Talk:Aiwass

message: Is there any factual evidence that there ever existed an Aiwass? I'd like to see sources added in here, for this is suggestion that this is an actual person, or being that exists outside of Crowleys head, and no evidence that it is not. If none can be found, its suggested that it be included that there is either no references outside of Thelema, or simply that Aiwass does not exist outside of Thelema. Zos 05:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with the above contention. How can you decide the subjective nature of a occult magickal experience? And how would you assert that a magickal being "exists"? Its a non starter.--Redblossom 22:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article quotes Crowley at length about his supposed "proof" that Aiwass was an independent entity, so some discussion of the evidence for this claim seems warranted. Israel Regardie, in The Eye in the Triangle and his Introduction to The Law is for All, discusses specific reasons why he thought Aiwass was an unconscious expression of Crowley's personality and why the events surrounding the reception of the Book of the Law were not quite as "miraculous" as Crowley let on. Even though discussion of the supposed existence of a magical entity might seem absurd on its face, I think it fitting to present an alternative point of view to Crowley's claims. --Smcg8374 (talk) 02:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this would be fine as long as there's no original research involved. If you can find some citations to support alternative points of view (and I agree, Regardie would be a good source to begin with) have at it. --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 06:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of Regardie's book anymore, if I can get one from the library I'll have a go. In the meantime, it would be great if any other editors who have a copy would be able to contribute something along these lines. --Smcg8374 (talk) 11:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual 

message: ^^^^ El hombre de haha 18:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added just before an AFD nomination. I've removed the tag - David Gerard 12:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: why the npov tag

message: I have deleted the following text from the "Gematria" section on the grounds that it is unsourced and blatantly POV/editorializing:
:(In fact, Aiwaz is a Jewish Sephardic surname. It is, however, very rare. Only 0.000005% of the population of the United States have this surname. A similar number have the related surname, "Aiwazian." To explain the coincidence of the choice of just this name, albeit with a slightly variant spelling, in the ms. of the Book of the Law and the receipt of a letter from an unknown American named Aiwaz, some 14 years later, who was a also a libertarian and a reader of Crowley's and who gave him the correct Hebrew spelling of Therion, at the very moment when Crowley was trying to work out this spelling, by chance, stretches credulity to the limit and violates all common sense. Did Aiwaz influence Mr. Jacobs unconsciously to write to Crowley to prove his, Aiwaz's, reality, or was Mr. Jacobs himself an incarnation of Crowley's Holy Guardian Angel? The mind boggles. It's a pity no one ever bothered to ask Mr. Jacobs, who died in 1971.)
Violates common sense indeed! Speculation about whether this Mr Jacobs was in fact an incarnation of Aiwass hardly seems appropriate for WP, and neither is using WP to promote a religious agenda. --Smcg8374 (talk) 10:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV statement about Samuel Jacobs 

message: I am not an expert but did not Aleister Crowley draw several portraits or depictions of the beings he saw. Should we not include that Aiwass is thought to be of the Lam? The physical appearance is shared, except the 'dark man' statement. Most notably, they are both referred to as a type of angel/god. Now other than himself, his noteworthy student is one of the best sources we can use. It can go under the alternative views section like in comparative mythology articles. Some website articles by reliable authors to consider from worst to best, , , . So just a thought, thanks.130.182.26.179 (talk) 04:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Why so sirius

message: I removed the following since there were no references and it was pure original research
"There seems no etymological connection between the name "Aiwass" and the name of the futhorc rune Eihwaz which derives from the Proto-Germanic word for "yew". While Crowley placed no emphasis upon Nordic mythology, it is suggestive that the rune Eihwaz is sometimes associated with the World-tree Yggdrasil, which, imagined as an ash in Norse mythology, may formerly have been a yew or an oak." Bunnyman78 (talk) 10:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed rune mention 

message: Not to be confused with AEW&C.
Say what?? 24.51.217.118 (talk) 00:27, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: When asked who really was the author of Liber AL vel Legis, he could truthfully reply,"I was!" Nuttyskin (talk) 02:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion? 

message: I just closed this case on the DRN because there hasn't been enough discussion to justify a case. If this cannot be solved in the next 3-4 days- you are welcome to re-file the case- HOWEVER- the way things are going, I don't think that you three will make it that far- so please, let me offer you some advice. , review WP:SOURCING for a guide of how to properly cite information you are adding into an article. Once its cited correctly- you should have no problem getting consensus for your edits. At this point, however- your edits have been challenged so you do have to get consensus on the talk page before editing the article. Thats how this collaboarative environment works. See WP:BOLD.  , I understand you have had issues with other editors on other pages reverting and battling with you over changes you want- but you are now doing the same thing to another editor you didn't like being done to you. You are flirting with WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:BITE. Might I suggest you back up, and discuss the edits and help the new editor learn how to properly source their edit instead of just arguing that they arn't editing correctly? No- you are not obligated to educate or clean up after newbies- but we were all new once. And sometimes educating the newbie is both easier and kinder than bashing your head against a wall fighting them. Just my two cents- take it for what its worth. But- if you both continue arguing and not trying to work together- not only will the article not improve, you will end up at the ANI or blocked / tbanned. No one wants that. So please- work together and find a solution. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:04, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhh, you might want to try that again. You're confusing me with . And I should point out that the edit by OrpheusVVV I was talking to Skyerise about did cite sources. Paradoctor (talk) 20:23, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry  You are correct, I put the wrong user. Also, While Opreus is citing sources now- a good review of WP sourcing guidelines will help ensure they are reliable and formatted correctly and remove that avenue of protest from users like Skyerise- leaving nothing but content for users to discuss.  Nightenbelle (talk) 13:58, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  DRN Volunteer Comment