|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Magic (paranormal) article.|
|Magic (paranormal) has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Philosophy. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Text and/or other creative content from this version of Heka (god)#In ritual was copied or moved into Magic (paranormal)#Ancient Egypt with this edit on 10 November 2011. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:Heka (god).|
|On May 2011, it was proposed that this article be moved from to . The result of the debate was no consensus, no ongoing discussion, majority oppose the move. (See [].)|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 180 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
Question on lead
The way the first sentence is worded, it makes it sound like the article is endorsing the reality of paranormal magic. Is there any way to add a clause like, "according to certain belief systems, magic is the art of..." so that it doesn't sound like this sentence is tacitly endorsing the claims of pseudoscience?
Discussions prior to the following have been archived. These discussions can be accessed via the archive box. GooferMan 23:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. There was so much to be archived, even at 180 days and older, that the robot split what again as Archives 3 and 4. A neater division would have been at 2010/2011 but this is what we have.
- Archive contents
- sections evidently initiated 2003 to 2007, out of sequence
- sections evidently initiated 2005 to 2007
- initiated 2008–2010 plus Move? – long April/May 2011 discussion of a proposal to make this the main article "Magic"; rejected, so Magic remains a disambiguation page; closed May 2011
- initiated May 2011 and later; now almost empty
- --P64 (talk) 19:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- 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.
Magic (this and that)
Has anyone looked at current links to disambiguated Magic articles?
Astrology Francesco Scipione, marchese di Maffei Papa Smurf —targets both (paranormal) and (supernatural) True name —targets both (paranormal) and (supernatural) ‡ Magg ‡ Summer Country ‡ Conan the Adventurer (TV series) Witchcraft in Anglo-Saxon England The Rise of Magic in Early Medieval Europe Indrajala ‡ Somebody Else's Prince ‡ The Tears of Princess Prunella Doktor Faust und Mephisto
‡ Articles about literary fairy tale and fantasy where the fiction/fantasy target is more appropriate.
More than 2000 pages do.
[There are numerous redirects to this article.]
- magic (supernatural) [--via this redirect, 13 pages link here; it is little used, fortunately] --see the preceding subsection
- magical --via this redirect more than 100 pages point here
- magia [--via this redirect, 2 pages link here; it is barely used] --this seems appropriate. (We also have magia (disambiguation). Mage is itself a disambiguation page.)
This article magic (paranormal) concerns human practice. It is one in a series on Anthropology of Religion. On the other hand, magic (fantasy) redirects to magic in fiction. Where do myth and folklore lie between anthropology/religion and literature/fiction? There may be no easy answer; I doubt that the lead image of Circe belongs here.
However we handle difficult cases, for generalities such as 'magic (supernatural)' and 'magical' to redirect here ensures many inappropriate indirect links.
Furthermore it is useful that [[magic]]al and [[magical]] have the same target.
- That is, it would be useful. To me it seems dangerous and silly that they do not. -P64
- Isn't magic in fiction pretty much exclusively paranormal magic? Maybe it should be merged into magic (paranormal). If not merged, then it should arguably be considered a spinoff article of magic (paranormal), and therefore a less attractive target for these redirects. --Trovatore (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- Some fiction does. Certainly historical fiction, probably occult and horror fiction. Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, no; although Victor Frankenstein may have studied magic as well as science in modern terms. Some adaptations of the Frankenstein story, yes; "more a magician" than a scientist in the 1910 film, we say in the same article. The key word is not linked but I would be happy to link it to this article about the human practice of magic.
- Fantasy, including fairy tale and fable, however, commonly features beings and objects that naturally differ from those we know. In talk about that, we often say that the laws of nature are different, but the writers don't say that in the story.
- In the table above I did not flag Doktor Faust und Mephisto, our article on a 2013 novel. Nor would I flag a link here from Doctor Faustus (play) (but its only wikilink in the neighborhood is 'magicians' to witchcraft). Certainly there is much of interest to Anthropology and Religion in the Faust legend.
- I am unhappy first with how I suppose links to these articles are used, but I have researched only the 13 links here via "magic (supernatural)". In User space this hour I have made some more general notes about the articles/redirects, let me say without promising rapid progress to any useful conclusion. --P64 (talk) 00:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Previous redirects to this page
The preceding section is now obsolete concerning WP:REDIRECTs.
- Miscellaneous new targets
[--target articles named at left; redirects linked at right]
- Charm disambiguation: Charm (magic)
- Crystal Castles (band): Magic Spells
- Magic and religion: Magic (religion and superstition)
- Magic (gaming): Magic-users --- if you care, see also spell-caster (gaming)
- Spell (paranormal): Magical spell; Spell (magic)
Only the redirects to Spell (paranormal) are now used in several articles. No articles now misuse the Spell disambiguation. We also have Incantation, where the Enchantment disambiguation directs in prose.
- Magic disambiguation
[--these redirects now target the disambiguation page Magic]
Perhaps 150 articles previously linked here via these pages, mainly the first one. I revised all of those articles, about half to target magic (paranormal) directly and half to target magic in fiction. The experience confirmed that these redirects have been used ambiguously and I changed their targets to the Magic disambiguation. --P64 (talk) 19:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- For every one of those ~150 articles I provided an edit summary such as these:
- target magic (paranormal) directly [rather than "magical" which has redirected there] (magic and religion or simply paranormal may be appropriate)
- target magic in fiction rather than ["magical" which redirects to] magic (paranormal) (simply paranormal or psionic may be appropriate)
- target magic (paranormal) rather than magic (supernatural) [which has redirected there] (consider whether magic and religion or simply paranormal or psionic may be appropriate)
- I was not aware of Category:Paranormal in fiction, its main article, or its sub-main article Paranormal romance. And I am not yet familiar with them. --P64 (talk) 21:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- No change except perhaps to target a section
- Contagious magic (1) --section #Principle of contagion
- Magia (1) --now one link from Spanish-language text
- Magic in the ancient world (1) --section #History
- Magic (Paranormal) (1)
- Magic (sorcery) (0)
- Magical phrase (0) --section #Magical language
- Magick (paranormal) (1)
- Medieval magic (1) --section #History
- Spell (ritual) (0) --one link from Portal:Judaism)
- No change
The relation of Ritual magic to Magick, and by implication to this page, is under discussion at Talk: Magick. To wit, is another article needed, distinct from Magick and this one?
- For clarity I have inserted two notes in square brackets above. Parenthetical numerals report the number of articles(?) using the linked redirects at the time --after my flurrious rearrangement of magical links ;-)
- The disambiguation Magic --the crucial new target of several redirects, as reported here-- was massively cut this week. Afterward I restored magic in fiction as the third primary disambiguant ;-)
- disambiguation page history --P64 (talk) 22:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Magic in Islam
- 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)