Talk:Black magic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Occult Portal Black magic is supported by WikiProject Occult in order to expand, improve, and standardize articles related to the occult. Feel free to edit the article attached to this talk page and/or become a participating member.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

	Religion Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start	This article has been rated as Start on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article falls within the scope of the Left Hand Path work group. If you are interested in Left Hand Path-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help.

Ok, I made the changes more minor. I changed the parts I found most offensive. It is way too simplistic to just say that black magic means you are a witch or warlock, so I left that changed. I also made the point that not everyone defines black magic as the magic that is evil and destructive. There are those of us on the left-hand path that would not consider any of our magic white even when it is for good benevolent purposes. I therefore also changed the 'All is One' theory to include the perspective that all magic is the same, but not because it is all evil, but because if morality is considered subjective, you can't divide magic neatly into good/evil or benevolent/manevolent. Some believe magic just is, and the morality of things is a completely different matter. -kooR deR

Most of your changes I agree with, but I would just like clarified your comment "not everyone defines black magic as the magic that is evil and destructive". What would be the name for the type of magic that is evil and destructive? Even if the magic is not intended to be "black", if its final outcome is evil, would it not be described as being "black", as in "bad"? -- Nsmith 84 10:38, 7 January 2006(UTC)

It's a good point you make. My personal definition for black magic, is magic without the constraints of the Wiccan rede or other moral restriction. In my opinion all a person does outside of such a moral restriction would be black magic, but I know myself and those I know that have the same opinion are a very small minority. I'll slim down some of the changes. -kooR deR

I'm adding copyedit and confusing tags to the page because I find it very difficult to understand. It seems there is more than one POV with no particular distinction between them. And the way it is written is very difficult to follow.

Okay, I have a question: If there is no such thing as magic, then why is there a distingtion between black and white magic?

There's no such thing as Harry Potter, either, but there is a distinction between him and Lord Voldemort. - ∅ (∅), 16:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

I agree with most that the dude on the bottom said:

"What really PO's me is the fact that so many people are still claiming Black Magic as a purely evil taboo. I full heartedly disaggree. I practice Black Magic, and in fact, am very good at it. This doesn't mean I kill people or eat babies. Instead, I do quite the contrary. My newest project in my studies is to devise a way and mean that Black Magic can be beneficial for society. White Magic can not Italic textkill by decree, but Black Magic can kill pests, criminals, disease causing bacteria and misquitoes and do so much more. What's more, the idea of Black Magic being Italic texttotally for harming or killing is flawed, as Oberon Zell-Ravenheart suggests, Black Magic can simply be Magic used for achieving material ends. I do aggree, however, that the term "warlock" doesn't apply in real Magic. Wizard or Druid would probably be more appropriate."

The reply said that millions of sources disagree with him. I looked at the bottom though and found no sources, and most of the article needs citations. Technically, if we provide a good source to contradict these unsourced sayings, then the article would have to be changed. _ Scyrone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.27.132.105 (talk)

Show me one reliable source that says (black) magic works. - ∅ (∅), 16:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] There is no such thing

as a witch or a warlock. Does Wikipedia acknowledge the self-description of ridiculous new age idiots with no job and no life who make pentagrams out of candles in their mother's basement and think they can do magic, as "witches" and "warlocks," or do we aim to be a serious encyclopedia. This I would like to know. Thank you. - ∅ (∅), 16:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Magic with a "C" refers to stage magic Magick with a "K" refers to the more supernatural or cerimonial. and a spell is a spell it is the intention that is inportant. There is no black or white there is only the intention behind it Sltlaylor

Here we go again. Just because someone believes differently than you does not make them all "idiots" This is stereotyping in the extreme. the term 'Witch' is used by the religion of Wicca and both terms, 'Witch' and 'Warlock' are used worldwide by many different religions and practices which are based in a belief in and use of Magic. So, as long as someone holds a belief in a tradition which uses these terms to describe it's practicioners, then saying they don't exist is like saying there's no such thing as a 'Pope'. -Arkayne Magii 13:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It's irrelevant whether or not dark magic is a real, the belief in it is real as is the concept. This is what should be discussed on the page. - perfectblue 12:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that, as far as I know, most people's definition of the words witch and warlock is "someone who can actually, literally, perform real effective magic(k) with visible and/or tangible effects" or something to that extent-- and no such a person has been demonstrated to exist. See Randi Prize. Likewise you could say that most people's definition of "the Pope" is "the Roman Catholic Bishop of Rome and head of the universally recognized Roman Catholic Church," whereas this guy's followers (if any) will most likely use the word to refer to him, confusing the hell out of everyone else. - ∅ (∅), 07:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"most people's definition of the words witch and warlock is "someone who can actually, literally, perform real effective magic". This issue was raised and resolved in a recent arb com. Officially, such things are considered to be titles or cultural labels that may be ascribed to an individual regardless of the status of the label itself in science or history. For example, person A may be described as being a witch simply as a cultural label without judgment on whether they are actually capable of witchcraft and whether or not witchcraft actually exists. - perfectblue 12:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Western TV-Y rated shows" - what does this mean?

'Since the words "black magic" have a negative connotation in Western TV-Y rated shows, this phrase is used instead of "black magic" on Magical DoReMi.'

Maybe I'm missing something, but what phrase is used instead of black magic? It doesn't say anything, in fact, it reads as if "black magic" has replaced "black magic" which makes absolutely no sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rloftus9 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Does the phrase "Western" here mean "the Western United States", or "Western culture"? If the latter, the reference should really be changed to something like "American TV-Y rated shows", as ratings like "TV-Y" have absolutely no meaning outside of the United States. 217.155.20.163 03:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

If you want to cerate some text about any kind of magic put your heart in it. When I finished reading this S*** i started loughtin... This text dosnt show Black Magic .. or maybe in games.. but than it should be named "Black Magic IN GAMES AND IT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH REAL MAGIC" ...

Loosely put, the passage means that AMERICAN shows that are rated TV-Y often use the phrase "dark magic" as a substitute for "black magic" because America's neo-con culture places certain connotations on the phrase black magic that mean that they don't want it to be used in childrens' entertainment. It's not really a Western thing. For starters, many Western countries don't have the TV-Y rating, and most either don't speak English and so translate it into their own equivalent of the word or they get their translated English language children's shows from the US anyway. - perfectblue 12:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History

The "History" section contains very little historical information (for example, when the term "black magic" first came into use). The whole section seems to be written from the view that magic is real and also states resons for performing magic making it appear that these are always the definite reasons as opposed to examples. The paragraph "Black and with Magic is in some countries, such as, Africa or Australia or Russia..." makes almost no sense. 89.213.20.44 16:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)R.Gilmore

[edit] POV

The section on black magic in Christianity is complete POV nonsense. The bible says nothing about Eve being the cause of magic coming into the world. Please, Sammael the fallen? Sounds like something from an RPG. I think the section needs to be removed or rewritten. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.125.217.133 (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Consider it removed. - ∅ (∅), 21:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a Jewish Myth that Magick, along with everything from the Art of War to Make-Up, were taught to the Twelve Tribes of Isreal by Fallen Angels. Like the story of Lilith; whether or not it's canonical is often questioned, and Eve is not present in the Myth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.63.205.106 (talk) 07:07, 17 October 2007

[edit] I Practice Black Magic

What really PO's me is the fact that so many people are still claiming Black Magic as a purely evil taboo. I full heartedly disaggree. I practice Black Magic, and in fact, am very good at it. This doesn't mean I kill people or eat babies. Instead, I do quite the contrary. My newest project in my studies is to devise a way and mean that Black Magic can be beneficial for society. White Magic can not Italic textkill by decree, but Black Magic can kill pests, criminals, disease causing bacteria and misquitoes and do so much more. What's more, the idea of Black Magic being Italic texttotally for harming or killing is flawed, as Oberon Zell-Ravenheart suggests, Black Magic can simply be Magic used for achieving material ends. I do aggree, however, that the term "warlock" doesn't apply in real Magic. Wizard or Druid would probably be more appropriate. --Belorix 13:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, you're a millionaire! Too bad most reliable sources agree that magic doesn't happen. - ∅ (∅), 07:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter if it does or doesn't work, Wikipedia is not a personal vanity site anyways. mike4ty4 19:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Can it kill AY-RABS? LOL! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.248.160.82 (talk)

DavidBa 06:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)While I can see where the list of POVs have come from, I would like it if the karmic implications of black magic was recognised on this site. I am a Buddhist and this site most accurately reflects my views of black magic: http://removeblackmagic.110mb.com/buddhistapproach.html. My understanding is that many pagans, neopagans, druids etc also believe that the energy you put out into the world will return to you. So if your 'magic' involves the hurting of someone else or the taking of what is another's you create a negative energy that will impact back on you. That is why it is called black, ie if you are creating more karmic problems than you are aleviating that magic is called black.

WP:RS - ∅ (∅), 06:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect from Dark magic

The reason I turned the redirect into a dabpage (iirc) was to reduce the need for {{redirect}} templates at the top of this page. There should never be more than one, imo. - ∅ (∅), 06:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarified that it's fiction

Hi, i just added a "a fictitious type of magic" to the lead. If someone would like to remove this, please source a verified example of black magic in history that has not been debunked. thanks 76.67.56.106 (talk) 19:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

If that was the case, we would have to cite a source for proving every religious, supernatural, or paranormal belief as true, or else we would be mandated to call it fiction. That system would'nt work because we would have to label almost everything as fiction.--Neverquick (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

And what is the problem with that, i dont see an issue with holding the burden of proof that way. that seems quite rational actually. 76.67.56.106 (talk) 19:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

further, i feel that without some form of disclaimer in the lead (allegedly, etc), the topic is being given undue weight. this is NOT a majority view, and there is no section where criticism of its existence is prominently featured 76.67.56.106 (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that seems like a good idea. Maybe all articles about these sort of topics should be arranged like that, because the issues that they are dealing with are unprovable.--Neverquick (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC) I think it would be better as alleged then fictitious though, because nobody believes in fictitious things, but alot of people believe in alleged things. --Neverquick (talk) 19:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

That would be completely POV. It would be like saying the "Alleged" theory of gravity. obviously that would be absurd, since we know gravity exists, but remember, it's cause has yet to be substantially proven. so perhapse we should refer to it as "Ficticious" since it too is unproven. Wait, you say "You experience gravity. It's effects are obvious." true... maybe. You percieve gravity and its effects and so you believe it exists and has an effect on you, which biases your acceptance of any theory regarding its nature. The same goes for magick. I experience magick. Thousands, if not Millions of other people also experience magick, and acknowledge it as such. Thus, it is as "ficticious" and "Alleged" as gravity. in order to "disprove" it, you would have to disprove millions of people who belive it to exist and experience it on a daily basis. Until you do that, I suggest that you don't apply those terms. Arkayne Magii (talk) 06:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Also; This is an encyclopedia. The existance or nonexistance of magic(k) of any type has no bearing on the content of this article; in order to remain NPOV, it should be approached in the sense that "Whether it exists or not, this is how it is defined and described." Arkayne Magii (talk) 06:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

added "alleged" back to the lead. please do not compare the evidence in favour of gravity to the evidence of black magic, it's a foolish comparison. On gravity's page it is in fact referred to as a theory. the existenec of something CERTAINLY has bearing on how it is presented in an encyclopedia. all of the fiction articles are tagged as such, im not saying this should be "fiction" but to take the word "alleged" out of the article is whole-heartedly npov. an article on this topic should be on the history of the belief, not the properties of something that doesn't exist. 142.106.63.213 (talk) 15:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge discussion

I highly disagree with the idea of merging Black Magic(k) with Necromancy. The two are fundamentally different. One is a divinatory art - Hence "Mancy" refering to the Mantic arts, which, specifically are divinatory techniques. The idea of Necromancy being synonymous with "black magic" comes from popular media. So, while one may be employed by one who practices the other, they are still separate practices. unless you consider all black magic to be divination through communication with the dead, which I don't. Necromancy belongs under Divination, Black Magic(k) belongs under Magic(k). --Arkayne Magii (talk) 06:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Types of Magic

There are several types of magic, one is fictional, such has that exists it works of fiction such as Harry Potter or LOTR. Others, while whether they are real magic, are still practiced, and therefore in that sense real. There is the type practiced by illusionists, and those practiced by those whose believe it real magic. This article should address all of those types that can be black. Also, does the perceived evilness of magic, come from it goal, or the source of it's power. That is a spell which invokes a demon to accomplish good, still black magic? Rds865 (talk) 22:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Theories

since I do not think these theories formal, and in fact self published, I propose deleting them. The real issue is morality and magic. Those who believe all magic is immoral, don't believe in white magic. Those who don't believe in morality don't believe magic can be good or bad. This has little to do with the magic itself. So what makes magic black? Is it the ability to do harm? Violates certain codes? Is white magic all magic that isn't black? Rds865 (talk) 03:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)