Talk:Magician (paranormal)

message: Do you seriously need to go into what different fantasy series think about wizards and sorcerers and all that crap?  Stuff like that belongs in each individual setting.  If anything, provide one 'for example.'  Don't go into an exhaustive list... better yet, exclude them period, go with what I've modified. 68.225.240.87 06:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Obviously historical magicians are the basis for those of fantasy literature, but I think only illusionists (of Paul Daniels and Harry Houdini's ilk) and those historically (or currently) labelling themselves as magicians/sages/witches or described so by others should be in this article. This includes historial myths/legends (such as Merlin) as opposed to intentionally created fiction. Heavens To Betsy 14:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different Types 

message: Magicians in fantasy should be merged with Magician (which needs expansion anyway). There is no point to having two articles with basically the same content, and an artificial separation, when there is not enough unique information in either article to justify two separate articles.  Dreadlocke  ☥  19:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm working on the unique info.  Goldfritha 00:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that I can state that they do not now have the same content.  Goldfritha 04:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fabulous expansion Goldfritha!  Wow! I withdraw my merge suggestion!  Dreadlocke  ☥  03:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: "authors of fantasy fiction have often muddled the meaning of each of the terms" This needs some evidence that the meanings were precise prior to their use by the authors.  "most accurate" -- that needs some evidence that there was accuracy prior to that.  Goldfritha 22:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No evidence?  Out it goes, then.  Goldfritha 00:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Muddle, unreferenced

message: It is not suitable to merge "Mage" here.  The characters referred to are clearly fictional.  If it were to be merged anywhere, it would be "Magicians in fantasy" -- but the information in it is clearly specific to a certain kind of magician, and that article is about magicians in general, as is this one.  The article is far more suitable for deletion than merging.  Goldfritha 00:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Who proposed merging the two in the first place? -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 18:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was an anonymous editor .  I'll remove the tag.  Dreadlocke  ☥  18:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The Mage: article is up for deletion, and I think it will probably be deleted, so I'd read thorugh it and move whatever you like to Magicians in fantasy.  Perhaps I'll put the merge tag between those two articles...Dreadlocke  ☥  18:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mage

message: Due to Wikipedia:Disambiguation, and this project, among other conventions and several discussions which formed consensus, I suggest that the magician articles follow the same consensus in naming as the magic articles. 
Based on this, I believe that the following two moves/renames can be speedied:
*Move/rename Magician to Magician (paranormal) - compare to magic (paranormal)
*Move/rename Magician (disambiguation) to Magician - compare to magic
This will simply aid in navigation. - jc37 20:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguation

message: How can Alister Crowley be referd to as modern. He has been dead for over 60 years and refering to both him and the cult he founded at the start of this aritcle to me smacks of an attempt to promote it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.238.19 (talk) 04:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: He's generally considered one of the more important figures of modern occultism, having had great impact on its development during the 20th century and his approach to magic(k) is in a historical sense quite modern. I honestly doubt that what you are referring to is an attempt to promote OTO. Calanor (talk) 13:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern? 

message: This particular quote—"the magician of the future will use mathematical formulas"—is attributed with a footnote as from "Crowley, Aleister. Magick (Book 4) (Introductions and Theorems). Weiser Books. ISBN ." A search of the link provided as well as the hardcopy/published version does not seem to bear out this as an exact quote. Maybe I'm wrong and just missed it, but it should be re-examined as attributed to Crowley. I notice that there are a dozen or so sites out there that repeat this quote and attribution based on the Wikipedia information. (bh)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.57.103.91 (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I cut the different types section.  It had nothing to do with Magician (paranormal), so I deleted it.  I can't even tell which bit of fiction it comes from (it seems like a Chill Mage should be fairly relaxed, and an ocular mage should grind lenses).  I'll reproduce it here if someone thinks that action was precipitous.  Peccavimus (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Necromancer are a real type of Magician. A type of magic that been used in history during the Middle Ages. The magic is some what used today in sub-culture groups. This should not been deleted. Rasseru (talk) 15:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You can add back as many as you can find citations for as being actual types of magicians. No one is stopping you, as long as its done correctly. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 17:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Types of Mages 

message: Isn't calling those people "magicians" a bit POV? The term magician is defined in the opening sentence as a practitioner of magic. I'm sure the majority of the modern world does not believe in magic, so to claim these people are actually magicians is a bit ridiculous. Could the sentence be re-worded so as to make sure readers know these people only claim to be magicians, they're not actually. McLerristarr | Mclay1 04:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, they practice magic.  You may not think it *works*, but they practice it.  Just like Catholics practice Catholicism, even though the bread may not actually turn to Christ.  Do we need to make it clear on all religion pages that the religion may not be true?  I think it's pretty obvious that it's a belief; no need to specify so with every single use of the word.  Peccavimus (talk) 18:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but to most people, magic does not have religious connotations. Saying they practise magic sounds like the magic is actually real. I still think it could be clarified a little. McLerristarr | Mclay1 08:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's your POV that magic doesn't work.  They obviously do not share that POV, so to remain NPOV, we describe them neutrally as people who practice magic.  It's very clear from the article that "magic" is not commonly accepted.  We don't have to mention it every single time we use the word.  Saying the word "magic" is not an endorsement of the belief.  As far as I know, that's pretty standard policy (if wikipedia can be said to have things like policies).  Peccavimus (talk) 20:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NPOV is a policy but there are some things with which we don't have to respect other opinions, such as people who think the Earth is 6000 years old. I'm not sure if magic falls into that category but I'm not saying we should say it's not real, it's just that it says "Magic is..." then mentions modern magicians without even mentioning that it's just their belief. We shouldn't assume that people will know that the magicians may not actually have magic powers. Besides, "modern magicians" sounds like it's referring to illusionists who definitely do not have magical powers. McLerristarr | Mclay1 01:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Oddly enough, in re - there are some things with which we don't have to respect other opinions I tried this very tack while referring to certain named people in the bible as fictional, as, for some of them, there is no evidence, outside the bible, that they existed.  I was shot down for this.  Again, in order to remain neutral, we can make the statement that they practice magic.  We do not make any statements regarding the efficacy of what they practice, just like we don't make any statements (which aren't already made by a third party) regarding the efficacy of prayer.--Vidkun (talk) 02:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern magicians 

message: The grammar is very poor and needs to be corrected, as do several typos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.168.168 (talk • contribs) 11:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:SOFIXIT. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 16:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I was about to have a go at turning this into something resembling English, but I realised I don't actually know what half of it is meant to mean. For example: Throughout history, there have been many who have claimed having secret knowledge was result of great often supernatural powers, insofar as certain platitudes alluding to an ability and knowledge of the occult (literally, "hidden") techniques oft felt could be of great import.. I mean, WHAT? - 81.101.197.228 (talk) 17:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  poor grammar 

message: Please don't include any information from fantasy literature or games in an article that references magicians of the world and their craft(s). I very much appreciate fantasy literature, but very few authors are interested in learning about what magicians do in reality. Much as anything else in fiction, the reality is entirely too boring to make a good story, so it is embellished with sometimes outlandish imaginings.
Also, if in fact there could be a definition of 'magician', it would necessarily be intensely convoluted and difficult to follow for anyone not involved in the craft. There are magicians from every culture and of every variation, and of every bent and orientation. Suffice it to say that a magician recognizes another magician by their knowledge, bearing, and comportment, rather than their title.
Nothing on the internet can be trusted where magicians are concerned. You won't find current, working magic displayed for all to see. The most you will see is the process by which one may approach the gate at the estate of magic. You' will never see directions to the door of the house of magic.
155.91.28.231 (talk) 18:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: New stuff goes at the bottom, and please actually read the article before making inapplicable requests about problems that don't exist.  Also, Wikipedia has standards on WP:Identifying reliable sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request