Talk:Gospel magic

[Untitled]
Hi...I included a list of Gospel Magicians on this page and they were deleted. I'm happy to discuss this but if one person is highlighted, it's fair to include other people to be listed also.

This whole page needs a major reformation. It doesn't give any actual research into the history or context that this supposed "Gospel magic" exists in. For something so rare, this article should deal with specifics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.36.123.153 (talk) 13:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I am a magician, but not a Gospel magician. However the genre definitely exists and is a viable part of the art of magic. There are numerous publications and references to be found I am sure.--FreedominThought (talk) 11:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The advertising has to go
There really is, according to Google, such a thing as "Gospel magic". But the blatant advertising for the Dock Haley Gospel Magic Company has to go. --John Nagle (talk) 23:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough...but I didn't put it there...it was here when I got here...and frankly...I agree with you... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kismetmagic (talk • contribs) 03:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I might have misunderstood you...I removed the reference to the science series that Dennis Regling had written but the books on Gospel Magic are actually intregral to the art. I included them as a courtesy to others interested in reading up on the subject not to advertise them. Also, Doc Haley died a bit ago. His books are still being sold in magic stores throughout the English-speaking world. So I not being gratuitous.

As to your point about Gospel Magic actually existing, yes...indeed it does. Torah Magic also exists though it isn't as popular as the Christian form. As I'm not an expert in Torah Magic, I will stand aside to allow an expert in that subject to create the appropriate page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kismetmagic (talk • contribs) 04:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV
This article, like all Wikipedia articles, needs to maintain a neutral point of view. Even though the subject of gospel magic is an inherently Christian topic, we still need to write this article from a neutral perspective. In particular, the section "The Ethics of Deception" appears to have been written as advice from Christians to gospel magicians rather than being directed at the general reader. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I was trying to fix the some of the POV problems in this article, but I ended up having to remove several sections. The "The Ethics of Deception" section was only original research on top of its POV problems, so I felt it was completely unsalvageable. The sections with the oath and prayer were unencyclopedic (WP:NOTGUIDE), and the sections listing magicians included non-notable, living people and seemed like advertisements. --Ships at a Distance (talk) 06:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The statement "Even stage magic and illusion have their place in Christianity as evangelizing tools." seems like a mere statement of opinion. The "sentence" preceding it does not contain a verb. Sir rupert orangepeel (talk) 01:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

This article reads like an advert for the Stag. book that was only released last year and gives a Catholic perspective of Gospel Magic ie opening paragraphs and the list of feast days. (Rob Butcher - practising Gospel Magician) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.209.115 (talk) 10:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The article also reads like an advertisement for Dennis Regling. To maintain neutrality it should be revised to emphasize him less. levophed (talk) 02:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC) levophed (talk) 02:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

ventriloquism?
the bible forbids ventriloquism? i don't believe it. at any rate, the bible verse cited doesn't mention ventriloquism. please either verify it or strike it. i know a christian ventriloquist. I also think that too much emphasise is on the catholic version of interpretating what Gospel magic is, relating it to the sacraments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.17.83.174 (talk) 03:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)