While I'm at it, how do you other pagans have any idea whether or not you've gotten the "old formula" right, given that all you've got is some sketchy ancient sources? I once saw a site for a few dozen people reviving Roman paganism, and they'd have an easier time, but most of you seem to go in for Celts or people like that.
Celtic traditions take most of their historical cues as deliniated here. As you can see, almost nothing was lost of the traditions.
Norse Asatru traditions are not only handed down "in family", but are also preserved in the Writings of Pliny the Elder in the Poetic Eddas. More souces here.
Roman and Greek paganism acutally have a longer documented history than Christianity by the simple expedient of being around before the birth of Christ.
Most "Witches" these days follow a hodge-podge of old Dutch folk magik (k instead of c to keep it seperate from stage magic) and stuff that Gerald Gardner dreamed up. Not bad stuff, if you don't mind the ritualized sexuality. However, the message got lost once the enviro-nazis got ahold of it along with their pals the uber-feminists. Most neo-pagans these days are of the later type.
'Course, stereotypes barely survive beyond the effort to expound on them, as exceptions ALWAYS exist. Not that I thought you were actually interested, but it is always good to help things along by keeping them from getting off track.
I think it's true that Wiccans do a lot of research:-) I call myself pagan because others at FR have defined "pagan" as anyone not being Christian, Muslim, or Jewish. That is correct, but not the way it's most often used.
Some of the ancient sources I base my beliefs on are older than the Bible by hundreds of years, it is true, but they aren't sketchy. (anything but)
I don't understand what you mean by "old formula", since I don't practice sorcery. The closest I've been to that is reading Carlos Castaneda:-)
Religious wars are no fun, but learning about another religion can be, at least for me.