User talk:Car Henkel/Archive 1

Alchemy discussion
Car Henkel, perhaps we should work together instead of against each other if you are intending to become a frequent contributor to Wikipedia on alchemical subjects. Remember that the truth is not important to Wikipedia, only that every statement must have a credible source. The entire alchemy section is a muddle, and it does need to be improved. What I feel it needs is a full range of interpretations presented fairly, a detailed history, and references to the original alchemical writings. It is not the job of Wikipedia to teach what alchemy is, there are already a thousand web sites for this, each with their own theory. What the readers come to Wikipedia for is to get an unbias overview, which covers all theories without pushing one or another on the reader. Wikipedia is here to provide information, not answers. The reader themselves will eventually make up their own mind, or lose interest in the subject. Let me know your intention and perhaps we can work together on this. Will Timony, Ph.D (talk) 05:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

RE: Yes, we can certainly keep each other in check and this way we will be able to expand and improve the articles more efficiently. I very much like your writing style. Though I would like to dispute regarding the primary/secondary sources argument, and for this I have made a new topic on both Talk:Philosopher's_stone and Talk:Alchemy (probably I should have not posted the same thing on both, but never mind that now.) So take a look and let me know what you think. Will Timony, Ph.D (talk) 06:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Car, I apologize for the hostility over on Talk:Alchemy - it's not personal, only a difference of opinion. I hope we can both continue contributing as we were, but focusing more on reliable sources. I am convinced that the spiritual interpretation arose in the 19th century, if you can find equally reliable sources suggesting this to be different then this can be editing into the skeptical statements I wrote citing the sources I mentioned. I'd also like the philosophical principles (polarity, adherence to nature, macrocosm/microcosm, etc.) to be in a separate section from the spiritual concept that alchemy is not practical primarily, as the philosophical principles are not doubted. Will Timony, Ph.D (talk • contribs) 06:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Citations and alchemy
Hi Car, I get your point concerning citation overkill and cleaned up History of Alchemy to make it neater in that respect. Regarding the removal, I've only been removed those short paragraphs, seemingly randomly inserted by people in the past with no reliable citation, and only if I believe them to be false or wholly irrelevant. Although you have been putting them back in reworded and with citation, so in a way that it's a system which works quite well, since I am not willing to spend my time looking for citation to support a statement which I don't approve of - but by removing it, you fix it. I'll keep this to a minimum, I don't think there are many left now anyway (except a few suspect statements at the bottom of History of Alchemy.)

Concerning peer-review and sources: it's not immediately obvious to most people which books are peer-reviewed and which are not. Most books from university publishers have 2 authors. One of those authors will have written the majority of the book, the other author just has their name on it, which is simply their support of it, they may or may not have contributed to writing it. So for instance, Newman will not have written all those books on alchemy, but since he is well known, when a new scholar wants to publish they will ask him to put his name on it, which will give the book credibility. He will agree only if he agrees to what is in the book, since if it has a bad reception then his credibility is at stake. That's not the peer review process itself, but it's a good way of telling if the book has been through a peer-review because they would not do one without the other. So you can be sure that all books from university presses with 2 authors had a peer-review. If there is only one author and it is from a university press then it may or may not have had a peer-review. Some universities subject all their publications to peer-review, and some do not. Some of them just act like normal publishers, except they print educational-type books. You just have to try to find out in these cases, if the statement requires a peer-reviewed source. So the safest bet is if there are 2 authors. Non-university publishers don't have a peer-review process, and especially any book from an spiritual/alternative publisher is no better than a web site concerning this particular topic, since it is no more than one person's opinion. However, if this book has citations in it to more reliable sources then you can follow the trail and hope to find a reliable source saying the same. Will Timony, Ph.D (talk • contribs) 07:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Concerning the citation needed marks, I was literally asking for citation. You still need to cite where you got the information from. For some points in some articles it would not be required, but I think it's necessary for all statements in alchemy since this topic is so sensitive. The policy states "any material challenged or likely to be challenged", which is anything that everyone doesn't already know. E.g. "The history of alchemy has become a vigorous academic field", has it really? I didn't know it was considered a vigorous field. I just want the citation to back up the statement. Also, how is alchemy related to witchcraft? (Or at least, who said it and where?) The university departments probably don't need citation, but it would be nice to cite the departments' pages on the university sites. Will Timony, Ph.D (talk • contribs) 07:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Final note: I don't harbor any negative feelings towards you, and I hope you don't towards me. In person I'm light hearted about my arguments, even though I state them very strongly and directly, but this doesn't come across over the Internet, so I probably end up looking like a very stubborn and arrogant person. :) Will Timony, Ph.D (talk • contribs) 08:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In List of alchemists, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Greco-Roman Egypt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)