Talk:Magic (supernatural)/Archive 7

Please Desist with the Disruptive Editing
Please desist with trying to force large quantities of material into the article. Please also refrain from rendering "magic" as "magick", which has a specific meaning within Thelema and related forms of occultism. Raise your concerns at the talk page and try to gain a consensus for your additions. Please, do not edit war. As per WP:Bold, Revert, Discuss, you were bold in making mass additions, I reverted as your edits as they are highly controversial, and we should now discuss. It is a matter for the Talk Page. You are very welcome to make your case. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This was already disscussed before and there is no consensus for not having that content here, gaing consensus instead of POV forking and delete sourced content. I wasn't who rendered magic like "magick", that was like that when I started editing. Rupert Loup (talk) 20:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You are talking about things that happened years ago and which are not really relevant anymore. The fact is that the article has been in a stable form for well over a year now. So the real question is, have you gained consensus for your mass recent additions? I am very happy to discuss your proposed additions, but you really do need to gain consensus for them here before anything else can happen. If you keep edit waring to add these things in then you are very clearly contravening WP:BRD. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That nobody cared to solve the problem for years doesn't meant that the problem is not there. Deleting sourced content and warning tags is disruptive. Rupert Loup (talk) 21:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As before: please present your arguments explaining why you wish to make major alterations and additions to the article. I am happy to discuss them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I already did it and you still are not discussing it, stop warring. Rupert Loup (talk) 21:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I cannot see anywhere in this Talk Page where you have articulated your reasons for making these particular mass additions and alterations to this article. All you have done is thrown around a lot of accusations about WP:NPOV and WP:POVFORKING, none of which are valid in my mind, while referencing things that happened in 2018. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Rupert is correct here. Midnightblueowl is, once again, blocking the inclusion of non controversial, well written and cited material. I gave up trying to work with them previously as it was sucking my life force to the point where I was a shriveled husk. However the problem still persists. In my opinion the split of the material into the poorly named Concepts of magic per society page was nothing more than an attempt to remove from the article material which was at odds with Midnightblueowl's POV. I concur with Rupert that this material should be returned to the article form which it was removed with no consensus Morgan Leigh | Talk 04:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Let's try and break it down
Okay, let's try and break this down - these are the mass edits that you are making. Rupert Loup, why do you want to do the following:
 * Why do you want to add the term "magick", with a k, to the lede, and use it repeatedly there?
 * Why do you want to add the tag claiming that this article "deal[s] primarily with Western culture and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject", especially when magic is a Western concept and does not have direct parallels in most other societies?
 * Why do you want to totally rearrange the structure of the article?
 * Why do you want to add a section on Mesopotamia, a society that lacked a concept of magic?
 * Why do you want to add a section on Ancient Egypt, a society that lacked a concept of magic?
 * Why do you want to significantly enlarge the section on Greco-Roman society? Especially with material that reads like a collection of trivia.
 * Why do you want to significantly enlarge the section on Medieval Europe? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't care about the term "magick". That is how the article was before, the "status quo". I won't contest that change.
 * Because it deals primarly with "Western culture" the opinion that it "is a Western concept" is a Western POV, other points of view should be in the article per WP:NPOV. If is a "Western concept" why the sources of the content that I added mention the concept those Non-western cultures like Mesopotamia and the Ancient Egypt? We add what the sources say. If there is disagrement then that should be stated but we don't delete sourced content.
 * Because the layout is not cronologicaly correct and several sections had the very same subject, also they are unbalanced to certain point of view. MOS:BODY
 * How Mesopotamia and the Ancient Egypt lacked the conept of magic when their sources say otherwise? Also how do you know that they lacked that concept when the sources already here say that there is no consensus in what that concept is?
 * Because that content of Greco-Roman society and Medieval Europe is relevant to the article according with its sources, if reads like trivia then fix instead of deleting it. WP:PRESERVE Rupert Loup (talk) 21:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I think that there's some confusion here. It simply isn't true that saying "magic is a Western concept" is a Western POV, as you state. It's just a fact, in the same way that saying "kami is a Japanese concept" isn't a Japanese POV. These things are just concrete facts; and the article currently has plenty of citations from Reliable Sources saying exactly that. The concept of "magic" is one that is deeply intertwined with the conceptual development of Western, and often Christian, thought; it is not intertwined with the conceptual development of Indian thought, or Aymara thought, or Yoruba thought. As a concept, magic has arisen due to the very specific events that took place in Europe and those areas that Europeans colonised. Other societies have their own conceptual frameworks and their own ways of arranging the world.
 * Various Western scholars have since taken particular definitions of "magic" (of which there are many, often mutually exclusive options) and then used these as conceptual frameworks through which to analyse particular ritual phenomenon both in Western societies and non-Western societies. Thus it is possible to find a scholar who might discuss "magic in ancient Egypt" or "magic in Mesopotamia" - or, for that matter, "magic in the 18th century Congo" or "magic in Star Wars". This does not mean that ancient Egyptians, or Mesopotamians, or the 19th century Congolese, or the Jedi had their own concepts of magic; no, they had their own conceptual frameworks arising from their own cultural understandings of the universe. Moreover, adding these sections into the article just proves totally unwieldy; if we have sections on "magic in ancient Egypt" or "magic in Mesopotamia", why they would we not have one on "magic in 18th century Congo", or "magic in Star Wars"? Why would these two examples be cherry-picked for inclusion?
 * Rupert, I really think you need to reconsider your approach here. As far as I can tell, you have no history of editing this page but have begun making radical, transformative changes to the article only yesterday without trying to gain any consensus for these alterations. The sole basis for your argument seems to be that much of this material was once part of this article, several years ago, and that you don't think I had sufficient backing to remove it. I don't buy that argument. If there was clear opposition to these changes then I would have been reverted and stopped from making them long, long ago. As it was, I made the changes and the article improved significantly as a result. I hope in future to go on and get this article through GAN and FAC, as I have done with many, many other articles over the years. I'm more than happy to hear your thoughts here, but please do consider things in more depth rather than just trying to make these mass additions on very shaky grounds. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "Various Western scholars have since taken particular definitions of "magic" (of which there are many, often mutually exclusive options) and then used these as conceptual frameworks through which to analyse particular ritual phenomenon both in Western societies and non-Western societies." The opinion of Western scholars are not the only opinions in the world. And because you cited Western scholars that think that way doesn't mean that every scholar think that way. The sources already state that there is no consensus on what magic is, so why are you making that affirmation when the sources say otherwise? Already told you that this article is about magic in general. If you want to make a section or article specifically about "Magic in the West" or "magic about as conceptual frameworks" nobody is stoping you from doing that. That is not a good reason to segregate the non-Western point of view and the point of view of those from who relate magic with spirituality/religion. There is also several reliable sources that mention magic in those cultures. And the POV of those Western academics is just one opinon. Please read WP:NPOV, stop warring and stop trying to WP:OWN the article. Rupert Loup (talk) 22:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If you insist that Western scholars are only insisting that "magic is a Western concept" because they are exhibiting a Western POV, then you should have no problem in finding me Indian scholars, Chinese scholars, Indigenous Australian scholars, and Maya scholars who argue that magic is an emic concept within their own societies. I don't, however, think that you will be able to do that, because I don't think it's the case. Magic is a Western concept. That's just a fact. This has absolutely nothing to do with WP:NPOV, which I think you are completely and utterly misrepresenting or misusing in this situation. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Academic sources about non-Western society: . Also I already added sources that say that magic was an integral part of Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia and you deleted them because your strong POV. You are not demostrating how it is a fact, a fact is accepted as true and about which there is no serious dispute, and the sources state that there is dispute on what magic is. What you are saying is an opinion from a particular group. Rupert Loup (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Rupert, you are really not understanding what I am saying nor what the Reliable Sources cited in this article are saying. Of course scholars (overwhelmingly Western or working in Western-derived disciplines like anthropology) have used the concept of "magic" (however defined) through which to analyse certain ritual activities in certain non-Western societies. No one, I repeat, no one, is denying that. But magic as a concept developed in Western society as a means of drawing a distinction between different forms of ritual behaviour (religion=good/magic=bad). Conceptually there is no identical framework in ancient Egypt or China or whatever. Magic is solely a Western concept, even if it has been used as a lens through which to analyse other cultures. It's important to see the difference here because you won't understand why we can't have sections on Ancient Egypt or Mesopotamia in this article until you do. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "I am saying nor what the Reliable Sources cited in this article are saying" I know that, it's your opinion and irrelevant to the article. WP:POV And here we put what reliable sources say, and if the reliable sources talk about magic in non-western societies we put what the sources say because that is the subject of this article. Here is another source: . If you want an article exclusively on what you're talking about go an create an article on that as I said, call it "Magic in the West" or "Magic (conceptual framework)", move all the relevant content to there and let a short summary here per WP:SUMMARY and WP:SPLIT. But you should gain consensus for that first to avoid forking. Again stop warring and POV pushing. WP:PRESERVE. Rupert Loup (talk) 23:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "concept developed in Western society as a means of drawing a distinction between different forms of ritual behaviour (religion=good/magic=bad)'" Not that it makes any difference now since the sources already contradict that statent as I said, but are you saying that in the Hammurabi Code when it says "If a man charge a man with sorcery, and cannot prove it, he who is charged with sorcery shall go to the river, into the river he shall throw himself and if the river overcome him, his accuser shall take to himself his house (estate). If the river show that man to be innocent and he come forth unharmed, he who charged him with sorcery shall be put to death. He who threw himself into the river shall take to himself the house of his accuser." was not "drawing a distinction between different forms of ritual behaviour"? Why they have that in their code of law if they didn't have a "concept" of magic? And how you can say that they didn't have that concept if scholars don't even agree on what this concept is in the first place? "Conceptually there is no identical framework" why there should be an identical framework in order to be here? Sources say that they have their own "framework". And as there is no consesus in what magic is. So that "frameworks" are as valid as those from the West Rupert Loup (talk) 01:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, the same confusion is apparent here. Besides, the English language term being used for translating a Babylonian term in this example is "sorcery", not "magic". Sorcery is effectively a synonym of witchcraft; "magic" is a much broader term. 08:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You are not responding the questions. Again, how they were not "drawing a distinction between different forms of ritual behaviour" there? Rupert Loup (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * As a long time editor of this page I concur with that you are trying to remove perfectly valid and cited information from this page without consensus, again. I have previously addressed many of the points you are trying to get Rupert to address. For example, I have provided many academic sources that attest to the fact that magic was a foundational part of ancient Egyptian society but you have repeatedly chosen to ignore these in favour of your own opinions. Rupert has done the same with sources re magic in non western societies and you are doing the same to him. I suggest that the edits that Rupert has made be made be reinstated as much of that information was removed from the article without consensus.Morgan Leigh | Talk 02:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is potentially WP:CANVASSING to get editors, including Morgan, to join in with this conversation because you hoped that they would disagree with me. Midnightblueowl (talk) 07:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You keep stating policies but you don't read what thes policies say. Please, go and read that policy. Rupert Loup (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Classic. I am as unsurprised that you have diverted to a wikilawyering tactic rather than addressing the issue at hand as I am that politicians are liars. This is absolutely not canvassing. Unless a crowd of familiar faces appear magically out of the aether to back your position, which really could be considered evidence of canvassing, I am going to suggest that Rupert reinstate the information that you reverted. Morgan Leigh | Talk 01:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

New Proposal
Let's try and sort this out constructively. If I understand correctly, both of you are keen on seeing this article discuss various rituals from Mesopotamia and Egypt in some form. Now, I continue to maintain, based on my familiarity with the Reliable Sources (Hanegraaff, Styers, Otto and Stausberg etc), that it is wholly inappropriate to include this material in the section on the "Etymology, history and conceptual development" for the simple reason that the concept of magic did not exist in those societies. The word derives from Old Persian, then filters into Greece, and thence to Rome, and from that point on it becomes part of Christian and Western society. This does not intrinsically mean, however, that we cannot in any way discuss Egypt or Mesopotamia in some form elsewhere in the article. It is possible that we could add a section to a later part of the article dealing with "comparative concepts" or something like that. In such a section we could summarise, fairly briefly, any arguments that have been made that concepts akin to magic may have been present in other societies. Now, before we rush into things, it would be imperative that any Reliable Sources that make such claims be properly discussed here first. We would also need to discuss how best to present the information contained in those sources. What we really, really need to avoid is this article becoming a dumping ground for all manner of tid-bits and trivia that anyone can find that vaguely mentions the word "magic", which is frankly what it used to be and what it could easily slip back into becoming. Does this sound like a fruitful route forward for the two of you? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose: You still didn't prove that the concept of magic didn't exist in those societies and an aggressive presentation of your particular point of view in the article, which doesn't have an academic consensus by the way, is WP:POVPUSH. Rupert Loup (talk) 21:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose: You seem to be proposing a semantic argument that because the term magic wasn't found in ancient societies (which is was) than it wasn't a concept in those societies. This is an erroneous contention which is not supported by academic sources. Moreover this seems to be a sidetrack from the actual issue at hand which is the recent revert of material without consensus. I propose this material be unreverted and returned to the article from which you removed it without consensus. If you remain unhappy with it then, we can go through any particular material to which you are opposed and assess its status by reviewing sources.Morgan Leigh | Talk 02:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I checked the sources in the content "The concept and term "magic" developed in European society" and I found that any of the authors stated what Midnightblueowl is saying, and given the POV pushing I suspect that the whole article is a WP:SYNTH. Stausberg talks about the Magic-Religoin-Triangle, not about the concept of magic perse, and Bailey states that the concept in Europe "changed" during the rise of Christianity, not that it was invented there. The sources in African magic also clearly contradict that. Rupert Loup (talk) 03:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I suspect you meant to say "and I didn't find that any of the authors stated what Midnightblueowl is saying"? I don't have the Bailey book and that page is not shown on the google books preview. If you have access to the work could you please quote the relevant paragraph here? Stausberg does say that ethnocentrism is an issue in the study of magic, which is a valid point, but he then goes on to acknowledge that this is true of a great many things, e.g. science itself. This however is one author's view, which seems to be disproportionately represented in the article. For example Teeter, (Religion and Ritual In Ancient Egypt, p162) says, "The close ties between magic and religion continue to puzzle scholars, perhaps because of the assumption that magic is a more primitive practice that is eventually replaced by "religion". However, it is clear not only from ancient Egypt but from other societies as well that the progression is not linear and that magic and religion existed, and exist, side by side". And "(p163) It is best, then, to consider magic in ancient Egypt as a valid and accepted - although a clearly distinguishable - part of religious belief.". Moreover Hanegraaff says (New Age Religion And Western Culture, p 85) "Investigation of magia in the Renaisaance period, in particular, will probably strengthen the notion of magic as a world-view, while further weakening the traditional emphasis on practice regarded out of context.". Further Ankarloo and Clark say (Witchcraft and Magic in Europe: Biblical and Pagan Societies, p 13-14), in regards to Mesopotamia, "The methods and purposes of the rituals are very similar, at least in principle, to those known from magic practices in other cultures, both in antiquity and in European folk belief.". Overall it seems to me that Midnightblueowl has over relied on a small number of generalist sources and synthesized the idea that magic didn't exist in other cultures from them, which is an easy trap to fall into if one hasn't been exposed to a wide range of material, and especially when those one has read have strong views. The inclusion of a broader range of sources should ameliorate this tendency.


 * By the way, It is better to make one edit encompassing the changes you'd like to make than many smaller edits as otherwise its a bit difficult to see what's going on.
 * Morgan Leigh | Talk 04:34, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my grammar, I'm multitasking and English is not my first language. I agree with you there, this should be reported in No original research/Noticeboard. I'm going to elaborate a little more in what I was trying to say.
 * These are the sources that I was referring (before my edit the content was "The concept and term "magic" developed in European society"). In Magic: The Basics, page 26-27, Bayle states: "With the rise of Christianity and the transition from the ancient to the medieval period of Western history, the terminology and conceptualizations of magic became somewhat simpler. "Magic" was now a relatively broad and encompassing category, designated ether by the word magia itself or more often as artes magicae, the magic arts. Conceptually, as we have seen, Christian authorities maintained that all magical practices, however different they might appear, were inherently related to each other in that all or at least the great majority of them drew in some way on the malevolent power of demons." No mention of the concept being created in Europe. In page 28 Bailey states: "While the terminology that has been applied to magical practices is complicated enough even when limited to Western history, problems only magnify when European categories are applied to other cultures" Again, no afirmation that is an European invention. What he states is that European society has their own concept of magic. The sources that I added on Africa also state that the African concept of magic is different to the European.
 * In Defining Magic: A Reader page 4, Stausberg states: "In modern academic research, "magic" is caught in another conceptural-semantic constellation: the magic-science-religion triangle. Scholars have often defined each of these terms in relation to the other two. "magic" has been conceived as being similar to and/or different from "science", on the on hand, and "religion", on the other, both terms being themselves at the centre of intese debates. The modern academic discussion has to a large extent been devoted to sorting out these structural relationships with regard to functions, levels, modes and origins." and the page 6 cited in the content states: "The magic-science-religion triangle point to a number of problems that has also been discussed under the heading of ethnocentrism. To begin with, the magic-science-religion triangle is a genuine product of modern Western history. Therefore, the application of the concept of "magic" to other cultures (or pre-modern periods of Western history) may not always be a promising strategy." and he goes in great length describing that such concept is difficult to define. That is a criticism of using that particular modern concept, nor that the concept is an European invention nor that other societies doesn't have their own concept of magic. The affirmation that the concept of magic is an European invention is original research not stated in any of the sources, ergo is a WP:SYNTH. Stausberg even says in page 7 that what it is a fact is "that some people also apply the concept of "magic" to refer to themselves and their own practices and beliefs. This is not soley a modern phenomenon as manifested in contemporary esotericism, paganism or fantasy literature, but goes as far back as late antiquity, where some anonymous Egyptian ritual specialists designated their activities as "mageía""  Rupert Loup (talk) 05:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for posting the Bailey text. I agree it doesn't say that magic is a European concept, it says that Europe's concept of magic evolved. I already have the Stausberg one, see my previous comments.


 * What's a good thing to do on talk pages is to put the text from the article that you are wanting to edit and then put the source you plan to use to support it. Focusing on edits like this makes faster progress and less digression possible. That said, be bold, you don't have to get every single edit approved on the talk page first.


 * It can be hard when English is not your first language. My best advice is to slow down, and to always preview things before updating the article. This will help you avoid many errors, although there seems to be a magical property of the publish changes button that makes typos invisible until you have pushed it!. I have gone through and done some copy editing to improve grammar and typos, some yours and some that was in the original material, but there is still more to be done. As a jaded editor of many years its lovely to see your enthusiasm. Morgan Leigh | Talk 06:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Quotes
The following quotes should be paraphrased in a neutral way. MOS:QUOTEPOV

- Rupert Loup (talk) 22:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Rupert, can you please edit this section? The way you are using references here has them showing up at the very bottom of the talk page instead of in this section. Thanks. Morgan Leigh | Talk 23:56, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Rupert Loup (talk) 00:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

"Magic (not to be confused with stage magic)"
I think the mass recent additions to the article have been really detrimental. Nevertheless, I don't want to get into an edit war, so I'd like to prose some incremental improvements. First, do we really need to start the article with "Magic (not to be confused with stage magic)"? To me, that does not read particularly well and we already have a piece above stating the lede "For illusionism or stage magic, see Magic (illusion)." Is there any particular opposition to removing "(not to be confused with stage magic)" here? If we can't agree then we can always take it to RfC. Midnightblueowl (talk) 07:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that this text could profitably be removed. While I agree with the reinsertion of the content that was forked, it does need work. I am sure we can work together on this to improve the article but retain the content. As I said to Rupert, not every single thing needs to be agreed on here first. Be bold. But be flexible. Morgan Leigh | Talk 23:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Morgan. Midnightblueowl (talk) 07:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

On the conceptual shift in the article
One of the things that really concerns me about the recent massive alterations of the article is the conceptual shift that has taken place in what this article actually covers. Previously the article had a section on "Etymology, history and conceptual development" which detailed how the actual concept and term magic evolved, from among the ancient Persians, then spreading into Greece, then Rome, and henceforth into modern Western societies. This has now been replaced by a section called "History" and this has become deeply unfocused and a bit of a dumping ground on anything and everything (a paragraph on Middle Eastern incantation bowls here, and a sentence on how archaeology sheds light on domestic ritual practices in medieval Europe there). It's messy, without even taking into account that the sourcing is often pretty dodgy too. I would like to propose that we return to the original structure that has served the article well for the past two years and cut out a great deal of the fluff. We can still keep the stuff on Mesopotamia and Egypt in the article, although I continue to have concerns about these. If there is no agreement here then this may be an issue to take to the RfC level or something like that. This really needs to be sorted because this article will not in a million years reach the quality expected of a GA, let alone FA, article if it remains a sort of junkyard of titbits and trivia. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * as you were interested in the discussion over at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard you might have some thoughts here. The article talk page really could do with some more fresh heads. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that conflating etymology, history and conceptual development, which are very different subjects, is not good a presentation. The history of the word and the development of the concept are two different things. Also magic involves practices outside the abstract (i.e the incantation bowls), so limiting the article only to the conceptual is misleading. Rupert Loup (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I'd like to see a short lede, followed by a section on etymology and then a longer history section. Conceptual development is an aspect of history i.e different cultures had different takes. Previously the lede was too long and had a lot of etymology and then there was a separate etymology section as well.


 * The history section should be a chronological survey of magic which includes important bits that were entirely missing before e.g the word Egypt appeared exactly twice in the previous version, which is ludicrous as Egypt was a society that ran on magic and is the root of most Greek and thus most modern Western magical traditions.


 * The previous version had a lot of material about what male European scholars had to say about magic in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and very little about what practitioners think today. This is an obvious deficiency. There was also too much focus on the work of a small number of scholars e.g. Bailey and Stausberg. Not that I am dissing these guys, they are both fine scholars, I'd just like to see more diversity of opinion.


 * Midnightbluowl has said that they feel some references are dodgy so, as a way to start, how about we look at the references in the material that is presently in the article as this seems like a fast route to getting rid of low quality content. Morgan Leigh | Talk 06:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)


 * "The previous version had a lot of material about what male European scholars had to say about magic in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and very little about what practitioners think today. This is an obvious deficiency." - I think that the obvious place for any additions along these lines would be in the "Modernity" section, but to be honest I think that what we really need to do here is to create a whole new article on Magic in Occultism or something with which to deal with modern conceptions of 'magic'. This is obviously a vast topic that warrants its own space to expand into. As I argued a few years ago here at this talk page, I also think it imperative that we only use practitioner definitions when they have been published in an academic venue; that means we can quote from someone like Starhawk or Kenneth Grant when they are cited by scholars, but should not cite those primary sources directly. If this article actually starts directly quoting Starhawk, Grant etc then I don't think that there is any chance of this article actually reading GA/FA quality - the Wikipedia community will not consider these WP:Reliable Sources. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have previously said that I think a chronological arrangement for the article is the best way to go, so I support the addition of this material to the modernity section. However I don't agree that we need another article for magic in occultism as it seems tautological. Plus there are already articles for many particular occult schools. Re sources, obviously we would use reliable sources to cite the views of modern practitioners. There are plenty of these, especially of scholars who are practitioners. Morgan Leigh | Talk 09:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Two Sections on Witchcraft?
The article currently has two different sections on witchcraft; one titled "Witchcraft", the other being a sub-section "Suspicions and accusations of witchcraft", which is a lot fuller and better referenced. At the very least, these two should be merged - moving the text from "Witchcraft" into "Suspicions and accusations of witchcraft" would make sense. I would also raise an eyebrow at the opening sentence of the "Witchcraft" section, which states that "Witchcraft (or witchery) is the practice of magical skills and abilities." That statement is cited to Jeffrey Burton Russell's Witchcraft in the Middle Ages, which I don't have to hand, but I don't think it's wholly accurate. If witchcraft was just "the practice of magical skills and abilities" then witchcraft and magic would be synonymous, but the two concepts are slightly different. Excluding the positive reappraisal of the term witchcraft that one sees in Wicca and related modern movements, the term witchcraft has historically (and anthropologically) tended to be used in reference to harmful actions using supernatural means. For now can we merge the two sections, and I'll pull out some other sources that might allow us a more accurate means of opening this sub-section/section? Midnightblueowl (talk) 07:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that these two sections should be merged. However I would suggest doing it the other way around i.e. having suspicions and accusations be a subset of witchcraft. It is currently a subset of Magicians, which doesn't make sense. I think there should be more content in the witchcraft section than just a definition. Not a heap, but a couple of paragraphs, as witches are a significant group of magic users. I agree that the definition is vague. I don't have Russell's book, but I do have a whole bunch of others so I will do some work on it tomorrow and let you know what I can find. Morgan Leigh | Talk 09:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm happy for the merger to take place in the way that you suggest, Morgan; I would probably relocate the "Witchcraft" section to after "Magicians", however, although that is not essential. As for defining witchcraft at the start of this section, Ronald Hutton's The Witch (OUP 2017) is probably a good place to start. He outlines the three ways in which the term "witch" has been used (pages ix-x) and cites some earlier pieces on the definition of witchcraft. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hutton's definition is excellent (he's always amazing) as it encompasses not only the traditional usage but also more modern usages. I absolutely agree on using it as a basis for a definition. How about, witchcraft has traditionally been understood as a generic term for all kinds of evil magic but has come to be understood in the present day as the use of both good and evil magic, the practice of some Pagan nature religions, or as a practice undertaken as a rejection of the patriarchal domination of women.
 * Morgan Leigh | Talk 07:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I must correct myself - Hutton outlines four definitions, not three as I had previously stated. I think your proposed wording certainly captures the gist of what we need to say but I think we can afford to flesh it out a bit more. Perhaps the following?
 * The historian Ronald Hutton notes the presence of four distinct meanings of the term "witchcraft" in the English language. Historically, the term primarily referred to the practice of causing harm to others through supernatural or magical means. This remains, according to Hutton, "the most widespread and frequent" understanding of the term. Others have used the term "witch" to refer to anyone who conducts magical acts, for benevolent or malevolent intent; for practitioners of the modern Pagan religion of Wicca; or as a symbol of women resisting male authority and asserting an independent female authority.
 * That paraphrases Hutton as closely as possible without directly copying his wording. Would you be happy with this as a way of opening the "Witchcraft" section or do you think it could be tweaked? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, except that it is Hutton himself noting the three other definitions not others. The text says, the evil magic definition is one current usage and "the others define the witch as...". This "others" refers to the other definitions, not other people giving these definitions. So I'd suggest that instead of "Others have used the term" we go with "Moreover Hutton also notes three other definitions in current usage..."Morgan Leigh | Talk 09:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

The Magi
According with the article Magi, they were priests in Zoroastrianism and the earlier religions of the western Iranians. It's unclear by the content in the section how is relevant with magic. I didn't checked its sources so maybe there are content there that can clarify that and make the connection. Rupert Loup (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I have removed this section. Morgan Leigh | Talk 10:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Christian magic in Egypt

 * https://books.google.com/books?hl=es&lr=&id=h93iCQkR9WMC&oi=fnd&pg=PR13&dq=christian+magic&ots=U7GskVEEeD&sig=h9E-nKKRl_2DoWbi4073YtcxqU4
 * https://muse.jhu.edu/article/468580/summary
 * https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/harvard-theological-review/article/christian-magicians-jewish-magical-idioms-and-the-shared-magical-culture-of-late-antiquity/4549243A3C14C46634FB5FFE68F5B4B4

Rupert Loup (talk) 14:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Why have you posted this here?Morgan Leigh | Talk 23:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Because it's missing in the article. Rupert Loup (talk) 23:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If you mean that you think these references should be in the article, then just put them in. We don't use the talk page for such things, unless the references are being actively discussed as an issue in the page. Be bold. Include them. Morgan Leigh | Talk 03:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Lead paragraph
Although I reverted Midnightblueowl's recent reversion, I agree with them that the lead paragraph needed work. It was too short and didn't summarise the article well. I have edited it to be a better summary of the article as it is now but welcome input from others. Please Midnightblueowl let's move forward and work together instead of you repeatedly trying to go back to the version of the article that you prefer that doesn't have consensus. Please note that information that was in the lead paragraph was not deleted but was moved to other places in the article. Morgan Leigh | Talk 04:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Should the Recent Expansion of the Article Remain in Place or be Reverted?
Since the start of May (when the article looked like this) through to 16 May (when it looked like this), substantial additions were made to the article and the structure was altered. Going forward, should the article retain these alterations or should they be reverted? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Votes:
 * Revert: There are valid concerns about the scope and coverage of the article as it existed at the start of May. These can (and are) being discussed at the Talk Page, and should facilitate the improvement of the article, so that it might reach GA and FA quality. However, the quite significant alterations, which largely consist of material copy-and-pasted from much older versions of this article or from other articles such as Practical Kabbalah and Jewish magical papyri, don't really improve things and were not generally discussed at the Talk Page prior to inclusion. A significant proportion of the added citations lack page numbers. Some of the newly added sources, such as The Everything Kabbalah Book: Explore This Mystical Tradition, The Essential Golden Dawn: An Introduction to High Magic, or alittlehebrew.com, do not look like WP:Reliable Sources. The new sections on Egypt and Mesopotamia rely almost entirely on only a single source each (and in neither case is it an academically-published text). Some of the added material, such as the new paragraph on Middle Eastern incantation bowls, just seen randomly selected - imagine the chaos we'd be in if we included a paragraph on every single practice from throughout world history that could, under one definition or another, be regarded as 'magic'! The article has gone from being cleanly structured and comparatively clear (if imperfect) to being quite messy. Personally, I feel that getting the article back to how it looked at the start of May allows for a better starting point from which improvements can be made via consensus achieved at the Talk Page. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see how a book written by a rabbi, a book written by a lecturer, a dictionary used to source the translation of a Hebrew word, and two sections sourced by notable academics can be used as justification to delete sourced content. Seems a week rationale. Also, sources about those subject can be found easily, like here:
 * Sources about magic in Ancient Mesopotamia
 * Sources about magic in Ancient Egypt
 * Sources about magic in Ancient Israel
 * Sources about magic in the Middle East during Classical Antiquity
 * Sources about the Kabbalah
 * About the incantation bowls, it's in a specific section that is clearly incomplete, there is a lot that is missing about that region in that period. What is regarded or not as magic is up to the sources, and it will be added accordingly to the respective sections, if a section became to large then it will be splitted and it will be left here a small summary per WP:SUMMARY. So I say WP:PRESERVE. Rupert Loup (talk) 11:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Retain: While Midnightblueowl has concerns about the article as it is now, the recent changes came about due to their tendency to ownership behavior and to their pushing a particular POV (see this Magic (supernatural) on the NPOV noticeboard). This had seen other editor's valid concerns ignored and the removal of, and the prevention of the insertion of, a lot of perfectly valid material for a long time. A quick scan of this talk page shows that there was a consensus for the inclusion of this material before its reinsertion.


 * The recent edits have put back a lot of the content that used to be in the article, which, in my opinion, should definitely still be included, e.g. the material on ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt, but which Midnightblueowl has long argued against including. This is not to say that the content doesn't need work, it does. However and I have been working well together to improve the material since its reinclusion and I believe that we can continue to do so to improve the article without having to revert and lose the good work that has been done recently. For example I have been addressing the references issues, i.e. adding a lot of page numbers for the sources, and I am confident that we can work through the remaining sources and see which ones are not reliable and either provide alternative, reliable sources for the material or remove what can't be supported by reliable sources. The sections that Midnightblueowl rightly says are presently only supported by a single source can have sources added and I am working to do this at present. I'd rather we spent our efforts on improving the article than on even more discussions about whether to revert or not. Looking forward rather than back is a better way to go. Morgan Leigh | Talk 10:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Retain: per WP:PRESERVE, I don't see nothing that can't be fixed or flagged in the current state of the article. Rupert Loup (talk) 10:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Retain. On the whole, the newer version appears more encyclopedic, so is an overall improvement, and best kept as a basis going forward for more improvements.  The scope of these changes are wide, and can certainly be discussed, but only as individual issues with a defined focused subset of these changes with specific goals, not a vague all-or-nothing RfC, for which no single answer can fit.  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  23:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Clarification Needed. I see that the RFC calls out two different revisions of the article that are at this point more than a month old and are both substantially different from the current revision. Is this RFC asking editors to choose between two old versions, necessarily reverting from the current version, or is it asking about whether we should revert to *either* previous version vs retaining the current version? I would be most inclined to keep the current version, but per Midnightblueowl, there's some sections that are likely way too specific for this article, no matter how well sourced, lest it become a laundry list of every different global practice that could be described as "magic" - if they're truly notable and well sourced, they probably warrant their own articles linked to from this one. Arathald (talk) 22:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Superstitions in Muslim societies for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Superstitions in Muslim societies is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Superstitions in Muslim societies until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bookku (talk) 05:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

hi so i hard magic is real is it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:644:4300:A8A0:7CAF:4A21:BE2B:DEAD (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sbrou43.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Why isnt this the primary topic article?
This is clearly the primary topic and source leading to all the other uses of the term "magic" in other articles - why does it have the disambiguator??? 67.220.13.96 (talk) 13:41, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe because Magic (illusion) really exists and real things take precedence over fantasy. But probably it is because none of those two is "the primary topic article". When someone talks about magic, without any context, I have to ask which type it is about. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * So first of all, no, "really existing" has nothing to do with what should be the primary topic. The primary topic for unicorn is obviously the mythical animal, not the quite real sort of startup corporation.
 * Second, in my opinion this very much should be the primary topic. Illusionism is called magic precisely because it gives the illusion of actually being magic, where unqualified magic is the topic of this article.  This has been argued before, but consensus has never been achieved.  I would be supportive of another RfC at some point, but you can't try too often; people understandably get annoyed. --Trovatore (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Global View
Hello everyone! this is my first time making a talk page. Has anyone considered adding information about magic in other parts of the world? the current article makes a clear line for the history of magic from 'the old world'. However, there is no information about magic from the Americas, Africa(sans Egypt), Asia or Oceania. since this is the page for all magic, these should also be included. 118.210.100.32 (talk) 02:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If anybody has sources on that, they should add it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi! First time here in the talk page. Maybe there should be a separate page for Egyptian ancient magick? There should be info about specific ancient egyptian rituals, the book of the dead, their use of plants and oils, etc. I am wondering if that is a separate topic that could be mentioned in the 'Magic' page and then link it to a more extended version of Egyptian magick Albalba (talk) 22:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)