Talk:English Qabalah/Archive 1

Speedy deletion

With respect to my addition of the "speedy deletion" tag, there are several other "English Qabalah" or "English Gematria" systems published online or in print, including but not limited to:

• Simple English Gematria

• New Aeon English Qaballa
• The Gematria(s) of Nothing
• The English Rose Cabala
• The Trigrammaton English Gematria
• "The Bhdt Proof"

Essentially, the discovery of the "English Qabalah" or "English Gematria" is considered by followers of the English mystic Aleister Crowley and his system (or "religion") of Thelema to be evidence of the magical prowess of the discoverer, even to the extent that that person would be regarded as imbued with divine prophetic powers:
Thou [o prophet] shalt obtain the order & value of the English Alphabet.
– The Book of the Law, Cap. I v. 55 [1]

Hence the promotion of a particular interpretation of "English Qabalah" is a political act within the context of Crowleyan/Thelemic mysticism.

The writer of this article (or one of his associates) who goes under the username "warriormonk93" on the Thelemic website www.lashtal.com has advertised this "English Qabalah" there:
http://www.lashtal.com/nuke/Article1079.phtml
where he admits that he is aware that:
[...] there are a few books on the market with the supposed 'key' of the English Qabalah
but funnily enough these other books (and, principally, webpages) don't make it into this Wikipedia article! The user who posted that news item at lashtal.com also advertises this Wikipedia page later on in the comments to that item, which is how I became aware of this page.

In summary, it would appear that this article has been created with the intent solely to promote this particular "English Qabalah".

8th House Publishing

After due investigation, I have concluded that 8th House Publishing is a limited self-publishing operation. Their website give no street or mailing addresses in Montreal or New York. Nor does it give any phone numbers. NYC directory assistance does not have a listing for this "company". As such, the book The English Qabalah does not meet Wikipedia guidelines for sources and cannot be used as a source. The fact of the books existence and author can of course be noted as one of several attempts to produce an English Qabalah, but until the system is discussed in a reliable source (i.e by someone other than the originator of the system), it cannot be elaborated on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources. 209.30.129.152 (talk) 20:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: a search of the Library of Congress database does not return this title. 209.30.129.152 (talk) 21:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

8th House Publishing is listed as a referent for new additions to the article as of July 2017. Is this now a legitimate publisher, or still a vanity press? Catalyst418 (talk) 00:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Problem with a couple of sections

The sections titled "Differences between English and Hebrew qabalah" and "English gematria" contain information which is not general, but rather unique to Vincent's system. For example, the assertion that "A" is "The Star" and the whole interpretation thereof, and the second paragraph under "English gematria" about the phonemes. These should probably be eliminated, or at least put under a heading which makes it clear they are part of Vincent's system. QaBobAllah (talk) 02:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Sources for Lees' system

Here are a list of sources for Lees' system, written by others and published in The New Equinox: British Journal of Magick later called The Equinox: British Journal of Thelema: While one of the writers (Jake Stratton-Kent) is also one of three editors of the journal, he was not the originator of the system he wrote about, and was not the sole editor of the journal. In my opinion, these articles meet WP:RS. I only have Volume VII which recapped the system. The original explication was in Volumes 5 and 6, written by Carol Smith, not one of the publishers, again WP:RS. Here's what I have that would seem to qualify as reliable sources:

• Smith, Carol. "The Key to the English Qaballa" in The New Equinox / British Journal of Magick (ISSN 0953-7015), Vol. 5.
• Stratton-Kent, Jake (March 1988). "The English Qaballa" in The Equinox: British Journal of Thelema (ISSN 0953-7015), Vol. VII, No. 1, pp. 17-25.
• Stratton-Kent, Jake (May 1988). "What is a Qabalah?" in The Equinox: British Journal of Thelema (ISSN 0953-7015), Vol. VII, No. 2, pp. 59-61.

There are actually a lot more articles in Volume VII, but most of them are Holy Books with computer-generated interlinear numerations. QaBobAllah (talk) 03:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE REFRAIN

Please refrain from advertising your religious fervour. Qabalah has nothing to do with Thelema. Trying to force your religion down people's throats is not welcome. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EdwardLeeFrampton (talk • contribs) 04:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from violating Wikipedia policies

1. Comments may not be removed from talk pages, as you have done repeatedly.
2. Deletion tags may not be removed except through process (i.e. by a Wikipedia admin)
3. Other maintenance tags may not be removing until the problems they note are resolved
4. The book, The English Qabalah does not qualify as a reliable source and may not be used as a reference for the article.

Thelema uses English Qabalah. Therefore its use of English Qabalah may, indeed must reported on this page. Please read the Wikipedia neutral point of view policy, which I can see from your talk page you have been referred to before.

You appear to be attempting to promote a book with which you are somehow affiliated on Wikipedia. This is a conflict of interest and is not allowed. QaBobAllah (talk) 12:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Vincent book

This self-published/small press book I don't think is even out yet, and certainly isn't WP:RS. It shouldn't be used/advertised here. Sticky Parkin 01:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

This book is actually available at Amazon and most book distribution chains. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.205.130 (talk) 03:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, many self-published books are. It's easy to arrange. Being sold at Amazon.com means nothing, it does nothing to establish that a source is reliable. And please stop removing other user's comments from the talk page. Bob (QaBob) 04:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge discussion

I've merged the material from New Aeon English Qabala based on the initial presentation by Carol Smith, but omitted the material based on the writings of Jake Stratton-Kent, as there seems to be some disagreement as to whether it is a reliable source. Bob (QaBob) 13:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Synthesis

There seems to be a problem with synthesis in this article [2]. According to that, "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources." But this article brings together a number of different number/letter systems without (apparently) any reliable source that says there is a relationship between them. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing has been synthesized. The relationship between them is obvious, and at least one source mentions "multiple systems of English Qabalah, blah, blah", and then refers to a few. Cheers! Bob (QaBob) 23:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

"Obvious relationship" does not cut it. There has to be a published reliable source that says there is a relationship. Please read the wiki-links I gave above. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

There are such sources, and they are cited. I meant to say that it is also obvious. Sorry for the confusion on your part. Bob (QaBob) 23:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not see any source saying that the letter/number systems of Aleister Crowley, James Lee, and William Gray share something in common. It should be a reliable published source, and should probably be at least mentioned in the introduction. Even if it seems obvious, it needs to be based on such a source for a WP article. Without such a source, it will be the assumption that the article is based on synthesis -- which is considered a form of original research. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess you aren't looking very closely at the sources, then. The source cited on the first sentence does exactly that. In any case, the response at the Fringe theories/Noticeboard so far is that this article does not engage is any synthesis. I quote that response here since you seem to have ignored it there:

"I think in a particularly technical fashion it could be termed a synthesis. It would be useful to find some survey matter on the subject, but mostly what I found were various proponents/whatever of the different systems who more often did not seemed to lack any notion that other people had tread the same ground. As far as fringeyness is concerned, however, the article is sober and does not endorse any system or indeed make any claims one way or the other as to the worth of these systems or the notion in general. There seems to be a running battle going on between the two in question, but this is not a fit arena for it. Mangoe (talk) 02:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)"

This is a balanced article which neither promotes any fringe theory nor attempts any form of synthesis. A list is a list. Synthesis attempts to propose something new not in any source. Everything here is sourced, nothing is proposed which is not in one or more sources. Bob (QaBob) 13:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing the sources, it looks like Gray may not be associated with Thelema. If that was your primary complaint, it has been corrected. The sources support the connections of the other systems listed but not described. It would help if you would be more specific in your criticism in the future. Best regards, Bob (QaBob) 13:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

When a source is cited there is supposed to be a page number, not just the name of a book. To see if I could find something, I did a Google book search inside The Encyclopedia of Modern Witchcraft and Neo-Paganism for the term "English Qabalah", and came up with nothing. Neither could I find anything that mentions any two of the three (Aleister Crowley, James Lee, and William Gray) together. Even if The Encyclopedia of Modern Witchcraft and Neo-Paganism did mention the English Qabalah of Aleister Crowley, James Lee, and William Gray; that still would not be enough for this article. Shelley Rabinovitch, who wrote the book you cite, should have discussed them together, relating them to eachother in some way. Without that the article is original research, even if the information about Aleister Crowley, James Lee, and William Gray separatly is well sourced. Since The Encyclopedia of Modern Witchcraft and Neo-Paganism is in encyclopedia format, and since there is no entry for English Qabalah, it seems unlikely that sort of inter-relation was established in that book. Nevertheless, I invite you to prove that I am wrong....thereby justifying the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a page number. Has been from the beginning. The Nema references also mentions multiple systems. It's not my fault you aren't familiar with the latest ways to format references with page numbers. Cheers! Bob (QaBob) 14:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You said the source is cited in the introduction (to quote you from your edit above: "The source cited on the first sentence"). Well, I clicked on that ref (#1), the only ref in the first sentence, and do not find any page number. So, where is it? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Right next to the superscript using the {{rp}} template, which allows the specification of page numbers without repeating the full citation over and over again. :-) Bob (QaBob) 15:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It is more convenient to include the page numbers with the rest of the ref. WP has the capacity to easily include repeats of the citation. (By the way, you now have an "error" in your footnote section.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Citation style is determined by the original authors of an article. I disagree with your assessment about convenience. Bob (QaBob) 15:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia of Modern Witchcraft and Neo-Paganism, p.269, discusses only Aleister Crowley. You said that ref (formerly ref #1, now #2) supports your treatment of the Aleister Crowley, James Lee, and William Gray together, and it certainly does not. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, misremembered. More refs have been provided, and check the new external link for background info. Bob (QaBob) 15:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Your source, Maat Magick, does say that there are several versions of English Qabalah, which puts the article on a more sound footing. However, because it does not seem to name Aleister Crowley, James Lee, and William Gray, the article would benefit from a more specific source. If you can find such a source, please do include it. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The mere listing of multiple systems from multiple sources is not synthesis. No position is advanced, no conclusions are drawn. WP:SYN is very clear about what is not permitted, "Synthesis of published material which advances a position". It is the second part which is problematic. WP:SYN goes on to say "Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis; it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking information from different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims in our own words on an article page, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim."

Again, I ask you to be specific. If there is something specific about the organization of the article which you think implies something which is not verifiable, please point that specific thing out. Otherwise, I will in the future dismiss your bickering about this as simply wikilawyering, possibly intended to harass, and do what is appropriate in such circumstances, which is to ignore you.

Best regards,

Bob (QaBob) 22:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to explain how to make the article better, according to Wikipedia standards. I have no personal interest in the subject, and probably not bother with further editing of an article that is for me a very low priority. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd find that much easier to believe if you hadn't first posted to WP:FTN. Bob (QaBob) 13:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand the purpose of the fringe theories noticeboard. In the case of this article, you may not have liked what I said...but, nevertheless, it is a better article for being more to compliance with WP guidelines. It is true that I think the subject of this article is a load of crap, but I have learned to keep my personal views separate from my editing of WP. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, from some points of view, all metaphysical topics, including tradition Kabbalah are a load of crap. What of it? :-) Bob (QaBob) 15:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Mention of Other systems

Hi All! I've added some other systems currently that are currently out there. Please feel free to add material on those works that I haven't much information for (e.g. William Gray's system) Thanks

fixed links

Fixed links for 8th House Publications : it's actually 8th House Publishing

Removal explained

Vincent's system does not have 3rd party sources as required by wikipedia policy. Further ore even if it did it would have to be added incheonological order and with a size proportional to theorher entries. You are spamming his book cell wikipedia's point of view. Until somebody else besides vincent has written about his system, it is againt policy to Add it to this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.132.7.28 (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Removal criterion answered

Thanks for your explanation. Your wording wasn't all that clear, but I think you're point was that the lack of a 3rd party sources for the system. You've actually helped correct a popular misconception. The system doesn't belong to Samuel Vincent at all - he simply put a book out explaining it. The system should have been called Lusht if anything, after Yuri Lusht and the Lusht foundation that supported its study. It's what Mr. Vincent himself calls it. It's actually not his system, but his book. I suppose the book itself is a 3rd party source? We use the book in a study group at the University of Concordia. A number of articles have been written and are being written up on it. Myself and friend have started a blog, but not many readers yet! Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.69.135.235 (talk) 09:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Vanity edition

The book you reference is not considered a reliable source according to wikipedia standards. Eighth house appears not to have offices and the phone number given is not professionally answered during business hours. That make it either a vanity press or perhaps a company owned by the author of the book or the lusht foundation. Such a source is not reliable and you appear to be associate with the organization. This means you have a conflict of interest and appear to be promoting the book or system. this is not permitted and as long as you continue to engage in this spamming activity you will be reverted: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.147.74.145 (talk) 15:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Removal Criterion & Vanity Edition

I don't agree... The edits you removed include mention of 4 other books along with their legitimate sources. If anyone is spamming a book or associated with a publishing house, I venture it is you. Furthermore, when I search for this page, I get redirected to another page which mentions your "particular brand" - English Qabala. It seems you've been deleting edits here as well. Hijacking or vandalism will be reported. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.206.226 (talk) 23:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

That's not true. The "other systems" you keep adding are either supported by self-published web pages, which is not allowed, or they are already mentioned and sourced earlier in the article: Bertiaux and Rankin in the section titled "Systems of English gematria" and Gray under "Systems of English Qabalah". There is no published evidence that any of these systems is related to Thelema.

Now, back to the point. Please provide evidence that Vincent's book is not self-published and/or that "Eighth House" is a real publisher and not a vanity press. What's the street address of their Montreal and New York offices? Is there a phone number that's professionally answered during business hours? Why isn't Vincent's book listed in the Library of Congress catalog or any other library catalogs?

The policy in question can be found here. This question has been repeatedly brought up on this page and has never been answered. Until you can establish that this book is not self-published or a vanity edition, you are in the wrong to keep adding it. Also, even if it is a legitimate publication, your addition is too long and detailed for an encyclopedia entry, and you are putting it at the top of the section when it should go after Jim Lee's system, which was published first. Things go in order of publication, to continually place your material prominently indicates you are a spammer. You are also making changes to other section, removing the original documented name of Lee's system along with a legitimate Wiki-link. And you are putting an external link to a site selling Vincent's book. External links are not permitted in the text of the article. And links selling a product are never allowed, anywhere. This is why you are perceived as a spammer, because you act like one. 69.148.19.157 (talk) 14:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't know what you mean about spamming or product selling or eight house. If you see a link to a site selling anything, please feel free to remove / edit the link. As for the rest of the article please see wiki's policy on Neutrality or their Wikipedia:Neutral point of view . You refuse to have any mention of other systems which is contrary to the concept of an Encyclopaedia. As regards Thelema, Jim Lees, and your gurus or "system", I can understand your devotion, but wikipedia is not the place for it. If you find something missing in the article describing other systems, feel free to add to it / refine it; but don't remove what ads to the comprehensiveness of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.87.251.193 (talk) 14:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I have nothing to do with Lees. I will continue to remove Vincent until you show his book is not self-published, which I notice you have not addressed at all. NPOV does not require that material be added which does not have adequate source material. 69.148.19.157 (talk) 15:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, as the editor adding the material, even if Vincent is not self-published, it is your responsibility to rewrite the material to be shorter and more concise, to place it in the correct historical order, to cease and desist adding duplicate material about "outer systems" that are already covered earlier in the article, to stop adding external links to the publisher's website, etc. Not mine. 69.148.19.157 (talk) 15:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Finally, the amount of coverage of a subtopic in Wikipedia is generally related to the amount of coverage in third party sources. It looks like Lees system is covered by some half-dozen different third party writers. This is itself makes the topic notable. Vincent is a single primary source. At most his system deserves a mention, not coverage at length. Until a number of third parties write about his system, it is simply less notable, to the point of possibly not being notable enough to even deserve a mention. This is certainly the case if Eighth House is a vanity press. Please establish the reliability of the source as required by Wikipedia policy rather than edit war. Edit warring will not get your desired material into the article. Only establishing that your single source meets Wikipedia requirements will lead to success. 69.148.19.157 (talk) 15:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: if you really believe that the book itself is notable and want to write extensively about it, the correct thing to do would be to start a new article about the book itself, called The English Qabalah. However, you would have to create an account in order to start a new article. You would also want to read WP:NB which is the page describing the notability requirements for books (mainstream press reviews, etc.) Please try to become more familiar with Wikipedia policy, especically notability and verifiability and reliable sources before proceeding further with your "war". Read all of these pages and then present an argument to support the use of Vincent's book as a reliable source, which of necessity requires that you show that Eighth House is a real publisher and not a print-on-demand or vanity press. 69.148.19.157 (talk) 15:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions about starting a new article with the same title as this one, which you've appropriated anyway to pander to your Lees system. Thank you also for your suggestion that I familiarize myself with wiki policy. I suggest you do the same. Once again, you've made it so that James Lees is the only main entry in this article. You've kept the Lusht system book I think to placate me. You miss the point altogether. I have no personal attachment to the book. The point is that you've removed references to all other books but one. You can verify the 8th House with CIP Library in Catalogue Canada for ISBN blocks and status. Out of curiosity I called and left a message. I was called back. I agree the gentleman who I spoke to wasn't the politest of people and wouldn't verify any information for me. But so what? Your English "Qaballa" page which is dedicated to your James Lees system is also being considered for deletion or merging. You accuse others of what you yourself are guilty of.

Wikipedia policy specifically states that self-published and vanity sources are not reliable and may not be used. That is my only concern. It is easy to get ISBN blocks and self-publish. It is easy to get books on Amazon.com. Those things do not make a publisher a reliable source. Is the book available in brick and mortar bookstores? Does Eighth House have a distributor or are its books available only from its own site and from online bookstores? I don't believe so. They don't even answer the phone with the name of the business. My impression is that it is somebody's cellphone, perhaps Vincent's? Give me the addresses of their claimed New York and Montreal offices. Show me the listings in the white or yellow pages with their phone numbers. Give me some evidence that this is a real business with real offices!!!!

Ha, just Google "8th House Publishing". That ought to bloody well seal it!

The only sites other than their own that even mention them are ones where the entry can be created and edited by the concerned individual. They advertise on Craigslist of all places for submissions. None of the so-called business directories give so much as a PO Box or other mailing address. This is a vanity press.

Eight House Publications operate out of Montreal and New York and have published over four books (as far as I can tell). They are listed under the Quebec Provincial Business Registrar.

Finally as regards, Mr. Lees work and Luxor press which is referenced as publishing "The New Aeon English Qaballa Revealed": Luxor Press doesn't seem to exist. It was once owned by a John L. Crow who wrote "The New Aeon English Qabalah Dictionary". This is a self-publishing outfit, and a vanity press which 8 House is not. Luxor Press doesn't have a website and no business listing anywhere. The only other references to Mr Lees' work is a personal website which doesn't meet wikipedia article standards, and a private journal authored by Lees and others. The Lees article should be removed for gibberish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.72.132.136 (talk) 03:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The point is that 5 different authors have described Lees system: Lees (on his website which is not the original source of his system, which predated the internet), Carol Smith and Trevor Langford (in a public journal with an ISSN number), Allen Greenfield (an author with sufficient notability to merit his own Wikipedia article), and Gerald del Campo. Luxor Press did exist but has since gone out of business. Crow's book has not been used as a reference. If Crow also published the works of others (Del Campo), then those works are not self-published and can be used as references. Crow, a well-known figure in the Thelemic community, ran a legitimate publishing business.

I don't believe the claim on the 8th House website that 8th House has business offices in Montreal and New York. They have no physical presence of any sort, no listings in the phone books, yellow pages, business directories, etc. They work out of somebody's house and don't even answer their phone is a business-like manner.

When mulitple people have written about Vincent's system like they have written about Lees', then and only then will it have sufficient notability to be included. Notability means that it has been taken note of by third parties. So far it hasn't. Have a little patience, if it has any merit, others will eventually be writing about it. Lees system has been and is being used by multiple different groups. Vincent's is not. Wikipedia is not intended as a place to attempt to popularize something which is not yet in popular use. Having only a single source is also a legitimate reason for determining that a subject has not met Wikipedia's notability requirements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.30.128.209 (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It appears that someone has again dumpd a load of stuff about LUSHT on this article. I've pruned it down a bit, since the consensus appears to be that it's far from notable. And they appear to have difficulty spelling Aleister Crowley correctly... --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 05:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

We can do more than prune it down, for farg's sake. Despite the fact that 209etc was User:Ekajati yet again, the consensus appears to say that "LUSHT" or Vincent should not go in the article at all. Furthermore, the person adding it from a French IP looks like the other banned user here, who edited from several addresses. Yep, there he is right in this talk section posting as 79.87.251.193, supposedly from France. Dan (talk) 06:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's semi-protect the bloody page until he gives up on plugging this book. Dan (talk) 06:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with something about LUSHT being here, despite the fact no-one else in the world has ever heard of it until now (including myself), and despite the fact that I personally think spelling Crowley's name wrong in order to prove a point pretty much is self-defeating; I think it's ok to put it in here so that people can make up their own minds about it. I think the way it's been done is not the best way, and if the author has any sense he won't try to revert the article again... We shall see... --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

LUSHT section again removed due to no clear proof that the book was not self-published, and no evidence it has been noted by third parties.Catalyst418 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus for move. --Elonka 22:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC) ~~~~

---

English Qabalah → Latin alphabet gematria or Latin alphabet isopsephy

"English Qabalah" suggests a discussion of qabalistic doctrines in the published works of English or English-speaking people in general (not just Aleister Crowley and other British Thelemites). Yet the text of the article (in every version I've seen) actually refers to Latin-alphabet forms of gematria or isopsephy more than qabalah. As I understand the theory, we wouldn't expect the use of these methods in English to create a wholly new doctrine. And indeed, the systems described at length in rival versions of this article fit within a larger system of Thelemic Qabalah that involves Greek and Hebrew (and probably Enochian). For all I know some of the other "systems" mentioned may have distinct doctrines that relate to an English language gematria and ignore other languages, but the article says nothing about this. Instead it mainly presents ciphers or systems of gematria that we can use for the modern Latin alphabet or any subset thereof.

The quote in the article that seems to address the definition of qabalah refers to the Book of the Law. The current article title manages to hide this emphasis on Thelema while still making a religious assertion within the system. (See the first section on this talk page.) Not surprisingly, the page suffers from an ongoing quasi-sectarian conflict.

I feel confident that my proposal will bring consensus, either by removing disagreements or by uniting people against me. In the former case people who want to create an article for a particular book, e.g. The English Qabalah (book), can do so openly. Dan (talk) 09:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The modern 26-letter alphabet is properly called the English alphabet; it is not clear that all the Renaissance figures here were using it. By all means, edit out uncited quotations of Crowley; but let us not discard a clear and useful title in the process. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The French, for one, might disagree with the first part. I don't know if I understand the bit about Renaissance figures. If the article includes people who used a different form of the Latin alphabet, surely that gives us all the more reason to use the more general title. Dan (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Did they count j, v and w? Some would; some wouldn't. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Er, yes, I assumed you meant that in my response. And earlier I said the article "mainly presents ciphers or systems of gematria that we can use for the modern Latin alphabet or any subset thereof." Dan (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I oppose any move. 209.30.128.209 (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Wait, was that a real question? Stifel not only used the restricted Latin alphabet but also the Latin language and Roman numerals. Dan (talk) 07:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC) Oh, and Agrippa used a strange modification of "the Roman Alphabet". Dan (talk) 07:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Smith or Lees

Who do we say discovered the ALW Cipher first? On one side we have a cited, published source saying that Carol Smith discovered it in 1974. (I explicitly presented this as the claim of a specific individual, not as a fact.) On the other side, we have -- what? Answers.com and its three defunct links? Even Lees' personal website doesn't necessarily contradict the published source. He carefully says that in 1976, "I did this without any help from anyone," as if he knows that someone else did it earlier. (It seems entirely plausible that two people who cared about the issue could discover this simple cipher independently within a few years. I only wonder why nobody found it four decades earlier.) I presented this information as well in my edits (since reverted), though arguably we should remove all references to unpublished material from that website along with all references to the "English Qabalah" book. Dan (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Proselitizing and Gibberish

"Secrets of the UFO-nauts" and other materials quotes are gibberish. The organizations mentioned that support these UFO-nauts are part of a cult called Thelemites. While Thelema may be discussed under English Qabalah, it's discussion should not take precedence over it. English Qabalah is not Thelema. I've removed these sections and returned the "ALW" cipher to its original name as it appears in the documentation. I've added reference to other works, not necessarily Thelema. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.69.135.61 (talk) 14:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what "gibberish" means for a published source, but the added work (the same "added" by one of our recent anonymous zealots, who may both have been one banned user) also comes from Thelema. At least, anon's treatment focuses exclusively on its application to Thelema. The other new section I saw would seem like a good addition if it did not consist entirely of material copied from elsewhere in the article. Reverted. Dan (talk) 08:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Why are you continually deleting references to all other works except the Lees code? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.72.132.152 (talk) 05:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

From my previous comment: would seem like a good addition if it did not consist entirely of material copied from elsewhere in the article. Dan (talk) 05:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Crowley and the Thelemites = Notable; LUSHT = Not Notable. Why? Refs. That is all, thank you. Simonm223 (talk) 16:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

sources etc.

This Trigrammaton Qabalah section needs a source other than the guy's own website for the use he supposedly made of Liber Trigrammaton and Crowley's Old Comment. Otherwise it lacks WP:NOTE. Crowley's work has WP notability, but this guy's claims appear to go beyond a logical analysis of that work (and of course the article makes claims of uniqueness and so forth). So I'll remove the whole section if we don't get any sources. The article has other problems that I may try to fix, problems with repetition or organization (see previous comment section) and with formatting. I assume those ^numbers after the footnotes refer to pages? Dan (talk) 02:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I have updated this Trigrammaton section with a better explanation and given a link to a third-party published source for the material in this system. I have also tried to address some of your other concerns re: repetition and organization. Catalyst418 (talk) 05:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Simple(6,74) English(7,74) Gematria(8,74)

Simple English Gematria (SEG) using the key: A=1...Z=26 is simply proved through the connect(74) between(74) simple=74, English=74, gematria=74, and 'the key'=74. But the 'gematric sum' is 'Step 2' of SEG. In researching the history of Greek gematria/isopsephy we are pointed to Pythagoras, the Pythagoreans, and Plato. There is an ancient Greek motto: "God is ever a geometer" (ἀεὶ ὁ Θεὸς ὁ μέγας γεωμετρεῖ), whereas, counting the letters of the words (3,1,4,1,5,9) reveals the first six digits of pi (3.14159). This confirms that 'Step 1' of gematria was/is simply counting the number of letters in a word/name/phrase and that Step 2 is the gematric sum of a word/name/phrase. Hebrew, Arabic, and English gematrias also use these Steps 1 & 2, i.e. Liberty(7) Bell(4) and John(4) Hancock(7). July 4=7/4 and GOD=7_4. The simple fact that the word 'God' has three letters and Christians traditionally think of God as a 'Trinity' is no coincidence!

- Brad Watson, Miami, FL 65.34.180.54 (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The following words/names we spell(64) as/are built(64) on 64... Avraham=64, (Mt.) Moriah=64, Zion=64, Israel=64, chosen=64, dust=64, YHWH=64, GAOTU=64, Peter=64, spell=64, test=64

- Brad Watson, Miami, FL 65.34.180.54 (talk) 13:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC) 65.34.180.54 (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

"Leonardo=84, Mona Lisa=84" - DVD Unlocking the Secrets of the Da Vinci Code

"Bible=30 Ark=30 Bread=30 Peace=30, Noah=23/38 boat=23/38" - Suggestive Gematria by J. P. Hughes (Holmes, 2008)

- Brad Watson, Miami, FL 65.34.180.54 (talk) 14:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I added the following... Simple6,74 English7,74 Gematria8,74 Values are as follows:

A=1  B=2  C=3  D=4  E=5  F=6  G=7  H=8  I=9  J=10 K=11 L=12  M=13 N=14  
O=15 or zero  P=16  Q=17  R=18  S=19  T=20  U=21  V=22  W=23  X=24  Y=25  Z=26  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.85.205.25 (talk) 16:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC) 

This section was removed and the table placed elsewhere. The contents of the section on Systems of English Qabalah were placed chronologically, and this does not fit into that chronology. Also, it appears as original research, and is not footnoted with proper citations. Nor was the title explained, only a table was added; thus this table was moved to the gematria section as a starting point for discussion of such arrangements.Catalyst418 (talk) 14:09, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

References

ALW and Cipher X

This entire section appears to be original research. Links are made to a couple well-known people that are mentioned, but the facts presented in the section are not independently referenced. Catalyst418 (talk) 00:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)