Talk:Black magic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Still lots of problems[edit]

  • Passive-aggressive tone: the article was apparently written to defend "white magic".
  • Presumption that magical beliefs are true. It's an article about a cultural phenomenon, not a physical one.
  • Much of the article is very vague.
  • Pop culture section is very miscellaneous.
  • Weasel words. Citations are followed by claims which aren't backed up by the citation, to conceal OR + subjective interpretations.
  • Montague Summers' books aren't a reliable source. He wrote about wizards, vampires and werewolves as if they are real. His views have value in showing attitudes to magic, but as a historian of witchcraft he is dubious.

I'll tag dubious statements and later remove them if there's no source -- or add qualifiers to make it clear that these are beliefs not facts. --twl_corinthian (talk) 10:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


Ok, I made the changes more minor. I changed the parts I found most offensive. It is way too simplistic to just say that black magic means you are a witch or warlock, so I left that changed. I also made the point that not everyone defines black magic as the magic that is evil and destructive. There are those of us on the left-hand path that would not consider any of our magic white even when it is for good benevolent purposes. I therefore also changed the 'All is One' theory to include the perspective that all magic is the same, but not because it is all evil, but because if morality is considered subjective, you can't divide magic neatly into good/evil or benevolent/manevolent. Some believe magic just is, and the morality of things is a completely different matter. -blair-

Most of your changes I agree with, but I would just like clarified your comment "not everyone defines black magic as the magic that is evil and destructive". What would be the name for the type of magic that is evil and destructive? Even if the magic is not intended to be "black", if its final outcome is evil, would it not be described as being "black", as in "bad"? -- Nsmith 84 10:38, 7 January 2006(UTC)

It's a good point you make. My personal definition for black magic, is magic without the constraints of the Wiccan rede or other moral restriction. In my opinion all a person does outside of such a moral restriction would be black magic, but I know myself and those I know that have the same opinion are a very small minority. I'll slim down some of the changes. -kooR deR

I'm adding copyedit and confusing tags to the page because I find it very difficult to understand. It seems there is more than one POV with no particular distinction between them. And the way it is written is very difficult to follow.


There is no source given by the author about the claims on Islam in this article. Using a ta'weez and invoking saints (there is no form of canonization in Islam anyway) is totally forbidden and considered _shirk_ , the most major sin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


The section on black magic in Christianity is complete POV nonsense. The bible says nothing about Eve being the cause of magic coming into the world. Please, Sammael the fallen? Sounds like something from an RPG. I think the section needs to be removed or rewritten. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Consider it removed. - (), 21:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a Jewish Myth that Magick, along with everything from the Art of War to Make-Up, were taught to the Twelve Tribes of Isreal by Fallen Angels. Like the story of Lilith; whether or not it's canonical is often questioned, and Eve is not present in the Myth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:07, 17 October 2007

While I can see where the list of POVs have come from, I would like it if the karmic implications of black magic was recognised on this site. I am a Buddhist and this site most accurately reflects my views of black magic: My understanding is that many pagans, neopagans, druids etc also believe that the energy you put out into the world will return to you. So if your 'magic' involves the hurting of someone else or the taking of what is another's you create a negative energy that will impact back on you. That is why it is called black, ie if you are creating more karmic problems than you are aleviating that magic is called black.

WP:RS - (), 06:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Redirect from Dark magic[edit]

The reason I turned the redirect into a dabpage (iirc) was to reduce the need for {{redirect}} templates at the top of this page. There should never be more than one, imo. - (), 06:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Clarified that it's fiction[edit]

Hi, i just added a "a fictitious type of magic" to the lead. If someone would like to remove this, please source a verified example of black magic in history that has not been debunked. thanks (talk) 19:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

If that was the case, we would have to cite a source for proving every religious, supernatural, or paranormal belief as true, or else we would be mandated to call it fiction. That system would'nt work because we would have to label almost everything as fiction.--Neverquick (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

And what is the problem with that, i dont see an issue with holding the burden of proof that way. that seems quite rational actually. (talk) 19:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
further, i feel that without some form of disclaimer in the lead (allegedly, etc), the topic is being given undue weight. this is NOT a majority view, and there is no section where criticism of its existence is prominently featured (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that seems like a good idea. Maybe all articles about these sort of topics should be arranged like that, because the issues that they are dealing with are unprovable.--Neverquick (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC) I think it would be better as alleged then fictitious though, because nobody believes in fictitious things, but alot of people believe in alleged things. --Neverquick (talk) 19:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

That would be completely POV. It would be like saying the "Alleged" theory of gravity. obviously that would be absurd, since we know gravity exists, but remember, it's cause has yet to be substantially proven. so perhapse we should refer to it as "Ficticious" since it too is unproven. Wait, you say "You experience gravity. It's effects are obvious." true... maybe. You percieve gravity and its effects and so you believe it exists and has an effect on you, which biases your acceptance of any theory regarding its nature. The same goes for magick. I experience magick. Thousands, if not Millions of other people also experience magick, and acknowledge it as such. Thus, it is as "ficticious" and "Alleged" as gravity. in order to "disprove" it, you would have to disprove millions of people who belive it to exist and experience it on a daily basis. Until you do that, I suggest that you don't apply those terms. Arkayne Magii (talk) 06:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Also; This is an encyclopedia. The existance or nonexistance of magic(k) of any type has no bearing on the content of this article; in order to remain NPOV, it should be approached in the sense that "Whether it exists or not, this is how it is defined and described." Arkayne Magii (talk) 06:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

added "alleged" back to the lead. please do not compare the evidence in favour of gravity to the evidence of black magic, it's a foolish comparison. On gravity's page it is in fact referred to as a theory. the existenec of something CERTAINLY has bearing on how it is presented in an encyclopedia. all of the fiction articles are tagged as such, im not saying this should be "fiction" but to take the word "alleged" out of the article is whole-heartedly npov. an article on this topic should be on the history of the belief, not the properties of something that doesn't exist. (talk) 15:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Edited out the in-universe tag. It's nonfiction, not fiction, whether or not you can verify, it is a category of study. Fiction is based upon events happening to individuals. I also added in a white and black magic section, as although I agree there are no real defined classes of magic, typically religion will point to one type of magic and call it a miracle, and another and call it a corruption. I didn't know any genuine sources, but based upon what's in the religion, and what's in the occult category of the library is a good guideline. Bulmabriefs144 (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion[edit]

I highly disagree with the idea of merging Black Magic(k) with Necromancy. The two are fundamentally different. One is a divinatory art - Hence "Mancy" refering to the Mantic arts, which, specifically are divinatory techniques. The idea of Necromancy being synonymous with "black magic" comes from popular media. So, while one may be employed by one who practices the other, they are still separate practices. unless you consider all black magic to be divination through communication with the dead, which I don't. Necromancy belongs under Divination, Black Magic(k) belongs under Magic(k). --Arkayne Magii (talk) 06:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Types of Magic[edit]

There are several types of magic, one is fictional, such has that exists it works of fiction such as Harry Potter or LOTR. Others, while whether they are real magic, are still practiced, and therefore in that sense real. There is the type practiced by illusionists, and those practiced by those whose believe it real magic. This article should address all of those types that can be black. Also, does the perceived evilness of magic, come from it goal, or the source of it's power. That is a spell which invokes a demon to accomplish good, still black magic? Rds865 (talk) 22:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The example on your second sentence is covered by the Ritual page. "Illusions" is covered in Sleight of hand and Illusion. As for the large numbers who "believe" in magic, they have no proof more than we do. See: Argumentum ad populum. Also, evil and good are not static terms like chaos and order. they are maleable to the individual and the society and the moment. If we go by the normal rules of "good and evil' as set forth in religious texts, then yes, any attempt to summon a demon or invoke a demon is by definition evil. "Black" magic is not demonic, and is not evil, it is simply magic used to cause malice/destruction. A fire-creating spell could be used to break a forest fire. A spell to kill cuold destroy a virus. A spell to "Heal", conversely, could "heal" a person of all those nasty microorganisms that live in us.
And all of this is moot: Magic isnt real. If magic was real, we could measure it. if we could measure it, it becomes science. If it cant be measured, then its entirely upon the people believing it to prove its reality. Since this is not possible, there is no reason to include the fact that people have claimed to be magical but have zero proof ever on this article. (talk) 05:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
You could say the same thing about God. (talk) 12:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


since I do not think these theories formal, and in fact self published, I propose deleting them. The real issue is morality and magic. Those who believe all magic is immoral, don't believe in white magic. Those who don't believe in morality don't believe magic can be good or bad. This has little to do with the magic itself. So what makes magic black? Is it the ability to do harm? Violates certain codes? Is white magic all magic that isn't black? Rds865 (talk) 03:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing called black magic..Its all in ones mind. We all should use our energies doing something substantial rather than these useless and endless discussions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a section as opposed to other types of magic. Several links would become dead, if you suddenly decided it didn't exist. Mass chaos would ensue. But I kinda made some work on what type are more likely to perceived as black or white.Bulmabriefs144 (talk) 19:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Harry Potter[edit]

The Harry Potter series does not contain two types of magic with different bases. The fictional magic itself is neutral, and it's application and effect determine whether it is good or bad. Perhaps it would fit better in the section above? Either way, it doesn't belong in it's current category, and I do not believe it necessary to the article in the first place, since it serves only as an example (although it is an easily recognizable one). --Romulus (talk) 04:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

As works of fiction, it is unimportant what Rowling's Harry Potter series has to say on the subject.

Dear God[edit]

This article is in dire need of a complete and utter rewrite that will make it subjective and actually focus on what the term can mean in various contexts instead of insisting on what it is as if it actually exists. (talk) 04:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It isn't the article that needs a rewrite, it's the discussion. I've decided to remove some of this old cruft, so actual discussions (and not dumb people's story ideas) can be seen. Bulmabriefs144 (talk) 19:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

This article makes people stupid, people come to read this. And instantly believe it, specially if one is ignorant.

An encyclopedia is meant to combat ignorance. There is actual people that believe in this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

This article's grammar is terrible, its facts are nonsense and its stories about the use of the term are hypocritical. Also, the article doesn't have references to back up many of its ridiculous claims.Owen214 (talk) 03:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

All you do is complain on talk pages. Constantly. Either fix what's wrong or stop reading articles. Talk pages are for discussing ways to actually improve the article, not to bitch about what you think is wrong and then make no effort to improve the thing. I suppose whining is easier and evidently you really think someone is interested in your constant complaints and opinions, so I fully expect to have the misfortune of seeing your name on yet another talk page accompanied by a poorly written complaint. (talk) 12:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
And what is the point about complaining about the complaining? (talk) 19:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

There has to be a clear statement that this parlor trickery is a nonsense for defrauding the gullible and nothing else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Your basis for making that statement is? Any references? I am sure that is the case sometimes, but I believe there may be cases when there is some sort of spiritual force there. (talk) 19:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


The section about Black Magic and Religion comes across to me as biased. It refers to the practices as being "perverted" forms of Christian practices. What is the basis for calling it perverted? Such claims certainly need references. And isn't "perverted" relative? (talk) 19:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

There certainly needs to be more discussion about sex in black magic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Is this really Wikipedia?[edit]

This article is written as if it was a wiki of a fantasy novel or computer game, it presents everything as fact as if magic was not only existing but commonplace. Even articles about established mainstream religions are written very carefully in the manner of "followers of ___ believe that ... ", but here everything about magic is presented as a fact, even if the source is some fictional work no one intended to be taken seriously or literally. -- (talk) 17:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The article is a defense mechanism[edit]

Most of the article is written to defend Wiccan "white magic" over black magic. Mostly obvious in the History. I think someone should rewrite the History section so that it really digs deep into the History of black magic and diminsh the contrast between white and black for its own section called The Contrast Between White Magic and Dark Magic or something similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klaubtye (talkcontribs) 23:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

If you have a look at the article's history you'll see the article was recently rewritten. I have no problem at all with further editing or amendment but what is there was designed to reflect what can be verified by reliable sources. The "history" is fairly simple - the concept of "black magic" (as distict from "white magic") is a fairly modern one. Prior to those modern distinctions, all magic was considered (by mainstream Church-based European society) "evil" or "dark". The history reflects the common history of "magic" in general, before it was defined as either "black" or "white". You'll see white magic is framed in the same terms. And we do have articles that set out the difference, like Left-hand path and right-hand path. Stalwart111 23:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

"Practices and rituals" section[edit]

I placed a lot of templates on this section; it appears to have been written (badly) by a role-playing gamer using a single source (Google Books) that is selling a somewhat dubious book ascribed to A.E. Waite. Here's the catch: Waite never wrote any book titled The Book of Black Magic and Ceremonial Magic. If he had, it might have a WP article. He did, in fact, write a book titled The Book of Black Magic and of Pacts, which he later revised and republished as The Book of Ceremonial Magic, which does have a WP article. That book does not have any "spells" or "rituals" to achieve immortality as claimed in this section, and the editor's feeble attempts at what appears to have been intended as a discourse in the ethics of magic borders on gibberish. Waite's actual book is not this easily broken down into four types of "spells" or "rituals"; on the contrary, it's a scholarly overview of specific works of traditional magic literature and the ethics and desires of the people who wrote them. The section title seems broad and generic (and a little uncomfortably "how to"), but only this mythical Waite book is discussed within. The section requires either extensive cleanup (expansion to include other authors and actual belief systems) and more and better sources, or outright deletion. "As-is", it contributes nothing useful to the article. (talk) 02:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Rather than presumptuously assuming what an editor may or may not be and ascribing some sort of motive, how about you make some attempt to repair/edit/amend what has obviously been a collaborative effort rather than one person's POV? Google books does carry a book by that name, published by that author though there is obviously a good chance it is an almanac or republication of some sort (some 64 years after his death). It's worth noting the section claims nothing along the lines you suggest and makes no suggestion that those four subjects (part of a much older version of the article) have anything to do with that book. Rather, those are based on later books (and some unreliable sources that were the subject of earlier discussion) written after A.E. Waite's and the section says as much. Drive-by tagging and assumptions of bad faith help nobody. Stlwart111 03:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)