![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
![]() | This page was proposed for deletion by Raxythecat ( talk · contribs) on 16 July 2021. |
Many supposedly "ancient" occult or neo-pagan traditions in fact originated with Eliphas Levi. AnonMoos 17:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
The French Wikipedia article has a lot of material... AnonMoos ( talk) 19:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
A quote (haven't personally verified it yet): AnonMoos ( talk) 22:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
The bit about Crowley being the reincarnation of Levi is odd. It assumes the possibility of reincarnation, and then it goes on to assume that if reincarnation is possible, the transfer must take place instantaneously after death. If you're going to accept reincarnation as a possibility, why would it matter how long it took for Soul A to migrate into Body B? -- 76.83.249.234 03:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Could we possibly have a bibliography of Levi's works? Senoraraton 04:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 14:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Some years back I had a thin paperback book attributed to Levi, purporting to be his translation / commentaries on Zohar. I no longer have it and am thus unable to provide publisher, date, etc. Is this something that should be included in his bibliography, or a red herring? Shimjung1 ( talk) 01:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I think this article should specify the correct pronunciation of Lévi. I assume it's pronounced "le vee?" and not like the popular brand of denim trousers? Smiloid ( talk) 02:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Title of entry refers to "Levi" while main body refers frequently to "Lévi", the name under which he published. Which should it be?
Greetings! I'd like to propose the section Definition of Magic to be deleted. It currently relies on excessive direct quoting, and only one of the direct quotes is actually sourced. I think the current section make constitute a {{copyvio}} violation of some sort. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya ( talk) 09:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
At the end of the documet it is said the Levi is mentioned severall times by Loveraft in "The Case of Dexter Charles Ward". Reading Lovecraft's text, although, Eliphas Levi name is found only twice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.104.4.36 ( talk) 20:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
The source, as stated before, is the novela itself. It can be found in the following urls: http://www.dagonbytes.com/thelibrary/lovecraft/thecaseofcharlesdexterward.htm https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Case_of_Charles_Dexter_Ward/full http://www.hplovecraft.com/writings/texts/fiction/cdw.aspx
In any of these, if you search (crtl+f) the text, only two mentions of Levi's name are found, not several. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.104.4.36 ( talk) 14:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
WHY YOU KEEP CHANGING BACK TO "SEVERAL TIMES"?
I SAID IT BEFORE: HPL quotes LEVI twice. Twice. Two times. Two. Not several. Not at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.104.5.93 ( talk) 20:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
In response to the undo by Jayaguru-Shishya: A "piece meal" edit of a few paragraphs that are almost in their entirety erroneous makes very little sense to me. I replaced those paragraphs with a comprehensive entry including detailed references to the scholarship. I would ask you to accept my edit and work on removing links that are deemed unnecessary in order to tackle overlink issues. With regard to the content, I would ask for any explanation why the new edit should be inferior to the old one and should consequently be undone. As the article stands now, each single paragraph, except of the last one under "career", contains wrong dates, non-existent publications, and erroneous information that is not backed up by scholarship. -- Jjs hd ( talk) 21:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Jjs hd has written a book that concerns the the social background that gave rise to Eliphas Levi. He is not Levi or a friend or family member.
WP:SELFCITE applies and has been met (the material "is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. [...] [It is] in the third person and [does] not place undue emphasis on [his] work."), but the rest of
WP:COI is completely irrelevant. The article is not about Jjs hd, his "family, friends, clients, employers, or [his] financial or other relationships." The sources in question were published by
Walter de Gruyter and
Taylor & Francis -- the sort of sources we need. There's honestly no reason for this witchhunt.
I hate for-profit editing of any sort and would love to just see all paid editors (even the ones who declare their interests) blocked on sight -- but this is not the case here.
Ian.thomson (
talk) 01:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Eliphas Levi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Recently, my edit has been removed on the count of being "vandalism." Sure, the one sentence wasn't super incredibly helpful for much, but it's not like it was disruptive editing. Nothing was lying, nothing was made as a dumb joke. Anybody reading might see that and say "Huh, that's interesting," and isn't that a part of why Wikipedia is so fun to read? NPOV Enthusiast ( talk) 01:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
also I've just now noticed that this IP address has undid another edit of mine for seemingly no reason on the Dirk Meerkerk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by NPOV Enthusiast ( talk • contribs) 01:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
in the section titled 'Theory of magic' the two quotes attributed to Paracelsus cite works which don't themselves justify their claim that Paracelsus wrote them. I can in my admittedly limited skill with this sort of thing find no other attribution or mention of either that doesn't seem to be sourced from those works or this article, or any mention of which parts of Paracelsus' writing they supposedly come from. is it worth doing something about that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.33.113 ( talk) 00:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
![]() | This page was proposed for deletion by Raxythecat ( talk · contribs) on 16 July 2021. |
Many supposedly "ancient" occult or neo-pagan traditions in fact originated with Eliphas Levi. AnonMoos 17:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
The French Wikipedia article has a lot of material... AnonMoos ( talk) 19:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
A quote (haven't personally verified it yet): AnonMoos ( talk) 22:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
The bit about Crowley being the reincarnation of Levi is odd. It assumes the possibility of reincarnation, and then it goes on to assume that if reincarnation is possible, the transfer must take place instantaneously after death. If you're going to accept reincarnation as a possibility, why would it matter how long it took for Soul A to migrate into Body B? -- 76.83.249.234 03:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Could we possibly have a bibliography of Levi's works? Senoraraton 04:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 14:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Some years back I had a thin paperback book attributed to Levi, purporting to be his translation / commentaries on Zohar. I no longer have it and am thus unable to provide publisher, date, etc. Is this something that should be included in his bibliography, or a red herring? Shimjung1 ( talk) 01:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I think this article should specify the correct pronunciation of Lévi. I assume it's pronounced "le vee?" and not like the popular brand of denim trousers? Smiloid ( talk) 02:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Title of entry refers to "Levi" while main body refers frequently to "Lévi", the name under which he published. Which should it be?
Greetings! I'd like to propose the section Definition of Magic to be deleted. It currently relies on excessive direct quoting, and only one of the direct quotes is actually sourced. I think the current section make constitute a {{copyvio}} violation of some sort. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya ( talk) 09:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
At the end of the documet it is said the Levi is mentioned severall times by Loveraft in "The Case of Dexter Charles Ward". Reading Lovecraft's text, although, Eliphas Levi name is found only twice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.104.4.36 ( talk) 20:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
The source, as stated before, is the novela itself. It can be found in the following urls: http://www.dagonbytes.com/thelibrary/lovecraft/thecaseofcharlesdexterward.htm https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Case_of_Charles_Dexter_Ward/full http://www.hplovecraft.com/writings/texts/fiction/cdw.aspx
In any of these, if you search (crtl+f) the text, only two mentions of Levi's name are found, not several. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.104.4.36 ( talk) 14:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
WHY YOU KEEP CHANGING BACK TO "SEVERAL TIMES"?
I SAID IT BEFORE: HPL quotes LEVI twice. Twice. Two times. Two. Not several. Not at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.104.5.93 ( talk) 20:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
In response to the undo by Jayaguru-Shishya: A "piece meal" edit of a few paragraphs that are almost in their entirety erroneous makes very little sense to me. I replaced those paragraphs with a comprehensive entry including detailed references to the scholarship. I would ask you to accept my edit and work on removing links that are deemed unnecessary in order to tackle overlink issues. With regard to the content, I would ask for any explanation why the new edit should be inferior to the old one and should consequently be undone. As the article stands now, each single paragraph, except of the last one under "career", contains wrong dates, non-existent publications, and erroneous information that is not backed up by scholarship. -- Jjs hd ( talk) 21:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Jjs hd has written a book that concerns the the social background that gave rise to Eliphas Levi. He is not Levi or a friend or family member.
WP:SELFCITE applies and has been met (the material "is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. [...] [It is] in the third person and [does] not place undue emphasis on [his] work."), but the rest of
WP:COI is completely irrelevant. The article is not about Jjs hd, his "family, friends, clients, employers, or [his] financial or other relationships." The sources in question were published by
Walter de Gruyter and
Taylor & Francis -- the sort of sources we need. There's honestly no reason for this witchhunt.
I hate for-profit editing of any sort and would love to just see all paid editors (even the ones who declare their interests) blocked on sight -- but this is not the case here.
Ian.thomson (
talk) 01:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Eliphas Levi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Recently, my edit has been removed on the count of being "vandalism." Sure, the one sentence wasn't super incredibly helpful for much, but it's not like it was disruptive editing. Nothing was lying, nothing was made as a dumb joke. Anybody reading might see that and say "Huh, that's interesting," and isn't that a part of why Wikipedia is so fun to read? NPOV Enthusiast ( talk) 01:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
also I've just now noticed that this IP address has undid another edit of mine for seemingly no reason on the Dirk Meerkerk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by NPOV Enthusiast ( talk • contribs) 01:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
in the section titled 'Theory of magic' the two quotes attributed to Paracelsus cite works which don't themselves justify their claim that Paracelsus wrote them. I can in my admittedly limited skill with this sort of thing find no other attribution or mention of either that doesn't seem to be sourced from those works or this article, or any mention of which parts of Paracelsus' writing they supposedly come from. is it worth doing something about that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.33.113 ( talk) 00:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)