolical" witchcraft for a number of reasons, some of which include systemic bias, the prevalence of other types of media (ex, Harry Potter Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry) make these definitions at least equally relevant for a general purpose encyclopedia. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Witchcraft#Ridiculous! Talk:Witchcraft#Proposal Talk:Witchcraft#Requested_move_19_July_2023 Talk:Witchcraft#Systemic_bias Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Skyerise_reported_by_User:Asarlaí_(Result:_Full_protection_for_three_days) How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I hope some formalized, structured conversation can help bring clarity, and clarity will pave a way forward for this article and more general subject coverage. Summary of dispute by Asarlaí The traditional, most common and most widespread meaning of "witchcraft" is the use of malevolent magic. That's still the primary meaning in Western and non-Western cultures, and several high-quality academic sources in the lead back that up. So that's what the article is primarily about, and has been for years. In the last century, a theory became popular that accused witches (in Europe) were actually followers of a pagan religion that had survived underground; that witch trials were an attempt by Christians to stamp-out this supposed religion. The theory is now utterly disproven, and is seen as pseudo-history. However, some Western occultists/neopagans believed it and used it as the basis for Wicca. Some now call themselves 'Witches' and their practices 'Witchcraft'. This re-definition, used by a minority of neopagans, has its own article at Neopagan witchcraft. It's briefly covered at Witchcraft, and there are hatnotes to guide readers to the right articles. However, a few editors have tried to make the Witchcraft article fit the pseudo-historical POV. They're pushing the mistaken belief that "witchcraft" was originally a positive or neutral term and was just demonized by Christians; that the "malevolent witch" is just a "stereotype". The academic sources don't back that up. There was a request to move Witchcraft so that the main meaning (malevolent magic) is no longer the main topic. At least 11 editors were against, and only 4 editors were for it - the same four who've been pushing this minority view. Some of the opposing editors noted: "It is inappropriate to reframe Wikipedia's coverage of a topic based on a specific religious movement's understanding of the topic", "The point of view of new religious movements doesn't trump decades of academic coverage", and "This would just be formalizing a WP:FALSEBALANCE". The failed move request should've been the end of it. Consensus is that the Witchcraft article should be about the main meaning of the term: malevolent magic. But those few editors haven't accepted this, so here we are. – Asarlaí (talk) 18:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC) Summary of dispute by CorbieVreccan As has been outlined by: Asarlaí, Walt Yoder and Iskander323 and agree with Car chasm that this is largely forum shopping because the filer doesn't like how the RfC went and he and three others are refusing to respect the consensus. The RfC was snow closed with consensus for the article name and form we had before the WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS POV-push by the Neopagans contingent.[1] The scholarly and global sources support that: 1. The global view is that Witchcraft is an attempt to use metaphysical means to harm the innocent. 2. While there is a minority viewpoint that has redefined witchcraft to mean positive magic, that is only the view among predominantly white, western people; it is based on a debunked theory that only a subset of even those people ever adopted. However, the article has always addressed this minority viewpoint and directed readers to articles on those topics. After the edit-warring that led to the RfC, the "Witches are good" neopagan faction initially seemed to accept the consensus, and worked on the articles: Neopagan witchcraft and Wicca. This seemed to solve the problem. But as soon as the RfC indicated some preference for Witchcraft being broad concept, things got weird. The neopagan advocates (Darker Dreams, Skyerise, Esoterwich, and sometimes Randy Kryn and Nosferattus) are now ignoring the consensus, and edit-warring to make "witchcraft" into a neutral term and rewrite the Witchcraft lead with that agenda. Even though this was rejected in the RfC and in the sources. Skyerise resorted to 4RR.[2] Then she falsely claimed any edit to improve flow or wording, if done by someone she sees as an enemy, is a "revert" and tried to say others are the ones revert-warring.[3] In general, she has been wikilawyering like this and trying to wear people down on talk pages. I only watch this article because those pushing the neopagan pov continually make the false claim that the majority definition of witchcraft is only "in the past", or due to "oppressive Christians" and then they cite white, western, often pop culture examples of the neopagan redefinition. They continually and repeatedly ignore or dismiss as irrelevant the Indigenous, African, and other non-white, non-Western cultures who never redefined the term. This makes it an issue of cultural and ethnic bias concerns. Wikipedia is for readers from all cultures, not just white people. Some of the pov-pushers were even upset that, after they notified Neopagan and occult wikiprojects about this, I notified the wikiprojects for some of the cultures discussed in this article. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 23:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Esowteric Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. It's early morning here and I have yet to gather my thoughts. Most of what I have to say is contained in the following talk page "essay" that I wrote, before templating the article for "systemic bias" and as "unbalanced": Talk:Witchcraft#Systemic_bias. Also see: Talk:Witchcraft#Discussions_elsewhere, a list of discussion or attempted enforcement off the article talk page. Note: We have been repeatedly advised that it would a good idea to take these big, thorny issues to dispute resolution, and thankfully here we are. This is not an "unnecessary case of WP:FORUMSHOPPING", nor "an apparent attempt to circumvent WP:RNPOV", nor can it be yet again dismissed as dastardly "POV pushing", and I hope that this necessary resolution process is not closed down. Addendum: And WP:FALSEBALANCE is a straw man fallacy. I'm asking for equity, perhaps, not equality; and am appealing to the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law. As for dismissing modern neopagan movements and religions as of negligible interest, please see Talk:Witchcraft#Pageview statistics and Google Trends. Thanks a lot. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 06:29, 26 July 2023 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Skyerise Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I came to attempt to resolve this issue after reading many complaints (many of them now archived) on the article talk page about negative bias. Reading the article, I find that the bias is firmly established in the lead. The first problem is that malevolence is not common to the four or so (depending on the source) definitions of witchcraft. The second problem is that attributing 'malevolence' to witchcraft implies that witchcraft is real. Modern sources covering the witch trials rightfully acknowledge that those accused of 'witchcraft' were victims of persecution, that they were not actually practitioners of "malevolent witchcraft". Modern science says that magic and witchcraft are at the very least non-functional, perhaps even non-existent. It is not possible for a non-existent thing to have qualities. When a thing is imaginary, any qualities it is thought to have must arise from projection and stereotyping. Nearly all of the in-depth sources cover these questions in their discussion of the definition, yet the gatekeepers of this article have exerted quite a bit of effort to maintain the definition in a form which leaves the reader wondering whether Wikipedia thinks all witchcraft is both real and malevolent, which is not the case. This is also true of the contemporary worldwide aspect of the article: we all know 'witchcraft' throughout the world is incapable of effecting supernatural malevolent events: any "real" cases of "witchcraft" turn out to have perfectly mundane explanations such as poisoning. I think it is a great article on "historical and traditional views on witchcraft", but it is NOT a WP:BROADCONCEPT article. I believe the easiest solution is to disambiguate the article as such and move it, making the main 'witchcraft' and 'witch' pages dab pages. The recent requested move was put forward too quickly and the name proposed didn't properly reflect the restricted scope of the article, but perhaps more discussion would lead to a better title. However, if the article remains the primary article, it must be made more explicit in the lead that the quality of malevolence ascribed to witchcraft is projection or stereotyping on the part of the viewer onto a screen provided by historical ignorance. Skyerise (talk) 12:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Randy Kryn Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. A witch is a female human being. To coin a phrase. The vast majority of those millions of human beings, likely including tens of thousands of Wikipedia readers, are very nice, nature loving, and peaceful in practice and deed. Yet when they, or their friends and family, search Wikipedia they find that they are labeled with maybe the worse defamation existing on this site. Defamation about their character, their practices, their beliefs and their being. Let's put an end to that here. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Historyday01 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Vaticidalprophet Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The purpose of Wikipedia is to serve the reader; all else is secondary. The complaint of the editors who defend that the article at this title should be an article about one kind of witchcraft and not a BROADCONCEPT or disambig is that readers keep coming and complaining that they expect the article titled 'Witchcraft' to be a BROADCONCEPT. All else in this dispute is an overspill of that. Vaticidalprophet 03:32, 26 July 2023 (UTC) — I will clarify a little, though the above is what I consider the core of the matter. There is broad consensus that there should be a broad-concept article at the title "Witchcraft". There is substantial disagreement as to whether the existing article is a broad-concept article (because it discusses a variety of presentations of a traditional/folkloric understanding of witchcraft) or not (because it focuses near-exclusively on the traditional/folkloric understanding of witchcraft). It is evident (ibid) that readers seem to skew towards the second position. There are additional facets to this dispute, such as whether presenting witchcraft as anything other than universally malevolent is "systemic bias", or whether the article in its current state presents malevolent-witchcraft as "real" in a way not compatible with common interpretations of WP:FRINGE. There is an unfortunate amount of animus here. People arguing for the former position generally posit that this is the only scholarly understanding of witchcraft, which does not seem to track with existing scholarship, and have acted with hostility towards alternative positions. I have been broadly aware of much of this discussion and was an early commentator, but have participated quite little due to the intensity of the environment. Vaticidalprophet 11:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC) Summary of dispute by VenusFeuerFalle If we decide that witchcraft should focus on the Christian definition on witchcraft or blackmagic, we need to re-evaluate other sections as well. For example, although some Muslim scholars distinguishes between licit and illicit magic, there is no concept of "black magic", as there is no good/evil light/shadow dualism in Islam. Summary of dispute by Dimadick The dispute has been going in circles for a while. One faction of editors supports the view that witchcraft is effectively synonymous with black magic (evil magic) and that the text should reflect this view. The second faction of editors supports covering the Neopagan witchcraft of the 20th century and its perceived origins in the 19th-century version of ceremonial magic, Western esotericism, and the ancient tradition of Hermeticism. None of these were particularly malevolent in nature. In additions, editors (including myself) have been discussing the various depictions of witchcraft in fiction, and whether they reflect or shape social attitudes towards the topic. In particular, the depictions of both good witches and evil witches in fiction, since at least the publication of the Oz series (1900-1963). Dimadick (talk) 23:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Nosferattus Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The dispute is about whether the witchcraft article should include only the concept of malevolent witchcraft, or should be a broad article covering all aspects of witchcraft, including Neopagan witchcraft and various popular conceptions that are not necessarily malevolent. The scope dispute arose from an earlier dispute about whether or not the lead sentence and short description should describe witchcraft as "causing harm". Nosferattus (talk) 14:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Pliny the Elderberry Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. There are two main disagreements here: whether witchcraft is commonly enough understood/defined to be malevolent in nature for the article title to go without qualification (ex. "Witchcraft (malevolent)") and whether or not it represents an unconscionable (and unprofessional) bias that the main "witchcraft" article is an article about malevolent witchcraft. The majority opinion is that it is a broad concept article about malevolent witchcraft, and that "witchcraft" is still commonly understood in cultures throughout the world to primarily refer to malevolent magic, even if this is no longer a hegemonic viewpoint in Western culture. The minority opinion is that "witchcraft" is too ambiguous a term to go without qualification and that prominently describing "witchcraft" as typically malevolent in nature on the main "witchcraft" article represents an unconscionable bias in favor of anti-witchcraft beliefs and creates a hostile, discriminatory environment against modern witches. There's a lot more to the debate but those seem to be the core issues. Pliny the Elderberry (talk) 04:46, 26 July 2023 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Ffranc Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Thebiguglyalien Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Iskandar323 There is a slight air of WP:RGW to this dispute - principally that it is being asserted that the page maligns neopagan religious types that identify with witchcraft. Wikipedia maligns the ideals and beliefs of many peoples of faith and does so unswervingly because of WP:NOTCENSORED, and because of the sentiment conveyed at WP:GOODBIAS. Wikipedia follows the scholarship, and here we have historical experts such as Ronald Hutton saying of the subject, here regarding the term "witch", that "the mainstream scholarly convention will be followed, and the word used only for an alleged worker of such destructive magic." Despite the presence of such very transparent statements in scholarly literature, the page has got bogged down in questions over whether it is being well, "fair", I guess, towards Neopagan witchcraft, which is already naturally disambiguated as a separate term. There is no reason why this can't be referred to on the main page for witchcraft, in the sense that it is a corpus of belief derived from notions and themes related to the centuries-old European tradition of quasi-religious conceptions around witchcraft, but it is daft WP:FALSEBALANCE to suggest that a contemporary neopagan faith system somehow vies for the base name with the self-explanatory and readily understood conception of witchcraft in scholarship, history and overwhelmingly in literature up until the very late stage of the 20th century. The term "witchcraft" is understood by most people in a matter of fact way, as is evident from the presence of profiles on it on even government websites to give an overview into why there were historic witchcraft acts, etc. Likewise, you don't see Britannica confusing concepts. Summary of dispute by Dawkin Verbier Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by ★Trekker Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I have not been overly involved in this dispute, all I can add is that it seems to me that modern witches/wiccans and similar have a view of "historical “witchcraft”" which is more based on religious interpretations than research and consensus from historians, in truth there is pretty little actual evidence/remains of “witchcraft” beyond accusations from hostile parties.★Trekker (talk) 08:26, 26 July 2023 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Carchasm Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. This DRN thread is unnecessary case of WP:FORUMSHOPPING in an apparent attempt to circumvent WP:RNPOV, the RFC was a WP:SNOW close due to overwhelming consensus towards the majority view, which is also what is represented in WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Request WP:SNOW close of this noticeboard thread. - car chasm (talk) 01:19, 26 July 2023 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Walt Yoder I am only "involved" in the most tangential way. I voted in a RM that was (non-controversially closed). The result of the discussion was that witchcraft is a broad-concept article, and editors who insist otherwise are being tendentious in the face of clear consensus. From a (partial) read of the talk page, the problem seems to be a small number of very-loquacious editors that feel we must avoid even hinting that contemporaneous practitioners of "witchcraft" might be associated with a practice viewed as evil. This is ludicrous. Historically, witchcraft was viewed as evil. And a broad-concept article must acknowledge that. Walt Yoder (talk) 21:56, 26 July 2023 (UTC) Summary of dispute by ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I was very tangentially involved in this, but my belief echoes a lot of the other editors here in that the historical definition of witchcraft is in fact evil magic. Devoting a large part of the article to the idea that it is good magic would be undue weight of a fringe viewpoint. Wikipedia is only meant to follow what the sources say about what people believed or believe, not to push some idea or another about what it should be. That falls into WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS territory. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:50, 27 July 2023 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Slatersteven Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Fiction and fact are not the same, so any "pop culture decisions of witchcraft" should be in a cultural or recreation section, and not part of the wider article (which should be about the practice and belief in witchcraft as a real force). Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 26 July 2023 (UTC) Also (as far as I was aware) the dispute over the efficiency of magic, can we imply it works., or is it just a belief with no foundation in reality? Slatersteven (talk) 10:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Alalch E. Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Witchcraft can't be primarily defined as a stereotype or as coming from a stereotype. If there is an idea that there are people who practice magic and that a subset of those people use magic maliciously, that does not provide a functional basis for a stereotype. It's true and real that some people believe that there are certain people who practice magic. Going from there, it's mandated that people will also believe that, as people usually do things they do to both good and evil ends, some of those magic practitioners use magic for evil (witches). Given that people will identify people as magic practitioners when those people did not (but they could have, and it is true and real that some sometimes have) in fact exhibit behaviors that come from attempting to use magic stemming from a belief in the efficacy of magic on their part ("material magic practitioner"), i.e. they will misidentify material magic practitioners, they will also misidentify witches. They will also correctly identify a material magic practitioner that is specifically not guided by ill intent as a magic practitioneer, but will misidentify them as a witch. They will then, also, of course, sometimes correctly identify a "witch", that is, a material magic practitioner that is in fact guided by ill intent; as long as such individuals exist; and they did and do exist at times and places. At the same time they will seek good magic practitioners to help them with the bad magic stuff. None of this, so far, is about a stereotype. Only if we take a real group of people, like women, and say something general about women, such as "women have a natural propensity toward witchcraft (even if not all women are witches)", do we get a stereotype. But to be able to form such a stereotype, the notion of witchcraft as magic performed with evil intent must exist. So I lean toward defining witchcraft primarily as this notion. Because it helps understand other things, that "narratively" have to come later to be well understood. Material magic practitioners will sometimes self-identify as a witch; when they do so in a certain (sub-)cultural framework it has the character of a reappropriation. They will profess that they are not evil and that those individuals who were called witches historically were all or generally non-evil, but that they were indeed witches, but that the association of witchcraft and malevolence is where the misidentification lies. But to understand that process, you need to understand what came before.—Alalch E. 17:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Netherzone Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I agree with several editors that this DRN is an unnecessary waste of time and was primarily opened because the filer was discontented with the consensus-based outcome of the RfC. I disagree with the way some editors bulldozed the article while discussion was in progress on the talk page rather than showing more restraint. I believe this behavior was fueled by an intention to right great wrongs WP:RGW. WP goes by what high quality reliable sources say whether or not one may personally disagree with them. These factors polarized the discussion into good vs. evil, which was unnecessary. Before all of the recent disruption, the Witchcraft article was a fine example of the broad concept of historical and traditional witchcraft. It was not written as an affront towards neopaganism and Wicca, however some editors interpreted it as such perhaps due to emotions and personal belief systems getting in the way. Netherzone (talk) 02:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC) Witchcraft discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Statement by Volunteer (Witchcraft) There are a few problems with this case request. The first, and least serious, is that the filing editor has not notified the other editors. This could be remedied by providing them with notice. Several of the editors have responded, because a notice of this filing was made on the article talk page (which is good but not enough). The second problem is that 22 editors have been identified. DRN is a noticeboard for moderated discussion of content disputes involving a few editors. The usual type of moderated discussion is not likely to be feasible with 22 editors, which might be like trying to herd 6 sheep, 3 llamas, 4 goats, 3 rabbits, 1 border collie, 1 donkey, and 4 cats. The third problem is that the filing editor has already used a Requested Move that was closed early, and this appears to be a request to discuss a topic where a consensus process has already been used. DRN is not a means of overriding a consensus or of attempting to change a consensus by bludgeoning. I would normally close this discussion at this point. However, I will leave this discussion open for another day or two to see if there are any useful suggestions for how to go forward (as opposed to simply discussing). The purpose of discussion here is to improve the article, so any ideas should focus on article content. This discussion will probably be closed in one or two days, but is open for brainstorming for now. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC) Additional Statements by Editors (Witchcraft) Statement by Darker Dreams I am unclear what participants have not been notified. All those listed here have templated talk pages or removed the template themselves. Please advise. While the move request was overcome by consensus it is now being used as a way to close down all discussion of reliably sourced material which does not agree specifically with the existing framework of the Witchcraft article; even beyond that article. I don't know how to help with the unwieldy size. Darker Dreams (talk) 00:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC) -- Regarding the size: Looking at the statements above, several editors state "they are only tangentially involved." They have been notified and may participate actively or may choose to remain "tangentially involved" and reduce the effective size of the discussion. I don't know what the background for the A, B, C, and D rules for DRN are. Looking at the other ongoing discussions, the standard seems to be C. Comparing the rule sets, there are some key versions that seem like they can be can be used to keep the situation manageable. Specifically, reducing cross-talk (5) and enforcing timeliness (9). Discussion Rules Proposal Draft   Be civil and concise.    Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia and is essential in dispute resolution.  Uncivil statements may be collapsed.     Overly long statements do not clarify issues.  (They may make the author feel better, but the objective is to discuss the article constructively.)  Overly long statements may be collapsed, and the party may be told to summarize them.  Read Too Long, Didn't Read, and don't write anything that is too long for other editors to read.  If the moderator says to write one paragraph, that means one paragraph of reasonable length.  If the moderator says one sentence, that does not mean a run-on sentence.   Do not report any issues about the article or the editing of the article at any other noticeboards, such as WP:ANI or Arbitration Enforcement.  Reporting any issue about the article at any other location is forum shopping, which is strongly discouraged.  Any old discussions at any other noticeboards must be closed or suspended. If any new discussions are opened elsewhere while discussion is pending at DRN, the mediation at DRN will be failed.    Comment on content, not contributors.    The purpose of discussion is to improve the article, not to complain about other editors.  (There may be a combination of content issues and conduct issues, but resolving the content issue often mitigates the conduct issue or permits it to subside.)  Uncivil comments or comments about other editors may be suppressed.   "Comment on content, not contributors" means that if you are asked to summarize what you want changed in the article, or left the same, it is not necessary or useful to name the other editors, but it may be important to identify the paragraphs or locations in the article. It isn't necessary to identify the other editors with whom you disagree.   Discuss edits, not editors.  This means the same as "Comment on content, not contributors".  It is repeated because it needs repeating.   Do not edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress, with reasonable exceptions.  If the article is edited by a party while discussion is pending at DRN, the mediation at DRN may be failed.  One reasonable exception is the reverting of vandalism.  If there has been edit-warring over versions of the article, the moderator will not select which version is the "right" version to be displayed during moderated discussion. Simply stop edit-warring. The purpose of moderated discussion is to select between versions of the article, and the moderator will not act as an arbitrator.   Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion to statements by other editors unless the moderator gives permission; that is, do not reply to the comments of other editors.  That has already been tried and has not resolved the content dispute.  Address your comments to the moderator and the community except in a section for back-and-forth discussion, replies to other editors or back-and-forth discussion may be collapsed by the moderator and may result in a rebuke.  Do not communicate with the moderator on their user talk page. This is seen by other editors as trying to run around them. If you have a question or request for the moderator, ask it at DRN.   Please inform DRN if there is interaction on this subject with editors who are not taking part in the DRN.   It would be better not to discuss the article on the article talk page or on user talk pages while moderated discussion is in progress; because discussion elsewhere than at DRN may be overlooked or ignored.   The moderator may, at their discretion, provide a section for back-and-forth comments.  Keep your comments in that section, so that anyone else can ignore them.  Comments in the back-and-forth section, like everywhere else, must be civil. Back-and-forth conversation may be closed if discussion in this area becomes unproductive or distracting. Participants may request back and forth discussion, but opening such a section remains the discretion of the moderator.   The moderator may not have any background knowledge about the subject.  It is the responsibility of the editors, who are familiar with the subject matter, to inform the moderator about the subject matter, just as the purpose of the article is to inform the readers about the subject matter.   Be specific at DRN .  Do not simply say that a section should be improved, but tell what improvement should be made.  Do not simply say that "All viewpoints must be discussed", but identify the missing viewpoints.  If you say that the article has BLP violations, specify how they can be corrected.   Other editors who are not listed as participants may take part in discussion in the same way as listed participants.  Other editors are still required to address their comments to the moderator and the community, not to respond to the listed participants.    Other editors may request to be listed.  The moderator may decide to list any other editors who have been participating.  It doesn't really matter if an editor is listed.   Every participant is expected to check on the case at least every 48 hours and to answer questions within 48 hours. It is the responsibility of every participant to keep the moderator informed as to whether they will take any wikibreaks or be absent due to real life.  Discussion will continue in the absence of a participant, but will not result in any decisions that an editor who has notified the moderator of their absence cannot participate in. I don't know if either of those items are helpful, but they are attempts to solve the problem presented. - Darker Dreams (talk) 11:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC) Statement by Vaticidalprophet I want to clarify the "move discussion"/"RfC" (interesting conflation there) being discussed by some participants, and summarized by Robert McClenon from those descriptions as The third problem is that the filing editor has already used a Requested Move that was closed early, and this appears to be a request to discuss a topic where a consensus process has already been used. I'm clarifying this as a person vaguely involved in the dispute, but moreso as someone who's responded to some-triple-digits-number-of RMs and RM/TRs and has a good working sense of their diversity. An RM was opened on 19 July with a specific proposed title, "Witchcraft (classical)", for the article currently titled "Witchcraft". The discussion was trainwrecked by disagreement about what title the article would be at even if it was moved and by diverging oppose reasons ("this article is exactly what it's expected to be" vs "it's not, but that title is the wrong one"). A supporter of the move, of which there were several (more than the total participation most RMs get, and certainly more than any RM closed snow-oppose (as opposed to normal-oppose) I've ever seen of many), explicitly requested it be closed early due to the malformation of the original RM, as what he called a "snowball close", with the intent of continuing to workshop titles. This was done with his exact wording. "Snowball close" here doesn't clearly correspond to the term as traditionally used in RMs. If I saw a similar RM on a subject I have no involvement or interest in, it would likely be closed "no consensus". I'd also note in that hypothetical closing statement that the discussion was almost entirely subscribed by people already involved in the dispute, whose opinions on the matter were well-known by that point, and suggest something like leaving more WikiProject messages. (Object-case, this is obviously impacted by the fact I think like 50 wikiprojects have been notified at this point and are all very sick of it, but that's why we're here.) I am also disappointed by the continued conflation of "people saying the article titled 'Witchcraft' should be about multiple things commonname-d as 'witchcraft' are saying the witch cult literally existed". Vaticidalprophet 03:30, 27 July 2023 (UTC) Statement by Esowteric Thanks for your time and consideration, as volunteer here. I appreciate your dilemma. However, I don't see how we can be called upon to inform and list all potentially concerned editors, only to then be told that "DRN is a noticeboard for moderated discussion of content disputes involving a few editors." Aren't the two demands mutually exclusive? Is it not possible to instead focus on the two prominent opposing camps, viz the gatekeepers Asarlaí and CorbieVreccan on the one hand, and those they identify as dissenters, or who self-identify as dissenters, on the other, including but not limited to Darker Dreams, Skyerise, Esowteric, Randy Kryn and Nosferattus? If this case is not heard, then the perennial and frequent issues visitors raise in heated talk page discussions, and reversions by editors, are not going to go away; things will only become more entrenched and righteous than ever. ---oOo--- I'm very disappointed by the intransigence and hostility shown by the two main gatekeepers at Witchcraft and associated pages, Asarlaí and CorbieVreccan, and I really don't think that anything I or others can say or do is going to bring about even minor paradigm shift. Perhaps despair is not too strong a word to use in this post-truth era? They dismiss the concerns of the many readers who come looking for material on modern witchcraft and keep opening up talk page discussion threads about the article's negative bias (notably and most controversially in the first sentence of the lede, and until recently in the short description); they resist and revert changes by other editors aimed at rectifying the situation in a more nuanced way (that is, beyond the blinkered and monochromatic view that "The Scholars are on our side!"); they try to shut down legitimate dissent; and they are concerted in their efforts not only to make sure that other views are not represented in the article, but that their own partial view, that witchcraft is malevolent, is spread far and wide in satellite articles and pages. I'm sorry, but this is all I have to offer right now: Talk:Witchcraft#Systemic_bias. Update: I would be quite happy to go along with Skyerise's proposals below. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 07:54, 27 July 2023 (UTC) :There is no "negative bias". Scholars do agree that the traditional and still most widespread meaning of "witchcraft" is malevolent magic. Do you think they're wrong? If readers looking for Neopagan Witchcraft are brought to the article by mistake, there are hatnotes explaining what the article is about and guiding them to Neopagan witchcraft. So what's the problem? – Asarlaí (talk) 12:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC) (moved below) We should really stay in our own lanes here. However, the short answer to that from the field of medicine would be that prevention is better than cure, or from the field of quality assurance: get it right at source, rather than attempting to fix it further down the line. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:53, 27 July 2023 (UTC) Statement by Skyerise Both Asarlaí and CorbieVreccan have assumed my position. But they are both incorrect and presenting strawmen. I am not here to promote the POV of Neopaganism. My concern is quite simple: I agree with those who divide the topic into "tradition/historical" and "modern/neopagan". I agree that they are two different things. I made explicit the hatnote describing exactly what the divide is. While I didn't get it right the first time, with the help of the aforementioned editors, it was improved and there have been no further arguments about the current wording. At the same time, I removed the mentions of "modern/neopagan" witchcraft and Wicca from the article. If that material is removed, in accord with the hatnote, then I have no problem with the definition of witchcraft as intended to cause harm. However, the aforementioned editors insisted on returning the off-topic material to the article, and have shown that they are willing to tag-team edit war to keep it there. So, my position is that if the consensus is to include the material despite the hatnote, then the definition in the lead paragraph must be broadened to be inclusive of both traditional and modern witchcraft, the only difference being the assumption of negative intent. I would actually prefer that we rely on the hatnote and remove the material about modern witchcraft. Then there is no dissonance between the definition and what is included in the article. It is possible that this article should also be renamed and moved. I was involved in discussions about this when another editor prematurely opened the move request before there was consensus about what the new name should be. So, I'd suggest that we first just find out what the consensus is about the unclear division of the article and inclusion of material on a separate topic than historical malevolent witchcraft. If the decision is to keep the off-topic material, then we must have a discussion of how to reword the first paragraph of the lead to be inclusive of it. Once these issues are resolved, there should be another discussion about potential new titles, if there is still an interest in that, followed by an RM to see if there is a consensus to make that move. In closing, I'd like to say that the article does a good job of covering its topic, and the problem only arises due to an insistence on including material, no matter how little, that relates to a topic that uses a different definition of witchcraft. If Asarlaí and CorbieVreccan, who already agree that there are two different topics, would agree to a clean division by not discussing the second topic at all in Witchcraft except in the hatnote, well, then I'd be done here. I can't speak for the other editors: not all will be happy with this solution, but it is the one that requires the least changes to the article under discussion. Skyerise (talk) 11:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC) My position is supported by WP:TOPIC, which states "The most readable articles contain no irrelevant (nor only loosely relevant) information" (emphasis added). Given the definition in the lead and the clearly stated hatnote, modern witchcraft and Wicca would fall under "loosely related" in my opinion. When a clear hatnote specifies the scope, the article should not attempt to be inclusive of topics outside that scope. There has been an argument put forward that the reader might expect some coverage in the article after failing to read the hatnote, but this can be handled by putting links to the "expected" information in the 'see also' section, which is precisely where the reader will be when they fail to find the information they expect. Skyerise (talk) 12:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC) I'd also like to note that Asarlaí (below) has cherry-picked responses to establish an imaginary consensus against this position. Perhaps there are 5 opposed, but there are clearly 2 for my proposal, and there are a number of editors who haven't stated their position on this. Given the number of editors involved, there is a clear possibility that my proposal may yet be accepted by a majority of editors as the simplest and least controversial solution to the dispute. I propose that the moderator frame the question in a neutral way for a clear response from all parties so we can at least see which way the wind is actually blowing on this proposal. Skyerise (talk) 13:11, 27 July 2023 (UTC) Statement by Asarlaí This dispute isn't about whether witchcraft is/was real, or whether accused witches were really doing witchcraft. It's about whether the neopagan meaning should be equally represented on the article Witchcraft. Scholars agree that the traditional and still most widespread meaning of "witchcraft" is malevolent magic. So that's what the article is primarily about. I refute claims that the article has a "negative bias". It's merely discussing a particular belief. The only way someone could see it as "biased" is if they disagree with the scholarly consensus. If readers looking for Neopagan Witchcraft are brought to the article by mistake, there are hatnotes explaining what the article is about and guiding them to Neopagan Witchcraft. So I don't see the problem. Skyerise suggests resolving the issue by removing everything about Neopagan Witchcraft from the article, leaving only the hatnote. This was discussed. Only Esowteric agreed, everyone else in the discussion disagreed. Iskandar323: "The topics might be distinct, but that distinction still needs explaining on this page ... it may not be within the core scope, but it is a sufficiently related subject to be mentioned as tangentially related, as well as differentiated." Pliny the Elderberry: "Neopagan Witchcraft is tangentially relevant to discussions about the cultural concept of witchcraft, roughly as much as Satanism is relevant to the article on Satan. ... It may not have a whole lot to do with the original subject, but insofar as it is inspired to some degree by the original subject it merits as much commentary as witchcraft in fiction." Nosferattus: "Even if this article were renamed to Witchcraft (malevolent), which doesn't seem likely to happen, I would argue that Wicca [...] still warrants discussion, albeit brief." CorbieVreccan: "It doesn't fit the scope, but per the lede we should probably have a brief section clarifying and redirecting people." Instead of accepting this consensus, Skyerise "notified The Signpost that they may want to cover this as a news story". I agree that the Witchcraft article should only have the bare minimum on Neopagan Witchcraft, but it still needs to be mentioned briefly in the article. – Asarlaí (talk) 13:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC) Statement by Slatersteven There is another issue, this is far too broad as it seems to be about many different issues. Thus I am not (for example) involved in much of what is in dispute. Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 27 July 2023 (UTC) Statement by Nosferattus Partially in response to Robert McClenon... This dispute is much more complicated than a requested move. The essential issue is that the article has been gatekept for years to define witchcraft as malevolent magic. Since the number of people who practice witchcraft as a religion has risen from a few thousand in the 1990s to well over a million,[4] the use of "witchcraft" in both reliable sources and popular conception has changed greatly in the past 10 years. Rather than acknowledging this change and broadening the definition to encompass both the traditional academic definition and contemporary usage, the gatekeeping has only intensified. The gatekeepers have adopted a siege mentality and believe that anyone espousing that witchcraft can mean anything other than malevolent magic is a Wiccan POV-pusher and that the only reliable sources that matter are academic sources not associated with Neopaganism (using the circular logic that Neopagan-associated sources are biased). This is essentially a clash of two different POVs, but rather than trying to accommodate both POVs in the article (as WP:NPOV would suggest), one side believes that only their POV is valid and has essentially shut the other one out. Rather than addressing this core problem, Skyerise has decided that the only solution is to completely split the topic into 2 mutually exclusive scopes (thus the requested move). However, most editors don't agree with this solution and there isn't consensus to implement it. So we're basically still left with the original dispute. What is needed is some mediation to figure out how the lead of witchcraft can properly reflect the balance of all reliable sources. I'm afraid that the two camps have become too entrenched to reach compromise without some sort of mediation from uninvolved 3rd parties. Nosferattus (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC) Second statement by volunteer (Witchcraft) First, I was mistaken about notice to editors, and have struck out that assertion. Second, User:Darker Dreams says that the Requested Move closure is being used to shut down further edits to the article, and wants to know what to do next. I see that there has been a great deal of back-and-forth discussion that has ultimately not resolved anything, and more than one editor has suggested that moderated discussion may be the way to resolve this dispute. I am willing to try to conduct moderated discussion, partly as an experiment, and partly because the situation seems to be already a mess, and the worst that can happen is to change the shape of the mess. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:12, 27 July 2023 (UTC) Please read the rules. If you continue to take part in this case, you are assumed to be agreeing to the rules. I will restate a few points. Be concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Do not reply to the posts of other editors except the moderator. Lengthy back-and-forth discussion has been going on and has not resolved the issues. Address your comments to the moderator (me) and the community. Any earlier back-and-forth discussion will be ignored. After this point, back-and-forth discussion may be collapsed. Do not edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress. The article is currently protected due to edit-warring, but the protection will expire, but treat the article as fully protected anyway. Back-and-forth discussion has not worked. Be Specific at DRN. The introduction to this noticeboard says that DRN is normally used for content disputes that may take two to three weeks to resolve. This dispute may take a few months to resolve. The moderator will decide at what pace we should be making progress. There are several different concepts of "witchcraft". This article, which is the principal article on witchcraft, should provide at least an introduction to all of them. Although it is often preferred to write the body of an article first and have the lede section summarize the article, what we will try here is to rework the lede section of the article, to try to get rough consensus that the lede section provides a broad concept. So what I am asking is for each editor who has an idea of how to reorganize the article to state briefly how they want to reorganize the lede section. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:12, 27 July 2023 (UTC) Second statements by editors (Witchcraft) Statement by Nosferattus Scholars agree that there are multiple definitions of witchcraft (see especially Ronald Hutton and Marion Gibson). Why can't the lead paragraph of the article reflect that? According to MOS:OPEN: "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific." Surely there must be some compromise that would be amenable to both sides of this dispute. Is there any wording that anyone can propose that might bridge the divide? Nosferattus (talk) 17:21, 27 July 2023 (UTC) Second statement by Skyerise I would like to note that when the article was listed as GA in 2006, the lead read as follows: Witchcraft, in various historical, religious and mythical contexts, is the use of certain kinds of supernatural or magical powers. A witch is a (sometimes specifically female) person who engages in witchcraft. The term witchcraft (and witch) is a controversial one with a complicated history. 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. All of which, as far as I can tell, is still true. It was an incomplete lead, but it addressed the issue. Skyerise (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2023 (UTC) For completeness, when it was delisted in 2009, the lead read: Witchcraft, in various historical, anthropological, religious and mythological contexts, is the use of certain kinds of supernatural or magical powers. Witchcraft can refer to the use of such powers in order to inflict harm or damage upon members of a community or their property. Other uses of the term distinguish between bad witchcraft and good witchcraft, the latter involving the use of these powers to heal someone from bad witchcraft. The concept of witchcraft is normally treated as a cultural ideology, a means of explaining human misfortune by blaming it either on a supernatural entity or a known person in the community (Pócs 1999, pp. 9-12). A witch (from Old English wicce f. / wicca m.) is a practitioner of witchcraft. which also acknowledges the range of meanings. Skyerise (talk) 17:44, 27 July 2023 (UTC) Additional response to Asarlaí and Iskandar323: You have both brought up Britannica. But Britannica covers the imaginary nature of witchcraft and stereotyping in the second half of its current lead paragraph: [...] Witchcraft thus defined exists more in the imagination of contemporaries than in any objective reality. Yet this stereotype has a long history and has constituted for many cultures a viable explanation of evil in the world. The intensity of these beliefs is best represented by the European witch hunts of the 14th to 18th century, but witchcraft and its associated ideas are never far from the surface of popular consciousness and—sustained by folk tales—find explicit focus from time to time in popular television and films and in fiction.[5] Britannica has adapted to the times; we have not. Skyerise (talk) 22:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC) Second statement by Esowteric Mr Moderator, friends: I, too, noted how very much differently historically-older revisions of the lede were. Whereas the current version leads with witchcraft being seen traditionally and ethnically as malevolent, which pre-defines and "colours" the whole article, these earlier versions were much more inclusive and "inviting" toward material about contemporary witchcraft. If we do not make an attempt to clearly define witchcraft in the first sentence of the lede ("Witchcraft is ...") then I feel that would create a vacuum, and sooner or later another editor would come along and replace it with their own definition. I see nothing wrong with the 2006 (GA) version that Skyerise kindly provided: Witchcraft, in various historical, religious and mythical contexts, is the use of certain kinds of supernatural or magical powers. A witch is a (sometimes specifically female) person who engages in witchcraft. [...] Perhaps it should also use a word like "cultural", too. If the article is to be broad, as you suggest, then I do see that negative connotations would have to have a place, but not a dominant place, in the lede, along with some mention of modern/neopagan witchcraft. The short description, too, should neutrally reflect the broad nature of the article. We may also have to think about the few qualifying words about stereotyping in the lede, recently introduced and not yet reverted, as this may be another contentious issue. The witch-cult hypothesis will have to feature in the article, and some mention may or may not be needed in the lede as a pre-amble to mention of modern movements. I'm not a subject expert, so please guide me here, but I was thinking of something along the lines of: "In the early 1900s, Margaret Murray proposed what became known as the witch-cult hypothesis, the idea that an underground pagan religion had survived in the Christian era. This has since been debunked, but it gave rise to a growing interest in neopaganism and the foundation of contemporary witchcraft movements and religions such as Wicca." Addendum: I am aware that DRN Rule A now applies here, and that we need to listen carefully to all points of view expressed, and take care not to misrepresent our own point of view, nor that of other parties in this dispute. Thank you. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:59, 27 July 2023 (UTC) Second statement by Vaticidalprophet (third, really) I also think the c. late 2000s lead is a good starting point. Funnily enough, the sweeps-era/delisted lead is a fair bit better (less paradoxical if you know the history of GA in the era, but this is not a GAN historiography). A modification of both could be a reasonable first paragraph, along the lines of: Witchcraft, in various historical, anthropological, religious and mythological contexts, is the use of certain kinds of supernatural or magical powers. A witch (from Old English wicce f. / wicca m.) is a practitioner of witchcraft. In many traditional and folkloric contexts, witchcraft refers to the use of such powers in order to inflict harm or damage upon members of a community or their property. Other uses of the term distinguish between "bad witchcraft" and "good witchcraft", including the ability of the latter to defend against the former. Witchcraft and witches are viewed differently in different cultures around the globe and in different time periods; the terms can take on distinct and often contradictory meanings. 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 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. Vaticidalprophet 18:55, 27 July 2023 (UTC) There are editors I have held in high regard taking multiple positions in this dispute. I have been disappointed by the assumptions of many. That is the most I will for now comment on discontent; but there is more discontent than content in this content dispute. Vaticidalprophet 06:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC) Second statement by Darker Dreams I believe the opening to the lead should start with acknowledgement that witch and witchcraft have a variety of meanings. Drawing from user:Vaticidalprophet's proposal and the last version of the witch article before its merge.[6] Witchcraft has a wide assortment of meanings, depending on the culture and the context in which it is presented. A witch is a practitioner of witchcraft. Of note; I am not including supernatural or magical powers in the opening statement. I believe introduction of that aspect requires too much discussion and diverges too quickly into the sub-topics to be covered in the lead. From there I believe those meanings should be laid out, generally using a single sentence per definition. These meanings include, but are not limited to; use of supernatural or magical powers to harm others. (This may or may not be acknowledged as the primary anthropological definition and focus of study at this point.) adherents of certain Pagan religions including, but not limited to, Wicca. folk healers and users of traditional knowledge. etc. I believe that should be the entirety of the lead section. Darker Dreams (talk) 23:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC) If there are other sections, such as archetypal use (re user:Skyerise's apparent proposal) or use in fiction - which would be appropriate if kept neutral - I would summarize those ideas in short statements or single sentences following the definitions. Darker Dreams (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC) Second statement by CorbieVreccan Versions of the lede from years ago are irrelevant. What matters is the sourcing and current consensus, which is for the version of the lede we had before the Neopagan POV push. The Neopagan POV pushers here know the consensus and sources matter, and some have expressed that, just as they are ignoring the consensus of the page-move discussion, they plan to just revisit this "in a year or so" hoping that page hits and IP complaints from neopagans will once again support going through all of this again. This will not be resolved as long as we have WP:RGW POV-pushers on the article and connected articles who still believe the thoroughly debunked witch-cult theory and demand we write text in Wikivoice that assumes this debunked theory is real. This won't be resolved by writing fiction. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 23:34, 28 July 2023 (UTC) Second statement by Netherzone Re: Indigenous views on witchcraft, from the book: Witchcraft in the Southwest: Spanish and Indian Supernaturalism on the Rio Grande, by Marc Simmons, University of Nebraska Press, Bison Books. It's older, first edition originally published in 1974. There are dozens of accounts from the various Puebloan peoples (Laguna, Acoma, Zuñi, Cochiti, Jémez, Nambé, etc. etc.) as well as Navajo and Apache that witches are seen as malevolent as represented in the article before the recent drama and edit warring. Although it's an older book, it is very well referenced in regards to Indigenous witchcraft, and how witchcraft was/is perceived by these cultures. It has an excellent bibliography. An excerpt from page 69 in the Pueblo witchcraft chapter states: Belief in witchcraft and in manipulation of supernatural powers for evil purposes was practically universal among American Indians. Netherzone (talk) 16:24, 3 August 2023 (UTC) Further, in the article: Hopi Indian Witchcraft and Healing: On Good, Evil, and Gossip. By: Geertz, Armin W., American Indian Quarterly, 0095182X, Summer2011, Vol. 35, Issue 3. It states therein: To the Hopis, witches or evil-hearted persons deliberately try to destroy social harmony by sowing discontent, doubt, and criticism through evil gossip as well as by actively combating medicine men. Individuals who act suspiciously, are unfriendly, have been seen crying for no apparent reason, or have mysterious things happen around them are assumed by Hopis to be witches or sorcerers (I will call them witches for short, both male and female). The stories about them are legion, and the Hopis constantly talk about them, eternally trying to guess who they are and what they are up to. They are called popwaqt, the plural of powaqa, "witch" or "sorcerer." They are unequivocally evil, casting spells, causing illness, killing babies, and destroying the life cycle. They practice powaqqatsi, the "life of evil sorcery." The Hopis call them kwitavi, "shit people." The term powaqa means a "person who transforms."[2] The root, powa, implies change, for good or for bad. By extension, a powaqa is one who transforms his or her environment to evil ends. More precisely, a witch is a person who kills close family relatives in order to prolong his or her own life by four years. By killing, I mean causing through occult means an unnatural death, such as stillbirth, infants dying of ordinary illnesses, or healthy adults suffering from strange illnesses. Witches are also the occult cause of unusual circumstances, such as hailstorms on a sunny day, extreme drought, or people suffering bad fortune. And quite a bit more. If of interest to this discussion, the permalink is HERE. I'm pretty sure you need to be logged into the WP Library to read it. I have added the above for these reasons: I do not believe that the words and beliefs contained in the Hopi language are necessarily driven by European notions of witchcraft. I also do not think they are used as systemic bias against New Age witches, NeoPagans nor Wiccans. Netherzone (talk) 23:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC) Third Statement by Moderator (Witchcraft) If I have correctly assessed the positions of the editors here, there appear to be two different ideas as to how the lede section should describe the topic of witchcraft, and so two ideas as to how the article should be organized. I will try to summarize, and if the editors disagree with my summary, they should explain. The first idea is that most twenty-first century reliable sources who refer to witchcraft are referring to black magic or malevolent witchcraft, and that the article should focus primarily on black magic and the belief in black magic. The second idea is that in the twenty-first century, there are multiple concepts of witchcraft, including the early modern concept of malevolent witchcraft that resulted in witch hunts, modern neopagan religions that characterize their practice as witchcraft, and the folkloric ideas of other cultures. The main difference appears to be whether to give primary attention to the belief in black magic, or to give approximately equal attention to the belief in black magic, and to modern neopagan religions. Is my characterization of the two viewpoints correct? Will each editor please state which viewpoint they have, or whether there is another viewpoint that you hold? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:50, 29 July 2023 (UTC) As a side matter, the reality or unreality of witchcraft should not be an issue. The belief in malevolent witchcraft is very real, as the victims of witch hunts know. I don't think that it is an issue here, but am just restating it. After the editors have declared which viewpoint they have, and how they would like the article to describe the viewpoints, then we can develop two competing versions of the lede section of the article, and then choose between them. If there is a third viewpoint, then there is a third viewpoint. To answer a question, if another editor, either one of the editors in this discussion or another editor, edits the article, should you revert the edit? No, unless the edit was vandalism. You should not edit the article while discussion is in progress, and should ignore any other good-faith editing of the article. Are there any questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:50, 29 July 2023 (UTC) Statement 3.1 by Moderator (Witchcraft) Do not ping other editors to reply to them. That is back-and-forth discussion, and I said to avoid back-and-forth discussion. Do not comment on or disagree with the posts of other editors unless I ask you to. Do not criticize other editors (even if they need criticizing). The moderator can do the criticizing and complaining. I will begin collapsing posts that are not about content. With a large number of editors, we need to stay on point. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:32, 29 July 2023 (UTC) Third Statements by Editors (Witchcraft) Third statement by Vaticidalprophet I'll await further commentary, but I'd describe the approximate 'camps' as such: Camp 1: A broadly-construed "folkloric witchcraft" is the primary topic for witchcraft. This includes early-modern witch hunts, witches as "evil magic-users" in societies that also believe/d in "good magic-users", and contemporary concepts of malevolent witchcraft associated particularly with sub-Saharan Africa (see e.g. our articles Witchcraft accusations against children in Africa and Witchcraft in Ghana -- though we don't cover this well in general, and our discussion of it in the Witchcraft article too is frankly poor). The Witchcraft article is a "broad-concept article", because it deals with all these subjects. Attempts to broaden its scope are inappropriate, for reasons expressed such as systemic bias, a focus on this meaning in earlier scholarship in particular, and the idea that broader scopes are inherently motivated by specific pseudohistorical beliefs. Camp 2: There is no obvious "primary topic" for witchcraft in 21st-century reliable sources. Multiple scholarly fields discuss the term in different contexts, and individuals mean very different things when they use it. The current article's focus on "folkloric witchcraft, broadly construed" is a narrower scope than reflected in present sourcing or than readers would expect to find at the title "Witchcraft". Other common subjects of discussion in reliable sources include new religious movements and their own influences (e.g. particular pseudohistorical beliefs), psychological/anthropological research on why witchcraft is a popular concept, and the representation of witchcraft in fiction. I have tried to describe each camp as neutrally as possible. #2 in particular could be trivially split into "about one camp per person" -- I have the very strong impression most people who think there's something wrong with the present scope have different and often contradictory ideas for the ideal scope. My thought, as can be extrapolated from the way I've presented both broad beliefs, is that we should probably split out a lot more articles. The recent un-merging of Neopagan witchcraft is such an example; I've similarly uncovered huge coverage gaps around our presentation of folkloric witchcraft in Africa, which is a subject nominally within the current article's scope (and used as an example of why it shouldn't have its scope changed) but undercovered both there and elsewhere. Vaticidalprophet 07:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC) — I've been focusing on keeping my summaries short, but the sprawling is happening with or without me. My stance, to still make it as concise as I can: Per camp 2, there is no obvious "primary topic" for witchcraft in 21st-century reliable sources. "Folkloric understandings of witchcraft" is itself an extremely broad-concept subject (but not the entire broad concept of "witchcraft") and should itself have vastly more subarticles. Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe is not the same thing as the concepts and folklore that colonists translated in English as "witch" from different cultures, which themselves are very different concepts to one another that cannot be broadly painted as "non-Western cultures" -- that's the supermajority of the world population! The resplitting of "Neopagan witchcraft" is an unmitigated good, though I still wonder if this is the title most readers are looking for. We could easily sustain a double-digit number of subarticles, covering vastly different topics with nothing more than an Anglophone name in common, that would all be core enough to put on a single disambig. This is a huge topic. I think the topic is too huge to sustain a BROADCONCEPT proper rather than a disambig, but I'm working from the BROADCONCEPT perspective because it seems to be the current area of interest. Vaticidalprophet 13:26, 29 July 2023 (UTC) — Addendum (sorry): To be particularly specific on the disambig thing: I've been thinking about this a lot, and I really can't think of a good way to broad-concept "Witchcraft" -- the whole thing -- as an article. I think the individual subjects cross the WP:BROADCONCEPT line of being "the same concept". I agree, even, with the contention that such an article would risk pseudohistory/inaccuracy by falsely conflating things that are nothing like each other. I think we should just flatly have a disambig, and reviewing the conversations yet again, I think this is agreed with even by the "the article currently at "Witchcraft" is a BROADCONCEPT" stance -- BROADCONCEPTS can be subsets of disambigs. I think the current folkloric witchcraft article already risks conflating things nothing like each other, per the translation-issue and as noted with e.g. the Cook Islands section, which demonstrates well how an even-broader-concept would be a problem. Vaticidalprophet 17:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC) Third statement by Esowteric Thank you, Mr Moderator and friends. My overall position is that I will happily consider and accommodate myself to any proposal offered so far, of witchcraft in its broader sense, other than one in which the article is presented with an overarching, overshadowing and overbearing theme of malevolence. And if consensus goes against this possibility, then I will accept that decision. ---oOo--- I don't want to have to do it, since I'm attempting to abide by DRN Rule A, and also to move on with the discussion here, but to counter the straw man fallacy presented of me as one of the reprobate "neopagan POV pushers", I would again clarify: "I do see that negative connotations would have to have a place, but not a dominant place, in the lede, along with some mention of modern/neopagan witchcraft." I am not looking for equality here, simply fair and proportional representation of "witchcraft" in its broadest appreciation in the 21st century, beyond the cloistered halls of traditionalist and orthodox scholasticism. If that can be achieved, then material covering modern neopagan and witchcraft movements and religions have a place in the article after the lede and after treatment of the "traditionalist" material. If the lede remains heavily weighted, especially in the first sentence and short description, and heavily weighted in satellite articles and disambiguation pages, toward the view of witchcraft as malevolent, then I see the inclusion of modern material as untenable, since it is not, generally speaking, in any way malevolent. As I also said earlier, and repeat here since it was ignored in all the talk of "neopagan POV pushers": in my opinion, for what little that is worth, "The witch-cult hypothesis will have to feature in the article, and some mention may or may not be needed in the lede as a pre-amble to mention of modern movements." Furthermore, I presented a snippet from a proposed lede which stated that this hypothesis has "since been debunked". I do not at all deny the pseudo-historical basis of the modern movements and religions. (For the record, my primary interest in the past has not been neopaganism but Sufism, and more recently illuminationism and depth psychology). To reiterate: my overall position is, then, that I will happily consider and accommodate myself to any proposal offered so far, of witchcraft in its broader sense, other than one in which the article is presented with an overarching, overshadowing and overbearing theme of malevolence. And if consensus goes against this possibility, then I will accept that decision. (As a parenthetical comment, it's interesting to compare and contrast how Professor Ronald Hutton's ideas are currently represented in the lede with this useful video interview: "Magic in Paganism, Wicca, Druidry with Prof Ronald Hutton". Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 11:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC)) Thank you once again. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 08:07, 29 July 2023 (UTC) Third statement by slatersteven On the subject of black VS white magic Prior to the 19thC witchcraft (and often magic in general) was seen as black, maleficarum (when they did not say it did not even exist). In the 19thC Fraiser and Murrey decided that witchcraft was, in fact, the survival of a "witch cult" suppressed by the Christian church, and was not black magic, this was accepted up until about the mid 20thC as the standard view. It is this that most (all?) versions of modern witchcraft (and indeed satanism) are based. But not (it seems in the rest of the world) Post-mid 20thC this view has been widely condemned as (in essence) wishful thinking with no basis in reality, and that witches were (to put it crudely) sad old ladies (in fact not always, but that is the common image, the old crone) who were not even witches (and maybe just old and lonely, victims of social problems). Again this seems to be a western view, and in many other places witchcraft is still seen as malevalant, and distinct from "white magic". It's all a bit too nuanced for the lede. Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 29 July 2023 (UTC) Third statement by Darker Dreams My position is that there are at least three types of "witchcraft" to discuss - neopagan, diabolic (historical malicious witchcraft belief in which has driven witch hunts), and traditional/folkloric/etc. I do not agree that "The main difference appears to be whether to give primary attention to the belief in black magic, or to give approximately equal attention to the belief in black magic, and to modern neopagan religions." This is how the discussion has been inaccurately characterized by others; however, it inappropriately simplifies all definitions outside "black magic" to "Neopagan." Folkloric traditions, for example, can be shown prior to Christianization in multiple places in Africa, the Americas, Oceania, and even parts of Europe (not invoking the witch cult). Darker Dreams (talk) 10:08, 29 July 2023 (UTC) I have real issues with the fact it was announced that compromise language has been worked out on other witchcraft-related articles where it arguably doesn't even belong. While I can see a need to address the stereotypes and conflicts that have come because the definition of "the use of magic or supernatural powers to cause harm and misfortune to others" exists, but I am not clear why it requires prominence in the Wicca or Neopagan Witchcraft pages. More frustratingly; two of the individuals involved with this addition have been listed parties in this dispute but have had limited participation in this discussion, and have accused me of POV pushing on other articles. Darker Dreams (talk) 15:50, 29 July 2023 (UTC) Third statement by Skyerise I object to characterizations made by CorbieVreccan, especially their repeated labeling of editors as "Neopagan POV pushers". CorbieVreccan's second statement does not address the content issue, but merely hurls accusations. I request that it be struck and that this user be warned that we are supposed to be discussing content, not contributors, and that if this attitude continues, that this editor be removed from the moderation as having a non-productive attitude. I, for one, am not a Neopagan or a witch, and do not believe in the witch-cult hypothesis. I'm not sure anyone else here does either (show of hands?), yet CorbieVreccan seems to believe that by accusing editors of this, it invalidates their positions. I don't even think these accusations are true. In any case, these kinds of comments are not helpful and the user should be warned. Skyerise (talk) 12:23, 29 July 2023 (UTC) And what's with the stalking of my conversations with other editors. Isn't CorbieVreccan an admin? Is this appropriate behavior for an admin? Sorry to bring this up here, but I don't want to be accused of WP:FORUMSHOPPING if I take the stalking issue to another venue. Skyerise (talk) 12:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC) Now, back to the actual topic: Asarlaí, Iskandar323, and I seem to have worked out a compromise wording at Wicca based on the most recent EB article, which I've also transferred to Neopagan witchcraft in the same context. That wording goes: Historically, the term "witchcraft" has meant the use of magic or supernatural powers to cause harm and misfortune to others. According to Encyclopedia Britannica, "Witchcraft thus defined exists more in the imagination of contemporaries than in any objective reality. Yet this stereotype has a long history and has constituted for many cultures a viable explanation of evil in the world." References I suggest this second sentence be added to the lead paragraph at Witchcraft. I also think the two sources used here for the first sentence are completely adequate, but if other editors insist on 7 citations... Skyerise (talk) 12:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC) Reply to @Darker Dreams: Yes, I completely agree with the fact that this material should actually be removed from those articles rather than qualified. Yet after many reverts of my edits accompanied by repeated accusations of POV-pushing and a report against me for 3RR, I feel intimidated into not removing the material more than once, and I was reverted the first time I tried to remove it. So the compromise wording might be useful to resolve this dispute, but it should be removed from Neopagan witchcraft and Wicca. When other editors in this dispute started changing Wicca, I asked that it be protected, but that request was ignored, so here we are... Apparently those articles are not covered by this DR, and I would have no problem with you removing those two sentences altogther. Skyerise (talk) 16:00, 29 July 2023 (UTC) Third statement by Pliny the Elderberry I'll keep this to a few simple, numbered thoughts. 1. In my personal understanding, this is a broad concept article about malevolent witchcraft. Other forms of witchcraft have their own articles. Insofar as there is ambiguity, in my mind, it lies in whether this article needs clarification by being retitled to "Witchcraft (malevolent)" or whether the average English speaker instinctively holds "witchcraft" to be the common name for malevolent magic. I do not have a strong opinion either way on that. 2. Since Neopagan witchcraft and popular culture references to witchcraft were inspired by cultural belief in malevolent witchcraft (albeit subsequently reinterpreted) they merit brief mention in the article. 3. The same inclusion should not be extended to supernatural practices not understood within their own cultures as malevolent witchcraft. This is all the more true when even the sources do not describe the practices as witchcraft. I am thinking here specifically of the entire Cook Islands section of the article, which besides which seems to be partly copy-pasted. Such material is irrelevant to the topic and should be stricken. 4. Personal and straw-man attacks on both sides of this debate are unprofessional and unhelpful. Pliny the Elderberry (talk) 19:26, 29 July 2023 (UTC) Fourth statement by moderator (Witchcraft) I said earlier that we would focus on reworking the lede section, which will determine how the rest of the article should be structured. I think that we will focus even more specifically on the lede sentence, defining witchcraft, and possibly any second sentence that is needed to clarify the defining sentence. The current lede sentence states that witchcraft is usually seen as malevolent. The controversy seems to center on whether to keep the current lede sentence, or to replace it with a sentence or paragraph stating that 'witchcraft' has multiple meanings. So I am asking each editor to provide their proposed version of the beginning of the article on Witchcraft. The definition of different definitions may clarify what the viewpoints or camps are. If we can get down to two or three proposed definitions, then a Request for Comments on which one to use may allow us to move on to the rest of the article. So please provide the lede sentence or sentences, defining what 'witchcraft' is, so then the article can expand on that definition or definitions. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2023 (UTC) Fourth statements by Editors (Witchcraft) Fourth statement by Darker Dreams (Witchcraft) Witchcraft has a wide range of meanings based on historical, anthropological, religious, folkloric, and mythological contexts. A witch (from Old English wicce f. / wicca m.) is a practitioner of witchcraft. Darker Dreams (talk) 22:03, 30 July 2023 (UTC) Fourth statement by Esowteric (Witchcraft) Thank you, Mr Moderator and friends. Rather than reinvent the wheel, I would propose a lede along the lines of this Old revision of Witchcraft from 23:49, 30 December 2013, when the subject of witchcraft was dealt with much diffently and more inclusively. I offer this merely as a starting point for further revision: Witchcraft (also called witchery or spellcraft) is the use of magical faculties, most commonly for religious, divinatory or medicinal purposes. +A practitioner is a witch.+ This may take many forms depending on cultural context. The belief in and the practice of magic has been present since the earliest human cultures and continues to have an important religious and medicinal role in many cultures today. "Magic is central not only in 'primitive' societies but in 'high cultural' societies as well..." The concept of witchcraft as harmful is often treated as a cultural ideology providing a scapegoat for human misfortune. This was particularly the case in Early Modern Europe where witchcraft came to be seen as part of a vast diabolical conspiracy of individuals in league with the Devil undermining Christianity, eventually leading to large-scale witch-hunts, especially in Protestant Europe. Witch hunts continue to this day with tragic consequences. In the early 1900s, Margaret Murray proposed what became known as the witch-cult hypothesis, the idea that an underground pagan religion had survived in the Christian era. This has since been debunked, but especially in the mid-20th century it gave rise to a growing interest in neopaganism and the foundation of contemporary witchcraft movements and religions such as Wicca. ... Etc ... I've modified the last paragraph to include the debunked witch-cult hypothesis. Have left the Adler ref there, but I haven't had time to check through that or other references. I'm just trying to get a rough "feel" for the lede, which will need to be rigorously reworked. I don't like that quote about alleged "primitive societies", rather than Indigenous. Could others here please propose alternative lede sentences, as requested by the moderator, as my proposal is very sketchy and needs work. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 07:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC) References Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 07:15, 31 July 2023 (UTC) Fourth statement by Skyerise (Witchcraft) I'd go with: Witchcraft has a wide range of meanings in anthropological, folkloric, mythological, and religious contexts. Historically and traditionally, the term "witchcraft" has meant the use of magic or supernatural powers to cause harm and misfortune to others. According to Encyclopedia Britannica, "Witchcraft thus defined exists more in the imagination of contemporaries than in any objective reality. Yet this stereotype has a long history and has constituted for many cultures a viable explanation of evil in the world." A witch (from Old English wicce f. / wicca m.) is a practitioner of witchcraft. I also find CorbieVreccan's suggestion fine, provided the following be appended as the immediately following sentence: [...] According to Encyclopedia Britannica, "Witchcraft thus defined exists more in the imagination of contemporaries than in any objective reality. Yet this stereotype has a long history and has constituted for many cultures a viable explanation of evil in the world." References Fourth statement section (but third statement) by CorbieVreccan (Witchcraft) A note on using Margot Adler to source "traditional" as referring to witches as healers. Margot published this in 1979, as a Gardnerian Wiccan High Priestess. Aidan Kelly and the others had not yet published their analysis of the Gardnerian Book of Shadows, and Margot still believed the now-debunked Witch-cult theory. I don't know if she published anything retracting any of this before she died. But Drawing Down the Moon shouldn't be used to source the Witch-cult hypothesis as real. I know she did not investigate it before writing DDTM. The straw man attacks have reached ridiculous levels. No one here wants to say innocents who call themselves witches are secretly harmful. But the truth is there are communities where this is the perception of people if they use this word. It is more protective of these innocents to be honest in the articles so they know the global view. Wikipedia is not here to try to force a change in definitions on the public. We can't 100% separate the articles because of the terms. As long as the Wiccans and neopagan "witches" call themselves "witches", there will be confusion. But this is easily accomplished with the hatnotes and, as we had it, a sentence or two in the lede, with links, and one small section in the body, that takes the time to distinguish the main branches and refer readers to those articles. Simple. First sentence. I think it needs several short ones. This is a slightly tightened up version that seemed to have consensus for a while: Witchcraft is the exercise of supernatural power. Someone who uses witchcraft, or believes they are doing so, is a witch. Traditionally, "witchcraft" means the use of magic or supernatural powers to inflict harm or misfortune on others, and this remains the most common and widespread meaning. References Fourth statement section (but third statement) by Asarlaí (Witchcraft) There are really only two meanings of 'witchcraft'. One is the traditional, historical and still most widespread meaning: malevolent magic, which the article is about. The other is a recent re-definition used by some neopagans: Neopagan witchcraft. The word 'witch' might be used more broadly than this, but not 'witchcraft'. I broadly agree with CorbieVreccan's proposed opening line above: Witchcraft is the exercise of supernatural power. Someone who uses witchcraft, or believes they are doing so, is a witch. Traditionally, "witchcraft" means the use of magic or supernatural powers to inflict harm or misfortune on others, and this remains the most common and widespread meaning. I would be fine with Skyerise's suggestion to follow that with a quote similar to this: According to Encyclopedia Britannica, witchcraft "exists more in the imagination of contemporaries than in any objective reality". However, I wouldn't include the rest of the quote, because it's only talking about the typical portrayal of witches in Europe "indulging in cannibalism and orgiastic rites with the Devil". It doesn't say that harmful magic is 'just a stereotype'. It would be absurd not to include the main meaning of witchcraft (malevolent magic) in the opening line. There was a request to move Witchcraft so that this meaning is no longer the main topic. At least 11 editors were against, and only 4 editors were for it. This minority of editors may have posted the most, but consensus on the Witchcraft talkpage is that the article should continue to be about the main meaning, so the opening line should reflect that. – Asarlaí (talk) 13:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC) References Fourth statement by Esowteric (Witchcraft): Addendum In defence of using Margot Adler's Drawing down the Moon (1981) as a reliable source: Thank you, Mr Moderator and friends. A quick flick through the book and search for the term "murray" reveals that the author is well aware of the witch-cult hypothesis and scholarly opinion against it. She agrees that Murray's hypothesis is flawed, while some of her ideas are well-founded, and provides a nuanced and knowledgeable treatment of the subject: Margot Adler writes in Drawing down the Moon (1981), of "The Myth of Wicca": 'Many have observed that myths should never be taken literally. This does not mean that they are "false", only that to understand them one must separate poetry from prose, metaphorical truth from literal reality. 'The Wiccan revival starts with a myth, one that Bonewits used to call—much to the anger of many Witches—"the myth of the Unitarian, Universalist, White Witchcult of Western Theosophical Britainy.'" (p45). ...'Until five years ago most of the Wicca took almost all elements of the myth seriously. Few do so today.' ... 'Many scholars refuted the literal accuracy of the myth and then dismissed the modern Craft itself as a fraud. This they still tend to do. (p46) Regarding "The Murrayite Controversy", Adler writes: 'Murray's theories held sway for quite some time. In the last fifteen years, however, they have come under attack. The arguments against her are many: that she took as true stories that may have been fabricated under torture; that, while she gave good evidence for Pagan survivals in Britain, she did not give evidence of an organized Pagan religion survived, or that this religion was universal, or that covens or sabbats existed before they appeared in the Inquisitors' reports. 'The primary value of Murray's work was her understanding of the persistence of Pagan folk customs in Britain and her realization that Witchcraft could not be examined in isolation from the comparative history of religions or from the study of anthropology and folklore. But most scholars today view her work as filled with errors.' (pp48–49) 'Next, Cohn takes on the idea of witchcraft as the survival of a fertility cult.' ... 'He is completely contemptuous of Murray.' (p50). 'Most covens meet at "esbats". Most scholars believe that Murray invented this term.' (p108) Eliade argued eighty years ago 'that most historians considered that Western witchcraft was the invention of the inquisition.' ... 'In contrast Murray argued that Witchcraft was an ancient pre-Christian fertility religion. Although her method and information were wrong, he writes, her assumption "that there existed a pre-Christian fertility cult and that specific survivals of this pagan cult were stigmatized during the Middle Ages as witchcraft" was, in fact, correct and has been borne out by more recent investigations of Indo-Tibetan and Romanian materials.' (p330) Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 09:57, 3 August 2023 (UTC) Fifth statement by moderator (Witchcraft) There appear to be two main versions of the introduction to the lede being proposed by different editors. They both begin with a statement such as: Witchcraft (also called witchery or spellcraft) is the use of magical faculties, most commonly for religious, divinatory or medicinal purposes. A practitioner is a witch. This may take many forms depending on cultural context. The difference between some of the versions and some other versions is whether the general statement is followed by a qualifier that witchcraft often refers to malevolent witchcraft, such as: Traditionally, "witchcraft" means the use of magic or supernatural powers to inflict harm or misfortune on others, and this remains the most common and widespread meaning. The content dispute appears to be about whether to include the qualifier that it often refers to malevolent use of magic, or to omit such a qualifier. A decision on whether to include such a qualifier will then largely determine what the broad concept for this article is. I think that the next step is to agree on an introductory statement, and then use a Request for Comments to decide whether to add the qualifier about malevolent use. I am asking all of the editors to see if they can work to agree on an introductory statement. If you have already offered introductory language, it is not necessary to repeat yourself. I encourage the editors to engage in discussion in the section for the purpose, with the objective of agreeing on basic introductory language, so that we can later ask the community whether the qualifying language about malevolence is appropriate. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC) Fifth statements by editors (Witchcraft) Back-and-forth discussion of introductory statement (Witchcraft) I am partially supportive of the template proposed by Corbie and Asarlaí, which reads as follows: "Witchcraft is the exercise of supernatural power. Someone who uses witchcraft, or believes they are doing so, is a witch. Traditionally, "witchcraft" means the use of magic or supernatural powers to inflict harm or misfortune on others, and this remains the most common and widespread meaning." I do, however, have some serious misgivings. The great majority of "witchcraft" is not an actual, real practice that people identify with, but a cultural fear phenomenon that seeks to attribute human agency to bad luck or provide a framework (excuse) to discipline social outsiders. To say that a witch is somebody who actually does practice witchcraft seems to largely limit the label to practitioners of Neopagan Witchcraft and Brujería. This gives great prominence to (mostly benign) practitioners who constitute a fraction of global "witchcraft" and subsequently prejudices them when the next sentence describes witchcraft as malevolent. I still believe that this is a broad concept article about malevolent witchcraft, and that malevolent witchcraft exists overwhelmingly as a phobia and projection rather than an actual practice. As such, I propose something like this: "Witchcraft is the exercise of supernatural power. Traditionally, "witchcraft" means the use of magic or supernatural powers to inflict harm or misfortune on others, and this remains the most common and widespread meaning, albeit with notable exceptions. Someone who uses witchcraft, or is believed to do so, may be termed a witch." The following paragraph should summarize the social function and explanation of belief in witchcraft, and a following paragraph should note the existence of practices self-identified as witchcraft that differ fundamentally in practice from the traditional understanding of the concept. This suggestion is still rough and a little clunky so I welcome suggestions.Pliny the Elderberry (talk) 20:39, 4 August 2023 (UTC) I pretty much agree on all points made here by Pliny the Elderberry and their proposed introductory text. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 08:15, 5 August 2023 (UTC) ... and I'd be glad to see some variant on Skyerise's "[...] According to Encyclopedia Britannica, "Witchcraft thus defined exists more in the imagination of contemporaries than in any objective reality. Yet this stereotype has a long history and has constituted for many cultures a viable explanation of evil in the world."[4]" incorporated into the lede, too. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 08:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC) Fifth statement by Skyerise (Witchcraft) To keep it brief, I can accept the proposal by Asarlaí to use an abbreviated quotation in the text of the lead, as long as the full quotation in the citation itself is included as I posted it.This seems fair since the quotations for the definition include more material than needed to establish the historical and traditional definition. Skyerise (talk) 21:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC) Sixth statement by moderator (Witchcraft) I would like to select two or three versions of the lede, so that the community can choose between them, and then the article can be reworked to reflect the selected emphasis. One of the versions should include a statement that witchcraft usually refers to the malevolent use of magic. I will start by proposing that the choice be between A and B, and A and B will be: A: Witchcraft is the exercise of supernatural power. Someone who uses witchcraft, or believes they are doing so, is a witch. B: Witchcraft is the exercise of supernatural power. Someone who uses witchcraft, or believes they are doing so, is a witch. Traditionally, "witchcraft" means the use of magic or supernatural powers to inflict harm or misfortune on others, and this remains the most common and widespread meaning. Please propose alternatives for A and B. You may also propose a C, if it has a different emphasis. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:11, 6 August 2023 (UTC) Sixth statements by editors (Witchcraft) Statement by DIYeditor This may be largely a semantic dispute. Clearly the idea of magic use (and magic using women) predates Christianity. Whether Hecate is referred to as a "witch" or a "sorceress" or any other similar term doesn't change what she was, or that she was worshipped in pagan religion. Whether we refer to Freyja as a "trollkvinna" (old word) or "häxe" (modern Swedish word) or wikt:witch (Old English word that predates Christianity) is just down to choice of words. What she practiced was "trollkonst" regardless of what word we choose for it. What does matter is that the worship of "witches" and the practice of magic does date to pagan religions associated with the languages which give us many of the words we use today, including "witch" and "witchcraft". "wiċċecræft" is a word that predates Christianity and predates persecution of witches. To me it is unacceptable for this article to not firmly acknowledge the real history of "wiċċecræft". Surely, the persecution of people imagined to be witches is quite relevant as well, but that doesn't change the longer history of the idea. This is not about neo-Pagans, it's about Hecate, Freyja, etc. and their followers. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC) The problem with A is that not all exercises of supernatural power are witchcraft. If God exercises supernatural power it is not witchcraft. If Greek goddesses other than Hecate do things with supernatural power it is not necessarily witchcraft. I think we need a more specific definition, but I definitely think malevolency should be omitted from it. I would go more with something like (not finalized just to work from): C: Witchcraft is the exercise of certain types of supernatural powers. For much of the Christian era, this was associated with doing harm to others and the worship of Satan. In other contexts, it may be viewed as beneficial, benign or appropriate. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC) I also have some concern that "witchcraft", "magic" and "sorcery" are even distinct ideas... —DIYeditor (talk) 13:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC) Sixth Statement by Esowteric (Witchcraft) C (or lesser support for A): Option A can be rebutted because it is not qualified with a statement about the scholarly consensus that witchcraft is most often taken to mean malevolent use. Option B can be rebutted because the statement about malevolent use is not itself qualified. Option C looks like it makes a good attempt at compromise. So, for now, I'm willing to go along with some variation on that theme. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 16:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC) For reference, this is the existing introduction to Witchcraft (for which there was no consensus), to which I will assign the identifier D: D: Witchcraft, as most commonly understood in both historical and present-day communities, is the use of alleged supernatural powers of magic, generally stereotyped as doing harm or evil." Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 19:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC) Sixth section Statement by CorbieVreccan (Witchcraft) B. To be followed by clarifying sentences as discussed in previous statements. This is what we have consensus for. Also noting that we need to keep respecting the consensus of the page move discussion, not just the voices of those who have the time, endurance, and thick skin to keep posting in this back and forth. Sometimes it seems these processes are designed to wear down the typical Wikipedian. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 18:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC) Sixth Statement by Netherzone (Witchcraft) B - solidly, option B. I concur that we must also take into consideration the discussion on Article talk, as we had already formed a consensus there before this DRN was opened. It has been hard for me to follow this drawn out DRN, as I'm vacationing presently. Netherzone (talk) 03:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC) Seventh statement by moderator (Witchcraft) Maybe a clarification is in order. I am not asking the participants in this DRN to vote on how to open the article on witchcraft. This is preliminary. There will be a Request for Comments . This is a discussion of what the choices should be in the RFC. An editor says that we need to respect the consensus results of the page move RM. The consensus result of the page move was only not to implement the proposed page move. I do not see any broader consensus other than not to implement the page move. I will begin developing a draft RFC with options A, B, and C. Are there any questions at this point? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC) Statement 7.1 by moderator (Witchcraft) The draft RFC is available at Talk:Witchcraft/Draft RFC. Please review it and comment on it. Tweak it if you are sure that your tweak will be an improvement but will not change the meaning. Do not vote at this time. This is not a live RFC, yet. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:40, 8 August 2023 (UTC) Seventh statements by editors (Witchcraft) Seventh Statement by Darker Dreams I would like to point to my previous suggestion. At a minimum, I am distressed that all the current versions open with the phrase "Witchcraft is the exercise of supernatural power," as that specifically excludes existing definitions that center on traditional knowledge or symbolic action. - Darker Dreams (talk) 08:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC) Eighth statement by moderator (Witchcraft) I have added E to the RFC. I can submit the RFC at any time, but will first ask if we can agree to reduce or consolidate the number of choices for the RFC, so that we don't get a scattering of answers that will be called No Consensus by the closer. Does anyone have any questions, or have any ideas for reducing the number of options? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC) Eighth statements by editors (Witchcraft) Eighth Statement by Darker Dreams There are 5 opening paragraphs (six, if you count the one suggested by user:Pliny the Elderberry, but not currently included). However, the first three versions have essentially the same opening sentence. The next (currently D) version has a similar opening sentence which has integrated aspects that are addressed later for other versions. Pliny's suggestion is also a variation on the opening sentence. It is after that where the variations between versions increase. I've never been involved in an RfC, but perhaps we can make it multiple questions? In conversation thus far, people have tended to move around the pieces like legos; this opening with that qualification. RfC Proposal Draft Which of the following opening sentences, A, B, C, D, or E, should be used to introduce the article on Witchcraft? A: Witchcraft is the exercise of supernatural power. B: Witchcraft is the exercise of certain types of supernatural powers. C: Witchcraft is a type of magical practice. D: Witchcraft, as most commonly understood in both historical and present-day communities, is the use of alleged supernatural powers of magic, generally stereotyped as doing harm or evil. E: Witchcraft has a wide range of meanings based on historical, anthropological, religious, folkloric, and mythological contexts. The article for witch has been merged with witchcraft. Which of the following opening sentences, X, Y, or Z, should follow the above sentence to introduce this aspect: X: Someone who uses witchcraft, or believes they are doing so, is a witch. Y: Someone who uses witchcraft, or is believed to do so, may be termed a witch. Z: A witch is a practitioner of witchcraft. Which of the following additional statements should be included in the opening paragraphs: 0: (No additional qualifiers or definitions in lede) 1: Traditionally, "witchcraft" means the use of magic or supernatural powers to inflict harm or misfortune on others, and this remains the most common and widespread meaning. 2: Traditionally, "witchcraft" means the use of magic or supernatural powers to inflict harm or misfortune on others, and this remains the most common and widespread meaning, albeit with notable exceptions. 3: For much of the Christian era, this was associated with doing harm to others and the worship of Satan. 4: In some contexts, it may be viewed as beneficial, benign, or appropriate. I took the existing suggestions and broke them down as I was suggesting. Looking at it constructed (expanded) that way I'm not sure it'd actually help unless we can collapse some options that are similar. Darker Dreams (talk) 22:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC) Great thanks. Maybe this could be noted at Talk:Witchcraft/Draft RFC? —DIYeditor (talk) 23:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC) Ninth statement by moderator (Witchcraft) The proposed draft reworking of the RFC is useful. I will be making similar changes in the draft subpage within 3648 hours, and then asking for comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:20, 11 August 2023 (UTC) Ninth statements by editors (Witchcraft) I continue to have concerns about semantics, etymology, and whether this article should even exist as separate from magic (supernatural). Again, are Circe, Hecate, Freyja and so on witches or sorceresses and what is the difference? The articles witch and witch hunt can cover persecution of people imagined to be witches. I'm not convinced this article is necessary but given the dispute here I can only imagine how a merger to magic (supernatural) would go. —DIYeditor (talk) 15:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC) Tenth statement by moderator (Witchcraft) A revised multi-part version of the RFC is now available for review. One editor has expressed possible disagreement with the need for this article. If multiple editors agree that this article should be deleted, or merged into Magic (supernatural), or some other article, we can have a Merge Request instead of an RFC. It appears that multiple editors have opinions as to what should be in the article (rather than nothing), in which case we need an RFC. So, any editor who doesn't want this article to be a stand-alone article should say so. Otherwise the RFC will be started soon. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2023 (UTC) Tenth statements by editors (Witchcraft) Continued back-and-forth discussion of introductory statement (Witchcraft) A. Skyerise (talk) 12:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:1st Armoured Division (United Kingdom)‎

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by EnigmaMcmxc on 23:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:1st Armoured Division (United Kingdom) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved EnigmaMcmxc (talk · contribs) Buckshot06 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Staying as neutral as possible (until my opinion is requested): An on and off again dispute about where content (on British Cold War armoured divisions) should go, which has been going on since 2020. It is currently focused on this page (which has included both of us edit-warring), but has included 1st (United Kingdom) Division, ‎2nd Armoured Division (United Kingdom), 2nd Infantry Division (United Kingdom) and a host of others that contain links to these various articles. An RFC was previously attempted but did little to stem the disagreement (it created more of a ceasefire). Various reviews of the articles appear to have developed a consensus on where the content should go, based on discussions around lineage. A new discussion was recently had on the talkpage, which has hit a deadend. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2nd Armoured Division (United Kingdom), [[7]], [[8]], Talk:1st (United Kingdom) Division, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/1st Armoured Division (United Kingdom), Talk:1st Armoured Division (United Kingdom) How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? This is a discussion that has been going on since 2020 and has recently intensified. We all need to discuss what the sources state and establish consensus on the matter. Summary of dispute by Buckshot06 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The British Army established two armoured divisions in 1939. 1st Armoured Division was established in 1939, then disbanded 1945. It was reestablished in 1978, and disbanded in 2014. 2nd Armoured Division was established in 1939, and destroyed in 1941; reestablished in 1976, disbanded 1982. An adequate history for both periods of history, Second World War, and postwar, belongs at both the articles 1st Armoured Division (United Kingdom) (1939-45 and 1978-2014) and 2nd Armoured Division (United Kingdom) (1939-41 and 1976-82). But when I try to add referenced text about the later period(s), EnigmaMxmxc removes it. He has advanced no sources arguing that the second periods of existence in the late 1970s represent a total and qualitative break from the Second World War periods of existence (sometimes termed a break in the 'lineage'), but will not allow me to add text regarding the later periods. We're in a revert war. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC) Summary of dispute by EnigmaMcmxc Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The sources outline that the 1st and the 2nd Divisions underwent various name changes during their long existences. During the Cold War, both these formations were labeled as armoured divisions. The sources (cited in all the articles and on the talkpages) indicate that there was no break in lineage when they were renamed; they were the same formation, they maintained the same history, the same insignias etc. For example, Buckshot asserts the 1st Armoured Division was reestablished or formed in 1976. Multiple sources state otherwise, such as the The British Army's website. Separate to these two formations, were two armoured divisions (1st and 2nd Armoured Division) that were formed in the 1930s and had ceased to exist by the end of the Second World War. No source states that these two formations were reformed or that they had anything to do with the Cold War armoured divisions (even if they shared the same name). These two formations even existed at the same time as the 1st and 2nd Divisions (when they were infantry formations). The sources (cited in all the articles) support the point of these all being separate formations. Buckshot has asserted otherwise and has not provided a single source in over two years of making this claim, hence why his edits keep getting reverted. During the review process for the 1st and 2nd Div and the 1st and 2nd Arm Div articles (linked above), editors have continually made this point that despite similar names these are all different formations. I have compiled with that established consensus, which is also in line with what the sources state. Buckshot asserts that despite multiple reviewers making this point, there is no consensus. He has fashioned no source to establish why that consensus is wrong.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC) Zeroth Statement by Moderator (1st Armoured) I will try to moderate this dispute. Please read the ground rules. Do you agree to moderated discussion subject to the rules? Be civil and concise. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address your comments to the community and the moderator (me) as the representative of the community. Now, will each editor please state concisely what in the article you either want changed, or what you want left the same that the other editor wants changed? At this time, I am only asking what you want changed, and not why. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC) Thank you for moderating and I agree to follow the rules. My position is that the status quo needs to be maintained on all the above mentioned articles.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 05:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC) Zeroth Statements by Editors (1st Armoured) I categorically reject the suggestion that removal of the two later periods of history has been specifically endorsed by any consensus of editors. Concisely, I believe a history for both periods, Second World War, and postwar, belongs at both the articles 1st Armoured Division (United Kingdom) (1939-45 and 1978-2014) and 2nd Armoured Division (United Kingdom) (1939-41 and 1976-82). Buckshot06 (talk) 11:23, 29 July 2023 (UTC) Talk:1st Armoured Division (United Kingdom)‎ discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - The other editor has not been notified of this filing. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:09, 28 July 2023 (UTC) Apologies, I was under the impression that it would automatically alert after typing usernames in.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:49, 28 July 2023 (UTC) Volunteer Note - It isn't clear to me from reading this filing and the article talk page what the issue is. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:09, 28 July 2023 (UTC) I looked at EnigmaMcmxc's contributions and came here, though yes, I was not notified: is my summary clear as to what I believe should be the policy? Buckshot06 (talk) 05:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC) I tried to provide a neutral overview, although I have just entered a summary section for myself so hopefully my position in this dispute is clear also.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC) Question - Isn't the whole point of this exercise to stop this from happening until we establish a path forward?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC) First Statement by Moderator (1st Armoured) I am trying to understand exactly what the issue is, and what the effect is on what the article or articles should say. Am I correct that there was a First Armoured Division, and then there wasn't a First Armoured Division, and then there was a First Armoured Division again? Is the issue whether to describe it as one division with a break in its existence, or as two divisions that only happen to have the same name? Is that the issue? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:11, 29 July 2023 (UTC) If that is the issue, please explain why your view will result in the encyclopedia being more informative to readers. If that isn't the issue, please explain what the issue is, in terms of how it affects what the reader will see. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:11, 29 July 2023 (UTC) First Statements by Editors (1st Armoured) Please excuse any formatting errors. But, yes, you are correct in stating the name has come and gone a few times and that the argument is about how to describe that. I think a little extra context is needed, and a timeline for both separate formations in general terms: 1st Division 1809–Present (known as the 1st Division between 1809–1879; No. 1 Division in 1879; depending on the source 1st Division/1st Infantry Division between 1899–1900; 1st Division from 1902–~1939; 1st Infantry Division ~1939–~1959; 1st Division ~1959–1978; 1st Armoured Division 1978–1993; 1st (UK) Armoured Division 1993–2014; 1st (UK Division) 2014–Present) Mobile Division 1937–1945 (initially known as the Mobile Division until 1939, when it was renamed the "Armoured Division". Depending on the source, the numeral can either be inferred from this point forward or was officially adopted by September 1939) My position is that the articles need to follow what the sources state and provide readers with a history of both of these formations. I oppose the argument that we should ignore what the source says and conflate two separate formations into one article, which will just confuse readers into thinking they are one and the same. As a reader then an editor, I was extremely confused by the prior state of the 1st Div/1st Arm Div articles when comparing them to what published, and MOD-related articles had to same on the subject. I would also highlight the same confusion when working on the 2nd Armoured Division article, which included a Cold War section. Since it was there, and I wanted to improve the overall article, I worked on it without considering the Cold-War era context (the same overall position as this debate) and when reviewers looked at it, they were confused as to why it was there as it conflated two formations into one; based on that consensus, it was moved to where it resides now in the 2nd Div article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC) First Statement by Buckshot06 To answer your question, Robert McClenon, "there was a First Armoured Division, and then there wasn't a First Armoured Division, and then there was a First Armoured Division again?" --> this is exactly the case. Same in essentials for the Second Armoured Division. "Is the issue whether to describe it as one division with a break in its existence, or as two divisions that only happen to have the same name?" --> Yes. As what I've written immediately above indicates, there are two armoured divisions at issue, each with a break in their existence, and I see no reason why the two periods of history should not be presented together. No sources have been put forward to say that "they only happen to have the same name." Nothing that proves a clean break in existence. Logic would suggest that information on the same subject is presented together, which is best for readers. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:32, 29 July 2023 (UTC) Second Statement by Moderator (1st Armoured) It appears that we agree that there was a break in the existence of the division, and then a division with the same name was created. The question is whether one article can cover both divisions, because they are two phases in the life of the division, or whether we need two articles. At this point I will ask whether either editor can point to a policy reason why we should have one article, or why we should have two articles. I am not really asking about policies such as Use Common Sense, which tell us to reason it out. This question applies both to the First Armoured Division and the Second Armoured Division, and any other divisions with a similar break in their history. I will also ask whether either editor can quote a reliable source or official source that states that the second division is a successor to the first division, or that the second division is not a successor to the first division. If the question isn't resolved by policy, or by an official source, then we will decide based on which approach is more helpful to the reader of the encyclopedia. But we won't address those considerations in this phase of moderated discussion. So answer the questions about policy, and about official statements. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:14, 30 July 2023 (UTC) Second Statements by Editors (1st Armoured) Again, apologies for any formatting errors and also that this will be bit lengthily since it will be largely source-based. Each link below goes to the exact source so they can be read, with the exception of two books as there no available links. On the understanding that the 1st Armoured Division, between the period of 1978 and 2014, is the same formation as the now 1st (UK) Division and therefore any information to do with it should be in that article; I would state that Wikipedia:Article titles allows for the current name and scope. It outlines to use the common name, which is the current name of the division rather than a prior name (such as when it was called 1st Armoured or 1st Infantry). Likewise, the same policy acknowledges that multiple entities can have similar names and that disambiguation pages, pages with different titles etc. are needed to cover them all (in this case, one article for the history of the 1st Division (1809–present), one article for history of the 1st Armoured Division (1937–1945), and ditto for the 2nd Div/2nd Arm Div). More to the point Wikipedia:Verifiability states that the wiki should follow what the sources say. The sources line up with the timeline outlined in my prior response. The ones that state the 1st Armoured Division (1978–2014) is the same formation as the 1st Division/1st (UK) Division: See the British Army's website, when the division was still called the 1st Armoured Division. Please note "The Division has existed in the British Army since 1809", the references to the early orders of battle to foster a link with Germany: "since its inception in the 1800s the 1st (UK) Armoured Division has had strong links with this part of Germany.". The current version of the website relates a lot of the same information and specifies where it fought, ignoring the locations that the Mobile Division fought providing further indication that the British Army sees these as two separate formations. In the 1990s, the division became part of NATO's Rapid Reaction Corps. Their website, also outlines the 1st Armoured Division (1978–present, at that point) being the same formation as the 1st Division formed in 1809. Likewise, see the Imperial War Musuem. Additionally, it highlights that the 1st Division's insignia was maintained after the name change, and that German officials made note of this. (As a side note, it also highlights when the insignia was changed to merge two designs-the then current 1st Division insignia, with the one used by the Mobile Division-and this appears to be the foundation mark for when "Team Rhino" started to be used as a descriptive by those within the division and is still in use today: Twitter and Instagram) The Royal Engineer's Association also outlines the same timeline Two editions of the formation's in-house divisional history also note that it had a history stretching back to 1809: Wilson, Peter Liddell (1985). The First Division 1809-1985: A Short Illustrated History. Viersen, Germany: 1st Armoured Division. OCLC 500105706. and Wilson, Peter Liddell (1993). The First Division 1809-1993: A Short Illustrated History (2nd ed.). Herford, Germany: 1st Division. OCLC 29635235. Even the veterans with their tongue-in-cheek ARRSE website point out that the 1st Armoured Division (1978–2014) is the same formation as the 1st Division and has existed since 1809 (obviously, not a WP:RS, but worth highlighting for the insider perspective). To address the point that there are two separate formations: 1st Division, which was called 1st Armoured Division between 1978–2014, and the Mobile Division that was called 1st Armoured Division between 1939–1945: Cliff Lord and Graham Watson's The Royal Corps of Signals. Between pp.23–26, these authors outline the history of the 1st Division including its name change to the 1st Armoured Division. They outline that despite the name change, it was the same formation. On p. 26, they outline the history of the Mobile Division. They do not state that the Mobile Division was reformed in 1978 and they do not state that the two formations were one and the same, despite sharing the same name. One will note that on p. 27, they highlight the short history of the third 1st Armoured Division (the 6th Armoured Division that was renamed for a short period before being disbanded). Per the review for the 1st Armoured Division article, it was decided to remove extensive information about this third formation as that belonged on the 6th Armoured Division page. Also, worth pointing out, as it was until recently extensively cited on such pages, is Colin Mackie's list of commanding officers. While not a WP:RS, in my opinion as it does not cite sources, Mackie is a retired schoolteacher who was awarded for his services to public history and heritage for creating lists such as this one. It highlights two separate histories and, prior to the article revamp, was used to cite the list of commanding officers (although only partially, as his list was ignored and split up between multiple articles). The greater context is that in the 1970s, the divisions of the British Army in Germany were already armoured formations (they were just called "1st Division" etc.) and then they were all renamed. The sources highlight that the renaming of these four formations did not include breaking their long-standing histories by creating new formations or reestablishing old ones (i.e. the Mobile Division being reformed). To conclude, if the division was formed in 1809 it cannot have been formed or reformed in 1978 and therefore two separate formations exist and two separate articles are needed to cover these two separate entities. Policy allows for this and does not demand everything be merged under one article, and doing so would go against the sources and conflate two separate formations as one that will confuse people for no reason.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC) Second Statement by Buckshot06 No, there is no "reliable source," nor "..official source that states that the second division is a successor to the first division, or that the second division is not a successor to the first division." Neither EnigmaMcmxc's belief, nor my belief, can be tied to an explicit source. Soldiers are generally much less emotionally attached to higher formations like divisions, while the British military community will trace the lineage of its regiments through hundreds of years down to every jot and title (and write uncounted histories on the subject). Thus when WP editors try to nail down things exactly and explicitly, they are at risk of pushing beyond WP:V. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:52, 1 August 2023 (UTC) Third Statement by Moderator (1st Armoured) I see three ways that we can resolve this content dispute. They will apply to the First Armoured Division and to any other British divisions that had two periods of existence, including the Second Armoured Division. First, one of the editors can agree to accept the other editor's approach, either because they are persuaded, or to avoid conflict. If so, we will have resolved the immediate content dispute. Second, the editors can agree to ask me for a Third Opinion. Third, we can use a Request for Comments to ask the community to decide. I think that the community is unlikely to find a 1000-word statement persuasive. So, EnigmaMcmxc, you will have to be more concise if we let the community decide. I am asking each editor to provide a concise statement that might be used in an RFC, explaining your view about what the article or articles should say about these divisions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC) Third Statements by Editors (1st Armoured) Honestly, with Buckshot's admission that "Neither ...my belief, can be tied to an explicit source", it makes me wonder why they have tried so hard to claim the current status of the articles are not supported. Why have they argued so hard for two years and have reverted so many edits aimed at adjusting the wiki to match what the sources say? Why have they ignored the prior consensus that was established by editors during the review process, which resulted in the current status of the articles (or as Buckshot has claimed, the current bastardized version - although with the new admission they don't have a source, how do they know they are bastardized?)? Why do they handwave away any official and secondary published sources that say the exact opposite of their position? I would say they are in breach of Wikipedia:No original research, but they have not even cited original research. Their entire position boils down to their opinion, and an unsupported one at that. However, I think there does need to be an official third opinion or a second RFC to finally conclude this. My own argument would be, per WP:V, we have to follow what the sources say. They include the British Army (ranging from the MOD website, to regimental and veteran associations, and to the division itself) and published secondary ones, which all state the 1st Division/1st Armoured Division/1st(UK)Div was formed in 1809. No source has been brought forward that states the 1st Division/1st Armoured Division is the same as the Mobile Division/1st Armoured Division, and no single source states that the Mobile Division/1st Armoured Division was reformed in 1978. Why should the wiki state anything different to what the sources state: two separate formations with two separate histories. i.e.: 1st (United Kingdom) Division, the current name for the 1st Division/1st Armoured Division, covering the formation's history from 1809 to present. 1st Armoured Division (United Kingdom), the common name, covering the Mobile Division from 1937–1945.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC) Third Statement by Buckshot06 I have been sticking to the rules here, and restricting my statements to those requested by the moderator. This is not the case with the first paragraph of the the third statement above, a back-and-forth response which is in breech of the instructions for this discussion. I protest. I believe the material for the second period of both 1st Armoured Division's and 2nd Armoured Division's existence can be presented at "both" articles, that is, 1st Armoured Division (United Kingdom), and 1st (United Kingdom) Division, and 2AD (UK) and 2nd Division (United Kingdom), without causing the encyclopedia undue harm. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:02, 3 August 2023 (UTC) Fourth Statement by Moderator (1st Armoured) I had said that two ways to resolve this dispute are a Third Opinion by the moderator (me), or a Request for Comments. If we use a Request for Comments, I will state the question concisely as whether to have one article about the divisions with the same name, or two articles. A long introduction to an RFC is not helpful. So if we will use an RFC, I will state the question in a neutral way, only about whether we should have one article about the name, or two articles. My opinion is that the article or articles should be written for ease of consultation by the reader, and to minimize confusion by the readers. The history and nomenclature is inherently confusing, but having one article for one name will be less confusing than splitting the article into two articles. That is my opinion. Buckshot06 refers to presenting the material for the second period of a division's existence at "both" articles. Maybe I don't understand, but that appears to be to have two articles containing the same information. That seems like a content fork, which is strongly discouraged, because the two articles will get out of sync over time. If there are currently two articles, one for each period, then either we should keep two articles, one for each period of time, or we should combine the two articles, and have one of the titles be a redirect to the article. So the real question should be whether to have one article, for both periods, with a redirect, or two articles, with hatnotes. Is that clear, or do I need to explain further? What other divisions are there that have the same issue? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2023 (UTC) Fifth Statement by Moderator (1st Armoured) Are they are any other divisions that have existed with the same or similar names besides the First Armoured Division? In particular, is there a similar issue with the Second Armoured Division? Are there any other divisions that either are the same unit with a break in its service or two units with the same name? Fifth Statements by Editors (1st Armoured) Fourth Statements by Editors (1st Armoured) The current status has two articles, each with a hatnote referring to the other with specific time periods mentioned to try to avoid the confusion you have alluded to, i.e: "For the Second World War armoured formation, see 1st Armoured Division (United Kingdom)."; "For the armoured formation formed during the Cold War and served in the Gulf War, see 1st (United Kingdom) Division." While I understand that your response is a mediating neutral one, to facilitate a conversation, I would object to the RFC wording referencing "periods of time" or the "second period of a division's existence", as I feel that comes down hard on side of this debate. I contend–based on the sources–that there are two entirely separate entities: 'Entity A' has existed since 1809, and still exists today, although yes it has gone through several name changes and periods of time when it ceased to exist. Then there is an 'Entity B', a completely separate formation, which existed for a short while in the 1930s and the 1940s, and with no source stating it was reformed for a 'second period of existence'. I trust whatever wording is chosen for an RFC will be neutral, but I also hope that we can link to relevant sources (without the commentary I included above) so that it is as informed as possible.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC) General Discussion As this process has gone on, I have been extremely busy in real life, which has allowed me to consider matters in various odd moments. For the moment, without prejudice to any past or future actions, I will cease reverting EnigmaMcmxc's preferred version of content. I will not attempt to revert either 1st Armoured Division (UK); 2nd Armoured Division (UK); or other majorly concerned articles. I will cease changing the links in the attached articles, so the edit war should cease. There is one place, however, at Iraqi Armed Forces, which is one my watchlist and is how I became aware that EnigmaMcmxc was determined to spread his preferred version of British divisional lineages beyond 1st (United Kingdom) Division to the 1AD and 2AD pages. I will remove that link, because it is not of vital concern to the history of the Iraqi Armed Forces, and substitute a link to a "British Army division." Those are the substantive actions I am about to take in regard to this dispute, significantly affected by questions about how important anything on this website is, as opposed to all the whole remainder of life. Either report conduct at a conduct forum, or don't report it. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC) In terms of user conduct, however, I am (a) about to lodge a complaint in an appropriate forum about EnigmaMcmxc's repeated and unjustified use of the word "vandalism;" and I was surprised to my core to (b) have a request for additional citations at 2nd Armoured Division (United Kingdom) regarding a short-lived regiment of the Royal Engineers again reverted, again with the use of the term "vandalism." I require advice about my understanding of <wiki></nowiki> tags; it was my understanding that such a tag should only be removed when another editor has found a covering citation. Subsequent to the revert, I found a suitable initial reference for very *existence* of the regiment, which was my concern, with a few moments' searching. This forum is designed to allow moderators to mediate between disputants. I am keen to hear from the moderator about an appropriate forum to proceed against EnigmaMcmxc as regards his repeated and unjustified use of the word "vandalism;" or pointers to other experts; as regards Mr EnigmaMcmxc, please take the paragraph above as advance notice that I will be proceeding against you in those matters. If the moderator so indicates, I will of course drop user talkpage advisories and/or other announcements. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:17, 4 August 2023 (UTC) Either report conduct at a conduct forum, or don't report it. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC) By all means, please go ahead. I look forward to it. You have not acted in good faith in about two years, even your opening swing in the above (my preferred version; it's not, it is the version that matches the sources that you have refused to read; its also the version that other editors have helped form to be in the state it is now.). Then there is your lie about when you found out: your first effort, just after the 1st AD article passed GA status vs when my first edit took place on the Iraq Armed Forces article. Not to mention the prior RFC and reviews you have commented on in the past two years. You even managed to gloss over the facts of today's little stunt (or should I say, and please use this against me too, when you spat your dummy out): you made yet another claim of things not being supported: "no such regiment existed", despite the source, a mere eight words away, that cited its very existence. What did you when that was reverted (with the summary highlighting not only that an official government record citing its existence, but one that also quoted a secondary source that provided exactly when it came into existence and how), you did not assume good faith, you did not ask questions on the talk page, you did not go and look up that quote, you decided well the Royal Engineers wiki article doesn't say it exists, therefore we need more fact tags. When that was reverted (since it not being mentioned on the RE wiki page is not a good enough reason), you switched back your old tactic of claiming it was not supported by a reliable source (1: I say old tactic, since that is the one you have been using on anything to do with 1D, 2D, 1AD, and 2AD for quite some time now; 2: since when is the Hansard record not a reliable source; especially in this context of just stating where a regiment had been deployed; 3: this is an article about the 2AD, it does not need elaborate citations to prove the existence of each and every regiment, that is what their own pages are for-granted one has not been created for this short-lived regiment, but that is not my problem). So yeah, I standby calling your edits vandalism: you have not acted in good faith, and you continually ignore any source you do not like (do you even read them?). Let's add fuel to fire against me, I am not sure how you could have been shocked to your very core today, since I have been calling your edits – that go against sources – as vandalism for quite a while now. I believe this was the first one. And, I will keep calling edits that go against the sources, that do not assume good faith, and decide that argumentative disruption is best policy (such as today) as vandalism.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC) Sixth Statement by Moderator (1st Armoured) What part of "Be civil and concise" didn't you understand? What part of "Be Civil" didn't you understand? If you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what vandalism is, you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know What Is Not Vandalism. DRN is not a conduct forum. If an editor actually thinks that there was vandalism, they may report it at the vandalism noticeboard or at WP:ANI. Do not Yell Vandalism if you don't intend to make a vandalism report. I have collapsed a post that violates the fourth pillar of Wikipedia, and will be reviewing other posts to see if anything else should be collapsed. I had been about to say that I am developing a draft RFC, which will run on the military history talk page. The draft RFC is not finished, but is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Division RFC . However, I am deferring that because I am waiting to see whether this moderated discussion can be brought back under control. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:58, 6 August 2023 (UTC) Sixth Statements by Editors (1st Armoured) Seventh Statement by Moderator (1st Armoured) I have provided a draft RFC for review on the subpage, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Division RFC . Does either editor have any comments about the RFC before I start it running? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC) Seventh Statements by Editors (1st Armoured) Eighth Statement by Moderator (1st Armoured) Does anyone have any comments or questions before I start the RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC) Eighth Statements by Editors (1st Armoured) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amatoxin

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by MycoMutant on 02:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. User KaiserTadd is making very poor edits which go against Wikipedia guidelines, for the purpose of winning a Reddit argument. KaiserTadd's repeated edits, which include repetitive and unsubstantiated information as well as incorrect spelling and grammar, should be seen as vandalism and the user barred from making Wikipedia edits. RdCrestdBreegull (talk) 06:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC) "RdCrestdBreegull" has not yet contributed to this page being edited in any way, nor is he apparently here to discuss the material. I do not find his presence on this dispute page to be welcome or appropriate for the purpose of addressing any dispute because he has not been involved in editing the page, nor in discussing the work being done to it on the talk page. He is trying to bring a disagreement here that he has with me on a 3rd party site. I would request that "RdCrestdBreegull" be excluded from this dispute resolution going forward because he is not concerned in any published material, talk discussion, or potential disputes of which this page should be the subject. KaiserTadd (talk) 02:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC) MycoMutant has not discussed the issues with me on the amatoxin talk page. He posted a single entry there to dictate his opinion over the page, to which I replied. He then filed a dispute resolution without making any response to the lengthy response I made in kind. I request that he actually discuss the issues as he raises them, before we proceed with a needless dispute resolution. It seems to me that MycoMutant is trying to assert control over this topic because I have made an addition to the make about the topic that he does not personally agree with, and this premature opening of a dispute resolution is a way to avoid an actual discussion. He needs to reply to the response I made before we could begin to proceed with a dispute resolution. KaiserTadd (talk) 00:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC) Typo, *made an addition to the topic KaiserTadd (talk) 00:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC) "RdCrestdBreegull" has not yet contributed to this page being edited in any way, nor is he apparently here to discuss the material. I do not find his presence on this dispute page to be welcome or appropriate for the purpose of addressing any dispute because he has not been involved in editing the page, nor in discussing the work being done to it on the talk page. He is trying to bring a disagreement here that he has with me on a 3rd party site. I would request that "RdCrestdBreegull" be excluded from this dispute resolution going forward because he is not concerned in any published material, talk discussion, or potential disputes that this page should be the subject. KaiserTadd (talk) 02:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC) Correction: this message should have been in reply to the other user above. KaiserTadd (talk) 02:07, 19 August 2023 (UTC) Mycomutant has not discussed this with me issue on the talk page See the above comment, first. @MycoMutant "@KaiserTadd is making repeated edits to this page inserting content that is neither supported by the studies cited nor remotely appropriate for Wikipedia. Instead of simply citing the data presented by the papers or finding other papers that present a contrary view they are inserting their own criticisms based on misunderstanding." The material I authored contains numerous citations to three different peer-reviewed, published research. At no time has the material ever been without citation to the research that it discusses. Nor is it inappropriate to do so. I have made several revisions already to changes to the material, and have been working to see that it is both factually correct and relevant. Despite this work, MycoMutant has deemed it his sole authority to repeatedly remove this material. I am glad that he asked to start a discussion on the talk page, however, he is not really participating in it, like he says. The claims being made in the dispute overview are neither actual, nor are they consistent with the material he continues to remove that is the subject of this dispute. In spite of asking for a discussion, not following through, and filing a dispute, he has continued to remove the material I made having revised it: MycoMutant is not actually behaving in a manner he says. At the time of the filing of this complaint, I had provided the response mentioned in the first comment above. He has not discussed this matter with me on the talk page as he asked prior to filing this dispute resolution. If he were not interested in having an edit war, he would not again remove the cited material until he discussed it with me. As of the filing of this dispute, I had both responded to his request for a discussion, and my material stood on the page. He continued to take it down, despite his claim that he is not interested in having an "edit war", i.e. inappropriate argument. I have had no chance to discuss the matter with him in any real detail, although I had already provided a detailed response to his comments. I am going to revert the page to include the submission I made because I feel that its removal until we actually have a discussion is unfair, inconsistent with your description of the issue, nor should we be having it until such could occur. Please, do not continue to remove it without first actually trying to resolve the issue with me. KaiserTadd (talk) 03:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC) Edit: Sorry for the typo in the underlined portion above (with me issue), I typed this all very quickly. KaiserTadd (talk) 03:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC) Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Amatoxin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved MycoMutant (talk · contribs) KaiserTadd (talk · contribs) Dispute overview @KaiserTadd is making repeated edits to this page inserting content that is neither supported by the studies cited nor remotely appropriate for Wikipedia. Instead of simply citing the data presented by the papers or finding other papers that present a contrary view they are inserting their own criticisms based on misunderstanding. Example: >The authors then grossly extrapolated this data to infer results about a much larger sample than they had available to analyze, as they reported their concentrations in milligrams toxin per gram of mushroom. >This confusion of "quantity" for "concentration" evidences further uncertainty as to the actual quantities that were measured, particularly in the spores, since the researchers did not use such a fair, representative sample size to obtain their data as they did with the other components That is the edited version too. I've removed this content 3 times now and taken the time to explain the issue on the talk page but they have added it back without addressing the fundamental issues raised. I'm just not interested in wasting any more time on this. It is evident that no attempts to discuss the matter are going to help and if I remove the content they will just put it straight back on. I have no interest in a pointless edit war. The entire reason for their edits to this page appears to be in order to try to win a series of arguments they got into on reddit a month or so back when they were making unsubstantiated claims about toxic mushrooms and generally spreading misinformation. Several users called them out over it and many downvoted them. A month later they edited this page and then spammed the wikipedia link to a bunch of the people they were arguing with in the month old thread. I became aware of the problematic content on the page (initially presented as wall of text in the intro) because of these links. It appears they have gone into editing with a bias and that is leading them to drawing the conclusions they want. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Amatoxin#Studies How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I honestly have no idea but it is evident that I cannot do it. Summary of dispute by KaiserTadd Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Amatoxin discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Comment and Question - In Wikipedia dispute resolution, there are article content disputes, and there are conduct disputes. Does the filing party consider this to be an article content dispute, or a conduct dispute? DRN only handles article content disputes, and tries to improve articles. The filing editor says that the other editor's edits should be considered vandalism, and that they should be barred from making such edits. Vandalism may be reported at the vandalism noticeboard or at WP:ANI, but not at DRN. If the filing editor is Yelling Vandalism to "win" a content dispute, they should stop yelling vandalism. If this is a content dispute, we have to assume good faith and avoid allegations of misconduct. If this is a conduct dispute, it should be filed at a conduct noticeboard. If this is a content dispute, the allegations of vandalism should be withdrawn. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC) Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editor on their user talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC) I notified them on the talk page of the article where the discussion is. I have not called it vandalism but am saying the content and tone of the edits are inappropriate for Wikipedia and that the reason for making the edits appears to be in order to win an argument on reddit. After making the edits the link to the page was posted in reply to several people as if to prove their point, despite the data not supporting it. I believe Wikipedia has a policy about not making edits just to prove a point or win an argument. I do not know whether to classify this as a content or conduct dispute since the content is problematic but as is the conduct of repeatedly pasting it back in and ignoring the issues that have been raised with the content. The comment regarding vandalism was made by @RdCrestdBreegull rather than myself. MycoMutant (talk) 20:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC) The user has now been notified on their talk page. MycoMutant (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC) I'm withdrawing from the dispute. This is clearly going to take up too much of my time and this stress and anxiety is not good for my mental health. Edit the page to say whatever. I won't remove it again as someone else surely will in time anyway. I'm not prepared to spend yet another hour dealing with this. I felt the need to report it because I hoped that if someone else could take a look at your edits and explain that terms like 'grossly extrapolated' and 'weakly unsupported' are not the appropriate tone in which to write a Wikipedia article you'd listen to them, because you didn't listen to me. I explained that Wikipedia content should be citing data from sources rather than injecting entire paragraphs that are nothing but personal criticism of those sources and their authors. You still put the same critical content with the same phrasing back on there and argued against it being inappropriate. It did not seem like me explaining this a second time would achieve anything. I think such an impasse has to be settled by a third party. I have lost the will to deal with this any further however as I have to put my mental health above Wikipedia arguments. MycoMutant (talk) 02:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC) Have you seen my response to your comment on the talk page? Please, respond there. KaiserTadd (talk) 03:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC) @Robert McClenon This dispute is going to be too time consuming and stressful for me to participate in. I withdraw the dispute and will not participate in further editing of the Amatoxin page. Sorry for wasting your time. MycoMutant (talk) 23:07, 19 August 2023 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vlad the Impaler

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by OrionNimrod on 16:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Vlad the Impaler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved OrionNimrod (talk · contribs) NeimWiki (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Hello, NeimWiki is making many new history maps, many of them does not match with the academic history maps. All history falsifications are at the expense of the Hungarian history. He is engaged in edit war to force the photoshopped maps to many articles. 1 2 3 4 Recently he attached Hungary as vassal state of the Byzantine Empire, many user responded and finally he changed the map: Talk:Byzantine_Empire_under_the_Komnenos_dynasty#Fake_map Here also needed a lot of conversation when he corrected his map, here I provided many academic maps to show that his map is not correct: Talk:Battle_of_Posada#Strange_map He painted South Transylvania as integral part of Wallachia in 1330: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/6/6e/20230715090534%211330VOIVODATE.png This is the same issue, that he detached South Transylania from the Kingdom of Hungary in the 1300s-1400s period. Talk:Vlad_the_Impaler#What_exactly_is_wrong_with_the_new_map? He does not understand the feudal system. If Romanian voivodes got Transylvanian fief lands from the Hungarian king it does not mean that region became part of Wallachia. The Hungarian king as overlord donated lands which belonged to the Hungarian crown. Morover he shows patches inside Hungary as Ottoman vassal area 1457 (green). https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/4/47/20230818194557%211457VOIVODATE.png or in 1404, 1419 under the rule of King Sigismund According to his map, in a big patch inside Hungary is part of Wallachia: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/1404VOIVODATE.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/1419VOIVODATE.png However Hungary was not a vassal state of the Ottomans. He did not hear about the dual suzerainty. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Vlad_the_Impaler#What_exactly_is_wrong_with_the_new_map? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I suggested a solution on the talk page, he ignores. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fiefs_wallachia.png I think we should follow academic history maps. Here I provided many academic maps to show that his map is not correct: Talk:Battle_of_Posada#Strange_map I see an another user who created many medieval articles, who are a very experienced in the medieval history of the region noticed those fake maps what is excatly my problem: User talk:NeimWiki#Maps of Wallachia OrionNimrod (talk) 10:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC) Vlad the Impaler discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not listed or notified the other editors. Please list the other editors and notify them of this filing. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Webberville, Michigan

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by WeatherWriter on 22:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Webberville, Michigan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved WeatherWriter (talk · contribs) United States Man (talk · contribs) NorthStarMI (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Dispute about whether to include some information about a deadly tornado, which struck the village. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Webberville, Michigan#Including the August 24, 2023 tornado How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Help interpret policy, specifically with WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENT, which are the two policies in debate. Summary of dispute by United States Man Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Note: This user has recently been involved in numerous edit-warring affairs, including two hours ago at 2023 Atlantic hurricane season, where the user violated WP:3RR by adding the same content five times. United States Man (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2023 (UTC) Summary of dispute by NorthStarMI Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Webberville, Michigan discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Problem of Hell

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Helper201 on 19:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Problem of Hell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Helper201 (talk · contribs) Koavf (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Whether or not the image File:Unconditional Love?.jpg should be allowed on the page. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Problem of Hell#Image removal How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Provide an answer regarding whether or not it is acceptable for the image to be allowed to be placed in the article or not. Summary of dispute by Koavf Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Problem of Hell discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.