Jump to content

Talk:Thelema/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Thelemic Personalities

It would help the NPOV if we could aseemble a verifiable list of Thelamites. Being an individualist-based philosphy we will have an ecclectic group, but this is the only way to give people a realistic and honest interpretation. The list on the O.T.O. page is a start, but they only seem to list Thelamites that are "accepted" and "respectable." This is a serious disservice to NPOV. People like Ebony Anpu, Timothy Leary, and Robert Anton Wilson should all be included. <3 Captain Barrett 21:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Where is Aiwass?

Some information on Aiwass and Crowleys attitude to this entity is needed to put the reception of Liber AL into context? Also the magickal alter ego LAM is needed. Thoughts? --Redblossom 00:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Greetings, Redblossom. Aiwass has his own article, which may cover the concerns about that; and the "Of course I wrote them, ink on paper" passage is quoted in the Book of the Law article. Justin Eiler 00:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The Role of Theism in Thelema

I was wondering, since Thelema is a religous practcie, what is the role of God or gods in Thelema? I am not merely asking this out of curiosity, but I think a section should be included in this article, if for nothing more than the fact that people associate religion with a God or gods. If Thelema does not address this, then that should be added to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WeZ9Alt (talk • contribs) 10:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

"Notable" authors?

Why has the list of authors who address Thelema been reduced to only those who are considered "notable"? This seems like vandalism especially since not all those remaining listed are "notable" by W'pedia standards. The list of all published authors on the topic of Thelema is not a long one. Why not keep the complete list? --Thiebes 20:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"Re: Notable authors"

I think someone should add something about Heinlein. Many of his books follow this philosophy to a 't' (Time Enough for Love, I Will Fear No Evil), plus his book 'Job' describes Gnosticism like a textbook. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.212.169 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

In considering which, if any, links to delete, please keep in mind Wikipedia's guidelines for what links to avoid:

Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid:

  1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.
  2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research".
  3. Links mainly intended to promote a website.
  4. Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources.
  5. Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising.
  6. Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content.
  7. Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that only work with a specific browser.
  8. Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content, unless the article is about such rich media. If you do link to such material make a note of what application is required.
  9. Links to search engine and aggregated results pages.
  10. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET.
  11. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.
  12. Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors.
  13. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep-linked.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by J. Ash Bowie (talk • contribs) 04:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

You've got that backwards
Also consider that, in general, organizations which have their own article should not be linked from other articles than their own. Add the organization to the see also section. Remember that Wikipedia is not a directory of links. Each link is supposed to provide, directly on the page linked, additional reliable information about the subject which is not in the Wikipedia article. That is, it is supposed to have & add useful content. A list of links to the splash pages of non-notable organizations does not do that. The notable organizations have their own article and we should encourage people to access that Wikipedia article before going on to access the external site.
Also, sites that are already linked from the notes or references should not be linked again from external links. The spirit of the external links policy is not described in the exclusions you have listed, but rather in the following statement about the restriction on what should be linked from the external linking policy. Only if it passes the policy to be included in the links section should one then consider whether it also has some reason why it must still be excluded. IPSOS (talk) 13:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
What should be linked
  1. Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any.
  2. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply.
  3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.
  4. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.
IPSOS (talk) 13:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Since there is already a section titled "Thelemic organizations" which as far as I can tell has internal links to every article on a Thelemic organization currently present on Wikpedia, I've reverted the article to remove the direct external links to these organizations. If I have removed any external links which meet the "What should be linked" policy, aren't already linked from the Notes or References, and don't run afoul of the "Links normally to be avoided policy", then by all means add them back.

However, please note that links to social networking sites, forum, blogs, etc. are not permitted. That rules out thelema.nu in my opinion. If it is sufficiently notable (i.e. meets WP:WEB), an article could be written about the site and it could be linked from there. The normal way to provide access to such sites and other sites which don't meet the linking policy is to add a link to the Open Directory Project (DMOZ). This has been done. IPSOS (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Definition

I'll copy this with expansion from Talk:List of Thelemites in case someone deletes the whole list now that I've drawn attention to the page: Now that 999 aka Hanuman Das aka User:Ekajati has gotten himself banned, perhaps we can discuss this again. Does anyone see a reason to put people who did not provably self-identify as Thelemites on this list? Crowley did indeed write an essay purporting to prove that Rabelais foresaw his whole religion. (Our banned friend called this an "admission" when defining Thelema.) But this understandably seems like a minority view among Rabelais scholars (in the sense that I haven't seen any credible scholar make this claim). In fact, it seems strikingly similar to claims that the 'Old Testament' clearly predicts the life of Jesus, and I don't think Crowley could fail to see this. You can't take anything the man says at face value. So how about we limit the name to people who verifiably called themselves Thelemites?

To extend 999's old analogy, Paul in Romans 13:8-10 says that Christians have exactly one commandment to follow on Earth. And plenty of people mentioned this brief Law before the alleged birth of Jesus. Some of them used the equivalent of the word "Christ". Nobody disputes that the word "Christian" comes from them. Yet we wouldn't call them Christians on Wikipedia, because they would not self-identify and indeed might take offense if they knew about it. So why call anyone before Crowley a Thelemite unless we can find them using the name for themselves? We can describe all the history in the article and mention attempts to draft Rabelais into the religion without asserting any disputed claim as fact. Dan 19:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Cutting through the Jungle is out of context

This particular misuse of Crowley's writing has finally been explored in a polemic that traces the actual context and use of the paragraph. It is a blatant misrepresentation to continue to tangle words in such a manner. It would be wise to provide either a more appropriate context for the paragraph or remove it as not supporting the contention being made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.57.103.2 (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Shri Gurudev Mahendranath?

This person is cited throughout this article and I called his credibility as a source into question, and my {{vc}} [unreliable source] tags were simply deleted with the comment that he was not self-published. This is not sufficient to establish him as a credible source on the subject, however. See Verifiability: Sources for more information. We should remove these citations and any claims dependent on them unless the source can be demonstrated as reliable. --Thiebes (talk) 16:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

So far as I know they are not reliable. There seems to be no references to this person in Crowley's diaries at the times he says that he interacted with AC. It looks, much like the Amado Crowley scam, that this person consulted the published diaries and inserted himself into Crowley's life at places he did not think could be checked. Al Billings and the late Tim Maroney did a great amount of research on the beginnings of the Nath movement and found most of the claims to be either completely unsupported or fabrications. Stealthepiscopalian (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Stealthepiscopalian
Hmm, looks like yet another attempt by a couple of OTO members to promote the opinions of their "King". How reliable is that? It certainly doesn't maintain NPOV to take out other's views of the matter. 86.67.207.41 (talk) 04:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
[Interjected] Motivation of editors is rather irrelevant even if it could be established. Simply demonstrate the reliability of sources brought into question. --Thiebes (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
What does this have to do with a NPV? There is no independent data in the Crowley diaries or anywhere else to support Dadja's claims to have known Crowley and a number of contradictions with known facts. That makes him unreliable as a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stealthepiscopalian (talk • contribs) 22:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Now I'm not sure what you're talking about. Other than his claims to have met Crowley, all the other information from this source has been corroborated by multiple independent sources. As for WP:NPOV, it say that no significant viewpoints should be excluded.... So... Since the claims to have met Crowley have been removed, what other problem do you have with the source, since it is in line with multiple other sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.171.69 (talk) 02:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Aiwass seems like a better place for this dispute. Dan (talk) 00:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Definition: comments?

Judging by the talk pages, we've reached consensus. Maybe respectable Rabelais scholars use the word "Thelema" to mean a real-world philosophy that comes from Rabelais, but I haven't seen a shred of evidence. It really seems like not one person unambiguously called themselves a Thelemite or professed Thelema by name before April 1904. And while I may have forgotten someone, I don't recall any self-described Thelemites who are not secretly User:Ekajati claiming they follow Rabelais with no influence from Uncle Al or Liber AL. (The reference that seems closest says, "Rabelais is a convenient name to show that Crowley borrowed his ideas and was just one thread in much wider fabric.") So I'll change the article to reflect this as soon as I have time.

I'll try to keep the claims of Mahendranath (and the historical material of course) unless somebody can give a better reason to remove them. (That's why it may take me time.) I also agree that we should talk about the essay Antecedents of Thelema. Except we should mention and take into account the parts that make it all sound like deliberate parody of Christians talking about "the Old Testament":

Was the mighty spirit of Alcofribas Nasier aware of the prophetic fire of his immortal book? He has fortunately left us in no doubt upon this point; for he did not content himself with having created in parable that Abbey of Thelema which his eager gaze foresaw from the black abyss of those Ages not yet thrilled by the Morning Star of the Renaissance, and dimly heralded by the Wolf's Tail of the Reformation. He proceeded to envelop himself in the mist of oracular speech, to fulminate his light through dark sayings, to clothe the naked beauty of his Time-piercing thought in the pontifical vestments of prophecy. The reader of today plunged from the limped waters of his allegory into the glooming gulfs of sibylline and subterranean song, is startled indeed when, after repeated efforts to penetrate the mystery of his versicles, he perceives the adumbration of dim forms--and recognizes them, with something of terror, for the images of the events of this very generation of mankind! (...) A great flame will spring up, he says, and put an end to this flood. What clearer reference could be desired to the Aeon of Horus?

Any non-sock-puppet objections? Dan (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


Done. See what you think of that quote's presentation. I found a source for one blindingly obvious point. Dan (talk) 07:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thst citation is not usable. It's from a forum or other discussion site. Not a reliable source. 81.9.61.227 (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

And so you revert the whole article? I assume you mean the forum quote pointing out the obvious, which I included as a courtesy. It is indeed reliable as an example of a human reaction, which is how I used it. You know I'll get checkuser to compare you with another Starwood Festival editor, right? Dan (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Look, I tried to find someone calling themselves a Thelemite and claiming to follow Rabelais "instead" of Crowley (see the [citation needed] in the Contemporary section of the article). I found people citing this article, and in one case attacking it as a badly written misrepresentation of Thelema. Dan (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that it is necessary to show that there is anyone claiming to follow Rabelais rather than Crowley. It is sufficient to show that people make the distinction and discuss a difference between Crowleyan and pre-Crowleyan Thelema and that some reject Crowley and thus fall back on the earlier root, which are Rabelaisian. It seems that Aleisterian Thelema is the current term in use rather than Crowleyan Thelema... see the first three links below. The rest refer to Rabelaisian Thelema. 80.222.124.181 (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


All of these are a misrepresentation of the word 'Aleisterian' and should not be used as "authoritative" at all. The term 'Aleisterian' is a specific pejorative to the Cult of Personality of Aleister Crowley. Ash Bowie's misuse is just that: misuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.244.62.36 (talk) 23:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Really? Can you cite a source to that effect? I don't think you can. 217.114.211.20 (talk) 03:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Massive changes

There are serious problems with the massive changes implemented by Dan. They make Crowleyan Thelema primary. This article as it was is very balanced and the intro given a chronological introduction to the subject. It is much more difficult to understand the history and development of Thelema by starting with Crowley. Crowley's use of the word was clearly derivative from earlier sources. No one but fundamentalist Crowleyites (or to use a more recent term Aleisterians) dispute this. While I am sure improvements could be made to the article, a massive restructuring and reordering is a step backwards. 84.147.98.77 (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

We've been over this. Your links give responses to a speech that from what I can tell, refers to the previous form of the Wikipedia article, making this them an exercise in circular reasoning. Dan (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I said this before, but it bears repeating. The source that seems closest to your position actually says that Crowley took ideas from many other people. The current version of the article starts, "Thelema is a system put together or openly revealed by Aleister Crowley," emphasis added. Dan (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I've added the actual quotes, so you can no longer pretend this. 130.237.152.213 (talk) 05:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
You are ignoring the fact that the term and the usage, including the term "Thelemite", preexisted Crowley. Presentation of this should be chronological. A small and vocal group, the OTO, falsely claims that Crowley originated the philosophy and the term. He did not. He did create a system of practice under the umbrella of the pre-existing term Thelema. That's it. Many of those links predate the speech and some predate the Wikipedia entry. You must not have looked at them very closed. And no "we" have not discussed this at all. 80.222.124.181 (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
See my pre-response at Talk:Thelema#Definition:_comments.3F Dan (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
That comment is pretty much content free, Dan. It is not a discussion and there you did not seem to garner support from other editors, which is not surprising since you did not go into any detail with respect to exactly what you intended. 85.5.22.108 (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I see you are now misrepresenting Sabazius' comment over at RFPP. His comment had absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia and does not mention Wikipedia. It is an example of the ongoing differences of opinion between the two type of Thelemite described in the article. What in the world would make you think otherwise? 194.187.213.89 (talk) 23:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

As for no one calling themselves a "Rabelaisian Thelemite", that's easily disprovable. Tim Maroney, a well-known figure in Thelemic circles, called himself just that. [1]. 217.114.211.20 (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's another example from the other side of this ongoing dispute: "Crowley's development of the Rabelaisian concept of 'Thelema', with its almost synonymous dictum "Do What Thou Wilt", did at least put forward a few suggestions, albeit that in the 87 years since the New Aeon was proclaimed, that doctrine's adherents have done precious little to follow them through. One of the contradictions which may have contributed to this lack of progress lies, in my view, in the superimposition of a rigid heirarchial quasi-masonic structure upon an essentially libertarian philosophy. The result, to all intents and purposes, is a contradictory, but unspoken, codicil to the Rabelaisian original which should now be interpreted by Thelemites as "Do What Thou Wilt - so long as it's approved in writing from Grand Lodge". The schismatic traumas which have afflicted the Thelemite corpus in recent decades can, in most cases, be traced back to difficulties arising in one way or another out of this fundamental philosophical contradiction." from [2]. 88.80.200.144 (talk) 23:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Another example of the view that Crowley stole from Rabelais: "The occultist Aleister Crowley termed his system / religion "Thelema" which is Greek for Will. It is also suggested he 'stole' his idea in a large part of Francois Rabelais, whose book "Gargantua" talked about the Thelemites, in a not dissimilar fashion to Crowley. I believe Crowley claimed to have been Rabelais in an earlier life to get around this fact however..." from [3]. 88.80.200.144 (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
And another: "Sooner or later most Book of the Law-based Thelemites (for let us not forget that a Thelemite way of life was also described by Rabelais in the 16th century, which idea has resonated with at least some thinkers in most succeeding generations) are forced to recognize that a purely literal interpretation of their scripture is repugnant to the very law of love which it proclaims." from [4]. 88.80.200.144 (talk) 23:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Another example of the use and the distinction: "I'm quite serious. true Thelemites are not part of any particular culture, may be completely ignorant of anything Crowleyan or even

Rabelaisian (upon whom Crowley based his 'Thelemic' notions). the true Thelemite is one who identifies hir will and abides it with consistency. that will tends not to (by my observation) include offense to the words of others unless there is something to be gained in the taking of the offense (as to instruct, to change the course of the medium of expression, or to express emotional feeling -- compared with merely parrotting some moral platitude or conforming to the social mores of the day, playing the victim)." from [5]. 88.80.200.144 (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Another reference. This article was "banned" by the OTO, again part of the dispute between the Rabelaisian Thelemites who will not accept the restrictions put upon Thelema by OTO. "In a certain sense, the Law of "Do what thou wilt" is kind of a disappointment, in that it's been said and (in rare instances) done before. Crowley freely admitted that Rabelais constructed his (literary) Abbey of Thelema centuries before the Cairo Working, let alone Cefalu." from [6]. 88.80.200.144 (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Original Research

The above presentation of supposed evidence of an ongoing dispute of ideas is seems to come from discussions on usenet and yahoogroups and a variety of personal opinions expressed online in various forums. It is not the place of Wikipedia editors to do original research and attempt to present the various opinions of all people who may have discussed or put forward an opinion. If this "dispute" has been documented in a reliable source that published by a third party, peer reviewed and fact-checked, then let this article simply make the claims as they are made in such reliable sources. Gathering the opinions of individuals and presenting those as reputable, authoritative, or even representative constitutes both original research and unreliable sourcing. --Thiebes (talk) 18:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, gee, Joe, talk page standards are quite a bit more relaxed than article standards. These sources aren't in the article and nobody is proposing to put them there. They have simply been provided to refute Dan's incorrect inference that Sabazius was talking about this Wikipedia article in his address to NOTOCON. You and I both know that he wasn't. He doesn't say so, and the ongoing differences of opinion involving Thelema without Crowley aka Rabelaisian vs Crowleyan Thelema using those terms date back to at least 1990 on the Internet, longer than that in print. Dan has also claimed that the use of these terms was "social engineering" on the part of some banned Wikipedia user. But since the terms and the difference of views predate the introduction of the terms into this article by at least 15 years, that doesn't seem to be true. Can't have changes being made to the article on demonstrably false assumptions, can we? 212.227.82.218 (talk) 02:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, hickory-sticks, Simone, forgive me for having trouble following this mess of a discussion page. I was referring to all the above cited materials used to support the contention that this is an ongoing dispute of ideas. Just because three people opine on usenet, and three more mention those opinions on websites, doesn't make it a relevant opinion in the real world. --Thiebes (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmm? There's nothing about it in the article, and no plan to put it in the article, so I fail to see your point. My point is that the terms "Rabelaisian Thelema" and "Crowleyan Thelema" are not a previously unused distinction, and thus can not be "social engineering" as falsely claimed. If you have different labels to propose such as pre-Crowleyan Thelema or Aleisterianism, then please suggest them. 85.214.118.178 (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Also, your claim that the source do not say what the article says is complete bunk. From Mahendranath:

"Many years later, Sir Francis Dashwood revived the Abbey and its delightful law in the grounds of his country residence not far from London. John Wilkes, a fiery radical parliamentarian, was one of his chief and most active members. This Abbey is now a local tourist attraction.
"In more recent history Saint Aleister Crowley, who did much to reform and revive the Western Occult Tradition, in reverence to the Rabelaisian masterpiece also revived the Thelemic Law; and even, for a short period, established an Abbey on an Italian island."

This source says specifically that Dashwood revived the Abbey and that Crowley revived and reformed Rabelais... The other sources cited do back up this view, that's why they were cited. 88.80.200.144 (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Other terminology

Rabelaisian Thelema is also called pre-Crowley, pre-Crowleyan or pre-Crowlian or non-Crowley or non-Crowleyan. Here is an example of the usage of non-Crowleyan Thelema from 2000: [7]. 88.68.104.56 (talk) 00:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You'll also find that many writers use the term "Rabelaisian philosophy" or "Rablalais' philosophy" rather than "Rabelaisian Thelema", for example, "Thelema is a 20th Century religion drawing from Rabelaisian philosophy ("Do what thou Wilt") and Kemetic aesthetics." from [8]. 88.80.200.138 (talk) 01:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
You realize that if you register you can create an article called "Rabelaisian philosophy", right? And that Ekajati's version of article Thelema uses quite a different name for the relevant section (which by the way doesn't cite anyone before Crowley clearly, verifiably saying they practice or hold this philosophy)? And that User:Dan/Thelema includes all the historical material plus an explicit statement, in the introduction, that many think the Book of the Law refers to Rabelais? Dan (talk) 21:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, well Rabelaisian philosophy would be a much broader topic. I don't see why you are so adamant that someone before Crowley had to say that they practiced Rabelaisian Thelema. Other people say that Dashwood was practicing what Rabelais described. Other people use the term "Rabelaisian Thelema" in current discourse about Thelema. It's just a descriptive term, you seem to be hung up on interpreting "Rabelaisian Thelema" as a proper noun. "Rabelaisian" is an adjective. It's in the dictionary and used in other phrases like "Rabelaisian wit" or "Rabelaisian morals". Does someone had to have said of themselves that they have Rabelaisian wit for someone else to use the phrase to describe that wit? Surely not! 84.25.14.91 (talk) 21:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Again: as far as I can tell, the meaning of the word "Thelema" as a real-world philosophy starts with Crowley or the Book of the Law. Dan (talk) 21:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
But what does that have to do with anything? A philosophy exists from the moment it is proposed. Convenient terms for referring to that philosophy arise as the need comes up. Rabalaisian scholars do refer to Thelema as one of the philosophies proposed by Rabelais, noting that it differs significantly from the rest of Rabelais' philosophy. Rabelais' work on Thelema was based on the real world practice of the Brethren of the Free Spirit (who incidently had Aeons much as Crowley proposed, though they omitted the first, being Christian). H.G. Wells referred to "the Thelema of Rabelais" in A Modern Utopia. I really don't see why you are making such a bit deal about semantics. 218.220.248.160 (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Here's another use of the term Thelema to refer to Rabelaisian religion, in French Studies, 1969; XXIII: 60 - 62, where M. A. Screech says, "The point where I disagree (questions of omissions apart) is over his tendency to dismiss Thelema as essentially a by-way of Rabelaisian religion." Clearly Thelema is used as a noun. The article isn't about Crowley. 80.143.34.179 (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Another place where Thelema is used as noun referring to Rabelais' philosophy is the Thelema entry in A Brief Guide to Beliefs: Ideas, Theologies, Mysteries, and Movements by Linda Edwards. The entry starts "Thelema is a Greek word meaning 'will' or 'intention.' One of earliest mentions of this philosophy is in the writings for Francois Rabelais." The referent of "this philosophy" is clearly "Thelema". 131.173.32.97 (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This is at least a recognizable response. It doesn't address the part about self-identification, or the fact that your chronological standard still seems to put the April 1904 meaning first. As for standard usage, one of your latest sources puts "Magick and Thelema" among "Pagan, Esoteric and Occult Thought" along with Rael and Wicca -- rather odd if it primarily talks about Rabelais -- and I can't tell what the other one means. But maybe this will sway somebody to your view of the article. Will you agree to stop reverting and focus on getting anyone else at Wikipedia to favor your version, for starters? Dan (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
As for why I'm making a fuss, User:Ekajati's sockpuppets created the current lead and shouted down discussion. More of his/her sockpuppets continued to flout the ban at least as recently as one month ago. Now, the whole point of sockpuppets is to help fake consensus, thereby subverting the workings of this site much as voter fraud and voter suppression subvert democracy. I think that when Ekajati's reign of terror definitively ends, we will see a real consensus that better fits the principles of Wikipedia. Dan (talk) 23:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad you think my response is recognizable. I'm afraid that I find your's rather less so. By chronology, I mean presenting the earlier formulation of the idea first. 1904 was not the date of the earliest formulation. So your suggestion that it is completely mystifies me. The same with the bit about self-identification. The article doesn't say a thing about people self-identifying as anything. It says that Dashwood used the ideas put forth by Rabelais. The sources agree that that is the case. I'm quite open to seeing how you might reword things, but I don't buy your arguments against terms that have been used by others. I've looked back over the history and apparently the section titled "Crowleyan Thelema" was once titled "Aleister Crowley's Thelema". Do you think that is any better? I just don't see "The Thelema of Rabelais" and "The Thelema of Crowley" to be any better. Do you? 85.214.118.178 (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Please answer the question at hand. Dan (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
(You know how I would reword the article. I looked at that again, and I still think it follows NPOV. The opening line does not logically rule out the possibility that "Thelema" means a philosophy from Rabelais. It just says nobody before April 1904 verifiably used it as the name of their philosophy.) Dan (talk) 00:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
If you mean, am I going to roll over and let you rearrange the chronology, no, I won't. Clearly, you don't have consensus, as there aren't enough active editors here to form one. I suggested that if you were sincere, you'd work on getting more eyes here, but I've had to do it myself. While we wait for responses to the article RfC, as I said, I'd like to see what other improvements you could make without rearranging the chronology. You seem to be using the user conduct RfC to intimidate me, but with no outside views, it's meaningless. 213.239.207.90 (talk) 00:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
You haven't looked at it recently? Dan (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and I've considered going to the most relevant project. What do you see at the top of that page? Dan (talk) 00:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Looked at what recently? Your sandbox? The RfC? If the later, an "outside view" is where someone not involved really looks at the matter and gives an analysis. This hasn't happened. So the Thelema project is inactive. Why doesn't this surprise me? Nobody edits Thelemapedia anymore, either. 71.112.133.30 (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Dan, I don't understand what you mean by this "question at hand" rubbish. You use of links to earlier discussion doesn't mean anything to me either. I don't get what you are saying or trying to say. I've asked you some very direct questions about specific language in the article, but you ignore those questions. Please answer them, and if you have statements or questions to make, please make or ask them here and now in text, not with links which simply confuse me as to what you mean. Thanks. 88.80.200.138 (talk) 03:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. In other words, you aren't making any sense to me. 88.80.200.138 (talk) 04:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You have broken the rules of Wikipedia, certainly Wikipedia: Three Revert Rule and most likely others. Will you agree to stop doing that and focus on seeking consensus? Dan (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Please try to stay focused on the content of the article, which I am trying to discuss with you. I believe it is also against the rules to use a user conduct RfC at the first apparent infraction of the rules (which has not been repeated) in order to attempt to intimidate another editor. I am not the only IP editor editing the article, though as far as I can tell, I am the only one discussing on the talk page. I will not accept making discussing the content dependent on my making some agreement with you. I beleive that as soon as I do so, you will simply overwrite the article with your own and try to force me into breaking the rules again by reverting multiple times like you have done in the past. You may not have broken this 3RR rule, but you came right up against it yourself without engaging in discussion. So, let's see the discussion. Let's here your answers to questions about content I asked. That's how I'll be able to tell that you are sincerely interested in compromise, which you have not yet convince me that you are... 88.80.200.138 (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, you can see the discussion whose existence you deny at #Definition: comments? And I cannot force you to break 3RR. I can't even make sure your version of the article doesn't return unless nobody else at Wikipedia agrees with you and several users agree with me, which admittedly seems true. Dan (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Presumably you believe your RfC and other comments will bring in someone else who dislikes User:Dan/Thelema. Will you therefore agree to follow the rules of Wikipedia? Dan (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I can see it. And I believe that I have repeatedly and in a detailed manner refuted it as a straw man argument. I don't believe that it is necessary that some before Crowley practiced Rabelaisian Thelema to use the term. It is simply necessary to show that the term is in use to refer to the expression of Thelema in Rabelais. I believe that I have shown that the term is actually used in that way. Repeatedly pointing to the same straw man argument does not progress the discussion whatsoever! 82.82.173.169 (talk) 19:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Please stop reverting edits

Whoever is making repeated reverts, using multiple IPs, knock it off. If you disagree with a change, discuss it here and work toward consensus. Reverting edits which have been discussed in advance is not the way it is done. A single person does not gain dominance over Wikipedia articles by being the most intent and prolific reverter. It is not a race. Explain your point of view and cultivate consensus. Thiebes (talk) 08:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Dan is making the article more POV and claiming that the sources provided do not support the article text. The latter is a bald-faced lie, as has been demonstrated by adding the actual quotes to the notes. The outline of the article is fully supported by multiple sources which agree! If Dan wishes to add an additional POV to the article, he should simply do so. Restructuring the whole article to present the OTO party line is not acceptable. Noting the the OTO rejects (or rather the King of OTO rejects) a clearly historical development of Thelema is quite sufficient. It has been noted, but the OTO position could certainly be expanded upon using simple insertion of additional text. Major restructuring requires much more detailed discussion and agreement in advance than has occurred. 77.181.142.198 (talk) 12:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean about an "OTO party line" -- is that what you call "reality"? Anyway it is clear that the POV being pushed here is this concept of any particularly noteworthy historical development of Thelema before Crowley. Many questionable sources have been used to push this POV. For example, the parenthetical "some say hijacked" comment is one guy, there's no explanation for why "hijacked" is an appropriate term...it's just a drive-by aspersion. If I wrote an article about Dashwood "hijacking" the concept from Rabelais and posted it online, then put the same parenthetical comment after the bit about Dashwood, would that fly? The "Diversity" section, in its over-egalitarianism also gives the impression that there are serious contenders with "Crowleyan" Thelema while not making clear that it's a very small minority (literally a vocal handful of people) who hold such ideas. If we are going to include every possible conception of Thelema then we should be indicating their actual relevance in the world (or lack thereof), not making them all seem of equal importance. --Thiebes (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Do you have studies you can cite which give clear indications of proportions or "relevance"? It's funny that you say "a very small minority (literally a vocal handful of people)". From the POV of the major religions, that all the whole of Thelema is. Perhaps the article should simply be deleted as not relevant. Sure, Crowley is notable, but notability is not inherited, as they say on Wikipedia... 88.80.200.144 (talk) 02:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
First of all I'm not the one who is making implications in the article about the relevance of these supposed alternative types of Thelema. The burden of proof about the existence and relevance of these supposed Thelemas is yours, since you are the one making implications about these questions in the article. And by handful I mean, less than five, if any at all. --Thiebes (talk) 00:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
What was the question again? I'm simply arguing for keeping the structure of the article and the chronological order of the lead. What were you talking about again? 85.214.118.178 (talk) 00:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Even older use of the term "Rabelaisian Thelema"

From Tim Maroney on USENET, 1990: [9]

From Bill Heidrick on USENET, 1995: [10]

From the latter: "Rabelaisian Thelema had entered the European literary milieu by the end of the 16th century. It is ubiquitous in many places, as untraceable in some as an molecule of water once imbibed and eliminated by Attila the Hun and now in a modern popsicle."

Clearly the term and the dialectic around it was not created by any Wikipedia editor. 212.224.71.3 (talk) 14:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

As User:Dan/Thelema reflects, Tim Maroney in another cited link says he uses part of Crowley's system. The Ekataji version asserts that he took no influence from Crowley (choosing to borrow instead from Rabelais), flatly contradicting the source. Dan (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Yup, it's true that Rabelaisian Thelemites feel free to choose material and practices from Crowley as well as other sources. I'm sure you can find a way to integrate that into that section without completely rewriting the lead, which is well cited. 212.227.82.218 (talk) 02:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
None of those sources seem to address my criticisms. Whereas this does address the sources. I think it describes all cited points of view fairly. Dan (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
The criticism you point to seems moot. Nobody is being defined as a "Thelemite", the topic of discussion is the history of the development of Thelema. As for your POV edit putting Crowley first and essentially making him the primary subject of the article, it's POV. Let's keep it chronological, thanks. Using the historical sequence keeps the article honest. 80.141.89.211 (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the article asserts that people both described and practiced Thelema before Crowley. But this seems beside the point. If other (non-sockpuppet) users agree with you, they can say so at any time. And they can easily prevent me from putting my compromise into effect. Will you then agree to stop reverting and focus on seeking consensus? (If you deny breaking the 3 Revert Rule, you should say so.) Dan (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
What the article asserts is fully supported by multiple source, which have been quoted since you have claimed otherwise. The sources include the well-known writer Robert Anton Wilson, well-known and respected O.T.O. member Bill Heidrick, and two articles published in Ashe journal. They all agree with Mahendranath on the essential points of who originated what, the order in which these things happen, and who borrowed from whom.
So why don't you leave the lead alone. Wikipedia editing guidelines say that you should make your least controversial edits first and most controversial last. If you ignore this and make them all at once or in the opposite order, it's your own fault that you get fully reverted. 212.227.82.218 (talk) 18:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
No denial then. I'll ask again; will you agree to stop reverting and try to get one or two other users to agree with you? (If so, please read User:Dan/Thelema closely and then spell out how it contradicts the sources you name.) Dan (talk) 18:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I do not agree not to revert. In case you haven't noticed, it is mostly the restructuring of the article I object to. Despite delusions to the contrary by Aleisterians, Crowleyan or Crowleyites (whatever you prefer to call them), Rabelais is still more notable and known to more people than Al. He also was the originator of the whole concept of Thelema. Al's usage is derivative. All these points argue that the lead should present the development in chronological order. If you were sincere in your wish to resolve this, you would use the dispute resolution process, i.e. WP:THIRD and an article RfC to get outside, unbiased opinions. Are you afraid that they will agree with me? 129.15.80.187 (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment

{{RFCreli}} Disagreement about whether to present lead section in chronological order showing development on this philosophy/religion. 17:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Dan (talk · contribs) wishes to rewrite the lead in non-chronological order. He infers a need from this from the fact that two single-purpose accounts have questioned one of the sources. In response, other supporting sources were found which agree with the history presented in the questioned source. None of the users involved has even acknowledged or discussed the additional sources presented, much less questioned them, yet Dan still proposes a non-chronological lead which makes Aleister Crowley out as the primary originator of something demonstrably originated by Rabelais.

The historical development of Thelema presented in the current lead is fully supported by multiple sources. It's widely known that Crowley derived his version of Thelema from pre-existing historical sources. Multiple independent sources acknowledge this. This attempt to make Crowley's made-up story that he "channelled" rather than simply wrote the Book of the Law primary by people who are believers in his "religion" is clearly POV based on conflict of interest. There are the supporting quotes:

  • "One of the first serious attempts to realise Rabelais' Thelemic Utopia was made in England in 1751 by Sir Francis Dashwood during the decade before his appointment as Chancellor of the Exchequer." Frater Choronzon, THE HELLFIRE CLUB AND OTHER SWINGERS
  • "Francis Dashwood, who revived the Rablelais 'Abbey of Thelema'..." Adams, Ron. Ecumenical Thelema in Ashé Journal, Vol. 3, No. 4, Spring Equinox 2004, pp. 71-78
  • "Many years later, Sir Francis Dashwood revived the Abbey and its delightful law in the grounds of his country residence not far from London.", "In more recent history Saint Aleister Crowley, who did much to reform and revive the Western Occult Tradition, in reverence to the Rabelaisian masterpiece also revived the Thelemic Law; and even, for a short period, established an Abbey on an Italian island.", "It may be new to those who read this manuscript, but the identical rule or law has been held in the highest respect in India and neighboring countries for thousands of years. It has been the amoral philosophy of the Nathas, Tantriks, and Siddha saints and sadhus. It made possible the Parivrajaka or homeless wanderer saints, and eventually led to the highest grade of Indian spiritual attainment known as Avadhoota or emancipated one. Thus Rabelais, Dashwood, and Crowley must share the honor of perpetuating what has been such a high ideal in most of Asia." Mahendranath (1990).
  • "Therefore, we can say, by this [Rabelais'] definition, a Thelemite is a person who is free, well-born, well-bred and capable of interacting in honest company. A Thelemite has an inherent sense of honour and a sense of proportion and discretion. ... Much of Crowley's work is an interpretation and extension of this simple summary." Alamantra, Frater. Looking Into the Word: Some Observations in Ashé Journal, Vol. 3, No. 4, Spring Equinox 2004, pp. 39-59
  • "Crowley is misunderstood if he is seen primarily as the teacher of a new path to liberation, his sexual yoga and the abbey as a means of imparting this, with the theory behind it boiled down to the crude schematism of paths to enlightenment. He was part of a greater, far more intelligible tradition. Thelema itself is a rationally intelligible ideal that goes back to Rabelais, via Sir Francis Dashwood. Crowley gave this distinguished western tradition a new degree of development. The doctrine serves the man, not the man the doctrine. Not every practitioner of sex magic is a true disciple of Aleister Crowley." Moore, John S. Aleister Crowley as Guru in Chaos International, Issue No. 17.
  • "It's widely known that Rabelais said "Do what thou wilt", used Thelema and employed an Abbey of Thelema in his Gargantua and Pantagruel four centuries before Liber AL. The old Hell Fire Clubs continued that tradition through variation into the late 18th century. For some, this becomes a question of Crowley faking it. For others, it is more a matter of observing a gradual development of Thelema through the half millennium preceding the Aeon of Horus." Heidrick, Bill in Thelema Lodge Calendar for January 1995 e.v. (note that Bill Heidrick is a respected Thelemite and member of Ordo Templi Orientis
  • "The origin of 'Do what though wilt' is Rabelais' Abbey of Thelema in Gargantua and Pantagruel. The Hell Fire Club was deliberately copying Rabelais. Crowley, of course, had read Rabelais and undoubtedly knew about the Hell Fire Club (which is more correctly called the Abbey of Saint Francis, by the way), but he claimed to have received the Law of Thelema ... from a Higher Intelligence which contacted him in Cairo in 1904." Wilson, Robert Anton. The Illuminati Papers. Ronin Publishing, 1997. ISBN 1579510027

212.227.82.218 (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Again I don't know if I understand. I don't see this on the linked RfC list. But anyway, as I hinted at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/81.9.61.227, I think that User:Dan/Thelema does include and address these sources. New visitors may wish to glance at #Definition. Dan (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
A bot is supposed to do it. Clearly it hasn't picked it up yet.
It's clear that you don't understand. As I've stated multiple times, I don't object to your making improvements. I object to changing the order of the lead away from a chronological development. You have yet to acknowledge that that is my specific objection or propose an improved version of the lead that maintains chronological order. 89.3.103.10 (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't actually know what policy you mean -- I don't see it even in this style guideline -- but let's talk chronology anyway. See #Definition and #Definition: comments?. Dan (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Now I'm lost. I don't believe I mentioned any policy. 84.25.14.91 (talk) 21:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments from neutral editors

Last neutral outside view

I've been poking around the talk page archives, and found that the last outside opinion of the article was very positive and that the text of the article has hardly changed at all since then [11], except for the addition of more references and quotations within those references. That opinion read:

"Hi. I like this article and believe it is well written and sourced. I did find some small argumentation which I removed. If there is any other such then it is in need of removal or alteration. Of course alteration is preferred. Judging by the standard of this article any unsourced argumentation will not stand very long. If there are any sources for the arguments that I removed please reinstate with citations. AlanBarnet 06:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)"

This seriously brings into question the burning need to "improve" it. 71.112.133.30 (talk) 00:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Bizarrely, the "outside" user in question was also blocked as a sockpuppet and still seems blocked. S/he has not edited with that username since. Dan (talk) 00:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
That is weird. I didn't look at the talk page. But apparently not a sockpuppet of the editor you keep going on about. I checked the contributions, and the editor you mentioned doesn't appear to have edited the article at all, not a single edit, but I could have missed one... 69.121.76.210 (talk) 01:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and by a startling coincidence, 71.112.133.30 seems like another address for anonymous user. Dan (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, latest IP address, s/he did make minor edits to the article using that name. I haven't checked whether or not we can reasonably consider Alan another version of User:Ekajati/999/Hanuman_Das/TunnelsofSet, but it seems plausible on the face. Clearly neither has any respect for the rules of Wikipedia (rules like WP:3RR). Dan (talk) 01:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
But who knows? Perhaps the Ekataji version of the article has some mysterious appeal to people who flout the rules of Wikipedia, an appeal that has somehow failed to enlist anyone else here. Dan (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Anyone else here? Seems that should be a question. As far as I can tell, there's only you and Choronzon. 217.162.87.31 (talk) 01:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/81.9.61.227#Users certifying the basis for this dispute (and following section). I started asking the question here at #Definition, three months ago. Dan (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
edit: make that four. Dan (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
And this is supposed to mean what, exactly? 88.80.200.138 (talk) 04:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

First sentence and paragraph should focus on what and summarize who

I believe that the first sentence, perhaps the first few sentences, should focus on the "what is" of Thelema. We must reflect current discourse which allows of the possibility of people being thelemites w/o ever having heard of Crowley or even Rabelais. That is, the practice the maxim "Do what thou wilt."

The first sentence should contain "Do what thou wilt", this is more essential to Thelema than who dun it. The rest of the paragraph should explain why the word Thelema is related to the rule or law.

I propose the following first paragraph:

Thelema is a philosophy of life based on the rule "Do what thou wilt." The ideal of "Do what thou wilt" and its association with the word Thelema goes back to François Rabelais and Sir Francis Dashwood, but was more fully developed by Aleister Crowley, who founded a religion named Thelema based on this ideal. The word itself is the English transliteration of the Koine Greek noun θέλημα: "will", from the verb θέλω: to will, wish, purpose. Early Christian writings use the word to refer to the will of God,[1] the human will,[2] and even the will of God's opponent, the Devil.[3]
  1. ^ Rabelais, Francis de Sales and the Abbaye de Thélème by Alexander T. Pocetto, O.S. F.S., Allentown College of St. Francis de Sales, citing other writers. Online version here, retrieved from July 20, 2006.
  2. ^ e.g. John 1:12-13
  3. ^ e.g. 2 Timothy 2:26

What do others think of this proposal? 70.112.55.203 (talk) 19:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

allows of the possibility of people being thelemites w/o ever having heard of Crowley or even Rabelais -- see #Definition. I've heard talk of some old dictionary using the word to mean libertine. I haven't heard of any dictionary makers using the word for themselves, or indeed of anyone on Earth verifiably calling themselves a Thelemite, verifiably saying they believe/practice Thelema, or even verifiably saying they follow a philosophy drawn from Rabelais' account of the Abbey of Theleme before April 1904. Dan (talk) 19:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Please discuss my paragraph, which does not say that there were. My reason for keeping the definition open is a valid one. Since you have stated elsewhere on Wikipedia that Thelema (I presume Crowlean Thelema) is your religion, it seems you may have a conflict of interest or at least a bias. That should not influence the neutrality of the article. 24.127.84.183 (talk) 19:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, are you unaware that Rabelais used the term Thelemite in his work? and that that word was used after him and before Crowley? 24.127.84.183 (talk) 20:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
"There were" what? People who verifiably self-identified? Cite them. I'll change "system" in the first line of User:Dan/Thelema to "school of thought", which I think makes it more clear that Thelema could mean a philosophy drawn from Rabelais (by Crowley and people after him). Will you then agree to follow the rules of Wikipedia? Dan (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
That was a typo. The paragraph does not say that there were. You cannot fault a paragraph for saying something that it does not. You are not working in any spirit of cooperation or compromise. Please change your attitude and dump the straw man. Other people has described Dashwood's implementation of Rabeliais' ideal. He wrote "Do what thou wilt" in is Abbey. That is Thelema, whether he called himself a Thelemite or not. Don't be such a WP:DICK]. 212.227.82.218 (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Anonymous user just added the word "not" without changing the timestamp. I think that by saying the ideal (and association with the name) goes back to Dashwood, the paragraph makes claims about what Dashwood believed. And a cited source in the article says we don't know what he believed or what went on in the Hellfire Club's inner sanctum. Dan (talk) 20:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps this will help explain the issue. The source I just mentioned in my last comment explicitly denies Step 2. Dan (talk) 20:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and on that note, the first line of my revision says that Crowley "openly revealed" Thelema (edit: or put it together. I slipped too. See end for new timestamp). This includes both the Aiwass view of Crowley and the Dashwood view of Ekajati. Dan (talk) 20:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC) edited by Dan (talk) 00:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
So, now that I've explained why I believe User:Dan/Thelema follows NPOV, thereby removing any reason you might have to restore a banned user's edits, will you agree to follow the 3RR? Dan (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Can I take that as a no? Dan (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Working with false premises

It seems some people are working under the false premise that only Crowley gets to define Thelema. That is simply not NPOV. Other people descriptions and definitions have to be taken into account, and the article can not be written in such a way that it implies that only the views of Crowley and his followers are the correct views. 212.227.82.218 (talk) 20:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, given that most don't find reductive methods of ridiculous assertions like this to be valid, any other definition of Thelema--as implied in this entry--outside of Crowley's would be inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.244.62.36 (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Could you say that in English? If I get your drift, you are quite wrong, as religions "drift" or develop. Contemporary Thelema certainly ignores many of Crowley's archaic beliefs, such as that the True Will of all women is to have children. Just like Christianity, Thelema will come to be defined by its contemporary interpreters, scholars, and commentators, including those you don't agree with. Don't like it? Apply for a hermetically sealed time capsule... 88.149.233.105 (talk) 23:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Multiple Sources in dispute

Please see Wikipedia:RS and demonstrate the reliability of the following sources:

  • 4. Vere Chappell appears self-published and not peer-reviewed. Demonstrate reliability by e.g. showing that this author has been cited in academic publications as an expert on Thelema.
[Interjected] Removed. 88.80.200.138 (talk) 01:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • 5. Frater Choronzon appears self-published and not peer-reviewed. Demonstrate reliability by e.g. showing that this author has been cited in academic publications as an expert on Thelema.
[Interjected] Removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.246.166.32 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • 6. Ron Adams in Ashé Journal -- publication claims to be peer-reviewed but does not appear to adhere to scholarly standards. Demonstrate reliability by e.g. showing that this journal and/or author has been cited in academic publications.
[Interjected] In the realm of religious belief, there are many peer-reviewed publications edited by the followers of that religion or related traditions. I'd argue that these are perfectly acceptable sources for what writers within the tradition think and believe about their tradition. Many publications involving belief do not adhere to scholarly standards, and the beliefs themselves may not be rational or true. On Wikipedia, it is citability, not truth, which is required by WP:V, which is the actual policy (WP:RS is only a guideline). Many articles dealing with belief systems cite published writers within the belief system. Since this is not self-published, and the journal is considered respectable within its field based on the well-known writers who have submitted material and been published in it, I think you are going too far here.
In addition, the references from this journal are not being used as primary references, but simply as additional references for points which already have superior references. 88.80.200.138 (talk) 01:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • 7. IAO131 appears self-published and not peer-reviewed. Demonstrate reliability by e.g. showing that this author has been cited in academic publications as an expert on Thelema.
[Interjected] This appears to have been published in the Journal of Thelemic Studies. I'm not familiar with the publication, but point 6 above would appear to apply here as well. It only appears to be used as a secondary source for point already established by more reliable sources. 63.246.166.32 (talk) 01:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it wouldn't. It is not only self-published, but the contents lacking any substantial contribution to thelemic thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.244.62.36 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • 8. Mahendranath does not appear to adhere to scholarly standards or to be widely recognized as an expert in the field. Demonstrate reliability by e.g. showing that this author has been cited in academic publications as an expert on Thelema.
[Interjected] Mahendranath was published in a number of Thelemic peer-reviewed sources in the mid to late '70s. For example, in a number of volumes of Sothis magazine, the widely respected "ground-breaking British occult journal" associated with Kenneth Grant's O.T.O. Specifically, The Londinium Temple Strain was published in Sothis, Vol. II, No. II (dated AN LXXIII) as the lead article. I believe his writings appeared in other issues, but can't find an index. He's been cited in articles in such places as O.T.O Scarlet Woman Lodge publication The Scarlet Letter, Volume II, Number 4 | May 1995 (in Lokanath's translation of The Yoni Tantra) and published posthumously in Ashé Journal and in Namarupa (Spring 2003), a journal about Hinduism similar to the Buddhist journal Tricycle. His opinions have been and still are respected by followers of a number of traditions, including Thelema. He was one of the sources for many of the "left-hand path" tantra writings of Grant, is highly respected in Nema's Horus/Maat Lodge and has been published in the journal of that Lodge, Silver Star. He is not an unreliable source. In any case, his work is simply used as a secondary source for points already established by more definitively reliable sources. His summary is one of the better written ones. 67.85.71.214 (talk) 01:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC) and —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.214.118.178 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Addendum, he's also referenced in: Sargent, Denny. Your Guardian Angel and You: Tune in to the Signs. Weiser, 2007. ISBN 1578632757 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.71.214 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • 9. Frater Alamantra in Ashé Journal -- publication claims to be peer-reviewed but does not appear to adhere to scholarly standards. Demonstrate reliability by e.g. showing that this journal and/or author has been cited in academic publications.
[Interjected] See point 6 above. 63.246.166.32 (talk) 01:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, here, this author is highly unreliable and should not be used for any kind of scholarly support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.244.62.36 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • 10. John S. Moore in Chaos International -- publication does not appear to be peer-reviewed or to adhere to scholarly standards. Demonstrate reliability by e.g. showing that this publication and/or author has been cited in academic publications.
[Interjected] See point 6 above. 63.246.166.32 (talk) 01:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • 11. Bill Heidrick in Thelema Lodge Calendar -- publication does not appear to be peer-reviewed or to adhere to scholarly standards. Demonstrate reliability by e.g. showing that this publication and/or author has been cited in academic publications.
[Interjected] Removed, but I would argue that point 6 would apply to a publication of an O.T.O. Lodge if anyone wants to return it. 63.246.166.32 (talk) 01:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • 13. John Jeffrey does not appear to be a Sanskrit scholar. Please provide full quotation demonstrating that source backs claim made in article.
[Interjected] Easily done. 63.246.166.32 (talk) 01:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • 14. Singh, Kapur; Singh, Piar; Kaur, Madanjit do not appear to be experts on Thelema, and it is therefore doubtful they have made a statement related to Thelema. Please provide full quotation demonstrating that source backs claim made in article.
[Interjected] Easily done. 63.246.166.32 (talk) 01:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • 15. Barbara G. Walker is a widely disputed source in academia. Reliability may be impossible to demonstrate. Recommend removal of this source and any claims which rely upon her work.
[Interjected] Easily done as there are many references for this grammatical fact. 63.246.166.32 (talk) 01:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • 47, 48. Tim Maroney does not appear to adhere to scholarly standards or to be widely recognized as an expert in the field. Demonstrate reliability by e.g. showing that this author has been cited in academic publications as an expert on Thelema. While the citation is only being used to establish an example of the diversity of Thelemic thought, any such examples where the author is not widely recognized as an expert should be reported by reliable sources.
[Interjected] Removed. Poor Tim, dead and now maligned as non-notable by the former brothers. 85.214.118.178 (talk) 03:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • 49. Ash Bowie does not appear to adhere to scholarly standards or to be widely recognized as an expert in the field. Demonstrate reliability by e.g. showing that this author has been cited in academic publications as an expert on Thelema. While the citation is only being used to establish an example of the diversity of Thelemic thought, any such examples where the author is not widely recognized as an expert should be reported by reliable sources.
[Interjected] You're right, getting published in the O.T.O's Agapé certainly doesn't mean one knows anything about Thelema. Quite the opposite, it seems. I mean, Scriven and Breeze have also been published there, and neither would qualify as notable enough to have their opinions quoted on Wikipedia either. But Heidrick, I can't believe you'd dis a guy who was widely regarded as an expert on Thelema before Scriven was out of short pants! 85.214.118.178 (talk) 03:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not the one who decides Wikipedia's standards for notability or expertise. It's not a dis, it's a technicality. Though, your point 6 above may be correct and if so I will yield those points to which it applies. --Thiebes (talk) 04:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
This individual no longer provides any kind of actual thelemic content but some kind of personal interpretation at odds with any legitimate form of Thelema. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.244.62.36 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Ha ha. This is a joke, right? What makes one form of Thelema more legitimate than any other? Is there an international board, a synod? You comment simply show that you do not understand the completely individual nature of Thelema. If one's will takes one beyond Crowley, which is more important to the Thelemite, the Will, or Crowley. Poor old joker has to go if the Will says so... 88.73.58.170 (talk) 06:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • 52, 53, 54. Please provide full citation and demonstrate reliability.
  • 56. Jason Miller in Silver Star: A Journal of New Magick -- publication does not appear to be peer-reviewed or to adhere to scholarly standards. Demonstrate reliability by e.g. showing that this publication and/or author has been cited in academic publications. While the citation is only being used to establish an example of the diversity of Thelemic thought, any such examples where the author is not widely recognized as an expert should be reported by reliable sources.
[Interjected] See point 6 above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.246.166.32 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • 57. Please provide full citation and demonstrate reliability.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Thiebes (talk • contribs) 20:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Thiebes. You're being an ass. One of the few things you are good at. 67.67.222.125 (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of personal insults you might have to offer me, it appears that more reliable sources are being added and that is excellent. Please also remove unreliable sources or in the case of incomplete citations, please complete them. --Thiebes (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Note that incomplete citations may refer to references listed in the references section. That is considered an acceptable form of citation and is mostly likely left over from older preferred forms of citation. They keep changing the rules here as well as the articles. 217.114.211.20 (talk) 00:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
It's confusing because the references section is listed separately from the notes. --Thiebes (talk) 04:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I managed to find the French Studies reference in print, but still couldn't tell what it meant. Happily, JSTOR makes it clear that academics sometimes use "Thelema" to mean Thélème, which of course already has an entry. Dan (talk) 06:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Don't take my word for it. Google doesn't give you the full article, but thelema inurl:jstor actually yields more results than JSTOR search. The weird one comes from a dialogue between Thelema and Sunesis (Will and Understanding, desire and a means of controlling it) in some temple of married love. None of the results use "Thelema" to mean a Rabelaisian philosophy. Dan (talk) 03:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Neither does this article. That's so last week. See ya, schweethart. 88.191.66.9 (talk) 05:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Good article status

I think this article is heading toward good article status. However, the section on Crowley is weak, with many subsections lacking references. These should be secondary references, we can't be interpreting The Book of the Law by making a statement and simply citing Liber AL. I've seen an article out there on Ethics in Thelema, was that by Frater Ash? And Duquette's book ought to cover most or all of the practical aspects. Let's get the Crowley section cited! 78.52.90.29 (talk) 07:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

There is an article called "Ethics of Thelema" by Erwin Hessle which appeared in the first issue of theJournal of Thelemic Studies. There was also a consequent response by IAO131 called Thelemic Values: a new view of morality —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psionicpigeon (talk • contribs) 03:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
DuQuette's books dont even begin to cover the practical aspects of Thelema. They MIGHT be said to TOUCH upon the ceremonial magick aspects of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psionicpigeon (talk • contribs) 03:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Dubious

Central to the Thelemic experience

I don't believe Crowley ever referred to any practice or ritual as "central" to Thelema or "the Thelemic experience". The closest I can think of is his calling the Gnostic Mass the "central ritual of the O.T.O.", but that's an entirely different matter. I'd be very surprised indeed to find that Crowley called any practice or ritual "central" to Thelema. 85.140.207.159 (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

George Knowles

controverscial.com is the personal website of this author, so his essay on Francis Dashwood is self-published and not a reliable source. Do you have some reason to believe he is a well-known writer on this and/or similar topics and has been published elsewhere? 58.176.17.98 (talk) 15:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Invitation for Dan to discuss edit by edit

Dan, Here's a list of a series of edits made separately so that each one could be explained. It is NOT a series of reverts because a series of edits is taken as a single edit for the purposes of 3RR. So, since Wikipedia is supposed to be collaborative, why don't you single out the edits that you disagree with, give a REASON WHY you disagree with it, and attempt to work out a compromise. I am and have all along been willing to do so, but you simply don't seem to be interested in discussing the actual content, but simply your own straw men. I agreed with some of your points and rewrote many parts of the article to address your objections, but you won't even discuss point-by-point with me? What's up with that? 88.191.34.70 (talk) 14:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  1. 14:02, 4 February 2008 (→Cosmology - fix spelling of Stèle)
  2. 13:58, 4 February 2008 (→The Book of the Law - reword to remove fact tag)
  3. 20:32, 3 February 2008 (→Skepticism - link didn't work, fix)
  4. 16:46, 3 February 2008 (→Aleister Crowley's work - "many believe" are weasel words; the source make a definite statement and Crowley's writings support it, no need for weaseling)
  5. 16:40, 3 February 2008 (→Skepticism - good addition, improve reference format and other details; note that MoS dictates that blockquote (not colon) be used for sourced quotes)
  6. 16:30, 3 February 2008 (→References - add reference for newly added citation)
  7. 16:28, 3 February 2008 (→Rabelais' Thelema - add citation)
  8. 16:20, 3 February 2008 (→Historical background - again, Crowley's thoughts and ideas are the subject of a later section)
  9. 16:17, 3 February 2008 (→The Book of the Law - this assertion needs to be cited)
  10. 16:16, 3 February 2008 (→Aleister Crowley's work - note was not a reference, did not seem at all related to the point. if an expanation of the astral is needed, please add to the text of the article, then source)
  11. 16:14, 3 February 2008 (→Aleister Crowley's work - restore reference)
  12. 16:11, 3 February 2008 (→Historical background - this sentence even doesn't belong here, but rather in the Crowley section)
  13. 16:08, 3 February 2008 (→Liber II - how does the comment about tireless activity apply to the subject of ethics?)
  14. 16:07, 3 February 2008 (→Ethics - change misrepresented what the cited reference states)
  15. 16:04, 3 February 2008 (→Practices and observances - clarify in a different way, "sometimes" is misleading)
  16. (16:02, 3 February 2008 (→True Will - restore more text elided without explanation or discussion)
  17. 16:00, 3 February 2008(→Aleister Crowley's work - restore text elided without explanation or discussion)
  18. 15:57, 3 February 2008 (→Aleister Crowley's work - online foums and bulletin boards may not be used as source, long quotes interpreted by the Wikipedia editor are not in good form)
  19. 15:52, 3 February 2008 (→Rabelais - there was no need to change the heading)
  20. 15:50, 3 February 2008 (detail)
  21. 15:47, 3 February 2008 (championed doesn't really feel like a neutral word)
  22. 15:44, 3 February 2008 (remove Knowles based details, article is self-published on his personal website, see talk page)
Did you post this list here because you want me to post responses after the appropriate edit descriptions? I've come to dislike that style of commenting, but I'll do it if you prefer. Please add your responses here at the end of the section. Now, by your current argument, you originally broke 3RR by making 3 reverts and then one more revert that you broke into pieces. (And bear in mind that the line you refer to describes our usual practice, not the official policy.) Meanwhile, WP:Banning policy seems to say that I have a right to revert any banned user's edits, "regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorized to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion." But of course, we should follow the spirit of the rules rather than the letter and try to work by consensus. In this case, the spirit of the policy is that banned users have no right to edit Wikipedia, and people restoring their edits have the burden of proof. User:Ekajati worked to fake consensus, giving a false impression of agreement with hir position. You yourself have yet to win a single supporter (perhaps because the most scholarly source for your/Ekajati's definition actually refers to a place in a story, the Abbey of Thélème. Although curiously, an anonymous editor has deleted that article.) Instead, we see a small but growing list of editors who want you to stop reverting. More on this list of edits later. Dan (talk) 04:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for actual discussion of content, as I've been requesting now for over a week. I'm not sure what you mean about "Ekajati's version". I'm not reverting to it. In case you hadn't noticed, I've moved the article quite a ways from what you call "Ekajati's version" and most of my reverts are to my own edits, content that wasn't here when we started this. As for your "growing list of editors", you seem to mean three, maybe four? Editors who don't seem very active and strangely enough are never here at the same time? Those editors, Dan? Now you. you seem to be a real editor, with over 1000 edits and they aren't all to Thelemic articles. But Thiebes has a total of 54 edits, Stealthepiscopalian has 21 edits, and the mysterious Antaios632 has a grand total of 10 edits. Is it any wonder no established Wikipedia editors have bothered with your pathetic RfC? This sort of situation is what WP:THIRD is for... 24.205.159.15 (talk) 05:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Dan's first respsonse

How did you even expect me to do this, since putting these after their list items would destroy the numbers? I may add diff links later, I can't be bothered right now.
2 minor point: replaced accurate claim with false one. Also for some reason removed a well-known fact with many possible sources available through an Internet near you.
4 Crowley's writings support it? He doesn't say this even in Antecedents, and in fact he disputes it. See response to 17 and 18.
8 along with 12, if I have the numbers right, removed a more accurate account of what he says in Antecedents.
10 Here we come to the heart of the matter. You deleted an example of Crowley's usage ("not Works of Magick, according to the Law of Thelema"). It explains his definition. (And I added it as a note to the phrase system he called Thelema.) Now, the "Rabelaisian Thelemites" you've pointed to all use magic in a way that I doubt Rabelais would recognize, they all live after Crowley, and they don't even deny his influence. Again, one of them says flat out that "Rabelais is a convenient name to show that Crowley borrowed his ideas and was just one thread in much wider fabric." Yet even with a vast Historical Background section, even with a compromise first sentence that fits Ekajati's definition, even with the Contemporary Thelema section emphasizing variety, you still object to a clear account of the usage that apparently created all modern Thelema. (See #Definition and #Definition: comments?, not to mention the archive and my previous comment about the scholarly sources.)
13 removed another central aspect of the system. If we mention this source (and we should), then we should tell the reader what it says. I trust you agree with the summary. I see nothing controversial in the sentence.
14 weren't you just telling us somewhere that Wikipedia does not interpret scripture? And yet here you are doing it, giving a disputed interpretation as fact. (Are you noticing a theme here?) Would you prefer we added, "in the view of one guy"?
15 I'm not sure why you'd think "both heterosexual and homosexual practices" is less misleading, since obviously the latter did not apply to every student. I'm not even sure about the first.
16 this belongs in Aleister Crowley#Controversy, unless you honestly think Thelema needs a discussion of his seemingly contradictory views on the subject. Look at the size of the freaking article.
17 claims that Crowley biographer Lawrence Sutin disagrees with his subject, which seems absurdly biased. Sutin disagrees with his subject's written words. Anyone who's read Aleister "Book of Lies" Crowley at all should know the difference, even if they haven't seen part III of this. Which brings us to:
18 I'll explicitly add Sutin p 126 as a source here, since you seem unable to see the obvious. You also removed the whole quote from Antecedents that makes it clear we shouldn't trust everything Crowley says there. And presenting evidence instead of a necessarily biased summary does indeed seem like good form. By contrast, you and Ekajati have created the false impression that Crowley endorses your view clearly and unambiguously, when in fact he doesn't even say it ambiguously.
19 to the contrary, the word "Thelema" in the heading adds nothing good and falsely (or at least unverifiably) suggests that a philosophy by this name exists independently of Crowley and Liber AL. (See response to 10.) This is also a User:Ekajati edit, of course.
21 I don't think your feelings suffice. But of course we could change the wording as long as we take #Definition into account. The introduction at User:Dan/Thelema did so without actually making this claim. I think I've forgotten something here, but again I have no time for more. Dan (talk) 06:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: your version is not under discussion, I don't consider it an option. It lacks the breadth of vision and NPOV required of a good article candidate. 88.191.50.87 (talk) 13:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Those who just got here may be interested to know that our unregistered friend here nominated his/her version using a now-blocked Tor node. See WP:No open proxies. Dan (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Since the policy specifically states that it does not prohibit the use of open proxies for legitimate editing, and that editors not engaged in vandalism may use them as long as they remain open, that seems rather like a smear attempt. -Will in China 05:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.244.27.53 (talk)

We'll start with point 10, since you say it is the most important.

Point by Point discussion

point 2

Dan said: "minor point: replaced accurate claim with false one. Also for some reason removed a well-known fact with many possible sources available through an Internet near you."

Response: I've replaced "three" with "several" which I believe resolves the inaccuracy. I am not responsible for searching out sources for uncited information which you added. You are. Will in China (talk) 18:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Point 4

I believe this has been resolved by using "may have" rather than "many believe". The issue here is not what people believe or how many believe it, it's that the simple common sense answer to where Crowley got the word Thelema and the phrase "Do what thou wilt" is Rabelais. We can't trust what Crowley said about preternatural entities. Unlikely claims require strong sources. Since there are no reliable thrid-party eyewitness accounts to the event, we have to defer to common sense. Will in China (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

What on Earth are you saying? Who is common sense? Dan (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I take it you have no further objections to the current wording. Will in China (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I do think it seems foolish, and more weaselly than the other wording. The other way puts the focus on sources who believe it rather than asserting anything about the topic itself. Dan (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
But I do think we've made progress. Perhaps we should focus on the intro now. Dan (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
But we don't really know what other people believe or how many is many. All we know is what some people have written. Will in China (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for acknowledging that. Can we strike this one off as resolved for the sake of compromise? Will in China (talk) 22:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Probably, yes. Dan (talk) 01:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

points 8, 12

I removed all mention of Crowley in this section, as well as the sections on Rabelais and Dashwood. What Crowley says about these two points belongs in the Crowley section if it is important. I leave it to you to determine how best to integrate it with the existing references to Antecedents already in that section. These sections are under the heading Historical background, not Opinions expressed by Crowley on the historical background. How Crowley integrated the past usages of what became his Law of Thelema is explicitly part of Aleister Crowley's work. I am not prejudiced against bringing these points up in that section. Will in China (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

point 10

You say this is a critical point of Crowley's system. Then why is it reduced to a footnote? In general, footnotes are expected to be sources, not explanations. Please find a way to integrate what you think is important about this into the article text. Footnote it with the source, not further explanation. I just don't see what's so important about this myself or even see precisely what the actual point of your footnote is. So you can't possibly expect me to integrate the point myself, I don't get it. Neither will other readers. Have I made my reason clear? Can you find another way to integrate your important and critical point? I'm not deleting this to be stubborn. I'm deleting it because it is bad writing to do it this way... 88.191.50.87 (talk) 13:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Much better way of making this point. There is no need to use words like "purport" or "claim", see words to avoid. "Wrote", "stated" or "said" are much better. Now that I see what your point is, I think I've found a much better quote to illustrate it in Liber Aleph. What do you think? Will in China (talk) 04:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, clearly you missed the point, because the new quote does not mention the Law of Thelema. Dan (talk) 05:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, you've got me then. First, I don't see how the astral plane is such a major part of Thelema that it even has to be mentioned here, rather than in Magick or Thelemic mysticism. And the problem with the quote you are using is that it simply doesn't have enough context to be understandable by anyone not already familiar with Crowley. In particular, "These mirror-images" has no context, so what the statement is actually saying about the Law of Thelema remains completely obscure to the average reader. That's why I took the quote out in the first place. It's clear that the astral plane is quite significant to magick, it's not clear from the quote just how it is significant to Thelema. I'd say we either have to stop trying to relate Thelema and the astral plane, or pick some other topic that he writes about in the "Light of Thelema" for which a clear and easy to understand quote exists. Or you could point out that the whole of Liber Aleph is a comment on the Thelemic way. Will in China (talk) 14:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought I put it in a footnote with a clear explanation in the text (clear enough because it comes after Skepticism, though I guess we should link astral plane or Astral_plane#The_astral_plane_and_astral_experience.) I don't understand your position here. Dan (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The section tries to explain how Magick relates to Thelema, the quote gives an explicit example of this, I tried to explain it clearly, what's the problem? Dan (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, go ahead and put it back your way if you must. Let's wait and see that the GA reviewer thinks of it and respond accordingly. Will in China (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

point 14

Dan says: "weren't you just telling us somewhere that Wikipedia does not interpret scripture? And yet here you are doing it, giving a disputed interpretation as fact. (Are you noticing a theme here?) Would you prefer we added, "in the view of one guy"?"

Response: there's a subtlety here that you are missing. You are correct that as Wikipedia editors we can not personally attempt to interpret scripture. But we can certainly report what other people have written about it. And no, it would not be approprate to add "in the view of one guy". The correct way to proceed would be to cite another source which differs on the topic. Nobody I think would disagree that Crowley spoke a about non-interference. But does anybody say that some specific verse in Liber AL dictates non-interference. That's the question here. If you come up with another POV, then we can determine how to word the some people think this, some people think that. But without the example, how would you suggest we proceed. We can't misreport what the source says simply because you dispute his interpretation. Will in China (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, again, Crowley gives this interpretation in Liber II. Dan (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
We need third party sources. The article already mentions Crowley's interpolations under the Duty section as well. Will in China (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

point 15

I think I see what you mean about the word both. I've rephrased again without it. Nowhere does the section say that the practices listed were or are required of everyone or that they were or are taught to everyone. It is simply a list of the types of magick and other ritual put forth by Crowley as parts of his system, which you call Thelema. I personally distinguish between Thelema and magick, with the latter unnecessary to the former, but as that is clearly not the majority view I feel no need to cause even more of a dispute over that particular detail. Will in China (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

point 16

Here I must disagree. This is a significant statement by Crowley, and that is what this section is about - Crowley's definitions of Thelema, not Contemporary Thelema. If you want to balance it under the heading of Contemporary Thelema by indicating that this one of Crowley's opinions about True Will has been discarded by specific groups of Modern Thelemites (with citations of course), then that would be the proper way of handling it. I'm not aware of any Thelemites objecting to his opinion in writing during Crowley's lifetime, are you? -Will in China 05:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

In case you aren't aware, it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to present Thelema in the most palatable light to attract followers, which seems to be part of your agenda. It is the purpose of Wikipedia to be historically accurate and complete. This is not a fact about Crowley's definitions and opinions to be swept under the rug. It is a significant fact potentially affecting around half of his potential followers during his life... -Will in China 05:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.244.27.53 (talk)

And it should be in the Aleister Crowley article, as indeed it is. Dan (talk) 21:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
And it should be here, under True Will, unless you suggest removing that section. Will in China (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Do you want to copy the whole Sexism subsection from Aleister Crowley#Controversy? Because you don't get to add one side. Tell you what. If you can show that anyone even during Crowley's lifetime treated this as part of Thelema -- say, by reserving the title of Magister Templi for men, or requiring women to have children -- then you can leave it in the article Thelema. Dan (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
This isn't about sexism, it's about True Will. I just read through the material there, and none of it addressed the issue of True Will. True Will is a central element of Thelema, is it not? I'm not trying to make him out to be sexist, I am trying to give an important element of what he said about True Will. If you have any addition quotes specifically about what Crowley said about women and their True Will that mitigates the specific points, by all means add it. And/or add a (See [[Aleister Crowley#Sexism). While the material there is not specific enough to address the point, there is no reason not to refer the reader to it. Will in China (talk) 00:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Seems to me we have to decide whether to treat the sexists remarks as AC's personal opinion (assuming he believed them) or as an important part of Thelema. And it seems clear that even he didn't take the latter view. He didn't order female students to have children. Indeed, he condemned and removed from office one Smith of Agape lodge on suspicion of ordering women to sleep with him. "What greater violation of the Law of Thelema can one imagine?" AC didn't seem to heed any of his own sexist remarks in his official capacity as a teacher. And I certainly don't think anyone else ever did. So let's keep the discussion at the article for the man. Dan (talk) 05:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid I can't agree with you, Dan. Crowley never ordered anyone to do what he (Crowley) thought was their True Will. Ordering women to sleep with one is a completely different issue specifically covered by the Book of the Law (violates "take your fill of love ... with whom ye will"). Stopping people from having non-consensual sex in no way implies that he thought the woman in question should not have children. I'm open for some mitigating material specifically about women and True Will, either from Crowley or from third-party biographical sources. Will in China (talk) 15:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I've updated the reference to make it clear that this isn't simply some passing sexist comment in Confessions. This is from the New Commentary on the Book of the Law... Will in China (talk) 15:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course he ordered people to follow what he saw as their true will. He did this all the time. See Victor Neuberg, for example. And of course only one Comment is official in AC's eyes.
The article is long, this would make it even longer if we followed NPOV, it doesn't seem to belong in the article, I'm taking it out. Dan (talk) 22:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Should I explain the reference? Neuburg had a ten-day magical retirement early in his time with Crowley. The latter made "brutal" attacks that he (as I interpret Sutin) saw or made himself see as necessary to help Neuburg achieve his True Will. The student almost broke his vow of obedience as a result. Then afterward, "Crowley surprised Neuburg by insisting on a still further ten days of physical discipline -- sleeping naked on the cold floor of his room on a litter of gorse that Neuburg was sent off to cut for himself." Yet he never gave female students any orders about having children, not even general orders that one might expect from a (honest, not clearly abusive) Catholic priest. Dan (talk) 03:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Please try to stick to the point. This isn't about Crowley ordering anyone to do anything. That's a red herring. And your contention that giving a direct quote from a primary source (Crowley) without any attempt to interpret it is POV is a straw man. Now, if I gave a third party view, you would be completely right that another balancing third-party view would have to be added if it existed. But this is simply a quote from a primary source. I don't say that this makes Crowley sexist, so there is nothing to rebut. Will in China (talk) 15:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
There is plenty of mitigating material from the Extenuation which makes it clear that women and men are identical in the respect that each is a star and that each has a true Will. What your quote does not reflect is that the reason he saw bearing children as a part of woman's true Will is that it is a function of her body. This is a fact of nature and not a reflection of sexism, though I don't mean to suggest he was not sexist of course. He was. But the question of his sexism as is explicitly invoked here seems out of place in this article, nor does this quote provide evidence of sexism. Thiebes (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Let me see if I understand you. I think you agree with me that the quote does not imply sexism, and therefore does not need the see also or any other form of rebuttal (or NPOV as Dan calls it). I take your both of your other points. Could you suggest sources for both so they could be included. I agree that the article would be more balance with both language and citation about as you say "women and men are identical in the respect ... [of] True Will" and "that the reason he saw bearing children as a part of woman's true Will is that it is a function of her body". I would love to integrate both of those points into the section on True Will. Will in China (talk) 01:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Point 18

I removed the long quote from Antecedents simply because it is completely incomprehensible. And because you are attempting to interpret it, which is not allowed under WP:OR. It's way too long and breaks up the flow of the article. If you want to find a way to put it in a footnote, without attempting to interpret it or even implying that it is intended as "humour", go ahead. We both know that Crowley could also write like this with complete seriousness. But I think your point is actually your forbidden interpretation of the text and the quote is simply an excuse to add your point. If some published commentator has made your same point about this particular quote, by all means add it, but in some way that doesn't completely distract from the presentation of the article. If you prefer, we could compromise by removing the bit about Crowley calling Rabelais "Our Master". However, I think he said that in all seriousness, regardless of whether any other part of the article is humor. You are trying to say that the use of "Our Master" is humor. Maybe we should also note that Crowley made Rabelais a Saint of his Gnostic Church for further balance. 80.141.112.117 (talk) 14:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

These numbers refer to new points, not edits or my direct responses to them.
1. People have indeed made the point, as you can plainly see.
2. The use of Antecedents and the Gnostic Saints list serves to imply that Crowley said he took "Do what thou wilt" from Rabelais. He does not say this, and says the opposite in many places, claiming to have taken it from the Book of the Law (which, however, many believe refers to Rabelais.) And this comes from a reliable biography: Lawrence Sutin quotes private diaries that fit this story, and writes that "if ever Crowley uttered the truth of his relation to the Book," his public account accurately describes what he remembered on this point.
3. You prove my point with this bit about the Gnostic Saints. We should not try to draft them into a religion they did not know about, nor should we exaggerate the connection. Nor, again, should the article take anything Crowley ever wrote at face value! Read that quote from Sutin again. He added the qualification for a reason. I should not have to tell you this when it comes to a list of saints that includes Pan, Osiris, Hermes and Melchizedek.
4. The quote in the article seems necessary because you and Ekajati (quite recently) insist on starting or preceding the discussion of AC's work with an assertion about Rabelais, and indeed misrepresenting what AC says on the subject. Putting the text of the quote in the article seems like the best way to show what it means without going beyond sourced interpretation, though I suppose we could add a quote from Sutin saying that AC claims Rabelais foresaw Thelema. Dan (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
You wrote: "Putting the text of the quote in the article seems like the best way to show what it means without going beyond sourced interpretation, though I suppose we could add a quote from Sutin saying that AC claims Rabelais foresaw Thelema."
My response: yes, we be should using third-party sources here. I'd much prefer a short and clear quote from Sutin over a long and ambiguous quote from Crowley, since the possibility that one paragraph is intended to be humorous in no way implies that any other paragraph in the same essay is also so intended. Will in China (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Point 19

Thelema here is not a reference to a Rabelasian philosophy. It's a reference to the Abbey, country and utopia. Thelema is the English translation of Thélème. Two points here, we should use the English translation in the heading on English Wikipedia, and because there are actually three referents making it more specific doesn't really work for me. Would your prefer "Thelema of Rabalais" or "Rabelais' Thélème". Somehow I think you will continue to not get the point. And I'm not reverting to Ekajati's version, which was "Rabalaisian Thelema". I changed it because you convinced me there was no such thing. And now you criticize my correction. There's no pleasing you apparently. 68.144.168.46 (talk) 14:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Because it plainly does not solve the problem. If you want to add unnecessary words, we could say Rabelais' Abbey of Thélème, or even Abbey of Thelema if you have some strange attachment to the Latin alphabet transliteration of the Greek. Both remove the disputed implication. Dan (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe this has been resolved by using Rabelais' Thélème. Will in China (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Point 21

I don't see what the problem is. Do you dispute that Crowley developed a system around the ideal of "Do what thou wilt"? Do you really think using "championed" rather than "promoted" is really necessary? Try to be more clear about exactly what you think the problem is with my compromise attempt. Will in China (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was blindingly obvious; Crowley did it first, whatever you want to call it, and the article should either say so or stop suggesting otherwise. Dan (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
And I thought it was blindingly obvious that Crowley was a plagiarist and made up a cockamamie story that only his followers take seriously. Will in China (talk) 22:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
To clarify, Crowley's system of magick that he assembled around "Do what thou wilt" and the word Thelema was original. Neither the law itself nor the name, nor the idea of an Abbey of Thelema, which Crowley also cribbed from Rabelais, were original. Crowley did not do "Do what thou wilt" first. He developed a system of magick around a pre-existing concept. As a professed follower of the religion, you can hardly be objective about this. Do you view Crowley as a prophet? Will in China (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
This seems irrelevant (aside from suggesting that you refuse to follow NPOV because of animus against Crowley's view). I thought we agreed that nobody openly self-identified as a Thelemite before Crowley and the Book of the Law. You said earlier that you agreed Rabelaisian Thelema in that sense did not verifiably exist. I'll try editing the introduction to show you what I mean, while adding the links you mentioned in their appropriate place. Dan (talk) 01:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
You are not understanding me. The ideal existed. It had been expressed by Rabelais and understood by Dashwood, but not yet elaborated into a formal system. An ideal by definition is not a realized thing. (See Plato). Crowley developed this already expressed ideal in a practical way. That is the sense in which I meant "developed". Perhaps you'd prefer reified? No, not quite right, is it? My writing is trying to be very precise here, but if you misread ideal you would indeed miss the mark and misunderstand what I am saying. Will in China (talk) 02:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion request

A Third opinion has been requested, but it appears from the signed posts that five or more editors are participating. How many are actually involved in this dispute? — Athaenara ✉ 23:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The IP addresses are a single user. I will start signing "Will in China" to avoid confusion. Thiebes doesn't seem to be really active in the discussion. It's just me and Dan trying to work out a compromise here. -Will in China 01:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.226.77.48 (talk)
And Stealthepiscopalian, at one time. And another user agreed with the summary at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/81.9.61.227. A second anonymous user who evidently does not use Tor also took part in the discussion here, but just as we cannot distinguish "Will" from User:Ekajati we do not know this other person's identity. Dan (talk) 02:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
You mean your sockpuppets with 21 and 10 edits respectfully? They don't seem to be engaged in the discussion. But maybe you can fix that? Maybe they are about to chime right in? Or only once in a while, enough so you can claim third party isn't appropriate. You are both a liar and a loser. 70.16.81.96 (talk) 04:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The anonymous 70.16.81.96 user has been given a first level {{Uw-npa1}} warning (diff) after violations of the Civility and No personal attacks policies. — Athaenara ✉ 20:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Self-identification as a Thelemite before Crowley

Here is a self-identification as a Thelemite in 1841, before Crowley was born... Another interesting document using the term Thelemite from 1863 is this editorial, The Modern Thelemite. -Will in China 01:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Second seems to confirm the pejorative use. Dan (talk) 02:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and publishing a poem as "A. Thelemite" seems like the opposite of openly championing the rule of fay çe que vouldras. Dan (talk) 02:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
So you weren't sincere. Nice knowing you. Apparently you can twist anything to make it meaningless or so it agrees with you, even when it doesn't. -Will in China 04:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.16.81.96 (talk)
The anonymous 70.16.81.96 user has been given a first level {{Uw-npa1}} warning (diff) after violations of the Civility and No personal attacks policies. — Athaenara ✉ 20:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Nirvana

(Lost track here.) It took me a while to figure out what Will meant about the Liber II quote. Since the article goes on to speak of Buddhist and tantric traditions, and they do seem important here, why not just link nirvana so this reader you speak of can learn what the author meant? Dan (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, add the second sentence with a link to nirvana. If we also leave the first sentence it gives a much clearer picture, don't you think? Will in China (talk) 00:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    There are some instances of mixing British and American punctuation; a specific style should be settled on and stuck with. Some of the prose is awkward in parts as well.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    One or two instances where sources need to be cited. Also, n.6 needs a notice of if the emphasis is original or by the editors.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    The editors might want to consider manipulating some of the images and infoboxes so as to reduce the amount of white space in the article.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    jackturner3 (talk) 14:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


Diversity of Thelemic Thought section

I need to challenge and query some of the points asserted in the Diversity of Thelemic Thought Section:

1: Who decided that LaSara Firefox was a notable Thelemite exactly? And why? She hasnt published any material that could be seen has Thelemic and the church of the Allworlds is not a Thelemic organisation. Unless there can be a reliable citation that doesnt involve a crap pagan "encyclopedia" i put forward that the LaSara Firefox reference be removed.

2: Amado Crowley. Although this person has made claims that have failed to stand up to scrutiny, including Amado Crowley in the Diversity of Thought section should be queried/challenged has well. Amados "material" is threadbare and he hasnt produced any written work that would suggest "Thelemic Diversity". So i put forward that this is removed has well unless references other than the "Dave Evans fan-club" are forth coming.

3: "Thelemites who practice other religions". Some of the assertions in this bit has well are open to challenge. How could a Thelemite be a Satanist when Satanism is subject to inverting christian parameters exactly? And vice versa? This doesnt stand up to any deep examination. I would argue that if your a Thelemite there is no need for any religion since you are seeking True Will. Why need the distraction of a religion when Thelema covers all the bases? Again i put forward that the 4th paragraph in the Diversity of Thelemic thought section is removed since it just contradicts itself.--Redblossom (talk) 14:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

All of the items you bring up are referenced to sources which meet Wikipedia's requirements for source material. The article and its sources have been reviewed against the Good article criteria back in February and the article was passed to GA status. Of course, if there are alternate points of view which you would like to add that can be referenced to source material which meets Wikipedia requirements, by all means add it. Though I would suggest that discussion of the details of Amado Crowley's claim be documented in that article, following the standards for biographies of living people. I'm not sure what you mean to imply by refering to the "Dave Evans fan-club". Dr. David Evans has a Ph.D. in the field and is certainly a qualified source for information on Thelema. This is an encyclopedia, not an OTO promo page. Will in China (talk) 21:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

If that is the case Will in china then the good article criteria is not sufficient or its being abused to the point of laziness. Again i raise the point over the LaSara Firefox assertion. This person hasnt published any Thelemic material. The organisation that she is associated with is not Thelemic in nature. And the reference used hasnt published which page or the context of saying she is "Thelemic". That single reference is very dubious unless it can be verified through a secondary source. So i still put forwrd the motion that the firefox citation is removed until there is clarity on it. The second point over "Amado Crowley" still stands. He is not a prominent Thelemite in the eyes of Thelemites due to his fabrications over his fake "history" of Crowley. If he is going to be used in the article it should be has him making claims about himself and Crowley that cant be verified. But he shouldnt be listed has a "prominent Thelemite" and he shouldnt be used in the diversity of Thelemic thought since the material he uses is very contradictory and is at times nonsensical. If you are a Thelemite who knows his history Will in china, you should know this already. So i dont understand why your defending his inclusion in the diversity of Thelemic thought. With regard to Dave Evans yes he does have a PHD but his material is "clouded" by his personal tastes and he has been very negative to Crowley and certain Thelemites in his writing raising issue over neutrality over his work. Again if you are a Thelemite you should know this already Will in china. (Alas its the same with all historians with an axe to grind). Also Evans is not in a postion to decide whether or not "Amado Crowleys" work is "Thelemic" in any way since Evans is an academic and not a practicing Thelemite, and "Amado" himself hasnt given a very good account of himself when challenged over this his work. So using Evans work to justify "Amado" has a form of Thelemic diversity doesnt stand up to query or scrutiny. Again he may be "qualified" in academia but but not in Thelemic matters.

So to summmarise i put forward to the Wikiproject Thelema members that the LaSara Firefox reference is removed until a better reference is used or the context of the reference is elaborated further ( if it actually exists in the context it is being used here). That the mentions of "Amado Crowley" be moved elsewhere in the Thelema article under claims of legitimacy but not under Thelemic diversity. And that the "Thelemites who practice other religions" be removed since thats just contradiction. If a person has a fair grasp behind Thelema then the idea that they need another "religion" is just ludicrous and not well thought out. I look forward to the Wikiproject Thelema members cleaning this up.--Redblossom (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem, my good man (or woman), is that a religion is define by its followers and evolves over time. It is a sociological phenomemon, not something defined by an orthodoxy. People are starting to observe and study Thelema as implemented in the real world by people who self-identify as Thelemites. I personally know many, many Thelemites who also identify as also practicing other religions, primarily Buddhism and Hinduism. This is the reality "on the ground", despite how you personally would like to define Thelema. Wikipedia policy on breadth and NPOV require the inclusion of these variants. They appear to me to be given the proper amount of coverage and in the proper position at the end of the article. This is not an article about what Thelema "should be" according to you or any other "authority". Crowley is not the whole of Thelema and no longer defines it. Will in China (talk) 12:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not asserting what Thelema "should" be. I am challenging the inclusion of some points that are dubious at best. LaSara Firefox hasnt published any Thelemic material. The organsiation she is with is not Thelemic in nature. So why her inclusion has a prominent Thelemite? It just comes across has an advertisement for her and her organsiation. (the same applies to the Sam Webster inclusion has a prominent Thelemite) The inclusion comes across has nonsensical.

Secondly the Amado Crowley assertion still stands. It's dubious at best that his career should be seen has an expression has Thelemic diversity when he has made negative claims against the Liber AL, and other prominent Thelemites. So again this needs to be decided upon collectively to be moved under a sub section of maybe legitimacy claims but not an example of Thelemic diversity.

Thirdly, again i dont see the point or the need for a section expressing a dubious assertion that some self proclaimed "Thelemites" follow other religions. This is a contradiction in the basic ideas expresed in Liber AL that casts aside mainstream relgion (pecking out the eyes of... and tearing away the flesh of... anyone?!) to follow a personal path beyond the constraints of any organisation that restricts personal will. So again i put forward the motion that that paragraph be removed, and replaced with something else entirely different showing the obvious differences between the ideas & freedom behind Thelema and the constraints apparent in religions. This would help to clarify the confusion and contradiction presented has some sort of "fact" in the article. Can we have a decision and some consensus on this WikiProject Thelema members?--Redblossom (talk) 13:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, that's not how Wikipedia works. A "consensus" of WikiProject members should not be removing valid cited material. That would damage the neutrality of the article and emphasize a single POV which happens to be yours. If you can find citable opposing opinions, those could be added to the information already present. Will in China (talk) 14:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If we go by the criteria that you are suggesting Will in China then any person who says that they are a Thelemite (but are not) and its in print somewhere can by default be listed here on Wikipedia has a Thelemite. Do you see how daft that is? Secondly how is the LaSara Firefox assertion "vaild cited material"? And how would moving the Amado Crowley from the Thlemic diversity section to elsewhere affect neutrality of the article? Just has an observation there needs to be some criteria on who is a Thelemite under Wikipedia criteria. By my standards what consitiutes a "Thelemite" here would be laughed at in the real world (again the LaSara Firefox assertion being a point in case). I would like someone else from the Wikiproject Thelema group to look at my points to offer an alternative to Will in China's.--Redblossom (talk) 17:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly the standard used by Wikipedia for religious affiliation, self-identification of religious tradition by the believer. It is not daft, it is the only reasonable way to know what religion an individual professes. It is not Wikipedia's place to determine whether their claim is correct or not, that would be original research. And by valid cited material, it means that it comes from the third-party source footnoted at the end of the sentence or paragraph. A third-party reported the self-identification in a chapter or entry on Thelema in the work cited. Check the reference yourself... The reference says that Firefox and others in the Church of All Worlds self-identify as Thelemites. Unless you have another third party reference which disputes this, I don't see why we should change the article. It accurately reports what the sources say about diverse views of Thelema. Will in China (talk) 20:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify what your suggesting there Will in china, is that Wikipedia is not an accurate source of information (Thelema), but is a collector of material (accurate/inaccurate) that has been printed/quoted about Thelema and is used to give a picture/idea of Thelema that is NOT accurate in the academic/historical/practical sense of the word. In that context, if any browser looks at the Thelema page they will get a general idea of Thelema but not an accurate one due to the limitations of Wikipedia's criteria and use of third party material that wouldnt stand up to scrutiny in a academic or historical environment. So Wikipedia doesnt "accurately report" on Thelema but uses/abuses printed material to present a "representation" of Thelema that may or may not be true/accurate, due to Wikipedias limitations and criteria. So even though the Thelema article might be GA standard on Wikipedia it is not an accurate or even decent portrayal of Thelema in the real world. This is the nature of the internet in that anyone can be an "expert" and pass of material that would be laughed at in the real world, but is seen has "fact" on Wikipedia. If it was up to me a lot of the article would be gutted and started from scratch, but alas it seems there are vested interests here who are seeking to make a name/career for themselves using Wikipedia. C'est La Vie!!--Redblossom (talk) 06:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess I just don't see it that way, RB. Most of the sources agree that the essence of Thelema is "Do what thou wilt." Not all Thelemites are Crowleyan Thelemites so what the Book of the Law says is not essential for them. Even "The Comment" says to destroy the book and not discuss it, so the step of ignoring what it says beyond "Do what thou wilt" seems entirely logical to me. Since there is not even agreement that Thelema is a religion, why would it be incompatible with being an adherent of another religion, if that be the individual's will? It seems to me that you are projecting your POV of what Thelema is or should be, and that's precisely what Wikipedia editors are not supposed to be basing Wikipedia articles on. Those who accept the law of "Do what thou wilt" are Thelemites, and the diverse ways in which they apply this law is the topic of this article. Will in China (talk) 04:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Will in China, being a Thelemite is a bit more than just "Do what thou wilt" and its simplistic to suggest so. And a fair bit of the Thelema article is simplistic has well.Various religions up to a point put the god/goddess's will first ahead of the follower. This is in contradiction to the ideas set out in LIber AL. So again i say that the article is portraying contradiction and falsehood has some sort of fact on Thelema. Like i said Wikipedia has its limitations and the article on Thelema displays that weakness. Can we have someone who actually knows what they are talking about concerning Thelema address the issues of some of the points i have made?--Redblossom (talk) 20:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Since it doesn't seem like you are either reading or understanding what I have written or even the article itself, I see no point in continuing the conversation. In point of fact, I know quite a bit about Thelema both in theory and practice, and the view you are expressing is considerably narrower than that of many Thelemites. Also when you imply that I am not someone who knows about Thelema, you are coming very close to making a personal attack which is not permitted on Wikipedia. Will in China (talk) 19:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to highlight another misinformed contradiction. When a Thelemite engages in their practice the main body of work is to find their "true will" We can all agree on that. So from that point of view, how does appeasement and surrendering of their will to a god or goddess of a religion fit the Thelemic requirement of finding true will? It doesnt. So the idea of people saying they are "Thelemite" but they make appeasements and surrender to deities doesnt meet the Thelemic model of finding and maintaining true will. It just a confusing contradiction that doesnt make any sense by Thelemic criteria. Whereas religion promotes the will of the said deity/god Thelema promotes the development of true will without corruption or interference. So can someone explain to me the contradiction of the Wikipedia article allowing this confusion of so called "Thelemites" saying that they engage in the practice of religions? To me its just confused people wanting to have their cake and eat it, without any thought or genuine understanding. Doesnt make any sense.--Redblossom (talk) 20:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, no. I don't believe there is general agreement among Thelemites about True Will. That was a doctrine or dogma of Crowley's which is not mentioned in the Book of the Law. The book itself speaks of pure will and processes of purification of will, but Crowley's interpretation is only one way of understanding it. Both pre- and post-Crowlian Thelemites may not use Crowley's idiosyncratic approach. You also seem to be confusing Buddhism, Hinduism and other traditions with Christianity. It is simply not the case that deity yoga need involve "appeasements and surrender". That you think it does simply indicates that you have not looked into the matter very deeply and are projecting your superficial view onto a rather more complex spiritual world of which you remain unaware. Will in China (talk) 04:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually i am not making the mistake of putting Hinduism, Buddhism, and other religions with Christianity. Most religions make appeasements and observations to their specific deity (Green Tara/Buddhism, Shiva in Hinduism, ext) Most religions make appeasement and appreciations to their specific deities. Thelemas purpose of finding individual true will contradicts the view of deity based religions. So again it is a contradcition. How can true will be found if the follower of religion accepts that their existence is merely the will of said god/deity? Again the contradiction.--Redblossom (talk) 11:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, give me a break. First, you completely ignored the fact that not all Thelemites accept Crowley's doctrine of True Will. Second, what about Liber Astarte where Crowley specifically recommends and gives instructions on how to approach, worship and become a diety? Your choice of Green Tara is also fascinating, because Tibetan Buddhism is not a religion, Tara is not a "god" in the sense you are using, and advanced practices involve the practitioner self-visualizing as the deity and essentially worshiping themselves in the form of the deity. The practices of Tibetan Buddhism strongly resemble westerm magical practices, albeit with an eastern aspect. Finally, The Book of the Law itself speaks of making sacrifices of cattle to Horus, an ancient Egyptian god. Take off your blinders, man! Will in China (talk) 12:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Tara_%28Buddhism%29 http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Tibetan_Buddhism

The wiki articles above dont back you up on that point. Liber Astarte has got nothing to do with making appeasements to deity /gods.Liber Astarte is a training technique to move beyond human consciousness & to identify with the starting point of creation. If you have studied it then you would realise that, so how that correlates with the argument made about the contradictions stated by the poster hasnt been argued.Also your use of the Liber AL quote is also being taken out of context of its original useage (which is a common problem of Liber AL) to fit your contradictory argument, so again your point is flawed and weak. Again this is the weakness of anyone posting on Wikipedia, in that poor argument and a lack of understanding can be passed off has some sort of "fact". And anyone can be an expert. I back up the original posters point that the article does need a clean up, starting with the religion points. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.25.50 (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Redblossom, posting without logging in and pretending to be someone else is known as sockpuppetry, and it seems you have a history of doing this. Your understanding of Tantric Hinduism and Buddhism is seriously deficient. The keywords in the article which you are apparently too uneducated to appreciate are "Tantric" and "Vajrayana", in which self-visualization as the deity are the rule. Anyone who has not looked into the religions which Crowley himself studied deeply enough to know that the invocation of deities in these traditions does not involve subservience to the deity but rather the exact opposite is simply not deserving of Crowley's legacy. Will in China (talk) 01:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Your three points

I am a former member of the Thelema WikiProject, and you have requested that someone else comment on your three points:

  • Who decided that LaSara Firefox was a notable Thelemite exactly? And why? She hasnt published any material that could be seen has Thelemic and the church of the Allworlds is not a Thelemic organisation. Unless there can be a reliable citation that doesnt involve a crap pagan "encyclopedia" i put forward that the LaSara Firefox reference be removed.
    • It doesn't matter who put her in the article. She's here now, and theres a citation which supports her inclusion. She doesn't need to publish any "thelemic" material to self identify as a thelemite. The article is neither promoting, nor lifting her to a state of prominence. If you are a notable person, (no matter how much you might be disliked) and identify as ____ (fill in the blank), and have been subject to publication, you are worthy of at least being mentioned in any article that is topic appropriate. Now I would be really worried if she was mentioned as a "prominent" Thelemite. But the article just isn't giving me this impression when I read it.
  • Amado Crowley. Although this person has made claims that have failed to stand up to scrutiny, including Amado Crowley in the Diversity of Thought section should be queried/challenged has well. Amados "material" is threadbare and he hasnt produced any written work that would suggest "Thelemic Diversity". So i put forward that this is removed has well unless references other than the "Dave Evans fan-club" are forth coming.
    • I hate this guy. He's a fake, and has been discredited many times. But so what? This article isn't saying anything other than his belief that Crowley's system is "only one possible manifestation of Thelema". Thats it. :/ And the statement is also backed by a source (albeit, not the best source, but the claim is nothing thats going to keep me awake at night, wondering just how many manifestations of Thelema there might be!). He is tied to Thelema through his lies, and no one can stop that now. Just like LaSara, he merits being mentioned.
  • "Thelemites who practice other religions". Some of the assertions in this bit has well are open to challenge. How could a Thelemite be a Satanist when Satanism is subject to inverting christian parameters exactly? And vice versa? This doesnt stand up to any deep examination. I would argue that if your a Thelemite there is no need for any religion since you are seeking True Will. Why need the distraction of a religion when Thelema covers all the bases? Again i put forward that the 4th paragraph in the Diversity of Thelemic thought section is removed since it just contradicts itself.
    • It doesn't really matter how or why they choose to practice both Thelema and Satanism, or Thelema and any other religion/ceremonial magic. Much like Chaos magic, its up to them to figure out those details, not us. As thelemites, we do not get to assert our own opinions into these articles and there is no contradiction since these are only claims that are backed up by sources.
SynergeticMaggot (talk) 11:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I will ask you the same thing that i asked in my posts. If a person says that they are a Thelemite but they follow a religion that makes appeasements to deities of said religion , how is that Thelemic? How is the person fulfilling the criteria of being in a state of true will when they are putting the will of the said deity ahead of their own individual will? I assert that they are not. Therefore they are not being Thelemic. Again this is contradiction that is presenting a misleading representation of Thelema on the part of the article i am focusing on. The subsection in question needs cleaned up edited to deal with this contradiction. Like i said earlier Wikipedia does have its limitations and the diversity sub section shows this off cruelly. To me this argument of using citations & references for people who merely call themselves Thelemic is making the Thelema article look dubious at best. If we go by the criteria for Wikipedia if someone can get a citation stating that George W Bush said he is a "Thelemite" then under Wikipedia criteria lo and behold he is a Thelemite!! See how ludicrous that is? If this is supposed to be a GA article under Wikipedia criteria then the criteria is laughable and sub standard.--Redblossom (talk) 11:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thats very simple. Crowley once said (and I'm quoting this directly from Jpgordon's comment from Talk:Aleister Crowley):
  • We place no reliance/On virgin or pigeon/Our Method is Science/Our Aim is Religion -- Crowley.
It doesn't matter if she is or isn't true to her path. We can argue all day that a handful of priests that commit sin everyday are not following Christianity to a "t", but that still doesn't take them out of the equation. She self identifies with Thelema. The article does not mention her true will, or her true intentions. So thats not really up for debate. And if you wish to dispute the GA status, maybe you should bring it up with them. Remain impartial. This article is for the average reader, and let me remind you that the average reader is not a Thelemite. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 12:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
And by the way, if Bush said he was a Thelemite, lets say, on TV, we can of course include it. Nevermind that we can't be sure. We would word it "President Bush has claimed (for instance) in an interview with Meet the Press that he practices Thelema". This would be true of course, and worded in such a way as to remain neutral. This article does just that for LaSara. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 12:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


This article doesnt meet Good Article criteria

I put forward the motion that the Thelema page has its Good Article status removed. Under Wiki criteria an article needs to be factually accurate. The Thelema page is not factually accurate. And will not be due to a lot of issues.

1: Inclusion of citations presenting Thelema has a religion. This is not a fact. Thelema being presented has a religion is not a fact. Its not a provable fact. So it doesnt meet Good Article criteria. Also the issue over that the Thelemic community cant agree unanimously/collectively on what Thelema "is" and "is not". So the article would needs to reflect that more clearly. At this time the article doesnt do that.

2: Some sub sections on the page are just poorly written and needs serious clean up. I have put forward this proposal, but it has been met by resistance from some posters who are quite defensive about the page. So again because of this i put forward that the page has its GA status removed until there is some mutual consensus on a workable clean up.--Redblossom (talk) 13:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I propose that this nomination be overturned for 2 reasons:
  1. The article has not changed substantially since it attained GA status less than 4 months ago
  2. While the nominator has expressed views differing with those of the article, s/he has not suggested any sources which support his or her views nor proposed any edits to the article to add this additional point of view. Will in China (talk) 17:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Some points that need attention:

The inclusion of Israel Regardie in the Thelemic literature section. Regardie never wrote in books on Thelemic practice. Most of it was Golden Dawn and Kabbalah material. Secondly he never stated that he was Thelemic (which is important). So the inclusion of Regardie has an example of Thelemic literature is not factual or correct.

The inclusion of the Thelema in comparitive religion sub section is contradictory due to the point that the Thelemic community cant agree on what Thelema is or isnt. So the attempt of including Thelema has comparitive religion is a contradicition therefore not giving the reader a clear accurate picture. This sub section needs removed or cleaned up to address the contradictions.

The inclusion of Liber Samekh has a Thelemic Ritual. Liber Samekh is not Thelemic practice. It deals with union with an exterior entity that is the HGA. Although used by some Thelemites in magickal practice its not a ritual that helps personal will but more aligns the practioner with the exterior will of the HGA to alow the practioner to survive a magickal state of consciousness. The Hymenaeus Beta reference (54) is personal opinion that contradicts the work of other occultists like Kenneth Grant who state that the HGA exists in its own right and is not a personal expression of personal true will. So ref 54 is not reliable or useful to helping the casual reader understand the concepts. I propose that ref 54 is removed and that Liber Samekh is removed from the practices and observances sub section.

The cosmology section needs expanded and indepth focus on the symbolism of the Egyptian dieites in the context of Liber AL and Crowleys understanding (and misunderstanding) of these concepts. Theres much more but i leave it at that to allow an intelligent response and allow a workable clean up.--Redblossom (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be unclear on the concept of what an encyclopedia is. An encyclopedia article should be an overview of the relevant literature on a subject, and is not intended to be the final word or "truth" about the subject. When there are disagreements, then the multiple (citable) points of view should be presented and contrasted. To respond to your points:
  1. Israel Regardie was Crowley's personal secretary and as such wrote a first-hand biography of Crowley and his beliefs, i.e. Thelema. This makes him significant as an author who deals with Thelema in his writings. Literature about Thelema need not be written by someone who identifies as a Thelemite.
  2. Third party authors have studied and written about Thelema in the context of comparative religion. What they have written can certainly be summarized and cited in this article. Any reasonable person understands that an encyclopedia is reporting on the views of others. The fact that there is disagreement in a community is no reason not to report those views which have indeed been published.
  3. Hymenaeus Beta: as the head of O.T.O. and the official editor of Crowley's works, there is no reason to discount or exclude his views. Additional details on the HGA are in the article on the subject.
  4. Cosmology: I beleive there is a separate article on cosmology. Certainly there are articles on Nuit, Hadit, etc. where such details belong. This article should not be bogged down by excessive detail that is already presented elsewhere. Thus the indications of main articles and use of wikilinks!
Will in China (talk) 18:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to go by Wikipedia's own critera on Good article status. The two main points are 1: Well written. In this context it allows the reader to get a fair graps of a subject with plain english and no contradctions. 2: Factually accuarate. where an assertion can be factually accurate. The article doesnt meet these two main criteria.

To use the GA criteria for the Israel Regardie inclusion in Thelemic literature. This is not accurate. Regardie wasnt a Thelemite. Yes he did write on Crowley's history, but does this count has being Thelemic literature? Maybe history yes. Not Thelemic . Also since most of Regardie's work concerns Golden Dawn magick and the use of the Qabbalah this will confuse the casual reader. So again it doesnt help GA status.

The Hymenaeus Beta issue is different. He is the head of the Caliphate OTO solely. He doesnt speak for all Thelemites. Only the limited membership of the Caliphate. Which has its own agenda concerning Thelema. But thats not the point. The Beta reference has been taken out of context to give a misleading impression on Liber Samekh. In that context this is enough to either having it removed or finding a better reference (but there wont be one since it doesnt exist) The crux is whether Liber Samekh is a "Thelemic practice" or not. And under its own purpose it is not. So by its own nature and purpose its not a Thelemic practice or observation. So it should be removed. Or put in another section dealing with the evolution of Thelemic rituals bastardised from the Golden Dawn material.

The cosmology section doesnt give a clear picture on the ideas espoused by Liber AL under the GA criteria. So under that criteria it either needs to be worded/edited better or more material needs to be added to it so that it has more clarity. This would at least help under GA criteria.--Redblossom (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

RB. The literature section should cover all literature about Thelema. There is no implication that the writers are themselves Thelemites. In case you hadn't looked at the changes to the article, I've reworded some things to avoid other readers making this mistake.
As for Liber Samekh, the citation on it is Lon DuQuette, not Hymenaeus Beta. It is generally agreed that invocation of the HGA is part of Thelema, and that Liber Samekh is the method that Crowley used and recommended for this. DuQuette presents it in a book about the rituals of Thelema!
I really must take exception to your approach. You should not be proposing removing material at all! You should be suggesting sources for adding material to the article to present the other views that you are advocating. It really concerns me that you have provided no sources and proposed no addition of content. I highly advise that you begin to do so. Critics who aren't willing to search out sources and add content to the article are not too popular here on Wikipedia. You are not in any position to demand that other editors change the article for you just because you don't like it.
If you do decide to become more of a participant here, let me remind you now that additions should be based on third party sources. Interpreting the Book of the Law is right out, and the use of Crowley's writings is fraught with difficulty as he held contradictory views at different times. So please try to use third party sources if you choose to add material to the article. Will in China (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


I dont know why my request for reassessment of the GA status/criteria was seen has "inappropriate" by Geometry guy. And there hasnt been any proper explanation for it to be seen has such. Like i said the whole article does need a clean up but GA satus still remains. Baffling. And no one as made an effort with putting aspects of Agape into the article. Sad.--Redblossom (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Also just to raise one of the points Will in china mentioned, concerning Liber Samekh. Will in china said there was "general agreement on Liber Samekh in Thelema. What agreement? Exactly? All we have is Crowleys work onit. Kenneth Grants writing on it, and we Duquettes cut & paste style of writing that just copies Croweys work with out any depth. I will quote some mistakes made by DuQuette who clearly has misundertood the purpose of the ritual (to show the citations worth is flimsy at best) From p133 of the magick of Thelema "by" Duquette:I quote " The HGA is the divine object of devotion of the Bhakti Yogi: Krishan to the Hindu : Christ to the Christian." Unquote. This is a nonsense going by Crowleys own crtieria. THe HGA is a link between the divine and the seeker. THe HGA is not a god/deity. DuQuette's argument that the HGA is equal to Krishna or Christ is ludicrous. Look up the reference of you dont believe me (p133) 1993 edition. So if we go by DuQuettes silly argument then Liber Samekh is all about surendering of ones will. so therfore its not a Thelemic ritual under criteria of what true will is in its uncorrupted form. If Liber Samekh is going to be presented has a "Thelemic ritual" then a better citation-reference (in context to the ritual and its use) will need to be found. Also even DuQuette's "variation" on Liber Samekh is less that perfect and will cause confusion in beginners wanting to geta grasp of the ritual. and it doesnt help that Duquette doesnt explain himself. So again i put forward that unless that a cast iron reference can be used that is bullet proof then Liber Samekh is not a Thelemic ritual.--Redblossom (talk) 16:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


Crowley "Founded a Religion"?

In the opening paragraph of the article it says that "Crowley founded a relgion called Thelema". This is a POV being presented as some sort of bullet proof fact. There is no collective agreement in the Thelemic community on whether Thelema is a religion. So why is this statement allowed to stand? Could a better wording not be found? Like spiritual movement? Or Philosophy?--Redblossom (talk) 11:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


The number 3 citation used by WillinChina to suggest Thelema is a "religion" is a nonsense. John Michael Greer's writing is merely a primer and Greer is not qualified to say what Thelema is or isnt. So the citation is nonsense. Also this goes back to my point of confusing the casual reader. In one sentence the article is saying Thelema is a philosophy. Then in another its saying its a religion. Confusing for the average reader. And also not true. So again we are seeing the low standards of criteria for a GA status.--Redblossom (talk) 16:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Also just has a add-on where does the statement from Crowley : "There is no God but man" fit into this so called "religion"?--Redblossom (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok where exactly can i put my reference number? On the page it says "Crowley founded a religion called Thelema" but on the edit page this does not appear /exist. Some clarity on this would be much appreciated.--Redblossom (talk) 17:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, once you get a reliable reference (and blogs and forums can't be used as they are not considered reliable), you should know that to make a footnote, you put material between ref tags, like this: <ref> Your source or other footnote </ref>. Also pay attention to where you are putting text. You can't put a footnote inside another footnotes. The text you are seeking is there, try using your browswer's search function. If you browser won't search text forms, get a different browser. Will in China (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Reverting

I've undid the current revisions to what I think is the better version. We can discuss it here instead of changing it everyday with no conversation. The way I see it, a link repair was done to bypass a redirect. Tarot needs no more elaboration in this article, and its obvious what it means. — MaggotSyn 00:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree. I think we need to somehow specify it is an esoteric use of tarot even if the article as a whole is not a tarot article. The issue of re-directs has already been resolved. The issue at hand are my attempts to make specific that that the esoteric aspect of tarot is involved. I think it should be made explicit that Thelemists use tarot in a very specific manner.Smiloid (talk) 01:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
What tarot tradition did they follow? I think in this article, tarot divination should be specified just as we specify runic divination when people practice that form of divination. I have preserved the proper link however and i believe I've followed proper form.Smiloid (talk) 01:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Smiloid isn't it starting to become obvious to you that you are labouring a point that others don't agree with? It is so totally obvious to what tarot refers in this article that to introduce mention of the games of Tarot would be a spurious inclusion, likewise your edits to the Major and Minor Arcana articles. Anybody interested in participating in this debate would be well advised to read Talk:Tarot Morgan Leigh | Talk 02:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I think its rather obvious what type of Tarot they were using, seeing as Thelema was a 20th century invention and its common usage is Occult in nature. But if you want to get into specifics, like which style is used, there isn't one. Thelemites can and will use whichever one they see fit to use (there is no standard). And if you notice, Occult tarot is a redirect to Tarot. So its the same thing. Further clarification is not needed. — MaggotSyn 10:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
No, "occult tarot" is not the same as "tarot". People in the 20th and 21st centuries still play tarot card games. Further clarification is needed to specify they were practicing a specific type of tarot which, although commonplace, is not the ONLY form of tarot. This is the real source of controversy. The word "tarot" should not be used to imply that the occult practices are the only application practiced. This is why I believe clarification is necessarySmiloid (talk) 00:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Once you fix the Tarot article, then come back here. We don't put words in sources mouths, nor do we, as editors, suggest to our readers our own personal views. Find your sources, edit the main article, then fix the minor articles. Not the other way around. — MaggotSyn 13:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation?

How is the word pronounced in English? "THE-le-ma"? "the-LEE-ma"? Someone please add pronunciation guide. SpectrumDT (talk) 17:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete This Mess

I recommend that the whole damn thing be deleted. The whole article is a farce designed by committee. No wonder Thelema has so many terminology problems. People here are neither qualified (obviously) nor inclined to discuss the properties of a religion (of which Thelema meets every academic qualification) or the particular tenets of Thelema itself. At least I have finally understand why academic institutions do not allow Wikipedia to be quoted as any kind of authoritative source. Articles designed by committees of unqualified editors who aren't even competent in the subject matter in the first place is for the birds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.244.62.28 (talk) 23:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thelema/Archive_2&oldid=1263963654"