Talk:Fivefold kiss
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. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-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.) |
|
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on August 25, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
merge done with Blessed be--Xsamix 19:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Broken link
The link to "Craft Witchcraft Dictionary" seems to be broken. It returns 404. Vishvax 04:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] So Mote it Be?
Why does So mote it be redirect here? CatherS (talk) 06:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- So mote it be used to redirect to Blessed be. Then Blessed be got redirected to Fivefold kiss, so now So mote it be redirects to Fivefold kiss. The redirect does seem like a non sequitur, but I'm not sure what to do about it since there's never been at article at So mote it be, and I doubt the material for an article exists. It originally created as a redirect to Amen. Perhaps we could redirect it to Neopaganism or Wicca? I'm not sure how wide the usage of the phrase is. - AdelaMae (t - c - wpn) 02:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Neither redirect makes much sense. "Blessed Be" is used independently of the Fivefold kiss... I'd wager that the number of Neopagans who know the former is probably five to ten times the number that even know what the five fold kiss is. And "So Mote it Be" is NOT the same thing as "Blessed Be." CatherS (talk) 04:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. So either we maintain them as separate articles, redirect them somewhere else, or delete them (not necessarily en masse; we'd have to take it article by article). I think the best option would be to merge and redirect So mote it be to Wicca, keep Blessed be as a disambig page with a "see also" link to Fivefold kiss, and keep Fivefold kiss where it is. We want to avoid ending up with articles that are just one-line definitions. - AdelaMae (t - c - wpn) 21:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, definitely, Fivefold kiss should be left where it is. I'm hoping I will have time to hit my copy of GBG's Witchcraft Today and a couple of my other references, and see if I can expand it. I can see a few things that need to be added but can't recall the reference.
The rest of the problem is spread across multiple articles. This is my opinion of how it should be handled:
- The article Blessed Be should be moved Blessed Be (album).
- The content in Fivefold kiss in the section 'The Term "Blessed Be"' should be moved to Blessed be, with a "see also" link at the top to the article for the album.
- The "So mote it be" content should be either deleted (as it doesn't belong in either article), or moved to its own article. I do *not* think it should redirect to Wicca since its origins are, or at least appear to be, in Freemasonry, and I've heard Neopagans who were not Wiccan use the phrase.
As another option, Blessed Be could be turned into a disambiguation page, with a separate article for the phrase.
While we're on the subject, I notice that Merry meet redirects to Wicca. This is, in my opinion, wrong twice-- firstly, the article does not mention the phrase, thus making the redirect pointless, and secondly, the phrase is not specific to Wicca but instead the wider Neopagan community. (I expect, but do not know, that its origins are in Wicca, but even if that's the case, it's kind of like listing Compass under China.)CatherS (talk) 04:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Osculum infame? Really?
Though it does apparently refer to a kind of "Kiss", does this really belong here?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.70.227.84 (talk) 13:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. Also removed it from the Osculum Infame article as well. CatherS (talk) 10:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] References
This article has no in-line references, and the only really useful reference mentioned at the bottom (the Farrars' Witches' Bible) doesn't seem to have been much used for the text. There are several rather odd statements such as that Wiccans avoid saying 'amen' because it's Christian (oh really?), or the implication that the phrase 'Blessed Be' is a modern invention (it may be, but what's the evidence?), and rather odd examples such as handfasting for the employment of the fivefold kiss (surely there are more typical situations than this?).
These statements need to be attributed, or more accurately, this article needs to be based on research, rather than the personal knowledge and opinions of a few editors. This is a subtle point, but basically, if you look for detailed information first and base your writing on that you end up with much better information than if you just start writing and then look for sources to support your words. I don't see the point in this article at all unless there's some more decent discussion can be made on the subject. I'm sure such discussion has been published; we need to find it. Otherwise all the article says is "this thing gets done in Wiccan ritual and these are the words".
As a Wiccan myself I find it distasteful that oath-bound material is published on the net for no better reason than to say 'hey, here's a bit of ritual'. If there's anything useful or worthwhile you can say about the fivefold kiss you need to actually do some research and find it. Fuzzypeg★ 22:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
