Talk:Andrew D. Chumbley/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Let's say something about 'Sabbatic Craft'

Don't get diverted, people! OK Red, let's do what I suggested last week; turn your ideas into passages for the article. You want to make a point about Chumbley's use of the term 'Sabbatic Craft' - excellent idea. Reading back over your posts on the matter, you seem to be saying that Chumbley stole the term 'Sabbatic' from either Grant or Spare. First thing to do is get the appropriate references from Grant and Spare then, for citation. Would you do that? Question is: Where do the terms 'Sabbatic' and/or 'Sabbatic Craft' first appear? I suggest looking in Images & Oracles, Grant's first three Trilogy volumes, The Witches Sabbath/Axiomata and the Grants' Zos Speaks! Let's get this one pinned. See you back here. reineke 09:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Red - are you there bro'? I've been looking for 'sabbatic' in Spare and Grant. Did you find it? reineke 10:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Reineke. i am else where at the moment and dont have access to my books and material.I will add stuff after new year. "Red Blossom"

Alright, let's team up then. I've looked through them all and can't find it; but if you can give a page ref. that'll be a good start. reineke 09:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Reineke hello: check out 'The Magical Revival' by Grant: the alleged witch-prayer given in the chapters on AOS is called the 'Sabbatic Prayer' - surely that's reference enough for Chumbley sourcing the term 'Sabbatic' from Grant/Spare in the context of Witchcraft practises.

Ye Nameless One

OK, do you want to build something on this now, or leave off until the New Year? If you want to forge ahead now, giving the page reference would be useful - could you? That'd be brill. We can do something with that. The word 'sabbatic' pre-existed the Grant book though (see Merriam-Webster online), so the appearance of the word itself is not 'provable' in Wiki terms (however blindingly obvious you or I may think it). The other thing that would be helpful would be the first published use of 'Sabbatic' by Chumbley - is it in Azoetia or one of the articles? So we need to draw parallels using content. What is the provenance of the Spare stuff there in Grant? - is it by Spare, is it Grant's revision of Spare, or is it by Grant? We'll need to establish authorship. Otherwise all we've got is: 'Grant published the word 'Sabbatic' in 197-?: Chumbley published the word in 1992; therefore Chumbley got the word from Grant' which as a statement doesn't really set my balls on fire. I think there is something far bolder to be made from this. reineke 10:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I've made a couple of minor edits which I hope will not be found too unreasonable: the concept of Shunyavata would not be derived from the Uttara Kaula Sampradaya because Shunyavata is a primarily a Buddhist concept of the Madhyamaka doctrine whereas the Uttara Kaula is a Shakta Hindu tradition evincing a related but essentially distinctive metaphysical perspective. It's probably prudent to respect such distinctions between authentic Vajrayana and Shakta philosophies here.

The apparent affirmation of a Chumbleyan claim to 'pre-modern' derivation would actually denote a substantial qualitative transmission of teachings predating the modern period, that's to say from prior to the late 17th/early 18th century (a fairly late but reliable rubicon of modernity's onset in European culture). A slightly academic (not to say pedantic!) point I'll admit but I thought this statement needed to be qualified lest it be taken uncritically as an accepted point of proven fact. Hope these edits are acceptable - I understand that it might well be that others will prefer to revert to the original statements.

The Nameless One

Very good. Keep at it.reineke 10:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

A minor point, but re: This ambitious work was greeted with reviews praising its scope and originality by influential contemporary practitioners including Freya Aswynn, Phil Hine and Jan Fries

- I can't recall doing any reviewing of Chumbley's books in any print journal. Philipmhine 13:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Shall I dig out the citation Phil? - I've got the magazine. But if you wanted to cover your tracks we could - maybe do a little deal......... reineke 16:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I left some gaps hoping others would fill them in; it looks as if Phil Hine has forgotten what he wrote. Some other review quotes would be handy. reineke 17:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Can someone explain the Hine reference included? The reference is not a review but is merely a mention of Azoetia in the further reading bibliography.( reference 21 : "Oven Ready Chaos) So that reference cant be a review. And Hines assertion that he hasnt reviewed Azoetia has been ignored. So who is right here? Hine or the reference? It smacks of historical revisionism.Also reference 22 ( Blain & Wallis is not a critique of Azoetia but an examaination of how modern pagan beliefs are created by distorting historical material. So this reference cant be used to give Chumbley a positive light. Again historical revisionism taking peoples work out of context. --Redblossom 19:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Redblossom: The quotes you are questioning are referencing this part of the article: Chumbley's work is cited in several journals and books on the occult including The Journal for the Academic Study of Magic, a juried academic journal[17][18][19], Ronald Hutton's The Triumph of the Moon[4], Laurence Galian's The Sun at Midnight[20], Phil Hine's Oven Ready Chaos,[21] The Pomegranate journal[22] and The Cauldron magazine[23].

The references are not linked to reviews of Chumbley's work but instead reflect where Chumbley's work has been mentioned in other essays and books.

Reineke hasn't gotten around to referencing Hine's review yet. I don't see unreferenced materials being pulled from other Wiki articles and cited as revisionist. If it's pulled, it'll just have to be put back in when Reineke gets around to looking it up. Every time I see one of my articles in print, I can't remember that I wrote it most of the time, myself. Half the time I can't remember anything about the article. We're talking about a book review among many from what?-1995 or so? I don't remember what I wrote in 1995. If Hine says he doesn't remember, I believe him. But that doesn't mean that he didn't write it. Somebody will know that reference and maybe get it in before reineke does. Lulubyrd 23:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

If that is the case then it is historical revisionism. A person cant say a published author reviewed a book when the said author said that they did not. Are we saying that Hine is lying here? The Hine reference should be struck off until there is published or written evidence that Hine did review Chumbleys work in context to what the article is presenting. The Blain and Wallis reference is not valid since they are not reviewing Azoetia and are not in any position to pass a valid comment on it. Old habits die hard .......--Redblossom 12:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

None of the articles or books review Chumbley's books in that section. Chumbley's work is referenced in all of the printed material cited. Go read the Blain and Wallis article and you'll see that it isn't a review of anything, but cites Chumbley. It won't be removed any more than the other references in that section will be removed.

The author did not say that he did not write the review (talk about revisionism...) He stated that he doesn't remember doing so. It should not be "struck off" until a reference is posted any more than anything else should be "struck off " while awaiting reference. Remove the Hine reference if you want. Anyone can see that he references Chumbley in his work in a positive manner. Lulubyrd 15:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I will take a fine toothcomb to this . The Azoetia section states that the Azoetia is "praised for its originality and scope " by Phil Hine and 2 other authors. At no time has Hine said this and he has stated here that he has not done so. So this borders on dishonesty. Again. Also Lulubyrd how can you state the Hine reference has a positive review when its only a further reading page in the bibliography of Oven ready Chaos by Hine? Again you are seeing reviews which dont exist . Dishonest.--Redblossom 23:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to be patient, Redblossom. As I have explained twice before, the Hine reference that you are striking is not a review. It is an article wherein Hine references Chumbley, just like all of the other references in that part of the article. Read the paragraph-the whole thing and you will see that this particular paragraph refers to books and articles that reference Chumbley. It does not refer in any way to any to a review of Chumbley's work. No claim has been made to that effect in this part of the article. What you don't seem to understand is that Hine may or may not have written the review, but he did write the essay cited and the essay cited does refer to Chumbley's writing. Strike the reference that says Hine reviewed Chumbley's work if you want. Remove it if you want. But please leave this fully and properly referenced bit alone. By the way, as I stated earlier and you must have missed-Hine said he didn't remember writing it-not that he didn't write it. He never "stated that he has not done so". Let's talk some more about dishonesty: I never stated that the Hine reference is a positive review. I never stated it is a review. Read, Redblossom. It helps. Lulubyrd 01:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Again your seeing something that is not there Lulubyrd . The Azoetia thread in the first paragraph is stating that Hine gave Azoetia a positive review "praising its scope and originality", Hine has not said this at any time. So in that context the first paragraph of the Azoetia thread needs re-edited. With regard to Oven ready Chaos by Hine there is no statement or opinion by Hine concerning Azoetia in Oven Ready Chaos. Only a bibliography mention in the further reading. Do you think the people who use Wikpedia are going to buy this fabrication that a mention in the bibliography constitutes a review? So in that context i feel i have right to strike through the Hine refernce until either there is a re-edit of the first paragraph of the Azoetia section to include honest and legitimate citations or someone can come up with a legitimate quote from Hine in Oven Ready Chaos. I have contacted Hine to do this for he article, but whether he will want to after people have taken his work out of context is another matter....--Redblossom 19:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Redblosson: I have explained it three times. Now if you strike it, it's considered vandalism. Please bear this in mind. Lulubyrd 06:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe the first paragraph of The Azoetia needs re-edited. Its is clear that no citations are forthcoming and the statement that Hine reviewed Azoetia "prasing its scope and originality" did not happen. so this is historical revisionism and dishonesty at worst. I put forward the motion to the users of this article that the first paragraph is re-editied to take this into account. Hine himself has stated that he did not review Azoetia. So again critics like Lulubyrd are putting their own interests and opinions ahead of the article. I need a show of hands from the users of this article. Who agrees the first paragraph of the Azoetia section need re editied? Secondly for Lulubyrd, the Wikipedia guidelines on Vandalism doesnt say that putting a line through to show the disputed reference is wrong.Its a disputed reference so unless you can re evaluate that reference i put forward a motion to have that removed has well. A bibliography mention is not a review or a legitimate citation . Its merely dishonesty.--Redblossom 10:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Redblossom: Calling contributors liars is against Wiki policy and can lead to your removal. You might want to tone it down. The Hine reference stays. I have made up a report to administrators that you have been abusive to contributors by calling us liars and have continued to dispute a legitimate entry after having had it explained fully three times here, and a fourth in your personal discussion page. They will be able to come here and see what you have been doing. Lulubyrd 13:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I welcome it Lulubyrd. No one has come forward to verify the Hine refernence that you insist is legitimate . The first paragraph of the Azoetia thread is dishonest because it is saying that Hine gave a positive review for Azoetia when he has posted here saying that he has not. So are you insinuating that Hine is a liar Lulubyrd? Very strange?! And you havent offered any material or citations to say that Hine reviewed Azoetia. So again your portrayal of Hine is dishonest. You cant say Hine reviewed a book on Wikipedia (when he never) and expect no one to criticise such a fabrication. Can you elaborate the Hine reference for the first paragraph in the Azoetia thread? It clearly states that a citation is needed. So there isnt one. Do you really expect Wiki users to accept that when its a fabrication? Secondly, Lulubyrd this article is owned by everyone who uses Wikipedia.You cant expect to turn this page into a personal shrine for Chumbley which you seem to be attempting to do with the non existent references. If you want to set up a website for Chumbley no one is stopping you, but the Wikipedia site is not the place. Again i say that the first paragraph in the Azoetia section needs re-edited to take into account that Hine did not give praise or reviews for Azoetia. So again i say that the first paragraph is misleading at best and dishonest at worst. I would welcome everyones stance on this has clearly it does need to be re-edited. What does everyone think?--Redblossom 17:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I have put only fact in the article. I did not enter the information regarding the Hine and Aswynn reviews and have not defended the their reference-ability at any time.

Personal attacks of the nature of your last post are against Wiki policy. Lulubyrd 22:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, OK, cool it. Redblossom, I wonder if you could do Lulubyrd the favour of actually reading what she has said in the above discussion, as she has asked you to several times? Lets avoid personal conflict here. Now, there are (were) two Phil Hine mentions in the article. The first related to a review praising Azoetia, for which no citation has yet been forthcoming. Lulubyrd has agreed that that reference be removed. So there is no dishonesty there. The second Phil Hine mention is in a paragraph discussing citations of Chumbley's work. That makes no false claims, since it merely states that he cited Chumbley's work. Which he did. So no dishonesty here. I don't suppose you feel like making an apology?

The citations section doesn't add quite as much value to a general reader of the article, however it does give a better idea of his readership, and it is also very useful for other researchers. As such I think it is valuable and worth keeping, although it might be worth reducing the whole thing to a single footnote. That's not a major worry though.

Now, Lulubyrd: a few days ago you were still hoping to keep the first reference in until such time as the citation arrived, and of course more recently you assented to its removal. Just as a heads-up, I'll point out that in the situation where we are discussing the actions or beliefs of a still living person, we tend to err on the side of caution, and if an unreferenced statement is challenged, it is removed until a solid citation can be found. That helps avoid legal wrangles. Just something to be aware of for next time...

Cheers, have to go, my girlfriend has just come to whisk me away! Fuzzypeg☻ 06:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

How Much is Too Much?

I've found a reference to Chumbley and Azoetia in the Pomegranate magazine that may be viewed here: http://www.sacredsites.org.uk/papers/008%20Blain%20&%20Wallis(PDF78).pdf I've also found a review of Azoetia by Gavin Semple (noted Spare scholar) and a review of Qutub by Michael Staley (prominent OTO member); both in Starfire magazine. When do we declare that what is already in the Wiki article is enough? Do these new references need to be included, and should they be? Lulubyrd 21:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

If you've put the work in finding these references, I'm in favour of including them in the article. If these details are not of interest to the general reader, then we hide them in the footnotes so researchers can find them. I've already added the Pomegranate ref, and if there are any extra details from the Semple and Staley reviews that might be of interest to readers they could go in the appropriate sections; if they provide no new notable information that isn't already in the article, then you could just add footnotes to them in appropriate places, next to existing footnotes. (For instance, where you mention the Aswynn, Hine and Fries reviews of Azoetia, gather all three citations at the end of the sentence and add the fourth, Semple, review; the Staley review could go next to footnote 12, or alternatively you might want to quote some parts of his review and footnote that...)

As long as the article remains readable, it's not too much. Too much is when you get bored of adding to the article. I have to say again, I'm really pleased with how this article has progressed, and I think you've done a great job here!

... and I wonder, is there any information available on biographical details? Something that could be said about his life, career, and so on? That's the big remaining mystery in the article... Fuzzypeg☻ 03:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words Fuzzypeg. I'll add the Starfire review info soon. With the new subheadings under published works, the Howard obit and Chumbley education info doesn't seem to belong there. It's some of that personal info about Chumbley that you're looking for but is in the wrong place, so it gets overlooked. Where should it go? Lulubyrd 14:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, I remember the Michael Staley review of Qutub but haven't got the journal at hand - I think it would be a very good idea to cite that review in particular as it presents another perspective and documented response to Chumbley's work.

Ye Nameless One

The citation from the M. Staley review is not actually about Chumbley's work - it is actually an exposition of Mr Staley's own esoteric reflections on the subject of the Point - I think it is therefore not relevant to this Wiki entry - wouldn't it be more useful and informative in the historical interest to have actually cited the section of the review which critically evaluates Chumbley's poetry and work?

Ye Nameless One

What about Staley rhapsodizing about Chumbley's poetry and expressing the basic tenet that Chumbley put forth isn't a critical evaluation of Chumbley's work found in Qutub as Staley understands it? I agree, though, if you want to add a different part of the review, please do. However, I think what's there should stay until something else is put in place. Lulubyrd 00:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I still believe after careful reading of the Staley citation that it is indeed about Chumbley's work; it appears within a review of Chumbley's Qutub and is a discussion of the scope and purpose of that work, expressed in a rather florid style, but obviously very appreciative. It does indeed consist of Staley's own reflections, and he is reflecting on Chumbley's Qutub and how it relates to the greater concept of a "point". That's fine. If the quote is misleading because it's missing some necessary context, please include the surrounding context and I'll re-evaluate. Otherwise I'm pretty convinced that Mr. Staley is indeed talking about Chumbley's work. Furthermore, I think what he says may be of interest to readers of this article. Fuzzypeg☻ 01:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The citation from Mr Staley is actually a personal reflection of his upon the esoteric symbolism of the Point in connection with tarot, Kabbalah etc. in a general sense. He is definitely not 'rhapsodising about Chumbley's poetry' as you put it and thus this citation does not constitute a direct critical response/evaluation of Chumbley's work - if you carefully read the 'Starfire' review in question you will certainly find some direct critical appraisal of Chumbley's poetry - that alone should be cited as relevant to this Wiki entry.

Ye Nameless One

Okay let's cut to the chase - I haven't got the review by Mr Staley to hand but my memory can usually be trusted and I do recall (please correct me if I'm wrong) that it wasn't an entirely favourable piece as regards 'Qutub' - it definitely wasn't an exercise in, as you put it, 'rhapsodizing' about Chumbley's poetry but struck a somewhat more incisive and critical tone - you're selecting a passage in which Mr Staley muses in his erudite way about the general mystical symbolism of Nequdah Rashunah, the Point in Kabbalah and tarot and then making out that this is a direct eulogy of Chumbley's poem. If I have got the facts wrong about about the above I apologize - but somehow I don't think I have...

Ye Nameless One

Thank-you for your input, but I'm not obligated to confirm or deny your memory. Staley is rhapsodizing about Chumbley's poetry in the last line of the review posted to the Wiki entry. You are welcome to get the review and post what you want-I have no problem with that. What is posted is a full and true quote. Lulubyrd 22:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I quite agree, you are not obligated to confirm or deny my memory of Mr Staley's incisive review - but by cherry-picking a generalized esoteric reflection from that review, presenting it in a somewhat misleading light and deliberately omitting the real critical response to 'Qutub' which it contains I think you are misrepresenting the actual drift of the review in question, which I recall was not entirely favourable in its appraisal of the work in question. (Mr Staley's comment is not 'rhapsodizing' on Chumbley's poem but seems to me to be simply musing on the qualities he sees as essential to the best mystical poetry.) I'm a little concerned that your citation from this review is misleading.

Ye Nameless One

Please add some new reference or quote to the Staley review. I encourage it. It is not standard practice to include the entire review in an article, but instead put in a bit so that interested parties may look up the whole review. Fuzzypeg exemplified that when he cut Semple's quote in the article. This is not called cherry picking. It is called editing.

Your recollection of a review made over 10 years ago is not reliably referenced and continuing in this vein will not goad me into confirming or denying your memory. Mr. Staley's comments upon the best mystical poetry are in a review of Chumbley's book. Lulubyrd 15:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I will help out here. The review in question is from Starfire Vol 2 No 1. P 143 to p144 is Staleys review. The fact of the matter is that Staley is highly critical of Chumbleys work on Qutub . I quote :p142 " i must admit that a long series of quasi-narrative verses are not to my taste" and again:" i dont doubt that the poem is technically accomplished... , but cumulatively the effect is sometimes contrived and wearying". This is not an affirmation of Chumbley from Staley, so again someone here is taking peoples work out of context here. Secondly the quote use with regard to the 111/ and The Point is Staley explaining the qabbalistic concepts behind the book. Its not an affirmation or positive review has some people are trying to pass off here. So Lulubyrd you are in the wrong here. And the fact your purposely manipulating peoples work to fit you view of Chumbley is close to a personal biography of him and not a neutral presentation of the material . This is not Wikipedia's mandate.--Redblossom 15:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

An explanation of the qabalistic concepts behind the book is exactly the kind of information that we'd like to add to the article, being far more enlightening to the reader than either rapturous praise or crushing condemnation. What is the book actually about? What does it contain? These are the questions our readers will be interested in. If you feel that the quote is misrepresentative of Staley's opinions, then add some more info. Actually, I think I will add what I believe you're getting at. You should feel free to do this yourself, rather than having to take it to the talk page. If it's adding information rather than removing or altering, and it's well attributed, you should normally be able to add it without controversy. And better you than me, since you have the info at your fingertips. But have a look at the changes I make; you should feel free to add things like this in future. Cheers, Fuzzypeg☻ 01:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Redblossom: Please put this in the review if you think it reflects the magical concepts of the book rather than commentary on the writing style. I have been asking for Ye Nameless One to put it in if he wants. Please do something positive. I've been waiting for that for months. If we're reading this as you've written, it is not any more deprecating or less of a very personal review promoting Staley himself than what is already in the article. Truthfully, it says a lot more about Staley than it does about Chumbley. He states that the poem is technically accomplished! How is that not affirmation? Actually, better affirmation than what I put in the article. Let's make sure that goes in. The quote already in the Wiki article refers to the magical content of the book-more appropriate commentary from Staley than commentary from a Sorcerer on writing style, don't you think? Well, put this in-Staley will not thank you for it and it serves to promote Qutub much better and shows Staley much worse than what is there now. Sorry, Staley, I did my best.

Don't continue to project your lack of self worth onto me. You have made an accusation that I am purposefully manipulating the material. This reflects your personal problems and can be construed as a personal attack on me per Wiki policy. Knock it off. Lulubyrd 16:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that ref, Redblossom.. I thought my memory served me right and it clearly did. M. Staley in his review is not expressing a eulogistic rhapsody on Chumbley's work at all. Why is it thought necessary to slant these citations and cite materials in order to make them convey a contrary sense to that which they originally express? This is leading sincere researchers and seekers for factual information via Wiki up the proverbial garden path...

Ye Nameless One

Ye Nameless One: Slant is a rather interesting word for editing content. I pointed out to Redblossom that the contents of the review as posted now is as much a review of Chumbley's work as he has quoted. Redblossom has picked different quotes from the article than I have. I tell you what: I'll see about posting his quotes in full and in context and we'll have a look at Redblossom's agenda regarding the quotes he cut and edited.

The fact is that the quote already in the article is true and in its entirety from Staley's review and is not a fabrication. It reflects content of the book rather than style, which is more appropriate to this biography and the reviewer than the quotes Redblossom provides. It is factual and follows Wiki policy to the letter.

I think you have a distorted idea of research. The idea is that we give researchers a small snippet on Wiki and any researcher who is a real researcher will look up the reference. I don't know a researcher that would take anything from the internet as legitimate research from a site that has unsigned text. Wikipedia is not ever considered a legitimate research source if the researcher is older than 12. Lulubyrd 16:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Lulubyrd, I'm sorry if the issues I've raised seemed a bit contentious, be assured it's not my intention to trouble anybody - my concern is that the tone of this Wiki entry seems to be excessive and slanted in a somewhat eulogistic fashion rather than cleaving to the crisply objective tone which should really characterize an encyclopedia entry - my feeling is that this is not serving the interests of truth. All the puff about how highly certain people apparently thought of the late A. Chumbley really belongs elsewhere: I think the trouble all along has been that much of this Wiki entry seems to be telling people what they ought to think about Chumbley and his works rather than just presenting facts and allowing people to follow them up for themselves to form their own opinion independently. The M.Staley review represents a perfectly valid critical appraisal and as with any published works there are bound to be those who like the works in question and those who find them wanting in some way or another - that's down to individual aesthetic tastes and temperaments. That's all I'm trying to say really. A more objective and independent tone throughout would actually be of much greater service to everybody.

Ye Nameless One

Your opinions are helpful: what would be good is if you'd quote here in this discussion any lines you consider inappropriate, and offer an alternative rendering. Then if everyone's happy let's by all means put them in. Something like: Article: 'Chumbley was without doubt, and in the opinion of all right-thinking people, the ultimate and predestined end-result of millionty-million years of the evolutionary process slowly grinding its wheels towards final perfection...' Alternate rendering: 'Chumbley was a product of evolution.'

My feelings is that the effort that is going into discussion here is effort that could go into the article. It's too theoretical and - at the length it's reaching - not entirely useful.

reineke 13:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Balanced tone

This has turned into another interminable slanging match that is largely about the editors rather than the content. The article is progressing very nicely, but at the expense of people's nerves. Lets keep this friendly, please. Now, a balanced tone is of course very desirable, and this is where Chumbley detractors like Redblossom/Nameless/Bongo can make themselves very useful, by adding information critical of Chumbley, and by ensuring that quotes are presented in a balanced fashion.

However it is rare that information needs to be removed to achieve balance; this only really happens when all opposing views are already sufficiently represented, but one view has far more space devoted to it than the others. That is not the case at the moment. The way to achieve balance here is to add cite critical opinions of Chumbley and his work, which, according to Redblossom/Nameless/Bongo, are not yet sufficiently represented. Certainly there is only a single criticism currently contained in this article, which is Semple's critique of his long-windedness, which I have just added myself.

Lets stop talking about the bias of the various editors, since we all know that each person has their own opinions. That's only natural, and as long as our pursuit of truth outweighs our personal agendas we should be able to get along fine. No, what we're interested in is whether the article is biased. Currently it is, according to Redblossom/Nameless/Bongo. And it's biased not because there's too much praise (in fact, quickly scanning through the article the only obvious praise I can see is in the comments of Howard and Semple), but because there's not enough criticism. Redblossom/Nameless/Bongo, since you seem to be aware of lots of criticism, please add some to the article. Controversy! Alternate points of view! That would make this a much more interesting article. Would Crowley have captured the popular imagination the way he did if everyone liked him?

Fuzzypeg☻ 02:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Crowley's 'myth' is largely based on his foul treatment of quite a number of people, largely disciples. I don't hear any similar stories about Chumbley; with him it's down to what people can find or believe they can find in his writings. Having looked very thoroughly into the published reviews etc. I can affirm that the comment about long-windedness by Staley (not Semple) is about the only point in the way of quotable criticism that exists in print. So if I haven't added 'anti-' viewpoints it's not for the want of looking! - anything Redblossom can add will certainly be useful and welcome here. The article as it stands is very balanced - any 'slant' is due to the complimentary comments from Howard - however, that para of Howard's is the most succinct summary with which to tail the article here that you'll find.

Suggestions: First, bring us at least one, but better two, averse critical comments to balance up Howard and Semple. Second, write a better tie-up for the piece and use it to replace Howard's quote.

reineke 13:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Redblossom, you wrote: "Can someone explain the Hine reference included? The reference is not a review but is merely a mention of Azoetia in the further reading bibliography.( reference 21 : "Oven Ready Chaos) So that reference cant be a review. And Hines assertion that he hasnt reviewed Azoetia has been ignored. So who is right here? Hine or the reference?"

To answer your question: I'm right - Phil Hine has forgotten. His comment wasn't ignored - I replied to him in a jesting way; presumably he hasn't been back here since, and who can blame him?

The 'Oven Ready Chaos' 'suggested reading' reference is no more than that - I didn't add it. It is erroneous and should be removed. The reason I didn't add the journal reference for Hine's review was because after putting some work in on the article I wanted to leave some loose ends which I hoped others - somebody, anybody! - would pick up. If you'd care to take out the 'Oven Ready' reference then I'll put in the Hine review ref tomorrow. reineke 13:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Fuzzypeg i am not looking for there to be more crticism in the article. I just dont expect a Wikipedia article to be turned into a personal shrine.And for people to to use the article to promote private agendas and has a tool/weapon to sell that agenda, using fabricated histories or articles. Nothing more. This is important because Chumbleys work is already being used by people to create cults and histories that dont exist. So its important that Wikipedia maintain its standards of editing and intelligence. Reineke i will be happy to remove the reference . Whether or not "someone" will reinstate again is another matter....--Redblossom 18:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You haven't taken on board my request above: "Lets stop talking about the bias of the various editors". Please discuss the article content and leave out the "private agendas" and so forth. Agendas can be read into all of our edits, not least yours. This kind of tone is not conducive to a peaceful editing environment here. I consider myself a fairly dispassionate editor, since I couldn't care less about Chumbley, however if you think adding more information to an article constitutes creating a "personal shrine" then you're barking up the wrong tree. Following all your early criticisms the other editors have established beyond doubt that Chumbley is indeed a notable figure, worth having an article written about him. They went to a lot of effort gathering the appropriate evidence to demonstrate that their work was indeed justified. And now that they have done so, you criticise them for being biased and promoting their own personal agendas. They have put the hard work in and supported everything in the article with solid evidence. Where evidence has been lacking on some detail they have quickly acquiesced and agreed to the detail being removed. You on the other hand have produced relatively little evidence-based research, but have sat in the sidelines ripping into people's work (which is fine up to a point, and it's good to have a critical eye there) and ripping into the people themselves (which is absolutely not fine). If you're not happy with the balance of the article then quit complaining, get off your chuff, and do some work. Don't sit there sowing dissension and making hypocritical comments about "agendas".

Now, if Chumbley is indeed a notable figure, as has been so abundantly proven, then there's no reason not to make a really well fleshed-out article. It should include biographical details, reviews of his work, criticisms, and all the rest. Positive reviews are interesting and useful, just as are negative reviews.

I can assure you, the article doesn't read like a "personal shrine", but if you want to bring some balance then do so. Just stop insulting the other editors.

I note you haven't apologised to Lulu for calling her "dishonest". Fuzzypeg☻ 22:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see references regarding the cults and histories that don't exist, myself. That would bring an interesting flavor to the article. Please point us to the information you've gathered, Redblossom. Lulubyrd 23:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Why has Lullbyrd reinstated the Hine Oven Ready Chaos reference ( Reineke) when its was agreed that it should be removed?--Redblossom 08:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Redblossom: When will we see the references for the cults and histories that don't exist? Fuzzypeg and I don't agree that the Hine reference should be removed. It is factual and fully referenced. In fact, Fuzzypeg has made it clear that it's a part of referencing Chumbley's notability. ...Right after he noticed that you haven't apologized to me for calling me dishonest. Lulubyrd 12:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Red: that was my error - I paid too much attention to the convoluted dialogues here and not enough to the article 'as is'. I misinterpreted the Oven Ready ref as the citation for Hine's review. Soz.

The reference to Oven Ready Chaos reinstated by Lulu is however fair and should stay - Azoetia is in the recommended reading list; that's good enough to qualify.

I think the refs to reviews by Freya Aswynn and Phil Hine can comfortably stay out. Because, firstly, Fries is a far better source to validate the contemporary opinion of Chumbley's book (i.e. he has written and sold a lot more books than Aswynn and Hine); secondly, giving the names and dates of the journals concerned could send owners scurrying to Ebay, wallets pulsating gently. Early on you yourself made some strong points about the inflation of market prices for printed matter, and blowing the gaff on mags that contain reviews of Chumbley could make it more difficult for me and my mates to pick up copies of these for virtually nothing. If I'd sussed that before I would have agreed with your original insistence re citations for these reviews. Better late than never though.

What shall we do next? reineke 16:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This is fine with me. Lets get this cults and histories that don't exist info going to balance the article. Redblossom, the ball is now in your court. Lulubyrd 21:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Staley Review

Casting Pearls Before Swine

I have before me an unabashedly admiring review of Chumbley and his work. Redblossom has taken things out of context and I recommend that a reassessment of Staley's review and what is in the Wiki article be forthcoming. All of the quotes below are in context and complete except the one that continues to quote a passage of the book (passage not included).

"The whole book is very well presented-the sort of quality production job which one would expect from Fulgur-and makes enjoyable and interesting reading." (Dashes in context)

"I must admit that a long series of quasi-narrative verses are not to my taste. Though not a stranger to the joys of contemplation, perhaps I simply do not have the patience to allow the subtle aromas to arise." Huh, not what Redblossom has led us to believe...

"I don't doubt that the poem is technically accomplished; it gives some nice flashes of insight along the way, but cumulatively the effect is sometimes contrived and wearying. Interspersed among the verses are illustrations by the author, and these are lovely." More praise for Chumbley's art follows. I can quote that for you, if you'd like.

"The commentary is interesting indeed, covering a lot of ground; Chumbley is very well read, with some familiarity amongst a variety of traditions. However, he does exhibit a love for portentous mystery..." continues to quote a passage from the book.

"The expression is elegant and the imagery appealing." Then he goes on to the part I quoted in the Wiki article about 'the point' and another bit along the same lines of his understanding of 'the quintessence'.

Final paragraph after the 'point' and 'quintessence' explanations: "These reservations aside, I have enjoyed reading Qutub immensely. It is an elegant, rather lovely volume of mystical insight, and I recommend it."

Redblossom, your quote edits misrepresent Staley's review. Ye Nameless One, please allow me to disabuse you of your belief that the Staley review was not glowing. An apology regarding a comment about my slanting the review may be in order, as well as a tongue lashing for Redblossom regarding his edits. Your hearty congratulations regarding them do not put your editing advice in a good light. What I originally quoted was vastly tempered compared to the overall tone of the review.

Now that we all know more about agendas and truth in editing in this article, perhaps we can lay to rest the accusations that I am somehow skewing the article favorably due to my personal agenda. By the way boys, which of these quotes do you think I'll put in the article when I remove my earlier, more moderate quote? Lulubyrd 12:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, well done, but lets put personalities aside. We don't want to get caught up again in bickering and backbiting.

Now Lulu, when Staley says "These reservations aside", which reservations is he referring to? Are they the reservations you've quoted above, or does he express other reservations?

Redblossom/Nameless: in future if you have criticisms of someone's research, please support your criticisms with clear evidence, or we're unlikely to believe you. We've had a few instances now where you've both cried wolf and created unnecessary work and frustration for the other editors. I believe the correct approach from here on is that well-attributed research not be removed/reworked in the face of unsubstantiated criticisms. Thanks, Fuzzypeg☻ 05:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Fuzzypeg i can say with confidence that i am not Nameless One whoever he/she is.. Clarification of IP adresses will clear that up.--Redblossom 16:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Fuzzypeg: It appears that the reservations stem from Staley's discussion regarding 'the quintessence'. He writes a rather lengthy para about how his interpretation of the quintessential current differs from Chumbley's put forth in Azoetia. The para is solely about a concept in Azoetia-of which he makes plain reference, which upon analysis sounds like an old criticism and has nothing to do with the criticism of this book. Nowhere in the para does he criticize this book. As in the para about the point, the para seems to serve mostly as a vessel for putting forth Staley's basic understanding of concepts. I have seen some discussion of this in a Thelemic forum and from what I gather with my limited knowledge of Thelema, it stems from a difference of opinion between Thelema and Chumbley's Craft as to the nature of the magical stream. I will quote the para here to show my analysis is reasonable if you think that necessary. Lulubyrd 11:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This looks extremely promising Lulu; which quotes are you going to pick? One possibility would be to use a positive one, then add one of Staley's 'reservations'. Hopefully that would enable the entry to be as balanced as could be desired. However, the one about 'portentous mystery' isn't terribly useful - if you have read Staley's texts in Starfire it's evident that his own preferences lean very heavily towards portentous, and possibly even ineffable, mystery. Pot and kettle. Crack on! reineke 16:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

One might speculate that the comments in the M.Staley review about the portentous tone of Chumbley's work and its cumulatively 'contrived and wearying' effect is simply an acknowledgment of the view held by some that this work is sometimes marred by a tendency toward bombast. Not necessarily my viewpoint but I've heard it expressed by some and it's a quite valid aesthetic response. As to M.Staley's critique of the term 'quintessence' in this context I think that is worthy of consideration also as can be seen in classical alchemy where the quintessence is actually distilled by removal of the four aristotelian elements - whereas a work like the 'Azoetia' seems to consist in piling them on to construct its eclectic edifice.I think M.Staley's review is an equivocal one, containing both praise and criticism - but definitely not quite the 'glowing' and unmitigated rhapsodizing you would have us believe!

Ye Nameless One

Nameless: Do you know what portentous means? If your post is any indication, you don't... You have nothing but innuendo and gossip to contribute. Get us some references for your less than astute commentary, please, or stop bothering us. I admit to a chuckle regarding your commentary on the Azoetia, though. Thanks for that.Lulubyrd 04:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Lulubyrd, as you have asked about the term 'portentous' as applied, whether rightly or wrongly, in the cited review one could perhaps cite the Merriam-Webster Collegiate dictionary for a few pointers: 'self-consciously solemn or important, pompous, ponderously excessive.' The dear old Wiktionary says it means either 'Foreboding' or on the other hand 'Excessively or pompously solemn.'

Ye Nameless One

I have not asked about the term portentous, which points out, once again, that you misread and misrepresent when you post.

As far as 'as applied', you are reading in your perspective, not necessarily what Staley meant at all. Who are you trying to kid, Nameless? Do you suppose that we don't have the ability to look this up ourselves? Merriam-Webster unabridged says: 1 : of, relating to, or constituting a portent : pregnant with consequence or possibility <the events under discussion are portentous -- Philip Hamburger> 2 : eliciting amazement or wonder : MARVELOUS, MONSTROUS, PRODIGIOUS <the extraordinary old man gave him a second portentous wink -- J.C.Powys> 3 : exhibiting gravity or ponderousness : self-consciously weighty <the style is so portentous that one expects up to the last paragraph that something of moment is about to be revealed -- Dachine Rainer> synonym see OMINOUS

And, of course, when we read in context wherein Staley is praising Chumbley's work with no reservations, we can see that any of the above only three definitions are a better bet for Staley's meaning than yours. Lulubyrd 21:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I just looked at Wiktionary and the definition of portentous is so at odds with what's in Merriam-Webster unabrided that I must wonder if it has been edited by someone whose native language is not English. Let's try to stick with the experts, shall we? I don't think Wikipedia is a sanctioned reference source. Why would Wiktionary be? Is this the level of reference you use and support, Nameless? Lulubyrd 15:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

'...ponderousness : self-consciously weighty <the style is so portentous that one expects up to the last paragraph that something of moment is about to be revealed -- Dachine Rainer>'

Lulubyrd thank you, I'm surely not alone in feeling that your citation just about hits the proverbial nail on the head!

Ye Nameless One

Before I nod off, how about you just write, 'Staley gave an equivocal review to the book in Starfire [X/Y]' ? Then can that one and find the next thing to be irritated about. reineke 14:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the current quote from Staley's review is irrelevant to the context within the article; later I shall change it to what I said above, giving the info that Staley is a leading member of the Typhonian OTO. That should be anodyne enough. Who cares what a reviewer said anyway? - they all have agendas. Agendas everywhere. Be wary. reineke 10:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, you two, for adding the links to mandrake and JASM. reineke 15:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5