Talk:Magic circle/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

"It is intended to create a barrier against malevolent beings or spirits, including vampires, demons, imps, ghosts."

I'm not Wiccan, but in all my reading (Buckland, Adler, etc.) I don't recall coming across this. Negative energy yes, psychic vampires maybe, but the demons and the imps leave me perplexed. This sounds like stuff from the Malleus Maleficarum, mainstream Encyclopædias (Encyclopædia Brittanica perhaps?!), folklore, and Christian mythology. Also, again, not a witch but I thought 'pentacle' was used more often than 'pentagram' - no big deal there though. And numerous other things: the symbolism of the directions may vary depending on the tradition, but I thought it was the elementals being addressed in Ceremonial Magick, Wicca, and Satanism alike. Plus white sorcery vs. black sorcery? That sounds like Dungeons and Dragons' jargon. I've heard of a cone of power over the egg, but the egg makes enough sense that it might be used as well. Plus there are many other things, like what about the colors of candles, etc. For now I just corrected a spelling mistake, but I hope somebody can improve this stub if I never get back to it. Khirad^talk

The article is not just about Neopagan witchcraft, so you'll find some references that sound a bit strange in that context. Not that circles aren't used for protection from such things by modern witches; you're just less likely to find these references in books on Eclectic Wicca, which tend to be more often about pagan worship than witchcraft. For the difference between pentacle and pentagram see their respective articles. Some of your other points are quite valid, such as the 'dungeons and Dragons jargon'! Fuzzypeg★ 05:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

pitiful writing with no research...

Was the person who originally wrote this even Wiccan?!? I personally went over the entire article and took out the ridiculous parts. My husband and I have been practicing Wiccans for several years (and have cast hundreds of circles) and I have never seen such horrible writing. It makes me wonder if this person even did any research before posting an article on a subject they obviously know nothing about. When I first came across this article it looked like THEY didn't know what a magic circle is for. Why would you write on magic circles if YOU don't even know what they're for?

RealUpHuman.net : When you take the time realize a thank you here for cleaning it up to basics... I never read [or care to relive] the BS apparently that you speak of. I am wiccan.

Small Critique: The person posting this may have only OCR scanned it into existance as a starting point. Don't be so hyper about things... it is all "in the mindway" stream that placed it here. It proves something into the history of things.... see: WE HAVE MISCONCEPTIONS STATED. They are now obviously "an etched" part here. Perhaps "everything happens for a reason" is something to really THANK instead of DIS!! DIS ? Get to know more about me... find the inverse of REAL UP HUMAN.... Now you got the point.

My current endeavours is to bring people up to the ideal that magick may be in some fashion being defined into science mainstream called memetics.

Memetics thus remains a science in its infancy, a protoscience

I know most definitely there are magicians out here understanding memetics (meme), for they write about it outside of wikipedia. I am currently in the wikipedia "need an expert in this topic..." recruitment via email wiccan "informational circles" to wikipedia meme's construct. In the process, I would hope there would be some attention to this article here. (there is a direct link to here). I consider myself Wiccan versed.... not sure expert? I am primarily solitary... so running in "socialized format" wikipedia is not something I would engage in this topic until it began to expand its form. But do realize that I have placed a marker over at Scott Cunningham and details about his death. I think more than less, solitaries are up here at wikipedia first. Self-dedication to Public Service idealism I think we all would agree to relate. For those who want to ensure this article's accuracy is proper -- or for visitors who have no clue what this is.... Please consider these as a foundation to begin. They are widely admired in pagan/wiccan circles. Thank you. Don't flame me back if you do not agree. I will flame you back with 1990 [PRE-INTERNET] BBS Bulletin Board System Recommended Reading Lists. Thank you.

Personal Library References:

"Complete Book of Witchcraft" Raymond Buckland, 1988

ISBN 0-87542-050-8

"The Spiral Dance" Starhawk. 1979

ISBN 0-06-067535-7

"The Truth About Witchcraft Today", Scott Cunningham [paperback], 1990

ISBN 0-87542-127-X

"Living Wicca, A further guide for the solitary practitioner", Scott Cunningham, 1993

ISBN 0-87542-184-9

         "Once we've learned the basics of Wiccan beliefs and practices,
         living our religion is, logically, the next step. How we 
         allow it to affect our lives is completely up to us.

         I've written this book as a guide not only to Wiccan practice,
         but to Wiccan Life.  Still its contents are merely ideas and
         suggestions.  Each of us has to find the perfect path.  May
         the Goddess and God assist you in this quest."
              
                Scott Cunningham 1956-1993 : @REALUPHUMAN 2006

Exclusions

Magic circles are prevalent in many other traditions much older than Wicca, yet there is no mention of any of them (save for a trifle on Egypt).

The trifle on Egypt is perhaps unreliable. It's been sitting there with a "citation needed" tag for a long time now, and no-one has cited a reference. Regarding other traditions, yes. Western ceremonial magic, for instance. This article needs someone courageous to jump in and do some major improvements. I expect it would actually be more appropriate if the article were not specifically about Wicca at least at first — it just doesn't seem like there's much to say about a Wiccan magic circle, at least that you could find reliable sources for. Fuzzypeg☻ 05:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Expanding the article to cover Western tradition more broadly is a good idea, but wouldn't it entail renaming the article? Actually, I wonder if that shouldn't be done anyway. The idea of a "magic circle" is common in English-speaking cultures: it's in plenty of fantasy novels and heavy metal songs, apart from the many thousands of actual practitioners out there. I would expect this article, and not the magicians' organization, to be the core use of the term. Just my two cents. Maestlin 17:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. I'm not particularly fussed about article naming; this article would presumably become Magic circle (occult) or Magic circle (magic) or some such abomination, or it could become Magic circle, and the existing article there become Magic circle (organisation). I would suggest that changing the article's name is the first thing that needs doing here. Fuzzypeg☻ 06:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think it should be moved to Magic circle and the organization should have the qualifier, as you suggest. -999 (Talk) 16:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"The trifle on Egypt is perhaps unreliable. It's been sitting there with a "citation needed" tag for a long time now, and no-one has cited a reference. - Fuzzypeg. That being the case, I've removed the statement. Yes, magic circles of one form or another - including as magical barriers - have been used in many magical traditions since time immemorial. We all know that. It's common knowledge. Everyone knows that. But even so, I still can't find a reference that would support the statement made. - Adaru 20:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

My Thoughts

This article needs an examination of non-wiccan and non-witchcraft ideologies... other cultures have also the concept of Sacred Circles... such as the Native Americans. Also Ceremonial Magick is involved in other forms by various African tribes non-affiliated with Wicca, and I could go on and on.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.172.44 (talk) 17:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I've made a basic attempt to split the Wiccan stuff into its own section. I'm concerned though that the "general practices" info is all sourced to Wiccan literature -- I'm not quite sure what kind of sources would be better, but due to Wicca being its own belief system, it seems like there might be some reliability concerns due to possible attempts to rewrite the historical practices to compare or contrast with Wicca. It would probably be better for those sections to be built and sourced from texts that directly focus on those time periods or cultures, and not from the point of view of a competing belief system.192.249.47.165 (talk) 14:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Unannounced move

Hi, the move from Magic circle to Sacred circle was unannounced and undiscussed, and if you look, you'll see a discussion about appropriate page name just above. The term "magic circle" is (in my experience) far more common than "sacred circle", and its meaning is far more explicit. I haven't yet done a reference count in magical books, or hit the occult dictionaries to back this up, but I'm pretty sure I'm correct. I think the page move should be reverted. Fuzzypeg★ 22:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That of sacred circle is not only a Wiccan concept; it's present in other cultures and religions. I think "sacred" is a wider terminology that encompasses "magic". By contrast "magic" doesn't encompass "sacred". --Esimal (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, that was exactly my point, in my comment on your talk page: that "sacred circle" is a term in keeping with a few very recent popular conceptions of Wicca and neopaganism, but not in keeping with traditional witchcraft, ceremonial magic since at least the middle ages or European anthropology. I can't speak for African, American or Asian anthropology. I don't believe the term "sacred" is very specific, and I certainly don't believe that "sacred circle" is the most common terminology. A "magic circle" is a widely recognised concept, and the only reason I can see for applying a "wider terminology" would be to amalgamate other concepts or practices that aren't normally associated, which to my mind would be original research. Just as a rough indication, googling "magic circle" returns five times as many hits as "sacred circle". Also, as I noted on your talk page, "magic" doesn't always imply "sacred", and sacred is not just a superset of "magic".

This was an unannounced move, and should not have been made without discussion, regardless of whether you felt you were right. I for one think you're wrong, and would like the move reverted. Fuzzypeg★ 02:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I see from your talk page that you've been making other controversial page moves. These are annoying because when they're reverted there are always plenty of redirects to clean up. I'm taking a leaf from the other complainant on your talk page, and reverting it myself. If you want to move this page, then follow the correct procedure for a controversial move.

I've also reverted some of the changes that you made that seemed to be stripping out mentions of "magic" and changing everything to "spirituality" instead. As I have noted here and at your talk page, these circles are extremely widely employed for magical purposes, and the branches of Eclectic Wicca that downplay any involvement with magic are very recent innovations (mostly in the last ten or fifteen years). There is currently a mention in the article that circles are sometimes used for non-magical purposes; you might want to expand this. It's an important new variation on the theme of magic circles that needs to be explained; it doesn't need to subsume the entire article though.

Part of the reason you managed to make the mistake of changing the emphasis of the entire article is that the article is still very incomplete. If you look a little further up the talk page you'll see discussion regarding bringing more non-Wiccan examples in, since Wicca has no monopoly over the subject! Unfortunately little work has been put in to achieve this yet, and the article is still in a poor and very one-sided state. Fuzzypeg★ 23:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a wretched article that is presenting mistakes to laypersons as some sort of "fact". Pathetic. Why is there no elaboration of the origns of the magic circle? Why is there no citation for the first printed citation of a magic circle historically? Why is there no elaboration of different types of circle from different time periods historically? The article just seems to be an advert for crap Wiccan books without any consideration for the origins of the magic circle based in pre 1700 Hermetic material. Just wretched. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.24.203 (talk) 19:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

What's wretched is cantankerous people like you whining that someone else hasn't put in the effort. How about you go find some books and start improving articles — you are capable of doing something useful rather than complaining, I'm sure. If you see something needs doing, who better than yourself? There are few good editors around, and thousands of articles in need of work. But if you're going to edit, I suggest you learn some civility or you'll very quickly find it an unpleasant process. Fuzzypeg★ 04:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I've cleaned up some of the silly "circles that happen to be considered magic or sacred" cruft that had been added here. I may have missed some.192.249.47.165 (talk) 22:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Islam

Abdullah bin Mas’ood (may Allah be pleased with him) narrates, “While in Makkah, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be on him) once said to the Sahabah (may Allah be pleased with them), ‘Whoever wishes to see what the Jinn are all about should come along’. Besides myself no-one else came. When we reached the place in the Ma’la district of Makkah the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be on him) used his foot to draw a circle on the ground. He then instructed me to sit inside the circle. After proceeding a little further, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be on him) started reciting the Quran. It then happened that Jinn started to arrive in troops as they gathered there. So many came that I could not even see the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be on him) nor hear him. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be on him) then continued talking with a group of them until Fajr. [Tafseer ibn Kathir] — Preceding unsigned comment added by MuslimKnight786 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)