Witches and Sources: The Beginner's Guide
'Witchcraft' is an ever-shifting, extremely loose term of multiple definitions. Sometimes, people are referring to folk traditions that aren't uniformly viewed as magical. Sometimes, they're referring to edgy alternative spiritual practices of folk origins. Even more times, they're referring to a form of diy spirituality commonly associated with New Age movements. And still, other times, they just mean Pagan religious practices. But wait, there's more! Reconstructing or emulating real or imagined historic traditions that seem polytheistic or edgy or diy spiritual in nature can also be included. Plus. Extra bonus thing. It's still used in a derogatory way and can be thrown around as a definition-free accusation that makes people you don't like responsible for things they didn't cause because DEMONS! Or something. So what are sources and how do you vet them? Why vet them?
I assume if you're reading this, you're a beginner. You may or may not already be encountering a million weird ideas ranging from Law of Attraction to reality shifting and curses. You're probably hearing from people of many religions and diverse beliefs, a disproportionate number of whom were not raised in these belief systems. And in these spaces, there are sometimes traps to dodge. Cult recruiters, revisionists of history, people selling scam products, confused and/or mentally unwell folks, and a lot of main character types will be bumming around with you in the environments where witchy information tends to be exchanged. Misunderstandings and blatant lies can become a part of folk belief if enough people simply repeat them. Like how some of our less informed loved ones believe Aryans were a racially pure ancestral group of white Germans of great importance, because of how idiots handled the writings of Madame Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, who I read about in Conspiracy Theories & Secret Societies for Dummies. Sticking to this source, I will inform you a lot of spiritual nonsense has ties to the Nazis whether intentionally or as inspo. See the section titled "20th-Century Occultism and the Rise of the Nazis." Thank you Christopher Hodapp and Alice Von Kannon and the For Dummies series in general! To understand how the usage of the term Aryan evolved, even if you don't check out the book, you can go to Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Aryan Madame Blavatsky is not mentioned in the Britannica entry, because these different sources are dropping different names and starting at different locations in the propaganda chain. Even when they don't 100% match up, I'm presenting my sources to prove I'm not just pulling stuff out of my butthole. Which is still somewhat accepted- I don't inherently have to do this even though it's the right thing.
In order to better combat the... wonderful accuracy-preserving features of open-minded spiritual communities, senior witches might start nagging you about sources. In historical reconstruction Pagan context, this almost always means knowing what translation of what myth a claim about a god comes from. But less often, it might be about verifying historical facts. History books and Wikipedia are both lovely, though not always equal. When history or formal religions are a topic, your audience might like knowing where information comes from and whether it's homebrewed (homebrewed information is called "unverified personal gnosis or upg" and some places make you label it as if your readers are stupid. Because many are.) But it might also be an open-ended request. Maybe you're dealing with a "traditional" type who wants documentation that a practice was once common (not owed if you don't make that claim). You could grab a book where you've read about it, cite a YouTube video you watched, or just express some life experience that leads you to believe others really do the thing. Or, perhaps you've been asked what tradition a method of yours comes from. Most witches can't actually tell you this for half of what they do, and that's just life. But it can become a hot topic when legitimacy matters. Tracking changes helps us understand the level of credibility of a source. For example, I hear a weird amount of claims that people were Christian religious figures and dead celebrities in their past lives, but the claimants don't seem to know how past lives work in religions where reincarnation is a common belief, or care if half the stuff they've read is heavily modified Buddhism. Nor are they particularly interested in researching Christianity to better understand what being a reincarnated angel might mean. Their claims come across as less credible if they don't care where their information came from or how it's been modified. They don't have to fork over anything, but they are very much getting judged on suspicions of cherry-picking and bastardization. While this is usually not the end of the world, I can link this cool article about a person who used bizarre past life claims to try and legitimize herself as a cult leader: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57017270 Once again, sourcing shit. If it was a current event, I might refer to the situation without a link due to the assumption others are reading about it in the news. But you'd have more luck fact checking my statements on the matter if I linked or specified the article I read. The Wikipedia page is a bit more fun, as Wikipedia pages tend to be. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Carlson_(religious_leader) Can I have extra credit for the Madame Blavatsky reference that is currently found in her past lives list? I hope it stays there so I don't look stupid when it updates.
Another situation where sources become relevant is when you find cool books about witchcraft and the occult. On the surface level, you might have to adapt what you're reading because it's rooted in a different religion from your own. On a deeper level, names can be clean or soiled. A google search of the author should quickly turn up if they're trying to sell merch, if they've been faulted for inaccurate history, or if they're a raging asshole in their public persona. What I usually find is inaccuracy controversies and shady self-promotion. And I hope you will find something better instead of something worse. A flaw doesn't mean you have to throw the book away. It's pretty normal to unknowingly take religious advice from assholes (source: trust me bro I have anecdotal stories about people you can't research.) But for those of us partaking in critical thought, it's usually possible to raise an eyebrow at sections praising the product the author sells or reject whatever they just said about outdated history theories.
Source requests can also be misused to start fights if applied in inappropriate contexts. I've chosen to cut my example list on this one because it is rambling and potentially recognizable to people who gave me some very specific headaches. So here's my dubious, simplified advice: If you can't locate a vaguely referenced source based on provided info, it may be made up. If a source contradicts the claim associated with it, assume either malice or poor reading comprehension. Both are problems. A source is not necessary when exchanging common advice like cooking, houseplant care, your creative hobbies, or just your own damn preferences for spell ingredients and what works for you. If people start this, I strongly recommend asking for equal credibility and rubbing their noses in the new standard they've introduced. Petty deserves petty, especially if the shit-starter has a reputation to uphold and you don't. From this line, you can deduce I do not have a reputation to uphold and I may enjoy fucking with people. Because you understand I too, am just a source.
