Talk:Aleister Crowley/Archive 3

message: I archived the talk page, it was getting a bit long. I only left the last section commented on in the last few days ( I think). The link doesnt seem to be working right, so if someone could fix that it would be of great help! Zos 05:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 

message: Who else besides me feels that the writings section should be summarised? I mean, I believe all of that info is already on the main article already, and can free up more space. Zos 07:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. If anything, it could be expanded. WP is not paper, and space consideration do not need to be given much weight. In general, removing information from a WP article is frowned on, unless there is some valid reason such as WP:V or WP:NOR or other WP policy to justify it. -999 14:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I never claimed it "was" a paper. I was under the impression that when a main article is written, the content from the original needs to be summarized. I may be wrong, but its what I see from other pages. Zos 17:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Writings 

message: Some recent changes to the Controversy section seem to me to weaken rather than improve the article.
"Crowley made numerous public expressions typically considered racist" to "Crowley made numerous public expressions which would currently be considered racist" -- this is a implication that the expressions would not met with as much disapproval then as now, which itself is a POV. 
"His gender-bias was in part influenced by his failed marriage" to "His expressions of gender-bias may have been in part influenced" -- well, I don't think this whole paragraph belongs -- it's essay stuff, not encyclopedia stuff; even so, to even imply for a second Crowley was not gender-biased is kinda silly for anyone who has read even one of his books. 
"Crowley made racist statements against the Chinese" to "Crowley made apparently racist statements against the Chinese" -- considering that said racist statements are included in the next sentence, what's the purpose of the "apparently"? 
"Crowley's anti-Semitism was disturbing enough" to "Crowley's expressions of anti-Semitism were disturbing enough" -- well, wait, the sentence goes on to describe Regardie's editorial decisions; were Regardie's decisions based on Crowley's anti-Semitism or his expressions of it? As it turns out, it's quite specifically his expression of it, so this change is a good one.
"On the other hand, Crowley also reported a matrimonial preference for Jewesses." Where did he report this?
--jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relativism and fuzziness 

message: With all the talk about the racsicm and drugs sections needin to be delted, has anyone even READ the "women" section? What a pathetic nothing that is in terms of WOMEN. Where are Rose Kelly, Mary Strange D'Estes, Leila Waddell, Frieda Harris, The Tiger Woman, and Herbert Pollitt the female impersonator Crowley loved so much? This subsection is so amateurish that it makes Wikipedia look bad.
^--the above was written by....er i dont know who. Zos 05:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Women Section of Article is Drek

message: I propose that the writings section be moved off to a new page to leave room for the biographical article proper. I have seen other biography articles at Wiki about prolific authors in which the authors' writings / bibliography appear on a separate page. This article cries out for inclusion of more biography and less bibliogaphy, such as information about Crowley's friendship with William Seabrook, his abandonment of Rose Kelly and their child in China, the deaths that took place in Cefalu, hois writing for a pro-german paper during World War 1, and so much more in the way of true life material. Catherineyronwode 05:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The writing section is on another page. It just needs to be summarized, and any content that is not already on that other page, needs to be moved. I suggested it already, and user 999 said "no". Zos 07:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Writings Section

message: Note # 9 is refering to an internet page. It doesnt even verify what the statement says either. I'm adding a citation needed for it. I alos think that the rest of this article needs more sources, I'm just not going to add fact tags all over the page just yet, but will challenge any existing citation, since I've found so many used in the wrong way. Zos 05:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other citations 

message: Some thoughts on the "racism" issue:
First, consider the following levels of statement:
# In The Book of Screws, Joe Author wrote, "Purple people! Can there ever be a race more full of asshats?"
# Joe Author wrote in The Book of Screws that purple people are asshats.
# Joe Author thought that purple people are asshats.
# Joe Author was bigoted against purple people.
There is a decreasing level of accuracy, and an increasing level of generalization and authorial judgment of the subject, as we progress from the first statement to the fourth.
In the first statement, we report an objective fact. (It may yet be out of context or unrepresentative, but it is true and cited.) In the second statement, we are still citing a statement, but instead of letting the author speak, we are paraphrasing him.
It gets worse in the third statement. Instead of reporting an objective fact, we are claiming to know something about the contents of the author's mind. There may be cases where we can fairly do this -- for instance, in philosophy or in political opinion writing, it is generally the case that writers write what they think as precisely or convincingly as they can. However, there are cases where a writer may write things they don't really mean -- for instance in satire. We wouldn't want to say, "Jonathan Swift thought that the English should eat Irish babies," even though Swift wrote that, because he was writing satire.
In the fourth statement, we go beyond even claiming to know what the author thought; we make a moral judgment of those purported thoughts. Bigoted has a negative connotation; it suggests an idiosyncratic, pointed spite rather than (for instance) mere socially acquired prejudice.
So. On to Crowley. I think that the third statement's problem definitely applies to many (although not all) of Crowley's writings. A great deal of what he wrote is simply not on the level. Crowley employed multiple levels of falsehood -- riddle, satire, coded meaning, or deception -- even in works that were otherwise "serious". For instance, in Book Four there is the notorious "Interlude" giving Kabbalistic significance to nursery rhymes. Taken at face value he is making claims about English literary history, but when read symbolically he's saying that esoteric thinking can be applied to any subject. It would be erroneous to say, "Crowley thought that 'Little Miss Muffett' and 'Old Mother Hubbard' were written to convey mystical ideas." There's also the infamous passage where, if taken at face value, Crowley claims that he has sacrificed hundreds of babies -- but at a different level he's describing an act of ritual masturbation; the babies sacrificed are potential lives, not actual ones.
Even a surface reading of almost any of Crowley's prose works shows him to be a notorious liar -- about himself, about others, about almost any topic he discusses. He exaggerated his accomplishments; he made absurdly grand claims; he contradicted himself freely; he even trumped up his own bad reputation in the popular press. It seems that he took on certain political positions (e.g. adherence to the German side in WWI) simply because they were unpopular and made him look outlandish and troublesome. Reporting any controversial-sounding statement he made as if it was an honest measure of his thoughts is likely to be an error, simply because he was such a liar.
Of course, liars can be racists. People who are dishonest or deceptive on some topics can still have honestly held beliefs on others. And people who deliberately set out to make themselves look bad on some fronts, can still have other authentically bad qualities too!
My point is that authorial intent is always hard to establish, and even more so in Crowley's case than usually. --FOo 06:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the comments. I hope anyone wishing to present Crowley as a racist does so in context of wiki standard, policies and guidelines. Zos 06:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On racism and authorial intent 

message: Ok the racism section it back up. I'll be checking those source again and I see you've put the citation for Diary of a Drug Feind back in. I previously stated that I don't really think that can be used, since its a work of fiction. Anyone else agree here? Can Crowleys fiction words be used to cite racism against Italians? Zos 03:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Catherine, you also cannot use a Wikipedia article for a citation: please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. You also cannot use a fiction book for a source. So I'm removing those. Zos 03:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus, you still have no source for this statement "Crowley made numerous racist, nationalistic, and sexist public expressionsin his published writings." I added a cite tag. Zos 03:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also just now added more fact tags to the section. There are still alot of "statements" being made (by Catherine? or KV's original?) with no sources. Zos 03:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Catherine please don't take the cite tag off again. There is no source yet that says Crowley "is" a racist. I re added the cite tage, so please leave it alone until you actually find a soruce. Thank you. Zos 04:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the second time I've had to take the wikipedia citation off. Wikipedia is not to be used as a source for citation. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Bulletin_boards.2C_wikis_and_posts_to_Usenet. thank you. Zos 08:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racism Section 

message: I'm about to archive this page again soon. Its 82 kilobytes. Zos 08:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Aleister_Crowley#Miscellany