Talk:Hargrave Jennings

Hargrave Jennings and ORMUS materials
Hargrave Jennings' interests were not exclusive to phallic studies... His writings included other topics, some of which are only being understood recently do to progress in scientific investigations. His mention of ORMUS materials is essential. If you Catherineyronwode wish to reorganize or delete material, it is common practice to discuss the proposed activity in advance. Please try to be more civilized in the co-creation of this repository of knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)


 * I have read almost every book by Hargrave Jennings and he did not mention "ORMUS materials." If you want to create a page on "ORMUS Materials." Please refrain from making false claims about the work of Hargrave Jennings. Also, you say that he did not write exclusively about Phallism. True -- and the list of works cited in this stub proves that point. If you can improve the article by adding biographical material about Mr. Jennings, please do. Catherineyronwode 04:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have read only one book by Hargrave Jennings and have seen several mentions of ORMUS materials... you have obviously overlooked them; perhaps you do not have sufficient background in modern alchemical studies to have recognized the mentions. Have you ever held the "Eternal Glowing Lamps" in your hands (as mentioned in the book of his that I referenced)? I have. And I have manufactured the materials he repeatedly discusses. Additionally, I have provided evidence to support his claims; I think the gentleman (and his colleagues) would be most grateful to have been acknowledged at last. As regards creation of followup pages for ORMUS etc. you will notice that I have created links as such and will attend to them as I have time available. Before you make "false claims" about other peoples work, you should be sure that you are adequately informed about the subject at hand. There are hundreds of scientists who are familiar with the material I posted. Your suggestion that I have made "false claims" is an insult and I expect an apology is in order. In any event, your hasty deletion was uncalled for and in future I would recommend that you engage the other party in a civilized manner prior to vandalizing their work and come to a constructive agreement. The article may need work, editing and referral pages, this is true; but the approach to collaboration is very important in a collective repository such as this. I hope you can understand these simple truths.  "Without investigation, no right to speak!" ~MAO TSE TUNG  Peace be with you friend~  ‡Elder H Alfred Goolsbee   —Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)


 * 'Elder Goolsbee': (1) Please sign your mail! cf WP:SIG (2)  It looks as though you have insulted Catherinyronwode's intelligence ('I hope you can understand these simple truths' comes across as ironic.  If it isn't meant ironically, please feel free to say so).  If it is meant ironically then that is uncivil.  (3) I can see no evidence that Catherinyronwode vandalised your page.  She was editing boldly as she is meant to do. (4) You were asked to verify your inclusion of ORMUS materials in the article.  It was said that they don't form part of the man's work.  I must say that it seems possible to me that you may be failing to distingusih between ORMUS (an Orbitaly Re-arranged M-State element - colloguially called an ORMUS - which I see no evidence on the net of Jennings writing about) and Ormus (possible founder of the Rosicucians - which he is credited with having written about). This suspicion is strengthened by the fact that ORMUS substances were discovered in the 1970s - while Jennings died in the 1890s.  You linked him to ORMUS and thus bear the onus.  But your response was to refer to 'a book' or 'the book of his that I referenced' by Jennnings.  Which book?  Please could you now verify your information by reference to named publications in order that concensus may be reached with respect to the conflicting views propounded by you and Catherinyronwode. Thank you in advance!  --165.146.132.30 15:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Having asked you to sign your mail I promptly signed without having logged in. My most humble apologies! --Adam Brink 16:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * and signing it in red is not all that helpful either, but I'm on Cat's side too. Carptrash 23:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * In case you haven't quite figured it out the fellow above is drawing a rather broad leap from the "ever burning lamp" of the rosicrucians and this ORMUS theory. It's rather silly really.  As far as I can tell this fellow is probably somehow connected with this "ormus ocean fast" group which sells some kind of new age crap, gold from seawater or something.  I didn't spend much time looking at their webpage as it's sort of garish looking and too early in the morning for such nonsense. ::::Worlock93 11:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * After viewing this page and making the comment above yesterday I returned to look over the website for this ormus ocean fast group. This did nothing but re-affirm that this group is selling some new age type "something or other."  There is NO information online concerning this group and their products other than their OWN webpage. It is my opinion that this ormus stuff seems to be nothing more than an advert for an organiztion that carries no recognition outside of their own material. If the person feels the need to have this on wikipedia they should create an apropriate page for it.  Where i'm sure it will be voted for deletion at another time.  The poster claims on their reverts: "you must use a democratic process on wikipedia if you choose to discount another person's perspective"  yes and YOU need to follow wikipedia's standards of which this ormus stuff is clearly in opposition of.  It has no verifiability, you give no sources (pointing blankly at a book and saying "it's in there" is not a reference!) and you POV is not neutral. ::::Worlock93 13:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * "According to a lesser-known legend of the 18th century Rosicrucian group called the Golden and Rosy Cross, the Rosicrucian Order was created in the year 46 when an Alexandrian Gnostic sage named Ormus and his six followers were converted by one of Jesus' disciples, Mark. From this conversion, Rosicrucianism was supposedly born, fusing early Christianity with Egyptian mysteries." - https://www.chemeurope.com/en/encyclopedia/Rosicrucianism.html - Sr. Capella Lux  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.117.65.181 (talk) 23:12, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Restoraation of extrernal link and why it matters
In 1994, when i first published my theory that Hargrave Jennings was the author of the "Nature Worship and Mystical Series," i was the sole promoter of this theory, and i worked hard to make my case, especially as it contradicted the bibliographical notes of Gershon Legman, an expert in the field. To my surprise, with the passage of time, no contentions have been published against the logic of my case, and, even more gratifyingly, institutions such as Google Books now routinely attribute the authorship of these titles to Hargrave Jennings, as if it had always been so.

One reason for this is that today's scholars tend to take the word of Wikipedia as fact -- and in Wikipedia, my theory is given free and unopposed expression.

However, it should be noted that the author of the Wikipedia article attributing these works to Hargrave Jennings, was ... none other than myself.

Now, at one time there was a link from the Wikipedia Hargrave Jennings article back to my bibliographical web page, as the source of the attributions, but a rather angry editor removed the link, saying that my web site was not a "reliable source" according to Wikipedia standards. Thus Wikipedia divested itself of the source for the information that i had contributed to it, considering the information itself "reliable" but my page of bibliographical research "unreliable."

Wikipedia is a nightmare of its own making, and i don't wish to beat that dead horse, but speaking as a researcher, i expect to be acknowledged for the work i have done, as as long as Wikipedia lists Hargrave Jennings as the author of the books for which i have listed him as the author, i will work for the reinstatement of the external link to my bibliographical web page.

Wikipedia cannot have it both ways. Either my site is "reliable" and the Wikipedia article should acknowledge it, or the information comes from an "unreliable" source and must be entirely deleted from Wikipedia.

catherine yronwode, no longer bothering to log in 70.36.137.39 (talk) 19:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Criticism
Being the only reference I found on the Wikipedia about the phallicism doctrine, and being Jennings the modern author of this doctrine, I found it was needed to add that other occultist authors, being Jennings one, disagree with his view. --CalaClii (talk) 03:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)