Wikipedia talk:Systemic bias

Witchcraft

There's a discussion at Talk:Witchcraft about traditional vs western/pop culture/neopagan definitions of the word, and which to prioritize in the lead of Witchcraft. Input was solicited at the Neopagan wikiproject and that is currently dominating the discussion. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 17:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the contents of this essay come down on the side of the people arguing for the modern witchcraft definition (or at least against the one that explicitly calls it evil or harmful). There are reams of academic gender/religious studies that point out how the "traditional" definition is the literal embodiment of systemic repression and codified bias. And the person who notified the Neopagan group says they notified all the projects listed; I verified the notification on the Religions project. Darker Dreams (talk) 12:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I really don't think that the Neopagan community is the source of systemic bias, but rather the article itself (until the latest initial corrective edits) displays gross (religious and social) systemic bias, dating back hundreds of years (and also in recent years). Hopefully more-involved editors will be able to come up with reliable sources to correct this. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

The Wikiprojects notified were paranormal, horror, skepticism, occult, and anthropology. None of the wikiprojects for the ethnic or cultural groups whose practices are called "witchcraft" on the page were notified. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I came here from Skepticism, as a "seeker after truth". Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 07:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Witchcraft: Requested move

There's a discussion about moving the article Witchcraft to Witchcraft (classical) and moving Witchcraft (disambiguation) to Witchcraft instead, at Talk:Witchcraft#Requested move 19 July 2023. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 21:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Indigenous acknowledgement in Wikipedia articles

When I write and edit history articles I always try to include whatever information I can find on Native history and populations since that's a frequently overlooked topic. I am wondering if there is an applicable Wikipedia guideline (not necessarily a rule) to help guide editors on getting the full picture, including Native history and things such as Native place names. I have my own process but I felt that looking at land acknowledgement practices might be a good place to start. I also commented this on Land acknowledgement while searching for the right place to ask this.

I see that in Systemic bias there are a number of topics that somewhat fit what I'm looking for, but I wonder if there can be an addition about the average Wikipedian and most promoted sources being from white settlers of European ancestry. Settler colonialism and the resulting sources are very much a bias on Wikipedia. Pingnova (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Witchcraft#RFC on Lede Section on Witchcraft

The article has sections on a number of different global cultures. There has been conflict around the meanings of the words "traditional" and "witchcraft". - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Bride buying

For the interested, treating the #History of the practice of bride buying—nearly universal in various forms across human cultures since at least the neolithic—with a single long paragraph on Jamestown has to be some kind of apotheosis of WP:BIAS. Handy anecdote for those trying to explain the concept to others, when needed. — LlywelynII 21:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Your Jamestown link goes to a disambiguation page. Which Jamestown article did you mean? MartinPoulter (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2024 (UTC)