Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Alchemy

Alchemy

 * This book passes off medieval pseudo-science as fact, offers baseless, ambiguous and contradictory claims (e.g. "This is an exercise in operative alchemy. That is the practical means of refinement. Speculative alchemy is what you are reading. Alchemy is the integration of knowledge into the practice or art of living. In this sense science is speculative. Technology is operative. Alchemy is the craft that combines the truth of science with the technology to enable that truth."). Ridiculous assertions and bald-faced lies are tossed off nonchalantly (e.g. "The agenda of alchemy has always been the furtherance of human knowledge and the integration and improvement of society. Alchemy has also been a technological system, interested in working operations and the preparation of material wealth, longevity and a big theory of everything now being attempted by modern physics.").


 * The book offers no prospect of being changed or improved to something of value (or even something not completely false).


 * The book is not a science textbook (it's listed in the science section), nor even a textbook of any kind. I see no compelling argument for its existence on Wikipedia.--24.103.207.38 22:16, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Extraordinary as it may seem you do not have the ability to predict the potential of something to evolve. There are few things that are more able to generate correction than that which is completely false. According to your interpretation the book merely needs to be factual. Operative alchemy is partly based on paradox and multi leveled symbols - what you refer to as ambiguety and contradiction. It also uses ridiculous assertions to test the 'metal' and response of those who are easily swayed by such techniques. The alchemical term for such people is 'puffers'. If you know what is required to refine this book then please do so. However it may be that you belong to those who have always had a tendency to burn and flame what is beyond their certainties. I gather this is not your intention? 82.69.58.117 21:10, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Please speak in plain English - I can't follow what you are saying. Are you saying that it's perfectly ok to right something that is not factual into an article? because if you I'm afraid that you are going against the whole ethos of wikibooks ans the wikimedia foundation. Theresa knott 09:59, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Well maybe it should be moved to media studies? Are you seriously suggesting there are no textbooks on operative alchemy of this kind. Clearly one is required. 82.69.58.117 21:10, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree it's not a science textbook, but that can be delt with by removing it from the science section. I'm not at all convinced that it needs to be delted outright though. The book needs serious amounts of work, but we since alchemy did lead to the science of chemistry we should have abook on this subject. Weak keep Theresa knott 09:59, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep As long as the textbook does not pass itself off as fact (so it should have a clear warning at the top), it seems like something that somebody may want to find out about. Definitely needs quite a bit of work though.


 * Keep Just because the topic of the book is not part of mainstream science doesn't mean it doesn't deserve to exist. I would be very interested in reading about the history of alchemy, myself. However, I would suggest that the language, which seems particularly obfuscatory and murky (as may be the nature of such a topic), be clarified. --Chuck Hoffmann 13:32, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Will start the History section for you Chuck 82.69.58.117 19:18, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep- I think there could be a category for funny useless books, like Vandwelling, Time Travel Genius, and this. But if those others go, this should too. -- Tormod 04:56, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep Alchemy is philosophy, and an ancient perspective on percieved manifested reality, identity and evolution WITHIN that context, using terms suited to the perspectives, and style of percieving, which have collectively formulated it. Arguments about the usefulness of an alchemy treatise are moot.  Consider that calling water an amino acid comprised of two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen is an conventional oversimplification for one who has learned to relate and identify with the subtle interactions of manifested reality, and an outright mistruth, a stunted truth, for one who percieves reality through the eyes of a physicist.  All these 'factual' entries are descriptions, not facts, behooving one to be true to topic.  Alchemy is philosophy, part of the rudiments of thought, of self-awareness.  It is only of use to one who would increase intimacy of self-awareness (including what one percieves and indentifies with as "thing", a necessary component of "self", being "not identified as self").  It is of practical significance (as a text); the applications of an understanding of alchemy ARE what's happening all around us and in us, and it is useless other than as a pathway to wisdom, which I will personally define as understanding in operation.  This is a call for clarity (and editing out the spurious content,) not censorship.


 * Keep Many things one person considers useless another finds of great value.  Let a thousand flowers bloom!! simontzu

BTW The sacred texts archive has excellent references in the public domain on alchemy. Subtle Truth, 04 Dec 2004

Thanks subtle - and thanks to all those who voted to keep - the vote for deletion will now be deleted - you are welcome to contribute Long live tmxxine (not in this dimension) Lobster 08:36, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)