Talk:Philosopher's stone/Archive 1

Archive 1

Removed "Golem": Substituted "Homunculus"

In the section under Properties I have substituted "Homunculus" for "Golem." Paracelsus, the authority cited, does not refer to "Golem" but he does to Homunculus. --Justificatus (talk) 10:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

(Untitled section)

The section 'Health benefits' should be removed as the author cited does not appear to have proper credentials and it claims that benefits of taking mentioned substances are being unfairly undermined. I've has trouble trying to edit this section, someone with more experience sort this out?

The claim and references that the Philosopher's Stone is equivalent to monatomic gold should probably be removed since this unproven although evidence may exist towards that view. It may be better put under a sub-section with other claims of what the Philosopher's Stone may be. [SGA 10 Dec 2006]

Removed the following: " Scientifically, monatomic gold is a superconductor and certain unknown element(s) in the human brain super conducts when it functions in certain situations, and monatomic gold is one of the very rare elements found in nature that contain such superconductors[1]." There is no scientific basis for these claims and the website referenced is a commercial site to sell "monatomic gold elixir". This does not belong in a Wikipedia page. [SGA 10 Dec 2006]

The article is too science-centric and does not discuss the alchemist's views, thus it is not NPOV. philosopher's stone is symbolical, not mythical :) Optim 23:14, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Added the symbolic meaning, as well as I could, and deleted the NPOV notice. Jorge Stolfi 02:08, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This article doesn't look like a stub to me (at least not anymore), so I thought it'd be better to remove the message. Mackeriv 13:57, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Summaries of other notable claims are needed, e.g. Nicolas Flamel (more important than Kelley). Also, more details are needed on the concept itself:

• Is there a connection between the philosopher's stone and the legend of Craesus?
• Could an alchemist have manufactured solid gold chloride in those times?
• The spanish page claims that many (most?) alchemists believed that the philosopher's stone would specifically allow the union of sulphur and mercury. If I recall my chemistry correctly, the two are united in the natural mineral cinnabar, which is easily decomposed by heat; and the process cannot be easily reversed. (One could prepare mercury sulphide by wet chemistry, but that is rather tricky and it would yield a black powder, which cannot be melted without decomposition).
  Was there actually such belief? Perhaps this theory was inspired by the fact that both cinnabar and gold chloride are red powders?
  Jorge Stolfi 14:48, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

The article Nicolas Flamel redirects to Nicholas Flamel.

Brianjd 06:22, 2004 Jun 16 (UTC)

As it should. MasterXiam 22:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Veneration of Mary recognized in 1950

"Marian veneration was only officially recognized by the Roman Catholic Church in 1950, with the dogmatic proclamation of the Assumption of Mary, a decade after Jung developed his theory."

I believe this statement is wrong. Jaroslav Pelikan, in "Mary Through the Centuries" on pages 59-61 notes that there was a liturgical commemoration of Mary — perhaps even a festival — as far back as the time of Athanasius (4th c.). The Hail Mary has been around since the 11th century, the rosary since the 13th. Countless churches and cathedrals have been dedicated to Mary. Visions of Mary have been recognized as authentic for centuries.

I'm not sure what the statement is trying to assert, but it seems to be inaccurate. Perhaps the contributor is confusing a dogmatic proclamation, which is doctrinal (an article of faith that's binding on all Roman Catholics) and veneration, which is merely devotional.
Jeffrois 21:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I concur; this statement is absolutely false and its writer, it seems, rather confused. Veneration of the Virgin Mary as a matter both of doctrine and practice, dates from the earliest centuries of the Church. E.g., she was proclaimed as "Theotokos" ("God-bearer" or "Mother of God") by the Council of Ephesus in 431. See the Catholic Encyclopedia article here: http://www.newadvent.org/library/almanac_14388a.htm

As an aside, I would also note that although it is true that the Assumption of Mary was not dogmatically defined until 1950, belief in it was also ancient and widespread. The Wikipedia entry for the Assumption of Mary states that "apocryphal accounts of the assumption of Mary into heaven have circulated since at least the 4th century." --Virginis Defensor (talk) 05:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, if the author is purely referring to papal recognition of Marian devotion, he seems to have forgotten the proclamation in 1854 of the Immaculate Conception by Pius IX. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bilcarter (talk • contribs) 04:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The stone in fiction

The moment I saw that heading I thought of the novel Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone.
Is it really necessary? Can any other fiction involving the stone be mentioned?
Brianjd 06:19, 2004 Jun 16 (UTC)

Who is this Harry Potter guy? 8-)
Jorge Stolfi 07:52, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Find out by reading the first novel or watching the first movie in the series, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (renamed to Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone in the US).
Brianjd 06:47, 2004 Jun 17 (UTC)

I suppose the "8-)" was too subtle...
All the best, Jorge Stolfi 09:24, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Cleanup needed

The following paragraph reads like a bunch of mumbo-jumbo:

It should also be added that Alchemy, as it is an Esoteric art, makes extensive use of analogy, symbolism, and so forth to relate mystical truths and observations. The concept of a "stone," therefore, is the most tangible and dense crystalization, or condensation, of a subtle substance. The "Philosophers' Stone" is that tangible manifestation or actualization of the inner potential of the spirit toward the highest, most abstract state. The idea that such a "stone" may convert base metals into gold is indicative of the true goal of the Great Work, which is the purification of the spirit and the transformation of its base, instinctual vices into those virtues which stem from higher reason. Thus, the spirit tends toward the highest state of spiritual evolution, which is symbolically represented by gold. Just as the spirit is the most subtle and intangible aspect of man, so must we cause its faculties and potentials to manifest themselves downward into tangible, physical existence so that our minds, which is the emanation from the spirit into the material realm, and our bodies may be rejuvenated and restored to their original purity. Hence, the idea of the "Philosophers' Stone" is born, and has been quite misunderstood from this time onward.

Can someone clean it up, or should it just be deleted? Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 20:26, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

In the absence of any response, I have deleted the offending paragraph. Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 17:03, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

I'm actually glad you kept it in here, at least, because that's actually useful. I don't see it as information - those who understand that "mumbo-jumbo" can find a lot of meaning in that. MasterXiam 06:39, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Can you put it back? Thanks 66.82.9.77 17:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

This sentence appears to be a fragment, and it's not clear enough to me what the author meant to fix it up myself:

Jabir's theory and the concept of knowledge that metals like gold and silver could be hidden in alloys and ores, from which they could be recovered by the appropriate chemical treatment.

YtseWolf 13:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

As the paragraph is it is quit sufficient. It takes years to accumulate the understanding of the symbolic and metaphorical language used in Alchemy. In truth, the same information is available everywhere and in plane language and very simple to understand. To make it plane for all to understand would violate the premise that there are those people who would use it for harmful purposes. I was surprised to see the explanation presented here in such plain language, and also surprised that someone thought it was mumbo-jumbo. I'm sure anyone who knows how to do a little research could probably find everything right here in this site. I would leave it as it is, there are those who will come this way, and it will serve as a reminder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkildow (talk • contribs) 20:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Mushroom

The paragraph about the mushroom should not be in the article between two paragraphs about the mythological stone. I have moved it back to the bottom. If you think that gives the mushroom short shrift, then spin the mushroom off to its own page, and put a disambiguation message in italics at the top of this article that says something like This article is about the mythological stone. For the mushroom, see Philosopher's stone (mushroom). Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 17:09, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

The term "Philosopher's Stone", when used as a mycological slang term, doesn't refer to the mushroom fruitbody. It refers to the unusual sclerotia of the mushroom. --SamClayton 09:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

In fiction

Along these lines: can we make a somewhat arbitrary rule which will narrow down references to things which are interesting/useful? I would say that "In fiction" should refer only to books and maybe cinema. Not cartoons, TV shows, or video games. Would anybody support this? I get so annoyed seeing decent articles degrade into discussions of the thousands of video games they appear in. (other things of this nature include nuclear weapon and mad scientist (which eventually sprouted List of mad scientists) as it became too unmanageable. Am I alone in this? --Fastfission 04:14, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fiction is anything not real. Sorry. MasterXiam 09:00, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Books, cinema, theater, and comics/cartoons are all valid fiction. Video games would also count. In any case, references should be sorted more or less by relevance, with works primarily concerned with the subject listed before works containing arbitrary mentions of the subject, regardless of the type of art. Fullmetal Alchemist, despite being a manga/anime, is still a work of length dealing almost completely with the Philosopher's stone. Harry Potter, despite being more popularly associated with the subject, and a book/ movie, only mentions the stone in a small portion at the end of the first installment, with little or no significance for the entire series. Relevance is more important than the 'nobility' of the art. It would make sense, though to make separate sections for books, movies, and/or games, whenever a page has overwhelming numbers of these. --LordHoborgXVII

I think Harry Potter and the Philospher's Stone has quite a fair bit to do with the Philospher's Stone, wouldn't you agree? Smashbrother101 (talk) 22:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Arsenic

Arsenic is not a metal --83.103.132.96 12:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well... in chemistry, it's known as a metalloid (yeah, I checked when I wrote this). However, in alchemy, it is considered a metal - as is sulphur. - MasterXiam 03:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

speaking of chemistry as for the red appearance, one of the possible explanations for this is Cinnabar which as we know is a great source of Mercury and mercury can be used to refine gold refining and Making were often confused. The alchemist would take some gold rich ore (which could just look like rock) crush it up throw it in a pot with mercury(extracted from a red looking gem) in it the gold would bind to the mercury to make a gold amalgam then simply pour the amalgam in to a pot heat to boil off the mercury (which was not vary a healthy practice) then you are left with a chunk of vary pure gold. few years ago I ran across this in a historical spell for making gold and I personally know of the gold refining process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.32.231.2 (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Fiction (again)

Hey, do you remember Tomb Raider 5: Chronicles? There's a philosopher's stone too!!! --Dread83 19:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC) (italian user)

I'm not big into Tomb Raider, but I'm sure there is... I think Tomb Raider often does that... kinda like a female Indiana Jones, she goes after things of mythology. Then again, I'm only going on the movies... the second which is one that I actually recall something really from mythology, Pandora's Box. Though it's a little different from the Greek Legend. MasterXiam 03:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Position of the Apostrophe

I have one minor query. Shouldn’t the term be “Philosophers’ Stone” - i.e. genitive plural ( note the position of the apostrophe ), as in the stone of the philosophers? My Pocket Oxford Dictionary supports this view. If you do a search for the original Latin for the two options you get “Lapis Philosophorum” ( Gen. Plur. ) 4,540 times and “Lapis Philosophi” ( Gen. Sing. ) only 72 times - and most of those refer to the translation of the Rowling book. I suspect the confusion has arisen as a result of the novel written by that ignorant working class housewife.

From what I understand, it's been that way long before Harry Potter was around. Sorry. Although yes, I do commonly see "Lapis Philosophorum" or, when Anglicized, "Stone of the Philosophers." But I'm sure "Philosopher's Stone" has been around a good while, perhaps not by one person's choice to write it that way, but by an evolution of the term over time. After all, "Chemistry" has come a long way from "Alchemy." MasterXiam 02:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

"ignorant working class housewife." - nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.244.83.194 (talk) 16:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

"ignorant working class housewife.": This is an objectionable and extremely snobbish thing to say about somebody who has done so much to encourage young people to read. You are the worst sort of intellectual snob and if you cannot comment on things in a professional, non-abusive, way then please refrain from making any comment at all.

Aside from the classism and generally unhelpful attitude of the original comment, they are right. It should be "philosophers' stone", not "Philosopher's Stone" (it should not be capitalised either) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlbertGenower1 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Kelley's escape

However, Kelley eventually ran out of his magic powders, was jailed by Rudolf in a tower of his castle, and died of injuries sustained in an extravagant escape attempt.

Sounds like I would like to hear more of this escape. :) Anyone?

That should go into Edward Kelley of course. IIRC, there is an account of that episode in Fell-Smith's commented summary of John Dee's diaries, which used to be available in netland. Basically he tried to escape through the window with an improvised ropw, which was too short. The account comes from a letter sent by an Englishman in Prague to someone at Elizabeth's court. But there seem to be doubts about the truthfulness of that account. Jorge Stolfi 18:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

How silly of me. Should have clicked on Kelley's article. :) --Steerpike 23:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Video games

Almost every one of the video game references are beyond trivial ("it is a key required to enter the underworld.", "is one of Patchouli Knowledge's spell cards.", "restores the player's points"). Can we think seriously about whether this trivia enhances the entry or not or could conceivably be of any use to anyone? Currently the amount of trivia outweighs any substantive content. --Fastfission 05:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

hmm. It adds to the point that such a concept has been referenced to many times. deadkid_dk 06:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Note that the "Sage's Stone" (called "kenja no ishi" in the original Japanese, thus making it the same object as the philosopher's stone) also appeared in the first two Star Ocean games, where it could be worked into jewelry, weapons, and the like (much like orichalcum, another mystical metal with numerous appearances in popular culture). --Anonymous Star Ocean fan, 23 June 2006

In Broken Sword: Angel of Death, monatomic gold (philosophers stone) is central to the plot, maybe someone could add it?

Added the use of philosopher's stones in world of warcraft. Anybody who has played as an alchemist knows the perks you gain from owning one of the more advanced stones when it is equipped as a trinket, not to mention transmutations of metals and elements. Which I think plays along well with the lore behind a philosopher's stone very well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.121.103.105 (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Latin

In latin is it "lapis philosophorum" or "philosophi lapis"?

I've been asking me that question for some time, too. If it's "lapis philosophorum", then the English version should be called "Philosophers' Stone"... Can't anyone answer that question? ;-) Would be interesting. :-) --Monk0512 21:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

If philosopher is in the singular it would be lapis philosophi, if plural lapis philosophorum. "philosophus" is not a noun, it's an adjective meaning philosophical. Here it is used as a substantive, literally "stone of the philosophical". Wiktionary says it's the singular version, but other than that I don't know of any source in the original Latin, or if there even was one accepted version in medieval Latin. In any case, the article's reference to the feminine gender is irrelevant nonsense, and in fact substantives are technically neuter. The snippet from the article...

"(In Latin, "philosophorum" is the plural genitive and translates to "of the philosophers", not the possessive tense "of just one philosopher", rather the feminine tense generalizing as belonging to the profession of philosophy as a whole and not one in profession of the pursuit.)"

...really doesn't make a lot of sense. "philosophi" is being used as a concrete noun to describe a person. We do the same thing in English, just not as often.

tldr: the snippet is irrelevant shit, get rid of it

174.102.189.213 (talk) 07:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

References

Zipes, Jack. Spells of Enchantment. New York: Viking, 1991. - This is not a good reference. It's dated and non-academic. You might as well reference a Marvel comic.

Also known as

Amandajm wrote in recent edit: "What nonsense! These concepts are associated with "spiritual alchemy" but are NOT names for the philosophers stone." What exactly do you mean? According to Max Heindel those are the same as the philosopher's stone, it is almost an exact quote from his book. How is it nonsense if it is referenced? Do you mean that it is an alternative interpretation which should not be mentioned in the opening paragraph? Anton H 14:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Bypass pipe

Regarding last edit by IPSOS, I disagree with changing the wikilink to the Samael Aun Weor section into a link to the top of the article, simply because the sexual magic mentioned in this article is Samael's kind which is very different from that of the others. Anton H 21:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge in Carmot

This is a minor fictional element that is strongly related to the Philosophers stone, and would add some background to this article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 07:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Recommend just doing it. Seems pretty obvious as a solution to me. Go for it! VigilancePrime (talk) 07:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Transmutation claims are older than Jabir!

However, the concept of ensuring youthful health originated in China, while the concept of transmuting one metal into a more precious one (silver or gold) originated from the theories of the 8th century Arab alchemist, Jabir ibn Hayyan.

Huh? Whoever wrote this part appears to be totally oblivious of the considerable mass of Alexandrian and Byzantine literature on alchemy, and that the treatises attributed to Jabir sometimes also cite or refer to older alchemical authorities. It's pretty obvious that transmutation claims are much older than Jabir. Its origins are in the alchemy of Alexandria and China (interest in transmutation can also be found in Chinese writers before Jabir.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abar Nuhas (talk • contribs) 11:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Carl Jung

Does anybody else think that this page should mention Carl Jung's psychological interpretation of alchemical process -- namely that he saw the cultivation of the philosopher's stone as a metaphor for the individuation process? Reidlophile (talk) 00:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Listcruft

This article is almost entirely a list of works that have mentioned the Philosopher's stone. I'd like to suggest that as a starting point, we remove any media that does not have its own article (since it's unlikely that the cultural reference is significant if no-one has bothered to write an article on the work).

I'd then propose removing works where the philosopher's stone is not a primary plot device. Simply listing works that mention the stone does not add to the reader's understanding of the stone.

Finally, once we have a much shorter list, we should reference as many of the works (with independent references, detailing the importance of the work's use of the stone as a plot device). Any that can't be referenced should go.

Thoughts? -- (ɔ|ʇ) uıɐʌoɥɔ ʞɹɐɯ 03:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I probably reached this page through the same route as User:Chovain, but I must agree. Brief mention of works that use the stone as a major plot element are fine, but there is no need or benefit to have an exhaustive list of all mentions of the concept. -Verdatum (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to make my way through these over the next couple of days. -- (ɔ|ʇ) uıɐʌoɥɔ ʞɹɐɯ 23:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Period texts

The first entry in the list of literature is Natural Magic, which is not a work of literature, but a science text (the term "science" didn't become popularly used until the late 18th century). It doesn't belong on that list, but it, and works like it do belong in this article. highlighting period texts that discuss the concept of the philosopher's stone would be a welcome addition to this article. These works can be added to the article in paragraph format. Secondary sources discussing these period texts may be found amongst histories of alchemy. (I recall reading an extremely informative one in college, the entire preface was devoted to the philosopher's stone, I'll try to find it.) -Verdatum (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Edward Elric

In this article, Edward Elric is an alchemist. But follow the link --> a fictional character in the Fullmetal Alchemist anime and manga series. So he is real or fictional ??? (sorry if my english is not very well) Nghia1991ad (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I replaced that reference with the name of another real alchemist, Frater Albertus. Frotz (talk) 22:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Music / Van Morrison

Van Morrison has an album title "The Philosopher's Stone." Additionally, he has a song on "Back On Top" entitled "Philosophers Stone"

Not sure if that's worthy of a mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.133.193.213 (talk) 05:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

As an alchemist my self i think it would be a great idea if someone would put procedures, and ingrediants people tried to make the stone out of in the past. Faild attempts and what not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IamWester (talk • contribs) 22:26, 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 (~~~~).

Claim of origins

First, don't you think "Claim of origin" would be a better section heading here? We do NOT KNOW the origins of this concept of a philosophers' stone. Also, I do not think it wise to fuss about where the apostrophe belongs on the word "philosophers". No one cares.

Secondly, I have a huge problem with this, from the "Origins" section: "Another great South Indian saint, Ramalinga Swamigal (1823-1874) dissolved his perfected body into blinding white light just as another earlier sage, Manickavasagar had done in the seventh century."

Does this not seem a bit stupidly phrased? It should qualify the statement about the BELIEF that Ramalinga dissolved his body, unless of course the man actually poured acid on himself and dissolved in public. Same goes for Manikkavasagar (fix the spelling of his name or don't, I don't care).

Do you see my point?75.21.111.206 (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. This section contradicts later points (Jabir etc.). I'd like to see sources on the Hindu origin. I'm unaware of any evidence of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.46.204.206 (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Overhaul

I'm new to Wikipedia, I have deep knowledge in this subject, and I intend to help actively contribute to this article, and also the Alchemy article. For a start, why is half of this article references to comics, video games and music? There is very little good information for those who are researching the Philosophers' Stone. I would like to see a lot more information with references supporting each point. I will begin the make contributions to this article over the next few days, especially in regards to the history. Please respond if you have any problem with this. Will Timony, Ph.D (talk) 08:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I have move the section on comics, video games and music to a separate page, as it is taking a lot of space indeed. Your contributions are welcome! Please take note of Wikipedia:Verifiability Wiki-uk (talk) 08:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Good move. Looks better already! Will Timony, Ph.D (talk) 09:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I intend to rewrite the opening paragraph to clarify with further details regarding what the Philosopher's Stone actually is, with citations from alchemical texts. I intend to clean up and expand the history section. Currently the history focuses on only specific historical details and personages, I will provide a broader range of detail. I also intend to create a new section in regards to descriptions of the fabled appearance and powers of the Philosopher's Stone, naturally with citations. Concerning the "Alchemical process" section, I am concerned that this is again very specific to only two "recipes". Considering that the alchemical writings give such a great number of different "recipes", and other alchemical writings claim that all recipes were deceptive, I think this needs some form of change. I'm not exactly sure what would be the best option for that right now. To include more "recipes" would make it messy and no more informative. To delete it would be a shame. I am sure there is a solution which would solve this issue, but I'm not certain what that would be at this time. Will Timony, Ph.D (talk) 13:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I have changed the opening paragraph. My reasons are that the previous opening paragraph was both uninformative and bias. It actually stated that the philosopher's stone is a metaphor for enlightenment, which is only one popular interpretation of many. I made three new statements, which are backed with citations: (1) it can also make silver, (2) it only allows life to be extended for hundreds of years, (3) it comes in two varieties. Will Timony, Ph.D (talk) 09:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you find more recent reliable sources (where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications) for these statements? See WP:SOURCES. Wiki-uk (talk) 14:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Surely, the original sources which this article is actually about qualify? These are sources several hundred years old. The entire legend of the Philosopher's Stone is based around these sources, so these qualify. Anyway, the previous statements had no quality citation, so the text was only improved. For a historical subject, historical sources qualify. If you would like to change it then do so, but you must also have sources to support your change. Will Timony, Ph.D (talk) 14:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I felt this article needed further and specific details on the fabled properties and effects of the philosopher's stone. I added new sections: appearance, properties, multiplication, transmutation, medicinal, interpretations. All statements have citation to credible sources. I provided the details without any bias, which is why every statement contains a citation to a credible source and no assumptions have been made on my part. The sources are original alchemical literature from between the 13th and 17th centuries, most were translated by A. E. Waite from Latin. Some were originally in German. If anyone has any issue with the new sections please respond and we can discuss. Will Timony, Ph.D (talk) 06:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

These edits are presenting opinions specific to the BoAquarius. This is a very modern non-academic web published work. This does not qualify under WP:SOURCES. Author, please remove links and references to this work. The interpretations section is basically a plug for this book. Multiplication section is biased. Also multiplication has it's own page which could use some love. Much of the material Waite and other occult revivalists present may contradict earlier work and you may wish to cross-check it. Car Henkel (talk) 20:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I don't understand your concern, as my additions here are actually referenced to original alchemical literature. I consider BoAquarius valuable only as a collection of quotes, which make up more than 50% of the content in it. There are only 2 occasions where I used BoAquarius as source and that is 3 years for the time it takes, and the hybrid species of animals comment. These statements can both be removed if you have a problem with them. All other statements do not use BoAquarius as source. But since BoAquarius is a collection of quotes, and what is effectively a bias commentary on them, then of course it will say some of the same things as the alchemical literature says - as do all alchemical commentaries. But it does not make the original sources invalid just because some modern alternative website wrote a similar thing. I wasn't aware there was a separate section for multiplication, so this can perhaps be merged there. As for Waite, what you're saying is not valid because not all of the sources were translated by him, and even the ones that were are only translations and do not contain any of the 19-20th century occult revival (which he was into, but did not put into his translations from any of the sources here). Concerning interpretations, I was trying to cover all beliefs without any bias/speculation/assumption, so I don't understand why you feel this way. To exclude BoAquarius concept of the mythology being true is bias. To emphasize the spiritual interpretations, as originally in this article, is bias. The only way to be unbias is to present all interpretations without speculating or giving opinion. I covered the following interpretations: protoscience, belief, spiritual, and superstition. Will Timony, Ph.D (talk) 02:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Made edits to exclude BoAquarius links and references as discussed above. Retained narrative with citation needed marks so that academic (preferably secondary) sources can be referred to if someone has them. Took a stab at rewriting a balanced Interpretations section that includes exoteric and esoteric thought and excludes book plug. Car Henkel (talk) 01:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

OK. It looks good, I like the way you wrote Interpretations. My only concern regarding the Interpretations section is that it does not discuss the mainstream scientific opinion that the whole thing could be simply superstition. I can provide citation for the first paragraph in Properties, although I think it is already accepted that the philosopher's stone is claimed to transmute base metals to gold and prolong life, so I would expect that that claim does not need a citation. I will attempt to look for alternative sources for the other two statements with citation needed. Will Timony, Ph.D (talk) 02:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

One other thing: it sounds leaning towards the spiritual interpretation by the words "it is clear that" in Interpretations (clear to who?) I think that should be changed to a less bias phrasing. Will Timony, Ph.D (talk) 02:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Re Skepticism: Maybe that would be better under a general discussion of alchemy? Re "clear that":Took that language from the source but yes, my writing could use some tweaks if you're inclined. Re Multiplication: Transferred to Multiplication (alchemy).Car Henkel (talk) 16:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

It looks to me that half of the separate articles in Alchemical Processes category would do more good if they are merged into either Alchemy or Philosopher's stone. At the moment I doubt many people find them and they provide only a paragraph or two, which is not very useful. They are also out of context as they are. It would be better if they were merged back into either of the above and redirected. Thoughts? Will Timony, Ph.D (talk) 06:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Merged Mutliplication and Projection into Philosopher's stone. Makes much more sense, and follows WP:R guidelines. Will Timony, Ph.D (talk) 13:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Car, why did you revert the intro paragraph? It's completely bias towards to spiritual interpretation. That is not what this article is supposed to be about. This article is supposed to be a neutral point of reference for those who want to learn about the mythology of the philosopher's stone. Will Timony, Ph.D (talk) 12:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC) Considering that the previous (my) version had citation for all statements, and the older and current version does not, I have reverted it again to how it was. I'm not sure why you chose to revert, it would help if you gave your reasons for any change made, to avoid misunderstandings. I'm sure it's possible to come to an agreement concerning the intro paragraph that everyone is happy with, assuming you are not trying to push a particular interpretation. Without any explanation I have changed it back to what I wrote (with a little change to keep a similar feel with the former), since this actually provides references for the statements (sources count, not what you feel is the truth). We can discuss if you have a problem with this. No hard feelings, I just want to do this properly. :) Will Timony, Ph.D (talk) 12:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

We've already discussed this. See revision notes and talk. Also: Please use some secondary sources. I will likely revert some of this again and will insert references to the pre-existing text when I get a chance. If you want to counter some bias, perhaps a better approach is to add rather than subtract. Re: your above note on processes... this would be messy. Some process stuff is inserted into chemistry related articles. Also see the magnum opus page. Let's both constructively add content from the perspectives of this topic we're educated in and I'm sure it'll work out in the end. Less debate... more create. :) Car Henkel (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your intentions. My paragraph has citation for support each statement. Primary sources, but non-interpreted, and so valid. So why would you revert this to an older version without citation which pushes one particular interpretation? This is certainly not what we discussed. The reason we should talk instead of just change is to stop this from turning into an editing war, which it will likely do if you insist on pushing a spiritual interpretation presented as fact on a mythological subject. Example: I cited an original source (one of many) which claims that the Philosopher's Stone can transmute any base metal into gold or silver; you reverted this back to only gold. Is there any source, primary or secondary, which claims only gold? If so, both explanations should be included. If not, then only mine. The old paragraph is massively bias towards the spiritual interpretation, I'm sure you can see this, but you chose to revert it to that. This is not objective. If you remove any statement with citation and replace with a statement without citation then I am surely correct to revert it back again to the version which is unbias and actually has sources for the statements made. Will Timony, Ph.D (talk) 02:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we've misunderstood each other... The reversion to the original was not done because I have a problem with any of the points you've presented. The reversion was done because the major overhaul as a whole deleted too much without reason. For example: "For many centuries, it was the most sought-after goal in Western alchemy, meditated upon by alchemists, such as Sir Isaac Newton, Nicolas Flamel, and Frater Albertus." was deleted. This is not biased towards a spiritual interpretation and I think we can agree we don't need references for this. On the point of spiritual, the original "The philosopher's stone was the central symbol of the mystical terminology of alchemy, symbolizing perfection, enlightenment, and heavenly bliss." was replaced with "Today, many people believe that the philosopher's stone was a metaphor for spiritual enlightenment.". Neither are cited. Neither are making blankets statements regarding the whole of alchemy. However,the later is less precise and implies it's a new practice. In reverting, I had hoped smaller edits could be made to correct any problems in the original intro, without totally re-writing it. (Yes, I am more likely to add content re: 'spiritual alchemy'... this is not a push... just working from my area of expertise... this is what I mean when I say we can counter-balance.)Car Henkel (talk) 06:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

"For many centuries, it was the most sought-after goal in Western alchemy, meditated upon by alchemists, such as Sir Isaac Newton, Nicolas Flamel, and Frater Albertus." is not technically incorrect, but I believe it is misleading and it also does need a citation. It wrongly implies that non-western alchemy was not interested in the Philosopher's Stone, it also puts Newton, Flamel and Frater Albertus in the same boat whilst excluding others, which is again misleading as these three thought very differently. I think that statement might be better to be elaborated on and put in the history section somewhere, with citation, but not in the intro. As for "Today, many people believe that the philosopher's stone was a metaphor for spiritual enlightenment." I put that in as a courtesy to the removed (bias) statement. I don't mind removing it, but it certainly should not be reverted to the original and bias statement, especially considering it is at the top of the article.

But I do understand where you're coming from. Certainly you seem to be very knowledgeable concerning spiritual alchemy. I'm more on the mythological and historical side, although I do support certain aspects of some spiritual interpretations. Here is what I think: the spiritual interpretation should have a big heading (possibly with subheadings) under Alchemy, and a small heading under Philosopher's stone, which I will not bug you over. The opening paragraph of each article should not lean towards any interpretation, only following the mythological and historical view. However, the opening paragraph could include a little teaser for the spiritual interpretation (as it is a popular interpretation) which is what I did with the ending statement "...many people believe...", as long as it is presented as an interpretation. I recommend you change the last statement in the intro to something you find more suitable, as long as it is not presented as a fact. I'm planning some more changes to Philosopher's stone and Alchemy, which I am working on at this time. Will Timony, Ph.D (talk) 12:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Done re: last sentence. If segregating 'spiritual' is what you want to do, "Appearance", "Interpretations" etc. would also have to be restructured. I've added to these to give broader information and will likely continue along that path if the structure of this article remains this way. Just for the record, I continue to feel that many of the recent edits we're too drastic in deleting *some* well phrased information and would not be surprised if other contributors adjust this going forward. Car Henkel (talk) 22:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Nicely put, but I found it a little misleading in the sense that it is again forwarding the view that the spiritual interpretation is correct (most people?), only less directly. Reworded slightly to clear up any confusion, please check. I'd be very pleased to see a well written spiritual alchemy section and interpretation for all alchemy related articles, but you don't need to mess with the mythological or historical info to push spiritual from all sides. Leave the myth as myth, the history as history, and then interpret this under a separate heading. As for what you're saying about deletions by myself, the only text I changed was the intro, where I removed bias statements and added unbias statements with citation. I only actually deleted (instead of modified with citation) 1 sentence, which we have already discussed ("For many centuries..."), and my reason being that it was misleading. Will Timony, Ph.D (talk) 06:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Made a number of cosmetic layout changes. Retitled 'alchemical process' -> 'Creation'. Moving some of the info in that section out to the Magnum Opus page. Will work on it further there. Adding in a few sentences here to tie it together as is done on the Alchemy page. Car Henkel (talk) 21:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks good, much more organized now! Will Timony, Ph.D (talk) 00:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Some little changes to Appearance: I removed the citation needed on the red stone appearance because the following 3 citations cover this (they are descriptions of the red stone but not the white stone, which is what I was saying, so it already has citation). I also slightly reworded the first sentence in the second paragraph. Will Timony, Ph.D (talk) 02:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Credible Sources

We need to discuss what is to be used as sources for alchemical articles and statements therein. On Wikipedia, secondary sources are preferred, although primary sources are also allowed depending on context. However, this is assuming that the secondary sources are factual. On alchemical subjects all secondary sources, without exception, are interpretations. This makes them subject to WP:RSOPINION, in which case all secondary sources for alchemical related articles must not be used for factual statements unless it is made clear that the information is an opinion. Another point to consider is that no interpretation is allowed on primary sources, they must be quoted directly and not interpreted. Whereas all interpretations must come from secondary sources.

What this means is that with alchemical topics on Wikipedia, in order to conform to the rules of Wikipedia, we should use PRIMARY SOURCES for factual statements (e.g. alchemy turns base metals into gold or silver), and we should use SECONDARY SOURCES for showing different interpretations (which is extremely important to the topic of alchemy, as it is mostly interpretation.) If secondary sources are used to make factual statements then we must show that this is an opinion based on a particular interpretation, as stated in WP:RSOPINION.

Summary: PRIMARY SOURCES (original alchemical texts) for factual statements on alchemy, which must not be interpreted. SECONDARY SOURCES (modern alchemical commentaries) for interpretations on the previous factual statements.

Every statement must have a source, or else this is just going to turn into a battle between spiritual/practical/skeptic interpretations. Following what I have said above we will be able to make a detailed, informative, and totally unbias article. Remember that the truth is not important to Wikipedia, only that the sources are credible. It is not Wikipedia's job to teach what alchemy is, it is Wikipedia's job to give a broad overview allowing the reader to see every side of the debate without confusion or being pushed towards one interpretations or another. The reader will make up their own mind in their own time, or lose interest. Wikipedia is helping them to come to their own conclusion, not giving them a conclusion. Will Timony, Ph.D (talk) 06:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

connection to Dan

I practice Falun Dafa, and our Teacher explains about Dan and Sarira, I think they correlate to this stone. The Dan, is cultivated in some of the Tao school, and Buddha school practices. It is usually known as Sarira, which is the part that is left, after the explosion. You can see pictures of it, in monks, after they died and cremated, that part is left. (it looks like a tooth or a bone, but it's glossy and very hard, because it's not made from substances in this dimension.)

I believe Alchemy was a kind of cultivation practice, but it was passed in hints and puzzles. (it wasn't allowed to be known by the common man, you had to devote yourself and enlighten to it, and cannot pursue it or take it)

To transform your body to a heavenly body, is what the metaphor of generating gold, from the ordinary substance meant.

Master Li explains that this dan is just part of the energy, it's just the "bomb" that explodes in the end, opening up all the gates, and supernormal powers, and more. etc. (you can read more about it, in the falun dafa website - all these secrets are public now.)

I saw images of sarira, in Christianity too. especially in Russian monasteries. There are many pictures of them, since many spiritual people reached their goal, whether it was low or high.

There is even an article on wikipedia about Sarira: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Śarīra#Pearl-like_Sariras

That's all. I think these concepts correlate, and are just another name used in the west. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.150.174.178 (talk) 04:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

solid state stone

The computer stone encapsulating contiusnes into immortal future (the fact today silicone chips cost proportionalyy by weight, more than gold, is nonessential commercial side efect). The article omiting one important property the vielezovers stone it need be able to guide the answers, what with today tech, is perhaps too tryvial for any computer. Is the last fact (is it a fact) worth mentioning? 24.15.127.148 (talk) 07:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Lay off the drugs. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 10:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

In Modern Physics

I'd say that it's worth mentioning the modern scientific approach to the issue of "turning base metals (such as lead) into gold". It seems to be quite informative that we have, in a way, created the philosopher's stone. It's called particle accelerator.

And as a reference, just in Jan 2014, Scientific American published an article about it link — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.91.23.78 (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Title

The title of the article should be "Philosophers' Stone," rather than "Philosopher's Stone." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.152.98 (talk) 04:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)