Talk:Aleister Crowley/Archive 1

message: Sorry, I just thought I would be bold and fix what I saw as people adding any minor, random reference to Crowley to the Crowley page -- in a few cases in the music section, I suspect the musicians themselves may have done this.  Since there was no organization, no vetting, no weighting by relative importance, I felt the excessive length of the section that became the Crowley in Popular Culture article was choking the usefulness of the main Crowley article.The Dogandpony 17:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed Pop Culture References to New Article

message: Removed the following line:
Crowley died without leaving a clear line of succession for Thelema and the OTO. See Kenneth Grant
# There is no "line of succession" for Thelema, which is a religion/philosophy. 
# Crowley left a very clear line of succession for OTO: Karl Germer. On March 14, 1942, Crowley wrote to Germer: "I shall appoint you my successor as O.H.O." Seems pretty clear to me. Crowley also gave Grady McMurtry letters that make it clear that he was next in line if something should happen to Germer (who did not appoint an "heir"). So, the line was clear: Germer, with a backup plan in case of an emergency. 
Ashami 06:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed the following line:

message: Moved this passage from the article --
The claims made about him by the press range from the certain (that he supported the Germans in World War I), to the claim that he was an avowed atheist when he was obviously agnostic, to the unproven (that he openly kept mistresses), to the apparently ridiculous (that he sacrificed hundreds of babies in black magic rituals).
Until the end, every part of that sentence looks wrong. For example, nothing about Crowley seems obvious. Except for the fact that he had extra-marital sex. Dan 07:15, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved this passage from the article

message: Removed section:
==OTO and the Hellfire Club==
 Alister Crowley is well know as a satanist, sorcerer, and black magician and for saying "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.", which was originally coined by Sir Francis Dashwood of the Hellfire Club.  There are many incidences of the Hellfire Club, which are all surrounded with rumours of sexual orgies and satanism.   He was the founder of Ordo Templi Orientis (OTO), which is recognised as some the unoffical ranks above Freemasonry.  Crowley was one of the most prominent members of the secret society netowrk, also a member of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn and 33rd degre Freemason.
:It's difficult to say what isn't inaccurate here. Crowley was not a Satanist. The phrase "Do what thou wilt thall be the whole of the Law" is from Rabelais. Crowley did not found OTO; indeed, one of today's OTO sects (Hermetic OTO) does not accept Crowley's "reforms" of that organization. Crowley was apparently involved with Masonry for a while, but not in a particularly regular fashion.  OTO is not an appendant branch of Masonry; if it were (as, say the Shriners are) that would mean that one must be a Mason to join OTO, which is not the case. --FOo 03:45, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's here BBC list. It was voted for by the public - they only published the top 10 which he didn't make. Secretlondon 22:34, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed section

message: I removed the distracting opening tag urging a mergefrom with the Crowley sections of egolessness since the article itself was referenced just below and there is no reason Crowley shouldn't be discussed there as well as here.  Ortolan88 05:36, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Removals

message: An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Aleister_Crowley article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add  to this page. — LinkBot 01:02, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the links that made sense. 
nowiki></nowiki>
Maybe it's just me, but wouldn't it make more sense chronologically to have the "Crowley and Rock & Roll" section placed after the "Mountaineering" one?  (I don't know how to wikify a change like that. ;>) That would keep the biographical info consistently in front of the "Crowley's impact" type of material and the miscellany.
Also, regarding Crowley's racism, it's interesting to note that someone who's perceived as relatively benign (in non-academic circles) and contemporary like Rudyard Kipling was as glib with the stereotypes as was Crowley (see the Norton Critical Edition of Kim, for instance). 
MitÃ¤a? 08:51, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:LinkBot/suggestions/Aleister_Crowley|Link suggestions]] 

message: Unless I'm wrong, the motto of the Abbey of Theleme (which is written as "Fay ce que vouldras" in the article) is supposed to be French- meaning it should be "Fait ce que voudrais". Just an observation.
S o L O 5010
:I am given to understand that you are correct in modern French spelling, but Rabelais was not writing in the 21st or even 20th century. I believe the quote is correct as stands (it is certainly at least widely cited) though I have not read Rabelais in the original. :) --FOo 02:24, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The correct modern French would read: "Fais ce que (tu) voudras". "Fay ce que vouldras" is the correct quote. Renaissance French spelling was not normalized and significantly differs from today's.Philippe Magnabosco 12:45, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Fay ce que vouldras" 

message: * A few paragrphs on Thoth Tarot - a deck widely used today - he not only wrote about it, he designed the deck with Lady Frieda Harris 
* Disjointed - among other things the Moonchild references are scattered about. So is info about the 1904 Cairo experience. (I've moved the Cairo info)
* The bankruptcy and death stuff probably belongs in the biography section. (I've now moved this)
* Rock and roll references could be an article or list unto itself --sparkit 21:17, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Some notice should perhaps be taken of his poetry; a few pieces by Crowley appear in The Oxford Book of Mystical Verse, and there is also the amusing collection White Stains, that in particular probably deserve mention.  Smerdis of Tlön 14:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: To do (not necesarily by me)

message: I wanted to add a music reference (one by Kimya Dawson) but section's edit link took me to the miscenally section, and the 'edit this page' did not seem to include it. Is this a delibrate attempt to stop people from including every single musical refence to the man (no doubt a large list) or is this an error? Hegar 17:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it wasn't vandalism. It has been made a separate article Crowley in Popular Culture. Please check the history of article before suspecting vandalism in the future. Thanks. --BorgQueen 20:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music References 

message: I have prepared the following stuff for the article Diary Of A Drug Fiend; Due to my internet account filters I am not able to upload it myself.
--Sepand 05:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks roughly similar to the Amazon listing for the book so am inclined to create an article for it. The Land 17:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A Request for uploading [[Diary Of A Drug Fiend]]

message: Were his parents Puritans (as in Calvinist)? Because if they where then that may explain allot not only about his obvious dislike of Christianity and social Puritanism, but also his cosmology.
I suspect him of taking Calvin’s doctrine of predestination and irresistible grace to it’s logical limits and ended up becoming a form of Monism, in which God is equally good and evil (and if one is a proscriptive eutheist then there is little difference between the two then, though one of the Prophets does warn of confusing “ the light for the dark and the sweet for the bitter”, which reflects a purely descriptive, Platonic morality). When one goes this step, then the next is accepting Satan as being merely another manifestation of God (such as the Hindu Kali), whether literal or not, and since we are including Satan, then the door is left open for all of the other Pre-Christian European gods to begin taking their respective stations within their Pantheons, the fact that they may be affiliated with the devil irrelevant because the devil, lying spirits, hardened hearts and evil in general are already established to themselves be different manifestations of God. See: Problem of Evil, Problem of Hell and Theodicy for related subjects). 
Please note: I am a Christian (Generically Protestant, ideally Lutheran, though I have strong leanings towards Orthodox Catholicism and reformed Arminian churches), so I DO NOT believe any of this doctrine to be true and do consider it heresy, as with Calvinism, and am none-too surprised if Crowley figured this out, if, indeed, that is what he was doing (remember, this is all SPECULATION,  I am aware that I am not stating facts). See these two external links ,  and 
 which show how, if one is ideologically honest, TULIP, alongside the traumatic hypocrisy of Puritanism, can produce people like Crowley (this is why the separation of Church and state is so important, given we are fallible beings and thus will eventually fail at any absolutist system, especially Churches).
RoyBot 69.248.43.27  30th December 2005, 19:45 
Ů
*Crowley's family were Plymouth Brethren. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Crowley: A [[Hyper-calvinism|Hyper-Calvinest]]?!

message: According to the autobiography of Anthony Powell, regarding the libel trial relating to Nina Hamnett , "the case was not argued to an end, the foreman of the jury sending up a note to the judge expressing their view that Crowley was a man impossible to libel". Powell was present at the trial, representing his then employer, Duckworths publishers.
"Impossible to libel" !! Worth a mention? Anthony Powell, To Keep the Ball Rolling, vol 2 - "Messengers of Day", Heinemann 1978, p 84. - Sitush (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impossible to libel? 

message: Reading this article every other paragraph has Spence's mention that Crowley was as spy working for the British secret service. Now this is a fringe theory that has not been confirmed and is subject of dispute. It's ok for it to be mentioned somewhere in the article but in almost every paragraph violates Wikipedia's policies in biographies. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 23:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Calling Spence's idea a "fringe theory" might be a tad strong, although his ideas are certainly very far from being established fact. It also has the support of Tobias Churton, another of Crowley's biographers, which is perhaps of note. At present, this article only mentions Spence's notion five times, at the appropriate locations in the article where Spence has offered alternative explanations for Crowley's actions. I don't think that that is excessive; it's certainly nowhere near appearing "in almost every paragraph", as you put it - it appears in fewer than one in twelve of the paragraphs. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest describing Crowley almost as a James Bond figure sounds pretty fringe, but disregarding that if is just an unproven hypotehsis five times is too many to be in the general body. In any case I don't advocate for its removal just for it to be in the proper place of every unproven fact. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 14:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

text:  remember that this information as presented in the article violates several Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policies (and despite the name also applies to dead people) and among other things the 3R rule does not apply when reverting information that can be considered contentious on biographics. I suggest not to start reverting editions. Spence hypothesis, fringe or not, was not removed, just moved to a different place than the scatered place it was, I don't see the reason for starting a lenghty edit waring if the information wasn't removed. Otherwise I think I would request an intervention in the noticeboard but let's hope there's no need for that. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 15:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see how briefly recounting the published arguments of biographers in any way, shape, or form violates WP:BLP here. That's simply not a relevant policy in this situation. Moreover, please remember that as per WP:Bold, Revert, Discuss, it is incumbent on you to make the case for your proposed alterations to the long-established prose here at the Talk Page. You should absolutely not be edit warring to force  through your new alterations to the article. We can discuss things here. Generally I think that the established prose structure is a lot more user friendly than the alteration you are proposing. However, I welcome you to make your case here at the Talk Page. We can always go to an RfC if we find that we cannot agree. For the present, however, the status quo must stay in place, as per WP:BRD. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The case was already made, the fantasy narrative made by Spence and Churton is ludacris and is pseudoscience pure and simple. I see no effort to make consensus in the removal of pseudoscientific fringe theories thus I would go to the BLP noticeboard directly or will request a mediation from a admin. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither the BLP noticeboard or admin mediation are relevant to this situation. The appropriate venue would be WP:RfC. I am happy to initiate that process if it helps to resolve the impasse. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I can decide for myself where am I going to take it. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 20:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't mean to imply you were incapable, Dereck, and I apologise if that was the impression I gave. But with a decade or so under my belt here at Wikipedia I can honestly say that an RfC is, fairly undeniably, the best way to go in this situation. The other main alternative would have been a Wikipedia:Third opinion but an RfC involves more people and thus is often more definitive in helping to solve a dispute. A BLP noticeboard is not relevant given that Crowley has been dead since 1947, and we don't need an administrator specifically on an issue like this; editors who aren't administrators are just as good. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I have 8 years from been working on Wikipedia, however I would hold to those options for now whilst I see the results of the RfC. And I wasn't menacing with edit warring, I was just remembering that the 3RR does not apply in these cases. Also BLP policies state that even if the person is dead most policies still apply, but even if the issue is not for BLP the presentation of unproven fringe hypothesis presented so prominently on an article is certainly an issue that some other noticeboard would work. Wikipedia is supposed to be an enciclopedia divulging scientific and academic knowledge. What it more interesting is that I'm nor even suggesting to remove the info (as questionable as it is) just to move it to a more suitable location. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 03:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Midnightblueowl just for the record, I wasn't in favor of the RfC in the first place, as policies should be follow, not subjected to vote, specially those regarding pseudoscience. I'm thinking in requesting an admin mediation just in case you want to be preparing. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 10:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You are more than welcome to do so, but I'd have thought that an administrator would simply recommend waiting until the RfC has finished before intervening. Moreover, the point of the RfC is not to override or ignore policy, but rather to interpret it in the light of the situation. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spy thing 

message: The photograph found in the 'Early life' section looks to have various utterly fake additions. Surely it should be removed.
37.228.242.13 (talk) 11:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. The image is a fake. I've removed it from the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Crowley as a child' image 

message: Aleister Crowley heavily inspires the entire invoked archetype in Yu-Gi-Oh. Thiis mentioned in the page for the book of the law as that's a card in yu-gi-oh and I feel warrants at least a mention here--RyouBakura13 (talk) 13:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not even mentioned in Yu-Gi-Oh!; why should it be mentioned here? --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇  15:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

text: Not unless there are WP:Reliable Sources discussing the Crowleyan influence on Yu-Gi-Oh. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yu-Gi-Oh 

message: (edits removed to make more readable...)
:Thanks for bringing your concerns to the Talk Page, NirodhaDhamma. I appreciate that you are new to Wikipedia, so just to clarify things, the procedure here is covered in WP:Bold, Revert, Discuss - you were bold with your additions, concerns were raised and so these additions were reverted, and it is now important that we discuss the situation. A lot of new-ish editors just WP:Edit war to impose their desired changes into an article, and often find themselves blocked or banned as a result, so I thank you for not taking that disruptive path. 
:There were several concerns that I had with your additions. First, I was concerned that some of the added prose was clunky, contained errors of grammar and punctuation, and was not written in an encyclopaedic style. I gather that English is not your first language, and that's okay, but it's important for the English-language Wikipedia to be written in perfect English and to be encyclopaedic in tone. Statements such as "Bennett was a luminous mind in the order" or "Crowley makes a note of why he too did not follow Bennett into the yellow robes," are, for instance, at odds with the style of Wikipedia's prose. Second, the additions made heavy use of WP:Primary sources, namely Crowley's own biography (Confessions), but also an article from The Equinox. Primary sources are not forbidden at Wikipedia, but we generally favour secondary or tertiary sources when available - and when it comes to Crowley, we have a vast number of secondary sources written by biographers and scholars. That being the case, there is really no reason to cite primary sources in this article. My third point is the most important. Wikipedia articles are meant to be concise and to the point; your additions were not really touching on key, vitally important facts about Crowley's life. Rather, they were primarily a series of quotations; a quote about Crowley seeing a disabled man in India, or a plethora of comments that he made about Bennett. This is not the sort of information that we normally include on Wikipedia.
:If you feel that there are crucial facts about Crowley, and about Crowley's relationship with Bennett, that are absent from the article, then please do let us know and we can have a discussion about that. (I can accept, for instance, that you may have a good case for mentioning Ponnambalam Ramanathan in the article). It is important, however, that the article doesn't become rambling and over-stuffed with randomly selected facts and quotations. This article is rated as one of Wikipedia's WP:Good articles, and it is important that it remains at that standard. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The Aleister Crowley article is rated as a good article and has high traffic. Allan Bennett is already mentioned 12 times on the article, I think it is enough. Midnightblueowl raises a good point it "is important, however, that the article doesn't become rambling and over-stuffed with randomly selected facts and quotations." I believe your edits on the Bennett article are good quality. I am not so sure that what you are proposing on this article is going to be accepted. I have only ever been reverted a few times on this website but like most users I started a debate on the talk-page. It never went anywhere and I gave up. I have learnt to move on and edit other articles and not get angry. You seem to be the opposite of angry so you are a rare one :) But my advice is that if things are not going your way just edit other articles. There are plenty here. I don't know much about Crowley myself so I can't really comment about all this. I did some editing in the past on the Bennett article that's how I noticed this. A person you might be interested in is Alexander Cannon (psychiatrist). His article really needs to be improved. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allan Bennett Revert / Addition 

message: geni.com lists several more wives in his entry.
Vpfwiki (talk) 18:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  accuracy - number of wives