Talk:The Naked Witch

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Horror Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Not really the first resurrected witch film

Latest comment: 22 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

""the first to use the resurrected witch narrative and the ghost horror witch." I know this statement is from a "reliable" source, but this isn't actually the first film to use the resurrected witch plot. Black_Sunday_(1960_film) used it earlier, and I'm skeptical that that was even the first instance of it. Tarchon (talk) 04:31, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Witchcraft_(1964_film) uses this plot as well and was probably in production before the very limited release of The Naked Witch too, so I think the present film can hardly be the source of this hoary horror trope.

The statement in the article is referenced and unless you can provide references that explicitly state that other films used the resurrected witch plot first, this is all just original research and cannot be included. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Your reversion is not explicitly supported by a reliable source, and therefore is original research. See how easy that is? Anything that requires even the most trivial thought is apparently original research. Claims of priority are controverted by earlier examples. Tarchon (talk) 17:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add topic