Talk:Alchemy

I wrote about Alchemy in Prague, since Prague was a hub for massive scientific and artistic developments. I focused on the Alchemist’s Cave found after a flood, which was turned into a museum by a person who bought the place (so it was privatized). Some things to be thought about include how the cave connects to public history (If a person is in charge of curating the material) and is the cave is a memorial for alchemy. How is the interactivity of the cave/museum recreated as the original objects/interactivity (the doors opening the same as the original ones) part of a historical genre? How is talking about alchemy as a cool thing and mentioning only male alchemists create a historical power, vs how much of it is saving that past without adding presentism to it?Ushtima (talk) 12:25, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Your edits were removed, as they were a word-for-word copy-paste violation WP:COPYVIO from Google Translate of an article in the Spanish language National Geographic magazine. Not cool. BTW, I have been to the Speculum Alchemae/Alchemist's Cave/Museum of Alchemy in Prague, and although it is very interesting to see the historical artifacts, it is primarily a tourist attraction selling "elixirs", and I'm not sure it belongs in this article unless it is rewritten without copyright violations and backed up with reliable, verifiable independent sources WP:RS. Netherzone (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be annoyed by the fact the Prague exhibit has a commercial nexus (selling "elixirs") or is "privately owned". Selling merchandise at museums is a common practice (ie. - the "gift shop") as a way to offset operating costs and isn't considered something unethical. Is the Louvre or MET compromised for this same practice? The Prague exhibit is notable I think because it's a rare example of a genuine alchemical laboratory. Plagiarism isn't appropriate, but maybe the original article can be summarized and cited, like we do here for all sources. 57.135.233.22 (talk) 08:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

No, I was not annoyed, rather I was pointing out that Copyright violations WP:COPYVIO and WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASING are policy violations. Additionally, using the encyclopedia for promotion, advertising, marketing or the like WP:PROMO is also a policy violation. An encyclopedia is not an appropriate venue to advertise museum gift shops and what they sell. Netherzone (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2022 and 12 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): WildRhombus, Patissiereyumeiro (article contribs). Peer reviewers: SunnYxXxxx.

— Assignment last updated by Patt0400 (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Welcome! I for, for one, look forward to your contributions, but should a change you make be reverted, please don't be offended, just come here and make your case. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:28, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Reassess article to C-class, fails the B-class criteria. The "Further reading" section is the worse I have seen with 37 entries. This section is optional and I read that only 3% of Wikipedia articles have this. I am going to leave this ATM but will revisit it. Lacking any discussion on trimming (with a bush hog) I will cut the bottom half off. Also, as maintenance, I will cut all but the top three in the "External links". Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four. The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.

• ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
• LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
• WP:ELMIN: Minimize the number of links. -- Otr500 (talk) 07:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

  Article promotion is irrelevant. On a purely formal level this article is much closer to B-Class than to C-Class. But this is a bad article, just like there are many bad GA-Class articles. This does not matter to readers, and since I'm not sure to whom it actually does matter apart from Wikipedia editors, for my part you can assign this article any class you like, from stub to FA.

  Articles aren't good or bad because they meet or do not meet some list of criteria, but because they either have been written and curated by subject experts who know what they are writing about, or by random ignorant people on the internet. And this does affect readers.

  I've renamed the 'Further reading' section to the more fitting 'Bibliography'. If you are an expert on alchemy (I mean just someone who's read a substantial proportion of the sources listed in the bibliography and who might know about other sources, not necessarily a professional academic) and can improve this section of the article, please do so. If you are not and you are just going to arbitrarily 'cut' stuff because you personally think it's too much, then please refrain. Bibliography sections like this are very useful (arguably more useful than the articles themselves in many cases) for people who actually come to Wikipedia as a first stop to start researching a subject. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Reply: Some people like order and some people thrive in chaos. There are several areas I excel but concerning wallpaper, I expect I am among the approximately 5 billion unique global "ignorant" visitors to Wikipedia a year. I sometimes reflect on the fact that academia would likely not have an audience were it not for those less learned, ignorant if you will, of certain information yet desiring to know more. Socrates wrote extensively concerning intelligence and ignorance. "There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance." As far as the article, if I see I can make improvements, I will try. -- Otr500 (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Nobody likes to think that they're ignorant. This doesn't mean that there are no ignorant people, nor that they will not cobble up bad articles when given the chance. I'm not saying that you are ignorant, nor that anyone could or even should keep ignorant people from writing bad Wikipedia articles. God knows that there are many such people, many such articles. All I'm saying is that if one realizes one is ignorant about something, one may find it worth considering leaving the Wikipedia article about that thing alone. It's what Socrates would do. On the other hand of course, academics should less be playing Socrates, and just write Wikipedia articles. But I suspect we agree on that one. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

---Thanks. Otr500 (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Dear fellow Wikipedians,

I have taken the liberty of adding the subsections “Hermetica and Emerald Tablet” right after “Hellenistic Egypt#Mythology”, and copy-pasting the first parts of the leads of the “Hermetica” and “Emerald Tablet” pages (slightly trimmed). I got that idea while noting how much the editors of the Emerald Tablet lead managed to convey in so few words. I have added nothing. Nor have I checked that the sources verify what they claim to verify. It is my understanding that this is not required when copying from one part of Wikipedia to another, even if desirable. It is not my intention to hold forth Hermetica or the Emerald Tablet in particular. For all I know there may be other, even more foundational works. Should it be decided that these copied texts are superfluous I don’t mind at all, but even then, I still think, though, that the common source texts of Islamic and Western alchemy should have their own little paragraph somewhere in the article. The Cosmic Ocean (Please feel free to modify or undo any of my edits as deemed appropriate.) 00:06, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Copying text without looking at the sources is always a dangerous enterprise. I have checked the added text for errors though, and as someone who is closely familiar with the literature on this subject I can say that the info is accurate. Thanks for doing this. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

The first revision of this article, then titled "AlchemY", was well-written, but lacked any formatting, was quite biased, had no citations as we know them today, was curiously left-aligned, and even was signed at the end (imagine an editor doing that today!)

It evolved from that to F.A. status. Interesting to think about. OmegaAOLtalk? 17:54, 2 November 2025 (UTC)