Talk:Nigromancy: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:49, 6 April 2010

Occult NA‑class

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OccultWikipedia:WikiProject OccultTemplate:WikiProject OccultOccult
NA	This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This article provides no sources and is potentially completely wrong

Considering -mancy is a suffix referring to divination, I would like to know which Goetic or Renaissance source used Nigromancy in reference to demonic summoning.

The general blanketed use of -mancy referring to any branch of magic is a modern misusage and rarely shows up in any reputable pre-Renaissance source, as such unless proper citation for this article can be provided I'm going to nominate it for deletion as currently it has no factual basis.

I have no doubt the term could have been used in exchange for Necromancy, however in which case it would have referred to divination. As necromancy refers to divination through the dead.

If the term came into play after the Renaissance then it should be noted. As stated before it is highly doubtful the term would have been used as described during the Medieval period.

Sign your posts, you angry soul. --75.72.148.96 (talk) 03:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There does not seem to be any reliable sources to confirm any of this article.Thesniperremix (talk) 12:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the only way to make this article relevant to anything is to base it on Richard Johnson's The Famous Historie of the Seaven Champions of Christendom (1596). --93.172.231.193 (talk) 05:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO the books mentioned in the article do provide enough sources, so I believe the unreferenced can be removed? Maggy Rond (talk) 08:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 There does not seem to be any reliable sources to confirm any of this article.[[User:Thesniperremix|Thesniperremix]] ([[User talk:Thesniperremix|talk]]) 12:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 : I believe the only way to make this article relevant to anything is to base it on Richard Johnson's The Famous Historie of the Seaven Champions of Christendom (1596). --[[Special:Contributions/93.172.231.193|93.172.231.193]] ([[User talk:93.172.231.193|talk]]) 05:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
+::IMHO the books mentioned in the article  do provide enough sources, so I believe the ''unreferenced'' can be removed? [[User:Maggy Rond|Maggy Rond]] ([[User talk:Maggy Rond|talk]]) 08:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)