Talk:Andrew D. Chumbley

Archives

1 2 3 4

Some of you here are real sad cases. Some of you need to step out of your fantasy world/buble you have created for yourselves. I presume you are adults?! Its one thig to present the history of a publishers vanity projects, but its something else to "create" the idea that this Cumbley person was a "magician". I am sorry to break this to you but Harry Potter is not real!!. Shock horror!! Try to groud this article in a bit of reality please. I concur with the child who says this article is laughable. Some of you neede to coe away from your Dungeons & Dragons games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.147.11 (talk) 07:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any intelligent adult is likely to rise to that bait. If you'd like to remove 'magician' from the article, please feel free to do so. There are two very excellent moderators who have been kind enough to interest themselves in this article - you can read the comments of one of them above.

Would you like to change it to 'occultist'? - it's a broader catch-all term which is identifiable to non-magicians such as yourself, and, although the word is considered somewhat 'woolly' by practising magicians they tend to be tolerant of such gaucherie. reineke 10:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Bongo, you haven't answered my requests to clarify your concerns, other than to say that Chumbley probably wasn't an occultist. That's an absurd response, but it's not entirely unexpected, considering you've been lurking here for months making yourself a pain to other editors, criticising their work and insulting them, and almost invariably not providing any evidence to support your assertions. I can only conclude that you have some personal dislike for Chumbley and intend to make this article reflect badly on him by whatever means necessary. Either that or this is somehow fulfilling some need you have for social interaction. In future I'm going to ignore you as much as possible, and limit my responses to you to the bare minimum, unless you clearly state what issue of fact or WP policy your complaints are based on. Reineke and Lulubyrd, please help me get this talk page pleasant and business-like again by being completely civil and courteous to this person, but keeping our responses to them as brief as possible unless they make a valid point. Lets not waste time and emotion. Fuzzypeg☻ 23:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

OK! reineke 08:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

OK from me, too. Lulubyrd 12:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I dont know who this Bongo character is but i am sorry that supposedly mature adults on Wikipdia seriously consider the title of "magicican" has an occupation. If the article wants to be taken seriously then it does have to be grounded in some reality. Publisher yes. Magician ? No. If some of you are sensitive to the posts, challenging this, then you need to get out more often. Using the term magician is not a neutral term. None of you here can say that he was a magician. Did you witness is "magic"? I will wager none of you have. So in that context the trm is not neutral. Wrong? Right? The article itself is ok. Just small silly things like this which stop the article from being taken seriously.and i am syre that you want this article to reflect the career of Chumbley in a civilised fashion? If so a bit of grounding and reality woulodnt go amiss. Jeremiah Squeak.--85.211.162.203 12:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Chumbley is only notable for magic; giving his occupation as "magician" makes no epistemilogical claims and is quite acceptable per ArbCom Paranormal 6.2. Fuzzypeg☻ 05:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but i have to disagree on that point. Chumbley was notable for his publishing. Not Magic. Your fabricating something that is not there. Like a previous poster said, how would people know that he done magic? Because he said so? Very poor criteria for notability. None of you Wikipedians here are in any position to decide/judge if he was a magician. The books he published are not evidence. The interviews he gave are not evidence of him being a magician. So where is the verifiable evidence that he was a magician. To me this smacks of fabrication. --Redblossom 17:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a little like saying that Aleister Crowley was notable for his publishing, not his magic. We have a number of sources cited in the article that describe his magical work and his membership in or even leadership of various magical orders. Epistemology aside (which I discuss above), his occupation as magician seems quite sufficiently verified. Please cite your opposing evidence. Fuzzypeg☻ 22:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Crowley is an exception. We have magickal diaries published. We have in print from students of Crowley who worked magick with him. There is nothing of that nature alluded to about Chumbley. Yes Crowley was a publisher. But he was the real deal. Chumbley wasnt a head of various orders. He was the head of an "order" he created himself. This does not mean he was a magician. Maybe an occultist. But not a magician. The Ku Cell doesnt count has an order.And did The Companie of the Serpent Crosse actually exist outside Chumbleys head? The term "magician" hasnt been verified. And it wont be until his magickal diaries are made available for peer review. Until then the term magician is a fabrication.--Redblossom 18:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

We have a number of 3rd-party citations attesting to his magical career. Rather than accuse me of fabrication, please provide your opposing evidence, properly cited. You have consistently denigrated Chumbley over the months you've been here, and made other editors jump through all kinds of hoops (and put up with your insults) just to prove that your bizarre criticisms, which you never seem to provide evidence for, are wrong. I don't put Chumbley on any kind of pedestal, but you seem to hate him virulently, and I'm not going to change the article to reflect your pet peeves. Fuzzypeg☻ 21:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Well this is the point Fuzzypeg, there is no evidence. I havent denigrated the late Chumbley. I have criticised very poor citiations and references which are not true. And the fact some contributors have taken those references out of context. ( That old chestnut.) Like i said earlier Chumbley wasnt a head of various orders. He was the head of an order he created himself. He wasnt the head of the Ku Cell or the joint Typhonian stuff, and there is no proof that the Company of the Serpent Cross existed outside his own head. Again i use the term fabrication here. When a history student invetigates the writings of dead people they have to correlate it with their contemporaries and their peers to have a full and roundeded picture of the historical figure. In this case this hasnt happened here. And what 3rd party citations are you identifying? Howard's dont count since they are not neutral.So can you elaborate on the 3rd party citations that justify your editing?--Redblossom 18:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

And you expect me to accept your unsupported assertions over the published assertions of reputable sources? (and yes, that includes Howard!) No. I also think you misunderstand exactly what the article is establishing here: we are not trying to present a definitive history, as that would involve making judgements on positions of fact. Rather we are presenting the verifiable data that we have about what people said about the man, what he published, etc. It's up to the reader to draw their own conclusions. The more data we can present and the wider the viewpoints expressed, the more material there will be for the reader to base their judgements on and the better the article will be. Hence my constant requests that you provide evidence. Fuzzypeg☻ 04:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree Fuzzypeg. Most of the references used are merely interviews and articles written by Chumbley and his student Howard. These are not neutral since they are closer to a hagiography and essentially a advertisement for Chumbley.

Things that havent been verified:

Can it be verified that Chumbley was a magician through neutral references? No. Can it be verified that The Company of the Serpent Cross existed outside Chumbleys head?No. Can it be verified that Chumbley was "knowledgedable" concerning Enochian? (Nothing suggests so.)--Redblossom 12:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Redblosom: Phil Hine wrote a book called Condensed Chaos, cited in the article, in which he treats the subject of magick. In the citations for further reading found in Condensed Chaos, on the subject of magick he cites Chumbley. When Chumbley's work is cited as further magical reading, it makes Chumbley cited as a magician. Magicians write magical treatises. Phil Hine is an independent source stating that Chumbley is a magician. Lulubyrd 21:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This is becoming childish nonsense now. A reference in a Hine book doesnt make Chumbley a magician. It makes him an author, and possibly an occultist. But not a magician. And your taking a Hine reference out of context.Again. A bibliography reference doesnt make a person a magican. At no time is there verifiable info to attest to Chumbley being a "magician". Anyway i agree with an earlier poster. The term just makes this article look childish, and makes Chumbley come across has a inadequate fantasist. Is that the way you want Chumbley to be perceived. Can we have some grounding in this article?--Redblossom 14:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Definition of Personal Attack from Wikipedia: Generally, a personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when examining another person's claims or comments. It is considered a personal attack when a person starts referencing a supposed flaw or weakness in an individual's personality, beliefs, lifestyle, convictions or principles, and use it as a debate tactic or as a means of avoiding discussion of the relevance or truthfulness the person's statement. It works on the reasoning that, by discrediting the source of a logical argument, namely the person making it, the argument itself can be weakened.

This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the attack is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim itself. The truth value of a claim is independent of the person making the claim. No matter how morally repugnant a person might be, he or she can still make true claims. For example, a defense attorney may claim that a witness' testimony cannot be trusted because he is a convicted felon. On the other hand, illuminating real character flaws and inconsistencies in the position of an opponent are a vital part of the public political process and of the adversarial judicial process. Use of a personal attack in a logical argument constitutes a formal fallacy called ad hominem, a term that comes from a Latin phrase meaning "toward the man". Lulubyrd 20:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Redblossom, we don't have to establish he actually was a magician, i.e. that he did magic. Neither do we have to establish that his magical orders were legitimate. He presented himself as a magician, and we have sufficient 3rd-party references to establish that others considered him such too. The rest conveniently falls down to an epistemological discussion, which, as I have pointed out above, we don't need to have. It's not the term "magician" that you're concerned about, as demonstrated by your comments above regarding Crowley; it's the fact that you don't want Chumbley to get any limelight. And please stop playing sock-puppets; the "earlier poster" is quite clearly yourself. Fuzzypeg☻ 05:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Right let me get this clear in my head Fuzzypeg: The article doesnt need to establish he was a magician. The article doesnt need to establish that the "orders" were real or legitimate. And the article presents non-neutral biased 3rd part accounts presenting a hagiography of Chumbley has a "magician". Fuzzypeg if that is the case,then esentially this article is not accurate or honest. The way this is going the Chmbley article is going to be deleted. Is that what you want? Fabrications that need to have real references or removed: "Chumbley had knowledge of Enochian magick. Proper reference or removed. "Chumbley was a head of "various orders". Beyond the Cultus Sabbati there is no proper reference. Company of the Serpent Cross cant be refernced has existing ( outside Chumbleys head). Again either a proper refernence or it should be removed. Chumbleys occupation was a "magician" This is a fabrication. And it undermines the seriousness and grounding of the article. To keep it in will just make the article look silly and childish. The way this is going the article will get deleted and you will all have to start from scratch again. Is that what you all want? Think about it.--Redblossom 17:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes - and no. reineke 15:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Reineke-I have just recently seen Fries' whole review of Azoetia. I had no idea that it was as glowing as I read. It's incredible to think such highly regarded magicians reviewed a first book like that. Do you know of any new or interesting reviews that ran when Azoetia was reissued? I suppose the ennui might have developed by that time; --"I knew him when..." Speaking of that, we never heard from Phil Hine again, did we? I'd think after his bad manners regarding remembering his review he'd have the good grace to apologize. Lulubyrd 00:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Phil Hine didn't display any poor manners here. He merely said he couldn't recall writing such a review. And we don't even know for sure it was Phil, due to the whole anonymity thing here. I'd be happier if we got into the habit here of discussing the article rather than the editors. Assume good faith whenever possible; remain civil wherever possible. Perhaps that would make things less interesting here, but that's not necessarily a bad thing... Fuzzypeg☻ 06:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

'Magician' makes perfect sense to me here - after all T. S. Eliot's Wiki piece gives his occupation as, primarily, poet, though in fact he made a living from teaching, reviewing and so on.

Remember that Fries' first published book Visual Magick was issued at around the same time as Azoetia, so that article was a peer review. Fries had already made something of a name for himself through articles in magazines (in Europe, Britain and the USA), and private circulation of books and illustrations in photocopy form. Helrunar, for instance, was written and privately distibuted several years before Visual Magick, but published as a print book afterwards. There are some other reviews of Azoetia but Fries' is the most significant. reineke 08:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I do tend to forget that Fries was not as well known at that time as he is now. Thanks Reineke. Lulubyrd 02:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Proper Citations needed

Just looked over the influences section again. We need a citation showing that Chumbley was knowledgeable/familar of/with Enochian Magick. There is no citation / reference for this assertion.It cant be stated with confidence that he was "familiar" with Enochian Magick. So if there is no reference then that assertion should be removed. Secondly we need a proper reference for the claim he was a Tantric initiate. Him stating he was a initiate in an interview is not neutral or honest. We would need a an independent source/citation stating Chumbley was a Tantric initate--Redblossom 17:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

As it says in the article, "The Azoëtia and Chumbley's subsequent writings demonstrate...Enochian...etc" so would you look through some of his texts and find a really great citation to add? Thanks.

Apropos Kaula Sampradayya: if you have another and different citation then please go ahead and add it.

But it might be less effort to delete the whole Kaula assertion. Would you like to do that? If so, the reference to Spare preceding it will have nothing to balance it, so that will need to come out too. If you think that's a good idea then go ahead, or let me know and I'll strip that section out. Thanks very much. reineke 08:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

But the article suggesting the Enochian link is not neutral. It is more like a hagiography.--Redblossom 18:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

If you think the tone of the article is anywhere inappropriate then you could do some copy editing. Would you like to do that?

Perhaps you could have a look through Azoetia and see if there's anything relevant to Enochiana in there. If it does, you'll have an authoritative citation. reineke 10:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I've amended the assertion re Kaula lineage to save hunting around for other evidence. reineke —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reineke (talk • contribs) 10:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

In editing I changed the tense of a word under influences that was bothering me. I suppose it could go either way; referring to the influences (plural) or the overall suggestion (singular). If my tense change bothers anyone else, please change it back. Lulubyrd 13:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Your use of tenses bother me. That bag of kittens are heavy. I prop up my wobbly chair leg with these book of grammatical rules. ← Do these sound right to you? The subject in that first sentence is "use", or perhaps "use of tenses". Either way it's a singular noun, therefore the verb should take the singular form "bothers": e.g. "Your use of tenses bothers me", "your use of [any thing or things under the sun, singular or plural] bothers me". If you were going to do it as a plural, it would have to be "your tenses bother me" (now "tenses" is the subject, a plural noun). Cheers, Fuzzypeg☻ 21:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right of course. Perhaps it's that the sentence is clumsy. Might it be rephrased in a more elegant manner that doesn't create a dissonance of tense? Lulubyrd 00:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The sentence looks absolutely fine to me as it is... But reword it if you prefer. Fuzzypeg☻ 04:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Notability

I see three claims to notability in this article, all of which I believe are false.

• he was covered and quoted in various works, including some of scholarship
  • but these were trivial coverage (little more than name-dropping), which does not suffice
• he founded the "Cultus Sabbati"
  • this group does not appear to have achieved any noticable size or impact
• he wrote articles and books
  • but the books were self-published and the articles were in occult 'zines with miniscule circulations

Under these considerations, I add the notability tag to the article. - Denial 03:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry ducks, you have no references to back your assertions. We reference in this article. This is more POV nonsense. Another Bongo sock puppet? Please see Wiki page on what constitutes notability. This article covers and is referenced covering more than the required one standard of notability. Lulubyrd 10:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed the tag pending proper citation. What this person believes holds no weight without citation. Sorry. Lulubyrd 10:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken about the notability criteria. What is required to establish notability of people, and the rules say so quite explicitly, is non-trivial coverage in scholarly sources. "Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry." There are four claimed scholarly mentions of Chumbley, one by Hutton and three by The Journal for the Academic Study of Magic. Unlike most editors, I happen to know the relevant publications, and see non non-trivial mentions there.

Hutton says he received two texts from Chumbley and that he's the "author of an intelligent modern grimoire"(p.306). He also quotes Chumbley's self-description without comment(p.308). This is a textbook example of a trivial mention, and it seems unlikely that Chumbley would have received even that had he not approached Hutton personally and supplied him with (what he thought was) witchcraft literature.

The Journal for the Academic Study of Magic, as seen on its publisher website, has articles on various subjects but none on Chumbley and mentions him only very briefly as well. The fourth issue, which you appear to believe references him, has not even been published and its official web site says it is due in late 2006. To claim Chumbley was referenced there seems outright fraud. Where does the Journal detail Chumbley in any non-trivial fashion? And I'd like to add the Journal and its founding Society do not seem to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability guidelines either.

I have specifically mentioned the problem of trivial references before. In an apparent misunderstanding of the notability criteria, you have not adressed this issue, other than by blanket accusations of POV and sockpuppetry. Since the issue is not resolved, I am re-including the notability tag. - Denial 15:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Then please go ahead and make the appropriate changes to the text, in line with your assertions. If you wish to 'resolve' the 'issue', that is. If you're unwilling to so engage, please state what it is that you think should be changed in the article at present. I'll do it for you. (I've made this offer before - it remains open.) reineke 15:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I get it - 'Denial' is indicating that this article be considered for deletion. If Chumbley proved, as he avers, not to be notable, it would definitely need to be removed from Wiki. In that case it's appropriate to call for an authoritative opinion on that from the moderating level. Fuzzypeg, would you advise, please?

I also request that 'Denial' be cited for insulting other users, in re: "Unlike most editors, I happen to know the relevant publications.." (see above) Given that other editors, including myself, referenced these sources here in the first place and ipso facto know them, I interpret this comment by 'Denial' as a deliberate slur. reineke 16:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

When I read Denial's comments above I didn't read that as an insult at all. He was indicating that many editors who look at this article would see a bunch of references and assume that Chumbley was notable, without having the detailed background knowledge that Denial has; his knowledge tells him that these are trivial references. He wasn't implying that you were ignorant. You've been embattled against Redblossom for too long and have come to regard any criticism as trolling. I ask you again to assume good faith, and discuss editorial issues rather than the editors themselves! Fuzzypeg☻ 22:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

(I indented your comments for readability.) Thanks for your offer. I was unaware you had made it before. As per the rules, there are two possible solutions. Either new and demonstrably valid claims to notability are presented, or the article is deleted. I know no additional claims to notability for this subject. However, I hesitate to suggest deletion, as someone else, such as you, might be able to come up with some. If you can't either, you're welcome to suggest deletion for me.

When I wrote most editors, I meant most editors, i.e. the whole Wiki community. Only a tiny minority of us is familiar with Hutton or the referenced journal, and can verify whether the references claimed are actually valid for notability. Since I dispute they are, my relatively unusual position is relevant. I do not dispute the editors of this article know those sources, although how anyone would be able to consult a non-existant issue of a journal eludes me. - Denial 16:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, Denial, if that was the context of your comment, then I'll assume 'good faith'. My suggestion is that, the references for Hutton and JSM having been given, an interested party could obtain them and scrutinise them her- or himself. If there's an error in citations (you refer to a non-existent issue of a journal) then would you care to correct it? Unlike yourself, I haven't spent very much time here, and freely confess to knowing only a bare minimum of the ropes; however, I've found it a very strange place - very strange indeed. I should imagine that Wiki would be a slightly poorer resource without a piece on Chumbley, but unless there's a 'hit counter' somewhere that would indicate how many have viewed this article, there's really no way of telling. If you consider that Chumbley is non-notable then, by all means, please feel free to pursue your line of thinking to deletion. Having contributed a goodly amount, in good faith and without any particular agenda other than interest in the subject, as this article was built almost 'from scratch', I would neverthless have no objection whatsoever to permanent deletion, were that deemed appropriate by 'higher powers'. It's not something I feel is needful, but I strongly urge you to follow through your proposal. I have nothing further to add to the article at the present time or in the foreseeable future. reineke 16:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is all about agendas. And creating a history that never happened. The people who created this article have a vested interest in making Chumbley something he is not.--Redblossom 18:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, wait a minute Reineke. Good faith? Denial only knows about JSM from the website. If he actually had seen the journal, he'd know that #4 has published. Oh dear. JSM is published by the PhD dept. under the auspices of a major university and is juried (founding society?-you obviously don't know much about JSM). A juried journal is criteria for academic rigour. Denial-print here the first line from Filipovitch's article in JSM #2 so we know that you've actually seen the journal and not just the website.

Denial states that Chumbley was self published. That is incorrect. He was published by Fulgur as well as starting his own publishing company that continues to publish after his death. Also, Xoanon, the publishing house he started has not only published Chumbley's books; and it appears to have recently added a second publishing division, expanding the list of authors in the stable.

The Cauldron is a multi-national magazine, published in several languages and on two continents. It has been published for over 30 years, nonstop. That's not an occult 'zine with miniscule circulation-which is a POV characterization, by the way. The editors on both continents are published authors with some measure of notability of their own. Chaos International is well known, well regarded, published for years and is highly sought after.

Actually, in reading Hutton, Hutton appears to have sought out Chumbley, not the other way around as you have inferred here. What Chumbley thought is not the issue. Hutton thought that what Chumbley contributed to his research was formative, and noted that.

Denial, what is your expertise in this area? All I see are self-made claims on your page that have no references. You claim to be some expert but have no references as such. What I've seen above are accusations but just like Bongo, you cannot refute anything presently in the article with opposing facts. Your research is obviously web related and very poor. Your criteria are POV. Come back with evidence that refutes what's in the article and we'll talk further. It's not my job to reference your mistakes. I'm removing the deletion request until you have something better than Bongo. So far you have nothing but your opinion. Lulubyrd 19:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I have seen and read the journal, I even remember I saw Chumbley mentioned in passing, although you assume correctly I do not currently have it in front of me. I never claimed I did, as you appear to infer. If there is an issue #4, neither the editor nor the publisher bother to announce (i.e. sell) it and that says more about the Journal than it says about me. While the Journal is technically an entity seperate from the Society, it was created by the same people, at nearly the same time, with the same agenda. Since everyone involved is a member of the Society and they very clearly complement each other, I find it fair so say the Society founded the Journal. And for the sake of correctness, peer review is a necessary, but not a sufficient criterium for academic publications.

I only say this to demonstrate I know what I talk about. Regardless of this discussion, you have failed to demonstrate how the Journal's mentions of Chambers are not trivial.

I do not see how starting one's own publishing company to publish one's own books is different from self publishing. Fulgur only assisted in what was Chumbers' own ("limited edition") release. The fact the company was continued does not alter that. The Cauldron is miniscule by any standard but that of the occult subculture; internationally, there are thousands of student magazines of comparable scope and likely more readers than it has. Chaos International is even smaller, with about one thin issue per year since its inception, and has apparently ceased publication in 2006.

None of these publications give Chumbley "wide name recognition", "a credible independent biography", "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record" or anything else that might make him notable.

Aside from our divergent interpretations of Hutton, you have failed to demonstrate how his mention of Chambers is not trivial.

In conclusion, and reviewing your inadequate defense, this article and many related ones, such as Qutub: The Point, are blatant violations of the Wiki policy. And this is not POV unless you want to call Wikipedia:Notability POV in itself. - Denial 22:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

My take on this is slightly different to yours, Denial. First I should say that I have no very great interest in Chumbley and have not read his works. I have contributed to this article mainly because it has been the target of trolling and tempers were rising; I figured I could help out... Now as I understand it:

• Notability (people) states "The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may need to be cited to establish notability." I believe we can call on multiple independent sources; some of them may not be entirely intellectually independent: Michael Howard, for instance, was a friend and colleague, but he is also a fairly notable and widely published figure in the occult community, so his opinion seems to me to be notable.
• Triviality is not clearly defined: "A 200-page independent biography of a person that covers that person's life in detail is non-trivial, whereas a birth certificate or a 1-line listing on an election ballot form is not." (from WP:BIO) However I believe none of the references supplied for the article count as trivial, except perhaps the Oven Ready Chaos citation. Chumbley is made the subject of discussion, opinion, argument, praise etc., sometimes only for a paragraph or so, sometimes more.
• Hutton identified Chumbley and the Cultus Sabbatai as notable, for the fact that they are a British witchcraft tradition based on authentically old documents. He also expressed a good deal of respect for Chumbley and the group.
• Published authors like Michael Howard and Nigel Jackson have either been very closely associated with Chumbley or have been colleagues or students of his. Michael Howard is editor of the leading journal on witchcraft, a journal which Hutton himself has been published in, and which he seems to regard as being respected and having a wide readership within the Pagan community (The Cauldron, May 2003, p. 9). (And as a Wiccan within the community I can confirm that TC is indeed the leading magazine of British witchcraft and paganism. For what my opinion's worth here at WP, which is nothing.) Chumbley has been published numerous times in the Cauldron.
• I believe he and his books have been named by third-party commentators as being of considerable importance in contemporary witchcraft. (I'm sorry, I don't have references on hand, I'll have to try to track these down.)

Chumbley is not notable outside the Witchcraft subculture, or perhaps I should even limit that to the British Traditional Witchcraft subculture. However he has certainly left his mark. His books are in high demand and fetch ridiculous resale prices (over $1500 US); he has had as students and colleagues some of the most influential figures in contemporary traditional witchcraft. If his article were to stay here it would be of interest to a number of people (I actually found this article because I was looking for info on Chumbley, not just because I followed an interesting-looking link!).

I'm also reluctant to see all this work just vanish, and indeed Reineke and Lulubyrd have put a lot of work into this article, pulling it up from a stub to a reasonable state, and putting up with constant trolling at the same time. They're not experienced editors but have managed to create a well-referenced article with plenty of pointers to further information for interested researchers. They have put up with constant insults and attacks on their intelligence, motives and maturity from another editor who mostly edits under anonymous IP, signing with a variety of names. I'm sorry you found them so defensive, and so willing to assume bad faith, be uncivil and engage in edit warring. I hope you can put your understandable annoyance aside...

I happen to know from my knowledge of the Witchcraft and occult communities that Chumbley is a highly notable figure in these circles, much spoken of; I think the published sources corroborate that "original research" of mine to some extent. Best wishes, Fuzzypeg☻ 00:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

All you have demonstrated is that you know nothing of what you speak, you can't prove or reference your charges, and you have no credentials that make you an "expert" as you claim. Your assessment is made purely from badly done internet trolling.

You state: "Fulgur only assisted in what was Chumbers' own ("limited edition") release." Oh? Tell me more about how you know this to be the case. Where is your reference? Why does Chumbley's published work have less value because he published from his successful, thriving business? What is the circulation of the combined international editions of The Cauldron? In what languages and what countries is the magazine published? You don't know and can't reference it or you would have done so. In fact, looking over your response, again you have provided no substance whatsoever.

And, um, you can't even get Chumbley's name right which tells me more about your ability to research and reference than it does about your assertions.

Wide name recognition is not required. A credible independent biography is not required. A widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record is not required. There are several credible references in independent journals and books on independent subjects by authors notable in their fields that reference Chumbley's work. That's enough. Your POV regarding the books or journals is irrelevant-especially since you can provide absolutely nothing to back up your assertions.

This article has been graced with editing from Fuzzypeg, an experienced and respected Wiki editor who has found no reason to suspect this article should be deleted. This article was looked over by JKelly, a well respected and experienced Wiki editor who found this article just fine. I just don't see that you're well known or respected at all, Denial. You'd probably do much better talking to Bongo privately. You two appear to have similar credentials and agendas. Lulubyrd 00:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Lulubyrd, you're not going to help your case at all by insulting other editors. May I remind you again to discuss the article rather than the editors. Denial has raised some quite reasonable queries based on WP notability guidelines, and if these queries aren't satisfactorily answered then the article can and should be deleted. And I don't know if it furthers my "grace" to be name-dropped as ammunition for an editorial argument... Fuzzypeg☻ 00:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Then by all means, delete. I'm finished here. Lulubyrd 00:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Are we approaching a consensus? I'd still like to adress the Hutton mention. If Hutton calls Chumbley notable, he does so outside of the Hutton books I have. As far as I can see, he gives him as much credit as to, literally, hundreds of other individuals, most of who do not appear to have Wiki pages. In fact, at least one of them, Julian Vayne, had one and was deleted. This might actually be seen as precedent, as Vayne is a similarly small-scale published author from the same milieu.

The other advocates mentioned are clearly not "intellectually independent" as the criterium goes. Their individual importance would only be relevant if they were. The very point of this criterium, I believe, is that acceptance within a group of like-minded individuals is insufficient for Wiki notice. - Denial 01:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

High regard within a group of like-minded individuals is indeed a valid criterion for notability: discussing "Creative professionals: scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals" may be considered notable if "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors" (WP:BIO). I can't tell you which of these peer citations are "intellectually independent", I was hoping either Lulu or Reineke could help with that, but I might be able to suss something out. And if the citations are not intellectually independent, but are from people who are notable in their own right, doesn't that count for something?

I don't know much about Julian Vayne, but I see he gets 783 google hits to Chumbley's 2880 (not that that proves anything, but it may indicate something). Further "indications of his notability" include:

• the lashtal.com webmaster citing him as "one of the most significant modern occult authors" [1]
• A similar mention of his death from the Pentacle Magazine website. [2]
• an appreciation of Chumbley by Danny Carey of Tool. [3]
• A considerable number of torrents from which you can download his books (do a google search).
• A mention of Chumbley's death from Chas Clifton's blog (Clifton is a reasonably well-known historian of occultism and witchcraft, and is, like Howard, situated at the more scholarly end of the spectrum). [4]
• A fairly active newsgroup of 165 members devoted to discussing just one of Chumbley's books. [5]
• A witchcraft quiz someone's put together in which Andrew Chumbley is the answer to one of the Questions. [6]
• And a bunch of other newsgroup comments and personal pages which describe Chumbley as, for instance, "One of the great contemporary innovators of magick".

These are all indications of his notability, which I can confirm from my knowledge of the occult community; I'm hoping you won't pursue the letter of the law on this and force me to track down copies of all the documents cited in the article so we can quibble over whether they're notable, substantial and intellectually independent... That would seem perverse. I will have difficulty defending the article on my own, if it comes to that, and I hope Reineke and Lulu can help out, being much better equipped with the relevant information. Fuzzypeg☻ 04:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

By that kind of argument, you are setting a very low standard for notability. Any halfway successful World of Warcraft guild leader could get those online namedrops and google hits. Any of the unsigned bands that keep entering themselves on the Wiki could. Any fanfic writer appreciated by her fanfic-writing peers could. Heck, even I could. If what you have said was enough to warrant a Wiki page, you're looking at millions, perhaps hundreds of millions of persons who deserve pages as well, for their achievements in whatever obscure niche of culture they might be engaged in. Persons that only a few thousand people, or ~0.0001% of the world's population, have ever heard of and an ever smaller portion would appreciate encyclopedic information about.

That is not to say your standard for notability is wrong. It is just not the one of the Wikipedia.

The fact modern occultism is a highly literate culture where people tend to write a lot, and a highly diverse culture where standards for individual importance are highly individualistic and often frowned upon, does not exactly raise the value of those in-group references either. Maybe a request for comment from someone unfamiliar with occultism would help put this discussion in perspective. - Denial 05:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Terrific stuff - this is possibly the first real discussion that's taken place here!

I had originally formed the impression that, being web-based, Wiki was intended to form a broad and very liberal information resource. The sort of place where anyone with an interest in any thing, however obscure, could tinker away to their heart's content, for sheer pleasure, and in the knowledge that some day a fellow enthusiast might chance upon their work, appreciate it and possibly even benefit from it. After all, there's no cost in ink and paper, is there? – server space is cheap as chips. However, applying strictly the rules in re notability means that Wiki aims to be almost as exclusive as the Encyclopaedia Britannica. It doesn't work like that in practice, of course, but that is ostensibly the ideal.

Fair enough - if that's the scene here, then the protocols strongly indicate that deletion of the Chumbley article is appropriate. As you've suggested permanent deletion, Denial, why don't you just follow through and put the wheels in motion? It seems highly unlikely (verging on impossible) that an ’outside’ editor with no knowledge of or interest in occult matters would want to wade through the 4+ archives of 'discussion' (in fact largely trolling, abuse and intimidation of active editors by non-engaged users) in order to weigh up the issues involved.

Several of the assertions of fact you make above are inaccurate, Denial, I regret to say - but that's not worth arguing the toss over at this terminal stage.

If the article fails on notability of its subject now, then it had already failed back in December last - so deletion is nine months overdue, surely? Please go ahead and get the thing wiped; honestly, I have no objections - I think the idea is hilarious! This is the democracy of the web in action, at its very best.

From my perspective, there are two options: one is to continue to pump information into the article to satisfy the needs of other users; the other is to use my info and knowledge to write paper and ink articles at a very lucrative 20 cents per word, plus all the kudos I can handle. In the popular parlance, "It’s a no-brainer."

I support deletion. reineke 10:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. I may be the least informed person on the subject here, so I'm not going to stand in the way of an emerging consensus. This page is the end result of many man-hours of hard work, and has gone through major evolution; I also think it's useful and hell, I found it useful myself when I was looking for information on the guy. It now stands as the single best source of information available on him. I'm also pretty sure that this article will eventually be re-created (once notability is better established), and some poor sods are going to have to repeat all that work.

We're not the only editors who might have anything to say on the subject, so I would like to put this through WP:AFD before it goes. And best wishes to Reineke and Lulu; I really hope you got something good out of this whole process. Fuzzypeg☻ 21:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It's been good fun doing stuff with Lulu and Fuzzy here - so sincere thanks to them! At least I now know some of the pitfalls. Let's see what they say at WP:AFD. Fuzz, you’re precisely correct in saying that this is the single best source of info, in electronic or print form – it's a thorough little intro to the subject, and even if deleted it won't be gone gone, as the numerous sites that feed illicitly from Wiki will still be caching it till the crack of doom, methinks.

The short articles linked to this will (Xoanon, Qutub) also need to be put up for deletion at the same time. reineke 09:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Fuzzypeg and Reineke. It's been great working with you. This has been a lesson in the power of democracy, what level of achievement it can create, and who gets to decide. The editors of Wiki Project Occult might have an interest in the deletion of this page. They may have something to say about whether this page should be deleted or not-looking at it from a perspective other than a biography. Chumbley may not be a person of note, but the material on his page has more to offer than a biography. I believe it may be one of the better researched and referenced occult pages in Wikipedia. Please run this by whomever you think may have an interest as you see fit. Lulubyrd 13:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I've asked the Wiki Occult Project people to take a look. reineke 16:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

How will those wishing to discuss notability be notified when the WP:AFD discussion takes place? I'll be interested to see how it all turns out. Lulubyrd 21:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I've set up AFD discussions Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andrew_D._Chumbley, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Qutub:_The_Point and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Xoanon Publishing. See you there. Denial 07:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You know, Denial, I'm still questioning that you have ever read JSM. Your commentary is vague and you sidestepped when asked for verification. The only detail you have provided appears to be information you gleaned from a web search. Tell us please, what are the dimensions of the journal and format? Are illustrations included, like The Cauldron magazine? What type of paper is it printed on and is there any color printing used inside or on the cover? You needn't an issue before you to answer my questions, only your vivid memory that already tells us about the "fleeting" references.

I have easily found a call for papers for issue 5 of JSM through a google search. Your insistence that #4 wasn't issued is easily debunked. I see that you found your information on an archived posting on Lashtal. I'll provide a link if you'd like help looking it up. Lulubyrd 00:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Denial: Apropos your statement that "Chaos International is even smaller, with about one thin issue per year since its inception..." - this is incorrect. Chumbley's articles were published in the magazine during the early 1990s, when it was under the Editorship of Ian Read (at the time 2nd in command of the I.O.T. in Britain); Chaos International was then a regular and punctually published journal consisting of approximately 60 pages or more. Although issues are not dated, they appeared up to four times per year. reineke 11:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Redblossom, or anyone else with the same thoughts on this article: I've noted all your comments on the page discussing deletion.

You seem to have objections to the quote from Michael Howard's obituary - do you think it should be deleted from this article? (Yes/No) reineke 09:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm also inclined to resolve the ongoing issue about Chumbley's headship of magical orders. It bores me - how about you? I propose to leave Cultus Sabbati but delete the references to Ku-Sebbitu and Serpent Cross. Any objections? reineke 11:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)