Talk:Wand

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Occult (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Religion (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Magician's wand / Magic wand[edit]

Could someone provide a history of this specific implement? It's certainly something I expected to find in this article. Eyeresist 06:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


Added Zoroastrian Barsom. Plus I changed "used in Wicca and modern day witchcraft" as it is redundant and incomplete. Khiradtalk

Tarot[edit]

What's the source for the wand suit corresponding to fire? Everything I've ever seen (as well as tarot's relationship to other esoteric fields which would agree with this) the Wands correspond to air, just as the ritual wand used in esoteric magic and Wicca do. I'd change it, but if there's a reputable source out there that disagrees, I have no problem leaving it alone.

Actually, everything I've ever seen has wands corresponding to fire and swords to air. Sometimes there's a reversal, but it's not as popular. In the majority of decks, wands are fire, following the Rider-Waite-Smith tradition. See http://tarotforum.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6197 for a discussion on this. ~ 24.168.57.47 06:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
well i wouldnt say its a ruputable source its just a public forum and to put it simply u cant make a wand without air and you cant make a sword without fire those things are inside them there is however no fire inside a wand energy yes but that energy when directed is passed through the air —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.214.152 (talk) 14:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Is Gandalf actually using a 'wand' in The Hobbit?[edit]

My assumption is that Tolkien is simply relaxed about the terms, not wishing to distinguish between the terms 'wand' and 'staff', and that Gandalf is actually, throughout all the stories (very much including The Hobbit) is using a magical implement of a size such that we today would all agree that the proper term is 'a staff' and not 'a wand'.--Peter Knutsen 22:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

its actually a stave which is a staff and a wand

Metrology[edit]

The Old English in pre-norman era were in the process of converting to the decimal system, and certianly did not use the units here. For example, the chain was devised by Edmund Gunter in the 17 century, as an attempt to decimalise the previous cadastral system.

An old foot of about 13.22 BI inches is indeed known, and represented in Ronald Zupko's "British Weights and Measures: A History from Antiquity to the Seventeenth Century". The Modern English system derives of this foot and a Roman cadasteral division (ie 4800 feet to the mile), rather than this decimal system. --Wendy.krieger 07:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This is truly one of the more noteworthy revelations I've found in Wikipedia. It would appear that just as all the imaginary magic of the rune emerges from the real magic of the letter, so the extraordinary feats of the wand represent the real feats of the measuring stick. But do remember to add references for your sources! Wnt (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
This is the first note I have ever seen on decimal measures in pre-SI Britain. It is also utterly uncited. I suspect it may be folk etymology, due to the lack of cites. Rhialto (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Alex De Vault[edit]

Alex typically can be seen across the FGCU campus. He is considered an expert in witchcraft history with a focus in wands. Please for further information on witchcraft contact him on Facebook. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonedeltaforce (talkcontribs) 17:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Rhabdomancy page, merge with this one?[edit]

There is an article on Rhabdomancy which is a very similar page to this one, with less but some unique information. A merge may be in order to this page, wand, the more common term for the data. Aleister Wilson (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Metrology section[edit]

This article appears to relate to the wand as a 'stick' rather than one of its many other meanings. If it bears scrutiny should the contents of this section not be removed from here and merged with the 'metrology' article ?

The last paragraph in this section also makes a jump from the measurement of 1007mm somehow requiring a 'true [stick] wand' to be a yard (900mm) rather than 30cm, which makes no sense. The mention of 30cm also comes out of nowhere.

Artemka (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I have done a little more research on this and can't make any sense of the section. I think that it is saying that a 'wand' used to be a unit of measurement to a very precise 1007mm the word 'wand' was then replaced by the word 'yard' after several centuries of concurrent use - but a 'yard' was only 3 feet (900mm) - it could neither replace nor run concurrently with a unit of considerably different proportions. This unit of measurement also seems to predate the Metric System by many centuries yet a direct comparison is made. Have I missed something ?

Artemka (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It's been a couple of months since I disputed the factual accuracy of this section. If no-one has any objections I am going to delete it as inaccurate conjecture

Artemka (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

OK it's gone

Artemka (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)