Talk:Witch (word)

A work in progress...

I have started this page by cutting about 5k of text from each of the Witchcraft and Wicca articles and simply pasting it here. This has improved the other two articles (I hope!) but the result here is something of a dog's breakfast. There is inevitably a lot of repetition from both original articles, and I haven't Wikified this new one properly yet.

I'm no expert on etymology, so there's not much I can do towards the technical aspects of the article's content. Please could those with more knowledge help? However I will try and tidy up the presentation in due course. Kim dent brown 09:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I agree, this is a bit of a dog's breakfast. While it is good to shorten overly lengthy articles (like Witchcraft and Wicca) I am not sure everything here goes together to make a spearate article. Information about the origins of the word Wicca is very relevant to the Wicca entry because the texts of the religion offer a multitude of possible origins (generally false). Presently the Wicca entry has some information about the etymology there, and there is some here in this entry. It really should be all together. The etymology of the word modern English word "witch" is actually only relevant because of the relevance of the etymology of "Wicca". Wikipedia is not an etymological dictionary, after all. If anything, this article should be retitled "Wicca (etymology)", and should start with Gardner, then eventually move on to the discussion of what "wicca/wicce" meant in Old English, and finally the reconstructed Indo-European roots - which are relelvant as Wiccans are forever discussing what they imagine the root of "Wicca" to be.WikiLambo 13:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

in my opinion, there's more here about Wicca than there is about witchcraft.

PIE root suggestions

since the geminate kk (Verschärfung) isn't well understood anyway, the Proto-Germanic root may be either wik or wig, which means that the PIE root could have been either weik or weg. *veid seems out of the question unless a reliable source is cited.

*weg seems favoured by the AHD. OED has "of obscure origin". Concerning *weik, various interpretations are possible, including "dividing [lots]" (Lühr) and "turn, bend" (Holthausen AeEW). dab (𒁳) 15:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a source citing the PGmc forms as wīχaz/wīgaz (OE wēoh "holy"; wigle "divination"), and wikkēn (OE wicca), both from PIE *weik "to choose, sacrifice, conjure". Perhaps this can be added as a mention w/o decisively stating that it's derived. Leasnam (talk) 22:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Witch vs. hag/haegtesse

In what way did the terms witch and hag/haegtesse overlap and differ from each other, in pre-modern times, and in pre-Christian times? Is there any evidence that one was preferred over the other before modernity, and if so, where there specific local differences in Germanic regions (such as in Scandinavia, later Germany, and later England) on using one or the other? Were there specific changes over time from antiquity to modernity concerning the preference of one or the other? Could it be that depending on malevolent or benevolent context (in labelling, or in the behaviour of the people labelled), one was favored over the other? Could it be that specific ancient Norse and/or Germanic animosities towards these people (such as common pre-Christian burning) were totally obscured when modern Wiccas got hold of the term (see nithing on ancient burning of people practicing seid, a custom prolonged into Christian times by parts of the Pseudo-Isidore fabricated by Frankish monk Benedictus Levita that was the main link from ancient Germanic burning to the Malleus maleficarum it directly inspired)? Is there a gender-neutral English word derived from Latin maleficus/malefica, akin to German Schadenszauberer? I remember there once was an entry for haegtesse years ago addressing some of these issues, but it seems like it's got lost. --Tlatosmd 17:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

interesting question, but I believe almost nothing can be said about hægtesse/Hexe. Note that Old English had no gender-neutral words on principle, only neuter gender ones. Modern English witch is, in fact, gender-neutral, although used very rarely in reference to a male. dab (𒁳) 19:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

New material

Additions include links to sources.24.168.227.29 21:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Dubious material about origins of the religion

I just removed this paragraph from the "modern Wicca" section:

The Online Etymology Dictionary states "the priests of a suppressed religion naturally become magicians to its successors or opponents."[1] It appears disputed in the case of witches whether this debasement in evaluation from holy priests to evil sorcerers occured as late as with the advent of Christianity as modern neo-pagan wiccas claim, or whether it originally started with the original debasement of the Vanir religion that witchcraft had been part of, as Vanir religion had increasingly become replaced in Germanic and Norse folk religion by a super-stratum of Indo-European Aesir religion looking down upon autochtonous Vanir fertility magic cults after the invasion and settlement of Indo-European tribes in northern Europe (see Kurgan hypothesis on the ethnological background, and on a Norse concept closely related to witchcraft aka seid see Níð).

Firstly, it isn't about etymology. Secondly, The Online Etymology Dictionary does NOT state that "the priests of a suppressed religion naturally become magicians to its successors or opponents." (maybe it once did, but I doubt it) Thirdly, the source quoted (Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg, Gisela (1978). Tabu Homosexualität etc.) is apparently not related to this topic, nor the source of this information.

WikiLambo 12:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

References

Graves' etymology

do we absolutely need to give Graves' shot at the Germanic etymology of the term, even if it was painfully clear from the moment he came up with it that it is completely wrong? Maybe move it to the "Wicca" section, since it may have had some impact on Wiccans (while certainly not on etymologists)? dab (𒁳) 10:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

in the interest of accuracy, the connection with wicker is in fact considered by Grimm. It is just not possible to connect this with willows, since there is no West Germanic word for "willow" with a velar, and no "witch" word in Scandinavian. --dab (𒁳) 11:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Monier Williams

In what way is Monier Williams - A Dictionary of English and Sanskrit (London: Allen & Co, 1851) a mainstream dictionary? Zen Cyfarwydd (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Witch derives from Slavic word for Moth & Witch = Vešča, Veščica, Wiesch,...

The Slavic word for a moth and old woman (witch) is Vešča. Vest stands for "information" (for those who know (veda) things and fly around as "vešče" (moths; moth man or moth woman; a "wizzard" (wissen; "to know"). Viesch(Vedun) (in Poland i think) as a dark wizzard. Vešča was more or less equal to Slavic priest Volhv(Volhinya as a priestess; old Slavic name for a king was also a "Volhv" (the word remained in Ukrainian & Russian Bible, which is describing "3 wise"(wissen) Kings...who have visited baby Jesus; 3 Mages). It was believed that Volhvs knew special Shamanic processes how to 'leave' their material body and 'fly around'; if they've became wolves, then they were called Werewolves (a dark "Wizzard"; Witch-er). If he 'joined' to the world of the dead(for further reading: Tibetan book of the dead) he became the Vampir (Vampire)...

The story about the prince who was cursed by the witch and she turned him into a frog has the same basis... It is about the transformation of the human body into a non human (animal form). A moth was representing something which has "ears and eyes" (and is flying around the lightsat the evenings)...

Please cite a reliable source that includes those exact conclusions. Otherwise, a more likely scenario is that Vesca and Wicca have a common Indo-European ancestor, rather than Wicca deriving from Vesca. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

A source? Read Lord of the Rings, a part where Gandalf is "whispering" to a Moth... Tolkien intentionally used a moth in his story about the ancient "witches"(Mages)... The Modern "mythology" about a Moth-man... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1rI6EupIac

Lord of the Rings is a work of fiction is it not? The OED gives the etymology of witch as deriving from the Old English verb wiccian, meaning to practise witchcraft, doesn't mention any fanciful Slavic derivation. So that's that really. Eric Corbett 16:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

and where is deriving the word "wiccian"? 73.162.138.223 (talk) 10:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

"Witch (word(" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Witch (word(. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 21#Witch (word( until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 19:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 23 July 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – MaterialWorks 18:48, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

---

Witch (word) → Witch – This page should be moved to witch, which currently redirects to witchcraft, but the craft is the craft; the witch its practitioner. The practice and the practitioner are not the same subject. To mix the two is like mixing mathematics and mathematician. "Witch" is the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the title "Witch". The directly parallel male term is warlock, and this page should also be consistent with that in its naming, per WP:CONSISTENT. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2023 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). Iskandar323 (talk) 17:47, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support - The current situation has existed since 2009 when there was some sort of controversy around redirects and merge proposals. That debate may not be relevant today because the articles for both Witch (word) and Witchcraft have expanded nicely in the years since. Meanwhile, the nominator has a convincing argument about practice vs. practitioner, and I think an article on witches should be titled similarly to that for Warlock. My vote here only addresses the use of "(word)" in the current article title because it is awkward and unnecessary, but I wish to stay out of concurrent debates about bias and POV in the text of the articles. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:10, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Comment: This article seems to do less to address the actual topic than the previous[2] witch article. Perhaps restoring that article and merging the two would be more effective. I am unclear, however, how a proposed witch article will escape simply being an additional subject to the current disagreement about the way witchcraft should be addressed in Wikipedia. Darker Dreams (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. This article should in fact be deleted per WP:NOTDICT -- or at least selectively merged elsewhere. But until then, one would expect the primary topic to be about a person labeled such, not about the label itself, which is all this article is really about. At the very least, given the mess of back and forth at Talk:Witchcraft, this move proposal should be closed as just making things worse until folks can figure out what content should be sitting at what title. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:49, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - the primary topic for the term witch is certainly not a word; it is the concept itself, and the article currently describing that is witchcraft. You could also make a case for deleting witch (word) altogether, per 35.139, it's not like the word itself is particularly noteworthy - word articles are usually reserved for fuck and suchlike, which have their own notable history as a word.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:55, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Amakuru: This page already has plenty of history and the rest is largely etymological. I've had a bit of a sort through it and divided the material more cleanly, so hopefully you can see how this page could represent a viable stub/start for the concept itself, not just the word, which is what I see when I look at it. No doubt there's work to be done. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Oppose per Amakuru and IP. estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:NOTDICT/WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The word itself is not the primary encyclopedic topic. —  AjaxSmack  03:56, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  @AjaxSmack: Correct. Wikipedia doesn't do articles about words; that's Wiktionary. That's why I have been converting the page into one about the term/concept, and would like to move it to the title for that. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:36, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Wikipedia does do articles about words in rare cases like this. Per WP:NOTDICT: "In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject, such as Macedonia (terminology) or truthiness." and I'd note the related GA example Etymology of Wicca. See also the full subsection at WP:WORDISSUBJECT. -- For context: The "controversy" back in 2009–2010 was primarily 1–3 editors who refused to accept these edge-cases, and demanded that all articles about words be deleted or "moved to Wiktionary" which was utterly unrealistic (they don't do long-form entries with extensive details; that's what Wikipedia is for), and also wanted to remove or move-to-page-bottom any hint of etymologies from the beginnings of articles (e.g). It was a stressful mess. -- A core goal of NOTDICT is to prevent well-intentioned people from mass-creating stubs (and pages that can never realistically grow beyond a stub) using only a word-definition. This goal often gets over-generalized based on a misreading of the policy, as in some comments above. -- This article could very much remain where it is, as an extensive overview of the history of the changing definition of this word. -- I hope that context helps! Quiddity (talk) 22:10, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Address the misconception

As a self-identified witch, I run into many people who only understand the term in its centuries-old, church-vilified definition of evil, and devil-worship. While there are some "witches" who embrace the dark side, many more of us who practice the craft are strictly "white" witches, looking to be helpful and do good things with our practices.

IMO, the negative connotations were conceived to be a way to encourage the people to embrace Christianity as the only religion. The Church, in their greed for money & for control of the greater public, used fear to obtain these things. Christianity has been at the root of thousands of years of wars, has stolen Pagan holidays as their own in further attempts to gain more converts, and brainwashed millions in believing their lies.

My reason for adding this opinion to the discussion is to gain more favorable results in the definition of the term "witch". C. Haskin 2607:FB91:823:9D12:8DDC:9137:ED9A:9AB5 (talk) 13:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTADVOCACY and WP:ADVOCACY, Wikipedia is not the place for this kind of activity. Best of luck, though. —  AjaxSmack  20:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh my, its simple - wicce/wicca derived from "wicked"

Considering the first use of "wicca" is registered in 860 or so - at that time they were all way enforcing christianity, so everyone adhering to other cults was plain WICKED. The modern German word "wickeln" still means "to twist"/" to wrap". So the non-cristians are deemed or labeled, to be "wicked" or "twisted" people. "Hexe" came from "Hecke-sesse" - "the one who sits on the hedge". Word "Hecke" means a "hedge made from cut sticks - "hacken" is modern word for chopping, wood or trees etc.) , "sesse" - old word for modern German word:"Sitzende" (engl.:"sitting one"), used for person who is connected to both worlds - humans and spirits, which later (most likely when inquisition needed nice stories to exalt over) was taken literally and turned into myth of riding on sticks/broomsticks, which definitely had some sexual meaning to it for inquisiting monks... you know... Originally the " Hecke" was not only a symbolic separation between humans/spirit worlds, but at some point also a real threshold between humans settlements and wild nature, and, while for most people wilderness outside of the hedge was considered to be dangerous, some people were venturing into the woods for collecting healing herbs etc. or even living on the hedge, thus were considered special, having some special connections to spirits of the wild. 73.223.81.58 (talk) 07:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

What reliable sources can you provide that advocate for this view? Skyerise (talk) 10:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Languages and human history. Or do you think someone who "got revelation from god(s)" knows better than that? 73.223.81.58 (talk) 09:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

So you just made it up yourself. Without reliable sources, no such popular (i.e. false) etymology may be added to the article. See our verifiabilty policy. Skyerise (talk) 10:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

What did I "made up"? Meaning of words in English and German? Please point out exactly - what is in your opinion "false" in my analysis? 73.223.81.58 (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

It's original research, which isn't permitted on Wikipedia, unless you can cite a reliable etymological source that includes such a proposed derivation. That is, you have to prove that someone besides yourself has thought of it. An encyclopedia must follow the existing literature, not the (possibly incorrect) ideas of a random IP address. So, what's your source? Skyerise (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

meaning of words is not a research, it is meaning of words, literally, everyone can check it in dictionary. And how "existing literature" is made? in US there is plenty of "existing literature, that consists of pure nonsense - one just needs to pay for printing, and ANYthing can become a "existing literature"- it is not some kind of peer reviewed papers (oh, ´don't get me started on those!:..) And my ideas are not "of a random IP address", but from a person - me. I don't want to share my name, which is my right. But hey - you don't share yours either, do you? There is no difference between pseudonyms and absence of those -no real name is no real name. It feels like you just feel upset about my ideas, just because they collide somehow with yours. 73.162.138.223 (talk) 10:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

It still cannot be added to the article without a citation to a reliable linguistic source which indicates this etymology. What you are proposing is called popular etymology, an uneducated guess at an etymology made by someone not qualified by education to be proposing an etymology. All etymologies must be cited to reliable sources for this reason. No amount of continued blather from you can justify inclusion of this: only citation to a reliable etymological dictionary or other academic source. Any continuation of this discussion will be ignored if it does not include a proposed source. Skyerise (talk) 11:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)