This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neopaganism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neopaganism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Parapsychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Parapsychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I have set up auto archive indexing, as soon as the bot has run the word "Archives" on the archive box will link to an index of the archives. I also added the link to the move discussion notice template at the top of the page. If desired I can create a section with P64's contents list and mark it do not archive so it will remain on this page. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
A lot of outright wrong and outdated information in this article
For example, the medieval sections states that Kabbalah speculation was the origin of medieval magic and the first grimoires in the 13th century. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? I can only assume whoever wrote this is referring to outdated and no longer scholastically accepted theories surrounding Kabbalah as can be found in books like 'Ritual Magic' by Butler (this book itself is about 50-60 years old). Kabbalah had almost no impact on European Chrisitan Occultism till such thinkers as Pico and the expulsion of the Jews from Spain in 1492. The influx of Kabbalah (with its own Neoplatonic heritage) was one of the significant turning points in Renaissance magic.
Medieval magic can be divided into two main categories: image magic descending ultimately from the influx of Arabic texts in the 12 and 13th centuries such as the Picatrix (with this type of magic mostly being treated as a form of natural science); and ritual magic descending from the corruption of Christian liturgical practices and influenced by the "Testament of Solomon" (which is significantly different from and not related to the Kabbalah) and the Byzantine "Hygromantia".
For sources see Frank Klaassen, Sarah Iles Johnson, Gershom Scholem, Nicolas Weill-Parot.
This comment added with sig and time stamp to facilitate archiving. - - MrBill3 (talk) 16:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Goodness what a long article. But, according to current markup, it must get longer. The ultimate answer to length is to break the article up. That requires an exhaustive review. While we are reviewing, the note formatting does not utilize methods for reducing repetition. The main example is reciting the same books for different page numbers. I suggest the harvard system, which I always use. Look up template:harvnb for a lead into more info, or use the help system. I suppose these suggestions are so far entirely for general design and formatting. I have not looked at the content at all. I suppose I am saying the article needs a unifying hand. I admit it is likely to be a big project on WP. One final thing. There are some complaints above that the phraseology allows the possibility of editorial belief in magic. For myself I think that is tolerable, even desirable. Who are we to say that magic is not true? I agree that editorial distancing is desirable. On the other hand I have so often seen a concept presented in language that says in essence it is already wrong. That is biased writing, a worse sin against objectivity.Botteville (talk) 06:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an academic encyclopedia. An academic encyclopedia by definition must be in accord with current scientific knowledge. Other topics are labelled appropriately with terms such as belief, pseudoscience, fringe theory, paranormal, and supernatural. If you do not agree with the scientific method, academic knowledge, or peer-reviewed research then much of wikipedia is probably not for you. Refer to Wikipedia:Fringe_theories, in particular read the following quote. Repliedthemockturtle (talk) 03:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Proposals which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community, such as astrology, may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
So, uh, I actually can't find "pseudoscience" in the page. Did I spell it wrong when searching? No, I don't think so. Maybe it said that in March, when Botteville wrote that?
In any case, in case anyone is considering adding the p-word, there's a point I'd like to make. For a discipline to be pseudoscience, it's not enough that it not be science. Religion, for example, is not science, but it's also not pseudoscience.
For something to be pseudoscience, it has to hold itself out as science, but not be. Alchemy, for example, is sort of the ur-pseudoscience. And alchemy is arguably part of magic. So there's some overlap, and that is probably reasonable to mention. But is magic as a whole pseudoscience? I kind of doubt it, because I don't think magic as a whole pretends to be science. --Trovatore (talk) 08:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Actually on re-reading it was Repliedthemockturtle who brought up pseudoscience; Botteville didn't mention it at all. --Trovatore (talk) 08:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Science is the study of that which is consistent about our experiences. Art is the creative stimulation of emotional responses, through skilfully manipulating the five senses. Magic is the ability to induce premeditated, automotive emotional responses in others through art. Together with the combination of ritual the results are more profound and compelling.
White Magic appeals to empathy and the interests of all. Black Magic appeals to the selfish interests of a few at the expense of others.
The Middle Ages section, present tense used instead of past?
I was looking through this page and edited the Middle Ages History section (3.4) for grammar and style considerations. I am somewhat new to editing wikipedia (used to have an account on here around 2010 but only edited a little bit and lost the account) and was wondering if there was any reason that some of it was written in the present tense (i.e. "Ars Magica or magic is a major component and supporting contribution to the belief and practice of spiritual, and in many cases, physical healing throughout the Middle Ages." or "A particular phenomenon deriving from healing magic is known as the "royal touch" or the "King's Touch". It is believed that various kings and/or queens of the Middle Ages posessed...".)
I didn't want to step on anyone's toes on that and accidentally cause an edit-war, but it would seem to me that that section should be completely be written in the past tense since we are talking about what people in the Middle Ages believed about magic.
"In general, the 20th century saw a sharp rise in public interest in various forms of magical practice and the foundation of traditions and organizations that can be regarded as religious or philosophies."
That seems like a statement that is only true of Western Societies, and likely only certain of them as well. I don't think in most of the rest of the world, interest in magic (depending on how you define "magic") has increased. In tribal areas, areas where urbanization and industrialization is spreading, the people are being "educated" to a far greater extent than ever before, and such education usually discourages the practice of magic and the belief in its power. In a lot of these places, the powers that be consider it embarrassing for their people to practice such "primitive" beliefs, so they try to discourage it, either with positive or negative reinforcement. In the Western world, where we have a lot of spare time on our hands (relatively speaking), a curiosity about things, and a widespread urge to "be different" and stand out (aided by the fact that the social stigma of being non-Christian is much less than it once was), it's becoming much more popular for people to dabble in magic and occult things (with a small core of them that actually strongly believe in it). So, I don't think that sentence speaks for the whole world, just for the world known by the person who wrote it. It could easily be fixed by adding the words "in Western societies". (BTW, I think that's supposed to say "religious or philosophical", not "philosophies").AnnaGoFast (talk) 04:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)