Talk:Chaos magic/Archive 1

NPOV Neutrality

This article is written from the point of view that Chaos magic is real. --User:Cagliost

This comment is written from the point of view that reality is real. ZachsMind 00:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you give specific examples? I've read through the article, and nothing is saying that Chaos magic actually works or accomplishes anything. It's just saying that given that some people practice magic, Chaos magic is one means of practicing that. Much like how the Protestantism talks about how it differs from regular Christianity, without discussing whether Christianity itself is correct, or even whether Jesus or God exists. --Lifefeed 19:12, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Yes I can give examples. It says, "Real life chaote Grant Morrison has afforded chaos magic a more accurate portrayal in his comic book epic The Invisibles." But clearly if there is no such thing as chaos magic (as I'm inclined to believe) there is no accurate portrayal of it.

Likewise, when it says of 'chaotes': "most assume these beliefs are shaping reality in a magical way", they are describing the concept of 'paradigm shifting' in their usage of it. In the first sentence we are to presume the existence of this 'paradigm shifting,' as it says: "Chaos magic is a relatively new form of ritual magic, generally involving paradigm shifting and empty-handed (without the use of props) rituals including stimulating focus of the will, often through meditation, psychoactive drugs, self-inflicted pain and orgasm." It involves 'paradigm shifting.' Note that the quote didn't include apostrophes around the term even though it denotes a concept peculiar to this practice, at least in this usage. Those are two examples of POV at a glance. --Maprovonsha172 20:28, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I changed the part about Morrison to 'Real life chaote Grant Morrison has afforded the theories of chaos magicians and their practices a more accurate portrayal in his comic book epic The Invisibles.' Is that more acceptable? I don't understand your problem regarding the use of paradigm shifting, could you explain it a little more clearly? (I'm trying to work with you here) Lachatdelarue (talk) 21:49, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your change is acceptable. My point about 'paradigm shifting' is that is seems to have a special meaning here different than whenever else I have heard it. A paradigm is a "a philosophical or theoretical framework of any kind" such as a paradigm shift from neo-classicalism to Romanticism, or a "an outstandingly clear or typical example" of something such it is used in the common phrase-"a paradigm case". This is an entirely different usage. It is described very ambiguously in the article: "the technique of arbitrarily changing one's model (or paradigm) of magic a major concept of chaos magic." The magical technique of changing one's model of magic? Could you explain that little more clearly?

Okay, I looked up Kuhn's use of the word. He began to resent the misuse of the word so he started saying exemplars (for basic assumptions we work with). Wikipedia said it is similiar to groupthink, or mindset.

Here is another ambiguous quote from the article: "The idea is that belief is a tool that can be applied at will rather than unconsciously." That's commonly accepted, there's nothing magical about that. We largely believe what we want to believe. That's accepted. But then, where does the magic come in...

"...most assume these beliefs are shaping reality in a magical way." This is kicker. This is what I'm assuming they are really getting at. This is a commonly held belief among New Agers. They think consciousness creates reality. This is New Age Bullshit, but since I know you will say that's only my opinion, let's agree that we should be more careful about saying chaos magicians can "shift paradigms." Honestly, this seems emblematic of our academically lazy culture, taking snipits from postmodern texts, New Age "revelations", and whatever else serves to comfort us and flatter us and our preconcieved notions.

So your change is fine, but the "paradigm shift" nonsense is still POV. --Maprovonsha172 22:16, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your first example is bogus. There is such a thing as Chaos Magic. The question of whether it works, or has any genuine correspondence to reality is completely unrelated to POV, unless the article specifically claims that Chaos Magic is efficacious. There is a set of philosophical beliefs and rituals that goes by the moniker of Chaos Magic, which Morrison uses in his works. Even that is not POV, since Morrisons protrayal is more like the beliefs and actions of Chaos Magic practioners than those portrayals it is contrasted against- Buffy et al.

Your second example is better; simply using the phrase 'paradigm shifting', with a later explanation that implicitly claims that this paradigm shifting works is POV. Not very though, since the sentence ('most assume...') is from a believers POV, and says as much. But I shall make it clearer. --maru 22:10, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To respond to this statement/question: 'the technique of arbitrarily changing one's model (or paradigm) of magic a major concept of chaos magic." The magical technique of changing one's model of magic?' -- It is exactly what it says it is. For one ritual I may use a Pagan paradigm (kindly earth deities etc) and for another I may use the ideas set forth in one of the Necronomicons. I am shifting which paradigm I use. I hope that clears that up for you some. Lachatdelarue (talk) 22:31, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What of the idea that consciousness creates reality which it also implies? The line that says that "most assume..." doesn't isn't implicitly POV because it is the POV of the "most", but the first sentence of the article does act as if "paradigm shifting" is an actual phenomenon. Maybe that "most assume..." line should be removed or further clarified. Otherwise it appears to conform to Wikipedia's standards, even though (as you can imagine) I still think it's bullshit! Maprovonsha172 22:41, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Paradigm shifting does exist, as fact (one of the few things involving chaos magic that does). Shifting paradigms simply means changing the way you view the world (or magic) at will. It is something someone does, not something that is theorized about. I'm not saying it works, I'm just saying it does exist. BTW, I'm glad we're making headway. I was really upsetted by the way things were progressing earlier. Lachatdelarue (talk) 22:49, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm fine with that definition of paradigm shifting, and I will take down the template as long as I can delete the "most assume these beliefs are shaping reality in a magical way" line which most blatently screams bullshit and which sort of implied that paradigm shifting had something to do with that very New Agey sentiment. Maprovonsha172 23:41, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How about if we move the statement about shaping reality etc to another place, so as not to imply that paradigm shifting is the cause? removing it because it 'blatently screams bullshit' is, once again, your opinion. You removing that would be like someone going to the Christianity article and removing something about how Christians believe that when they die they will go to heaven, because it screams bullshit to that particular editor... Lachatdelarue (talk) 00:46, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What you began to say was fine but your analogy doesn't work unless, like this article, the Christianity article underhandedly endorsed a Christian POV in some way. You know what I mean, as well, or you wouldn't volunteer to move it. Maprovonsha172 01:01, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, the statement itself isn't the problem. The placement was. It shouldn't have been in that paragraph to begin with. And frankly, any article about a religion (or politics or philosophy etc) is going to have a very slight POV to it, it's just about unavoidable. If we went around qualifying every statement, it would get ridiculous. Did you look at the Examples linked to from the NPOV tutorial? They've got some good points. Lachatdelarue (talk) 02:22, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

magic is simply any unexplained process. whether it works can be personally evaluated by the practitioner, but since it's unexplained, the question of whether this tests any real phenomenon is problematic because it is not independently verifiable. --70.28.153.5 22:47, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Relation to other types of magic

"Chaos magic is also a place for individuals that would find no acceptance in other traditions of magic, such as Ian Read, former National Front activist and now editor of Rûna, homosexual magician and author Phil Hine and drug use advocate Julian Vayne."

I have excised the above from the main article on Chaos Magic as I find it deeply problematic for a number of reasons.

Firstly, the idea that individuals that would find no acceptance in other traditions of magic due to the 'fact' of them being right-wing, homosexual, or pro-drugs is, as a global statement, rather simplistic. While some magical orders do openly state that they do not accept members who use drugs or are not heterosexual, this is rather different than making a generalised claim that all other traditions (apart from chaos magic) reject individuals on the grounds of politics, sexuality, or drugs advocacy. There is certainly a debate which is worth having around politics, sexuality, and drugs and their relation to the occult.

Still on this point - on a biographical level, at least, it's demonstratably false. Both Julian and myself have been involved in a number of magical traditions - such as Wicca and Thelema.

Secondly, I find it intriguing that the author(s?) of this paragraph have isolated, for each of the individuals they're using to indicate the character of chaos magic, a highly-charged significator. Ian Read = ex-National Front activist, Phil Hine = homosexual, Julian Vayne = drugs advocate - and the conflation of these three highly-charged terms (hardly neutral) go together to imply something quite negative about chaos magic - especially as the reader has been told that these three things are not accepted in other magical traditions. It rather gives the impression that chaos magic is a dumping ground for degenerates of various stripes. And it also implies to a certain extent that there's a relationship between the three things as well - apparently one thing leads to another.

A far more 'neutral' statement (though still biographically accurate) could be:

"Chaos magic is also a place for individuals that would find no acceptance in other traditions of magic, such as musician Ian Read and now editor of Rûna, former Pagan News editor Phil Hine and permaculture advocate Julian Vayne."

Though I'll grant you, it doesn't have quite the same impact, does it? Indeed, readers will be left wondering what it is that other 'magical traditions' have against musicians, fanzine editors or permaculture advocates.

Finally, it's not my intention to appear to be 'censoring' public discussion of Ian Read's political history or Julian's advocacy of drugs (or indeed his advocacy of Tarot cards), it's just that I feel that it's simplistic to imply that any one attribute of any individual is somehow indicative of a whole "movement". Oh, and btw, whilst I have no problem with being labelled as "homosexual" I'm not, in actuality, homosexual. I can't help wondering though, why for the writers of the above paragraph, the 'fact' that I'm "homosexual" is more important to point out than me being a magician, or indeed, an author. --Phil Hine

I don't find this paragraph said all other traditions reject people with such highly-charged traits. Inserting "many" before "other traditions" would have been enough to clarify this.

I don't see what's so negative about right-wing politics, drugs, or homosexuality, either. What I meant to point out when I wrote this part was that chaos magic is much more accepting of personal flavors and opinions than societies (or most magical traditions) are. Alright, perhaps trying to do so by means of examples is not a good idea, and I'm sorry I got your sexuality wrong. Still the very high level of tolerance among chaos magicians is something I find very worthwhile noting, if in another way. --Wade Butler

I wonder if chaos magic is another term for conversion? It seems to me that this paradigm shifting methodology has a lot in common with religious conversions that suddenly transform the way that a person thinks. --Anon.

not conversion so much as self-directed shape-shifting. you wear beliefs like you wear clothes. try changing them, see how different the world looks. --70.28.153.5 00:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Summary?

This article could do with beginning with a summary, at least one sentence before the table of contents.

what does 'empty-handed' mean? without the use of props? or without making a fist? --216.234.56.130 14:53, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

With out the use of props. I added that to the article. --Lachatdelarue (talk) 15:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

When you say "real"...

Ok, so I have no problem with the idea that Chaos Magic "exists", in as much as one can define it, it has characteristics that one can write down in an enyclopedia. However, I cannot help but wonder whether supposed (or self-proclaimed) "Chaos Magicians" really believe themselves to be adherants of a real religious / philosophical structure.

A cynic, playing devil's advocate, might suggest that so-called Chaos Magicians are, on the whole, slightly debauched, louche, artistic types who like to dress their recreational activities or spiritual uncertainties up in more esoteric terminology than most people out of vanity or other earthly motivations.

Eg, "Hey babe... I'm not just trying to get in your pants... it's for a ritual!" or "I only smoke this much weed to achieve a gnostic state!" or even, "Yeah, I know last week I was studying Nazi Grail-lore and now I'm building a Golem. I just shifted my magical paradigm."

I guess all I'm trying to ask is - Is it not possible that "Chaos Magic" is in fact a rather tongue-in-cheek joke for the benefit of a few literate libertines? 19:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

It is possible. However, it's irrelevant to our purposes. This is an encyclopedia, and we use reputable sources, not our own opinions. Friday (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The IOT holds annual international meetings that are members-only, so at least some spend significant sums of money to engage in chaos magic without outsiders to play any superficial joke on.Denial 01:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me like a combination of wannabes in line with the first chap's comment, and the more serious kind who are Discordians that have forgotten how to 'keep it real'. ;) But these are unverifiable opinions by nature, as they are so subjective. Even putting them in the article under the old 'Some people hold the view that...' would be using Weasel Words.Doctor Atomic 12:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I assure you, Chaos Magic is not a simple "joke". There are actual practitioners who do this stuff. Kurds 00:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yup, I know many people who practice it. And I do as well. To me(and those I know) it is very real. And with reason. However it could always be that we are imagining things. But that could apply to virtually anything.--81.165.74.176 20:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Things aren't real "to" anyone. They're either real or they aren't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1014:B127:77FE:0:6A:F1D0:DD01 (talk) 03:14, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to state, that you don't have to buy every book you can get about chaos magic(k), or any expensive props to "get started" with it. The idea is on one hand so simple, that one might look at it as a joke, on the other its "simplicity" makes it the tool it is for those who already had "mystical" experiences on their own. You can get the idea just from reading "Ovenready chaos" on Phil Hines website, without ever buying a book. Also The "Iluminates of Thanateros" or the "Temple of psychic youth" don't ask any fees. Plus: it is stated in every publication on the matter i've read, that is is a highly personal endeavor, having no dogma, rejecting authority, encouraging practitioners to got out and do something instead of collecting books on occult themes...this makes it less proiftable than it could be (in fact the list could go on and on). If it was intended to be a hoax, than one mostly for fun, as the structure of the idea itself lessens possible profit. The word "magic" has been tainted with the taste of fraud eversince it became necessary to distinguish between accepted technologies (including psychological techniques) and those not compatible with current wordlviews. The word "magic" serves as a marker for something that CAN NOT BE REAL in our current age. It turns people of science into people of ignorance when they see an idea affiliated with it. It is the unease of the scientific method reaching it's own barriers. With quantum mechanics we left certanity, with string theory we leave physics behind to enter metaphysics, whatever this means. Imho npov means to stand outside those discussion, so we should move discussions about the reality of magic to the main article, where both positions should be served to the reader including underlying arguments. This article outlines just a specific idea inside the complex topic of magic. --CouchFuzius 17:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Presumably this is the problem which OP is referencing. Those who are posting on the page fail to maintain NPOV. Contrast any other mystical or religious pages, which, when not being edited by their adherents, are described without assumption of fact in supernatural claims. Wikipedia is not designed to showcase an author's book on Topic X unless that book fits into a broader framework of discussion, which this clearly does not. By losing NPOV and acting merely as a reflection on primary references with no mention of the place this has out of the larger picture of various spiritual beliefs, there is little worthy in the article. Barbaroi (talk) 21:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

'Magic' vs. 'Magick'

Death chaulk has changed the word 'magic' to 'magick' in many places in this article. Although I understand that this is chaos magic(k) we're talking about, wouldn't it be a good idea to keep the spelling consistent with the article title? If no one has any strong objections, I'll change it back. Zorblek (talk) 12:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

No! You totally can't do that! The proper spelling is Kayosz Mahgeeck! As such I will edit the entire article to fit my point of view. You can complain, and I will listen, but it's not maybe going to sometimes happen! -- The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake ^{Prophesize) 03:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Eh? Eh? What was that? You want me to revert? As you wish... :P Zorblek (talk) 08:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe it was first coined as "Chaos Magic" but today many practiioners call it Chaos Magick to take away the 'bunny in a hat' appearance. FK0071a 12:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record, this is not something strictly held to Chaos. All pagans globally recognize it spelled as "Magick". It has been used this way for many many many years. 67.241.138.25 (talk) 14:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record, the only correct place to use the spelling "magick" is for Aleister Crowley's system of "Magick", for which he intentionally "revived" this spelling. Elsewhere, we use the standard English spelling. Yworo (talk) 20:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Crowley may have coined the term, but it is widely accepted to be the proper spelling when referring to it today. "Selene Scott (talk) 00:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)"

Contradiction?

The article says:

• Like Crowley's "'Do what thou wilt' shall be the whole of the law," this phrase is often mistakenly interpreted in its most literal sense to mean "there is no such thing as objective truth, so whatever you want to do is good and just for you." However, "Nothing is True and Everything is Permitted" is more widely interpreted to mean "there is no such thing as an objective truth outside of our perception; therefore, all things are true and possible."

But I see no difference between the two quotes. I don't see why the Chaos sentence is any better than its detractors. Both say there is no objective truth. Both say you make your own laws. How is there any difference? It seems like the magicians are deceiving themselves, denying that they're warping the definition of objective truth. NCartmell 16:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a contradiction between these phrases; perhaps whoever added that complaint was mistaking the contrast of definitions as some sort of contradictory statement. -- 216.45.165.99 23:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I would assume that the former variant is an ethical statement, while the latter is an ontological one.

Our dear sir above indeed has it nailed. The fact is that some use the statement to justify any action of revolt which otherwise could seem unethical, whereas for many others it means that "any conceivable action can and will occur".

There is no contradiction, that tag should be removed. --Clementduval 05:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Nietzsche uses that quote in Zarathustra, but he does mention it in his Genealogy of Morals. In any case the Nietzsche citation is superfluous considering he is quoting the order of Assassins anyway. Why does Nietzsche need to be mentioned here, he has nothing to do with the occult.

Empty Handed?

I have a serious problem with the idea that chaos magic is an empty-handed practice. I assure you many chaos magicians use a number of props. If someone practices sigil magic, chemognosis, and borrows from myriad traditions, if he/she then picks up a ritual tool does that all of a sudden make him/her not a chaos magician? I think not. In addition, I'm not sure I would call sigil magic empty-handed, considering making a sigil can be thought of as the creation of a ritual tool. Does anyone object to changing the empty-handed reference to "sometimes empty-handed" or eliminating it entirely? Plenty of chaos magicians (myself included) like to pick up an athame or an athame-substitute during a ritual. Zensufi 01:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable to maintain the concept of "open-handed magick" in the general discussion about techniques of chaos magick, but I think it is clearly an error to say that chaos magick is fundamentally open/empty handed. That chaos magickians utilize both formal ritual structure as well as methods which are categorized as open handed, seems evident. It may be that a definition of open handed magick is somewhat unclear; for example, in my view the deliniation between "open handed" or closed handed(?)" magick is not dependent on whether or not I am holding a physical object. Fwoelper 03:29, 1 December 2006 (EST)

Empty-handed magick is something to aspire to. One of the main tenets of Chaos Magick is to use whatever you want, so long as it works, so I think the article needs to be altered to show it as a technique amongst many others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.253.109.140 (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

OBEs and Divination

From the second paragraph:

Some common sources of inspiration and and techniques include ceremonial magic, chaos theory, science fiction, OBEs, and divination.

Anyone care to elaborate? If no one objects, I'd like to replace "OBEs and divination" with "experimentation". I would also like to add "world religions" and replace "chaos theory" with the much broader "scientific theories" and "mathematics". --Tsuzuki26 08:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That was mine. I like your edits; I was just trying to capture the diverse sources from which chaos magicians borrow. What's this about Norse magic sitting in the beginning of the list? It seems too particular, like my original includsion of OBEs and divination. If anyone thinks it still belongs there after I remove it, please explain. Thanks. Zensufi 21:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

No clue. I'm not the one who added it. --Tsuzuki26 02:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Chaos Magic term first used?

In this article it states that:

• "The term chaos magic first appeared in print in the widely influential Liber Null by Peter Carroll, first published in 1978."

However, in "Condensed Chaos", in a section entitled "A Brief History of Chaos" on page 15, Phil Hine states that:

• "...the first edition of Peter Carroll's Liber Null, which while describing the basic philosophy and practical approaches, did not contain the term 'Chaos Magic'."

So, when and where was the term 'Chaos Magic' first used? FK0071a 12:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

UPDATEI have found no facts since I made this entry so have changed the article slightly to read thus:

• "It is unknown when the term chaos magic first appeared in print. In 1978, the first book publised to be classed of chaos magic, Peter James Carroll formulated several concepts on magic..." FK0071a 20:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Truth? Ha!

Rather, they temporarily assume the truth of parts of particular systems in order to accomplish their goals.

Whoever wrote that does not understand the first thing about chaos magic. It is not necessary to "assume truth" of systems or parts of systems -- in fact, Grant Morrison says (in "Pop Magic!") that one should instead go through the motions and see if they work. I can understand that this may be hard to appreciate, since people often think of magic as a "belief system", but really it isn't - at least not chaos magic -- at least not as described by GM. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.94.28.223 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

I was the one who wrote that chaos magicians "assume the truth" of other belief systems. By this, I did not mean that the chaos magician actually believes that these are correct, because we have no problem holding contradictory beliefs. Rather, because these systems do seem to have real results, we "assume the truth" of them in the sense that we use them insofar as they work. I don't think we actually just "go through the motions" because these motions include going through different beliefs. In chaos magic, there is a strong emphasis on trying out different belief systems, but this doesn't mean that ALL chaos magicians mess with belief. However, one seminal article on chaos magic is Frater U.'.D.'.'s piece on models of magic, which definitely focuses on belief. Grant Morrison is not the arbiter of what chaos magic is. Zensufi 21:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

In Pop Culture

"The name "Chaos" and the chaosphere are also used to represent the ever-present evil in Games Workshop's line of miniature games Warhammer Fantasy and Warhammer 40,000 (which resulted somewhat ironically in some chaotes adopting terminology from those games)."

I wouldn't call the Chaos Gods of Warhammer Fantasy and 40K evil exactly. In the games the people that fight against the Chaos Gods sometimes take actions that could be considered evil and the Chaos Gods sometimes take actions that could be considered good. If an opponent of a Chaos God does an evil act it does not make them more Chaotic nor does it result in their coruption. I'm not sure how to rework it though.

In Warhammer Fantasy/Warhammer 40K, if an opponent of Chaos does something evil, he/she often starts to shift towards Chaos. In fact, this is a major running theme of the Games Workshop universe: that today's champions of Chaos used to work for Good but were lured by Chaos, sometimes by being too extreme in the defense of Good. (To be fair, the other running theme is that Good is often as bad as Chaos, and that there are no good guys. GW fans call this "grimdark"). 190.194.206.43 (talk) 20:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The chaosphere

Too bad we can't have a way to randomly change which variant displays each time the page is loaded. --Tsuzuki26 03:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Awaiting citation

Magical paradigm shifting

Perhaps the most striking feature of chaos magic is the concept of the magical paradigm shift. Borrowing a term from philosopher Thomas Kuhn, Carroll made the technique of arbitrarily changing one's world view (or paradigm) of magic a major concept of chaos magic. An example of a magical paradigm shift is doing a Lovecraftian rite, followed by using a technique from an Edred Thorsson book in the following ritual. These two magical paradigms are very different, but while the individual is using one, he believes in it fully to the extent of ignoring all other (often contradictory) ones. The shifting of magical paradigms has since found its way into the magical work of practitioners of many other magical traditions, but chaos magic remains the field where it is most developed.

One of the most frequently cited tenets of Chaos magic is that "Nothing is True and Everything is Permitted," a quote attributed to Hassan I Sabbah and used by Friedrich Nietzsche in his work Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Like Crowley's "'Do what thou wilt' shall be the whole of the law," this phrase is often mistakenly interpreted in its most literal sense to mean that there is no such thing as objective truth, so people are free whatever they chose. However, "Nothing is True and Everything is Permitted" is more widely interpreted to mean "there is no such thing as an objective truth outside of our perception; therefore, all things are true and possible."

The idea is that belief is a tool that can be applied at will rather than unconsciously. Some chaos magicians think that trying unusual, and often bizarre beliefs is in itself an experience worth having and consider flexibility of belief a form of power or freedom in a cybernetic sense of the word.

The Gnostic state

A concept introduced by Carroll is the gnostic state, also referred to as gnosis. This is defined as a special state of consciousness that in his magic theory is what is necessary for working most forms of magic. This is a departure from older concepts which described energies, spirits or symbolic acts as the source of magical powers. The concept has an ancestor in the Buddhist concept of Samadhi, made popular in western occultism by Aleister Crowley and further explored by Austin Osman Spare.

The gnostic state is achieved when a person's mind is focused on only one point, thought, or goal and all other thoughts are thrust out. Users of chaos magic each develop their own ways of reaching this state. All such methods hinge on the belief that a simple thought or direction experienced during the gnostic state and then forgotten quickly afterwards is sent to the subconscious, rather than the conscious mind, where it can be enacted through means unknown to the conscious mind.

• Added citations for magical paradigm shifting and the gnostic state. --Tsuzuki26 03:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Chaos magicians

Practitioners of chaos magic attempt to be outside of all categories - for them, worldviews, theories, beliefs, opinions, habits and even personalities are tools that may be chosen arbitrarily in order to understand or manipulate the world they see and create around themselves. Chaos magicians are frequently described as funny, extreme or very individualistic people. They also may consider themselves exceptionally tolerant, remarking that whatever one might disagree over is merely an opinion, and hence interchangeable, anyway.

While chaos magic has lost some of the popularity it had in the UK during the 1980s, it is still active and influential. Its ideas can be found to leak into modern shamanism in particular, and are common in occult Internet forums. Proponents assert that the growing individuality of occultism in informal, often Internet-based surroundings is a direct result of the success of chaos magic, while critics argue this informal occultism often lacks a well-developed understanding of gnosis and paradigm shifting and is therefore not rightfully called chaos magic.

Symbols and deities

Chaos magic is unique among magical traditions in that it does not attribute significance to any particular symbol or deity. Wicca and Thelema, for example, could not be what they are without the Mother goddess and Horus, respectively. In contrast, chaos magicians may (or may not) pick any concept or set of concepts to worship, invoke or evoke. Traditional deities associated with chaos, such as Tiamat, Eris, Loki and Hundun are also popular, as are the entities described in the Necronomicon.

Following the tenet that anything can have significance and hold magical power, chaos magic rituals have centered around symbols as diverse as the color Octarine, a single worn sock, random-found street debris, or Harpo Marx. In some instances these uses have developed into temporary, but elaborate cults that may be seen as parodies of more fixed magical traditions, or of "fixedness" in general.

The eight-pointed chaos star (chaosphere or chaos wheel), originally taken from the fantasy novels of Michael Moorcock, is frequently used by chaos magicians and is today seen as a symbol of chaos magic's "infinite possibility." It is a spoked device with eight equidistant arrows radiating from a central point. The current rounded shape was devised by author and chaos magician Peter Carroll. However, this preference is not shared by all and may be argued to root solely in the symbol's semi-official use by the Illuminates of Thanateros. Most chaos magicians routinely create magical symbols for themselves (see Sigil).

Wikimedia Commons sidebar.

There's a graphic on the left side of the screen that says "Wikipedia is controlled by a close-knit group of Chaos Magic Overlords, as seen in the Wikimedia Commons logo.". Is this correct? If not, is it really an appropriate joke? --irrevenant [ talk ] 11:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted it - put it back if it should be there, but I doubt it. --irrevenant [ talk ] 11:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

AOS as a chaos magician?!

I believe that Austin Osman Spare should be removed from the section "Noble chaos magicians" due to the fact that he is the founder of a school of magic that some later magicians have deduced Chaos Magic out of that. --Sepand (talk) 20:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree. His methods are used by chaos magicians, but so are some of Crowley's, Patanjali's and a lot of others. He's mentioned in the influences and that should be enough. - Denial 13:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I also agree and have done the removal. Alabaster Crow 21:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Mr T practises chaos magic???

I don't think this is true. I think some one added it as a joke, but I might be wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JettisonCargo (talk • contribs) 22:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It most likely is. I'll look through history and see if it really needs to stay, because according to Mr. T's article, it says he's a born-again Christian and has its own reference. Disinclination (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a reference in the Mr T article: "Jones, William (2005). in Jason Louv (Editor): Generation Hex. The Disinformation Company. ISBN 1932857206." Can someone here check that? - Denial (talk) 12:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Black magic types

There are three types of Black Indian magics

1.Chethabadhi : It is black magic done to kill single person.He gets ill and become weak day by day and finaly death.

2.Banamathi: It is black magic done to small village or small town.so that all people in that town or village become sick and become become weak day by day. death will come onces to every home .that means one person dies in each house.

3 Kashmora : Its is most powerfull black magic. IT is done to whole country.One person die in each house. what moses done to egypt written in bibble. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.246.174.33 (talk) 12:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe this information is irrelevant for the article "chaos magic" since "chaos" here doesn't refer to "the evil chaotic forces" but to mathematical Chaos theory along with the "cosmology" in Michael Moorcock fantasy books of Elric of Melniboné. If you can find relevant sources, your notes might be relevant for the articles Left-Hand Path and Right-Hand Path and/or Black magic. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 18:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Uhmm, Chaos Magic by which group/school (NPOV)

There are many many schools of magic, philosophies of magic, magical traditions that don't use the term chaos magic or even organize magical practices this way. However, this article is written in a style that any modern practitioner of magic that follows the article's guidelines would then be a user of chaos magician. The intro needs to specify which schools or traditions of magic make this classification and which the article is primarily referring to. All it currently says is "Chaos magic is a school of the modern magical tradition" however, as modern magical tradition does not have it's own article, it needs further explanation, and should be listed in the intro. If a practitioner of magic does not have a belief system that includes this classification of magic, he wouldn't use or even recognize the term; i.e. this article is not NPOV because it treats the classification as universal when it is not. It needs to specify the main "authors" so to speak of the movement in the intro (dor example, an article on Thelema would invariable mention Crowley in the intro). Many different traditions can have different definitions of what chaos magic is, and none is either more right or wrong. 24.190.34.219 (talk) 06:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

No gnosis

Actually, I think the article links incorrectly from the "chaos magic" concept of "gnosis" to gnosis. As I have read it and possibly experienced it, gnosis is involuntary, and not an altered mind state achieved through good old hypnosis, good old trance or good old meditation. The "chaos magic" concept of "gnosis" is AFAIK not gnosis. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 18:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Criticism retracted: the article doesn't link to gnosis. I was wrong, pardon. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 18:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

CITATION NEEDED FOR QUESTIONABLE INFORMATION regarding secretomancy and shhhhsism, if they are legit

Hi. Is this information from the article correct? If so, it needs citation. I can't find any references to "secretomancy," "shhhhsism" or the anal glands of lemurs in google searches, except for sites copying this article.

I am not sure about semenancy, sounds like something Crowley et al would have been into. If practiced, semenism needs citation as well.

<<Others practice syllogistic manipulation of the endocrine system by use of rituals involving rare biological materials such as giraffe testicles and lemur anal glands, which is known as secretomancy - not to be confused with shhhhsism, the order of secret worshipers of secrets - nor with semenancy (divination through semen splatter pattern interpretation).>>

I am using a Thai keyboard and can't find the tildes, if indeed they are here. Melissa Rossi, March 26, 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melissarossi199 (talk • contribs) 10:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

...

Enlightenment through disordering.

Free will through 'belief'.

Retrochronic causation through forgetfulness.

This must be in jest. Else, that is, if this is really what you practise, you must be trying to descend some inverted tree of life descending from Malkuth into the bowels of Qliphothic excrement, wherein you, sacs of depreciating waste, hosts of multiplying misconceived parasites, slither deeper after the illusory, infernal light of your belief, losing free will and consciousness, forgetting whence you came, lost and rejectable.

Whichever but the blackest of black lodges buried in the ill brain of a most idiotic and foolish human could have thought up this sheer anti-logic, this enervating, energy-squandering lethal venom for Our Mercury? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.213.85 (talk) 08:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how your ridicule has any place on a Wikipedia discussion page. Furthermore, I don't see how your comment has got anything to do with secretomancy and shhhhsism. Calanor (talk) 15:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

References

Some important references I don't see here:

Principia Chaotica

Kaos Liber

(by Peter Carroll)

Xurtio (talk) 07:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Origins?

I must say that I've tended to the opinion that some credit should go to Ramsey Dukes for formulating at least some principles of Chaos Magic, primarily in S S O T B M E ("Sex Secrets of the Black Magicians Exposed") which dates from 1974: at this time Dukes was well-acquainted with Spare's work and had been influenced by it, particularly in terms of the significance of being able to detach oneself from traditional magical systems.

(I actually think that the reference to chaos magic in the Dukes article itself tends to underplay his role, as it has him influenced by chaos magic before it really existed.) It's interesting to me that SSOTBME gets a "further reading" line in the current article but neither he nor it is mentioned in the text. (This doesn't impact the credit currently given to Spare in the article IMO.)

Is Dukes's contribution to early chaos magic worthy of being addressed here?

Richard E (talk) 23:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

If it's verifiable using reliable sources, go for it. What you want is to be able to work from and cite somebody commenting on what you're talking about. —chaos5023 (talk) 23:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Use of the word 'Magic'

'Magic' to those of us who have studied, is the art of a stage magician. The word 'Magic' is never used to describe any type of Magickal art. In my opinion, the title should be changed."Selene Scott (talk) 00:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)"

In context "magic" is acceptable, "magickal" being a Crowley initiative also taken up by Wiccans (but not always) - ostensibly to distinguish from stage magic but also for gematria. Pockmarking an article with "k" spellings (even in "magickian") could be seen as in-universe language & OTT. Manytexts (talk) 16:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Proliferation

That section was just an utter mess. I cited the Liber Kaos for the "Modern practitioners are experimenting with retro-chronal magick, or changing past events." The discussion of the topic occurs on pages 29 - 39, although the wording is far less pseudo-intellectual than the sentence used above. I would recommend a rewrite of it.

I also removed the POV questioned sentence. " a skill requiring a deep understanding of the nature of memory and belief" is stated nowhere that I could find in my library or online resources, and actually makes the concept more complex than it is presented by Peter Carroll and others.

"the proposed mechanism through which all magicknow[sic] works". This makes two assumptions. First, it implies that magic now works through a different system than it used to, also expresses that magic works as fact. While I am a long-time practitioner of Chaos magic, and I believe in its efficacy, that does not mean that 'magic as fact' belongs in the Wikipedia article. Other beliefs don't get to do it either. It is also contradictory to other statements in the article, and to references give, that Chaos is a 'system'. Much of Chaos itself is based around borrowing from other traditions, it does not have a fixed set of practices or beliefs. Removed.

Asked for citation on Marilyn Manson being a notable author. I would suggest that all the people in that list are either cited or linked to another article that mentions their involvement with Chaos Magic.

I didn't remove this, but it's just babble. "It requires the practitioner to maintain a careless memory of how things used to be, with a belief that things are in chaotic flux, an expectation that change will occur and the ability to accept the changes as they occur." The terms 'careless memory' and 'chaotic flux' are not defined or clearly used in context. It should be rewritten or removed.

Removed "Terry Pratchett describes the process as the "zipper in the trousers of time"." as this was never used my Pratchett in reference to Chaos Magic, it is merely a quote representative of the belief system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.19.172.32 (talk) 05:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

This article used to be fairly well written. It seems that some of the more recent changes are a bit erroneous. Perhaps by someone who reads too many message boards rather than books by the creators and early founders of the movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.19.172.32 (talk) 05:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Chaos Magic redirect

Someone is changing the Chaos Magic redirect target to Timo_Tolkki#Chaos_Magic. WTF? See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chaos_Magic&action=history — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 08:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

'magickal' and semiotic drift

Semiotic drift has nothing to do with it. Magickal is a misspelling not supported in any print dictionary, which is Wikipedia's standard. It would have to be pronounced Ma gi' kal if it were spelled this way. Book titles and usage notwithstanding. Magick is fine and well attested. Magickal is jargon and not acceptable in the general text of articles. If it is used it needs either to be in quotes or with (sic) added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Choronzonclub (talk • contribs) 22:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Chaos magic/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Article gives a basic understanding of what Chaos magic consists of, but could use further detail, referencing and worldwide view to push the article to GA status. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 01:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 01:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 11:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Advertising?

This revision added a link to a paid subscription based online chaos magic school. Seems like plugging/advertising, and there are definitely other links that could be there that are far more notable and relevant. Is it appropriate for this to be here?

Seisatsu (talk) 05:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

You're right, it's basically spam. I removed it. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 14:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Clean Up: Introduction

This article has received almost no significant attention for over ten years, so I'm undertaking a major cleanup and expansion, to bring it in line with other articles on magical schools like Thelema or Wicca. I've started with the introduction, which I've totally rewritten. The original was this:

"Chaos magic, also spelled chaos magick, is a contemporary magical practice which emphasizes the pragmatic use of belief systems and the creation of new and unorthodox methods."

Which tells us almost nothing, and the one thing it does tell us is totally vague. I'll proceed to go through and tighten up everything else. Rune370 (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Clean up: Terminology Section

I added a "terminology" section, in line with other wikipedia pages like Wicca, stoicism, etc. I've used the content that was previously in an "early days" section at the bottom of the article, cleaning it up a little in the process. Rune370 (talk) 09:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Clean up: Results-Based Magic and Magical Paradigm Shift sections

I added a "results-based magic" section under "beliefs", which uses some of the content from the old "emphasis on creative ritualism" bit. I also tidied up and expanded the "magical paradigm shifting" section, with some better references. Rune370 (talk) 13:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Chaosphere Image in Masthead Position

Modanung,

I've reverted your recent edit to the chaos magic article, for several reasons. I'm trying to clean up the entire article to bring it in line with other Wikipedia articles on different philosophies, religions and belief systems.

The Chaosphere I've uploaded is the most frequently used version. It's more or less the one used in Liber Null (on page 68), which originally introduced the symbol to chaos magic. It's also the one used on both the IOT UK and IOT USA websites, [[1]] and [[2]]. It's therefore the most appropriate symbol to use in masthead position on this article.

The symbol you uploaded is a variant. If you look at some other wikipedia pages on other subjects, they use the most generic and widely used version of a particular logo in masthead position -- not an infrequently used variant. The article on Christianity, for example, uses a simple SVG cross, not an elaborate celtic knotwork design. The article on Hinduism uses a simple SVG image of the Aum symbol -- the most widely used and generic symbol for Hinduism. The version of the chaosphere I've uploaded follows this same standard.

If you disagree, please let's have a conversation about it, rather than simply reverting my edits. I am merely trying to bring the article up to the same standard as any other belief system, which I'm sure we can both agree it deserves. Rune370 (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

You're complaining about my edits, you are the one that keeps reverting them. But more importantly on page 101 of Liber Null the description of the chaosphere (not -circle, -dot, -spot or star) in the chapter dedicated to the object says:

 It consists of a sphere with eight arrows radiant directed toward the vertices of a cube.

So that's what it is. Alternatively, it may be considered as a demonstration of the axiom that belief has the power to structure reality. Modanung (talk) 00:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I've had a look at your website, on which you host your 3D renderings. You've clearly designed this image yourself, and that's why you want it to be on the page. Wikipedia is not a place to promote your own interests. From your talk page, it's also clear that you've done this multiple times in the past with other images on other articles.

I don't believe that the image you're uploading has been used in any published chaos magic text anywhere, by Peter J. Carroll, or anyone else.

Note we are talking about an image, not the thing the image represents, so the fact that your own picture is a sphere is irrelevant. It's categorically not the standard chaosphere logo.

If you upload your own image again, I'll report you to the moderators. Rune370 (talk) 07:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Uses of accurate representations: The Chaosphere by Uraeus, as a pickup in a game called heXon and the Chaoism Facebook page. Also, I believe it would be wise if we disconnected from that by adding a dimension while more closely approaching the liturgical description. Also also: Did you find the CC0 Blend file I share through the image? Modanung (talk) 09:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The example you've given of the image being used in a game is a game that you made. It's hosted on your website, which is linked to in your talk page. This just confirms that you made that image, and that's the reason you want it to be on the page. The image I'm trying to put in masthead position is the established chaos magic symbol, used widely in all chaos magic books. Your behaviour is abusive, it fits a pattern of abuse on other pages, and I'm giving you an official warning on your talk page. I'll seek to get you blocked if you continue using wikipedia to try and promote your own content. Rune370 (talk) 17:50, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: The user is demonstrating the same abusive behavior, replacing imagery in the article with their own designs against consensus and several reverts by different users and administrators, in the corresponding article on the german Wikipedia. Note that he selectively quotes from Liber Null while ignoring differing statements in the same chapter of said book (eg. ibid. p. 100: “The shape shown in figure 13 is only one of a number of possibilities” &c.) —viciarg⁴¹⁴ 13:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Which is not the same as "Feel free to confuse the chaosphere and the sigil of chaos" or "Go sit on it". Modanung (talk) 14:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

...and so the Germans blocked me for sticking to objective truth. You Pharisees are starting to give me a messiah complex. Modanung (talk) 15:08, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I believe this paragraph from Liber Null makes it clear the Chaosphere represents the core, the source and main axiom within Chaos Magic e.g. it's central symbol:

 The Chaosphere is the prime radiant or magic lamp of the adept - a psychic singularity which emitteth the brilhant [sic] darkness. It is a purposely created crack in the fabric of reality through which the stuff of Chaos enters our dimension. Alternatively, it may be considered as a demonstration of the axiom that belief has the power to structure reality.

The same chapter describes its shape by using the words sphere and cube, both three-dimensional shapes. Modanung (talk) 11:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's you who attributes this paragraph with the notion of symbol. That's not how it works. Please refer to Symbol of Chaos, where your 3D-rendering is already mentioned as a variant. Oops, that was you, too? Yet again without any valid sources. --Zinnmann (talk) 12:53, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

After reading the relevant sections of the Liber Null as well as what secondary sources I could find, I agree that the eight-pointed star, known to the Liber Null as the "Sigil of Chaos", should be used. The Chaosphere clearly is described as an object, not a symbol ("one of the arrows is detachable as a magical weapon"). Huon (talk) 11:51, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Clean Up: "Sigils" and "Cut Up Technique" sections

I've added subsections on sigils and the cut up technique to the "practices" section. Can't believe there wasn't a section on sigils on the chaos magic page! Rune370 (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Origins and Influences

I've tidied up and expanded the "origins" and "influences" sections, compressing them into one. I've cut these bits:

"Chaos magic was first formulated in West Yorkshire" -- the source for this (Condensed Chaos by Phil Hine) doesn't say this at all. The first time Hine mentions Yorkshire in his history of chaos magic is when he talks about "the Yorkshire-based 'Circle of Chaos'", active from 1985 -- ten years after chaos magic was founded.

"A meeting between Peter J. Carroll and Ray Sherwin in Deptford in 1976 has been claimed as the point of emergence of chaos magic" -- the source here is Understanding Chaos Magic by Jaq D Hawkins. Hawkins actually says that Carroll lived in Deptford, and submitted articles to a magazine edited by Sherwin, who lived in Yorkshire. Rune370 (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Adapation and Spread

I've added a new subsection to the "history" section, mostly covering the 1980s. I've named it "Adaptation and Spread" for now. Not sure about the name though? Rune370 (talk) 12:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Pop Culture section, plus Chaos Magic Series footer

I've added a new "pop culture" subsection to the "history" section, covering the period of the 1990s and early 2000s. I've also created a Chaos Magic Series, and added the relevant footer to the page. Rune370 (talk) 13:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I've just removed the "see also" links, because there was a lot of stuff that wasn't relevant, and the stuff that is relevant is now in the new "chaos magic series" navigation box. Rune370 (talk) 01:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Post Chaos: 2010s

Added a new "post chaos" bit to the history section, bringing the whole history up to date. Rune370 (talk) 01:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

"Results-based"

So, what exactly does "Often referred to as 'success magic' or 'results-based magic', chaos magic claims to emphasize the attainment of objective results over the symbolic, ritualistic, theological or otherwise ornamental aspects of other occult traditions" actually mean? I am having trouble interpreting it as anything other than a claim to produce (unspecified) real world results. Similarly, there's "leaving behind only the techniques for effecting change; hence the emphasis is on actually doing things – i.e., experimenting with different techniques, rather than memorising complex rules, symbols and correspondences – and then retaining those techniques that appear to produce results." What exactly are these changes or results supposed to be? --tronvillain (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Tronvillain:. I'm not sure this is really the place for a discussion about chaos magic, it's for discussing the article on chaos magic. Do you feel that the article needs to be less vague on this point? Or are you asking in relation to the discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Chaos_Magic, because you're trying to establish if there's a claim being made about physical results from psychological processes (or something similar)? Again, if the latter, I'm not sure if it's a good idea to let the discussion spill over onto multiple pages? But I am new to Wikipedia, I'm not quite sure on the protocol. Rune370 (talk) 21:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I could tag the relevant passages with "clarification needed" if you like. I'm saying that as it is, the article does not clearly convey what those statements mean. Are you saying they're talking about purely psychological results in the person using the techniques? The lede and article do not currently make that clear. The discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Chaos magic is related, but seems in need of clarification regardless of whether or not Chaos magic should be considered a fringe theory. --tronvillain (talk) 23:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Tronvillain: OK, so we've sort of got two parallel discussions going on, and I think I've already addressed this on the fringe theory page? But your question presupposes a division between psychological and physical worlds, that chaos magic maintains an agnostic position on. The statement that is bandied around most frequently regarding what "results" actually are is Crowley's quote: "if you do certain things, certain results will follow", but when it comes to "are those results physical or psychological (or something else)?" the response from chaos magic is "we don't know". I can back all of that up with citations if you like. I do agree that if that's not currently apparent from the way the article is written, then it needs to be rewritten. Rune370 (talk) 23:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Chaos magic and postmodernism

tronvillain, can I just get your input on this? After "Chaos magic has been described as a union of traditional occult techniques and applied postmodernism", you've put a "citation needed" tag on "particularly a postmodernist skepticism concerning the existence or knowability of objective truth". There are two relevant quotes in Magia Sexualis by Hugh Urban. On page 19:

"An explicitly syncretic and iconoclastic approach, Chaos Magic draws freely on any and all practices that seem useful, while at the same time rejecting any absolute claims to truth and regarding all beliefs as so many relative illusions... Indeed, Chaos Magic might be regarded as the first truly 'postmodern' and 'deconstructionist' form of spirituality."

And on page 240:

"With its central principle of 'nothing is true, everything is permitted' and its rejection of all fixed models of reality, Chaos Magic would seem to be in many ways an ideal spiritual expression of many of the intellectual and aesthetic trends associated with postmodernism."

I'm not quite sure how to quote both these pages, with the page tags you've added to the references. I'm still learning the ropes here -- could you show me the appropriate way to reference this? Also, perhaps the phrasing in the page itself should be changed to more accurately reflect the source? Rune370 (talk) 19:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I saw those after I added the tag when I was looking for page numbers for the existing Magia Sexualis reference. What we probably want to do there is move the postmodernism bit from the middle of the lede sentence into its own sentence.--tronvillain (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Fringe theory / pseudoscience

There's been a lengthy debate at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Chaos Magic concerning whether or not chaos magic is either a fringe theory or pseudoscience, and therefore whether or not the guidelines at Wikipedia:Fringe theories apply to the page. The guidelines state: "In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field."

A theory is an explanation for a set of observed facts. It's clear, therefore, that the fringe theory guidelines can only be applied to a field of study in which there is (a) an object of study (some observed phenomena), (b) a mainstream explanation for the observed phenomena, and (c) other explanations that depart from the mainstream view. In such a situation, these alternative explanations are fringe theories.

The term does not apply to subjects merely outside of science or academia altogether. Religious, spiritual or philosophical ideas are not fringe purely by virtue of being non-scientific. Wikipedia:Fringe theories supports this, when it says "Fringe theory in a nutshell: To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea." (my emphasis).

Since chaos magic is not making an attempt to describe an established phenomenon via some alternative explanation -- it's its own thing, with its own concepts -- it does not fall under the heading of "fringe theory".

Turning to "pseudoscience": Pseudoscience states: "Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be both scientific and factual, but are incompatible with the scientific method." In other words, pseudoscience consists of truth statements that are not supported by science. But chaos magic is based around the belief that there is no such thing as objective truth. That is its central defining tenet. It therefore cannot be pseudoscience.

One possible objection to this argument that's been raised is that chaos magic does claim that certain techniques deliver "results". But what is meant by "results"? The crux of the matter is this: that if by "results", chaos magicians mean "we're influencing physical reality/the material world via non-physical means", then it's pseudoscience. But if they're saying "this is all just positive psychology, placebo effect, and so forth" then chaos magic is not pseudoscience -- in fact, the chaos magic explanation would then be identical to the scientific explanation. So which is it?

The truth is, chaos magicians are saying neither of these things. They're saying: "we're maintaining an agnostic position on that, and that agnostic position is the central defining belief of our worldview." The total rejection of any such thing as absolute or objective truth is the fundamental thing in chaos magic.

So the central point of the argument still stands: chaos magic does not make any claims to truth, because it rejects the existence of truth, and therefore it cannot be pseudoscience. Rune370 (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Your idiosyncratic interpretation is noted. I disagree, as did pretty much everyone at FTN. Guy (Help!) 20:42, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Whether it is pseudoscience probably depends on where you draw the line as far as "science-like". Whether it is fringe seems fairly self-evident. Whether it is coherent...well I don't have much of a...serious opinion on "magic", but I certainly think very little of anything connected to post-modernism is coherent at all. But that's probably getting off topic.

Whether it has a relativistic, agnostic, or rejectionist view of the epistemic possibility of capital-T Truth is irrelevant. There have been a few epistemic or even existential denialists in time, and Wikipedia simply describes what they believe as what they believe, but doesn't do so from an epistemic extremist perspective, regardless of whether they hold that perspective. Wikipedia takes the view of an epistemic pragmatist. We report what independent reliable sources report. We assume as a foundational matter that those sources approximate either truth or Truth, in as much as that may or may not in fact exist. GMG^talk 21:27, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Exactly right. Pseudoscience or not is a matter for the sources, but fringe is beyond dispute. Guy (Help!) 08:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, I've taken that on board. I was clearly swimming against the tide, and perhaps I should have conceded that from the beginning. But no matter -- I've added some paragraphs at the top of the article, in the "Concept and terminology" section, in an attempt to present the "mainstream view" that the article needs to give more weight to. I've tried to address the mainstream view of magic historically, anthropologically, psychologically, and within the occult in general, and only then stated how chaos magic diverges from these viewpoints -- as per the recommendation on the FTN.

In your opinion, has sufficient weight been given to the mainstream view? And if so, is it now appropriate to remove the "fringe theory" tag? Or, if not, could you please tell me what else needs to be done to address this issue? For reference, this is the additional material I've added:

Historically, the term "magic" has served primarily as a label applied by either religious scholars or social scientists to stigmatise the beliefs and practices of minorities whom they hold in contempt, often with the explicit aim of justifying their persecution.[5][6] Derived from the Old Persian word maguš, the term “magic” was used in the Greco-Roman world to denote “barbarian” religious practices – defined in opposition to the true Greek and Roman religions.[7] Later, it was adopted by Christian theologians to refer pejoratively to any ritualistic practices that were outside of Christianity, and therefore considered to be sinful or otherwise evil.[7][8] In other words, “magic” was defined negatively as “illegitimate religion”.[5]

Early anthropologists like Edward Burnett Tylor and Sir James Frazer continued to use the term disparagingly – this time in a scientific context – to characterise the belief-systems of peoples they considered "primitive".[9][10] Tylor described the beliefs of what he called "the lower races" as "magic", contrasting them with the science of the "civilized Christian",[9] while Frazer described magic as "the bastard sister of science".[10] Later commentators have highlighted how, in these instances, the label “magic” was used to demonstrate the backwardness of non-European peoples, and thus justify colonialism, by describing their beliefs as inferior or degenerative attempts at science.[6][11]

Contemporary scholarship has seen a backlash against this viewpoint. Stanley Tambiah, for instance, has argued that those practices commonly labelled "magic" are not attempts at science, and that to compare the two is therefore to commit a "category mistake".[12] Ariel Glucklich has discussed the possibility that magical rites might function by triggering a placebo effect through "an elaborate manipulation of the patient's emotions and attitudes".[13] Here, Glucklich echoes Claude Levi-Strauss, who argued that magic is effective, since patients who visit shamans often get better. Levi-Strauss believed that magic operated through psychoanalytic means – through the manipulation of symbols that "organize the ways in which the underlying physiological reality of illness is perceived, experienced, and dealt with".[14] According to Levi-Strauss, the efficacy of magic is thus due to "the sorcerer’s belief in the effectiveness of his techniques; second, the patient’s or victim’s belief in the sorcerer’s power; and, finally, the faith and expectations of the group".[15]

Some contemporary anthropologists have argued that the label “magic” should be abandoned altogether.[16][5][17] However, since the renaissance, there have been groups who have positively adopted the term “magic” to refer to their own beliefs. Humanist scholars Marsilio Ficino and Giovanni Pico della Mirandola argued that there was such a thing as positive or natural magic, defined as "an elementary force pervading all sorts of natural processes".[7] This concept influenced many later natural philosophers such as Johannes Reuchlin, Johannes Trithemius, Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa, Paracelsus and Giordano Bruno,[7] whose writings were foundational to the tradition of Western occultism.[18]

Chaos magic differs from other occult traditions such as Thelema or Wicca in that it rejects the existence of absolute truth, and views all occult systems as arbitrary symbol-systems that are only effective because of the belief of the practitioner.[4][19] Chaos magic thus takes an explicitly agnostic position on whether or not magic exists as a supernatural force or if the entire edifice is no more than placebo effect, with many chaos magicians expressing their acceptance of a psychological model as one possible explanation.[19][20]

Rune370 (talk) 21:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

It's like homeopathy or creationism. It's fine to describe the beliefs of adherents by reference to reliable sources independent of the belief system, but we must studiously avoid over-use of in-universe sources to give any false impression of truth. Guy (Help!) 21:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@JzG: OK, but are you saying that the additional content hasn't fixed the problem with the article? I hope you don't think I'm deliberately POV pushing here, or in any way being difficult. I really am trying to get my head around what's required. I thought the consensus was that chaos magic = fringe theory, and the tag at the top says "This article may present fringe theories, without giving appropriate weight to the mainstream view, and explaining the responses to the fringe theories." So the solution is covering the mainstream view, isn't it? I do see your point about the sourcing, and making sure we don't give the impression we think chaos magic is real. But isn't that just about maintaining a neutral POV? Rune370 (talk) 23:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

As Guy said above, FTN was not agreeing with you, and you wont get agreement here either. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 07:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• AustinSpareSigils.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Criticism section removed

This was nothing but an editorial opinion on the part of the Wikipedia editor who added it. Neither Dawkins nor Nietzsche criticized chaos magic. To apply their words to chaos magic as was done here runs afoul of WP:SYN. Skyerise (talk) 13:59, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2022

In the "Pop culture: (1994–2000s)" section, a small formatting error: Change "the writer outlining theirviews on chaos magic" to "the writer outlining their views on chaos magic" Gws34 (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

A question

This is all bullshite, isn't it? -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 15:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

it certainly smacks of fan boy/girl influence, possibly merge candidate - with Austin Osman Spare which I have just tagged for relying too heavily on a single source. Acousmana 15:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

... and that's all bullshite too. I feel like I should do something about them, but I have no ideas except to ignore them. They have no encyclopeadic merit at all. goodness me. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

more effort than it's worth, pick your battles! Acousmana 17:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I think that you have given me very good advice. Thanks. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Roxy, if you think it's bullshit, why not rewrite it to give people more information about it, thereby making it clear that it's bullshit?

What possible benefit is there to censoring things?

You have a massive list on your talk page saying "we're biased towards science and against pseudoscience," etc., but you never seem to rewrite things from a scientific perspective. You just agitate to have them deleted.

I'd gladly help you. Maybe we could start by rewriting the introduction? The introduction to scientology is the sort of thing I'm talking about:

"Scientology is a set of beliefs and practices invented by American author L. Ron Hubbard, and an associated movement. It has been variously defined as a cult, a business, or a new religious movement."

Foxytheskeptic (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Maybe try proposing a specific change you want to make, and provide reliable sources which back it up? That'd be better than a bold-type rant targeted at a specific editor, which isn't a good look. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:58, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

e/c The problem is that I am hopeless at writing for the project. I'm good at agitating, vandal fighting, lovemaking etc. but my encyclopeadic contributions soon get ravaged by people who know what they are doing. I've found my (insignificant) niche and am sticking to it. Chaos Magicians are pseudo intellectuals who make stuff up, Chaos Magic has no value, nothing that is real about it, and I shall continue to agitate against worthless articles. I wasn't picking on any particular editor. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 23:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

OK, that's reasonable. I take your point. But leaving comments like "this is all bullshite" is hardly good for the project either, is it?

It just seems to me that "we are biased towards science," if it means anything, should mean that every article on wikipedia is written from a scientific perspective: the article on homeopathy, the article on scientology, etc. That we write on every topic with a bias towards science, reason, fact, evidence, etc., NOT that wikipedia solely consists of articles on scientific subjects, with every other topic banished.

Even if you're not particularly good at the writing, could we come to a consensus on what needs to change here? Foxytheskeptic (talk) 23:29, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it is good to point out when an article is fan cruft vs encyclopedic. In this case, it is filled with self important fan cruft. I've added that it is a new age religious movement to the lede, which may help add a tiny bit of non-believer voice to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.6.77.46 (talk) 04:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

OK. Presuming that comment was from Roxy the Dog (apologies if not), that just seems like kicking the can down the road though. We haven't improved the article.

I want to help rewrite the article so that it's something everyone is happy with, including you.

Encyclopaedias have entries on voodoo, witchcraft, etc. You don't just turn to those entries to find a single sentence saying "this topic is bullshite."

What do you want the article to say? Could you at least summarise the tone you want the article to adopt, in a sentence or two? I mean, I'm assuming you want the general "voice" of the article to be: "Chaos Magic is a fringe belief, with no scientific evidence to support it."

Could you elaborate on that at all? Could you paint a picture of what you think the perfect Wikipedia article on Chaos Magic would look like?

Foxytheskeptic (talk) 13:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not Roxy the Dog. I want the article to be neutral. There are plenty of examples of articles that give neutral summaries of their topics you can choose as an example. The current edition of this article is based on is built mostly from non critical primary sources. That would be like using the Bible as the primary source for an article on Christianity. The mentioned Austin Spare article I also pulled fancruft from. He fed stray cats cats for a week? He once slept on a chair? Cmon. 73.6.77.46 (talk) 14:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Compare to, say, Raëlism, New_Age, or Scientology, all topics I'm quite confident are bullshite. These articles contain (non-exhaustively) three distinct parts:

1. A part descriptively explaining the stated beliefs of the religion without overt criticism, drawing freely on primary sources/believers. Have a look at Raëlian_beliefs_and_practices and see how many citations there are to websites like rael.org or raelian.com.

2. A part on the history of the religion, placing the religion's early history within the context of its peers (in particular, its relation to the New Age movement and related trends). This part relies mainly on more neutral secondary sources.

3. A part on the religion's relation to the rest of the world, including controversies and popular reception, which should of course rely on secondary sources like news articles to the exclusion of primary sources from believers.

Relying on primary sources is not an issue when the goal is to factually and accurately describe the beliefs those sources espouse. The articles on Raëlian belief cite believers without needing to fact-check whether space aliens really made a biological clone of the historical Jesus; the absurdity comes with the territory. The interesting part is documenting the specific absurdities someone believes, where they got those absurd beliefs from, and what they do about them.

A Lesbian (talk) 00:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I cannot speak on conjuring up the perfect Chaos Magic article. However, I agree with Foxy that keeping the article neutral is the best approach for the topic. Placing your own biases towards a niche ideology defeats understanding the psyche behind such beliefs. Stielauj (talk) 14:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Removing Spam (rune soup com)

It appears someone is repeatedly adding links here to a website that promises to teach "wealth magic" to those who purchase a premium subscription. Someone removed these links a couple weeks ago, it seems they were readded. I've gone ahead and removed them again. Scams should not be used as reliable sources. 73.6.77.46 (talk) 19:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Academic Writing on Chaos Magic

Alright, here we go. Some secondary sources on Chaos Magic, from (mostly) academic writers:

• Magia Sexualis: Sex, Magic, and Liberation in Modern Western Esotericism by Hugh Urban, professor of religious studies at Ohio State University. This is actually already referenced in the article a few times.
• Chaos Magic Part 1: Etic Examinations, a podcast by Christian Greer, a scholar of Religious Studies who lectures at Harvard.
• Modernity, Selfhood, and the Demonic: Anthropological Perspectives on "Chaos Magick" in the United Kingdom, PhD thesis by Justin Woodman, senior lecturer in Anthropology at Goldsmiths University, London.
• Invented Religions by Carole Cusack, professor of Religious Studies at The University of Sydney. Published in The Bloomsbury Companion to New Religious Movements.
• The History of British Magic After Crowley, by Egil Asprem, professor of religion at Stockholm University.
• Dark Star Rising by Gary Lachman. Lachman isn't an academic, he's a musician and writer, but this is a secondary source, and Lachman draws some comparisons between Chaos Magic and positive thinking movements, which might be useful to reference.

Also, this might be one to watch:

• Vasileios M Meletiadis is a doctor of Philosophy at The University of Bristol. Nothing published yet, but he states:

My doctoral research focuses on the history of Chaos Magic, a movement that started roughly during the 1980s in England and represented a 'post-modern' turn in magical theory and practice during that time. Statements such as 'nothing is true, everything is permitted' and 'belief is a tool' are central in Chaos Magic. My aim is to map out the history of the movement, from its inception, up until current years.

Now, instead of going around leaving childish comments like "this is all bullshite," could we please collaborate on building a rational, balanced, fact-based encyclopaedia? @Roxy the dog: I'm looking at you here. Or, you know, just forget this page exists and get on with your life.

Foxytheskeptic (talk) 12:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I've been incredibly busy irl the last couple of days, and am rather tired to give your work the attention it deserves, but I did want to acknowledge it, and thank you for it. It is a great example of how this place works. I'll look more closely shortly, but please allow me to be just a little grumpy;) regards, -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 22:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

No worries my friend, thanks for responding. I'll see if I can dig up some more academic sources. I'll post them here if so, so we can all take a look at them. Foxytheskeptic (talk) 23:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Foxy, is there any chance you have a conflict of interest? I see that you removed an IP and replaced it with your username, and that is the same IP that added spam to the this article a few days ago... I have a thread about the spam above on this talk page. 73.6.77.46 (talk) 21:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

You're right, it was me that added that content back in. Actually, I considered it vandalism that it was cut from the article, because the account responsible had only been created on that day, and seemed to have some kind of personal grudge against the author (see the edit summaries).

But regarding your comment above, where you referred to it as spam, that's a fair point. I've got no vested interest either way, if it's inappropriate let's leave it out.

Foxytheskeptic (talk) 21:24, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Did I mention that the spam was readded by the same person? The rest of the evidence is trivial to put together from this link and the more recent spam add. Original spam add[3], the readd[4], the signature change to reduce scrutiny[5]. Will you explain why you added it a second time? 73.6.77.46 (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Somebody created a Wikipedia account last week - OrangeCreeper38 - purely for the purpose of deleting chunks of the chaos magic article, as far as I can see.

I considered that vandalism, and put the content back in. It seemed to be motivated by a personal grudge against that particular author, because the edit summaries say things like:

References to Rune Soup in support of 'sigil shoaling' have been expunged. It is not objective information and only serves to further monetize Gordon White's 'services' as a chaos magician. It is neither historical nor informative of traditional practices.

That makes me think the editor has some kind of personal grudge against the author.

However, looking at the content itself, I agree that it's not appropriate reference material for Wikipedia. It's a blog, and I'm trying to rewrite the article based on secondary sources from academics. See my changes to the introduction earlier this evening, and the comment that we're literally replying to now.

Foxytheskeptic (talk) 22:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

What about the first time the spam was added. Are you claiming you weren't the originator? Just standing up for a random blog selling subscription services? And all of the connecting details between the two additions are just A series of weird coincidences? 73.6.77.46 (talk) 22:25, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not standing up for it, my friend. I'll say it a third time: it's not appropriate material for Wikipedia.

Maybe take a step back, breathe, and remember to assume good faith?

Foxytheskeptic (talk) 22:34, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

You avoided the question. We agree it's inappropriate. You still haven't answered whether you were the original person to add it. I said you were. Wikipedia has strict rules about outing people, so I'm being vague. If you have a close relationship with this topic and have made inappropriate changes for your own good, you should step back and let others edit. Else, we should probably run off to ANI so an admin can help us 73.6.77.46 (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, and finality: I have absolutely no connection to that blog (or any other, for that matter).

Now I've said everything I intend to say on the matter.

Foxytheskeptic (talk) 22:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

• with respect to citing doctoral research, unless some component of the work has been published (journal articles/papers peer reviewed by the wider academic community) it should be avoided, and this includes Woodman. Acousmana 10:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

  To be fair, Foxy did specify that the thesis wasn't suitable as a source, but provided it as an example of mainstream work, yes? - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 13:05, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

  To be honest, I was just posting those sources here for everyone to take a look at. This article has been such a cesspit in the past that I'd like to begin by establishing a set of valid sources before even adding any content that might be controversial.

  Everywhere you turn on the subject there are angry, bitter editors! Trying to delete massive chunks of the article, accusing people of god knows what. This whole thing seems very, very emotion driven to me. On both sides - skeptics and true believers.

  What's a humble editor to do?

  Could we maybe have some kind of vote on how to proceed? Is there a better place to discuss it than here?

  Would it be best to (1) delete the article as it currently stands, (2) all agree on a set of valid sources (even if there's only, like, three of them), and then (3) totally rewrite from scratch?

  Opinions?

  Foxytheskeptic (talk) 15:21, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Page numbers

Tons of cites in this article lack page numbers, in a number of cases multiple cites from single publication, interested parties need to address this. Acousmana 10:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I stumbled upon this in recent changes. I see that you've already removed most of the offending material - I went ahead and ported an old revision to my sandbox and will try to add page numbers + Google Books links to everything in the next few days and then move it back as I do that. It's a bit weird doing it in my sandbox but I don't know what other edits you made so I don't want to revert and work from there. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 12:57, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

What am I missing? Why do your work on an old version??? Wouldn't working on the current edition make more sense. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 13:02, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Just seen the good work done earlier today by Acousmana dealing with this article. Thank you. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 13:13, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

For anybody interested in the task:

• All of the texts originally referenced in the page: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1GNyBPpkG9DTXGUxVPGjvEmC4PDp6Aeb7
• The page before cuts were made: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chaos_magic&oldid=1086373464

DougCavendish (talk) 07:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Carroll (1995)

cited twice, there is no 1995 publication listed in references, what book do the page numbers refer to? Also need to remove anything in "bibliography" that is not applicable. Acousmana 12:39, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. It was the 2008 edition for the page number. The book was first published in 1995. I've changed the ref over. - Bilby (talk) 13:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

large mass of maintenance templates

I have gone through the article and I don't see anything especially egregious (the beliefs of practitioners are mentioned, and seem to be quoted and attributed to them). Perhaps the maintenance has already been done? Some explanation would be helpful here. jp×g 09:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

• I brought the templates down from five to three. I'm not enthusiastic about these templates. —Alalch E. 10:14, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The explanation is that the article had already been thoroughly reviewed by experts both for and against, being the consensus arrived at by active practitioners and skeptics (see talk archives). They all got bored and stopped watching the article, so it had accumulated some cruft over time and was also subject to vandalism. I cleaned up the cruft and have been watching for vandalism. Nothing in the tags was accurate, so I've removed them and nominated the article for GA status. Skyerise (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Cant we shoehorn something into the article that says its subject is total BS, from pseudointellectuals, and you should not waste your time reading any further? I dont know why I watch this nonsense article on a nonsense subject. perhaps for shiggles. The tags were pretty dammned spot on, and it is a shame they've been removed. I wont be making edits to the article btw. - Roxy the dog 17:56, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Let's imagine the tags are still up, what would you do to resolve them, add some original research in the form of an original critique of... magic? ...and... magicians? —Alalch E. 18:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I dont do WP:OR. - Roxy the dog 18:42, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Why did you say "shoehorn" then? If there is some not-yet-added and relevant sourceable content forming a critique of chaos magic, we wouldn't have to shoehorn it in, we could just add it, threby improving the article. This said, the second paragraph starts with: "Drawing heavily from the occult beliefs of artist Austin Osman Spare, chaos magic has been characterised as an invented religion ..." (emphasis mine) —Alalch E. 18:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I said shoehorn to emphasise the obvious pandering to the beliefs of chaos majickians that exists here, without the obvious counter that it's all bs. There doesn't seem to be an acknowledgement of this. - Roxy the dog 19:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: I made some edits. Is the article better now? —Alalch E. 20:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, I can’t speak for Roxy obviously, but to answer your question: yes and no. The article is definitely better with your edits, but as they were purely copy-editing they do not address the central concerns about content and neutrality. Dronebogus (talk) 09:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

You were actually the catalyst for my tagging, Roxy Dronebogus (talk) 09:49, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@Dronebogus: Please identify passages that uncritically use texts from within a religion or faith system without referring to secondary sources that critically analyze them, because I am interested in working on resolving this. —Alalch E. 12:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Top-tagging is of no use. I dispute that the state of the article warrants it. Tag the specific sources and uses of sources that you find problematic. What you are doing is not in any way helpful. Skyerise (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Skyerise are you aware of any of the used sources that are "texts from within a religion or faith system"? —Alalch E. 18:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

There is stuff in 'Works cited' that are from this website http://www.chaosmatrix.org/library/chaos_all.php but they are not actually cited. —Alalch E. 18:56, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

That’s what I’m confused about. They should be removed. Dronebogus (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Removed. Any more religious texts? —Alalch E. 23:42, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

If a source isn’t cited, then why is it even there? Dronebogus (talk) 07:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Probably a leftover from an earlier phase in the development of the article. —Alalch E. 08:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Problem with sources

As I've said before, top-tagging a robustly sourced article is not useful. Please tag specific sources and open discussion about them. Thank you. Skyerise (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion 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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Chaos magic/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Asilvering (talk · contribs) 06:38, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   b. (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Comments

QF on criteria 3; there are also still some old maintenance tags in the article.

I see huge gaps here before I've even started in on a source check. Most problematically, this article leans heavily on primary sources because it is lacking significant academic coverage of chaos magic and related events and practitioners. That isn't to say there is no academic work cited here, but I find that the balance is off and that the quality of sources appears questionable. Some of the existing academic sources are PhD theses from long enough ago that the author's book or articles should be citable instead. Primary sources are used for key claims like They attempted to strip away the symbolic, ritualistic, theological or otherwise ornamental aspects of these occult traditions, to leave behind a set of basic techniques that they believed to be the basis of magic. This balance issue leads to some major omissions - what has chaos magic's effect been on pop culture, for example? What we have here is halfway between an answer to that question and a list of trivia. And what are those "set of basic techniques" anyway? Only three are listed in the article. What relationship do these have to the "basic techniques", or are they one and the same? There are some key concepts that are well enough known in pop culture that I would expect to see them at least gestured to here (sigils, for example, appears alongside another key concept, gnosis, once in the first paragraph and never again; neither are explained). The history section is dense with information, but much of it isn't contextualized enough to be helpful. For example: In 1976-77 the first chaos magic organization Illuminates of Thanateros (IOT) was announced. Ok, who were they, and what did they do besides "something to do with chaos magic"? Do they matter in some way other than being the first? And how can something be "announced" over a period of time?

Most of the "works cited" are not cited. I would suggest moving the uncited ones to Further Reading, separated based on primary/secondary if feasible. I'd keep them in the article for now in case they're useful for expanding it, but if this is submitted for GA again, uncited sources in Further Reading should probably be cut to a handful at most. Probably a good idea to find some more useful images before trying a second nomination, too.

Sorry for the downer. Good luck with improving the article! -- asilvering (talk) 07:17, 17 March 2023 (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.