Talk:Aleister Crowley/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This article was written by Crowley fans?

I admit to having never heard of this person before. That is why I am surprised there is no section dedicated to skepticism of him, although there is a lengthy skeptics dictionary article written on him. Also, what is this crap? Is this supposed to be NPOV?: Up until his death, Crowley never stopped poking fun at all matters serious. This refreshing approach to studying the many paths of occult science should be taken to heart by any serious student, practitioner or historian of Crowley and other occult authors. --Alterego 22:21, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

Yep, most wiki articles are sympathetic in their POV, except articles like Hitler, which tend to be unsympathetic for similar reasons. The reason is that people that don't give a damn about a subject rarely edit it, and people which are obsessed w it tend to edit it alot. I think thats one of the downsides of the wiki. I should write a meta article on it or something. bah. Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 22:28, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ick! It looks like that particular piece of gushing was added 19 November by User:Mdriftmeyer. That whole edit should be scrutinized -- it introduced a lot of un-encyclopedic adulation. --FOo 08:00, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I had a list of about five different pieces that were really POV in favor of the guy and my browser crashed. --Alterego 08:08, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
He lives!Yeago 16:17, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I noticed some other sympathetic sections in the article. It says that Crowley claimed he'd given Churchill the idea for the "V for Victory" sign as some sort of defense against Hitler's occult powers, but didn't receive credit for it, apparently because "England was in the midst of transition from a staunchly dogmatic to a more secular nation." Er, maybe he didn't receive credit because he didn't actually give Churchill the idea. There doesn't seem to be any proof that he did. Also, the article says that the British government sent Crowley to the USA to help uncover German sympathizers. It seems there's no proof that he did so, aside from Crowley's own writings, but the article states the claim as fact. Apparently Scotland Yard denied he was an agent, but the article concentrates on the idea that they did so because of "Crowley being visceral towards the frigid and bigotted ['sic'] social views Victorian England exhibited throughout the first half of the twentieth century." I know there are people out there who believe this, but if there's no proff, it doesn't belong in a supposedly objective article.

Yeah, the way I heard it, the British government refused his offer to help because he made a lousy secret agent. I'm glad to see people improved the article's neutrality. Dan 03:55, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This story is refered by Lon Milo Duquette in Understaning Aleister Crowley's Thoth Tarot, page 8. User:Sepand
Richard Kaczynski's biography of Crowley (Perdurabo, 2002) discusses Crowley's WWI activities fairly neutrally. Kaczynski notes both sides of the issue - Crowley as Traitor vs Crowley as Secret Agent - and concludes that much of the available evidence is consistent with both. Kaczynski notes in closing that the strongest evidence in Crowley's favor is the fact that he was never arrested or even questioned by the authorities upon his return to Britain after the war. In contrast, many British expats were charged and convicted for similar and even less serious acts during the war.Psuliin 17:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Crowley and MI5

I added this a few days ago without mentioning it to the list. Just getting started here and I wasn't yet aware of the community customs. Though I'm certain this claim is arguable (I've heard it in several different forms myself) it is rumored that Crowley had some involvement with MI5 during WWII. A quote I found from Spyclopaedia by Richard Deacon.

"In World War I Aleister Crowley ingratiated himself with an Hermetic sect in order to reveal to the Americans that is head was a highly dangerous German agent. In World War II it was well known in British Intelligence that many leading Nazis were interested in the occult and especially in astrology. Crowley did some work for MI5, but his project for dropping occult information by leaflet on the enemy was rejected by the authorities."

On a side note, an earlier poster contested that Crowley's interest in Freemasonry was fleeting, I tend to disagree. After having obtained clear-text copies of the [modern] initiation rituals of the O.T.O. I found that only small changes had been made to differentiate itself from the first three degrees of Freemasonry (the Blue Lodge). Even the officers, their respective duties, and positions are the strikingly similar. [Ed. Note: The original degrees of the O.T.O. were SO Masonic that Russ attempted to get Mathers to rewrite them. Crowley later got the job and was actually trying to sanitize their ritual of overtly Masonic overtones, much to the disgust of many members.] The O.T.O., along with nearly every other faction with which Crowley has been involved, are declared "clandestine" by Grand Lodges around the world. In many respects (w/ the O.T.O. at least) Having been a Fremason himself, Crowley was often "incorporating" the rituals and organization of Freemasonry into his "Black Lodges". He however maintained many of the respective symbols, phrases, and mysteries from the original source. This provoked much ire from the Freemasons of his time and even those of today. Note: I feel it is an important obsevation, but I don't think I could add anything to the Wiki entry on this because I have no ability to cite sources readily available to the casual reader. :(

Mister E.

I'd like to see a cite to prove that the OTO has been declared clandestine. There have been calls for this to be done, but to my knowledge it has not happened. I personally know at least half a dozen initiates of the OTO who are also Freemasons, and I have conducted a presentation of Crowley's Rite of Sol in a Masonic Lodge. Freemasonry and the OTO are no longer connected (in the days of OTO founder Theodore Reuss the OTO honored Masonic degrees), but neither are they opposed. Reliable cites to the contrary would be appreciated.Psuliin 17:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, me too -- I've certainly heard the "clandestine" assertion, at least from OTO initiates, but I've never actually seen any proof of it -- and I too have seen (and participated in) the Eleusinian rites performed in a Masonic lodge. On the other hand, the Masonic lodge in question seemed perfectly content to rent out space to whoever was willing to pay for it, so that's not going to mean a heck of a lot. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I have been studying this veru subject myself (being a 'spiracy nut and an avid Rense/Coast to Coast AM listener). I have found one document in particular about this ([]), and then there are the strange details concerning his contact with an "Enochian Angel" named "Lam", which have some similarities to the Greys ((See then: [1], [2],

[3]). It is my contention that allot of Crowley's work with drugs and the occult facade was used in the imfamous MKULTRA experiments such as Operation Midnight Climax and the 60's Counterculture, and that this may be the truth behind the supposed "alien abduction" scenario (you may also be interested in [], which corrosponds with Nick Redfern's [4] findings in his book Body Snatchers in the Desert: See [5], which may ultimately tie in with the Nazis ([6], [7]), Theosophy, and Nephilim (who may be the tall, Nordic entities Billy Meier talks about as well as Admeral Byrd, and who may be bent on creating a Feudalism based on a racist Varna system. See: [8]).

RoyBot 20:51, 25 December 2005

A few people have noted, and I agree. that this page is a bit too Pro-Crowley. I have noticed that among most scholors and writers who have interest in the occult (those that i've encountered anyway) he is largely considered to be a con man, and hack. Among serious scholors he seems to garner interest but not much respect. Now whether this is true or not, it seems as though this view should be adressed. It's fine to have an article that shows crowley in a benificial light. it in fact may be more informative in that way since most of the info on Crowley is negative, but those negative aspects still need to be touched on. Before reading this article most of the info i'd come across was of the proven fact / first hand acount sort, and it all pointed more towards the idea of a con man and lush. Now once agian not neccisarily true, but i don't feel that your few refrences to tabloids, literary critisism and his support of germany in WWI realy give us enough of that negative view. You refrence it, but never actually write on it directly.

other than that i'd say its a fine article, its given me a much more balanced view of the man (given that i had already heard critisism but no pro crowley info)


Do you mean people with interest in the occult, or critics of the occult? If the former, that doesn't quite fit my experience. If you mean the latter, what did you expect? I suggest you write a neutral description of the con-man view and those who hold it, citing sources. Dan 05:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Vote for moving Crowley's "death and last words" in Biography to Rumors section

I aim to move the last paragraph in Biography section which refers to Crowley's "death and last words" to Rumors section. There have cited about 6 contradictory explanations without pointing to even a single reference. It is not suitable for a standard biography at all. Please vote on it. --Sepand 17:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean, without a single reference? They all come from Lawrence Sutin's biography, and it says clearly where he got them. Dan 00:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yes, except for the Frieda Harris version. Sutin cites John Symonds, but I've seen others (in contradiction of Symonds) refer to those words as Crowley's last. I don't know where that particular modification came from. Note that has a short letter from Harris backing the MacAlpine version.

OK, so we can keep Harris's and Sutin's quotations and move the others into Rumours section --Sepand 02:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I expressed myself badly. All of the quotes appear in Sutin's book. Technically, all of the death stories in the article appear in Sutin's book. The modified story that Frieda Harris reported his last words, as opposed to something he said near the end, does not come from Sutin. I don't know where it does come from. We might want to state this more clearly. Dan 20:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

"As he wanted to be known"

Can we not come to some agreement about Crowley’s consumption of sperm, shit, menstrual blood, and worse. The man was a loathsome, disgusting, repulsive, despicable human being. He would have liked to hear that. He wanted people like me and you to see him like that. He loved being called the wickedest man in the world and that title was all he ever really wanted in life. I respect him, in the same way that I respect the Marquis De Sade, neither of them could help themselves and when you read of their early life you can understand what made them the way they were. But can those who want to censor the aspects of his life that he took the most pride in really say the same - that they respect him?

The fact of the matter is he advocated the ritual sacrifice of young boys. There is no way around it he couldn't have been more explicit. There is no way he could have meant anything else! and I would be delighted to debate the subject with you here.

He wasn't a chess genius and never could have been. He wasn't a genius of any kind. He was intelligent and had ability and if he had applied himself could have become a minor literary figure. He was intelligent enough to realise that he didn't have it in him to make it to the very top in literature of chess so he decided instead to seek notoriety.

Whatever it is you want from Crowley it is not him. You want a genius who turned his back on the world and devoted his life to esoteric spirituality it is not Crowley you are looking for. Crowley would have despised you, don't you agree? You seem to want to turn him into some respectable bourgeoisie school m'am

You want to be careful because if you really do believe he is watching you from the beyond then you can be sure he will not like the fact that you deny him in public. We can all play silly buggers. If you go on deleting my contributions I can play the same game and we won't have a Aleister Crowley entry at all. So be a man about it! if what I say is true then leave it alone and discuss your differences with me here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bb1230 (talkcontribs) 16:28, April 5, 2006 (UTC)

  • A few things. First of all, familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Second, it's quite amusing when a sucker (see chapter LXIX in Liber 333) falls for one of the many traps in "Magick in Theory and Practice"; my favorite always was the footnote regardig the "sacrifice of young boys", which even the slightest of penetrating intellects will immediately understand to be a reference to masturbation. But here's not the place to discuss such things; let me suggest one of the many Crowley-oriented bulletin boards. Regarding the rest of your position, please also familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policy concerning original research. If you wish to cite reputable sources regarding Crowley and his place in the history of 19th/20th century Western occultism, or any other aspect of his life and legacy, feel free; but your personal conclusions are pretty much irrelevant. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

regarding magik in theory and practise - I would be quite happy if you want to include the passage which proves that Crowley meant masturbation alongside mine.

I have chapter 12 in front of me now. The first paragraphs sell the idea that bloody sacrifice has been an essential part of magic since time immemorial. The reader is further encouraged by vivid descriptions of actual sacrifices. He talks about the meat that is produced and applaudes the ancient practise of devouring immediately the flesh and organs of the sacrificial victim

He said that the life force lives in the meat, but leaves it quickly, so needs to be consumed as soon as possible after death. Am I right that he regularly practised animal sacrifice and insisted that the body be drained of blood which was to be consummed immediately by those present and that one of his followers died from doing so?

Then he discusses suitable victims and decides a young boy is best. The poor child has his throat cut and then, at the very least, his blood is drunk by the sick perverts that are crowley's followers.

But I'm not asking you to print all that. Just the bit that you keep deleting and as I have said I would be happy if you were to place your apology for it right next to it. I do not want to spend the rest of my life over this but if you want war you can have it. I'm writing to wikipedia and asking them to abritrate over this. I think it would be best if they do not allow unauthorised edits in future just as they do not with the Adolf Hitler site. ( Crowley's "Moonchild")

I am also writing to Peter Koenig. I'm sure you have heard of him! besides my edit I would also like his website included on links and one or two other books that I think people would find useful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) April 5, 2006 (UTC)

  • (a) Please sign your posts by appending ~~~~; thanks. (b) Please put your new material at the bottom of the talk page like everyone else does. (c) This isn't the place for your POV, or for mine. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Bb1230, Crowley was a magician. Are you a magician? --Sepand 08:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

  • He won't be able to reply; he's been blocked for vandalism and threats. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, how absoluely ticklish. Maybe you should look up Derrida or Teller. Maybe not, since Parsons is still ambiguously missing. Haw Haw, said the moron.

Intro needs work

Taking out: "Crowley was a habitual drug user and also maintained a meticulous record of his drug-induced experiences, much of which influenced his novel, Diary of a Drug Fiend. Towards the end of his life he became addicted to opium, his favourite narcotic drug." While true, having this much info in the intro makes it sound like his drug use was one of his primary charateristics (it wasn't, not compared to everything else he did in his life). This info most certainly needs to go in the article and expanded upon, but in a sub-section, perhaps dedictated to his drug habits and experiments. Somecallmetim 20:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The biography section is awful

EDIT: I have put this up on the peer review page. Please come by and join the conversation. –Frater5 (talk/con) 23:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The bio section is cumbersome, poorly constructed, and confusing. It needs a lot of work. It badly needs citations and references. Moreover, it needs to be divided into sub-sections for clarity and good composition. I suggest the following:

  1. Early life (from birth up to GD)
  2. Mystical beginnings (from his 1896 visit to Stockholm up to his 1900 trip to Mexico)
  3. Yogi (from 1900 thru 1903)
  4. Mystic (from 1904 thru 1911)
  5. OTO (1912-1914)
  6. Crowley in America (1914-1918)
  7. Abbey of Thelema (1920-1924)
  8. A magical life (1925-1947)

Comments and discussion are very welcome. –Frater5 (talk/con) 06:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Did nothing happen in 1919? ---J.S (t|c) 05:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Stele of Revealing

I've been trying to look for evidence of the Stele of Revealing article as well as the Ankh-af-na-khonsu article, and alas, I can find none outside of Thelemites. I do believe its needed to establish credibility. I'm asking for help locating any of the following. 1. The Museums its located in, as well as evidence it was in Boulaq, which I believe now is called the Egytptian Muesum in Cairo. 2. Sources for the priest Ankh-af-na-khonsu. ANYTHING that validates this guy existed in human form, or usage of the form of name within egypt.

To clarify greatly, wheres the evidence this isnt all made up? I can only find resources about thelema, by thelemites. The three egyptologists given on one page looked fishy, and I can't find any info that they really did oversee, or translate the Stele. Also, the Stele of Revealing looks alot like one of the tablets or " Stelea of Ra".

Zos 18:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

"Racism" Link

I have doubts about the usefulness of the link just added to the "External Links" section. Its tone is highly polemical, I'm not sure that it's really in keeping with the standards that Wikipedia likes to set. The fact that Crowley ventured occasionally into racism is undeniable, but also unsurprising. He was an Edwardian gentleman, after all. One could point to similar attitudes in most writers of the time - perhaps the vast majority who had anything notable to say about non-caucasians or women. The author of the site (and the provider of the link) argues that Crowley's racism was somehow more prevalent than that of other magical authors, purporting to demonstrate this by quotes from one contemporary. However one could find statements in Crowley's writings extolling the virtues of Judaism and non-western races, through a bit of selective quotation. Objective examinations of the writings of Dion Fortune, H.P. Blavatsky, Alice Bailey, and others reveals many of the same attitudes. One could almost as well talk about the "Legacy of Tweed" in Crowley - not that I mean to trivialize racism, but it does illustrate the point of singling him out for something that was ubiquitous within his class at that time.

I think some acknowledgement of these issues needs to be made in the interests of NPOV, but I don't believe that site is a suitable vehicle for this. Psuliin 09:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Some acknowledgement yes, but a link? Add a sentece, or paragraph (if it even warrents a paragraph), but the external link is only the source (to where in the texts). I might want to point out that, I'm not entirely sure he can be called much of anything on that web site. He used the Jewish QBL throught his life, so he can hardly be called an anti-semite. I'm going to look through the rest of the site, because, contrary to the web site, I don't feel he was a racist in many respects. He contributed to many cultural philosophies that were not his own. Zos 16:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Crowley did not advocate the superiority of one race over another. He did not suggest that one race should have fewer rights than another. The only thing he is really guilty of is expressing preferences regarding traits, beliefs, and behaviors he believed other ethnicities possessed. He was certainly very un-PC from a modern point of view! I do not like some of his sentiments, and at times he could be racially or ethnically insensitive. But of my 12+ years of reading his material, I cannot conclude that he was actively "racist" in the sense of a Nazi, Klansman, or other White Supremicist. The linked article, while sincere, is one-sided and but a shallow analysis of a collection of quotes. If we are going to link to a paper that claims something like this, that paper should come from a neutral, academic source. The linked article, by contrast, seems like it comes from someone with an axe to grind. We should delete the link. –Frater5 (talk/con) 17:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

  • It's also a bit tough because it's original research. Yes, Cat Yronwode is a published author, etc, but what we have here is Cat Yronwode adding a link to a Cat Yronwode essay -- all of which is her original thought. I'm not sure that's the way material should be introduced to Wikipedia. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello, all. This is cat yronwode, responding to the points addressed above:

"The fact that Crowley ventured occasionally into racism is undeniable, but also unsurprising. He was an Edwardian gentleman, after all.":

I am frankly interested in adding material to WP biogaphical entries about how social issues were treated by occult writers of the 19th and 20th centuries. Let us frame the debate in terms of the passage of time and the impact that occultists have on esoteric belief systems of the present:
  • Do we see anti-Semitism, racial bigotry, and sexism in the works of the early 19th century German occult writer Johann Georg Hohman?
  • Do we see anti-Semitism, racial bigotry, and sexism in the work of the mid 19th century American and British occultists and sex magicians Paschal Beverly Randolph and Hargrave Jennings?
  • Do we see anti-Semitism, racial bigotry, and sexism in the late 19th century occult writings of Wynn Wescott and Florence Farr?
  • Do we see anti-Semitism, racial bigotry, and sexism in the early 20th century occult writings of Aleister Crowley, Julius Evola, and Alice Bailey?
- All of that might make for an interesting article, Cat, but it's not on-point. The questions you're framing here belong in a sociological study of turn-of-the-century occultism, but not in a biographical article about any specific occultist.
- Wikipedia is specifically a promoter of verifiable facts. One can offer any of a number of opinions on these questions, but the only fact that emerges might be framed as "Some critics and analysts of Crowley's writings have leveled charges of racism, sexism, and anti-semitism. Others put the same passages in a historical context and find Crowley to be no more prone to these excesses than many of his contemporaries." Link to verifiable sources. Finis. That is really all that can be said verifiably and with NPOV.
- Moreover, the relevance of all this is highly doubtful. Unless it can be shown that any alleged racism in Crowley's writings has a substantial effect on the racial attitudes of modern Thelemites, it remains like a fly in amber: a historical relic.Psuliin 08:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Occultists, esotericists, and theurges generally present us with maps of universal human development. If anti-Semitism, racial bigotry, and sexism appear on their maps at all, then it is important to note that in some cases, these maps mirror the most socially intolerant and extreme-right-wing trends of each writer's own era.
  • Alice Bailey claimed that Jews were reincarnated refugees from a planet of failures. Does this make her religion, Theosophy, a more or less universally applicable religion?
  • Aleister Crowley claimed that Indian men should not be allowed into Great Britain because they would try to have sex with "whie women." Does this make his religion, Thelema, a more or less universally applicable religion?
- See above. Unless this attitude of Crowley's (assuming it can be subtantiated in the context of the full passage) has some demonstrable effect on modern Thelema, it really has no bearing on whether or not Thelema is a universally applicable religion. And furthermore these are questions that have no place in a fact-based biographical article.Psuliin 08:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
The Catholic Church has acknowldged the evil results of is centuries-long race-hate campaigns. The Latter Day Saints have recanted on their founder's statements that Negroes are not allowed in Heaven. Will Theosophy and Thelema try to hide the racial and poliical views of their early leaders? Will they try to soft-pedal the issue with claims that "reading with context" and "understanding the times" somehow makes it all go away? Or will they acknowledge the issue and speak with an understanding that some of the opinions expressed in documents from early and founding members are appalling, disturbing, and painful to people of the races mentioned -- and that these opinions no longer inform the doctrines of the church?
- Frankly I think the burden of proof is on the other side, Cat. Racism is so far from modern Thelemic doctrine that it is incumbent on critics to show that it does inform the modern movement before the question even becomes relevant. Aside from that, this is simply a PR matter - important only in meeting the charges of rabid anti-occult critics. In that context, yes, a simple statement that "Modern Thelema has no patience with or involvement in racism" is all that's needed. Dump the tempestuous teacup down the drain and move on to important issues.Psuliin 08:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
To say -- as i have heard stated as a rebuttal to charges that Crowley and therefore his church are "sexist" -- that "there are a lot of women in the OTO" does not sufficiently engage the matter, in my opinion. After all, there are a lot of women in the Christian far right and in Afhghanistan as well. Likewise, the precense of Jews in Thelema is no reply to the question of Crowley's anti-Semitism, for as Wikipedia makes quite clear in "Category:anti-Semitic people," the Ashkenazi Jew Bobby Fischer is anti-Semitic. Likewise, you can show us a list of Bengalis, Chinese folks, and other "niggers" (Crowley's term) who may be members of the OTO, and you still will not have dealt with the matter.
I think that Thelema as a religious body would do well to examine these recurrent issues of racism, anti-Semitism, and sexism in the writings of the Founder in light of what Thelema WISHES to be, not by keeping Thelema tied to the yoke of outmoded, reactionary, and ultra-right-wing beliefs.
- Again, until the effects of this "yoke" are demonstrated its existence, much less its importance, remain very much in doubt.Psuliin 08:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

"Objective examinations of the writings of Dion Fortune, H.P. Blavatsky, Alice Bailey, and others reveals many of the same attitudes.":

I suggest that you take a look at what has been done in WP with respect to the matter of other occult writers who were anti-Semites, racists, and so forth. Crowley will be treated -- and must be treated -- with the same kind of honest scrutiny.
- Since you're recommending them to me I assume you've already done the research. So if you want to bring this up you could save us all time and just post the links.Psuliin

"I think some acknowledgement of these issues needs to be made in the interests of NPOV.":

So far, the WP Crowley entry white-washes Crowley to an almost unconscionable degree. I am not speaking merely of his racism, sexism, and anti-Semitism, either. The failed mountaineering expedition is noted -- but with no mention of his subseqent ostracism by mountaineers due to accusations that he had abandoned his climbing partners after the accident. Mention is made of his wife and child -- but there is no mention that he abandoned them in the middle of China and the child died.
- Point taken. The NPOV of this article is the subject of ongoing discussion here. That does not excuse polemical excess in the opposite direction. If you'd care to make some of these additions yourself, with links to verifiable sources, I don't think you'd get any criticism from most of us here.Psuliin 08:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

"Add a sentence, or paragraph (if it even warrents a paragraph), but the external link is only the source.";

Had these issues been mentioned, as would befit a truly encyclopediac biographical entry, i should not have added the link. The article is now so long that it exceeds WP standards -- and my own browser could not even handle making additions to the page, so all i was able to do was to add the link.

"Crowley did not advocate the superiority of one race over another.":

Actually, that is not the issue. Rather, he advocated the INFERIORITY of certain races, and THAT is the issue.
- Um, Cat, you're going to have to unpack this for me. If he's claiming certain races to be "inferior" then isn't he by logical extension saying that certain others are "superior?" Mind you, I'm not persuaded that he's doing either one, but it seems to me that you're arguing about whether he's saying "blue" or "azure." I fail to see the point.Psuliin 08:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

"He did not suggest that one race should have fewer rights than another.":

Yes, he did. He advocated the limitation of the rights of Indian men to travel to the British Isles to study, on the ground that they would have sex with "white women."

"He used the Jewish QBL throught his life, so he can hardly be called an anti-semite.":

The Germans used the gold fillings from the teeth of dead Jews -- does that meant that they can "hardly be called anti-Semites"? The Catholic Church used the Jewish scripture -- does that meant that they can "hardly be called anti-Semites"?
- Oh, boy. Aside from invoking Godwin's Law, this is serious hyperbole. Comparing Nazi tooth extraction to Crowley's praise of Qabala as one of the greatest inventions in human history is...well, I can't think of a good word to describe just how overblown that is. This is the sort of polemicism that IMO makes the linked article unsuitable for Wikipedia.Psuliin 08:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
-I agree. I don't see how pulling gold from the mouths of any ethnic peoples is racist. Nor is it racist to use that gold to buy anything. Or her comments on Catholics using Jewish scripture. Devoting ones life to deeper meaning of Jewish texts on spirtualism shows that a person cares alot about the concepts of Judaism, and doesnt make you a non racist, but it does allow for reasonable doubt as to wheter that person is in fact a racist against Jewish people.

Zos 18:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Please, folks, READ what was written. The statement i was refuting was not that using Jewish Kaballah was "racist" (as SynergeticMaggot thought) but that "He used the Jewish QBL throught his life, so he can hardly be called an anti-semite." I am sorry for you if you can't follow my logic. Try reading what i wrote again, remembering that it is an exercise in logical refutation of a false premise. Catherineyronwode 07:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
In all three cases, the USE of Jewish things (the Kabballah, gold fillings, the Tanakh) does not absolve the user from charges of anti-Semitism. Charges of anti-Semitism rest, rather, upon both verbally expressed attitudes and physically demonstrable activiities.
In the case of Crowley, we also see his racism directed against Bengali men (while he USED Indian yoga), and Chinese people (while he USED the image of himself posed as the Chinese god Hotei).

"it's original research. Yes, Cat Yronwode is a published author, etc, but what we have here is Cat Yronwode adding a link to a Cat Yronwode essay":

The link is not to an essay by me. Please click on the internal links on the page, and note that i am not the sole author -- the other contributors include C. Baphometis, the late Tim Maroney, nagasiva yronwode, et al. So, to begin, the work is NOT my "original research." I was, however, the person who put it into html format.
The other portions of the writing describe bigotry in general and sexism in particular, and the entire lot of material was collected off usenet with permission of the authors, as part of a round-robin scholarly colloquy. To make the authorship of the round-robin clear, i should explain that Tim's usenet material was, at his request, marked for web publication as by "V.H." -- a set of initials he used for his archived usenet posts, while still keeping the address, so folks knew it was his writing.
Three of the four leading writers of this research group were members of the OTO at the time of the writing and two remain members to this day (Tim has died, and i alone have never been a member of the OTO).


Well, you may wish to delete the link i made, but do not fool youself that you do so on the grounds that it was MY "original research." Take away what i wrote, and you'll still have three other writers saying the same thing.
I would be glad to remake the html at the link site to clarify that for you and the public, should you wish.
- Cat, all you're saying is that it is the original research of many people, not just you. Clarifying that here or on the website may be good for other reasons, but it does not address the point: It is still OR. Without verifiable sources, the criticism stands. With verifiable sources, there is no need for the link. Either way, it should be deleted.Psuliin 08:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for reading my comments. They are offered in the interest of Wikipedia first and foremost, but if they can be of help to Thelema and Thelemites, then they are freely given as a voice of reason from ouside that intends only the best.

Catherineyronwode 22:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I guess I missed the internal links on the page -- in fact, I still can't find the ones that mention the other authors in the round-robin. Scratching head. Maybe I'm looking at when I should be looking at something else? The sexism faq has the C Baphometis and Tim Maroney stuff, but not the racism faq. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

See also this link on the same overview page: This deals with racism again, e.g. with crowley;s belief in the "moral superiority" of Britons over Indians, etc. The author is nagasiva yronwode.


I suggest that we create a sub-category under external links for criticism. The current link would fit there, and I'm sure a couple more legitimate criticism links could be found. It would be good NPOV, as long as the links were reasonable and backed by some degree of scholorship. –Frater5 (talk/con) 22:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

- I agree that such a sub-category could be useful. I am still not persuaded that the link under discussion would be acceptable, since it is undeniably original research. It is also highly polemical. If it were retitled "Selected comments on race and gender issues from the writings of Aleister Crowley," and if all opinions and interpretations of those comments were removed, then it would a collection of statements from verifiable sources suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Unfortunately it would also be much less interesting then.
- I think you've got an excellent idea here, even if it does not address the main problems with this specific site.Psuliin 08:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I also suggest that since the page is getting larger, if someone feels the need to add more in the way of how Crowley viewed other races and peoples, take the bio section and move it to its own page. There, critique can be added pertaining to his "life" (biography). Zos 01:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I see that the link was taken down to the 3 pages on Crowley's written and autobiographical record of racism, sexism, and nationalism. You do realize, of course, that taking away a link while continuing to refuse requests (see above, for requests from many people) to describe Crowley's political and racial writings is evidence of bias. This page has already been cited as a "fan page" and biased in the past (again see above). The policing writers are treating Wikipedia as a page to advertise your guru. This will not fly. It is an indefensible position. Think it over. Do the right thing. Take the adulation off the pge and make it a poper bio.
Wikipedia is not a link farm. The purpose of references is to indicate the sources from which the information in the article was drawn. If you would like to add a cited, sourced paragraph or several on the subject you discuss, please go ahead! However, don't insult other people or demand that they do what you want -- that's just rude. --FOo 03:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, cat's right that the article is downright hagiographical. And the purpse of "references" indeed are as you say, but the link was in the "external links" section, and it would be hard to argue that the bulk of the links currently there are the sources from which the information in the article was drawn. There is evidence of bias; but it's kinda difficult, because hardly anyone but Crowley followers (for want of a better term) give enough of a damn to do the article justice. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, this is the second time I've tried to post to this discussion page and there was a conflict and it wouldnt let me post. At first, I didnt see where there was an area where racism was suggested, and this was why I took the link down. Now that I have seen where it is presented in the article, I have added a citation needed note.
  • First,an external link, was in the wrong place if this was an attempt to be used as a source.
  • Second, the link itself is POV, and is found to be utterly ridiculous.
  • Third, its not a reliable source in itself (please see: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Using_online_sources.

If anyone wants to provide a source that is NPOV, this is fine. I am not injecting bias into this article, only taking it out.


"while continuing to refuse requests to describe Crowley's political and racial writings is evidence of bias." I am not refusing anything other than non valid links being used as valid sources. See above, this is not bias.

"The policing writers are treating Wikipedia as a page to advertise your guru." Wikipedia states that at anytime, a source can be disputed, even ones "not allowed", such as usenet pages (your external link).

"Take the adulation off the pge and make it a poper bio." I'd suggest you do the same. I've already suggested a way you can add to the bio, without making the page larger. You need only have valid sources. Zos 04:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

How about this: the link fails WP:RS and since it's your page is also fails WP:Vanity. If the article was posted in a peer-review journal then I'd feel much better about including it.
Secondly, stop trying to debate weather he was a racist or not. Thats not important to the discussion we are having and it is simply serving to inflame the debate. The pillar of wikipedia is verifiability and not truth. ---J.S (t|c) 07:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Racism Statement in the Article

"Some modern readers, while happily embracing the philosophy of personal freedom that shocked Judge Swift, have found a different kind of "wickedness" in Crowley's writing: He was a misanthropist whose literary expressions contained numerous examples of racism, anti-Semitism, and gender-bias."

This is the statement currently on the page. I'm wondering if anyone will help to make this a more NPOV statement, and less of a POV (since there are no citations, sources, or external links).

Suggestion for NPOV: Some readers have interpreted passages in Crowley's book and texts to be racist, and gender biased. Passages should be interpreted with respect to culture and time frame in with usages were used.

This, to me is more NPOV, b/c some of the terms we see as derogatory today were not seen as such in 1929 (Confessions of Aleister Crowley, Cats page). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SynergeticMaggot (talkcontribs) 10:01, May 19, 2006 (UTC)

Passages should be interpreted with respect to culture and time frame in with usages were used. - Can we be telling people how to interpret anything? Isn't that POV as well? Just my take. ---J.S (t|c) 16:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
No, we can't -- you're correct. We can present the interpretations of reliable sources, but we can't present them as anything other than interpretations. That's one way we can avoid the traps of cultural relativism -- condoning loathesome practices or beliefs because of their sociological matrices. Yes, Crowley said overtly racist stuff. That's the fact. That it is good or bad or neutral that he did so is interpretation; we don't get to insert interpretations as fact without substantial support from external sources. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Do we have a reliable source to back up the assertion that his statements were "overtly racist"? If it's as obvious as it seems, there's gotta be a biography out there that discusses it.... but calling something "overtly racist" is a judgement itself. ---J.S (t|c) 16:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
It was only a suggestion. I couldn't come up with another sentence after the first one that further acknowledges the claims. I left the part about him being a racist in, because there "are" claims, with no sources. What I'm trying for, is an atempt to keep it in the article to further promote my unbias, but make the statement more NPOV. Any suggestions would be appreciated. (I could have sworn I signed my comment)
Zos 18:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I will probably edit out most uses of the word "racist" in the Crowley article. That word is highly charged and is essentially a subjective judgement. If someone can find a way to incorporate his "racist" statements in a relevant and useful way, then have at it...let the reader make the jdugement call. But referring to him as "racist" is a subjective act, and not NPOV. –Frater5 (talk/con) 18:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

We can easily, and without any POV, demonstrate his racist utterances; the link cat provided, though not suitable as a source, is certainly suitable as additional reference material. I don't know if Crowley is what we'd call a racist; we can however easily do a "Some are disturbed by the appearance of racist, sexist, and misanthropic material in Crowley's work, for example X, Y, and Z." That's all we need say; certainly some are disturbed, and we can present that as fact. We can't, however, say Crowley was racist -- that's a conclusion. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Part of the problem with "some are disturbed" is that it is a whezel word. Whoever these "some" are is left to the imagination and is completely unverifiable. This has got to have been discussed in a book somewhere! I'll check the book-store and see if there any bibliographies... ---J.S (t|c) 19:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree completely (other than with the spelling of "weasel".) Now an important question I'm not prepared to answer: is Tim Maroney's material sufficiently reliable to use as a source? Certainly, he was one of the better factual researchers I've ever encountered; he and I had a series of personal disagreements regarding Crowley and Thelema back when I ran ThelemaNet, long before his joining OTO, but the disagreements were never over his analysis, just about his conclusions. His essays on are excellent, and his Crowley's Personality article would fit the bill exactly: a critique by an OTO member who thought that Crowley was something of an asshole. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

At first glance I'd have to say no. Unless any part of the article on that web page has been published, and are verifiable (Wikipedia: Verifiability) (see also:Wikipedia:No_original_research and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Using_online_sources).

Agreed. I liked Tim, but his work was never peer reviewed or checked for accuracy by an editor. Those are the things that distinguish a "verifiable source" from "original research.Psuliin 20:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

So we need the written word here. Books and validated sources. Zos 02:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Primary sources from Crowley's own books online for free distribution have been cited, and were almost immediately removed by Frater5 as being "polemic." However, their inclusion was not "polemic." It was an attempt to satisfy requests for verifiable claims. HE wrote as a statement of HIS own beliefs. We need no oher sources to speak for him. Catherineyronwode 04:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Too bad Tim died before he could publish in a Wikipedia-acceptable form, then. Can't see how NOR is relevant, though. I'm trying to remember if Isaac Bonewits discusses the racist/sexist/you-name-it-ist aspects of Crowley? Or Israel Regardie? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

over {{citation needed}}

No need to go crazy with the {{citation needed}} tags. 1 at the end of a sentence is enough to get the point acrost. You migh also wanna think about useing the {{or}} tag in place of the CN tag in some cases. ---J.S (t|c) 16:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I amdmit that I went overboard with the citations needed tags, but I felt each section of the statement needed its citations. Zos 18:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, only one citation would be needed if that single reference covered all those issues. I see it's been removed... that's good I guess. Let it live on in the history until someone finds some sourcing. ---J.S (t|c) 19:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Cited sources added, per request

Thanks for the feedback regarding the need for cited sources documenting Crowley's racism and sexism. I have added them, as per the several requests, directly under the section on Chess. Cordially, Catherineyronwode 03:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

You do realize you didn't fully read the quote you added, did you? This quote deals with The Great Work, not work in general.

"The necessary self-abnegation and concentration on his part must be matched by similar qualities on hers.""

This means he feels its best on both parties. He felt that women in general, do not know his terminology of work (the great work can be anything, and is a spiritual matter that it "demands one's whole attention"). So this is not gender bias. He felt that women are a distraction to the great work, and She must consent to cooperate with him in the dark and Her self-surrender is, therefore, really self-surrender, whereas with him it is self realization. There in lies the clarification of the distinction he was talking about. And the reference to "bitch" (female dog) may sound biased at first, but he's using it in a metaphor that denotes somthing higher than a male form, or human male. If he was being gender biased, he would have said "the bitch does not lose all her interest in her man/husband just because she has new puppies. " He's using the term master to denote something higher than men and women, not that a woman should submit to the male. In the metaphor, there is a female dog, her puppies, and the master. What's missing? The male dog! If it was gender biased he would have said the master is the male dog (which wouldnt make sense because in nature, the male dog is not the master of the female dog). Therefor the master means the owner of the dog.

Your lack of understanding of his words is leading to this being taken off. I'll wait to see what others say. Zos 03:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed the following

This is the worst kind of polemic. It is highly biased and designed to inflame. It is certainly possible to address his possible racism and gender bias, but it would have to be done with great care. Both sides have to be addressed without making bold assertions. One cannot simply say "Crowley was a racist" and then cherry pick sentences without regard to context, time, or anything else. I consider this vandalism, and will report the next editor who tries to put garbage like this on the main article to the administrators. –Frater5 (talk/con) 03:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Go ahead and report it; this administrator will admonish you for confusing content disputes with vandalism, and other administrators will overwhelmingly agree. "Cherry pick"? Any modern student of Crowley's works or practitioner of his methods cannot help but either gag at or turn a deliberate blind eye to his firmly Victorian racism and sexism. Removing the link pointing to the discussion on this was unnecessary and improper; I think I'll just put that back in. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Flagrant attempts to add inflammatory and highly biased presentation of materials is not acceptable on WP. If it continues then it will quite possibly be seen as vandalism. This was not a good-faith addition to the article, but a clear attack. I can come up with three dozen quotes to show that he was exactly the opposite of her claim. If this issue is going to be addressed, her method is the exact wrong way to go about it. It will only lead to an edit war, and that is irresponsible. She should have started here on this talk page, asking for input and requesting peer involvement. This kind of sneak attack editing is beneath her and this site, and will lead to no good. Again, if his potential racism and other views need to be addressed here, then the attitude should be one of good faith, working with the community to arrive at a good solution. Please pause before putting this edit back in, and escelating an edit war. –Frater5 (talk/con) 04:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Jpgordon: I removed this link again, b/c its already been disputed as a source. Its a usenet page, and its not valid. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Using_online_sources

It was never cited as a source. it was given as an EXTERNAL LINK. Catherineyronwode 08:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, wikis or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources.

It was never cited as a source. it was given as an EXTERNAL LINK. Catherineyronwode 08:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't revert this again. It is not a valid source. Zos 03:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

It was never cited as a source. it was given as an EXTERNAL LINK. Catherineyronwode 08:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Further more, we are asking for there to be NPOV statements, not bold statements that define. Zos 04:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I beg to differ; I will continue to revert the link. This is not being used as a primary or secondary source; it's an external link, just like the "controversy faq", the Thelemapedia page, or the rottenlibrary page. (I also don't think the long quotes cat put in should be there.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
THANK YOU for noticing that. Sheesh. Catherineyronwode 08:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
"Removing the link pointing to the discussion on this was unnecessary and improper; I think I'll just put that back in."

What discussion? That was a usenet page being used to credit POV statements on this article. The link is there to back up what Cat copy and pasted from it. I'll allow the article, but won't allow copy and pasting from it, to be biased and holding a POV. Zos 04:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not a "usenet page" it is a link to four separate WEB pages, of which one page comprises archived usenet posts. Here is the link, since you seem to be having difficulties understanding it:

Well, you don't need to "allow" it, and you don't get to "allow" it anyway. I don't think the copy and paste belongs there either. Now, shall we work on removing all the other external links? Few of them are useful in crediting anything in particular in the article; seems to me we could just trim it down to whatever sites carry the out-of-copyright Crowley works. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
All i meant was I wasnt going to take it back down. I actually missed a word in there. I didnt mean I wouldnt allow the article, only the link, now that its stated to be just that, an external link, and not being used as a source. Zos 05:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


Crowley believed that one's gender imposed limitations on one's roles in society and in occultism. He believed that women in general had a very specific role in relation to their men, and that all women are subordinate to a man's true will.

My marriage taught me many lessons, and this not the least: when women are not devoted to children -- a few rare individuals are suited to other interests - they take a morbid pleasure in conspiring against a husband, especially if he be a father. [...] [she is] his consubstantial complement even as the earth is to the sun. [...] all women are subordinate to his true will. (Magick Without Tears, p. 254)

He felt that women only had a role in occult practice if she was "trained to help the man in his work" because "a woman is fundamentally incapable of understanding the nature of work" on her own, "has no individuality", and is subject to "moods" based on "phantasms". He warned male occultists that a woman may insist that a father help care for their child (which Crowley refers to as "a new toy"), to the detriment of his occult efforts, and compared women unfavourably to female dogs, who continue to pay attention to their "master" despite having "new puppies":

Again and again I have had the most promising pupils give up the great work of their lives for the sake of some wretched woman who could have been duplicated in a Ten Cent Store. It doesn't matter what the work is; if it is worth while doing, it demands one's whole attention, and a woman is only tolerable in one's life is she is trained to help the man in his work without the slightest reference to any other interests soever. The necessary self-abnegation and concentration on his part must be matched by similar qualities on hers. I sa matched -- I might say better, surpassed -- for such devotion must be blind. A man can become his work, so that he satisfies himself by satisfying it; but a woman is fundamentally incapable of understanding the nature of work in itself. She must consent to cooperate with him in the dark. Her self-surrender is, therefore, really self-surrender, whereas with him it is self realization. It is true that if a woman persists long enough in the habit, she will ultimately find herself therein. For woman is a creature of habit, that is, of solidified impulses. She has no individuality. Attached to a strong man who is no longer himself but his work, she may become a more or less reliable mood. Otherwise her moods change with her phantasms. But the most dominant mood of womanhood will always be motherhood. Nature itself, therefore, insures that a man who relies on a woman to help him is bucking the tiger. At any moment, without warning, her interest in him may be swept off its feet and become secondary. Worse - she will expect her man to abondon the whole interest of his life in order to look after her new toy. A bitch does not lose all her interest in her master just because she has new puppies. (Confessions, pp 96, 97)


Crowley believed that people's personalities, moral capabilities, and roles in society were defined by their race:

He wrote about the Chinese system of divination called I Ching and posed himself for a photo as the Chinese wealth god Hotei, but advocated treating Chinese people "with absolute contempt and callousness":

...the main psychological difference between the Chinese and Indian as regards practical dealings with them. The Chinese does not respect the white man as the Indian does -- for his possession of high moral qualities. [...] One cannot fraternize with the Chinese of the lower classes; one must treat them with absolute contempt and callousness.[...] ('Confessions', pp. 471-4)

He thought of Bengali Indians as "niggers":

The doctor was a Bengali named Ram Lal Sircar, a burly nigger of the most loathsome type. I am not fond of Bengali at the best and he was the worst specimen of his race I have ever seen. ('Confessions', pp. 471-4)

He thought of Italians as "niggers":

..we [British] always somehow instinctively think of the Italian as a nigger. We don't call them "dagos" and "wops" as they do in the United States, with the invariable epithet of "dirty"; but we have the same feeling. (Diary of a Drug Fiend" Book I, Chapter 9)

He was an anti-Semite:

The Egyptian has little national character, he had been pauperized by the influx Europeans, and corrupted by the "evil communications" of Greeks, of Armenians and the objectionable type of Jew. (('Confessions', p 522) [...] One must further remark that each sign governs two main types ... the active and the passive. Thus Aries: the high brows, long face, aquiline nose, tall thin muscular figure, shows the fiery and martial qualities of the sign. But there is an evil and averse counterpart corresponding to the ovine nature. We have the gross, hooked, pendulous proboscis; the thick, flabby, moist lips; the patient stupid eyes, and timid, hunted gait of the bad type of Jew. ('Confessions', pp. 762-763)

He believed that British people were "morally superior to Indians and that sex between British women and men of other races was akin to having sex with "inferior animals":

We [the British] conquered the [Indian] peninsula by sheer moral superiority....

It was atrocious folly to allow Indians to come to England to study, to mix freely with our women, often to marry or seduce them....

But we did worse. In the name of religion and morality (as usual!) we committed a political blunder, which was also a social crime, by permitting and even encouraging white women to go out to India.

To begin with, they cannot stand the climate, which compels them to live lives whose inevitable tendency is to relax the moral fibre. Thus even high-class memsahibs sometimes have themselves bathed in their beras. The excuse is that any sexual irregularity with such inferior animals is unthinkable. But 'a man's a man for a' that.' Incidentally, the heat increases the female lasciviousness as it decreases the male. White women are thus subject to continual nervous irritation of which they often fail to suspect the character. Besides, the healthiest of them is usually more or less ailing in various minor respects. They are usually short-tempered from this and other causes, and any species of lack of self-control has a fatal effect on the attitude of the native. ('Confessions', pp. 283-4)

Right. I noticed the page right before. It was heavily biased. Make comments, and cite them. Adding tons of small paragraphs (cutting and pasting from your own site Cat?) won't help. Plus, there are issues of statements there. I do believe wiki doesnt want anyone to make such bold statements, unless of course its a direct statement (cited too). Zos 03:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

What you just asked for (relevant citations) are just what was provided to you. Since your conditions were in fact met, and the requested citations were provided quite specifically, then any excisions should be replaced. The words from the pen of the man himself are a clear indicator of support for the contentions. If you maintain these passages were taken out of context, and some different meaning was intended, please explain what the ORIGINAL meanings was, in each case, such that we could know what it is you think is being obscured. What is the truth of the matter? Can you support it with better references than the man's writings you're removing?). Thank you. 333 bo-bo 04:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I asked for citations, and you call what she did citing sources? She made "statments" and did not add citation holding to wiki standards, so it was taken down. Quoting someone is not citing a source, theres a difference. I've asked that citations me given, and NPOV of statements, nothing more. In writing about biasness, you have to remain unbias. Catherine did not display this. Zos 05:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Please see the page on Mircea Eliade for similar citations, also the page on Julius Evola. Crowley was a professional author all his adult life. He wanted these words to be known and so he caused them to written out, then typed in manuscript form, then edited, then published.
He was not caught making sly racist remarks at a private party, as some politicians have been. On the contrary, he deliberately included these statements in his "autohagiography" -- because he felt that secure and self-aware about his "moral superiority."
You sell him short every time you try to take away from his proud nationalism, his stern condemnations of "inferior animal" people, his steely-eyed, manly command over "cow-like" and "conspiring" women.
What Aleister Crowley needs is a bunch of followers as PROUD of his white supremacy beliefs as Savitri Devi's followers are proud of her beliefs, as proud as Alice Bailey's are of hers.
COWARDS! Would you try to tear this man's greatness down to dust and reduce him to a meagre little cleric with a bad case of asthma? NO! This man was a MORAL GIANT! He knew what he believed, and he TOLD THE WORLD: Bengali Indians are NIGGERS!! He told the world: Italians are NIGGERS!!! He told the world: and YOU, his loyal brothers in struggle, should be bound in duty to let him say it! -- SHOUT IT FROM THE ROOFTOPS. He did. You can do no less!
(with tongue only partially in cheek) Catherineyronwode 08:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, that's neither here nor there. The Wikipedia style avoids long quotations like that, and neither the quotations nor the characterizations of them belong in the article as such. However, saying something like "Some of the stuff Crowley wrote is racist; see XXX for an example" and linking to the material should work just fine; one does not have to make any verbal contortions to recognize his discussions of various "races" as racist utterances. We can do this without labelling Crowley as a racist -- and I don't think he particularly was; he expressed loathing of pretty much every human group at one time or another, including any he could be considered associated with. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I understand your point about long quotes and appreciate it, but why NOT label him a "racist and a nationalist"? He WAS one. He may have loathed "pretty much every human group at one time or another" -- but his loathing was almost invariably expressed in racial, national, and gender terms, and consisted for the most part of white male supremicism bolstered by race and gender pejudice and bigotry in which the phrase "moral superiority" was the great shiny tinfoil crown that he and his fellow British men were allowed to wear while lording it over those whom he derided for their dark "nigger" skin. I mean, get real, folks. He wrote that stuff on purpose. It was not an accident.
Y'all are whining about "valid, published sources" but you won't accept his own words about "niggers" as proof? Do your research. Read the WP page on racism. Check it out.
This is a very important sentence from that page: "Racism is regarded by all but racists as an unacceptable affront to basic human dignity and a violation of human rights."
That is a key idea there, so read it again: "Racism is regarded by all but racists as an unacceptable affront to basic human dignity and a violation of human rights."
The trouble with Crowley is not his racism -- it is the fact that his latter-day followers are modern day liberals who regard his racism as "an unacceptable affront to basic human dignity and a violation of human rights" and would therefore like to shovel his racism under the rug.
If modern Thelemites were all as racist as Crowley was, there would be no politely revised editions of "777" with all that stuff about the "gutter Jews" taken out. If modern Thelemites were as true to his vision of white superiority as he was, you'd come right out and call him a "racist" with pride, like they do on the Savitri Devi page and the Julius Evola pages.
Here, also from the WP page on racism is a little tidbit about racism in the United Kingdom / England, which places Crowley's stuff about the "moral superiority" of the British white men in temporal context: "Since World War I, public expressions of white supremacism have been limited to far-right political parties such as the British Union of Fascists in the 1930s."
This is very important for occultists (not all of whom are familiar with political trends of the 20th century) to understand: Crowley published his extremely "public expressions of white supremacism" well after World War I, thus placing him in the political area that Wikipedia itself refers to as the "far-right" -- and akin to groups like the "British Union of Fascists."
I repeat: He knew what he was doing. He was a professional writer and had been one all of his adult life. When he published the "Confessions" -- with all of its racial prejudice about "white women" having sex with "inferior animals" and the lot -- Wrold War I was ten years in the past and he himself was in his mid-50s.
It doesn't take a lot of brains to see that he said what he meant about the "moral superiority" of British men because he believed it to be true and he wanted to tell his truth to the world. That's why people write books and publish them, after all.
Catherineyronwode 08:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Can you please stop ranting on and on like a crazy person? This is hardly needed.

"I understand your point about long quotes and appreciate it, but why NOT label him a "racist and a nationalist"? He WAS one." many times do we have to say that the way you are going about this is not NPOV (which means neutral point of view). We need SOURCES that are PUBLISHED as saying that Crowley was a racist. Not YOU just coming in and saying he is. This is Wikipedia, not your usenet page.

"COWARDS! Would you try to tear this man's greatness down ....."

Now we are at name calling? Please.

"Y'all are whining about "valid, published sources" but you won't accept his own words about "niggers" as proof? Do your research. Read the WP page on racism. "

We are not whinning. We are stating Wikipedia policies and guidlines. The wiki page on racism does not contain guidlines for editing wikipedia, so if this is where you are getting your info from, I just won 10 bucks, easy. YOU do your research. Find one person on wiki that agree what you did was in keeping with NPOV. Zos 09:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Racism and Gender-Bias: You cannot have it both ways

The link to to a site compiling Usenet discussion and quotes by Crowley in which his gender-bias and racism are apparent was removed as not being "a reputable source" and as being "original research." There was a call for citations from a printed book (as opposed to a link to the web site) as a "reputable source." Citations from several printed books were then given, with a minimum of introductory material. The printed books were a "reputable source" in that they were written and published by Crowley in his autobiography. These citations were then deleted with an edit comment that they were "crap" and "vandalism" even though they consisted solely of quotes by Crowley himself.

This is so egregious an example of spcial-interest editing that it howls to high Heaven.

Catherineyronwode 04:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Or it's just frustration. Stuff like this is funny the first ten or twenty times it's encountered, I suppose. How about everyone step back from the particulars for a moment and let's discuss how to improve the article? I know I just stuck my nose in recently; I'll admit I've been kinda sitting back and watching to see what the article was evolving into; I was curious how long it would take for someone to object to the hagiographic bent it was taking. As it turns out, the article is quite good except for the total absence of any critical material, which is a disservice to our readers; I can't imagine Crowley would want these aspects of his remarkably complex personality omitted. He certainly never attempted to conceal them. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
As the person whose edits were called "crap" and "vandalism" and "garbage" and "not good faith edits," i would like to kindly note that the only reason i added the material was because the same material, when cited as an external link, was deemed to be "not a reputable source." There is not more reputable primary source for assessment of Crowley's racial and gender beliefs than his own writings, and if he saw fit to call Italians "niggers," to say that British women who loved Indians were having sex with "inferior animals" and that women "conspire" against their husbands, and on and on and on, then by God, who ELSE would you cite as a source? Like Julius Evola, he WANTED to be known for these opinions, and that is why they appear in so many places among his books over the course of so many years. He was NOT hiding his "youthful indiscretions" in racism after the manner of Mircea Eliade; rather, he was PROMOTING them, after the manner of Savitri Devi.Catherineyronwode 04:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
In fact, Crowley's *editors* removed objectionable material from presentations of the man's writing (as did his Secretary, Regardie, in the text with 777 and the rest, and in Magick Without Tears, omitting the Chapter on 'Jews, Niggers and other Monsters'). Initial versions of this text to make it online didn't contain the controversial chapters. Imagine if it were the Bagh-i-Muattar which was his Holy Book, or Diary of a Drug Fiend. E6. 333 bo-bo 05:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Lets just get back to making anything pertaining to Crowleys racism or gender issues more NPOV and cite sources along the way. Zos 05:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
But what could be more NPOV and well sourced than the man's own words? It doesn't take a scholar to recognize that Crowley is quite consciously espousing racism in those quotes from "Confessions". Under what stretch of the NPOV imagination could it be improper to label them racism? Try to separate the value judgement (racists are nasty people, aren't they?) from the factual analysis (what's the definition of "racist"? Does Crowley use "racist" language?) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, has someone done it in a NPOV? No. Can they? Yes. I've already attemped to suggest wording in a statement concerning the racism. It was rejected, and nothing more was said about it. If you are going to use his words, make sure its a direct, and short quote, then cite where in the book its said. And also add it to the sources. I'm ok with this, why shouldn't i be?

Here is another attempt at a NPOV statments that could be used:

"Crowley can be seen to have used (give example) racist remarks in (say which book) some of his books (ref)."

"In (for instance) Confessions of Aleister Crowley, there are references to the word "nigger", as well as other negative connotations (what else did he say?)".(ref)

This neither promotes his views, nor dismisses it. You don't have to used this, but make the statements more NPOV, non promotion of the views. Then add the references at the bottom of the page. Its not really difficult, its just that no ones done it yet. Zos 06:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me rephrase that...nothing was done in the way of provinding discussion on making a NPOV statement that everyone can agree is non bias. Zos 06:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
How about this, Zos? "Some critics and analysts of Crowley's writings have leveled charges of racism, sexism, and anti-semitism. Others view the same passages in a historical context and find Crowley to be no more prone to these excesses than many of his contemporaries." Provide cites to one or two verifiable sources for each side, and put it to bed.Psuliin 21:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, its not up to me, its up to everyone who feels a statement is not NPOV. Now if you're asking how I feel about your attempt...the only part I disagree with is the "Some critics and analysts..". We need actual people who have writen remarks regarding Crowley work (any work) that specifically give their opinion of the suposed racism and gender bias. Published authors, as per NPOV. As well as the part that says "Others view the same passages...". Who are these "other people"? This is he said she said, not verifiable as it states at the bottom of edit pages. Other than that, the rest of the statement is great. We just need sources if we are going to add such statements, and Catherine has prooved already she cannot do this, and King Vegita has offerend, so I am waiting. Zos 23:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought I was clear in what I wrote that it would have to be appropriately sourced before we could use it. It was the wording I was seeking feedback on.Psuliin 13:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

There may be a WP:NOR issue with stating that the words are racist without someone calling them racist, but even then, there would be a bigger WP:NPOV issue to not allow Crowley's words to be quoted and left for the audience to decide what he meant. The addition of citations to Crowley's racist statements is certainly reputable, and no one is more reputable than Crowley himself on that matter.

You do not remove verifiable information from an article because you do not know how to reword it to make it NPOV. But you should know how. I'm going to look at where this war took place, and I will reword it properly.

KV 17:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

There is too much for me to do right now, so expect results later on in the day.
KV 17:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
The information was far from written in an NPOV way, but it can be fixed.
KV 17:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Bigotry, Gender Bias, and the Difference Between OR and Proper Sourcing

OK, let's get this sorted out. The long page of quotes that Cat offered was, plain and simple, both polemic and OR. Let's take this out of the context of the current argument and put it into a more neutral setting where perhaps the case will be clearer.

Suppose we were writing an article on Louis XIV, and someone wanted to talk about some of Louis' political views. No problem there. But how to go about it? If someone added a statement that "Louis believed thus and so," and offered as evidence citations from Louis' own diaries, would that be acceptable?

No, it would not. That would be what WP calls "original research." This is because the author would be culling selections from Louis' diaries to make a particular point. That is not acceptable sourcing for a WP article. If one wanted to include such information, it would have to come from a published, fact-checked analysis of Louis' politics. In other words, an author wishing to support the claim that "Louis believed thus and so" would have to find a published, fact-checked source in which that argument was made and supported. Ideally, the source should have been written by someone other than the author of the proposed WP article on Louis.

See the difference? On the one hand, we have a WP author making selective quotes directly from Louis and presenting them to support his or her pet ideas. On the other hand, we have a published author who did the same thing, but whose work was then checked by editors and experts in the field before being published. That, in a nutshell, is the difference between a source that is acceptable in Wikipedia, and one that is not.

Clearly then, nothing that Cat has been trying to insert into this article is acceptably sourced. Quoting from Crowley's writings is no different from quoting from the writings of Louis XIV. If Cat wants to make this case then she will have to find a reputable, published, fact-checked author who is saying what she wants to hear, and cite that author as her source. And then, in order to meet conventional standards of NPOV, she will also need to cite a source from the other side of the controversy.

This isn't rocket science, people. I'm fine with a reasoned, neutral, and properly cited discussion of Crowley's racial ideas. That is what WP requires in its articles. Nothing that Cat has offered us so far meets that standard.Psuliin 20:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, thank you for your rant that completely disagrees with WP:NOR. Because I quote:
Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.
Indeed, Wikipedia encourages the use of primary sources and they are acceptable. The problem is the way that she presented it, which was highly NPOV and putting unnecessary emphasis with huge quotes, that essentially turned this article into her website. But by all means, the primary sources can be used.
KV 01:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
What I said was right in line with WP policy, KV. The paragraph a couple up from the one you quoted reads, in part, "In this context it means unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments that appears to advance a position..." (emphasis added) That is exactly what I was talking about in my example of citing from Louis' diaries to prove a point. And it is exactly what Cat was doing in citing from Crowley's writings to advance her agenda.
I don't think we can refer often enough to WP:NOR, so thanks for that. But in fact what I'm pointing out is right in line with what is prohibited there.Psuliin 02:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
What it states is "Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source. In this context it means unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments that appears to advance a position or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a 'novel narrative or historical interpretation.'"
The material has been published by a reputable source, for Crowley is a reputable source on his own beliefs. The data and all that was published by Crowley himself. What remains is not a theory, it falls under "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources" which "is, of course, strongly encouraged". "This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia."
Crowley essentially claims himself that he is racist and sexist, which is obviously implied from his assertion of sexist and racist views that he claims to hold. This is not original research.
KV 02:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
KV, Crowley is not an acceptable source in this context, any more than Louis would be in the example I offered. The reason he is not acceptable is because Cat is citing from him selectively to prove her point. That is exactly what the WP policy on OR prohibits. The reason for that prohibition is because there may be material in any source that tends to refute as well as support a given position. Actually I know for a fact that one could quote selectively from Crowley to show that he idolized women, that he considered his fellow white Englishmen to be hidebound idiots, and that he glorified Judaism. Because of things like this, WP forbids the interpretation or analysis of any source material, primary or not, in order to prove anything. Instead, WP relies on published interpretations of primary sources in such cases to ensure that the conclusion being advanced is verifiable.
There's no two ways about this. Cat is saying, "Crowley was a racist and here are the quotes to prove it." Are you really trying to say that this is not an "interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments that appears to advance a position"? If it's not that, then what on earth is it?
In contrast, here's an example of an acceptable use of a primary source. Suppose we were writing an article on climate change. We might write something like this: "Advocates of global warming theories point to increasing numbers and severity of tropical storms as both proof of the theory and a harbinger of what they believe is yet to come if greenhouse gas emissions are not curtailed. *Insert citation of published source that makes this claim* The National Weather Service reports that there were X storms of Category 3 or greater in 1991, and (X+5) storms of that intensity in 2001." *Insert citation of NWS website.*
The citation from the NWS is a primary source. It is not being used, however, to prove that any particular interpretation of global warming is correct. It is simply pointing out some of the evidence that the previously cited source was using in making the conclusions cited there. That is the sort of primary source citation that WP encourages. Citing primary sources as Cat is doing, to prove a point, is explicitly forbidden by WP:NOR.
In this specific context, it would be entirely acceptable to write "In his book, *Insert title*, John Smith uses passages such as *Insert Crowley quotation* to argue that Crowley was deeply racist." That would be an acceptable use of a primary source: to describe the evidence used by the cited author, without offering any interpretation of the passage oneself. As I said earlier, if Cat wants to make this argument, then there is only one way to cite it acceptably in WP. She must find a reputable and verifiable published source that offers an interpretation of Crowley's writing that is congenial to her theory, and cite that. Saying "Crowley essentially claims..." or "this passage obviously implies..." is an interpretation, and WP authors are forbidden from interpreting what they cite. Primary source citations are acceptable, but not in the way they're being used here. User_talk:Psuliin
You're right, I just checked it. There has to be someone who is published to say he was racist, and there is no secondary source. To have a discussion on racism, we need someone who published the matter of his racism, or gender biased. How many times do I have to say this? I'm going to take down the Prejudice section if it is not taken down already. If it can be validated, then revert it, if not, leave it down until there is a source. Zos 04:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Drugs Section

Ok, something maybe Frater5 missed when Catherine (Cat) edited the page...

"Crowley was a habitual drug user and also maintained a meticulous record of his drug-induced experiences with laudanum, cocaine, hashish, alcohol, ether, and heroin, much of which influenced his novel, Diary of a Drug Fiend. Allan Bennett, Crowley's mentor, was said to have given him instruction regarding the magical properties of intoxicants."

She added a number of drugs Crowley used. Now, I diagree with this b/c the way she added it in, makes it look like all of these drugs (that she added) influenced the writing of Diary of a Drug Fiend! Is there actual evidence that all of these drugs did this? There is no citation, and I'm asking that this be removed if none can be found. Does anyone else have an issue with it before I revert it? Zos 00:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

A source or citation is still neeed for the list of drugs Crowley used. The citation given had nothing to say about which drugs were used, only that bennet instructed, and in 1906 he used drugs or a drug to work further with the Abra melin. Zos 17:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I fixed this, per your request, citing Crowley's "Confessions," the edited "Magicakal Diaries," and Sutin's "Do What Thou Wilt". Hope this helps! Catherineyronwode 04:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Prejudice Section: Primary vs. Secondary Sources at WP

I took Cat's sources, which are primary sources and not considered original sources as per WP:NOR. However, I wrote them in a much more NPOV manner, lumped into one section, it is much smaller without losing information and actually increasing information (the information that balances it out). Check it out.

KV 02:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Its about time. It looks much better in my opinion. Zos 02:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that what you did looks better than what Cat did. However I still don't believe that it is as good as it could be. Here's why.
Your first paragraph acknowledges Crowley's racism, but suggests that it was not much worse than those of others of his class in that time and place. Now, I happen to agree with you on that, but Cat does not - she asserts that in fact Crowley was significantly more racist than his contemporaries. So which is right? Moreover, why should the reader accept either interpretation coming from you, or me, or Cat? This is the immediate problem we run into any time that we interject our own opinions into a WP article. It applies just as much to the quotes that you offer as cites later on.
Crowley's opinions were not entirely consistent. For example, it's certainly true that Crowley spoke ndisparagingly of Hindus. Yet he also spoke poorly of Christians and of white Anglo-Saxons. He even on occasion extolled the virtues of the Hindu over his own culture, as in this passage from Confessions:
The Hindu attitude towards sin, absurd as it is, compares favourably with ours; because, though afraid of it, they have not reached our own state of panic which makes us the prey of the most fantastic superstitions and perversions of truth. I have found it practically impossible to convince middle-class Anglo-Saxons of facts which anyone would think were bound to be known. They take refuge in angry denial. It seems to them that if they once admit the most elementary and obvious propositions, they are bound to fall headlong into a bottomless pit of bestiality. Where, in fact, they always are.
  • You grossly misread the above paragraph if you think that in it Crowley "extolled the virtues of the Hindu over his own culture" -- the words he used are "compares favourably with ours." Here is a sentence from a British web page using the term "compares favouably with" (thanks to google): "The rate of survival for coronary artery bypass surgery in Great Britain compares favourably with rates of survival in other developed countries. In the USA, the rate of survival for coronary artery bypass surgery in 2005 was 98.0%; in Britain it was 98.3%." The difference of .3% (less than one-third of a person for every one hundred persons operated on) does not mean that the virtues of British bypass surgery were "extolled over those of" others. They were roughly the same' -- and that is the true meaning of the term "compares favouably with." Catherineyronwode
Cat, please. Are you seriously suggesting that the phrase "compares favourably with" is defined as "a difference of at least 0.3%"? And this simply because that's how a single source happens to use it? [Edited by me to remove a statement that I decided was uncivil.Psuliin 19:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)] Crowley says in that passage that "middle-class Anglo-Saxons" live "in a bottomless pit of bestiality," and that Hindus are better than them in this regard. To say that this is consistent with Crowley as a racist who favors white people is simply absurd. You're beginning to flail, here.Psuliin 19:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Because of this internal variability, there is a wide range of interpretations of just how much of a racist Crowley was. The case has been made, for example, that in fact Crowley disliked everyone more or less equally. It's easy to find support for this in passages where Crowley talks about the decadence of the Old Aeon and the need for the new revelations of Thelema. Any discussion of alleged racism in Crowley's writings has to take account of this complexity, both in his own views and in the way they have been interpreted over the years.
We can't get that complexity through a selective culling of a handful of quotes. And we especially can't do it by telling the reader what those quotes mean. What is needed here is a citation to one or more authors who explore that complexity in Crowley's work and provide published, verifiable conclusions that we can then cite.
Don't get me wrong - I think that your treatment is worlds above what Cat tried to give us. But it is still providing an incomplete picture of Crowley and a whole heap of unverifiable interpretations. I think we can still do better. [Editorial note:I added a proper signature to this , so it appears to have been written after Zos's info below. Mea culpa, but I wanted to sign it properly, even if belatedly.]Psuliin 05:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

(additional editorial note: you didn't sign either on the Bigotry, Gender Bias, and the Difference Between OR and Proper Sourcing section, and i added your name there too)

Ok. I took this off the article, and here is the reason and where it comes from. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Some_definitions

"A primary source is a document or person providing direct evidence of a certain state of affairs; in other words, a source very close to the situation you are writing about. The term most often refers to a document produced by a participant in an event or an observer of that event. It could be an official report, an original letter, a media account by a journalist who actually observed the event, or an autobiography. Statistics compiled by an authoritative agency are considered primary sources. In general, Wikipedia articles should not depend on primary sources but rather on reliable secondary sources who have made careful use of the primary-source material. Most primary-source material requires training to use correctly, especially on historical topics. Wikipedia articles may use primary sources only if they have been published by a reliable publisher e.g. trial transcripts published by a court stenographer, or historic documents that appear in edited collections. We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a reliable publisher. " Zos 04:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone provide an actual published source to say Crowley was a racist? This will aid in keeping KV's version. Zos 05:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The writer or his published works or spoken statements can be cited as evidence of racism in Wikipedia. . See the following WP pages: Henry Ford, Mircea Eliade, Alice Bailey, Gerard Encausse (Papus), and Julius Evola for samples. There are others. Catherineyronwode 09:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok look. We need people, who are published, saying Crowley was racist. I visited all of those pages you just gave, of which none mentions Crowley. Plus, by checking on the history, I seen you hand your hand on editing those pages for racism (which need to be checked too, thank you for showing me those pages). I think I've made myself clear on the issue that we need published sources or references to Crowley's racism (its all over this page). Zos 09:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Zos, of course none of those pages mentioned Crowley. Why should they? You are also mistaken that i was "editing those pages for racism."
I had no hand in the Henry Ford page whatsoever, yet it mentions Ford's racism.
The others i have contributed to, as part of my ongoing work with occult writers (my husband and i created the category occult writers and linked 93 pages to it, 19 of which we originated).
  • In the Mircea Eliade article, to which i have contributed, the subject of Eliade's facism was first dealt with by user Dahn, not by me. Chip Berlet (CBerlet) also worked on Mircea Eliade racism issue. Also note the cite to a book by Mihail Sebastian -- but read it and you will see that Sebastian is not giving an opinion ABOUT Eliade, rather, he is quoting Eliade's OWN SPOKEN WORDS.
  • LHolder and i collaborated on upgrading the Julius Evola page, including the race issue. (My major contribution to the Evola page was to organize it). The race section cites no secondary sources, but qute's Evola's OWN WRITINGS.
  • The Papus / Gerard Encausse page bears the marks of many hands; mention of his anti-Semitism was on the page as early as i found it, when it was a stub, and it persisted throughout the series of edits by Ashami and myself, and others. Again, there are no secondary sources, only mention of Encausse's OWN WRITINGS.
  • The Alice Bailey page was already in existence when i responded to a request on its talk page to add something about her racism. I did so, and then Lumos3 kindly came along and organized the material with subheads. Again, no secondary sources were cited, merely Bailey's OWN WRITINGS, plus an external link (not a source, but an external link, Zos!) to a page on her anti-Semitism.
  • Look at the Henry Ford article if you want to see something that i had nothing to do with. here is another well-known figure whose racism mets a subhead on the subject, but you will see no secondary source claiming that Ford was an anti-Semite given, merely reference to Ford's OWN PUBLISHED WORKS.
  • Please see the page on Carl Jung, specifically the subhead discussing charges that he was a Nazi sympathizer. I have never edited on the Jung page at all. No cites are given to secondary sources, just the facts about what Jung himself wrote and published in HIS OWN WORKS.
  • Please also see the page on the poet and dramatist Amiri Baraka, to which i have never contributed. Note the paragraph beginning, "In the late 1960s and early 1970s, Baraka courted controversy by penning some strongly anti-Jewish poems and articles [...]". Again, there is no secondary source given, but a quote from Baraka's OWN WRITINGS demonstrates his racism ("“Atheist Jews double crossers stole our [black people’s] secrets.... They give us to worship a dead Jew and not ourselves.... Selling fried potatoes and people, the little arty bastards talking arithmetic they sucked from the arab’s head.”)
  • Please see the page on Louis Farrakhan, which i have had no hand in editing. Under the sub-head "Farrakhan and antisemitism" you will find NO secondary sources, but instead about 14 lines of quoted text of Farrakhan's OWN WRITINGS, exressing anti-Semitic views, followed by a string of quotes such as, "These false Jews promote the filth of Hollywood. It's the wicked Jews, the false Jews that are promoting lesbianism, homosexuality, [and] Zionists have manipulated Bush and the American government [over the war in Iraq]"
  • See the entry on Ezra Pound, to which i have never contributed, particularly the paragraph commencing, "In Italy Pound became an enthusiastic supporter of Mussolini, and anti-Semitic sentiments begin to appear in his writings. " No secondary source is given, only the evidence of Pound's OWN WRITINGS.
My point in bringing up these 10 pages -- both the 4 to which i have contributed and the 6 to which i have not -- is to demonstrate that at WP the biography of an occultist, industrialist, psychologist, poet, or minister can easily contain a section on controversy about racism in which the WRITER'S OWN WORDS and publications are cited as evidence of the controversy, with NO secondary sources backing up the charge.
The claim you seem to be making here, if i understand you aright -- that editors will not be permitted to mention the controversy over Crowley's racism by citing Crowley's own writings -- is simply not in accord with biogaphical pages found elsewhere in Wikipedia.
Catherineyronwode 11:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
"Zos, of course none of those pages mentioned Crowley. Why should they?You are also mistaken that i was "editing those pages for racism."
Maybe b/c this is the talk page in discussing changees to the Alesiter Crowley page? I made the assumption b/c I specifically stated that we need published authors saying Crowley was racist. This is not a rant page. Take your this to a fourm. And yes, out of the original 6 pages you posted, the only one you are not editing for racism is Henry Ford, my mistake! Then you added more page which you didn't already list.......

"My point in bringing up these 10 pages -- both the 4 to which i have contributed and the 6 to which i have not -- is to demonstrate that at WP the biography of an occultist, industrialist, psychologist, poet, or minister can easily contain a section on controversy about racism in which the WRITER'S OWN WORDS and publications are cited as evidence of the controversy, with NO secondary sources backing up the charge."

Yes, and my point was, that if you had your hand in 5 out of 6 of those pages, then they may need to be checked for error as well.
Can anyone explain this to Caterine better than me? Please do so, shes ranting about things that are not on topic, procing no Secondary Sources on the matter, which would help greatly, and cannot,nor is willing to even TRY to make more NPOV statements. I think I'm done explaining this and have given many references to why I am disputing this, and I may dispute this at any time, as Wikipedia also telle me. Zos 16:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I think people need to look closely at those pages, Cat. In some cases, you've shown that several other articles on WP commit the same sourcing errors that you want to commit here. In others - the Henry Ford page, for example - you misrepresent the facts. The Ford article quotes what a newspaper published about Ford in an interview. That is not a primary source. The article goes on then to present further information on Ford's racial beliefs to balance the presentation - which you did not choose to do with regard to Crowley. So to say "They did it, so I can too" is misleading. Some of those authors did not do what you did. Those that did merely made the same mistakes.Psuliin 19:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
An additional thought here - and KV, this is for you as well. The argument here is going back and forth about whether or not primary sources can be used in WP articles. We need to get past that: they can be, no question about it. What's central here, IMO, is how they are used. Some ways are acceptable, others are not.
I think the Henry Ford article is a good model for us to use here. That article does not say "Henry Ford was a racist, and here are the quotes to prove it." That is the sort of sourcing that WP explicitly forbids. Instead, the article says "there is controversy surrounding some of Henry Ford's public statements about Judaism. Here are some of the elements of that controversy, pro and con." It then goes on with extensive citations on both sides of the issue. That is the kind of thing that I think we need to be doing here.Psuliin 20:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, it's time to teach people a little bit about Wikiquette. First, do NOT ever change the title of a section on a talk page. It makes it confusing when you're looking for something you started. Second, everyone has to start signing their posts properly, there's too many unsigned posts.

Now, if there must be a little rewording here or there, go right ahead. Just don't be foolhardy and completely remove the entire section on the basis that it isn't perfect.

Zos stresses: In general, Wikipedia articles should not depend on primary sources but rather on reliable secondary sources who have made careful use of the primary-source material.

Yes, in general Wikipedia articles should depend on that, that in no way says that this is not an appropriate use of primary sources or that primary sources should not be used. One of the three basic policies that override all other policies, WP:NOR claims that primary sources are specifically allowed. Even if WP:RS were to be saying that, it would be overridden by WP:NOR.

And then, your claim about Crowley not being mentioned on any of those pages that Cat brought up is the greatest straw man I've seen on this page yet. Her claim was "Person X's statements about race or sex can be used as reliable evidence that Person X is a racist or sexist." She cited several Person X's that this has applied to, people like Henry Ford who people don't want to admit is racist. You tried to make it say "Person X's statements abour race or sex can be used as reliable evidence that Aleister Crowley is a racist or a sexist." She in no way suggested that any of these pages would say anything about Crowley, she stated simply that if Ford's personal statements can be used on his article to show that he was racist, then so can Crowley's statements show that he is too.

Now, what was brought up about him extolling a single virtue of the Indians over the similar in Anglo-Saxons should be brought up, and actually may explain his agreement with their teachings. Let's put it in there, cite it, and balance it.

But, we certainly do not need a source that says that Crowley is racist. At most it would be a definition of racism, seeing as we have sources that say he thinks that certain races are "inferior" and it would be silly to use the wording "Some people think that Crowley is racist because he thought certain races were inferior." Who wouldn't think that made him a racist?

KV 18:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is, I'm calling for secondary sources. There are none as of yet. You can use the primary sources, ok. But in calling him a racist, I'd like to see credibile people saying this, not you KV, unpublished and authoritarian. As i have said before, I am free to edit and dispute all of this so says Wikipedia. Put this through mediation so it can be resolved. Zos 18:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to put all those :'s after an unindented post. And there are some things that don't need an expert's opinion to come to. If you see someone making racist remarks left and right, in the most abrasive way, you don't need an expert on the man to tell you he is a racist. Just like if your car dips to one corner, you hear a pop and you check the tire and it seems thinner than the others, and part of it is long, not round...... you don't need the guy at the shop to say you have a flat. This is not an entire article, so it need not have a single secondary source. In fact, on a scholarly level, primary sources are considered better. Wikipedia only asks that secondary sources appear somewhere in the article, not that any one section must have secondary sources.

KV 20:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

For example, the claim that Crowley was racist, based upon several racist remarks made openly, unashamed, and publicly in permanent writing is much more reasonable statement to make than "He is perhaps best known today for his occult writings, especially The Book of the Law, the central sacred text of Thelema." That statement would be an example of actual original research, there is no evidence to back that up that is cited, no citation for the statement. Saying that Crowley was racist works as a thesis statement, in the sense that it is the characterization given, then it is backed up by facts. If you write a paper, and cite your thesis statement, you would be laughed out of academia, though perhaps that wouldn't be applicable to this. The point being is that all the citations which cite his racist comments are the citations for that comment.
KV 20:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Ironically, I have just noticed that the only section that cannot be simply deleted as per WP:V by any editor for any reason is the one in controversy. It is the only one with any verification whatsoever.
KV 20:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
First, your flat tire anology is a bit off. Where is the history of Crowley's racism? Just b/c he made a few racist remarks, doesnt mean he was racist all his life. The flat tire can be fixed.
"Saying that Crowley was racist works as a thesis statement, in the sense that it is the characterization given, then it is backed up by facts."
Its a thesis statement? hmph. thesis--a treatise advancing a new point of view resulting from research; usually a requirement for an advanced academic degree
As far as I knew, Wikipedia does not wish to add new points of view unless backed by facts. I'm not longer disputing Crowley's words as a primary source. So, where is the "fact" that he's racist? This is the proceeding statement in the article with no citation I am referring to. This is why i am calling for there to be a secondary source on the matter.


  • "A fact is an actual state of affairs, which can be an historical event, or a social or natural phenomenon. To say of a sentence or proposition that it is true is to say that it refers to a fact. "
  • "An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable. However, that a certain person or group holds a certain opinion is a fact, and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group holds the opinion. When reporting facts, Wikipedia articles should cite sources."
  • "When reporting that an opinion is held by a particular individual or group, the best citation will be to a direct quote, citing the source of the quote in full after the sentence (see Harvard referencing) or using a footnote or embedded link if the source is online."
So. Please tell me where Crowley says he is a racist? I know he says racist remarks, but there is evidence he claims he himself is a racist? I'm aware that making racist remarks, concludes you to be a racist, but while using a direct quotes, back it up. Zos 21:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, maybe the reference to the flat tire means KV is having trouble locating a source, reference or any citation he may need in keeping his statements NPOV :p Having car trouble? No excuse in not being able to back up statements. Zos
Furthermore: Wikipedia:NPOV#The_neutral_point_of_view what follows are quotes from this page.
  • "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions."
  • "As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject."
  • "Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed."
KV is not doing this at all (which is why I'm trying to NPOV it, with very little help). He is asserting that Crowely is racist just because he is reading it to be so. And even if Crowley is racist, its left up to the reader, not the writer/editor. Please provide evidence of racism (by published authors) and do it in an NPOV way. Thank you. Zos 22:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Why no actual publication dates?

I just rewrote the short subhead on Drugs per Zos's request above and went to find the date of publication of Diary of a Drug Fiend and it is nowhere in Wiki -- neither on the Crowley page, nor on the Works page, nor on the page devoted to the plot of the book itself.

In fact, there are no publication dates given for ANY of Crowley's books, only dates for whatever recent reprint (in some cases already outdated) someone stuck on.

Surely there must be a proper bibliography with proper dates on it somewhere. No? I suggest that somone make one. This article sure will need it if it is ever to make it to good status, much less featured article rank.

Catherineyronwode 11:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right, that needs to be in there. (See, Cat, I don't disagree with you just for the heck of it ;) ) The best online bibliography for Crowley's work that I know of is The Crowley Desk Reference. The best printed biblio that I know is in the References section of Magick: Book Four, Parts I-IV (Liber Aba). The latest edition appears to be a corrected reprint issued in 2000 (Samuel Weiser, Inc, New York).
Those editing articles on Crowley or his works definitely should include publication dates.Psuliin 19:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


The "Prejudice" section is just terrible at the moment.

"Crowley, like most men in the society in which he lived, was possibly considered racist and sexist" -- first of all, there's the unsourced assumption that most men in his society was racist and sexist; then there's that "possibly considered" (possibly considered by who?).

You can't use his own autohagiography as support for assertions of causes and effects.

The use of the term "nigger" for Indians says abolutely nothing about Crowley's feelings towards "Africans"; "nigger" was, in England in Crowley's time, a generic term for anyone of swarthier complexion than the speaker.

The paragraph concludes without source that Crowley was racist. That's something we don't get to do. We get to say he said racist stuff. We don't get to say he was a racist.

"It is unclear how Crowley reconciled his acceptance of these teachings with his racism." -- There's a built in POV assumption there that Crowley somehow needed to reconcile anything with anything.

I've always thought that some of Crowley's writings are deliberately annoying, and that nothing he says can be taken at face value -- most importantly including the contents of his Confessions.

--jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there's a lot of discussion north of here about how to make it better. I've suggested the section on Antisemitism in Henry Ford's bio article as a model. There, the author cites some of Ford's statements from a newspaper interview, but does not interpret them directly. Instead, he or she cites the Anti-Defamation League for a citable interpretation of Ford's comments. The article then balances this with a discussion of citable facts that go to the other side of the controversy - the idea that Ford was not an anti-semite.
Zos and I are trying to convince KV that a similar approach is needed here - that WP authors just aren't allowed to offer their own interpretations of cited sources, no matter how "obvious" they may be. Progress is slow thus far. I'm working on a rewrite of this section that I hope will address the issues.Psuliin 00:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Please don't intersperse comments in the middle of others -- it doesn't work well, and makes it impossible to follow the flow of the conversation. I suggest we remove the existing section; it's pretty embarassing. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

As before, this section reeks of POV. It is filled with subjective opinion. I say delete it and start over. To underscore my position, I think in many ways he was sexist and ethnically insensitive, and addressing these things is appropriate and possible. But I don't get to just come here and give my opinion, and neither does KV. We have to do this intelligently. –Frater5 (talk/con) 02:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There are still alot of statements being made, which are promoting a view of racism in the Prejudice section. This is supposed to be left up to the reader, not stated in the words on the article. I see Catherine has been at it again. I think she needs to be versed in NPOV and citations. Anyone have any ideas for how we are to fix this mess? Zos 03:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Zos, i am sure you can address me directly, as i am readin this page and contributing to it.
You made two statements directly above that indicate to me that you are not clear that an ecyclopedia is a collection of substantiated and peer-reviewed facts and that NPOV does not mean "indeterminate" or "left up to the reader to decide."
You wrote: "There are still alot of statements being made, which are promoting a view of racism in the Prejudice section." First, the words you want are "a lot" ("alot" means to portion out, "a lot" means a goup or an amount). Second, "promoting a view of racism" is entirely within the goals of Wikipedia, if by "promoting a view" you man "defining a viewpoint and sticking to that definition." Please see the Wiki article on racism and you will see that a DEFINITION is given and that this definition is futher extended to various nations and time-eras within the histories of those nations. It was to this Wiki definition of racism -- and specifically to the range of attitudes toward the public expression of racism in 20th century England, post WWI -- that i referred when seeking to define Crowley's racism in his post-WWI books.
You wrote: "This is supposed to be left up to the reader, not stated in the words on the article." That is simply untrue. When Wikipedia says that iron is ferromagnetic and points to an article on ferromagnetism as a definition-containing cite, it is NOT "left up to the reader to decide" if iron is really ferromagnetic -- the reader has come to Wikipedia for an authoritative statement and has received one. When Wikipdia says that Amiri Baraka is anti-Semitic and points to the article on anti-Semitism as a definition-containing cite, it is NOT "left up to the reader to decide" if Amiri Baraka is really anti-Semitic -- the reader has come to Wikipedia for an authoritative statement and has received one.
Using Wikipedia's own definitions of such terms as racial purity, nationalism, chauvinism. racism, white supremacism, and so forth, it is clear that Crowley published statements that fit those definitions. Cites have been given to the pages in Crowley's books and to the relevant Wikipedia definition pages. It is time to accept that the material on racism et al is an important part of a NPOV article. To omit all mention of ideas he frequently wrote about in books published to a wide audience, while adding paragraph after silly paragraph about what his private or semi-private last few minutes of life may or may not have been like is the epitome of a NON-NPOV article.
Cordially, Catherineyronwode 03:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines. The racism article is an article, it is not a policy or guideline of Wikipedia. You lack the ability to check on how Wikipedia wishes you edit article on their webpages.
This quote is taken directly from Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#The_neutral_point_of_view.........bold print it for Catherine.
"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions."
So its left up to the reader of the article, not for editer to putin b/c of their opinions.
There is no page for Wikipedia: Racism (see the red link? mean no page). The reason for this is b/c it is clearly stated in articles begining with Wikipedia:, how you deal with these matter. SO STOP RANTING. These statements are not NPOV. READ Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines. Zos 04:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Technically, there is no sourced arguments, no statements, that Crowley wasn't racist or sexist. Unless arguments are made to that effect, there is no debate to balance. You claim that Crowley wrote things,there is no NPOVing that he might not have wrote them, because there is no one making such accusations. I can work to clean it up, but starting over from scratch seems pointless. There is no reason that I cannot interpret obvious statements, that's what is required for it to not be plagiarism. If I read that Bush has pilotted Airforce One, in an article, It is not original research to say that Bush has pilotted an aircraft! One has to reword to avoid plagiarism, and the extremely obvious should be noted without worry. Now, if there are people defending him, then we can put in both views and not make a conclusion, but there is no such controversy, essentially he calls himself racist. I will make a concession, just to settle this, and because it is so extremely obvious that he is racist, but there is going to be things you'll have to cite now.
KV 04:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

"Zos, i am sure you can address me directly, as i am readin this page and contributing to it."
Genuinely, (Catherine)you have a personal agenda in the matter. You are clearly unfit to edit this page. This is why I don't feel it neccessary to speak to you directly anymore. You are eradic, annoying, and have shown unwillingness to refer to guidelines and policies for editing wikipedia. Go find a sock puppet to help you. I'm for NPOV, Verifiability, and NOR.
KV: If you are going to redo it, fine. I'm only here to make sure its proper for Wikipedia. And please, enough with the analogies. Zos 04:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Desist immediately from the personal attacks, Zos. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Dah, I may have gone overboard, I apologize. Yet my statement still stands. I have made more than one reference to Wikipedia guidelines and policies, and this has been overlooked by Catherine an equal amount of times. Zos 04:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I accept your apology, Zos, for i understand how frustrating it can be to work hard on a page and see your work disputed, but i am unsure which of your statements "still stands" -- for i count four statements by you in that one paragraph:

  • 1) "You have a personal agenda in the matter" Yes, i do. I want the web to be a source of reliable information and i have decided to devote a certain amount of my writing time to Wikipedia to fulfill that agenda.
  • 2) "You are clearly unfit to edit this page": Who is "unfit to edit"? -- the writer who proposes an expansion to embrace controversial aspects of the biographical subject 's life or the cramped little keeper of the flame fanboy who fears that the light of the Great One will be dimmed by any mention of his publically expressed racial beliefs?
  • 3) "You are eradic, annoying, and have shown unwillingness to refer to guidelines and policies for editing wikipedia.": Obviously we disagree about the WP guidelines concerning the citation of an author's autobiography. You call it OR; others of us call it a primary source and, as such, usable.
  • 4) "I don't feel it neccessary to speak to you directly anymore": I, however, will continue to address you directly, Zos, since, in my worldview, we are collaborators here, not opponents. "As brothers fight ye" and all that. ("All that" being, "Fight! Fight like gentlemen, without malice, because fighting is the best game in the world, and love the second best! Don't slander your enemy, as the newspapers would have you do; just kill him, and then bury him with honor. Don't keep crying 'Foul!' like a fifth-rate pugilist. Don't boast! Don't squeal! If you're down, get up and hit him again! Fights of this sort make fast friends.") (We can but hope...)

Meanwhile, as KV brilliantly points out, Technically, there [are] no sourced arguments, no statements, that Crowley wasn't racist or sexist. He's right --and you will have an interesting search through many books to find any, i'd wager.

On the other side of the equation, the side looking for cites to demonstrate his racism from secondary sources, it occurs to me that Regardie's intro or footnotes to his abridged version of "777" touches on matters of Crowley's anti-Semitism and may be good for a "secondary source" opinion of Crowley's public expressions on the subject of racial purity, nationalistic, chauvinism, anti-Semitism, and white supremacism. I'll look it up as soon as i get a chance -- or perhaps you can do it if you have the book at hand.

Cordially, Catherineyronwode 06:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I still feel you are missing the main point. The issue is not of his own words per Confessions...its with the statements made concerning them. There is no source either way is what KV is saying, i.e. if you wish to say "crowley is a racist" it needs to be from a source, not from you, me, or KV (unless its from a published book), and needs to be NPOV. Crowleys words serve as primary source, yes. But not the statements calling him a racist? Where does crowley say of himself that crowley is a racist? I've asked this question before. No answer. So find published authors, this has been stated before as well. (regardless of how common sense it is that he be racist, we still need a published opinion, record of history, etc etc, so find it before making statements) Zos 07:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I'm wrong, Cat, but it seems to me that what "still stands" is Zos pointing you, again, to WP:NPOV, which clearly states that the reader 'is' to be allowed to form his or her own opinion, which you have stated in so many words is not the policy of an encyclopedia such as WP. And, as Zos suggested you would, you have glossed over that fact again. Read it, live it, if you want to write for Wikipedia.Psuliin 13:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Zos: I am not saying there are no references either way, I'm saying that there is evidence that he was racist (makes outrageously racist statements when it is neither necessary nor proper) but there is no evidence you have offered to counter it in the least. I did figure that though you don't need to know more than Hitler's speeches and his hand in the Halocaust that he was racist, and the same for Crowley, that saying he made racist statements, recounting them, and such will leave no reasonable option but for the reader to form such an opinion, it is so obvious, that it need not be directly stated.
Psuliin: Now, this applies to what you have said..... because NPOV requires that when there are two or more reputably sourced POVs on the matter. We have Crowley's version of whether or not he was racist, he sides that he is. Now, where does anyone disagree with him, or where do we find evidence that contradicts that? Where has Crowley made a comparably progressive statement to balance out the racist statements, which are quite strong. WP:NPOV requires that we display both views in such a light, but when there is no such other side, you don't show both sides. No one claims that Hitler wasn't racist, so we are free to say that he was in the light of overwhelming evidence.
Cat: I have 777, and if it's in the introduction, I will find it.
KV 19:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Chess and Prejudice

there's some unclarity in the story as I found in Confessions as to whether Crowley *played* the university president in chess or was in fact himself the president (is this explained through a conflation of multiple quotes?).

"In my second year I was president of the university and had beaten such first-rate amateurs as Gunston and Cole. Outside the master class, Atkins was my only acknowledged superior. ... <2 hours / day practice mentioned> ...." (Confessions, p. 140)

somehow the Chess section of the Crowley page came to this state:

"He later joined the university chess club at Cambridge, where, he says, he beat the president in his freshman year and practised two hours a day towards becoming a champion..."

what is the reality of what Crowley was saying? was he the president of the university??? surely this is some kind of error? it should be revised to reflect the reality or re-cited.

I made a start by ... ... ISBN ...  what I could find in my library here and, in the case of Diary of a Drug Fiend, an online source for the ISBN ( in the 'Chess' and 'Prejudice' sections, correcting some serious page number problems while I was at it. some titles may also be switched ('Confessions' for 'Magick Without Tears' for example). 333 bo-bo 05:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Regardie as a secondary source

Okay, folks, as the request for secondary sources is not all that difficul to satisfy, i have added the comments of Crowley's student and editor, Israel Regardie, who clearly explained why he excised Crowley's "nasty" and "malicious" anti-Semitic "Preface to Sephir Sephiroth" from the Weiser collection of "777" -- and i have included, as a fair counterpoint, a short quote from the material that Regardie cut out. Since Crowley's "Preface" in turn refers to a manuscript by Sir Richard Burton, i have also appended a brief footnote and two ext links (one to the BBC) that explain the Burton MS which Crowley cited as proof that the Pogroms then ongoing in Russia were a defense against Jewish cannibalism.

I hope this satisfies you, Zos and Frater5. It is far more shocking than what was first proposed, which was a simple external link to a site that collected some mild samples of racism. Now you have got your secondary source, and we'll see if you can live with it.

Cordially, Catherineyronwode 08:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you plan to add any information on alternative points of view, Cat? Or is that left as an exercise for students of NPOV?Psuliin 13:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

If you can find some well-sourced discussions that counter what cat has found, please include them; I've certainly never seen any, and I'm pretty well versed in Crowleyana. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Just because a POV exists dosn't mean it can't be presented in a nutral manner. If there isn't a counter-point then we can't talk about it. I'm glad we have a secondary source now. Thanks Catherine.---J.S (t|c) 17:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

racism section

Crowley made numerous public expressions typically considered racist, nationalist, and gender-bias to <stike>large</stike>his audience<stike>s</stike> through the written word.

I change the wording of the first paragraph (seen above). I tried to remove the tone of "here's how it is" and replaced it with "here's what it seems like and then here's the facts". I don't think that sentence needs any citations because it is clearly cited latter on. "typically considered" could be slightly problematic, but I think that it's a "the world is flat" type of statement. Even people who have no problem with the word "nigger" would agree that in general it is "typically considered" a statement seen as racist.

Anyway... what do you think? ---J.S (t|c) 17:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, let's see. I know it's not yours, but "large audiences" is pretty vague, and I'm not sure the it's all that accurate. "Large audiences" compared to what? The thing sounds funky, though. How about, "Crowley's works include occasional (or pick an appropriate adjective) racist, jingoist and misogynist statements." --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm I didn't really think of that part. "large audiences" is fairly subjective. How about we change "large" to "his"? ---J.S (t|c) 17:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Why even have the phrase at all? Who else would he be talking or writing to besides his audiences, regardless of their size? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
It sounds better. Facts/figures aren't the only thing to consider. I could be wrong, I'm not realy "married" to it. ---J.S (t|c) 18:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
It sounds like verbiage added to an essay to increase the word count, sez me. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Perhapse. I kinda think it flows better. Change it if you want. Or we can wait to see what others think. But like I said, I only care a tiny amount. :) ---J.S (t|c) 18:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm just glad that sources were found to support the issue. And with pressure from me and others, the sections on this article are now looking better, with every small edit. Zos 18:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


It is nothing more than a long mess of unverifiable statements. Please cite where this information is and subsequently remove the {{fact}} tags. I assumed that it is not all listed out somewhere, but if it is, feel free to treat one citation as applicable for all of those items it lists, putting them in order. Verify these as per WP:V I will look at other sections after a few days. Removing these tags shall constitute vandalism in my eyes.

KV 19:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you went overboard with these citations needed, as I did the other day. Do we really need to see a source for his birth and death? A source for what he wrote? Some of these are kinda unneeded. Zos 20:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
While I appreciate and agree with your concern over the lack of citations in the introduction, the amount of {{fact}} tags you used made it completely unreadable. It seems like a violation of WP:POINT to me, but perhaps you didn't realise how much of an impact it would have? I've removed all but the ones at the end of the paragraphs. Please remain civil and stop making threats. It simply makes it harder to reach a consensus. ---J.S (t|c) 20:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I don't see how removing fact tags is vandalism. Maybe adding one tag per word is vandalism.
  • "Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia." Wikipedia: Vandalism Zos 20:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Suggesting someone is a vandal on Wikipedia is like suggesting someone is a Nazi; it immediately destroys any possibility of constructive conversation with the target of the epithet. Assume good faith. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It illustrates standards of conduct that many editors agree with in principle. Although it may be advisable to follow it, it is not policy. WP:POINT has no purpose in this debate. There is much more evidence on this page to consider Crowley a racist (such as numerous documented public racist statements) than there is to document anything at all said in that introduction. Since you decided that one cannot even express the obvious without a citation, so can you not express the not obvious at all. There is nothing obvious about the birthdate of Aleister Crowley. Get your books out, because you'll be citing a lot coming up.
KV 04:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
As I have said before. We really need that many citations? Who here really think that Crowley didnt write any of the books you see in the store? I mean, Crowley wrote the Book of the Law! We need to cite this? Zos 04:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Space Issues

I've heard about space issues a number of I don't wish to remove anything at all to conserve space. However, I think I can fix the problem. I'm moving the bio secrion to its own page. Frater5 has requested the bio section can be improved on, I believe, on the peer review as well as on this talk page. I'm not sure about the sources, so if someone can move the sources for the bio section after me it will be appreciated. I hope this helps in adding more info to this article. Zos 23:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Bio moved. I'm not very good with this. So I may have made a few mistakes in this process that I'm hoping will be fixed by others. I mean no harm if I did make a mistake. Zos 23:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Other space issues

I noticed that there are already two pages for Crowleys writing. Works of Aleister Crowley and the Libri of Aleister Crowley. Do we need all the info that there is on this article? Can it be summurized and moved to the main article? Any thoughts would be appreciated.

{{fact}} 2.0

Ok, this is starting to get old. The 16 {{fact}} tags your adding is redundant. You even put a tag on something that already have a citation.

The problem is that 16 fact tags makes it very difficult to read the paragraph. That is disruptive to the article. Calling legitimate changes based on a disagreement vandalism is fairly in-civil and creates a combative atmosphere that disrupts the consensus building processes.

WP:POINT states rather emphatically "Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point."

You've made your point. And I agree. The intro needs more citations. Please stop now. ---J.S (t|c) 05:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Each points to a distinct fact. Your claimed citation is not a citation, it's a further claim that is usually written (in parentheses). It does not state where the information that it is first found in this book came from, and even that fact is not in proper citation format. From a scholarly standpoint, that is not considered a citation in any way, shape, or form in today's world. That is outdated. Cite each of those claims, but none of them are cited. As you cite them, it'll be infinitely easier to read, but I have seen no information pointing to any of them.
And WP:POINT is a guideline, which means that a significant group of editors agree on it. It is not policy, it cannot be enforced. I am proving a point, you're right. And for good reason. Nothing in this article is cited at all, except the section you have been POV pushing to remove because it doesn't hoist Crowley up as perfect. Since you and your cabal decided to make it important to cite everything even if it is painstakingly obvious and a sane person could not interpret it otherwise, then it has to apply in a NPOV manner. You cannot simply apply WP:V in a pro-Crowley manner.
KV 05:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I promise you, WP:POINT can be enforced. Administrators are empowered to impose blocks for disruptive behavior. The only reason I'm not doing so now is that I'm involved in the dispute. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you've been following the same conversation as me, but I'm not pushing to have anything removed. I like the "Racism" section. It was a much needed section. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I don't belong to a cabal.
WP:POINT may not be a policy, but it has been used to build arb-com cases for a long time... it carries weight.
In addition, vandalism is a policy. WP:VAN defines Vandalism as "any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia." Making 3 paragraphs unreadable reduces the quality of the encyclopedia and the fact that you reverted it 3 times shows that it was deliberate.
I have no problem with asking for citations. The entire bibliography section is completely devoid of them and that's a bit of a problem. (Did you even notice I've added tags as well?) ---J.S (t|c) 05:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd also like to step in and direct attention to WP:DISRUPT. Zos 05:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Thats the same as WP:POINT. ---J.S (t|c) 05:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
WP:V overrides WP:Vandalism for one, and two, I was attempting to improve the article, that's why I only did the introduction, one step at a time. You have to cite your sources.
KV 06:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Adding 17 fact tags to 3 sentences doesnt actually imporove anything. Causing a disturbance simply wastes my time I could have spent looking for sources. If you have a problem with the lack of sources, fix it. Did adding 17 fact tags fix the lack of sources? ---J.S (t|c) 06:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Looks like Frater5 did a good job in filling in these citations. I believe now we can get back to othter improvments. I'd also like to request that the majority of this talk page be archived. When are we allowed to Archive it? and how? :) Zos 20:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
KV, in a normal conversation this sort of "You do it, so I'm going to do it more" behavior is called "passive-aggressive." I'm pretty sure we can all do better than that.Psuliin 17:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Back to improving the article...

Crowley may have had other prejudices against people of various races, and his derogatory application of the term "nigger" to Indians and Italians suggests he had a prejudice against Africans as well. I think this one has to go. "May have had" and "suggests" are not proper material for Wikipedia. Anyone "may have had" other prejudices. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a slight issue, but I'm not sure how it can be worded better. ---J.S (t|c) 06:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
"Slight"? We don't get to speculate. (And the use of "nigger" to mean "any peoples darker than a tanned Briton" means nothing but that he was using common vernacular of his period.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The whole shape of this article

It's really really weird for almost all of his biography to be in a sub article and for this one to be filled up with what are essentially sidebars. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The biography relay should be here and other stuff should be on "See Also" articles. I mean... that's kinda the main thing.... the biography I mean. ---J.S (t|c) 06:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Uh yeah. I did that. There were issues of space. I was under the assumption that a few of us we going to work on the Bio and there isnt enough room for that. Plus, other are saying they are going to add more to this article, and state they can't because there wasnt enough space. If the bio needs to be put back then ok. Please see the area on this talk page for "space issues". Zos 06:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd also like to state that, most of the time this article was teetering to and fro the standard size limit. If the bio needs to be brought back then so be it. I was only trying to solve the problem of space. Zos 06:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


Catherine added a quote from the Book of the Law, where it states that:

"My number is 11, as all their numbers who are of us. "

Here's what I do not like about this. First, she quotes it, then adds a citation needed. Second, crowley did write the book, but its the character who was saying this. So I think the statement that was made needs to be rewritten. And here is the source for it.

Book of the Law --Section 1:60. My number is 11, as all their numbers who are of us. The Five Pointed Star, with a Circle in the Middle, & the circle is Red. My colour is black to the blind, but the blue & gold are seen of the seeing. Also I have asecret glory for them that love me.

Zos 06:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way...the character who was saying that was Nuit. The first section of the Book of the Law is Nu or Nuit speaking, the second section is Had, Hadit, Hadith, etc etc you get my point. One character per section (three sections). Zos 06:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok well I edited the section in question. You'll have to understand that Nuit's number is 11, not crowley. He may have had a fondness of it, but theres no source for that! So it may have to be re-edited again. Zos 07:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)