Talk:Andrew D. Chumbley/Archive 2

Choice of articles to cite; name of The Azoetia
Hello again Agreed with your point above regarding which magazines should be cited; if 'Chaos Int.' is in, why not 'The Cauldron' and 'Starfire' at least? These were the main vehicles for Chumbley's articles, and probably the most respected and widely-distributed UK magazines - some of the articles were later published in other, lesser-known, journals. I've given back the 'The' to 'Azoetia' in the bibliography; the first edition is titled 'The Azo.' on both its cover and title page, while the 2002 revised edition is simply 'Azoetia'. This entry now seems to have reached the state where it can worked up without too much contention - anyone fancy fleshing it out a little? Your intelligent adjudication is most valued, Fuzz! reineke 16:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello
 * What about adding to the Azo bibliography that the name changed with the second edition? Nothing big, perhaps "Azoetia, 2002". It would certainly make things more accurate. I think adding The Cauldron and Starfire a splendid idea. The Cauldron is cited quite a bit in the references. It should be mentioned in the body. I feel like I'm adding too much here. Someone else want to make the changes?
 * I have "signed" my above postings but they aren't appearing as signed. Sorry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.12.116.65 (talk • contribs).


 * Hello all, no danger of my "ire" being drawn — I'm just taking an interest and trying to help get this article going properly. I'm not so much a stakeholder as a friendly passer-by. And it's starting to come together nicely!
 * If you're having difficulty signing your edit, just remember, you sign in the main edit box where you're writing your comments (not in the Edit Summary box), and you place the four tildes ( ~ ) at the end of what you've written, in the place where you want your signature to be. You can check how it looks by hitting the Show preview button. Fuzzypeg ☻ 03:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Source for Ars Silvera?
I guess the consensus is that 'eclectic' stays - no matter how naff it sounds. Pity. Take your point (above) that 'New Age' may have taken the glimmer off the word 'syncretic' - but how much more so the word 'eclectic' ! Has anyone got a source for this supposed 'Ars Silvera' in the biblio.? I have never seen one (either on the Xoanon site, Occult Art Gallery or sales lists from Caduceus over the years). I think it's time for it to go - as did all the comments added by the same person on the same occasion.reineke 10:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Left-handed Tantrism?
Anyone mind if I remove the reference to 'left-handed Tantrism? Firstly, there is no other kind, and secondly I think I've dealt with this in my additions this morning (see f'note 7). This sentence now seems a bit lost - I'll happily remake it, retaining a reference to Gnosticism, though that will mean the Eliade footnote will become redundant. Any thoughts on that one before I start? What's the protocol for adding to the discussion thread? - shouldn't comments be added at the end of the document each time? Someone made some useful points, but put them up beside the para being comments upon - is that useful?reineke 10:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, after my last comment about left hand Tantra, I reread Schulke's quote in the article what says Chumbley was involved in left hand Tantra. The sentence has always been lost. The reference to Eliade is loose. Lulubyrd 12:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

New summary section
I've started a new section in which to summarise the salient points of Chumbley's work & magic; I hope this will give a better overview than the previous somewhat vague comparisons. Thanks for the Cauldron no. 98 article title!reineke 15:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey Reineke, you're welcome. Nice additions to the text. What took you so long?

Fuzzypeg, with the new link to the obit, can we please do away with theself promotional mysterymag article? You know, it was the author that added it in the first place. -   I've never seen reference to Ars Silvera anywhere, but I'm not as well read as Reineke. Lulubyrd 17:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Remove the Mysterymag link?
The obit seems good and well-written; I haven't done any detailed appraisal of it, just a quick scan. I'm still concerned that this article is ostensibly just something an unknown person wrote on a message board — not exactly meeting the requirements of a reputable source. Also, articles on message boards that don't have hard links (i.e. simple URLs without question marks, etc) tend to disappear or move more quickly, and if they do disappear they are harder to find using web archive tools like the Wayback machine. The best option would be if you could find something in print in some journal with an actual author it can be attributed to! But we work with what we've got. I'll leave it up to you guys whether the mystery mag article stays or not. I can't speak for its quality, but it does have the benefit of being from some kind of "magazine" which makes it more traceable. Fuzzypeg ☻ 21:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Sections on the discussion page
I've tried to create some headings so that the discussion so far is semi-readable (have any of you tried to read through all that's been said over the last few weeks?). It's still a dog's breakfast, and I suggest you could make things easier by starting any new topic of conversation under a new heading, and splitting your comments under several headings if you have several things to comment on... Hope this helps. Fuzzypeg ☻ 21:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Why have the critical points been deleted? There were genuine honest criticisms of Chumbley's work on here and they were deleted. There is no point have a section on Chumbley if both sides of the debate cant be expressed freely .(Within reason). Is it to be assumed that the owners of the Xoanon editions who are posting here are attempting to give a false portrayal of Chumbley by misquoting articles written about him? And taking his "work" out of context? If genuine honest criticism of Chumbley cant be allowed in this section then it doesnt have any honest integrity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.139.217.46 (talk • contribs).
 * A large amount of previous discussion has been archived (see the archive link top-right on this page). That is common practice with talk pages that are getting too long and difficult to read. Much of the discussion failed to use headings, had not been properly signed, and editors were putting their comments out of order, even in the middle of other people's posts (!), making it extremely difficult to read. So it got archived earlier than it might otherwise have. I honestly haven't found much of the Chumbley criticism to be in any way helpful or useful though, it being in the main limited to editors' own opinions that he was a "parasite" and his magical work is not "valid". We can't do anything with some random person's opinions, they just clutter up the talk page. Criticisms made by reliable sources would be much more useful.
 * By the way, if you keep logging in on different computers it makes it very difficult to have a conversation with you as a real person, because we never know for sure whether it's actually you or not. The remedy for this would be to register with Wikipedia and get a proper login name, then you can work from any machine you want and we'll recognise you. Fuzzypeg ☻ 05:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this person has a mistaken idea about this discussion page. It's not for debating the merits of Chumbley's contribution, but for discussion regarding specifics of what is in or should be placed in the article. If he can post the referenced quotes in context and show that they are taken out of context, that would cement his point. If he can't or won't then he should understand that this is not the venue for his opinion or "genuine criticism". Ditto for "misquoting articles written about him". Blogs are a better venting venue. If the Poster will please back up his assertions with references and facts, then a more positive outcome from his point of view might be made regarding his general commentary. Lulubyrd 19:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I have indeed read through the entire discussion thread above; it isn't easy. Thanks very much for those discussion headings Fuzzy, nice move! - what is the best way for us to capitalise on them? Does anyone mind if we do what the machine suggests and archive the older material? - say about the first 75% - ? Then it'll be easier to add discussion under the appropriate subject headings, without "scrolling, scrolling, scrolling - RawHIDE!!" (Sorry.) There is a hard copy journal to go with the Inominandum obit - I'll find and add the reference later. My view on the MysteryMag piece is that it is entirely self-serving, and not at all enlightening about its subject; it's really only riding Chumbley's coattails, while having a poorly-informed go at 'debunking' him. It starts off posing as a beginner's introduction to Chumbley but quickly moves on to saying, "But he's not as original as people think - ha-hah!", which presupposes some knowledge of its subject on the part of the reader, otherwise they won't be amazed by MM's 'revelations', right? But then because the writer has little or no knowledge of Grant or Spare, or anything in that field of occultism, he can't deliver the promised sucker-punch, and just meanders about, ending up saying he might have nearly almost maybe met Chumbley in the flesh, but didn't - but he could have. It's all a bit like a cheerful but pugnacious drunk giving out opinions at the bar, gradually losing his thread as he goes along. The MM writer's agenda comes a bit clearer with the risible follow-up article, y'know, the sheep's head and so on. It's just trying to create a sensation. I suggest that we cover the points the MM writer raises, but in a more useful & relevant context, then dump the link. How 'bout that? I think I've at least partly accomplished that. I'll be doing a little more work today - regroup later, alright? Hi Lulubyrd - sorry I took so long. Actually I've been visiting periodically for a look-see; the AC entry was very basic but stable for a long time, then it seemed to become a battleground for competing factions of anonymous yobs with their spray-cans, and other vandalistic types with an axe to grind. A botched, hacked-up Wiki entry reflects on both Wiki and the subject of the entry, and I think Chumbley deserves more. Might have to change that 'Seven Shades' reference you provided, as the ref in 'The Golden Chain' is better, saying that Chumbley was both preceptor and initiate of the Kaula line. Is that OK? Happy Thursday! reineke 10:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC) You obviously have much to offer, Reineke. Are you going to flesh-out the Azoetia and Qutub books with descriptions, also? I don't mind a change in the reference at all. The idea is that of an article of merit reflecting the man. Can you cover the points in the MM article, with references, so the article can be dumped? That would be grand. I've always resented the publicity it gives the author with such weak attributions. I think I read something online-an interview or something, with some Spare scholar who compared or corresponded Chumbley's work with Spare's. Is that a viable source for reference? You've got a Chumbley/Grant reference, but I don't see one with Chumbley/Spare. I can't remember the details but suppose it can be Googled. Lulubyrd 13:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I tend to use anything I can for a reference, if it seems bona-fide. If something better comes along you can always upgrade and get rid of the old one (like the MM article for instance). But an online interview with a Spare scholar sounds perfectly good, especially if it's from a reputable website. By the way, I'm really impressed with the work that's been happening here! Fuzzypeg ☻ 21:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, that's all for today - apologies for forgetting to sign in again earlier whilst editing! Thanks for the good support - I've checked the MM article over and I believe that everything is now covered. I suspect that removing the MM link will only result in it being reinstated by persons unknown who may or may not be connected with MM. But let's try it anyway. If it comes back, how about leaving it lying where it is at the bottom of the links? As long as the Wiki entry is a good read, and informative, then anyone following the MM link will just come back feeling disappointed. It's a suggestion. I've always liked the way MM says, "Looking at his published works in greater detail..." and then devotes 30 words to Qutub! I know the interview article you mean, it's by Gavin Semple - let's see if there is a relevant comment or two re Spare/Chumbley in it. Done the Azoetia and Qutub today, plus the unpublished texts. I have a few more ideas for things to add that will tie the article up at the end - I need to do some hunting first. What else would need to be covered? - don't let me hog the thing, OK? reineke 17:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Rumi
I must admit I think Reinike is perhaps getting a little carried away with the Rumi comparisons - Chumbley's 'Qutub' is much more like a rather creaky 'Rubaiyat' imitation - I can't think of anything less like the couplets of 'Mathnavi' or 'Diwani-Shams e-Tabriz' in style or esoteric content than Chumbley's work. Isn't this Wiki article going from one extreme to another? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.168.165 (talk • contribs)
 * Reinike seems to be citing the Hekas article for this influence on his work. I note his work is not being compared to Rumi's (as such), rather Rumi is given as an influence. If you believe that the citations as given don't claim there was an influence from Rumi, please explain. I don't have most of the cited works to refer to, so I can't tell whether they contain what you guys say they contain... Fuzzypeg ☻ 00:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I simply reiterate what I said above, to my eye there is little in Chumbley's work that demonstrates the influence of the Mevlana Jalalludin Rumi, either stylistically or in terms of the sort of themes, symbolism and esoteric concepts which one finds expounded through the 6 books of the 'Mathnavi' or other works by Rumi. 'Qutub shows the influence of Omar Khayyam and the whole QTB = 111 by gematria was something which Chumbley took from Idries Shah's book 'The Sufis'.


 * If you can find a source who makes these same criticisms you could quote them in the article as a point of contrast; otherwise I'm afraid we're limited in the analyses we can make personally. About the most we can do, if we disagree with the opinion of a quoted source, is to ensure the opinion is clearly cited as originating with that person, and start looking for other commentators holding opposing views. This kind of editing quandry is described in WP:NOR. Remember that Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion of material is verifiability, not truth. Fuzzypeg ☻ 04:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry that the Rumi ref ruffled some feathers - though I don't think I'm getting carried away, as the person with no name suggests. Chumbley cites Rumi as a favoured poet in an article, therefore he can be considered an influence; even though the work 'Qutub' itself is styled more like Fitzgerald. Now - with respect - I don't enough time to debate this kind of issue in depth online, so, as the nameless person there seems to know his Rumi and is making defensive noises, it's easiest to just remove the reference, which I will do. The subtext I read is that he doesn't approve of Chumbley's name being linked with that of Rumi in this way - correct? It's easily undone! However, any writer or artist mentioned by Chumbley in print can be reckoned an influence, to my mind. Would it perhaps be useful to insert those names (such as Rumi, Nietzsche et alia), in the hope that others will pick up the threads and work the refs up? I found the Sufi reference problematic to start with, my intent was to expand it into something more comprehensive. There's little purpose in dealing with the Shah thing at length - because Chumbley has already made it explicit in 'Qutub' what his points of reference were. (In fact it can be dealt with in one phrase in the paragraph on 'Qutub' itself. It's hardly revelatory.) So if I introduce anything at which others demur I'm perfectly happy to take them out again. Kein problem! reineke 09:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Book Prices + Literary/Artistic value?
- Here's another problem I have with this article: it states that : -   - 'The regard in which Chumbley is held - both within the occult community and amongst connoisseurs of art and fine books - is reflected in the high prices his work commanded even before his death.' -   - Now are we really to accept that large, even grotesque, sums of money passing hands really constitutes in itself adequate and valid criteria of literary/artistic worth of the contents of a book - and presumably we should accept the converse, that if a book is priced in the lower range that naturally reflects badly on the contents and shows that they and the writer are not held in much esteem? I'm suprised at whoever thought that such a profane and quantitative yardstick constituted a valid indicator of a book's contents - whereas some might simply say that the inflated prices reflect little more than the questionable vagaries of the collector's book market, the law of supply and demand, scarcity and even the avarice of book dealers! Excuse my cynicism here but the notion that an artificially inflated price-tag proves that a book's contents are of intrinsic worth or that the writer is necessarily held in high regard illustrates Rene Guenon's 'reign of quantity'in action! I shake my head...Ye Nameless One

- Aha - we've had this one before, I think, Nameless. I think it sounds a tad grandiose myself. Well, if you don't like it, feel free to write something better that conveys the meaning. That's what Wiki is about - democracy and collaboration. -   - I can only reiterate that that sentence - which I think I introduced few months back - does not refer to the contents of the book at all! It refers solely to "The regard in which Chumbley is held..." There are, as you say, many factors controlling the price of any collectable artifact, but I think the regard in which the creator is held can be metered by the price of the work at auctions and dealers. Perhaps you're allowing your view of the ills of the world (with which I do not disagree) to colour your ability to read a sentence.

Connoiseurs of art and fine books are prepared to pay substantial sums of money to own books and drawings by Chumbley. The prices went up when he died. What does this tell us about the regard in which they hold him? It's high, non? Alternatively we have to believe that they're all saying, "Well, secretly we hate the guy, but we're forced to write large cheques to obtain his stuff and keep it in our houses. Boo hoo."

What do you suggest as a yardstick - bearing in mind that the desired outcome is to inform the reader that Chumbley (himself, the author-artist) is held in high regard by many people in the occult community, and by collectors of art and fine books? reineke 12:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

- Also, I checked the Gavin Semple interview re Spare (at hermetic.com and others) and there is only a very slight comment regarding Chumbley in the context of 'Zos Kia Cultus' - I don't think it's relevant here, it doesn't throw any light on the Spare-Chumbley connection.

- I've added a tie-up paragraph using quotes from a respected occult author who actually knew Chumbley - I thought his comments could be considered authoritative as a description of the man. reineke 13:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

After considering the ref to which El Namelessoroso objected, I've reworded it. I removed "commanded" so that the works are no longer the active particpants in the transaction, and added "...may be gauged by..." In other words, you may gauge the state of his reputation by that, but you don't have to - you can measure it in some other way, or you can carry on feeling bad about expensive commercial deals instead if you want to. This revision asserts the freedom of the reader to consider it thusly, or not. Is that more satisfactory?

It's worth remembering that the original sale price of Chumbley's books was exceptionally reasonable for what they were; the 1992 Azoetia was about £15, for which you got one of only 300 copies direct from the artist, replete with his sigilly signatures - and Qutub was only £12 hot off the press in 1995! A giveaway really. The secondhand and subsequent buyers created the inflated market - you can't blame either the author or the books for that. And that's something to be analysed on the appropriate page of Wiki, not this one. reineke 15:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

- What has to be remembered is that there are people out there who have a vested interest in keeping the books "elite" and restricted. Chumbley went against wholesome occult magickal principles.He purposely discriminated with his work/material.Anybody who censors restricts occult material is a hypocrite and is a reflection of a non -existent magickal current.(which itself was parasitical)In essence his work was a occult / magickal failure.And it is still to be argued that he had a genuine legitimate link to a magickal current. Most of the "intelligences" published in Azoetia were cut & paste creations from chaos magick techniques. (Eg :Sethannos, a cut and paste from Set , Cerunnos , Thanatos etc.) You dont disrespect a gods name and come away in one piece..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.36.103 (talk • contribs)

Reineke: Certainly the outpouring of grief at Chumbley's passing shows the high regard felt for the man and his work. There is the obit in The Cauldron that may be referenced, and many other obits that ran in other magazines and webzines. These are indicators of high regard held for Chumbley on several continents that don't relate to the price of his work. I think there was an obit that ran in Portuguese in Brazil. At least one US occult magazine mourned his passing, and several in Europe. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I think that sentence can be expanded to include this information and express a deeper appreciation for his work. You're quite well read. There were many book reviews when Azoetia Sethos came out. Have you other references such as obits or reviews that reflect the esteem in which Chumbley and his work was held?

You know, he didn't produce a great volume of work when all is said and done. However, he and his work are known and respected all over the world and I've only seen disparaging remarks about him and his work in blogs of rather pathetic individuals who have nothing of their own but a keyboard and computer screen. When I think about it, if I passed there would not be such an outpouring or sense of loss. Chumbley and his work was/is highly regarded, and not only by throwing money around. Do you have access to references that will show that? By the way, thank-you for all the information you've provided and the work you've done here. Lulubyrd 04:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

A quick Google search brought these up. Some will have to be hunted down, like the Circle Magazine obit.

Lashtal.com: review of Azo by Jan Fries printed in the Mandrake Speaks newsletter (UK) http://www.lashtal.com/nuke/index.php?name=Comments&tid=211&sid=279#211 There was an obit in the Journal for the Academic Study of Magic-a juried journal. (UK) An obit ran in Selina Fox' Circle Sanctuary 'Circle Magazine' (US). Obit in Andrew Collins Earthquest news vol 8, no 1, spring 2005 (UK) "and although we never always saw eye to eye, his knowledge of ancient magical systems, sorcery and books of magic was second to none, providing an inspiration for budding witches and occultists worldwide." http://www.andrewcollins.com/page/news/news17.htm  Lulubyrd 05:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Fuzzypeg- Sorry about the bad formatting. That happened when I put back what had been removed. I copied from an earlier version and the bad formatting resulted. I really am sorry. Lulubyrd 02:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If you want to revert some change there's a much easier method than cutting and pasting: in the history page you can click on any previous revision that you want to revert to, and it will show you the article as it was then; now click the edit this page tab, and you will get the normal edit window with a big warning saying that you are editing a previous version of the document and any changes made since that version will be lost if you submit. Simply enter a summary in the edit summary such as "revert blanking of discussion", and hit save page. And don't worry, I'm happy to clean up formatting, as long as you guys keep up the good work with writing the article. Fuzzypeg ☻ 03:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the information and kind words, Fuzzypeg. There is a criticism up a few paragraphs that was lobbed in unsigned-just above my post to Reineke on 18 November. It is reading as part of my posting. I don't know how to place a signature in there. Will you do that, please? It begins: "- What has to be remembered is that there are people out there who have a vested interest.... (and ends with) in one piece..." My posting begins with the salutation to Reineke.Lulubyrd 13:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I checked with Circle Magazine and though a site that came up in a Google search said there was an obit in the magazine, they say it never ran. Ho hum. I thought I'd have something new to add. Fuzzypeg, thanks for the revert information. I got to use it twice tonight. I went ahead and reverted the main article after the unnamed guy changed it because it is very clear by his posts to this discussion page and the vandalization of my post that he is up to no-good. I used the revert here, but as you can see, reverting erased his unpleasant posts. I'm sorry, but I'm not much interested in reinstating his posts, so have not done so. Lulubyrd 04:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Right, I read that person's post, and I can't see any point reinstating it. If they would like to retype it they should first read Wikipedia's policy on civility. Regarding the use of the word "vandalism", it's probably better to use some other term such as "edit war" if it seems the editor in question might truly believe they are improving the article, or if they merely seem clumsy (such as posting in the middle of someone else's post). The term "vandalism" has a special meaning to Wikipedia administrators, and special conditions apply in the case of vandalism, such as the relaxing of the three revert rule. Sorry you have to go through this... Now, if you believe you've got all the salient points in the new obit, and the mysterymag article adds nothing useful, I suggest you do away with it. People can find it through google if they really want. A hard-copy article would have been nice, but them's the breaks... Fuzzypeg ☻ 10:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello Fuzzypeg: Point taken regarding the term vandalism. I'm quite new here and don't understand the nuances of Wiki terms yet. I'll try to do better. -Not that I intend to stay much longer now that things are going so well. I do consider what occurred here regarding my post to be vandalism, though. Removing sentences, adding paragraphs and then commenting on the whole new shebang is not very nice and deleterious to my reputation. I believe that my posts here on the discussion page shouldn't be altered in that way. I certainly don't mind an independent posting, if civil.

There is some pretty strong referencing for what is in the article now. I would like to see deletions like the ones made yesterday carefully weighed before they're allowed to stay deleted and given the heated discourse here on the discussion page by some, they should probably be referenced-at least here. What was deleted yesterday has been referenced pretty well in the article. And really, when I reread the article in its entirety, I see that all my recent recommendations regarding the 'worth' of Chumbley's work other than monetary is there, but peppered throughout the article rather than attached to the money/value comment. Lulubyrd 15:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

No loss. Many thanks to the administrator who 'blocked' non-signed in users (I just tried to edit, forgetting to log-I, and couldn’t) - I think that's a good move, there have been some very strange people coming around here. They must have mistaken the discussion page for a ‘discussion forum’. And thanks for archiving the earlier discussion Fuzzy-P - I was still wading through the literature on 'how to'.

Apropos some of the notes above: Lulu, I'd tend to disagree with your comment that 'he didn't produce a great volume of work'. A 350-page grimoire (Azoetia) and a c. 1200-page one (Draconian) seems quite a volume of work – it would be for me! - added to that the other published articles, the Toad book, and if he could work at that rate for 'public consumption', who knows what he may have produced on top? Chumbley's academic essay on the Toad bone used to be posted at 'The Cauldron' website - an impressive piece of work. Pity we can't link to it now. But I know what you mean - three published books doesn't seem like a lot, coming to the subject cold.

Would someone like to add some quotes from the obituaries? Andy Collins' comment appears to suggest an ongoing 'old mates'-type contact with Chumbley, though as far as I can discover (and I have done some digging) there was none. It looks a little like a bid for kudos. Also Collins comes from a completely separate esoteric field, having little or no overlap with Chumbley’s. If you think it’s worth a spin, however, please do put it in; how about overlooking the bit about “never always seeing eye to eye” ? (a nice bit of mangled English there!). How about snip the front off and say, “…his knowledge of ancient magical systems, sorcery and books of magic was second to none, providing an inspiration for budding witches and occultists worldwide.” JASM is a good one - could someone cull a selection from that? I don’t have a copy to hand.

The Jan Fries review is already in as a link (isn’t it? - I put it there the other day). reineke 18:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Touche, Reineke! Yes, by the parameters you outline, I am indeed a dilettante. I was looking at Chumbley's output by the volume of original finished pieces, not by what is within.

It looks like my posts are what incite the recent problem postings; for whatever reason I can't fathom.

I don't have anything more to add here at this time so will be shoving off. Reineke has sewn up the article nicely. I am glad to have been of some assistance during the expanding of the article. Reineke and Fuzzypeg, you have things well in hand and can keep an even keel. Good job, both! Lulubyrd 03:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Before you go Lulu (if you absolutely must), have you got the JASM obit handy? Glad you noticed that your thoughts re the 'value' (non-monetary) of the work percolated in - good team efort I reckon. reineke 11:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I mustn't absolutely go. I don't have the obit to hand either-JASM is quite expensive unless you've got an article in it and get a copy for free. However, since it appears that I might be of further assistance, I have written Dave Green asking for a download copy of the obit for reference. I'll let you know if and when it comes in, and we can discuss what should be used, if anything. Lulubyrd 15:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Reineke: Can the sentence in contention (noname keeps deleting it) be changed-perhaps a reference added such as Occult Art Gallery, Caduceus Books, and Amazon.co.uk adding verification? "The regard in which Chumbley is held - both within the occult community and amongst connoisseurs of art and fine books - may be gauged by the high resale value of his books even before his death (ref: Occult Art Gallery and Caduceus Books archived book list with Chumbley books offered and Amazon.co.uk)". These references will show the prices reflecting the value people hold for Chumbley's work-and the high prices themselves. The sentence is then verified. The truth is that people don't pay more than they're willing to esteem anything. As my mother used to say; you only get for something what someone is willing to pay for it. Honestly, I believe that the sticking point may be the part that says that Chumbley is held in high regard, but that can't be helped. Even if that part is removed and a sentence regarding the high prices his books and art have commanded even before his death replaces it, the reader will come to the conclusion regarding the esteem held for Chumbley and his work on her own. It's a shame if the conclusion can't be a part of the sentence, but it might stop the edit war. The thing is; I don't think it is out of line to add a conclusion when presenting verified facts, so I believe the conclussion should stay. Noname can't remove verifiable material unscathed under Fuzzypeg's watchful eye and noname has not been able to refute the article references. It's your sentence, Reineke. What do you think should be done?

Fuzzypeg: Do you have any suggestions for resolving this? Lulubyrd 21:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes... Add to what's already there. I don't think you should remove the debated text, since it's clearly true; however you could add a couple of sentences to give it extra justification and extra weight. The prices that the original books were sold at are extraordinarily cheap, given the small runs and the very large resale values. Add a brief sentence that quotes some of these prices. Also, you might want to mention that newsgroups have been set up to study his works and Sabbatic Craft. I've found one such group, The Witches Sabbath, but there are most likely a couple more. Links to these groups in the references list could also be very helpful to some readers of the article...
 * I've been doing a bit of searching online looking for articles about Chumbley, and I've found quite a lot of small obits in various online versions of pagan and magical journals. Several of these authors "didn't always see eye to eye", but all had great admiration for his learning and his skill in sorcery, and considered him an influential author. And then there are all the quite notable occultists (Aswynn, Hine, Howard) mentioned in the article who hold him in high esteem. I haven't found a single website yet that denigrates him as our anonymous detractor here does. It seems beyond argument that he was very highly regarded by quite a large number of people, including many who are influential in their own right!

( Note: The authors quoted arent "esteemed". Howard's books have consistently been reviewed poorly in the occult/magick press/scene. Aswynn isnt well known in occult cicles. Hine is more Chaos magick and wouldnt be in a position to clarify Chumbley's philosophy.So again this issue of "high regard" is a very shaky postion. And the Aswynn and Hine comments would have to be referenced.)


 * The sentence should stay as it is (i.e. please stop deleting it!), and if the said detractor wishes to present other contrasting opinions, I think he's going to have to look pretty hard to find any reliable sources that will make these claims against Chumbley. I'm sure it's possible, and if he could, that would be great, because it would make the article's tone more balanced and thus more authoritative. That, however, would involve doing some research. So the question is, are you prepared to join the Wikipedia community and help us produce great, well-researched articles?
 * Remember, the article should NOT be changed to reflect any editor's personal beliefs.
 * By the way, have you all noticed that this detractor has been the primary inspiration towards turning this into a decent article? It was almost certainly not his intention, but that's the way it tends to work in Wikipedia. If it wasn't for him, you guys might never have gotten involved the way you did. Not to detract from the brilliant work you've done... Fuzzypeg ☻ 03:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Fuzzypeg: noname has cut into your posting. I've been keeping an eye here this weekend since I'm working at my computer and have found the sentence deleted again. Now noname has decided that the people who esteem Chumbley's work aren't esteemed enough, but as usual has not left information regarding any lack of esteem from any quarter except his opinion. Howard is highly esteemed in UK circles and I can't see that reviews of his books are an issue here. His magazine has never been anything but very highly esteemed-for many years. If only noname could back up his opinions... Aswynn is exceptionally well known in occult circles by anyone above fluffy status. (I once attended a moot where someone picked up a book by Jan Fries, looked at a moot participant named Jan and asked her if she'd written it) Hine being a Chaot has nothing to do with his esteem for Chumbley and is himself esteemed and well known-so faulty logic there. I disagree with that being a shaky position. Lulubyrd 20:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

"Tedious attention-seeking stuff" - or cogent critique?
A lot of posters here are saying that Chumbley was held in "high regard". But the only 2 references to this "high regard" is a brief obit from Andrew Collins who doesnt [sic] have anything to do with the occult/magick scene (need to back Collins credentials up) and a biased obit from Michael Howard who has reason to put Chumbley in a good light since he associated with Chumbley. So beyond that the reference over Chumbley's "high regard in the occult community" is very shaky indeed.Collins and Howard represent a very narrow view on Chumbley. So again people are trying to give Chumbley a status that he never actually had. If this "high regard" is evident then printed reference's to this would have to be produced and not personal point of view. 19:59, 26 November 2006 86.148.25.188 (Talk)

noname: Editorial reviews of Andrew Collins' work:

Graham Hancock, author of Fingerprints of the Gods : "An exciting and original intellectual quest . . . important new facts concerning the mysterious origins of human civilization."

Nigel Jackson, author of The Horned Piper : "A magnificently researched work; its starling conclusions will undoubtedly reverberate over the coming decades."

David Rohl, Egyptologist and author of A Test of Time : "A fascinating piece of research which does much to bring the biblical world of Eden back into the historical spotlight . . . a major contribution to the study of the genesis of civilization."

Barbara Ardinger, Whole Life Times, May 2002 : "Tracking down angels both heavenly and fallen, Collins’ detective work takes him through entire libraries. . . . His conclusion is that we humans are not the first race to live on the planet. Reading books like this one can be as much fun as reading Conan Doyle or Agatha Christie."

Sandy Moss, The Daily Courier, June 2, 2002 : "A fascinating and in-depth look at . . . how actual events inevitably evolve into the stuff of indecipherable legend as centuries pass."

Please do your research before you post. I needed only look in Amazon.com to find this. Have you any credible research to back up your opinion? Please add it here. We have produced ample evidence of the high regard in which Chumbley was held in the occult community. Your opinion of the occult community is not a matter for this page or the article. All has been verified except your opinions. Lulubyrd 21:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your assertion. You havent [sic] produced relevant information (in context) to back up your assertion that Chumbley is held in "high regard" You have used very shaky references to back up a personal point of view. Again the reference from Michael Howard is not [sic] Neutral point of view since he associated with Chumbley.The references from Amazon for Collins are laughable. They do not back up the assertion that he has anything to do with the occult or the practice of ritual magick. So again the Collins reference isnt [sic] acceptable in the context of referencing Chumbley.Also the fact the [sic] term "high regard" is a very subjective one. Academic/historical references cant [sic] elaborate if Chumbley is has such. Thats [sic] why this term isnt [sic] neutral point of view and should be treated has [sic] personal point of view and not legitimate academic fact (in the context of this article).With regard to using Hine and the writer "Aswynn", from a critical academic /historical reference i [sic] suppose they will have to stand for now ...since there is a lack of genuine quality published references. If this was used in academic research it would be laughed at due to the lack of quality references. Internet blogs and reviews wouldnt [sic] be cited has a genuine academic source. But until quality info turns up i [sic] suppose it will have to stand. So to summarise: i [sic] suppose you mean well and have a soft spot for Chumbley's work but a fair percentage of the material you have posted and referenced hasnt supported your argument or assertion. And the "high regard" reference for Chumbley shouldnt [sic] really be included since its not neutral point of view and is not unbiased. And the 2 main references you have use [sic] (Howard & Collins) would not fit neutral criteria.

I don't know why there should be an edit war going on there - if I try to edit without logging in the thing tells me I'm blocked. Why isn't this other guy? As the 'contentious' (allegedly) sentence was my doing I shall simply remove or 'neutralize' it - after all, if any unknowing reader takes but a single step in any direction from this entry, they will start falling over people whose regard for Chumbley and his work is, er - high. reineke 09:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Right, that's the contentious "regard" reference gone: what other problems have you got? I have also removed an assertion for which a citation was needed, and a reference to two authors, for which I will not provide citations. Rather than keep adding items that would make the entry more interesting and informative, I am quite happy to start paring back material that I've added until a satisfactory state of 'neutrality' or tedium is reached. So let me know. reineke 10:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, Darth Reineke, you showed us. A bit of research has shown that noname is a sad lonely man who signs as Bongo666 and who is desperately seeking attention in several wiki discussion pages by posting contentious material. It's obvious that he posts for attention because he goes away when ignored. Also, note how he has moved from one contention to another here. His only reason to be here is the contention. So a pathetic, lonely, uninformed man has taken the stuffing out of an elegant article reflective of its subject. WWDVD? Lulubyrd 13:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The web's full of 'em; my advice is - don't catch his eye. Territory games are so 90s. Never mind, you can always put some passages back in - nothing's that precious here. Chop it out - put it back; after all, this is meant to be fun! And it is. May I? reineke 16:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think some people need to show a bit of grace here. Everybody here wants the Chumbley post to be a decent reflection of the man's work, and how he interacted/regressed from the occult scene. The points over the references still stand. there is a lack of quality info on Chumbley and the material from second hand sources (Internet/blogs/forums etc) has been used to prop up personal views instead of an accurate asessment of the archived work/books/publishing. So dont [sic] blame me for criticising this. If the references and presentation is honest and legit then it will be critic proof. So until then the reasonable criticism ( within context) remains. 22:44, 28 November 2006 81.157.18.46 (Talk) Unsigned by poster, Bongo666

I think I've been graceful enough - your statement above is, unfortunately, not rooted firmly in fact, and your terms of reference are similarly unsound. "Second hand sources" - do you mean "secondary sources", as opposed to primary sources ? There is only one reference to a blog, and that comes with a citation of the paper, hard-copy magazine. The other internet source references conform to Harvard, as well as the Wiki guidelines. But thanks for your advice. reineke 09:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Reineke-I don't suffer contentious fools gladly. I think you've been looking into other things also, re: the return of the What is Traditional Craft? link. I didn't see that it was removed. I must be blind, or something. I'm glad to see your work returned. There is no need to capitulate to someone who has nothing to offer. I'm very pleased with what has been created here. Lulubyrd 00:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Bongo: I think I've matched your grace here. My opinions regarding your motives in posting aren't much different than your opinions regarding Chumbley or the level of verification here. Except for one thing-I can provide verification for my conclusion. I provide the links here to your posts to some other Wiki discussion pages. ,  in which you are politely asked to stop but continue, and wherein there is grave evidence of malicious vandalism.

You have been asked several times for references for your assertions and have not provided them. Your opinion is not appropriate here because everything must be verified. I suggest that you will find the attention you seek in blogs or forums. There are many that treat the subject in Live Journal and Yahoo Groups. There you may find like minded people. Lulubyrd 16:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lulubyrd. I still see that you have an axe to grind. With regard to the posts you have mentioned above, technically this is slander. If anyone neutral wants to check the history of the so-called "vandalism" i have nothing to do with it. The ip addrese's are recorded. And those posts have nothing to do with me. And since you seem to have an axe to grind, i will give you an opportunity to remove them within 7 days of this posts date. If not i will be going to the mediators to report this off topic slander.--Redblossom 00:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Again Lulbyrd i have removed the unproven "accusations". Whatever problem you have this post is not the place to air it. Leave a message on my talk section to air your issues. And if not take it forward to the mediators.--Redblossom 20:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

( since the paragraph is not relevant to Chumbley in anyway i will be deleting these unfounded accusations on the 20th Feb07.If the said accusser wants this accusation to remain then they should take up their issue with mediators and stop lowering the tone of the post.Simple. What ever personal issues the accuser has ,those issues shouldnt detract from this post.I notice they never put their wikiname to it....) --Redblossom 21:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The "Vandalism" on the COA post has nothing to do with me, so withdraw that accusation .The only thing i ever posted on the Coa post was to do with the fact that the COA is primarily a Gardnerian organisation , and that there had been nothing asserted about that. So withdraw the vandalism accusation. With regard to the DuQuette posting, no one else is posting anything on that post so i dont see where the problem with that is, unless one of you want to volunteer. It gets a bit low when people make accusations with regard to vandalism. Is it the case you think my criticism is vandalism? If you feel that strongly about it then get the Wikipedia moderators to take this post to a fine toothcomb. Be my guest. But the criticism still stands. Material is being subverted/manipulated to fit personal point of view. I wont respond to these childish posts again but i assert my right to raise points if they contradict the facts with regard to Chumbley. It could be argued that you are bullying me to stop posting legitimate (within context) criticism. If you feel that strongly get the Wikipedia moderators to decide. But i dont think i have done anything wrong here. Its your call. Wikipedia moderators or a bit of civility and Grace? Your call....("Bongo666")

This type of discussion doesn't belong here; please take it to the 'Talk' page, or an internet forum. You've been very generous with advice, Bongo, and you have been as free as anyone else to rewrite those phrases with which you disagree. Would you like to? reineke 17:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Bongo: Please be polite, and please read more carefully. Many of your criticisms of verification have been because of misreading. The above post indicates such, also. I posted only verified items above, according to Wiki policy. I thought it best to verify what I had asserted in an earlier post, just as verification is demanded for article posting per Wiki policy. I do not want to be cited for making unfounded claims. Nothing I posted has breached civility-you have read into my post an unflattering assertion that is not there. I posted only facts.

You have posted no facts to back up your opinions or "raised points". Please do so. I agree with Reineke; please feel free to rewrite the article with your verification that supports your stance. Lulubyrd 19:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Lets stop this edit war
If we can't cite anyone who states that Chumbley was "respected" in the occult community, then lets just stick with the current wording. I'm a bit surprised no-one's found a citation for that fact (and I agree with Lulu and Reineke, it does seem to be a pretty clear fact). On a hunch I checked the infamous mysterymag article, and it states quite clearly in the first sentence that he was "a leading light in the realms of British Occultism" and goes on to mention many followers, as far as America. Something like that would be all the verification you need.

But it doesn't really matter. The facts speak for themselves, and reading the article any reader will realise that Chumbley was a man of influence and vision. It's certainly not worth beating each other up over. Assume good faith on the part of your fellow contributors, and try to avoid getting drawn into innuendo, insults or edit wars. There are much more productive (and enjoyable) ways to contribute here.

To add a positive note: although tempers have been, ah, warm, the article has undergone fantastic improvement in the last few weeks, through the efforts of all of you (Bongo included). This wording dispute is such a minor blemish on the article compared to everything that you've added, that it doesn't bear getting too upset over. Congratulate yourselves instead. Fuzzypeg ☻ 04:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Knock-out stuff, Lulu - absolutely top-rate; you've been busy! I think that little 'moderately' (as in 'influential') could go play somewhere else now. This is more like fun. Thanks Fuzzy, Bongo too. reineke 16:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks Fuzzypeg. Reineke: re: ''Chumbley asserted that such pan-cultural eclecticism was needful in order to revivify elements of praxis previously existent, though dormant or forgotten, in his own tradition, whose transmission had relied on oral lore and personal contact between successive generations of initiates. [citation needed]-- I can add a citation regarding the fact that the tradition relied upon praxis previously existent, though dormant or forgotten, in his own tradition, whose transmission had relied on oral lore and personal contact between successive generations of initiates through Emma Wilby's book, seemingly taken from a thesis, called Cunning Folk and Familiar Spirits''. Do you want to use that to start? Where will you find a reference to Chumbley saying this? I should have the JSM obit soon for reference. Lulubyrd 16:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears that Bongo isn't finished with the edit war. He has removed verified and referenced material. Bongo: the reference refers to the respect held for Chumbley. It trumps your opinion re: Wiki policy. Please don't remove it again.Lulubyrd 16:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Bongo has removed verified material for the second time in 5 minutes. Fuzzypeg: it's time to pull in the moderators.Lulubyrd 16:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone has added a "Influential" point using academic texts. This could only be proved in a historical context. Its too soon to say he is influential. Academia couldnt verify that so soon.(Bongo666)

Also has a side note your being over-zealous Lulubyrd. The only thing that i removed (and probably restored by you) is the respected and influential words. Nothing else. Because these assertions havent been asserted. Its too soon to say if Chumbley's work is influential. Has anyone written a magickal book in the last year saying Chumbley influenced their magickal work path? The answer is no. You would have to have a pretty strong argument that his work has influenced other people. Its too soon to say.Has there been any occult/magickal books published in the last year which have stated Chumbley has an influence. Academic/historical work doesnt count since these are not occult/magickal. The influential citation cant be justifed. Yet. (Bongo666)

Fuzzypeg: I formally request moderation. This has gone too far. Bongo is denying removals that are in evidence and the removals are of material verified per Wiki policy. His personal attack is in evidence above. Lulubyrd 17:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Do check the history. Bongo changed his offensive remark after I cited it. Lulubyrd 17:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Bongo: You wrote: "Has anyone written a magickal book in the last year saying Chumbley influenced their magickal work path? The answer is no." Wrong. Viridarium Umbris : The Pleasure Garden of Shadow by Daniel Alvin Schulke. That's, um, a pretty big oversight. The many references made to his work by others in just the past two years that I cited in the article is more than enough to prove his influence. The Journal for the Academic Study of Magic encompasses both magical dissertation as well as academic dissertation. Hutton lauds Chumbley in his book and says that he is highly regarded in both the academic and occult community. You are working from opinion, not from fact. Please do some research to back up your opinion and stop removing verified material. Please stop making personal attacks. Reineke: This is not much fun anymore. Lulubyrd 18:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok.. where do i start here? Firstly the "verified material" that i have removed are to two single words. "Respected" and "influential". On both these points all you have done is back your opinion with other peoples work(taken out of context). With regard to Schulke ; Fair play, but Schulke was always going to cite Chumbley anyway. Pretty straight forward. But .....beyond that there isnt a single practicing occult author out there who can cite Chumbley has a.....influence on their magickal/occult work. Simple. So one book doesnt make Chumbley "influential". Who has Chumbley influenced besides his own student? You have not asserted the statement that "Chumbley has been influential on the occult community". With regard to the JASM this is solely an academic publishing concerned with academic presentation of magickal occult matters. Not with regard to actual occult/magickal practice. So i disagree that this is verified material. Its academic material. But it cant be used to prop up an occult /magickal argument. That would be a separate post in itself... (wont go there).And what exactly is "magickal dissertation" exactly? Hutton is an academic who is approaching the occult from an academic's point of view.And his opinion on actual magickal theory and practice doesnt count. So he was not in any position to say if Chumbley was the real deal or not. his books serve a purpose to record the history but he cant be cited has a reliable reference on actual occult practice or theory. I look forward to the moderation and a forthcoming apology.(Bongo666)

Bongo: Your statements reflect a lack of knowledge of the occult and academic community, and it appears that you haven't read the work cited in the article or know anything about the referenced authors beyond a Google search. You have provided nothing that shows the changes you have made are more than your opinion, even in the face of verified material per Wiki policy. You have not referenced your opinions and have no logical refute for the references cited. A magical dissertation is published work "with regard to actual occult/magical practice". What is it you believe you should have an apology for, Bongo? Lulubyrd 20:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually i have read the material you have cited. . But i dont recognise the argument your trying to put across using the same material i have read.. It would be nice if the moderator got on with it and keep all the neutral point of view stuff and culled the rest. With regard to my "knowlege"... instead of my knowledge you should be putting forward a coherent argument for your assertion that "Chumbley has respect in the occult community". You need to build up a decent argument around your references instead of just giving the names of books. And quote from the said books. Page numbers, paragraphs, etc. Its very easy to take material out of context unless you put the quotes in context. In my opinion you havent done this...yet. If the moderator cant decide, then the said above phrase shouldnt be use, yet. But besides that, this is getting to the level of splitting hairs, and i have no wish to continue debating with you Lulubyrd. I await the moderator's verdict with anticipation.--Redblossom 21:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Bongo: If you had read the material, you would be able to argue your points with specifics rather than vague opinions, and would be able to cite your point of view. You have not done so after having been encouraged to do so many times. Please give specifics and quotes that refute my citations regarding the respect the occult community holds for Chumbley. I am not debating with you, Bongo. I am stating that you appear to not have read the cited articles and that you have no apparent knowledge of the cited books, articles or authors beyond a Google search. Prove me wrong with citation, please, or do withdraw as you wish. Please tell me why you believe you should have an apology. Lulubyrd 22:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Use of the word venerable in describing The Cauldron magazine: This was done to vary the description and after consulting a thesaurus (Merriam Webster again-online source)

Entry Word: venerable Function: adjective 2 Synonyms ANCIENT 1, aged, age-old, antediluvian, antique, hoary, Noachian, old, timeworn Related Word elderly; Contrasted Words contemporary, current; fresh, inexperienced, new, untried, unused Lulubyrd 17:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I just had to revert to my verified and neutral point of view posting as per Wiki policy made earlier after Bongo deleted the material.

Re: Burden of verifiability. The paragraph, sentence, etc., is not required to be in the article to be considered verifed-only the name of the publication. Neither is the article name or author required when citing a publication such as a magazine. APA requirements have been met for books and Wiki policy has been met for the verifiability for The Cauldrom articles. This from Wiki verification policy: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Regarding neutral point of view: The assertions made within the article are backed up with facts (see verifiability above). Note that the policy below states that there is not to be an absence of a point of view. That means that according to Wiki policy-that of verifiability and neutral point of view, the burden has been met and any further assertions to the contrary by Bongo are opinion rather than fact, barring verification reflecting his point of view. From Wiki's page on neutral point of view: All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source. The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions. As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject.

Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed.Lulubyrd 00:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I write this for the mediators/moderators. Now Lulubyrd has asked me for references to back up my criticism. Now i would do this but, there is a severe lack of references to use. And i have tried to convey this. The material that Lulubyrd has used does not have anything to add to the "Chumbley was respected in the occult community" assertion. I would use the same material as Lullubyrd if i thought it would clarify my criticism, but the material cited does not do this. 1: The Cauldron magazine. This is not neutral point of because the Cauldron is written, edited, and owned by Michael Howard who was a student and associate of Chumbley. So this cant be cited has neutral under Wikipedia ctiteria. The Cauldron articles are more of an advertisment for Chumbley and are closer to a Hagiography than anything else. These were published when Chumbley was alive so again not neutral.

2 the JASM. The JASM references are themselves good from an academic point if view and are worthy of inclusion in this post. But not in the way Lulubyrd is corrupting them. The JASM is more of a sociological reference point foe academics and sociologists, psychologists, etc, to help identify the cultural standing of the practice of the occult and magic in modern society. Now at no time in the JASM articles is Chumbley referred to has "Respected in the occult community". Now this is where the deviation/corruption of the material enters, Lulubyrd is taking these references out of context to fit his/her assertion. 3: Hutton: Hutton's books are also along the lines of sociological /historical reference. At no time is Hutton in any position to speak with authority on whether or not Chumbley has "respect in the occult community". Hutton is not in a postion to argue magickal theory or to give opinion on whether Chumbley was the real deal. His job was to record from a sociological point of view the cultural references, not occult/magickal practice. So Hutton's reference is closer to the JASM issue. Now the JASM can be used for the post but not in the way Lulubyrd is deviating /corrupting it, to make it fit his/her assertion that "Chumbley was respected in the occult community.

Finally for the mediator/moderator, when its decided what is to be used and kept, i put forward a motion to remove this last section (Stop the edit war) so that it doesnt detract from the article. These arguments can be seen in the History/archive. I agree that the Chumbley article should be accurate and honest and this hair splitting will only detract from the rest.It is important that the language used in this post is neutral since there will be people out there who will try to do historical revisionism in trying to portray Chumbley has something he is not. Students of Chumbley and owners of the Xoanon editions who have an agenda etc. To ensure these agendas dont create a false history legitimate criticism (within context) is vital. --Redblossom 12:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You seem to misunderstand the neutral point of view policy. The article should be written from as close to a neutral point of view as possible, but the sources we report on and quote may be as biased as all heck. When we believe we are reporting a biased or controvertial opinion, it is common to say "So-and-so claimed such and such", and we would generally try to find someone who holds a different view so we could also say "but thingamy-bob believes this is false".
 * However if the cited writer seems authoritative and there are no significant sources who disagree, then their claims may be presented as direct statements (but of course cited with a footnote). One such case is if Hutton claims that Andrew Chumbley is respected/influential. We know that Hutton is a widely respected academic author, published by a good publisher and taught in universities. What he says mirrors what I've read in many other places, and I have not yet read a single published source (in hardcopy or on the web) that contradicts what he's saying. In this case, the statement "Chumbley was respected/influential within the occult community" would be perfectly sufficient, with a citation of Hutton of course, since the statement is clearly verifiable and there are no contrary claims. Now we still have no guarantee that what Hutton says is true, but no matter. Remember, the measure by which material is judged in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.
 * However to keep the peace here, I suggest we either stick with the current wording or say something along the lines of "Chumbley has been described as respected and influential in the occult community.[cite Hutton]". Fuzzypeg ☻ 01:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If Hutton used those exact words i would still not use it since he wasnt in any position to say that. Hutton is an academic reporting from a sociological point of view, and was creating a persona for Chumbley through a lack of subjects willing to talk to him , so he was making the most of the Chumbley association. Also the issue of Chumbley "selling" his ideas and philosophy to Hutton. So it could be argued that the Hutton article on Chumbley is nothing more than a elaborate advertisement for Chumbley with academic assertions.So i still refute Hutton's reference. With regard to the word influence suggests that he has held sway over a lot of magickal occult practioners which is clearly not the case. Putting aside the Cultus Sabbati membership which is probably no more that 8-9 people max on the planet (By invitation only for "membership") Chumbley has not influenced the magickal current, has not influenced the work of genuine occultists in print(outside of the Cultus Sabbati anyway) yet. So it cant be verified or said that he has been "influential". Anyway how would you verify "influential " on a magickal occult level that could be verified in print anyway? I am open to suggestions here.I put forward the motion that Chumbley was known of but not "influential or respected". --Redblossom 21:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys: Fuzzypeg and Reineke, thanks for the edits that cleaned things up. The article is looking very good. Lulubyrd 14:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Lulu: Pleasure! Redblossom: you seem to have some clear ideas of what Chumbley was not (not 'is not' - he's dead, remember?); could you give a summary of what Chumbley was not so we know what to avoid? I propose all the debate re 'Edit War' be retained, so that others who might be tempted to contribute know what they might be entering into. It doesn't detract from the article and removal would constitute the 'revisionism' you so rightly deplore. From my perspective that virtually wraps the article up; can you list the amendments you require to the article in its present state so I can resolve those quickly and move on? Thanks! reineke 17:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I actually agree with Reineke. The post/articles has they stand just now are fine by me. Its just the "Chumbley was respected/influential in the occult community" assertion that Lulubyrd was attempting to pass off, that i was taking issue with. The points over the JASM and The Cauldron are still decent references for the career of Chumbley but only in a historical context. The JASM covers all the academic and sociological aspects but beyond that cant be used to prop up Lulubyrd's assertion. The trick is to make sure no one turns historical references into some sort of personal revisionism. It will take years if not decades to decide if ~Chumbley has been "influential/respected", and attempting to assert this just now is revisionism and manipulation.--Redblossom 18:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm very pleased to hear that, RB! If you check back you'll find it was me that introduced the statement about Chumbley's influence, and did so from personal knowledge. I used the meter of book prices because the extent and nature of his influence is extremely difficult to encapsulate in a Wiki-proofed sound-bite. Unfortunate that we have had to discount statements by the persons who are best qualified to comment on Chumbley's status, on account of their being sympathetic (for different reasons) to the man, or just interested in his work. It doesn't matter - that was never the crucial part of the article, anyway. Your assertion that "It will take years if not decades to decide if Chumbley has been "influential/respected", and attempting to assert this just now is revisionism and manipulation" is plainly absurd - there are plenty of contemporary sources who can be (and have been) quoted to demonstrate that Chumbley is widely respected; likewise his influence since 1992 has done nothing but spread. Note also that 'revisionism' cannot take place until the history is written in the first place; given that this Wiki entry is now potentially the most informative single source on Chumbley - in print or on the web - the process of historicising is only just beginning.

I'll leave it there now - I was until recently quite keen to add more to the article, but - well, I refer you to the words of John 11:35 (Authorized Version). reineke 11:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Reineke. The material cited for Chumbley, i have no problem with. Its good in its own right. Its just when its taken out of context. With regard to the "respected/influential" points i still stand by my criticism, until there is published neutral material backing up this assertion the assertion cant be used from Wiki's neutral policy.I have had a love/hate relationship with the occult for the last 15 years and i feel its important that false reputations are not created from people with an agenda.An example being Amando Crowley who tries to sell himself has the "son" of Crowley.From my own experience of being involved in the occult the opinions i got about Chumbley from people have varied greatly, Wiccans think he is the messiah, Hermeticists think he is wretched , Thelemites who think his work is a satire on Austin Osman Spare, and Theosophists who think his work is pretentious. So i have tried to keep an open mind about the work of Chumbley in context. I have had the Xoanon editions myself, but ended up giving them to friends since i thought they were repeating the work of other people. (but thats just a personal point of view).So in conclusion if you have material about Chumbley ,Reineke put it in to the post. If its legit then it will be critic proof!!!--Redblossom 17:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Red, I don't agree with your assertions regarding the denominations of the esoteric scene; you are generalising. From personal observation, there are a great many Wiccans (i.e. followers of Gardner and Sanders et alia) who view Chumbley's work as plain 'evil', while some Wiccans appreciate it and have put it to work for them. I don't know of any Thelemites who think the work is a 'satire' (sic) on anything - but again, some appreciate it and some don't. Likewise the others. If you saw nothing original in Chumbley's books, then that's regrettable, because there is much that is. Further, there are elements of others' work that Chumbley took and used to make something original, fresh and (most importantly) practical and workable in magical terms. You will find this with any artist, writer, whatever - deconstruct their work and you will find out what they had previously been reading. That's not new or interesting; what is interesting, indeed vital for criticism and analysis, is to detect those elements and contextualise them in an articulate fashion.

I'll agree to overlook your last, slightly gauche, request, because it would be inappropriate for you to post your personal address in a discussion page such as this. I've used the material to hand in writing for this article; I have now ceased to do that. You have some strong ideas which you should definitely work up and add to the article. reineke 15:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

"Chumbley's" Use of the term "Sabbatic"
Someone needs to reference Chumbleys point of reference for "Sabbatic Craft", and acknowledge that either its an artificial construct of Chumbley's or the Sabbatic term has been "influenced" (to be kind) by Spares "Atavistic Resurgence" and by the material that Kenneth Grant introduced to the world in the early 1970s (Aleister Crowley & the Hidden god ;Frederick Mueller 1973 - Chapter 7 The Sabbatic Wine and the Devil's Graal, and Chapter 10 The Witches Sabbath and the reincarnation of Primal Obsessions.--Redblossom 22:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok..where do i begin. Firstly the term "artificial" construct was misguided.I will be arguing the word plagiarism is more suited.The assertion i will put forward is that "Chumbley's" Sabbatic craft is no more then copying the work of Spare and to a lesser extent the writings of Kenneth Grant, and passing it off has his own "work". The first point of reference i give is The Zoetic Grimoire of Zos by Austiin Osman Spare. The Chapter on the Witches Sabbath. quote; "he who transmutes the traditionally ugly into another aesthetic value has new pleasures beyond fear". This is in relation to the use of the use of reversing the human senses to achieve the "Neither-Neither" in the Sabbatic ritual. Of course this is Spare's work but you can see how Chumbley can take the ideas of Spare to pass of the Sabbatic reference of his own.Also in Kenneth Grants Book Aleister Crowley & the Hidden God (Frederick Muller Ltd 1973) Chapter 6: Dream Control by Sexual Magick Grant relate how the use of using the dream to effect change on a magickal level using certain techniques citing the work of Spare himself. So again when Chumbley is using references for Dream work, it can be stated with confidence he is plagiarising Spare's and to a lesser extent Grant's work has well.So to say that Chumbley is "influenced" by Spare is a very kind way of putting it.....In Chapter 9 of Grants AC and the Hidden God ;Chapter 9 The Witches Sabbath and the Reincarnation of Primal Obsessions there is a serious amount of material relating to the Sabbatic references: p134 quote; "The Sabbath is a form of mass hysteria which releases almost unlimited quantities of preconceptual energy" End quote.So again it is very difficult to justify the Sabbatic Craft has something manifested by Chumbley, when printed history is littered with points of reference from other practioners and writers.--Redblossom 14:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

But Bongo, this is simply your theory. You must give a reference wherein someone else has actually published this theory for it to be included here. Just as Fuzzypeg has mentioned, it would be good to have a balanced article-but it must be done right.

You might do better discussing this in detail somewhere like an internet egroup dedicated to thrashing out this kind of theory. Yahoo groups is a great place to find a group like that, or if you can't find one, it takes less than 5 minutes to set one up-and as the owner/moderator, you have control of who is in the group-heavy thinkers I should imagine, and what is discussed. I'm sorry, but I don't have time to read and discuss this here. But in the right venue, you should be able to find all kinds of like minded people for debate and discussion of theories like this. You might even attract someone who has published, and find a link to a reference that can be posted here. Lulubyrd 15:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all Lulubyrd why do you insist on refering to me has Bongo? The wiki name i use is Redblossom. It would be nice if you were civil and used the Wiki name thanks. Anyway..... what theory are you pointing out here. I havent elaborated any "theory" here. The first printed references to the term "Sabbatic" in occult writing/books does start with Spare. Before Spare most of the books published in the UK dealing with the Occult all had a masonic slant or were dealing with the Golden Dawn. So can you elaborate on the supposed "theory".--Redblossom 18:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

When you have signed your posts, you have signed as Bongo666. Since I find the numbers silly, I have been shortening the name for the sake of at least my dignity. Everything you have posted here is your personal theory. You have been unable to reference it with a published reference. It is, as far as you have posted here, only your original research which is not relevant in Wikipedia. Without a published reference, it appears that your concepts/theories belong to you alone. That is inappropriate material for Wikipedia and I have made suggestions regarding appropriate venues for voicing your theories as well as ways to legitimize your theories. The term Sabbatic can be found in far reaching and wide resources including those of a Christian and an academic context, so attributing the term to Spare is incorrect. Whether it is first seen at all in Spare's writings or not (reference for the exact term Sabbatic rather than sabbath published by Spare would be helpful to this discussion) is irrelevant since it has been in use within a broader context for centuries. The term Sabbatic Craft does not start with Spare, and neither does the term Sabbatic. A Google search turns up all kinds of references to the term sabbatic. I don't remember seeing Spare ever use the term Sabbatic Craft. Where will I find his use of that exact term? Lulubyrd 19:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Your being rude now Lulbyrd. The post deals with an occultist. Spare himself was an occultist. We are dealing with the career of an occultist.The context is the occult. In the context of the term Sabbatic used for occult writing. We are talking about the context of the word Sabbatic used in occult literature and use by Chumbley and where it has come from. But i think you know this anyway. I like a good argument if it helps people to understand but your hairsplittig is taking this post to another sad level. And your inability to to be civil to me over my wiki name, gives away your sarcastic agenda Lulubyrd. Would you be happy if i just removed this sub post to appease your blood lust here Lulubyrd so at least you can maintain your one-upmanship here? I will change the heading of the sub post to clarify it. Hopefully that will appease you for now.Would you prefer it if people didnt know where Chumbley got all his material from. Do you want people to have an honest post on Chumbley? Also where do you stand on Chumbley Lulubyrd? Are you a fan or Student of the late Chumbley?I have declared my reasons for posting here but you havent.And your attempts to use material for historical revisionism makes me doubt your sincerity. For the record can you state your position on where you stand on Chumbley's work and material?Redblossom 12:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Where did Spare use the term Sabbatic and the term Sabbatic Craft? Please give the references requested.

We are not discussing the use of the term Sabbatic in occult literature. You are insisting that it refers to Spare's working paradigm only. I have pointed to easily referenced material that indicates the far reaching use of the term Sabbatic and its connotations. You have not shown one reference relevant to Chumbley regarding your personal theory, instead expressing only vague generalities. Please post a specific quote by anyone wherein they say that Chumbley plagiarized Spare's or Grant's work. That is the only form of reference that will acceptably promote your theory. Please don't remove my material here. Lulubyrd 13:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I went away and had a cup of coffee and thought about this further. Why don't you borrow back the copies of Chumbley's books you gave away and do a comparative study with the material you're presenting here, and publish it? (not here-in a magazine or journal) Then you can add that as a reference that balances this article. It's not hard at all to get something like this published somewhere like the JSM. It's juried, so it's prestigious and the jury system keeps the articles on track. All publishing concerns have submission guidelines on websites. If you're worried about your privacy, a pseudonym would be in order. Lulubyrd 16:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

So do it. Full references required. Make sure that the references are to published statements that unequivocally state that Chumbley's Sabbatic Craft is an artificial construct, and that it was influenced by the particular works of Spare and Grant that you list above as you propose. Your personal opinion is not good enough according to Wiki policy. We've been waiting for you to actually add something to the article. Here's your chance! However anything not referenced to published material that may be accessed (as per Wiki policy) will, of course, be removed. Lulubyrd 23:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Additional information regarding Chumbley's influences and repitition of themes from other authors would be great. Unfortunately this article seems to be perpetually on the edge of an edit war, so with trust at a low ebb, solid referencing and reliable sources will help your case a lot. However remember, your sources need be neither neutral, nor unequivocal on their opinions. If their neutrality seems suspect, or if they are merely claiming likelihood rather than fact, we can still find good ways to word their statements. See my comments regarding WP:NPOV above. Fuzzypeg ☻ 01:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You're so right, Fuzzypeg! I had misunderstood the requirements. Well, in any case, Bongo, please do carry on. We are all looking forward to seeing your research on the subject. The article already states that Chumbley was influenced by Spare and Grant, but it certainly would add to it if you have references that say that those particular works you propose are the influence for the term Sabbatic Craft, rather than Chumbley's statement to the contrary quoted in the article. I am not as well read as some here who are contributing. Who has made these assertions in print? Where can I read about this? Unfortunately, I don't have the time to read the material you have cited as original research, but I would have time to read an assessment in print, as you have proposed here for reference in the article. Lulubyrd 14:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your impeccable diplomacy and kindliness, Fuzzy. I would like to make clear that there is no 'edit war' going on where I sit. It wouldn't be useful. reineke 15:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Bongo: I have reverted the article to your great revision on 12/5. It's not done to wreck your premise, but the revisions need work before they fly in the article. If you remove the "imitators of" [chumbley's style] to read as his style, you will have to provide a reference that it is indeed a model of his style. The references as Azoetia being a model for imitators of Chumbley's style is evident in the stylistic work of imitators. The evidence of it being a model of Chumbley's style is incorrect, because he had already published writing in his unusual personal style, and the previously published (as early as 1992, maybe earlier) pieces are a model for his style, not the later Azoetia. You must stop with {citation needed} within the article where you feel one is needed, then come here to discuss your theory. Changing and adding to "this procedure, in which the magician offers her or himself as a vehicle for the forces summoned instead of utilising another as medium, is commonly encountered in occult tradition, (such as Maat Magick (Nema)Chaos magick/IOT Techniques which Ray Sherwin and Phil Carroll "borrowed from Spare has well)" is not proper citation form. It is discussion. If you change it from rare to common, you must have references. Rare means that there aren't any references to be found that say otherwise and by default can have no reference. If you can make references, then good-but what you posted is not acceptable citation. You will need to make specific references to this being common, such as examples in print. If it's as widespread as you indicate, this shouldn't be difficult. Lulubyrd 17:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok...if there have been "imitators" of Chumbley can you state which published occult authors have "imitated" Chumbley and say for argument The Azoetia? ( Cant use Xoanon/Cultus Sabbati material . Not Neutral) As far has i know there hasnt been a published occult book over the last couple of years which has been an imitation of Azoetia. If there has can you elaborate? If not its just Historical revisionism your expressing and inflating Chumbley's historical career. And please stop calling me Bongo .The Wiki name i use is Redblossom.A bit of civility would be nice. Thanks--Redblossom 19:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Michael Ford has made a habit in the past of imitating Chumbley's work, right down to naming his books in a imitative manner. This has ocurred in "the past couple of years" but what does when it ocurred have anything to do with, um, anything? What Cultus/Xoanon material? That statement makes no sense. As Reineke has pointed out, it can't be historical revisionism if there is no historical context. I haven't expressed anything... You have signed as Bongo666. You appear to be rambling. Lulubyrd 20:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Your being rude again Lulubyrd. I'll let it pass. I done a google search for Ford and it never returned anything along the lines of what your reciting, here. Is there a specific website for Michael Ford and do you have the web address please? And the term "imitators " (plural) was used. So there would have to be someone else you could recommend has a "imitator".And when i use the term "imitator", i mean in the sense of a published occult /magickal book. Thanks.

Actually, you are incorrect regarding Wiki policy. It needn't be a published/magical book, though Ford has published so. I also needn't recommend any others, per Wiki policy, but will. Elda Isela Ford has made a past habit of imitating Chumbley's work in published books. Now you have two references (plural). Lulubyrd 13:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Not certain whether the dialogue re 'imitators' is likely to go anywhere useful, so I have removed my comment regarding same from the article. End of that one. Good that you are trying to have a go at contributing to the piece now, Red; if you'd like to bring your points to the discussion here, I will help work them up into passages that will enhance the article. Can you give the points you'd like to make, in brief? Also, as said before, if you would like to make clear the points already in the text that you have an issue with, I'll remove the relevant phrases/sentences - if they were added by me. reineke 15:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be an objection to my statement that Chumbley was known "within the broader occult community" - the word "broader" has been repeatedly removed. So I've deleted the remark, which also neatly eliminates the problem about the resale value of the books/ popularity etc. blah etc. reineke 16:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed a stray bit of reference recently added to the notes part of the article that does not refer to anything written in the article. Posted material should refer to items in the article and proper references made. Lulubyrd 16:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)