Talk:Necromancy

message: Why does Nigromancy redirect here? Nigromancy, although related, is distinctly different; my understanding is that it is a specific type of Medieval and Renaissance divination in Europe.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.211.200.241 (talk) 23:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. Nigromancy means "black magic" and has nothing or little to do with necromancy. 
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/nigromancy
Kortoso (talk) 22:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Although the words denote two different things, they were often used interchangeably during the late middle ages and early modern eras.  The specific meaning of all magical terminology generally became increasingly associated with malificium and demons, over time.  As noted in the article and elsewhere, as the Christian officials put forth the belief that raised spirits were, in fact, demons, the term, necromancy, was often used to denote the conjuring of demons.  But, that being said, if Nigromancy is going to redirect here, it should be referenced in the article, otherwise, perhaps it deserves its own page.--96.65.222.113 (talk) 03:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Nigromancy

message: Necromancy does NOT fall under Hermeticism, as it is not only acknowledged by "slave religions"(in fact it is forbidden and deemed to be for heathens by Muslim-, Christian- and Judeo-culture alike) and is NOT based on Qabalah like most rituals in all monotheistic religions.
Tho it is used and even promoted(Vision Quests, Rites of Passages and such) by almost all polytheistic religions such as Nordic Shamanism, Indo-Asian Shamanism (like Mongol or Altaic) and ancient Greek, Egyptian and Roman religions. It became a "dark" art with the rise of slave-religions (that you are "born into sin and must slave your way to salvation").  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.45.182.56 (talk) 07:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Hermeticism

message: There are a lot of areas where this article could be improved without needing the approval of both a group of scholars and wiccans. First and foremost, would anyone happen to be an expert on Chinese Folk Religion? I seem to recall many references to gleaning information from the dead in that area. Also, the Hindi have a group that focuses much of their energy on the life/death cycle and I'm sure they have something in this area. I'm developing some research into the Bean Sidhe of Celtic mythos, but more importantly some of the old Roman spins on Nigrimancy and Necromancy further. Is anyone interested in possibly doing more focused research of this in different directions? Email me if you are.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Solificus (talk • contribs) 05:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible areas of improvement 

message: He is a good source, but the idea of getting all of the data on Medieval Necromancy from him doesn't strike me as a solid one.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Solificus (talk • contribs) 15:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kieckhefer 

message: "Gramarye" redirects here, but I see no mention of it in the article. If this redirect is justified, then someone ought to write some mention of it in the article. SpectrumDT (talk) 00:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gramarye redirects here? 

message: Vodou isn't all about zombies, it is a practiced religion of which zombies are a small and minor part of rural haiti.  Also, its just bokors that "raises" zombies (really its just drugging someone who has brought up in a culture believe that bokors can raise zombies).  Hougans and Mambos sometimes attempt communication with spirits (which sometimes includes ancestor spirits), but they don't do zombies. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Why I changed a few links

message: I don't believe we need to lock down the article just yet, but is there something that can be done to just block any edit incorporating this website?  Ian.thomson (talk) 17:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection time?

message: The pseudoscientists Rosemary Ellen Guiley is cited as the origin of several lofty claims about necromantic rituals. 99.231.200.55 (talk) 02:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Does it claim to be science? Please furnish cite. Kortoso (talk) 22:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudoscience 

message: Over recent months, several users have attempted to add various items to the "Necromancy in popular media" section – presumably in good faith – only to have them removed shortly thereafter because they lacked notability or were the products of original research. In the interest of sparing prospective contributors the frustration and discouragement which might result from having their contributions reverted, not to mention the effort involved in making – and, conversely, unmaking – these contributions, I have undertaken to establish some clear and comprehensive guidelines that will address two principal concerns: first and foremost [A], whether or not a particular phenomenon in popular media qualifies as necromancy; and second [B], whether or not that phenomenon rates a mention in this article. (N.B.: All external links appearing below are to the online Merriam Webster Collegiate Dictionary.)
A. The primary concern can be formulated as a set of criteria that should be applied from the outset in all cases where you encounter a phenomenon that might be eligible for inclusion in the article:
#The phenomenon is explicitly described, named, or referred to using the term "necromancy" – and, by extension, those who engage in or practice the phenomenon are explicitly described, named, or referred to using the term "necromancer" – preferably within the original work itself, otherwise in a reliable, independent secondary source.
#The phenomenon conforms to the definition of "necromancy" as outlined in this article, which follows in expanded form:
::a) The deliberate, intentional, and methodical use of esoteric, magic(k)al, mystical, or occult means (e.g., an incantation, ritual, or spell)
::b) To charm, conjure, enchant, evoke, invoke, raise, reanimate, resurrect, or summon
::c) For the purpose of binding, commanding, communicating with, controlling, or manipulating either:
:::*The material remains of a deceased being (i.e., cadaver, carcass, carrion, corpse, skeleton); or
:::*The disembodied, immaterial essence of a deceased being (i.e., apparition, ghost, shade, soul, spirit, wraith)
::d) As an end in itself, irrespective of any object or outcome towards which it might be directed.
::e) Certain other elements – although they are not exclusive to necromancy – may also be present such as:
:::*Places of burial or interment (e.g., cemetery, crypt, graveyard, mausoleum, sepulchre, tomb) and their associated accoutrements – Necromancers are routinely depicted incorporating these into their practices, whether as staging grounds for rituals or as components used in spells.
:::*Physiological processes related to death or dying (e.g., decay, decomposition, putrefaction, rot, wasting, withering) – Necromancers are commonly attributed some degree of influence over these, often manifesting as the ability to inflict them upon the living by way of curses.
:::*The undead (e.g., ghoul, lich, mummy, revenant, vampire, zombie) – Necromancers are sometimes shown to engage or create certain types of the undead for use as servants and may even transform themselves into an undead being in order to achieve greater power and longer "life".
:When trying to determine whether a phenomenon occurring in a given work is or is not necromancy, you cannot go wrong by simply deferring to the judgment of its creator. It is quite reasonable to assume that they possessed some degree of familiarity with the subject but decided, for whatever reason, not to mention or represent it in their work. Should you happen across something in a given work that seems to fit the definition of necromancy [A2], but its creator does not explicitly use the term "necromancy" to describe, name, or refer to it (and it is similarly not described, named, or referred to as such in any applicable secondary source) [A1], then you have no cause to second-guess their intentions and advance the claim that it is necromancy. Asserting that a phenomenon qualifies as necromancy based solely on your own personal inference or interpretation without it satisfying both of the aforementioned criteria constitutes original research and will likely result in your contribution being removed from the article.
B. When the first concern has been successfully resolved, a second set of criteria must be implemented to assess whether the phenomenon merits inclusion in the article (it should be pointed out that meeting the initial criteria does not imply that the phenomenon is suitable for inclusion; if it fails to meet those criteria, however, then it is obviously not suitable):
:1.  The phenomenon occurs within a notable work of popular media, as indicated by both of the following:
::a) The work is the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are reliable and independent of each other and the work itself; and
::b) The work meets one or more additional criteria:
:::*Considered to be a groundbreaking, definitive, classic, or iconic example of its particular genre or form.
:::*Considered to be a unique achievement, breakthrough, or milestone in the development of its genre or form.
:::*Considered to have had a significant impact or made a significant contribution within a broader cultural or historical context.
:::*Regarded or cited as important and influential by academics, critics, peers, or professionals.
:::*Won a major award or honor, or nominated for one several times; or inducted into a "Hall of Fame" or equivalent.
:::*Earned a high rank on a media industry standard chart or list.
:::*Given wide release or distribution, which may involve being adapted or translated into multiple formats and languages.
:::*Gained a substantial fan base or significant cult following.
:::*Created by an individual who is so culturally or historically significant that any of their works may be considered notable.
:::*Features extensive involvement by a notable person in a high-profile capacity and is a major part of their body of work.
:2.  The phenomenon is a significant component of the work in which it occurs, as indicated by any the following:
::a) Theme – The phenomenon appears as a recurring, meaningful element or central subject of the work.
::b) Plot – The phenomenon has a profound, enduring impact on the course of events detailed in the work.
::c) Setting – The phenomenon plays a dominant role in shaping the cultural, historical, geographical, or temporal landscape presented in the work.
::d) Mood – The phenomenon pervades the underlying sensory or emotional atmosphere conveyed by the work.
::d) Characterization – The phenomenon is practiced, utilized, or wielded by a character depicted in the work, with these further qualifications:
:::*The phenomenon serves as the primary function, occupation, or trait by which the character is identified, both by himself and by other characters; in other words, the phenomenon is essential to an understanding of the character.
:::*The phenomenon informs how the character relates to and interacts with other characters and how they relate to and interact with him.
:::*The character occupies a prominent or leading role in the work (such characters usually have distinct, complex, and well-developed personalities, backgrounds, objectives, and motivations; and are present for, involved in, and able to affect and be affected by the events of the principal storyline).
:No contributor may declare that a work is notable [B1] or that a phenomenon is a significant component of that work [B2] based solely on their own acquaintance with and knowledge of the work in question. Their claim must instead be verified with reliable, non-trivial, independent secondary sources – as per Wikipedia guidelines – otherwise it will likely be challenged and subsequently removed from the article.
The following are examples of content that does not belong in the "Necromancy in popular media" section (all listed works meet criteria for notability):
*The ghost of Jacob Marley confronts Ebenezer Scrooge to warn him of his fate in the afterlife and foretell the coming of three spirits in A Christmas Carol (1843) by Charles Dickens.
::I have only included this one here to demonstrate that mere spirit visitation does not count as necromancy.
*A horse named Necromancer is stabled on the grounds of The Shop headquarters in Firestarter (1980) by Stephen King.
::Necromancy cannot be practiced by a horse, of course, no matter what its name might be.
*In Frankenstein (1818), a scientist devises a way to reanimate dead tissue and creates a monster assembled from the parts of various corpses.
::Although the details are never specified, Frankenstein nonetheless employs scientific – not supernatural – means to build and give life to his artificial man.
*The cleric character class in the Dungeons & Dragons role-playing game (1974–present) is invested with the power to repel or control undead creatures.
::Aside from the fact that it is not identified as necromancy (and, furthermore, usually not categorized as "magic"), this particular ability is just one of many unrelated others that can be selected and used by clerics – it alone does not define their function or purpose in the game – and is accordingly not given a greater share of focus or emphasis.
*Aragorn enlists the Dead Men of Dunharrow to aid him in vanquishing the forces of Mordor in The Return of the King (1955), the third volume of The Lord of the Rings, by J. R. R. Tolkien.
::Aragorn did not so much summon the Shadow Host to appear before him as he sought them out in the place where they were most likely to be found, nor did he constrain them to fulfill the oath they pledged to his ancestor since it was ultimately their own choice to serve him.
*Arawn, Death-Lord of Annuvin, fashions an army of undead warriors known as the Cauldron-Born in The Chronicles of Prydain (1964–1968) by Lloyd Alexander.
::Of all the items here, this one would seem to be the most worthy of receiving mention in the article; however, nowhere in the five books that comprise this series are the words "necromancy" or "necromancer" used to describe either the creation of the Cauldron-Born or their creator.
For more information, please refer to the following Wikipedia project pages:
*Manual of Style: Trivia sections
*Handling trivia
*"In popular culture" content
Thank you for taking the time to read this. I hope it is helpful. — Apo-kalypso (talk) 03:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eligibility, suitability, and "popular media" 

message: I don't think that Spiritism fits with necromancy, since there is no intent of "reveal(ing) future events or secret information" through the spirits. Spiritualism has to do with it, though.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.58.28.64 (talk) 02:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a question I have as well, although I understood the distinction differently: Necromancy as trying to communicate with actual dead bodies, spiritism as attempting to communicate with disembodied spirits. Many modern Christian faiths had their start in the 19th and 20th century with spiritism and spiritualism, and it would be unfair to accuse these of necromancy. 
Kortoso (talk) 22:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spiritism 

message: Please add the opera The Medium by Menotti. 178.198.255.143 (talk) 07:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Mediumship is not necromancy as it is defined in the article; consequently, The Medium does not satisfy the first set of criteria for inclusion outlined above in the section "Eligibility, suitability, and 'popular media'". Thank you, however, for making the suggestion. — Apo-kalypso (talk) 07:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example in opera 

message: Rather than using a non free image couldn't we use something from battle of wesnoth like :File:Wesnothlich.png or one of the images here.Geni (talk) 12:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: in popular media image

message: The concept of necromancy is totally non-existent in the Norse culture, no reliable sources. The text is very original and purpose-built = POV (fantasy)
the text:
"Norse mythology contains examples of necromancy" What?  reliable sources of concept of necromancy in Norse culture? (POV)  
",such as the scene in the Prophecy of the Völva (Völuspá) in which Odin summons a völva, or shamanic seeress, from the dead to tell him of the future. In The Spell of Gróa (Grógaldr), the first part of The Lay of Svipdagr (Svipdagsmál), the hero Svipdag summons his dead mother, Gróa, to cast spells for him. In the Saga of King Hrolf kraki (Hrólfs saga kraka), the half-elven princess Skuld had great skill in witchcraft (seiðr) to the point that she was almost invincible in battle: when her warriors fell, she made them rise again to continue fighting. In Hávamál Odin tells of a runic charm that allows him to resurrect the dead. Snorri Sturluson writes that Draugadróttinn (lord of the draugr) is a name of Odin." but the concept of necromancy?
"A further connection between Odin, necromancy and the undead was the belief that the dead where said to return from their graves during Yule. "Jólfaðr" (Yule father) and "Jólnir" (the Yule one) are also names of Odin. It would make sense in Odin's "necromantic" context to associate him with a season of the returning dead."  
What? interpretation? very original but not encyclopedic, this is not a blog.--151.46.162.51 (talk) 00:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with 151. The entire text smacks of original research. --NeilN talk to me 00:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pov interpretation in norse culture 

message: I am new to this entry (just a patroller passing by) - but erasing ALL fiction/TV/film/games examples is too drastic I believe. To be able to see some shining examples from existing literature would be nice, give the article some juice. Can anyone look into this matter and save some examples from oblivion? PS Reverted the erasing edit in the meantime, discussion pending. Thanks. Super48paul (talk) 07:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular culture 

message: "Ghost Whisperer's title character, Melinda Gordon (played by Jennifer Love Hewitt) could be considered a necromancer." ??? As I recall, the ghosts generally sought her out, not the other way around. Mannanan51 (talk) 19:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ghost Whisperer 

message: Just popping in here to quickly note (to editors following/interested in this entry)that Modern Era is apparently misused in this entry--otherwise early-Modern, Modern, and post-Modern) periods are entirely overlooked... and therefore, there would be a huge hole in the info offered here. "Modern", in the academic sense of the term (pardon: this might be needless to say for some participants here) does not mean "contemporary". For example, the early-Modern period roughly tends to be identified as having started around the time of the invention of the printing press (or shortly thereafter).
That is all.
Michael Reed 1975 (talk) 00:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern Era? Incorrect usage. 

message: What's with the wording "fictional"? Wouldn't "paranormal" cover it better? Calling it fictional in that way implies to e that it is an art that's never been believed in or attempted practised at all, but was only found in works of speculative literature, at all times of history. Whether or not necromancy is real or not, it surely isn't "fictional" in the way the word is normally understood?--Luka1184 (talk) 11:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Fictional" 

message: The recent editting has brought to my attention the "In Popular Culture" section of this article.  The editting has specifically been about whether the entry Necromancy Cottage, Or, The Black Art of Gnawing On Bones.  On that subject I believe firstly both users involved should stop editting and discuss the matter on the talk page instead only editting once a conclusion has been reached whatever that be, however I do agree with the rationale for it's removal.  And furthermore I think that the whole section is largely WP:INDISCRIMINATE and should be editted down only to notable information which can be properly cited with reliable sources.  Right now it behaves as a list of all fictional works containing necromancy.  I will link WP:POPCULTURE as a guideline for how this section might be improved. Very little here is properly sourced and little to none of it is particularly relevant.  Ideally the section would include examples that have broadly influenced conceptions of necromancy.  If a broader list of all fictional works containing necromancy is something beyond WP:TRIVIA then I think it would probably be better served as a standalone list rather than an enormous section of this article.  I look forward to the contributions of others.  AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 14:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It was added back in January 2020 by an IP 47.55.144.81 that along with at least three others, 156.57.160.58, 142.167.55.161 and 156.34.83.30, made edits to promote this self-published author across Wikipedia. Even without that book, the list is basically WP:TRIVIA and unless the entries can be references as notable examples of Necromancy in fiction the list will quickly grow unwieldy and useless. Notfrompedro (talk) 16:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  In popular culture 

message: ... is a complete mess. Taken literally, thanks to abuse of the semi-colon, divination IS necromancy, except it's implied that divination is something other than itself, since it is mentioned at the end of one sentence-equivalent, and then defined in the next. Resurrection is also both named and then later defined. It also mixes approaches and purposes confusingly.
I think this is the knowledge that it is attempting to communicate:
Necromancy (/ˈnɛkrəmænsi/) is the practice of magical sorcery involving the dead, either the summoning of their spirits as apparitions or visions, or (less commonly) their resurrection. Purposes include communication (including discovery of hidden knowledge), divination, and the use of the dead as weapons.
I know nothing about the topic, so I am hesitant to make this edit myself. If my attempt to define it is correct, please make the substitution on my behalf. Emvan (talk) 08:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening Sentence