Talk:Pentagram

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Neopaganism, a WikiProject dedicated to expanding, organizing, verifying, and NPOVing articles related to neopagan religions. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Occult Portal
Pentagram is supported by WikiProject Occult in order to expand, improve, and standardize articles related to the occult. Feel free to edit the article attached to this talk page and/or become a participating member.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
 WikiProject Religion
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.
B This article has been rated as B on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article falls within the scope of the Left Hand Path work group. If you are interested in Left Hand Path-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help.


Contents

[edit] Venus

"The pentagram has long been associated with [...] the worship of the goddess Venus"

=> can someone give a citation ? I have read a lot of books on greek Mythology, seen a lot of paintings with the goddess Venus, checked a lot of websites about greek mythology but I have seen no connection between Venus and the pentagram. Instead I found symbols like a shell, a dove, a myrtle... but no pentagrams...

Probably because the orbit of Venus can be seen as a kind of pentagram when considered from an earth-centric viewpoint, due to the near 5:8 resonance between earth years and venus years. I don't know that this is an ancient association... AnonMoos 15:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


Yes the orbit of the planet Venus *can* be seen as a pentagram. That does not mean that the goddess Venus was associated with one. Maybe she was, maybe not. That's why a citation is needed. I haven't seen any evidence that the goddess Venus was associated with a pentagram. I have looked but not very thoroughly. Some one who knows the topic well could probably find a source quite easily if there is one. But it seems that many people think they know the topic well, but only know what they think about the pentagram.
Dan Brown's fiction doesn't count as a reliable source, by the way. aussietiger 10:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Formula Error

There is an error in the formula shown for "sin of 18 degrees". It currently shows "(sqrt(5)-1)/2" but the correct formula is "(sqrt(5)-1)/4". The formulas based on the golden ratio are correct. The correct formula can be found on Exact_trigonometric_constants. -- Phil Howard

I should also add that I don't know enough of the LaTex language to feel comfortable with editing formulas. I'm just barely a newbie at editing any wiki pages. -- Phil Howard

I've made this correction. I haven't myself checked the maths, so if this is in fact wrong could someone correct me please? Fuzzypeg☻ 05:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Music

Music Pentagram ?

Nice work on this article, folks. -- Zoe

[edit] HTML Question

As reply to question: no, the HTML entities does not include correctly accentuated Greek letters, and cannot be used for serious Greek wordings. The Greek HTML entities seem to be a (very) inferior subset aimed at inclusion in mathematic formulas. --Jörgen Nixdorf

[edit] Geometry

Is it just me, or is the pentagram depicted in the article to illustrate the geometry and the ratio really not a perfect pentagram? -- till we *) 15:21 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

You're right, it was just a quick illustration. Feel free to improve it. -- Nixdorf 08:24 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)


[edit] Pentagram vs. Pentacle

  • what is the difference between a pentagram and a pentangle? --Tarquin 09:27 Mar 20, 2003 (UTC)
  • What follows is the "new" opening paragraph twice inserted by User:192.211.25.53. There's an obvious POV issue here, but good points and information, too; perhaps a part of it could be incorporated into the article.
  • A pentagram is a mathematical shape joining the points of a pentagon to form a five-pointed star.There is nothing good or evil about this mathematical symbol. It is ignorance and the desire to control of the Roman Church and others that have clouded this symbol with so much false evil. Pentagrams have been in art and sculpture throughout history to this day. The American Flag has fifty of them, each representing a State in the Union. Great Cathedrals have pentagrams designed in their walls, in spite of the false claims of the Church that they are evil. The Pentagram represents the feminine. The human woman having 5 extremities.

Sara 09:31, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)


  • By the way, I believe there is a difference between pentagram, pentangle, and pentacle. Pentangle is another word for pentagon. I'm hazier about pentacle; I believe the word is used by Pagans as a synonym for pentagram, but I think it is also used to refer to one of the magickal tools, consisting of a disc with a pentagram and other symbols carved or painted on it.
Actually, in Pagan terms the Pentagram is the symbol, and the pentacle is usually the inscribed or physical form of the Pentagram. So you draw a pentagram, and a pentagram drawn on an altar tile or made into a necklace is a pentacle. -Persipone

User:24.63.34.198 seems to believe that the pentagram has a circle and a pentacle does not. Since they failed to cite any evidence of this and randomly edited the page, I decided to ask for debate since they did not.

Which is encompassed by a Circle? Pentagram or Pentacle?

According to Religious Tolerance it is the Pentacle. --Morningstar2651 03:59, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

According to this site, the circle is not what denotes the difference, but rather whether the object is 2D or 3D. --Taliesin84 08:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The difference between a pentagram and a pentacle is that a pentagram is a five pointed star, but a pentacle is a five pointed star with a circle around it.Asteroidz R not planetz 16:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

No, that's incorrect. I see on Talk:Wicca you claim that you know this because you practice Wicca. Well, the majority of "Wiccan" authors, who have never been near a valid Wiccan tradition in their life, often make this mistake, and a few trad Wiccan authors also make this mistake, so you could be forgiven for getting it wrong. Unfortunately in the last 15 years or so there's been a huge industry of books on Magic and the Occult, particularly Wicca, which are written by people without the faintest grasp of the subject, simply trying to cash in on sounding mysterious. There is a long and rich magical tradition of hundreds of years that they have no conception of. (I know this because I'm Wiccan) Fuzzypeg☻ 01:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Taliesin84 is right I'm a practicing Wiccan-druid and a pentagram is a drawn five pointed star while a pentacle is a physical rendering of a pentagram wether the star is encircled or not makes no difference whatsoever —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.77.12.103 (talk • contribs)

I am aware there is a common view that a pentacle is a pentagram in some solid form. This is not the common historical meaning of pentacle though, and as far as I can make out, this view has only really become popular in the last 20 or 30 years, with a few older uses scattered around. For more information on the traditional usage of the term pentacle, see the article. Fuzzypeg☻ 23:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More on pentacle vs pentagram

Here was something I had put in under an article about pentacle:

"Pantacle or Pentacle An amulet, talisman, a geometrical figure so used. There is much confusion as to the derivation of this word, but it seems most likely that it comes through Italian and French from the root pend- "to hang," and so is equivalent to a pendant or charm hung about the neck. From the fact that one form of pentacle was the pentagram or star-pentagon, the word itself has been connected with the Greek pente (five). The word is used specially in The Secret Doctrine to denote the pentagram or pentalpha. The Solomon's seal is another pentacle, and there are many others, including the sigils of the seven planets." [1]

I believe this should be put back in, but I won't do it myself unless there is consensus on it . . . It answers the question as to why certain groups have "pentacles" that do not have a five pointed star on them. Vidkun 19:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree here. It's become very common to refer to "pentagrams in circles" as pentacles for quite some time now, and if it's as untrue as it seems, best to make that clear.

--Taliesin84 11:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Ant made a few minor changes that cleared up a POV issue in what I added. I would like to note that when I first looked into this article, it was because of a redirect from pentacle, which originally had its own page. Given that numerous groups in the magical and NeoPagan/NeoWiccan/Wiccan communities use pentacles with various designs on them, and that historically (as in the case of John Dee and Edward Kelly) this is also seen as the case (that pentacle referred to a disc, not nec. with a pentagram on it), I would almost consider having a seperate page for pentacle again. For example, pentagrams in NeoPagan/NeoWiccan/Wiccan use refer to the five elements, but pentacles are seen as an earth aligned tool.--Vidkun 16:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
I'll also note that the Latin word used describing this tool, pentaculum, would not refer to five, as the Latin root for five is quinqu- see the article on Numerical_prefix and the article on Diminutive under Latin. -pend- is the Latin root for to hang as in suspend, pendulum, appendix. Popular usage does not make proper language; see, for example, 2000 vs 2001 as first year of 21st century. Pentacle and pentagram are not from the same language root.--Vidkun 16:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

And now I am REALLY on the tear about this one, because while Ant wants to cite sources showing the etymology to be a Latin-Greek hybrid, with an Italian descendant being pentacolo (five cornered), there is usage as early as 1600 showing a pentacle to be made WITHOUT a five pointed star. The Heptameron of Peter Abano. --Vidkun 17:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

According to "Tilings and Patterns" by Grumbaum and Shepard, a pentagon is the polugon produced by the path of lines commonly seen in a pentagram while a pentacle is a star, it is the pentagram with all the inner lines removed, it is the extremity of a pentagram. Neither are surrounded by a circle. --206.191.28.13 05:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite clear on what you mean. Are you saying -
  • = pentagon
  • = pentagram
  • = pentacle?
Could you quote the exact text from Greunbaum and Shephard? I certainly think that a mathematical definition should take precedence here. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 06:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Basically yes but your vertices there are look a little messed up, just take your pentagram and erase the inner line segements and you'll have a pentacle according to Grumbaum and Shepard. I suspect that the pentacle is just a concave decagon which has angles of 36 degrees for the points and 108 for the inner vertices. I don't have the text with me right now but I'll add it later. It is the authoritative and seminal work on tilings and patterns so it does hold a good deal of legitimacy. --129.97.140.126 15:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Except that those authors weren't the first to use the word pentacle. pentacle and pentagram are not linguistically related at all.--Vidkun 17:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard any mathematical definition for pentacle. I agree on the first two pentagon/pentagram. I can only call the as a special case of a concave decagon. Tom Ruen 06:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised that no-one here seems to know 'pentacle' or ' pantacle' in the sense used in Solomonic magic. It is an amulet, generally made of parchment or paper (although it can be of other materials), on which the symbol of a spirit being evoked is drawn. It is often worn around the neck, or placed in the triangle of evocation. Protective symbols can also be included (sometimes on the reverse), a common one being the five-point seal of solomon (perhaps this is where the "penta-" comes from?). So, for example, a slip of paper with a Goetic demon's sigil on it is a pentacle. This usage of the term pentacle is expanded to include all papers, tablets or discs marked with sigils for the purpose of evoking certain energies or beings. I suspect that this was once a more commonly understood meaning amongst magicians than any of the meanings given in this article. I need to do a bit more research though... 60.234.107.84 11:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC) -- (Funny old Wikipedia, losing my session info. This is Fuzzypeg 11:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC))
Fuzzypeg, check this section out in the first section of the article: "Some sources assert that pentacle derives from the French root pend- to hang (compare pendant) and means some sort of physical object such as an amulet; this explains why some groups use pentacles that do not have pentagrams inscribed upon them, as attested in the Theosophical Society's Encyclopedic Theosophical Glossary[1] But some dictionaries give the etymology as from Italian pentacolo or Medieval Latin pentaculum, ultimately from Greek pente. However, there is Latin usage as early as 1600 showing that a pentacle or pentaculum need not have a five pointed star on it.[2] See also Man, Myth & Magic vol. 77. Richard Cavendish, ed. Purnell for BPC Publishing Ltd., London: 1971. p. 2159."--Vidkun 15:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to split pentacle into a separate article

Following on from the discussion above, I would like to split pentacle back out into its own article, since its meaning and usage are, I believe, quite different from pentagram. I found the following in Francis Barrett's Magus (Book 2, part 2):

We now proceed to speak of the holy and sacred Pentacles and Seals. For these pentacles are certain holy signs and characters, preserving us from evil chances and events, helping and assisting us to bind, exterminate, and drive away evil spirits, alluring the good spirits, and reconciling them to us. These pentacles consist either of characters of good spirits of the superior order, or of sacred pictures of holy letters or revelations, with apt and proper versicles, which are composed either of geometrical figures and holy names of God, according to the course and manner of many of them, or they are compounded of all of them, or many of them mixed.

I also found some discussion of magic squares (such as the Sator-Arepo-Tenet square) being used as pentacles in Mathers' introduction to Abramelin. This all fits my understanding of pentacle, and the way I was taught. If needed, I should be able to find more supporting evidence by, say, googling pentacle site:athenaeum.asiya.org, however the two examples already given are from highly authoritative and influential sources in Western magic. It seems that the pentacle salomonis (i.e. the 5-point star of Solomon) is a common form for a pentacle, but of course not the only form. I suspect that discussions about the exact shape that a pentacle should be (as a 5-point star), or whether it should be flat or 3-dimensional etc. are beside the point. These are more recent innovations by various people, and it's not surprising there isn't widespread agreement on them. (The concept of coin/pentacle from various tarot decks is however a widespread usage.) Any comments? Fuzzypeg 22:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea, but it just might get thrown back into this article, because I am not sure how much we can put about pentacle which would keep it from being only a stub.--Vidkun 23:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll see if I can drag together a bit more material, examples of different types of pentacles, possibly even historical development of the idea... something to make a decent article out of. I don't see any problem with an article being brief though. I think the stub tag is only warranted when it's clear that useful information is missing. Fuzzypeg 00:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Done. I've split the article. I actually split it a couple of weeks ago, and I should have left this note then. Better late than never. Fuzzypeg 11:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Multiple sections for each may be in order. The confusion over this simple, yet immediately identifiable shape to so many people requires a lot of attention. The swastika would be easy compared to this.Φndex 02:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't follow you. Multiple sections for each what? Fuzzypeg 02:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
My suggestion was to recommend a general definition that would branch to mathematical/religious/occult aspects of this symbol that is known by so many to mean so many things all while being called the same thing.Φndex 15:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, the Pentagram article already follows your suggested format. The Pentacle article has a note at the bottom about mathematical use of the term, but there are not so many distinct major definitions for that term as there are for Pentagram, hence fewer sections to that article. Have a look. Are there still any specific improvements you would suggest? Fuzzypeg☻ 12:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goat's head/Baphomet

I don't know how credible a source this site is, but in the section on satanic pentagrams it mentions that the goat's head is often mistaken for that of Baphomet. The section that follows gives, at least a possible, meaning behind the goat's head. That said, it seems to me that "with the head of Baphomet inside the pentagram" should, perhaps, be changed. Though I'm not sure exactly how it should be changed, as in what to add and where. MeLoco 05:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Pythagoreans

There is some serious mathematics here. The pentagram actually depicts the golden ratio as well as one possible proof of its irrationality (applying the Euclidean algorithm twice replaces the circumscribed pentagon by the inscribed pentagon, proving nontermination of the continued fraction). Possibly the first irrational identified as such (before the famous square root of two) and this picture may have been intended to indicate that. See David Fowler and, I think, Knorr. [Possible connection between the devilish properties of irrationals in mathematics and later use by witches. Cf. "diabolus in musica" which however refers to the square root of 2.] I'm not going to try to insert any of this, and it might well belong on a separate page anyway. Everything here involves speculation based on the mathematics itself; textual evidence bearing on Pythagorean doctrine is skimpy, late, and in most cases self-contradictory. Abu Amaal 20:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with pentangle?

I don't care about a merge, but all geometry should stay under this article name! Tom Ruen 06:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

i read somewhere that a pentacle was a 3 dimensional pentagram. like for jewelry. and the pentagram is 2 dimensional.

Read above. The historical definition of pentacle is given time and again--Vidkun 13:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I read the discussion and the two articles and Pentagram and Pentangle. I believe they should be merged. However, about the Pentacle, I believe it to be crucial for the matter to be in separate articles, especially considering the state of a curious researcher who just emerges out of the "Da Vinci Code" world. Fleet Command 20:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)FleetCommand

Merge. Pentagram, pentalpha and pentangle are synonyms. The only difference is the context in which they are commonly used. The Pythagoreans used the term pentalpha; the term pentagram is the most common term today, with pentangle being a slightly more archaic version, now uncommon (it is found in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, among other places, and I suspect it was the standard heraldic term). Fuzzypeg 06:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I had a closer look and realised that there was very little extra information in pentangle; I merged it in and it makes a short paragraph in this article. I see no reason now not to finish the merge (this discussion has been untouched for a very long time). So I will. Fuzzypeg 07:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inverted pentagram and Wiccan 2°

The information that was recently added regarding the use of the inverted pentagram within the 2° initiation was correct, however quite incomplete. I'm not aware of this information being published before, however it may have been. I would feel quite uneasy about giving a full exegesis on the symbolism of the inverted pentagram and the 2° initiation on Wikipedia - I consider this oathbound. Because I consider the added explanation incomplete, and thus a slight misrepresentation, I would be much happier if it had a cited source, so perhaps it wouldn't seem like it originates in the combined wisdom of the Wiccan editors to the article. I hope this makes sense... Fuzzypeg 01:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm intending to remove the explanation in question if no-one can come up with a reference for it. I will keep the statement that it is related to Wiccan 2nd degree, but remove the explanation regarding confronting the shadow self etc. Comments? Fuzzypeg 06:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Removed. Fuzzypeg 06:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seal of Solomon

From the article, "A pentacle may be marked with any sigil of evocation, including the common pentagram-shaped Seal of Solomon." The Seal of Solomon is a hexagram not a pentagram. --Evmore 18:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Not according to some versions of the story - Seal of Solomon.--Vidkun 22:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I know some Qabalists claim the pentagram was the true original form (can't recall who though), and this claim seems intended to support a particular story regarding Solomon and David. It's something along the lines of comparing Solomon and David by these signs and explaining through them why Solomon fell from grace. The pentagram indicated dominion and wisdom in the lower realms, the hexagram wisdom in the higher spiritual realms.
I just automatically tend to use "Seal of Solomon", but perhaps this confuses the issue. Fuzzypeg 00:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
My new addition is a support for the pentagram "Seal of Solomon" DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 14:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Prehistoric" astronomers and "around the sun"?

I take exception to a passage early in this entry:

"The pentagram has long been associated with the planet Venus and the worship of the goddess Venus, or her equivalent. It is most likely to have originated from the observations of prehistoric astronomers. When viewed from Earth, successive inferior conjunctions of Venus plot a nearly perfect pentagram shape around the Sun every eight years."

Where do I begin?

  • Prehistoric astronomers would not have been thinking in terms of Earth and Venus going around the sun; the heliocentric model was a much later development.
  • The association of the planet with the goddess is specific to only a couple of cultures, and therefore is not universal and would not have been prehistoric. The Greeks got the association of that planet with a goddess from the Babylonians, and the Romans got it from the Greeks. Other cultures have called the planet other things not assoicated with a goddess; see the Wiki entry on the planet Venus.

Pciszek 16:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Your first objection I don't get. I see no heliocentricity in the quoted phrase: On the contrary, it only deals with what can be seen on the sky from Earth. Your second objection seems highly relevant, and I hope someone will edit the text accordingly, but am not knowledgeable enough about the subject matters to do it myself.--Niels Ø 10:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It's surprising what the ancients figured out before the dark ages and heresy were invented... Eratosthenes measured the diameter of the earth with reasonable accuracy in the 2nd century BC; Aristarchus of Samos came up with the method of figuring out the moon's distance from the Earth. When they attempted to determine the distance to the sun they discovered that it was too far away to get an accurate triangulation. The vast distance involved indicated that the sun must be hugely larger than the Earth, which led Aristarchus to suggest that the sun, rather than the earth, was at the center of the universe. [2]
I don't know what the ancient Egyptians thought about heliocentricity, but they had certainly figured out about the interesting patterns in the synods of Venus. They calculated the 1460 solar years that it would take for the pentagram to gradually rotate until the points again returned to their original positions, and called this a Sothis Year after the Goddess Sothis. [3]
If you want to improve the wording, I'd suggest talking about a pentagram shape around the zodiac rather than around the sun, which is actually more correct, and doesn't assume a heliocentric view. If I had more time I'd be putting all this kind of information into the articles here. Anyone want to help? Fuzzypeg 06:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some of these removed references may still be useful

The following references and external links may be useful to the article, and I can't tell whether care has been taken in evaluating them before deleting. So I'm putting them here unitl I have a chance to check through them and possibly re-introduce some.

References:
External links:

Care should be taken when removing references and links - just because they don't conform to WP recommended reference style doesn't mean they aren't useful. Fuzzypeg 21:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geometry

The geometry section makes reference to the larger pentagon side being the same size as a blue line, and to the diagonal of the pentagon being teh same size as a green line. I wonder if this [:Image:Pentagram2.png]] diagram should be enhanced to show the larger pentagon and the diagonal as well. It's a bit beyond my drawing skills or I'd do it myself ++Lar: t/c 12:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arabic star

People keep adding this, and it sure seems like they are getting heated about it, so, I figured, why not take the info from THAT article and see what it has to say:

The Arabic star is a punctuation mark developed to be distinct from the asterisk (*). The asterisk had existed in feudal times, and the original shape was six-pointed, each point like a teardrop coming from the center. However, some typewriters had difficulty printing the six arms distinctly. Furthermore, due to Arab-Israeli tension, many Arabs would not buy typewriters with a six-armed symbol, which they identified with the Star of David on the Israeli flag. Hence many systems use a distinct symbol referred to as the "Arabic star". The Arabic star is given a distinct character in Unicode, U+066D, in the space reserved for the Arabic alphabet. The official name is "Arabic five-pointed star." In many modern fonts, however, the asterisk is five-pointed, and the Arabic star is sometimes six- or eight-pointed. The two symbols are compared below (the display depends on your browser's font).

So, from what wikipedia has to say about the arabic star, I have seen NOTHING indicating it is a symbol of Islam.--Vidkun 17:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

  • A Five-pointed star is part of Islam. The wikipedia for FPS, redirects to pentagram. A pentagram can be a star, or is it the other way around? Anyway, stars and Islam do have history. The edits are a disagreement over whether a pentagram, pentacle and Five-pointed star are wikt:synonymous. --evrik 18:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
The five-point star appears in Islam, true, often in conjunction with a crescent. It also appears in the US flag, in a sherrif's badge, etc, etc. These usages have little to do with the pentagram, which is a very specific type of five-pointed star, containing internal lines. If Five-pointed star redirects to Pentagram then that's a problem with the redirect. Following your suggestion I went to the effort of checking my dictionary ([4]), and it was pretty clear on the fact that a pentagram contains internal lines and in internal pentagon. I'm a bit surprised that you managed to find a dictionary that didn't make this distinction. You must have though, because I presume you wouldn't have made me go running after sources unless you had done the same research yourself...
I'll check the Five-pointed star article and see if the redirect is wrong. Fuzzypeg☻ 23:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for deletion of the Five-pointed star redirect

Five-pointed star currently redirects here. This is an arror, since a pentagram is a very particular type of five pointed star, containing interior lines forming an interior pentagon. This is causing some confusion, and people are adding references in this article about varieties of five-pointed star that have nothing to do with pentagrams. It's kind of like making Vehicle redirect to Cart or Religion redirect to Paganism.

So I've put in a request for deletion of that redirect, which can be found and commented on here: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_deletion#10_July. Thanks, Fuzzypeg☻ 00:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Look, this is ridiculous. We keep getting material posted regarding solid five-pointed stars when we've already established that these are not in the category of "pentagram". Either join the conversation and try to explain why you're adding this material, or stop adding it. I've just yanked this information, and I don't know where to put it:
A solid (filled) form of pentagram appears often on the flag and in the heraldic symbolism of the United States. In the U.S. context, the stars allegedly symbolize the heavens. The five-pointed stars stand in contrast to the vexillologically rarer seven-pointed stars.
I'm also yanking the following, which seems to have nothing to do with either pentagrams or the Arabic star (see comments above by Vidkun):
The five-pointed Arabic star is part of the symbol of the Ottoman Empire.
If you doun't even attempt to explain these bizarre additions, I or someone else will just remove them! Thanks, Fuzzypeg☻ 01:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Hey, every edit has been explained and cross-referenced. You're the one with the limited knowledge or understanding. "...since a five pointed star is a very particular type of pentagram"

--South Philly 01:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I'm being dense here, but I haven't seen anything explained or cross-referenced except by myself and Vidkun. At one stage you showed me (via your talk page) a google search you had done, but the only reputable sources that came up were in support of what I was maintaining, i.e. that a 5-point star is only a pentagram if it contains the internal lines. You have also supplied an uncited quote just above, from someone who is clearly wrong — what am I supposed to do with that? Who are you quoting?
Forgive the imposition, but if you really have been supporting your edits, could you point out to me where I might find these supporting statements? I keep leaving comments, but I feel like I've largely been having a one-sided conversation. Thanks, Fuzzypeg☻ 01:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, you seem to be implying that I accused you of "limited knowledge or understanding". I would like to point out that I have attempted to be conciliatory and informative throughout our conversations, and have refrained from making personal comments. Please don't drag this debate into the gutter. I would like you to read the No personal attacks policy and then retract your statement about my "limited knowledge or understanding". Fuzzypeg☻ 02:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, I see somewhere down in the edit summaries one of Evrik's edits quotes Wiktionary [5]. I missed that before. The definition there, however is imprecise and incomplete, and I would suggest it needs changing. The derivation of the word supplied there should give you some clues, though: it is greek for "five-lined, having five lines". I shall go and change this now; I'll check the OED at the next possible opportunity just to ensure that I'm correct (although, as we discussed on your talk page, I've already found support at [6]). I'm not sure Wiktionary counts as a reputable source, anyway, just as other Wikipedia articles are not to be used as reliable sources ("Note that Wikipedia itself does not currently meet the reliability guidelines" quoted from WP:RS). Fuzzypeg☻ 02:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Are five-pointed stars pentagrams?

There has been debate between myself and User:Evrik and User:South Philly over whether a five-pointed star that does not contain crossing central lines (like so: ) is or is not a pentagram. I maintain that it is not, as a pentagram is, by definition, a unicursal star formed of five interlacing lines, which cross through the centre of the figure forming an internal pentagon (like so: ).

I keep removing material which I believe is not appropriate to this article, since it relates to the broader category of five-pointed stars; these two users keep adding it back. I also feel that I have consistently given strong evidence to support my position, and have attempted to discuss this rationally; I have asked these two editors repeatedly to enter the discussion, but apart from a couple of early items of evidence (which I do not consider reliable) they have not provided evidence. They have failed to answer various questions, have supported their position with uncited quotes or assertions, or have left no comment at all. However SouthPhilly assures me that "every edit has been explained and cross-referenced" (and that I have "limited knowledge or understanding"!), so to avoid any confusion over what evidence has been presented, I would like to gather it all here, under this heading.

The evidence comes from this page above; from the edit summaries for this article; from User talk:South Philly; from User talk:Evrik; and from the discussion around the request for deletion of the Five-pointed star redirect page (which previously pointed to Pentagram).

Evidence that is not a pentagram:

  • From dictionary.com: "pentagram n : a star with 5 points; formed by 5 straight lines between the vertices of a pentagon and enclosing another pentagon" (this definition comes from Princeton University's WordNet) - Fuzzypeg 23:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • From the Pocket Oxford Dictionary 1978: "a 5-pointed star formed by producing sides of pentagon both ways until they meet, formerly used as a mystic symbol" - Fuzzypeg 06:08, 12 July 2006.
  • From the Merriam-Webster Online: "a figure of a 5-pointed star usually made with alternate points connected by a continuous line and used as a magic or occult symbol; also : a similar 6-pointed star (as a Solomon's seal)". - Fuzzypeg 06:08, 12 July 2006.
  • fivepointed star at symbols.com (online version of Symbols: Encyclopedia of Western Signs and Ideograms by Carl G. Liungman) clearly differentiates the pentagram from the "fivepointed star" - Fuzzypeg 00:25, 13 July 2006.

Evidence that is a pentagram:

  • The google search define: pentagram returns several pages describing a pentagram as a five-pointed star - evrik 14:01, 10 July 2006. I read through several pages of hits, and noted that of those I would regard as remotely reliable (such as dictionary.com), all specifically mentioned that the pentagram contained internal lines (or something to that effect). (Fuzzypeg 02:52, 11 July 2006).
  • pentagram in Encarta's dictionary: "star shape: a two-dimensional geometric figure in the shape of a star, with five points, especially one used as a magical or occult symbol" - evrik 18:07, 10 July 2006.
  • Pentagram in Wiktionary which used to read "The shape of a five-pointed star, often with magical connotations" - Evrik 06:02, 11 July 2006. I noted that just as "... Wikipedia itself does not currently meet the reliability guidelines" (quoted from WP:RS) Wiktionary does not meet these guidelines either (Fuzzypeg 02:37, 12 July 2006). I since changed the definition of "pentagram" in Wiktionary.
  • The article itself: (in relation to pentagrams on flags) "More common is a five-pointed star obtained by filling in a pentagram, i.e. not showing any separation between the inner pentagon and the five isosceles triangles." - evrik 18:32, 11 July 2006. I pointed out that this is actually evidence in favour of these stars not being pentagrams (!) and that regardless of this, Wikipedia is not a reliable source - Fuzzypeg 01:39, 12 July 2006.
  • "...since a five pointed star is a very particular type of pentagram" -unsourced quote given by SouthPhilly 01:12, 12 July 2006. He has still not told me where this is quoted from.

Obviously I don't want to keep discussing this forever. The best source that has been quoted by SouthPhilly or Evrik is Microsoft Encarta's dictionary, which in my appraisal is just as poor as the rest of Microsoft's products. Certainly it disagrees with Oxford, Merriam-Webster, Princeton's Wordnet and Liungman's encyclopedia of symbols. Now if you don't agree with my appraisal, or you think I have missed out any evidence, or if you have new evidence to present, please explain below. I shall now once again remove the offending material from the article. Please do not add it back unless you can give clear and convincing reasoning why! I am still also waiting for SouthPhilly to retract his statement that I have "limited knowledge or understanding". He may do so below. Thank-you, Fuzzypeg☻ 06:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I went ahead and added the information back in. We can remove it if someone writes a separate five-pointed star article. --evrik 15:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
There is such an article in existence. You were involved in the request for deletion discussion, and so you should be aware of the Star (symbol) stub I have created, which is the appropriate place for non-pentagram five-point star material. Therefore I am deleting the material again. Anything that doesn't appear in the Star (symbol) stub I shall move there. I take it I finally have your agreement (you said "We can remove it if someone writes a separate five-pointed star article"). Please also read WP's assume good faith policy and don't accuse me of vandalism again. Thanks, Fuzzypeg☻ 06:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Your continual removal of the information in the face of the facts belies good faith. The material belongs here. --South Philly 14:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I reiterate: either explain WHY the material belongs here, or stop adding it. I have outlined my side of things above; if you don't explain what your point of difference is, then how can I either a) be convinced that you're right; or b) point out why you're wrong? Now I suggest you actually READ at least the introductory sections of Assume good faith and No personal attacks. You've now accused me of having "limited knowledge or understanding", of vandalism, and of editing in bad faith. You're really misbehaving rather badly, and I want you to retract all of these statements. PLEASE join in reasonable debate rather than just making unsupported assertions and insulting me. Fuzzypeg☻ 21:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • A pentagram may not be a five-pointd star, but a five-pointed star is a pentagram. --South Philly 00:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
According to the sources I've found (listed above), your assertion is the wrong way round. A pentagram is a five-pointed star, but a five-pointed star may or may not be a pentagram. for it to be a pentagram (from Greek pentagrammon "of five lines") it needs to be constructed of five lines only, each line crossing two others, so that a star of five points is formed, with a pentagon in the centre (). A star is simply "A graphic design having five or more radiating points" (www.dictionary.com) (although I would argue that you can have a four- or even three-point star as well). A five-point star may or may not have internal lines, or polka-dots, or whatever you want within it. Fuzzypeg☻ 02:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I disagree with fuzzypeg, and believe that until a separate five-pointed star article is created, the in formation should stay here. --evrik 15:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Resolution

This may belong at WP:LAME. This is a question of geometric definitions. It seems clear that our best sources define the pentagram as being a regular pentagon with each of its lines extended until meeting another. The fact that encarta gives the contrary definition of any five-pointed star is perhaps worthy of mention in a footnote or in parentheses, but we don't design the entirity of our articles around encarta's definitions, especially when those definitions fly in the face of both mathematical and common usage. In short, and it is not clear to me why this needs to be restated, put five-pointed star information in Star (symbol) (or some other appropriate place), and add appropriately placed wikilinks to related articles here. Also, Evrik, edit summaries such as yours here are unacceptable. Do not use edit summaries to insult other editors in the future. Jkelly 18:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do not accept the resolution

The admin is question, Jkelly, was not asked to participate by all parties, did not solicit all opinions, and was not fair or complete. I am going to add the information that was deleted out of this and ask for a fair and impartial mediation Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25 Pentagram vs. Five-Point Star. I will abide by their decision.

Also, because Jkelly issued a civility warning to Evrik, over a comment about another user's actions, and his comments about WP:LAME he clearly has taken sides on this issue. --South Philly 04:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to open a mediation case, could you please do so? The link you have provided is still a red link! I see you have now made similar assertions in the Star (symbol) article that a six-pointed star is a hexagram and a seven-pointed star is a heptagram. These assertions are incorrect for the same reasons outlined above, so I will request that these also be covered in the mediation. I don't want to repeat this huge waste of time for every possible type of star polygon. Fuzzypeg☻ 04:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I had to step away from the computer and didn't think anyone would notice. --South Philly 05:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brigate Rosse

The Brigate Rosse uses a star, not a pentagram. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadethebutcher (talk • contribs)

Thanks, I'll move this reference to its appropriate place once the above debate is resolved... ! Fuzzypeg☻ 02:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] So... They can be satanic and christian?

I do not see very many Christianic pentagrams. Only inverted ones. Why is that? Are they only used in satanism? Can they be a fasion statement, like a goth/emo/punk you know. Would they wear one just to rebel? Like have a inverted pentagram belt buckle or necklace?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.145.81.240 (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure that we have any reliable sources that get into the use of the pentagram as a fashion statement. Jkelly 18:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Most pentagrams you're likely to find nowadays will not be Christian. A church near me has a pentagram window, but it's a rare exception. I would suspect that in strongly christian communities in particular, most people wouldn't wear a pentagram at all (for fear of persecution) unless they were specifically rebelling against the popular christian morality. Then wearing an inverted pentagram would make more of a statement, because of its perceived associations with satanism. People do the darnedest things to get attention... In Auckland, though (a relatively liberal city), we have plenty of upright pentagrams. Fuzzypeg☻ 05:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do we have any better images for Order of the Eastern Star?

The image that's just been added is the most representative of the order, I agree, but it is not the best image to demonstrate the pentagram shape of the jewel, since the centre is obscured by the overlaid pentagon. There are a variety of OES paraphernalia that show a simpler image which is more clearly a pentagram (medallions, crockery, etc.). Does anyone have images of anything like this? There's been quite a bit of confusion here over the difference between a five-pointed star and a pentagram... Fuzzypeg☻ 03:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Especially considering the other three images in the gallery are 5-pointed stars, as far as I can tell... :-) --SarekOfVulcan 03:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm well aware of that. They are the centre of an ongoing dispute over whether a "five-pointed star" is a "pentagram". It's had an admin's resolution, which was not accepted, and it's now in the process of mediation. I can't be bothered removing them until that's over. Fuzzypeg☻ 21:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inverted/Upright pentagram?

It doesn't seem proper to label a pentagram as "inverted" or "upright," as this asserts that one way is right and one way is a mere inversion of it, making this page of questionable neutrality. Would one call a triangle inverted because its apex points down?

Agreed. I'll have a look at the article and see how we could change the wording. Fuzzypeg☻ 04:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I've changed the wording in most places. I left one instance where the word "inverted" was given in brackets, and associated with Satanism as seen from a neopagan perspective, and I think that's reasonable, since many neopagans call this an "inverted" pentagram. Fuzzypeg☻ 05:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too much Pythagoreanism?

For an article on the pentagram, it seems to me that the Pythagoreans section goes too far into matters that do not directly relate to the pentagram. What do others think? Finell (Talk) 06:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Separate article for math

When I hear "pentagram", I think of a geometric figure. Since this article is officially identified as part of the WikiProject Occult, perhaps the article should be split, with the math in a separate article. Generally, I've noticed that occultists and mathematicians often do not get along all that well. Comments, anyone? Finell (Talk) 06:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, try this moved content Pentagram (geometry). Not great, but a start. (Nothing removed from here so far) Alternatingly we could create Pentagram (symbol) for all the cultural BS, I mean knowledge. Tom Ruen 05:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Just because an article is identified as being of interest to a wikiproject doesn't mean that it is the exclusive interest or property of that wikiproject. It just means some group of people have said "we think this article is of interest to us and we'd like to improve it if it needs any improvements". A pentagram is a pentagram and if it is of interest to both mathematicians and occultists then that's just the nature of the beast. In fact it also happens to be of interest to folklorists, vexilologists and others, are we expecting a separate article for each? I really think you moved a far too fast splitting this article up. You didn't wait for any kind of consensus on what constitutes a major change to the article. You didn't tag the article giving warning of the split and wait for discussion. I shall revert the move, and if you want this split then go through the proper procedure of adding a template, waiting for discussion, etc.
See Wikipedia:Template_messages/Merging_and_splitting.
Thanks, Fuzzypeg☻ 23:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and Occultists and mathematicians get along fine. I am an occultist and I work with several mathematicians. Mathematicians in my experience have wide interests and are normally intrigued by cultural as well as mathematical ideas. Fuzzypeg☻ 23:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I apologize for the quick action. The Pentagram (geometry) content-move is still out there without links, whether to be deleted or left lost. I don't see much point mixing math and culture, but I'll equally admit the math content is half-baked anyway. I'll let it be. I'll keep a link to Wikipedia:Template_messages/Merging_and_splitting for future reference. Tom Ruen 00:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christian usage and its end of usage

How could it be mentioned that the appropriate symbol for Roman Catholics to use is the Marian star? Just let me know on my talk page. JBogdan 21:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

This is more appropriate to the Five-pointed star article. The Marian Star article incorrectly mentions pentagrams, when I believe five-pointed stars are intended. I've fixed the Marian Star article. Fuzzypeg☻ 04:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Unfair criticism" of Mormon pentagrams

I've removed a sentence that sounds un-encyclopedic, as it expresses a value judgement (see WP:NPOV):

Because of the more recent obscurity of these symbols, the use of these morning stars has been occasionally and unfairly criticized as use of "satanic" and "occult" symbols, as they are sometime associated in today's pop culture.

I don't see the need for this sentence at all, since it seems to only be addressing the concerns of a small and insignificant minority. There is no rational reason to equate Mormon symbols with Satanism unless you subscribe to the rather rabid idea that anyone who expresses their love of God in a slightly different manner from your own is in fact a baby-sacrificing devil-worshipper. Wikipedia doesn't need to waste its space on such insignificant and extremist views, except in the appropriate articles (Religious persecution etc). The origins of the Mormon pentagram are clearly explained, and Satanism doesn't need to come into it. Fuzzypeg☻ 22:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

While your argument would be sound in a sound world, the reality on the ground is not quite as simple. A good chunk of the Bible Belt and the wider fundamentalist mainline Christian world does regard the world's 12 million Mormons in this kind of extreme contemptuous manner, and Mormons can be resultingly very sensitive about defamation. As you are ideally correct that we need not cater to religious persecution, I agree that perhaps it is better for the sentence to be removed. But don't misconstrue such an issue as small and insignificant when it's anything but. - Gilgamesh 03:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I'm kicking a dead horse, as the sentence was removed, but Gilgamesh: If it may be very relevant generally that religious bigotry is foisted on Mormons ;) it is completely irrelevant to this article. --Narfnarfsillywilly 00:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I still don't like the current wording for two reasons 1. It implies that mormons kept the symbol whereas 'mainstream christians' didn't. Currently no symbol is used by the mormon church, cross star or what not. 2. It is too short and doesn't include the mason's use of the star (a religious order that mormons were afiliated with) or the US governments use of it (Also afilliated with masons.) The star was an important symbol for colonial america and atributing it all to mormons seems uninformed.12.206.60.130 (talk) 22:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be saying two things:
  1. that mormons no longer use this symbol in newly-built architecture. That could be conveyed with a very minor wording change.
  2. that Freemasonry and the US government both employ the symbol of the pentagram, and that the pentagram was an important symbol for the colonial US. Remember that a pentagram is different from a five-pointed star . This assertion would need some supporting references.
I think the wording at the moment is quite fair to Mormons, and it does point out that the symbol derives from mainstream Christianity (implying that Christians who criticise their use of this symbol are probably just ignorant). What do you think? Fuzzypeg★ 02:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Venus-pentagram drift and the rule of Aanipada

I've removed some recently added text that looks like original research, and doesn't seem correct. The removed text is:

This pentagram rotates one point of 73 degrees in 243 years being 61 leap days and 12 drift days (2 days per 40 years). In 600 years the conjunction point has rotated 180 degrees as 150 leap days and 30 drift days. Thus a full circle was regarded as 1200 egyptian years (1199 Julian and 5 days) before realizing 5x243 years = 1215 years. So sadly, in this way the useful tool that a pentagram with zodiac is for calculating astronomy has become accused of paganism and cursed as being Wicca wile the useles Venus symbol of 8 points for 8 years is regarded as a meer writing symbol or decor.

And:

Since Venus has an 8-year cycle, the 80-year rule of Ur's first king Aanipada is ruled by or measured by Venus (2207-2127 BC). The 243-year rotation of the Venus pentagram can be overlaid in short Genesis as the end of his rule. This means the rule of Aanipada began with the birth of Serug and so supports the concept the king's name is Reu Aanipada the son of Peleg Mesannepada.

Now it would be good to have a discussion of the gradual drift of the pentagram traced on the zodiac by the venus-sun conjunctions. There is indeed a drift, however I'm pretty sure the figures of 600 years and 1200 years don't come into it. I could stand corrected, but I figured this out myself a while ago, and there weren't any round numbers! Also, the calculation should be simplified to avoid leap days and drift days, and simply use the time for a sidereal year: 365.256363051 days. Given venus' synodic period of 583.9211 days, we should be able to figure it out pretty precisely:

We know venus describes a pentagram in five synodic periods. That's 5 x 583.9211 days = 2919.6055 days.
In sidereal years, that's 7.993305 years, or 2.4437 days short of 8 full years.

If it had been a perfect 8 years then the pentagram would be precise, but it's not. It's short by 2.410213 degrees, and each eight years we can add another 2.410213 degrees to that error. So for the point to drift a full 360 degrees around the circle will take 149.3644 cycles.

149.3644 cycles * 7.993305 years/cycle = 1193.9152 years

i.e. the drift will get right round the circle in nearly 1194 years. I don't understand other parts of this, such as how the julian calendar comes into an egyptian year (it doesn't!), nor how this led to Venus being accused of paganism! The Aanipada info seems similarly unlikely, and it's not written so I can make head or tail of it. Who suggested this about Aanipada, and is there anything you could point us to to read that will clarify what you mean? Fuzzypeg☻ 08:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ROTATION OF VENUS PENTAGRAM

Why is it practice for you to remove before you question, on the mere premise it doesn't seem to be to you. I would like to see most members return data they wiped out if they are shown how it is true. But i think this is a case where being rebelliously self-willed comes first, and so giving people the self-appointed right to rule others.

I would like to see if you could just bear with me, and follow a thought. You delight in all your detailed decimal fractions proving ignorant that 4000 years ago no culture is going to be using fractions. It is common knowledge if you bother learing from anyone at all that Venus is regarded as a 584-day calendar (not 583.92 nor anyother lengthy decimal you wish to "correct" that too). That calendar is likewise known to be in Egypt and Maya as 8 egypitian years. (8x365 days) Leap days were not yet recognized by these cultures. This autmatically makes Venus 2 leap days short of every 8 years (5 synodic orbits). Then ignored by these ancients is that in 40 calendar years x365 days (5x8 years) that the Venus date of these 25 orbits (5x5 orbits) will DRIFT two dates back, so 2 drift dates and 10 leap days are 12 Julian dates. No ancient cultures used fragments, they used ATONEMENTS which means corrections. If you go back every 40 years you will have a drift of a month in 600 years of egyptian calendar which itself has drifted 150 leap days. This 180 days is half a year. That is why the 1200-year calendar if you do your research on calendars does exist and it has to be Venus, no other planet. It cannot be 12-year Jupiter whose 7 orbits are 83 years not 84 years. An example of 600 years of 365 days (minus 30 days) is 2369 BC Jan 6 to 1770 BC July 10, another 180 days back will then be 570 BC Jan 11. Get an astronomy program and go see it, dont just say you dont think it true. The 243-year Venus is also known to astronomers. Or are you going to say the Chicago Planetarium doesn't know anything because youre Australian. A conjunction of 2370 BC Dec 27 occurs again on 2127 BC Dec 27. A conjunction on 2029 BC July 1 occurs again on 1786 BC July 1. No one lives 1215 years (5x 243 years) they arent going to see the fractional differences. For you to say 1194 years you are ignoring the 8-year cycle as a calendar, which ancients would not do, 1200 calendar years are 150x 8years, but because they are years without leap days they drift back in Julian dates by 300 leap days, and as stated before the planet position drifts back 30 days per 600 years giving the 360 day retreat. This is why 1200 egyptian years falls in 1199 years, and it is why 1216 egyptian years falls in 1215 years, it has not deserted the 8-year calendar, but YOU have deserted it. You act as if they used your method of fractional math. I would like to know whether your fratcions for astronomy are calculated by you or taken from already recorded modern knowledge. So how is it that you some how expect these same ancient people to use your fractions that 1000 years of scholars had to calculate before you come along and disagree on how it was done 4000 years ago. Venus is given the same Julian date in 1215 years (5x 243 years) as a Sothic method. But the 1199 year method is 1200 egyptian years which occurs 16 years earlier and thus a date difference of 4 leap days. Has detailed algebraic math and geometrical math cuased you to forget simple math?

No offense intended, but you didn't explain what you meant very clearly at all. From what you wrote there is nothing to suggest that the drift you are talking about is the miscalculation of ancients rather than the actual drift of the pentagram's points.
Part of the problem is that you haven't clearly specified what you mean by a number of things: drift days, for instance. And I still don't understand why you're talking in terms of Julian years (365 days) and leap days when describing the Egyptian calendar, which was 360 days and 5 or 6 festival days each year (they had pretty damn good time reckoning, and their years certainly didn't drift as much as you seem to be saying, see [7]. The drift over a period of 1200 calendar years would be measured in ?minutes?, certainly not years!).
Again, I'll ask: is there a source for this information that you could point me to? You may well be right with some of what you're trying to say, but you're not managing to get it across. For instance, you mention the 243-year Venus. The 243-year Venus what? If I could read the original articles you're basing this on, I might be able to figure these things out.
I live in New Zealand, not Australia, and despite popular conception the blood doesn't all run to our brains as we dangle off the underside of the globe here, because gravity pulls towards the Earth. My nationality has, in fact, nothing to do with how long Venus takes to do its dance in the sky.
The calculations I gave were my own, based on the sidereal year: 365.256363051 days, and venus' synodic period of 583.9211 (which I didn't figure out myself). Don't be alarmed by my use of real numbers (numbers containing fractions). It actually makes the arithmetic much simpler than trying to carry around "leap days" and "drift days" etc. I didn't put my calculations into the article, since they could of course be wrong, and that would constitute original research, which doesn't cut it for Wikipedia. I note that my results are sufficiently close to your figures that it suggests your figures are just rounded-up (less precise) versions of the same values I derived.
Now, until I see your sources, I can't conclude that this is anything other than your own original research. So far I feel completely vindicated in having removed the material.
Oh, and please check out WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Thanks, Fuzzypeg☻ 05:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Magic Square Formula

8 1 6
3 5 7
4 9 2

In the next few days, I'm going to add a category about how the pentagram relates to a magic square. Please allow me to leave the text for the magic square here so that it is readily available for me when I need it for the article. Thanx! DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 02:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Done DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 14:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Judaism section (moved to talk page)

The pentagram is the key to figuring out a magic square which possesses an odd number of squares, and thus is heavily integrated in Jewish mysticism and numerology.[citation needed] It is because of this that King Solomon's battle shield was purportedly emblazoned with this design. Below is a step-by-step explanation of how the pentagram is the solution key, along with two magic squares exhibiting the proper placement of numbers to form the solution, following the various steps and alternatives.[citation needed]

8 1 6
3 5 7
4 9 2
  • As depicted in the diagram at right, the first number should be placed in the center square of the top row.
  • The next number is placed diagonally up towards the right, corrolating with the first line drawn in a pentagram. Because this is an invalid option (because the number 1 is in the top row), the alternative is to proceed to the lowest available square one column to the right, corresponding the second drawn line of a pentagram.
  • The next nember is, as before, placed diagonally up and towards the right. However, because this is again an invalid option, and the alternative is also invalid (because we are in the right-most column), the secondary alternative is placed in the left-most square one row up, corresponding with the third drawn line of a pentagram.
10 23 1 20 15
22 5 19 14 9
4 18 13 8 21
17 12 7 25 3
11 6 24 2 16
  • The next number is, as before, placed diagonally up and towards the right. However, because this spot is taken, the alternative is to place the number in the bottom-most square of the same row, corresponding to the fourth drawn line of a pentagram. Note that this does not follow the invalid rule above, because whereas before there was no square present, this time the diagonally related square exists but is occupied. This corresponds to the fourth drawn line of a pentagram.
  • Should this last placement rule not be executable because the lowest square in the column to the right be occupied, the number is to be placed in the bottom-most square of the same column. This corresponds to the fifth and final drawn line of a pentagram.

It should be noted that the pentagram drawn in point-center rotated 20%, in effect producing an inverted pentagram. The initial pentagram was drawn closer to what would be considered today as an inverted pentagram, as can be seen in many of the pictures included on this page, while the modern pentagram was probably flipped for aesthetic reasons.[citation needed]

Because of this symbolism to Jewish mysticism and numerology, the pentagram was the official seal of the city of Jerusalem for a time.[1]


Moving this section to the talk page--it needs some serious work, sources, and (for me at least) some assurance that it's not WP:OR. Justin Eiler 21:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

DRosenbach, the information you've added is conspicuously devoid of references, for any of your assertions other than that regarding the seal of the city of Jerusalem. Also, the method of producing a pentagram from the 3x3 square seems highly contrived, with a number of special rules for when you are or aren't allowed to consider a "move" of the lines of a pentagram. Not that your rules produce a pentagram anyway. I got out my pen and paper and followed as closely as I could, and the resulting figure doesn't even remotely suggest a pentagram. Your selection of rules is so complex, you should just about be able to form an image of the Sydney Opera House or Elvis Presley by following such complex rules, but do they actually demonstrate anything about the nature of the magic square? Similar things have been done with the Bible, applying vastly convoluted rules to rearrange the letters of biblical texts and then exercising a bit of free association to read meanings or prophecies into the results. You can find just about whatever you want in any diagram or text if you look hard enough, but that doesn't mean it was actually there before you forced it in through your own ingenious choice of rules.

Another point I might mention is that while you may have managed to form a pentagram two-points-up (though what you did differently I don't know), starting with a different magic square would presumably produce a one-point-up version. The fact that you don't seem to have considered this makes it seem even more like a half-baked idea. And what's the significance of the 5-wide magic square? That produces a quite different pattern, and I can't imagine you finding a pentagram in both.

Look, if you can give a citation of the published author who suggests this connection between the pentagram and the magic square, then we might (if they seem reputable, and not a crank) include some of this section. Otherwise it is clearly original research, and has to go. Fuzzypeg☻ 22:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The secondary fact that enantiomers of my purported magic square number placement pattern also work does not affect the validity of the intial placement pattern, because of the nature of the symmetry of a mathematical grid. This point was considered, but not included, because I felt it would led to confusion, in addition to the fact that this was how I was taught the solution, by first placing the first number in the center of the top row and proceeding as explained.
Secondly, the pentagram is not formed by lines drawn on the magic square itself follwing the consecutive order of numbers when the problem is solved. The lines of the pentagram form the proper course of action each time you proceed to place the next number within the grid (see last paragraph for elucidation). First choice is to proceed diagonally up to the right, second to proceed down (within this new column) to the bottom, and so on. Thus, it is not nearly possible to form sketches of either the Sydney Opera House or Elvis Presley with the process of line-drawing that I was suggesting (again, as a guide to next number placement, not as a line drawn through the consecutive numbers within an entire magic square; but if you happen to have arrived at pictures of these entities via your endeavors, perhaps this deserves some more investigation and perhaps even a section within those respective articles.
Thirdly, this has absolutely nothing to do with the Bible; I believe you are confusing ends and means. The magic square problem was not designed to accompany the pentagram, but rather, I suggest that the pentagram originated as a design because it is, albeit cleaned-up and spit-polished version of, the solution to solving the puzzle. You cannot deny that this method allows for proper placement of numbers to complete any odd-numbered magic square. Additionally, the 5x5 magic square was not included, as you have suggested above, to show an actual pentagram when the numbers have been traced consecutively, but rather to exhibit the proper placement rules without the constraints of a super-small magic square restricting almost every move because of its lack of valid options for following through with first-choice placement directives. (As an aside, my tracing of the 5x5 as you thought I meant t oproceed produced neither the Sydney Opera House nor Elvis Presley, but rather a surprisingly inaccurate map of the NYC F train route.) The fact that the pentagram produced looks a bit hieroglyphic does not invalidate its purpose nor its origin as I suggest. The Roman alphabet letter A is derived from other alphabets, for example. The Greek alpha from which it originated was from the Phoenician aleph, which in turn was from the Hebrew aleph, which in turn was from a little sketch of an ox head. Hence, a cleaned-up and spit-polished version of an ox head for those who want to use an indefinite article but have trouble drawing horns.
In all seriousness, I can understand how you feel about what I sense as your "feeling that this is your article" to some extent, being that I can see you have been involved with this page since at least January of 2006, and someone comes along and puts in things that you think are made up out of thin air. But I assure you that what I wrote has a source, and it shall be included.
In case you would like, I will let you know how to draw the pentagram to fit both the magic square solution moves as well produce an actual pentagram. Draw the circle with clock-face numbers around the periphery, outside of the cirle. Now, within the circle, and making all points on the circumference, make a point at 7 o'clock. Draw a line to connect it to a dot at 12:30. Then draw a line from there to connect it to a point at 4 o'clock. Then draw a line to 9 o'clock. Then draw a line from there to connect to 2 o'clock. If you connect 2 o'clock with the initial 7 o'clock, you will produce a pentagram. Each line drawn corresponds to the step or alternative or secondary alternative, etc. when attempting to place the next consecutive number within a magic square. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 13:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
In all seriousness, I can understand how you feel about what I sense as your "feeling that this is your article" to some extent Okay, that's gone RIGHT past WP:AGF and into an accusation that Fuzzypeg is violating WP:OWN. Stop, please. It's insulting. When you have a reliable source for what it is you are trying to add, then add that material to the article (with the source). But, until then, it's going to be disputed as original research, and removed. Please see WP:RS.--Vidkun 14:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
[I]t is important to consider whether a desirable result could be obtained by working with the editor, instead of against him or her - regardless of whether he or she "owns" the article or not. This is from the very same WP:OWN page to which you directed me. How could the say regardless of whether he or she owns the page"? Because, this page is not referring to someone actualy owning a page, but rather, referring to a common sentiment that may be present among some about others. Thus, it is entirely valid for me to similarly refer to Fuzzypeg "feeling that this is [his] article," because I placed said phrase within quotes, thus referring to a similarly common sentiment, rather than making an existential assertion that this page is, in fact, owned by Fuzzypeg.
Additionally, I was not in violation of WP:AGF, because in tandem with the statements I made in the previous paragraph, I was not insinuating that Fuzzypeg's actions possessed malicious intent when he opposed my additions to the page, but rather that he was merely being, what I sensed was, protective. Why did he write about all the ways he contested my information if the issue was merely that I lacked a source? DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 23:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
The tone of this discussion is getting a bit ridiculous, and it's chewing up a lot of talk page, which makes it a pain for anyone who tries to read through it. I'll simplify my position: I feel (for various reasons) highly suspicious of the unreferenced information you added, so I removed it. If you want to add it back to the article, please include citations of appropriate reliable sources. Your lengthy arguments aren't convincing; what you need is a citation. Remember that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. As to your comments about ownership, yes I've taken an interest in this article, I have made significant edits to it, and it is on my watchlist. However I don't feel this is my own article any more than I feel the other 310 pages on my watchlist are "my own". I'm being critical, not territorial, and there is no need to psychoanalyse me when I have clearly explained what my criticisms are in terms of Wikipedia policy. Fuzzypeg☻ 02:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we can cut to the chase with a simple question. DRosenbach, was this your work, or another person's work? Justin Eiler 02:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

OK...here's the source. This information was given over to me by Joe Slamowitz of the Lower East Side of Manhattan. He was taught this method of magic square formation in a private tutorial by Lionel Ziprin in 1962 or 1963. Is this verified enough? DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 20:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
So the information is verified as far as you're concerned, but it's not verifiable by anyone else. An encyclopedia can't really state some famous person as a source for information when there's no known record of them saying it. Can you find the assertions in any of Ziprin's writings?
I've been in this situation before, wanting to publish something shown to me by one of my Qabalah teachers, but having no published sources to cite. I just had to content myself with the fact that there is an inner tradition that will never become exoteric, and will continue to be transmitted in one form or other regardless of the fact that it remains obscure and unpublished. Fuzzypeg☻ 21:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...So a non-published interview is not valid source material? Would this be less of a contentious issue if I placed this magic square info in Ziprin's article with only a link to that page placed on the pentagram page? I mean, not that verifiability is any less required on other pages, but perhaps it being included in Ziprin's article makes it less controversial, as perhaps Ziprin himself exudes a certain ambiguity as to allow for some information only verified in a personal unpublished interview with a student of his to be allowed a place on his own page. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 14:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll quote what it says at the top of the attribution policy page: "This page in a nutshell: All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source." It doesn't get much clearer than that. Fuzzypeg☻ 00:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a joke...every page has unattributed material. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 13:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Then take it up with an admin. If it hasn't been published in a reliable source, it's not usable here. Additionally, what is in other articles not what is being discussed HERE; we are trying to make sure THIS article is properly referenced, so, your point that there are violations of policy in other articles is useless.--Vidkun 17:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Let me further quote the attribution policy page: "Although everything in Wikipedia must be attributable, in practice not all material is attributed. Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material. If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Bold emphasis is mine.--Vidkun 17:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flags

I don't see any flags. Missing? My browser? What? IPSOS (talk) 23:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sir Gawain and the Green Knight

I had trouble translating a word from the middle english version I have of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight (in the section relating to the pentangle), and I feel the translation given here is misleading. "Frankness" implies honesty, whereas the word "fraunchyse" (Everyman edition, Orion: London, 2005, p.194) is translated better as "Nobility of character, magnanimity; liberality, generosity; a noble or generous act"[8]. I'm not comfortable with using the wiki system, so if anyone else feels like making this change, please do. Personally, I feel 'liberality' or even 'nobility' would be a more accurate definition.

I've changed "frankness" to "noble generosity". Thanks for the heads-up! Fuzzypeg☻ 23:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Order of the Eastern Star

OK, the example you chose is not a pentagram. There are plenty of other examples that are: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] Will you do the revert for me please? I'm on dial-up at the moment and I really can't be bothered. Fuzzypeg☻ 07:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redundancy

Latin SALVS is a direct Latin translation of Greek υγιεια, so SALVS is actually the same Pythagorean or neo-Pythagorean amulet, and not really a specifically-Christian symbol (see Image:Crotona Pentagram ring.png ). Also, the Virgin Mary is more often represented by a five-pointed star than a pentagram. Traditionally, the Pentagram was actually rather rarely used as a real Christian symbol (as opposed to being used folklorically, occultistically, or speculatively by Christians). AnonMoos 20:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Venus creating pentagram patterns

This sentence needs evidence to be sufficiently deemed as true, otherwise it may have to be removed.

"When viewed from Earth, successive inferior conjunctions of Venus plot a nearly perfect pentagram shape around the zodiac every eight years."

88.105.93.103 13:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the precession of points on the zodiac of successive earth-oppositions is about 2/5 of an orbit. I'll add a graphic for fun! Tom Ruen 20:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Info is here. The calculation is trivial, and I've done it myself, based on the figures given in Wikipedia: The synodic period of Venus with the sun is 583.92 days, and the earth's sidereal year is 365.25636042 days. Divide the first by the second and we find that venus' synodic period is 1.599 years. The earth travels 360° round the sun in 1 year, so in 1.599 years it travels 575.5°, or one full revolution plus 215.5°. Or, approximately, one full revolution plus 3 fifths (3/5 of a circle is 216°). It's that 3/5 that gets us from one point of the "pentagram" to the next. Add on the next synodic period and we find we've gone 3 full revolutions plus one fifth, which completes the second "line of the pentagram". And so on, until after 5 synodic periods we find the earth has travelled 2.4 degrees short of 8 full revolutions, marking a good approximation of a pentagram around the sun, and taking 7.9933 years, or approximately 2 1/2 days short of 8 years.
I realise I'm describing this all in terms of the earth's position around the sun, as measured against the backdrop of stars (the zodiac); but the article is written in terms of a pentagram traced by venus's position against the backdrop of stars. This should become clear if you consider that at every synod venus is exactly aligned with the sun, i.e. it's position relative to us (and the sun's position relative to us) is exactly 180° from our position relative to the sun.
The place I first read about this was here. Fuzzypeg☻ 23:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Looking back (in addition to this that I'll discuss) to Unfair criticism of Mormon pentagrams, it really seems that people have a difficult time being neutral about Mormonism :)

Now under the Religious Symbolism->Christianity section: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has traditionally used pentagrams and five-pointed stars in Temple architecture, particularly the Nauvoo Illinois Temple[13] and the Salt Lake Temple. These symbols derived from traditional morning star pentagrams that are no longer commonly used in mainstream Christianity."

This word appended to Christianity, "mainstream", is not neutral, and it isn't neutral over a point that is outside the scope of this article besides. This article has concern with what religions employ what symbolism in the Pentagram - not whether any of those religions may be (supposedly) "mainstream" or (supposedly) not. "Mainstream" being irrelivant to the article besides, if there is a mainstream, there are some in the mainstream and some who are not in the mainstrem; and as this mention of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) is coupled with mention that their used symbolism is apparently not "mainstream", it implies that Mormonism is not in the mainstream of Christianity. Now that may be true, but the arguments for and against that idea are very conflicted (or not neutral), and whatever the case may be with that, as I said, this article has no concern with what religions may be mainstream or not. But while that conflict of ideas has been implied, please allow me to say this. I'm a Mormon. I believe Jesus Christ is my Savior. It is disheartening to me to read and hear all over the place (speaking generally of information in this world) arguments that I (as I am a Mormon) am not Christian. Bogus! First, look at the title of our church: "The Church of Jesus Christ..". Oh, Mormons aren't traditional or mainstream Christians. Actually, that may be true as relating to more widely established Christian traditions or doctrines of our day. Nevertheless, a person of any religion which claims assent to Christ and authority under Him is likely to think that they have it right and no one else does - and as this is naturally the position of my church, well, I'd naturally think that whatever the declared "mainstream" of "Christianity" might think, my concept of Jesus is "right" or what should be the "mainstream". And I have no problem with any other religion declaring exactly what I just did, only for their religion - that is the right of religion, and as I said it's natural any Christian religion might do that. I would however in the interest of respect for the Mormon view ask anyone who argues or has heard the argument that Mormons are not Christians to please read this speech by one of the Mormon leaders on the topic. But as I also said, any of that is beside any point of this article. --Narfnarfsillywilly 00:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent approval for U.S. military headstones

I'm not sure if it belongs in this article, or possibly elsewhere in Wikipedia (e.g. an article on neo-paganism), but the U.S. military recently (May 2007) approved the pentagram / pentacle as a religious symbol for military headstones.

-- Jmabel | Talk 05:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)