Talk:Magic (supernatural)/Archive of the Paranormal

message: I would like to propose that this discussion page get cleaned up and trimmed back a bit.
There are posts here that go back to 2003 to an antiquated version of the article that no longer exists, and most of the talk page is taken up by a ranting and hostile argument that took place over a year ago, and which are irrelevant to this article because the argument  devolved into name calling and flaming.
Keeping the more recent and/or relavent posts is of course important so that the current direction the page is going can be preserved along with those suggestions and ideas that are still being worked on or actively discussed.
--Arkayne Magii 03:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal of cleanup of Talk Page

message: :this was the cue for Gerald Gardner... he claimed to reveal the existence of a witch-cult
:Gardner's new religion combined magic
New implies that he made it up, instead of revealed a long-standing (and hidden) religion.  Is there any proof for that?
:feminists led the way when some launched an independent revival of goddess worship.
Ditto.
Thinking about it, I'm just going to make changes.
-- ~ender 2005-03-13 11:10:MST
:Is this the only reason for the NPOV notice now?  The paragraphs at issue now read:
::A further revival of interest in magic was heralded by the repeal, in England, of the last Witchcraft Act in 1951. This was the cue for Gerald Gardner, now recognised as the founder of Wicca, to publish his first non-fiction book Witchcraft Today, in which he claimed to reveal the existence of a witch-cult that dated back to pre-Christian Europe. Gardner's religion combined magic and religion in a way that was later to cause people to question the Enlightenment's boundaries between the two subjects.
::Gardner's newly publicized religion, and many others, took off in the atmosphere of the 1960s and 1970s. . .
:Gardner's "cue" was the repeal of the last Witchcraft Act, which made witchcraft no longer a crime in England.  He "claimed to reveal the existence of a witch-cult. . ." — is it contested that he made this claim?  "Newly publicized religion" is fine with me.  If this doesn't need further work, I'd suggest removing the NPOV notice.  -- Smerdis of Tlön 15:47, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV ?s 

message: As an occultist myself, I'd like to bring up the following points:
* [1] Magic has not yet been proven by any objective measure.
* [2] Perhaps magic will some day be proven, or it may just as easily be that something in the internal mechanism or nature of magick will always cause it to elude objective scientific detection (in practice if not in theory).
* [3] "Supposed" does not mean "fictional".  Semantically speaking, something can be "supposed" and still be true.  "Supposed" is ambiguous.
* [4] This page also deals with paranormal magic in fiction.  Practitioners of chaos magick aside, I'm sure all would agree that this alone necessitates the "supposed" in the opening sentence.
* [5] The afore notwithstanding, "supposed" in this context could be taken to merely indicate that the method of affecting reality doesn't always work.
I think the "supposed" needs to stay.  It seems reasonable and necessary, and I say this with a pro-magick POV. --Corvun 12:36, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
:Perhaps the first sentence might be recast to say, "Believers in magic (. . .) hope to influence the world. . . ."  This gets across the idea that not everyone believes in the power of magic, while avoiding the fictional or pretended overtones of "supposed." -- Smerdis of Tlön 15:21, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Supposed" or not? 

message: Apparently the NPOV header was attached to this page by Stevertigo, who objects to the "Changing attitudes towards magic" heading.  Why? and what would make it better? -- Smerdis of Tlön 18:46, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I objected to it because it implies a fact regarding the state of mind of people - which itself is challengeable on many grounds: 1. it implies a "change of attitute" specifically to "magic" 2. where "specific" as applied to the generic term "magic" makes for a kind of dual-pov paradox: what is "magic," what does one mean by it and in what context? IOW its not well defined or commonly understood enough to talk about it as something which people have specific opinions about. Wheras you might say "magic" to mean something inbetween Crowley, Tolkien and Lovecraft, established religion fundamentalists might would view "magic" as a synonym for heresy, blasphemy, "paganism," heathen idolatry, etc. Not that the  is really important to me, its just that the explanation of the term ambiguities, the history of the term, and the specific history of what the term means come WAY before any examination of "current public opinion." So facts first, pro and con public opinion represented as such, somewhere down beneath "magic in film." :)  PS Comment:reorderered sections - various hidden comments (edit page to view them) new top section "relating magic, religion, paganism and alchemy" underway. SV|t|th 20:57, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see now.  (Didn't even get this before.)  Would something like, "Cultural attitudes towards magic" be better?  since that's what the section seems to be about, chiefly.  I read it, not as an attempt to change anyone's mind about magic, but rather as an account of how people have held different opinions about magic in different times and places. -- Smerdis of Tlön 22:05, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: FWIW, I am not sure that the statement "As with all paranormal claims, magic has yet failed to be supported by credible controlled scientific experimentation, and can only be studied seriously for its influence in cultural or religious matters." that now appears in the introduction is NPOV itself.  It would appear to assert that no one who studies magic to practice magic should be taken seriously, and assumes that controlled scientific experiments are the gold standard of truth.  -- Smerdis of Tlön 14:00, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I may or may not agree - in the sense that various aspects of "magik" cannot claim to be scientific: they can assert their "truth," but the relationship between magical/magickal phenomena and claims of truth as science needs a clear definition. This does not mean a disclaimer necessarily, but rather a note upfront which sets tone for the article: that 'people of magic view magic as an aspect of their faith, which is associated with blankety blank, and blankety blank etc. In the contexts of X and X magic has had confrontations with certain doctines held by people of science, and each claim that the other is a blankety blank, etc. Keep in mind also that "science" really means "methodology for the open study of knowledge" and does not itself assert truths, but rather observations of the observable (ie even M-theory is "only" philosophy if it cant be proven). You can say 'in the domain of faith and philosphy, magic has X and X conflicts with X and X doctrines of religion. In the domain of observable and testable phenomenae, magic has X and X conflicts with X and X aspects of science. Eh? -SV|t|add 08:14, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text:  a different definition of magic (well, maybe):::
to me, and others, magic  isnt black, or white, good or evil, its just there, it is the mind of the wielder that makes it good or evil, in what they  use it for.  kinda thought that belonged in the article some where, but im not sure where, so i tohught id mention it, a and see if anyone wold like to put it in, or to  tell me where to do so.
GabrielSimon
----
"Generally speaking, there are two types of magic: contagious magic and sympathetic magic."  According to who, or what theory? I think this statement is too bold without some backup. --Tubby 02:51, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOv header: why? 

message: The section "Suppression of Magical Beliefs" is mostly factually inaccurate. See my comments above.
Maprovonsha172 19:13, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As per the above discussion, I have removed this section from the article in chief, and am preserving it here.  Users are more than welcome to attempt to rewrite these paragraphs and attempt to improve them.  -- Smerdis of Tlön 18:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Section, Suppression of magical beliefs

message: Examples of the suppression of magical belief and practice range from the eradication of neighboring polytheistic tribes by the early Hebrews, to the attempted suppression and eventual appropriation of pagan holidays by the Catholic Church, to the mingled motives of the Conquistadors, to the Salem witch trials of the Puritans. During such periods, the tendency of magic is to become more obscure and esoteric, with a certain element in society always managing to preserve lore and tradition, often in disguised or metaphorical terms.  This pattern gave rise to the term occult.
The motivation of much scientific enquiry is similar to the motivation of magic: that it is possible to discover the underlying reality behind mundane reality, and that that reality may have laws and principles which may be discovered and controlled.  Unlike the practice of magic, science has the scientific method to correct its errors.  As the scientific method took hold, astronomy evolved from astrology, and chemistry from alchemy.
:As per the above discussion, I have removed this section from the article in chief, and am preserving it here.  Users are more than welcome to attempt to rewrite these paragraphs and attempt to improve them.  -- Smerdis of Tlön 18:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suppression of magical beliefs 

message: This article is currently 33k long and could probably use being split up a little. How would everyone feel about moving the 'History of Western  European magic' section into it's own article? Lachatdelarue (talk) 22:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  page split 

message: Sorry but I find the section inaccurate and to a degree, poorly written. It is definitely not the view of mainstream Islam (in mainstream Islam, magic is a sin punishable by death). It is true that some past authors have written about magic, and some sects have taken up some "magical" elements, but these have been generally rejected by mainstream Islam.
Furthermore the section includes such examples as "predicting the new future through astrolabes", does this fit under magic?
I think the section needs a major edit or a total rewrite. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by IBaghdadi (talk • contribs) .
== PLZ WHOEVER WRITES ANYTHING HERE MAKE SURE YOU DON'T BLABBER THINGS U DUNNO ABOUT
in islam magic isn't forbidden, any acts that leads to paganism, is forbidden and magic includes some of these acts.
so it is not magic in general it's a certain act
and predicting the future through astrology is also forbidden, cuz the future is only known by Allah (God Almighty) ==
--
Just a quick question here, but if only Allah knows the future, then predicting it through astrology would be pointless, and not a sin. (after all, if it is impossible to do then why bother forbidding it?) so these statements are mutually exclusive.
If Allah alone knows the future and thus Astrology does not work in predicting the future, then making it forbidden serves no purpose, since in this case, the sin of predicting the future through astrology could never actually occur. Thus in this statement the argument for astrology being a sin would be invalid.
On the other hand, if Astrology does work to predict the future, then it cannot therefore also be true that Allah alone knows the future, in which case the argument for it being a sin is once again invalid.
No offense is meant here, I'm really just curious as to how this is reconciled.
--Arkayne Magii 02:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secton on Islamic viewpoint of magic somewhat inaccurate 

message: I think the following is too cautious:
:but some forms of magical thinking have existed within these religions throughout some of their history.
This refers to the Abrahmaic religions. I find them full of magical thinking throughout history. What is a Christian seeing the mother of a deity in a grilled cheese sandwich but magical thinking? I'm going to change it slightly.
Maprovonsha172 16:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Magical thinking is relevant to magic, there is even a section for it. 
Maprovonsha172 21:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Those examples have nothing to do with "magic", a point that shouldn't need to be argued - but if you want to make such a claim, then the burden of proof rests with you. I would add that calling me a "prick" (on a user page) is not helping your cause: this type of abusive language can be grounds for suspension.  205.188.116.137 21:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps they should go in the magical thinking article.03:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Several of these "magic" articles need tweaking. Sympathetic magic links here and that is not "paranormal" in the sense this word implies. To have it link here is really odd, as it is a psychology/anthropological term. I'm not sure what to suggest at this point, but will give it some thought. The term "magic" is used very loosly and the definitions of things may need to be solidified. There's Theurgy, then sympathetic magic, then alchemy, then "paranormal" stuff... multiple ideas limped together. I admit I need to read more, but just wanted to mention it for now, as I looked for sympathetic magic and ended up here. --DanielCD 16:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: As I look, I'm answering my own questions. Sympathetic magic was at Sympathetic magick. I moved it as that spelling is quite incorrect for this. --DanielCD 16:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it was James Frazer who coined the terms sympathetic magic, contagious magic, etc. They are used in the field of anthropology, yes, but are also now standard terms used by magicians, witches, etc. I'm not sure I understand you quite, but it seems you're trying to differentiate two categories: fields of magic that are studied historically or anthropologically, but not believed in, which you're saying aren't "paranormal" but "psychological"; and for everything else that modern western magicians and witches believe in, you allow the term "paranormal". I'm probably wrong in this interpretation of what you're saying, because it doesn't make sense. If you're going to call one type of magic paranormal, why not theurgy, alchemy and sympathetic magic? Could you explain? Fuzzypeg 00:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are right; I am confused. Let me do some more thinking and reading before I comment further.  --DanielCD 02:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   Magical thinking  

message: Can I get some help reviewing and possibly removing external links here? I've already removed some pretty poor links. I would like to remove the "Veritas society" link, but I'll see what discussion there is before I do. I think good grounds for removing a link are: if they are low on information; if they are obvious lampoons; if the link is to an organisation more than to easily-navigable information (the Veritas site fits into this - there are some articles if you click through some links - but really it's mainly the organisation presented. I note that the articles are mostly paraphrases of other people's writings, and are attributed only to "the Veritas council". It's all a bit too shadowy for me). Remember there's no need to have lots of links - that's what google is for. This is a pretty central article for magicians, occultists, witches and neopagans. We deserve to have a good quality of article here. Fuzzypeg 00:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weird external links 

message: I think this has been brought up before, but does anyone know what's the deal with the ordo mentis link? I'd like to remove it, considering all it is is a dead-end link leading to an error page, but what do you guys think? Secos5 02:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at this site a while ago and found it was a quite weird site about psionics. I can't remember exactly what they called it, psi-tech or something - they claimed to be the leading website in it, which may well be true, considering how obscure it sounded to me. I don't think it was very representative of magic in general. Fuzzypeg 23:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Weird External Links 

message: Would it be worth putting what Sigmund Freud thought of magic in this article?  He advanced quite an influential view, being an influential figure himself.  Basically, Freud thought a belief in magic resulted from animism (there is more at the Totem and Taboo article, but there are also other resources to derive from too).  Your thoughts? --Knucmo2 13:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Freud's view on Magic

message: I've reworded the intro again, to restore some of the informativeness about different usages of the terms, that had been removed. I've also taken out what I believe are over-specific statements about how magic works: magic may use "natural mystical and spiritual energies and forces", but I doubt you'll find consensus on this in the literature. I personally feel that "energies" and "forces" are simply handy metaphors for something more fundamental. You could equally substitute "pattern" for "energy" or "force", for instance. Fortunately this is not a point that needs to be established in the intro section, though, and it's easy to word things more generally.
Mentioning a "divine source" as an alternative is a little misleading, as most magical world-views are built on the understanding that everything is of divine source.
I agree that the term "supernatural" is a bit wierd, considering many practitioners would hold that magic relies on natural laws (there being nothing outside nature), and most sceptics would similarly hold that there is nothing "outside of" nature; I think this term really comes from a dualist world-view, in which God and the hosts of heaven (and presumably, magic) are outside of and separate from nature, yet still affect it. There should possibly be some mention of this term in the article, explaining its common usage vs. its lack of usage in the magical community.
The term "paranormal" however seems quite reasonable, since it describes things that are outside of the norm, either outside normal reality or outside people's normal expectations of reality. I've used that term in the intro.
Feel free to make improvements/alterations to the intro section, or discuss other possibilities here. Thanks, Fuzzypeg☻ 03:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro paragraph: supernatural and paranormal 

message: Since the "In fiction" section deals almost exclusively with fantasy, it might be more fitting in the Wizard (fantasy) article.  Goldfritha 03:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wizard (fantasy)

message: I'm trying to merge Spell (ritual) into this article, and there's almost nothing that needs incorporating here, that article being basically a very poorly rehash of this one. There's only one ( ! ) piece of text that I think might be worth saving:
:"In the 13th century, Thomas Aquinas wrote that if a person has a spell put on them that causes them to get married, the marriage is invalid."
This however seems like pretty inconsequential trivia unless it's placed in a specific context, such as magic and law. Does anyone have any bright ideas as to where it might be useful?
One thing that that article does focus on is persecution on the grounds of magical practice, which this article only touches on. I don't think any of the material there is usable (it's all original research), but it's a good thought for one area in which this article could be expanded some time. Fuzzypeg☻ 05:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The page was attracting more spam links, and I decided to be bold and forge ahead with the redirect. It's done. Fuzzypeg☻ 05:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Spell (ritual)]] 

message: This article has been targeted in recent weeks by CC80, a sockpuppet of the Joan of Arc vandal.  This and similar articles may be targeted again by other sockpuppets of the same person.
A vandal who has damaged Wikipedia's Catholicism, Christianity, cross-dressing, and homosexuality articles for over two years has been identified and community banned.  This person will probably attempt to continue disruption on sockpuppet accounts.  Please be alert for suspicious activity.  Due to the complexity of this unusual case, the best place to report additional suspicious activity is probably to my user talk page because I was the primary investigating administrator. DurovaCharge! 17:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Community ban of the [[Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse#Joan_of_Arc_vandal|Joan of Arc vandal]] 

message: there should be a section for afictional uses of magic (parnomal) in this world. Smith Jones 03:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  there should be 

message: While I am well aware of both the fact that:
a) wikipedia is not a repository of links
b) wikipedia's links are nofollow type links
I still feel the inclusion of an essay type article I have written is suited for inclusion in this article.
Twice I have added my article inregards to magic in the chinese Taoist tradition, specifically the use of
amulets, spells, and chinese alchemy. And twice the link has been removed.
The purpose of the article is not to prove or disprove any supernatural realities of magic, but to highlight
the psychological and physiological effects of magic, especially those in use by Ritual Taoists.
Since the article does not seem to cover the same points in any of the attached external links and is barely
touched upon by the paragraphs within the article itself, I felt that instead of (dare I say) EDIT the Magic page
content, that I would rather merely link to my article.
I do not feel that I am being opportunistic, or aggressive in my inclusion of the link but because I believe
in being an orderly person who is in the opinion my viewpoint over the matter is suitable for inclusion
that I propose that under the graces of those perhaps too carefully watching over this article consider
what I have requested.
My article in question is: [located here]
I have been using Wikipedia for years and have helped shape a small number of articles, while I don't care to
brag about what little I have contributed, I say this only to state I don't feel myself as an outsider here.
thank you,
--64.229.65.208 06:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of Article