Talk:Abramelin oil/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

Contents

Please stop degrading information given

Recently this page has been worked over to downplay two important pieces of information, and to ask for fact cites on a third. I should like to address these issues with the hope of putting them to rest for all time:

  • Mathers' mistranslation: It seems that folks who adulate Aleister Crowley don't want to admit that he followed Mathers' MISTKE, but such is the case. Refering to Crowley's adaptation of Mathers' "version" or other such jolly horse-laughs is not scholarly. Mathers did not make a "version" of the oil. He made an ERROR. He made a MISTRANSLATION. Please, let us simply agree that such edits are pointless and will continue to be reverted, because in truth Mathers' made a MISTAKE and that is important in understanding the break that Crowley followers have with European and non-Crowley British and American occultists. [cat yronwode]
He made an ERROR. And like it or not, that error has resulted in a new version of the oil. How many oils and magical impliments and anything else for that matter have resulted from error? An uncountable number, I would imagine. By all means, let's mention his use of Galangal instead of Calamus. That is factual. But to continuously mention the "error" makes it sound like oil based on it is somehow "wrong". From one point of view, because Galangal is edible and Calamus is not, the "error" can be seen as an improvement, if one wants to use it as a flavoring. The fact is that the oil based on his translation, erroneous or not, has become a fully mature recipe in its own right. To repeat: yes, mention his change in translation, but do not harp on it in context. –Frater5 (talk/con) 22:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Labelling the issue a "dead horse" looks an awful lot like an attempt to play with the facts so as to mislead the public. Mathers made a MISTAKE, a MISTRANSLATION. Replacing that with "version" is not accurate.
That doesn't have any factual implications for the oil. If you believe it has magical import, then that's your perogitive. But factually, it means nothing. It would only be "playing" with the facts if the article was edited to say that Mathers' translation was accurate. As it is, no "fact twisting" is occuring. The only thing being twisted is your prejudice against Thelema. Please stop. User:Somecallmetim 03:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Ask youself, what is the relevance of mentioning his (mis)translation with every instance? If it is for simple information, one or two references is enough. But if you are trying to give modern variants a bad name or odor of falsitude, then you are editing in bad faith. It is the application of your personal opinion. There is such a thing as editorial balance, and you are violating it by repeating it ad nauseum. Mention it once or twice, then leave it alone. –Frater5 (talk/con) 22:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Please understand that nothing you do, no amount of reverence for Aleister Crowley or MacGregor Mathers you have, is going to change the facts. Asking for citations to the original manuscipt, as someone just did, is also a straw man. The references are already given below -- the German comparative edition of the book and the soon-to-be-released Enlish translation of the German edition, cited both as books and as ext. links.

I would look in the mirror before throwing this around. Absolutely everything I've added is verifiable in the literature, and paints a neutral picture of the topic. Many of your additions are pure opinion and spin, intended to discredit modern variants of the oil. And please, I'm not kidding here, stop assuming that I venerate Crowley. The fact that I have as many if not more problems with him than you do doesn't change the facts. Nor does it justify demonizing him or discrediting his work. This is an encyclopedia based on NPOV and that is how I'm going to edit it. –Frater5 (talk/con) 22:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

This is beiggining to look like an attempt to obfuscate or soft-pedal scholarly citations. Over on the book's page you said you were disinclined to "trust" the new, upcoming English translation, thinking it was a re-translation from a German translation of Mathers's English translation from the French ms -- when in fact it is a collated translation from all original msss in existence -- German, French, and Aramaic (late vernacular Hebrew). In fact, when i first found the page on the book, it was falsely stated that only ONE copy of the ms. existed, namely the one in Paris that Mathers had used.

Why the foot-dragging?

What are you waiting for me to do? –Frater5 (talk/con)

Why the continual demand for proof that has already been cited?

I will continually demand citations for obscure statements of fact everywhere on WIkipedia. –Frater5 (talk/con)

Why is the use of cite flags is being employed as an attempt to discredit research that does no support the Mathers/Crowley viewpoint?

Assuming makes an ASS out of U and ME. –Frater5 (talk/con)

Please take time to check the sources cited ON THE PAGES before asking for cites.

You are confusing listing references and adding citations. Review citing policy here.

Catherineyronwode 20:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Chances are, the original Jews who used it all had their own variations as well. Whether a mistranslation or not, it is what it is, and there is no need to keep kicking a dead horse. –Frater5 (talk/con)
Are you attempting to create a bogus diversion by bringing in fictional Jews and their fictional variant recipes? In any case, it just won't fly. The "original Jews" -- just like Jews of today, are a literate people and they make their Holy Anointing Oil according to the recipe written down in Exodus 30. There are no "variations" -- until we get to Abramelin's recipe, a medieval variation written by a German Jew in the diaspora. And all he did was to combine Cassia and Cionnamon -- two species in the same genus -- as one. His reasons, as noted, may have been to avoid duplicating Holy Oil exactly, or, just as likely, to adapt the recipe to materials he could obtain in Germany. I suggest that before you go on about "original Jews" and other Jews, you take a good, long look at Jewish history in the Middle Ages, and particularly in the city of Worms, where the author of the book lived. This information is available in books and in the German wiki, and will soon be in the English wiki. Catherineyronwode 20:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
You're killing me, Cat. The context of the article clearly discusses the oil from the point of view of ancient Jews and the recipe that they put into the Torah. I think it is reasonable to suggest that among the many tribes, there was more than one precise recipe, meaning that there was no "one true" oil, with all others being "false". The real point here is that any attempt on your part to paint the Mathers/Crowley recipe as a degraded or "false" oil is subjective opinion and bad editing, and will be corrected for NPOV. If you want to bring in an admin to check out the degree of subjectiveness going on, I will be happy to be mediated. –Frater5 (talk/con) 22:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Who are these "many tribes" and why do you call it "reasonable to suggest" that they used variant recipes? Basic Jewish history tells us that there is a book called "The Book of Exodus," within the Tanakh. (Tanakh is an acronym for Torah (Five Books of Moses), Nevi'im (Books of Prophets), and Ketuvim (Writings or Hagiographa) and comprises what Christians call "The Old Testament".) In chapter 30 of "The Book of Exodus," a recipe is given for Holy Anointing Oil. No matter how many tribes of Jews exist now or existed in the historical past, they all referred to "The Book of Exodus," for the recipe for Holy Anointing Oil.
Variant copies of the Book of Exodus do exist, but those variations do not contain variants of the Holy Oil recipe. In short, your "reasonable" theory that "more than one precise recipe" exists fails of proof. It is impossible to disprove such a fiction, since not all copies of the book have survived to this day, but since there are no extant Exodus manuscripts mentioning variant recipes and no tribes of Jews in the historical past or the present can be demonstrated to have used or to presently use variant recipes, then, like it or not, and lacking evidence to the contrary, there really is "one true" recipe for Holy Anointing Oil. If you think otherwise, it is incumbant upon YOU to supply a citation at this point.
I am suffiently annoyed by the hours of my time you are wasting with your wild goose chase claim about "many tribes" and "variant recipes" that i certainly will agree to your call for mediation, because your "reasonable suggestion" is anything BUT reasonable to me. I could send you on a similar wild goose chase to attempt to disprove some random and unsupprted claim i made, but i have better manners.
Sincerely, but with limited patience, Catherineyronwode 00:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Cat, I believe you are missing Frater5's point, and are chasing your own tail. The point is that there is no "true" Abramelin oil, since ancient Hebrews probably had multiple recipies before they settled on the one in Exodus. For this article, it would be best to avoid any judgement calls about the "trueness" or legitimacy of the various recipies, and assume that they all have equal value to the people who use them. Somecallmetim 00:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Cinnamon Essential Oil is toxic: I put in a simple warning about the problems attendant upon the use of Crowley's essential oil recipe. This was chopped down and rendered inane by someone i suppose to be a supporter of Crowley. I have reinstated that warning and added more, concerning safety guidelines for the dilution of Cinnamon essential oil on the skin, in thw text, in an external link, and with a book reference. I have eye-witness accounts of Gnostic masses that had to be stopped in mid-rite due to the Crowley Oil of Abramelin running down a participant's sweaty forehead and into the eyes. I also have eye-witness account of a woman who rubbed insufficiently diluted Cinnamon essential oil on her husband's penis as part of a love-making rite and the burns were so bad that she had to drive him to the hospital ER, because mere water would not wash it off. I did not mention those situations on the page, but they are evidence that the issue of Cinnamon essential oil toxicity should never be reduced on the page. It is a SERIOUS issue. [cat yronwode]
I put it as a foot note. It isn't serious. Thousands of people use Crowley's version every day, and none of them are going to the hospital for it (except for your unfortunate friend...in my 14+ years of working with it, I've never seen a problem). A simple statement that it is hot and people should avoid sensitive areas is enough. Moreover, this site does not offer medical advice, which you are bordering on doing. –Frater5 (talk/con)
"My unfortunate friend" is not what i wrote about. Please go back and read what i stated: i have (1) an eyewitness account of a Gnostic Mass that had to be halted due to Crowley's oil dripping into someone's eyes and (2) an eewiness account of a man going to hospial due to the use of insufficiently diluted Cinnamon oil on his penis durin a sex rite. Neither affected individual was a "friend" of mine, and there are TWO, not one. Catherineyronwode 20:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
i have (1) an eyewitness account of a Gnostic Mass that had to be halted due to Crowley's oil dripping into someone's eyes... Yes, and the article mentions that it should be kept out of the eyes. ..an eewiness account of a man going to hospial due to the use of insufficiently diluted Cinnamon oil on his penis durin a sex rite... A good reason to make sure one gets competently mixed oil. Moreover, the article also mentions avoiding putting the oil on private parts. Bases covered. –Frater5 (talk/con) 22:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Fact cite requested on Calamus symbolism: I have no idea why a fact-cite request was added to the symbolism section concerning Calamus as a symbol of male sexuality. That symbolism is all over the web and in dozens of books, and is, in fact, given right in Wikipedia, under Calamus. Please take time to at least perform a google search bfore slapping someone's reseach with fact cite notes. A google search on < calamus "phallic" > returns 1,720 pages and a google search on < calamus "male sexuality" > returns 246 pages -- all of them confirming the symbolism.
No problem, I removed the cite request. –Frater5 (talk/con)

Thanks for your cooperation.

Catherineyronwode 19:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I will thank you for your cooperation as well. Stop trying to infer that the Mathers/Crowley oil is substandard, fake, or dangerous. –Frater5 (talk/con) 19:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

That inference is all in you mind; i did not imply it in any way. The Mathers translation is not substandard or fake; it is an ERROR. The Mathers recipe for the oil is NOT dangerous. The Crowley recipe is not substandard or fake; it is based on TWO ERRORS -- the first being Mathers' errorand the second being Crowley's error in making a weight-for-weight substituion of essential oils for raw ingedients, which is his error alone and indicates that he had no idea of what was mant by the term "according to the art of the apothecary." This oil is DANGEROUS to use except under highly limited conditions. That Crowley liked having his skin burned is neither fake, nor substandard, nr an error on his part: It accords very well with his other interests in sado-masochism and pain.
The Mathers translation is not substandard or fake; it is an ERROR. Mostly likely, yeah, but mentioning it every time a Mathers-based recipe is brought up is both redundant and implies that the modern varient is somehow tainted by the "error. It's bad editing. –Frater5 (talk/con) 22:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
This oil is DANGEROUS to use except under highly limited conditions. No, it isn't. I've been using it for over a decade, and I know literally dozens of others who have as well, and no dangerous effects have been experienced. The text in the article is accurate and adaquate: it feels hot on the skin and don't get it in the eyes or on the privates. –Frater5 (talk/con) 22:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Catherineyronwode 20:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Opinions

If one assumes that all magic is "Will" based and that plant scents are only window-dressing, then one could mix peanut oil with fake cherry scent and use it as an anointing oil -- because anything would do. However, most occultists do value the scents of plants, as well as their symbolism, and this leads the user of the Abramelin-Mathers recipe to a different place than the use of Abramelin Oil does.

What does "Will-based" mean? Do most occultists value the scents of plants? Where is this "different place" that Abramelin-Mathers recipe takes people to? Let's stick to verifiable information, please. –Frater5 (talk/con) 19:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The use of insufficiently diluted Cinnamon and Galangal essential oils in the Mathers-Crowley version...

Is this saying that Crowley's version is "insufficiently diluted" or is it referring to a botched mixture? If the former, then it is opinion that thousands of occultists do not share. If the latter, then there is no point in mentioning it, because we can speculate on all kinds of problems with botched recipies. Let's stick to the facts. –Frater5 (talk/con) 19:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
"Insufficiently diluted" is NOT about "botched recipes" in any way, shape, or fom. It was was my way of stating "not diluted to the widely acknowledged and accepted safety levels used in the manufacture of perfumes, cosmetics, aromatherapy products, and magical oils" -- in which Cinnamon may not be more than 10% of a recipe in which 90% is carrier oil.
Not good enough. The oil is used safely and without incident by thousands of people every day. It isn't "insufficiently diluted" for its purpose. –Frater5 (talk/con) 22:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
In the Crowley recipe, Cinnamon is 38% of the formula by weight .This is almost FOUR TIMES the safety dosage as given in standard, world-wide accepted books on prfumery, essential oil use, and so forth. One such book (by Tisserand and Balacs) is cited in the refs. An external link to the safety /toxicity page hosted by a large commrcial distriubutor of essential oils is also given.
Upon what are they basing their measures? How are they expeccting people to use the oil? As a perfume? For the use with which it is intended, it is perfectly safe, as attested by countless users. It isn't dangerous for its intended use. If someone decides to use it differently, that it their fault, not the oil's. –Frater5 (talk/con) 22:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
As stated elsewhere, the safe dilution rate cited by Tisserand and Balacs is for Cinnamon oil in perfumes, skin care products, cosmetics, magical oils, aromatherapy oils, brilliantines, hair greases, lotions, shampoos, and so forth. I will also state, as a professional perfumer, that uncut 100% Cinnamon essential oil is dangrous and i have been hurt by it. Crowley's cutting it to 38% of the total weight and telling people to put it on their skin may seem safe to you, but reactions will vary based on genetic susceptibility to irritants and toxins, as well as whether sweat conveys a drop on the forehead down to the eyes, whether someone rubs their nose after getting it on the hands, and so forth. Catherineyronwode 00:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, you are welcome to have their general opinion in the article, as it already is. However, you do not get to judge that this particular oil is "Insufficiently" anything, since thousands of users would disagree. If you want to rewrite it using very precise language from their book, then that's okay, but you can't extrapolate. User:Somecallmetim 03:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Here is a link to the amazon page for the Tisserand and Balacs book:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0443052603/102-8336190-2489764?v=glance&n=283155
Sincerely, Catherineyronwode 21:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Although I usually play the role of peacemaker around here, I have to agree with Frater5 on this one. It really does sound like you're trying to discredit the Mathers/Crowley version by repeating "mistranslation" over and over again. It is redundant and very noticable. Maybe you really don't have an agenda to make Crowley or Thelema look bad (I'd like to think that you don't), but it reads that way. Honestly, the article as it stands really does make it super clear that Mathers wrote Galangal for the original Calamus. Harping on it just sounds bad and makes it look like you're trying to discredit modern recipes. Somecallmetim 23:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

More opinion?

  • This is not in accord with the Jewish symbolism for Holy Anointing Oil, and it places Crowley's occultism outside the realm of traditional Kabbalistic and grimoire magic.

This sounds judgemental. It could just as easily say, "Thus Crowley's substituted the symbol of microcosm/macrocosm for the symbol of phallic virility. While not in accord with Jewish symbolism for Holy Anointing Oil, it is in perfect alignment with Thelemic mysticsm, which reflects the ancient spiritual aim for union between the microcosm and the macrocosm." Can we reach a better compromise? Somecallmetim 23:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Note that you have deleted the important phrase traditional Kabbalistic and grimoire magic in your rewrite. By doing this, you have created a false dichotomy between Thelema and JEWISH magic. However, CHRISTIAN occultists use the same recipe (with Calamus) that Jews do. Thus the statement traditional Kabbalistic and grimoire magic is accurate and must stand. These words were carefully selected: the word Kabbalistic refers to Jewish occultism and grimoire magic refers to Christian mdieval magic based on Jewish models. And thus, in this case, Thelema is indeed "outside the realm of traditional Kabbalistic and grimoire magic.
Further, since Mathers made an error in translation, it is "judgemental" and speculative to the point of illogic to say that his mistake "reflects the ancient spiritual aim for union between the microcosm and the macrocosm." It does not do so. It reflects simply his mistake, nothing more.
The translation is utterly irrelevant to Crowley's mystical interpretation of Galangal. Something which you aren't getting is that the Crowley recipe now stands on its own. Moreover, the recipe was delivered to him during his Enochian Aethyrs vision quest, which, as an established holy book (printed as The Vision and the Voice) many Thelemites believe trumps all past references. You might not agree, but you don't get to judge. As long as Thelemites aren't devaluing the original Hebrew recipe, you don't get to devalue the Thelemic version. That is good NPOV. User:Somecallmetim 03:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Finally, you say that "Crowley's substituted the symbol" -- but Crowley did not make the substitution. It was MATHERS.
Crowley accepted the existance of Gelangal, and for most Thelemites, that's all that matters. The fact that it derived from Mathers' mistranslation is meaningless. Point in fact, it is possible to interpret it as mandated by the Secret Chiefs, who worked through Mathers to "update" the recipe. Again, we are dealing with HOLY oil...you only get to write what is, you don't get to decide which recipes are "true" and which are "false". Please stop your crusade. User:Somecallmetim 03:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Catherineyronwode 00:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Wording

I have to say, some of this article sounds like it might need to be reworded and some content possibly moved to a different heading. For instance, the intro is kind of long, and the other half might serve well in a section called "Controversy". Also some of the different oils could be shortened, and a different section called "differences" could be made, to display the smaller differences, instead of devoting a whole section header that only has 1 maybe 2 differences. Plus, do we really need to see that Mathers mistranslated it so often? This may play an importance, but it should be left up to the reader in this case, whether to use which version. I'm planning on trying to improve this article a little more, maybe throw in some citations and take that long one (ref # 4, its too long) out, or rephrase it (who put that in there by the way?). Anyway, any objections, I'd like to hear them, I'm than willing to discuss this before the article gets re worked. Zos 01:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. WP is not paper, so space considerations do not have to be given much weight. I think the article is basically fine as it is. I like the multiple recipes spelled out in full, and there is in my opinion no reason to make major changes to its structure. -999 14:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Disagree: In general, i think that removing useful information from Wiki is not good. Specifically, i put a lot of work into researching, collecting, and posting those variant recipes in full form and i have no reason to want them "shortened" or taken down, but if y'all do it, then i will just host the whole batch at my own occultism site because i know from experience that this is information that people want and need and ask me about on a regular basis.
I'm going to be very blunt about the rest of your suggestion, Maggot:
My text about the counter-indications that you found in a "note" was removed from the article proper, where it had appeared first, and placed it in "note" status, even though it read just fine in the body of the text. I didn't kick; i figured that if this is what was wanted, okay, it's just a format change. I did not like the accompanying specious charge that i was verging on giving out medical advice (!!!!!) (This just stiupified me -- go read any web site on essential oils.) But now, on the excuse that the "note" is too long, you want to remove it too.
I compound perfumes for a living. I supplied one of my proprietary recipes free to the public as part of an educational attempt to make WP a useful encyclopedia. All i have receivbed in exchange is a bunch of time-wasting crap. I will be perfectly happy to take the full format recipes, and all the essential oil information and host it at http://www.luckymojo.com/abramelin.html. It is not worth my time as a professional writer and professional perfumer to try to cooperate with people who have an agenda, that agenda being to remove from Wikipdia any mention that their guru, Aleister Crowley, may have done things in error, sloppily, stupidly, or in such a way as to render potential physical harm to those who follow his perfume-compounding advice.

That's about it from me. Catherineyronwode 17:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean move the content to another article. I only meant some things such as the controvery doesnt look good in the intro, and might need to be moved down to a section inside he article such as == controversy ==. Barely any of this article has citations and the wording looks more like an argument. Plus, if "couter-indications" are made, then shouldnt this be cited? I wasn't suggesting we "delete" anything, but cite sources. There are statements that need them.
Theres no need to be blunt Catherine. I'm not interested in what you do for a living either. This page is about the article, not your life, so lets discuss the article only please.
The note just looked a bit long and I was wondering why a small paragraph was there. But "I" wasnt going to take it out, it might need to be shortened is all.
Furthermore. I can challenge that a page be re-worded if the majority does not cite soures for statements. It appears Catherine is taking offence to this. I didn't change anything but opt'ed to discuss it first. If you can't take constructed criticism Catherine, you won't survive as a writer. Zos 17:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, come on. This article has extensive references. There are a range of acceptable styles for citing sources for an article. Copious inline reference notes are a relatively new development on WP. Prior practice, especially for work that synthesised multiple reference sources, was to simply list references in the references section. I think that has been adequately done here. -999 18:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
You're trying to tell me that EVERY "statment" in there is cited? Well I don't see it. Zos 18:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Plus, there seems to be a difference here. Some of the citations that are made, are in the "notes" area. I re read the WP page for footnotes, and no longer disagree with the usage of footnotes (but if someone could have pointed me there, instead of arguing). But its kind of confusing when you have citations being used in the footnotes area, then the last note is an actual footnote. Shouldnt the citations be moved to references? Or am I getting thsi wrong too? Zos 18:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, just so we can sort some things out. Shouldnt the references section be called == sources ==, and Catherines note can be in == notes ==, and and citations be put into == references == ...? This way, citations can be made if these books in the (now called) reference section, so we can see where in the books it says these things. I'm trying to come to an agreement on this, not argue. Zos 18:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Citations Needed

  • There is quite a bit of controversy concerning one of the ingredients, due to translation issues surrounding a French manuscript of the book, several German manuscripts, an Aramaic manuscript, the English translation by S. L. McGregor Mathers (from the French manuscript), and the Hebrew scripture from which the recipe presumably derived.
  • Abramelin oil experienced new popularity beginning in the 20th century due to several well-known occultists, especially S. L. McGregor Mathers and Aleister Crowley, and continues to be used in many modern occult traditions[citation needed].
Citations are not needed to prove "popularity." This is one of a series of ridiculous calls for citation that you have made on pages that you think are related to Thelema. You are basically trying to remove anything about Thelema that does no pelase you by calling for citations. You
Who uses this method?
To which method are you referring?
  • In the original manuscripts, the recipe for Abramelin Oil is as follows:
Which ones the original? And where is this specified on the article?
You are not reading correctly. The word "manuscripts" is PLURAL. All of the pre-20th century versions are considered original manuscipys (not PRINTED, but MANUSCRIPTS) and they all agree on the ingedients. the only DISagreement occrs in one 20th century edition, This is explained in the article.
  • Here is the recipe for Jewish Holy Oil from the Bible:
Where in the Bible? And in which Bible?
If you are incapable of looking up a Bible passage yourself at google by grabbing some of the text in quotes and adding the citation you feel it needs, then you are not IMPORIVING Wikipedia, but using citation tags as a form of time-wasting harrassment. Do the work yourself. ANYONE who wants WP to be a better encyclopedia and who has edited here for more than a few days knows how to look up a Bible citation. That you would rather not go online and get the cite yourself and but would waste your time coming here and demanding a citation says a lot about your intentions. Your question "which Bible" is ludicrous. Any Bible -- the Tanakh, the KJV, the RSV -- it's in all of them. Look it up. Help out for a change and stop being a trouble-maker.
  • According to the S.L. MacGregor Mathers English translation, which derives from an incomplete French manuscript copy of the book, the recipe is as follows:
Who thinks this? And why?
"Thinks"???? "WHY"???? Well, for starters, the books are there for any scholar to view and comparative editions have been published. They are noted in the Source material for the article. Can't you get it?
  • Those who hold that Mathers mistranslated the French manuscript or who have never consulted the Mathers version because they have read the text in the original German, French, or Aramaic, make a macerated version of Abramelin oil as follows:
"Those who"... Who hold to this? Who claims this?
Two groups of "who" are mentioned. Please specify which one you are askin about.
  • Those who make Abramelin according to the English translation of Mathers' book compound their Abramelin oil from raw ingredients. They use the ratio given in the book:
Again. Who are "those" people, who are "they".
  • Why, read it again -- the people who use the Mathers recipe are the ones who use Mathers's ingredients and compund it from raw ingredients.. Are you being dull on purpose? Do you want names? Social security numbrs? I do know of one place that sells theirs according to that recipe -- Alchemy Works. I even gave a link to their web site. But they are one of dozens. I used to make it that way myself, back before i found ou abou Mathers' mistake.
  • Many traditions of magic work with plant materials, and most also assign some symbolic meanings or ascriptions to these ingredients.
Which traditions are these? And what symbolic meanings?
  • You are asking for a citation for each of the many hundreds of traditions of natural magic that work with plant materials as well as a citation for the symbolical meanings ascribed to every plants under each of these systems, as described by every author who has written on the subject. How many volumes of information about Obeah, Hoodoo, Pow Wow, Agrippa, Culpepper, Girard, Sassafras, Five Finger Grass, Cunningham, Brujeria, Bat Nuts, Buckeyes, Stregheria, Natural Magic, Safflower, Calendula, Magical Herbalsim, Beyerl, Arthaveda, Grieve, Hohman, Jordan, the Doctrine of Signatures, Appalachian Magic, Cherokee Magic, Iroquois Magic, Navajo Magic, Myrtle, Broom Corn, Umbanda, Kimbisa, Palo, Santeria, Lukumi, Thyme, lavender, Palo Monte Mayombe, Albertus Magnus, Pliny, Kemetic Magic, Dunwich, alnus, et al do you require? How would you like these THOUSANDS of citations written up? Be specific. You are asking for something so far beyond the scope of WP that it is incumbant upon you to explain your need for these citations. I myself wrote one book of 224 pages giving the symbolic meaning of 500 plants in just ONE of the word's many magical traditions. To cite all the magical traditions on Earth that deal or have dealt with plant materials, plus all the plant symbolisms in each tadition, would be the work of eighty to ninety years for ten people.
If I go to read this article, I'm left with more questions than when I started. I'm actually finding questions.
These examples are only a few. It would take me the majority of the day to copy all of them. I'm not sure that all of these books in the reference section cover all of this, but if they do, please cite them.
Like I said, I'm willing to discuss this first, instead of adding cite tags to the article to prove this point. Zos 19:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • You are not working to improve Wikipedia. Your use of citation tags as a way to provoke controversy and lay the groundwork for the removal of material that affronts your protective interests in Thelema and Aleister Crowley has been noted elsewhere and is noted here. Catherineyronwode 08:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I have about had it with you, Maggot. Please stop pushing me around with these ridiculous demands for citations. You are abusing your role here as an editor. Catherineyronwode 12:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. I havent added any cite tages to this page. Clearly you are on the wrong talk page. And I'm not pushing you around, but I'm being told that I can do this by wikipedia. Any content of any article may be subject to change, based on NPOV, WP:V, and NOR. Thank you. And furthermore, you still havent addressed any of the issue I raised. Zos 17:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Zos, please use a little more tact. You are being very pushy, above and beyond what is considered civil on WP. I am asking you (again?) to tone it down.
catherine, let me know if you file a complaint against Zos. I'd be glad to support a user-conduct RfC. He's being incredibly pushy, and not just on this article. However, I must warn you against making personal attacks as you did on Talk:Aleister Crowley. Such attacks can only harm your case against Zos. He knows this and appears to be deliberately pushing you to provoke incivility. He probably wants to use such evidence to get you blocked from WP so he can then rewrite your excellent material on Abramelin oil. (P.S. I still do not agree with on how you have documented Crowley's "racism" - what you have done appears to be original research. I suggest you simply find a biography that discusses Crowley's racist expressions, summarize what the biographer says about it, and cite it. Any other way of doing it will remain too controversial to be kept.) -999 18:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
User 999. Her user page says shes leaving. And even if she does file a complaint, I can counter. Please see the history on the Crowley talk page. Her use of prophane language will not help her in this matter. Zos 18:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

REMOVE MY TEXT FROM THIS PAGE

I have made a request at Wikipedia:AMA_Requests_for_Assistance to have this page reverted to the previous Thelemic-Crowley version. WP suckers authors in to write for free and then allows abuse of {{Fact}} tags as a form of suppression of evidence, permits ganging up through sock puppets and anonymized screen names, and condones personal verbal abuse, both by fellow editors and by at least one admin (User:jpgordon). The GNU free copyright for this writing has been WITHDRAWN BY THE AUTHOR due to breach of contract by WP. It is COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT and must be removed at once.

catherine yronwode.

Sorry, once you have released your work under the GFDL, you may not revoke such a release. There is nothing in the GFDL that permits you to do so. It is an irrevocable license. You do, of course, still hold the copyright, but having granted an irrevocable license to Wikipedia, you have no legal leverage with respect to its use under the GFDL, by Wikipedia or any other GDFL site, as long as the license terms are observed. The license terms do not include anything about the complaints you have made. Regardless of what has been allegedly done or said to you, these things do not violate the terms of the license, which you can read at WP:GFDL. -999 22:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The license terms have not been observed. Wikipedia is a bait-and-switch operation that LIES to authors. It cannot enforce a license obtained under false pretenses. The page will come down, and you will still be around here when it does. You will not have the use of material that you and your shit-for-brains fellow cultists labelled "original research." I now concede -- it was all ORIGINAL RESEARCH and as such it has no palce in WP. Take it down, you parasitic ass-wipe. Catherineyronwode 23:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Please specify by paragraph number in the GFDL what terms have been violated. By the way, I am not a member of any Crowley cult. Please observe the WP rule against personal attacks or you will not even have a voice here to discuss this: you will be banned. Oh, and you might want to be careful about legal threats, they will earn you an immediate and permanent ban: your IP address(es) will also be blocked as will any new accounts you create. -999 23:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
It more than likely. The discussion is Here..Zos 00:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

At this point i am only here to ask for one thing, that the page i wrote on Abramelin oil be reverted to the version last updated by user:Frater5 on 20:10, May 5, 2006 at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abramelin_oil&oldid=51730032 -- for the simple reason that my version violates the WP:NOR rule and contains no words or prhases taken from the earlier version. Catherineyronwode 06:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

That's not up to you. Request declined. -999 13:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
This type of attitude/behavior is not conducive to editing Wikipedia. Please treat your fellow editors with respect. —Viriditas | Talk 07:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Removal

So we can't remove any material that isnt cited? If the person who put it on doesnt care, I think we can remove it, and place it on the talk page. Then make a comment saying if sources arrive, it will be readded. This sounds like it can be done. Zos 07:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Because it's a good article. Why would you want to remove anything? Just b/c wp says it may be removed doesn't mean it has to be removed. -999 09:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)