Jump to content

Talk:Thelema

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 76.244.27.53 (talk) at 05:48, 8 February 2008 (→Invitation for Dan to discuss edit by edit). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:1911 talk

Archive
Archives
  1. 2004-2006
  2. 2007


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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I've added the actual quotes, so you can no longer pretend this. 130.237.152.213 (talk) 05:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
See my pre-response at Talk:Thelema#Definition:_comments.3F Dan (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Please answer the question at hand. Dan (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
You haven't looked at it recently? Dan (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Request for comment

Template:RFCreli

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Now I'm lost. I don't believe I mentioned any policy. 84.25.14.91 (talk) 21:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
And this is supposed to mean what, exactly? 88.80.200.138 (talk) 04:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Can I take that as a no? Dan (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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.

Removed.

  • 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.

Removed.

  • 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.

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) 88.80.200.138 (talk) 01:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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.

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)[reply]

Actually, it wouldn't. It is not only self-published, but the contents lacking any substantial contribution to thelemic thought.

  • 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.

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)[reply]

Addendum, he's also referenced in: Sargent, Denny. Your Guardian Angel and You: Tune in to the Signs. Weiser, 2007. ISBN 1578632757

  • 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.

See point 6 above. 63.246.166.32 (talk) 01:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, here, this author is highly unreliable and should not be used for any kind of scholarly support.

  • 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.

See point 6 above. 63.246.166.32 (talk) 01:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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.

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)[reply]

  • 13. John Jeffrey does not appear to be a Sanskrit scholar. Please provide full quotation demonstrating that source backs claim made in article.

Easily done. 63.246.166.32 (talk) 01:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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.

Easily done. 63.246.166.32 (talk) 01:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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.

Easily done as there are many references for this grammatical fact. 63.246.166.32 (talk) 01:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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.

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)[reply]

  • 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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]
  • 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.

See point 6 above.

  • 57. Please provide full citation and demonstrate reliability.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
It's confusing because the references section is listed separately from the notes. --Thiebes (talk) 04:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Neither does this article. That's so last week. See ya, schweethart. 88.191.66.9 (talk) 05:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

  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) (undo)
  13. 16:08, 3 February 2008 (→Liber II - how does the comment about tireless activity apply to the subject of ethics?) (undo)
  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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)

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

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)[reply]

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) [reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)
  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
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thelema&oldid=189904001"