Talk:Andrew D. Chumbley/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Phil Hine's review (citation)

Hullo - ? Anyone still coming around here? Phil Hine never got back to us, did he? reineke 09:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Reineke: I was rather hoping you would clarify this statement: "Shall I dig out the citation Phil? - I've got the magazine." Please do so. Philipmhine 11:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Phil: Well, I didn't want to embarass you, but I'm aware that you've written many articles, books and reviews, so one wouldn't expect you to keep track of them all. reineke 14:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I was considering putting the long discussions above into the archive (Let's say something about 'Sabbatic Craft', How much is too much? Balanced Tone and Staley Review) - everyone happy with that? reineke 14:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy with that... By the way, I'm intrigued as well, now, to see the citation Phil is asking for. Rather than speculating on who is or isn't going to be embarrassed, lets just see the citation. Sorry if it's a bother for you to dig it out... Fuzzypeg☻ 05:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Either there is a Hine reference or there is not. If there was it would have been produced by now. I notice somebody removed the assertion.--85.211.162.87 18:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The rather silly post immediately above aside; Reineke, you old reprobate! Let's have a look at that quote. Please stop teasing Phil. His temper... Lulubyrd 11:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Righty right - have managed to make a third archive without muffing it up completely, and - having pondered long on Sir Henry's gardener - I will shortly deliver the citation and a snippet from Phil Hine's review. Er - can someone remind me what was said about PH's review, and where, or reinstate that sentence for me please? reineke 16:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Found the earlier version and revised same, with citation for Hine - will add a quote from Hine's very positive review if needed. Did not reinstate Freya Aswynn but this slants the preceding assertion, as Azoetia's originality is specifically mentioned in that review. Anyone want Freya back? Oh, apologies to person 85.211.162.87 for not organising my itinerary around his or her needs. reineke 09:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is the text of the second half of the Hine review; would there be an advantage in quoting some in the footnotes (rather than padding the body of the article)? "For a 'first' book this is an excellent work. The author has managed to combine both evocative descriptive text, some fine poetry, and artwork which is as much spellcraft as the words. Reading through it made me want to try the system out - a high recommendation indeed! This is magick as poetry in motion. It's a limited edition so if you want it move fast. Books of such quality are becoming increasingly rare." I don't think there is any question of embarrassing the writer, rather, Hine's "high recommendation" demonstrates his magical and intellectual acuity. It was one of the first reviews to be published. One slight slip only with his "both", followed by a list of three items. reineke 10:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Deep joy - according to Wiki this piece is no longer a 'start' article, but has evolved sufficiently to require copy editing. Do we have a copy editor on board? reineke 14:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Rieneke: You have been busy! Where do you find all this great stuff? Actually, this sounds like a nice review indeed, but it might prove too much for some contributors looking for "balance". I should think any embarrassment might come from forgetting writing the review. Not necessary of course-I know someone who sometimes reads things she's written and wonders that she wrote them. I understand that it's as though reading someone else's prose.

I think Fuzzypeg or you might qualify for copy editing duty. You both have edited the article well. Either of you up for the work? Lulubyrd 03:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the boost there; I've located a temporal wormhole leading to the 1990s where all sorts of things can be found.

As the significant portion of Hine's review is here in the discussion, it can be left out of the article I suppose.

Quite happy to tinker with a bit of editing, but it will need to be judicious otherwise there are likely to be hissy noises from conscientious objectors and other non-combatants. reineke 10:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Well done, Reineke, and Lulu, you've both done brilliant work here. I'm very happy to do some copy editing, the simplest and least glorious part of bringing together the article. I know it's been hard work here and you've come through with flying colours! I still think to make a really good article it could do with a bit more biographical information — there are currently almost no details of his existence outside of magical groups — but I don't know how readily available this info is. What's here so far is excellent. Fuzzypeg☻ 00:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

If you would lead on this, it would be great Fuzz - thanks! I'll duke in if you show the way (or I could just sit back while you do it... nah!). Although there seems to be very little info available we might be able to dig out the odd detail about Chumbley's exterior life. So I'll be gone for a couple of weeks - back to the nineties. The food's OK but music and fashion let them down badly. See you back here. Thanks guru! reineke 16:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Chumbley a magician?

Someone has gone to the trouble of stating that Chumbley was a "magician". I disagree. He was a writer , and an artist. But he wasnt a magician. Using terms like that a very biased and subjective. In the occult proof of this nature is negligible. Chumbley wasnt a magician. He was someone who stole other peoples ideas , and dressed it up has his own in limited edition vanity projects. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.211.181.200 (talk) 18:14, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

Tiresome boy. I know that you know nothing about this, or you'd say who you are and have something of any value at all to contribute. Since you have absolutely nothing to contribute, knock it off, please. By the way, you're fellow students have ratted you out. They're not happy. Lulubyrd 23:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

He was either a magician, a witch or a sorcerer. Take your pick. He was named as such by a number of notable people. We need not say "purported" magician or any such phrase, according to ArbCom Para 6.2. Fuzzypeg☻ 06:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. Using the term "magician" has an 'occupation' is ludicrous and childish. Having looked through the history of this article, it seems one or two posters seems to be creating a myth and cult around the late Chumbley which is not deserving. Until any practice journals of Chumbley's are published the term "magician" is pointless.Publisher yes. Artist yes. "Magican"? Sorry thats a very long stretch by the academic standards of Wikipedia. Anway how can the title of "magician" be an occupation? Some of you seem to be reading too much Harry Potter. It puts the little remaining credibility of this whole page on Chumbley's work to the test. The magician term should be removed from the occupation section to ensure neutrality and NPOV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.211.159.7 (talk)

Occupation is not necessarily profession. Other biographies list people as poets, musicians, etc, things they didn't do for money. Please explain why you are so certain he was not involved in magic. Also please explain which particular "academic standards" of Wikipedia you think we're stretching. Unless you make your criticisms a bit more concrete there's little we can do with them; I'm having to guess at why you don't agree with "magician" being listed as an occupation. I'm also having to guess at what else in the article you find incredible. I'm also wondering why "magician" should be a WP:NPOV issue. Fuzzypeg☻ 03:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you're being very kind, Fuzzypeg.

The only one who has gone to the trouble of stating Chumbley was a magician is the person complaining. If he had actually read the article, he could have read no statement that reports Chumbley was a magician. The article says he was a practitioner and theorist of magic. This little student who believes his opinion matters can't read well enough to make a coherent argument. Opinion means nothing on Wiki. He has no idea what biased and subjective means and he argues that "in the occult proof of this nature is negligible", as though he knows about "in the occult", has insight regarding the nature of proof, and is naive enough to believe that a statement about what one does is open for argument.

Fuzzypeg, you're talking logic to a boy who wants to be Chumbley so much he wants to "kill him" with his delete button. Lulubyrd 02:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Where is this childish baiting coming from? It clearly states in the occupation box at the top of the article that Chumbley's occupation was a "magician". Has previously said, how can an the label of "magician" be an occupation. It clearly is not in this context. Secondly how would a person define a "magician" has an occupation in a rational academiv fashion? It cant. I put forward the motion that the word "magician" be removed from the summary box at the top of the page. Clearly some people clutching at this article need to step out of their Dungeons & Dragons bubble. Again i say Artist? Yes. Publisher? Yes. Magician? No. It is not the job of Wikipedia to create falsehoods that are not true, and create histories that are not. Try to ground this article/page in some sort of reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.162.128 (talk) 12:31, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Huh, not surprisingly, this little Chumbley wannabe is unable to address any questions of Fuzzypeg's... When you can "prove" someone who is a practitioner and theorist of magic is not a magician, do so. Don't forget your attributions, boy. The whole "created history" of this article is referenced fully. Reality check-it's not Wiki's job to cave to your childish notions. Oh! who knew! Lulubyrd 12:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

No need for scoffing, Lulu. Now Bongo, what's the actual problem with the word "magician"? Do you think that he didn't claim to be a magician, or that no-one else claimed he was a magician, or do you think he was claiming to be a magician when in fact he wasn't, or do you think that no-one can claim to be a magician because there is no such thing, or do you think that a person can claim to be a magician, but not as an occupation? Please clarify. And if one of the other words "sorcerer" or "witch" seem more appropriate to you, then please say so, and explain why. I'm sorry, but I just don't understand, in light of the support I've cited, what your problem is. Fuzzypeg☻ 05:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This is Bongo again? Well, I admit I was scoffing but it certainly points out that my previous post was far from baiting, as described by Bongo. Back on track-wasn't that box of links that Bongo finds so offensive added by a Wiki bot? I don't remember anyone mentioning adding it. No one who has been writing the article has gone to any trouble describing Chumbley as a magician. Has Bongo actually followed the link? I did, and it is clear why the link was added. The definition of magician found at the other end of the link certainly references the Chumbley article.

I vote for sorcerer, myself. I think Reineke mentioned that Chumbley never referred to himself as a witch in writing-and after some of the references Reineke has come up with, I believe that he knows of what he writes. Lulubyrd 19:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I added that box myself, and the word "magician". I was hoping whoever looked at the code for the box would see all the empty fields waiting to be filled out, and help add some more biographical details. And I wanted to express the most well-known and central aspect of Chumbley's life, which was magic. I chose "magician" over "sorcerer" because the latter sometimes has more of a fantasy connotation to it. I'd possibly be willing to change it to, say, "occultist", but not just because another editor is being contrary. I'd like to actually hear a reason for changing it other than that "Chumbley stole other people's ideas" or that we're "creating a myth and cult", both of which are assertions made repeatedly by Bongo, without ever giving any support. I'm not interested in that kind of unfounded criticism, which so far has boiled down to "I personally dislike Chumbley". I won't change the article on that basis, and will just wait for him to say something more substantial. And I'm not absolutely certain that it's Bongo, but it sounds like him. I can't be bothered to track it down. Fuzzypeg☻ 21:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but until an alternative description for "magician" is presented, the article is going to be laughed at. Its debatable if humbley was even a basic occultist. Printing occult books doesnt make the publisher an occultist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.133.64.35 (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it too much; as you have contributed nothing, and don't actually have a name to call yourself by, it won't be you they're laughing at. reineke 08:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)