Howdy
Hi Will. Thanks for the note. We’re agreed on most those points and I’m glad we’ve been working together like this. It’s a good counter-balance.
I felt like some of the changes you made although striving for balance, deleted good, well-phrased information in the process. I did my best to restore the original while still keeping your points. If you don’t like how I’ve done this(or anything else), just go ahead and fix it / discuss / cite. Re “references to the original alchemical writings”: These primary sources are subject to vastly different interpretations. Although I think we’re both used to quoting primary sources, this won’t fly here. WP:IRS asks us to stick to the academic secondary sources. This is totally doable. I plan on working on pages (like ceration, projection, multiplication) that are in desperate need of content and references. Would rather not engage in lofty re-writes, but was concerned about the direction some of that was going in. Not inclined to get into lengthy debates in this setting, but I think this is a good arrangement where we can both add content and check each other as we learn the ropes. I'm available under my name (Carla, Car, C) Henkel in various forums and social spaces if we for some reason need to chat about anything. Nice to meet you and look forward to this. Car Henkel ( talk) 18:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Citations and alchemy
Hi there. I think we're finally starting to understand each other and that makes me happy. You've talked a lot about citing sources etc. on the article talk pages. I was looking for guidance today and noted these policies that I think we should also take into account when working things out on the alchemy page: WP:CHALLENGE -- WP:CITEKILL -- Wikipedia:When_to_cite -- WP:Preserve. This is in no way me trying to get out of finding quality academic sources. I totally get that some of the sources used on these pages are crud and need cleaning. But I think you can understand that some of the approaches you suggest in terms of citing every statement and deleting content are not ideal. The generally accepted approach outlined in these policies is to ask for citation in particular situations only and give every effort to try to fix problems instead of deleting content where appropriate. This should help us avoid schisms in the future.
I think you can appreciate that I've spent a lot of time in conversation with you debating this stuff and I hope it won't be so taxing for us in the future. The back and forth on the talk pages has been a bit lengthy and unpleasant. You've inserted some citation needed points on something I inserted today. I'm going to remove these just because the markup was wrong. But if you honestly think that a citation is necessary, please re-mark and explain it to me on my talk page. I think the links provided and the factual information found on the university websites are verifiable enough... but maybe you're seeing something I'm not. Let me know. Cheers. Car Henkel ( talk) 03:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Cleaned up. Will Timony, Ph.D (
talk •
contribs) 09:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi there, fellow Wikipedian. Since you sign with the "Ph.D" affix, perhaps you could indicate in your bio on your user page what your dissertation was, and where it can be read? -- Jerome Potts ( talk) 14:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm a member of the Warburg Institute's Esoteric Studies Research Group reading the origins of the alchemical esotericisms, which puts me as close as exists in academia to the authorities. That being said, I am a pragmatist, being the son of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Director of R&D. One aspect I would correct is your suggestion that spiritual alchemy is eidetic with all alchemy: it isn't. Operational alchemists almost certainly need to practice the disciplines of spiritual alchemy (although there is a very long list containing the likes of Gilles de Rais and John Dee who did not, going off the rails into sexual perversions), but the lessons of spiritual alchemy are taught at the moment by Tony Rooley to his voice students of the Schola Cantorum Baselensis as a key to Renaissance singing in the framework of the Quadrivium facet of music discussed by Yale's Professor of the History of Music Craig Wright in his 2004 The Maze and the Warrior. Or to put that backwards, music in the Renaissance was often a facet of a larger quadrivium case focused on a spiritual or philosophical point, and that meant that the spiritual aspects of the cosmological facet influenced the performance of the music in a way best described by the ascetic disciplines of alchemy. You can contact me on rahere usual mail usual com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.89.99 ( talk) 01:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Howdy
Hi Will. Thanks for the note. We’re agreed on most those points and I’m glad we’ve been working together like this. It’s a good counter-balance.
I felt like some of the changes you made although striving for balance, deleted good, well-phrased information in the process. I did my best to restore the original while still keeping your points. If you don’t like how I’ve done this(or anything else), just go ahead and fix it / discuss / cite. Re “references to the original alchemical writings”: These primary sources are subject to vastly different interpretations. Although I think we’re both used to quoting primary sources, this won’t fly here. WP:IRS asks us to stick to the academic secondary sources. This is totally doable. I plan on working on pages (like ceration, projection, multiplication) that are in desperate need of content and references. Would rather not engage in lofty re-writes, but was concerned about the direction some of that was going in. Not inclined to get into lengthy debates in this setting, but I think this is a good arrangement where we can both add content and check each other as we learn the ropes. I'm available under my name (Carla, Car, C) Henkel in various forums and social spaces if we for some reason need to chat about anything. Nice to meet you and look forward to this. Car Henkel ( talk) 18:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Citations and alchemy
Hi there. I think we're finally starting to understand each other and that makes me happy. You've talked a lot about citing sources etc. on the article talk pages. I was looking for guidance today and noted these policies that I think we should also take into account when working things out on the alchemy page: WP:CHALLENGE -- WP:CITEKILL -- Wikipedia:When_to_cite -- WP:Preserve. This is in no way me trying to get out of finding quality academic sources. I totally get that some of the sources used on these pages are crud and need cleaning. But I think you can understand that some of the approaches you suggest in terms of citing every statement and deleting content are not ideal. The generally accepted approach outlined in these policies is to ask for citation in particular situations only and give every effort to try to fix problems instead of deleting content where appropriate. This should help us avoid schisms in the future.
I think you can appreciate that I've spent a lot of time in conversation with you debating this stuff and I hope it won't be so taxing for us in the future. The back and forth on the talk pages has been a bit lengthy and unpleasant. You've inserted some citation needed points on something I inserted today. I'm going to remove these just because the markup was wrong. But if you honestly think that a citation is necessary, please re-mark and explain it to me on my talk page. I think the links provided and the factual information found on the university websites are verifiable enough... but maybe you're seeing something I'm not. Let me know. Cheers. Car Henkel ( talk) 03:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Cleaned up. Will Timony, Ph.D (
talk •
contribs) 09:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi there, fellow Wikipedian. Since you sign with the "Ph.D" affix, perhaps you could indicate in your bio on your user page what your dissertation was, and where it can be read? -- Jerome Potts ( talk) 14:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm a member of the Warburg Institute's Esoteric Studies Research Group reading the origins of the alchemical esotericisms, which puts me as close as exists in academia to the authorities. That being said, I am a pragmatist, being the son of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Director of R&D. One aspect I would correct is your suggestion that spiritual alchemy is eidetic with all alchemy: it isn't. Operational alchemists almost certainly need to practice the disciplines of spiritual alchemy (although there is a very long list containing the likes of Gilles de Rais and John Dee who did not, going off the rails into sexual perversions), but the lessons of spiritual alchemy are taught at the moment by Tony Rooley to his voice students of the Schola Cantorum Baselensis as a key to Renaissance singing in the framework of the Quadrivium facet of music discussed by Yale's Professor of the History of Music Craig Wright in his 2004 The Maze and the Warrior. Or to put that backwards, music in the Renaissance was often a facet of a larger quadrivium case focused on a spiritual or philosophical point, and that meant that the spiritual aspects of the cosmological facet influenced the performance of the music in a way best described by the ascetic disciplines of alchemy. You can contact me on rahere usual mail usual com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.89.99 ( talk) 01:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)