Talk:Unicursal hexagram

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Thelema (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Thelema, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Thelema 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.


This article is far too focused on Odinism and one user's particular POV. There are no citations to prove that the Unicursal Hexagram is an important symbol in contemporary Odinism; the artcile also goes on to make claims about the symbols origins and meaning that are again not cited and appear biased. Furthermore the article repeats itself, especially at the start and is poorly written and structured. - Solar 10:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Golden Dawn and the Unicursal Hexagram[edit]

This is a discussino that happened on the GD page but I thoguht it was more relevent for here. FK0071a 08:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


Right, it has been removed twice now the image (shown below) of the UH stating that the HOOTGD did not use it or it wasn't their symbol. Like I said, any half decent research by yourselves can find this out. Also, Any credible historians documenting the History of the Hermetic Order will had has given this information.

Small examples are as follows:

  • The Complete Golden Dawn System of Magic (ltd edition) (Hardcover)

by Israel Regardie, Christopher S. Hyatt

Combined with the Marian Rose, the Unicursal Hexagram becomes Crowley's personal sigil, which is the magical union of 5 and 6 giving 11, the number of magick and new beginnings.

FK0071a 08:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

None of the sites you give meets Wikipedia requirements for references. Please see WP:V - the editor wishing to add the material is responsible for supplying a credible reference. In this case, a historical work showing that the symbol was used by the Golden Dawn and NOT some successor organization, Stella Matutina, modern G.D. reconstruction, etc. That is, a book reference, with a page number so other editors can verify it. Per WP:V, any editor may remove uncited additions. The burden of proof is on the editor who wishes to make the addition. In any case, it doesn't belong at the top of the article! —User:Hanuman Das 04:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


This article needs a lot of cleanup, on several levels, starting with copyediting (who are the "them" who are credited?). AnonMoos 14:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have just looked in by this site, and there is much to be done to produce accurate and informative articles. If there is not too much in the way of objections, I would like to make some small contributions. Is there anyone else here who actually uses the hexagram and pentagram in ritual? docboat 05:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I still occasionally use them in ritual and have for about 10 years (I use the 'normal' not unicursal hex.) For a good while, I used these every day. Anyway, what shall we do next on this article? There are large amounts of quotes, and repeated statements. While I have used the hex/pentagrams I am not a theorist or historian so don't know a lot about what crowley said etc, just like ritual:) We could do with User:IPSOS over here as he seem to know the history of stuff etc and have read widely.Merkinsmum 12:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer... and I don't even play one on TV... but I added some words here and there along the lines of "some people think" and "allegedly." Until some reasonable research is done these can be considered logical "placeholders," and should not be taken as a kind of snide offense. I did not eliminate a comma and a misplaced period and some other thing that was wrong because I didn't see them until I was done with my edit and by this time was too bored to go back in and clean it up. You know, the more I think about it, someone could actually go ahead and rewrite the whole dang thing. It isn't like this is Dickens or Steinbeck. Gingermint (talk) 21:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

a sentence wrong in at least 2 ways[edit]

"in ritual magick, where a continuous line must be used when invoking and banishing hexagrams."

Firstly, it's not must be used as plenty of magickians use the 'normal' two-piece hexagrams instead.

Secondly, this is grammatically wrong as it sounds as if it's the hexagrams themselves that are being invoked or banished.

I've put in something like 'in ritual magick, if the magickian decides to use a continuous line when drawing an invoking or banishing hexagram.' (because that might not even be a permanent choice, but just for that particular rite.)Merkinsmum 11:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

external links[edit]

No links to pages primarily for sales should be use, and ideally not geocities either as these tend to include a lot of the person's personal opinions.Merkinsmum 12:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Endless knot[edit]

By the way, the interlaced unicursal hexagram is topologically equivalent to the Endless knot of Buddhism -- see ... -- AnonMoos 13:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

took out part "solar system in Pagan philosophies"[edit]

A unicursal hexagram can also allegedly be seen as a symbol of the solar system in some Pagan philosophies, with the central intersection representing the sun and the outer intersections and points representing the celestial bodies.[citation needed]

Paganism, (any of the small religions refered to as such) are unlikely to have had the sun in the center. They can allegedly be seen as, and it's unsourced. Why would anyone believe it's true? Please don't put it back without a good source. --A 21:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Look for[edit]

Swazigram, pretty similar to raelic unicursal הראש (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

interlaced version is non-unicursal[edit]

The drawing showing the interlaced version is not unicursal at all and should be removed.--Mideal (talk) 13:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@Mideal: I've replaced the caption of that picture. I think it should be kept for illustrative reasons. DaßWölf 01:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
That's the preferred option (I tend not to change to much in other languages wikis, but still remark what I find).--Mideal (talk) 10:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Daß_Wölf -- Unfortunately, your revised caption is not too useful, since File:Interwoven unicursal hexagram.svg is not a "how to" diagram, and if someone draws a unicursal hexagram in the air with their finger, interlacing is not relevant. AnonMoos (talk) 10:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not too sure what you mean -- if you start at any point of the white path in image File:Interwoven unicursal hexagram.svg and follow it around, eventually you will come back to where you started from. AnonMoos (talk) 09:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
That is NOT possible (simply TRY it) because there are more than two line knots with 3 connections. That was stuff from 3rd degree science class in my grammar school back in 1973.--Mideal (talk) 10:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I have no idea what you're trying to say (or whether you have even have any clear idea of what you're trying to say), but unfortunately your comments make no sense at all in that form. Try again. AnonMoos (talk) 10:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I think he's trying to follow one of the outer black lines in that picture. DaßWölf 13:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
If so, then he's completely misunderstanding the basic artistic conventions involved, which go back a long way in time in various forms (see File:San-Tome-Bergamo (detail).jpg etc. etc.) -- and of course I said "white path" above. The version with the asterisk in the middle departs more from unicursality than File:Interwoven unicursal hexagram.svg does... AnonMoos (talk) 16:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)