User:Machine Elf 1735/Moved/Talk:Sabbatic Witchcraft

If this is just about one person's practices why is it useful to have a separate article rather than just explaining it in Andrew D. Chumbley?Prezbo (talk) 07:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As the founder of this page, I disagree with your assertion that it is "just about one person's practices". Many Sabbatic Crafters exist, both those who are members of the Cultus Sabbati, and those who are not. In time, this article will be fleshed out, by myself and likely by others as well.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC))


 * Since the article defines its subject as "a form of contemporary witchcraft developed and propagated by the English occultist Andrew Chumbley" and says nothing about any other followers, my "assertion" is a natural assumption to make and one that will probably be made by most readers.Prezbo (talk) 01:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Disputed Title
Sabbatic Witchcraft is not a correct title for Chumbley's work. He called it Sabbatic Craft. He did not call it Sabbatic Witchcraft. If you find a solid reference to Chumbley's work as Sabbatic Witchcraft, please post here. For the time being, I am disputing this article's title. Lulubyrd (talk) 12:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I cannot think of any references from Chumbley himself to hand, but others certainly have used the term, and he has described his tradition as a form of Traditional Witchcraft. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC))
 * Hi Midnightblueowl-what terms others use are irrelevant in Wiki, of course. That's kind of like hearsay. I'm not aware of where Chumbley described his tradition as a form of Traditional Witchctraft. Will you direct me to that, please? Lulubyrd (talk) 16:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's the Magister of the Cultus Sabbati saying they're "a body of Traditional Witchcraft initiates". Schulke uses the terms "Craft" and "Witchcraft" interchangeably, and it's clear that Chumbley in no way attempted to draw a distinction between them, (references moved here:  ).
 * Although Chumbley did tend to use "Craft", (as well as other terms), it's actually what secondary and tertiary reliable sources say that's more important on Wikipedia. At any rate, it's hardly a matter for dispute...  I'd suggest you find some verifiable material that supports your position, and present it a non–confrontational way, in order to help build consensus.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 07:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh, who would have thought asking for some references and saying please was confrontational? On a more pointed note: your references do NOT evidense Chumbley calling Sabbatic Craft Sabbatic Witchcraft. You have used verifiable material to make my case. Thank-you. Your references clearly show that Chumbley coined the term Sabbatic Craft, not Sabbatic Witchcraft, which is "actually" more precise. Your argument regarding secondary sources might well make a case for someone claiming Chumbley wasn't named Chumbley, so we'll call him something else from now on, if your sources actually made a case for another name, which they don't. If you want to reference Schulke, be sure to notice that he is referring to the Azoetia as a reification of Traditional Witchcraft, and not referring to Chumbley's Sabbatic Craft, which both Chumbley and Schulke do not refer to as Witchcraft. Lulubyrd (talk) 14:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously, that's not what I was referring to, it's your tone.
 * My references indicate that Chumbley would have called the subject of this article "Sabbatic Current", not "Sabbatic Craft", which is "actually" not even what you're on about...
 * Your argument regarding secondary sources is a straw man.
 * Either you didn't review Schulke's article, or you simply refuse to acknowledge that Schulke uses the term "Traditional Witchcraft" in reference to the Cultus Sabbati. You are splitting hairs over the terms "Craft"/"Witchcraft", (contrary to their equivalence in those references), and that is a poor reason to tag the article's title as being disputed simultaneous with your suggestion that it might be changed.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 17:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You're right, I simply refuse to acknowledge that Schulke uses the term Traditional witchcraft in reference to the Cultus Sabbati. He doesn't. If he does, please show me the specific reference. He does reference that Chumbley used traditional witchcraft sources in writing Azoetia. You are making a leap in association, not referring to what is actually written. We are discussing a specific term, and you are making excuses to relate it with another term without documentation. So, change the title to Sabbatic Current, or sabbatic Craft if you like, but relate it to the documentation. Chumbley NEVER referred to his work as Sabbatic Witchcraft. Please don't tell me what I'm on about, and no, I'm not splitting hairs. Please do not attribute motivations or actions to me. I know that Chumbley used words very specifically. If he meant witchcraft, he would have written that word. He instead referred to it as Craft. Sabbatic Craft. I asked for a specific reference wherein Chumbley referred to it as Sabbatic Witchcraft. You have shown that Chumbley referred to it as Sabbatic Craft. You have also not shown that Schulke refers to it as Sabbatic Witchcraft, or that he thinks Chumbley did. I like your straw man defense. Try again, please. Lulubyrd (talk) 21:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If you won't take responsibility for what you say and you're going to persist in these straw man tactics, then discussing this with you is pointless and I'll remove your tag immediately, ( see WP:AGF and etc., see WP:OWN).
 * Chumbley specifically stated the title YOU have been suggesting refers exclusively to certain associates of the Cultus Sabbati. So, unless you can produce sources indicating that it's in notable use beyond that group, which is doubtful and you've shown no willingness to make an attempt (or to make concessions). Your estimated personal knowledge of everything Andrew Chumbley did and did not say will only lend support to WP:COI.
 * "Biographic Note: The Author is the Magister of the Cultus Sabbati, a body of Traditional Witchcraft initiates..."
 * It's right there in the title.
 * “'Sabbatic Craft', as a unifying term denoting a 'tradition', relates solely to the specific lineages convergent and operative in the Cultus Sabbati as an initiatic body.” Emphasis mine, but then, apropos of this article, he goes on to discuss a meta–tradition that is open to "all who are receptive to its impetus"... or rather, all who can go beyond names!


 * I've never said Schulke or Chumbley used the term "Sabbatic Witchcraft" in those references. What I said was that's not as important as what verifiable secondary/tertiary reliable sources say. Most people would take the word "reliable" to indicate sources that don't make ridiculously counter–factual claims. Unlike you, I "actually" don't care, so don't try and twist it.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 06:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, remove the disputed title tag. I'll tag this for speedy removal, which is what should have been done in the first place-but I did my best in good faith to get this changed to something appropriate. This is just a stub and as noted above, already noted in Chumbley's entry. Personal attacks, such as in your posts above are against Wiki policy. Please stop or I will make a complaint. Lulubyrd (talk) 13:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * What attack? There's no reason to take anything I've said here personally. Trying to change the article's title from "Sabbatic Witchcraft" to "Sabbatic Craft" doesn't make it notable or less duplicative; if anything, it makes it more duplicative.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 18:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Lulubyrd, but it certainly comes across that you are the one who was acting in an agressive tone in the above quotes, not Machine Elf 1735. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC))