h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

...didn't the term "hocus pocus" come from Latin masses?....

And before you ask, I ent sure about anything.

B'El, could I suggest that you take this to your or Dr Sausage's PS to discuss? You both seem in agreement that there is no reason why this can't go in the EG, and this thread would be better used for discussing the entry rather than wider philosophical points

As you have done for your other magic-related entries I'd also put some kind of disclaimer in there Seraphina

You're right Kelly, I'm sorry.

If my entries need a disclaimer so do all the others related to religion n things not scientifically proven yet surely as I think Gnomon said, the first paragraph is enough!

To make things short: Yes.

Yes. I too agree with kelli, that a disclaimer should be added.
Yes. I too agree with kelli, that we should discuss this off PR.
Yes. I would call any mumbo-jumbo hokus-pokus (that includes the literal interpretation of the Bible, the Torah, the Kama Sutra and/or reports on UFO abductions.)

SAUSAGE

"If my entries need a disclaimer so do all the others related to religion n things not scientifically proven yet"

Right! Either that or some sentence or phrase, not necessarily a big disclaimer, just saying something in the lines of: Look this is in the realm of superstition.

"...the first paragraph is enough!"

No. And 'Gnomon' is not an argument. Look. Pagans and witches are real people. They do real stuff. Real ceremonies, whatever. You can talk to them. Some (Most?) of them also do superstitious stuff - like telling the furture from a moonlight-loaded crystal ball.

If you think the first paragraph is enough you are implying that anything related to witches and pagans is superstition, or (pardon me) hokus-pokus or mumbo-jumbo or scientifically not proven stuff.

SAUSAGE

I'm really not appreciating the condecension in your tone now! ""Witches and pagans are real people who do real things, speak to them"" umm I am a Witch as is quite commonly known here. I am neither stupid nor a five year old, please don't talk to me as such!
When i say the first paragraph is enough I mean that I feel stating that scrying is a practice used by those who believe in and use magical arts is enough to let people know they are reading something not believed in by everyone.

I am sorry if you think I am being condecending. I'll try to be clearer.

The argument in question is the following:

You are not willing to add a disclaimer-ish thing because "...the first paragraph is enough!"

My reply was "No. Pagans and witches are real people. They do real stuff. Real ceremonies, whatever. You can talk to them. Some (Most?) of them also do superstitious stuff - like telling the furture from a moonlight-loaded crystal ball."

Meaning: Witches and pagans are real. Real persons who do very real things. If you are a witch you know that. With 'you can talk to them' I meant: *One* can talk to them.

Now: "If you think the first paragraph is enough you are implying that anything related to witches and pagans is superstition."

Clearer now?

Scrying is something you have to believe in. You don't have to believe in witches and pagans. They are there. Because they do it (scrying) it doesn't mean automatically it's not real, and neither does it mean the contrary. It just means they practise it. As such this is not enough as an explanatory passage - for me, at least.

Look. In your other Entry about "Candle Magic" you solve the problem nicely. You start that Entry like so: "Candle magic is, for those with a belief in such things, one of the most..."

I was just expecting a similar passage in this Entry. And not just restricted to witches and pagans.

SAUSAGE

Serephina, don't get cross. Dr Sausage's command of English isn't perfect, as he is a German-speaking Brazilian. What he said was "you can talk to them" meaning that witches are real people who can be talked to to. Dr Sausage does not belive that magic is "real" in the same way that you and other witches are real. He thinks that there should be a distinction in the Guide between things that are provably real, such as witches and pagans, and things that are not, such as magic.

How about inserting the following as a second sentence:

"Such people believe that we all have an ability to see into the future, and that scrying is a way of focusing this ability into definite results."

Simulpost with Dr S.

Not sure what all the fuss is anyhow, seeing as we have recently had several Entries on the FrontPage concenring as some so subtlely termed it 'hocuspocus' - Candle Magic, Hand of Glory and Pamela the Tarot Card Woman just jumping to mind. Was there such heated discussion when these came into PR? And my current Entry in PR about Worry Dolls could be coined as 'magic' and 'mumbo jumbo' also, but no-one seems to fussed about that either

Can we then just concentrate on the Entry and not the philosophy behind it? That after all is what PR is for.

Sereph - don't give up on this because I think it deserves a mention in the Guide, just as I believe any other aspects of human belief systems deserve a place. Just look at the Entries on Islam we had recently Fantastic stuff. Just because some others may have different understandings or look at the world differently doesn't mean the Guide should. Rant over

I agree with the idea of adding a little on the most common floral/herbal types of charm bags as these are afterall - the most common sort worldwide (I think). This way you'd have a little for the interested reader/researcher to try out for themselves

MJ

By the way, I did put a similar disclaimer into the only Entry I wrote which mentioned God, the one about the name of God:

"For believers in the Christian God, it is a great comfort to know that they can call him by his own proper name, whether they pronounce it 'Jehovah' or 'Yahweh'."

MJ, there wasn't a heated discussion with those entries, because the author agreed to the disclaimer with out any fuss.

and I just realised this Entry is about Scrying, not Charm Bags oops

I think you might need some more factual historical information to give the Entry more creedance perhaps.

ah - 'fuss'. Ambigous word that. But I don't want to argue, I want to concetrate on the Entry.

I just thought about the scrying Sereph - I think you might find if you dig a bit into the topic that there were a few Kings and Queens that relied on scryers to assist in court affairs, even though they also had firm beliefs in certain religions in place. That might be a good way of introducing some more historical background to the Entry. It doesn't have to be much I don't think, just a paragraph. That way you will have a nice balance between what some may see as 'factual' and 'fictional' within the Entry

Any better?

"Scrying1 is a form of divination used commonly by Witches and other believers in and practioners of magical arts such as witches and those who hold the belief that it is possible to foresee the future and answer questions by such means."

This first sentence is a bit rambling now, how about something like this:

Scrying1 is a form of divination used commonly by practioners of magical arts, for example Witches. Those who use it believe it is possible to foresee the future and answer questions by such means.

Would that satisfy everyone?

I'm afraid you've turned that first sentence into a bit of a monster. Why not break it up into two as I suggested?

I apologize for my horrible English. Anyways, I like the way this is turning.

SAUSAGE