This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
I'll tag dubious statements and later remove them if there's no source -- or add qualifiers to make it clear that these are beliefs not facts. -- twl_corinthian ( talk) 10:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
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. -blair-
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.
There is no source given by the author about the claims on Islam in this article. Using a ta'weez and invoking saints (there is no form of canonization in Islam anyway) is totally forbidden and considered _shirk_ , the most major sin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.33.198.200 ( talk) 20:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
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).
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
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
There is nothing called black magic..Its all in ones mind. We all should use our energies doing something substantial rather than these useless and endless discussions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.72.18.248 ( talk) 04:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
The Harry Potter series does not contain two types of magic with different bases. The fictional magic itself is neutral, and it's application and effect determine whether it is good or bad. Perhaps it would fit better in the section above? Either way, it doesn't belong in it's current category, and I do not believe it necessary to the article in the first place, since it serves only as an example (although it is an easily recognizable one). -- Romulus ( talk) 04:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
This article is in dire need of a complete and utter rewrite that will make it subjective and actually focus on what the term can mean in various contexts instead of insisting on what it is as if it actually exists. 76.169.99.79 ( talk) 04:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
This article makes people stupid, people come to read this. And instantly believe it, specially if one is ignorant.
An encyclopedia is meant to combat ignorance. There is actual people that believe in this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.139.225.133 ( talk) 09:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
This article's grammar is terrible, its facts are nonsense and its stories about the use of the term are hypocritical. Also, the article doesn't have references to back up many of its ridiculous claims. Owen214 ( talk) 03:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
There has to be a clear statement that this parlor trickery is a nonsense for defrauding the gullible and nothing else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.122.231 ( talk) 23:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
The section about Black Magic and Religion comes across to me as biased. It refers to the practices as being "perverted" forms of Christian practices. What is the basis for calling it perverted? Such claims certainly need references. And isn't "perverted" relative? 66.110.253.148 ( talk) 19:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
The introduction contains the following sentence. "With respect to the left-hand path and right-hand path dichotomy, black magic is the malicious, left-hand counterpart of the benevolent white magic." This is not only biased, but wrong. The essence of the left hand versus right hand dichotomy is that the left hand path pursues individualistic liberation, learning to recognise and follow our internal morality regardless of the ambient rules and customs, whereas the right hand path is about pursuing one of the established spiritual paths in one's society. Labelling the left hand path as evil is a mistake that comes from regarding conventional morality as an absolute. Jergas ( talk) 20:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
This article is written as if it was a wiki of a fantasy novel or computer game, it presents everything as fact as if magic was not only existing but commonplace. Even articles about established mainstream religions are written very carefully in the manner of "followers of ___ believe that ... ", but here everything about magic is presented as a fact, even if the source is some fictional work no one intended to be taken seriously or literally. -- 79.116.87.215 ( talk) 17:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Most of the article is written to defend Wiccan "white magic" over black magic. Mostly obvious in the History. I think someone should rewrite the History section so that it really digs deep into the History of black magic and diminsh the contrast between white and black for its own section called The Contrast Between White Magic and Dark Magic or something similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klaubtye ( talk • contribs) 23:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I placed a lot of templates on this section; it appears to have been written (badly) by a role-playing gamer using a single source (Google Books) that is selling a somewhat dubious book ascribed to A.E. Waite. Here's the catch: Waite never wrote any book titled The Book of Black Magic and Ceremonial Magic. If he had, it might have a WP article. He did, in fact, write a book titled The Book of Black Magic and of Pacts, which he later revised and republished as The Book of Ceremonial Magic, which does have a WP article. That book does not have any "spells" or "rituals" to achieve immortality as claimed in this section, and the editor's feeble attempts at what appears to have been intended as a discourse in the ethics of magic borders on gibberish. Waite's actual book is not this easily broken down into four types of "spells" or "rituals"; on the contrary, it's a scholarly overview of specific works of traditional magic literature and the ethics and desires of the people who wrote them. The section title seems broad and generic (and a little uncomfortably "how to"), but only this mythical Waite book is discussed within. The section requires either extensive cleanup (expansion to include other authors and actual belief systems) and more and better sources, or outright deletion. "As-is", it contributes nothing useful to the article. 12.233.147.42 ( talk) 02:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
In this section a term used as vishnu maya is very wrong... vishnu maya is not a satanism... and it is a miss concept...this word should be immediately removed.... Aaru11 ( talk) 05:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
It is not changed vishnumaya is not satanism...you are gonna be a reason for communal violence those kerala group of people completely spreading misconcept kindly make editable that article Aaru11 ( talk) 09:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi,
Requesting you to have a look at
Requesting article expansion help, if above topics interest you.
Thanks and regards Bookku ( talk) 06:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
“Black magic” and “White magic” are the wrong terms you should use. They are racist terms. Please change these terms to Left hand path and Right hand path with the abbreviation of LHP and RHP. Ethan6809 ( talk) 05:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Delete the 2 uses of the word 'primitive' in the line 'Like its counterpart white magic, the origins of black magic can be traced to the primitive, ritualistic worship of spirits as outlined in Robert M. Place's 2009 book, Magic and Alchemy.[4] Unlike white magic, in which Place sees parallels with primitive shamanistic efforts to achieve closeness with spiritual beings, the rituals that developed into modern black magic were designed to invoke those same spirits to produce beneficial outcomes for the practitioner'
The use of the word primitive is an opinion statement, not a factual one. Belac933 ( talk) 21:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 22:41, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Black magic, also known as dark magic, has traditionally referred to the use of supernatural powers or magic for evil and selfish purposes,[1] specifically the seven magical arts prohibited by canon law, as expounded by Johannes Hartlieb in 1456.[2] During his period of scholarship, A. E. Waite provided a comprehensive account of black magic practices, rituals and traditions in The Book of Ceremonial Magic (1911).[3] 203.194.102.199 ( talk) 10:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Nothing is mentioned in this article that it is infact a pseudoscience. Yudransh ( talk) 11:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Only 2 secondary sources. Both of which naming "black magic" as a possible interpretation by the Russian Media among others (Like nazi insignia). A direct accusation that black magic was the intended goal cannot be found. One of the cited articles is by Vice, a highly biased and unreliable source that hypocritically portrays the Russian Media as ridiculously superstitious, while accusing it propagandizing against Ukrainians. The statement on Wikipedia just undermines this, by phrasing the occurrence like a absurd story Russia being scared of Ukrainian warlocks. Please remove it for lack of relevance or at least change it up to be at least more truthful. Olipso1999 ( talk) 19:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
In the section Kallabah and Practical Kallabah, there's a paragraph that contains no sources and fuels antisemitic conspiracy. Could someone rectify this? Thanks. Syntheticpato ( talk) 22:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
The edits your persist in attempting to add are all original research. You continue to add a YouTube video as a source after being told it is not a reliable source by both Skyerise and Shashwat986. You used an academia paper to claim "Kabballah is also central to freemasonic rites" when the paper doesn't appear to actually make this claim. You then you added your own beliefs that this is "another evidence that researchers point to, to validate that Kabballah contains black magic" which is unsourced MOS:EDITORIAL. This is WP:SYNTH at best and WP:OR at worst. The whole third paragraph was sourced to one paper than never mentions Kabballah or black magic. You made up a whole section and then just found papers with titles that kind of said what you wanted them to say. This is all original research and you need to stop edit warring your own personal views into the article. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or a WP:SOAPBOX and we don't deal in conspiracy theories. ThaddeusSholto ( talk) 17:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
I'll tag dubious statements and later remove them if there's no source -- or add qualifiers to make it clear that these are beliefs not facts. -- twl_corinthian ( talk) 10:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
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. -blair-
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.
There is no source given by the author about the claims on Islam in this article. Using a ta'weez and invoking saints (there is no form of canonization in Islam anyway) is totally forbidden and considered _shirk_ , the most major sin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.33.198.200 ( talk) 20:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
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).
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
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
There is nothing called black magic..Its all in ones mind. We all should use our energies doing something substantial rather than these useless and endless discussions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.72.18.248 ( talk) 04:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
The Harry Potter series does not contain two types of magic with different bases. The fictional magic itself is neutral, and it's application and effect determine whether it is good or bad. Perhaps it would fit better in the section above? Either way, it doesn't belong in it's current category, and I do not believe it necessary to the article in the first place, since it serves only as an example (although it is an easily recognizable one). -- Romulus ( talk) 04:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
This article is in dire need of a complete and utter rewrite that will make it subjective and actually focus on what the term can mean in various contexts instead of insisting on what it is as if it actually exists. 76.169.99.79 ( talk) 04:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
This article makes people stupid, people come to read this. And instantly believe it, specially if one is ignorant.
An encyclopedia is meant to combat ignorance. There is actual people that believe in this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.139.225.133 ( talk) 09:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
This article's grammar is terrible, its facts are nonsense and its stories about the use of the term are hypocritical. Also, the article doesn't have references to back up many of its ridiculous claims. Owen214 ( talk) 03:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
There has to be a clear statement that this parlor trickery is a nonsense for defrauding the gullible and nothing else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.122.231 ( talk) 23:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
The section about Black Magic and Religion comes across to me as biased. It refers to the practices as being "perverted" forms of Christian practices. What is the basis for calling it perverted? Such claims certainly need references. And isn't "perverted" relative? 66.110.253.148 ( talk) 19:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
The introduction contains the following sentence. "With respect to the left-hand path and right-hand path dichotomy, black magic is the malicious, left-hand counterpart of the benevolent white magic." This is not only biased, but wrong. The essence of the left hand versus right hand dichotomy is that the left hand path pursues individualistic liberation, learning to recognise and follow our internal morality regardless of the ambient rules and customs, whereas the right hand path is about pursuing one of the established spiritual paths in one's society. Labelling the left hand path as evil is a mistake that comes from regarding conventional morality as an absolute. Jergas ( talk) 20:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
This article is written as if it was a wiki of a fantasy novel or computer game, it presents everything as fact as if magic was not only existing but commonplace. Even articles about established mainstream religions are written very carefully in the manner of "followers of ___ believe that ... ", but here everything about magic is presented as a fact, even if the source is some fictional work no one intended to be taken seriously or literally. -- 79.116.87.215 ( talk) 17:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Most of the article is written to defend Wiccan "white magic" over black magic. Mostly obvious in the History. I think someone should rewrite the History section so that it really digs deep into the History of black magic and diminsh the contrast between white and black for its own section called The Contrast Between White Magic and Dark Magic or something similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klaubtye ( talk • contribs) 23:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I placed a lot of templates on this section; it appears to have been written (badly) by a role-playing gamer using a single source (Google Books) that is selling a somewhat dubious book ascribed to A.E. Waite. Here's the catch: Waite never wrote any book titled The Book of Black Magic and Ceremonial Magic. If he had, it might have a WP article. He did, in fact, write a book titled The Book of Black Magic and of Pacts, which he later revised and republished as The Book of Ceremonial Magic, which does have a WP article. That book does not have any "spells" or "rituals" to achieve immortality as claimed in this section, and the editor's feeble attempts at what appears to have been intended as a discourse in the ethics of magic borders on gibberish. Waite's actual book is not this easily broken down into four types of "spells" or "rituals"; on the contrary, it's a scholarly overview of specific works of traditional magic literature and the ethics and desires of the people who wrote them. The section title seems broad and generic (and a little uncomfortably "how to"), but only this mythical Waite book is discussed within. The section requires either extensive cleanup (expansion to include other authors and actual belief systems) and more and better sources, or outright deletion. "As-is", it contributes nothing useful to the article. 12.233.147.42 ( talk) 02:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
In this section a term used as vishnu maya is very wrong... vishnu maya is not a satanism... and it is a miss concept...this word should be immediately removed.... Aaru11 ( talk) 05:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
It is not changed vishnumaya is not satanism...you are gonna be a reason for communal violence those kerala group of people completely spreading misconcept kindly make editable that article Aaru11 ( talk) 09:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi,
Requesting you to have a look at
Requesting article expansion help, if above topics interest you.
Thanks and regards Bookku ( talk) 06:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
“Black magic” and “White magic” are the wrong terms you should use. They are racist terms. Please change these terms to Left hand path and Right hand path with the abbreviation of LHP and RHP. Ethan6809 ( talk) 05:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Delete the 2 uses of the word 'primitive' in the line 'Like its counterpart white magic, the origins of black magic can be traced to the primitive, ritualistic worship of spirits as outlined in Robert M. Place's 2009 book, Magic and Alchemy.[4] Unlike white magic, in which Place sees parallels with primitive shamanistic efforts to achieve closeness with spiritual beings, the rituals that developed into modern black magic were designed to invoke those same spirits to produce beneficial outcomes for the practitioner'
The use of the word primitive is an opinion statement, not a factual one. Belac933 ( talk) 21:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 22:41, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Black magic, also known as dark magic, has traditionally referred to the use of supernatural powers or magic for evil and selfish purposes,[1] specifically the seven magical arts prohibited by canon law, as expounded by Johannes Hartlieb in 1456.[2] During his period of scholarship, A. E. Waite provided a comprehensive account of black magic practices, rituals and traditions in The Book of Ceremonial Magic (1911).[3] 203.194.102.199 ( talk) 10:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Nothing is mentioned in this article that it is infact a pseudoscience. Yudransh ( talk) 11:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Only 2 secondary sources. Both of which naming "black magic" as a possible interpretation by the Russian Media among others (Like nazi insignia). A direct accusation that black magic was the intended goal cannot be found. One of the cited articles is by Vice, a highly biased and unreliable source that hypocritically portrays the Russian Media as ridiculously superstitious, while accusing it propagandizing against Ukrainians. The statement on Wikipedia just undermines this, by phrasing the occurrence like a absurd story Russia being scared of Ukrainian warlocks. Please remove it for lack of relevance or at least change it up to be at least more truthful. Olipso1999 ( talk) 19:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
In the section Kallabah and Practical Kallabah, there's a paragraph that contains no sources and fuels antisemitic conspiracy. Could someone rectify this? Thanks. Syntheticpato ( talk) 22:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
The edits your persist in attempting to add are all original research. You continue to add a YouTube video as a source after being told it is not a reliable source by both Skyerise and Shashwat986. You used an academia paper to claim "Kabballah is also central to freemasonic rites" when the paper doesn't appear to actually make this claim. You then you added your own beliefs that this is "another evidence that researchers point to, to validate that Kabballah contains black magic" which is unsourced MOS:EDITORIAL. This is WP:SYNTH at best and WP:OR at worst. The whole third paragraph was sourced to one paper than never mentions Kabballah or black magic. You made up a whole section and then just found papers with titles that kind of said what you wanted them to say. This is all original research and you need to stop edit warring your own personal views into the article. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or a WP:SOAPBOX and we don't deal in conspiracy theories. ThaddeusSholto ( talk) 17:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)