Talk:Wand

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Adobe_Photoshop#Magic_wand|Magic wand]] The anchor (#Magic_wand) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Occult Low‑importance

	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.OccultWikipedia:WikiProject OccultTemplate:WikiProject OccultOccult articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religion Low‑importance

	Religion portal 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.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Gemology and Jewelry: Jewelry Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gemology and Jewelry 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.Gemology and JewelryWikipedia:WikiProject Gemology and JewelryTemplate:WikiProject Gemology and JewelryGemology and Jewelry articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Jewelry subpage.

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The Wand in Wicca

This comment is pure speculation: "That 1888 English version inspired Gerald Gardner, the creator of Wicca, to incorporate the wand and various other ritual objects into Wicca." It should be removed, or considerably revised since the wand pre-dated Gardnerian Wicca as a traditional part of British witchcraft! Additionally, Ronald Hutton confessed in the early 2000s (q.v., "Witches, Druids, and King Arthur") that he was unable to prove his thesis of Wicca's Romantic Era origins (a thesis I believe he plagiarized from the work of a reviled Evangelical Christian, "The Goddess Unmasked"), but he also confessed that he intentionally ignored evidence he discovered tracing Wicca back to antique paganism because it would have disproved his argument from the outset! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.39.20.64 (talk) 13:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Magician's wand / Magic wand

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)[reply]

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

Tarot

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It is true, that Rider/Waite makes the sword/air - wand/fire correspondences, however if you need a history of wands corresponding to air and swords to fire, you should read some of the occultist and alchemical traditions that clarify why wands are considered air and swords fire. I believe anybody coming out of the 20th century Golden Dawn completely confused a tradition that had been in place for millennia beginning with the I-Ching in China. Are you open to references and expanding your article to include the wand as a connection between the mind (intent) to goal (manifesting) which is why the wand is associated with air. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atorrey52 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is Gandalf actually using a 'wand' in The Hobbit?

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)[reply]

its actually a stave which is a staff and a wand

While "staves" is plural for "staff", the word "stave" in the singular means only a segment of a musical composition; it does not indicate some mythical staff-wand hybrid. It seems clear from context that Tolkien uses "staff" and "wand" interchangeably, not to indicate that Gandalf carries two different implements. In the "In Popular Culture" section, someone goes to some length to argue that "Gandalf" is a made up name from a made up language, despite the fact that it's a real name from a real language (Old Norse). In addition to the other sins of this section, I think credit should be given where it is due; Tolkien did not invent the name or its meaning, and the name existed long before Tolkien did. 12.233.147.42 (talk) 02:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Metrology

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Alex De Vault

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 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rhabdomancy page, merge with this one?

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)[reply]

Metrology section

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

OK it's gone

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

That section was re-added, verbatim, six years after you deleted it, by the same person who added it originally. I have researched and investigated the matter, and determined that the content of that section is a well-crafted hoax by Ametrica, who formerly editted under the bare IP 70.187.66.51 . BiggerSchwarz (talk) 13:16, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

History

I came here looking for a history of magic wands, but didn't really find it. Apparently, three years ago someone removed basically all historical kinds of wands because of explanations like "this object is not even remotely similar to a wand" even when archaeologists with PhDs refer to them as wands. I am going to be bold and create a more expansive history section that includes these deleted examples. NHammen (talk) 03:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]