Talk:Love magic

Why did I create a Love Magic page? In researching for one of my university classes, I realized that there is no single source for information on Love Magic. Almost every culture, including even "developed" nations such as the United States have some form of Love Magic. To see this all one has to do is type it into Google, and a plethora of people trying to sell spells and charms to bind the passions of love will appear. Being so widespread as to transcend time and cultures, why is there no general source for love magic? I don't know, and in not having a sufficient answer I decided to create this page. I hope that everyone will throw in their two cents so that this page can develop into a true source of information for those interested in witchcraft and love magic. --Cedlefsen (talk) 06:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC) I understand your motivation for writing this article. Clearly you are passionate about this subject. But your article contains original research and lacks verifiable sources. Moreover, the sources cited are loosely related to the topic, but do not specifically back up the ideas in the article where the citations are placed. Honestly, I’m surprised this piece has remained tagged for not meeting Wikipedia standards without contributions or upgrades since 2009. That’s probably because there’s no real fix. One would have to support the original research with sources and it’s doubtful if any reliable sources that back the author’s ideas even exist in the literature. Magdalamar (talk) 16:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC) Now I see other users have commented on the problems with this article. An administrator apparently blocked the author from making edits; it seems this order remains in effect. This article simply shouldn’t be here. Wikipedia is based on an encyclopedic model, and this article doesn’t meet that standard. This piece is fine as a personal essay, but has no place in Wikipedia. Many young people, K-12 use Wikipedia for research.They may not question the veracity of this piece and likely will assume it’s fact because included in Wikipedia, especially if their critical thinking skills are not fully developed. As a rule, I don’t like suggesting an article should be taken down. I believe it’s misleading to let this article stand because it is original research and not associated with any established school of thought.Magdalamar (talk) 16:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Can you help me 166.199.51.35 (talk) 23:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

explanation of 'inappropriate tone' label

I applaud and encourage the efforts of the person who started this page and left the note above. The article as it stands, however, has problems of tone and POV. Its tone is naïve rather than scholarly, and is written within a framework of gender politics that treats the subject matter mainly as evidence of sex roles among men and women. This is an interpretation of the evidence, and certainly should be a part of the article, as it's supported by the scholarship. However, the forms and practice of "love magic" should be described first as a basis of these interpretations. There's also a serious chronological problem in treating the Renaissance before ancient Greece; Renaissance magic in some ways is an aspect of the same rediscovery of texts that led to Petrarch's "eureka" moment with Cicero (or some other ancient author; this off the top of my head). The point is, Renaissance practitioners of magic were often convinced they were following in the tradition of ancient magi such as the very historical (and not a magus) Nigidius Figulus.

So two main points: chronology, and more specific description of texts and practices pertaining to love magic. Betz's The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation is online in limited preview; searches on "love," "attraction," "Aphrodite", "eros" etc. might give some glimpses into what kind of evocations and rituals were in use. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed two large, poorly sourced pseudohistorical sections and made a few other edits

Wikipedia is not the place to propagate pet theories, and magic should never be portrayed as something legitimate that has any tangible effect on reality. Magic isn't real, nobody has ever actually "practiced" magic, they merely claim to do so. The tone of this article was laughably credulous regarding the existence of magic, and the sections regarding "Hellenistic love magic" and the Renaissance were nothing but poorly-sourced pseudohistory, riddled with opinionated (not to mention misandrist) wishful thinking. As such I've removed those two aforementioned sections and corrected all instances where magic is treated as real. The article as it existed before has absolutely NO place on Wikipedia - if you want to expound upon your childish wishful thinking, find some "Wiccan" forum, because this isn't the place for pseudoscience and quackery. 2001:8003:1C5B:D400:1DA9:9790:3253:FCC7 (talk) 07:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Mate, magic ISN'T real. Can you give any valid justification whatsoever as to why you're reverting my changes? 2001:8003:1C5B:D400:1DA9:9790:3253:FCC7 (talk) 07:21, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

 Administrator note While the above IP did start this discussion, seeing as how they couldn't even wait for someone to reply to it before repeatedly reverting to their preferred version of the article, they are currently blocked for edit warring. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)