Talk:List of occultists

message: Is Mother Shipton a good possibility for this list?
Another group of candidates would be Don Elkins, Carla Rueckert, and Jim McCarty of the LL Research group (www.llresearch.org). They claimed to speak with entities through the channel Carla Rueckert and studied metaphysics thereby. They also used ceremonial magic.
Californicus (talk) 15:26, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Candidates 

message: # -- Smerdis of Tlön 04:49, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Belongs in this list

message: #
There is no reliable source on Solomon building the temple with the help of demons. This is just nonsense.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.196.41.118 (talk) 10:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Does not belong in this list

message: From the article on Solomon:
:The Gnostic Apocalypse of Adam, which may date to the 1st or 2nd century, refers to a legend in which Solomon sends out an army of demons to seek a virgin who had fled from him, perhaps the earliest surviving mention of the later common tale that Solomon controlled demons and made them his slaves. This tradition of Solomon's control over demons appears fully elaborated in the early Christian work called the "Testament of Solomon" with its elaborate and grotesque demonology.
:Solomon's mastery of demons is a common element in later Jewish and Arabic legends, and is often attributed to possession of a magic ring called the "Seal of Solomon".
Based on the foregoing, Solomon belongs on this list -- Smerdis of Tlön 04:49, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: ====Belongs in this list====
# -- Smerdis of Tlön 04:49, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The New Age movement has reinterpreted the life and teaching of Jesus in a large variety of ways (For example, see A Course in Miracles). He has also been claimed as an Ascended Master by Theosophy and some of its offshoots; related speculations have him studying mysticism in the Himalaya or hermeticism in Egypt in the period between his childhood and his public career.
Based on the foregoing, Jesus belongs on this list -- Smerdis of Tlön 04:49, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: This may be a good idea, at least for Solomon.  Virgil and probably Albertus Magnus might bet fit in such a category.  (For Jesus himself, I'd submit that he belongs on the list in any case, on account of his reputation for performing supernatural wonders: see Miracles of Jesus.  It is POV to claim that supernatural marvels ascribed to Jesus are not magical because you believe a religious doctrine that defines this particular wonderlore differently.) -- Smerdis of Tlön 13:44, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I have created a new category.  I moved Gyges of Lydia, Virgil, Albertus Magnus, Roger Bacon, and Livingstone Bramble there, and added or re-added Moses and Olaus Wormius there also.  If Solomon is re-added, he belongs there also.  Jesus and the Three Wise Men belong in the chronological categories on their own merits, I think.  -- Smerdis of Tlön 14:23, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Jesus]]

message: # -- Smerdis of Tlön 04:49, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Belongs in this list

message: From the article on Jesus:
:The New Age movement has reinterpreted the life and teaching of Jesus in a large variety of ways (For example, see A Course in Miracles). He has also been claimed as an Ascended Master by Theosophy and some of its offshoots; related speculations have him studying mysticism in the Himalaya or hermeticism in Egypt in the period between his childhood and his public career.
Based on the foregoing, Jesus belongs on this list -- Smerdis of Tlön 04:49, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This may be a good idea, at least for Solomon.  Virgil and probably Albertus Magnus might bet fit in such a category.  (For Jesus himself, I'd submit that he belongs on the list in any case, on account of his reputation for performing supernatural wonders: see Miracles of Jesus.  It is POV to claim that supernatural marvels ascribed to Jesus are not magical because you believe a religious doctrine that defines this particular wonderlore differently.) -- Smerdis of Tlön 13:44, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I have created a new category.  I moved Gyges of Lydia, Virgil, Albertus Magnus, Roger Bacon, and Livingstone Bramble there, and added or re-added Moses and Olaus Wormius there also.  If Solomon is re-added, he belongs there also.  Jesus and the Three Wise Men belong in the chronological categories on their own merits, I think.  -- Smerdis of Tlön 14:23, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: ====Belongs in this list====
# -- Smerdis of Tlön 04:49, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither their names nor their gender nor their number are given: the Greek text of Matthew refers to them merely as μαγοι απο ανατολων, "Magi from the East". μαγοι should probably be interpreted as Persian-style (Zoroastrian) seers, philosophers, astrologers, and maybe even strictly as members of the sect of Magi (see the many references throughout Pliny, for example). Greek grammar makes it not inconceivable that one or more of them may have been women, while the traditional reference to "three" seems to derive from the number of gifts mentioned in the Gospel.
Based on the foregoing, the Three Wise Men belong on this list.  In addition, according to Thayer's Bible Lexicon , the Greek word magos, traditionally translated as "wise men" in the Nativity account, is translated "sorcerer" in the KJV at Acts 13. --Smerdis of Tlön 14:50, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The [[Three Wise Men]]

message: # -- Smerdis of Tlön 04:49, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Belongs in this list

message: From the article on the Three Wise Men:
:Neither their names nor their gender nor their number are given: the Greek text of Matthew refers to them merely as μαγοι απο ανατολων, "Magi from the East". μαγοι should probably be interpreted as Persian-style (Zoroastrian) seers, philosophers, astrologers, and maybe even strictly as members of the sect of Magi (see the many references throughout Pliny, for example). Greek grammar makes it not inconceivable that one or more of them may have been women, while the traditional reference to "three" seems to derive from the number of gifts mentioned in the Gospel.
Based on the foregoing, the Three Wise Men belong on this list.  In addition, according to Thayer's Bible Lexicon , the Greek word magos, traditionally translated as "wise men" in the Nativity account, is translated "sorcerer" in the KJV at Acts 13. --Smerdis of Tlön 14:50, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I've been scanning over the list, and I must say it's very limited, listing "occultists" from European and Middle Eastern origin, but nothing from East Asia or non-Egyptian Africa, let alone the pre-colonial Americas. Surely there must be more legendary, semi-legendary and real people that should be included from these areas. 24.80.108.205 22:31, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Euro-centric list?

message: Would Robert Johnson be better included under "People subjected to magical legends"? The legend of his DwtD seems to have circulated mostly after his death, rather than by his own efforts. -FZ 23:21, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Johnson 

message: What is meant here by "occultist"? As far as I'm concerned, this concept doesn't fit with Allan Kardec. He was an educator who proposed a new way of relationship with the Spiritual, a humanist and progressist approach. He tried to show that Spiritual phenomena could and should be studied experimentally, instead of the traditional occultist, mystical way it had been done for centuries. He was someone who believed in the power of the dialogue between scientific, philosophical and religious knowledge as the best way to achieve a more complete perception of reality. I can't realise how come someone strongly influenced by Illuminism and Rationalism, who didn't even believe in "supernatural", could be called an "occultist"... Arges 14:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Spiritualism is a subcategory of occult, as can be seen from the first title in the references to that article, The Spiritualists: The Passion for the Occult in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. Occultism is not mystification. Many occultists were scientific and experimentally oriented, for example Isaac Newton and Aleister Crowley. -999 (Talk) 16:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allan Kardec 

message: Speaking of Newton, how was he an occultist ?!? He shouldn't be here. Discussion? Grye 22:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Sir Isaac Newton]] 

message: Why is this article given the misleading term 'List of occultists' and then goes on to in the subsections to list Magicians? Is the use of the term 'occultist' to describe Magicians used anywhere else other than here in the wikipedia? If not, the title should be changed. The wikipedia should not be the place to advance new definitions and new semantic entities: it should reflect normal scholarly usage. Colin4C 11:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Dictionary.com defines an occultist as someone who is "a believer in occultism..."  and this would preclude magicians who do not believe in occultism. Chris 13:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An obvious point 

message: Yes, this article continues to have problems.  The title is problematic.  Historically, it was forked  out of the article magic (paranormal), which was the original article that defined its scope, such as it is.  The article on occultism appeared much later.  
The notion that being labelled an "occultist" is somehow pejorative has been a consistent cause of friction.  This is not the intent; the original idea was to compile a chronological list of the most salient figures who practiced magic, divination, and alchemy; or influenced their development.  It helps not to look at activities of the past through twenty-first century eyes; some alchemists and wizards of the past thought they were practicing some variety of the natural sciences, and the modern concepts of miracle and the paranormal are just that - modern.  Helpful suggestions as to better labels that will not be read as pejorative by some readers are worthy of consideration.  
As to sourcing: my thoughts are that lists of people do not need separate references, but only if : 
* they also contain a few words of explanation as to why a name has been included;
* we have an article on that person; and'
* the article on that person contains sourced information that confirms the explanation.
As to modern figures, if they are living I understand that WP:BLP may make it necessary to provide separate references here.  
But for modern figures, my chief concern is not so much that they might be offensively labelled as "occultists", as it is with historical significance.  The problem with lists is that they attract me-too-isms; the followers of various figures wish to make sure that their leaders are represented.  At least for their followers, "occultist" is not pejorative; their concern instead is that their leaders are recognized as significant figures.  That said, there surely are at least some modern and living figures, such as Margot Adler, that do in fact merit inclusion.
Related to this issue is the treatment of folklore, tall tales, and contemporary urban legends.  History is full of texts and grimoires that were falsely attributed to famous figures: Solomon, Pope Honorius III, and Moses and more recently Ole Worm have all been falsely credited with magical texts. A large body of legend turns the poet Vergil into a wizard.  For some groups, Jesus is an ascended master, and a body of lore proposes that he travelled to India or Egypt to study mysticism of various sorts in the interval between his childhood and his public ministry.  This sort of lore needs to be addressed somehow, and prior versions of the article attempted that.  How to do that while remaining sensitive to biographical sensitivities is something I'm open to constructive suggestions about.
I'm open to constructive suggestions here.  We already have spun off a couple of superior articles on the history of Western magic, such as Renaissance magic.  It might be that portions of the list might be forked back into relevant articles on a series about the history of paranormal magical belief, and the significance of these figures discussed in text in those articles.  - Smerdis of Tlön 15:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would probably help if the thoroughly historic people were restored. Aleister Crowley has been dead for sixty years; I fail to see the BLP concern. It seems even weaker for  King Solomon or Doctor Faustus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving forward constructively 

message: I think the sub listings of the various occultists listed should be listed in alphabetical order. It would make it so much more easy to search or research the individuals.
--Bill--
June 17 2008  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.201.225 (talk) 22:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alphabetical Order 

message: What about Dorian? He seems like an occultist for sure.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.218.51.154 (talk) 02:59, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Dorian who? Ian.thomson (talk) 03:03, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dorian 

message: Firstly, it confuses "occultists" (which is a term used almost exclusively in scholarly literature to refer to followers of 19th century movements) with those who have had an influence on occult beliefs but who themselves shouldn't be described as "occultists". Plato, for one example, in no way shape or form could be described as an "occultist" and the anachronism of such a designation is wrong on too many levels to list. There's also the use of semi-mythical figures who have questionable historical reality.
Secondly, it lists people in the 16th century, such as Ficino and Pico, who were dead before the 16th century started. It uses the value laden term "Enlightenment" to correspond to eras which are already covered chronologically and even then it lists people like the Marquis de Sade who mocked occult beliefs in his writings and who was an arch-materialist. The 19th and 20th centuries are a mess of dates and names that shouldn't be there. Hitler for example; occult thought might have influenced his thinking but his role in the development of occult belief is minimal and what little there has been has been 20th/21st century retero-appropriation (Devi, Myatt, etc.). Furthermore, the occult in his own life is not a settled question historically and, either way, he did many more important things than anything involving the occult. For reasons that are unknown, Hitler is listed in the 19th century and Crowley in the 20th. Including people like Jim Morrison is problematic; we know little about his beliefs while Madonna is a practising Kabbalist. Should she be included? There are huge problems with that as well. 
Thirdly, there is no control over terminology; exciting sounding labels are given to people without those labels being defined. It reads like a seventeen year old who's just discovered Crowley and who is applying titles like "sorcerer" to anybody who takes their fancy. 
Points going forward: 
1. In the intro, define the branches of occult belief and then define the listed personalities on the basis of those branches. For example, if you define alchemy as an occult belief then include "Nicolas Flamel, alchemist". The three classical branches of the occult are alchemy, astrology and magic. Don't confuse this with mysticism, esotericism or Neo-Paganism which are different things but which may cross-over. Modern satanism defines itself almost exclusively as anti-occult belief, I'd remove any satanists from this list.
2. Only use academically published books or peer-reviewed journals as references and have a reference for each entry. 
3. Rework the "eras" as follows; "Antiquity" (Before 600ad), "Middle Ages" (600 - 1300), "Renaissance" (1300 - 1600), "Modern Era" (1600+).
4. Be very precise and avoid libellous content - there are living people on this list being presented as members of organisations that they might not be members of and which would be damaging to their professional reputation. Terms like "sorcerer", "medium", etc. are meaningless without a precise context and definition. 
5. Kill your babies! Just because some singer puts a reference to something in their videos doesn't mean they're a seer. Just because you like some public figure and see symbolism in their work doesn't mean that symbolism is relevant to anyone but you. 81.136.47.162 (talk) 01:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Various problems with this article 

message: Why is Cyprian removed?
Article says:
"Legend[edit]
Saint Cyprian and the demon, 14th-century manuscript of the Golden Legend.
Cyprian, known by the title of "the Magician", to distinguish him from Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, received a liberal education in his youth, and particularly applied himself to astrology; after which he traveled for improvement through Greece, Egypt, India, etc. Cyprian was a magician in Antioch and dealt in sorcery.
Justina is known for converting Cyprian, and is said to have been a young woman who took private vows of chastity. She was killed during the persecutions of the Roman emperor Diocletian in the year 304 AD.
A would-be suitor – a pagan lawyer – sought the aid of Cyprian's magic to induce Justina into marrying him. Cyprian sent a demon to torment Justina, hoping to arouse carnal passions within her. The charms and spells had no effect on Justina, who, in chastity and purity, spent her time in prayer and fasting. Cyprian again employed sorcery, sending "the chief of the demons" to Justina, who likewise was conquered by a certain "Sign of Christ". Brought to despair, Cyprian made the Sign himself and in this way was freed from the toils of Satan. Cyprian summarily burned any books of spells and sorcery in his possession in front of a bishop of the Church, sealing his commitment to a new life as a Christian. He was baptized and received into the Church and was made preeminent by miraculous gifts. Cyprian then became, in succession, a deacon, priest, and finally, bishop after being named as the successor to Anthimus, bishop of Antioch, while Justina became abbess of a convent."
~~Ted~~ 2607:FEA8:483:8E00:545A:5CBA:AB4D:AB7 (talk) 03:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re "Cyprian and Justina" removal 

message: Circe, might be mythology. Some sites say she was a sorceress.
~~Ted~~ 2607:FEA8:483:8E00:4961:8177:4A78:268D (talk) 01:12, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circe (include yes or no?)