Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 46:
Line 46:
:::::::I am not the only editor in here telling you that your edits are inappropriate. You added a maintenance tag to “invented” after several users in here disagreed with your attempts to use “discovered”, which considering the broader sourcing in the article comes across more as demanding to be personally convinced. Couple that with {{tq|I knew it was false}} and it’s hard to interpret that template as not just a continuation of edit warring behavior bleeding from the talk page to the article. You’re absolutely edit warring and you’re right up against ] while weaponizing templates and warnings.
:::::::I am not the only editor in here telling you that your edits are inappropriate. You added a maintenance tag to “invented” after several users in here disagreed with your attempts to use “discovered”, which considering the broader sourcing in the article comes across more as demanding to be personally convinced. Couple that with {{tq|I knew it was false}} and it’s hard to interpret that template as not just a continuation of edit warring behavior bleeding from the talk page to the article. You’re absolutely edit warring and you’re right up against ] while weaponizing templates and warnings.
:::::::You need to consider that the appropriate course of action here is discussing the changes you want without taking your perspective as inherently correct considering the reverts and edit warring, especially when many editors are disagreeing with an in-universe presentation of the claims. ] 16:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::You need to consider that the appropriate course of action here is discussing the changes you want without taking your perspective as inherently correct considering the reverts and edit warring, especially when many editors are disagreeing with an in-universe presentation of the claims. ] 16:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Seems you only have 1500 edits. What was your previous username, eh? ] (]) 16:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Revision as of 16:29, 15 October 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the English Qaballa article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OccultWikipedia:WikiProject OccultTemplate:WikiProject OccultOccult
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Thelema, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ThelemaWikipedia:WikiProject ThelemaTemplate:WikiProject ThelemaThelema
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
EranBot logged this edit as a potential copyright violation. All material came from an earlier version of this article dated 23 September 2008, which gives the origin as the article New Aeon English Qabalah (now a redirect). The origin of that content is given in the 5 June 2006 edit which created that article stating "source GFDLed article from 💕 of Thelema." Gotta go into the web archive to find that source, which clearly states at the bottom "Content is available under GNU Free Documentation License 1.2." Nice to see a chain of origin where all the proper attributions were made in edit summaries as they should be, even though the article was copy/pasted rather than moved by an IP editor. Skyerise (talk) 12:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm wondering why the entire article on English Qabalah was merged into the Numerology article, but this article was not? The subject of English Qaballa is no different or more special than any other approach to English Qabalah, it is simply a particular approach. Catalyst418 (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
@Catalyst418: Because it has extensive coverage in multiple sources while the other systems each have only a single source. Multiple robust sources make a subject notable enough for a stand-alone article. None of the other systems have sufficiently robust sources to justify a stand-alone article (see our notablity requirements). If and when they do, they would deserve to be split out of Numerology into their own article. You're welcome to do so if you have adequate independently-published sourcing for some one or more of those systems. Basically, no one has written about those systems but their originators. And there is no overview book about "systems of English Qabalah", which is why that topic was also not supportable under that name. Thus the merge of all the non-notable systems into Numerology. This system, on the other hand, has been written about extensively by multiple authors other than the originator who have been published by independent publishers. That's a great difference when it comes to determining notability. Out of the list at Numerology, this system is the most notable. That actually does make a difference and makes this system unique compared to the others. It has met the bar of being successful. (Success is your proof!) Skyerise (talk) 11:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. There have been a few publications that discuss this approach to gematria, (called colloquially NAEQ), although I would discount any of the references to the Equinox or New Equinox journals, as these were self-published by members of the group to which the originator belonged. That really only leaves the DuQuette reference, which is fine, and the Hadean Press, publishing works by a colleague of the originator. Is this press considered a neutral third party source? Catalyst418 (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Absolutely. It's a general occult press which publishes multiple authors on multiple topics, regardless of their magical affilations. We can use Regardie's biography of Crowley for the same reason (it was published by Llewellyn), even though Regardie was a colleague of Crowley. There would only be a problem with either of these sources if they were self-published. The fact that an independent publisher chooses to publish the material is what raises the topic to notability. Skyerise (talk) 10:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Discovered. He did not set out to create this. He discovered that if you place the alphabet in alphabetic order in the pre-existing grid, then take the diagonal as the new order of the alphabet, that it produces this code. Mathematical theorems, which this is akin to, are discovered, not invented. Skyerise (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
No. Mathematical theorems aren’t numerology, and there’s a fundamental question as to whether math is invented or discovered. That doesn’t apply here and this is not appropriate in wikivoice. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ15:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
See, the problem is that this cipher is one of a set of ciphers which were already known well before 1976; Lees didn't invent it, he discovered an application for an already known cipher. So you are introducing errors into the article. Skyerise (talk) 15:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Really? If a doctor discovers a new use for an existing drug, we don't falsely say he "invented" it. We use the correct English word: "discover". Skyerise (talk) 15:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
This is not a mathematical theorem. It relies on a re-imagining of gematria and related ideas. No reliable sources identify these things as "discoveries". jps (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Except that as I said above; he didn't invent the cipher, it was already known; he discovered an application for it. Skyerise (talk) 15:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
There is no "application" discovered. It's just an application of an arbitrary system to propose a new mythology. jps (talk) 15:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
@Skyerise has been warned for edit warning but reverted it. That’s of course their prerogative on their talk page, but considering its ongoing here I just want to make sure people know the warning has already been made. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ16:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
And @Warrenmck has been warned for removing a maintenance template that was completely appropriate as a change made by a user who had not read the sources introduced a falsehood into the article. Skyerise (talk) 16:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
There was nothing appropriate about on “invented”, it’s very clearly a POV edit. You can maintenance template the date, sure, but not the exact thing that multiple people are in here telling you is inappropriate. This is just WP:TEND. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ16:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
You do not WP:OWN this article and edit warring to enforce your POV is inappropriate and is sanctionable behaviour. As are retaliatory warnings. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ16:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Really? An editor doesn't get to tag a known-to-be-false assertion because they themselves do not agree with your POV? That sounds way more like ownership than the tagging itself. Skyerise (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
I am not the only editor in here telling you that your edits are inappropriate. You added a maintenance tag to “invented” after several users in here disagreed with your attempts to use “discovered”, which considering the broader sourcing in the article comes across more as demanding to be personally convinced. Couple that with I knew it was false and it’s hard to interpret that template as not just a continuation of edit warring behavior bleeding from the talk page to the article. You’re absolutely edit warring and you’re right up against WP:3RR while weaponizing templates and warnings.
You need to consider that the appropriate course of action here is discussing the changes you want without taking your perspective as inherently correct considering the reverts and edit warring, especially when many editors are disagreeing with an in-universe presentation of the claims. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ16:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
.png){kind=small}
