Talk:Greek Magical Papyri

message: If the Greek Magical Papyri was found in Egypt, is related to magic in Egypt, and also related to a syncretic religion found in Egypt, why is this article a "Ancient Greece-related" stub? --Pagebird (talk) 11:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the Papyri under discussion are written in ancient Greek and date from the period when the province of Egypt was governed by Hellenistic Greeks and later the Imperial Romans. I agree it should also be listed as Ancient Egypt-related, of course. But it certainly is ancient Greek in subject matter. Gabrielbodard (talk) 15:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

text: How to observe magic 120.89.104.93 (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Ancient Greece-related" stub? 

message: This article has BIG issues, and seems to have been obviously written from the perspective of an "Occultist" or "Neopagan." The whole thing needs to be revamped, sources cited, and a more NPOV taken with much less personal speculation and opinion. --151.201.149.209 (talk) 13:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see what makes this article seem neopagan or occultist. I agree the article needs more citation of sources (and more items added to the bibliography). I don't see that it contains much by way of "personal speculation and opinion" though. If anyone disagrees with the interpretation of the sources (once cited) they should say so and change the text accordingly. Can anyone give concrete examples of any of the objections made above? Gabrielbodard (talk) 15:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because this article may not disagree with your opinion of the papyri does not mean the information is correct. For starters, the whole article seems to have been based solely on one work, The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation by H.D. Betz. The one actual (and minor) citation was made in April has nothing to do with the dispute. Three out of the four listed sources in the Bibliography are non-English, and I doubt were actually used. The influence of the papyri on religion in Greco-Roman Egypt is way over-blow, and the idea of the Papyri Graecae Magicae as the basis for any type of cohesive religion itself is absolutely speculative. I doubt you could really find any support for such a notion outside Occult or Neopagan writings. Even in works like Arcana Mundi by Georg Luck, and Magika Hiera By Christopher A. Faraone and Dirk Obbink, there are not such far reaching claims. --151.201.149.209 (talk) 17:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Can we start with the statement "The religion of the Papyri Graecae Magicae..." for the claim of a cohesive religion by the article? --151.201.149.209 (talk) 20:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To add to this, on Magic in the Greco-Roman world all I was looking for was an article that was more encyclopedic, with a NPOV. It was in ensuing debate that the article represented the dominant academic opinion on the subject that had me picking through it to verify quotes and sources, deleting misrepresentations, and eventually finding it to be a plagiarized work. Demonize me all you like, it doesn't change the facts of the matter. --151.201.149.209 (talk) 20:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article or section has multiple issues 

message: I deleted the citation label on using languages other than English. The article contains no direct quotations of other languages, and only one of the secondary sources appears to be in a language other than English; I hope we aren't taking the position that Wikipedia contributors can only use English-language scholarship. In my opinion, contributors who makes foreign-language scholarship available to those of us who can't read a particular language are performing a great service. As for verification, that would obviously need to be done by someone with the language skills. But if you don't have the language skills to handle the major scholarship on a topic, could I respectfully suggest that you are perhaps not qualified to pooh-pooh the work of those who do?
The other non-English sources given are PRIMARY TEXTS that happened to have been edited (as is so often the case with ancient Greek texts) by German-speakers. Betz's English translation is also given. Excuse me for the Homeric exclamation, but "Duh."  Cynwolfe (talk) 14:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted 'languages' citation label 

message: The tags at the top of the article have been outstanding for years, and they seem rather obsolete to me.  What the article needs is references for the claims, and more and better data.  I am removing the tags, and instead sticking fact tags against unreferenced claims. Roger Pearse (talk) 20:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting tags 

message: These papyruses were written by Egyptians describing Egyptian culture (whose ancient Greeks always said it was the source of all Greeks' knowledge), but now the philhellenes want to classify them as Greeks because some of them were written in Greek(thanks to Alexander the Great)? 
I am speaking English right now, according to this logic I am an English/ American and should be entitled to have a greencard as well.
2804:7F2:2990:F845:0:0:0:2 (talk) 19:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Greek" magical papyri?? 

message: Greek magical papyer 120.89.104.93 (talk) 15:10, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greek magical papyer