Talk:E. E. Rehmus

Notability tag

I see that someone has questioned the notability of this biography. I maintain that it is notable for at least two reasons:

1. The works of this author have had a demonstrable impact on occult sub-culture and, it appears, American counter-culture in general. One way to measure this impact would be to note that E.E. Rehmus is being read by, and therefore influencing the thought of, one of the members of the popular band Tool. This alone is arguably reason enough to assert Rehmus' notability. Another way to measure this impact would be to do a Google search on "E.E. Rehmus" and note the number of times Rehmus has been quoted in third-party blogs and webpages. I did such a search today (August 26th, 2008), and found at least 5 such third-party references in the first 20 hits.

2. Rehmus, by being a (former) member of the Prometheus Society, qualifies for biographical notability according to the extraordinary achievement guideline section of WP:BIO. That is, by being tested to be in the 99.975 percentile of human intelligence, he stands out from the general population by that fact alone as worthy of notice.

Finally, I should note that this page should not be construed as a "living biography," as I have information to the effect that Rehmus is now deceased, however I would still appreciate some form of reference-able third-party verification to that effect.

With all this in mind, I am removing the notability tag from the article. It is my opinion that both of my above main points need to be refuted before notability can be rightly questioned. Aletheon (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Article for The Magician's Dictionary

Should an article be made for his main "oeuvre" or should it only be redirected to this one? Since I haven't read it in its entirety, I feel a little bit at odds with the task of producing an article about a book whose content still eludes me. I feel that this brilliant book of his needs an article of its own. His work deserves more acknowledgement, more recognition. So many people have consulted it and been enlightened by its provocative stances and informations. Howdoesitflee (talk) 04:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on most points you've made here. I think that maintaining a high-quality, informative page on Rehmus will help "get the word out," so to speak. Having more links to his bio page from the myriad other relevant Wiki pages out there would be a good idea. Aletheon (talk) 00:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Recent changes

Well, I've navigated quite extensively on the net and threw in here almost everything that could be useful. What a shame that such a wonderful artist and researcher should leave so few trails behind! I strongly urge anyone who finds out more to update this page. Howdoesitflee (talk) 00:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Page look

Everybody can see that I'm far from being an expert at editing on Wikipedia, so I leave that polishing and finishing part to whoever feels at ease with manipulating data. Howdoesitflee (talk) 00:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I invested time in learning the arcanas of editing Wikipedia articles in the last months so I made the polishing myself, hopefully to everyone's satisfaction. Howdoesitflee (talk) 07:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Page move from "E.E. Rehmus" to "E. E. Rehmus"

While there isn't any sort of visible consensus as to how exactly his abbreviated name should be put, I just decided to go for the more "normal" approach and moved the page to its "appropriate" title. I doubt anyone would have argued strongly against it. "EE", "E.E.", "E E", and "E. E." are all found here and there, without any kind of logic. Vaughan's book solely uses "E. E."; I therefore felt authorized to go along, even though Rehmus' full name probably is Edward Rehmus--meaning that the middle "E." could only be for aesthetic and/or numerological and/or symbolical reasons. Howdoesitflee (talk) 04:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

"Reason and Rhyme" Blog

I found out he made some interesting posts on the "Reason and Rhyme" blog [1]. I'll make sure the links find their way into the article. Howdoesitflee (talk) 00:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as how Rehmus' posthumous posts were directly taken from Vaughan's book, I just explained the situation in the article's "Miscellaneous" subsection. Howdoesitflee (talk) 07:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The Magic of Ed Rehmus

Since I just discovered and subsequently bought Vaughan's book, I plan to add more details concerning his various personal and professional involvements in the following weeks. And after I learn how to correctly use the "reference" function... Howdoesitflee (talk) 04:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

That I did, and will try to continue doing so. Howdoesitflee (talk) 07:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Problem of sources

I'm writing this so as to justify the great number of references made to Vaughan's book in the article and the public's total dependence upon this source to gather valuable and reliable information on Edward Rehmus. I've been through the World Wide Web and back, navigating its infinite seas of data, and found practically nothing else which could aptly feed the writing of this article. That said (or written), I wish to inform all that more additions based on the contents of the aforementioned book will be made as I periodically pursue my spontaneous and partial perusals of this one solid source. Howdoesitflee (talk) 07:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Photos, drawings and copyrights

On the "Reason and Rhyme" blog I found various pictures and drawings of Rehmus which I'd like to incorporate into this article. I believe Fred Vaughan is the guy I need to communicate with in order to obtain the permission, but the operation looks slightly complicated, so I don't know if I will succeed. If anyone feels getting a hold of this man wouldn't be much of a problem, I urge you to go ahead and try to obtain the documents. I might give it a go in the next months. Howdoesitflee (talk) 07:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

"Biography" section

The "Biography" section as it presently looks ain't much of a biography, I know. I crammed more in there than I probably should have, but it looks slightly better that way than if I had just left each subsection as a regular section. My initial wish was to move the full description of The Magician's Dictionary from the lead section to another, more appropriate spot; that done, it looked awful all by itself, so I rearranged the whole thing to make it look more pleasant to the eye. Opinions may—will—diverge on that point, but hey! It's a free encyclopedia after all! As I continue to add more stuff in the article, I'm hoping to be able to fix the disposition to a point where it wouldn't have to be altered for a greater while.
• H☼ωdΘesI†fl∉∈ ^{KLAT} • 05:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)