Talk:English Qaballa

No copyright violation

EranBot logged this edit as a potential copyright violation. All material came from an earlier version of this article dated 23 September 2008, which gives the origin as the article New Aeon English Qabalah (now a redirect). The origin of that content is given in the 5 June 2006 edit which created that article stating "source GFDLed article from Free Encyclopedia of Thelema." Gotta go into the web archive to find that source, which clearly states at the bottom "Content is available under GNU Free Documentation License 1.2." Nice to see a chain of origin where all the proper attributions were made in edit summaries as they should be, even though the article was copy/pasted rather than moved by an IP editor. Skyerise (talk) 12:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

The bot flagged your edit because of the quotation it contained. I have marked it as a false positive.— Diannaa (talk) 12:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Skyerise (talk) 12:48, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Article not merged with Numerology?

I'm wondering why the entire article on English Qabalah was merged into the Numerology article, but this article was not? The subject of English Qaballa is no different or more special than any other approach to English Qabalah, it is simply a particular approach. Catalyst418 (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@Catalyst418: Because it has extensive coverage in multiple sources while the other systems each have only a single source. Multiple robust sources make a subject notable enough for a stand-alone article. None of the other systems have sufficiently robust sources to justify a stand-alone article (see our notablity requirements). If and when they do, they would deserve to be split out of Numerology into their own article. You're welcome to do so if you have adequate independently-published sourcing for some one or more of those systems. Basically, no one has written about those systems but their originators. And there is no overview book about "systems of English Qabalah", which is why that topic was also not supportable under that name. Thus the merge of all the non-notable systems into Numerology. This system, on the other hand, has been written about extensively by multiple authors other than the originator who have been published by independent publishers. That's a great difference when it comes to determining notability. Out of the list at Numerology, this system is the most notable. That actually does make a difference and makes this system unique compared to the others. It has met the bar of being successful. (Success is your proof!) Skyerise (talk) 11:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. There have been a few publications that discuss this approach to gematria, (called colloquially NAEQ), although I would discount any of the references to the Equinox or New Equinox journals, as these were self-published by members of the group to which the originator belonged. That really only leaves the DuQuette reference, which is fine, and the Hadean Press, publishing works by a colleague of the originator. Is this press considered a neutral third party source? Catalyst418 (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely. It's a general occult press which publishes multiple authors on multiple topics, regardless of their magical affilations. We can use Regardie's biography of Crowley for the same reason (it was published by Llewellyn), even though Regardie was a colleague of Crowley. There would only be a problem with either of these sources if they were self-published. The fact that an independent publisher chooses to publish the material is what raises the topic to notability. Skyerise (talk) 10:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)