Talk:Necromancy/Archive 1

Occult?

would raising the dead be a practice of the occult, if only to see a loved one again for a brief amount of time?

---

"Christian clergy were wholly responsible for the propagation and ongoing practice of necromancy" I can't quite believe that this statement is justified.

It actually just might be, but no sources where quoted. Early Christian missionaries, monks, clergy and people who pretended to be such often included vaguely animistic/ancestor worship-esque forms on ancestor contact into their list of abilities granted by their exceptional piety. I'll read on this and expand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Solificus (talk • contribs) 05:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

---

To someone ignorant of this subject (such as myself), the first sentence necromancy is the name given to a particular form of divination by recourse to the evocation of the dead leaves the reader confused.

1. What is the particular form?
2. What is meant by "by recourse to the evocation of the dead?" Kingturtle 01:16, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

That WAS convoluted, wasn't it!? Now simpler... -- Someone else 01:25, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Would this count as a good example of Necromancy in fiction?

That scene of the corpse becoming re-animated from the parts of other bodies from Hellraiser (I think it was Hellraiser). It's been a while since I have seen this movie but that was one of those scenes which always stuck out in the back of my mind. Very eerily filmed sequence, if you ask me. But is it a case of necromancy in fiction, or some other undead-related topic? --I am not good at running 09:32, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe, from what you've described that it is neromancy. Necromancy is done through rituals, and as far as I know, theres nothing to support the regeneration of dead tissue. Necromancy is pretty much just calling up dead spirits, and is believed to be (according to superstition) in some cases bodies coming out of their graves. So, if there is no proof, dont add it.

Zos 03:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Hellraiser has nothing about animating a body made from parts of other corpses. Are you perhaps thinking of Frankenstein? Hellraiser has a sequence in which a ghost trapped between worlds or dimensions fashions a new physical form for itself out of the tissues and fluids of its living victims, but that is not necromancy. Necromancy is coercing spirits of the dead for divination or other magical purposes. It has nothing to do with reanimating corpses or creating surrogate bodies out of living flesh. 71.200.138.188 (talk) 05:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

fiction

I am suprised to find that Garth Nix's popular series which begins with the book Sabriel is not mentioned as your research appears to be quite thorough. XP just a heads up

I'm not surprised at all. I'm surprised that you use "XP" as a smilie face. I'm surprised that anyone actually cares. I'm surprised that there is a weeaboo here.

Necromancy in Online Forums

Necromancy as applied in Forums refers to the act of resurrecting old threads, generally those older than a few weeks.

Dngrsone

- I don't think anyone actually uses the word in this way. Certainly you won't find this usage in the OED.

Are you kidding me? 'Thread necromancy' is a very common term, some forums and usenet groups even specifically forbid it using that word. But on the other hand it has more place in an article on internet lingo than here. Robrecht 17:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, this is a completely standard term. Often it's shortened to "necro". 74.14.123.56 (talk) 13:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Fodder for possible inclusion

I removed the following text block from the Demonology article since it didn't seem to belong there. The article as I found it did not incude citations, and I'm unable to vouch for the veracity of this information, so do with it what you will.

People who claim to practice Necromancy believe that they can subjugate and command the spirits of the dead. In some myths this leads to the reanimation of soulless bodies as puppets to fight battles for the practitioner. Myths regarding the use of Necromancy in war are fairly common in Shinto Mythology. Those who practice necromancy in Hellenistic neopaganism may attempt to summon and subjugate Shades and other spirits from the underworld, often forcing them to reveal secrets.

Some consider attempts to actively cause or forcibly end a haunting to be Necromancy, as such those who believe in Necromancy may believe that any successful attempt to exorcise a ghost is a form of Necromancy because it supposedly subjugates a ghost or spirit. Subsequently, even those who are opposed to the practice of necromancy may see attempts to exorcise hauntings, such as the exorcisms conducted by some Catholics, as forms of necromancy.

The Ghost Dance conducted by many aboriginal American tribes in the late 1800's was a form of alleged necromancy that so terrified the United States authorities at the time that the mass shooting of practitioners was sanctions. The various tribes were attempting to call vengeful ghosts of the dead to take revenge on the "white man", and to ultimately destroy and remake the earth. Some claim that many supposed hauntings in the United States are the direct result of this practice, however there is no worldly evidence of any haunting that has ever stood up to intense scrutiny and ultimately this could be considered superstition.

Ringbang 03:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to question the source of the whole paragraph on necromancy in Christianity. Maybe a few clergymen practiced necromancy (I've never heard of them), but the article makes it look like the entire Christian medieval upper class was a necromancer. I'd like it if this were made more clear that necromancy is forbidden in the Bible and that high-ranking Christian officials do not support raising the dead by sorcery. Also, Jesus was not a necromancer as he did not practice sorcery. According to the Bible, God has the power to take away and bring back lives. Why would he need magic then to raise the dead?

64.126.45.60 16:51, 15 September 2005 (UTC) GaiusKnight

P.S. This is my first time adding to a discussion so bear with me. :D

it also can be a possibility of the use of magic by deities (in this case God) so that would make of Jesus a Necromancer, as this "divine power" you mention is just magic. Soren Black 15:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)Soren.

Although necromancy is considered to be an occult practice or even evil it has been used to bring back people from the dead just so someone else can say goodbye or to save anothers life. certain aspects of necromancy are evil yes, but not all it depends on the usage and the user νЄΚρóς ClarkG 19:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right, but unfortunately most of the "recorded" usages of necromancy are evil deeds. It promotes a "kill first, ask questions later" attitude...Medinoc 21:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

nonsense

There is no such thing as divination. Any article saying otherwise violates the NPOV-policy. --Maprovonsha172 21:18, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you can say "there is no such thing as divination" without that statement being POV in itself, simply because it's a belief, and as such is not provable one way or the other. You could say "divination has no basis in fact", and add some content on the skeptical viewpoint, as has been done on the Divination article. If you're going to go dismissing as nonsense articles on beliefs which cannot be proven, you would have to include all religions. Additionally, I don't see why you are bringing this up here and not on the divination talk page, if it's divination you don't believe exists. I'm removing the cleanup-nonsense template - if you still think it's POV, shouldn't you be using the NPOV dispute tag?

--Bobstay 16:55, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

The problem encountered on pages like this is a lack of distinction between definition and promotion. We are here to define. Promoting, for the skeptic or zealot alike, is not aligned with Wikipedia's purpose. It is quite possible to define divination without believing in it.

--Tomekeeper

There is still a lot of nonsense on this page. Look at the following:

In the wake of these inconsistencies of judgment, necromancers, sorcerers and witches were able to utilize spells with holy names with impunity, as biblical references in such rituals could be construed by local clergy as prayers as opposed to spells.

The article appears to suppose the existence of these imaginary things. And if it's POV for me to say their imaginary it's certainly POV to go against the vast majority of people and say they actually exist. There is absolutely no proof that necromancy or any sort of divinatione exists, and it's blatent POV to say otherwise. --Maprovonsha172 03:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

It might be nonesense and some facts seem to be made up but POV is about skewing an article in favor of supporting or against a particular topic. There are plenty of articles that could be considered nonsense because there is not factual or provable things involved... Such as Heaven, Hell, or things like Quantum immortality. One should be able to have an article based on a concept that man kind has thought of and has been thinking about for a while and is in mainstream society. If you say that since we have no proof that divination exists then it is NPOV, then what about articles about God or other things that we have no proof for? I for one came to this article expecting more information about modern day necromancy or references to fiction and possibly online computer gaming. So as far as I can say... The article is NPOV, but it needs to be cleaned up and least be more factual. -James --208.253.80.123 22:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

On the God article, never is it implied that God exists. They always say "...believes" or "...claim," it never says anyone worships God, which implies his existence and is anological to this articles saying people practice necromancy. Still POV. Maprovonsha172 15:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Surely it would be more productive to actually fix the article, if its content concerns you so much, rather than endlessly arguing about it on the talk page? Why not add in the "believes" and "claims" qualifiers? Bobstay 10:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, what do you base this "opinion" off of? It is historical fact that in ancient time people were very involved in Necromancy. When you say there is no such thing as divination, you are saying that every religion is not real, because all religions have some form of divination, direct or indirect. Also, for someone who has studied this subject for a long time (not exactly necromancy, but divination and paranormal phanomena) It is sort of disappointing to here of people who can't accept things beyond their shell of ignorance...too bad.....

Despite the fact that the article doesn't explicitly use words like "believes" all the time, I don't think it's required. I didn't believe in Necromancy when I started reading, and I don't now. And at no point did I really feel like the article was trying to make me believe in it, just explaining what is thought by people who do... GalaxiaGuy 01:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC) I think POV is more of an issue with articles that specifically use language that is technically neutral but manage to sound biased anyway... GalaxiaGuy 01:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Necromancer In Fiction (Theater)

In Chicago, there is a long-running theater performance called Supernatural Chicago. It is well documented in several publications online and off, and has merited feature-length articles in the Chicago Tribune, Red Eye (a Tribune publication), the Lerner newspapers (Chicago suburban), the Pioneer Press newspapers (Chicago suburban), and others. The reason why it might deserve a mention under Necromancer In Fiction is because the performance's protagonist is introduced as "Neil Tobin, Necromancer." This character goes on to tell stories of the Chicago's paranormal history and involve the audience in demonstrations that seem to walk the line between magic and the psychic. By the show's end, the spirit world even appears to have been successfully contacted.

Resources for further information:

• Supernatural Chicago: Official Site
• Haunting Tales Fill Late-Night Haunt from the Chicago Tribune, October 27, 2005.
• Creep City from the Daily Northwestern
• Paranormal Performer from the Pioneer Press
• Sith City from Red Eye/Metromix
• Stage Frights from Red Eye/Metromix

Balance

I think this article has become unbalanced. The section on "Necromancy in fiction" is longer than the section "Necromancy in history". I have pulled the refs to paper RPGs out of the "Necromancy in computer and video games" section and created a new section for them. But, as someone said on this page awhile back, "Necromancy has a long and distinguished history...and deserves better than being defined as a footnote in an RPG." I think these gaming references have gotten completely out of hand. The reference to the Elder Scrolls CRPG series has grown into a stub for a "Necromancy in the Elder Scrolls CRPG universe" article. The focus should be on the concept, not on the innumerable references that popular culture makes to it. The concept of necromancy is thousands of years old. We don't need to know every instance in which the word was uttered. Some of these refs are only tenuously related to the concept, and some are just instances of using the word, "necromancy". Can we chop the gaming references down to a paragraph stating that "necromancy" is popularly used in various role-playing, computer and video games, and then list a FEW examples of those that use the term accurately and those that use it for color to describe something that really isn't a necromancer? Canonblack 23:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this and am looking forward to editing this. I don't mind there being references to Necromancy in modern times, but there are too many words being used to acknowledge its form in fiction and video games, which, should be a seperate page altogether in "my opinion". I hope to be adding much more in the way of books and people who have actually written abouty this, as well as practiced it.

Zos 04:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Now there is no substantial reference to necromancy in fiction other than a link. You did a bad job by excluding it all together. Looks like a kind of vandalism to me. You have to remember that this is the main entrance for necromancy and not a section which highlights the actual belief in necromancy. To most people necromancy is fiction and myth. Because it only covers POV this article has become one of the worst articles in Wikipedia. MadIce 14:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article could do with some cleanup. Its way too long. May be some sections could be broken up, and the article concised. Splitting some info into a new article may also be considered. --Soumyasch 06:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I broke some things up and moved them. There still needs to be edits for layout standards on this page, but this can be done later. I've added actual references to necromancy in occult books, and related material, instead of various facts over time like the history section and the spread of necromancy sub section, which needs to be cleaned up a bit and possibly restructured.

Zos 06:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Necromancy in history should have it's own section. The origin, evidences, and previous patterns in belief that necromancy relates to are vital to understanding the thing itself. With this, it is easier to discover patterns of change within the practice, and how the rituals are carried out. Btbundy (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The most important thing we can do if we want any meaningful comparisons through history is clearly define a few types of necromancy that we intend to look at. Such as consulting deceased spirits (necromancy proper), and the other things sometimes labelled as necromancy, such as raising the dead, consulting demons, etc. Currently the article seems in several places to conflate necromancy with magic in general. Fuzzypeg☻ 00:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Necromancy in fiction and popular culture

There appear to be two articles (Necromancy (fiction) and Necromancy in popular culture) which appear to cover the same subjects. It has been suggested that the latter should be merged with the first. However, only a link to the latter was included in the See also section, so I have added a link to Necromancy (fiction) to it. When one is merged with the other that section should be updated accordingly. MadIce 13:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Necromancy in fiction is vastly different from Necromancy in popular culture. Fiction suggests literature or made up games. As the article indicates, there is necromancy suggested in several video games and most likely some board games as well. Now the understanding the players have of how deep necromancy goes cannot be judged by this. However, popular culture suggests the modern culture as it is now. Mediums, tarot readers, and fortune tellers are still seen. In North America there is Lady Cleo and TV programs which center around communicating with the dead. It even goes as far as the New Age religions, which is part of culture. So in these areas, I believe their should be a contrast between fiction and popular culture. Btbundy (talk) 17:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Necromancy in popular culture should be an extremely short section. Basically it should only list those particular portrayals of necromancy that have sizably changed popular perceptions of necromancy. I can't think of any such portrayal myself. They all fit pretty snugly into the same old stereotypes; even famous films like The 6th Sense don't bring anything new to the field, and thus are not worth mentioning. Fuzzypeg☻ 00:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Necromancy in "popular" culture is Necromancy as it exists in the eyes of the common person. Because of RPGs and video games, Necromancy is seen as the magic of raising zombies, firing bolts of mortal energy from your fingertips, and so on. A much more "physical" approach to death, basically. They do not at all fit into the old sterotypes. Popular culture, as used on Wikipedia, almost always has to do with fiction. Gaiacarra (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Removal Games and Literature sections

Further to my statement just above, I have removed the Games and Literature sections. The purpose of such pop-culture sections is to explain how such popular representations have significantly altered the popular understanding of the thing (necromancy, in this case). If we don't limit ourselves in this way, then we're simply launching into an unbounded list of every trivial mention of necromancy in any book, game or movie, and there are thousands. If the concept of necromancy is particularly central to a book or game, then it should be mentioned in that book or game's article. There is no need for it to be cross-referenced in this article, as WP is not meant to double as a search engine. Cheers, Fuzzypeg★ 22:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Necromancy and POV

The tone of this article suggest NPOV. However, there is little or no content present which disputes the actual existence of necromancy. It may come as a surprise to the authors of this article, but most people view necromancy as fiction and myth. I am not interested enough to add a section which highlights that, but I hope someone else has the time to do that. MadIce 13:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words

There are a few statements in this article that appear unsubstantiated. For example, in the first paragraph under "Medieval Necromancy" : "Some suggest that Necromancy could have become a way for idle literate Europeans to integrate Hebrew and Arabic legend and language into forbidden manuals of sorcery." Likewise, the phrase "Modern scholarship suggests..." needs supporting evidence.

Especially in the Medieval section, more sources are needed. I am nonetheless impressed with the number of sources already cited.

Brian S 12.4.26.248 02:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Article improvements

I am going to sort this page out. Necromancy has a long and distinguished history and some first rate practitioners (including none other than the distinguished J. Christ esq.) and deserves better than being defined as a footnote in an RPG. user:sjc

Modern Necromancy It seems there is not enough on modern necromancy. I will try to add to it's content. user:vaham07

This article could definitely do with some work. In particular, I'd like to see this article explain clearly what necromancy is, as opposed to magic in general. Obviously it now tends to mean any kind of magic related to the dead, but its original meaning, and that still used by many serious practitioners (see diFiosa, J. A Voice In the Forest or Huson, P. Mastering Witchcraft, for example), is contacting the spirits of deceased people, generally for some kind of information or divination.

Yes there is enough modern necromancy to be worth writing about, but probably not enough yet to warrant a separate article. The normal procedure would be to flesh out what you can as a separate section in this article, and if it grows quite large, then it would be split into its own article. The thing is, no-one is going to search for "Modern Necromancy" straight off the bat; they'll search for "Necromancy". Creating a new article takes the information one step further away from the person who's looking for it. Cheers, Fuzzypeg☻ 00:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed some rather poorly written paragraphs

I couldn't figure out what to do with these, so I moved them here:

Michael D. Bailey argues in From Sorcery to Witchcraft: Clerical Conceptions of Magic in the Later Middle Ages that necromancy “fed increased ecclesiastical concerns over sorcery, and especially the demonic nature of sorcery, culminating in the idea of witchcraft in the early fifteenth century.” Necromancy is viewed by some as black magic. Bailey argues that necromancy was already considered black magic and its reputation for being that fed the concerns over sorcery. We can see that necromancy was already considered a black magic. Necromancy through time had been feared by most over the power one had. Laws were passed to ban necromancy, and persecuted those who practiced it. The belief that necromancy was real and dangerous threatened many. Over time the idea of necromancy being a dangerous and powerful practice fed to the concerns over sorcery as Bailey has argued. Over time the idea of practicing necromancy became a dangerous form of black magic, and with that influenced the other forms of magic over time. Necromancy through cultures and historical writings has shaped the ideas and views of many over the centuries. This is evident with the argument Bailey suggests. Religious churches also have a connection with necromancy in history. Their influence has shaped the attitudes of many through their belief that necromancy was a dark form of magic. Bailey explains that, “The church remained convinced that demonic power lay hidden at the root of even apparently innocent magical practices. Even worse, the darkest aspect of magic, involving explicit demonic invocation, often proved the most seductive to young scholars, giving rise to what one expert has termed a ‘clerical underworld’ of ‘necromancy.’”

and

Cultures and historical documents fed the idea that necromancy was a form of black magic and should not be dealt with. The church also contributed to the many ideas that influenced society as a whole in viewing necromancy.

The first paragraph seems to say the same thing again and again and again and again, that the concept of necromancy fed into the concepts of witchcraft and black magic. But it's not clear from the quote given that Bailey is even talking about necromancy, since by the end of the paragraph we seem to have moved on to demonic invocation. The second paragraph is just more of the same. (and again and again...) Fuzzypeg☻ 04:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)