Talk:Andrew D. Chumbley/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Some of you here are real sad cases. Some of you need to step out of your fantasy world/buble you have created for yourselves. I presume you are adults?! Its one thig to present the history of a publishers vanity projects, but its something else to "create" the idea that this Cumbley person was a "magician". I am sorry to break this to you but Harry Potter is not real!!. Shock horror!! Try to groud this article in a bit of reality please. I concur with the child who says this article is laughable. Some of you neede to coe away from your Dungeons & Dragons games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.147.11 (talk) 07:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any intelligent adult is likely to rise to that bait. If you'd like to remove 'magician' from the article, please feel free to do so. There are two very excellent moderators who have been kind enough to interest themselves in this article - you can read the comments of one of them above.

Would you like to change it to 'occultist'? - it's a broader catch-all term which is identifiable to non-magicians such as yourself, and, although the word is considered somewhat 'woolly' by practising magicians they tend to be tolerant of such gaucherie. reineke 10:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Bongo, you haven't answered my requests to clarify your concerns, other than to say that Chumbley probably wasn't an occultist. That's an absurd response, but it's not entirely unexpected, considering you've been lurking here for months making yourself a pain to other editors, criticising their work and insulting them, and almost invariably not providing any evidence to support your assertions. I can only conclude that you have some personal dislike for Chumbley and intend to make this article reflect badly on him by whatever means necessary. Either that or this is somehow fulfilling some need you have for social interaction. In future I'm going to ignore you as much as possible, and limit my responses to you to the bare minimum, unless you clearly state what issue of fact or WP policy your complaints are based on. Reineke and Lulubyrd, please help me get this talk page pleasant and business-like again by being completely civil and courteous to this person, but keeping our responses to them as brief as possible unless they make a valid point. Lets not waste time and emotion. Fuzzypeg☻ 23:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

OK! reineke 08:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

OK from me, too. Lulubyrd 12:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I dont know who this Bongo character is but i am sorry that supposedly mature adults on Wikipdia seriously consider the title of "magicican" has an occupation. If the article wants to be taken seriously then it does have to be grounded in some reality. Publisher yes. Magician ? No. If some of you are sensitive to the posts, challenging this, then you need to get out more often. Using the term magician is not a neutral term. None of you here can say that he was a magician. Did you witness is "magic"? I will wager none of you have. So in that context the trm is not neutral. Wrong? Right? The article itself is ok. Just small silly things like this which stop the article from being taken seriously.and i am syre that you want this article to reflect the career of Chumbley in a civilised fashion? If so a bit of grounding and reality woulodnt go amiss. Jeremiah Squeak.--85.211.162.203 12:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Chumbley is only notable for magic; giving his occupation as "magician" makes no epistemilogical claims and is quite acceptable per ArbCom Paranormal 6.2. Fuzzypeg☻ 05:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but i have to disagree on that point. Chumbley was notable for his publishing. Not Magic. Your fabricating something that is not there. Like a previous poster said, how would people know that he done magic? Because he said so? Very poor criteria for notability. None of you Wikipedians here are in any position to decide/judge if he was a magician. The books he published are not evidence. The interviews he gave are not evidence of him being a magician. So where is the verifiable evidence that he was a magician. To me this smacks of fabrication. --Redblossom 17:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a little like saying that Aleister Crowley was notable for his publishing, not his magic. We have a number of sources cited in the article that describe his magical work and his membership in or even leadership of various magical orders. Epistemology aside (which I discuss above), his occupation as magician seems quite sufficiently verified. Please cite your opposing evidence. Fuzzypeg☻ 22:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Crowley is an exception. We have magickal diaries published. We have in print from students of Crowley who worked magick with him. There is nothing of that nature alluded to about Chumbley. Yes Crowley was a publisher. But he was the real deal. Chumbley wasnt a head of various orders. He was the head of an "order" he created himself. This does not mean he was a magician. Maybe an occultist. But not a magician. The Ku Cell doesnt count has an order.And did The Companie of the Serpent Crosse actually exist outside Chumbleys head? The term "magician" hasnt been verified. And it wont be until his magickal diaries are made available for peer review. Until then the term magician is a fabrication.--Redblossom 18:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

We have a number of 3rd-party citations attesting to his magical career. Rather than accuse me of fabrication, please provide your opposing evidence, properly cited. You have consistently denigrated Chumbley over the months you've been here, and made other editors jump through all kinds of hoops (and put up with your insults) just to prove that your bizarre criticisms, which you never seem to provide evidence for, are wrong. I don't put Chumbley on any kind of pedestal, but you seem to hate him virulently, and I'm not going to change the article to reflect your pet peeves. Fuzzypeg☻ 21:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Well this is the point Fuzzypeg, there is no evidence. I havent denigrated the late Chumbley. I have criticised very poor citiations and references which are not true. And the fact some contributors have taken those references out of context. ( That old chestnut.) Like i said earlier Chumbley wasnt a head of various orders. He was the head of an order he created himself. He wasnt the head of the Ku Cell or the joint Typhonian stuff, and there is no proof that the Company of the Serpent Cross existed outside his own head. Again i use the term fabrication here. When a history student invetigates the writings of dead people they have to correlate it with their contemporaries and their peers to have a full and roundeded picture of the historical figure. In this case this hasnt happened here. And what 3rd party citations are you identifying? Howard's dont count since they are not neutral.So can you elaborate on the 3rd party citations that justify your editing?--Redblossom 18:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

And you expect me to accept your unsupported assertions over the published assertions of reputable sources? (and yes, that includes Howard!) No. I also think you misunderstand exactly what the article is establishing here: we are not trying to present a definitive history, as that would involve making judgements on positions of fact. Rather we are presenting the verifiable data that we have about what people said about the man, what he published, etc. It's up to the reader to draw their own conclusions. The more data we can present and the wider the viewpoints expressed, the more material there will be for the reader to base their judgements on and the better the article will be. Hence my constant requests that you provide evidence. Fuzzypeg☻ 04:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree Fuzzypeg. Most of the references used are merely interviews and articles written by Chumbley and his student Howard. These are not neutral since they are closer to a hagiography and essentially a advertisement for Chumbley.

Things that havent been verified:

Can it be verified that Chumbley was a magician through neutral references? No. Can it be verified that The Company of the Serpent Cross existed outside Chumbleys head?No. Can it be verified that Chumbley was "knowledgedable" concerning Enochian? (Nothing suggests so.)--Redblossom 12:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Redblosom: Phil Hine wrote a book called Condensed Chaos, cited in the article, in which he treats the subject of magick. In the citations for further reading found in Condensed Chaos, on the subject of magick he cites Chumbley. When Chumbley's work is cited as further magical reading, it makes Chumbley cited as a magician. Magicians write magical treatises. Phil Hine is an independent source stating that Chumbley is a magician. Lulubyrd 21:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This is becoming childish nonsense now. A reference in a Hine book doesnt make Chumbley a magician. It makes him an author, and possibly an occultist. But not a magician. And your taking a Hine reference out of context.Again. A bibliography reference doesnt make a person a magican. At no time is there verifiable info to attest to Chumbley being a "magician". Anyway i agree with an earlier poster. The term just makes this article look childish, and makes Chumbley come across has a inadequate fantasist. Is that the way you want Chumbley to be perceived. Can we have some grounding in this article?--Redblossom 14:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Definition of Personal Attack from Wikipedia: Generally, a personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when examining another person's claims or comments. It is considered a personal attack when a person starts referencing a supposed flaw or weakness in an individual's personality, beliefs, lifestyle, convictions or principles, and use it as a debate tactic or as a means of avoiding discussion of the relevance or truthfulness the person's statement. It works on the reasoning that, by discrediting the source of a logical argument, namely the person making it, the argument itself can be weakened.

This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the attack is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim itself. The truth value of a claim is independent of the person making the claim. No matter how morally repugnant a person might be, he or she can still make true claims. For example, a defense attorney may claim that a witness' testimony cannot be trusted because he is a convicted felon. On the other hand, illuminating real character flaws and inconsistencies in the position of an opponent are a vital part of the public political process and of the adversarial judicial process. Use of a personal attack in a logical argument constitutes a formal fallacy called ad hominem, a term that comes from a Latin phrase meaning "toward the man". Lulubyrd 20:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Redblossom, we don't have to establish he actually was a magician, i.e. that he did magic. Neither do we have to establish that his magical orders were legitimate. He presented himself as a magician, and we have sufficient 3rd-party references to establish that others considered him such too. The rest conveniently falls down to an epistemological discussion, which, as I have pointed out above, we don't need to have. It's not the term "magician" that you're concerned about, as demonstrated by your comments above regarding Crowley; it's the fact that you don't want Chumbley to get any limelight. And please stop playing sock-puppets; the "earlier poster" is quite clearly yourself. Fuzzypeg☻ 05:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Right let me get this clear in my head Fuzzypeg: The article doesnt need to establish he was a magician. The article doesnt need to establish that the "orders" were real or legitimate. And the article presents non-neutral biased 3rd part accounts presenting a hagiography of Chumbley has a "magician". Fuzzypeg if that is the case,then esentially this article is not accurate or honest. The way this is going the Chmbley article is going to be deleted. Is that what you want? Fabrications that need to have real references or removed: "Chumbley had knowledge of Enochian magick. Proper reference or removed. "Chumbley was a head of "various orders". Beyond the Cultus Sabbati there is no proper reference. Company of the Serpent Cross cant be refernced has existing ( outside Chumbleys head). Again either a proper refernence or it should be removed. Chumbleys occupation was a "magician" This is a fabrication. And it undermines the seriousness and grounding of the article. To keep it in will just make the article look silly and childish. The way this is going the article will get deleted and you will all have to start from scratch again. Is that what you all want? Think about it.--Redblossom 17:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes - and no. reineke 15:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Reineke-I have just recently seen Fries' whole review of Azoetia. I had no idea that it was as glowing as I read. It's incredible to think such highly regarded magicians reviewed a first book like that. Do you know of any new or interesting reviews that ran when Azoetia was reissued? I suppose the ennui might have developed by that time; --"I knew him when..." Speaking of that, we never heard from Phil Hine again, did we? I'd think after his bad manners regarding remembering his review he'd have the good grace to apologize. Lulubyrd 00:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Phil Hine didn't display any poor manners here. He merely said he couldn't recall writing such a review. And we don't even know for sure it was Phil, due to the whole anonymity thing here. I'd be happier if we got into the habit here of discussing the article rather than the editors. Assume good faith whenever possible; remain civil wherever possible. Perhaps that would make things less interesting here, but that's not necessarily a bad thing... Fuzzypeg☻ 06:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

'Magician' makes perfect sense to me here - after all T. S. Eliot's Wiki piece gives his occupation as, primarily, poet, though in fact he made a living from teaching, reviewing and so on.

Remember that Fries' first published book Visual Magick was issued at around the same time as Azoetia, so that article was a peer review. Fries had already made something of a name for himself through articles in magazines (in Europe, Britain and the USA), and private circulation of books and illustrations in photocopy form. Helrunar, for instance, was written and privately distibuted several years before Visual Magick, but published as a print book afterwards. There are some other reviews of Azoetia but Fries' is the most significant. reineke 08:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I do tend to forget that Fries was not as well known at that time as he is now. Thanks Reineke. Lulubyrd 02:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Proper Citations needed

Just looked over the influences section again. We need a citation showing that Chumbley was knowledgeable/familar of/with Enochian Magick. There is no citation / reference for this assertion.It cant be stated with confidence that he was "familiar" with Enochian Magick. So if there is no reference then that assertion should be removed. Secondly we need a proper reference for the claim he was a Tantric initiate. Him stating he was a initiate in an interview is not neutral or honest. We would need a an independent source/citation stating Chumbley was a Tantric initate--Redblossom 17:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

As it says in the article, "The Azoëtia and Chumbley's subsequent writings demonstrate...Enochian...etc" so would you look through some of his texts and find a really great citation to add? Thanks.

Apropos Kaula Sampradayya: if you have another and different citation then please go ahead and add it.

But it might be less effort to delete the whole Kaula assertion. Would you like to do that? If so, the reference to Spare preceding it will have nothing to balance it, so that will need to come out too. If you think that's a good idea then go ahead, or let me know and I'll strip that section out. Thanks very much. reineke 08:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

But the article suggesting the Enochian link is not neutral. It is more like a hagiography.--Redblossom 18:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

If you think the tone of the article is anywhere inappropriate then you could do some copy editing. Would you like to do that?

Perhaps you could have a look through Azoetia and see if there's anything relevant to Enochiana in there. If it does, you'll have an authoritative citation. reineke 10:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I've amended the assertion re Kaula lineage to save hunting around for other evidence. reineke —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reineke (talk • contribs) 10:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

In editing I changed the tense of a word under influences that was bothering me. I suppose it could go either way; referring to the influences (plural) or the overall suggestion (singular). If my tense change bothers anyone else, please change it back. Lulubyrd 13:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Your use of tenses bother me. That bag of kittens are heavy. I prop up my wobbly chair leg with these book of grammatical rules. ← Do these sound right to you? The subject in that first sentence is "use", or perhaps "use of tenses". Either way it's a singular noun, therefore the verb should take the singular form "bothers": e.g. "Your use of tenses bothers me", "your use of [any thing or things under the sun, singular or plural] bothers me". If you were going to do it as a plural, it would have to be "your tenses bother me" (now "tenses" is the subject, a plural noun). Cheers, Fuzzypeg☻ 21:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right of course. Perhaps it's that the sentence is clumsy. Might it be rephrased in a more elegant manner that doesn't create a dissonance of tense? Lulubyrd 00:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The sentence looks absolutely fine to me as it is... But reword it if you prefer. Fuzzypeg☻ 04:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Notability

I see three claims to notability in this article, all of which I believe are false.

• he was covered and quoted in various works, including some of scholarship
  • but these were trivial coverage (little more than name-dropping), which does not suffice
• he founded the "Cultus Sabbati"
  • this group does not appear to have achieved any noticable size or impact
• he wrote articles and books
  • but the books were self-published and the articles were in occult 'zines with miniscule circulations

Under these considerations, I add the notability tag to the article. - Denial 03:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry ducks, you have no references to back your assertions. We reference in this article. This is more POV nonsense. Another Bongo sock puppet? Please see Wiki page on what constitutes notability. This article covers and is referenced covering more than the required one standard of notability. Lulubyrd 10:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed the tag pending proper citation. What this person believes holds no weight without citation. Sorry. Lulubyrd 10:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken about the notability criteria. What is required to establish notability of people, and the rules say so quite explicitly, is non-trivial coverage in scholarly sources. "Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry." There are four claimed scholarly mentions of Chumbley, one by Hutton and three by The Journal for the Academic Study of Magic. Unlike most editors, I happen to know the relevant publications, and see non non-trivial mentions there.

Hutton says he received two texts from Chumbley and that he's the "author of an intelligent modern grimoire"(p.306). He also quotes Chumbley's self-description without comment(p.308). This is a textbook example of a trivial mention, and it seems unlikely that Chumbley would have received even that had he not approached Hutton personally and supplied him with (what he thought was) witchcraft literature.

The Journal for the Academic Study of Magic, as seen on its publisher website, has articles on various subjects but none on Chumbley and mentions him only very briefly as well. The fourth issue, which you appear to believe references him, has not even been published and its official web site says it is due in late 2006. To claim Chumbley was referenced there seems outright fraud. Where does the Journal detail Chumbley in any non-trivial fashion? And I'd like to add the Journal and its founding Society do not seem to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability guidelines either.

I have specifically mentioned the problem of trivial references before. In an apparent misunderstanding of the notability criteria, you have not adressed this issue, other than by blanket accusations of POV and sockpuppetry. Since the issue is not resolved, I am re-including the notability tag. - Denial 15:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Then please go ahead and make the appropriate changes to the text, in line with your assertions. If you wish to 'resolve' the 'issue', that is. If you're unwilling to so engage, please state what it is that you think should be changed in the article at present. I'll do it for you. (I've made this offer before - it remains open.) reineke 15:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I get it - 'Denial' is indicating that this article be considered for deletion. If Chumbley proved, as he avers, not to be notable, it would definitely need to be removed from Wiki. In that case it's appropriate to call for an authoritative opinion on that from the moderating level. Fuzzypeg, would you advise, please?

I also request that 'Denial' be cited for insulting other users, in re: "Unlike most editors, I happen to know the relevant publications.." (see above) Given that other editors, including myself, referenced these sources here in the first place and ipso facto know them, I interpret this comment by 'Denial' as a deliberate slur. reineke 16:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

When I read Denial's comments above I didn't read that as an insult at all. He was indicating that many editors who look at this article would see a bunch of references and assume that Chumbley was notable, without having the detailed background knowledge that Denial has; his knowledge tells him that these are trivial references. He wasn't implying that you were ignorant. You've been embattled against Redblossom for too long and have come to regard any criticism as trolling. I ask you again to assume good faith, and discuss editorial issues rather than the editors themselves! Fuzzypeg☻ 22:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

(I indented your comments for readability.) Thanks for your offer. I was unaware you had made it before. As per the rules, there are two possible solutions. Either new and demonstrably valid claims to notability are presented, or the article is deleted. I know no additional claims to notability for this subject. However, I hesitate to suggest deletion, as someone else, such as you, might be able to come up with some. If you can't either, you're welcome to suggest deletion for me.

When I wrote most editors, I meant most editors, i.e. the whole Wiki community. Only a tiny minority of us is familiar with Hutton or the referenced journal, and can verify whether the references claimed are actually valid for notability. Since I dispute they are, my relatively unusual position is relevant. I do not dispute the editors of this article know those sources, although how anyone would be able to consult a non-existant issue of a journal eludes me. - Denial 16:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, Denial, if that was the context of your comment, then I'll assume 'good faith'. My suggestion is that, the references for Hutton and JSM having been given, an interested party could obtain them and scrutinise them her- or himself. If there's an error in citations (you refer to a non-existent issue of a journal) then would you care to correct it? Unlike yourself, I haven't spent very much time here, and freely confess to knowing only a bare minimum of the ropes; however, I've found it a very strange place - very strange indeed. I should imagine that Wiki would be a slightly poorer resource without a piece on Chumbley, but unless there's a 'hit counter' somewhere that would indicate how many have viewed this article, there's really no way of telling. If you consider that Chumbley is non-notable then, by all means, please feel free to pursue your line of thinking to deletion. Having contributed a goodly amount, in good faith and without any particular agenda other than interest in the subject, as this article was built almost 'from scratch', I would neverthless have no objection whatsoever to permanent deletion, were that deemed appropriate by 'higher powers'. It's not something I feel is needful, but I strongly urge you to follow through your proposal. I have nothing further to add to the article at the present time or in the foreseeable future. reineke 16:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is all about agendas. And creating a history that never happened. The people who created this article have a vested interest in making Chumbley something he is not.--Redblossom 18:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, wait a minute Reineke. Good faith? Denial only knows about JSM from the website. If he actually had seen the journal, he'd know that #4 has published. Oh dear. JSM is published by the PhD dept. under the auspices of a major university and is juried (founding society?-you obviously don't know much about JSM). A juried journal is criteria for academic rigour. Denial-print here the first line from Filipovitch's article in JSM #2 so we know that you've actually seen the journal and not just the website.

Denial states that Chumbley was self published. That is incorrect. He was published by Fulgur as well as starting his own publishing company that continues to publish after his death. Also, Xoanon, the publishing house he started has not only published Chumbley's books; and it appears to have recently added a second publishing division, expanding the list of authors in the stable.

The Cauldron is a multi-national magazine, published in several languages and on two continents. It has been published for over 30 years, nonstop. That's not an occult 'zine with miniscule circulation-which is a POV characterization, by the way. The editors on both continents are published authors with some measure of notability of their own. Chaos International is well known, well regarded, published for years and is highly sought after.

Actually, in reading Hutton, Hutton appears to have sought out Chumbley, not the other way around as you have inferred here. What Chumbley thought is not the issue. Hutton thought that what Chumbley contributed to his research was formative, and noted that.

Denial, what is your expertise in this area? All I see are self-made claims on your page that have no references. You claim to be some expert but have no references as such. What I've seen above are accusations but just like Bongo, you cannot refute anything presently in the article with opposing facts. Your research is obviously web related and very poor. Your criteria are POV. Come back with evidence that refutes what's in the article and we'll talk further. It's not my job to reference your mistakes. I'm removing the deletion request until you have something better than Bongo. So far you have nothing but your opinion. Lulubyrd 19:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I have seen and read the journal, I even remember I saw Chumbley mentioned in passing, although you assume correctly I do not currently have it in front of me. I never claimed I did, as you appear to infer. If there is an issue #4, neither the editor nor the publisher bother to announce (i.e. sell) it and that says more about the Journal than it says about me. While the Journal is technically an entity seperate from the Society, it was created by the same people, at nearly the same time, with the same agenda. Since everyone involved is a member of the Society and they very clearly complement each other, I find it fair so say the Society founded the Journal. And for the sake of correctness, peer review is a necessary, but not a sufficient criterium for academic publications.

I only say this to demonstrate I know what I talk about. Regardless of this discussion, you have failed to demonstrate how the Journal's mentions of Chambers are not trivial.

I do not see how starting one's own publishing company to publish one's own books is different from self publishing. Fulgur only assisted in what was Chumbers' own ("limited edition") release. The fact the company was continued does not alter that. The Cauldron is miniscule by any standard but that of the occult subculture; internationally, there are thousands of student magazines of comparable scope and likely more readers than it has. Chaos International is even smaller, with about one thin issue per year since its inception, and has apparently ceased publication in 2006.

None of these publications give Chumbley "wide name recognition", "a credible independent biography", "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record" or anything else that might make him notable.

Aside from our divergent interpretations of Hutton, you have failed to demonstrate how his mention of Chambers is not trivial.

In conclusion, and reviewing your inadequate defense, this article and many related ones, such as Qutub: The Point, are blatant violations of the Wiki policy. And this is not POV unless you want to call Wikipedia:Notability POV in itself. - Denial 22:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

My take on this is slightly different to yours, Denial. First I should say that I have no very great interest in Chumbley and have not read his works. I have contributed to this article mainly because it has been the target of trolling and tempers were rising; I figured I could help out... Now as I understand it:

• Notability (people) states "The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may need to be cited to establish notability." I believe we can call on multiple independent sources; some of them may not be entirely intellectually independent: Michael Howard, for instance, was a friend and colleague, but he is also a fairly notable and widely published figure in the occult community, so his opinion seems to me to be notable.
• Triviality is not clearly defined: "A 200-page independent biography of a person that covers that person's life in detail is non-trivial, whereas a birth certificate or a 1-line listing on an election ballot form is not." (from WP:BIO) However I believe none of the references supplied for the article count as trivial, except perhaps the Oven Ready Chaos citation. Chumbley is made the subject of discussion, opinion, argument, praise etc., sometimes only for a paragraph or so, sometimes more.
• Hutton identified Chumbley and the Cultus Sabbatai as notable, for the fact that they are a British witchcraft tradition based on authentically old documents. He also expressed a good deal of respect for Chumbley and the group.
• Published authors like Michael Howard and Nigel Jackson have either been very closely associated with Chumbley or have been colleagues or students of his. Michael Howard is editor of the leading journal on witchcraft, a journal which Hutton himself has been published in, and which he seems to regard as being respected and having a wide readership within the Pagan community (The Cauldron, May 2003, p. 9). (And as a Wiccan within the community I can confirm that TC is indeed the leading magazine of British witchcraft and paganism. For what my opinion's worth here at WP, which is nothing.) Chumbley has been published numerous times in the Cauldron.
• I believe he and his books have been named by third-party commentators as being of considerable importance in contemporary witchcraft. (I'm sorry, I don't have references on hand, I'll have to try to track these down.)

Chumbley is not notable outside the Witchcraft subculture, or perhaps I should even limit that to the British Traditional Witchcraft subculture. However he has certainly left his mark. His books are in high demand and fetch ridiculous resale prices (over $1500 US); he has had as students and colleagues some of the most influential figures in contemporary traditional witchcraft. If his article were to stay here it would be of interest to a number of people (I actually found this article because I was looking for info on Chumbley, not just because I followed an interesting-looking link!).

I'm also reluctant to see all this work just vanish, and indeed Reineke and Lulubyrd have put a lot of work into this article, pulling it up from a stub to a reasonable state, and putting up with constant trolling at the same time. They're not experienced editors but have managed to create a well-referenced article with plenty of pointers to further information for interested researchers. They have put up with constant insults and attacks on their intelligence, motives and maturity from another editor who mostly edits under anonymous IP, signing with a variety of names. I'm sorry you found them so defensive, and so willing to assume bad faith, be uncivil and engage in edit warring. I hope you can put your understandable annoyance aside...

I happen to know from my knowledge of the Witchcraft and occult communities that Chumbley is a highly notable figure in these circles, much spoken of; I think the published sources corroborate that "original research" of mine to some extent. Best wishes, Fuzzypeg☻ 00:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

All you have demonstrated is that you know nothing of what you speak, you can't prove or reference your charges, and you have no credentials that make you an "expert" as you claim. Your assessment is made purely from badly done internet trolling.

You state: "Fulgur only assisted in what was Chumbers' own ("limited edition") release." Oh? Tell me more about how you know this to be the case. Where is your reference? Why does Chumbley's published work have less value because he published from his successful, thriving business? What is the circulation of the combined international editions of The Cauldron? In what languages and what countries is the magazine published? You don't know and can't reference it or you would have done so. In fact, looking over your response, again you have provided no substance whatsoever.

And, um, you can't even get Chumbley's name right which tells me more about your ability to research and reference than it does about your assertions.

Wide name recognition is not required. A credible independent biography is not required. A widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record is not required. There are several credible references in independent journals and books on independent subjects by authors notable in their fields that reference Chumbley's work. That's enough. Your POV regarding the books or journals is irrelevant-especially since you can provide absolutely nothing to back up your assertions.

This article has been graced with editing from Fuzzypeg, an experienced and respected Wiki editor who has found no reason to suspect this article should be deleted. This article was looked over by JKelly, a well respected and experienced Wiki editor who found this article just fine. I just don't see that you're well known or respected at all, Denial. You'd probably do much better talking to Bongo privately. You two appear to have similar credentials and agendas. Lulubyrd 00:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Lulubyrd, you're not going to help your case at all by insulting other editors. May I remind you again to discuss the article rather than the editors. Denial has raised some quite reasonable queries based on WP notability guidelines, and if these queries aren't satisfactorily answered then the article can and should be deleted. And I don't know if it furthers my "grace" to be name-dropped as ammunition for an editorial argument... Fuzzypeg☻ 00:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Then by all means, delete. I'm finished here. Lulubyrd 00:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Are we approaching a consensus? I'd still like to adress the Hutton mention. If Hutton calls Chumbley notable, he does so outside of the Hutton books I have. As far as I can see, he gives him as much credit as to, literally, hundreds of other individuals, most of who do not appear to have Wiki pages. In fact, at least one of them, Julian Vayne, had one and was deleted. This might actually be seen as precedent, as Vayne is a similarly small-scale published author from the same milieu.

The other advocates mentioned are clearly not "intellectually independent" as the criterium goes. Their individual importance would only be relevant if they were. The very point of this criterium, I believe, is that acceptance within a group of like-minded individuals is insufficient for Wiki notice. - Denial 01:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

High regard within a group of like-minded individuals is indeed a valid criterion for notability: discussing "Creative professionals: scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals" may be considered notable if "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors" (WP:BIO). I can't tell you which of these peer citations are "intellectually independent", I was hoping either Lulu or Reineke could help with that, but I might be able to suss something out. And if the citations are not intellectually independent, but are from people who are notable in their own right, doesn't that count for something?

I don't know much about Julian Vayne, but I see he gets 783 google hits to Chumbley's 2880 (not that that proves anything, but it may indicate something). Further "indications of his notability" include:

• the lashtal.com webmaster citing him as "one of the most significant modern occult authors" [1]
• A similar mention of his death from the Pentacle Magazine website. [2]
• an appreciation of Chumbley by Danny Carey of Tool. [3]
• A considerable number of torrents from which you can download his books (do a google search).
• A mention of Chumbley's death from Chas Clifton's blog (Clifton is a reasonably well-known historian of occultism and witchcraft, and is, like Howard, situated at the more scholarly end of the spectrum). [4]
• A fairly active newsgroup of 165 members devoted to discussing just one of Chumbley's books. [5]
• A witchcraft quiz someone's put together in which Andrew Chumbley is the answer to one of the Questions. [6]
• And a bunch of other newsgroup comments and personal pages which describe Chumbley as, for instance, "One of the great contemporary innovators of magick".

These are all indications of his notability, which I can confirm from my knowledge of the occult community; I'm hoping you won't pursue the letter of the law on this and force me to track down copies of all the documents cited in the article so we can quibble over whether they're notable, substantial and intellectually independent... That would seem perverse. I will have difficulty defending the article on my own, if it comes to that, and I hope Reineke and Lulu can help out, being much better equipped with the relevant information. Fuzzypeg☻ 04:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

By that kind of argument, you are setting a very low standard for notability. Any halfway successful World of Warcraft guild leader could get those online namedrops and google hits. Any of the unsigned bands that keep entering themselves on the Wiki could. Any fanfic writer appreciated by her fanfic-writing peers could. Heck, even I could. If what you have said was enough to warrant a Wiki page, you're looking at millions, perhaps hundreds of millions of persons who deserve pages as well, for their achievements in whatever obscure niche of culture they might be engaged in. Persons that only a few thousand people, or ~0.0001% of the world's population, have ever heard of and an ever smaller portion would appreciate encyclopedic information about.

That is not to say your standard for notability is wrong. It is just not the one of the Wikipedia.

The fact modern occultism is a highly literate culture where people tend to write a lot, and a highly diverse culture where standards for individual importance are highly individualistic and often frowned upon, does not exactly raise the value of those in-group references either. Maybe a request for comment from someone unfamiliar with occultism would help put this discussion in perspective. - Denial 05:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Terrific stuff - this is possibly the first real discussion that's taken place here!

I had originally formed the impression that, being web-based, Wiki was intended to form a broad and very liberal information resource. The sort of place where anyone with an interest in any thing, however obscure, could tinker away to their heart's content, for sheer pleasure, and in the knowledge that some day a fellow enthusiast might chance upon their work, appreciate it and possibly even benefit from it. After all, there's no cost in ink and paper, is there? – server space is cheap as chips. However, applying strictly the rules in re notability means that Wiki aims to be almost as exclusive as the Encyclopaedia Britannica. It doesn't work like that in practice, of course, but that is ostensibly the ideal.

Fair enough - if that's the scene here, then the protocols strongly indicate that deletion of the Chumbley article is appropriate. As you've suggested permanent deletion, Denial, why don't you just follow through and put the wheels in motion? It seems highly unlikely (verging on impossible) that an ’outside’ editor with no knowledge of or interest in occult matters would want to wade through the 4+ archives of 'discussion' (in fact largely trolling, abuse and intimidation of active editors by non-engaged users) in order to weigh up the issues involved.

Several of the assertions of fact you make above are inaccurate, Denial, I regret to say - but that's not worth arguing the toss over at this terminal stage.

If the article fails on notability of its subject now, then it had already failed back in December last - so deletion is nine months overdue, surely? Please go ahead and get the thing wiped; honestly, I have no objections - I think the idea is hilarious! This is the democracy of the web in action, at its very best.

From my perspective, there are two options: one is to continue to pump information into the article to satisfy the needs of other users; the other is to use my info and knowledge to write paper and ink articles at a very lucrative 20 cents per word, plus all the kudos I can handle. In the popular parlance, "It’s a no-brainer."

I support deletion. reineke 10:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. I may be the least informed person on the subject here, so I'm not going to stand in the way of an emerging consensus. This page is the end result of many man-hours of hard work, and has gone through major evolution; I also think it's useful and hell, I found it useful myself when I was looking for information on the guy. It now stands as the single best source of information available on him. I'm also pretty sure that this article will eventually be re-created (once notability is better established), and some poor sods are going to have to repeat all that work.

We're not the only editors who might have anything to say on the subject, so I would like to put this through WP:AFD before it goes. And best wishes to Reineke and Lulu; I really hope you got something good out of this whole process. Fuzzypeg☻ 21:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It's been good fun doing stuff with Lulu and Fuzzy here - so sincere thanks to them! At least I now know some of the pitfalls. Let's see what they say at WP:AFD. Fuzz, you’re precisely correct in saying that this is the single best source of info, in electronic or print form – it's a thorough little intro to the subject, and even if deleted it won't be gone gone, as the numerous sites that feed illicitly from Wiki will still be caching it till the crack of doom, methinks.

The short articles linked to this will (Xoanon, Qutub) also need to be put up for deletion at the same time. reineke 09:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Fuzzypeg and Reineke. It's been great working with you. This has been a lesson in the power of democracy, what level of achievement it can create, and who gets to decide. The editors of Wiki Project Occult might have an interest in the deletion of this page. They may have something to say about whether this page should be deleted or not-looking at it from a perspective other than a biography. Chumbley may not be a person of note, but the material on his page has more to offer than a biography. I believe it may be one of the better researched and referenced occult pages in Wikipedia. Please run this by whomever you think may have an interest as you see fit. Lulubyrd 13:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I've asked the Wiki Occult Project people to take a look. reineke 16:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

How will those wishing to discuss notability be notified when the WP:AFD discussion takes place? I'll be interested to see how it all turns out. Lulubyrd 21:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I've set up AFD discussions Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andrew_D._Chumbley, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Qutub:_The_Point and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Xoanon Publishing. See you there. Denial 07:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You know, Denial, I'm still questioning that you have ever read JSM. Your commentary is vague and you sidestepped when asked for verification. The only detail you have provided appears to be information you gleaned from a web search. Tell us please, what are the dimensions of the journal and format? Are illustrations included, like The Cauldron magazine? What type of paper is it printed on and is there any color printing used inside or on the cover? You needn't an issue before you to answer my questions, only your vivid memory that already tells us about the "fleeting" references.

I have easily found a call for papers for issue 5 of JSM through a google search. Your insistence that #4 wasn't issued is easily debunked. I see that you found your information on an archived posting on Lashtal. I'll provide a link if you'd like help looking it up. Lulubyrd 00:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Denial: Apropos your statement that "Chaos International is even smaller, with about one thin issue per year since its inception..." - this is incorrect. Chumbley's articles were published in the magazine during the early 1990s, when it was under the Editorship of Ian Read (at the time 2nd in command of the I.O.T. in Britain); Chaos International was then a regular and punctually published journal consisting of approximately 60 pages or more. Although issues are not dated, they appeared up to four times per year. reineke 11:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Redblossom, or anyone else with the same thoughts on this article: I've noted all your comments on the page discussing deletion.

You seem to have objections to the quote from Michael Howard's obituary - do you think it should be deleted from this article? (Yes/No) reineke 09:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm also inclined to resolve the ongoing issue about Chumbley's headship of magical orders. It bores me - how about you? I propose to leave Cultus Sabbati but delete the references to Ku-Sebbitu and Serpent Cross. Any objections? reineke 11:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Reineke, re: Howard's obit, I think that it adds something to the article that nothing else adds-something about Chumbley the man. We've found nothing else that speaks to who he might have been other than his own written work. Fuzzypeg has asked for more of the details of Chumbley's life and we've been unable to find anything to add here. I think the obit adds a balance.

I have no objection to the removal of the Orders listed. I have no corroborating references to add at this time. Lulubyrd 23:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, agreed about Howard - it's maybe the closest anyone'll come; how about I add "close friend and student" - then the context of their relationship is made explicit and the bias countered. NPOV, one hopes. Anyone else out there still got NPOV issues with the Howard quote?

I'll cull the other magical groups then - presumably they are subsidiaries of Cultus Sabbati, so for the purposes of Wiki let one term cover all.

No reason to touch the Hutton refs unless and until the previous complainant comes through with some info. His assertions suggest that he has insider knowledge - such as who contacted whom etc. - which would be very useful to add to the article. reineke 07:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Reineke, I actually have an issue with characterizing Howard as Chumbley's student. I've read several of Howard's books and though I recall Howard claiming to be a student of Montalban's, I don't recall him claiming to be Chumbley's student. We may infer from what I've read that Howard and Chumbley worked together, but I can't agree that the two were anything but equals from what I remember Howard has written. I have the books somewhere and will look again when I get the chance to confirm. Is this different from what you remember reading, or have to hand? My memory may be faulty-that's why I like to have references. Lulubyrd 10:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe he wasn't a student - I thought that was indicated by something or other in "The Cauldron"; but that may be my interpretation and not a stated fact. It'd be very kind of you to check that one, my memory could be faulty. If I was wrong then no qualification would be needed. Thanks!

Could be something I've picked up inadvertantly from other users posting their opinions here, in which case perhaps Red or one of those guys could supply a reference. I think it would be in his/their interest to do so. reineke 11:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, OK - I've got it; I got into a loop there, didn't I? I was interpreting Howard's In fact he was a natural teacher and, like all good occult teachers, acted as a catalyst in the lives of his students as implying that there was a student-teacher relationship there. As have others, evidently. But just been hearing too much about it lately; the strange powers of suggestion, eh? I'll revert my amendment pending further input from Lulu. reineke 11:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi all. Ok, things need some clearing up here. Many arguments against the notability of Mr. Chumbley seem to say that academic references don't count because those people aren't "occultists" whatever people mean by that, and then people mention magazines and people who knew Chumbley and his work and claim the inner circle doesn't count either. The argument is a circle in that no evidence will be able to presented of positive value which does not fall into either of those categories. The occult scene is small, and everyone knows everyone else.

Notability as I see it refers to the value of a person or thing in context. To remove that thing from context of course invalidates it. Within the context of the British Occult Scene, and in terms of historical essex witchcraft, i think that it has been shown that Mr. Chumbley has a fair share of authority in this area. he has been published in numerous publications, both national to Britain and international. His work itself is not in common print, and thus is not available for mass consumption, and thus does not have notability the common practitioner. Yet many have heard of him, even if they haven't read him. He has even seeped into popular culture; in the Tool album 10,000 days, there appears in a portrait of Danny Carey (the bands drummer and known occultist) a copy of Andrew Chumbley's Azoetia, amongst a few other books of importance. The re are also at least a few references by Blair McKenzie Blake on the official tool website to Andrew Chumbley (a reference to it can be found here: http://www.lashtal.com/nuke/Article301.phtml) The Azoetia fetches upwards of $1000, and his even rarer grimoire One I have seen go for over $8000. His books are highly sought after by collectors and serious occultists. The price alone verifies the demand his books have.

In terms of notability in the occult scene, I will reference Kenneth Grant, Beyond the Mauve Zone, pg. 279, footnote 14: "Andrew Chumbley's Azoetia, as far as it is based upon the Current transmitted to Austin Osman Spare, is one of the few contemporary works on Witchcraft worth citing, and I take this opportunity of bringing the book to the notice of all serious students of the Zos Kia Cultus."

This is, to anyone who is involved in the occult scene, no passing reference. The ideas of Mr. Kenneth Grant are controversial, are argued about, but there is no doubt he is a predominant figure in the Western Occult Tradition. Such a reference by Kenneth Grant alone aught to verify this for notability. Of course, someone can argue the validity of Magick and the Occult, of the "relevance" of these things to our culture, etc. But such an argument aught to be moved to the wikipedia article on the occult, or on magick. It is also obvious that the people who have put the time an effort into creating this lovely article on clearly see him as being important; enough to summarize his views and works. Because his works fetch such a high price, and many people can not access them, this wiki article allows people to learn about him, and realize the influence he has had on many people. True, those people are a few people, but those people are influential in their fields: Nigel Jackson, Michael Howard, Nema, and much of the English witchcraft culture. I know when I went to england 2 years back, talking to the owners of the Witchcraft Museum of boscastle (a museum known by many witches and pagans worldwide) they had nothing but praise and respect for the work that Chumbley was doing- lecturing about traditional craft, his own recension, etc.

He is a very important figure to the modern day occult revival, and has fused streams of diverse thought and tradition: his biggest, of course, was in bringing the essex cunning man/ witchcraft tradition into line with the modern day occult scene as well as obscure middle-eastern practices, such as the yezidee devil worshipers. The amount of life he offers to the current day pagan is invaluable and offers to revitalize a whole tradition. Of course, it could be argued about how much a "traditional" witch he was, but that needs it own section in general.

One thing i have noticed here, to point out to those who are reading this, and those who will judge whether to delete the article, is that many of the posters seem to either have a "magick negative" slant, which may even be seen as a slander towards a very viable religious path; this alone I find to be rather an affright from people on wikipedia (though not wholly unexpected). The validity of magick, or the course of a persons life work, if not a valid point for deletion. Claiming there is not "justification" for him to be called a "magician" is rather blind in that such comments are only trying to cloud the issue- his own works and writings testify, to anyone who has studied magick at all (or even looks into it with an unbiased mind), that he was well read and well practiced in this field, and could be considered an "occultist". The comments against his notability have been only hairsplitting at best by what i can only see as being some kind of a bias against Mr. Chumbley and his work(s). The arguments here are poorly constructed, and seem to rely on simply denying the evidence put forward by the pro-chumbley people rather than providing evidence for the negative. I would mention here that disproving evidence by simply casting doubt upon its relative validity is no argument, Of course if you throw all possible evidence brought forward out the door as being "unreal" or "not valid" (and don't offer anything contrary)you are committing the same logical fallacy as those who claim the holocaust never happened *their argument being that all evidence that can prove it was contrived.) By the same logic, anything can be disproven, which does not lead to any productivity.

Anyways, I will leave it off with that. I feel that this topic, being under the kind of scrutiny it is, really is only showing that the people putting forth the argument against this article have little ground to stand on- unless anyone would care to bring up a non-biased, valid point that does not deal with the "reality" of magick, or the relativeness of the occult, or that there are no valid primary sources to call Chumbley and occultist, please bring them up and we can deal with them. I am very confident that this can be dealt with in a civil manner if some of the people here would let go of their bad thinking and put forward a real argument.

Thanks for listening all (and to all those fans of Mr. Chumbleys work and legacy, keep up the good fight!! Ronsharpe 20:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The sources

I'm trying to write out the sources some more for the AfD. This is one of the few I could find linked to on here apart from a book review by Jan Fries (though I'm still looking).

The Pomegranate 6.2 (2004)

"Furthermore, ritual magicians (some of whom are Pagan) may perceive significant cabbalistic and other occult meanings in the words of, for example, Liber Al vel Legis ‘the Book of the Law’3, OkBISH ‘Book of the Spider’4, or AZOËTIA ‘A Grimoire of the Sabbatic Craft’.5 The volumes written by Crowley and Grant contain information allegedly channelled from extraterrestrial entities by Thelemic ‘scarlet women’ embodying Babalon in ritualised sexual ecstasy, while the Chumbley volume, self-described as ‘a tome of the elder worship’, alludes to the revealing of an initiatory sabbatic tradition ‘under the guidance and tutelage of the Grimoire’s patron spirit’; as such, these volumes constitute Grand Grimoires—sacred texts per se. Each of them is, none the less, 'usually approached by magicians as one text among many, sacredness in Chaos."

-(my bold). This is all this source says about Chumbley that I can see.Merkinsmum 13:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't get the bold where I want it to go- but as you can see I would say this is not an in-depth mention of chumbley/the azoetia.Merkinsmum 14:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not, is it? It is interesting to see Grant and Chumbley linked in print that way though, "in one breath" as it were - the venerable aged mystic and the young blood. Does that suggest something about notability? - I don't know. There are very few useful web resources of the type you seek, Merk, I'm afraid - all the good material on Chumbley is in print media. You're being very conscientious, and that's appreciated; I suspect though that the issue of notability will soon be applied to the reference sources given, and these dismissed as non-notable. The Pomegranate, for a start - what's its circulation? Anyone know? reineke 14:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Chas Clifton has something to do with that, doesn't he? I can contact him about it if somebody can tell me he's involved. Lulubyrd 16:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello all, I am new to this wiki thing, but after stumbling across this from a link on a Sabbatic Witchcraft forum, I could not but help to get in here and defend the good name of Mr. Chumbley. My thoughts on the some of the comments aside (at least for here) I can provide more of the sources mentioned which I will now do.

The first is the reference to the Gavin Semple (Semple, Gavin (1994) 'The Azoëtia - reviewed by Gavin Semple', Starfire Vol. I, No. 2, 1994, p. 194.) I don't know if mentioning this works here, but Gavin Semple is himself a well known scholar on Austin Osman Spare and is a big contributor to the magazine Starfire as well as having numerous books published by Fulgur Limited. I know points have been raised about the validity of any of the sources, because people have never heard of this culture, but especially in Britain, there is a huge underground culture there, a thing which I feel would be ignorant to ignore in Wikipedia, and part of that culture is Andrew Chumbley. Anyways, that aside:

"In these days of occult mass marketing, when 'Secrets of Witchcraft' have been published again and again in a stream of ever more disappointing books, yet another book on the Craft might have hardly been expected to raise a stir. However, this volume has raised more than a ripple of interest, in fact a great deal of enthusiasm amongst quite diverse elements of the occult scene. This is because The Azoetia is a very different book; a genuine Grimoire, likely the only one to be published in modern times; and as such, it comes as quite a shock in this chaotic era, when we may scour in vain the booksellers' shelves for something real, something vital- only to find, in book after book, the Holy Arte reduced to little more than popular psychology posturing as revelation, feebly buttressed by inept forays into quantum physics. In stark contrast, The Azoetia is a work of breathtaking power and passion, in whose pages magic is restored to its position as Sacred Art, and the Sabbatic Craft is revealed as a living and vital tradition."

Ronsharpe 19:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Quote:

"... the influence he has had on many people. True, those people are a few people, but those people are influential in their fields: Nigel Jackson..."

Whilst I was a friend of the late Mr Chumbley and we both found stimulus in each other's conversation and ideas during a fairly short period in the mid 90s I think the picture of the one-way influence painted above by Ronsharpe is, to say the least of it, simplistic, misleading and naive although that may be more an issue of misinformation than any reflection on Ronsharpe's sincerity (Hypothetically, if one is going to go down that particular avenue, which I'd prefer not to do, just as much of a case, arguably even more of a case, could be made out for an influence the other way round, e.g the influence of esoteric toad-lore from 'Horned Piper' where there is specific description of the 'golden toad' from Romani lore and various other instances - in fact it was after reading 'Horned Piper' that Mr Chumbley initially contacted me and we became friends.) In reality the process of creative cross-fertilization usually presents a somewhat more subtle and complex pattern of inter-resonance. This is not to make comment on Mr Chumbley's achievement, but just to set the record straight and counter such simplistic statements as the assertion in the above paragraph.

Nigel Jackson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.75.103 (talk) 10:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Ronald Hutton as source re "notability"

That would be kind, Lulu, but I think what might be more useful if you could manage it is to bring along a passage or two from Hutton's Triumph of the Moon and insert here. My copy is presently out of reach, and from memory Hutton says something to the effect that the documents which Chumbley supplied were significant (perhaps only?) evidence of a witch tradition preceding the modern revival. If you or someone else here could and would be so kind as to provide a substantial quote from Hutton, in context, that will be very helpful.

Hutton is no flake: in the academic world Hutton is hard-core. He was (possibly still is?) a Reader at Bristol University; in the UK a Reader is someone so highly rated that an institution like that will pay him to sit around and read - literally. He does research and as long as he publishes a paper or two every year to show he's still alive, he can spend his days pinging elastic bands around the office if he wants and everyone's happy with that. Hutton is considered such a valuable resource that they'll pay him just to be there. In fact Hutton has done a great deal more than that, having published a series of books with mainstream publishers that sell in quantity, in mainstreet bookshops, and which are thoroughly respected and read by academics - and also magicians, pagans, witches and occultists. Along with non-aligned members of the general public.

So I'm suggesting that Hutton's published comments on Chumbley be looked into and discussed here in greater depth. The Hutton Wiki page is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Hutton ; if Hutton himself reaches Wiki notability status, and can be considered to hold the opinion that Chumbley is notable, then Chumbley probably is notable. And if Hutton and his work are notable, the his books will ipso facto have made Chumbley's name notable to a far broader readership than any other single source cited in this article.

Thanks! reineke 14:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hutton mentions in the Front Matter (p. xiii) fo Triumph of the Moon that he gave Chumbley chapters 6 and 15 to review, and that Hutton accepted Chumbley as authoritative for chapter 15. On p. 308, Hutton says he is content to give Chumbley the last word on the state of cunning folk in England and provides a lengthy quote from Chumbley as the close of the chapter. So it is clear the Hutton did not consider Chumbley minor; scholars do not give their work to be reviewed by a nobody. Harry53 23:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hutton, R.,(1999). The Triumph of the Moon, Oxford University Press, N.Y.

"At times I have indeed been shown actual books of rituals owned by witches and alleged by them to be centuries old; but with two exceptions they have either been recognizably modelled on Wiccan work composed in the 1950s or else consisted of entirely unfamiliar and unprovenanced rites written on modern paper and so impossible to date. The two exceptions were both shown to me by Andrew Chumbley, author of an intelligent modern grimoire which combines his own experiences with traditions of different groups of witches and magicians with whom he has worked (35). He obtained permission from two of the latter to present me with copies of texts which had been handed down to them from what they believed to be traditional witchcraft. These were treasured by them, and thought to be significantly older than Wicca. On face value, I think that this belief is probably correct. One document consisted of notes origionally taken by a man who was initiated into a magical group of four elderly women in the Oxfordshire village in which he lived in the years around 1940. They were part of the teachings of this group, and consisted of the various magical uses to which the twenty-six of the Biblical psalms could be put, sometimes consisting of the whole psalm and sometimes of a single verse. They are obviously classic Christian folk magic, of a sort recorded copiously from the early Middle Ages to the twentieth century, although the special importance of the psalms to Protestants would suggest that this use of them post-dates the Reformation. The second document had been passed from a mother to a daughter, also in about 1950, and had an alleged point of origin in South Wales. It consisted of a series of magical incantations in Latin. One was clearly the work of somebody equiped with an English-Latin dictionary but no knowledge of Latin grammar, so that words were fitted together without any uses of cases or tenses. The others had been composed by an accomplished Latinist with a real ear for the music of the language and of its classical metres; and a talent for plagiarism. This person had constructed four polished incantatory poems by fitting together verses concerned with magic and enchantment, and taken two of the most famous ancient Latin authors, Vergil and Petronius ..." (pp. 306-307). Notes: (35: The Azoetia Chelmsford: privately published, 1992). That Hutton sure is long winded. Page 308: In a summation if chapter 15, "I am content to leave the last word on the matter to Andrew Chumbley:" and there is then found a very lengthy Chumbley quote and my fingers are tired.

In acknowledgements, he writes that Mike Howard was his reader, as well as Frederick LaMond. Steve Wilson and Caroline Wise read chapters 1-5, Owen Davies read chapter 6, Bill Liddell read chapters 6, 11, and 15, Andrew Chumbley read chapters 6 and 15. Hutton writes, "(and won the last word on the latter)" (p xiii). Chas Clifton gave opinions on chapter 8, Gareth Knight commented on chapter 10, Philip Heselton and Brad Verter read chapter 11, Dayonis read chapter 12, Maxine Sanders and Vivianne Crowley read chapter 17, cynthia Eller read chapter 18.

Please overlook typos. I'm in a bit of a hurry. Lulubyrd 04:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Lulu - you're very generous with your time, and typing!

I don't think we need the quote from Chumbley now, because we want to look at what Hutton is saying.

It seems fairly straightforward; read back the first passage of the quote ("At times I have... whom he has worked") and decide whether Chumbley has done something notable by supplying the two texts, in Hutton's view.

Question 1: Has Chumbley done something notable in Hutton's view?

Question 2: Do Hutton's comments indicate that he considers Chumbley himself to be notable?

I think these questions can be answered with a 'yes' or a 'no'.

I hope we'll be hearing from Denial, Redblossom, and the anonymous users on this one. This point can be referred back to the deletion page discussion as appropriate. Thanks again Lulu! reineke 15:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Explain to me how a historian is in the best position to judge if Chumbley was a legitimate occultist? Hutton is not an occultist of note. He is an academic and a historian. He is in no posiiton to judge Chumbleys occult/magickal claims. All Hutton was doing was presenting Chumbleys claims. He wasnt presenting the claims has fact. To do so would would have affected Huttons position has historian. It could be argued that Hutton helped to advertise Chumbley--Redblossom 15:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC).

Well, I'm sorry Red, but you're going way off track again. This part of the discussion is not about any claims, magical or otherwise, and their truth or otherwise: it's about "notability" only. Can you read those two questions OK? We are in agreement that Hutton is an academic and a historian - of repute, in fact. There is a page dedicated to him in Wiki. Do you think he is saying that Chumbley is notable? reineke 16:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I dont have any gripe concerning Huttons writing. What i am saying is that , Hutton is not in a position to judge Chumbleys credentials or notability has a academic/historian. Before the Hutton article nobody heard of Chumbley. In that context Chumbleys advertising began with Hutton's writing. Take a look at the discussion section on Hutton under the Objectivity sub heading. Huttons objectivity is called in to question over him being too close to his subjects and his overtly sympathetic portrayal of the topics. This is a big taboo in objective neutral history. It could be argued that some of Huttons writing is closer to historical revisionism.--Redblossom 17:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's look again at your complaints about those writing about Chumbley: Howard is an occultist and knew Chumbley so he's out. The same goes for everybody else except for Hutton who you claim is not an occultist and he knew Chumbley-so he's out. Well, Red, Hutton is an occultist-and a prominent one. He's never hidden the fact. Howard is a historian as well as occultist-and a prominent one. Evans is an occultist and a historian-a prominent one. Chumbley was an occultist and historian-a prominent one.

Hutton states, " Andrew Chumbley, author of an intelligent modern grimoire which combines his own experiences with traditions of different groups of witches and magicians with whom he has worked" which clearly shows that Chumbley was considered a magician by someone notable enough to be in Wiki by the words "his own experiences" and "groups of witches and magicians with which he worked".

Red, the historical revisionism card is old, old old and you have nothing with which to back it up. That comment is POV as are the other historical revision comments. Give us a reference in which someone of note states Hutton is guilty of historical revisionism or give it a rest, please. Lulubyrd 23:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Evans References of Notability

IPSOS has added references from Dr. Dave Evans' recent scholarly book, The History of British Magic After Crowley: Kenneth Grant, Amado Crowley, Chaos Magic, Satanism, Lovecraft, the Left Hand Path, Blasphemy and Magical Morality. THANK-YOU IPSOS, for your input. Though I was aware of Evans' book, I haven't had the opportunity to read it yet. For those of you here who might not be familiar with Evans' work, Evans has a PhD on this subject. It is my understanding that he has worked closely with Hutton. As an aside, I also hear that the book was welcomed with glowing reviews. Lulubyrd 12:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Run

Well, this article is still here. What shall we add next! Lulubyrd 15:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: Who knows how to archive discussion? Is it possible to archive much of this current page? It's getting long. Lulubyrd 15:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well - here we are again. That was a peculiar diversion,wasn't it?

I propose to add nothing at all - it only seems to incite certain (insert expletives of choice)s to greater and greater heights of vitriolic imbecility. But I could do some editing down maybe.

Apropos the description of Chumbley as "Magician", I would propose to remove that. If you look at Wiki articles on other well-known occult figures - Aleister Crowley, Samuel Liddell Mathers, Kenneth Grant - you'll find they don't come with this descriptor. I view Chumbley as an artist in several fields - including line, letter, theory, ritual - and dubbing him a magician seems somehow limiting, to myself at least.

Would it perhaps be appropriate to make Chumbley's article uniform with those other examples?And it gives numb-nut one thing less to whine about. Any comment? reineke 13:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I say ignore the numb-nuts and/or get them blocked for disruption. Evans (2007) describes Chumbley as "academic and magician" on p. 71, and it's been agreed that Evans meets WP:RS. IPSOS (talk) 14:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't going to change anything on Bongo's account, but if you're not happy with "magician" then sure. One alternative I suggested was "occultist". I personally am happy with magician, and so is IPSOS, but I'm not concerned either way... Regarding getting Redblossom/Bongo blocked, I was on the verge of starting a User RFC some months ago, but he quietened down for a period and I couldn't be bothered. But there have been ongoing sock-puppetry, incivility, etc that we can cite... Fuzzypeg☻ 03:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well Fuzz, I'm quite neutral about "magician" really. I think it's not worth tying up your time and energy blocking Johnny No-mates over there - he'll come back as something else, post anonymously, or simply vandalise, as before. OK, I'm happy to leave "magician" and just ignore El Socko. (Even though baiting him is marvellous entertainment - and all for free!) Thanks IPSOS for your direct approach, too! :D reineke 09:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I like the wiki link added to magician. As for more to add, I think it may be great to do a study of his works with quotes and such. We can try and get permission from Xoanon to quote from it. It would be a great project; he has a very unique philosophy that would be great to work out and an even better resource for a little known man.Ronsharpe 01:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ronsharpe-I don't think we need permission to post short quotes here that support facts put in the article. It's my understanding that we may not put in original research, though. Wiki policy says that any project that studies Chumbley's work will have to be published elsewhere and then used as a reference here. Given the rigour of resources that have been required here, not just anyone's assessment of Chumbley's work would be acceptable without challenge, either. Though your project sounds interesting, Wikipedia just doesn't seem to be the place for the type of research you propose. Lulubyrd 22:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

A Decision that shows the limits of what Wikipedia is and can do.

A very sad day for common sense here. All this decision has shown is that anyone can be an "expert" on any subject on Wikipedia. Has the decision stands we have a bunch of "editors" who can get away with stating that a deceased person's former occupation was a "magician". We have a bunch of editors who state that Chumbley was "knowledgeable" with Enochian (even though there is nothing to prove this fabrication) and we have a situation where a controversial historians work has been challenged over its objectivity, being taken out of context to promote a view of Chumbley has something he is not. I can see this article getting nominated for deletion again, once this nonsense has been circulated around the internet. And if i were one of the editors of this article, i wouldnt brag about it in the real world. All you have done is to have promoted an Armado Crowley type figure and created a false myth around it. What can i say, but that the real world is going to be cruel place for people like you.--Redblossom 18:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Blah, blah, blah. What a bunch of pathetic blather. The world is sure to be a cruel place for a (choose your own insult) like you. IPSOS (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I see you've not actually added a single constructive thing to Wikipedia, so why should anybody care what you think, spa? IPSOS (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

TLDR: Redblossom has failed to push his own narrative because he will never do anything notable in his entire existence. Proof - fifteen years of silence 82.33.100.37 (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Red, the only one who has challenged anyone's work over objectivity has been you. It is my understanding that this article may not be nominated for deletion again acording to Wiki policy. Since you are not an editor of this article, you needn't concern yourself regarding the editors' reputations. An Amado Crowley figure is a "false myth around it". You just heard of him, didn't you? Thank-you for your concern, but you needn't concern yourself with how cruel the world is for people like me. You may better concern yourself with your own issues. Lulubyrd 19:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The enochian thing is a mute point, at best. There is signs he may have been; a picture in the azoetia is is illustrated with enochian letters, and some of his drawing are excursions into enochian universes: http://www.caduceusbooks.com/occultartgallery/cultus/Andrew-Chumbley/chum-18.html entitled as follows:

"Open is the Gate into the Aethyr of LIL-AShA!'

Pen & Paper 12ins x 8ins Not For Sale (Private Collection) This picture is the magico-aesthetic binding of the scrying results derived from an Enochian Magical Working. In this ritual the seer's eye went forth into the aethyr LIL and therein beheld a vast black ashlar and therefrom the spreading tail of a peacock, all hewn in darkest stone. There was a blazing eye that seemed to dwell at the very heart of existence and all things spiralled to-and-from that core of power. From the Warding Angel came oracles concerning the Grimoire Azot and these are ensigilled in the picture's lower register. "

To me, that closes that argument. As for the "magician" occupation, that is simply a matter of definition and personal prejudices. He did "occupy" his life with magick. He published magickal books, lectured about magick and he ran his own magickal coven. I would consider that an occupation- but that is just me. Now if you could somehow "objectively" prove that it isn't, I will gladly have ears to hear it.

The view of Chumbley you may not agree with, but that does not make it "unhistorical". All the info about Chumbley is as "true" as we can get. Everything is referenced, more than many other wiki articles, and is quite detailed and reliable. If you don't think he was important, good for you. That is simply a matter of opinion, not "historical" fact, whatever that is. For that matter. what do you consider "history" to be and why is this not "it"?

You keep on saying the same things, but with no backing it up, no argument, simply a broken record. Please, be constructive. I am fine with criticism, but sheer negativity is just uncool man. So please, be productive and help us make the article better, or go away. Ronsharpe 00:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)