Talk:John Michell (writer)

/Archive 1

Notice to Newbie Editor Who As Anon. Is Slandering A Living Author

To the Anon poster 91.84.237.105 who keeps throwing the incorrect term of vandalism at other editors of this page. We must remind you to read the dialogue box at the top of this page which states: This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous.

To suggest that John Michell is a follower of Julius Evola is absurd and does not tally with the facts. I have read Confessions of A Radical Traditionalist and it is obvious the poster ANon has not. The book is a witty compilaton of Michell's columns for the Oldie and suggests nothing more than a respect for true scholarship. Michell is a Platonist and makes no bones about it. Michell is also a fortean and has written extensively on fortean subjects. As a fortean Michell (see his book "Phenomena" with JM RIckard for a start) Michell champions tolerance and respect for the beliefs of all. I would say Michell is a Jeffersonian/Adams/Franklin lover of democracy with a respect for ancient wisdom (see Michell's "The Measure of Albion"). His small phamphet on the sayings of Hitler is a spoof and is patently not meant to be taken literally as an endorsement of a mad man. Readers of Michell (read "The Temple At Jersusalem" and see the website The Hope) know that his love of and respect for the Jews is obvious. SageMab (talk) 15:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)SageMab

To poster 91.84.237.105 I suggest you be brave enough to list your name. Your discussion of this author properly belongs on your own Talk page. Please read Wikipedia's guidelines before you post innuendo and outright slander. An author's contribution to another author who is distasteful is not a tacit endorsement of that author's work. It is obvious that 91.84.237.105 has not read any of the books on which he is commenting. To those who have followed the writings, lectures and career of John Michell 91.84.237.105's label of fascist is laughable and slanderous.

What was the publication date of John Michell's Booklet called The Hip-Pocket Hitler?

My copy of John Michell's The Hip-Pocket Hitler does not carry a date. If anyone knows the date of publication, please could they post it here, so that this work can be listed in the bibliography.. Note that no-one denies that he was the author. Including this work in the already long bibliography should upset no honourable editor.

91.84.237.105 adding signature which was unsigned by this User.

The Aforementioned Booklet is Obviously a Spoof by the Author

John Michell does not discuss this very brief booklet which is merely a compliation of quotes by Hitler except to briefly mention that he regrets it and that he has no pro Hitler sentiments as the obviously misinformed 91.84.237.105 insists. Anyone who reads this book can plainly see that the author wrote this very short booklet to mock Hitler. Literalists may find themselves in serious trouble if they can find a copy of this tiny run and not circulated pamphlet. A serious student of history will find these quotes hilarious. John Michell is well known as a humorist and satirist (though his wit is not as broad and obvious as other mockers of Hitler like Mel Brooks' Springtime for Hitler). Michell has said in public that even the voice of a mad man can sound reasonable but that does not make it so. SageMab (talk) 19:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Evidence Disputed

Michell's booklet in which he praised Hitler, titled 'The Hip-Pocket Hitler', was not a spoof. I do not believe that you are writing in good faith; your idolisation of Michell is obvious. I challenge you to provide verifiable evidence that it was a spoof. That Michell does not discuss it is no such evidence. Nor is what Michell has said in public about madmen. As you probably know, in private', to those he feels a radical traditionalist fellowship with, Michell continues to distribute this vile pro-Hitler booklet. I note that you don't care to mention John Michell's authorship of an essay for inclusion with the book Men Among the Ruins by his hero, the radical traditionalist Julius Evola. 'Radical Traditionalist' is well known as code for 'Evolist', and Michell's involvement in the English-language of the Evola book - are you saying that too was ironical or satirical?? Even if you were to make such an assertion (maybe check with Michell first to ask whether he'll give you the OK?), your making it wouldn't make it true. So come on now, kindly explain your hero's involvement in 'Men Among the Ruins', and in particular his involvement in the 'de luxe' leather-bound edition of this notorious fascist text.

Did you know that John Michell called his own book 'Confessions of a Radical Traditionalist', and the subtitle of the edition of Julius Evola's book to which Michell contributed a laudatory essay was 'Reflections of a Radical Traditionalist'. Coincidence? Well how come the two books were both edited by Michael Moynihan, as Moynihan himself states on his website? Moynihan was also involved in publishing a collection of writings by the "National Socialist Revolutionary" James Mason.

Are you really going to say that Michell's support for Evola's ideology is satirical - maybe above the heads of non-fascist lesser mortals?

Oh and by the way, stop threatening me. Here is the text I continue to propose for the preamble to the Michell article:

John Michell (born 6 February 1933) is an English philosopher espousing Radical Traditionalism, the philosophy founded by the fascist author Julius Evola. He has written prolifically on subjects including sacred geometry, sacred sites (viewed as "ritualized landscapes"), gematria, archaeoastronomy, Fortean phenomena, and the lives of noted eccentrics. He writes a column for the English journal The Oldie. He has also written a pamphlet praising some of the work of Adolf Hitler, called The Hip-Pocket Hitler, and contributed a favourable essay to the first English edition (2002) of Evola's book Men Among the Ruins.

The above commentary is by User:91.84.237.10

These are the facts. I have seen this tiny book and it is obviously a spoof. I have read the works of John Michell and he is a Platonist and a fortean and, by no stretch of the imagination a fascist. I have never heard him endorse or "espouse" anything that you could label fascism. You are using loaded words such as follower (anyone who has read the works of John Michell knows he is the antithesis of a follower) and an endorser. He does not distribute this little booklet and i have only seen one copy and by no stretch of the imagination does it praise Hitler. To be a literalist is to miss much of both meaning and intent. Michell is a platonist and just because he agrees with Plato does not mean he endorses Evola. Obviously, you are trying to edit things which you have not read. You are also name calling, and using incorrect terms against, at least four editors which is unwarranted. You are slandering a living author which is not tolerated on Wikipedia. Period. SageMab (talk) 20:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

91.84.237.10 has used a slanderous and up for dispute title to this section which I have removed. I have Wikified his tile which incorrectly smears this writer as per Wikipedia's policy on living authors. I suggest this user read Wiki policy on neutrality. SageMab (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The following are warnings to User:91.84.237.10 about his edits on John Michell and contain sound, as per Wiki policy, advice:

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to John Michell (writer) has been reverted, as it appears to introduce incorrect information. Please do not intentionally add incorrect information to articles; use the sandbox for testing. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 17:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC) The recent edit you made to John Michell (writer) constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thanks. Fieldday-sunday (talk) 11:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC) The information is accurate and relevant, and does not constitute vandalism. Please check it out for yourself and then, if you wish, take part in the discussion I have started on the Discussion page for the article. Thanks. [edit]John Michell (writer)

Please read WP:V. The criterion is not truth, but verifiability. In the case of a living person, additional rules apply - see WP:BLP. Philip Trueman (talk) 11:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC) Philip - please check the information out for yourself, then you will see that it is verifiable. Start by searching on John Michell, Julius Evola, and Radical Traditionalism. Then check out the 2002 translation of Men Among the Ruins. You are really wasting time by continually reverting and recommending I read rules when you have not even bothered to say what specific thing you object to and why. I repeat: this is easily verifiable. To quote from our policy on verifiability: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. In other words, you have to do the work and provide the sources if you wish to include this information in the article. WP:BLP is very clear that material added to articles about living people must be accompanied by proper sources. Unsourced material is aggressively removed from articles about living people. If you can cite proper sources, you are welcome to add this material back. Gwernol 11:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC) You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on John Michell (writer). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Gwernol 11:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Addendum

It should be noted that the term Radical Traditionalism is not "code' for anything. Platonic ideals are espoused by those on both the left and right of the political spectrum. Readers are advised to check out The Hope link on the article page for John Michell's view which patently adises freedom of thought and action without harming others. SageMab (talk) 23:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I would also argue that a publisher of esoteric material not be judged solely on several books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SageMab (talk • contribs) 23:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

User 91.84.237.10 calls calls into question publishers such as Inner Traditons. Their description on the the web says "we are Inner Traditions, one of the oldest and largest publishers devoted to the spiritual and healing traditions of the world." SageMab (talk) 00:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I have read "Confessions of a Radicial Traditionalist" by John Michell and the book, as suggested by 91.84.237.10, is not coded anything but is a forthright collection of several page essays from his column in the Oldie. It is a good-humored, kindly natured and a sharp insightful book about the ways of the world. The reader might check out the enthusiastic reviews of this book posted on Amazon.com by readers and also several pages from the book that are also posted on this site. SageMab (talk) 00:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Another Opinion

Michell's booklet in which he praised Hitler, titled 'The Hip-Pocket Hitler', was not a spoof. I do not believe that you are writing in good faith; your idolisation of Michell is obvious. I challenge you to provide verifiable evidence that it was a spoof. That Michell does not discuss it is no such evidence. Nor is what Michell has said in public about madmen. As you probably know, in private', to those he feels a radical traditionalist fellowship with, Michell continues to distribute this vile pro-Hitler booklet. I note that you don't care to mention John Michell's authorship of an essay for inclusion with the book Men Among the Ruins by his hero, the radical traditionalist Julius Evola. 'Radical Traditionalist' is well known as code for 'Evolist', and Michell's involvement in the English-language of the Evola book - are you saying that too was ironical or satirical?? Even if you were to make such an assertion (maybe check with Michell first to ask whether he'll give you the OK?), your making it wouldn't make it true. So come on now, kindly explain your hero's involvement in 'Men Among the Ruins', and in particular his involvement in the 'de luxe' leather-bound edition of this notorious fascist text.

Did you know that John Michell called his own book 'Confessions of a Radical Traditionalist', and the subtitle of the edition of Julius Evola's book to which Michell contributed a laudatory essay was 'Reflections of a Radical Traditionalist'. Coincidence? Well how come the two books were both edited by Michael Moynihan, as Moynihan himself states on his website? Moynihan was also involved in publishing a collection of writings by the "National Socialist Revolutionary" James Mason.

Are you really going to say that Michell's support for Evola's ideology is satirical - maybe above the heads of non-fascist lesser mortals?

Oh and by the way, stop threatening me. Here is the text I continue to propose for the preamble to the Michell article:

John Michell (born 6 February 1933) is an English philosopher espousing Radical Traditionalism, the philosophy founded by the fascist author Julius Evola. He has written prolifically on subjects including sacred geometry, sacred sites (viewed as "ritualized landscapes"), gematria, archaeoastronomy, Fortean phenomena, and the lives of noted eccentrics. He writes a column for the English journal The Oldie. He has also written a pamphlet praising some of the work of Adolf Hitler, called The Hip-Pocket Hitler, and contributed a favourable essay to the first English edition (2002) of Evola's book Men Among the Ruins.

Proposed first paragraph

That really seems rather slanted, since far more people seem to know about him in the contexts of sacred geometry, ley lines, and accounts of eccentrics than know him for what you're focusing on. If so far he hasn't been widely exposed for the sins that you're accusing him of, then Wikipedia is really not the place to start exposing him... AnonMoos (talk) 16:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi AnonMoos, yes I agree. PhilKnight (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

---

The above section "Another Opinion" is an unsigned post by 91.84.237.105 who also uses the IP 91.84.204.125, is not true by any stretch of the imagination and is not supported by the facts. Acoording to Wikipedia policy on original research "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources."SageMab (talk) 15:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

RfC: John Michell's booklet 'The Hip-Pocket Hitler', and his non- relationship to the fascist philosophy of Radical Traditionalist Julius Evola

The following facts seem relevant:

• John Michell wrote an admiring essay for the English translation of fascist philosopher Julius Evola's book Men Among the Ruins: Post-War Reflections of a Radical Traditionalist (ISBN 0892819057), edited by Michael Moynihan, publisher of this and other fascist and national-socialist works. A useful review of Moynihan's edition of this work by Evola, with the essay by Michell,

is here. posted by Anon user 91.

• Fact Disputing Above Statement-this article is not about Mihael Moynihan. This is not an admiring essay. The use of the word admiring and and favorable is untrue and reflects the above users; bias. A distasteful publisher does not damn the books he prints. John Michell's books are not fascist in tone or intent. That's a fact.216.240.101.40 (talk) 20:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• John Michell's work Confessions of a Radical Traditionalist was edited and published by this same Michael Moynihan (ISBN 0971204446), who according to his Wikipedia entry used willingly to accept (albeit with reservations) being labelled as a 'fascist' and 'neo-fascist'. posted by Anon user 91.

• Fact disputing above post: John Michell's Confessions of a Radical Tradiionalist has to do with freedom of thought, not fascism. I have the book and it is obvious the above poster has not and is trying to damn this author by attempting to build a false link to Moynahan's viewpoints. This book was published by Dominion Press which prints all sorts of books.216.240.101.40 (talk) 20:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Moynihan's subsequent rejection of these labels has not prevented him from publishing work by the out-and-out fascist Julius Evola and a magazine ('Tyr') extolling Germanic myths and 'natural social hierarchy'. In 1999 Moynihan was listed on the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Report as a "leader of new a generation of hate mongerers". posted by anon 91

• Fact disputing above post: The above should be removed. This article is NOT about Moynahan. The above is defamation by association and has no place on Wikipedia.

• John Michell earlier wrote a booklet praising Hitler, called The Hip-Pocket Hitler. posted by user 91.
• Fact disputing the above post:THIS IS AN OUTRIGHT LIE. NO PRAISE OF HITLER BY MICHELL IN THIS BOOK by any stretch of the imagination. 216.240.101.40 (talk) 20:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

If SageMab or anyone else wishes to dispute any of the above four points, please could they do so, making it clear what exactly they are disputing. Thanks.

Comment by PhilKnight

The verifiability policy places the burden of proof on the editor making the assertions. In other words, the editor making the assertions has to provide sources which prove the statements comply with policy, not the other way around. Also, under the Biographies of Living Persons policy, content that is negative in tone and unsourced should be removed, not only from articles, but also from other pages. In this context, the above statements should probably be deleted until sourcing is provided. PhilKnight (talk) 17:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't find a link between 'negative in tone' and 'other pages'. The policy does say "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source", but the 'negative in tone' statement comes after that and refers specifically to articles.

What specifically needs sourcing? Doug Weller (talk) 19:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Doug, ok, so instead of 'negative in tone', I should have said 'contentious'. I don't consider that to be significant - if anything the bar is slightly higher for 'negative in tone' compared to 'contentious'. Obviously, all of the statements listed here need sourcing. At the moment none of them are properly referenced, and they all could be considered examples of improper synthesis.--PhilKnight (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I think improper synthesis certainly comes into this as does the idea of giving something undue weight. Publishing an obscure book of Hitler quotes isn't that notable unless he actually praises Hitler in the text somewhere.

I suppose the problem is that it is a very complex issue. There has certainly been a lot of esoteric thought that appeals to fascists (especially branches like Ariosophy). Having sympathy for some of the ideas put forward by such people needn't make you a fascist, Gary Lachman has looked at this whole area and deals with it in an upcoming book - this extract includes this: "It’s for this reason that I find critics of it such as Guénon, Julius Evola (the esoteric doyen of the European far Right), and others of their sensibilities disturbing—not because of Evola’s obvious fascist sympathies or Guénon’s elitist ethos, but because many of their criticisms hit the mark. ... Notwithstanding Evola’s repellent racist views, it’s not surprising that some of his readers appreciated his belief that the only thing left was to 'blow up' everything." It might be possible to take some of his statements out of context and suggest he is sympathetic to the view but it is really that he is prepared to engage with their argument and look into why/how it appeals to people. It is difficult to boil Michell's stance down to easy statements, he has certainly travelled through some perilous territory which some might regard as brave or foolhardy but his approach could certainly seen as less praising people like Evola and more as an attempt to understand or possibly "defend" him, although defend isn't quite the right word - it is more that he is trying to interpret/"spin" Evola's ideas as being somehow beyond simple ideologies. Of course, that is just my interpretation and the problem is that this is what the issue boils down to. If people want to claim he was a fascist then they are going to need something much more clear cut than I've yet seen, as anything else is just their reading of material that is potentially out of context. If we could find a number of reliable analyses from third parties looking at this issue we might be able to construct a balanced overview, but again this might be giving the area undue weight (it is more a sideshow to his main area of interest and seemingly trotted out by people looking for a cheap way to discredit him - his ideas are dubious and shaky but should be addressed head-on), although in a much expanded and well-rounded article it might have a place. (Emperor (talk) 15:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC))

Although I never really wanted to do more than stop people making a dogs dinner out of this talk page, what you say above about Michell seems to make sense. I agree about both needing reliable analyses from third party sources (and their lack in general seems to be a major problem with the article - I note the complete lack of any references, let alone to reliable third party sources, which is a bit puzzling) and also what you say about possible undue weight. Doug Weller (talk) 10:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

There is indeed a real lack of decent references - there are even quotes of reviews in the text which don't say where/when they were published. Currently the article is failing WP:V and I am not sure it has demonstrated his notability. I'm sure it can be done but there are real problems other than the more obvious ones mentioned . (Emperor (talk) 14:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC))

I've noticed this also. I've removed one comment because it was apparently just from the publisher. What 'references' there are were done by someone who hadn't read the style guide, but I don't want to spend time fixing it. It should be possible to demonstrate his notability but I am surprised at the lack of serious reviews of his books. Doug Weller (talk) 17:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Well it may be the more reliable and serious reviewers consider him off their radar (which is always a pity as it can mean no one underlines the problems in someone's work). You should be able to find a reasonably balanced review in something like the Fortean Times. I'll have a nose through back issues. (Emperor (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC))

If I hadn't had problems loading Wikipedia last night I was going to make a similar point. I frequently find it difficult to deal with fringe writers and claims and meet Wikipedia guidelines simply because serious scholars never pay sny sttention to them. Archaeologists, for instance, in general have no interest in Michell's ideas. Which leaves articles unbalanced in my opinion and makes it hard to make them NPOV. Doug Weller (talk) 06:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

DougWeller you are incorrect about serious scholars (see his Wiki article for example; I wouldn't call the Oxford Shakespeare Review lightweight) and archaeologists. John Michell has a highly respected world-wide reputation. It is clear that you have not read the work of this prolific author and find the subject matter not to your taste. It is also clear that serious scholars do not damn this author as other editors on this page have attempted to do so by violating Wiki OR protocol. I see from one of your conversations on another editors' talk page that you said you could only find damning statments about John Michell on blogs, not serious articles, and that you wished you could find one. Again, I will assume good faith and I will also remind you that a discussion page is not a chat board. Perhaps this discussion is best done on a User talk page. 216.240.101.40 (talk) 07:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Why single me out? Emperor has said more or less the same thing. The point isn't that serious author's haven't damned him, it's that as Emperor says, he is by and large 'off their radar', ie they ignore him. Can you point me to any archaeologists who have commented on him? I can find only one, and he comments that Michell evidently didn't read a source he was using. Can you also point me to the Oxford Shakespeare Review article or review on him? I would indeed like to find serious articles on Michell by from non-New Age writers.

This discussion page is for discussing the article. You aren't critical of it being used by editors to post and copy warnings to other editors, but you are critical of me for what, discussing things I'd like to see in the article? John Michell has a good reputation among New Age afficionados, that I will give you. But not among archaeologists, for instance. Doug Weller (talk) 16:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

No one is picking on you DougWeller. I don't think you are very familiar with this author and his good standing in the academic community. I won't do your homework for you. Look it up yoursel if you are interested rather than asking me to do it. Not everything is posted online so a library might be a good sarting point. Astronomer Gerald Hawkins was very supportive of John Michell's work for example. I do think that some people on tis page are trying to discredit the good forty-year reputation of this author. In the spirit of Wiki, prove me wrong. As for now, I'm assuming good faith.216.240.101.40 (talk) 19:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how a thread about finding more and better sources can be considered as treating this talk page as some kind of forum for chat. It seems like the kind of legitimate activity that should be discussed on a talk page - after all, there are only a small percentage of articles on Wikipedia that couldn't benefit from more and better sources. (Emperor (talk) 01:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC))

Comment by Sagemab on Malicious Troll and Vandalism by User 91.84.237.105

Hi Doug and Phil. Thanks for your imput. I had not looked at the John Michell article for quite a while and when I came back to it I found the user in question above correctly edited/chastised by others (see History) for his slanderous statements. I went to his talk page and found 3 other editors who warned him about vandalizing and flamewarring this Talk Page as well as the article. I advised this user to heed Wiki policy on living authors and included the quote at the top of this page. 91.84.237.105 ignored it so I posted a fair warning to him on this page. He ignores Wiki's rules.

I have read the material in question and the following are facts that the above user is ignoring in order to slander this author:

1.John Michell did a "Hip Pocket Hitler", a very short run, many, many years ago. It is a book of Hitler quotes and plainly shows that a mad man can sound sensible if you know nothing of history. No one would ever, ever think this book is in praise of Hitler. This book is not, no has ever been, in nay type of circulation.

2. John Michell is pro-Jewish in both his personal and professional life as I assume from reading his books and looking at his friends on his The Hope website. No one has called or written about him as a fascist in the many years I have been reading him.

3. The essay in question is NOT favorable towards Julius Evola who admitted he was on the wrong path. John Michell wrote about the Platonic ideals and how it can be used for good or evil. 91.84.237.105 posted a link which shows nothing; the essay is not posted. Poor Wiki verifiability. Period.

4. John Michell should not be damned because the above user does not like Inner raditions Publishing, a publisher who published books that are both sacred and profane. Michell is not a friend nor colleague of the distasteful Michaael Moynahan. Personally, I find Moynahan repellent but the fact that he published one of John Michell's books, out of dozens of titles, does not put me off from reading Michell.

5. No one, by any stretch of the imagination, has ever called John Michell a fascist. The opposite is true as readers of his books can plainly deduce.

6. This malicious troll 91.84.237.105 needs to be stopped and his outright slander and twisting of facts delelted. He has posted links but not of the essay in question and it is obvious he has not read the books in question. I question 91.84.237.105 intent in repeatedly tring to slam this author.SageMab (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

First, the only vandalism has been by the people who keep changing the talk page, and the IP editor has apologised to me for that. You are in breach of WP:Civil at the moment.

There are others who think Michell is supportive of Evola, see for instance [1] Doug Weller (talk) 21:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that introducing original research and potentially libelous content isn't the same as vandalism, the editors who keep changing the talk page aren't vandals either. PhilKnight (talk) 21:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment PhilKnight. I agree. I do want to point out that the DougWeller link above is from a blog. I found the blog full of misinformation and misdirection and as a blog should not be taken as Hoyle. Weller has said on his own talk page that he wished that he could find a comment on Michell and Evola and that he could only find blogs on the subject. I think that says it in a nutshell and that the whole discussion about Michell and Evola shouldl be put to rest. 216.240.101.40 (talk) 08:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

SageMab - you mention me a lot, but I am not the issue here! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.204.125 (talk) 11:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines

Please, folks, let's follow talk page etiquette. Don't change other people's edits without a very good reason (BLP being the only one I can think of here), don't change your own posts either. If you change your mind, strike through what you wrote. If you want to add to it, start a new edit. That's all in the guidelines. And if you think Michell is being ill-treated, by attacking other editors you are doing what you claim they are doing to Michell. Guidlines:

Behavior that is unacceptable

Please note that some of the following are of sufficient importance to be official Wikipedia policy. Violations (and especially repeated violations) may lead to the offender being blocked or banned from editing Wikipedia.

No personal attacks: A personal attack is saying something negative about another person. This mainly means: No insults: Do not make ad hominem attacks, such as calling someone an idiot or a fascist. Instead, explain what is wrong with an edit and how to fix it. Do not threaten people: For example, threatening people with "admins you know" or having them banned for disagreeing with you. Do not make legal threats: Threatening a lawsuit is highly disruptive to Wikipedia, for reasons given at the linked page. Never post personal details: Users who post what they believe are the personal details of other users without their consent may be blocked for any length of time, including indefinitely.

Do not misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context. This usually means: Be precise in quoting others. When describing other people's contributions or edits, use diffs. The advantage of diffs in referring to a comment is that it will always remain the same, even when a talk page gets archived or a comment gets changed. As a rule, do not edit others' comments, including signatures. Exceptions are described in the next section.

Editing comments

Others' comments

It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Do not strike out the comments of other editors without their permission.

Never edit someone's words to change their meaning, even on your own talk page. Editing others' comments is sometimes allowed, but you should exercise caution in doing so. Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:

If you have their permission Removing prohibited material such as libel and personal details Deleting material not relevant to improving the article (per the above subsection #How to use article talk pages). Removing personal attacks and incivility. This is controversial, and many editors do not feel it is acceptable; please read WP:ATTACK#Removal of text and WP:CIVIL#Removal of uncivil comments before removing anything. Unsigned comments: You are allowed to append — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) or one of its variants to the end of someone's comment if they have failed to sign it. The form is —Preceding unsigned comment added by USER NAME OR IP (talk • contribs) DATE AND TIME, which results in —The preceding unsigned comment was added by USER NAME OR IP (talk • contribs) DATE AND TIME. Interruptions: In some cases, it is OK to interrupt a long contribution, either with a short comment (as a reply to a minor point) or with a heading (if the contribution introduces a new topic). In that case, add "Heading added to (reason) by Doug Weller (talk) 21:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)"). In such cases, please add —This is part of a comment by USER NAME OR IP , which was interrupted by the following: before the interruption. When a long comment has formatting errors, rendering it difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible. Generally, page formatting can be fixed as well (i.e. to move a new comment from the top of a page to the bottom and adding a header to the comment). On your own user talk page, you may remove others' comments, although archiving is generally preferred. If a signature violates the guidelines for signatures. In the past it was standard practice to refactor talk pages, although this practice has fallen somewhat into disuse. If a thread has veered off its original subject, it may be desirable to split threads, especially if the new topic is deemed to merit extensive discussion. When part of a discussion is made into its own thread, the new thread should include an opening sentence or paragraph explaining the reason for the move and containing a link to the original thread. As well, a note should be placed at the location the discussion was moved from, with a link to the new thread. It is also important that the format of the existing discussion remains essentially the same. Simple cutting and pasting will not always ensure that this happens; a bit of reformatting may be necessary. When splitting a thread, always preview how your changes appear and check to see whether the flow of the thread remains the same as it was previously (i.e. that all replies are in the correct places.) Splitting a thread should not in any way alter the meaning of any comments therein; hence the need for links, proper formatting, and an explanation. Section headers: Because threads are shared by multiple users, the original title becomes communal property. To avoid disputes it is best to discuss changes with the editor who started the thread, if possible, but it is generally acceptable to change section headers when a better header is appropriate. This is under the purview of threads themselves being shared property rather than a single editor's comments.
--Doug Weller (talk) 21:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Correct me if I am wrong but I believe that Doug Weller is not a Wikipedia administrator. 209.163.118.187 (talk) 07:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. What's your point? You also might want to read WP:NPOV as I don't think you understand it. Doug Weller (talk) 08:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Could I ask SageMab to restore the contributions to this page by myself that he has altered, making absolutely clear what he wrote and what I wrote. I would do this myself, but it is an intricate job that would probably take me about an hour to complete, bearing in mind that I do not want to throw up my hands (as I once did recently, and wrongly) and revert to the state of play before numerous edits, just in order to undo SageMab's alteration of what I wrote. The number of times he has altered what I wrote must now be in the region of 10. It is surely time for him to stop. As far as I am concerned, he is entitled to his say (keeping to the topic) just as anyone else is (I have certainly not altered one word that he has ever written, despite the fact that much of it has been vitriolic and malicious against myself), but he has done Wikipedia a disservice by queering this page so as to make it unclear who has written what.

As someone who has written an essay for inclusion in the English edition of a work by Julius Evola, John Michell obviously has a 'relationship' with the said guy's ideology. To say he has a 'non-relationship' is simply not true. The question is the nature of the relationship.

I would also take issue with SageMab's statement that Michell is not a friend or colleague of Moynihan's. I have no idea whether they are friends, but the relationship between this author and this publisher was obviously one of 'colleagueship', because such a relationship was obviously involved in the publication of the book. Had they not wished to be colleagues, they would never have signed the contract with each other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.204.125 (talk) 22:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

---

User 91.84.204.125 is distorting the facts again about this article and also my posts. Look at the History of this article and talk page and also at his talk page (which he has blanked). 91.84.204.125has called other editors idiots and has accused them of vandalism after they went on his talk page (I did not) and warned him to stop flame warring and vandalizing this page. 91.84.204.125 blanks out my edits and I have asked him to stop. He also posts material that has been, and should be, removed as per Wikiedia guidelines by other editors. Obviously, he has a serious problem with this author and I would ask him to re-read his Wiki guidelines before his uses derogatory terms in regard to editors and to this living author. 91.84.204.125 is not signing his posts in order to prevent "undo". I remind him to sign his posts with 4 tildes after every edit or comment. I also ask him to not blank pages and otherwise destroy good edits that he disagrees with. I have not gone on this 91.84.204.125 user nor talk page but 91.84.204.125 posted two warnings on my user pager that he had no authority to post. He is not an administrator and it is obvious that he has not read Wiki's guidelines. I have no interest in interacting with trolls and I ask him, in Wiki's policy of assuming good faith, to desist in trying to draw me out. I am not interested in what he has to say about his "opinion" about this author. I am interested in facts and he has failed to provide accurate ones. SageMab (talk) 22:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

If you're really interested in improving this article, why didn't you reply to my comment above? AnonMoos (talk) 00:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you are talking about User:91.84.204.125|91.84.204.125. I agree with you AnonMoos, good point that 91.84.204.125|91.84.204.125 who keeps insisiting John Michell is a "follower" of fascism is "slanted". I have read quite a lot of this author, along with reviews of his work, and I have not seen anything that could even be remotely suggested as fascist in his writings. John Michell is not afraid to tackle contoversial subjects and always encourages and champions the free exchange of ideas. His work does seem to show a love and respect for all cultures and people. I find him a scholarly and witty read. SageMab (talk) 00:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I have a great deal of difficulty following the flow of conversation here... AnonMoos (talk) 06:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It is difficult, isn't it? Sagemab, the warnings should have been on your Talk Page, but ignoring that, he had every right to put them there, you don't have to be an administrator to issue warnings. And you have every right to remove them. Doug Weller (talk) 06:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

User 91.84.204.125 ignored the warnings of four other editors on his own talk page to stop vandalizing and flame warring this John Michell article and talk page which were given a month before SageMab got involved with this and before SageMab similarily warned this poster on this page. 216.240.101.40 (talk) 07:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

216.240.101.40 - are you a different person from the person who contributes as 'SageMab', or are you the same person? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.204.125 (talk) 09:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Evola

I don't see how anyone can disagree that Michell admires Evola, eg "Disgusted by the cruelty and artificiality of communism, scorning the dogmatic, self-centered fascism of his age, Evola looks beyond man-made systems to the eternal principles in creation and human society. The truth, as he sees it, is so totally at odds with the present way of thinking that it shocks the modern mind. Evola was no politician, trying to make the best of things, but an idealist, uncompromising in the pursuit of the Best itself." Doug Weller (talk) 06:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, your quote above suggests the opposite. I don't see how anyone can think that Michell admires Evola. On the contrary. This quote is way, way out of context. "Disgusted by...communism, scorning fascism..." The point is a person can be an idealist and go down a wrong path. Evola himself rejected everything Evola had stood for. Evola was an idealist who turned to a perverted system of belief and then rejected it. This is not a complimentary essay on Evola.. John Michell is a Platonist, Dougweller, and a fortean. Michell admires Plato and Charles Fort, not Evola. As a fortean, Michell is the very opposite of a fascist. John Michell is a prolific, fortean author and he has never, ever been accused of fascist leanings except, wrongly, on this page. One cannot be a fortean and a fascist and John Michell has been a fortean for his entire writing career. Just because you and another user on this page labels him a fascist, does not make it so. I have read quite a bit of John Michell's work and have heard him give lectures and find no hint of fascism. Rather, Michell always rejects repressive thought in his writings and urges the reader to think for himself. To suggest other wise is to reveal that a person has not read this author of more than two dozen titles throughly. No scholar has ever accused John Michell of being a "follower" nor "admirer" of any fascist. See John Mcihell's website The Hope which urges peace, understanding and cooperation between all people. 216.240.101.40 (talk) 07:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

How many times do I have to ask people not to refactor stuff without a good reason? I called this section 'Evola', that is NPOV, leave it alone! I have never called Michell a fascist, why do you make such a false accusation? As for the quote, it may be out of context, I wouldn't know, I simply found it in a review of Evola. As for admiring Plato, I wonder why the IP editor mentions that? Doug Weller (talk) 08:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Your comment that Michell admires Evola is a serious charge. It is incorrect and needs to be addressed. Salient facts were added by my previous comment. Why are you determined to supress discussion that does not agree with your view? I will assume good faith.216.240.101.40 (talk) 08:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

As to the comment about Plato it is important to understand Plato if one is going to understand John Michell's writings and his comentary about other authors. 216.240.101.40 (talk) 08:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You are not assuming good faith as you are accusing me of suppressing disucssion (without saying how I'm doing that except by asking people not to rewrite other editors' comments.). If Evola rejected everything Evola stood for, as you say above, why couldn't Michell admire him? And calling Evola "an idealist, uncompromising in the pursuit of the Best itself" sounds as though he admired him. Perhaps you can quote Michell's criticism of him.

As for Plato, I personally have always disliked him for the same reason Karl Popper and Bertrand Russell did, his advocacy of a closed, totalitarian society. Doug Weller (talk) 10:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I think Plato and number theory is more germane to discuss in regard to John Michell. Your dislikes or likes, and mine, of Plato is not revelant when it comes to writing a Wiki entry. Again, I will assume good faith. 216.240.101.40 (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Good, because number theory wasn't mentioned and I assumed it was a much more general like of Plato than just his number theory. The statement was that he was a Platonist and that would certainly encompass Plato's ideas about politics. Doug Weller (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Searching through Confessions of a Radical Traditionalist on Amazon, it's clear that his interest in Plato went far beyond number theory. 'Platonist' would seem to be correct'. Doug Weller (talk) 17:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, 216.240.101.40, are you PhilKnight? Doug Weller (talk) 12:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

No, Doug, I most certainly do not use an IP sock. PhilKnight (talk) 12:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't accusing you of that, people do sometimes post without logging in and without being socks. But your signature and the IP signature are adjacent to each other on one of the edits.

Curiouser and curiouser, User talk:216.240.101.40's talk page has an edit signed by PhilKnight and 216.240.101.40 -- Phil it really does look as though you and this IP are the same editor. If not, why is your name on the talk page, where it says "PhilKnight (talk) 21:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC) 216.240.101.40 (talk) 09:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)" and has no edits by PhilKnight? Despite your denial, either the IP editor is adding your name or that's you when not logged in. It's confusing to say the least. It doesn't look like a deliberate attempt to deceive, quite the contrary, but then you deny it above so I really don't know what to think. Doug Weller (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I found the source for the quote by Michell on Evola: [2] - as you can see, it is in a section headed 'Praise for Men Among the Ruins. Doug Weller (talk) 12:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Doug, you obviously don't understand the original research policy. PhilKnight (talk)12:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't? It applies to what we write on article discussion pages? Where does it say that? So far as I know, this sort of discussion on a talk page is fine. Please show me where I've gone wrong. Doug Weller (talk) 06:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything in that quote which suggests he is an admirer of Evola, more that he is trying to analyse his ideas without trying to impose assumptions or value judgements from the start (not an unreasonable way to start a look at someone's work, even if you then go on to draw less neutral conclusions). As it is a quote taken out of context and it doesn't appear that anyone has read the whole thing. It may be that he goes on to praise or damn him, we don't know. Granted it appears in a section marked "praise" but we should all know, from movie poster quotes, that publishers/publicists are great at taking quotes out of context - what might be telling is that they used that quote, if he had gone on to actually praise him I would have thought they'd have used that in the quote. Out of context it tells us little, I'm afraid. (Emperor (talk) 14:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC))

I found at least some of the context[3]:

" This is from pp. 146-47 of *Confessions of a Radical Traditionalist*, a page or two into a chapter titled "A Rad-Trad Englishman and an Italian." Michell has just described a vision of the good life held by one William Corbett (1763-1835). He continues... It comes as a shock to be reminded how closely this picture resembles the ideal images of fascism. But there is a world of difference between the gross literalism and inhumanity of a totalitarian system and the high idealism of a radical traditionalist. That difference was emphasized by Julius Evola (1898-1974), the Italian rad-trad philosopher. Though idolised by Mussolini, he was fiercely critical of the Fascist system -- and of man-made systems generally. He rejected Darwin, and the entirety of modern, secular thinking, in favor of the traditional, classical world-view. Like Socrates, he perceived a divine order in Creation, and he acknowledged a tradition, based upon that order and passed down from the great civilizations of antiquity. The old tradition, and the virtues of honesty, justice, courage, piety and noble conduct associated with it, were the main elements in Evola's reactionary revolution.

In 1951 he was arrested and brought to trial in Rome for "glorifying Fascism." The prosecutor made a farce of the proceedings by refusing to specify objectionable passages in Evola's writings, saying it was a question of his tone or "general spirit." The trial collapsed and Evola was fully acquitted.

Most of us are familiar with that sort of accusation -- against one's tone, attitude or general spirit. Bullies and witch-hunters are always on the lookout for fascism, racism, sexism, elitism, loyalism, religious sentiments or whatever is considered most incorrect at the time. In Evola they find their ideal victim. In his most powerful book, Revolt Against the Modern World<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/089281506X/entropygradientr/re...>, he spoke of manliness, mystical sovereignty and legitimate authority. He spoke also about occult politics and the collusions between democrats and demagogues to effeminise society and dumb it down. Inevitably, he brought in the Jews, associating the Jewish mentality with materialism. That makes him, if you like, an anti-Semite. But he was not speaking racially, or against the Jewish tradition which he respected. His reference was to a state of mind, occurring in Jews and Gentiles alike: the state of mind that is reflected in the chaos of the modern world. "

Allow me[the author of the Usenet post that included the above] to say that that makes him[Evola] an anti-Semite even if you *don't* like. Doug Weller (talk) 17:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Read the last sentence Doug. I have read the books in question. I have read the John Michell essay whch does not praise Evola nor make excuses for him. The essay by Michell is one small essay in a very large, widely highly regarded, body of John Michell's work that deals with sacred space, number and geometry and the freedom to form opinions. Michell's writings, which is how you judge an author, show him to be a peaceful man, with respect for all and with respect for scholarship. I don't think you care for this author. SageMab (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, he does definitely sound like a peaceful man. I was responding to Emperor's comment about the lack of context. It doesn't matter if I care or don't care for Michell. What matters is making sure that the article follows Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Reliable sources, verifiablity, balance (ie NPOV), etc. Doug Weller (talk) 18:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I agree. SageMab (talk) 18:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is it again comes down to a person's interpretation of the text - SageMab says it is neither praise nor excuses, but as far as I'm concerned he is essentially coming to Evola's defence and is trying to explain/"spin" Evola's statements. It is definitely a grey area but interpreting someone's pronouncements which are anti-Semitic, as not being so, doesn't mean you yourself are anti-Semitic and neither does interpreting Evola's fascist ideas as being something else doesn't make you a fascist. It does mean you are walking on some very thin ice, and people could certainly ask some very serious questions about why someone would do that (presumably to make his own interests in rad Trad more acceptable - possibly even to himself).

So again I am unsure what we can say about that, what we need are other sources which give their readings of his work. Just from what I've read here I'd suggest it is an apparently innocent attempt to explain what are, on the face of it, some rather nasty ideologies, which could certainly leave him open to accusations of anti-Semitism/fascism, even if there is no real solid justification for it. Others could suggest it is him coyly displaying fascist tendencies and others could suggest it is wholly innocent. So it could be possible, with the right sources, to build a balanced look at this but I don't think it is going to come purely from the primary material. (Emperor (talk) 19:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC))

'Recurring themes' statement

I see the fact tag has once again been removed. This is still either unsourced or OR based on an interpretation of what Michell says. Sagemab, you are removing the tag, please either source it or remove the sentence. You already have a quote from Michell. Doug Weller (talk) 06:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannia

I see someone has written that he is a columnist for this -- but what is it? A knock-off of the Britannica? Doug Weller (talk) 16:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Assume good faith DougWeller. It is the Encyclopedia Britannica online and I would call it notable so you might want to restore the reference to John Michell's columns there.216.240.101.40 (talk) 19:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It is? Why don't you give us a link to one of his columns then? I didn't remove the reference and until there is evidence for it I see no reason to restore it. Where does good faith come into this? I asked a serious question. I don't think there is an Encyclopedia Britannia, you think it means Encylopedia Britannica, an encyclopedia which doesn't have an entry for him and so far as I know doesn't have 'colunns'. You seem to know more than I do so hopefully you can provide a source we can check. Doug Weller (talk) 19:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is a link to the online encyclopedia Britannia and four "monthly" articles by John Michell, http://www.britannia.com/wonder/wonder.html which was in the body of the John Michell article until someone removed them. Can you give a good reason for not having this link in the article? I do think on-line encyclopedias are good sources of information, especially one like this that has been around for more than ten years.SageMab (talk) 11:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sagemab - that isn't an encyclopedia, it is basically an American tourist site about Britain ('America's gateway to the British Isles') with a number of articles. I casually know the history editor and he's a nice guy, but it isn't an encyclopedia and I'm not clear why you think it is unless you are still confusing it with the Britannica, which is the encyclopedia. Britannia.com's faq page says "Are you a history site or a travel site?

A: Yes. Both, actually". It's one of those sites where the site itself probably doesn't qualify as an RS but individual authors may, and of course can be used for information about what John Michell has written. Doug Weller (talk) 11:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

DougWeller, this is on Google: "Encyclopedia - Britannica Online Encyclopedia" and "Explore the updated online encyclopedia from Encyclopaedia Britannica with hundreds of thousands of articles, biographies, videos, images, and web sites.www.britannica.com/" In any case, it is a perfectly good source of articles written by John Michell. SageMab (talk) 11:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I give up. Can someone else please explain to Sagemab his mistake? I've tried several times (eg in this section and by memory in others), but he seems to think whatever I say is wrong. Doug Weller (talk) 11:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

That's not the point. You are clouding the issue of whether this is a good source of information for the reader of this article. If you say you know an editor at this on-line publication why did you ask at the top of this section what is this publication? I do think the amount of space devoted to this and other sections you have started on this page to be way beyond the sensible norm for talk page discussions. Once again, this is not a chat room. SageMab (talk) 12:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Sagemab, "Britannia.com" and the "Encyclopedia Britannica" are two completely separate things. The only connection is that they use the Latin name for Britain in the title. Britannia.com is an online resource of information about Britain designed to encourage tourism. Yes, it does include a number of historical essays. Generally these are quite good, and at times I have referenced them in articles when their content is uncontroversial. But the site is nevertheless essentially commercial. The Encyclopedia Britannica is the premier English language encyclopedia. In order to get full access to its content you have to subscribe. Doug Weller probably did not know that the editor was someone he knew until he looked up information about the source, which indicates his dilligence in attempting to assess its reliability. Paul B (talk) 14:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know, the difference is patently obvious. That's not the problem. The Britannia, on the net for over ten ears and filled with accurate information for the British Isles (most sites have to fund their endeavors) is a decent reference portal, though not a premiere one. It contains articles by John Michell that may be of interest to the reader. It might be more properly mentioned on this page, rather than in the article. It certainly does not warrant this huge section about it on the talk page. SageMab (talk) 14:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The difference was clearly not patently obvious to you only yesterday, so don't be disingenuous. The talk page is for discussing the content of the article. That includes the use of sources. Paul B (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Where does chat room come into this discussion? Exactly what have I been talking about that doesn't relate to the article? I realised I knew an editor when I looked at the website more closely, what's odd about that? And why are you apparently trying to shut me up? If you agree that Britannia.com is not an encyclopedia, then I can at least do what I've tried to do, drop my participation in this particular section. Doug Weller (talk) 12:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Reception

Having had my attention directed here by the Fringe Theories Noticeboard, I've given this article a read. My impression is that most of it is not too bad, with the exception of the Reception section. I can't find a single thing there that comes from a good source (except possibly the Culianu quote). In particular, materials included with the book (introduction and flyleaf) are absolutely useless for establishing reception. I intend to do some editing here if nobody beats me to it, but wanted to discuss before acting. Looie496 (talk) 00:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The use of publicity material in this way has bothered me but I've been hesitant to do anything about it on my own. I think there is a serious misunderstanding of what NPOV means by some editors here. And of referencing, reliable sources, etc. Do you have any problem with him being in the New Age category? I was surprised to see that called OR. Doug Weller (talk) 09:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Godwin

Thanks, I think that works. It needed some context, not just 'he's a professor and author'. Doug Weller (talk) 10:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

New Age

I didn't see this as controversial, just overlooked. As I've said, Amazon and Barnes & Noble classify him that way. This site [4] calls him New Age, I can easily find others. He's already in the Earth Mysteries category, what's wrong with New Age? Doug Weller (talk) 14:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Bookwatch

The article says: "Bookwatch", the monthly newletter of book reviews by MidWest Editors (April 2008) wrote of John Michell's "The Dimensions of Paradise: Sacred Geometry, Ancient Science, and the Heavenly Order On Earth", (ISBN 1594771987) "... describes the new science of a geometrical code of 'harmonies and proportions devised by the priests of ancient Egypt and underlying sacred structures from ancient to Christian times. Author John Mitchell is a pioneer researcher and specialist in ancient science: his book is a top pick for New Age libraries interested in sacred geometry". Two questions - if an editor doesn't think anyone calls John Michell New Age, why use a quote that calls him New Age yet still insist it isn't an appropriate category and serious sources don't use the term? If this isn't a serious source, it shouldn't be here. (And of course this is hardly a 'new science'). Second question -- what makes this a reliable source? It's a volunteer book 'review' (2 sentences long) by an anonymous writer. Doug Weller (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

"Bookwatch" is a prestigious newsletter from professional book editors and reviewers. A short review does not discredit itsef by its' own brevity. It looks as if DougWeller is determined to gut, or otherwise undermine this article. I am assuming good faith but it is becoming more difficult. I do think the New Age term is moot and comes from other New Age reviewers on line. John Michell's work is properly called esoteric and fortean. Paul Erdos approved of John Michell's mathematics and Gerald Hawkins often praised John Michell's work (I saw Hawkins at more than a few lectures) as does archaeologist John Anthony West. Use the New Age category if you like, but I think it is misleading to the reader. SageMab (talk) 18:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything reason to be harsh about the Bookwatch quote; it seems harmless at worst. Re Erdos, I'm skeptical about this unless you can provide evidence. Looie496 (talk) 18:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

John Anthony West is not an archaeologist. Graham Hancock's site calls him a 'rogue Egyptologist' (Hancock and West are friends), but no academic Egyptologist that I know of considers him an Egyptologist, and certainly not an archaeologist. Erdos and Hawkins and West may well have praised Michell, but we need evidence. Bookwatch reviews are done by volunteers, I don't see how you can call them professional book editors and reviewers and I would really appreciate an explanation of why you think they are professionals. I am tired of having accusations made against me by the way -- I am struggling to keep some WP standards in this article, the same standards I would expect from an article on a real archaeologist for instance. It is a complete slur to accuse of of tryhing to undermine, gut, etc. this article. The Bookwatch thing is minor in a way, but it is also a question of principle, is it really a RS? I'm not sure, but I'm dubious. Nothing to do with length, everything to do with having volunteer reviewers. If I used something like that to criticse Michell, I'd expect you rightly to be questioning it. And Sagemab, you yourself referred to an edit of mine as NPOV, so how could that be trying to undermine the article? Let alone my adding ISBN numbers, etc. Doug Weller (talk) 18:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Looie about Bookwatch. Are you saying you know Egyptologists? Well, then you know that John West has a very good reputation and has worked with some of the most highly repected scholars and geologists in his field. But this page is not about John West and this page is not a chat board. The reviewers at Bookwatch are book editors DougWeller, not volunteer book editors (a very rare breed); see the blurb at the top of their masthead which says the reviewers are editors. The word is editors. Bookwatch is widely acknowldged by literati to be a notable source of book reviews. I do not care if you use it or not in this article. I do think you are attempting to water down this article rather than improve it. You are commenting on every edit and following me to both an editors' talk page and to my talk page and trying to engage me in endless conversation about every edit which is usually called trying to start an edit war, not that you would be doing that. Not helpful. This is not about you and editors may disagree with each other without anyone taking it personally. With all good faith, I would like to suggest that we read Wikipedia NPOV and the guidelines in regard to living authors WP:BLP. SageMab (talk) 23:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

John West has a terrible reputation among mainstream Egyptologists (a Sphinx on Mars?). He has worked with one geologist, Robert Schoch, who is a geologist by training but does not work as one professionally but teaches general science in a non-degree college of Boston University. As for being a chat board, I'm not sure what you mean but I didn't bring up John West (and my main point was that he isn't a geologist). A discussion page is a chatboard about improving the article, what it isn't is a chatboard about the subject of the article. I don't see how I've used it about anything other than improving the article.

As for Bookwatch, I've figured out the confusion here. I think. They have a page on becoming a reviewer which says "So take a book you've read, a video you've watched, a compact disc whose music you've enjoyed, an audio cassette book you've listened to, software that you've evaluated, or a CD-ROM that you've come across, and give reviewing a try!" and that all its reviewers are volunteers. But that only seems to apply to 'Reviewers' Bookwatch', not all their Bookwatches. The MBR Bookwatch Index, which is the one with the bit on Michell, does say its reviews are generated by MBR editors and specialized reviewers who have demonstrated expertise, etc. But these are still all volunteers, not professionals, and it isn't clear who they are. "The Midwest Book Review is an organization of volunteers committed to promoting literacy, library usage, and small press publishing".It looks as though the decisions as to who can be a reviewer are made by James Cox, see [5]. So I think we were both partially right and partially wrong.

I don't think you quite understand NPOV -- your comment on needing balance to the one critical review suggests that you aren't clear about it. Please, if you think that in any way I have transgressed NPOV or BLP, be specific. Right now you have been making vague accusations (and using edit summaries to make comments that belong here). You clearly don't understand our policy on original research. Of course mathematics is used to discuss the universe, that isn't in question. But to use 'obvious facts' in the way you have is OR. The article should report what reliable sources have said about Michell, not 'obvious facts' -- that would be appropriate in an essay, not Wikipedia. And in a recent edit summary you write "proof is in the list of his books" which again shows that you don't understand WP guidelines on OR.

I have just looked at the history of the article again. You are claming 'consensus' as justification for putting stuff back in that was removed. How in the world do you get the idea that there is consensus? You are also getting close to transgressing WP:Civil by your comment in the edit summary that your edits were 'trashed', which is untrue. I would have every right to revert that just on the grounds that your claim of consensus is false, but I won't bother. I will ask once again though where you get the 'manifestoes' thing and what is means. Who calls them manifestoes?

Discussing edits here is not called trying to start an edit war, it is an attempt to avoid one. Doug Weller (talk) 04:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

DoougWeller you are not an administrator and I do suggest with all good faith that you read Wikipedia's policy on living authors and also consensus (and in putting back a recently removed fact). I don't agree with you on most of your talking points but, once again, this is not about you and this is not a chat room. I never said John West was a geologist; he never ever said the Sphinx had anything to do with Mars; he is highly regarded; this discusion page is not about John Anthony West. I still haven't seen where you have come up with any new information about this John Michell writings to add to this article either pro or con.SageMab (talk) 10:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Ooops, sorry, I meant my point was that he isn't an archaeologist. This is not about me, but it is, to an extent, about my questions and comments, your questions and comments, etc. I still have no idea about you mean by 'this is not a chat room'. This is a discussion page for the article, we are discussing it, we are not chatting about anything irrelevant to the article. I have asked you to explain a few things and you just ignore my questions. I seem to understand BLP and consensus and NPOV (and OR) a bit better than you do. That I am not an administrator simply means that I can't do certain things, that's all. I've come up with some details for the bibliography, and I am one of the very few editors who have made an effort to make the article balanced and NPOV by finding an article and changing "Critics of Michell's work range from those who consider him "a learned crank obsessed with numbers"Ioan P. Culianu, review of The Dimensions of Paradise, to the full quote "After some deliberation the reader of this book will oscillate between two hypotheses: either that many mysteries of the universe are based on numbers, or that the book's author is a fairly learned crank obsessed with numbers." But you know that already because you reverted it to the original partial quote (kindly saying I could put it back, but you shouldn't have reverted it, you should just have edited and replaced what you thought I wrongly removed). Your idea of balance (from what you've said above), isn't to find some critics to balance all the praise, but you have said that the one criticism should be balanced by yet more praise. So it's untrue that I haven't contributed.

I would still like to know why you called an edit of mine NPOV and whether that was supposed to be a compliment or a rebuke.

I would also like to know what you mean by claiming consensus for replacing stuff other editors have removed -- what do you think Wikipedia means by consensus?

And I would like to know why adding 'obvious facts' with no citation to a 3rd party reliable source is not original research. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I still have not found any real information you have added to this article other than a few ISBNs to my large list of them and the odd quote in 1991 of the Churchman Culianu restored to what it once was. No I did not whatever you have been insisting on most of your points. Where would I say, and why would I say what you just posted about me here "Your idea of balance (from what you've said above), isn't to find some critics to balance all the praise, but you have said that the one criticism should be balanced by yet more praise." Untrue allegations from DougWeller again. Once again review [[[NPOV]] and Wikipedia's wise advice on living authors (have you read that page?. You have floated quite a few bogus quotes about me and have turned this discussion page into a chat board.Doug Weller (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't restore the quote by Culianu (why do you keep calling him a 'Churchman'?). I added the rest of the immediate context, which I think made it more NPOV. And I do think that your statement "I do think a comment about number should be included to balance the Catholic Church's rep comment." meant that you thought a favorable comment was needed because there was a (just one) critical comment. If that isn't what you meant, how about explaining yourself rather than engage in yet another attack on me?

I also note that you removed a review some time ago that Amazon says was sourced from Publishers Weekly, apparently because you couldn't find it on the web. Just because something can't be found on the web doesn't mean it doesn't exist. In the interest of NPOV, I think it should be replaced. Doug Weller (talk) 16:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

DougWeller I found this from you on my talk page; why do you always have edits missing from you and other editors? I noticed it because your comment, ("I do think a comment about number should be included to balance the Catholic Church's rep comment." has vanished, and that's the comment I took as saying a negative comment should be balanced by praise, ie a positive one (and what does 'rep' mean)? Doug Weller (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)) Rep means a representative. He works for the Catholic Church and Churchman is the proper term. Replace it with representative from the Catholic Church if you like. It is a peculiar 17 year-old-quote and it did not carry much weight nor notice then or today. As to the Publishers Weekly quote, I went to hard copy and found it non-existant; it was posted by a user on Amazon.com which is not a reliable Wikipedia source as anyone can say anything. I see from one of your talk comments that you said you wish you could find (negative discussion above, please do not open it up again) comments on John Michell somewhere other than blogs. I agree with you that blogs are not usable for Wikipedia purposes. I notice that other far more controversial subjects than John Michell have much shorter disussion pages. Commentary on every edit is not a bone of contension to be chewed until swallowed. I do agree that online content needs to be vetted. Remind all about Wikipedia's warnings about living authors. SageMab (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Not missing, not showing because there was a 'ref' without a /ref. It really happened, and your statement in your edit summary that it didn't happen is false.

Now, Culianu. My guess is that it is because he was critical of Michell that you are trying to dismiss him. You have no way of knowing what its impact was. And I have no way of knowing why you think Professor Culianu, PhD (actually he had 3 doctorates), who worked for the non-denominational University of Chicago in the Divinity School (which started as a Baptist Seminary) could possibly be a representative of the Roman Catholic Church. But I do appreciate your bringing this to my attention as the article is clearly wrong.

Please explain what you mean by going to hard copy. The quote was put there by Amazon, not by an Amazon user. Do you really believed an employee of Amazon made it up?

A discussion page can be as long as it needs to be. A lot of articles have several discussion archives.

Why the reminders about discussion of living authors? Please, if you think I or anyone has broken the guidelines, don't make veiled comments here, make an official complaint.

Assume good faith DougWeller, I am not trying to dismiss Culianu although his Christian Church background should be mentioned. That is a very UnWiki statement of yours to me. Actually Culianu's review, if you read it, was not really critical of John Michell's work. As for the Publishers' Weekly statement, it is a made up reference, not correct at all and checked out with Publishers Weekly. No veiled comment, I have told you I don't think you understand NPOV along with Wikipedia policy towards living authors. You might want to check with an administrator DougWeller but I don't think it is needful, nor helpful, to debate, repeat and justify every edit of yours. That is not how Wikipedia works. SageMab (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to refer to Culianu as a professor of divinity. I don't think we need to discuss the religion of reviewers however. How did you check out the Amazon review, claimed by Amazon (officially, not by a user) to be from Publishers Weekly? You keep saying I don't understand NPOV and I keep asking you to be specific as to what you mean by that. By the way, it is often seen as a good thing to discuss edits on the article's discussion page, not a bad thing. But if you just want to to edit and not explain my edits here, maybe I should, although I think that can lead to problems in cases like this. Doug Weller (talk) 20:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

pictures

It would be cool to have a couple of pictures for this article. There are lots of photos of Michell available, but most of them suck and none show licensing. The best one I could find is this: [6]. Presumably we could get away with fair use, but I'm not too familiar with the policies on that. It would also be cool to have an example of one of his paintings. The page [7] shows several of them, but doesn't have any licensing/copyright info at all. Looie496 (talk) 18:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Great suggestion Looie. I think most article pages of authors should have a photo or painting of the subject. I have seen a nice painting of John Michell that was used on one of his books. Try Google images. His paintings can be seen (in very small part) if you go to the bottom of the article page and click on the Hope. I have no clue if one of them could be used in conjnction with fair use policy. You could probably grab one of his mathematical drawings of the Temple at Jersalem, though most are in black and white.SageMab (talk) 18:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

An infobox really needs a photograph but as he is alive it gets trickier to get one that is free to use. Perhaps if you see one you like (and the above suggestion seems a good one) perhaps drop the site a line and see if they'd be interested in uploading it to Wiki Commons for the greater good?

While we are on infoboxes: which one to use? {{Infobox Writer}} seems the best option, although there is a specific one for Fortean writers/researchers around (in fact, after a quick dig, here it is {{Infobox Paranormalpeople1}}). (Emperor (talk) 01:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC))

Erdos

As far as I know Erdos was a pure mathematician, and barely was aware that anything other than math existed. Can you provide any source at all for him making a comment about Michell? Erdos was a strange guy, so I don't rule it out, but I would like to see a source, please. Looie496 (talk) 18:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I have seen Erdos write about John Michell which said he showed up on John Michell's doorstep announcing "brain open". I'll see it I can find the ref online somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SageMab (talk • contribs) 18:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

7 degrees of Paul Erdos. SageMab (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

He was known to knock on doors saying "My brain is open." Doug Weller (talk) 18:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Correct, Doug. Erdos showed up on the doorsteps of literally hundreds of theoretical mathematicians, including Michell's. Erdos influenced thousands of pieces of math and was essentially living with anyone he respected for short periods of time. I do think a comment in defense of number theory should follow the churchman's comment for the sake of balance. SageMab (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I've got no problem if it comes from a reliable source. I haven't found anything so far. The problem I have is with things like claims he writes a column for the Encyclopedia Britannica (or the nonexistent Encyclopedia Britannia), using open source sources, etc. Doug Weller (talk) 19:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't find the Erdos thing so best to remove it. I do think a comment about number should be included to balance the Catholic Church's rep comment. The Britannia is an online encyclopedia. The link was provided and I believe you blanked it out. Take a look; it includes columns from John Michell.SageMab (talk) 19:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Have I got this right? There is one critical comment in the article and it needs balancing? Britannia is not an online encyclopedia, look at its home page at [8] - it doesn't claim to be an encyclopedia, why do you call it one? It is a collection of articles and basically a tourist site. It does include articles (not columns, 'column' is a regular feature of some sort), but it isn't an encyclopedia and even though I know the history editor more or less, I wouldn't call it a particularly Reliable Source by WP standards. Doug Weller (talk) 19:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Britannia claims to be an online encyclopedia on Google. Refer to the vast section above that you sarted. Sagemab wrote this and signed it properly, my fix put my sig on it.

Sagemab, please look at what I said where I started -- Britannia.com and Britannica.com are vastly different sites. Your 3rd Google hit is Britannica, not Britannia. Doug Weller (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

OR (and POV)

I see the article now says " Mathematics as a language for describing the mysteries of the universe is accepted scholarship and mathematician philosophers from Issac Newton to Paul Erdos have been called obsessed by numbers so-called traditional authorities. The work of Michell's Lindisfarne colleague Ernest McClain is a case in point." This is clearly OR, we should only be reporting what reliable sources have to say about Michell, not personal opinions. I don't think it is NPOV either, but in the context of the whole article that is a fairly minor matter. I hope that the editor who added it will remove it himself or justify it as not being OR. Doug Weller (talk) 20:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleted review by alternative medicine practitioner

This review should never have been added. It is clearly not from a reliable source and it isn't as though there isn't enough praise from other reviewers in the article. As I said in my edit summary when I removed it, it is by a very non-notable alternative medicine practioner in a magazine published by a Canadian new age store. I don't agree with John Michell on a number of things, but I have enough respect for him (he's a good, interesting writer even where he is wrong) to think that this review isn't needed to show he can write. Sagemab, it is up to you to show that it is a reliable source, reliability isn't the default. You say you disagree with me, but on what grounds? Doug Weller (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not think it is helpful to discuss everything to death on an article discussion page. Again, this is not a chat room. I disagree with your edit but I let it stand as, yes, John Michell has no shortage of laudatory comments. It was an interesting quote because it is about the Temple at Jersalem book of his and the review included an interview with John Michell and material about the facts in this book. I found it to be a source that added information to this particular book and a solid appearing publication. It does not matter if you or I care (for or against) a New Age publication. I will not get into a discussion with you DougWeller about it as I am sure neither of us wants to edit war. 17:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SageMab (talk • contribs)

Thank you. I appreciate that. I'm not for or against using publications just because they are New Age, it is about WP:RS. This is not a chatroom, it is a place for discussions such as this one. Doug Weller (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Credentials of reviewers

We seem to have swung from overly detailed credentials of reviewers to virtually none. I don't think either extreme is correct. My own opinion is that it is useful for readers to know something about a reviewer. Comments? Doug Weller (talk) 20:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Were you the editor who removed credentials for Joscelyn Godwin, Patrick Harpur and Paul Broadhurst who writes a column on Earth Mysteries?

I agree with a caveat; if you are not turning the article into a vast discussion of each reviewer. I think a link or a descriptive adjective would suffice. You might want to see Wiki's admonition about using a "sea of blue" links in an article. Are you hard at work looking for negative reviews of pieces John Michell's 40+ year writng career? What would you do about a living author who has few or no negative reviews? SageMab (talk) 22:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

No, of course I didn't remove credentials, I think it's important to know something about a reviewer, but not to go over the top. I hadn't noticed the credentials had all gone or I wouldn't have mentioned his 3 doctorates. I'm not looking for reviews of Michell at all, although it would be nice to find reviews by archaeologists of his archaeology related work, but as with much stuff like that real archaeologists are generally to busy to spend time explaining why its wrong. I am still concerned about the Publishers Weekly review, as I can't see an Amazon staff member making it up and you haven't explained why you think it never existed. As for your question of an author with few or no negative reviews (it shouldn't matter whether they are live or dead), there are still several issues -- is that because they don't exist? Are all significant views represented with no undue weight? Does it read like a publicity blurb or an article you'd expect to find in a good encyclopedia? Is the article properly referenced? Is there any OR? Weasel or peacock words? Is the grammar correct? Does it conform to the MOS? All those things are important if the article is to be encyclopedia and of good quality. Doug Weller (talk) 08:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

There is far too much pointless listing of qualifications here, along with obscuring of other less impressive details. Christopher Gibbs is a furniture dealer, not an art gallery owner, and Jane Ormsby Gore is one of his former employees who was something of an "it girl" in the 1960s. She's not a noted art collector. Paul B (talk) 14:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The choices of quotes from reviews make the reviewers, whatever their qualifications, sound ridiculous and turn this into an almost parody puff-piece. This article needs a trim and copyedit. Verbal chat

it doesn't matter so much who a reviewer is as where the review was published. An eminent expert discussing a book with his mates in the pub isn't quotable, while a nobody publishing his review in a prestigious journal is. It is silly to state that individual reviewers have PhDs. Just note where the review was published (if a notable venue) or delete the reference altogether (if not). dab (𒁳) 15:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree - if you have to make a case for the reviewer, then the opinion of the reviewer is probably not the general opinion of his peers. (This is not always true of course, but it's always worth checking) Verbal chat 15:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm the one who removed the credentials. I did it because, as a reader, this information pops out at me as inappropriate and unencyclopedic. That might be because I'm a scientist. Scientists rarely put "Ph.D" after their names, and generally, when you see that, or any other hyping of credentials, it's a sign that the person is not a real scientist. ("M.D." is a different story—it indicates an ability to practice medicine.) Looie496 (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Christopher Gibbs

Sagemab, why do you say that that was the wrong Christopher Gibbs? [9]is the website of a Christopher Gibbs who had an antique gallery in London. Which seems to be where Michell's watercolours were displayed:

JOHN MICHELL Ends Friday 5 December (Mon to Fri 9:30am - 5:30pm) @ Christopher Gibbs, 3 Dove Walk (020.7730.8200) Tube: Sloane Square Price: FREE John Michell doesn't call himself an artist; an author and polymath, he might best be described as a sweet-tempered controversialist and a rational mystic. But it turns out that, when he's not exploring crop circles, the first temple in Jerusalem, or the authorship of Shakespeare's plays, he's exercising his delight in the hidden patterns of life -- or, as puts it, in "a beauty that can be called superfluous" -- by painting watercolours, mostly geometrical. Overlaying seemingly unrelated patterns, he finds new and unexpected harmonies that would not look out of place in the rose window of a Gothic cathedral or decorating the dome of an Ottoman mosque. The massed glow of over a hundred of these watercolours casts a beneficent glow over the massive bric-a-brac of one of London's poshest antique shops. A very strange place to see them indeed.
Note, an antique shop, not an art gallery.
Please tone down your edit summaries. The use of words such as 'venomous' and other comments in your edit summaries are close to if not an actual breach of WP:CIVIL. Doug Weller (talk) 15:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sagemab, you reverted by linking to an artist with the same name who lives in Seattle. Just a little bit of thought and research would have indicated that that this could not possibly be the owner of the furniture galley in London. Please try to work to discover the truth, not to evade it. Paul B (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect Paul, Christopher Gibbs is a well known, often exhibited artist, art juror and intructor. Your evasion allegation is not quite Wiki good faith. Why would I evade the truth on this author? There is nothing to evade. Don't fly allegations without substantiating them. I am the one putting facts into this article and it is always a good idea to have them improved or vetted. Perhaps you can illuminate me please on which facts you have added to advance this article? SageMab (talk) 01:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Am I to understand that you are still insisting that the antique dealer is the same man who lives in Seattle? Paul B (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

SagMab, will you please stop reinserting the claim that the retired London antique dealer with aristocratic connections is the same person as the artist from Seattle. Yes, they have the same name. I have the same name as this guy, but I assure you it isn't me. What makes you come to the unlikely conclusion that they are one and the same? Paul B (talk) 23:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

And there was no 'The Christopher Gibbs Gallery'. It was a famous antique shop. It was referred to at times as a gallery, which is a word term which is used for antique shops as well as places where paintings are displayed. Doug Weller (talk) 13:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Untrue Dougweller. It is well known as a fine arts gallery and that is what the owner calls it. I don't care if it is a sweet shoppe, if the owner calls it a gallery and mounts large shows the point is moot. In any case, I have removed the Paintings section as john Michell is best known as an author. SageMab (talk) 01:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I've left the pictures section in, corrected some spelling, etc and made it clear this was an antique gallery (eg the NY Times referred to it as "his celebrated antiques shop in Dove Walk". I've also removed the claim about major collections as catalogues such as this are generally written to promote an artist and sell their works, and we need a better reference than a sales catalogue for this claim. Doug Weller (talk) 13:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

3RR

SageMab: please watch WP:3RR. That's 3 reverts already from you today. Keep going and we're going to have to regard you as part of the problem. Moreschi (talk) 15:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I will, thanks; I wouldn't want this to be seen as a transparent attempt by others to remove me in an edit war as I added most of the facts to this article. I am only interested in advancing this article and I am not looking for an excuse to tear it down. I reverted back to my original edits which were reverted 4 or 5 times by SesquipedalianVerbiage. Did you warn her/him?SageMab (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I have asked Sagemab to strike parts of the above comment. Verbal chat 16:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

with the attention the article is now getting, it will "advance" at last. The first step forward is by removing the more childish hype. SageMab, you are not doing Michell a favour with this. Michell is of moderate notability in a fringe subject, and suggesting he is an eminent figure in any way beyond this will only have the effect of amusing the reader. dab (𒁳) 16:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No one is advancing any theories on his eminence. Let the reader decide on this and also if this is a "fringe" subject. I will assume good faith and remind about Wiki NPOV for all of us on this article. Words like "childish" and "amusing the reader" suggest otherwise. SageMab (talk) 16:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The essential point is that the peacockery does more harm than good. We should write in a dispassionate way, otherwise any reasonably savvy reader will think "hype" after reading the first few sentences. Paul B (talk) 16:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sagemab, you have once again reminded someone about NPOV. I've asked you what you think it means and you haven't answered. Here's a specific - you reverted my edit here [10] saying NPOV. What did that mean to you? Doug Weller (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

DougWeller, in case you haven't noticed, I not interested in engaging in badinage with you. I do not agree with all of your edits. Assume good faith and read Wikpedia NPOV which is very clear and direct as is their policy on living authors. SageMab (talk) 22:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)SageMab SageMab (talk) 22:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

wow. You keep asking people to read policy pages which you obviously have never read yourself. WP:NPOV does not include a "policy on living authors". But you could benefit from absorbing the section about aesthetic judgement. Since you apparently cannot be expected to go over there and read the page for yourself, let me quote this for you:

articles about art, artists, and other creative topics (e.g. musicians, actors, books, etc.) have tended toward the effusive. This is out of place in an encyclopedia

could have been written for you. --dab (𒁳) 06:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Philosopher

Any sources for this claim? Verbal chat 16:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This reader is amused. Read his work. Over forty years of publishing books on philosophy with his own philosophical musings to analysis of thought and form... from the ancients to Plato to Charles Fort. Start with "Twelve Tribe Nations and the Science of Enchanting the Landscape". I can only guess that is why John Michell was picked to do an introduction to a Joseph Campbell book. Have you ever seen his name as a philosopher disputed in print except on this discussion page? Just curious. SageMab (talk) 22:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hm. I would think that doing an introduction to a Joseph Campbell book would disqualify one as a philosopher. To each their own, I suppose. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

SageMab, I admit that I have not read Michell, but from the descriptions found here, it appears that you and I have different notions of what counts as being a philosopher. My bias is obvious enough: it comes from academia. Nonetheless, I'd like some secondary source claiming that Michell is a philosopher, rather than relying on your judgment and the lack of a published dispute to the contrary. Phiwum (talk) 02:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Your comment Phiwum about your "bias" is a nasty remark about me. Not very Wiki of you. I am an academic, a respected one at that. I have read many of John Michell's books, which are telling and, as much as I like Wikipedia, I get most of my information from solid sources rather than an online encyclopedia. You may find it helpful to have more real information about a living author's life before you judge him a philosopher or not. If someone respects academia they do not judge something without a good read. A laughable section and misspelled at that by Verbal. Sharpen your knives kids, I am not going to kowtow to shoddy scholarship. Once again, I ask folks to advance this article by adding facts, not bias. Do your homework. SageMab (talk) 05:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I made no nasty remark about SageMab. I merely meant that, in academia, "philosopher" usually means "professor of philosophy", whereas elsewhere (including, say, New Age settings), it may mean something else. I make no inferences about your background at all, but we do seem to mean different things when we call someone a philosopher. Phiwum (talk) 13:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

John Michell is a philosopher. Prove it or not on the article page. It makes no difference. The proof is in the pudding. Michell also writes about philosophy. You might want to check out his review in "Baconiana! Online", the 197th issue of the Francis Bacon Society (FBS) journal, and their first issue online wich says "John Michell's review of Joy Hancox' Kingdom for a Stage introduces a recent fascinating study of the possible use of hermetic philosophy in theatre construction, specifically that of the original Globe Theatre". I have provided a link for those who cannot find it for themselves, [[11]] SageMab (talk) 06:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The "Francis Bacon Society" has nothing to do with philosophy. It is an organisation of proponents of Baconian theory. In this context being labelled a philosopher should mean more than espousing a "philosophy". It implies specialist experitise in an academic discipline. Paul B (talk) 12:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

yeah, well, I am a philosopher too. The point is that for biographical articles of contemporary people (20th to 21st century), we should only call someone "philosopher" if they are academic philosophers, i.e. if they hold at least a PhD in philosophy. Otherwise, pretty much any published author will qualify. SageMab, you clearly have no idea what Wikipedia is about. You are in constant violation of our NPOV and WP:RS policies. People have told you as much in good faith and with great patience for months. At some point, it will become inevitable to assume that you simply do not want to get it. --dab (&#55304;&#56435;) 06:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

We need a reliable source saying he is a philosopher. Verbal chat 07:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed Verbal. To Dieter Bachman: Yes, I see from the trashing and disciplinary action you User_talk:Dbachmann often get on your talk page (and archived talk pages) that you are quite the philosopher. I disagree with your requirement of a Ph.D. for all those writers who are called philosophers, patently impractical, unless you want to strip the term "philosopher" from hundreds of so-called philosophers on Wiki and elsewhere who do not hold a Ph.D. I am not in constant violation. That is another fabrication from you. You obviously are out to "get" this author (and me) and, if I wanted to be as rude as you who is in violation of WIKI:CIVIL, I would say it is you who does not get it. But I won't. Once again, you have demonstrated that you disregard NPOV in regard to this article. SageMab (talk) 07:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe you just called Dab a liar. You might want to consider retracting that. And once again, you've accused someone of disregarding NPOV yet you never explain precisely how. I still don't think you understand what NPOV is. Please, if you are going to accuse someone of disregarding NPOV, be specific. Doug Weller (talk) 07:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

DougWeller stop following me around; I've asked you before here, on my talk page and on notice boards. It is harassment. I've read your comments all over Wiki about this and your complaints to administrators. They do not agree with you. I make accurate comments. Editors do not have to agree with each other. Editors do make mistakes. Read Wiki policy on NPOV and don't keep asking me the same question over and over.

Verbal, please explain your removal edit of John Michell as a lecturer a the Prince's School? "Michell lectures at The Prince's School of Traditional Arts [[12]]" was the original copy and the website clearly states that he is a lecturer there. The Prince's School website even lists lectures Michell did for years with Keith Critchlow. SageMab (talk) 07:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

way to go, SM, make this any more personal and we will not need to continue this pointless "discussion" because you won't be editing. You are out of line, it's as simple as that. I am used to get "trashing" from those I prevent from abusing Wikipedia as a soapbox or a propaganda tool. It doesn't as much as raise my blood pressure. If you have any example of the alleged "hundreds of so-called philosophers on Wiki" that do not qualify for the description, let's hear them and we'll fix it. Trying to get away with calling Michell a philosopher because there are other people unduly so described on Wikipedia is the WP:OTHERCRAP fallacy, it's at least as old as trying to make out I am a problem editor because other trolls have ranted at me (the "OTHERTROLLS" fallacy?). --dab (&#55304;&#56435;) 09:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? I've been on this discussion page for quite a while. Are you asking me not to reply to you? That's not harassment, but accusing me of harassing you isn't exactly civil. I guess I should give up asking you to explain your views on NPOV since you clearly don't intend to. I don't know what you mean by complaints to administrators and them not agreeing with you. There are a couple of Admins participating in this discussion right now, who seem to be more or less agreeing with me. Emperor (not an Admin but you might think he is) pointed out that the chat page comment that PhilKnight made was wrong. Sorry, forgot to sign this post I made several hours ago. Signing now, and noting that Sagemab has, on my talk page, had the nerve to remind me of no personal attacks. Ironic. Doug Weller (talk) 12:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

A "John Michell" is listed as having given a lecture or lectures either formerly or presently. We need a better source that this is the right guy, and whether he is still lecturing there or not. If you can provide a source please do. Also, when linking to websites you only need one pair of square brackets. Verbal chat 08:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the official website of the Prince's School of Traditional Arts of "Trustees and Staff" which lists the years he lectured and with whom. John Michell is the only person of that name who is associated with that school and he lectures on the subjects on which he has written for forty years. Let common sense prevail, or you might want, to avoid the appearance of you reducing information on this article, find another listing for the school's staff. Michell is also listed in the school's list of lecturers that the school sends students. By the way Verbal, are you the Verbal who teaches macrame? SageMab (talk) 08:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, here it is Verbal. The 2005-20006 Annual Report of the Prince's School of Traditional Arts. Here is the link [[13]] SageMab (talk) 08:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The "Prince's School of Traditional Arts" appears to be a privately funded institution teaching traditional Islamic and Greek Orthodox art techniques. Why would you think that giving some lectures there qualifies someone as a philosopher? Paul B (talk) 08:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't. Never said I did. Read this page. Read the article. Read the lead. The Prince's School of Traditional Arts is a non-profit school teaching art and design from all cultures of the world. John Michell is a lecturer there. Period. Understand? SageMab (talk) 09:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Then why are you discussing this in the "Philosopher" section? Please start a new section for different topics, to avoid this kind of confusion. Verbal chat 09:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we are looking at some sort of "perennialist" walled garden here. Neither Lindisfarne Association nor The Prince's School of Traditional Arts present any independent third party sources as required by WP:NOTE, although at least for the latter, establishing notability should be easy. This perennialist rabbit-hole could do with some investigation and review of sources. --dab (&#55304;&#56435;) 10:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Painter?

Can someone please explain to me why a section (as opposed to one brief sentence, which is fine) on Michell's painting is at all justified? He's obviously not known for being a painter, and his painting activities seem so non-noteworthy (indeed, highly trivial) I highly doubt it's encyclopedic information. Moreschi (talk) 20:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This should be a small addendum to an existing biography section. Verbal chat 20:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. John Michell is well known as an author which is what this article should be about. The edits on antique shop vs art gallery have nothing to do with this article and the debate with Dougweller and others were not advancing the article for anyone. I removed the "Paintings" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SageMab (talk • contribs) 01:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC) SageMab (talk) 01:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Publishers Weekly Review

Sagemab removed this some time ago, saying "As to the Publishers Weekly quote, I went to hard copy and found it non-existant; it was posted by a user on Amazon.com which is not a reliable Wikipedia source as anyone can say anything." I pointed out it was in the Editorial Reviews section and thus put there by Amazon, not a user, and asked him exactly how he 'went to hard copy'. I said I didn't think Amazon would have made it up. No response from Sagemab. I don't know what to think about his claiming it to be nonexistent, as:
Publishers Weekly, July 22, 1996 v243 n30 p223(1)
Who Wrote Shakespeare? (Brief Article)
Full Text: COPYRIGHT 1996 Cahners Business Information
John Michell. Thames and Hudson, $24.95 (272p) ISBN 0-500-01700-X

Michell, whose books include The New View over Atlantis and a study of Celtic and Norse symbolic landscapes, concedes that no conclusive case has ever been made for Ben Jonson, Francis Bacon or any of the other candidates alleged to have written the plays and poems commonly attributed to William Shakespeare. Yet in this unconvincing piece of shaky scholarship, he finds Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, "a highly credible candidate" while the case for politician/theatrical patron William Stanley, Earl of Derby, is deemed "plausible on all levels." Worse, Michell endorses the theory that Christopher Marlowe was the principal author of 10 of Shakespeare's plays written before 1593, and he further hypothesizes that Marlowe, having survived his reported murder in 1593, went on to write more of the Bard's plays. Michell also speculates that Bacon secretly supported the production of Shakespeare's dramas. The best aspect of this Jame study are the 116 fetching period illustrations. (Sept.)
Sagemab, with claims of yours such as this, your confusion between the Seattle Christopher Gibbs and the London one, your confusion and claims about Britannia.com, can you understand why editors tend to be skeptical of your edits? How did you decide that this review was made up, for instance? Doug Weller (talk) 07:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I did my homework. Publishers Weekly never published this review; it was posted by Amazon.com. This question was discussed and put to bed long ago, about a year ago, and you know full well that you will instigate problems by bringing it up. I ask you again, can you find some previously unposted sources about John Michell to add to this article in order to advance this article? You might want to read this quote from the John Michell article so see how this important reference work used the work of John Michell:

"Shakespearean Criticism: Excerpts from the Criticism of William Shakespeare's Plays and Poetry, from the First Published Appraisals to Current Evaluations". 68 vols. Vol. 41 edited by Michelle Lee and Dana Ramel Barnes. Detroit and London: Gale Research, 1998, Source: Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter, Publication Date: 01-JAN-03

"The editors of this reference series of sixty-eight volumes on Shakespeare make a valiant attempt to present both sides of the controversy over his identity. In volume 41, they include excerpts from writings of John Michell, S. Schoenbaum, Charlton Ogburn, AM Challinor, Tom Bethell and Irvin Matus."

By the way, your edits and comments that the Christopher Gibb Gallery Catalogue is a "sales catalogue" is incorrect and misleading. Obviously you have never seen a hard or online copy of this which would of been wise to do. I do have a copy of this "catalogue" and it is a short, several page essay about the paintings of John Michell and labeled "Christopher Gibbs Gallery" . The show was sold out save for several small pieces so there was no point for Christopher Gibbs to make a "sales catalogue" as you termed it incorrectly. I also asked you to stop following me around Wiki, making untrue accusations, and also to stop asking the same incorrect question, including folowing me to administrator talk pages, so that you would not appear to be stalking which I in good faith assume you do not want to do. I have also read your "what are we to do about SageMab" on an editor's talk page. Instead of making allegations do the proper thing and post a proper request of a Wiki admin. SageMab (talk) 08:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

SageMab, there is no doubt that the Publisher's Weekly review is authentic. I have looked at your earlier debate with Dab. You simply say that you couldn't find it online, which would not be surprising as you need an institutional subscription. No one will object to the inclusion of reviews praising Michell as long as the page is balanced. BTW, I was one of the editors involved in the process of getting the Shakespeare article to featured standard. We had some difficulty with some reviewers who did not want even the one sentence on the authorship "issue", since in mainstream academia it is not an issue at all. The Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter is the bulletin of Oxfordians. It is not a good source for evidence that a publication is "an important reference work". Paul B (talk) 16:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

And he has two other stories about the PW review, one is that he checked hard copy, the other that he wrote to Amazon. I found it through an institutional subscription (he says he's an academic,I'm surprised that he couldn't do that also). Thanks for pointing that out about the Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter, I was wondering about that. You obviously know more than I do about this, should something be done about the section? Doug Weller (talk) 16:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't object to its inclusion, but the title could mislead readers into thinking it has something to do with Oxford University, or OUP, so I think a phrase should be added that it is published by advocates of Oxfordian theory. BTW, the anon seems to be correct that Michell published selections from Hitler's Table Talk as "the Hip Pocket Hitler" with a private press, but it was later withdrawn due to copyright issues. I don't think it indicated pro-Nazi views on his part, rather it seems have selected quotations to emphasise the "Socialist" aspect of Hitler's thought in order to distance the mystical-conservative vision from Nazism, but that's just based on a German webpage. I have no good sources for this. Paul B (talk) 16:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sage, he isn't following you around - you're editing the same page! Please stop attacking other editors in this way. The review does seem to exist. I also think there is a comment about this work in Bill Bryson's book on Shakespeare, although I'd have to check. What I do know is that there is no evidence that Shakespeare wasn't the principle author. Verbal chat 08:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Verbal, it is obvious we are editing the same page and there is no problem with that. Dougweller is following me to admin talk pages. No one is attacking other editors and I have to ask you to stop using that incorrect term. You might want to read Wikipedias question of Shakespeare authorship page and continue your debate about Shakespeare there. SageMab (talk) 09:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC) SageMab (talk) 09:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Verbal, if you read the John Michell (writer) article page you will see the link to the Shakespeare authorship question which should tell you something about the Shakespeare authorship question. There is also a lot of other material about the Shakespeare authorship on the web and the topic is a fun read if you are interested. John Michell did not favor one candidate over the other but presented entertaining pros and cons for each one. The Blivin's quote you removed on the John Michell article page from the Princeton academic will lead to a web page that provides discussion and links about this question. You might want to undo that edit of yours as his quote is not really pro Michell. SageMab (talk) 09:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC), SageMab (talk) 09:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, although I was aware of this page. I'm afraid that what you describe doesn't constitute any form of stalking. I've left a note on your page about user adoption, and this might be a good way for you to progress and resolve your conflict with other editors, as that is one of its aims. It can be a good program, and you've nothing to lose by giving it a shot. Verbal chat 10:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I assume Sagemab is referring to this talk page: (talk) although I don't think Emperor is an Admin. Note that he alleges that editors plural were suggesting Michell was a fascist, and I wanted to make it clear to Michell that I had not done anything of the kind. This is clearly not stalking as defined by Wikipedia. As for 'what are we to do about Sagemab, although I can't be sure, I think he is referring to a discussion on my talk page. Another echo, as I've been asking Sagemab to make an official complaint if he's unhappy, rather than vague allegations. And calling an edit venemous is clearly an attack on the editor, it is disingenuous to claim it isn't.

As to the subject of the session, once again Sagemab is seriously muddying the waters. Amazon posted the review, yes, but they didn't make it up. I have just found the review, and posted it at the beginning of this section with a citation. Sagemab may well be unhappy that I actually found proof and a citation that it exists, but it does and whether his claim that it doesn't exist was accepted last year or not is moot. It would still be nice if he explained what made him decide Amazon had made it up, but I don't expect an answer for that Doug Weller (talk) 09:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Just as an FYI: I am an admin but I can't quite see how that makes my talk page special - I left a note on SageMab's page after they asked me to look the article over and it is perfectly reasonable for Doug to check my talk page to find out what was being said there. I've seen stalking on Wikipedia and this certainly isn't it (I do the same, and more, to familiarise myself with the background to a topic) - in fact what I see more of are people being accused of stalking when it hasn't taken place and it can stifle healthy discussion. If you (SageMab, although the offer is open to everyone of course) has evidence they are being stalked then they can pass it to me but I'd ask that you refrain from dropping it into discussion as it is unhelpful at best and could be seen as an issue if the accusation is made a lot without any foundations. (Emperor (talk) 22:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC))

DougWeller, I am not the one who is muddying the waters as you say. These are the facts

1. The editor who was calling John Michell a fascist and posting outight lies about this author was one new anonomous user who admitted he was using two IPs to edit this article only and who was warned by administrators repeatedly that he was vandalizing the John Michell article. An admin advised me to warn him and I did on this page which someone, I believe it was you, removed after it had been up for a while. Was it you? You have read the entire of this page and you were editing this page while this disagreement was going on so I can only believe that you are aware of the situation. This is not a precise allegation from you. Nor correct.

Reply interjected - You used the word 'editors', plural, when you complained to Emperor about 'editors' calling Michell a fascist. Not editor singular. Which is why I responded. Yes, I removed your warning from this page as it should never have been here and would have had no effect.Doug Weller (talk) 16:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Response: this was in regard to an IP user who admitted to using two IP addresses. This is not always about you and you should not take everything personally as a crit of you. I am not complaining that you removing the vandalism warning from this page; it was noted because I was advised to warn tis user. I should of posted it on his talk page but he only had a talk page on one of his accounts and I had no idea which one to use as he was vandalizing from both accounts. SageMab (talk) 14:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

2. This is the edit you mentioned which was also from an anonomous user whose only contribution to Wiki was the posting of this one remark about removing the word "presigious" from the Prince's School,

Revision as of 19:42, 24 August 2008 (edit)82.153.28.212 (Talk)

(m removed adjectival puff for a school that Michell lectures at, backed by Arab and Brtish royalty) 3. This was my edit response

Revision as of 20:49, 24 August 2008 (edit) (undo)previous edit sounds venomous, not Wiki correct, Prince Philip is the principal patron of the Prince's School, royalty is prestigious whether you like Royals or not.

4. No one could possibly call this an "attack" on a one edit anonomous user. So again DougWeller, you have presented not all of the facts which I am sure you do not want to obfuscate.

interjection -- 'venomous' is an attack. I don't see how it matters who the editor is.Doug Weller (talk) 16:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Response to Doug Weller: re-read the entire edit comment. It is not an attack, plainly. If you thought I had made an error the appropriae place to give me a heads up would of been my talk page. The note on the page from an administrator reminds us all that this page is for discussion of facts about the article itself not name slinging on another editor. Again, please read Wiki-BLP. SageMab (talk) 14:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC), and if you a complaint please visit my talk page or complain to an administrator. I have not been chided for this edit by anyone but you but I will not take this opinion of ours as a personal attack. SageMab (talk) 14:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

5. You have not presented all the correct facts for Publishers Weekly. I was concerned about this review last year and wrote the editors of Amazon.com and they told me the Publishers Weekly review was by an anonomous from the Net user. The editors did post it but they did not write the Publishers Weekly review about John Michell which was entered on Wiki when DieterBachmann created a disambiguous "stub" on John Michell which I challenged. Therefore, in a nutshell, the Publishers Weekly review is not what Wikipedia calls a reliable source. I don't care if you leave it up or not but it is not correct.

Interjection - I suspect you confused Amazon (in fact I'm pretty sure), because the review is a genuine one from Publishers Weekly. Amazon added it to their Editorial Review's section with the copyright notice. I can't understand 'anonomous (sic) from the Net user." In any case, haven't you noticed yet that I have the citation? Publishers Weekly, July 22, 1996 v243 n30 p223. It is absolutely correct and a reliable source. Hm, you told me you checked hard copy, now you have a different story. Doug Weller (talk) 16:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Response, Now you are calling me a liar. I do have a hard copy. I plainly stated that I wrote Amazon.com about this article. You will notice that I said that while I do not agree with this edit of yours I will not remove it from the article. In fact, it may provide balance. I do think that articles found on Amazon.com should be vetted very thoroughly. SageMab (talk) 14:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Interjection (sorry, this isn't chronological and confusing, but hard to do anything else. I am not calling you a liar, I am calling myself confused. When you said you had consulted hard copy to ascertain that there was no such Publishers Weekly review, I thought you had looked at a hard copy of Publishers Review. Now I am even more confused -- hard copy of what? I note that you are no longer assuming good faith. Doug Weller (talk) 14:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Doug here. There seems to be miscommunication. What does "I have a hard copy" and "I went to hard copy" mean? Phiwum (talk) 23:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

6. I have been on Wiki for over a year and except for the aforementioned anonomous user mentioned above who posted wild allegations on this page, the only editor that I have had serious problems with other than in the past few weeks with the editors on this page is User:Dbachmann who may, or may not, have a problem with subjects he considers fringe, fortean or pseudoscience and the editors who edit those articles as I dedeuce from his comments to me and to other editors on talk pages.SageMab (talk) 14:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

That's because no one else paid much attention to this article. For instance, when I deleted the use of a Wiki, aboutus.com, you reverted my edit saying "Previous editor calling into question veracity of a Wiki" -- although if you understood our policy on using Wikis as sources you would realise it wasn't appropriate. I gave up at that time as I had other things to do. A lot of your edits were like that, eg you took the word 'crank' out of a quote that said 'fairly learned creank' because you thought it offended our BLP policy, which it doesn't. This time I decided to take the article more seriously and to try to make it meet Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Doug Weller (talk) 16:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC

Response: Actually, you have no way of knowing this and to say so is to insert you own personal opinion again. I think the article stayed as it was for a very long time because of consensu which is my opinion. Again, you should of reminded me on my talk page instead of here. It was administrator PhilKnight who stated on this page that he did not think you understood Wikipedia policy on original research, OR, because it does seem as if you are inserting your opinions in your edits. I agree that advancing an article is a good thing. I also think that in working with an article according to iki's policy on living people we have to be very careful and we should be mindful of making facts be as precise as possible even if it means a longer entry. Do not take everything so personally. SageMab (talk) 14:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I am getting tired of SM waving around policies he makes no pretense of respecting himself. SM is a single-topic ("Forteana") problem editor. Doug is a veteran editor with an excellent record. It is perfectly normal to review the contribution history of editors showing pov-pushing behaviour for other potentially problematic edits. This is what the public accessibility of an account's contribution history is for, and it has nothing to do with wikistalking. As long as SM refuses to appreciate this simple situation, he is, of course, himself failing to "AGF" on Doug's part, and with his empty complaints is only perpetuating his reputation as a problem editor. dab (&#55304;&#56435;) 09:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I've suggested adoption to Sage as a way of us all moving forward. Hopefully this will be a positive experiance for Sage. Verbal chat

As you know, I support that also, as I said on my talk page I think that would be the best thing for SageMab and would avoid I hope any continuation of the existing problems and any need to take any other action. Sagemab has enthusiasm, which is great, it just needs some guidance. Thanks, Dab, for explaining about examining editor's contributions. It's something I do all the time when an editor has vandalized, add spam links, OR, POV pushing, etc. Doug Weller (talk) 13:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

DougWeller I have not been accused by administrators of any of those terms you have just mentioned. With all good faith I want to remind you to reconsider this comment to you on this page by PhilKnight. " Doug, you obviously don't understand the original research policy. PhilKnight (talk) 12:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)". I know you will embrace OR with enthusiasm, it just needs some guidance. SageMab (talk) 17:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I noticed it. He was talking about my comments on this page, and the OR policy doesn't apply here. He was wrong. I understand the policy. You on the other hand have added OR to the article at times. Doug Weller (talk) 17:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm still annoyed enough to add, Sagemab, that I find you extremely condescending. You continually say things like you have above, "I know you will embrace OR with enthuiasm, it just needs some guidance." Have you any idea how irritating that is? I may not have a PhD, but between Yale and the London School of Economics and a couple of other places I have my BA, a Masters and 3 other postgraduate qualifications accumulated over the years (plus some other stuff), and I can assure you that I know the difference, for instance, between writing OR (like your edit which gave your personal opinion when you wrote "an odd remark from an an article that is not accessible on the web regarding a book about numbers") and an encyclopedia article reporting not our interpretation of others but what others have said. By the way, it doesn't matter if something isn't accessible on the web, although I accessed the article through the web. Doug Weller (talk) 20:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Doug, I have been polite to you. Condescending is a loaded term and incorrect. Phil Knight, an admin, make the comment about your lack of understanding of OR, not me. As for the remark about "it just needs some guidence" that is your previous remark to me several paragraphs above this one that I parroted all in good fun. If you did not like the way it sounded and you said it first, you know how I felt about your comment to me. Let's both assume good faith, a wise Wiki policy. Pax SageMab (talk) 01:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

John Michell's booklet on Hitler

Can someone please provide as many publication details as possible of John Michell's booklet "The Hip-Pocket Hitler", so that it can go in the bibliography. At the moment, I think all we have is the title (and author of course), the place of publication (London), and a date (not included on the colophon) which was probably within a few years of 1972.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.12.211 (talk • contribs)

Please register an account so we can discuss with you better, as you're editing from a shared IP (see wp:account) Verbal chat 15:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC

Good comment Verbal. I have noticed that anonomous users , often operating under different IPs, attack John Michell with either totally incorrect allegations or slanted allegations that are counter to Wiki's wise policy on living authors. The anonomous user who started this section, who I notice has been warned of vandalism on his talk page, might want to read the rest of this page which has put this humorous, small, uncirculated, phamphet which consists only of illogical quotes from a madman to rest. I do not think it is a coincidence that this user popped up when he thought I might be out of the picture after my comments on DougWeller and DieterBachmann. I would like to request that Verbal keep an eye on these anonomous users who are obviously tring to discredit this well regarded prolific author. Also, a couple of page blip in a prolific authors' writing career is not considered notable by Wikipedia standards. Readers of John Michell's work also know he is known for his wit which he often uses to needle authoritarian policies, which is what the anti-metricifcation nonsense is all about. SageMab (talk) 16:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

If you think there is a 'puppet master' involved, as you suggest on your talk page, please, instead of making insinuations, do something official. Otherwise you are casting doubt over all the editors involved in this article with whom you disagree. Doug Weller (talk) 17:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. There has been at least one anonymous user editing the article who was concerned about the allegations of fascism (216.240.101.40) so we shouldn't be pointing fingers at people just because we don't agree with them. If there are concerns about some anonymous user then you can apply at WP:CHECKUSER but you will have to provide difs to show why you think they are all being controlled by one person. Making vague allegations on talk pages like this don't help anyone - if there is a problem it needs to be addressed, if there isn't then it may make editors wary of contributing. (Emperor (talk) 22:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC))

This anon user just said I removed his edit. I did not, See history. He removed my edit because of my comment to his unsigned comment. I do suspect something from someone who is trying to discredit this author. I've been looking at both this article and the discussion page for a long time. I have made a specific complaint to admin. Please assume good faith. The next two paragraphs are from my edit.

I think we should take on board that there is no evidence whatsoever that John Michell himself has ever considered his association with Moynihan to be unwise. This sort of formulation suggests that he did not know what sort of publisher he was dealing with, but what evidence is there for this? After all, he also wrote an essay that was included with the Evola book by the same publisher. He is not responsible for any other books than the ones he was directly involved in; I quite agree with that. But it would not exactly be controversial to call this publisher a fascist publisher. (I know Moynhihan rejects the attribution, but only in Evolist terms). -Unsigned comment by anon IP User talk:82.153.23.251

- The above comment is by an anon IP user who has done two edits in toto I believe. The first was to enlarge the type of this and another section. This was also done much earlier on this discussion by by an IP user, trying to push this same subject, who admitted he was using two IP addresses and who was repeated rebuked by administrators for vandalism. I find his edits suspect. The argument suggests a connection that is not. In the sake of fairmindedness I want say that authors often do not care who publishes their book as long as it is published. SageMab (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

My quote above did not remove his edit as he claims in history. See history. His vernacular is the same and his argument the same as the IP user who was warned repeatedly about vandalism and BLP.Both this IP user and the one who admitted to using two IPs enlarged the section title type in the same matter and used the same syntax and posting of misleading material. SageMab (talk) 22:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC) SageMab (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I also want to be very clear that I put a warning on this user's talk page User talk:82.153.23.251 which warned him that his edits appeared to be vandaliism (or flame warring at least) and that he erased and also blanked it out on the history page of his user talk page. This guy is trying to hide something. I am warning him again here and now. User talk:82.153.23.251 —Preceding unsigned comment added by SageMab (talk • contribs) 23:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You can't edit/blank/whatever a history page, or rather only Admins can. Anything you write on a talk page is going to be archived forever unless removed by an Admin, and there is nothing wrong with blaking a talk page. That's considered evidence that something has been read. IP users often come from different IP addresses, depending on their connection setup. Doug Weller (talk) 09:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

SageMab has a thing about attacking me personally, because I've expressed different views here from his, and have undone some of his edits. He can issue as many warnings as he likes. I have considered whether I have acted anti-socially or carried out vandalism, and in my view I have not. As I stated before, I do not want to be an issue here. I am not a "puppet-master", nor am I "trying to hide" something, other than posting anonymously. (SageMab is jumping to conclusions is also evident in his calling me a "guy", when I haven't even said whether I am a woman or a man, and of course it is totally irrelevant). My edits should be judged on the same basis as everyone else's - on their content and usefulness to this encyclopedia. It doesn't matter how many edits I've done in the past. I wish someone could wise SageMab up. He is coming across as a nutter, banging his head against the wall. I have deleted what he posted on my Talk page, and if he posts similar stuff again, I will do it again. It's my Talk page, not his. He will probably have to be told again that this doesn't make me an anti-social element. In that I have raised issues of Evola, etc. etc., and successfully widened the discussion to more people, with differing views, in response to SageMab's misleading actions on this Discussion page (changing headers to fill them with praise for his hero, removing sections, inserting stuff written by him into stuff written by me but without making it clear what he was doing), I am quite satisfied with my small contribution to getting the John Michell entry in good shape. I didn't want a spat with SageMab. I wanted to enlarge the discussion, and I've done so. Please, SageMab, stop trying to have a spat with me, because it doesn't get anyone anywhere, other than get you into a larger hole. Maybe SageMab thinks I am secretly working for Mossad or something? It wouldn't surprise me!

In the meantime, I'd urge contributors to look at the issue of Michell's relationship to mathematics and number theory. He is a classic case of someone who brings two fields together, and is respected in field A because he apparently knows something about field B, and is respected in field B because he apparently knows something about field A, when in fact he knows little about either. In his case, he is neither an archaeologist (or if one wants to get away from that term, even someone who is especially knowledgeable about prehistory); a metrologist (or someone especially knowledgeable about the history of measures), or a mathematician of any kind.82.153.23.251 (talk) 10:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Metrology and Michell's political involvement in the Anti-Metrication Board

Details on this, too, please. This should also cast at least some light on actual verifiable political activity by Michell.

At the moment, I have only come across two individuals who have publicly called themselves 'radical traditionalists'. One is Michell and the other is Julius Evola. The two have shared a small-press publisher (Moynihan), and Michell has introduced Evola's book and called Evola misunderstood. Apparently Evola was just trying to reintroduce the values and social systems of the ancient Graeco-Roman world (known for being based on slavery and having philosophers speaking in favour of a 'natural' social order) without being a fascist. Curiously this has not stopped him from being the numero uno 'philosophical' ideologist of the modern European fascist right.

Also, out of interest, did Michell know Prince Charles at Trinity College Cambridge and has this got anything to do with his later involvement in the Prince's School and other royal-backed 'new age' (for want of a better term) organizations and projects?

Details of what Michell was trying to achieve with his involvement in an organization seeking to maintain English weights and measures going back to ancient Rome (notably the pound-weight, librium, rather than the kilogram), would be welcome.

All sorts of curious right-wing organizations sprouted up like mushrooms in the period 1970-75 in Britain, with histories buried away in obscure literature but which actually in some cases got quite a bit of publicity at the time.

Without going too far on the path of original research, I would point out that anti-metrication had a big overlap with beliefs in measures that were sacred (or that should be sacred) to the English people/race/volk. Michell's own efforts in metrology are rarely if ever taken seriously by professional metrologists.

Various references are made on the web to the AMB.

What other well-known individuals were involved in it?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.12.211 (talk • contribs)

The Hitler book is discussed in Turn Off Your Mind: The Mystic Sixties and the Dark Side of the Age of Aquarius by Gary Valentine Lachman (p.371). I don't have hard-copy access to this, only partial access via a Google books search, but it seems to be authentic. Paul B (talk) 16:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The page can be accessed on an Amazon preview. Contrary to my suggestion above, Lachman clearly believes that Michell flirted with occult Nazi ideas at this time. The full passage is: "Michell's career has produced a rather eccentric oeuvre. Along with his popular books on earth mysteries he is the author of a considerable number of controversial pamphlets. In 1973 Souvenir Programme for the Official Lynching of Michael Abdul Malikb addressed the case of the black power activist Michael X in prison on murder charges. The Hip Pocket Hitler (1976) offered a collection of the Fuehrer's pithy sayings. A Short History of Astro-Archaeology was an early work in the occult Nazi genre, illustrating the official SS line on ancient sites." [14] Paul B (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

This opinion by Lachman was not taken seriously nor furthered by any reputable sources. John Michell's interest in occult subjects is well known to his readers as is his democratic ideas expressed in his published works. The Nazis were also interested in the occult, from a wrong point of view, which does not hold that all authors who arite about the occult have black magick in mind. A non-fiction author or historian can write about a subject without being labeled as endorsing that subject. The small, uncirculated phamplet on Hitler's pithy sayings was just that and was obviously a case of "even the pronouncements of a mad man can sound reasonable". SageMab (talk) 17:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Well then, perhaps you can find these reputable sources and add them. I tend to agree with you that Lachman is probably being unfair. Anyone aware of the strange mixture of radicalism, willful provocativeness, occultism and satanism etc associated with the Rolling Stones at this time will take claims literal pro-Nazism with a big pinch of salt. There was a big interest in the alleged 'occult' aspects of the SS which usually implied a sort of pop-cult version of Nietzsche rather than any actual support for fascist politics. But that's just my opinion. It doesn't matter a hill of beans in this crazy world without sources. Paul B (talk) 17:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Lachman gets the title of the astro-archaeology book wrong; it was actually 'A Little History of Astro-Archaeology'. I have read this book, and it does not seem Nazi; however, I have not read the SS material on ancient sites, which presumably would have been kept internal to the SS and is not something you can find in the 'Mind, Body and Spirit' sections of today's bookshops. (I strongly suspect that Lachman did not consult this latter material either, although I am willing to stand corrected on this point). However, whilst the point about the Rolling Stones is well taken, they did not make a decades-long career out of promoting supposed 'ancient folk traditions' by means of cod academicism (the mathematics in the 'View over Atlantis' is rubbish!), and whilst for a time they lauded people like Aleister Crowley (who was pretty far to the right), they did not support, follow, promote, and assist in the packaging of, works by the undoubted fascist (let's not mince words in this particular person's regard) Julius Evola. The truth is that Michell has a long history of involvement in the ideas-world of the fascist far right. The fact that leftie hippies of the air-head variety have at times formed part of his market (not for the Evola book obviously) should not detract from the point here.

the Evola-Moynihan-Michell connection is what drew my attention to this author in the first place. Nobody is trying to blame Michell by association, but such associations as can be documented should be documented. I don't know about Evola being "misunderstood". He was an active participant in Italy's fascist revolution throughout the 1930s. Perhaps Michell is "misunderstood", after all, you can't pick your readers, but Moynihan probably wasn't an extremely wise choice as the editor of his Confessions. --dab (𒁳) 17:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

But the nature of Michell's association with Moynihan (as a contracted author happy to be published by him; as the author of a contributory laudatory essay for a 'luxury' numbered English translation of a work by the fascist Evola that modern 'intellectual' fascists consider to be his 'magnum opus'; and of course as someone willing to be called a 'Radical Traditionalist' on this publisher's very short list, a label which [I here assert] is one of Evolist mutual recognition) is relevant.

Indeed, both Nietzsche and Wodehouse were (ab)used by the Nazis, but that's no reason to think they were Nazis. If something is interesting, verifiable and from an RS it should go in with an appropriate context. For example, writing a book of Hitler's favourite jokes doesn't make the author a Nazi - but it doesn't make them not one either; it's irrelevant. Verbal chat 17:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

it's not "irrelevant", it's a hippopotamus a book about Hitler's favourite jokes -- for whatever that is worth, for better or worse. We report facts, we don't jump to conclusions. dab (𒁳) 17:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I didn't mean it's irrelevant to the article, just that we can't say that the author is a fascist from just such a book. If this book is more than that, or if there is a reliable source that says this, then fine - but we still need to be careful with BLP. Sorry if my comment wasn't clear (I meant to agreeing with you!). I fully agree we report facts, and should report the book/pamphlet/whatever existing and describe it. Verbal chat 17:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You have some good points Paul and Verbal and I agree with Dab that agreeing to have Monihan publish this book not a wise idea. I think there were only about ten copies of this Hitler phamplet published and it made Hitler look like a bufoon. The short run indicates that it was not meant to be widely circulated. We do need to be careful with BLP. 17:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SageMab (talk • contribs)

I think we should take on board that there is no evidence whatsoever that John Michell himself has ever considered his association with Moynihan to be unwise. This sort of formulation suggests that he did not know what sort of publisher he was dealing with, but what evidence is there for this? After all, he also wrote an essay that was included with the Evola book by the same publisher. He is not responsible for any other books than the ones he was directly involved in; I quite agree with that. But it would not exactly be controversial to call this publisher a fascist publisher. (I know Moynhihan rejects the attribution, but only in Evolist terms).82.153.23.251 (talk) 22:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm currently doing some major editing on the article. I've added Adolf Hitler to the list of topics that Michell wrote about. In my opinion, that's as much of a mention as is really justified, given the sources we've seen so far. Looie496 (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. There doesn't seem to be an ISBN number for the Hitler book, so it may have only been reproduced as a mimeographed pamphlet or something similar. Of course we have to be careful with BLP, but in any case there's not much in the way of reliable sources. As far as the "Souvenir program" pamphlet goes, he was not the sole or even main author: Souvenir Programme for the Official Lynching of Michael Abdul Malik: With Poems, Stories, Sayings by the Condemned By Michael Abdul Malik, William Levy, John Michell Published by Compendium, 1973 53 pages. I think we should drop this now. Doug Weller (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Revisions

I've just done a bunch of revisions. I'm now reasonably satisfied with the state of most of the article, with the exception of the Shakespeare section, which needs tightening up. Also it would be nice to find a photo of Michell for the "writer" infobox that I added. Looie496 (talk) 19:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not a wise idea to publish the neighborhood in which a living author lives. You might want to remove it. Londoner is sufficient. The majority of the article as it stands is on the Shakespeare authorship question. SageMab (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that you will be happy with Sagemab's edit, which I've reverted. In the name of NPOV and OR he added his personal analysis of Amazon.com, where he said " where the book received enthusiastic reviews from readers," more OR where he wrote "He has sharpened his wit as a columnist and social commentary for Britain's" The Oldie, and he turned Michell into an archaeologist. Doug Weller (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I kept some of your suggestions Doug and removed those that were not BLP material or seemed OR. No one said Michell was an archeologist. See the history of the article. I did add that his books are best know for subjects such as archaeology...etc. As a mater of fact in libraries his books are shelved under a variety of topics, frequently philosophy. I am asking you nicely, one again to watch the name calling, incorrect information ("personal anyalysis of Amazon.com"?). Thanks. SageMab (talk) 23:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

SM, don't inset comments. It creates formatting problems. Use colons (:). Paul B (talk) 23:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Paul. 00:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Mathematics - number theory and geometry

I am unhappy with the couching of his interest in mathematics and geometry in the opening sentence as if he is qualified or especially knowledgeable in either of these fields. Number theory has been mentioned above, but Michell has not made any contributions to this body of knowledge. Elementary number theory is material that is normally taught on an algebra course in the first year of an undergraduate degree in mathematics (as part of 'Algebra 101'), and I am not aware of any indications that Michell has even this level of knowledge. This author's work in books such as the 'View over Atlantis' would be better characterised as numerological, or to some extent, as involving gematria. Gematria is not number theory, nor is it contained within it. Whether or not he ever met Paul Erdos, and whether or not Erdos had respect for Michell's work, are irrelevant to the fact that Michell is not a number theorist or mathematician.

A similar point, although with lesser force, could be made with regard to geometry. This is less of a technical or specialist term than number theory, and it is certainly the case that in a book such as the above-mentioned title, Michell does do work involving geometry. But it is not as if he has made any contribution to the field of geometry. What he has made is a contribution to the application of basic pre-university-level geometry to Pyramidology etc.82.153.23.251 (talk) 22:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Outside view

I've been asked to have a look here. WP:BLP needs to be applied very carefully. Any association of a living person with fascism or nazism should either have impeccable referencing to back it up, or if not needs to be removed as derogatory speculation. There is a lot of conversation on the page, but not much which states how a source can be referenced and provide material to be included in the article. Focus on sources and what they say - it saves a lot of discussion. If there aren't sources that say it, then it has no place here, as it will have no place in the article, and the purpose of a talk page is to sort out content for the article. See WP:TPG. There is no need for an editor to get a user name, but editors should sign their posts with 4 tildes ~~~~. If an editor forgets, sign for them with {{subst:unsigned|Tyrenius}} (except not my name preferably!). If it's an IP, then use the IP address. I suggest doing this to any unsigned posts, as it's difficult to see who's saying what on this page. Ty 01:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I've already asked that this be dropped. Doug Weller (talk) 09:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Michell isn't a "fascist". He is a harmless "learned crank obsessed with numbers". And he is apparently used as a sort of figurehead by Michael Moynihan in the latter's attempts to revive Evola-style neo-fascism under the title of "Radical Traditionalism". A wikilink to Radical Traditionalism is enough to establish this, we don't need to belabour it with BLP-violating innuendo. --dab (𒁳) 09:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I think as well as a wikilink to Radical Traditionalism, Michell's essay for the Evola book should also be mentioned in the bibliography. Michell writes for widely differing markets, and readers who are in one market may be unaware of what is being offered to another market. This should not stop us from describing the various parts of his oeuvre. Although we should avoid furthering anyone's POV on the meaning of the combination of his main subjects, his Wikipedia entry should cover both his hippy stuff as well as his hard-line political stuff.91.84.232.69 (talk) 17:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Philosopher again?

I'm just curious about SageMab's latest edit comments. He seems to be using such comments as a forum for claiming philosophical cred for Michell, though I can't for the life of me see the argument. SageMab, have you a point in comments such as these:

• John Michell, philosopher, Michael Vickers said Michell first to note
• for philosophical mags,even if one does not agree with this particular philosophy, it is, vets the question is he a philosopher
• Michell writes for philosophical mags,even if one does not agree with this particular philosophy, it is, vets the question is he a philosopher

If so, make it here. Phiwum (talk) 04:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be well past time to impose some restraint on SageMab. Many of his contribs have at least something of value in them, but he's making this way too hard. Looie496 (talk) 04:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Phiwum you will notice that that I did not reinstate the word philospher in the lead paragraph. In adding solid, verifieable facts to this article I have come across reputable references to him as a philosopher. The truth of the matter is that John Michell is well known as a philospher. It is well evident in both his books and articles. His many publishers list him as such and libraries and bookstores file him under this term. Read the article page Phiwum and Looie. Restraint in what Looie? I do hope you are not threatening another editor. I have just spent several hours adding very solid, as per Wiki standard facts, quotes and paragraphs to this article from reputable sources. I suggest you both read the comments from the administrator above which I find to be very solid advice. This admn found my restoraton of the article to be correct I believe. SageMab (talk) 05:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm bumfuzzled as to how you think any of those edits support the claim that he is a philosopher. Again, you seem to be using that term differently than I do. Phiwum (talk) 14:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

If he's going on how bookstores file books, no wonder he thinks that. Libraries can be just as bad. A publisher publishes a book on some kook idea (not calling Michell a kook, thinking here of other writers( and calls it history, and it ends up filed that way. Doug Weller (talk) 14:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Marriage in 2007

Sort of an interesting fact: on Youtube there is a short film showing Michell's wedding, with the caption: "BROOMSTICKS AND MAGIC SPELL SUCCESS AT WEDDING 02:00pm - 26 April 2007 Friends and family danced in the spring sunshine yesterday as well-known Glastonbury druid Denise Price and world-renowned author and mystic John Michell married in St. Benedicts church, then jumped a broomstick in a traditional hand-fasting ceremony. Hundreds of well-wishers, including Glastonbury Festival founder Michael Eavis, and the couple's families gathered for the joyful and unconventional celebration of love. Denise first met John 34 years ago when she was 21 and he was 40." See [15]. This seems like something that could go into the Biography section, but I thought I would query opinions here first. Looie496 (talk) 04:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not think this advances the information about the work of this author. The article discussion is not a gossip page but you might want to know that they are no longer married. BLP SageMab (talk) 05:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

this is a biographical article. If the wedding can be referenced, it is on topic. I've googled this "well-known Archdruidess" Denise Price, with little result. She appears to have been "Archdruidess of the Secular Order of Druids" before 1997 and was raised to the "Ovatean Chair of Bath" at a 1997 "Gorsedd" in Bath,[16], and later made archdruidess of the "Glastonbury Order of Druids" in 2005[17], and has since formed her own "Western Order of Druids" which has had an extremely rudimentary website since March 2007. Probably nothing that would bear mention in our Neo-Druidism articles. dab (𒁳) 15:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

John Neal

Why is such a large proportion of the article discussing a book by John Neal (or Neil as the article says, incorrectly). One of the references only mentions that Michell liked the book. The article also discusses Michell's review of the book (no reference to a reliable source for the Spectator reference I see). This is all so trivial that it deserves no more than a sentence, if that. Certainly a substantial paragraph on John Neal doesn't belong here, and the BWMA should not be mentioned without making it clear what it is, as the title makes it sound like something official. Doug Weller (talk) 05:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

According to Wiki:BLP facts must advance the article and, in this case, the discussion is about number theory which Michell has published about extensively. The British Weights and Measures Association advanced this argument by quotinga notable article in Nature where a notable person Michael Vickers credited John Michell as being "philospher and historian" (notable source by Wiki standards, information on what to call this author) for providing an elusive key to ancient metrology. This key from Michell's published research enabled Neil to write his book. The book was reviewed by Michell in the Spectator (good source) and the review is where Michell explains the theory of "old measures" (ie number in order to quantify). A notable by Wiki standards emeritus professor Henry H.Bauer from VA Polytech then further explains why this acknowledgement of Michell is "Of Note". IThe entry in question is a fairly complex paragraph that moves from point to point and to reduce it would be to gut, or even nullify, it's importance in defining this author , which I am sure you would not want to do. The British Weights and Measures link provides information about the Michell review in the Spectator which checked out. SageMab (talk) 06:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC) SageMab (talk) 06:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

No, John Michell has never written about number theory. He has, however, written about gematria, which is a kind of numerology. If you wish to maintain that he has written about number theory, please could you show that you know what number theory actually is, first. (Follow the Wikified link, to check whether your definition agrees the sort of definitions used by the rest of the world).82.153.23.251 (talk) 10:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

SageMab, please could you confirm that you understand that "number theory" is a field of knowledge that is not contained within, and does not even overlap with, "metrology". I guess there a few mathematicians working in the area where "measure theory" (which is a branch of real analysis, and is nothing to do with metrology) overlaps with "number theory", but we are talking about mathematics at a level which there is no evidence that Michell has ever written about or studied. The encyclopedia starts to look like a laughing-stock when people who have written about leylines and Pyramidology and the 'view over Atlantis', or even the history of measures such as the inch and the mile, are referred to as "number theorists" on the basis of having done such work. Number theory is nothing to do with metrology or numerology - this should be taken on board.82.153.23.251 (talk) 10:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The article isn't aware of any academic publications of Michell's. Attempts to present him as an academic writer are clearly disingenious. Not only has he never published anything remotely related to number theory, he has also never published on his actual hobby horse "ancient metrology" in any scholarly venue. John Mitchell is an esotericist writer catering to the Neopagan / New Age / "Perennialist-Traditionalist" market segment, end of story. The closest he ever came to academic honours is a mention of one of his books in Nature in 2001. Why can't we just stop the silly game and discuss Mitchell's notability for what it is. --dab (𒁳) 10:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. He has never written about number theory, prehistoric cultures (that was an editorial synopsis), or geometry in the mathemtical sense. He is not an academic -- giving some lectures does not make one an academic. Doug Weller (talk) 12:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Rolling Stones

Actually I thought this was interesting and made Michell seem a bit more interesting. Sagemab deleted it writing "Wiki BLP, not a gossip page" but I don't see how in anyway this transgresses our BLP policy nor makes the article a gossip page. Doug Weller (talk) 06:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. I did also but then I re-read the admin's good advice to heed Wiki policy on a Biography of a Living Person. It says, firmly, that this is not a gossip arena. Re-read it; I will also. I thought the entry was fun but after reading BLP I do not think it may be appropriate and may only serve to trivialize the life of this author with rock star sensationalisms. I have read about Michell's adventures with the Rolling Stones when he took them on a tour of Britain to see standing stones and Neolithic ruins. I do think the near address and the wedding falls into the "no personal information" category. I think this article is about his professional writings since he is such a prolific author and that should be the crux of the article. I have found published references of his researches during his Etonian days but they are far too annecdotal to include on the article page. SageMab (talk) 06:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Gossip would be about who someone was dating, etc. This isn't gossip. Doug Weller (talk) 08:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Without doing actual OR (there are many sources on Notting Hill, but I am not sufficiently well-acquainted with the topic to piece all this stuff together), could someone please consider the connections at Notting Hill (Powis Square and elsewhere) between:

- John Michell, who was (perhaps still is?) a landlord owning property in Powis Terrace, according to Tom Vague's history of the area

- Michael X (at first, he was agent for Peter Rachman, an even more famous landlord in the area - Powis Terrace has been called "one of (Rachman's) worst slums" - and later, he was a close associate of John Michell) (might Michael X have basically switched from working for one landlord to working for another??),

- and Mick Jagger (whose film 'Performance' was shot at locations in Notting Hill, and who was a figure on the 'scene' in that area)

This mid-1980s source] looks as if it contains a lot of information about the Notting Hill 'scene', written by people who were around it and close observers of it, without actually being in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.232.69 (talk) 16:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Temenos Academy Review

I'm glad to see mention of this has been removed, but for the record, this is not a journal of philosophy nor does it claim to be one. Doug Weller (talk) 06:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

How would you define this Temenos Academy review of papers? The articles are philsophical in tone and title.SageMab (talk) 06:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with their own description: "The Review comprises a mixture of papers given at the Academy and new work, including poetry, art, and reviews." It's clearly not a journal of philosophy as understood by philosphers. Doug Weller (talk) 08:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

John Michell's "official" website, and his London residence

I think the infobox should refer to John Michell's "personal" website, or his "home page", rather than his "official website". He is not a public official, or a representative of any organisation etc. I have edited the reference to read "personal website".

As for his London residence, no-one is suggesting that his address should be posted here, but note that he publishes his London address on his website. He is of course a well-known character of the Notting Hill area of London, and has been for 40 years. (Though this is not his only residence, and I would certainly agree that no other residence should be mentioned, since he has a right to privacy).82.153.23.251 (talk) 10:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually I was unable to change the infobox so that it referred to his "personal website" rather than his "official website". I do think, though, that the phrase "personal website" would say all that needs to be said - i.e. it is the person's own website, and not a website about them that is written by someone else.82.153.23.251 (talk) 10:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect User:/82.153.23.251|82.153.23.251 on both points. John Michell has said in lectures that he has no personal website and that his "official site" was done by someone without him knowing about it first. The bibliography on it does not look complete. This website was created and is maintained by someone other than himself, a company called VortexMaps who is listed at the bottom of the page as the page sponsor. Michell is well-known as having only one residence, although he frequently travels. Several books have mentioned that he sold his country "family" house to Mick Jagger in the 1960s. I suggest you read/heed Wiki policy on living people which strongly suggests that no home address be posted in articles even if it is available. SageMab (talk) 13:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The webiste in question is listed as the "Official Website". Reporti facts without inserting OR or suppositions on what you think somthing is. SageMab (talk) 13:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

In what sense, then, is it his "official" website? Obviously there needs to be an answer to that question, otherwise it shouldn't be listed as his official website.

To say that Michell is "well-known as having only one residence" is rather daft in my opinion. A number of sources have confirmed that whilst he spends time in the same house he has occupied in a certain part of West London for 40 years, he also often resides in a town house (not a country house) in a city in Somerset, which I shall not name, for privacy reasons. You may be falling into the trap of thinking that what you don't know, can't be true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.232.69 (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess my attitude is that a website called www.johnmichell.com, listing his works and his mailing address, is his web site unless proven otherwise. If he didn't like it, he had the power to easily make it go away. Looie496 (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

This is from one of Tom Vague's works on the history of Notting Hill:"(Michael X's) main cohorts were John Michell and John Hopkins. He first met the former, legendary esoteric cult author, and local landlord, as he was selling a Rachman house on Colville Terrace. Michell’s appearance on a fascist march with 2 black girls impressed Michael, and Michell still defends Michael to this day. (...) As well as his property X-files (which included the Ledbury Road jazz record shop and Powis Terrace), John Michell became the underground press resident expert on UFOs, leylines, Stonehenge, the holy grail; and has published numerous books including The View Over Atlantis and The Flying Saucer Vision; John Hopkins describes him as the archetypal eccentric Notting Hill writer." (emphasis added)

Elsewhere Vague has written that: (...) the weirdest street in Notting Hill has to be Powis Terrace aka Hedgegate Court; largely due to John Michell, the local esoteric cult author and landlord. Aside from his property X-files, John Michell was the underground press resident expert on all things mystical; the holy grail, leylines, Stonehenge, UFOs; and has published numerous arcane books including The View Over Atlantis and The Flying Saucer Vision; John Hopkins cites him as the archetypal eccentric Notting Hill writer. (emphasis added)

Michell's role as long-standing Notting Hill "character" and business operator (publishing, self-publishing, and owning rental properties) is one of the things he is widely-known for, on what might loosely be called the 'hippy' scene (for want of a better word!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.232.69 (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

John Michell's Writings in Books and Columns on Prehistoric Archaeology and also on Sacred Sites

DougWeller, to answer your edit on the article page, John Michell has written extensively on prehistoric archaeology and Neolithic life and also on sacred sites and also on when a prehistory site is considered a place of ancient worship which is a melding of both subjects. I have read many, many of his books and articles and you have said you have not which is perhaps where some of the problems with your edits of his article lies, although I will assume good faith on your part. Again, I want to remind you to read Wiki's policy on lving people. The Stones At Lands End, Megalithamania, Crooked Soley, The Temple at Jersalem, Twelve Tribe Nations are all far different books. Commonality of subject matter does not indicate commonality of either intent or focus in a non-fiction book. When you remove words like Prehistoric Archaeology and replace them with ley lies it appears that you are inserting your own OR into the articleSageMab (talk) 13:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It is hardly OR to put in ley lines, he is well known for his work on ley lines. As Ronald Hutton says, writing about Watkins, "there seems little doubt that the great popularity of the concept of alignment among the 'counter-culture' resulted from the publication of John Michell's book The View over Atlantis." (A book written in the context of geomancy.) It is very misleading to say he has written on prehistoric archaeology. I have a number of varied books on prehistoric archaeology and I can assure you that he is mentioned in none of them. Writing about geomancy and earth mysteries is not the same as writing about prehistoric archaeology even though they may both be looking at the same sites and people. Leaving out ley lines leaves out an important part of what he has written about, whereas putting in prehistoric archaeology just confuses anyone who actually knows what the subject is about and might think Michell was writing something similar. If you hadn't brought this up I wouldn't have looked up Michell in Ron Hutton.

I have no idea why you keep reminding me of policy on living writers, since you never say anything specific, but the only conclusion I can draw is that you don't quite understand the policy but hope that if you keep repeating your 'warning' it will make other editors hesitate. In any case, Michell's books on Stonehenge, etc are not books on prehistoric archaeology even if they use some of its subject matter. Doug Weller (talk) 14:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I never suggested that you leave out ley lines. No argument there. My only concern is that you blanked out prehistoric archaeology repeatedly and replaced the word with ley lines. They should both be up there. We are not talking about 3rd party references in regard to archaeology. We are talking about the subject matter of his books and any reader of John Michell's work knows he writes quite a bit about prehistoric archaeology, in fact, it is the crux of many of his books. As to Wiki BLP, they say it far better than I and I think it a good idea for us all to keep rereading it for good advice. I do think that the admin's comment above on BLP sums it up correctly. Do not take an edit to an article as a personal attack on you, assume good faith DougWeller. SageMab (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

So where does OR come in? There is no need to keep reminding us about BLP, it's at the top, an admin has just done it, etc. It's not helpful for you to keep reminding others about policy unless you have a very specific point which you make clearly. Michell uses prehistoric archaeology to write about sacred sites, geomancy, ley lines, numerology, etc. Those are the subjects he is writing about. There's a big difference from an academic point of view. We can't use the views of 'any reader', that would be OR. He isn't an archaeologist. He doesn't claim to be one either. Doug Weller (talk) 16:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Integral thought

How closely is Michell tied to the whole integral thought business (Ken Wilber)? His membership of the Lindisfarme Association would certainly suggest some degree of relation. Enough to put him into Category:Integral thought? Moreschi (talk) 15:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

can you please explain why that wretched quotation is necessary? This is Wikipedia, not WikiQuote. Description is far better than endless quotation. This article has too many already. And don't misrepresent the positions of others. I think it's time you stopped lecturing us on policy, because you clearly have no clue as to what you're talking about. Moreschi (talk) 15:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

In Googling around I saw no sign of a tie-in with Wilber. Furthermore, Michell is not listed as a member of Lindisfarne currently. He was in the 1980s; I don't know about the years since. Looie496 (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Why are you now putting back in material to which Michell only has the most tenuous connection? We do not need this article to become a dumping ground for every mention of Michell by anyone ever. Moreschi (talk) 20:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Time for an RfC on SageMab?

I propose to open an RfC on SageMab, on the basis that he is constantly disrupting this article by pushing the point of view that Michell is a respected scholar, whereas the overwhelming evidence is that the bulk of Michell's work is pseudoscience. Because SageMab does in fact know a lot of useful things, it seems to me that an appropriate remedy is that he either be mentored, or else prohibited from editing the article without prior approval on the talk page, but left free to edit the talk page at will. I would like to get input from others before proceeding. Looie496 (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I think an RFC is slightly premature. There's still a chance for SageMab to stop pushing his POV at us, stop tendentiously wikilawyering with baseless policy interpretations, and start being constructive. Otherwise yes, we will have to go down the RFC/community sanction route. Moreschi (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it is too early yet and I still have hope that SageMab will reconsider his behaviour. I would really like to avoid an RfC. Doug Weller (talk) 16:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would like to make some further contributions to this article, but it's too hard right now — I'm going to wait until this issue is resolved. Looie496 (talk) 17:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Doug, but would add that SageMab should be told that from this immediate moment on, he should follow accepted procedures and customs on this Talk page (e.g. courtesy, and not fiddling with - or removing - other people's contributions). If he accepts this, and does not readopt his previous MO, then I would hope that he could contribute usefully to improving the main page, because he obviously has a lot of knowledge. If he does not accept this, or accepts it but then goes and readopts his previous MO, then RFC/community sanction it should be. I am trying to make all of my own contributions (some of which are certainly POV-influenced) to the Talk page in the first instance, so that they can be discussed and considered by others. I am fed up with having to check back to find out whether SageMab has messed about with them, or engaged in personal attacks.91.84.232.69 (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Moreschi, perhaps you have missed the point. This is not about a degree in metrology. This paragraph is about a respected antiquarian scholar, Dr, Michael Vickers who validates metrology and John Michell's important contrubution to the field. This opinion is validated by a professor emeritus at Virginia Polytech University, not a lightweight by any means. This is an important point about this author so perhaps instead of just chopping it out you should go to the source cited in the edit and rewrite the paragraph appropriately. That would further this article. As for user 91.84.232.69|91.84.232.69] who admitted to using a second IP to make edits to this article, and who was slapped with mutiple vandalism charges on this article to the extent that ithe article was blocked for edit by anonymous users for days I would say perhaps you are misguided and perhaps you will consider reading the Wiki:OR policy by now.SageMab (talk) 22:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

SageMab - we misunderstood because the normal meaning of "a first in metrology" would be "a first class degree in metrology". As for me personally, you say I have "admitted" using a second IP. In fact my internet access is via a dynamic rather than a static IP, i.e. I connect using more than one IP. I also choose to be "anonymous" rather than setting up a Wikipedia account. I don't think there is any confusion whatsoever over what has been posted by me and what hasn't - apart from when you misleadingly, on several occasions, mucked about with what I posted, inserting your own objections in several places without signing them. OR policy has nothing to do with the topic of this section. As for being "slapped with multiple vandalism charges", perhaps you could give this a rest now? My main query was whether or not when you said "a first in metrology" you were using the phrase in the normal academic sense. You have made it clear that no, you were not. Thank you for this. Everyone knows Michell has made a contribution regarding the ancient origin of a few measurement units. Similarly, everyone knows he has published work on numerology. The first does not mean he has a degree in metrology (as you confirm). The second does not mean he knows anything about number theory, or has ever made a contribution that is in any way connected with number theory (as you have not yet accepted).91.84.232.69 (talk) 08:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

"Premature"? Several editors have extensively commented on SM's behaviour on this very page. The picture is crystal clear. Now would be a good time for SM to take a step back, admit his behaviour was out of line, and transform into a bona fide Wikipedian in good standing. He has all the necessary criticism right in front of him. If he refuses to do that, no RfC is going to change this, and we might step into the warning cycle without losing further time and effort right away. Wikipedia isn't the right place for people who simply cannot be bothered listen or follow the rules. --dab (𒁳) 09:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Dr, Michael Vickers in Nature credits John Michell with a first in Metrology and validates subject, echoed by VPI professor emeritus

Moreschi, please explain why you removed this block of text from the article which advances the discussion of metrology and John Michell:

The discussion of number was discussed by The British Weights and Measures Association (BWMA) 1 who quoted Dr. Michael Vickers, of the Department of Antiquities, Ashmolean Museum, and Senior Research Fellow in Classical Studies and Reader in Archaeology at Jesus College, Oxford. Vickers article on number and John Neil’s new book “All Done With Mirrors” in the 2001 issue of "Nature" (page 1030) said "Thanks to John Neal's remarkable new book, ancient metrology - once the playground of Newton but now largely ignored even by archaeologists - should cease to be a pariah subject and regain its place at the centre of the study of antiquity.” Vickers continued, “Elaborating a scheme first noted by the philosopher and historian John Michell, Neal observes that feet (or cubits) stand in a ratio of 175:176 to larger units in a series...". The “Spectator” on June 9 of the same year ran a review of John Neil’s book by John Michell who said “"the old measures…express the dimensions of the earth and moon within a rational code of number. And from this same code are derived also the measures and ratios of music, geometry, astronomy, chronology and physics. John Neal's discoveries give firm ground to the Pythagorean world-view that 'all is number.' Henry H Bauer, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry & Science Studies, Dean Emeritus of Arts & Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University said 2 this book is “Of Note” because it has received praise from quarters that are more commonly in opposition: the blurbs bear effusive praise from stalwart anomalists John Michell and Colin Wilson and the book was reviewed in glowing terms in "Nature" by Michael Vickers. SageMab (talk) 21:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, please could you provide a source for the view that John Michell gained a first class undergraduate degree in Metrology. Only a very few universities in the world award degrees in metrology, and most of the courses concern modern metrology, the science of measurement, not ancient metrology or the origin or history of units of measure. A degree in metrology has never been offered by Cambridge University, which Michell attended. But perhaps he got one somewhere else? Or maybe by "a first in Metrology" you meant "a new achievement in metrology"?-unsigned comment by 91.84.232.69|91.84.232.69

No, you do not understand. I never said he did. Your opinion on the matter is not a point here. Wiki: OR; i.e. no opinions, bias or original theories are allowed on Wikpedia pages of a living author. Dr. Michael Vickers writing in Nature is a notable, verifiable Wikipedia correct reference. This is Vickers statements, not mine. SageMab (talk) 21:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC), SageMab (talk) 21:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. The issue, however, was not my opinion, but the meaning of his being credited with "a first in Metrology". Thank you for confirming that you did not mean that anyone has credited him with getting a first-class degree (or indeed any other class of degree) in this subject.

I have no idea why you lecture me on opinion and bias, when as far as I can tell, I made no statement of opinion in the paragraph to which you were replying.91.84.232.69 (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Has it actually been verified, by the way, that John Michell is a Chartered Surveyor? Also, I'd be interested to know whether he was awarded a degree at Cambridge, and if so, in what subject. I'd assumed it was in Modern Languages, given his post-college employment as a translator for the armed forces, but maybe I'm wrong?91.84.232.69 (talk) 21:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You can't seriously be suggesting this near-unintelligible screed you've written should actually stay in the article. It seems purely trivial, and barely related to Michell at all. Plus, it's so poorly written it makes almost no sense. And where does Vickers say, exactly, that Michell has a metrology degree...Moreschi (talk) 21:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Moreschi, perhaps you have missed the point. This paragraph in the article reproduced above is not about a degree in metrology! How could you construe that? The quote above by Vickers says “Elaborating a scheme first noted by the philosopher and historian John Michell, Neal observes ...". Again, read the paragraph. This paragraph is about a respected antiquarian scholar, Dr. Michael Vickers who validates metrology and John Michell's important contrubution to the field. This opinion is validated by a professor emeritus at Virginia Polytech University, not a lightweight by any means. This is an important point about this author so perhaps instead of just chopping it out you should go to the source cited in the edit and rewrite the paragraph appropriately. That would further this article. As for user 91.84.232.69|91.84.232.69] who admitted to using a second IP to make edits to this article, and who was slapped with mutiple vandalism charges on this article by administrators to the extent that the article was blocked for edit by anonymous users for days I would say perhaps you are misguided and perhaps you will consider reading the Wiki:OR policy. SageMab (talk) 23:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Perhaps there is a misunderstanding of a "First" in this paragraph. It does not refer to a degree. First refers to the original person who discovered this important point. Eureka! Metrology vetted by Michael Vickers and VPI. SageMab (talk) 23:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I can see the point. It's obscured by all the stuff after the Vickers quote, which should go, but the Vickers quote, however misguided Vickers was, is probably ok.

Meanwhile Sagemab, please explain the bit about hard copy that has confused me and left you calling me a liar. Doug Weller (talk) 05:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This illustrates better than anything the problems that SageMab's constant pushing causes: it can make us lose sight of the goal here, which is to create an article that accurately portrays the subject. John Michell is not a philospher and historian: he is a very prolific writer of pseudoscience, and a counterculture guru. SageMab must not be allowed to cherry-pick quotes to support a picture that we know is inaccurate. Looie496 (talk) 15:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

well, the article is on track now, and I don't see a problem except that people keep feeding this. dab (𒁳) 15:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, for god's sake. That paragraph is almost entirely about somebody else (Neil). We can't have vast chunks of material that's only tangentially related to the subject of the article. One sentence saying "Michell has written on metrology and has been cited for it" is fine. Just cite that to Vickers in a footnote. Moreschi (talk) 16:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Burden of Evidence

Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced information that may damage the reputation of living persons or organizations in articles and do not move it to the talk page (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for details of this policy). As Jimmy Wales has put it:

Template:Jimboquote Wise words from Jimbo. SageMab (talk) 14:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe so, but there is nothing unsourced or poorly sourced about the Hitler statement. You know he made this book. We know he made this book. It is sourced in Lachman. Whether we need to mention it is another point, but your quoting of this policy is both irrelevant and misleading. Why are you quoting a statement about excluding "random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information" when you know that information is both sourced and correct (as you admit in previous sections)? Paul B (talk) 14:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

well, dude, this is what we have been doing. As it happens, this applies to all kinds of pseudo information, not just the kind that damages a reputation, but also to such as unduly inflates one. You have been trying to prevent people from doing just that. Time to stop throwing around undisputed truisms and begin looking at the beam in thy own eye instead. --dab (𒁳) 14:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Do not presume that I posted this in regard to the Hitler phamplet. I did not. I did post it as a reminder to us all (me included). I do think it applies to the discussion on this page regarding Hitler and other talking points. Do not accuse other editors please, no one is trying to prevent anything. Wiki is very specific about the burden of proof on an article about a living person and I am trying to heed that for my own edits. If commentary on the long career of a prolific author is mainly laudatory or from sources that do not pass verifiability how does an editor post material on the subject without the article appearing to be a puff piece? Paul, I would like your opinion on this, without it getting personal please. Most of the verifiable reviews of John Michells work have been positive so I would like to hear other editors views on this. SageMab (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC), SageMab (talk) 15:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I presumed it because you titled this section "Burden of evidence", and your only edit summary to refer to "burden of evidence" was the one in which you removed the reference tio the Hitler book - "burden of evidence, removed Hitler". Paul B (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

SM, you are dealing with a number of veteran editors here, including several admins. You do not need to "remind us of policy". If you want to remind yourself of policy, we will thank you for it, but you don't need to use this page for the exercise. dab (𒁳) 15:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know. It is a brief wise quote from Jimbo. There are also a number of new editors and new anonymous IP users here which is why DougWeller posted the entire talk page guidelines from Wiki here. Have you admoninished him for that? SageMab (talk) 16:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You are doing it again Sage. Trust me, Wikipedia is working smoothly. Your main concern should be to get your understanding and editing behaviour up to speed. Once you manage that, I will be happy to welcome you as an editor in good standing. Do you even realize how many people's time your extroverted approach to learning-by-doing has been wasting? --dab (𒁳) 16:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no doubt that Wikipedia is running smoothly. This page has seen a huge amount of accusations, opinions on the subject matter, "labeling" of the author and the personal beliefs of the editors which do nothing to advance the article. Jimbo's advice on working on articles of living persons is right on point on this discussion page. SageMab (talk) 16:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)16:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC), SageMab (talk) 16:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

SageMab, why would you say anything so obviously untrue as claiming that I posted an entire talk page? I posted the guidelines about what could be legitimately removed. I hope that by your mention of new editors and IP users that you have decided that there are no sock puppets or puppet masters here, as you keep suggesting elsewhere. By the way, you've missed a wonderful opportunity to show that you understand NPOV by failing to use the Hutton material I provided above. And you've again missed an opportunity to show good faith in failing to explain your claim that I was calling you a liar about the hard copy confusion. I definitely wasn't and I'd like you to understand that, I was and am simply confused about it. Doug Weller (talk) 18:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

In any case, SageMab, why is "burden of evidence" a reason for removing the reference, in a long list of what John Michell has written about, to the fact that he wrote a pamphlet about Hitler? I know it hasn't got an ISBN, but it was nonetheless published and circulated, various sources have referred to it, and just tell us, please, what is the problem with referring to it, assuming it isn't given undue prominence?82.153.28.211 (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Right, now I've had it. SageMab is being wilfully obstinate, so now we're getting to the sanctions stage. Moreschi (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV issues

SageMab, one more effort to get some consensus and work with you here. You've mentioned NPOV issues a number of times, and recently made an edit saying "removed several NPOV issues". Perhaps you could specify what these are and why they are NPOV and we can work on those. Doug Weller (talk) 19:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, seeing as he's been blocked for 3RR for 31h, we'll have to put this on ice for a little bit. Moreschi (talk) 19:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

And his attempt to get the block lifted (which was for trolling other editors as well as 3RR) shows clearly that he thinks it is everyone else's fault. I am very dubious about his ability to understand WP policies given what he says there and has written today on this page and in edit summaries. Doug Weller (talk) 20:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

everything has been "everyone else's fault" with SM from the beginning. This is why he would never bother to even listen to other people, or reflect on his own behaviour. Sometimes, mere "good faith" (viz., paired with complete failure to communicate) is simply not enough. --dab (𒁳) 08:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I am making some progress, we shall see. Doug Weller (talk) 08:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Ronald Hutton quote

I think we need to use some of this, but I'm not sure exactly how. Hutton is a respected academic, Professor of History at the Department of Historical Studies, University of Bristol, albeit an unusual one as he is a second generation Pagan. From his book The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles:
This then, is one major aspect of the methodology of much 'alternative' archaeology which is quite unacceptable to orthodox scholarship. Another consists of straightforward perversion of truth or statements of pure untruth. Both occur even in work by a distinguished earth mysteries writer like John Michell, who informs his readers that traces of a great prehistoric sea wall survive upon the coasts of Essex and Kent. He states this as a well-known fact requiring no evidence, and thereby escapes the reality that no evidence for it seems to exist. He likewise states that excavators of Roman roads have found roads beneath which are equally fine or even finer. Who these excavators were is not mentioned, and they appear, again, to be a poetic invention. It is well known to historians that Richard Whiting, last Abbot of Glastonbury, was executed in 1539 on a trumped-up charge of trying to conceal abbey treasures from the Crown. The evidence was a goblet said to have been found hidden by him in a chest. Mr Michell distorts this celebrated story by telling his readers that Whiting died for refusing to give up the ancient mystical treasures of the abbey, which have been concealed ever since. But all this, disturbing though it may be to more conscientious scholars, does not justify rejecting all John Michell's work out of hand. It might still be that moments of mere tale-spinning do conceal others of genuine insight. I would say at once that I am not wholly qualified myself to determine how far this is the case, because Mr Michell's enthusiasms are too wide-ranging to be the province of any one specialist. For example, I lack the mathematical ability to comment upon his long passages on systems of sacred numbers. All I can say is that virtually all his work within my own provinces of history and prehistory is as unacceptable to an academic as those examples I have cited - even that most admired by his followers for its apparent objectivity, namely his study of the monuments of West Penwith. Within the 98 square miles of the area which he selected for his study are or were eighty standing stones and 300 barrows, in addition to several chambered tombs and several stone rings. There is thus already a high probability that somebody could draw straight lines through a map of this district and hit a large number of prehistoric sites with each, purely by chance. But Mr Michell compounds this chance by admitting to his sample all the 150 medieval crosses recorded in West Penwith. Many of these are now considered to date from between AD 13OO and 1500, a thousand years after the Christianization of Cornwall, but Mr Michell admits them all upon the grounds that any might mark a pagan holy place or be itself a reworked prehistoric standing stone. So it is unsurprising, and impressive or instructive to nobody but devoted earth mystics, that he came up with a large number of 'alignments'. A pair of statisticians subsequently ran a computerized study of them and equally unsurprisingly came up with the possibility that many of them could have been produced by chance. But to a conscientious prehistorian the whole study was inadmissible from the start, for John Michell had not considered all the prehistoric monuments of West Penwith, or even all those in the area dating up to the sixteenth century AD, but a selection of sites, from many different periods, which happen to fit his theory best. But then, in doing so, he had only been following the practice of most 'ley hunters'.
Suggestions as to how to use this sensitively? Thanks Doug Weller (talk) 19:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hutton is the expert on modern neo-Paganism. I have not read The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles, but I do know the Triumph of the Moon, of which I have a copy, and it is a very solid piece of work. In any case Hutton's position as an academic at Manchester Uni and Bristol means his views should be of undisputed importance. It seems to me that we have to turn this into an account of Michell's life, work and evaluations to it, rather than just a series of quotations and counter-quotations. Paul B (talk) 21:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That seems a good way to go. You seem to have made a start. By the way, thanks for sorting out the spelling, it had been bothering me but I was too busy to look at it. Doug Weller (talk) 05:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Radical Traditionalism

Just trying to get a bird's eye view here, of what might be said in the lede when this article is finally sorted out. There are some good arguments for filing most or all of Michell's work under the category 'New Age', but I am not sure they win out, when one considers that much of his work has been about traditions, the ancient world, and prehistory. When I think of 'New Age', I get concepts such as the 'Age of Aquarius' coming into my head, and I doubt that I am alone in this :-)

I suggest that the term Radical Traditionalist, faute de mieux, accurately characterises Michell's lifelong optic on the world in general, as expressed through his writings. This is also the term used in the title of the (autobiographically-presented) anthology of his writings: "Confessions of a Radical Traditionalist" (ISBN 0971204446) (published by Michael Moynihan).

A wikilink to the article on Radical Traditionalism is a must, right near the top of the Michell article. That article states that:

"The term "Radical Traditionalism" as used by the Tyr journal originates in the early 1970s. The term was revived in the 2000s in the context of the radical anti-modernist occultism of Julius Evola by publisher Michael Moynihan who added the subtitle Post-War Reflections of a Radical Traditionalist to the reprint of Evola's 1953 Men Among Ruins which had an introduction by Joscelyn Godwin."

I would like to know more about the origins of the term 'Radical Traditionalism' in the 1970s, but in the 2000s it is more or less 'owned' by the Tyr journal, founded in 2002, and of which Michael Moynihan is one of the editors.

The journal is named after Tyr, the Norse god of heroic glory, warfare, and justice. The association with warfare is more central than it is with Odin. In Anglo-Saxon culture he appeared as 'Tiu'. One source describes him as the original German god of war and justice, precursor of Odin; another describes him as the son of Odin.

A number of analysts and reviewers have also ascribed the term "radical traditionalist" to the ideas of Neo-Eurasianist Russian politician Aleksandr Dugin.82.153.28.211 (talk) 11:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

"When I think of 'New Age', I get concepts such as the 'Age of Aquarius' coming into my head, and I doubt that I am alone in this :-)" Well, yes, and in the 60s-70s Michell himself was one of the principal cheerleaders of the forthcoming "age of Aquarius". See Hutton. Of course the politics of new age culture is not all hearts and flowers, but we shouldn't draw conclusions about Michell on the basis of what other people think. Paul B (talk) 12:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Michell was more than cheerleader for the said New Age; he was a leading figure. (He was also a not-so-small landlord in the Notting Hill area, with a direct financial interest in promoting the area as 'wacky' and getting rents from rich dropout types who were attracted to it. Not exactly an 'estate agent' as someone - Hutton? - called him). But that was then. He stopped being a New Ager 30 years ago. What has remained constant right the way through from the 1960s (i.e. during his New Age period and afterwards) has been his belief that national folk traditions with millennia-old roots (some of which traditions are mentioned nowhere else apart from in his works) should form the basis of a 'properly natural' society. 'Radical Traditionalism' really does capture the focus and essence of Michell's writings throughout the whole of the time that he has been getting published. This isn't a matter of opinion. What would be a matter of opinion would be the issue of whether his work since the 1970s could rightly be characterised as 'New Age' or not. We shouldn't get into that.82.153.28.211 (talk) 22:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I've got no problem mentioning the fact that he calls himself a "radical traditionalist", or even that he circulated a book of Hitler quotations, though since we don't seem to know the context of that it's probably best not to dwell on it unless we get more information. The problem is that you seem to finding sinister significance in things that in themselves are neutral. So he rented property. Was he Rachman? No? Then renting is not a crime. So he believes in 'millennia old traditions', well that's standard neo-Pagan stuff. That's what Gardner, Grimassi and host of Earth Goddess devotees believed. I've no idea whether or not Michell's brand of such beliefs can be linked to some form of neo-fascism - that's not for us to decide. It's a part of the New Age/Neo-Pagan scene, and the same ideas can be co-opted to various political positions. We still need sources for such interpretations, otherwise it's WP:SYN Paul B (talk) 23:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

He bought some of Rachman's properties and let them out, and was friends with one of Rachman's main enforcers, Michael de Freitas. He was (and may still be) quite a big landlord in the Notting Hill area. You are quite right that many neo-pagans (though not all) believe in 'millennia-old traditions'. That's not what I said though. I said, "What has remained constant right the way through from the 1960s (i.e. during his New Age period and afterwards) has been his belief that national folk traditions with millennia-old roots (some of which traditions are mentioned nowhere else apart from in his works) should form the basis of a 'properly natural' society." Not very many neo-pagans believe that. Most of them are happy expressing themselves spiritually in their own way; celebrating their own way at calendrical festivals, and so on. True that most of them are nationalist. But I wasn't comparing Michell with anyone. 'Radical Traditionalism' is the best term to use as an overall descriptive label - it's used by him himself; the record shows that he knows its connotations full well (he's published a number of items about Evola); and third, there is a Wikipedia article on Radical Traditionalism for people to follow up. Personally I would be happy with the first paragraph as it stands. I think maybe someone should put some stuff later about his role in the property world. This extended to owning commercial properties, including ones servicing the hippy market, as well as residential properties. Please bear in mind that he has for decades been one of the 'characters' on the 'scene' in Notting Hill. There is no reason the Shakespeare authorship stuff should be given such large prominence. His best known books are probably the View over Atlantis and New View over Atlantis. Anyway, that's my tuppenceworth. I'm sure the 'final' version of the article will turn out OK!82.153.28.211 (talk) 08:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Acquiring some of Rachman's property after his death has no bearing on whether he behaved like Rachman. As for Michael de Freitas (Michael X), virtually the whole of the countercultural world fawned over this "revolutionary" scumbag, including John Lennon and a host of civil rights activists. If you were part of that milieu you supported Michael X as the authentic voice of black power. Again, you simply making assertions based on your own interpretation. It's well known that aspects of the hippie counterculture idolised the likes of de Freitas, Manson, and exponents of revolutionary violence. Paul B (talk) 10:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)82.153.28.211 (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Steady on! No-one has said that Michell behaved like Rachman. Two very different styles of Notting Hill landlord, I'd say. Also Rachman was much bigger. Two quick points re. the hippy counterculture. First, there were hippies before there was a hippy counterculture. You use the adjective 'revolutionary', but there was a big contradiction between what was countercultural and what was revolutionary, which for a time those such as Abbie Hoffman tried to bridge, but unsuccessfully so, and it's not hard to realise why. Second, if you are suggesting that a sizeable proportion of those who might reasonably called hippies 'idolised' the murderer Charles Manson, you would be grossly mistaken. This is despite the efforts of scumbags who owned those few publishing ventures which tried to push that sort of obscenity (e.g. 'Oz'). I don't actually get your drift in the above paragraph. Michell has never had any association with 'revolutionary violence'. You also pointed out that owning properties and letting them is not a crime. Agreed. But no-one had suggested to the contrary.

"No-one has said that Michell behaved like Rachman." Then why make an issue out of his property renting? As for the rest of your post, it is difficult to decipher what you are trying to get at. Mnason himself was described by Bugliosi as a 'right wing hippie', so I don't think we can make rigid distinctions. The 'alternative' scene in the late 60s was complex and there's no point trying to over-simplify it. With regard to this article that's all the more reason why we should stick to reliable sources rather than rely on our own reading of the situation. Paul B (talk) 00:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Paul here, although I agree that his best known works are View over Atlantis and its revised edition, and particularly his ley line stuff. There's some other interesting stuff about Notting Hill that should perhaps be in his biography. In The London compendium : a street-by-street exploration of the hidden metropolis Ed Glinert. London : Penguin, 2004 I found " Powis Terrace was a major flashpoint during the 1958 Notting Hill race riots, but a decade later was at the centre of the local bohemian culture, Kohn Hopkins's London Free School being based at No. 26a. London Free School (1960a), No. 26a. west side John Hopkins, a photo journalist who was one of the main figures in the 1960s London counter-culture and helped set up International Times, launched the London Free School where anybody who had anything to teach could run a class in 1965. John Michell, now connected with Fortean Times, who owned the property, lectured on UFOs and other mystenous business, and the school also helped organize the first proper Notting Hill Carnival in 1964 and stage early gigs by Pink Floyd at the nearby All Saints Hall in 1966."

Then there's his work with International Times [18], a very useful source for this article I think. Doug Weller (talk) 12:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Check out the stuff here, here, etc. - some extremely useful sources by people who deal with the contradictory nitty-gritty and don't have any 'side' to them in the sense of serving an ideology or pleasing some moneybags publisher or other. Highly recommended. (One fact that's a little obscure, but captures some of the contradictions of NH. Well two facts, really: the woman whom Michael de Freitas murdered was the daughter of Leonard Plugge, the Tory businessman and politician who funded various 'left-radical' ventures in Notting Hill. You have to get Michell in the same light. Some of the maths in View over Atlantis is appalling, doesn't stand up for a minute. The sort of thing you'd get in a 'packager' book. Don't believe for one moment that this highly-intelligent guy ever believed everything he wrote. Not realising that, is one of the ways that SageMab has made himself look stupid.82.153.28.211 (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's leave SageMab alone right now, ok? Let him come back without having comments about him to deal with. Doug Weller (talk) 05:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure - SageMab's wasn't among the main minds I was trying to influence. But the point that Michell obviously doesn't believe everything he's written is relevant, for those seeking to learn more about his oeuvre and achievements. Did you look up those 'Revolt against Plenty' links82.153.28.211 (talk) 10:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(Note to Tyrenius: I don't want an account, thanks).82.153.28.211 (talk) 10:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't suggest it. It was someone else. Ty 11:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Michael S Schneider

I think there's a terminology confusion here. Nothing against the guy, but he's a part time instructor, also called an adjunct professor [19] [20]. He's not a 'Professor' as normally understood. by the title. He's not on a tenure track for instance. To call him 'scholar professor' is a misunderstanding. Doug Weller (talk) 08:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

also, we don't need to give a micro-bio of every authority cited. We cite them if they are quotable, we wikilink them if they pass WP:PROF, that's really sufficient. --dab (𒁳) 09:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The professor (I did not call him a philosopher) in question is Michael S. Schneider who wrote "A Beginner's Guide to Constructing the Universe: Mathematical Archetypes of Nature, Art, and Science"who called " -John Michell (1933-, English philosopher, antiquarian, geometer, writer". This is a solid book reference and the author is a Hayes Fullbright scholar who was once head of the math department at the prestigous Ross School in Long island, NY [[21]. The point is that he is a solid academic as a former Dean of Math and Science with a solid book that is spot on Michells' subject matter.Semi-reired for a long while now. The major thrust of this school is the classical philosophical underpinning of all knowledge and Schneider was head of a philosophy-based math program. His book is a practical handbook on geometry and a philosophical treatise written by a mathematician..[22] See his paper with the ref from the American Mathematical Society [23] for a glimpse at his scholarly publishing history. Schneider is well qualifed to discuss the geometry of John Michell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SageMab (talk • contribs) 10:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC) SageMab (talk) 10:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about "solid" or "professor", but Schneider is certainly a bona fide mathematician and teacher at The Ross School. So yes, we should by all means cover his opinion of Michell's work. The question is, does he have an opinion on Michell, or did he just mention him in passing? The problem is, of course, that Schneider would seem to be more qualified to discuss geometry than Michell, so that I do not suppose Schneider would have to rely on any of Michell's "insights" for the purpopes of his own book, but let's hear the actual content. --dab (𒁳) 10:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I see. Schneider's book seems to be a cmoparatively sane account of numerological archetypes. It mentions Michell five times, on pp. 96, 211, 229 and 352 just as a source of juicy quotes placed on the page margin or at the head of a chapte. and only on p. 202 as a reference (for the frequent occurrence of the concept of "twelvefold order of society"). Schneider isn't discussing Michell's stuff at all, he is just using him as a quote quarry. --dab (𒁳) 11:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Schneider has a BA in maths (the level of degree awarded is not mentioned on his Amazon bio page). He is clearly very close to Michell who wrote the preface and who is praised by Schneider "I wish to express my gratitude to John Michell, whose books, lectures, friendship, intelligence, humor and vision have inspired me and many others to explore the harmony in numbers and shapes and who generously gave this book its main title and preface" (p.xi) Paul B (talk) 12:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I did explain to SageMab on his talk page that 'adjunct Professor' should not be equated with 'Professor'. Doug Weller (talk) 14:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, obvious, and I told DougWeller that he is a semi-retired Dean of Math and Science (tenured) and that I have his book. He is also a semi-retired professor but since you have edited him out of this article the discussion need go no further. Schneider uses the geometry (many diagrams) of John Michell to further the work in his book. And of John Neil who based much of his work on John Michell's work. Well, there is no paucity of notable mathematicians who comment on the geometric work of John Michell. Are you going to dubunk or pull apart all of them also? Or, are you going to use them to further this article? 16:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SageMab (talk • contribs) SageMab (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

He may be well known as a schoolteacher, but that seems to be all. If "there is no paucity of notable mathematicians who comment on the geometric work of John Michell" then find academic citations. Paul B (talk) 16:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The point is that this mathematician is a reliable source for this article. SageMab (talk) 17:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Good suggestion from Paul B. This material is readily accessible to those editors who have the time and inclination to further this article. SageMab (talk) 19:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think 'tenured' applies in any way to a schoolteacher who is a dean in a private school (high school level in this case I presume, or perhaps all grades). Tenure applies to professors and requires a lot of academic publications. Doug Weller (talk) 19:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it does but it is also not his only tenure. Seems moot, as people are determined to disallow him as a secondary source although from looking at his book mathematician Schneider bases his work, in this case, on Michell's. SageMab (talk) 19:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

In the context we are talking about (an academic status context), tenure applies only to senior University academic staff. Not to Schneider. Doug Weller (talk) 07:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying. Schneider was tenured; you have not discussed his only teaching positions on this page. The point being mathematician Schneider's book is a reliable reference in regard to the geometry of John Michell. If Dab, as per his comment above, had seen/read this book, rather than just pulling page quotes (helpful tho'), he would see that this book could not have been written without the Pythagorean geometric advances of John Michell. I have not reinstated Schneider into an edit so why the long discussion? I know you are a Skeptic but the discarding/reverting by editors of any reference that is either neutral or pro Michell is not the best of all worlds, don't you agree? I think Schneider on geometry is a more valuable reference to this article than UFO researcher Gary Lachman, the self-published and Disinformation Company published author, as a ref for John Michell's education at Eton and Trinity. I don't see anyone adding new facts about the forty plus books published by this author nor the ideas behind those books. At least thirty of Michell's books, from a wide variety of publishers such as Columbia University Press, HarperCollins and Thames & Hudson, mention that Michell is a Russian interpreter and Chartered Surveyer. Why hasn't anyone gotten citations for these statements either to verify them as facts or to show that over a dozen publishers have lied about these credentials? Many reliable source facts in this article have been pared down to simple sentences which do not advance this article. SageMab (talk) 10:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

{unindent] Where was Schneider tenured then? I don't know what you mean by not discussing his only teaching positions on this page, do you mean my first edit in this section? It's a long discussion because I think that accuracy is important. For instance, you think he is a Russian intepreter. Yet a Google search gives only 14 references, most based on Wikipedia, and a Google Books search gives none. But -- there was a John Michell in the 19th century who did was a Russian interpreter, so without a really reliable source I'd say it's confusion with him. Doug Weller (talk) 12:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

His Amazon bio says that he was a Russian interpreter, as do other publisher's blurbs. It's unlikely to be untrue. Paul B (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Lachman is not a "UFO researcher". He's describing the research of one John Michell. Michell was the UFO researcher. Lachman is a musician, journalist and author, whose interests overlap with Michell's - the history of the occult etc. Paul B (talk) 13:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

People with BAs figure as "professor" or "Dean of Math and Science" these days? You can of course exit university at BA level and still become an excellent teacher or author, but these titles are just disingenious in such a case. So this section boils down to "JM has been publicly called a 'philosopher' by a personal friend of his". Sheesh, SageMab, stop wasting our time like this. --dab (𒁳) 13:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

He's Dean at a private school (his MA in math education comes in here) - and an adjunct, which gives him the title but not the academic status. Doug Weller (talk) 14:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course the MA is essentially in teaching practice. It's not a higher mathematics degree. Paul B (talk) 14:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I've got something similar, a postgrad diploma in Maths education, it's how to teach it, which a lot of people with maths degrees find a bit difficult (because they understand mathematics so well). Doug Weller (talk) 15:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP

I left a post above about WP:BLP. The message doesn't seem to have got through. Wikipedia, including this page, is not a WP:SOAPBOX. It's not a place for editors to give their personal opinions of a derogatory nature about article subjects. I trust this will not be repeated, or there will be further action taken. Any contentious material about living individuals must have rock solid sourcing to back it up. If it doesn't, then it shouldn't be made. Ty 09:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Tyrenius, this is a talkpage. Are you sure you aren't confusing talk and article namespaces?[24] You've left standing the anon's asking us "Don't believe for one moment that this highly-intelligent guy ever believed everything he wrote", and you have removed under "BLP" my post saying that he'll need to present a WP:RS for this. I mean, {{huh}}? What, do you propose, are you doing here? --dab (𒁳) 09:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Tyrenius, maybe you should have replied to my query at [25] before taking action here. I have no idea why your removed what you did and ignored other stuff. Why remove Dab's edit, for instance? Doug Weller (talk) 09:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

also, the problem with this article isn't "BLP", it used to be a problem editor. This is now being dealt with, and Doug even suggests the problem may be solved soon. There is no need for further administrative measures at this point, the article is doing fine. Especially, nobody at present appears to be pushing BLP-violating material. So I fail to understand the necessity or urgent tone of the above warning. --dab (𒁳) 10:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed the anon's post too, but he reinstated it. I presume you're paraphrasing, as those aren't the actual words. Actually, I misread it, as you seem to have done also, because there's a comma where there shouldn't be. It should read "Michell obviously doesn't believe everything he's written is relevant for those seeking to learn more about his oeuvre and achievements", which is a very different meaning. I'm sure he doesn't think his shopping lists are terribly important.

However your post is certainly unacceptable, suggesting Michell is making money off the gullible. By all means repost the RS request. I am not confusing article and talk pages at all. BLP applies to all spaces in WP. Read it:

Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. (my emphasis)

There is a major problem on this talk page with pushing BLP-violating material. I simply corrected the most recent example of it at the bottom of the page, where it wouldn't interfere with any other related posts. But the whole page needs to be cleaned up. I suggest the simplest way is to archive (delete) the lot and start all over again. Otherwise, just delete anything which is contentious and unsourced.

Ty 11:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

So the archive published by Wikipedia isn't a "WP space" then, but a Talk page is? How do issues of what exactly violates BLP and what doesn't, in the context of a particular page, get thrashed out, other than on the page's associated Talk page, including by people expressing their opinions which they would not do on the main page?

Put my contribution back as soon as you can, would you please, Tyrenius? Or tidy up the entire page in the way that you are suggesting, and see how people respond. Which is not meant to be a threat - I am just saying that if you want X to be done, then you should either do it, and learn how people feel about it; or else just suggest it, and learn the same. It's silly to dip your toe into the water and delete a few posts only.82.153.28.211 (talk) 11:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You have already reinstated your contribution.[26] Two editors from this page have already posted on WP:BLPN, and I'm quite happy to support them in removing offending material. It's not a question of how people feel about it: it's a matter of policy. My previous post corrected from "archive" to "delete". A talk page is not for people's opinions on a subject. See WP:TPG. Try finding some sources and examining their opinions. If something is soundly sourced, then it does not violate BLP. Ty 11:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a fine line between legitimate debate and problem editing. If we deleted any discussion that might be considered "negative, positive, or just questionable" then there would be no discussion, since virtually anything can be considered either "negative" or "positive". Every comment on a talk page does not need to be footnoted. This talk page is a positive paradise compared to say, Louis Farrakhan and many others devoted to politicians. If you are looking for "contentious" you can find it everywhere, and yet I don't see similar demands to delete talk page content. We have to have a reasonable leeway for open discussion, otherwise intervention amounts to censorship ofd legitimate debate. No-one after all is accusing Michell of any crimes. The debate is about the interpretation of his political position, which is in itself quite legitimate. Paul B (talk) 11:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The only material that can go in an article is material which is properly sourced, so there is no point in anything being on the talk page which doesn't meet that. If someone thinks something should go in the article, let them give the source from which they are deriving the material they think should go in. Then other editors can examine the source and assess it. Otherwise the talk page just becomes a useless gossip shop. This post above, for example, is a very sound approach: "Then there's his work with International Times [27], a very useful source for this article I think." WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument to follow bad examples. I can assure you material gets deleted from talk pages and sometimes oversighted so not even admins can access it. Ty 12:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not a gossip shop if it is thrashing out issues related to the content of the article. I agree that the ip editor is too often adding personal interpretation, but is also legitimately pointing to the concept of Radical Traditionalism, which Michell has demonstrably embraced. You are fond of gesturing to policy pages without fully engaging with the actual issue. My reference to other articles was nothing to do with OTHERSTUFF. It was designed to point out that robust debate about interpretation of political views is quite proper. There needs to be room for legitimate debate about content, and to discuss what can be concluded from sources, and that is what is going on here. BLP is not a tool for excluding material one does not like. Clearly this discussion has identified issues and generated new sources that have been properly used in the article. Paul B (talk) 12:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The only issues you can thrash out are those found in reliable sources. And where are those to substantiate your statement about Michell's embracing of Radical Traditionalism? If there are no sources saying it, then it's pure WP:OR and not acceptable. If there are, then they should be used and other editors given access to them. Of course, BLP is not a tool for excluding material you don't like: it's a tool for excluding "unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons." I pointed that out just above. I take exception to "You are fond of gesturing to policy pages without fully engaging with the actual issue". I'm pointing out policy. It applies to all editors. There's a fair amount of stuff going on here which isn't legitimate at all, negative innuendos about the subject (as opposed to such material coming from solid sourcing) and posts branding people "fascist" and "scumbags" for a start. Ty 12:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"where are those to substantiate your statement about Michell's embracing of Radical Traditionalism?" It is difficult to debate with someone who apparently has not taken the trouble to read the article. He published a book called "Confessions of a Radical Traditionalist". You may object to the comment about gesturing to policy pages, but you are continuing to do it to no useful purpose. Paul B (talk) 12:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I must second this. If you're going to "mediate" or call the shots here, you will at least condescend to read the actual article, and follow the discussion at least cursorily. Just preaching basic policy to the world at large, apparently without a clue of what everyone has been saying, isn't "admin intervention", it's simply redundant. --dab (𒁳) 16:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That isn't a secondary source commenting about his embrace of Radical Traditionalism, so the only valid content to date is that he wrote the book and what he said in it. If you want to go further than that on the subject, then you'll have to find sources that do so. "What you know" is irrelevant if you can't substantiate it. Ty 23:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the obvious, as ever. Read what the article says. Paul B (talk) 00:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

well, Tyrenius, now we have a giant section debating details of WP:TALK. Great. Imho, your "intervention" here isn't really conductive to bringing the debate back on track. What's more, just as it was going to be back on track on its own time. It's enough to point to WP:BLP and WP:TALK. What's with this recent delight in not just pointing out policy but descending into prolongued debate about policy on article talkpages?? I daresay all of us here are familiar with Wikipedia policy. Sometimes, in a real-life debate it may also be necessary to WP:UCS. It still requires human intelligence to compile encyclopedia articles, or else we could use webcrawler scripts to write the 'pedia for us. Just my opinion. --dab (𒁳) 12:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I posted one paragraph. If editors don't get something fairly straightforward and need a debate about it, that's up to them. Meanwhile, this page still needs cleaning up. Ty 12:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

yeah, well, I don't see anyone not getting anything here. I could paste the contents of WP:DTTR to make my point, but I'll suppress the urge :) dab (𒁳) 15:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That would be irrelevant as no templates have been used. Ty 23:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• ZOMG, seriously, obviously "Michell's father never washed" is just as unacceptable on the talk page as it would be in the article. On the other hand, "Michell's tied to Radical traditionalism" is perfectly fine on the talk page even if the commentator doesn't immediately provide a reference. The whole point of the talk page is to discuss potentially contentious issues like this before they go into the article, so appropriate references can be found and BLP is not violated. Over-strict policy enforcement will simply harm the chances of BLP being upheld. Christ, admins these days...Moreschi (talk) 17:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you ought to read the talk page again. Then you will find the "fascist" and the "scumbags". I'll leave you and the other editors here to deal with that. I've made my point. Thanks. Unwatchlisted! Any problems, post on WP:BLPN. Ty 23:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

johnmichell.com

Right, to go back to actually discussing the article, SM is now playing bad BLP cop by arguing we cannot prove that johnmichell.com is actually JM's website. As it happens, the website is registered by Dan Shaw of "Rosetta Publishing". Shaw is Michell's partner in organizing "Megalithomania" [28]. This is splitting hairs in my book, but I agree we technically have no proof that Michell is aware of the website. --dab (𒁳) 17:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to assume that he approves of it. Another option might be "publications website". Paul B (talk) 01:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Drastically prune this talk page?

Could someone archive the sections of this talk page which are arguing about arguing (instead of about how to improve the article), or which are effectively about dead issues at this point? That would greatly increase the confidence of those who want to participate in improving this article, but who can't or won't follow all the details of the whole convoluted talk page soap-opera saga above... AnonMoos (talk) 00:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Archiving might have to happen soon, but I doubt that can just excise parts of conversations. Who is to decide which bits are merely "arguing about arguing" and which are about content? Just don't read the sections you don't want to. Paul B (talk) 01:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't want anyone to "excise parts of conversations", I want whole sections which are no longer immediately relevant to be moved to an archive, because right now I have no real idea which sections I should be reading to be caught up on the substantive issues currently being discussed (and I bet I'm not alone, either). AnonMoos (talk) 01:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Mostly the titles of the sections accurately indicate whether they are about policy or content. Avoid anything named with an acronym. Paul B (talk) 01:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I created an archive page for this talk page a few days ago—you can find the Wikilink at the top. Feel free to boldly move threads into it if they don't seem to be active any longer. You can do it by cut&paste. Looie496 (talk) 17:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

just archive the stale sections, no need to invest any manpower in refactoring stuff. --dab (𒁳) 17:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Since the debate is still going on on many of these topics, I would leave them place for a while. Removal of parts, like the last archival edit, can skew this talk page in one direction which I am sure editors would not want to do. Readers who are not editors are unlikely to check the archives. I do think talk page guides and chunks of articles can be reduced to links of course. SageMab (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)