Talk:Neopagan witchcraft

Discussion at Talk:Witchcraft

Merge with Wicca?

Please do NOT add this to Wicca. This is NOT Wicca. It is not even religion. I hate people getting witchcraft and Wicca mixed up. - A concerned Witch

Hi there, just wanted to let you know that I've posted a request for feedback on the talk page at Witchcraft, relating to your new articles. I've posted it there because it's a long-established page with many people watching it, and I wanted to see how other people feel about the range of articles you've written. Please don't infer any criticism: I'm only ever delighted when a new editor joins us who is keen to contribute constructively! But I wonder if we might harness your energy and help you focus it a little more. Reply here if you wish, but best of all at Talk:Witchcraft as this will be visible to more people. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 17:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I oppose the merger. "Contemporary Witchcraft" should be used to talk about all modern witchcraft traditions, including Wicca, Stregheria and Hedge Witchcraft. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC))

I oppose the merger as well, but for different reasons than some. Most people assume that all Witches are Wiccans, and this is just not true. I am a non-Wiccan witch, and it drives me bonkers that people constantly act as if all witches believe the same things or have the same practices. They don't. There are many branches on the tree of witchcraft, and Wicca is one of them (but it's not the entire tree!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glamrockboy (talk • contribs) 03:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

Section headed 'Criticism' repeatedly uses the word "many" - "many criticisms", etc. - without citing sources.

Improving this article

The article has had 'references needed' tags on it for a while now, and although some sections have citations (eg to Marion Green's work) others do not. I'm concerned that there are sections describing different strands and traditions which seem to me to be very similar, and with no descriptions or citations to distinguish between them. I've heard of Hedgewitches of course, and there's a citation to confirm the term. But some of the other sections seem very tenuous.

May I propose that, if these sections are not expanded and justified with citations, they should be deleted or merged into a single paragraph? In the absence of some quality control this article is falling well short of the standards we are reaching in some of the other related articles in this area. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and removed the sections of the article which were unsourced, such as several of the traditions named and the 'criticisms' section noted above. Lest this seem like a 'gutting' of the article, I will add some sourced material (Doreen Valiente and Janet Farrar have some useful things to say about non-Wiccan contemporary witchcraft) and I'll do that tonight or tomorrow. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 06:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Found under Chochrane/Bowers: "Roy Bowers, a.k.a. Robert Cochrane (1931–1966), founded "Cochrane's Craft" in opposition to Gardnerian Wicca." Where is this referenced? I've never read that his practice was reactionary. Lulubyrd (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Pagan vs. pagan

Just adding this to clarify Midnightblueowl's recent edit comment: "Pagan" with a capital P is conventionally reserved for the modern religious movement; "pagan" with lower-case p is used for the ancient religions of the pre-Christian world, especially when compared to Christianity. Hence terms like "pagan antiquity". Fuzzypeg★ 03:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Title?

Didn't this used to be titled Contemporary witchcraft or Contemporary Witchcraft? I don't see what the words "practice of" add to the meaning, since the practice of witchcraft is witchcraft and vice-versa, just as dancing is the practice of dancing, and the practice of dancing is dancing. Why so cumbersome? Fuzzypeg★ 03:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

No replies, so I've gone ahead and changed it back. I'm still mystified, though, as to why it was changed in the first place! Fuzzypeg★ 04:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a little old, but feel it deserves some words for anyone else who may be similarly confused in the future.

Obviously, your change was reversed. While I understand your concern and have even thought about it, this is how it should be. The title Witchcraft (contemporary) follows Wikipedia convention on article naming. See Wikipedia:Article titles. However, those titles you mentioned do (and should continue to) redirect to Witchcraft (contemporary). Sowlos (talk) 09:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Clean up

This article was in dire need of clean up. I've tided up grammar, spelling mistakes (of which there were many), and general wordiness of sentences. I also took out sentences which I felt had no place or relation to the paragraph/sub-heading in question. Please feel free to check. Xxglennxx (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hearth Witchcraft

I've adopted the Kitchen Witchcraft page and wanted to know if there was a consensus on the differences between hearth witchcraft/hearthcraft, cottage witchery, and kitchen witchery. One book I'm using right now ("The Way of the Hedge Witch" by Arin Murphy-Hiscock) does distinguish between hearthcraft and kitchen witchcraft, but also lumps hearthcraft and hedge witchcraft together, which clearly this article doesn't do. I understand that many of these paths blend together and may be very self-defined. Are kitchen and hearth witchcraft close enough to be lumped under some version of cottage witchcraft, or are there tangible differences that require each to have their own page? Alesta Starbreeze (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Historical Revisionism?

I am confused by this page. Is it presenting personal beliefs has fact? Or is it presenting historical revisionism under the guise of spirituality? The last time that people revised history i recall that it didnt end terribly well for them. Also the Sabbatic Witchcraft sub section needs a total rewrite in that the sources used have a personal and financial interest in maintaining the illusion of this non existent history that exists only in their own minds. Either a rewrite or rock solid references that dont entail the personal opinons of the guys who profit from the books on non existent sabbatic witchcraft. Thanks.Ickesshadow (talk) 18:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I must preface with: you're own statements also look like they harbor a little bias. It would be a good idea to give background as to where you are coming from, in this case, and give examples of citations using works from authors who have "personal and financial interest" in maintaining any sort of "illusion". That being said, contemporary witchcraft (and Paganism at large) does have a revisionist history problem amongst a good deal of its publicly circulated information.

This page will be cleaned up, but let's try to keep the discussion in the future a little more productive and neutral. This is a somewhat delicate subject.

Sowlos (talk) 09:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Major Revision Needed

This page has multiple problems, has had little attention other than some tinkering for the past couple years, and most of the material in it is from the early years of Wikipedia when standards weren't nearly as high as they are now. With this in mind, I'm undertaking some significant revisions to begin to bring the page up to current standards. Autumnalmonk (talk) 10:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed; this article does need work. I'm beginning to do the same. Please try post to the talk page before deciding upon particular lines of editing, though. I also encourage others interested to join.

Sowlos (talk) 09:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I just plumped up the history section a bit. It's only a skeleton and still needs a lot of work, but it's much better than the empty section it was before. After I've moved the historical clutter from the Varieties sub-sections into History, I'll start working on filling it out more (fully sourced of course).
-Sowlos (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Definition section?

All the major religions discussed on Wikipedia have a section (or group of sections) describing their respective movements before going into history or expending on specific sects/traditions. We should do the same. This not only allows us to define what binds greater Witchcraft together as a single definable unit, but will also allow us to expand upon the differences of opinion on the matter within the community without cluttering the main introduction.
Sowlos (talk) 10:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

External links

20:55, 23 August 2012, ‎Thrissel removed a "see more..." paragraph irrelevant to the section from Hedge Witchery. Its content, however, is not irrelevant to the whole article and contains an external link to a document archive maintained by the University of Edinburgh. I have moved that link to the External links section.
Sowlos (talk) 00:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Contemporary witchcraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727122512/http://www.newwiccanchurch.org/articles/btwfaq.htm to http://www.newwiccanchurch.org/articles/btwfaq.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.orakels.org/media/occult/Wicca/Interview_with_Andrew_Chumbley.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100619030458/http://www.xoanon.co.uk:80/xoanoncultussabbati.php to http://www.xoanon.co.uk/xoanoncultussabbati.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110728050303/http://www.xoanon.co.uk/xoanonwayandwaymark.php to http://www.xoanon.co.uk/xoanonwayandwaymark.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Contemporary witchcraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120523053915/http://www.feritradition.org/FAQ.htm to http://www.feritradition.org/FAQ.htm#wicca

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Merge into 'Witchcraft'

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The merger discussion was open for a month and no objections were made. The merger will thus go ahead. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

---

Back in 2008, a proposal was made that this article be merged into Witchcraft. At the time I opposed this move, but looking back on it now, it does seem to be the logical choice. This article is in a terrible mess and there is no clear definition of what "Contemporary witchcraft" is; is it just Wicca and the Cultus Sabbati or does it also refer to ongoing beliefs about witchcraft in parts of the world like Africa? I am unaware of any academic material explicitly discussing "Contemporary witchcraft" in this manner and thus I see no reason for Wikipedia to do so. We already have specific articles dealing with Wicca and the Cultus Sabbati, and these are also discussed briefly in the Witchcraft article. That leaves this article totally superfluous, so if there are no serious objections then I would like to go ahead and merge them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2017 (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.

Reversing invalid merge

The above merge discussion was closed by its proposer and therefore was implemented without consensus and is invalid, so I have reversed it. Discussion is talking place at Talk:Witchcraft#Proposal. Skyerise (talk) 11:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

What part of "Any user, including the user who first proposed the merge, may close the discussion and move forward with the merge if enough time (normally one week or more) has elapsed and there has been no discussion or if there is unanimous consent to merge" (from WP:MERGECLOSE, bold is in the original) is invalid? Lithopsian (talk) 13:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Generally, merges without responses are closed as "No consensus for merge". Skyerise (talk) 13:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Since when? Unopposed merges usually happen. Even if they "generally" didn't, the policy is very clear that this is a valid action. It would be polite to at least go through a split discussion before reverting something that is *not* invalid. Lithopsian (talk) 13:17, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, though still early in the day, I think that consensus at Witchcraft will likely be that contemporary/modern material should be removed from that article, retaining only the pre-modern material. And/or that a fresh call for merging may well fail. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 13:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

The Witchcraft page makes clear that it is specifically about malicious witchcraft. Contemporary witchcraft does not consider itself to be malicious. There are two subjects and combining them is leading to a significant level of ongoing complaints, which are valid, at Talk:Witchcraft. Skyerise (talk) 13:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

A long-standing HTML note at the top of the Witchcraft article reads (due to perennial and passionate accusations of negative bias) that: ############ NOTE ############ This article is primarily about the traditional and most common meaning of 'witchcraft' worldwide, which is the use of harmful magic. Newer positive meanings are mentioned here, but are not the focus of the article. The modern religion is covered on the article WICCA. ############################### And it would greatly help if the two distinct cases (modern and pre-modern) could be split (as they originally were) to fix such big issues. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 13:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

See Talk:Witchcraft#Proposal by Skyerise. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 13:40, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

And that last bit, "The modern religion is covered on the article WICCA", is part of the problem, as not all contemporary witchcraft is Wiccan. Skyerise (talk) 13:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there is much confusion for readers and editors alike. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 13:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

The whole situation has arisen due to some editors' desire not to disambiguate something that should clearly be disambiguated, as shown by the unwillingness on the part of those editors to properly redirect witch and witchcraft to their disambiguation pages witch (disambiguation) and witchcraft (disambiguation). That is the proper way to disambiguate two uses of a term, not some hidden html note at the top of the article source. Skyerise (talk) 13:52, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Then there was this very little discussed 2007 merge of "Witch" which may contain content useful for this page. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

"Contemporary witchcraft"

The title, "Contemporary witchcraft" and short description, "Various traditions of witchcraft practiced in the present day" are going to age (how far back does the present day go in these times of rapid change?). Could we rename the page "Modern witchcraft" or short description "Various traditions of witchcraft practiced in the modern age"? Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Probably the decision should be made at Talk:Witchcraft#Proposal, but I think the move should be to Modern witchcraft, with the other moved to Premodern witchcraft to make room for the dab page. Skyerise (talk) 12:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Alternatively, perhaps Witchcraft (premodern) and Witchcraft (modern) would be a better way to disambiguate them. Skyerise (talk) 12:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Take into regard that "modern" also includes the early modern period. The scope this article tries to capture seems to be more limited in time, although it's very blurry, because contemporary witches often also identify with the people of the witch trials in the early modern period. But ultimately, it's about what kind of article we can sustain with reliable sources. It may not always be something we find ideal or even useful, due to the available scholarship. Ffranc (talk) 12:59, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, if we want to avoid that problem, they could be Witchcraft (historical) and Witchcraft (comtemporary). Skyerise (talk) 13:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Or "Alleged malicious witchcraft" or similar. Witchcraft was used as an excuse to murder thousands of women, and very few were actually malicious or even pretending to be malicious. The page now named Witchcraft should be defined as the events actually were...alleged and an excuse for murder. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

The historical vs contemporary naming isn't the best choice as contemporary traditional cultures (Indigenous, African, Islamic, etc) worldwide still use "witchcraft" to mean what it has always meant in those cultures - harmful magic. It's almost wholly only in the post-Margaret Murray / Wicca / Neopagan world that the word has been redefined. From there it spread out into pop culture. Anyone who doesn't understand that it was never a neutral or positive word needs to read those articles. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:59, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I get it. I'm not a believer. Perhaps an RfC on the titling so we get a broader view? Skyerise (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@Skyerise: If I missed any, can you clean up any other edits you made that used that wording as the distinction? - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I think you got them all. Skyerise (talk) 20:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Would "Modern Western witchcraft" be a possible title? Indeed, is it possible to come up with a title that suits all?

And to complement that, "Historical, traditional, and world views of witchcraft" (???) Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 20:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, this article needs to be overhauled as it's still fighting the trad definition, and hanging on to the debunked witch-cult idea that the word was originally positive and needed to be "reclaimed". So there are a number of oxymorons and sentences that make no sense. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, ideally, trad will be merged into Wicca, and then we can propose Contemporary also be merged into Wicca. Then the naming problem disappears. Perhaps we can wait and see if the wind is blowing that way. Skyerise (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

You're hearing this from a neopagan perspective. I'm speaking from a global one that centers Indigenous and African perspectives. When I say the "traditional" definition of Witchcraft, I mean the global, original, and continuing definition, which we prioritize at Witchcraft; not the Wiccans who, in modern times, call themselves "traditional witches". - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:05, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

OK, clarification. Do you mean, merge the article currently titled 'Traditional witchcraft' into Wicca? Is that what you mean? - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:11, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. Pretty sure I spelled that out clearly at Talk:Witchcraft#Going forward.... Sorry I wasn't more clear here, I figured you'd seen that... Skyerise (talk) 02:44, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

As I said at Talk:Witchcraft#Going forward..., if you want to have an article about 'Witchcraft' as some neo-pagans re-define it, I suggest it be named Neopagan Witchcraft or something similar; preferably capitalized as we're talking about a religion. It could be an overview of Wicca and "Traditional Witchcraft". Although the latter article notes that "Religious studies scholars consider it to fall under the umbrella or broad category of Wicca". Nevertheless, "contemporary witchcraft" isn't the right name for an article about neo-paganism, because it would also have to include all the contemporary cultures that still define witchcraft as malevolent magic, which is the most common meaning worldwide. So you'd be mixing together two completely different things. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 11:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Merge from Traditional witchcraft

Previously I proposed to merge Traditional witchcraft into Wicca, but with the change of title to [[Neopagan witchcraft, I think this article would be a better place for merging, as there is already quite a bit of duplication. Plus this would get rid of the confusing use of the word "traditional". Skyerise (talk) 13:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that "traditional witchcraft" could easily be confused with the traditional meaning of witchcraft, which is malevolent magic. So I think this article 'Neopagan Witchcraft' is a better place for the subject, altho' I also think it could be covered in a section on the Wicca article. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 14:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I think that it was appropriate to rename Contemporary witchcraft to Neopagan witchcraft, thus allowing the neopagan material that had been erroneously tagged onto Witchcraft (which is about scholarly views on traditional and worldwide witchcraft, and where witchcraft is most commonly seen as "the use of magic or supernatural powers to inflict harm or misfortune on others") to find its correct home.

Support: I support merging Traditional witchcraft into Neopagan witchcraft. This seems appropriate and would also reduce confusion about Traditional witchcraft, since that article is not what you would expect from the title, but actually about neopagan witchcraft (doubly-so since Witchcraft is actually about traditional views).

I also feel that Witchcraft should be more appropriately renamed and that witch and some other links should no longer inappropriately redirect to that article (a cause of confusion and perennial talk page discussions about perceived negative bias), but perhaps to a Witchcraft (disambiguation) page. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 15:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I see the content has already been merged. It needs to be adapted a bit more to address the conflicting meanings of "traditional". I have also adjusted the Traditional witchcraft redirect to go to the disambig page instead of here, for the same reasons. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

We might also want to think about whether Category:Modern witchcraft should be renamed Category:Neopagan witchcraft. Skyerise (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I see the logic, and there are entries like Modern witch hunts (1 C, 23 P) and Religious debates over the Harry Potter series, which may not be catered for. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Then I guess it falls under "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" Skyerise (talk) 18:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Skyerise: How about *adding* a sub-category? Modern witchcraft -> Neopagan witchcraft. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

A sub-cat would work. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd prefer someone else create the sub-cat, though I don't mind helping with sorting. I've created cats before, but it's not an area I'm super-fluent in. Someone who does cats frequently would be faster and more efficient. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Ditto, and I don't want to tread on others' toes, edit conflict ... or screw it up. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 19:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah, OK, I'll do it. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Done: Neopagan Witchcraft category - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I was just previewing the new page and discovered that it now exists, LOL. Excellent work. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 20:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth I found the "Traditional witchcraft" page in my deleted edits, because it was a redirect to the deleted page Witchcraft (traditional). I've restored it because we need its edits for attribution and changed its redirect back to Witchcraft (disambiguation). Graham87 (talk) 09:17, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Neopaganism and Wicca

The new lede, revised by Asarlaí, reads: Neopagan witchcraft is a description used by some neo-pagans for their religious beliefs and practices. These traditions began in the mid-20th century and were influenced by the witch-cult hypothesis; a now-rejected theory that persecuted witches had actually been followers of a surviving pagan religion. Religious studies scholars class the various 'neopagan witchcraft' traditions under the broad category of Wicca, although not all practitioners describe themselves as 'Wiccan'.

I haven't checked any reliable sources, but intuitively I would say that Wicca is a type of neopaganism, rather than the other way around, as stated here. Wicca, is surely not a broad category but an instance (?)

And, while re-education efforts are of course welcome, I'm reminded of the botched video game translation, "All your base are belong to us", or in this case "all your views on witchcraft are belong to us." Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 13:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes Wicca is a kind of neopaganism. Religious studies scholars tend to treat Wicca as a broad grouping of neopaganism that includes various sub-traditions, altho' those sub-traditions might not call themselves Wiccan. That's what I was trying to say with the last line. I'm happy to hear any suggestions for how the wording could be improved of course. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 14:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the wording is clear. "Neopagan" clearly modifies "witchcraft", indicating it's not the traditional meaning of the word (causing harm to one's own community). And anyone who's interviewed or attended rituals with the neopagans who call themselves "traditional witches" knows they're almost all offshoots of Wiccan groups (or self-starters from books and gatherings), as is documented in the sources. Though some have altered their practices as well as their names, most have done so since it was revealed how recently-invented Wicca is. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Most modern (Neopagan) witchcraft movements are drawing from Hermeticism, Order of the Golden Dawn, Thelema. Possibly through the (originally British) Wicca, directly, or through other paths. Other relevant influence on modern witchcraft movements are Druidry (modern) (such as Ancient Order of Druids) and chaos magic. Darker Dreams (talk) 20:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Chaos magic? I thought this movement was only 50 years old, I did not realize that it had much of an impact. Dimadick (talk) 05:21, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Wicca is only 70-80(?) years old... (not actually doing the math) but it doesn't have *that* much of a head start. There are some specific things that come out of chaos magic and are prevalent in non-Wicca modern witchcraft. The big thing on sigils was introduced as "the cut-up method" in one of the Chaos magic base texts. While "energy" has long appeared in various forms in Spiritualism and other pre-Wicca occultism, some of the specific formulas, approaches, and forms were popularized if not created in the same place. While some Wiccans adopt these things, they aren't inherently Wiccan. Also, there is a deep raft in many types of modern witchcraft of "what works for you" that does not come to Wicca from its predecessors (and doesn't naturally come out of Wicca) which is the core of chaos magic teachings... Darker Dreams (talk) 06:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

External links deadlinks

The following link is archived at the Wayback Machine, and the links on that home page are also archived and show:

• Cornish witchcraft (Archived)

Walking the Hedge is archived but unusable. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 14:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Lead section

The current lead section provides no information about what neopagan witchcraft is other than a "description of a practice", which is completely unhelpful (and violates MOS:LEADSENTENCE's advice against describing the subject of an article as a word or term or description rather than just describing the subject itself). There's actually more information about what neopagan witchcraft is in the lead of witchcraft than here. And yes, I realize I'm just criticizing and not helping, lol. Nosferattus (talk) 21:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Here's a draft revision: Neopagan witchcraft is the practice of magic and exercise of supernatural powers, within a neo-pagan traditional framework or belief system, in which some neo-pagans engage. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 07:03, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh well, scrub that idea: Asarlaí clearly has different ideas. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 10:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed this discussion. But to explain my re-wording... "the exercise of supernatural powers" wrongly implies that they actually exist, and "in which some neo-pagans engage" is redundant if we already include the words "the practice of..." (to practice something is to engage in it). – Asarlaí ^(talk) 10:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

For reference, this is the opening to the section on Witches in the 2006 version of Drawing Down the Moon. Darker Dreams (talk) 10:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Thanks a lot. I guess it's the same as the Via negativa in religion. And that, as in the Way of the Mystic, in the Way of the Wizard there is a world of difference between study of the Way and study in the Way. Like Thomas Anderson, I am definitely a neophyte here. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 10:57, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I support Papua New Guinea additions and rewrite of the lead. Skyerise (talk) 11:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Flagging for citations

@Skyerise: Some of these flags... I'm not sure what you want cited. For instance in the "traditional witchcraft" section, you want a cite on the redefinition of the word. This entire edit marathon we've been going through is due to the fact these groups redefined the word. We have tons of cites about that. If you think we need one there, too, add it. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:26, 19 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 07:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)