Talk:Witch of Endor

Good grief, people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.26.232.71 (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Removed reference to Macbeth as Shakespeare drew on Norse Mythology for the Wyrd sisters.

Davidhc

Not true, He used King James Daemonologie as a reference which actually talks about this story in the first chapter. Mysticalresearch (talk) 01:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Should the article explain that Endor is a location in Palestine-Israel?--Connection 01:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Definitely the woman was surprised that Samuel answered. It gives the impression she didnt expect him. All the analysis to shearch for other reasons is unnecessary. Otherwise the article needs citations. The reference, at Jewish Encyclopedia, ascribe her surprise "to his rising [Samuel] in an unusual way—upright, not, as she expected, in a horizontal position". Does any source indicate the dead should be summoned "upright"?--Connection 01:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

The passage in the Bible text describing the appearance has curious grammer (changing from plural to singular). Any explanation?--Connection 01:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

What's with the arbitrary speculation at the bottom of the article? So now wikipedia can read J.R.R Tolkein's and George Lucas's minds? Care to furnish us with a source for those arbitrary claims?

Yeah, I'd take that out. I don't think we can assume that Endor relates to the witch of endor. Borisblue 04:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Is this a typo?

In Thomas Hardy's Tess of the d'Urbervilles, Alec d'Urberville cries out to her, "You temptress, Tess, you dear damned witch of Babylon!" The witch of Babylon being another way of saying the Witch of Endor, though the expression died out and went back to Babylon later in the 19th century.

Should Babylon be replaced with Endor? Meaning it would read: The witch of Babylon being another way of saying the Witch of Endor, though the expression died out and went back to Endor later in the 19th century.--ShadowDx (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

"Witch of Babylon" has nothing to do with Endor and everything to do with the Whore of Babylon (qv.).

Agreed, bye-byed. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I was reading All-Star Comics #3 (the first appearance of the Justice Society) and I noticed that, during the part featuring Doctor Fate he was briefly attacked by the "three witches of Endor" which threw a "smoke arrow" at him. Do you think we should mention or not, since it only appears for about two panels in a single issue? After all, consider that this a very famous issue due to the creation of the first superhero team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.243.176.166 (talk) 16:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

No, its not notable besides being trivia--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've always been dubious about the relevance of these sections in articles, and some seem to attract them like a magnet. Ive just removed a selection from here. I did this either because they were very brief and lacking in detail (eg the TV miniseries) or because they were simply about a fictional character who had been given the same name - not the actual biblical witch of the article (eg the baddie on the Ewoks' planet in Star Wars!) I have left in one reference which is not to the biblical witch, that is the Hornblower one. I admit this is partly because of personal feelings; I'm a great CS Forester fan. But I can rationalise it that it's a fairly long-lived reference, unlike some of the more transient, modern ones. I'm copying below a section from the project page on such sections. I do think my deletions are in line with this but of course I'm happy to discuss. Project page material follows:

Many articles about subjects with broad cultural impact have sections titled "In popular culture," "Cultural references," or "In fiction," which exclusively contain references to the subject in popular culture. When these sections become lengthy, some Wikipedians spin them off into separate articles to keep main articles short.

When properly written, such sections can positively distinguish Wikipedia from more traditional encyclopedias. They should be verifiable and should contain facts of genuine interest to the reader. Detailing a topic's impact upon popular culture can be a worthwhile contribution to an article, provided that the content is properly sourced and consistent with policies and guidelines, such as neutral point of view, no original research, and what Wikipedia is not.

When poorly written or poorly maintained, however, these sections can devolve into indiscriminate collections of trivia or cruft. They should be carefully maintained, as they may attract non-notable entries, especially if they are in list format.

Best wishes, Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 08:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

I wish I'd say that. When it gets too bad one can fork off a separate article like Lilith in popular culture to collect. And that may be required here because inevitably computer game and comic book referencs will come back.... In ictu oculi (talk) 08:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Added in a relevant reference from Ivanhoe, though I admit it is somewhat trivia(l). That said, the reference inspired me to look it up, so I do think these sections bear some relevance. RVWi (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Someone stripped out about 3k of material, with the edit summary "rm trivial references / passing mentions". The material they removed included the Hornblower reference. I restored it. Geo Swan (talk) 21:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Geo Swan: Mind if I asked why you restored it? It's kinda hard to justify my edit if you don't explain your objection to it. Generally speaking, "In popular culture" sections should be restricted to significant references to the topic in notable works; do you disagree with this principle, or do you believe the entries I removed meet these criteria? DoctorKubla (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

This article refers to the witch as a medium repeatedly - although what she does is close to the 19th/20th century ideas of being a medium, I suggest that the traditional 'witch' epithet is more appropriate, albeit that it isn't directly used in the Bible. The title of the page is 'witch' so we should use 'witch'. Le Crapaud (talk) 08:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Well, I won't undo your edit. There is something to be said for consistency. But the woman we're dealing with is a baalat ob, which seems a bit more specifically "medium" than the more general term "witch." If it would make any difference, I could easily find you a number of scholarly sources that call the woman a medium. Alephb (talk) 14:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

The title calls her a witch because of WP:COMMONNAME, but that doesn't apply to the body of the article, and I think "medium" is the normal usage in scholarly circles now. StAnselm (talk) 19:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

She is a Spirit Medium. 23emr (talk) 12:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

First, she was called "Necromancer" and not "witch" (at least in the origonal version, in Hebrew "Ba'alat Haov"). Correct title would be "The Necromancer from Ein Dor". Second and more importantly, According to Judaism, witches and such are con artists. This event specifically happened as a result of a miracle by God, it got nothing to do with her. As a matter of fact, a proof she used to con people is that when she saw the spirit she was screaming (because she wasn't used to see this). It's hinted in the bible that Necromancers and witches and such were all con artists. I think it should be added under "Judaism" section. Also, in the opening section (where it's written that Christianity had a problem with this passage, because there is no reason for that - Magic and spells and such are useless according to the bible. That was a miracle made by God and got nothing to do with that woman). Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:A040:19B:214D:E5B9:A65E:DE9A:C48 (talk) 15:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

The use of "in-universe" suggests an equivalence of biblical literature to, say, the Marvel Comics Universe. Doubtless some editors find them perfectly alike in fictitiousness, but this is possibly insensitive to religious communities and has a savor of culture warfare.38.21.221.73 (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

The name should be The Witch of En-for. 23emr (talk) 12:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

En-dor 23emr (talk) 12:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply