Talk:Alchemy

Gibberish

There is a lot of weird double-talk in this article. It starts off with things that may make sense to someone but are very awkwardly phrased, such as "These are not mutually exclusive, but complementary instead, as meditation requires practice in the real world, and conversely" and "The Great Work; mystic interpretation of its four stages". But then we have things later on that are more disturbing. "Alchemy is the science of understanding, deconstructing, and reconstructing matter" is not only a strange, dubious, and vague statement, but it also directly contradicts the introduction, which (more correctly) identifies alchemy as a protoscience, not a science. "A scientific theory says that if Alchemy is stopped in the process of deconstructing, the object will be destroyed" is just totally indecipherable gibberish. Can someone with some knowledge of history take ownership of this page and rein in the crazies a little? 66.68.84.9 (talk) 20:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Going a step further, in fact, I find that versions of the article from the 2005 time frame (back when this was a featured article) are quite excellent. Easy to read, informative, and interesting. The current version doesn't even hold a candle to it. It seems like over time, the page has been contaminated by way too many occultists trying to advertise their pet theories and whatnot. Can we just revert to the featured version? 66.68.84.9 (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree

There are also some major problems with equating nuclear reactions with alchemy, due to their connection with "transformations" of elements from one kind into another. Nuclear reactions, as said in discussions earlier, need no invocation of "the spirit" of the elements to describe what is observed. Hard science alone seems to do the trick. Also, much of the history seems to have been ignored regarding the fact that alchemists poorly understood the chemicals they were working with: for example, "Oil of Sulfur" never had any sulfur in it, and was actually dimethyl ether. What passed for "observation" in these pre-scientific days were things like the phases of the moon and other random observations which today seem irrelevant. Hucksters who claimed to turn lead into gold were often hung or run out of town when it was shown that their "gold" coins were counterfeit. This likely attempt at "political correctness" toward alchemists obfuscates the idea that alchemy is largely an artifact of history, mostly of interest to historians of chemistry. Paul E J King (talk) 13:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

20th century?

Possibly odd question here, but is the part about alchemy being practiced up to the 20th century not erroneous, considering there are countless living, practicing alchemists today? 94.11.254.19 (talk) 13:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe that in the old days, alchemists were taken more seriously by the general public. I would challenge people to come up with any serious discoveries in the 20th century. I would think Pauling, Schroedinger, Einstein, and Rutherford would feel quite insulted if they thought that their pioneering work on nuclear reactions was just another form of Alchemy. Thus, I don't think anyone would agree that these guys are alchemists. Paul E J King (talk) 13:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Link for symbols

Here is a link for symbols of the elements. I think it would be a good add. Its a .org so I don't think it should be a problem. http://www.rsc.org/chemsoc/visualelements/pages/alchemist/alchemy.html --男らしい冬 03:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

"A Twenty-First Century Look:" Original Research?

The section "A Twenty-First Century Look" seems like it might be original research (see WP:OR) to me. It has no sources, and talks about how alchemical ideas "can be" interpreted. It doesn't say whose (person, group, or work) interpretation it is. If it is only the writer's interpretation then it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. If it's some interpretation that's out there, then its existence and currency should be attested to by some reliable source (see WP:RS). (Note: For reference, this is the edit which added the section.) -- Why Not A Duck 07:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

New changes

I have edited the page somewhat, deleted the pointless reference to Baron Reichenbach, and expanded some of the text to explain what was otherwise hidden. I shall add more once I work out how to do references, since the references on here are pretty poor quality. Calcinations (talk) 20:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Any chance someone can do something about the horrendous paragraph on modern usage by Chinese medicine practitioners? It's terribly written and completely biased. 86.153.102.65 (talk) 21:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Father of Chemistry?

The Etymology section suggests Robert_Boyle as the father of chemistry. However, when I studied chemistry I learned that Antoine_Lavoisier is the father of chemistry. Kageskull (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I concur it would deserve correction. --Xyzt1234 (talk) 20:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

THE ABOVE STATEMENT IS AWAY FROM THE TRUTH The father of Chemistry is Jaber Ibn Hayyan, so that don't dismiss someone's success. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.220.208.252 (talk) 17:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Greek origin for alchemy

Mentioned here: [1] Faro0485 (talk) 00:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Actual Alchemy, the type we all know (trying to turn metals into gold), had actually more to do with Muslim chemists. The notion that it came from either Egypt, Alexandria, Greece, India or China has little to no basis (although Renaissane Alchemists would swear on their mothers that it came from either of those places). While It's true that all of these cultures practiced a sort of Alchemy, in reality they all just practiced a proto-science, based on first hand observations in a time were adequate instruments were lacking (such as telescopes or microscopes). To say it was "Alchemy" is to push it a little too thin there. Also, not because it originated with muslim chemists it means it came from "Persia" (Persia in what point of time exactly?).--99.192.73.64 (talk) 17:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone needs to either make a decision as to where the term 'alchemy' originated or to remove the 'arose from the Persion Empire' from the second paragraph. The first paragraph under the 'history' of alchemy states that it is from ancient Egypt. Although, the Egyptians probably were more interested in the spiritual aspect than the chemical. So someone needs to clear this up or not have such a definitive statement in the second paragraph. It is misleading. V. Warren —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.235.225.179 (talk) 22:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit mixed up here. Are we talking about the origin of alchemy, or the origin of the word "alchemy"?

On the other hand, the egyptians were very interested in the spiritual aspect, but also had lots of technology to go with it, see the Leyden Papyrus X, for instance; although that could be more "ancient chemistry" than alchemy. --Xyzt1234 (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

In fiction...

It might be good to mention The Baroque Cycle by Neal Stephenson in the "Modern connections" section. The series deals heavily with alchemists (especially Isaac Newton) and their search for elicit substances. Also, are there any recent works that discuss how human stem cells are treated in the popular press in a manner reminiscent of the panacea? SharkD (talk) 08:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

major changes?

A few months back (possible close to a year ago) I was reading this article, back then the page refered to alchemy as the ancient study of various sciences, now the page states that alchemy is a philosophy and practice of achieving wisdom and immortality? I'm confused, I have always interpreted alchemy to be the ancient study of science combined with various magical and spiritual such things(due to widespread belief of such things in ancient times) but the apparently major changes that have occured since I've last been on here are confusing to say the least, can anyone inform me as to what has occured and why the article has changed so much, thanks (72.60.191.238 (talk) 15:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC))

Yes, the focus has been greatly lost, now it's focused more in Esoterica rather than in reliable sources. To put it bluntly, there's more evidence pointing to Alchemy as the proto-science that tried to turn common metals to gold than there is to this notion that Alchemy was "wisdom" or "philosophy".--99.192.73.64 (talk) 17:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you happen to have a source for that statement? Because most research I've read on the topic suggests that the mystical aspects of alchemy are in fact present in even the earliest texts, and form the basis rather then a later interpretation of or addition to the alchemical tradition. See especially the articles on early chinese and greek alchemy in Debus' 'Alchemy and early modern chemistry: papers from ambix'; in both cases it is argued that the mystical aspects are in fact present in even the earliest traditions, although in the case of greek alchemy the mystical and physical aspects tend to be more rigidly divided then in chinese alchemy. Concluding that alchemy is foremost a pseudo-science seems to me to go far beyond the scant evidence that we have; it is an expression of modern bias rather then actual research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.50.0.86 (talk) 13:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like the person who wrote the above statement has mainly read about what is called Philosophical Alchemy. In fact, Practical Alchemy is characterized by major contributions leading to modern-day chemistry and science. For example, the Chinese you mention actually developed important methods in the separation of metals, especially separating gold and silver. Practical methods, not spiritual metaphors. It is important to remember the difficulty of using these methods in Europe, where people had to disguise what they were doing lest they be seen as sorcerers (chemistry was mysterious) or that they would be perceived as having more gold than their King, who would seize their property (much like Russia is doing right now to its successful businessmen). So, they wrote cryptic texts that are only understandable if one also understands the properties of the metals and minerals involved in the process of extracting, say, gold, from ore. When one knows the properties of these materials, one can easily read through the lines of the poetry. People did find these chemical processes impressive, tantamount to discovering immortality, but Francis Bacon famously wrote how disgusted he was to see the preponderance of uneducated people successfully attributing superstition to the practical chemistry that was in fact taking place by those legitimate alchemists doing important work. I think the statements below are also ignoring this very important fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.94.52 (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

It must be remembered that Alchemy is a pre-cartesian activity and divisions like Philosophical, Mystical and Scientific are almost meaningless.--Alchemist Jack (talk) 21:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I concur with the above. Alchemy never pretended to be science or proto-science - when alchemy began there was no such thing as science, just technologies, recipes to achieve this and that, passed from master to apprentice and kept in secret. Considering it an "ancient study of science" or a pseudo-science is, at least, weird and self-contradictory. Alchemists called themselves philosophers, and although the term might loosely mean "one who studied bodies of knowledge before science (the scientific method) existed", they were always quite careful in stating that even their metals had little to do with the common metals -- they were more interested in the metal's souls than the metal's dead bodies (the common metal). Yet this is a difficult matter to present, due to alchemy's double nature, a practical manipulative one and a meditative one. It's not a "either-or" situation. Both attitudes, the technology and the wisdom, occured at least since Zosimos; although Marie-Louise von Franz states that it occurred long before him, as the practical execution of the technologies would be accompanied by religious chants (Egypt mummies) or the melting of ores done at an astrologically selected time. It's as if you selected an appropriate day and put up a ceremony to change your engine's oil or do a PET scan. --Xyzt1234 (talk) 11:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Fulcanelli made a strong distinction, in Dwellings of the Philosophers, between alchemy, with its double nature, and archemy, consisting of primitive chemical and metalurgical manipulations for strictly pragmatic purposes. No accompanying philosophy, no alchemy.--Xyzt1234 (talk) 21:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

New External Link

I would like to add a new external link to the page. The Beinecke Library at Yale University had a great exhibition on alchemy a while back. The exhibition is available online now. BOOK OF SECRETS: ALCHEMY AND THE EUROPEAN IMAGINATION 1500-2000 Selahobadiah (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Selahobadiah

RE:"Alchemy as a philosophical and spiritual discipline"

The third paragraph of this section inappropriately seems to focus on alchemy in a medieval context, and very negative connotations ring through.......

"It is a popular belief that Alchemists made mundane contributions to the "chemical" industries of the day.......In reality...... they did little for any known industry. Goldsmiths knew long before Alchemists appeared how to tell what was good gold or fake, and industrial technology grew by the work of the artisans themselves, rather than any Alchemical helpers."

"Mundane contributions"????? "Little for any known industry"???? "Alchemical Helpers"??????

I agree, the person who wrote "Goldsmiths knew long before Alchemists..." does not refer to alchemy at all, nor to metallurgy. The chemical process of extracting gold from ore is very different from recognizing and panning for gold, which was possible throughout the world at various times in history. But when the easier processes of finding gold are exhausted societies have always had to turn to extracting it from ore, where it was/is trapped in lead and must be separated. Goldsmiths did not necessarily learn or participate in that process, so do not belong in a discussion on Alchemy!

...should we not remind the readers that "any known industry" and every "known industry" was founded from prior "alchemical" endeavours, and "the artisans" were more often than not the "Alchemical helpers". (i don't believe there was any considerable amount of contribution to any known industries within this period(dark ages) by "artisans" either"..in fact the next major advances occurred within the "age of enlightenment" and the pivotal contributors were known alchemists...

Presents as a bitter attack on fraudulent alchemist within medieval Europe... certainly does not offer a perspective on "Alchemy as a philosophical and spiritual discipline"

May this not find a better place under HISTORY or a new subheading........If there are no interjections i will visit the page and edit it in the near future... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catalystman (talk • contribs) 13:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Alchemy's transmutation into chemistry

"During the seventeenth century the change of name from Alchemy to chemistry took place"

This is incorrect. Alchemy didn't transmutate into Chemistry. It gave birth to Chemistry in the 17th century and just kept on as it was.

hear, hear! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.94.52 (talk) 02:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll rephrase this when possible. If I remember to. --Xyzt1234 (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Nuclear Transmutation is not Alchemy.

The Nuclear Transmutation section seemed to have nothing whatsoever to do with alchemy, and I decided to be bold in fixing it, and remove the section. However, someone named momofusan reverted my edit and said I need to get consensus here. I disagree that something this obvious needs discussed at all, especially with that whole thing about "being bold" to improve articles, but undoing his undo would be an edit war, which is bad, so here I am. So, "Get consensus" about fixing it so work can finally get done. So inefficient... 63.3.9.129 (talk) 04:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Both are about changing one element to another. Nuclear Transmutation is how one of the mundane stated goals of alchemy can be achieved with SCIENCE! It is relevant for that reason. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

To add to the paragraph above, when people wrote about transmutation they were in fact talking about the separation of different elements, not transmutation, but for a while, they had no way of knowing whether they were tranforming something into something else or separating one thing from something else because after all, it was all new! What they were doing was also scientific, they just didn't know enough about how it was happening, and like most scientists, came up with explanations that we now know are not exactly true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.94.52 (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't get it. It took place 200 years after real chemistry was invented. EDIT: Oh, I see what you mean. In that case, it needs rewritten to say that specifically, instead of looking out of place. The section needs to clearly explain that nuclear transmutation takes the place of alchemy or whatever. I didn't get it, and the reason I didn't get it was because it was not written as it should have been. It doesn't need removed, as I thought, but it does need fixed.63.3.9.129 (talk) 04:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to clarify that nuclear reactions are not alchemy only because there is not any spiritual transformation of the chemist in the process. A lot of focus is placed on the idea that alchemy is about transforming "base" metals into gold. This is just a symbol of a more profound, spiritual transformation of the alchemist and this is the true purpose of alchemy. —Preceding by A. Almeida comment added by 70.45.32.193 (talk) 23:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

While there always was a spiritual component, early on, the material component was what they were focused on, the spiritual stuff was the "why," not the "how." Purely spiritual alchemy came about because material alchemy wasn't working until it developed into chemistry. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Ian Thomson, are you saying that thousands of years ago, when they discovered how to separate gold from ore, they weren't practicing chemistry? Separating the gold from the lead is an important chemical step in the process. Today, it's called metallurgical science and technology, not "spiritual alchemy"! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.94.52 (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

...I really don't like it when people put words into my mouth to completely turn around what I've stated. It's rude. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Ian, to be fair, you did write "material alchemy wasn't working until it developed into chemistry." In fact, thousands of years before Europeans coined the term "alchemy" the chemical processes used in alchemy were developed in the Oriental mining industry and they worked, without a doubt. Please understand that I am trying to make sure that false claims are removed from this page because when Wikipedia is misleading it does a disservice to honest people seeking knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.94.52 (talk) 02:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Scientific understanding of alchemy : http://albert.cau.free.fr/English/Alchem1.html

First point is to speculate about the nature of the Philosopher's Stone

• It is necessarily a chemical compound of a superheavy element

Second point is to understand how such very heavy element may be created

• It is via a synergy of nuclear reactions : a balance between exoenergetical nuclear reactions and endoenergetical nuclear reactions
• The equation of creation of the superheavy element has been proposed : multisteps nuclear process.

Third point is to identify the materials used by alchemists

• It is Pechblende (uranium oxide), a black mineral unuseful years ago, except for alchemists.
• Other mineral is Fluorite (CaF2) called "the meat of metals" by Basile Valentin

Fourth point : the alchemy process

• Some alchemists said that even a child could prepare the Stone : Yes , but only using Mercury, which is the result of the treatment of raw materials. According to the equation of creation of the Stone, this Mercury is necessarily an enriched uranyl salt, that is to say a uranyl salt with a high content of U-235.
• With Mercury correctly prepared, Philalethe and others indicate what are the points to observe during the making of the Stone.

The biggest secret of alchemist was the preparation of the uranyl salt enriched with U-235 which explains why it is said that even with the right materials, you could unable to make the Stone.

A set of experiments shows : - The unexpected nuclear activity - the enrichment of U-235 : 0.72 to 1.30 in one step - the colosr described by alchemists - the transumutation activity of the mixture. Stone

Albert Cau on May 25, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.113.55.225 (talk) 12:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Adding some things

i think what would make this page better, is if you added a section on experiments, other alchemists in the past preformed. wether they be failed ones, or not. then i would def give this page a 5 out of 5. being an alchemist myself i would think it would be nice to see some of the failed attempts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IamWester (talk • contribs) 22:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Be bold, add in the info yourself as long as it is notable and has reliable sources. Also, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). Ian.thomson (talk) 22:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Misleading

In the first sentence it states that alchemy is a philosophy and this is dangerously misleading. Many people don't understand what philosophy means. However, referring to alchemy as a philosophy makes it seem like it has epistemological status. Alchemy was the forerunner to chemistry, and shouldn't be referred to as that and not philosophy. As a philosopher my goal is not to confuse people about what philosophy is, and I hope you will agree. --74.97.176.70 (talk) 16:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It says it's "both a philosophy and an ancient practice focused on..." (truncated for brevity). Until a couple of centuries ago, it was hard to study metaphysics without coming across some alchemical ideas, and it was impossible to study alchemy without studying metaphysics. Yes, it was the precursor of chemisty, physics, and even psychology, but at all times there were philosophical components to it and it was highly influenced by pre-Socratic and Neoplatonic ideas. In fact, medieval and renaissance alchemy carried on and distributed those ideas throughout Europe. As someone who enjoys studying the philosophies of different eras within the context of those eras and not within 20th/21st century schemas, my goal is to describe those subjects accurately, and I hope you will agree. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Alchemical Findings

I find it a careless ommission that the emerald tablet and the dictums therein are not included. My own studies phrase it thus, first in shorthand, then in descriptive -

As Above, So Below - As Within, So Without - As it Was, So it shall Be

As it is Macroscopically, So it is Microscopically - As it is Within One's Understanding, So it is Outside of One's Understanding - As it Has Been Before, So it Shall Be Again —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dansalignatious (talk • contribs)

Please see the guidelines on original research (because we do not take original research, we don't take personal interpretation, you must cite reliable sources for content introduced into articles). This article is a general and universal overview. If the reader want to find out more about specific traditions from specific areas (because Chinese, Indian, and pre-Classical alchemists didn't have the Emerald Tablet but still practiced their land's versions of alchemy), there's a link in the "See Also" section to the article Outline of Alchemy. The Emerald Tablet is important within Middle Eastern and European alchemy, but to act like it is a central text of alchemy in general is to act like monotheism is founded upon by Charlemagne. Also, please sign your posts in talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). Ian.thomson (talk) 12:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

In Our Time

The BBC programme In Our Time presented by Melvyn Bragg has an episode which may be about this subject (if not moving this note to the appropriate talk page earns cookies). You can add it to "External links" by pasting * {{In Our Time|Alchemy|p003k9bn}}. Rich Farmbrough, 02:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC).

History

The history sub section is too long, since there is a sub-article on just that. I propose to cut it down, moving anything there of value not present on the sub-page over, ensuring that nothing is lost William M. Connolley (talk) 14:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I've done it (still the same me, BTW). I wondered about the timeline, but then decided it was negligible and probably OR anyway WMC 23:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Pictures

Sadly,I don't know how to add pictures or I would, but I think the article would be more interesting if someone added pictures (like the seven metals of alchemy). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelcook (talk • contribs) 22:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Chemistry (etymology)

The etymology here doesn't agree with what is at purportedly the main article, Chemistry (etymology). Since that does indeed purport to be the main article, I'm going to force agreement here or gloss over the cracks unless someone objects William M. Connolley (talk) 15:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Article Lacking

It seems the article is lacking quite abit. Like what kind of influence did they have on modern chemistry..etc The use of distillation, the creation of flasks that influenced modern chemistry flasks, various chemical elements discovered by alchemists etc.

Henry123ifa

16:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Alchemical Healing

Alchemy is the art of transmutation of energy. Some people may pretend to use it to turn metals into gold, but before anything else, it is a healing art (such as Reiki but much more advanced and requires much more study). There is nothing in the current article that talks about the alternative medicine side of Alchemy.

Maybe one aspect of Alchemy is a version of chemistry before there was science, but there is another aspect of Alchemy that is still being practiced and taught today, although it is not as widespread as Reiki.

There is a lot of work to do on the article to bring the various aspects of alchemy in an objective and balanced ways.

First, Alchemy is a path towards enlightenment (which includes health and longevity).
Second, Alchemy is a healing art (which includes alternative medicine and wisdom).
Third, one of the advanced paths of Alchemy is transmuting the energetic structure of matter to turn metals into gold, although I haven't seen it yet.

Healing (and everything resolving around it) should be one of the main aspects of the article, not a sub-sub-sub section of it.

For now, I'll simply flag the article as "Alternative Medicine Project".

Here are some sources to start working with:

- Search "Alchemical Healing" in Google, you'll find plenty of brief information and people teaching various aspects of it.

- The Master Alchemist who taught me Alchemy has a book: Mystical Alchemy:The Path to Enlightenment

- There is a clear definition and description of Alchemical Healing here. According to Wikipedia external link guidelines, this should be considered as an external link: "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." Also, the amount of details and controversial nature of the information makes most of it non-suitable to directly include in the article which should remain more neutral, objective and descriptive.

The main challenge may be to find sources as there are few books on the topic and many aspects of Alchemy cannot be found on the Internet. After other people start updating the structure of the article, I'll add a more accurate definition of Alchemy as well as update information about the healing part of it. Other people have to get involved.

A major issue is the reversal of legit modifications on controversial topics. I'm sure this can be avoided with proper communication and education.

Here is some more information to correct. The philosophical stone is the result of the perfect alignment of the physical body, the soul and the spirit which are the three phases of alchemy leading to enlightenment. I'm currently only completing the first of the three Alchemical phases so I can't say much more about the philosophical stone.

There are many alchemists alive today. One extremely powerful and known Alchemist is Jacques Tombazian who has over 60000 hours of therapy experience and who has several foundations. He mentioned there was less than 10 people on the planet with this level of enlightenment and power. Another very powerful and known Alchemist is Marc Berriault. I do not know the other very powerful ones but they all know each others.

I'll let other people structure something out of all this information and I'll contribute to the article later.

Mdavid9 (talk) 03:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Please, actually review the guidelines I left on your talk page, you will save everyone some time and effort. I did not just make those up, they represent site-wide consensus. The only reason I have been the only one to revert your edits is because I have been the only person active in the article when you added your material. Other editors have had plenty of time to restore your work but have not because they don't meet the guidelines.

I have already explained "search for it on Google" is not a source. I have also already explained that it is your job to bring sources for any information you bring, not other editors' responsibility.

http://www.jacquestombazian.com/books.htm - personal sites and sites meant to sell products typically do not meet the reliable source guidelines (click here to read them).

http://www.shamanicattraction.com/definition/alchemy.aspx - personal sites, sites meant to sell products, and social networking sites typically do not meet the guidelines. I have already explained this.

It is not just an issue of source being on the internet, we accept books from academic and/or mainstream publishers as sources. Wikipedia is not concerned with "truth," it just summarizes what sources have to say. We don't accept personal interpretations of subjects, such as the philosopher's stone. There are many interpretations of that, your's is only one of many. If you can find a reliable source (again, click here to read the guidelines) that presents a view you like, you're welcome to present it, but if it is incorporated into the article, it will be incorporated as one view among many.

Here are the general notability guidelines, which is the standard Wikipedia uses to define whether or not someone is "well known." Unless Tombazian or Berriault are mentioned in multiple non-trivial publications not connected to them, they aren't considered notable. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

As an Alchemist, the quality of this article is very bad. It describes Alchemy as an ancient art that is irrelevant to modern times. In reality, it is a healing art that exists since a very long time and there are many Alchemists alive today and schools teaching it. Major work is required on this article and I am not going to dig for sources to do it all myself to get it undone right after. You and others have to do some work and I will simply contribute.

Links that "contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources" are to be considered according to the guidelines. The Wikipedia brings a 'rational skeptic' and neutral point of view on all the facets of Alchemy. One of the links I provided brings considerable additional information from the holistic health and spirituality point of view and respects the guidelines.

Yesterday I looked in the "Electronic library" of alchemical books (in the external links). The books were often mentioning Alchemy as a medicine (alternative medicine). There are lots of sources there, however, most of these books are in Spanish and French! Good sources have to be written by Alchemists or people who have studied the topic. Newspapers can't be considered a reference on anything related to spirituality, energies and healing because newspapers are written by people who don't know about these topic.

This brings a more fundamental issue that applies to other Wikipedia articles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Request_board#Sources_for_alternative_medicine.2Fenergy_work.2Fspirituality

--Mdavid9 (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The links you have provided all went to sites dedicated to selling products. Those are excluded from the guidelines. The encyclopedia does not exist to conform to individual editor's beliefs, but simply to summarize mainstream sources. In the case of fringe theories, mainstream views of the subject will be more weight than the subject's view of itself. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Addendum/clarification: Wikipedia does not exist to promote ideas, only report what has mainstream attention. Wikipedia:TEND#Righting_Great_Wrongs"So, if you want to... Spread the word about a theory/hypothesis/belief/cure-all herb that has been unfairly neglected and suppressed by the scholarly community, ''''On Wikipedia'''', you’ll have to wait until it’s been picked up in mainstream journals, or get that to happen first. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or original research." (See also WP:NOTPROMOTION and Wikipedia:Advocacy). Ian.thomson (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The sites don't fit the description of 'personal websites'. As for selling 'something', Universities and newspapers websites are selling something so that's not much of an argument.

IMO World is an institution and school of various Alchemists. The observable reality is that 1. there are Alchemists institutions running today and 2. they teach alchemical healing. The fact that this Wikipedia page says Alchemy is an ancient art irrelevant to modern age and that it doesn't mention it can be used for healing makes the article disconnected from reality. I can understand Wikipedia isn't concerned with the truth and went from rational skepticism to irrational skepticism in order to get approval from other skeptics, but this level of disconnection from the observable reality is ridiculous.

"On Wikipedia, you’ll have to wait until it’s been picked up in mainstream journals, or get that to happen first." Thanks for the idea, I'll work on that.

Mdavid9 (talk) 17:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)