Talk:Scrying/Archive 1

Untitled

I have updated the recommended reading list and made it more on subject, the titles previously listed mainly referred to runes. I have also removed the statement about Christianity and The Craft, as Scrying is not limited to those involved in Neo-Paganism. Christianity historically outlawed all forms of divination and did not place any particular focus on Scrying. Further more Scrying is currently practiced by many involved in the Christian Spiritualist movement. --Solar 15:03, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A comment that must be made* I am not sure which originated first but there is another site http://www.crystalinks.com/scrying.html that says almost the same thing, many times word for word. Are they by the same author or has one of these articles been stolen?

Erroneous Entry

I'm not making any edits, but seriously, are we REALLY including information based on South Park episodes now? The entry you have on Joesph Smith is completely fictional. It has no basis in history. I personally don't care about which particularly bigotry, for or against, Wiki writers have towards Mormonism, but the fact remains that the entire "stone in a hat" story is a fabrication of relatively recent invention. It's not how Smith described the "translation" process, and it's not how anyone in his family described it. Are we going to start quoting the Salamander Letters as "history" as well, merely because it reinforces a popular Anti-Mormon bias?

At very least, I'd recommend an edit that at least mentions that the description given here in no way reflects how Smith actually claimed to have translated the Book of Mormon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.33.202.98 (talk) 21:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trapezohedron

'Edward Kelley who employed the more familiar form of a small Crystal ball or Shew stone, and later on a less familiar Trapezohedron' although it is true that Kelley used a Shew Stone, I do not know the source of the Trapezohedron reference. --Solar 12:05, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hello I apologize if i'm not posting this in the right place. I did register but forgot my password

anyway I just have 2 comments. It has always been my understanding that nostradamus used mercury not water for his scrying purposes. The other comment is that the Maya also appear to have used scrying as several scenes on painted ceramics show an individual gazing into a miror. Mirors made out of polished pyrite (iron oxide I think) have been found all over Mesoamerica.

sincerely Philémon

History

In regard to the deleting of dowsing and physiognomy: scrying is another word for divination....and there are many forms of scrying. I do not agree that dowsing or physiognomy are not forms of scrying. The definition at the top clearly reads (in a nut shell) that scrying is a method of using a medium to practice divination, therefore, scrying is not limited to just reflective surfaces as mediums. I added to the definition and added a footnote to dowsing. I will continue working on supporting the content with references. Thanks Brina700 08:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scrying in my understanding is a practice which utilizes clairvoyant faculties i.e. the visual aspect of psychical ability. This is normally accompanied by a visual aid such as a crystal ball, black mirror or bowl of water. In this way it has a closer relationship to remote viewing or astral projection than dowsing and no real relationship to physiognomy. Scrying is not simply another name for divination, scrying being a much more specific practice than that. Although scrying can be used for divinatory purposes it has also been employed for pathworking. The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn for example referred to scrying as traveling in the spirit vision. To simply say that scrying is a general word that means divination weakens the article and is very likely untrue. I will invite other users to join the discussion and see if we can clarify things. Best wishes - Solar 09:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Solar, that's a great idea. I would love to hear from others because the stuff I'm finding is indicating scrying to be a much broader term. The term scrying refers to the "act" of seeing (using whatever kind of medium)...not to the type of "medium" being used to see. Seeing with "a visual aid such as a crystal ball, black mirror or bowl of water" are called crystallomancy and hydromancy, respectively, and are merely sub-categories of scrying - not the full meaning of scrying. I will not add anymore stuff to the page until we hear from others....and if everyone decides my understanding is inaccurate, I will remove the scrying methods that are not associated to reflective/translucent mediums. Thanks Brina700 15:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another note: Since we are trying to give a "history" of scrying, I thought it was appropriate to add the "early" forms/styles of scrying and the areas they originated from (as all other later forms of scrying descended from those). Brina700 15:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it seems that so far no one has commented, so in order to try and get a clearer idea on the subject I have found some more reputable sources for a definition, please see: User:Solar/Scrying for examples. I must point out that the citation you have included related to dowsing and scrying is very poor and does not conform to Wikipedia standards, see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Dubious_sources, it seems to me that the person who wrote that site does not have a clear understanding of the practice of scrying, and he does not go into any detail in the comment you refer to. On a more personal note I have spoken to several friends who like myself have practiced both dowsing and scrying for many years and none agreed with your definition of dowsing being a form of scrying etc. They do both work using esp (although not all dowsers agree with this) but one is a visual process while the other, dowsing is a kinetic process and often works on a purely unconscious level. I think unless you can give a source that conforms to Wikipedia standards we can safely say that your definition is not an established definition of scrying. Therefore I would propose that we remove those elements I removed previously and add a note, something like some believe scrying to be a wider practice and to include dowsing and physiognomy. I do not wish to argue over these things, it is not a matter of pride for me as I hope it is not for you, so hopefully we can keep the article inline with the majority opinion on the subject. Thank-you. - Solar 13:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed your sources, and I can only say that - while they're excellent sources, there are still other sources out there that state scrying includes other mediums used to "see"...not just transparent/translucent ones. I've researched pages and pages of scrying info and that's what I've found. Anyway, since no one participated in our debate (for either side), and we can both produce sources to back our opinions, I will have to trust that since you claim to work "in the field," you might have an edge on understanding the modern use of this word (that it has a narrower meaning), though I'm not sure the information highway sees it that way. Anyway, I've reconstructed the definition of scrying to downplay the other mediums/bodies, I used "some people believe" language, I created a subheading "Other forms of scrying" and quoted your statement "some people believe it to be a wider practice"; and I also moved the section down toward the end (again to downplay the importance of it). I hope this is a beginning to coming to an agreement about this page. Do you approve of this format? Or... What other suggestions do you have? Brina700 22:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Brina700 I think this is definitely an improvement, although I would still like to see solid sources that backup your additions. I will leave the comment on the page saying that 'Some statements may be disputed or dubious' until some other members of the community have added their opinions. I feel that when writing on subjects like this it is very easy to forget to keep entries NPOV and it is hard to find good sources. I will look into this further and see if the article can be improved. Best wishes. - Solar 09:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We both have an article called crystal gazing and this article called scrying. They are covering the same subject, and scrying may or may not cover something more. I think the stuff about gazing into shiny object should all be moved into crystal gazing, and the scrying article should then refer to it. The word "Scrying" is a bit POV, since it is heavily linked to Divination, fortune-telling, etc. I find crystal gazing more neutral. The Important thing is that we have only one article on the subject.--Kasper Hviid 19:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Development" and "Stub" Tags

In accordance with the idea of developing the article, I have made a couple of grammatical clarifications, specifically addressing formality of tone. Also, I was wondering if the "Stub" tag is still relavent as the article is of substantial length. -- 69.3.222.28 05:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC) (I was not logged in when I posted the above. -- John Hupp 05:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

The stub tag can be removed but IMHO the development tag should stay or be changed to another that clearly states the content of the article may be inaccurate or disputed, as I still feel that 'dowsing' etc., should not be listed as a form of Scrying. This also brings some elements of the history section into dispute. Thanks. - Solar 15:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree about the development tag (though I really only stumbled across this article). Mostly, I was referring to the "Stub" tag. -- John Hupp 23:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dowsing vs scrying

just buzzing around.

scrying may work without a foci.

And dowsing is a child to the parent Divination, and has nothing to do with scrying. Scrying is non-local intelligence access, dowsing is centered here and now + 300 feet. Prometheuspan 03:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1911 britannica material.

For now I have redirected Crystal-gazing here from the list of missing EB 1911 topics. There may be some useful information to incorporate into the article at: http://38.1911encyclopedia.org/C/CR/CRYSTAL_GAZING.htm

If You do add information from that source, please add {{1911}} to the bottom of the article. -- Cimon avaro; on a pogostick. 03:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link update http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Crystal-gazing (Slorri (talk) 18:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Art of scrying

This section... isn't looking so good. What the heck is an "auto-deepening trance?" Is the scrying method described really so general that it is how all forms of scrying have been practiced?

To be honest, it seems written from a very particular view of what scrying is, without regard to how it may have been practiced historically. There seems also to be some overlap between this article and [Divination]. (What with dowsing being included here.) --Starwed 06:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is probably time that dowsing and other forms of divination that are clearly not scrying were removed. There was only ever one source to back up their inclusion, and it was a very poor source that does not conform to Wikipedia policy.

I also agree about terminology like "auto-deepening trance", I think it may be a reference to autosuggestion but it is unclear and should be edited. - Solar 10:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have now removed the references to dowsing and face reading as well as changed the sentence about "auto-deepening trance". - Solar 11:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beginner Scrying

(Unsigned comment by User:Vishvax removed [1] —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-03 03:43Z)

Merge

I recommend Crystal gazing and Hydromancy be merged to Scrying. Comments? —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 01:39Z

I've merged Crystal gazing / Crystallomancy, Hydromancy, Catoptromancy, Crystal ball, Seer stone (non-Mormonism parts thereof) to Scrying, and synthesized, rewritten, and expanded the article. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-03 03:42Z

I'm unmerging them. You should never have done what you did without allowing for proper time for comment -- which, according to the guidelines, is two weeks or so. You gave, at most, a day, and in some cases, minutes. Goldfritha 21:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to weigh in against merging. These are topics worthy of separate development. cat yronwode Catherineyronwode 05:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the Methods of Divination entry, it appears that most of the words ending in '-mancy' have their own Wikipedia entry. If any variations of scrying were to be merged into Scrying then this would have to include all those under the See also section, and the article could become overly bloated Mantarhei (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed text

I have removed text about M. A. Del Rio's hydromancy descriptions (originally merged from the article Hydromancy), because (1) they're mostly not about scrying, but actually about trial by ordeal, (2) I couldn't find references, and (3) it's apparently a copyvio of [2]. For removed text see [3]. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-03 03:40Z

Removed link

I have removed the link to the Spanish article because this one makes reference to a song and not to the art of divination using a crystal ball. In fact, I have been looking for a corresponding article in Spanish and it does not exist. Archael Tzaraath 14:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other Native American traditions

In Jmaes Mooney's book "Myths of the Cherokee", there is a discussion of "life prophecy" (seeing a person's future) by looking into a stone known as an ulunsu'ti, which is removed from the head of an uktena (mythical giant serpent). Should this be in the article?

Sounds interesting. Provide the reference and it would fit right in, I think. Goldfritha 02:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging?

So what's the consensus of merging this article with the others listed? Cadsuane Melaidhrin 20:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I'm in favor, though I'm not sure where the discussion is, or if there has been one. COGDEN 20:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Above Quarl mentions this from a while ago. I did want to get started on merging/editing it but I wanted to make sure everybody's in agreement. Cadsuane Melaidhrin 22:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be in favour of merging most of the proposed pages to merge here, with the possible exception of crystal ball; that one may have enough independent material to stand alone, since crystal balls are also used as purely decorative items. - Smerdis of Tlön 04:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Smerdis. Merge everything but Crystal ball that might have other applications outside of a direct overlap with scrying. Valley2city 00:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should I give it another week or so to get merging everything but crystal ball? Cadsuane Melaidhrin 00:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am against merging. I believe that each of these articles can -- and should -- be developed on its own. Each has its own techniques, list of authors, and history. I prefer to use wiki-links and "see also" tags. cat yronwode Catherineyronwode 05:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there's so much technique that is unique to crystal_gazing please add it (with references). It's a very anemic article. Kortoso (talk) 22:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ummin and Thummin

There's a bit of a contradiction in the translation of these words. According to the Ummin and Thummin page there are several translations, but on this page that isn't really explained. So I'll fiddle with it!Ticklemygrits 11:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed text:

I have removed:

"To start practicing scrying, you can try making your own psychomanteum, a scrying room."

Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not an instruction manual, guidebook or textbook. User:Pedant (talk) 04:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Specific objects that have been used for scrying

This is a silly list. Does anyone else concur? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.253.186.20 (talk) 02:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity and Scrying

This article seems taken over by one religions specific view of scrying (and how it is evil) and has very little to do with the actual art of scrying... It isn't even explained what scrying IS until the very end... This article should be about scrying first and foremost and have very little about any one specific religions views of it, if at all. Who cares if Christians think it's evil? The article isn't entitled "Christianity and Scrying" Christians think everything they know nothing about is evil, so what else is new... Jihiro (talk) 21:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, although maybe the mention of its use by Aaron could be left in? I'll delete the rest of it though. Calindreams (talk) 14:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Latter Day Saint movement

Moved commentary here (out of article) which had recently been added by mistake/misunderstanding.--208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC) [reply]

REFERENCE SHOULD ALSO BE MADE TO LATTER DAY SAINT BELIEF CONCERNING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN URIM AND THUMMIM IN THE BIBLE AND THE URIM AND THUMMIM IN JOSEPH SMITHS POSSESSION.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.39.34.41 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 6 July 2011

That material is found at Seer stone (Latter Day Saints) & Urim and Thummim (Latter Day Saints), as since those articles are already linked-to within this section in the article, not sure what use adding this other material would be. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the entry on Raymond Moody... He is not a parapsychologist, he is a: psychiatrist and a PHD and philosophy. (JM / 06-28-2012) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.160.78.193 (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image in mirror

How does the "Image of a young man appearing in the reflection of a mirror" add to our understanding of scrying? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see it has now been removed. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's now back, again, as Iknowthegoods (talk · contribs) added it again to this article. That editor's last edit summary was:

"Undid revision 619860958 by AsteriskStarSplat A photo of modern practice. While you may feel it adds nothing, your subjective opinion differs with many & shouldn't dictate was does or does not interest readers."

@Iknowthegoods: I'd ask that you explain:

who, other than yourself, has identified File:Gazing Mirror.JPG as particularly useful to understanding the topic of this article, and as a valuable addition to the article;
how your image demonstrates any element of scrying other than a person looking in a mirror;
how your prefered image of a person looking in a mirror is superior for illustrative purposes on this article to all of the other images images found in commons:Category:People with mirrors, including the ones I have semi-randomly selected, shown below:

how your image meets wp:Manual of Style/Images in a way superior to all of the images in commons:Category:People with mirrors;
why you do not have a conflict of interest in continually reinserting an image that is credited to you, and lobbying for its inclusion above all of the other other images of people looking in a mirror.

I myself see several other images of people looking at mirrors in commons:Category:People with mirrors that are of higher quality, including being less crowded and clearer. However I don't see how including any image of a person looking in a mirror, in addition to the existing File:Halloween-card-mirror-2.jpg, adds anything substantive to the article. On the contrary, User:Iknowthegoods's image crowds the end of the article, and there is no good location for it currently on the article, even if it were the absolute best "photo of modern practice". As others have questioned this images usefulness, both here on this talk page, as well as by removing the image from the article, I ask that User:Iknowthegoods not reinsert it again until there is a clear consensus on this talk page for it's inclusion. ^—^Asterisk*^Splat^→ 16:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's still not clear to me how the "modern practice of scrying" looks any different to "someone looking in a mirror". Indeed, I'm not sure if anyone other than the person looking in the mirror is meant to be able to see anything different at all, even when the alleged "scrying" is supposed to occur. I suspect that all of those other images at Commons were uploaded without any intention to demonstrate "srcying" at all. As such, their use in this article would be misleading. I guess it's similar to including a picture of someone randomly holding two sticks to demonstrate dowsing (except that the evidence that dowsing is actually possible is far more compelling). Martinevans123 (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The intent of the image when making it available in WP is not really pertinent. From wp:IMAGE RELEVANCE (emphases mine):

"Images are primarily meant to inform readers by providing visual information. Consequently, images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, even if they are not provably authentic images. For example, a photograph of a trompe-l'œil painting of a cupcake may be an acceptable image for Cupcake, but a real cupcake that has been decorated to look like something else entirely is less appropriate. Similarly, an image of an unidentified cell under a light microscope might be useful on multiple articles, so long as there are no visible differences between the cell in the image and the typical appearance of the cell being illustrated.

"Articles that use more than one image should present a variety of material near relevant text. If the article is about a general subject for which a large number of good quality images are available, (e.g., Running), editors are encouraged to seek a reasonable level of variety in the age, gender, and race of any people depicted. Adding multiple images with very similar content is less useful. For example, three formal portraits of a general wearing his military uniform may be excessive; substituting two of the portraits with a map of a battle and a picture of its aftermath may provide more information to readers. You should always be watchful not to overwhelm an article with images by adding more just because you can.

"Poor quality images (too dark, blurry, etc.) or where the subject in the image is too small, hidden in clutter, ambiguous or otherwise not obvious, should not be used."

The image in question is tilted, blurry, saturated and washed out at points (around the light at the bottom), has poor coloration (unsuccessfully imitating sepia toning) and is cluttered (lots of things crowding out the human face). So if we really do need an photo of a person looking in a mirror, other options would be better. For example: in File:Dreamy_.jpg it appears that the person depicted may been in a meditative state, which is a common element of divination; File:MabelNormand.jpg could be interpreted as having seen something in the mirror behind/to the side of them, and the subject is turning to verify if they have seen is really there; on File:Constance Talmadge by Lumiere, 1921.jpg the focus is on the person (intently staring at the mirror), the mirror, and the reflected image, with no other needless clutter to the image; File:Mary Pickford-Ziegfeld.jpg has the person also intently staring in the mirror, with little other distractions, and it is striking. All of the alternate images are of an higher technical merit and do a better job of depicting someone "gazing intently in a mirror". However we already have two other images in the article about glass-looking, and the third overbalances the number of images to just that part of scrying, which again is less than useful. ^—^Asterisk*^Splat^→ 17:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. So maybe Barack is scrying, yes? Or maybe that toddler? What images, that "should look like what they are meant to illustrate", would you suggest adding here, for example? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just semi-randomly picked images in that category to demonstrate that higher quality images of people looking in a mirror were available. If we need to have an additional image, I don't think we should use an image of someone famous (especially not someone that qualifies under wp:BLP), nor one that would be silly (like the baby or the one with the twisted faces). Personally I don't see a need for any additional image of mirror-gazing, since the two existing illustrations are more than adequate; the article as it currently exists would be overbalanced with three images about this single type of scrying. However I asked for the further information/clarification to see if there were useful points I hadn't yet considered, and to stimulate relevant conversation here at the talk page ^—^Asterisk*^Splat^→ 18:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we already have more pictures of people looking in a mirror than we really need. But then I'm not really sure how large a percentage of scrying is allegedly achieved by this means. Martinevans123 (talk)

@Martinevans123: I apologize for taking literally years to respond to this, but the whole "talk page" system wikipedia uses is, in my opinion, the most hilariously atrocious way to communicate in the digital age. All that said, allow me to address some of your many questions regarding the image you clearly seem to detest...

who, other than myself, identified File:Gazing Mirror.JPG as particularly useful to understanding the topic of this article, and as a valuable addition to the article;

→This can't be a serious question. You want me to list the names for you? Silliness.

how does the image demonstrate scrying, other than a person looking in a mirror;

→On the contrary, the photos YOU posted here on the talk page are of "people looking in a mirror." The imagine I vouch for is of a young man IN THE MIDDLE OF A SCRYING EXPERIENCE. We look in mirrors each morning to fix our hair and whatnot. Would you call that scrying? Silliness.

how my preferred image is superior for illustrative purposes on this article to all of the other images images found in commons:Category:People with mirrors, including the random ones you selected?

→Again, this is like equating a photograph of someone playing baseball to that of a person WATCHING SOMEONE ELSE play baseball. My image is not of "someone looking in a mirror." The person is scrying. If you truly can't tell the difference between the two, then why haven't you been trying to delete this entire article?