Talk:Alchemy

Alchemy Museums - the Alchemist's cave in Prague

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)

Wiki Education assignment: History of Science to Newton

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)

Aristotle and alchemy

Hi Iley1228! Thanks for your contribution to this article. Unfortunately, I have needed to revert it, since there are several problems with it:

1. Scholars generally agree that (western) alchemy originated in the late Hellenistic period, with the writings attributed to Democritus (pseudo-Democritus, dated to circa 54–68 CE) being the earliest surviving texts. Although earlier (Greek) natural philosophy did influence alchemy, it's misleading to speak about it as if it were part of alchemy's own history. The discussion of early Greek natural philosophy therefore does not belong in the Byzantium section, but in a separate section on pre-alchemical ideas on material constitution and change (theories of matter).
2. The source you used, Hopkins 1934, is seriously dated (see WP:AGE MATTERS). One consequence of this is that Hopkins' claim (pp. 25–27) that Aristotle's theory of growth formed the basis for alchemical theories of transmutation needs some qualification. Among Aristotle's four causes, the final cause (and more generally the concept of entelechy or the natural tendency to a formal state of 'perfection') is still considered an important part of most alchemical theories (see, e.g., Newman 2004), but it is now generally recognized that alchemical theory of matter was fundamentally opposed to Aristotelian hylomorphism and adopted instead a theory of the corpuscularian kind (Newman 2006, pp. 13, 224–225 et passim). This corpuscularian theory in turn did have roots in Meteorology IV, which despite the fact that it was probably written by Aristotle did not take a hylomorphistic approach (see Newman 2001; Viano 2002; Viano 2006). Thus, the interplay of matter and form in Aristotle's theory of growth has been amply shown to be absent from –and indeed antithetical to– alchemical theories. Instead it is now recognized that alchemy drew upon the corporealist/materialist approaches of Hellenistic philosophies like Stoicism (see Gourinat 2005 [updated English translation in Gourinat 2009]; Dufault 2015; Rinotas 2017; Rinotas 2021).
3. In general, it's probably a bad idea to write a single short paragraph only covering Plato and Aristotle. As you can see from the above this is a rather complex subject, which means that it needs a lot of context for the reader to understand. Even if Hopkins 1934's claim about the influence of Aristotle's theory of growth would still hold up today, and if we were to write something about it in our article, we would need to explain what that theory of growth was and how precisely alchemists made use of it. What you wrote, his 4 steps to growth were used by future philosophers as a way to achieve alchemy, is incomprehensible for an average reader without context.
4. When citing sources that have page numbers for claims made in wiki-voice (i.e., in articles), always be sure to include them in your citation.

One more tip: since alchemy in general is a difficult subject, it's probably best not to dive into the specialist sources I cited above. Instead, try some newer introductory coursebooks on the subject (similar to Hopkins 1934 but much more recent and up to date), such as Principe 2013 or Joly 2013. Especially Principe 2013 is a joyful read, and I'm sure you'll find something interesting in it to add to this article. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:23, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

• Dufault, Olivier (2015). "Transmutation Theory in the Greek Alchemical Corpus". Ambix. 62 (3): 215–244.
• Gourinat, Jean-Baptiste (2005). "La théorie stoicienne de la matière: entre la matérialisme et une relecture 'corporaliste' du Timée". In Viano, Cristina (ed.). L'Alchimie et ses racines philosophiques: La tradition grecque et la tradition arabe. Paris: Vrin. pp. 37–62.
• Gourinat, Jean-Baptiste (2009). "The Stoics on Matter and Prime Matter: 'Corporealism' and the Imprint of Plato's Timaeus". In Salles, Ricardo (ed.). God and cosmos in Stoicism. Oxford: Oxford university press. pp. 46–70.
• Hopkins, Arthur John (1934). Alchemy, child of Greek philosophy. New York: Columbia University Press.
• Joly, Bernard (2013). Histoire de l'alchimie. Paris: Vuibert. ISBN 2311012487.
• Newman, William R. (2001). "Corpuscular Alchemy and the Tradition of Aristotle's Meteorology, with Special Reference to Daniel Sennert". International Studies in the Philosophy of Science. 15: 145–153.
• Newman, William R. (2004). Promethean Ambitions: Alchemy and the Quest to Perfect Nature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-57524-7.
• Newman, William R. (2006). Atoms and Alchemy: Chymistry and the Experimental Origins of the Scientific Revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0226576961.
• Principe, Lawrence M. (2013). The Secrets of Alchemy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0226103792.
• Rinotas, Athanasios (2017). "Stoicism and Alchemy in Late Antiquity: Zosimus and the Concept of Pneuma". Ambix. 64 (3): 203–219.
• Rinotas, Athanasios (2021). "Spiritual and Material Conversion in the Alchemical Work of Zosimus of Panopolis". Religions. 12 (1008).
• Viano, Cristina, ed. (2002). Aristoteles chemicus: Il IV libro dei ‘Meteorologica’ nella tradizione antica e medievale. Sankt Augustin: Academia Verlag.
• Viano, Cristina (2006). La matière des choses. Le Livre IV des Météorologiques d'Aristote et son interprétation par Olympiodore avec le texte grec revisé et une traduction inédite de son Commentaire au Livre IV. Paris: Vrin.

Article issues and classification

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)

Adding subsections “Hermetica and Emerald Tablet”

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)