Talk:Magician (paranormal)

Different Types

Do you seriously need to go into what different fantasy series think about wizards and sorcerers and all that crap? Stuff like that belongs in each individual setting. If anything, provide one 'for example.' Don't go into an exhaustive list... better yet, exclude them period, go with what I've modified. 68.225.240.87 06:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Obviously historical magicians are the basis for those of fantasy literature, but I think only illusionists (of Paul Daniels and Harry Houdini's ilk) and those historically (or currently) labelling themselves as magicians/sages/witches or described so by others should be in this article. This includes historial myths/legends (such as Merlin) as opposed to intentionally created fiction. Heavens To Betsy 14:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Much of what's on this page comes from a similar discussion at Talk:Wizard (fantasy) (before it had the "fantasy" dab). The idea was that this would be a page to discuss the differences/etymology/morphology/etc of the different magician names (such as wizard, sorcerer, enchanter, etc.).

Perhaps this page (and it's history) should be moved to a different name, and a new Magician article created?

Also, there is a List of occultists and List of magicians in fantasy, among others, so duplication is likely not necessary as far as that goes. - jc37 14:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge

Magicians in fantasy should be merged with Magician (which needs expansion anyway). There is no point to having two articles with basically the same content, and an artificial separation, when there is not enough unique information in either article to justify two separate articles. Dreadlocke ☥ 19:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on the unique info. Goldfritha 00:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that I can state that they do not now have the same content. Goldfritha 04:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Fabulous expansion Goldfritha! Wow! I withdraw my merge suggestion! Dreadlocke ☥ 03:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Muddle, unreferenced

"authors of fantasy fiction have often muddled the meaning of each of the terms" This needs some evidence that the meanings were precise prior to their use by the authors. "most accurate" -- that needs some evidence that there was accuracy prior to that. Goldfritha 22:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

No evidence? Out it goes, then. Goldfritha 00:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Mage

It is not suitable to merge "Mage" here. The characters referred to are clearly fictional. If it were to be merged anywhere, it would be "Magicians in fantasy" -- but the information in it is clearly specific to a certain kind of magician, and that article is about magicians in general, as is this one. The article is far more suitable for deletion than merging. Goldfritha 00:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Who proposed merging the two in the first place? -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 18:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It was an anonymous editor [1]. I'll remove the tag. Dreadlocke ☥ 18:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The Mage: article is up for deletion, and I think it will probably be deleted, so I'd read thorugh it and move whatever you like to Magicians in fantasy. Perhaps I'll put the merge tag between those two articles...Dreadlocke ☥ 18:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Due to Wikipedia:Disambiguation, and this project, among other conventions and several discussions which formed consensus, I suggest that the magician articles follow the same consensus in naming as the magic articles.

Based on this, I believe that the following two moves/renames can be speedied:

• Move/rename Magician to Magician (paranormal) - compare to magic (paranormal)
• Move/rename Magician (disambiguation) to Magician - compare to magic

This will simply aid in navigation. - jc37 20:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

As this is several weeks old, with no comments, I performed the moves as explained above. - jc37 11:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Modern?

How can Alister Crowley be referd to as modern. He has been dead for over 60 years and refering to both him and the cult he founded at the start of this aritcle to me smacks of an attempt to promote it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.238.19 (talk) 04:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

He's generally considered one of the more important figures of modern occultism, having had great impact on its development during the 20th century and his approach to magic(k) is in a historical sense quite modern. I honestly doubt that what you are referring to is an attempt to promote OTO. Calanor (talk) 13:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

References

This particular quote—"the magician of the future will use mathematical formulas"—is attributed with a footnote as from "Crowley, Aleister. Magick (Book 4) (Introductions and Theorems). Weiser Books. ISBN ISBN 0-87728-919-0." A search of the link provided as well as the hardcopy/published version does not seem to bear out this as an exact quote. Maybe I'm wrong and just missed it, but it should be re-examined as attributed to Crowley. I notice that there are a dozen or so sites out there that repeat this quote and attribution based on the Wikipedia information. (bh) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.57.103.91 (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Types of Mages

I cut the different types section. It had nothing to do with Magician (paranormal), so I deleted it. I can't even tell which bit of fiction it comes from (it seems like a Chill Mage should be fairly relaxed, and an ocular mage should grind lenses). I'll reproduce it here if someone thinks that action was precipitous. Peccavimus (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Necromancer are a real type of Magician. A type of magic that been used in history during the Middle Ages. The magic is some what used today in sub-culture groups. This should not been deleted. Rasseru (talk) 15:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You can add back as many as you can find citations for as being actual types of magicians. No one is stopping you, as long as its done correctly. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 17:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Mage Types

>❝Green Mage❞ - Basic healing spells, some small protection charms. >❝Briar Mage❞ - Also called Briar Witch/Wizard, they have light control over plants. Can make plants bloom. >❝Warm Mage❞ - Have slight control over fire. Can make a room warmer or colder. >❝Chill Mage❞ - Slight Control over water or ice. Can turn a glass of water into a block of ice. >❝Dust Mage❞ - Have a connection with the earth. Have a talent for finding rare stones. >❝White Mages❞ - Healing Spells, Barrier Spells >❝Flora Mages❞ - Greater control over plants. Can summon vines and bend branches >❝Ingite Mage❞ - More control over fire. Can summon small balls of fire out of nowhere. >❝Cloud Mage❞ - Control over water and ice. Usually carry a bottle of water to turn into manipulate. >❝Rock Mage❞ - Can control earth, can lift rocks and clumps of dirt >❝Shock Mages❞ - Can manipulate static electricity. >❝Ocular Mage❞ - Can see the dead >❝Breeze Mage❞ - Control of the small winds >❝Temple Mage❞ - Great Healing spells, light spells, Barrier Spells >❝Forest Mage❞ - Can make withered plans return to life, can make trees grow in an instant from seeds alone >❝Inferno Mage❞ - fire proof, can manipulate all fire >❝Storm Mage❞ - Can manipulate the water in the air, to the point of forming ice spikes out of nowhere >❝Gale Mage❞ - Can fly, and completely control wind >❝Terra Mage❞ - Complete control of rock, and dirt >❝Spark Mages❞ - Can create large bolts of electricity, and wind it around their bodies >❝Spirit Mage❞ - Can control spirits >❝Illusionist Mage❞ - Can create illusions >❝Nature Mage❞ - Can create golems made of trees, and bushes, and use them to fight. >❝Pyre Mage❞ - Control over all fires, including the unnatural flames of the creatures. >❝Tempest Mage❞ - Can turn themselves into mist, controls all water, even the stuff within bodies >❝Tornado Mage❞ - Wind is at their command, they fly, turn wind into a solid force, like a blade, and even smother someone, or pull the air out of lungs >❝Bolt Mage❞ - can Manipulate all manners of electricity, from the lightning bolts that rain down to the sky, and the most skilled who can manipulate the body's electric pulses >❝Blood Mage❞ - Uses the power of blood to curse, hex, or kill >❝Umbra Mage❞ - Can control spirits, and any nearby bodies >❝Necromancer❞ - Can seperate their spirit from their body, and control all dead, even those long buried >❝Virtuoso Mage❞ - Uses music and painting to cast spells

Modern magicians

Isn't calling those people "magicians" a bit POV? The term magician is defined in the opening sentence as a practitioner of magic. I'm sure the majority of the modern world does not believe in magic, so to claim these people are actually magicians is a bit ridiculous. Could the sentence be re-worded so as to make sure readers know these people only claim to be magicians, they're not actually. McLerristarr | Mclay1 04:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, they practice magic. You may not think it *works*, but they practice it. Just like Catholics practice Catholicism, even though the bread may not actually turn to Christ. Do we need to make it clear on all religion pages that the religion may not be true? I think it's pretty obvious that it's a belief; no need to specify so with every single use of the word. Peccavimus (talk) 18:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but to most people, magic does not have religious connotations. Saying they practise magic sounds like the magic is actually real. I still think it could be clarified a little. McLerristarr | Mclay1 08:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It's your POV that magic doesn't work. They obviously do not share that POV, so to remain NPOV, we describe them neutrally as people who practice magic. It's very clear from the article that "magic" is not commonly accepted. We don't have to mention it every single time we use the word. Saying the word "magic" is not an endorsement of the belief. As far as I know, that's pretty standard policy (if wikipedia can be said to have things like policies). Peccavimus (talk) 20:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is a policy but there are some things with which we don't have to respect other opinions, such as people who think the Earth is 6000 years old. I'm not sure if magic falls into that category but I'm not saying we should say it's not real, it's just that it says "Magic is..." then mentions modern magicians without even mentioning that it's just their belief. We shouldn't assume that people will know that the magicians may not actually have magic powers. Besides, "modern magicians" sounds like it's referring to illusionists who definitely do not have magical powers. McLerristarr | Mclay1 01:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Oddly enough, in re - there are some things with which we don't have to respect other opinions I tried this very tack while referring to certain named people in the bible as fictional, as, for some of them, there is no evidence, outside the bible, that they existed. I was shot down for this. Again, in order to remain neutral, we can make the statement that they practice magic. We do not make any statements regarding the efficacy of what they practice, just like we don't make any statements (which aren't already made by a third party) regarding the efficacy of prayer.--Vidkun (talk) 02:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

poor grammar

The grammar is very poor and needs to be corrected, as do several typos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.168.168 (talk • contribs) 11:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 16:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I was about to have a go at turning this into something resembling English, but I realised I don't actually know what half of it is meant to mean. For example: Throughout history, there have been many who have claimed having secret knowledge was result of great often supernatural powers, insofar as certain platitudes alluding to an ability and knowledge of the occult (literally, "hidden") techniques oft felt could be of great import.. I mean, WHAT? - 81.101.197.228 (talk) 17:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Request

Please don't include any information from fantasy literature or games in an article that references magicians of the world and their craft(s). I very much appreciate fantasy literature, but very few authors are interested in learning about what magicians do in reality. Much as anything else in fiction, the reality is entirely too boring to make a good story, so it is embellished with sometimes outlandish imaginings.

Also, if in fact there could be a definition of 'magician', it would necessarily be intensely convoluted and difficult to follow for anyone not involved in the craft. There are magicians from every culture and of every variation, and of every bent and orientation. Suffice it to say that a magician recognizes another magician by their knowledge, bearing, and comportment, rather than their title.

Nothing on the internet can be trusted where magicians are concerned. You won't find current, working magic displayed for all to see. The most you will see is the process by which one may approach the gate at the estate of magic. You' will never see directions to the door of the house of magic.

155.91.28.231 (talk) 18:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)"...and yet, upon the realization of a successful working, we see that it was made before we arrived."

New stuff goes at the bottom, and please actually read the article before making inapplicable requests about problems that don't exist. Also, Wikipedia has standards on WP:Identifying reliable sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)