Talk:John Michell (writer)/Archive 1

Corrected links

After creating this page I corrected a number of links previously wrongly directed to John Michell. However, I may have missed some.Rodparkes 03:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't suggest it. It was someone else. Ty 11:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thought Provoking Author, the Pros and Cons

the article as it stood was essentially falling over itself in fawning praise. It is ok to quote positive reviews, but a minimal effort is required to maintain WP:NPOV. Michell does appear to write very well, but, let's face it, the majority of his publications seem to be hilarious pseudoscience for the esotericist market. dab (𒁳) 09:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Although I will assume good faith Dbachman's use of the word pseudoscience is far from NPOV and suggests he has both a disregard for the subject matter in question and scanty information about its' author John Michell. John Michell has no middle name and does not use a middle initial. Dbachmann's Talk Page is revealing. He is called to task for starting edit wars, "wasting everyone's time" and, most importantly, for repeatedly creating stub articles with negative content, perhaps for the sole purpose of merging the stub into established good articles. I suggest Dbachmann read the first paragraph on the Talk Page of any living persons' biography. It is always a good idea to add the ISBN and the publisher to an author's bibliography along with both sides of a critique of a living author's indivdual work. I would also caution about using extraneous words in order to dilute the meaning of a phrase and the use of quote marks with the same intent.SageMab (talk) 23:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)SageMab

As for the word pseudoscience, just because something is defined on Wiki does not mean it is not a loaded, or even incorrect, term. You need to be careful in applying it to a living author's work. Some call the teachings of the Catholic Church dogma, others call it true belief. Let history be the judge. SageMab (talk) 20:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)SageMab

I have no idea whether Michell "really" has a middle name. The fact is that some of his works are published under the name "John F. Michell". Amazon gives 19 hits. I am completely agnostic on whether Michell likes his middle initial, but it is a simple pragmatic fact that it is useful when searching for his books on amazon.com or elsewhere. I did not use "pseudoscience" in the article text, so that your revert remains completely unjustified. I asked you in good faith to acknowledge that some of Michell's publications are ostensibly pseudo-scholarly. If you are not prepared to engage in constructive debate at least try to engage in constructive editing. Since you allege that Michell renounces the "F." (without citing evidence, I might add), I now propose we state "sometimes credited as John F. Michell", which is a straightforward fact. Concerning "pseudoscience", Michell is apparently the author on ley lines, which are duly categorized in Category:Earth mysteries, which in turn is properly categorized in Category:Pseudoarchaeology (without any involvement on my part, I might add). I cannot see how you might want to dispute that Michell's main topics are ostensibly topics of pseudo-archaeology. Of course, this doesn't mean that everything he writes is automatically without merit, and a treatise on, say, Shakespeare authorship has to be reviewed independently (it has been, and has incidentially been characterised as an "unconvincing piece of shaky scholarship" by Publisher's Weekly). dab (𒁳) 15:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I would hardly call your work on this article "constructive editing". To wit, you deleted details of a living authors' life (John Michell's service in the Royal Navy, his work as a Russian Translator and Surveyor along with his London birthplace), added quote marks in order to POV a term (i.e. scred sites, you added "ritualized landscape"), added "loaded' words such as numerology instead of the more precise, in regard to this particular author, gematria and created a John F. Michell stub with two sentences, one of which was a poor review of a patently controversial book about Shakespeare and a bibilography you copied from a website and which you did not take the time to properly reference with publishers and ISBNs. As for the non-existant middle initial (look up his birth records), just because something is listed on the web does not make it accuate. The point of Wiki is to create a factual record, not to perpetuate mistakes. To call you D "Tweedledum" Bachmann or to call Shakespeare "Billy" or "Willie" does not represent consensus and instead is often a thinly-veiled attempted to rewrite history with a POV agenda. I have read "Who Wrote Shakespeare" and find it to be a scholarly, well annotated, read. I do have the academic credentials to pass judgement on this book but my POV, as is yours, is of no matter in relation to this article. Case in point is my addition of scholarly reviews of this book by vetted academics. I suggest you not be intellectually lazy and that you pick up this book and others on this subject and judge for yourself before you get lost in your own Sargasso Sea. See Wikipedia's Shakespeare authorship question page for a start. I would kindly like to remind you to reread your Dbachmann User Talk page which urges you to resist the urge to "engage in flame wars" and to "not waste everyone's time" (a direct quote). As for me, I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with a man who is not properly armed. SageMab (talk) 20:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)SageMab

stop reverting my edits. In particular, stop calling them "vandalism". See Wikipedia:Vandalism and WP:AGF. If you have specific suggestions, make them. If you prefer "gematria" over "numerology", you need only say so. I am not sure how you expect me to "look up his birth records". If you have access to JM's birth records, I must ask you, could it be that you are affected by WP:COI? In that case, I must ask for disclosure. I fail to see how reporting a middle initial can be conceived as "POV". Also review WP:V and WP:TRUTH. What we care about is verifiability, not truth. I have never read a book by JM, and, unlike you by all appearance, am completely free of bias regarding him. I merely report on reviews I happened to find, such as Publisher's Weekly's. Regarding the rest of your comments, it may be that you misjudge me (a paragraph like "Gamatria, a key to studying ancient texts, is the study of words turned into numbers. In Greek and Hebrew there are no numeric characters, only alpha characters" makes it very difficult for me to give you much credit in the same department, so maybe this is mutual. "gematria"="cabbalistic numerology", so unless JM is discussing Cabbalism in particular, we should prefer generic "numerology" over the Rabbinic term). But I have no interest in entering a "battle of wits" with you in any case. I have also no interest in edit-warring with an editor who has no grasp of Wikipedia policy. If you want to continue this debate, make sure you do review the policy pages I link above. Make sure to also review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Precisely because I have no vested interest in this article, I am more than ready to compromise based on convincing evidence. Editing progress is by iteration, not by revert-warring. Judging from your talkpage, I conclude this is your first editing dispute on Wikipedia, and am prepared to make allowance for that. But I must ask you to wisen up, review policy and stop the "vandalism" allegation: unless you do that, your newbie credit will be used up rather quickly. dab (𒁳) 17:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

btw, it is evident from a brief sample of JM's Confessions columns that he is a gifted writer, no dispute there. The problem is that a non-fiction author is not only judged by his style and diction. dab (𒁳) 17:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, syntax is telling. You certainly can turn a phrase. SageMab (talk) 16:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)SageMab

We need a more complete citation for the "learned crank obsessed with numbers" quote. At the very least we need a page number. ag —Preceding comment was added at 19:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Dbachmann added the "learned crank" quote from a church-affiliated publication and he also added the review from Publisher's Weekly which I have been unable to find online except for Amazon.com. I skimmed over 14 enthusiastic reviews from the public there and could find no reference to it. If it is to be included I think Dbachmann might want to put a link on this page to the review so that readers can judge for themselves. SageMab (talk) 23:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Sage MabSageMab (talk) 23:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Are there any standards about citing dust-jacket copy? The "If Socrates were to write a column" quote is from the DJ of "Confessions," which doesn't indicate where/when Harpur wrote/said this. ag —Preceding comment was added at 14:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

SageMab, I am by no means intent on smearing Michell, as you seem to assume. Much rather, my motivation was, seeing that you inisist on citing the most fawning adulation, to also cite stuff from the other end of the scale. I am not personally endorsing either end of the spectrum: but that the quotes were specifically selected to illustrate the width of this spectrum was made perfectly clear in the article text. Yes, Ariel, I would also prefer to cut the more incestuous recommendations, which would allow us to also drop the more hostile reactions. It must be possible to discuss this author detachedly, making reference to notable, independent reviewers only. dab (𒁳) 15:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary Deiter, I do not question your dislike of the author, but I can only assume from your comments on this page, that you hold distain for the subject matter. You have not explained why you reverted my edit detailing a living author's service in the Royal Navy nor his work as a Russian interpreter and Chartered Surveyor before the publication of his first book. You have also not explained why you created a stub for the author when a cursory look at the History of this article shows this was done by Bot and other editors at the the very beginning of the creation of this article. Please illuminate. This stub included a poor review from Publisher's Weekly and, only then, I added reviews from pertinent notables such as the Shakespeare Oxford Library Society Newsletter and the Folger Library for balance. The fact that these reviewers gave favorable reviews to "Who Wrote Shakespeare" does not reflect on any opinion I might have pro or con. You would like a balance and so would I. Once again, I ask you to provide a link to the Publisher's Weekly crit as I have been unable to locate it other than a link to an open-to-the-general public reviewer on Amazon.com who may have misquoted or made up the source. The reviews on Amazon.com were very favorable towards "Who Wrote Shakespeare" but should not be included here, as commentary from vetted academics and scholars carry more weight. Please properly annotate that quote, as you forgot to do with both your unfavorable opinions. I wouldn't want someone to revert your edit as an "unconvincing piece of shaky scholarship."SageMab (talk) 02:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)SageMab

I originated this article, but haven't been back for a while, so I am interested to see how it has developed. I enjoy much of Michell's writing but don't always agree with what he says (and the numerology loses me completely), so I made earlier attempts to provide a balanced view. Since Michell's beliefs challenge prevailing orthodoxy, it is inevitable that this will be a difficult task. I think we need to bring out that Michell sees his views as the real orthodoxy held throughout most of history, and the modern world as a temporary departure from the true path, while acknowledging that this makes him a nutter (or more politely, an eccentric) in many people's eyes.

I also think that as it stands, the article over-emphasises the Shakespeare book, which I personally found excellent, but which is only one work among what must be close to a hundred by now. Rodparkes (talk) 07:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Rod, thanks for your thoughts and for originating an article. It was a stub, with the bit about the metric system, and I jumped in and wrote the lions' share of this article, sans the Publisher's Weekly and the churchman crits added by another editor. I had no problems with your edits and your thoughtful comments, unlike Dbachmann's strident POV. I did replace your phrase "harmless eccentric" because it was up for a while and no one backed it up with verification. I replaced it with "eccentric", which this author, I doubt, would contest and Dbachmann replaced it with a"crank" quote since I think he has a pseudoscience axe to grind. I don't think pseudoscience is the point here. After all, all science starts out as pseudoscience. So-called establishment science can also be debunked and labeled pseudoscience (as some of the quantum theorists now label Einsteins' theories). Time will tell as the old saw goes. I, too, have read many of his books, as you said you have, and although I frequent both bookstores and libraries I have never seen any of his books listed as John F. Michell, only on the 'Net. Have you? As for his work on Shakespeare; the book received a lot of attention and was notable for not pushing one view of the authorship question over the other. Michell did say who he was inclined to favor but pointed out that his opinion was not engraved in stone and invited the reader to do further research with his book pointing the way. This author is notable because he does not get stuck with one immutable viewpoint. John Michell is a highly respected author both in Europe and the States and I have never seen him refered to as a "nutter" in print except from you. You might want to change your comment above to "eccentric" unless you can annote it from a notable souce which would be more in line with the Wiki notice at the top of this page in regard to living authors. Keep reading!.SageMab 02:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

can you stop alleging I have a "pov" in this? I have never read Michell, and I do not pretend to have an opinion on him. I did note that this article was written from an unduly imbalanced "pro" position, and added some negative reviews to counter that. If I had found only the negative reviews cited, I would have added positive ones, so I really don't see what you want. I also don't know why you make such a fuss over the F. initial. I don't know what is supposed so controversial about this. Searching for the "F." made it easier to find his books for me, that's all, I don't know if he "should" be called "F.", nor am I interested in the question. "all science starts out as pseudoscience" is patent nonsense. Mitchell is ostensibly a writer on pseudoscientific topics, but I agree this isn't the issue. We can just state it and be done. I still admit he may still be a good author. If I had any interest, at all, to read about "ley lines" or other "Fortean phenomena", I suppose I would pick up a book by JM. Feel free to state JM is "highly respected" as long as you are able to pinpoint by whom he is highly respected, no debate there. dab (𒁳) 09:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Jesus booklet

I can't see a ref to his slim volume on "Jesus the Great Cock". I have a copy somewhere; as with all JM's work it is interesting in parts. There is a fairly wide triangle between original research, teasing the reader and being a crank, and (IMHO) JM veers all over it. A lot of his theories require a closer study of Earth Magnetism.86.42.206.244 (talk) 09:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Evola

I don't see how anyone can disagree that Michell admires Evola, eg "Disgusted by the cruelty and artificiality of communism, scorning the dogmatic, self-centered fascism of his age, Evola looks beyond man-made systems to the eternal principles in creation and human society. The truth, as he sees it, is so totally at odds with the present way of thinking that it shocks the modern mind. Evola was no politician, trying to make the best of things, but an idealist, uncompromising in the pursuit of the Best itself." Doug Weller (talk) 06:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, your quote above suggests the opposite. I don't see how anyone can think that Michell admires Evola. On the contrary. This quote is way, way out of context. "Disgusted by...communism, scorning fascism..." The point is a person can be an idealist and go down a wrong path. Evola himself rejected everything Evola had stood for. Evola was an idealist who turned to a perverted system of belief and then rejected it. This is not a complimentary essay on Evola.. John Michell is a Platonist, Dougweller, and a fortean. Michell admires Plato and Charles Fort, not Evola. As a fortean, Michell is the very opposite of a fascist. John Michell is a prolific, fortean author and he has never, ever been accused of fascist leanings except, wrongly, on this page. One cannot be a fortean and a fascist and John Michell has been a fortean for his entire writing career. Just because you and another user on this page labels him a fascist, does not make it so. I have read quite a bit of John Michell's work and have heard him give lectures and find no hint of fascism. Rather, Michell always rejects repressive thought in his writings and urges the reader to think for himself. To suggest other wise is to reveal that a person has not read this author of more than two dozen titles throughly. No scholar has ever accused John Michell of being a "follower" nor "admirer" of any fascist. See John Mcihell's website The Hope which urges peace, understanding and cooperation between all people. 216.240.101.40 (talk) 07:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

How many times do I have to ask people not to refactor stuff without a good reason? I called this section 'Evola', that is NPOV, leave it alone! I have never called Michell a fascist, why do you make such a false accusation? As for the quote, it may be out of context, I wouldn't know, I simply found it in a review of Evola. As for admiring Plato, I wonder why the IP editor mentions that? Doug Weller (talk) 08:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Your comment that Michell admires Evola is a serious charge. It is incorrect and needs to be addressed. Salient facts were added by my previous comment. Why are you determined to supress discussion that does not agree with your view? I will assume good faith.216.240.101.40 (talk) 08:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

As to the comment about Plato it is important to understand Plato if one is going to understand John Michell's writings and his comentary about other authors. 216.240.101.40 (talk) 08:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You are not assuming good faith as you are accusing me of suppressing disucssion (without saying how I'm doing that except by asking people not to rewrite other editors' comments.). If Evola rejected everything Evola stood for, as you say above, why couldn't Michell admire him? And calling Evola "an idealist, uncompromising in the pursuit of the Best itself" sounds as though he admired him. Perhaps you can quote Michell's criticism of him.

As for Plato, I personally have always disliked him for the same reason Karl Popper and Bertrand Russell did, his advocacy of a closed, totalitarian society. Doug Weller (talk) 10:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I think Plato and number theory is more germane to discuss in regard to John Michell. Your dislikes or likes, and mine, of Plato is not revelant when it comes to writing a Wiki entry. Again, I will assume good faith. 216.240.101.40 (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Good, because number theory wasn't mentioned and I assumed it was a much more general like of Plato than just his number theory. The statement was that he was a Platonist and that would certainly encompass Plato's ideas about politics. Doug Weller (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Searching through Confessions of a Radical Traditionalist on Amazon, it's clear that his interest in Plato went far beyond number theory. 'Platonist' would seem to be correct'. Doug Weller (talk) 17:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, 216.240.101.40, are you PhilKnight? Doug Weller (talk) 12:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

No, Doug, I most certainly do not use an IP sock. PhilKnight (talk) 12:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't accusing you of that, people do sometimes post without logging in and without being socks. But your signature and the IP signature are adjacent to each other on one of the edits.

Curiouser and curiouser, User talk:216.240.101.40's talk page has an edit signed by PhilKnight and 216.240.101.40 -- Phil it really does look as though you and this IP are the same editor. If not, why is your name on the talk page, where it says "PhilKnight (talk) 21:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC) 216.240.101.40 (talk) 09:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)" and has no edits by PhilKnight? Despite your denial, either the IP editor is adding your name or that's you when not logged in. It's confusing to say the least. It doesn't look like a deliberate attempt to deceive, quite the contrary, but then you deny it above so I really don't know what to think. Doug Weller (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I found the source for the quote by Michell on Evola: [1] - as you can see, it is in a section headed 'Praise for Men Among the Ruins. Doug Weller (talk) 12:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Doug, you obviously don't understand the original research policy. PhilKnight (talk)12:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't? It applies to what we write on article discussion pages? Where does it say that? So far as I know, this sort of discussion on a talk page is fine. Please show me where I've gone wrong. Doug Weller (talk) 06:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything in that quote which suggests he is an admirer of Evola, more that he is trying to analyse his ideas without trying to impose assumptions or value judgements from the start (not an unreasonable way to start a look at someone's work, even if you then go on to draw less neutral conclusions). As it is a quote taken out of context and it doesn't appear that anyone has read the whole thing. It may be that he goes on to praise or damn him, we don't know. Granted it appears in a section marked "praise" but we should all know, from movie poster quotes, that publishers/publicists are great at taking quotes out of context - what might be telling is that they used that quote, if he had gone on to actually praise him I would have thought they'd have used that in the quote. Out of context it tells us little, I'm afraid. (Emperor (talk) 14:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC))

I found at least some of the context[2]:

" This is from pp. 146-47 of *Confessions of a Radical Traditionalist*, a page or two into a chapter titled "A Rad-Trad Englishman and an Italian." Michell has just described a vision of the good life held by one William Corbett (1763-1835). He continues... It comes as a shock to be reminded how closely this picture resembles the ideal images of fascism. But there is a world of difference between the gross literalism and inhumanity of a totalitarian system and the high idealism of a radical traditionalist. That difference was emphasized by Julius Evola (1898-1974), the Italian rad-trad philosopher. Though idolised by Mussolini, he was fiercely critical of the Fascist system -- and of man-made systems generally. He rejected Darwin, and the entirety of modern, secular thinking, in favor of the traditional, classical world-view. Like Socrates, he perceived a divine order in Creation, and he acknowledged a tradition, based upon that order and passed down from the great civilizations of antiquity. The old tradition, and the virtues of honesty, justice, courage, piety and noble conduct associated with it, were the main elements in Evola's reactionary revolution.

In 1951 he was arrested and brought to trial in Rome for "glorifying Fascism." The prosecutor made a farce of the proceedings by refusing to specify objectionable passages in Evola's writings, saying it was a question of his tone or "general spirit." The trial collapsed and Evola was fully acquitted.

Most of us are familiar with that sort of accusation -- against one's tone, attitude or general spirit. Bullies and witch-hunters are always on the lookout for fascism, racism, sexism, elitism, loyalism, religious sentiments or whatever is considered most incorrect at the time. In Evola they find their ideal victim. In his most powerful book, Revolt Against the Modern World<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/089281506X/entropygradientr/re...>, he spoke of manliness, mystical sovereignty and legitimate authority. He spoke also about occult politics and the collusions between democrats and demagogues to effeminise society and dumb it down. Inevitably, he brought in the Jews, associating the Jewish mentality with materialism. That makes him, if you like, an anti-Semite. But he was not speaking racially, or against the Jewish tradition which he respected. His reference was to a state of mind, occurring in Jews and Gentiles alike: the state of mind that is reflected in the chaos of the modern world. "

Allow me[the author of the Usenet post that included the above] to say that that makes him[Evola] an anti-Semite even if you *don't* like. Doug Weller (talk) 17:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Read the last sentence Doug. I have read the books in question. I have read the John Michell essay whch does not praise Evola nor make excuses for him. The essay by Michell is one small essay in a very large, widely highly regarded, body of John Michell's work that deals with sacred space, number and geometry and the freedom to form opinions. Michell's writings, which is how you judge an author, show him to be a peaceful man, with respect for all and with respect for scholarship. I don't think you care for this author. SageMab (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, he does definitely sound like a peaceful man. I was responding to Emperor's comment about the lack of context. It doesn't matter if I care or don't care for Michell. What matters is making sure that the article follows Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Reliable sources, verifiablity, balance (ie NPOV), etc. Doug Weller (talk) 18:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I agree. SageMab (talk) 18:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is it again comes down to a person's interpretation of the text - SageMab says it is neither praise nor excuses, but as far as I'm concerned he is essentially coming to Evola's defence and is trying to explain/"spin" Evola's statements. It is definitely a grey area but interpreting someone's pronouncements which are anti-Semitic, as not being so, doesn't mean you yourself are anti-Semitic and neither does interpreting Evola's fascist ideas as being something else doesn't make you a fascist. It does mean you are walking on some very thin ice, and people could certainly ask some very serious questions about why someone would do that (presumably to make his own interests in rad Trad more acceptable - possibly even to himself).

So again I am unsure what we can say about that, what we need are other sources which give their readings of his work. Just from what I've read here I'd suggest it is an apparently innocent attempt to explain what are, on the face of it, some rather nasty ideologies, which could certainly leave him open to accusations of anti-Semitism/fascism, even if there is no real solid justification for it. Others could suggest it is him coyly displaying fascist tendencies and others could suggest it is wholly innocent. So it could be possible, with the right sources, to build a balanced look at this but I don't think it is going to come purely from the primary material. (Emperor (talk) 19:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC))

Metrology and Michell's political involvement in the Anti-Metrication Board

Details on this, too, please. This should also cast at least some light on actual verifiable political activity by Michell.

At the moment, I have only come across two individuals who have publicly called themselves 'radical traditionalists'. One is Michell and the other is Julius Evola. The two have shared a small-press publisher (Moynihan), and Michell has introduced Evola's book and called Evola misunderstood. Apparently Evola was just trying to reintroduce the values and social systems of the ancient Graeco-Roman world (known for being based on slavery and having philosophers speaking in favour of a 'natural' social order) without being a fascist. Curiously this has not stopped him from being the numero uno 'philosophical' ideologist of the modern European fascist right.

Also, out of interest, did Michell know Prince Charles at Trinity College Cambridge and has this got anything to do with his later involvement in the Prince's School and other royal-backed 'new age' (for want of a better term) organizations and projects?

Details of what Michell was trying to achieve with his involvement in an organization seeking to maintain English weights and measures going back to ancient Rome (notably the pound-weight, librium, rather than the kilogram), would be welcome.

All sorts of curious right-wing organizations sprouted up like mushrooms in the period 1970-75 in Britain, with histories buried away in obscure literature but which actually in some cases got quite a bit of publicity at the time.

Without going too far on the path of original research, I would point out that anti-metrication had a big overlap with beliefs in measures that were sacred (or that should be sacred) to the English people/race/volk. Michell's own efforts in metrology are rarely if ever taken seriously by professional metrologists.

Various references are made on the web to the AMB.

What other well-known individuals were involved in it?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.12.211 (talk • contribs)

The Hitler book is discussed in Turn Off Your Mind: The Mystic Sixties and the Dark Side of the Age of Aquarius by Gary Valentine Lachman (p.371). I don't have hard-copy access to this, only partial access via a Google books search, but it seems to be authentic. Paul B (talk) 16:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The page can be accessed on an Amazon preview. Contrary to my suggestion above, Lachman clearly believes that Michell flirted with occult Nazi ideas at this time. The full passage is: "Michell's career has produced a rather eccentric oeuvre. Along with his popular books on earth mysteries he is the author of a considerable number of controversial pamphlets. In 1973 Souvenir Programme for the Official Lynching of Michael Abdul Malikb addressed the case of the black power activist Michael X in prison on murder charges. The Hip Pocket Hitler (1976) offered a collection of the Fuehrer's pithy sayings. A Short History of Astro-Archaeology was an early work in the occult Nazi genre, illustrating the official SS line on ancient sites." [3] Paul B (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

This opinion by Lachman was not taken seriously nor furthered by any reputable sources. John Michell's interest in occult subjects is well known to his readers as is his democratic ideas expressed in his published works. The Nazis were also interested in the occult, from a wrong point of view, which does not hold that all authors who arite about the occult have black magick in mind. A non-fiction author or historian can write about a subject without being labeled as endorsing that subject. The small, uncirculated phamplet on Hitler's pithy sayings was just that and was obviously a case of "even the pronouncements of a mad man can sound reasonable". SageMab (talk) 17:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Well then, perhaps you can find these reputable sources and add them. I tend to agree with you that Lachman is probably being unfair. Anyone aware of the strange mixture of radicalism, willful provocativeness, occultism and satanism etc associated with the Rolling Stones at this time will take claims literal pro-Nazism with a big pinch of salt. There was a big interest in the alleged 'occult' aspects of the SS which usually implied a sort of pop-cult version of Nietzsche rather than any actual support for fascist politics. But that's just my opinion. It doesn't matter a hill of beans in this crazy world without sources. Paul B (talk) 17:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Lachman gets the title of the astro-archaeology book wrong; it was actually 'A Little History of Astro-Archaeology'. I have read this book, and it does not seem Nazi; however, I have not read the SS material on ancient sites, which presumably would have been kept internal to the SS and is not something you can find in the 'Mind, Body and Spirit' sections of today's bookshops. (I strongly suspect that Lachman did not consult this latter material either, although I am willing to stand corrected on this point). However, whilst the point about the Rolling Stones is well taken, they did not make a decades-long career out of promoting supposed 'ancient folk traditions' by means of cod academicism (the mathematics in the 'View over Atlantis' is rubbish!), and whilst for a time they lauded people like Aleister Crowley (who was pretty far to the right), they did not support, follow, promote, and assist in the packaging of, works by the undoubted fascist (let's not mince words in this particular person's regard) Julius Evola. The truth is that Michell has a long history of involvement in the ideas-world of the fascist far right. The fact that leftie hippies of the air-head variety have at times formed part of his market (not for the Evola book obviously) should not detract from the point here.

the Evola-Moynihan-Michell connection is what drew my attention to this author in the first place. Nobody is trying to blame Michell by association, but such associations as can be documented should be documented. I don't know about Evola being "misunderstood". He was an active participant in Italy's fascist revolution throughout the 1930s. Perhaps Michell is "misunderstood", after all, you can't pick your readers, but Moynihan probably wasn't an extremely wise choice as the editor of his Confessions. --dab (𒁳) 17:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

But the nature of Michell's association with Moynihan (as a contracted author happy to be published by him; as the author of a contributory laudatory essay for a 'luxury' numbered English translation of a work by the fascist Evola that modern 'intellectual' fascists consider to be his 'magnum opus'; and of course as someone willing to be called a 'Radical Traditionalist' on this publisher's very short list, a label which [I here assert] is one of Evolist mutual recognition) is relevant.

Indeed, both Nietzsche and Wodehouse were (ab)used by the Nazis, but that's no reason to think they were Nazis. If something is interesting, verifiable and from an RS it should go in with an appropriate context. For example, writing a book of Hitler's favourite jokes doesn't make the author a Nazi - but it doesn't make them not one either; it's irrelevant. Verbal chat 17:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

it's not "irrelevant", it's a hippopotamus a book about Hitler's favourite jokes -- for whatever that is worth, for better or worse. We report facts, we don't jump to conclusions. dab (𒁳) 17:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I didn't mean it's irrelevant to the article, just that we can't say that the author is a fascist from just such a book. If this book is more than that, or if there is a reliable source that says this, then fine - but we still need to be careful with BLP. Sorry if my comment wasn't clear (I meant to agreeing with you!). I fully agree we report facts, and should report the book/pamphlet/whatever existing and describe it. Verbal chat 17:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You have some good points Paul and Verbal and I agree with Dab that agreeing to have Monihan publish this book not a wise idea. I think there were only about ten copies of this Hitler phamplet published and it made Hitler look like a bufoon. The short run indicates that it was not meant to be widely circulated. We do need to be careful with BLP. 17:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SageMab (talk • contribs)

I think we should take on board that there is no evidence whatsoever that John Michell himself has ever considered his association with Moynihan to be unwise. This sort of formulation suggests that he did not know what sort of publisher he was dealing with, but what evidence is there for this? After all, he also wrote an essay that was included with the Evola book by the same publisher. He is not responsible for any other books than the ones he was directly involved in; I quite agree with that. But it would not exactly be controversial to call this publisher a fascist publisher. (I know Moynhihan rejects the attribution, but only in Evolist terms).82.153.23.251 (talk) 22:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm currently doing some major editing on the article. I've added Adolf Hitler to the list of topics that Michell wrote about. In my opinion, that's as much of a mention as is really justified, given the sources we've seen so far. Looie496 (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. There doesn't seem to be an ISBN number for the Hitler book, so it may have only been reproduced as a mimeographed pamphlet or something similar. Of course we have to be careful with BLP, but in any case there's not much in the way of reliable sources. As far as the "Souvenir program" pamphlet goes, he was not the sole or even main author: Souvenir Programme for the Official Lynching of Michael Abdul Malik: With Poems, Stories, Sayings by the Condemned By Michael Abdul Malik, William Levy, John Michell Published by Compendium, 1973 53 pages. I think we should drop this now. Doug Weller (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

64.0.112.130 (talk) 16:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Archive.

Reception section

Seems to start pretty POV, ie it says critics range from a 'churchman' (exactly what is that?) to academics, when in fact the 'churchman' is the historian Professor Ioan P. Culianu, according to our article on him an "expert in gnosticism and Renaissance magic". The way it is put in the article, readers who know nothing about him could perhaps interpret this as 'well, the guy who criticised him is only some religious guy, whereas the academics say...'. Doug Weller (talk) 06:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You have a good point Doug. I do think that the Professor's connection to the Catholic Church should be noted. SageMab (talk) 00:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

tell me about it. Much like Viktor Rydberg, this article suffers from fan attention bent on white-washing Michell from any criticism. The upshot seems to be that JM is a very smart and eloquent writer, who is far, far out in the realm of pseudoscience and who holds considerable appeal to modern crypto-fascists or "ecofascists" of the "Evola" persuasion. Michell came to my attention because he is fawned upon by Michael Moynihan (journalist), who is himself the object of fan attention trying to whitewash him of his (more obvious than JM's) fascist leanings. dab (𒁳) 06:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Deiter Bachman is throwing out his pseudoscience label once again about this living author. How deary and how incorrect, and far from an unbiased comment. I find it laughable that a fan (no matter how distasteful) of an author's work should have any bearing on the philosophy of the author. Hitler, who one cannot argue is far more distained than admired, was a fan of vegetarianism and one could not reasonably suggest that he tainted the reputation of those well-meaning authors who espoused it. Perhaps Deiter will now try to defend Hitler and his various pseudosciences.SageMab (talk) 03:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)SageMab

John Michell is not afraid to tackle conroversial subjects

The evidence is there for anyone who is interested. Unfortunately, idiots keep reverting my edits. A reasonable first paragraph would state:

John Michell (born 6 February 1933) is an English philosopher espousing Radical Traditionalism, the philosophy founded by the fascist author Julius Evola. He has written prolifically on subjects including sacred geometry, sacred sites (viewed as "ritualized landscapes"), gematria, archaeoastronomy, Fortean phenomena, and the lives of noted eccentrics. He writes a column for the English journal The Oldie. He has also written a humorous pamphlet reproducing laughable quotes fromAdolf Hitler, called The Hip-Pocket Hitler, which in no way endorsed Hitler.

Anyone who is sceptical about anything in the above paragraph, please check it out before accusing others of posting rubbish or of being vandals. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.237.105 (talk) 11:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do not launch personal attacks on other editors. Calling people "idiots" is unhelpful and does not make your case. On the substantive point here, please read both WP:V and WP:BLP. These are very important policies here on Wikipedia. What they boil down to is this: you need to cite proper sources to justify this edit. That means, you need to show where this information about Mitchell came from and that the source is published and independent. Note that I am not saying you are wrong, but I am saying that currently you have not shown the source of this information. Thanks, Gwernol 11:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do a Google search on the terms Julius Evola, John Michell, and Radical Traditionalism. If you have a problem with anything I have posted, please could you say exactly what the supposedly offending information is. Thanks. It is those who keep removing my edit who in my opinion are guilty of vandalism. I did not start the name-calling. I was called a vandal, which I find insulting. I am. however, very happy to stop the name-calling as of now.

Anyway, now this is all on the record, and I am afraid I am too busy to spend time proving to people what they can very easily verify for themselves, if they spent less time wagging their fingers ignorantly and more time actually admitting to themselves that they don't know stuff and trying to find it out.

As I said, my paragraph above, on this Discussion page, is accurate and verifiable. Anyone who is interested can check it out. I am not going to waste time proving what is well-known to the interested, and what will be well-known to anyone who knows how to use Google. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.237.105 (talk) 11:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

To quote from our policy on verifiability: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. In other words, you have to do the work and provide the sources if you wish to include this information in the article. WP:BLP is very clear that material added to articles about living people must be accompanied by proper sources. Unsourced material is aggressively removed from articles about living people. If you can cite proper sources, you are welcome to add this material back. If you "don't have the time" to provide sources, then I'm afraid this information cannot be included in the article. Perhaps if you spent the time sourcing the material instead of arguing about it on multiple pages? Gwernol 11:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave things as they stand, in the hope that those interested in verifying the information will take part at some point in the future. Please at least do not remove any of the above from this Discussion page. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.237.105 (talk) 12:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

John Michell Is A Free Thinker Who Champions The Right Of Men and Women To Decide Things For Themselves

As someone who has read a considerable amount of the writings of John Michell, I find laughable those few people who clumsily suggest that the author has fascist leanings. On the contrary, John Michell, much in the same vein of the original founders of the United States, is a champion of freedom of thought who skillfully pricks the hot air balloon of those who are attempting to fly in the thin atmosphere of rigid and/or represssive belief systems. Michell is not afraid of controversy nor is he afraid to tackle distasteful or difficult subjects. He has no love of nor regard for Hitler but merely points out in his small book that even patently mad men like Hitler can produce homilies that sound good to the untrained ear and look reasonable to the uneducated eye. Besides his scholarship, Michell is also known for his razor wit, readily available in his columns for "The Oldie". I suggest the previous spurious statements from "Unsigned Comment" is commentary from a humorless, poorly read, undressed coward who refuses to wear the cloak of Truth when discussing the highly regarded, and well repected, John Michell. SageMab (talk) 02:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)SageMab

What was the publication date of John Michell's Booklet called The Hip-Pocket Hitler?

My copy of John Michell's The Hip-Pocket Hitler does not carry a date. If anyone knows the date of publication, please could they post it here, so that this work can be listed in the bibliography.. Note that no-one denies that he was the author. Including this work in the already long bibliography should upset no honourable editor.

91.84.237.105 adding signature which was unsigned by this User.

The Aforementioned Booklet is Obviously a Spoof by the Author

John Michell does not discuss this very brief booklet which is merely a compliation of quotes by Hitler except to briefly mention that he regrets it and that he has no pro Hitler sentiments as the obviously misinformed 91.84.237.105 insists. Anyone who reads this book can plainly see that the author wrote this very short booklet to mock Hitler. Literalists may find themselves in serious trouble if they can find a copy of this tiny run and not circulated pamphlet. A serious student of history will find these quotes hilarious. John Michell is well known as a humorist and satirist (though his wit is not as broad and obvious as other mockers of Hitler like Mel Brooks' Springtime for Hitler). Michell has said in public that even the voice of a mad man can sound reasonable but that does not make it so. SageMab (talk) 19:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Evidence Disputed

Michell's booklet in which he praised Hitler, titled 'The Hip-Pocket Hitler', was not a spoof. I do not believe that you are writing in good faith; your idolisation of Michell is obvious. I challenge you to provide verifiable evidence that it was a spoof. That Michell does not discuss it is no such evidence. Nor is what Michell has said in public about madmen. As you probably know, in private', to those he feels a radical traditionalist fellowship with, Michell continues to distribute this vile pro-Hitler booklet. I note that you don't care to mention John Michell's authorship of an essay for inclusion with the book Men Among the Ruins by his hero, the radical traditionalist Julius Evola. 'Radical Traditionalist' is well known as code for 'Evolist', and Michell's involvement in the English-language of the Evola book - are you saying that too was ironical or satirical?? Even if you were to make such an assertion (maybe check with Michell first to ask whether he'll give you the OK?), your making it wouldn't make it true. So come on now, kindly explain your hero's involvement in 'Men Among the Ruins', and in particular his involvement in the 'de luxe' leather-bound edition of this notorious fascist text.

Did you know that John Michell called his own book 'Confessions of a Radical Traditionalist', and the subtitle of the edition of Julius Evola's book to which Michell contributed a laudatory essay was 'Reflections of a Radical Traditionalist'. Coincidence? Well how come the two books were both edited by Michael Moynihan, as Moynihan himself states on his website? Moynihan was also involved in publishing a collection of writings by the "National Socialist Revolutionary" James Mason.

Are you really going to say that Michell's support for Evola's ideology is satirical - maybe above the heads of non-fascist lesser mortals?

Oh and by the way, stop threatening me. Here is the text I continue to propose for the preamble to the Michell article:

John Michell (born 6 February 1933) is an English philosopher espousing Radical Traditionalism, the philosophy founded by the fascist author Julius Evola. He has written prolifically on subjects including sacred geometry, sacred sites (viewed as "ritualized landscapes"), gematria, archaeoastronomy, Fortean phenomena, and the lives of noted eccentrics. He writes a column for the English journal The Oldie. He has also written a pamphlet praising some of the work of Adolf Hitler, called The Hip-Pocket Hitler, and contributed a favourable essay to the first English edition (2002) of Evola's book Men Among the Ruins.

The above commentary is by User:91.84.237.10

These are the facts. I have seen this tiny book and it is obviously a spoof. I have read the works of John Michell and he is a Platonist and a fortean and, by no stretch of the imagination a fascist. I have never heard him endorse or "espouse" anything that you could label fascism. You are using loaded words such as follower (anyone who has read the works of John Michell knows he is the antithesis of a follower) and an endorser. He does not distribute this little booklet and i have only seen one copy and by no stretch of the imagination does it praise Hitler. To be a literalist is to miss much of both meaning and intent. Michell is a platonist and just because he agrees with Plato does not mean he endorses Evola. Obviously, you are trying to edit things which you have not read. You are also name calling, and using incorrect terms against, at least four editors which is unwarranted. You are slandering a living author which is not tolerated on Wikipedia. Period. SageMab (talk) 20:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

91.84.237.10 has used a slanderous and up for dispute title to this section which I have removed. I have Wikified his tile which incorrectly smears this writer as per Wikipedia's policy on living authors. I suggest this user read Wiki policy on neutrality. SageMab (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The following are warnings to User:91.84.237.10 about his edits on John Michell and contain sound, as per Wiki policy, advice:

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to John Michell (writer) has been reverted, as it appears to introduce incorrect information. Please do not intentionally add incorrect information to articles; use the sandbox for testing. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 17:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC) The recent edit you made to John Michell (writer) constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thanks. Fieldday-sunday (talk) 11:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC) The information is accurate and relevant, and does not constitute vandalism. Please check it out for yourself and then, if you wish, take part in the discussion I have started on the Discussion page for the article. Thanks. [edit]John Michell (writer)

Please read WP:V. The criterion is not truth, but verifiability. In the case of a living person, additional rules apply - see WP:BLP. Philip Trueman (talk) 11:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC) Philip - please check the information out for yourself, then you will see that it is verifiable. Start by searching on John Michell, Julius Evola, and Radical Traditionalism. Then check out the 2002 translation of Men Among the Ruins. You are really wasting time by continually reverting and recommending I read rules when you have not even bothered to say what specific thing you object to and why. I repeat: this is easily verifiable. To quote from our policy on verifiability: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. In other words, you have to do the work and provide the sources if you wish to include this information in the article. WP:BLP is very clear that material added to articles about living people must be accompanied by proper sources. Unsourced material is aggressively removed from articles about living people. If you can cite proper sources, you are welcome to add this material back. Gwernol 11:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC) You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on John Michell (writer). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Gwernol 11:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Addendum

It should be noted that the term Radical Traditionalism is not "code' for anything. Platonic ideals are espoused by those on both the left and right of the political spectrum. Readers are advised to check out The Hope link on the article page for John Michell's view which patently adises freedom of thought and action without harming others. SageMab (talk) 23:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I would also argue that a publisher of esoteric material not be judged solely on several books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SageMab (talk • contribs) 23:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

User 91.84.237.10 calls calls into question publishers such as Inner Traditons. Their description on the the web says "we are Inner Traditions, one of the oldest and largest publishers devoted to the spiritual and healing traditions of the world." SageMab (talk) 00:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I have read "Confessions of a Radicial Traditionalist" by John Michell and the book, as suggested by 91.84.237.10, is not coded anything but is a forthright collection of several page essays from his column in the Oldie. It is a good-humored, kindly natured and a sharp insightful book about the ways of the world. The reader might check out the enthusiastic reviews of this book posted on Amazon.com by readers and also several pages from the book that are also posted on this site. SageMab (talk) 00:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Another Opinion

Michell's booklet in which he praised Hitler, titled 'The Hip-Pocket Hitler', was not a spoof. I do not believe that you are writing in good faith; your idolisation of Michell is obvious. I challenge you to provide verifiable evidence that it was a spoof. That Michell does not discuss it is no such evidence. Nor is what Michell has said in public about madmen. As you probably know, in private', to those he feels a radical traditionalist fellowship with, Michell continues to distribute this vile pro-Hitler booklet. I note that you don't care to mention John Michell's authorship of an essay for inclusion with the book Men Among the Ruins by his hero, the radical traditionalist Julius Evola. 'Radical Traditionalist' is well known as code for 'Evolist', and Michell's involvement in the English-language of the Evola book - are you saying that too was ironical or satirical?? Even if you were to make such an assertion (maybe check with Michell first to ask whether he'll give you the OK?), your making it wouldn't make it true. So come on now, kindly explain your hero's involvement in 'Men Among the Ruins', and in particular his involvement in the 'de luxe' leather-bound edition of this notorious fascist text.

Did you know that John Michell called his own book 'Confessions of a Radical Traditionalist', and the subtitle of the edition of Julius Evola's book to which Michell contributed a laudatory essay was 'Reflections of a Radical Traditionalist'. Coincidence? Well how come the two books were both edited by Michael Moynihan, as Moynihan himself states on his website? Moynihan was also involved in publishing a collection of writings by the "National Socialist Revolutionary" James Mason.

Are you really going to say that Michell's support for Evola's ideology is satirical - maybe above the heads of non-fascist lesser mortals?

Oh and by the way, stop threatening me. Here is the text I continue to propose for the preamble to the Michell article:

John Michell (born 6 February 1933) is an English philosopher espousing Radical Traditionalism, the philosophy founded by the fascist author Julius Evola. He has written prolifically on subjects including sacred geometry, sacred sites (viewed as "ritualized landscapes"), gematria, archaeoastronomy, Fortean phenomena, and the lives of noted eccentrics. He writes a column for the English journal The Oldie. He has also written a pamphlet praising some of the work of Adolf Hitler, called The Hip-Pocket Hitler, and contributed a favourable essay to the first English edition (2002) of Evola's book Men Among the Ruins.

Proposed first paragraph

That really seems rather slanted, since far more people seem to know about him in the contexts of sacred geometry, ley lines, and accounts of eccentrics than know him for what you're focusing on. If so far he hasn't been widely exposed for the sins that you're accusing him of, then Wikipedia is really not the place to start exposing him... AnonMoos (talk) 16:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi AnonMoos, yes I agree. PhilKnight (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

---

The above section "Another Opinion" is an unsigned post by 91.84.237.105 who also uses the IP 91.84.204.125, is not true by any stretch of the imagination and is not supported by the facts. Acoording to Wikipedia policy on original research "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources."SageMab (talk) 15:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Notice to Newbie Editor Who As Anon. Is Slandering A Living Author

To the Anon poster 91.84.237.105 who keeps throwing the incorrect term of vandalism at other editors of this page. We must remind you to read the dialogue box at the top of this page which states: This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous.

To suggest that John Michell is a follower of Julius Evola is absurd and does not tally with the facts. I have read Confessions of A Radical Traditionalist and it is obvious the poster ANon has not. The book is a witty compilaton of Michell's columns for the Oldie and suggests nothing more than a respect for true scholarship. Michell is a Platonist and makes no bones about it. Michell is also a fortean and has written extensively on fortean subjects. As a fortean Michell (see his book "Phenomena" with JM RIckard for a start) Michell champions tolerance and respect for the beliefs of all. I would say Michell is a Jeffersonian/Adams/Franklin lover of democracy with a respect for ancient wisdom (see Michell's "The Measure of Albion"). His small phamphet on the sayings of Hitler is a spoof and is patently not meant to be taken literally as an endorsement of a mad man. Readers of Michell (read "The Temple At Jersusalem" and see the website The Hope) know that his love of and respect for the Jews is obvious. SageMab (talk) 15:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)SageMab

To poster 91.84.237.105 I suggest you be brave enough to list your name. Your discussion of this author properly belongs on your own Talk page. Please read Wikipedia's guidelines before you post innuendo and outright slander. An author's contribution to another author who is distasteful is not a tacit endorsement of that author's work. It is obvious that 91.84.237.105 has not read any of the books on which he is commenting. To those who have followed the writings, lectures and career of John Michell 91.84.237.105's label of fascist is laughable and slanderous.

RfC: John Michell's booklet 'The Hip-Pocket Hitler', and his non- relationship to the fascist philosophy of Radical Traditionalist Julius Evola

The following facts seem relevant:

• John Michell wrote an admiring essay for the English translation of fascist philosopher Julius Evola's book Men Among the Ruins: Post-War Reflections of a Radical Traditionalist (ISBN 0892819057), edited by Michael Moynihan, publisher of this and other fascist and national-socialist works. A useful review of Moynihan's edition of this work by Evola, with the essay by Michell,

is here. posted by Anon user 91.

• Fact Disputing Above Statement-this article is not about Mihael Moynihan. This is not an admiring essay. The use of the word admiring and and favorable is untrue and reflects the above users; bias. A distasteful publisher does not damn the books he prints. John Michell's books are not fascist in tone or intent. That's a fact.216.240.101.40 (talk) 20:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• John Michell's work Confessions of a Radical Traditionalist was edited and published by this same Michael Moynihan (ISBN 0971204446), who according to his Wikipedia entry used willingly to accept (albeit with reservations) being labelled as a 'fascist' and 'neo-fascist'. posted by Anon user 91.

• Fact disputing above post: John Michell's Confessions of a Radical Tradiionalist has to do with freedom of thought, not fascism. I have the book and it is obvious the above poster has not and is trying to damn this author by attempting to build a false link to Moynahan's viewpoints. This book was published by Dominion Press which prints all sorts of books.216.240.101.40 (talk) 20:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Moynihan's subsequent rejection of these labels has not prevented him from publishing work by the out-and-out fascist Julius Evola and a magazine ('Tyr') extolling Germanic myths and 'natural social hierarchy'. In 1999 Moynihan was listed on the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Report as a "leader of new a generation of hate mongerers". posted by anon 91

• Fact disputing above post: The above should be removed. This article is NOT about Moynahan. The above is defamation by association and has no place on Wikipedia.

• John Michell earlier wrote a booklet praising Hitler, called The Hip-Pocket Hitler. posted by user 91.
• Fact disputing the above post:THIS IS AN OUTRIGHT LIE. NO PRAISE OF HITLER BY MICHELL IN THIS BOOK by any stretch of the imagination. 216.240.101.40 (talk) 20:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

If SageMab or anyone else wishes to dispute any of the above four points, please could they do so, making it clear what exactly they are disputing. Thanks.

Comment by PhilKnight

The verifiability policy places the burden of proof on the editor making the assertions. In other words, the editor making the assertions has to provide sources which prove the statements comply with policy, not the other way around. Also, under the Biographies of Living Persons policy, content that is negative in tone and unsourced should be removed, not only from articles, but also from other pages. In this context, the above statements should probably be deleted until sourcing is provided. PhilKnight (talk) 17:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't find a link between 'negative in tone' and 'other pages'. The policy does say "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source", but the 'negative in tone' statement comes after that and refers specifically to articles.

What specifically needs sourcing? Doug Weller (talk) 19:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Doug, ok, so instead of 'negative in tone', I should have said 'contentious'. I don't consider that to be significant - if anything the bar is slightly higher for 'negative in tone' compared to 'contentious'. Obviously, all of the statements listed here need sourcing. At the moment none of them are properly referenced, and they all could be considered examples of improper synthesis.--PhilKnight (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I think improper synthesis certainly comes into this as does the idea of giving something undue weight. Publishing an obscure book of Hitler quotes isn't that notable unless he actually praises Hitler in the text somewhere.

I suppose the problem is that it is a very complex issue. There has certainly been a lot of esoteric thought that appeals to fascists (especially branches like Ariosophy). Having sympathy for some of the ideas put forward by such people needn't make you a fascist, Gary Lachman has looked at this whole area and deals with it in an upcoming book - this extract includes this: "It’s for this reason that I find critics of it such as Guénon, Julius Evola (the esoteric doyen of the European far Right), and others of their sensibilities disturbing—not because of Evola’s obvious fascist sympathies or Guénon’s elitist ethos, but because many of their criticisms hit the mark. ... Notwithstanding Evola’s repellent racist views, it’s not surprising that some of his readers appreciated his belief that the only thing left was to 'blow up' everything." It might be possible to take some of his statements out of context and suggest he is sympathetic to the view but it is really that he is prepared to engage with their argument and look into why/how it appeals to people. It is difficult to boil Michell's stance down to easy statements, he has certainly travelled through some perilous territory which some might regard as brave or foolhardy but his approach could certainly seen as less praising people like Evola and more as an attempt to understand or possibly "defend" him, although defend isn't quite the right word - it is more that he is trying to interpret/"spin" Evola's ideas as being somehow beyond simple ideologies. Of course, that is just my interpretation and the problem is that this is what the issue boils down to. If people want to claim he was a fascist then they are going to need something much more clear cut than I've yet seen, as anything else is just their reading of material that is potentially out of context. If we could find a number of reliable analyses from third parties looking at this issue we might be able to construct a balanced overview, but again this might be giving the area undue weight (it is more a sideshow to his main area of interest and seemingly trotted out by people looking for a cheap way to discredit him - his ideas are dubious and shaky but should be addressed head-on), although in a much expanded and well-rounded article it might have a place. (Emperor (talk) 15:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC))

Although I never really wanted to do more than stop people making a dogs dinner out of this talk page, what you say above about Michell seems to make sense. I agree about both needing reliable analyses from third party sources (and their lack in general seems to be a major problem with the article - I note the complete lack of any references, let alone to reliable third party sources, which is a bit puzzling) and also what you say about possible undue weight. Doug Weller (talk) 10:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

There is indeed a real lack of decent references - there are even quotes of reviews in the text which don't say where/when they were published. Currently the article is failing WP:V and I am not sure it has demonstrated his notability. I'm sure it can be done but there are real problems other than the more obvious ones mentioned . (Emperor (talk) 14:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC))

I've noticed this also. I've removed one comment because it was apparently just from the publisher. What 'references' there are were done by someone who hadn't read the style guide, but I don't want to spend time fixing it. It should be possible to demonstrate his notability but I am surprised at the lack of serious reviews of his books. Doug Weller (talk) 17:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Well it may be the more reliable and serious reviewers consider him off their radar (which is always a pity as it can mean no one underlines the problems in someone's work). You should be able to find a reasonably balanced review in something like the Fortean Times. I'll have a nose through back issues. (Emperor (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC))

If I hadn't had problems loading Wikipedia last night I was going to make a similar point. I frequently find it difficult to deal with fringe writers and claims and meet Wikipedia guidelines simply because serious scholars never pay sny sttention to them. Archaeologists, for instance, in general have no interest in Michell's ideas. Which leaves articles unbalanced in my opinion and makes it hard to make them NPOV. Doug Weller (talk) 06:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

DougWeller you are incorrect about serious scholars (see his Wiki article for example; I wouldn't call the Oxford Shakespeare Review lightweight) and archaeologists. John Michell has a highly respected world-wide reputation. It is clear that you have not read the work of this prolific author and find the subject matter not to your taste. It is also clear that serious scholars do not damn this author as other editors on this page have attempted to do so by violating Wiki OR protocol. I see from one of your conversations on another editors' talk page that you said you could only find damning statments about John Michell on blogs, not serious articles, and that you wished you could find one. Again, I will assume good faith and I will also remind you that a discussion page is not a chat board. Perhaps this discussion is best done on a User talk page. 216.240.101.40 (talk) 07:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Why single me out? Emperor has said more or less the same thing. The point isn't that serious author's haven't damned him, it's that as Emperor says, he is by and large 'off their radar', ie they ignore him. Can you point me to any archaeologists who have commented on him? I can find only one, and he comments that Michell evidently didn't read a source he was using. Can you also point me to the Oxford Shakespeare Review article or review on him? I would indeed like to find serious articles on Michell by from non-New Age writers.

This discussion page is for discussing the article. You aren't critical of it being used by editors to post and copy warnings to other editors, but you are critical of me for what, discussing things I'd like to see in the article? John Michell has a good reputation among New Age afficionados, that I will give you. But not among archaeologists, for instance. Doug Weller (talk) 16:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

No one is picking on you DougWeller. I don't think you are very familiar with this author and his good standing in the academic community. I won't do your homework for you. Look it up yoursel if you are interested rather than asking me to do it. Not everything is posted online so a library might be a good sarting point. Astronomer Gerald Hawkins was very supportive of John Michell's work for example. I do think that some people on tis page are trying to discredit the good forty-year reputation of this author. In the spirit of Wiki, prove me wrong. As for now, I'm assuming good faith.216.240.101.40 (talk) 19:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how a thread about finding more and better sources can be considered as treating this talk page as some kind of forum for chat. It seems like the kind of legitimate activity that should be discussed on a talk page - after all, there are only a small percentage of articles on Wikipedia that couldn't benefit from more and better sources. (Emperor (talk) 01:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC))

Comment by Sagemab on Malicious Troll and Vandalism by User 91.84.237.105

Hi Doug and Phil. Thanks for your imput. I had not looked at the John Michell article for quite a while and when I came back to it I found the user in question above correctly edited/chastised by others (see History) for his slanderous statements. I went to his talk page and found 3 other editors who warned him about vandalizing and flamewarring this Talk Page as well as the article. I advised this user to heed Wiki policy on living authors and included the quote at the top of this page. 91.84.237.105 ignored it so I posted a fair warning to him on this page. He ignores Wiki's rules.

I have read the material in question and the following are facts that the above user is ignoring in order to slander this author:

1.John Michell did a "Hip Pocket Hitler", a very short run, many, many years ago. It is a book of Hitler quotes and plainly shows that a mad man can sound sensible if you know nothing of history. No one would ever, ever think this book is in praise of Hitler. This book is not, no has ever been, in nay type of circulation.

2. John Michell is pro-Jewish in both his personal and professional life as I assume from reading his books and looking at his friends on his The Hope website. No one has called or written about him as a fascist in the many years I have been reading him.

3. The essay in question is NOT favorable towards Julius Evola who admitted he was on the wrong path. John Michell wrote about the Platonic ideals and how it can be used for good or evil. 91.84.237.105 posted a link which shows nothing; the essay is not posted. Poor Wiki verifiability. Period.

4. John Michell should not be damned because the above user does not like Inner raditions Publishing, a publisher who published books that are both sacred and profane. Michell is not a friend nor colleague of the distasteful Michaael Moynahan. Personally, I find Moynahan repellent but the fact that he published one of John Michell's books, out of dozens of titles, does not put me off from reading Michell.

5. No one, by any stretch of the imagination, has ever called John Michell a fascist. The opposite is true as readers of his books can plainly deduce.

6. This malicious troll 91.84.237.105 needs to be stopped and his outright slander and twisting of facts delelted. He has posted links but not of the essay in question and it is obvious he has not read the books in question. I question 91.84.237.105 intent in repeatedly tring to slam this author.SageMab (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

First, the only vandalism has been by the people who keep changing the talk page, and the IP editor has apologised to me for that. You are in breach of WP:Civil at the moment.

There are others who think Michell is supportive of Evola, see for instance [4] Doug Weller (talk) 21:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that introducing original research and potentially libelous content isn't the same as vandalism, the editors who keep changing the talk page aren't vandals either. PhilKnight (talk) 21:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment PhilKnight. I agree. I do want to point out that the DougWeller link above is from a blog. I found the blog full of misinformation and misdirection and as a blog should not be taken as Hoyle. Weller has said on his own talk page that he wished that he could find a comment on Michell and Evola and that he could only find blogs on the subject. I think that says it in a nutshell and that the whole discussion about Michell and Evola shouldl be put to rest. 216.240.101.40 (talk) 08:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

SageMab - you mention me a lot, but I am not the issue here! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.204.125 (talk) 11:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Rolling Stones

Actually I thought this was interesting and made Michell seem a bit more interesting. Sagemab deleted it writing "Wiki BLP, not a gossip page" but I don't see how in anyway this transgresses our BLP policy nor makes the article a gossip page. Doug Weller (talk) 06:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. I did also but then I re-read the admin's good advice to heed Wiki policy on a Biography of a Living Person. It says, firmly, that this is not a gossip arena. Re-read it; I will also. I thought the entry was fun but after reading BLP I do not think it may be appropriate and may only serve to trivialize the life of this author with rock star sensationalisms. I have read about Michell's adventures with the Rolling Stones when he took them on a tour of Britain to see standing stones and Neolithic ruins. I do think the near address and the wedding falls into the "no personal information" category. I think this article is about his professional writings since he is such a prolific author and that should be the crux of the article. I have found published references of his researches during his Etonian days but they are far too annecdotal to include on the article page. SageMab (talk) 06:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Gossip would be about who someone was dating, etc. This isn't gossip. Doug Weller (talk) 08:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Without doing actual OR (there are many sources on Notting Hill, but I am not sufficiently well-acquainted with the topic to piece all this stuff together), could someone please consider the connections at Notting Hill (Powis Square and elsewhere) between:

- John Michell, who was (perhaps still is?) a landlord owning property in Powis Terrace, according to Tom Vague's history of the area

- Michael X (at first, he was agent for Peter Rachman, an even more famous landlord in the area - Powis Terrace has been called "one of (Rachman's) worst slums" - and later, he was a close associate of John Michell) (might Michael X have basically switched from working for one landlord to working for another??),

- and Mick Jagger (whose film 'Performance' was shot at locations in Notting Hill, and who was a figure on the 'scene' in that area)

This mid-1980s source] looks as if it contains a lot of information about the Notting Hill 'scene', written by people who were around it and close observers of it, without actually being in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.232.69 (talk) 16:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The comments above sound like hearsay. Aren't we supposed to remove original research that might damage this living person from the talk page? 64.0.112.124 (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Integral thought

How closely is Michell tied to the whole integral thought business (Ken Wilber)? His membership of the Lindisfarme Association would certainly suggest some degree of relation. Enough to put him into Category:Integral thought? Moreschi (talk) 15:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

can you please explain why that wretched quotation is necessary? This is Wikipedia, not WikiQuote. Description is far better than endless quotation. This article has too many already. And don't misrepresent the positions of others. I think it's time you stopped lecturing us on policy, because you clearly have no clue as to what you're talking about. Moreschi (talk) 15:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

In Googling around I saw no sign of a tie-in with Wilber. Furthermore, Michell is not listed as a member of Lindisfarne currently. He was in the 1980s; I don't know about the years since. Looie496 (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Why are you now putting back in material to which Michell only has the most tenuous connection? We do not need this article to become a dumping ground for every mention of Michell by anyone ever. Moreschi (talk) 20:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines

Please, folks, let's follow talk page etiquette. Don't change other people's edits without a very good reason (BLP being the only one I can think of here), don't change your own posts either. If you change your mind, strike through what you wrote. If you want to add to it, start a new edit. That's all in the guidelines. And if you think Michell is being ill-treated, by attacking other editors you are doing what you claim they are doing to Michell. Guidlines:

Behavior that is unacceptable

Please note that some of the following are of sufficient importance to be official Wikipedia policy. Violations (and especially repeated violations) may lead to the offender being blocked or banned from editing Wikipedia.

No personal attacks: A personal attack is saying something negative about another person. This mainly means: No insults: Do not make ad hominem attacks, such as calling someone an idiot or a fascist. Instead, explain what is wrong with an edit and how to fix it. Do not threaten people: For example, threatening people with "admins you know" or having them banned for disagreeing with you. Do not make legal threats: Threatening a lawsuit is highly disruptive to Wikipedia, for reasons given at the linked page. Never post personal details: Users who post what they believe are the personal details of other users without their consent may be blocked for any length of time, including indefinitely.

Do not misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context. This usually means: Be precise in quoting others. When describing other people's contributions or edits, use diffs. The advantage of diffs in referring to a comment is that it will always remain the same, even when a talk page gets archived or a comment gets changed. As a rule, do not edit others' comments, including signatures. Exceptions are described in the next section.

Editing comments

Others' comments

It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Do not strike out the comments of other editors without their permission.

Never edit someone's words to change their meaning, even on your own talk page. Editing others' comments is sometimes allowed, but you should exercise caution in doing so. Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:

If you have their permission Removing prohibited material such as libel and personal details Deleting material not relevant to improving the article (per the above subsection #How to use article talk pages). Removing personal attacks and incivility. This is controversial, and many editors do not feel it is acceptable; please read WP:ATTACK#Removal of text and WP:CIVIL#Removal of uncivil comments before removing anything. Unsigned comments: You are allowed to append —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) or one of its variants to the end of someone's comment if they have failed to sign it. The form is —Preceding unsigned comment added by USER NAME OR IP (talk • contribs) DATE AND TIME, which results in —The preceding unsigned comment was added by USER NAME OR IP (talk • contribs) DATE AND TIME. Interruptions: In some cases, it is OK to interrupt a long contribution, either with a short comment (as a reply to a minor point) or with a heading (if the contribution introduces a new topic). In that case, add "Heading added to (reason) by Doug Weller (talk) 21:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)"). In such cases, please add —This is part of a comment by USER NAME OR IP , which was interrupted by the following: before the interruption. When a long comment has formatting errors, rendering it difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible. Generally, page formatting can be fixed as well (i.e. to move a new comment from the top of a page to the bottom and adding a header to the comment). On your own user talk page, you may remove others' comments, although archiving is generally preferred. If a signature violates the guidelines for signatures. In the past it was standard practice to refactor talk pages, although this practice has fallen somewhat into disuse. If a thread has veered off its original subject, it may be desirable to split threads, especially if the new topic is deemed to merit extensive discussion. When part of a discussion is made into its own thread, the new thread should include an opening sentence or paragraph explaining the reason for the move and containing a link to the original thread. As well, a note should be placed at the location the discussion was moved from, with a link to the new thread. It is also important that the format of the existing discussion remains essentially the same. Simple cutting and pasting will not always ensure that this happens; a bit of reformatting may be necessary. When splitting a thread, always preview how your changes appear and check to see whether the flow of the thread remains the same as it was previously (i.e. that all replies are in the correct places.) Splitting a thread should not in any way alter the meaning of any comments therein; hence the need for links, proper formatting, and an explanation. Section headers: Because threads are shared by multiple users, the original title becomes communal property. To avoid disputes it is best to discuss changes with the editor who started the thread, if possible, but it is generally acceptable to change section headers when a better header is appropriate. This is under the purview of threads themselves being shared property rather than a single editor's comments.
--Doug Weller (talk) 21:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Correct me if I am wrong but I believe that Doug Weller is not a Wikipedia administrator. 209.163.118.187 (talk) 07:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. What's your point? You also might want to read WP:NPOV as I don't think you understand it. Doug Weller (talk) 08:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Could I ask SageMab to restore the contributions to this page by myself that he has altered, making absolutely clear what he wrote and what I wrote. I would do this myself, but it is an intricate job that would probably take me about an hour to complete, bearing in mind that I do not want to throw up my hands (as I once did recently, and wrongly) and revert to the state of play before numerous edits, just in order to undo SageMab's alteration of what I wrote. The number of times he has altered what I wrote must now be in the region of 10. It is surely time for him to stop. As far as I am concerned, he is entitled to his say (keeping to the topic) just as anyone else is (I have certainly not altered one word that he has ever written, despite the fact that much of it has been vitriolic and malicious against myself), but he has done Wikipedia a disservice by queering this page so as to make it unclear who has written what.

As someone who has written an essay for inclusion in the English edition of a work by Julius Evola, John Michell obviously has a 'relationship' with the said guy's ideology. To say he has a 'non-relationship' is simply not true. The question is the nature of the relationship.

I would also take issue with SageMab's statement that Michell is not a friend or colleague of Moynihan's. I have no idea whether they are friends, but the relationship between this author and this publisher was obviously one of 'colleagueship', because such a relationship was obviously involved in the publication of the book. Had they not wished to be colleagues, they would never have signed the contract with each other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.204.125 (talk) 22:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

---

User 91.84.204.125 is distorting the facts again about this article and also my posts. Look at the History of this article and talk page and also at his talk page (which he has blanked). 91.84.204.125has called other editors idiots and has accused them of vandalism after they went on his talk page (I did not) and warned him to stop flame warring and vandalizing this page. 91.84.204.125 blanks out my edits and I have asked him to stop. He also posts material that has been, and should be, removed as per Wikiedia guidelines by other editors. Obviously, he has a serious problem with this author and I would ask him to re-read his Wiki guidelines before his uses derogatory terms in regard to editors and to this living author. 91.84.204.125 is not signing his posts in order to prevent "undo". I remind him to sign his posts with 4 tildes after every edit or comment. I also ask him to not blank pages and otherwise destroy good edits that he disagrees with. I have not gone on this 91.84.204.125 user nor talk page but 91.84.204.125 posted two warnings on my user pager that he had no authority to post. He is not an administrator and it is obvious that he has not read Wiki's guidelines. I have no interest in interacting with trolls and I ask him, in Wiki's policy of assuming good faith, to desist in trying to draw me out. I am not interested in what he has to say about his "opinion" about this author. I am interested in facts and he has failed to provide accurate ones. SageMab (talk) 22:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

If you're really interested in improving this article, why didn't you reply to my comment above? AnonMoos (talk) 00:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you are talking about User:91.84.204.125|91.84.204.125. I agree with you AnonMoos, good point that 91.84.204.125|91.84.204.125 who keeps insisiting John Michell is a "follower" of fascism is "slanted". I have read quite a lot of this author, along with reviews of his work, and I have not seen anything that could even be remotely suggested as fascist in his writings. John Michell is not afraid to tackle contoversial subjects and always encourages and champions the free exchange of ideas. His work does seem to show a love and respect for all cultures and people. I find him a scholarly and witty read. SageMab (talk) 00:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I have a great deal of difficulty following the flow of conversation here... AnonMoos (talk) 06:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It is difficult, isn't it? Sagemab, the warnings should have been on your Talk Page, but ignoring that, he had every right to put them there, you don't have to be an administrator to issue warnings. And you have every right to remove them. Doug Weller (talk) 06:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

User 91.84.204.125 ignored the warnings of four other editors on his own talk page to stop vandalizing and flame warring this John Michell article and talk page which were given a month before SageMab got involved with this and before SageMab similarily warned this poster on this page. 216.240.101.40 (talk) 07:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

216.240.101.40 - are you a different person from the person who contributes as 'SageMab', or are you the same person? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.204.125 (talk) 09:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannia

I see someone has written that he is a columnist for this -- but what is it? A knock-off of the Britannica? Doug Weller (talk) 16:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Assume good faith DougWeller. It is the Encyclopedia Britannica online and I would call it notable so you might want to restore the reference to John Michell's columns there.216.240.101.40 (talk) 19:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It is? Why don't you give us a link to one of his columns then? I didn't remove the reference and until there is evidence for it I see no reason to restore it. Where does good faith come into this? I asked a serious question. I don't think there is an Encyclopedia Britannia, you think it means Encylopedia Britannica, an encyclopedia which doesn't have an entry for him and so far as I know doesn't have 'colunns'. You seem to know more than I do so hopefully you can provide a source we can check. Doug Weller (talk) 19:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is a link to the online encyclopedia Britannia and four "monthly" articles by John Michell, http://www.britannia.com/wonder/wonder.html which was in the body of the John Michell article until someone removed them. Can you give a good reason for not having this link in the article? I do think on-line encyclopedias are good sources of information, especially one like this that has been around for more than ten years.SageMab (talk) 11:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sagemab - that isn't an encyclopedia, it is basically an American tourist site about Britain ('America's gateway to the British Isles') with a number of articles. I casually know the history editor and he's a nice guy, but it isn't an encyclopedia and I'm not clear why you think it is unless you are still confusing it with the Britannica, which is the encyclopedia. Britannia.com's faq page says "Are you a history site or a travel site?

A: Yes. Both, actually". It's one of those sites where the site itself probably doesn't qualify as an RS but individual authors may, and of course can be used for information about what John Michell has written. Doug Weller (talk) 11:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

DougWeller, this is on Google: "Encyclopedia - Britannica Online Encyclopedia" and "Explore the updated online encyclopedia from Encyclopaedia Britannica with hundreds of thousands of articles, biographies, videos, images, and web sites.www.britannica.com/" In any case, it is a perfectly good source of articles written by John Michell. SageMab (talk) 11:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I give up. Can someone else please explain to Sagemab his mistake? I've tried several times (eg in this section and by memory in others), but he seems to think whatever I say is wrong. Doug Weller (talk) 11:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

That's not the point. You are clouding the issue of whether this is a good source of information for the reader of this article. If you say you know an editor at this on-line publication why did you ask at the top of this section what is this publication? I do think the amount of space devoted to this and other sections you have started on this page to be way beyond the sensible norm for talk page discussions. Once again, this is not a chat room. SageMab (talk) 12:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Sagemab, "Britannia.com" and the "Encyclopedia Britannica" are two completely separate things. The only connection is that they use the Latin name for Britain in the title. Britannia.com is an online resource of information about Britain designed to encourage tourism. Yes, it does include a number of historical essays. Generally these are quite good, and at times I have referenced them in articles when their content is uncontroversial. But the site is nevertheless essentially commercial. The Encyclopedia Britannica is the premier English language encyclopedia. In order to get full access to its content you have to subscribe. Doug Weller probably did not know that the editor was someone he knew until he looked up information about the source, which indicates his dilligence in attempting to assess its reliability. Paul B (talk) 14:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know, the difference is patently obvious. That's not the problem. The Britannia, on the net for over ten ears and filled with accurate information for the British Isles (most sites have to fund their endeavors) is a decent reference portal, though not a premiere one. It contains articles by John Michell that may be of interest to the reader. It might be more properly mentioned on this page, rather than in the article. It certainly does not warrant this huge section about it on the talk page. SageMab (talk) 14:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The difference was clearly not patently obvious to you only yesterday, so don't be disingenuous. The talk page is for discussing the content of the article. That includes the use of sources. Paul B (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Where does chat room come into this discussion? Exactly what have I been talking about that doesn't relate to the article? I realised I knew an editor when I looked at the website more closely, what's odd about that? And why are you apparently trying to shut me up? If you agree that Britannia.com is not an encyclopedia, then I can at least do what I've tried to do, drop my participation in this particular section. Doug Weller (talk) 12:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Evola

I don't see how anyone can disagree that Michell admires Evola, eg "Disgusted by the cruelty and artificiality of communism, scorning the dogmatic, self-centered fascism of his age, Evola looks beyond man-made systems to the eternal principles in creation and human society. The truth, as he sees it, is so totally at odds with the present way of thinking that it shocks the modern mind. Evola was no politician, trying to make the best of things, but an idealist, uncompromising in the pursuit of the Best itself." Doug Weller (talk) 06:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, your quote above suggests the opposite. I don't see how anyone can think that Michell admires Evola. On the contrary. This quote is way, way out of context. "Disgusted by...communism, scorning fascism..." The point is a person can be an idealist and go down a wrong path. Evola himself rejected everything Evola had stood for. Evola was an idealist who turned to a perverted system of belief and then rejected it. This is not a complimentary essay on Evola.. John Michell is a Platonist, Dougweller, and a fortean. Michell admires Plato and Charles Fort, not Evola. As a fortean, Michell is the very opposite of a fascist. John Michell is a prolific, fortean author and he has never, ever been accused of fascist leanings except, wrongly, on this page. One cannot be a fortean and a fascist and John Michell has been a fortean for his entire writing career. Just because you and another user on this page labels him a fascist, does not make it so. I have read quite a bit of John Michell's work and have heard him give lectures and find no hint of fascism. Rather, Michell always rejects repressive thought in his writings and urges the reader to think for himself. To suggest other wise is to reveal that a person has not read this author of more than two dozen titles throughly. No scholar has ever accused John Michell of being a "follower" nor "admirer" of any fascist. See John Mcihell's website The Hope which urges peace, understanding and cooperation between all people. 216.240.101.40 (talk) 07:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

How many times do I have to ask people not to refactor stuff without a good reason? I called this section 'Evola', that is NPOV, leave it alone! I have never called Michell a fascist, why do you make such a false accusation? As for the quote, it may be out of context, I wouldn't know, I simply found it in a review of Evola. As for admiring Plato, I wonder why the IP editor mentions that? Doug Weller (talk) 08:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Your comment that Michell admires Evola is a serious charge. It is incorrect and needs to be addressed. Salient facts were added by my previous comment. Why are you determined to supress discussion that does not agree with your view? I will assume good faith.216.240.101.40 (talk) 08:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

As to the comment about Plato it is important to understand Plato if one is going to understand John Michell's writings and his comentary about other authors. 216.240.101.40 (talk) 08:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You are not assuming good faith as you are accusing me of suppressing disucssion (without saying how I'm doing that except by asking people not to rewrite other editors' comments.). If Evola rejected everything Evola stood for, as you say above, why couldn't Michell admire him? And calling Evola "an idealist, uncompromising in the pursuit of the Best itself" sounds as though he admired him. Perhaps you can quote Michell's criticism of him.

As for Plato, I personally have always disliked him for the same reason Karl Popper and Bertrand Russell did, his advocacy of a closed, totalitarian society. Doug Weller (talk) 10:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I think Plato and number theory is more germane to discuss in regard to John Michell. Your dislikes or likes, and mine, of Plato is not revelant when it comes to writing a Wiki entry. Again, I will assume good faith. 216.240.101.40 (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Good, because number theory wasn't mentioned and I assumed it was a much more general like of Plato than just his number theory. The statement was that he was a Platonist and that would certainly encompass Plato's ideas about politics. Doug Weller (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Searching through Confessions of a Radical Traditionalist on Amazon, it's clear that his interest in Plato went far beyond number theory. 'Platonist' would seem to be correct'. Doug Weller (talk) 17:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, 216.240.101.40, are you PhilKnight? Doug Weller (talk) 12:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

No, Doug, I most certainly do not use an IP sock. PhilKnight (talk) 12:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't accusing you of that, people do sometimes post without logging in and without being socks. But your signature and the IP signature are adjacent to each other on one of the edits.

Curiouser and curiouser, User talk:216.240.101.40's talk page has an edit signed by PhilKnight and 216.240.101.40 -- Phil it really does look as though you and this IP are the same editor. If not, why is your name on the talk page, where it says "PhilKnight (talk) 21:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC) 216.240.101.40 (talk) 09:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)" and has no edits by PhilKnight? Despite your denial, either the IP editor is adding your name or that's you when not logged in. It's confusing to say the least. It doesn't look like a deliberate attempt to deceive, quite the contrary, but then you deny it above so I really don't know what to think. Doug Weller (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I found the source for the quote by Michell on Evola: [5] - as you can see, it is in a section headed 'Praise for Men Among the Ruins. Doug Weller (talk) 12:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Doug, you obviously don't understand the original research policy. PhilKnight (talk)12:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't? It applies to what we write on article discussion pages? Where does it say that? So far as I know, this sort of discussion on a talk page is fine. Please show me where I've gone wrong. Doug Weller (talk) 06:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything in that quote which suggests he is an admirer of Evola, more that he is trying to analyse his ideas without trying to impose assumptions or value judgements from the start (not an unreasonable way to start a look at someone's work, even if you then go on to draw less neutral conclusions). As it is a quote taken out of context and it doesn't appear that anyone has read the whole thing. It may be that he goes on to praise or damn him, we don't know. Granted it appears in a section marked "praise" but we should all know, from movie poster quotes, that publishers/publicists are great at taking quotes out of context - what might be telling is that they used that quote, if he had gone on to actually praise him I would have thought they'd have used that in the quote. Out of context it tells us little, I'm afraid. (Emperor (talk) 14:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC))

I found at least some of the context[6]:

" This is from pp. 146-47 of *Confessions of a Radical Traditionalist*, a page or two into a chapter titled "A Rad-Trad Englishman and an Italian." Michell has just described a vision of the good life held by one William Corbett (1763-1835). He continues... It comes as a shock to be reminded how closely this picture resembles the ideal images of fascism. But there is a world of difference between the gross literalism and inhumanity of a totalitarian system and the high idealism of a radical traditionalist. That difference was emphasized by Julius Evola (1898-1974), the Italian rad-trad philosopher. Though idolised by Mussolini, he was fiercely critical of the Fascist system -- and of man-made systems generally. He rejected Darwin, and the entirety of modern, secular thinking, in favor of the traditional, classical world-view. Like Socrates, he perceived a divine order in Creation, and he acknowledged a tradition, based upon that order and passed down from the great civilizations of antiquity. The old tradition, and the virtues of honesty, justice, courage, piety and noble conduct associated with it, were the main elements in Evola's reactionary revolution.

In 1951 he was arrested and brought to trial in Rome for "glorifying Fascism." The prosecutor made a farce of the proceedings by refusing to specify objectionable passages in Evola's writings, saying it was a question of his tone or "general spirit." The trial collapsed and Evola was fully acquitted.

Most of us are familiar with that sort of accusation -- against one's tone, attitude or general spirit. Bullies and witch-hunters are always on the lookout for fascism, racism, sexism, elitism, loyalism, religious sentiments or whatever is considered most incorrect at the time. In Evola they find their ideal victim. In his most powerful book, Revolt Against the Modern World<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/089281506X/entropygradientr/re...>, he spoke of manliness, mystical sovereignty and legitimate authority. He spoke also about occult politics and the collusions between democrats and demagogues to effeminise society and dumb it down. Inevitably, he brought in the Jews, associating the Jewish mentality with materialism. That makes him, if you like, an anti-Semite. But he was not speaking racially, or against the Jewish tradition which he respected. His reference was to a state of mind, occurring in Jews and Gentiles alike: the state of mind that is reflected in the chaos of the modern world. "

Allow me[the author of the Usenet post that included the above] to say that that makes him[Evola] an anti-Semite even if you *don't* like. Doug Weller (talk) 17:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Read the last sentence Doug. I have read the books in question. I have read the John Michell essay whch does not praise Evola nor make excuses for him. The essay by Michell is one small essay in a very large, widely highly regarded, body of John Michell's work that deals with sacred space, number and geometry and the freedom to form opinions. Michell's writings, which is how you judge an author, show him to be a peaceful man, with respect for all and with respect for scholarship. I don't think you care for this author. SageMab (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, he does definitely sound like a peaceful man. I was responding to Emperor's comment about the lack of context. It doesn't matter if I care or don't care for Michell. What matters is making sure that the article follows Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Reliable sources, verifiablity, balance (ie NPOV), etc. Doug Weller (talk) 18:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I agree. SageMab (talk) 18:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is it again comes down to a person's interpretation of the text - SageMab says it is neither praise nor excuses, but as far as I'm concerned he is essentially coming to Evola's defence and is trying to explain/"spin" Evola's statements. It is definitely a grey area but interpreting someone's pronouncements which are anti-Semitic, as not being so, doesn't mean you yourself are anti-Semitic and neither does interpreting Evola's fascist ideas as being something else doesn't make you a fascist. It does mean you are walking on some very thin ice, and people could certainly ask some very serious questions about why someone would do that (presumably to make his own interests in rad Trad more acceptable - possibly even to himself).

So again I am unsure what we can say about that, what we need are other sources which give their readings of his work. Just from what I've read here I'd suggest it is an apparently innocent attempt to explain what are, on the face of it, some rather nasty ideologies, which could certainly leave him open to accusations of anti-Semitism/fascism, even if there is no real solid justification for it. Others could suggest it is him coyly displaying fascist tendencies and others could suggest it is wholly innocent. So it could be possible, with the right sources, to build a balanced look at this but I don't think it is going to come purely from the primary material. (Emperor (talk) 19:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC))

'Recurring themes' statement

I see the fact tag has once again been removed. This is still either unsourced or OR based on an interpretation of what Michell says. Sagemab, you are removing the tag, please either source it or remove the sentence. You already have a quote from Michell. Doug Weller (talk) 06:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannia

I see someone has written that he is a columnist for this -- but what is it? A knock-off of the Britannica? Doug Weller (talk) 16:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Assume good faith DougWeller. It is the Encyclopedia Britannica online and I would call it notable so you might want to restore the reference to John Michell's columns there.216.240.101.40 (talk) 19:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It is? Why don't you give us a link to one of his columns then? I didn't remove the reference and until there is evidence for it I see no reason to restore it. Where does good faith come into this? I asked a serious question. I don't think there is an Encyclopedia Britannia, you think it means Encylopedia Britannica, an encyclopedia which doesn't have an entry for him and so far as I know doesn't have 'colunns'. You seem to know more than I do so hopefully you can provide a source we can check. Doug Weller (talk) 19:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is a link to the online encyclopedia Britannia and four "monthly" articles by John Michell, http://www.britannia.com/wonder/wonder.html which was in the body of the John Michell article until someone removed them. Can you give a good reason for not having this link in the article? I do think on-line encyclopedias are good sources of information, especially one like this that has been around for more than ten years.SageMab (talk) 11:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sagemab - that isn't an encyclopedia, it is basically an American tourist site about Britain ('America's gateway to the British Isles') with a number of articles. I casually know the history editor and he's a nice guy, but it isn't an encyclopedia and I'm not clear why you think it is unless you are still confusing it with the Britannica, which is the encyclopedia. Britannia.com's faq page says "Are you a history site or a travel site?

A: Yes. Both, actually". It's one of those sites where the site itself probably doesn't qualify as an RS but individual authors may, and of course can be used for information about what John Michell has written. Doug Weller (talk) 11:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

DougWeller, this is on Google: "Encyclopedia - Britannica Online Encyclopedia" and "Explore the updated online encyclopedia from Encyclopaedia Britannica with hundreds of thousands of articles, biographies, videos, images, and web sites.www.britannica.com/" In any case, it is a perfectly good source of articles written by John Michell. SageMab (talk) 11:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I give up. Can someone else please explain to Sagemab his mistake? I've tried several times (eg in this section and by memory in others), but he seems to think whatever I say is wrong. Doug Weller (talk) 11:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

That's not the point. You are clouding the issue of whether this is a good source of information for the reader of this article. If you say you know an editor at this on-line publication why did you ask at the top of this section what is this publication? I do think the amount of space devoted to this and other sections you have started on this page to be way beyond the sensible norm for talk page discussions. Once again, this is not a chat room. SageMab (talk) 12:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Sagemab, "Britannia.com" and the "Encyclopedia Britannica" are two completely separate things. The only connection is that they use the Latin name for Britain in the title. Britannia.com is an online resource of information about Britain designed to encourage tourism. Yes, it does include a number of historical essays. Generally these are quite good, and at times I have referenced them in articles when their content is uncontroversial. But the site is nevertheless essentially commercial. The Encyclopedia Britannica is the premier English language encyclopedia. In order to get full access to its content you have to subscribe. Doug Weller probably did not know that the editor was someone he knew until he looked up information about the source, which indicates his dilligence in attempting to assess its reliability. Paul B (talk) 14:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know, the difference is patently obvious. That's not the problem. The Britannia, on the net for over ten ears and filled with accurate information for the British Isles (most sites have to fund their endeavors) is a decent reference portal, though not a premiere one. It contains articles by John Michell that may be of interest to the reader. It might be more properly mentioned on this page, rather than in the article. It certainly does not warrant this huge section about it on the talk page. SageMab (talk) 14:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The difference was clearly not patently obvious to you only yesterday, so don't be disingenuous. The talk page is for discussing the content of the article. That includes the use of sources. Paul B (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Where does chat room come into this discussion? Exactly what have I been talking about that doesn't relate to the article? I realised I knew an editor when I looked at the website more closely, what's odd about that? And why are you apparently trying to shut me up? If you agree that Britannia.com is not an encyclopedia, then I can at least do what I've tried to do, drop my participation in this particular section. Doug Weller (talk) 12:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Reception

Having had my attention directed here by the Fringe Theories Noticeboard, I've given this article a read. My impression is that most of it is not too bad, with the exception of the Reception section. I can't find a single thing there that comes from a good source (except possibly the Culianu quote). In particular, materials included with the book (introduction and flyleaf) are absolutely useless for establishing reception. I intend to do some editing here if nobody beats me to it, but wanted to discuss before acting. Looie496 (talk) 00:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The use of publicity material in this way has bothered me but I've been hesitant to do anything about it on my own. I think there is a serious misunderstanding of what NPOV means by some editors here. And of referencing, reliable sources, etc. Do you have any problem with him being in the New Age category? I was surprised to see that called OR. Doug Weller (talk) 09:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Godwin

Thanks, I think that works. It needed some context, not just 'he's a professor and author'. Doug Weller (talk) 10:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

New Age

I didn't see this as controversial, just overlooked. As I've said, Amazon and Barnes & Noble classify him that way. This site [7] calls him New Age, I can easily find others. He's already in the Earth Mysteries category, what's wrong with New Age? Doug Weller (talk) 14:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Bookwatch

The article says: "Bookwatch", the monthly newletter of book reviews by MidWest Editors (April 2008) wrote of John Michell's "The Dimensions of Paradise: Sacred Geometry, Ancient Science, and the Heavenly Order On Earth", (ISBN 1594771987) "... describes the new science of a geometrical code of 'harmonies and proportions devised by the priests of ancient Egypt and underlying sacred structures from ancient to Christian times. Author John Mitchell is a pioneer researcher and specialist in ancient science: his book is a top pick for New Age libraries interested in sacred geometry". Two questions - if an editor doesn't think anyone calls John Michell New Age, why use a quote that calls him New Age yet still insist it isn't an appropriate category and serious sources don't use the term? If this isn't a serious source, it shouldn't be here. (And of course this is hardly a 'new science'). Second question -- what makes this a reliable source? It's a volunteer book 'review' (2 sentences long) by an anonymous writer. Doug Weller (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

"Bookwatch" is a prestigious newsletter from professional book editors and reviewers. A short review does not discredit itsef by its' own brevity. It looks as if DougWeller is determined to gut, or otherwise undermine this article. I am assuming good faith but it is becoming more difficult. I do think the New Age term is moot and comes from other New Age reviewers on line. John Michell's work is properly called esoteric and fortean. Paul Erdos approved of John Michell's mathematics and Gerald Hawkins often praised John Michell's work (I saw Hawkins at more than a few lectures) as does archaeologist John Anthony West. Use the New Age category if you like, but I think it is misleading to the reader. SageMab (talk) 18:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything reason to be harsh about the Bookwatch quote; it seems harmless at worst. Re Erdos, I'm skeptical about this unless you can provide evidence. Looie496 (talk) 18:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

John Anthony West is not an archaeologist. Graham Hancock's site calls him a 'rogue Egyptologist' (Hancock and West are friends), but no academic Egyptologist that I know of considers him an Egyptologist, and certainly not an archaeologist. Erdos and Hawkins and West may well have praised Michell, but we need evidence. Bookwatch reviews are done by volunteers, I don't see how you can call them professional book editors and reviewers and I would really appreciate an explanation of why you think they are professionals. I am tired of having accusations made against me by the way -- I am struggling to keep some WP standards in this article, the same standards I would expect from an article on a real archaeologist for instance. It is a complete slur to accuse of of tryhing to undermine, gut, etc. this article. The Bookwatch thing is minor in a way, but it is also a question of principle, is it really a RS? I'm not sure, but I'm dubious. Nothing to do with length, everything to do with having volunteer reviewers. If I used something like that to criticse Michell, I'd expect you rightly to be questioning it. And Sagemab, you yourself referred to an edit of mine as NPOV, so how could that be trying to undermine the article? Let alone my adding ISBN numbers, etc. Doug Weller (talk) 18:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Looie about Bookwatch. Are you saying you know Egyptologists? Well, then you know that John West has a very good reputation and has worked with some of the most highly repected scholars and geologists in his field. But this page is not about John West and this page is not a chat board. The reviewers at Bookwatch are book editors DougWeller, not volunteer book editors (a very rare breed); see the blurb at the top of their masthead which says the reviewers are editors. The word is editors. Bookwatch is widely acknowldged by literati to be a notable source of book reviews. I do not care if you use it or not in this article. I do think you are attempting to water down this article rather than improve it. You are commenting on every edit and following me to both an editors' talk page and to my talk page and trying to engage me in endless conversation about every edit which is usually called trying to start an edit war, not that you would be doing that. Not helpful. This is not about you and editors may disagree with each other without anyone taking it personally. With all good faith, I would like to suggest that we read Wikipedia NPOV and the guidelines in regard to living authors WP:BLP. SageMab (talk) 23:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

John West has a terrible reputation among mainstream Egyptologists (a Sphinx on Mars?). He has worked with one geologist, Robert Schoch, who is a geologist by training but does not work as one professionally but teaches general science in a non-degree college of Boston University. As for being a chat board, I'm not sure what you mean but I didn't bring up John West (and my main point was that he isn't a geologist). A discussion page is a chatboard about improving the article, what it isn't is a chatboard about the subject of the article. I don't see how I've used it about anything other than improving the article.

As for Bookwatch, I've figured out the confusion here. I think. They have a page on becoming a reviewer which says "So take a book you've read, a video you've watched, a compact disc whose music you've enjoyed, an audio cassette book you've listened to, software that you've evaluated, or a CD-ROM that you've come across, and give reviewing a try!" and that all its reviewers are volunteers. But that only seems to apply to 'Reviewers' Bookwatch', not all their Bookwatches. The MBR Bookwatch Index, which is the one with the bit on Michell, does say its reviews are generated by MBR editors and specialized reviewers who have demonstrated expertise, etc. But these are still all volunteers, not professionals, and it isn't clear who they are. "The Midwest Book Review is an organization of volunteers committed to promoting literacy, library usage, and small press publishing".It looks as though the decisions as to who can be a reviewer are made by James Cox, see [8]. So I think we were both partially right and partially wrong.

I don't think you quite understand NPOV -- your comment on needing balance to the one critical review suggests that you aren't clear about it. Please, if you think that in any way I have transgressed NPOV or BLP, be specific. Right now you have been making vague accusations (and using edit summaries to make comments that belong here). You clearly don't understand our policy on original research. Of course mathematics is used to discuss the universe, that isn't in question. But to use 'obvious facts' in the way you have is OR. The article should report what reliable sources have said about Michell, not 'obvious facts' -- that would be appropriate in an essay, not Wikipedia. And in a recent edit summary you write "proof is in the list of his books" which again shows that you don't understand WP guidelines on OR.

I have just looked at the history of the article again. You are claming 'consensus' as justification for putting stuff back in that was removed. How in the world do you get the idea that there is consensus? You are also getting close to transgressing WP:Civil by your comment in the edit summary that your edits were 'trashed', which is untrue. I would have every right to revert that just on the grounds that your claim of consensus is false, but I won't bother. I will ask once again though where you get the 'manifestoes' thing and what is means. Who calls them manifestoes?

Discussing edits here is not called trying to start an edit war, it is an attempt to avoid one. Doug Weller (talk) 04:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

DoougWeller you are not an administrator and I do suggest with all good faith that you read Wikipedia's policy on living authors and also consensus (and in putting back a recently removed fact). I don't agree with you on most of your talking points but, once again, this is not about you and this is not a chat room. I never said John West was a geologist; he never ever said the Sphinx had anything to do with Mars; he is highly regarded; this discusion page is not about John Anthony West. I still haven't seen where you have come up with any new information about this John Michell writings to add to this article either pro or con.SageMab (talk) 10:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Ooops, sorry, I meant my point was that he isn't an archaeologist. This is not about me, but it is, to an extent, about my questions and comments, your questions and comments, etc. I still have no idea about you mean by 'this is not a chat room'. This is a discussion page for the article, we are discussing it, we are not chatting about anything irrelevant to the article. I have asked you to explain a few things and you just ignore my questions. I seem to understand BLP and consensus and NPOV (and OR) a bit better than you do. That I am not an administrator simply means that I can't do certain things, that's all. I've come up with some details for the bibliography, and I am one of the very few editors who have made an effort to make the article balanced and NPOV by finding an article and changing "Critics of Michell's work range from those who consider him "a learned crank obsessed with numbers"Ioan P. Culianu, review of The Dimensions of Paradise, to the full quote "After some deliberation the reader of this book will oscillate between two hypotheses: either that many mysteries of the universe are based on numbers, or that the book's author is a fairly learned crank obsessed with numbers." But you know that already because you reverted it to the original partial quote (kindly saying I could put it back, but you shouldn't have reverted it, you should just have edited and replaced what you thought I wrongly removed). Your idea of balance (from what you've said above), isn't to find some critics to balance all the praise, but you have said that the one criticism should be balanced by yet more praise. So it's untrue that I haven't contributed.

I would still like to know why you called an edit of mine NPOV and whether that was supposed to be a compliment or a rebuke.

I would also like to know what you mean by claiming consensus for replacing stuff other editors have removed -- what do you think Wikipedia means by consensus?

And I would like to know why adding 'obvious facts' with no citation to a 3rd party reliable source is not original research. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I still have not found any real information you have added to this article other than a few ISBNs to my large list of them and the odd quote in 1991 of the Churchman Culianu restored to what it once was. No I did not whatever you have been insisting on most of your points. Where would I say, and why would I say what you just posted about me here "Your idea of balance (from what you've said above), isn't to find some critics to balance all the praise, but you have said that the one criticism should be balanced by yet more praise." Untrue allegations from DougWeller again. Once again review [[[NPOV]] and Wikipedia's wise advice on living authors (have you read that page?. You have floated quite a few bogus quotes about me and have turned this discussion page into a chat board.Doug Weller (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't restore the quote by Culianu (why do you keep calling him a 'Churchman'?). I added the rest of the immediate context, which I think made it more NPOV. And I do think that your statement "I do think a comment about number should be included to balance the Catholic Church's rep comment." meant that you thought a favorable comment was needed because there was a (just one) critical comment. If that isn't what you meant, how about explaining yourself rather than engage in yet another attack on me?

I also note that you removed a review some time ago that Amazon says was sourced from Publishers Weekly, apparently because you couldn't find it on the web. Just because something can't be found on the web doesn't mean it doesn't exist. In the interest of NPOV, I think it should be replaced. Doug Weller (talk) 16:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

DougWeller I found this from you on my talk page; why do you always have edits missing from you and other editors? I noticed it because your comment, ("I do think a comment about number should be included to balance the Catholic Church's rep comment." has vanished, and that's the comment I took as saying a negative comment should be balanced by praise, ie a positive one (and what does 'rep' mean)? Doug Weller (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)) Rep means a representative. He works for the Catholic Church and Churchman is the proper term. Replace it with representative from the Catholic Church if you like. It is a peculiar 17 year-old-quote and it did not carry much weight nor notice then or today. As to the Publishers Weekly quote, I went to hard copy and found it non-existant; it was posted by a user on Amazon.com which is not a reliable Wikipedia source as anyone can say anything. I see from one of your talk comments that you said you wish you could find (negative discussion above, please do not open it up again) comments on John Michell somewhere other than blogs. I agree with you that blogs are not usable for Wikipedia purposes. I notice that other far more controversial subjects than John Michell have much shorter disussion pages. Commentary on every edit is not a bone of contension to be chewed until swallowed. I do agree that online content needs to be vetted. Remind all about Wikipedia's warnings about living authors. SageMab (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Not missing, not showing because there was a 'ref' without a /ref. It really happened, and your statement in your edit summary that it didn't happen is false.

Now, Culianu. My guess is that it is because he was critical of Michell that you are trying to dismiss him. You have no way of knowing what its impact was. And I have no way of knowing why you think Professor Culianu, PhD (actually he had 3 doctorates), who worked for the non-denominational University of Chicago in the Divinity School (which started as a Baptist Seminary) could possibly be a representative of the Roman Catholic Church. But I do appreciate your bringing this to my attention as the article is clearly wrong.

Please explain what you mean by going to hard copy. The quote was put there by Amazon, not by an Amazon user. Do you really believed an employee of Amazon made it up?

A discussion page can be as long as it needs to be. A lot of articles have several discussion archives.

Why the reminders about discussion of living authors? Please, if you think I or anyone has broken the guidelines, don't make veiled comments here, make an official complaint.

Assume good faith DougWeller, I am not trying to dismiss Culianu although his Christian Church background should be mentioned. That is a very UnWiki statement of yours to me. Actually Culianu's review, if you read it, was not really critical of John Michell's work. As for the Publishers' Weekly statement, it is a made up reference, not correct at all and checked out with Publishers Weekly. No veiled comment, I have told you I don't think you understand NPOV along with Wikipedia policy towards living authors. You might want to check with an administrator DougWeller but I don't think it is needful, nor helpful, to debate, repeat and justify every edit of yours. That is not how Wikipedia works. SageMab (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to refer to Culianu as a professor of divinity. I don't think we need to discuss the religion of reviewers however. How did you check out the Amazon review, claimed by Amazon (officially, not by a user) to be from Publishers Weekly? You keep saying I don't understand NPOV and I keep asking you to be specific as to what you mean by that. By the way, it is often seen as a good thing to discuss edits on the article's discussion page, not a bad thing. But if you just want to to edit and not explain my edits here, maybe I should, although I think that can lead to problems in cases like this. Doug Weller (talk) 20:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

pictures

It would be cool to have a couple of pictures for this article. There are lots of photos of Michell available, but most of them suck and none show licensing. The best one I could find is this: [9]. Presumably we could get away with fair use, but I'm not too familiar with the policies on that. It would also be cool to have an example of one of his paintings. The page [10] shows several of them, but doesn't have any licensing/copyright info at all. Looie496 (talk) 18:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Great suggestion Looie. I think most article pages of authors should have a photo or painting of the subject. I have seen a nice painting of John Michell that was used on one of his books. Try Google images. His paintings can be seen (in very small part) if you go to the bottom of the article page and click on the Hope. I have no clue if one of them could be used in conjnction with fair use policy. You could probably grab one of his mathematical drawings of the Temple at Jersalem, though most are in black and white.SageMab (talk) 18:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

An infobox really needs a photograph but as he is alive it gets trickier to get one that is free to use. Perhaps if you see one you like (and the above suggestion seems a good one) perhaps drop the site a line and see if they'd be interested in uploading it to Wiki Commons for the greater good?

While we are on infoboxes: which one to use? {{Infobox Writer}} seems the best option, although there is a specific one for Fortean writers/researchers around (in fact, after a quick dig, here it is {{Infobox Paranormalpeople1}}). (Emperor (talk) 01:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC))

Erdos

As far as I know Erdos was a pure mathematician, and barely was aware that anything other than math existed. Can you provide any source at all for him making a comment about Michell? Erdos was a strange guy, so I don't rule it out, but I would like to see a source, please. Looie496 (talk) 18:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I have seen Erdos write about John Michell which said he showed up on John Michell's doorstep announcing "brain open". I'll see it I can find the ref online somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SageMab (talk • contribs) 18:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

7 degrees of Paul Erdos. SageMab (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

He was known to knock on doors saying "My brain is open." Doug Weller (talk) 18:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Correct, Doug. Erdos showed up on the doorsteps of literally hundreds of theoretical mathematicians, including Michell's. Erdos influenced thousands of pieces of math and was essentially living with anyone he respected for short periods of time. I do think a comment in defense of number theory should follow the churchman's comment for the sake of balance. SageMab (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I've got no problem if it comes from a reliable source. I haven't found anything so far. The problem I have is with things like claims he writes a column for the Encyclopedia Britannica (or the nonexistent Encyclopedia Britannia), using open source sources, etc. Doug Weller (talk) 19:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't find the Erdos thing so best to remove it. I do think a comment about number should be included to balance the Catholic Church's rep comment. The Britannia is an online encyclopedia. The link was provided and I believe you blanked it out. Take a look; it includes columns from John Michell.SageMab (talk) 19:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Have I got this right? There is one critical comment in the article and it needs balancing? Britannia is not an online encyclopedia, look at its home page at [11] - it doesn't claim to be an encyclopedia, why do you call it one? It is a collection of articles and basically a tourist site. It does include articles (not columns, 'column' is a regular feature of some sort), but it isn't an encyclopedia and even though I know the history editor more or less, I wouldn't call it a particularly Reliable Source by WP standards. Doug Weller (talk) 19:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Britannia claims to be an online encyclopedia on Google. Refer to the vast section above that you sarted. Sagemab wrote this and signed it properly, my fix put my sig on it.

Sagemab, please look at what I said where I started -- Britannia.com and Britannica.com are vastly different sites. Your 3rd Google hit is Britannica, not Britannia. Doug Weller (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

OR (and POV)

I see the article now says " Mathematics as a language for describing the mysteries of the universe is accepted scholarship and mathematician philosophers from Issac Newton to Paul Erdos have been called obsessed by numbers so-called traditional authorities. The work of Michell's Lindisfarne colleague Ernest McClain is a case in point." This is clearly OR, we should only be reporting what reliable sources have to say about Michell, not personal opinions. I don't think it is NPOV either, but in the context of the whole article that is a fairly minor matter. I hope that the editor who added it will remove it himself or justify it as not being OR. Doug Weller (talk) 20:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Integral thought

How closely is Michell tied to the whole integral thought business (Ken Wilber)? His membership of the Lindisfarme Association would certainly suggest some degree of relation. Enough to put him into Category:Integral thought? Moreschi (talk) 15:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

can you please explain why that wretched quotation is necessary? This is Wikipedia, not WikiQuote. Description is far better than endless quotation. This article has too many already. And don't misrepresent the positions of others. I think it's time you stopped lecturing us on policy, because you clearly have no clue as to what you're talking about. Moreschi (talk) 15:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

In Googling around I saw no sign of a tie-in with Wilber. Furthermore, Michell is not listed as a member of Lindisfarne currently. He was in the 1980s; I don't know about the years since. Looie496 (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Why are you now putting back in material to which Michell only has the most tenuous connection? We do not need this article to become a dumping ground for every mention of Michell by anyone ever. Moreschi (talk) 20:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Moreschi, perhaps you have missed the point. This is not about a degree in metrology. This paragraph is about a respected antiquarian scholar, Dr, Michael Vickers who validates metrology and John Michell's important contrubution to the field. This opinion is validated by a professor emeritus at Virginia Polytech University, not a lightweight by any means. This is an important point about this author so perhaps instead of just chopping it out you should go to the source cited in the edit and rewrite the paragraph appropriately. That would further this article. As for user 91.84.232.69|91.84.232.69] who admitted to using a second IP to make edits to this article, and who was slapped with mutiple vandalism charges on this article to the extent that ithe article was blocked for edit by anonymous users for days I would say perhaps you are misguided and perhaps you will consider reading the Wiki:OR policy by now.SageMab (talk) 22:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

SageMab - we misunderstood because the normal meaning of "a first in metrology" would be "a first class degree in metrology". As for me personally, you say I have "admitted" using a second IP. In fact my internet access is via a dynamic rather than a static IP, i.e. I connect using more than one IP. I also choose to be "anonymous" rather than setting up a Wikipedia account. I don't think there is any confusion whatsoever over what has been posted by me and what hasn't - apart from when you misleadingly, on several occasions, mucked about with what I posted, inserting your own objections in several places without signing them. OR policy has nothing to do with the topic of this section. As for being "slapped with multiple vandalism charges", perhaps you could give this a rest now? My main query was whether or not when you said "a first in metrology" you were using the phrase in the normal academic sense. You have made it clear that no, you were not. Thank you for this. Everyone knows Michell has made a contribution regarding the ancient origin of a few measurement units. Similarly, everyone knows he has published work on numerology. The first does not mean he has a degree in metrology (as you confirm). The second does not mean he knows anything about number theory, or has ever made a contribution that is in any way connected with number theory (as you have not yet accepted).91.84.232.69 (talk) 08:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleted review by alternative medicine practitioner

This review should never have been added. It is clearly not from a reliable source and it isn't as though there isn't enough praise from other reviewers in the article. As I said in my edit summary when I removed it, it is by a very non-notable alternative medicine practioner in a magazine published by a Canadian new age store. I don't agree with John Michell on a number of things, but I have enough respect for him (he's a good, interesting writer even where he is wrong) to think that this review isn't needed to show he can write. Sagemab, it is up to you to show that it is a reliable source, reliability isn't the default. You say you disagree with me, but on what grounds? Doug Weller (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not think it is helpful to discuss everything to death on an article discussion page. Again, this is not a chat room. I disagree with your edit but I let it stand as, yes, John Michell has no shortage of laudatory comments. It was an interesting quote because it is about the Temple at Jersalem book of his and the review included an interview with John Michell and material about the facts in this book. I found it to be a source that added information to this particular book and a solid appearing publication. It does not matter if you or I care (for or against) a New Age publication. I will not get into a discussion with you DougWeller about it as I am sure neither of us wants to edit war. 17:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SageMab (talk • contribs)

Thank you. I appreciate that. I'm not for or against using publications just because they are New Age, it is about WP:RS. This is not a chatroom, it is a place for discussions such as this one. Doug Weller (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Credentials of reviewers

We seem to have swung from overly detailed credentials of reviewers to virtually none. I don't think either extreme is correct. My own opinion is that it is useful for readers to know something about a reviewer. Comments? Doug Weller (talk) 20:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Were you the editor who removed credentials for Joscelyn Godwin, Patrick Harpur and Paul Broadhurst who writes a column on Earth Mysteries?

I agree with a caveat; if you are not turning the article into a vast discussion of each reviewer. I think a link or a descriptive adjective would suffice. You might want to see Wiki's admonition about using a "sea of blue" links in an article. Are you hard at work looking for negative reviews of pieces John Michell's 40+ year writng career? What would you do about a living author who has few or no negative reviews? SageMab (talk) 22:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

No, of course I didn't remove credentials, I think it's important to know something about a reviewer, but not to go over the top. I hadn't noticed the credentials had all gone or I wouldn't have mentioned his 3 doctorates. I'm not looking for reviews of Michell at all, although it would be nice to find reviews by archaeologists of his archaeology related work, but as with much stuff like that real archaeologists are generally to busy to spend time explaining why its wrong. I am still concerned about the Publishers Weekly review, as I can't see an Amazon staff member making it up and you haven't explained why you think it never existed. As for your question of an author with few or no negative reviews (it shouldn't matter whether they are live or dead), there are still several issues -- is that because they don't exist? Are all significant views represented with no undue weight? Does it read like a publicity blurb or an article you'd expect to find in a good encyclopedia? Is the article properly referenced? Is there any OR? Weasel or peacock words? Is the grammar correct? Does it conform to the MOS? All those things are important if the article is to be encyclopedia and of good quality. Doug Weller (talk) 08:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

There is far too much pointless listing of qualifications here, along with obscuring of other less impressive details. Christopher Gibbs is a furniture dealer, not an art gallery owner, and Jane Ormsby Gore is one of his former employees who was something of an "it girl" in the 1960s. She's not a noted art collector. Paul B (talk) 14:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The choices of quotes from reviews make the reviewers, whatever their qualifications, sound ridiculous and turn this into an almost parody puff-piece. This article needs a trim and copyedit. Verbal chat

it doesn't matter so much who a reviewer is as where the review was published. An eminent expert discussing a book with his mates in the pub isn't quotable, while a nobody publishing his review in a prestigious journal is. It is silly to state that individual reviewers have PhDs. Just note where the review was published (if a notable venue) or delete the reference altogether (if not). dab (𒁳) 15:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree - if you have to make a case for the reviewer, then the opinion of the reviewer is probably not the general opinion of his peers. (This is not always true of course, but it's always worth checking) Verbal chat 15:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm the one who removed the credentials. I did it because, as a reader, this information pops out at me as inappropriate and unencyclopedic. That might be because I'm a scientist. Scientists rarely put "Ph.D" after their names, and generally, when you see that, or any other hyping of credentials, it's a sign that the person is not a real scientist. ("M.D." is a different story—it indicates an ability to practice medicine.) Looie496 (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Christopher Gibbs

Sagemab, why do you say that that was the wrong Christopher Gibbs? [12]is the website of a Christopher Gibbs who had an antique gallery in London. Which seems to be where Michell's watercolours were displayed:

JOHN MICHELL Ends Friday 5 December (Mon to Fri 9:30am - 5:30pm) @ Christopher Gibbs, 3 Dove Walk (020.7730.8200) Tube: Sloane Square Price: FREE John Michell doesn't call himself an artist; an author and polymath, he might best be described as a sweet-tempered controversialist and a rational mystic. But it turns out that, when he's not exploring crop circles, the first temple in Jerusalem, or the authorship of Shakespeare's plays, he's exercising his delight in the hidden patterns of life -- or, as puts it, in "a beauty that can be called superfluous" -- by painting watercolours, mostly geometrical. Overlaying seemingly unrelated patterns, he finds new and unexpected harmonies that would not look out of place in the rose window of a Gothic cathedral or decorating the dome of an Ottoman mosque. The massed glow of over a hundred of these watercolours casts a beneficent glow over the massive bric-a-brac of one of London's poshest antique shops. A very strange place to see them indeed.
Note, an antique shop, not an art gallery.
Please tone down your edit summaries. The use of words such as 'venomous' and other comments in your edit summaries are close to if not an actual breach of WP:CIVIL. Doug Weller (talk) 15:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sagemab, you reverted by linking to an artist with the same name who lives in Seattle. Just a little bit of thought and research would have indicated that that this could not possibly be the owner of the furniture galley in London. Please try to work to discover the truth, not to evade it. Paul B (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect Paul, Christopher Gibbs is a well known, often exhibited artist, art juror and intructor. Your evasion allegation is not quite Wiki good faith. Why would I evade the truth on this author? There is nothing to evade. Don't fly allegations without substantiating them. I am the one putting facts into this article and it is always a good idea to have them improved or vetted. Perhaps you can illuminate me please on which facts you have added to advance this article? SageMab (talk) 01:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Am I to understand that you are still insisting that the antique dealer is the same man who lives in Seattle? Paul B (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

SagMab, will you please stop reinserting the claim that the retired London antique dealer with aristocratic connections is the same person as the artist from Seattle. Yes, they have the same name. I have the same name as this guy, but I assure you it isn't me. What makes you come to the unlikely conclusion that they are one and the same? Paul B (talk) 23:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

And there was no 'The Christopher Gibbs Gallery'. It was a famous antique shop. It was referred to at times as a gallery, which is a word term which is used for antique shops as well as places where paintings are displayed. Doug Weller (talk) 13:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Untrue Dougweller. It is well known as a fine arts gallery and that is what the owner calls it. I don't care if it is a sweet shoppe, if the owner calls it a gallery and mounts large shows the point is moot. In any case, I have removed the Paintings section as john Michell is best known as an author. SageMab (talk) 01:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I've left the pictures section in, corrected some spelling, etc and made it clear this was an antique gallery (eg the NY Times referred to it as "his celebrated antiques shop in Dove Walk". I've also removed the claim about major collections as catalogues such as this are generally written to promote an artist and sell their works, and we need a better reference than a sales catalogue for this claim. Doug Weller (talk) 13:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Painter?

Can someone please explain to me why a section (as opposed to one brief sentence, which is fine) on Michell's painting is at all justified? He's obviously not known for being a painter, and his painting activities seem so non-noteworthy (indeed, highly trivial) I highly doubt it's encyclopedic information. Moreschi (talk) 20:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This should be a small addendum to an existing biography section. Verbal chat 20:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. John Michell is well known as an author which is what this article should be about. The edits on antique shop vs art gallery have nothing to do with this article and the debate with Dougweller and others were not advancing the article for anyone. I removed the "Paintings" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SageMab (talk • contribs) 01:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC) SageMab (talk) 01:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Untrue Dougweller. It is well known as a fine arts gallery and that is what the owner calls it. I don't care if it is a sweet shoppe, if the owner calls it a gallery and mounts large shows the point is moot. In any case, I have removed the Paintings section as john Michell is best known as an author. SageMab (talk) 01:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I've left the pictures section in, corrected some spelling, etc and made it clear this was an antique gallery (eg the NY Times referred to it as "his celebrated antiques shop in Dove Walk". I've also removed the claim about major collections as catalogues such as this are generally written to promote an artist and sell their works, and we need a better reference than a sales catalogue for this claim. Doug Weller (talk) 13:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)