Talk:Magician (fantasy)

Typos

Fixed some typos... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.0.74.73 (talk) 10:03, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

Discworld, teaching sourcery

"Magical practitioners on the Disc (of the Discword series) are rare, and often innate (with exceptions - the eighth son of an eighth son must become a wizard, even if the son is a daughter), and do require some form of training (again, with exceptions - see Sourcery). Also, magical practitioners on the Disc treat the use of magic not unlike the use of nuclear weaponry - it's okay for people to know that you have it, but everyone will be in trouble if it gets used."

I patition for this line to be removed "(again, with exceptions - see Sourcery)"

as SOurcery is such as exceptional case that, it sould not be commentted on. the soucerer is tought by his father in the from of a staff. but i want to know what others think. --Oxinabox1 03:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Humm. Think I agree. The idiosyncracies of Discworld magic are better suited to a Discworld specific article. Goldfritha 04:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge

There is no point in having two articles when fantasy works do not treat the "magician" and "wizard" differently. The exact traits that one writer uses to mark a "magician" rather than a "wizard" can be reversed by the next writer. Goldfritha 00:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree. (See also this article's Terminology section) —TowerDragon 14:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree - Magicians in fantasy should be merged with Magician (which needs expansion anyway). Dreadlocke ☥ 19:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

but it's just the same thing@ 41.113.58.140 (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Magic-user

This term is not standard usage. It does not even appear in the dictionary. It should not take priority over commoner and more widely used terms; it properly belongs in the terminology, with the explaination of its use in RPG.

So I removed it from the lede. Goldfritha 19:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Witch vs. wizard

"or perhaps indicating something else entirely" is too vague for inclusion. If there are no instances where it indicates something else entirely, the clause is wrong; if there are, they should be included as they exist. Goldfritha 16:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Magician

"magician as the generic" will need references to support it as the general usage. In The Encyclopedia of Fantasy, for instance, the entry "wizard" contains all the information about typical practioners of magic. Goldfritha 16:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Muddle

"authors of fantasy fiction have often muddled the meaning" 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 16:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

No one has evidence? Out it goes, then. Goldfritha 00:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge from Mage:

This article seems more appropriate for merging information from Mage:, which is under AfD. Dreadlocke ☥ 18:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The information ought not to be merged, because without the context -- it is clearly refering to some fictional set-up, but which is not clear -- it is meaningless. Also, this article should focus on the general case. Goldfritha 00:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If there's no content you can use, then I'd say just let it be deleted. Dreadlocke ☥ 17:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree that it should be deleted, with a re-direct to magician.

Mage has been deleted. Dreadlocke ☥ 06:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

magocracies

"though more recent literature contains more examples of magocracies"

This would definitely require a reference, since it's a statistical observation and would need someone to have counted. Goldfritha 00:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter

Could someone please fact check the recent Harry Potter insertions? Under "Apearance" it used to say that the image of wizards is largely uniform from Gandalf on, and now it says from Gandalf to Albus Dumbledore, this completely changes the meaning of the statement as the first states that Gandalf set the standard and the second implies that Gandalf is merely an example of an already existing motif. This especially upsets me as I have found texts that state that Gandalf is very different from the pre-Tolkien classical wizard (here's one example that briefly mentions it). Also, it has been added in that the appearance predates the fantasy genre and goes back to Merlin, but wasn't Merlin a half-incubus and more similar to a Woodwose, which is something else entirely? Wikipedia says he was, and I was under the impression that the archetypical wizard motif with a pointy hat and baggy robe did not exist until Gandalf. Could someone with greater knowlege of the subject than myself please clarify this? --Daedalus 21:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Odin

The footnote itself casts doubt on the authenticity of the claim that Odin is the source of the image. I think that should at least be reworded less strongly. Goldfritha 02:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Your new phrasing is okay by me for the most part, but I don't think Merlin should be noted so strongly, considering that his appearance/description is inconsistent from one version to another, and he is most commonly described as a Bard or Woodwose. I'll see if I can find more sources for the Odin connection and maybe find something definitive one way or the other, but in the meantime I want to downplay Merlin since he only sometimes fits the Wizard Archetype. --Daedalus 22:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

"The Wizard Archetype"?

No, Merlin is a wizard. I cite The Encyclopedia of Fantasy as evidence. Goldfritha 22:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Merlin was originally a composite of two figures, Ambrosius Aurelianus (a historical war leader of the 5th century) and Myrddin Wyllt from Welsh Legends (a prophet and a madman), the two figures were juxtaposed to create Merlin Ambrosius, who is said to be a Bard that has gone mad from war and fled civilization to become a hairy wildman of the woods, who later used magic to engineer the birth of King Arthur. I cite the original accounts of Merlin in "Historia Regum Britanniae" ("The History of the Kings of Britain") by Geoffrey of Monmouth. My point is not that you are wrong, but rather that "wizard" image of Merlin is not the original motif of the character, and that the accounts of Merlin are inconsistent. --Daedalus 17:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: For clarification, I don't mean to say that he isn't a wizard, he is a wizard. I mean to say that he does not fit the modern wizard archetype in appearance and description. --Daedalus 19:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

"Original motif" does not matter. What matters is how Merlin has been treated overall -- which has been as a wizard. Goldfritha 01:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

"If the story of Arthur as a national British hero can be attributed to any one author, it is most certainly Geoffrey of Monmouth. The familiar elements of the Arthurian story are the responsibility of this teacher and clerk in Oxford and the Welsh Marches in the first half of the twelfth century."

Vita Merlini (The Life of Merlin) also by Geoffrey of Monmouth "opens with Merlin in the position of being both "rex . . . et vates" (king and prophet) of the Welsh, and going to war against the Scots. Exposed to horrific violence and witness to the death of several of his close friends, Merlin goes mad and retreats to the woods to become a kind of wild man, one of the first in the great tradition followed by Yvain, Lancelot, and Tristan."

"Merlin was taken by a "novas furias" (new madness) and ran to the woods to become a "silvester homo" or "woodland man." This concept of Merlin as the "silvan man" is crucial to the development of the Arthurian character"

Excerpts taken from Geoffrey of Monmouth, a biography by Emily Rebekay Huber, The Camelot Project at the University of Rochester. I believe you may not be quite understanding my point. I am not saying that Merlin was not a wizard. I fully accept that Merlin was, in fact, a wizard. But you can be a wizard and not wear a pointy hat and baggy robes. The modern archetypal wizard appearance is a pointy hat and baggy robe, an image of which Merlin does not fit in his "Original motif". The quotes I found do verify that his "overall treatment" is akin to a woodwose, and not the archetypal wizard. I have not read The Magical Worlds of Harry Potter, and the reference does not contain a quote, so I can't dispute the reference and thus am forced to concede the reference at this point in time. In light of that, I assert that Merlin's "overall treatment" is inconsistent, and thus inappropriate to use to illustrate a wizard's appearance. Beyond cartoons that are known for their complete inability to adhere to their mythological/historical inspirations, can you back your claim that his "overall treatment" is the archetypal pointy-hat-baggy-robe with Reliable Sources? --Daedalus 21:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You beg the question. Your answer assumes that the "original motif" is the defining one. That was exactly what I questioned. Goldfritha 03:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

As well I answer it within my quote: "The familiar elements of the Arthurian story are the responsibility of [Geoffrey of Monmouth]." "This concept of Merlin as the "silvan man" is crucial to the development of the Arthurian character." --Daedalus 16:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That may mean nothing more than that his works are the source. And being crucial to the development does not mean that concept dictated it. Goldfritha 03:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

"Recently, however, articles by W. A. Nitze and A. C. L. Brown have shed some light on Merlin's sylvan covert." -Adolf, Helen The Esplumoir Merlin: A Study in Its Cabalistic Sources

"Merlin goes mad after a great battle in which he kills his nephew and withdraws to the Caledonian Forest, becoming a kind of wild man." -Granrose, John The Archetype of the Magician

Both of them cite Geoffrey of Monmouth's work, so yes, it does mean that concept dictated it. I have provided plenty of sources to back my claim. I ask you to provide sources to back yours. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 19:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I've already provided them. In the article, and Encyclopedia of Fantasy above.

Furthermore, yours do not provide evidence for what you are claiming, namely that Merlin's image has been a source for the typical image of a wizard. Goldfritha 00:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I'm claiming at all. I'm claiming that his appearance is inconsistent and have provided accounts counter to the image of him in a pointy hat, thus substantiating my claim. My point is that he appears as both forms, one being the original, and the other being only a modern popularization. Therefore, without a qualifying explanation, he is a bad example of the typical appearance of a wizard. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 03:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

These accounts don't matter. What matters is whether the modern appearance is derived from him typically. Goldfritha 23:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

<--- reset indent

It is curious to note, that when searching for "Wizard" or "Sorcerer" and the like almost all of my searches that mentioned Merlin have mentioned him with a pointy hat and robe. And yet, when doing research for "Merlin" himself, all of my results have described him as a wildman of the forest, except for two. TWO out of about 30 examined results, that's a significant minority. And one of those two was dubious because it mentioned his pointy-hat motif as a passing comment and later mentioned him as a wildman anyway, and the focus of the essay was about Jungian Archetypes, so that one doesn't really count. Of the remaining that mention him as a wildman, only about 10 were dubious, the rest were blatantly clear. 1 out of about 20. His modern appearance is split two ways, the academic and the popular media. This is why I stated earlier that he is a bad example of the typical appearance without a qualifying explanation. I am not voting to delete the Merlin mention, I am simply uncertain as to how to phrase such an explanation. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 14:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Before you figure out how to phrase such an explanation, first you have to explain why what you are describing prevents his being an influence on the image of fantasy wizards. Goldfritha 01:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The typical image of fantasy wizards is first witnessed in the accounts of Odin from Norse Mythology, as in pre-christian European Mythology. The first account of Merlin was written around 1136, more than a millenium later. Merlin's first accounts were not inline with the typical image of fantasy wizards, that image did not come until much later, most likely a modern adaptation. Therefore, Merlin did not appear as a typical wizard until anywhere from about 1.5 to 2 millenia later. The current phrasing of the article implies that Merlin is one of the inspirations for this image, how can that be so when his pointy-hat appearance did not come until at least 1.5 millenia after the image was established? I propose a change that leaves the issue fairly vague but does not lead to confusion: mention Merlin as an example of such an archetype with an explanation that this image of Merlin is not the original motif for the character as he appears in the mythology, and simply say that the image predates the fantasy genre and is derived from Odin, who predates Merlin by a hell of a lot. I'm just not certain how to best phrase it, unfortunately, else I would have been bold. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 05:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

One thing being earlier than another is no evidence that the earlier one is the source for something that came much later than either.

Fantasy being a modern genre, that something did not occur until modern times (which, incidentially, your citations did not prove) is no evidence that it is not an influence on it.

And you appear to be committing WP:OR. Finding sources that say that Merlin was a wildman of the woods is not finding sources that say that Merlin is not an influence on the modern image of a wizard. You need a source that says that. You can not make the deduction yourself. Goldfritha 01:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. I found a source that says that the modern image of wizards is inspired by Odin (in the article) that cite David Day who is an expert on Tolkien's literature, history, the fantasy genre in general, mythology and several other fields. I also found many sources that say that Merlin does not fit the typical image of a wizard. And yet, somehow it is OR for me to say that the image of wizards is derived from Odin? Please explain how this is OR.

For your other points: 1) One thing being earlier is not evidence that it is the source for something that came later than both, you're right, but citing an expert (such as David Day) who says that it is the source more than verifies the statement. 2) I may not have provided evidence that the fantasy genre is modern, but the Fantasy article does say that it is less than 2 centuries old, that puts it well within my claims. 3) I never said that Merlin was not an influence on the image of a wizard. Perhaps you confuse influence with inspiration, and they are very different things. For example: James Bond has a great influence over the concept of the super-spy, but the super spy was inspired by Sidney Reilly. Whether Bond was an influence or not is irrelevent because the inspiration is Reilly. Same logic applies here. 4) I have not made any deductions myself, everything is attributable to a reliable source. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 03:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

No, you did not find many sources that Merlin does not fit the typical image of a wizard. You found some sources that said Merlin fit the role of a wild man in some medieval literature -- none that excluded him from being that role in the great complex of medieval literature in which one character could appear in many, many, many different ways. Therefore it is OR for you to assert that he is not a wizard.

The other points:

1. I did not remove the information about Odin. You are trying to remove the information about Merlin, for which I have provided references.

2. What are you talking about? You asserted that because Merlin was later, therefore Odin is the sole source. That fantasy is modern -- after Merlin -- is my point that Merlin can certainly be a source.

3. What are you talking about here, too? Word games about "influence" and "inspiration"? But it is not true that there can be one and only one inspiration for something, which makes the distinction you are trying to draw rather pointless.

Your analogy with James Bond has a fatal flaw: James Bond is a super-spy; Merlin is not a fantasy wizard, but a folkloric wizard.

4. No, you have asserted that Merlin is not a traditional wizard, and you have not provided any references that exclude him from that class. The "woodwose" statements no more prove that than "Morgan le Fay" is proved not to be a sorceress by having been a fairy. Goldfritha 04:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

A wildman of the woods is not an archetypal wizard. I have provided sources that say that he is a wildman of the woods. Thus, I have provided sources that say that he is not a typical wizard. You said it yourself, "one character could appear in many, many, many different ways." How is this counter to my assertion that his appearance is inconsistent? If anything, it's in agreement. And it's all the more reason that Merlin is a bad example to illustrate the appearance of a archetypal wizard. Once again, I never said that he wasn't a wizard. I said he didn't always wear a pointy hat and baggy robes. I always addressed his appearance, I never argued his role.

1. No, I'm not trying to remove the information about Merlin, I'm trying to think of a way to rephrase it so that the reader knows that his appearance is inconsistent. I never suggested removing it.
2. Merlin could be a source... except that I have a source that cites David Day (an expert in this field) as saying that Odin is the source. In fact, David Day also states that Odin is the source for Merlin's appearance in his "archetypal wizard" portrayal.
3. The point I draw is not a word game, but a difference in concept. Merlin (in the pointy hat form) may have popularized the image for later wizards, but that doesn't change the fact that Odin is the source for the appearance. Just because someone had Merlin or even Gandalf in mind when they create a fictional wizard, still doesn't change the fact that the image came from Odin. An analogy: Just because someone has the christian cross in mind when they draw a design for a logo, doesn't change the fact that the cross symbol is still derived from Celtic and Pagan symbols, even if the logo designer wasn't aware of its longer history.
4. You gave me the impression that you were arguing Merlin's "overall treatment" was inline with a typical fantasy wizard, which is the motif I was addressing with my analogy. Since this obviously isn't your claim, how are you distinguishing between a fantasy and folkloric wizard?
5. A wildman of the forest is naked and hairy. An archetypal wizard wears a pointy hat and baggy robes. You can't have the appearance of both at the same time, it's either one motif or the other. If I have a source that says that he is a wildman of the forest, that automatically excludes him from looking like an archetypal wizard. If the fruit looks like an apple, it can't also look like an orange.
6. Morgan le Fay not being a sorceress by having been a fairy? If you really want to drag up things like that, I can cite Robert de Boron's account of Merlin as an antichrist, or how in Estoire de Merlin he is described as a figure of evil, as well as many other accounts of Merlin, all inconsistent with each other. Even more reason that he is a bad example of the typical appearance of a wizard.

--—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 08:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

If you are arguing only his appearance, not about his role -- why not? Did he only look like a wild man of the woods? No, your own citations declare that he was a wild man of the woods. If you are not arguing against the role, it can only be that this element in the tradition was not noteworthy -- in which case, it's not noteworthy enough for the appearance, either.

1. Again, you have to provide evidence that the difference in appearance is noteworthy in folklore.

2. You have cited a source that says it was Odin. I have cited two experts sources that say that Merlin is among the sources.

3. Calling it a different concept doesn't make it one.

4. Odin is not and can not be the sole source of the image by your own words given in the article: a wide-brimmed hat. Either the image has more than one source -- since stereotypical wizards wear, as we all know, pointy hats -- or Odin is ruled out from the start.

5. I was arguing that he was a source.

6. Of course the same fruit can look like an orange and an apple. If put to the task I could make one look like the others. Lancelot as well as Merlin is often depicted as having run wild and become a wild man of the woods. It doesn't change the central image of them in the folklore is respective a knight and a wizard.

7. Ah, but in these anti-Christ and evil examples -- what does he look like? You did say you were arguing only about appearance. (If you want to argue about roles, I would need evidence of noteworthiness.) Goldfritha 22:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

A wildman of the woods is a role that can not be seperate from its appearance, and historically this is the case (you can't be a wildman of the woods and wear a suit, for example). A wizard is a role that can be seperate from its typical appearance, and historically this is the case. Merlin being called a wildman on the woods describes him in role as well as appearance. Merlin being called a wizard does not necessarily describe him in appearance. And sources that call him a wizard do not necessarily mean that he wore a pointy hat, but sources that say he is a wildman do neccessarily say that he was a naked hairy man.

1. The original myth being different than later retellings makes it notable.
2. How immature is it to start counting how many sources you have to try and prove me wrong? If I can find one expert source that says that Odin is the origin of the image, then it stands to reason that I can find more, rendering the numbers of expert sources meaningless. And to prove my point, I also cite Bran, Odin, and the Fisher King: Norse Tradition and the Grail Legends by Alby Stone. There, now we both have two expert citations.
3. They are different concepts. I used the words "Influence" and "Inspiration" to represent these concepts, not argue semantics of their definitions. But if you don't like that, then how about using "Original inspiration behind a phenomenon" and "Popular early example of a phenomenon that influences other examples of the same phenomenon". I just thought "Inspiration" and "Influence" would be easier to type, and should still be clear enough in my context. Obviously, this wasn't the case.
4. So now you are nitpicking at one detail and using it to derail the rest? That in itself is faulty logic, but ignoring that allow me to address your issue about his hat. Typical wizards also appear with wide-brimmed hats that aren't pointy (just look at Wotan who is pictured in the article). Wizards also appear with pointy hats that are wide-brimmed (just look at the other image in the article). So the three types of hats most often worn by typical wizards are Pointy, Pointy with a wide-brim, and wide-brim. 2 out of 3 is pointy, and 2 out of 3 is wide-brimmed. Are you honestly trying to tell me that the typical image of a wizard excludes the wide-brim? You're gonna need a source for that. And even if you do find one, you still have to explain why that would make the slightest bit of difference in regards to the overall image, which is still identical to Odin.
5. "I was arguing that he was a source." I... have no idea what this statement of yours does for your argument or against mine. You've made this more than clear many times, and I don't see how this answers my question about distinguishing between "fantasy" and "folkloric". Please elaborate.
6. Then do so. Demonstrate to me how you can make a fruit look like both an apple and an orange.
7. According to Robert de Boron, he was a shapeshifter. I only brought that up to point out that your comparison to Morgan le Fay is baseless. In order for your comparison to apply I would have to be arguing that Merlin is not a wizard because he is a wildman, and as I have pointed out many times already, I never said that Merlin was not a wizard.

--—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 20:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

"Just look at the Wotan picture" -- except, of course, the image of Wotan is included as an image of Wotan, not an image of a wizard. If you look at the images in commons for Wotan, you will discover that the "wide-brimmed hat" he wears is never a pointy one.

"How immature is it to start counting how many sources you have to try and prove me wrong?" -- compared to what? To keep holding out a single source you have to try to prove me wrong? To ignore those two sources I have already given until I point out that, actually, more sources are against you than for you, and then, instead of refuting them, call pointing that out "immature"? Goldfritha 02:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

"...never a pointy one"? Never say never. 1 2 3 4. And that's just from a quick google search, I'm sure I could find more if I really delved into researching it. But there's no point in such research: as I said, even if the hat being pointy doesn't match, you still have to source that the typical image of a wizard excludes the wide-brim for your comment to have any merit, and then after that you still have to explain why that makes a difference when the overall appearance is still identical to Odin even if the hat isn't pointy. Personally, I don't think you can, because I can name several wizards off the top of my head that have wide-brimmed hats, and not all are pointy: Elminster Aumar, Red Mage, Gandalf, etc.

If I can find one expert source, then it's reasonable to assume that I can find more, as I demonstrated. As wiki-editors, we should take this into consideration when addressing other editors points. Your comment simplified into a simple "You only have one source, and I have TWO!! That means I'm right!" statement, and that message is what I was calling immature. This isn't a vote count. Even if someone only has one expert source verses another person's five, it still holds merit as an expert source. But this is a moot point, because we both have two expert sources now, and it's reasonable to assume that both of us can find more, so comparing numbers is both meaningless and disruptive to the overall discussion. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 15:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I have let you distract me. You have claimed that 1. Merlin was a woodwose, for which you have provided references. 2. That this somehow requires that the statement that he is among the wizards who have influence the modern image to be limited -- for which you have not. Provide a reference for that, which is what you wanted to modify. Goldfritha 01:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Incidentially, no, you have not substantiated your claims about Inspiration vs. Influence -- either that they are different concepts or that they support your claims about Merlin.

And if you do not want other editors' to draw your attention to their sources, you shouldn't ignore them in the first place, call pointing them out immature in the second, and call pointing them out meaningless and disruptive in the third. You have to address them. Goldfritha 01:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I believe you misunderstand me. I have made two claims:

1. Merlin is not always depicted as the typical image of a wizard.
2. Odin is the original source for the image of a typical wizard.

I have substantiated my claims as thus:

1. I have provided four expert sources that say that Merlin was a Wildman of the woods (Adolf Helen, John Granrose, Emily Rebekay Huber and Geoffrey of Monmouth himself).
2. I have provided two sources that say that the typical wizard image of Merlin was inspired by Odin (David Day and Alby Stone). One of them also says that Odin is the direct source of the archetypal wizard image itself (David Day).

I have not substantiated any claim about Merlin not being an influence on the modern image, because I have not made any such claim. What I wish to modify, is only the prose that states that Merlin is the source, when I have two sources that say that Odin is the source for Merlin in turn. My Inspiration vs influence comments were a clarification, not a claim that requires sourcing. Odin is the original inspiration behind the image of a wizard. Merlin is occasionally an example of said image and is an influence to other wizards, but is not the original inspiration for the image. Incidently, I never ignored your sources and citations, in fact, I have consistently responded to every point you have made. Can you make the same claim? You still have not responded to what the difference between a "fantasy" and "folkloric" wizard is. Nor have you responded to how you can make a fruit look like both an apple and an orange. Nor have you responded to several other points. I did not call you pointing out your sources immature, I called using your sources as a reason to ignore mine immature. And I did not call you pointing out your sources meaningless and disruptive, I called comparing numbers of sources meaningless and disruptive. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 07:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to modify "only the prose that states that Merlin is the source," then you should be doing is reading the article.

There being absolutely no such assertion in the article. Goldfritha 01:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

(As for apples and oranges: paint and glue and some plastic leaves. Really. I didn't realize you were serious. It does not strengthen your argument to assert that you were. Goldfritha 01:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC))

"It predates the fantasy genre, being derived from the traditional image of wizards, such as Merlin. Some theorize that this is modeled after the Norse god Odin..." That statement right there. I originally modified it to say that Odin was explicitly the source of the image, which is what my sources say. You modified it to the current phrasing that implies that Merlin (and other such wizards which are not currently identified) is the source of the image, and that Odin is an alternative theory. I wish to change this to be more clear that Odin was the source. Yet you reverted it, that's why I continued this discussion instead of an edit war.

Again, you misunderstand my point. Reread the analogy that I made: "If the fruit looks like an apple, it can't also look like an orange." My concept of the fruit was that you can't make a fruit look like both an apple and an orange simultaneously. Sure, you can make a fruit look like an apple, and you can make it look like an orange, but you can't make it look like both. If a fruit already looks like an apple, then it doesn't also look like an orange. How was I unclear the first time? --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 02:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Section Break

We've done much back-and-forth discussion, but exactly what are we arguing about? I feel we both have lost track of our original assertions, so let's start over with a new summary and see what exactly we are dissagreeing about. I'll go first:

I feel that it should be noted that Odin is the original source of the iconic image of a wizard. The phrase "some theorize" does not convey this concept, and my sources make it clear that not only is Merlin only sometimes compliant with such an image, but that his appearance in that image itself is directly inspired by Odin. Therefore, I propose using:

"The traditional image of wizards, such as how Merlin is sometimes described,<ref> predates the fantasy genre and is derived from the Norse god Odin, whom is described in his wanderer guise as being an old man with a long gray beard, baggy robes, a wide-brimmed hat and walking with a staff.<ref>"

I feel this is completely true and completely verifiable by my many sources (2 aout Odin as the source, 4 about Merlin as a woodwose and not a typical wizard). If this is unclear in a way that I do not percieve, then I am open to suggestions on how to rephrase it. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 03:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The only source I see is:

"Odin, the king of gods in Norse Mythology is believed by David Day to serve as 'the model for the wandering Wizard and Magicians from Merlin to Gandalf' (31)" - John Pike on "Magic Swords, Mythic Creatures, and Mighty Warriors: Archetypal Patterns in Fantasy Literature" citing: Day, David. Tolkien's Ring. New York: Barnes and Noble Books, 1999.

Ove or two more would be nice if you want to state this as a fact. Otherwise I'd rather see it read "David Day writes that..." futurebird 03:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

What futurebird said.

Plus, "That statement right there." does not say, as you assert, that Merlin is the source. Goldfritha 18:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Great work here

I have to say that this is some excellent work here. I especially like the collaboration that seems to have happened on the talk page. I really think that you could reach GA status even if you can't hit FA with it, yet.Slavlin 07:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Didn't wizards originate from Iceland?:::: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.68.144.36 (talk) 16:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Asian Wizards!!!!

I noticed that the only mention of them is the fictional wushu. I hope I'm not the only one that has heard of the weizka in Burma and northern Thailand. A cognate term also appears in India. I hope someone else knows that the term wizard, which derives from the PIE root wid/vid is akin to words for "wizard" in Sanskrit (vidyadhara), Pali (vijjadhara) and Burmese (weizka)(the common root wid/vid present throughout, although in Burma it was merely an Indian loanword). WE need to expand the article to include the broader range of occult practices, and maybe beliefs(?), around the world and particularly in countries that have Indo-European languages or loanwords (since it's an easy place to start). To be sure, Chinese legends are important; but let's move beyond trends and understand wizardry the world round; since it has been taken seriously by people for millenia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardtgreer (talk • contribs) 04:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is about wizards in fantasy. Wizardry around the world is important only if you can demonstrate that it has a demonstratable influence on fantasy wizards. Goldfritha (talk) 01:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Other magical stories?

The long list of magical stories cited in this article has some glaring omissions-- in particular, the Inheritance cycle by Christopher Paolini, which contains very well-developed ideas of what magic is, how magic-users are categorized, how they use their powers, etc. Including references to it would really add to the article.

70.56.164.239 (talk) 02:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

In the "Limits" section, a detailed digression on the magic system of "The Name of the Wind" was about the length of the total mention of all other sources; I condensed it down to one sentence while transcribing the original passage to a section on the book's own page. Wpell (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Elric of Melnibone precedes Ged/Sparrowhawk of Earthsea

"Ursula K. Le Guin's A Wizard of Earthsea explored the question of how wizards learned their art, introducing to modern fantasy the role of the wizard as protagonist."

Moorcock introduced Elric of Melnibone in 1961. Wizard of Earthsea came out in 1968. Is Elric not a wizard, or not a protagonist or is Moorcock's Elric/Stormbringer series not modern fantasy? Or is this original research?

[Note: There may be earlier wizards in modern fantasy than Elric...] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.141.104.87 (talk) 02:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Warlock - Two faced?

Whilst this article seems to be based on Fantasy - I'm surprised that no-one has commented that the true meaning of Warlock come from an old English word (warleca?) meaning two-faced, and is applied to a witch, male or female - the term is unisexual, who had betrayed their coven. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.23.73.52 (talk) 10:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Magical materials

I deleted the following passage, since I have no idea what it's trying to say. Can anyone fix it?

One factor in this development has been that wizards in fantasy more frequently go on quests; the wizard who is merely consulted in his tower may be surrounded by useful equipment and substances, even in a fantasy work, but the questing wizard must carry what he needs. Wizards who remain in one place, such as those a hero consults, often own many magical items. One who lives in a cottage may have it filled with drying herbs for their magical properties, fantasy herbs being particularly noted for their healing powers;[1]:458 richer ones may own more valuable materials, such as crystal balls for scrying purposes.[1]:846

ref: Clute, John; Westfahl (1999). The Encyclopedia of Fantasy (1st ed.). New York: St. Martin's Griffin. ISBN 0-312-19869-8.

Prof. Squirrel (talk) 02:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Magician (fantasy). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070103135008/http://www.sfwa.org/writing/worldbuilding4.htm to http://www.sfwa.org/writing/worldbuilding4.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 6 February 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the pages at this time, per the discussion below; also note related recent discussions at Talk:Sorcerer and Talk:Wizard. Dekimasuよ! 17:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

---

• Magician (fantasy) → Wizard
• Wizard → Wizard (disambiguation)

– While there are several potential titles we could use, the major archetypes described in this article are primarily described as "wizards". Probably due to major franchises, usage in book sources has spiked very highly in recent years (note that 'magician' in this search doesn't distinguish from illusionists/performers, so the lead is perhaps even greater). Netoholic @ 09:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose I was always of the belief that Wizard and Witch had a sort of male/female dichtotomy. Whereas "Magician" could imply both male or female. The title is still kind of awkward but this definitely isn't a viable replacement._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• Witch and Wizard are both gender-neutral in certain instances, but even if you're right, I don't think we need to specifically make this article stretch to include so many conflicted archetypes. There already exists witchcraft, which covers what you might think of as the female version. This article is already somewhat male-inclined and likely to remain so, no matter what title. I'm just trying to make it the best title we can, and perhaps that change will make it focus a bit better, rather than try to be the catch-all that it already is. -- Netoholic @ 11:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• Easy support per WP:NATURAL and arguably WP:COMMONNAME. I'm pretty sure Actor and Emperor are titles, too. Red Slash 12:46, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, same rationale as the RM on Talk:Wizard that just closed. The fantasy and paranormal articles are of equal prominence, and in the case of wizard there are several other high profile, high traffic targets. —Xezbeth (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• @Xezbeth: Once the page is moved, its incentive to incorporate both the fantasy archetype and the paranormal practitioners in their own sections in the article. The fantasy has its roots in real history, I'm not sure why we try to separate them. I see this page becoming more like a WP:CONCEPTDAB. -- Netoholic @ 18:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 28 August 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved per the consensus below L293D (☎ • ✎) 00:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

---

Magician (fantasy) → Magician (supernatural) – Per WP:CONSISTENCY and WP:CONPRIME as the main article is listed at Magic (supernatural). Rreagan007 (talk) 22:05, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment My take at magic (supernatural) was that "real" magic was the primary topic, with the understanding that that doesn't imply that there's actually any such thing as real magic (a concept doesn't have to be instantiated to be the main referent of its name). And I thought that article should just be called magic. But for a variety of reasons that was unable to achieve consensus, and we got to magic (supernatural) as a sort of compromise.
  Given that we were unable to agree on a primary topic for magic, it's not clear that CONPRIME is really relevant. Also I think the case for making "real" magicians the primary topic for magician is rather less compelling than the parallel case for magic; I suspect that most people think of stage magicians first.
  Finally, even if "real" magicians are the most important topic and ought to be the primary target, I don't really think this article would be the ideal article about them, as this article seems to be pretty heavily skewed towards fiction specifically. --Trovatore (talk) 06:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Secondary comment One might read that and wonder why I didn't put "oppose" instead of "comment". The fact is that I think having an article about "real" (or "supernatural") magicians might be a good idea, and I think that magicians-in-fiction-and-fantasy is a natural subtopic of that (those magicians do the things that real magicians would do if there were real magicians; they just do it in a fictional environment). So it could be a plausible outcome to move the article to magician (supernatural) and rewrite it, in such a way that the current content becomes a subtopic. Maybe. Would need more discussion. --Trovatore (talk) 06:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - This article deals with the fantasy Magician, as such "fantasy" is the best disambiguater, while using "supernatural" would hint at real-world magicians using enhanced magical abilities. One small problem, there are no real Magicians. There are people using "tricks" and speed of hand to make it seem as if such things are "magical". --Gonnym (talk) 08:38, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. Actually your "one small problem" is no problem at all. We also have an article on unicorns, and there aren't any of those either. It would of course be a fundamentally different article from this one. --Trovatore (talk) 16:51, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
    • If for any reason, someone would want to move unicorn to unicorn (supernatural) I'd oppose for the same reasons as they are not real and "fantasy" should be used. --Gonnym (talk) 21:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
      • It makes no difference whatsoever whether they are real or not, for purposes of determining what the article should be called. --Trovatore (talk) 21:43, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - although I respect Rreagan007's suggestion, I think that some confusion has crept in that has conflated two different things. The article on "Magic (supernatural)" deals with actual beliefs and practices that occur in the real world; people who believe in and/or actually cast hexes, as well as occultists like Aleister Crowley who actually referred to their practices as "magic/k". (In fact, most editors seem to want that article renamed to just "Magic", but there's a sufficiently large minority blocking that at each requested move). This article, "Magician (fantasy)", appears to deal with the character of the magician as it appears in medieval romance and modern fantasy fiction: Merlin, Harry Potter, that sort of thing. One is about reality; the other about fantasy (literature, that is). Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per above comments. The problem may come with the unfortunate descriptor 'supernatural', which "conjures up" images of Abbott and Costello wandering through a haunted house pursued by a guy in a sheet, so it sounds like the page should go here but doesn't. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - While both contain folklore, one's scope is clearly about literature (where fantasy is a better description than supernatural or paranormal) while the other addresses the religious phenomena. —PaleoNeonate – 11:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - The article that the nom appears to be looking for, already exists in the page history of Magician (paranormal). It looks like it was turned into a redirect due to lack of sourcing, among other things. If the nom wanted to improve that article, perhaps then that article could be moved to Magician (supernatural). But I woud not suggest removing it's redirect without dong work on developing it, or someone may nomnte it for deletion. I hope this helps. - jc37 03:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Fantasy and supernatural are two different things. Supernatural implies folklore, not invented fiction. The notion of a magician in fantasy is different than that of the occult._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Citation needed

This article have 12 "citation needed" … Half the number of references it currently has! 5.114.228.14 (talk) 09:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)