Talk:Warlock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Removed from main page:

An alien with the ability to alter his body to become different objects, he also finds sustenance by absorbing the energy from any organic materials, leaving a lifeless husk in its wake.

Presumably this is in reference to a film, TV, or video game character, as that is most certainly not what is meant when one refers to a 'warlock' without any other context. In that case, it is imperative to make clear that you are talking about a fictional character, explain which fictional universe it comes from, and use a different page name (this, in my view, is one of the few places where subpages make sense). --Robert Merkel


Contents

[edit] warlock

Among most traditions of neo-pagans, a warlock is a punishment ceremony, not a person. In the ceremony a persons access to magickal power is "locked" and he or she has no ability to perform effective magickal spells, or have access to the energies at all. This is one of the most severe punishments that can be meted out among the neo-pagan community, and access to the ceremony itself is restricted to only the most advanced practitioners. To call someone a warlock is considered a major insult among neo-pagans.

I've been a neopagan since childhood, and I've never heard of this. Source? Or is it someone's fantasy?


Most certainly someones fantasy.Remember that wicca is a new religion founded with purposes similar to those of Scientology and The Church of Satan. Some (former) members of OTO seemed very fond of making their own religions to get as much money as they could. And they created whole new industries. What I'm trying to say is that all of wicca is someones fantasy.168.243.218.6 05:11, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] changes

I cut out what I could identify as purely and entirely wrong, esp. some speculation about Anglo-Saxon apostacy making dubious reference to the chronicles.

In the case of the soi dissant "Warlock rite," I've tried to make it plain that at least one Neo-pagan believes in this, but also that this doesn't mean that most or even many have ever heard of itn (I certainly haven't, and as I was trained, it's about as possible to "lock" someone's access to the "energies" of magic as it is to lock someone's ability to think).

The idea of a "warlocking" seems to be based purely on bad etymology. The linked page explains why and explains what sounds to be a much more plausible origin for the term.

[edit] Good, neutral, bad, male and female

The current version of the first paragraph is somewhat confusing in this regard. It almost seems to imply that in Wicca Male equates with good and Female with Neutral, which I am fairly sure is neither true nor the intended message. I do not want to reword it because I really do not know enough about the subject matter, though. Luis Dantas 12:11, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Could someone please tell wiccans

That what their religion says isn't true to all of witchcraft.

[edit] Warlock in popular culture?

Alot of people don't care about this; to them warlock means a term for a powerful sorcerer.

Or a real cool one.

-Izaak

[edit] Respect

I find it disrespectful to say that certain Religions simply stem out of somones fantasy (Wicca). As all other Religions its based on something prior to it.

Ive been a member of the O.T.O. since 96 and have never heard of members founding their own Reöligions to earn money (Hubbard being the exeption).

The most noted FORMER members who founded Religions are Hubbard and Rudolph Steiner and Steiner doesent seem to have made a buck from Antropsophy.

As far as Warlock goes the only real scholary etymology i have found is what is on the page (Vardalokkur or Vaer Loega).

[edit] stray footnote

Somebody manually created this footnote, but I see no indication of where it is supposed to apply. Moving it here so perhaps somebody can fix it... Frater Xyzzy 21:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

1: Pavlac, Brian A. "10 Common Errors and Myths about the Witch Hunts, Corrected and Commented," Prof. Pavlac's Women's History Resource Site. (October 31, 2001) [1] (October 8, 2003).

[edit] Movie

The TV & Movies section lists the 1959 film "Warlock". This is a Western, set in a town of that name, and has no other connection to the subject of the article. Do people think that should be mentioned om the page, or should the reference be removed altogether? Rojomoke 12:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Foolish Wiccans

Kitmarlowe, I've already contacted you on your talk page explaining why I disagree with your disparaging comments about Wicca and Wiccans, and you haven't chosen to reply or explain your point of view, instead simply adding back some of the disputed statements. You're not improving this article (or the other articles in which you're doing similar things), because you're giving them a strong tone of bias, and you're introducing flakey assertions which probably aren't true.

Take for example your suggestion that Wiccans probably got the "oath-breaker" usage from modern television shows like The Craft and Charmed. That is original research, meaning that is your own opinion, rather than that of any reliable source you've read. I doubt you will find any decent source making this claim, since the widespread usage of this term in Wiccan context goes back at least 35 years. When I was initiated into Wicca in 1997, shortly after that file "The Craft" kicked off the pop-Wicca movement, the word was already in common usage. Traditional Wiccans tend to be rather horrified by "Charmed", "The Craft", "Buffy" etc; I for one have never watched any of these, apart from a couple of early episodes of Charmed. A couple of my teachers (who have never watched any of these shows) can attest to the word's use 35 years ago. It may be that this usage is a modern innovation dating from the 50s or 60s; that's anyone's guess, but it certainly predates pop Wicca.

Now I wouldn't dream of putting any of this information into the article, since it's not based on published sources; however neither should you dream of putting your own unsupported and unsupportable assertions in Wikipedia. Furthermore, these assertions don't seem to be made in the interests of historical accuracy or balanced presentation; instead they seem to be intended as vehicles for denigrating Wicca in comparison to "traditional witchcraft". Please stop this. Remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and one of its fundamental principles is that articles should take a neutral point of view. If you have some historical knowledge, as you seem to, there are much more useful and constructive ways that you can improve the encyclopedia, and promote your preferred variety of witchcraft (such as by improving the associated articles). You can even make informed criticisms of Wicca, and they will be welcomed by the community here, as long as they're actually based on real research, rather than just your own prejudice. Wikipedia is much more rewarding when you start making really decent edits (rather than poorly thought-out edits that will be quickly reverted). You then start adding to human knowledge. Have fun. Fuzzypeg☻ 21:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Setting your pompous finger wagging aside, may I humbly suggest you take all this misplaced Wiccan stuff out of the Warlock article? Who really cares what "terms" Wiccans identify with or don't? If anybody desperately wants to know, let them read it the "Wicca" article. KitMarlowe2 17:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other editors: Wiccan use of term "Warlock"?

User:KitMarlowe2 is repeatedly adding comments criticising Wiccan use of the term "warlock". Does anyone else think his edits are inappropriate? I see this as an issue of WP:NPOV. I'm not even bothered whether Wicca gets mentioned in this article or not, but someone put the information here, so it may as well be correct and well-written. I've added some verification for the use of the term (The Witches' Voice seems reasonable, and KitMarlowe was clamouring for a reference); I haven't bothered to find verification for the history of that usage though. If anyone wants to put the work in and find some sources regarding this history, that would be great; in the meantime KitMarlowe's unfounded suggestions that we got it off the telly seem a bit insulting. Anyone want to add their moral support here? Fuzzypeg☻ 20:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me add some etymology I have found from a friend's research: The American Dictionary of the English Language defines warlock as "a male witch, a wizard" but does give the etymology as Anglo-Saxon waerlogga, a breaker of an agreement -- waer, a compact, and leogan, to lie," but also adds, "modified by Icelandic vardh-lokk-r, a magical song."--Vidkun 23:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Vidkun, curmudgeonly old KitMarlowe2 here: I very much approve your current edit. Now, if only we could find those vanished citations... I've looked for them, but am loathe to attempt anything for fear of screwing things up...Can you help? KitMarlowe2 19:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the etymology:

  • Dictionary.com says "ME warloghe, -lach, OE wǣrloga oathbreaker, devil, equiv. to wǣr covenant + -loga betrayer (deriv. of léogan to lie)"[2]
  • The American Heritage Dictionary says "Middle English warloghe, from Old English wǣrloga, oath-breaker : wǣr, pledge ... + -loga, liar (from lēogan, to lie ... )"
  • The Online Etymology Dictionary says "O.E. wærloga "traitor, liar, enemy," from wær "faith, a compact" (cf. O.H.G. wara "truth," O.N. varar "solemn promise, vow;" see very; cf. also Varangian) + agent noun related to leogan "to lie" (see lie (v.1)). Original primary sense seems to have been "oath-breaker;" given special application to the devil (c.1000), but also used of giants and cannibals. Meaning "one in league with the devil" is recorded from c.1300. Ending in -ck and meaning "male equivalent of witch" (1568) are from Scottish."[3]
  • The Oxford English Dictionary says, among other things:[4]
    • "OE. wǣr-loȝa wk. masc. traitor, enemy, devil, etc."
    • "The first element is probably OE. wǣr str. fem. covenant ... This is a derivative from the adj. represented by OE. wǣr true"
    • "The second element [is] an agent-n. related to OE. léoȝan to lie, belie, deny"
    • "[Oath-Breaker] seems to have been the original sense of the present word, but the special application to the Devil (either as a rebel, or a deceiver) was already in OE. the leading sense. The applications to sorcerers, with especial reference to the power of assuming inhuman shapes, and to monsters (esp. serpents), appear to be developments, partly due to Scriptural language, of the sense ‘devil’."
    • And crucially, concerning the origin of the modern forms with -ck: "ON. varðlokkur wk. fem. pl. ... incantation, suggested already in Johnson, is too rare (? occurring once), with regard to the late appearance of the -k forms, to be considered."

Given all this, I think it's very reasonable to remove the mention of "varðlokkur" as a possible etymology, and the (uncited) "highly speculative" etymology of it as "man of the logs". Anyone opposed? --Miskwito 08:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The "logs" etymology could be removed, but I would hesitate to remove the varðlokkur etymology. If that etymology has been suggested by any "reliable" sources (such as The American Dictionary of the English Language, noted by Vidkun above) then I would propose leaving it in, but stating that it is considered inadmissable and cite the evidence given above. Fuzzypeg☻ 01:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Is "The American Dictionary of the English Language" referring to Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary? If so, and if no reliable modern sources still support that varðlokkur had an effect, then I think there might be an argument for it to be removed. Otherwise, you're right, and it should stay in with mention made that it's considered unlikely --Miskwito 22:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I wonder; perhaps we have good cause for removing it, but I think we'd save ourselves a lot of work if we keep it in but explain why it's inadmissible, simply because there's a significant group of people out there who identify as "warlocks" following the varðlokkur derivation. Unless we want to be revert a new addition of that derivation to the article every second day, we should perhaps at least keep a mention of it. I think there are a significant number of people out there who have this belief, so even if we don't have a single good attributable source, it might still make sense to say something like "Webster's 1828 dictionary gave the derivation blah-blah but this is now considered inadmissable because blah-blah". Fuzzypeg☻ 05:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. --Miskwito 05:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pahuson strikes again

Look, we've been through this ad nauseum when you were calling yourself KitMarlowe2. If you want to say that "warlock" originally only meant "to bind" in a Wiccan context, then provide evidence. If you want to say that the "oath-breaker" usage is a later development, then provide evidence. If you want to say that Wiccan usage of the term is based on Buffy the Vampire Slayer, then provide evidence. It makes no difference whether you're Paul Huson or Winston Churchill; you're making unsupported assertions about a tradition that you're clearly quite ignorant of. And if your intention is just to bag Wicca, then please go elsewhere. Fuzzypeg☻ 06:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] X in Games, or X in popular culture

The entire section "warlock in games" has ONE reference. The section is a waste of space, as those uses are not notable.--Vidkun 14:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The introduction

The introduction seems to imply that there really was such a thing as a warlock who could fly on a broomstick... Although not blatant, the implication needs to be taken out of the context of the paragraph, and present that this is, or may be a fantastical representation of the term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.172.44 (talk) 11:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

I cut out some vandalism in the entymology section referring to warlock's as "broken." This was a reference to the World of Warcraft character class. --Joel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.87.128 (talk) 03:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] World of Warcraft

I removed the entire section referencing the Warlock class in the popular game as a result of its apparent and juvenile bias and lack of relevance to the subject.

Well, no reason to be rude about it. The actual reason for removal is that this is covered in a different article, which can be found easily from the disambiguation link at the head of the article. Fuzzypeg★ 01:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Time to remove some trivia

I'm preparing to start removing some (most) of the "In popular culture" section. This just seems to be a runaway listing of trivia. I propose that we only mention pop-culture "warlocks" if these instances have had a significant role in shaping or changing conceptions of what a warlock is.

As a slightly exaggerated analogy, trees are depicted in a variety of pop-culture settings, but the Tree article doesn't list these, because they haven't really significantly changed the popular concept of "tree". However the mathematical concept of a tree as a kind of graph is mentioned, because this introduces a new meaning to the term, as used by a significant group of people.

For comparison, have a look at Witchcraft#Witches in popular culture. Even that's starting to need a bit of clean-up, but it's closer to what I'd like to see here: a (roughly) chronologically based sketch of the development of a concept.

Any comments before I start deleting? Fuzzypeg★ 04:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops. I meant to check that before I posted. Mathematical trees actually aren't mentioned in the Tree article. Oh well, you get the idea anyway. Fuzzypeg★ 04:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Right. Done and dusted. Any details anyone wants to add about, say, warlocks in Warcraft, do it in the Warlock (World of Warcraft) article. Or for warlocks in Charmed, do it in the Charmed article. Fuzzypeg★ 01:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)