Talk:Magic

Harry Potter
Should magic in Harry Potter be treated separately from magic in fantasy in general?? I see no reason, Why would you ? Harry Potter is just a subset of fantasy magic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.69.187 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 11 June 2004‎ (UTC)

Magick entry
Is it really necessary to put the words Pagan and Satanic together for the term magick? I edited it so that it was just magick. Secos5 20:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems like a good idea to me.--Commander Keane 20:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

General Thoughts.
On second thought, Magic (organizations), which is really a list of Magic organizations (and has been moved to an appropriately named page), isn't something anybody would likely have meant in a search for "Magic." It should really be in a "See also" page under Magic (illusion), if it should be linked anywhere; it's not like there's some group called "Magic" that organizes them. I'd stick it there, if it weren't for the fact that there isn't one. So I'll mention it over on the illusion talk page as a possible See also link to eventually add.

The Magick description still isn't quite satisfying; I'd add something about it being a modern term used by neo-pagans to denote what they believe to be "true" magic, except that it seems that idea was already shot down. Besides, it's claimed that it's actually a ressurected ancient term (I'm not an entymologist, so I can't say if it's true or not), which would lead to problems by mentioning modern, and it's used by other groups which would cause annoyance by mentioning neo-pagans. If there's an accurate yet still sufficiently general description out there, I'd definitely be in favor of using that then the current dry "it's a variant term" description which says nothing of the implications.

Commander Keane, I agree with most of your changes since there were a few things I missed on the first pass. There are a few others I don't quite agree on (like a full sentence for the non-articles on the Magic songs), but that's more a matter for the Manual of Style talk page (which I might just post on later). The one thing I'll mention for now is the use of "Magic" as an experience; I was considering revising it downward as well, but I'm not sure a complete deletion is quite the right way to go. While it's more a matter for Wiktionary, it is a usage of the word. I'd think a simple sentence would work better in this case; something toward the bottom of the list like Any thoughts? SnowFire 22:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Magic is also used to describe experiences removed from everyday life, usually with a positive connotation (e.g. Seeing the dolphin on the cruise was like magic).

Dab
I really think such an important word as this should go straight to an article, not a dab page. This is especially true when the usage of the word is vague in the first place. I'm linking from a quote which says "pop music is magic and (person X) is a magician". Where the hell do I point it?! --kingboyk 13:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds like nowhere. If the intent was merely rhetorical, it doens't sound appropriate for a wiki-link anyway.  That said, precisely because the usage is vague the main Magic article should be a dab page.  'sides, it's not the end of the world if a vague usage of Magic is redirected to a dab page- that'd probably be the best occurrence in that case anyway. SnowFire 05:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Magic: The Gathering
I changed the word magicians to wizards as it is technically more accurate. --Wirewood Shadow 00:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Magick and Crowley
Re: Myrddin Masery's change on Magick: The origin of the term is disputed. While it's fair to discuss that elsewhere, the disambig page should say something accepted as true to both sides preferably. Notably the claim of magick to be an "older" term than magic is very much in dispute, as it's likely that both spellings were used in very early writing and that the distinction between the two terms came much later. It's not very fulfilling, but merely calling it a "variant term" that was popularized by Crowley (also undisputably true) is unquestionably the case.

I also moved Magic and religion to the See also section. SnowFire 03:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Section Titles vs. bolded "in."
This is not a huge issue, but I for one prefer the page without section titles. Magic (illusion) really shouldn't go under a paranormal header, and most people coming to this page will want one of illusion or paranormal right away without having to scroll. Plus, the section titles take up more space than the simple bold headers, and the Manual of Style specifically mentions that sub-headers are usually not necessary. If we do go back to section titles, we should also make sure to use the template TOCRight as prescribed by the Manual of Style. Any thoughts as to why Section Titles would be better?

As for the radio station additions, those are already linked from the Magic Radio in England page, so I'm not sure we really need them here, since the smaller affiliates can be found via clicking on that. SnowFire 16:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Recent changes.
So people here know, I've debated Jc37 on this issue elsewhere, but the reason I once again removed Black box systems from the "See also" is that this exact meaning is already in Magic (programming). In fact, it should probably be added as a link from that article. SnowFire 15:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.179.84.111 (talk) 21:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Move
I do suggest this should be moved to Magic (disambiguation): Magic should be a redirect to Magic (paranormal), since all other items listed here are clearly derivations from that primary meaning. --89.246.220.181 (talk) 09:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Support move - There are so many links to Magic that go to this disamiguation. →   C Teng  [talk]  12:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, since the supernatural hasn’t been scientifically proven (and is therefore unverifiable), I think it should redirect to sleight of hand. —Wiki Wikardo 18:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Clean-up
I've removed the clean-up tag as it seems clean now. If anyone thinks it needs more, please edit or re-tag and put the reasons on here. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 10:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Good Articles
Why did they get rid of the the understanding of magic pargraph, it was top quality stuff!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chili chowder (talk • contribs) 21:37, April 19, 2009 The Understanding of Magic is a factual article and should not have been removed. But only real wizards know about this. And people who own Snuggies. Because they are, in fact, wizarding robes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carrot & Coriander (talk • contribs) 03:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Magic by Mick Smiley
I am kind of dissapointed that Wikipedia doesn't have an article on the song by Mick Smiley. True, not many people may know him, but I just heard his song and it was beautiful. The song sounded a lot better than I thought from the excerpt that played in Ghostbusters. It's just such a nice song. --Ian Fairchild (talk) 18:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

three years pass here

Broader Ranges of the use of the term Magic
Magic is a term that is very broad and has many nuances and many uses. I like the comment under General that notes the term's use to denote feelings and experiences. This should be expanded to specify types of experiences that make the person, place, object, or event special in an ethereal abstract manner inconsistent with normal reality.

For the sake of completeness a list of commercial products that include in their advertising or on their label something about the way the product works, its results, how using the product makes one feel, the product itself, or which have incorporated into the name of the product the word magic: this category is conspicuously missing from the list.

Another long list of magic would be all websites dealing with magic in many of the various headings. These could include wholesale and retail shops selling magic for magicians, magic items associated with the occult could form another list, and groups discussing the games would be another and so on.

One other point I should mention, the think tank, Magic Inc. listed here may be a Trade Mark violation despite its use by a different industry. I know that the original owner of that trade mark name was very zealous in protecting its sole use of it. I am not sure the heirs have as carefully watch dogged the name as their parents did in the past but as an old friend of the family I will certainly make them aware of its use. The original is the oldest magic dealer and magic book publisher in Chicago, Illinois and is still owned by the Marshall family to the best of my knowledge. MagusKen (talk) 07:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Music
This section is described as being "Listed alphabetically by item, then by author". However:

1) "Magic" and "Magick" (and "M.A.G.I.C"?) are all listed together

2) Albums start off listed alphabetically by surname (though "T-Connection" between "Tsai" and "Twins" seems a bit odd) but then out of order after "Twins"

3) Songs are in alphabetical order (apart from the last entry "Smash Mouth"), but by given name, so not consistent (see for example "Bruce Springsteen", who appears on both lists)

Robertm25 (talk) 14:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Magical(ly), magic(al) powers, magic (supernatural)
Magical; Magically; Magic powers; Magical powers; Magic (supernatural): those five pages redirect here since 2013-08-10 when this target replaced Magic (paranormal). For some report see Talk: Magic (paranormal) and the preceding section Magic (this and that), with subsections.

I provided some report at many other Talk pages such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Occult (big example) and Talk: Disney Channel Middle East (little example).

--P64 (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Magick
Magick redirects here since 2013-08-22 when its content was moved to Magick (Thelema). For discussion including formal RFC (2013-07-20 to 08-22) see Talk: Magick (Thelema) and its archives.

The first appearance of 'magick' here is in the entry Magick (Thelema), which is not at the top. There we say "Magick redirects here and refers almost exclusively to Magic (paranormal)." We need to mention 'magick' as the archaic spelling earlier, probably in the lead or a hatnote. And reword entry Magick (Thelema) of course. --P64 (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Massive deletion
Following massive "cleanup" today, I restored only magic in fiction. That recovers what is crucial, to comprehend more than magic as an activity. See the two preceding sections including their cross-references to other talk pages. I made no other assessment. --P64 (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

magic is real!!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.50.15.170 (talk) 02:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested move relevant to this page
See Talk:Magick (disambiguation). 22:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Magic
Magazine (Freud) == If someone told "Magic", it needs to be read as "magazine" - can be translated (hear meaning) as a "shop" in Russian transcription. RippleSax (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Sure, but this doesn't seem relevant to a disambiguation page? "Papa" means "father" in informal English but "potato" in Spanish...   it doesn't mean "potato" should be linked from "Father."  SnowFire (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2016
Under 'Albums', please add the new album The Magic by Deerhoof as follows:


 * The Magic (album), by Deerhoof

I Was a Folkstar (talk) 03:40, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅ - thanks for the suggestion - Arjayay (talk) 07:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Magic (paranormal) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

""magicaly"" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect &. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Not a very active user (talk) 07:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Magic
Magic is the belief in an internal power, outside of our present control, that can make the impossible possible. It is a universally held belief that humans had/do have/or will develop, the ability, inwardly, to change the molecular make up of an item to something completely different, for the benefit of themselves, or others. This also includes medical cures, and control of the weather. It is something humans have sought ever since they consciously existed. Initially belief in this unseen power was fuelled by fear and ignorance, due to people not understanding the world around them. Other more enlightened souls discovered things then used this fear to control others, or wield power. The fear of death and the, so called, afterlife is another area that people always wanted to control, but couldn’t, so the stories of ghosts and beings walking the earth after death came under the same suspicions, and apportioned to some kind of magic. Witches, and Wizards were generally speaking people who knew more about how things worked than the majority of the population. This led to rumour, mystery, and myth, amongst the uneducated, as well as religious organisations, who dealt with death on a day to day basis, and feared the unknown. Hence such people were named and persecuted, as being the practisers of arcane dark arts which were seen as being evil. Todays enlightenment via the sciences has not totally eradicated this belief, and many folk still believe that magic is a possibility. Science tells us it is impossible, but the progress of science has always proved the impossible to eventually be possible, so watch this space. 5.59.117.31 (talk) 16:36, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

POV disambiguation
The article is right to draw a distinction between 'magic (supernatural)' and 'magic (illusion)' (or rather 'performance magic', since supernatural magic is also considered an illusion by mainstream science). But I see no reason to have separate links to 'chaos magic' and 'ceremonial magic', as if they weren't just varieties of 'magic (supernatural)'. This looks like a POV way to give more exposure and prominence to some people's preferred varieties of 'magic', and possibly also to suggest that they are somehow essentially different and better than other kinds of 'magic', thereby evading the widespread stigma of superstition and charlatanry.--178.249.169.67 (talk) 08:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

"Magical thinking" is not magic
This DAB currently includes magical thinking among four topics that magic most commonly refers to. This shouldn't be here. MOS:DABNOENTRY specifically says, Do not include entries for topics that are not ambiguous (according to the linked article) with the title, and "magic" by itself never refers to magical thinking. When I made this change it was reverted, so I'm seeking consensus here now. Dan Bloch (talk) 03:38, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Do not include . "Magical thinking" is a notion from psychology, and has only the most tenuous connection to "magic" in any of its ordinary English meanings. --Trovatore (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Include. The presence of this link seems odd at first, but look closer and you'll see why it's there. Magical thinking is a broad article, and its focus is mostly anthropological rather than psychological. Arguably, it covers the broadest conceptual field of "magic", with Magic (supernatural) and Ceremonial magic (both included in the dab) simply its subtopics. The article Magical thinking also seems to sometimes refer to its topic as simply "magic" (see in particular its discussion of Robin Horton's approach). Furthermore, this links is evidently useful to readers of the dab page: that link got 133 clicks in the month of January, making it the 6th-most popular link on the dab page . – Uanfala (talk) 12:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Disambiguation pages aren't here to tell people about interesting connections between articles, they exist to redirect people searching for a term, and someone searching for "magic" is not looking for magical thinking. Also per the WikiNav link that you reference, the magical thinking link got only 3% of the clicks from the page, so there's no way that it belongs in the "magic most commonly refers to" category.  I still don't think it belongs on the page at all, but if you really want it it could go in the "Other uses" section. Dan Bloch (talk) 04:32, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You know, that is a relevant point. It's at least possible that enough people might not remember the exact phrase "magical thinking" and search for it under "magic" that the entry is useful to them, without making it disproportionately harder for people looking for other senses of the word "magic" to find what they're looking for. As an aside, I still think that supernatural magic should be the primary topic for the search term "magic", on the grounds that the other possibilities (particularly stage magic) are imitations of supernatural magic (independently of whether there's such a thing or not, which is completely irrelevant).  But that's a separate discussion. --Trovatore (talk) 07:22, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Danbloch, I'm not saying that the link should be included because it's interesting. My point is that it should be included because that's something that the word "magic" can refer to. The meaning of that term in English is broad and woolly at the margins; Magic (supernatural) treats the central concept, but it doesn't exhaust the full scope of the meaning. This article, along with Ceremonial magic and Magical thinking, together, in my opinion, cover the conceptual field. That's the reason for these entries to go together (even though, as you correctly point out, two of these don't get enough clicks to justify, on their own, inclusion in the top section). – Uanfala (talk) 21:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This is the point we disagree on. I'm saying that the word magic doesn't refer to magical thinking.  Magical thinking is a term from psychology, based on the worldview that magic doesn't exist and that this thinking is a hallmark of children and the mentally ill. Dan Bloch (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I haven't seen anything to change my mind, but there's clearly no consensus so I'm going to move on. Carry on. Dan Bloch (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Sesotho
@emily ramatlakane malebona 41.116.175.222 (talk) 13:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)