Talk:Neopaganism in the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    |
This article is part of WikiProject Neopaganism, a WikiProject dedicated to expanding, organizing, verifying, and NPOVing articles related to neopagan religions. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments | |
[edit] 4.5 million (1990) to 10 million (2000s) Neopagans in the US
- David Waldron. Witchcraft for Sale! Commodity vs. Community in the Neopagan Movement. Nova Religio. August 2005, Vol. 9, No. 1.
Could someone read the study and prove the accuracy of this statement? --Esimal 18:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- these numbers appear highly dubious. The 10 million claim is taken from religioustolerance.org, which in turn attributes it to a 1989 source quoting a 1986(!) source,
- Sharon Rufus, "WHO ARE THE WITCHES?", Fate (1986 AUG), P. 59: quoted by Nelson Price in "NEW AGE, THE OCCULT AND LION COUNTRY", Power Books (1989), P. 98:
- which in turn says the World Christian Encyclopedia (1982) claims 10 million pagans. So, to begin with, this number can hardly be applied to 2000. If the 1982 World Christian Encyclopedia really claims 10 million, it is just parroting pie-in-the-sky numbers, twisting them in connotation to alarmism. The 2001 ARIS number of 300,000 and the 1999 "Covenant of the Goddess" estimate of 770,000 for USA plus Canada, are much more plausible. The (neopagan) CoG poll is in striking agreement with the (neutral) ARIS number. Waldron (if reported accurately) deviates by a factor of 20(!), which makes him rather suspect too. Since Waldron's article concerns the "vibrant subcultures" associated in one way or another with Wicca, I can only surmise his 10 million number is intended to gesture at this wider context. I suggest we can use Waldron to point to a larger sympathetic subculture, but we should consider the ARIS and CoG figures as authoritative (at least, as authoritiative as any such number is going to be). --dab (𒁳) 20:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Why is the ten million number even in this article at all?
It has absolutely no credibility whatsoever. AnonMoos (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
