Talk:Thelema/Archive 2

message: It would help the NPOV if we could aseemble a verifiable list of Thelamites. Being an individualist-based philosphy we will have an ecclectic group, but this is the only way to give people a realistic and honest interpretation. The list on the O.T.O. page is a start, but they only seem to list Thelamites that are "accepted" and "respectable." This is a serious disservice to NPOV. People like Ebony Anpu, Timothy Leary, and Robert Anton Wilson should all be included. <3 Captain Barrett 21:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thelemic Personalities 

message: Some information on Aiwass and Crowleys attitude to this entity is needed to put the reception of Liber AL into context? Also the magickal alter ego LAM is needed. Thoughts? --Redblossom 00:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Greetings, Redblossom. Aiwass has his own article, which may cover the concerns about that; and the "Of course I wrote them, ink on paper" passage is quoted in the Book of the Law article. Justin Eiler 00:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is Aiwass? 

message: I was wondering, since Thelema is a religous practcie, what is the role of God or gods in Thelema? I am not merely asking this out of curiosity, but I think a section should be included in this article, if for nothing more than the fact that people associate religion with a God or gods. If Thelema does not address this, then that should be added to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WeZ9Alt (talk • contribs) 10:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Role of Theism in Thelema

message: Why has the list of authors who address Thelema been reduced to only those who are considered "notable"? This seems like vandalism especially since not all those remaining listed are "notable" by W'pedia standards. The list of all published authors on the topic of Thelema is not a long one. Why not keep the complete list? --Thiebes 20:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Notable" authors? 

message: I think someone should add something about Heinlein. Many of his books follow this philosophy to a 't' (Time Enough for Love, I Will Fear No Evil), plus his book 'Job' describes Gnosticism like a textbook. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.212.169 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Re: Notable authors" 

message: Since there is already a section titled "Thelemic organizations" which as far as I can tell has internal links to every article on a Thelemic organization currently present on Wikpedia, I've reverted the article to remove the direct external links to these organizations. If I have removed any external links which meet the "What should be linked" policy, aren't already linked from the Notes or References, and don't run afoul of the "Links normally to be avoided policy", then by all means add them back.
However, please note that links to social networking sites, forum, blogs, etc. are not permitted. That rules out thelema.nu in my opinion. If it is sufficiently notable (i.e. meets WP:WEB), an article could be written about the site and it could be linked from there. The normal way to provide access to such sites and other sites which don't meet the linking policy is to add a link to the Open Directory Project (DMOZ). This has been done. IPSOS (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of direct links to orgs 

message: I'll copy this with expansion from Talk:List of Thelemites in case someone deletes the whole list now that I've drawn attention to the page: Now that 999 aka Hanuman Das aka User:Ekajati has gotten himself banned, perhaps we can discuss this again. Does anyone see a reason to put people who did not provably self-identify as Thelemites on this list? Crowley did indeed write an essay purporting to prove that Rabelais foresaw his whole religion. (Our banned friend called this an "admission" when defining Thelema.) But this understandably seems like a minority view among Rabelais scholars (in the sense that I haven't seen any credible scholar make this claim). In fact, it seems strikingly similar to claims that the 'Old Testament' clearly predicts the life of Jesus, and I don't think Crowley could fail to see this. You can't take anything the man says at face value. So how about we limit the name to people who verifiably called themselves Thelemites?
To extend 999's old analogy, Paul in Romans 13:8-10 says that Christians have exactly one commandment to follow on Earth. And plenty of people mentioned this brief Law before the alleged birth of Jesus. Some of them used the equivalent of the word "Christ". Nobody disputes that the word "Christian" comes from them. Yet we wouldn't call them Christians on Wikipedia, because they would not self-identify and indeed might take offense if they knew about it. So why call anyone before Crowley a Thelemite unless we can find them using the name for themselves? We can describe all the history in the article and mention attempts to draft Rabelais into the religion without asserting any disputed claim as fact. Dan 19:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition

message: This particular misuse of Crowley's writing has finally been explored in a polemic that traces the actual context and use of the paragraph. It is a blatant misrepresentation to continue to tangle words in such a manner. It would be wise to provide either a more appropriate context for the paragraph or remove it as not supporting the contention being made.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.57.103.2 (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cutting through the Jungle is out of context

message: This person is cited throughout this article and I called his credibility as a source into question, and my  [unreliable source] tags were simply deleted with the comment that he was not self-published. This is not sufficient to establish him as a credible source on the subject, however. See Verifiability: Sources for more information. We should remove these citations and any claims dependent on them unless the source can be demonstrated as reliable. --Thiebes (talk) 16:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So far as I know they are not reliable. There seems to be no references to this person in Crowley's diaries at the times he says that he interacted with AC.  It looks, much like the Amado Crowley scam, that this person consulted the published diaries and inserted himself into Crowley's life at places he did not think could be checked. Al Billings and the late Tim Maroney did a great amount of research on the beginnings of the Nath movement and found most of the claims to be either completely unsupported or fabrications. Stealthepiscopalian (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm, looks like yet another attempt by a couple of OTO members to promote the opinions of their "King". How reliable is that? It certainly doesn't maintain NPOV to take out other's views of the matter. 86.67.207.41 (talk) 04:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:   [Interjected]  Motivation of editors is rather irrelevant even if it could be established. Simply demonstrate the reliability of sources brought into question. --Thiebes (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  What does this have to do with a NPV? There is no independent data in the Crowley diaries or anywhere else to support Dadja's claims to have known Crowley and a number of contradictions with known facts. That makes him unreliable as a source.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stealthepiscopalian (talk • contribs) 22:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now I'm not sure what you're talking about. Other than his claims to have met Crowley, all the other information from this source has been corroborated by multiple independent sources. As for WP:NPOV, it say that no significant viewpoints should be excluded.... So... Since the claims to have met Crowley have been removed, what other problem do you have with the source, since it is in line with multiple other sources?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.171.69 (talk) 02:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Shri Gurudev Mahendranath?

message: Judging by the talk pages, we've reached consensus. Maybe respectable Rabelais scholars use the word "Thelema" to mean a real-world philosophy that comes from Rabelais, but I haven't seen a shred of evidence. It really seems like not one person unambiguously called themselves a Thelemite or professed Thelema by name before April 1904. And while I may have forgotten someone, I don't recall any self-described Thelemites who are not secretly User:Ekajati claiming they follow Rabelais with no influence from Uncle Al or Liber AL. (The reference that seems closest says, "Rabelais is a convenient name to show that Crowley borrowed his ideas and was just one thread in much wider fabric.") So I'll change the article to reflect this as soon as I have time.
I'll try to keep the claims of Mahendranath (and the historical material of course) unless somebody can give a better reason to remove them. (That's why it may take me time.) I also agree that we should talk about the essay Antecedents of Thelema. Except we should mention and take into account the parts that make it all sound like deliberate parody of Christians talking about "the Old Testament":
Was the mighty spirit of Alcofribas Nasier aware of the prophetic fire of his immortal book? He has fortunately left us in no doubt upon this point; for he did not content himself with having created in parable that Abbey of Thelema which his eager gaze foresaw from the black abyss of those Ages not yet thrilled by the Morning Star of the Renaissance, and dimly heralded by the Wolf's Tail of the Reformation. He proceeded to envelop himself in the mist of oracular speech, to fulminate his light through dark sayings, to clothe the naked beauty of his Time-piercing thought in the pontifical vestments of prophecy. The reader of today plunged from the limped waters of his allegory into the glooming gulfs of sibylline and subterranean song, is startled indeed when, after repeated efforts to penetrate the mystery of his versicles, he perceives the adumbration of dim forms--and recognizes them, with something of terror, for the images of the events of this very generation of mankind!
(...)
A great flame will spring up, he says, and put an end to this flood. What clearer reference could be desired to the Aeon of Horus?
Any non-sock-puppet objections? Dan (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thst citation is not usable. It's from a forum or other discussion site. Not a reliable source. 81.9.61.227 (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't believe that it is necessary to show that there is anyone claiming to follow Rabelais rather than Crowley. It is sufficient to show that people make the distinction and discuss a difference between Crowleyan and pre-Crowleyan Thelema and that some reject Crowley and thus fall back on the earlier root, which are Rabelaisian. It seems that Aleisterian Thelema is the current term in use rather than Crowleyan Thelema... see the first three links below. The rest refer to Rabelaisian Thelema. 80.222.124.181 (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All of these are a misrepresentation of the word 'Aleisterian' and should not be used as "authoritative" at all. The term 'Aleisterian' is a specific pejorative to the Cult of Personality of Aleister Crowley. Ash Bowie's misuse is just that: misuse.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.244.62.36 (talk) 23:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? Can you cite a source to that effect? I don't think you can. 217.114.211.20 (talk) 03:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition: comments?

message: There are serious problems with the massive changes implemented by Dan. They make Crowleyan Thelema primary. This article as it was is very balanced and the intro given a chronological introduction to the subject. It is much more difficult to understand the history and development of Thelema by starting with Crowley. Crowley's use of the word was clearly derivative from earlier sources. No one but fundamentalist Crowleyites (or to use a more recent term Aleisterians) dispute this. While I am sure improvements could be made to the article, a massive restructuring and reordering is a step backwards. 84.147.98.77 (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We've been over this. Your links give responses to a speech that from what I can tell, refers to the previous form of the Wikipedia article, making this them an exercise in circular reasoning. Dan (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I said this before, but it bears repeating. The source that seems closest to your position actually says that Crowley took ideas from many other people. The current version of the article starts, "Thelema is a system put together or openly revealed by Aleister Crowley," emphasis added. Dan (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the actual quotes, so you can no longer pretend this. 130.237.152.213 (talk) 05:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: You are ignoring the fact that the term and the usage, including the term "Thelemite", preexisted Crowley. Presentation of this should be chronological. A small and vocal group, the OTO, falsely claims that Crowley originated the philosophy and the term. He did not. He did create a system of practice under the umbrella of the pre-existing term Thelema. That's it. Many of those links predate the speech and some predate the Wikipedia entry. You must not have looked at them very closed. And no "we" have not discussed this at all. 80.222.124.181 (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: See my pre-response at Talk:Thelema#Definition:_comments.3F Dan (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That comment is pretty much content free, Dan. It is not a discussion and there you did not seem to garner support from other editors, which is not surprising since you did not go into any detail with respect to exactly what you intended. 85.5.22.108 (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Here's another example from the other side of this ongoing dispute: "Crowley's development of the Rabelaisian concept of 'Thelema', with its almost synonymous dictum "Do What Thou Wilt", did at least put forward a few suggestions, albeit that in the 87 years since the New Aeon was proclaimed, that doctrine's adherents have done precious little to follow them through. One of the contradictions which may have contributed to this lack of progress lies, in my view, in the superimposition of a rigid heirarchial quasi-masonic structure upon an essentially libertarian philosophy. The result, to all intents and purposes, is a contradictory, but unspoken, codicil to the Rabelaisian original which should now be interpreted by Thelemites as "Do What Thou Wilt - so long as it's approved in writing from Grand Lodge". The schismatic traumas which have afflicted the Thelemite corpus in recent decades can, in most cases, be traced back to difficulties arising in one way or another out of this fundamental philosophical contradiction." from . 88.80.200.144 (talk) 23:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Another example of the view that Crowley stole from Rabelais: "The occultist Aleister Crowley termed his system / religion "Thelema" which is Greek for Will. It is also suggested he 'stole' his idea in a large part of Francois Rabelais, whose book "Gargantua" talked about the Thelemites, in a not dissimilar fashion to Crowley. I believe Crowley claimed to have been Rabelais in an earlier life to get around this fact however..." from . 88.80.200.144 (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: And another: "Sooner or later most Book of the Law-based Thelemites (for let us not forget that a Thelemite way of life was also described by Rabelais in the 16th century, which idea has resonated with at least some thinkers in most succeeding generations) are forced to recognize that a purely literal interpretation of their scripture is repugnant to the very law of love which it proclaims." from . 88.80.200.144 (talk) 23:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Another example of the use and the distinction: "I'm quite serious. true Thelemites are not part of any particular culture, may be completely ignorant of anything Crowleyan or even
Rabelaisian (upon whom Crowley based his 'Thelemic' notions). the
true Thelemite is one who identifies hir will and abides it with
consistency. that will tends not to (by my observation) include
offense to the words of others unless there is something to be
gained in the taking of the offense (as to instruct, to change the
course of the medium of expression, or to express emotional feeling
-- compared with merely parrotting some moral platitude or 
conforming to the social mores of the day, playing the victim)." from . 88.80.200.144 (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Another reference. This article was "banned" by the OTO, again part of the dispute between the Rabelaisian Thelemites who will not accept the restrictions put upon Thelema by OTO. "In a certain sense, the Law of "Do what thou wilt" is kind of a disappointment, in that it's been said and (in rare instances) done before. Crowley freely admitted that Rabelais constructed his (literary) Abbey of Thelema centuries before the Cairo Working, let alone Cefalu." from . 88.80.200.144 (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, gee, Joe, talk page standards are quite a bit more relaxed than article standards. These sources aren't in the article and nobody is proposing to put them there. They have simply been provided to refute Dan's incorrect inference that Sabazius was talking about this Wikipedia article in his address to NOTOCON. You and I both know that he wasn't. He doesn't say so, and the ongoing differences of opinion involving Thelema without Crowley aka Rabelaisian vs Crowleyan Thelema using those terms date back to at least 1990 on the Internet, longer than that in print. Dan has also claimed that the use of these terms was "social engineering" on the part of some banned Wikipedia user. But since the terms and the difference of views predate the introduction of the terms into this article by at least 15 years, that doesn't seem to be true. Can't have changes being made to the article on demonstrably false assumptions, can we? 212.227.82.218 (talk) 02:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, hickory-sticks, Simone, forgive me for having trouble following this mess of a discussion page. I was referring to all the above cited materials used to support the contention that this is an ongoing dispute of ideas. Just because three people opine on usenet, and three more mention those opinions on websites, doesn't make it a relevant opinion in the real world. --Thiebes (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm? There's nothing about it in the article, and no plan to put it in the article, so I fail to see your point. My point is that the terms "Rabelaisian Thelema" and "Crowleyan Thelema" are not a previously unused distinction, and thus can not be "social engineering" as falsely claimed. If you have different labels to propose such as pre-Crowleyan Thelema or Aleisterianism, then please suggest them. 85.214.118.178 (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massive changes 

message: The above presentation of supposed evidence of an ongoing dispute of ideas is seems to come from discussions on usenet and yahoogroups and a variety of personal opinions expressed online in various forums. It is not the place of Wikipedia editors to do original research and attempt to present the various opinions of all people who may have discussed or put forward an opinion. If this "dispute" has been documented in a reliable source that published by a third party, peer reviewed and fact-checked, then let this article simply make the claims as they are made in such reliable sources. Gathering the opinions of individuals and presenting those as reputable, authoritative, or even representative constitutes both original research and unreliable sourcing. --Thiebes (talk) 18:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, gee, Joe, talk page standards are quite a bit more relaxed than article standards. These sources aren't in the article and nobody is proposing to put them there. They have simply been provided to refute Dan's incorrect inference that Sabazius was talking about this Wikipedia article in his address to NOTOCON. You and I both know that he wasn't. He doesn't say so, and the ongoing differences of opinion involving Thelema without Crowley aka Rabelaisian vs Crowleyan Thelema using those terms date back to at least 1990 on the Internet, longer than that in print. Dan has also claimed that the use of these terms was "social engineering" on the part of some banned Wikipedia user. But since the terms and the difference of views predate the introduction of the terms into this article by at least 15 years, that doesn't seem to be true. Can't have changes being made to the article on demonstrably false assumptions, can we? 212.227.82.218 (talk) 02:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, hickory-sticks, Simone, forgive me for having trouble following this mess of a discussion page. I was referring to all the above cited materials used to support the contention that this is an ongoing dispute of ideas. Just because three people opine on usenet, and three more mention those opinions on websites, doesn't make it a relevant opinion in the real world. --Thiebes (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm? There's nothing about it in the article, and no plan to put it in the article, so I fail to see your point. My point is that the terms "Rabelaisian Thelema" and "Crowleyan Thelema" are not a previously unused distinction, and thus can not be "social engineering" as falsely claimed. If you have different labels to propose such as pre-Crowleyan Thelema or Aleisterianism, then please suggest them. 85.214.118.178 (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research 

message: Also, your claim that the source do not say what the article says is complete bunk. From Mahendranath:
:"Many years later, Sir Francis Dashwood revived the Abbey and its delightful law in the grounds of his country residence not far from London. John Wilkes, a fiery radical parliamentarian, was one of his chief and most active members. This Abbey is now a local tourist attraction.
:"In more recent history Saint Aleister Crowley, who did much to reform and revive the Western Occult Tradition, in reverence to the Rabelaisian masterpiece also revived the Thelemic Law; and even, for a short period, established an Abbey on an Italian island."
This source says specifically that Dashwood revived the Abbey and that Crowley revived and reformed Rabelais... The other sources cited do back up this view, that's why they were cited. 88.80.200.144 (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: Rabelaisian Thelema is also called pre-Crowley, pre-Crowleyan or pre-Crowlian or non-Crowley or non-Crowleyan. Here is an example of the usage of non-Crowleyan Thelema from 2000: . 88.68.104.56 (talk) 00:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll also find that many writers use the term "Rabelaisian philosophy" or "Rablalais' philosophy" rather than "Rabelaisian Thelema", for example, "Thelema is a 20th Century religion drawing from Rabelaisian philosophy ("Do what thou Wilt") and Kemetic aesthetics." from . 88.80.200.138 (talk) 01:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You realize that if you register you can create an article called "Rabelaisian philosophy", right? And that Ekajati's version of article Thelema uses quite a different name for the relevant section (which by the way doesn't cite anyone before Crowley clearly, verifiably saying they practice or hold this philosophy)? And that User:Dan/Thelema includes all the historical material plus an explicit statement, in the introduction, that many think the Book of the Law refers to Rabelais? Dan (talk) 21:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, well Rabelaisian philosophy would be a much broader topic. I don't see why you are so adamant that someone before Crowley had to say that they practiced Rabelaisian Thelema. Other people say that Dashwood was practicing what Rabelais described. Other people use the term "Rabelaisian Thelema" in current discourse about Thelema. It's just a descriptive term, you seem to be hung up on interpreting "Rabelaisian Thelema" as a proper noun. "Rabelaisian" is an adjective. It's in the dictionary and used in other phrases like "Rabelaisian wit" or "Rabelaisian morals". Does someone had to have said of themselves that they have Rabelaisian wit for someone else to use the phrase to describe that wit? Surely not! 84.25.14.91 (talk) 21:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Again: as far as I can tell, the meaning of the word "Thelema" as a real-world philosophy starts with Crowley or the Book of the Law. Dan (talk) 21:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But what does that have to do with anything? A philosophy exists from the moment it is proposed. Convenient terms for referring to that philosophy arise as the need comes up. Rabalaisian scholars do refer to Thelema as one of the philosophies proposed by Rabelais, noting that it differs significantly from the rest of Rabelais' philosophy. Rabelais' work  on Thelema was based on the real world practice of the Brethren of the Free Spirit (who incidently had Aeons much as Crowley proposed, though they omitted the first, being Christian). H.G. Wells referred to "the Thelema of Rabelais" in A Modern Utopia. I really don't see why you are making such a bit deal about semantics. 218.220.248.160 (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's another use of the term Thelema to refer to Rabelaisian religion, in  French Studies, 1969; XXIII: 60 - 62, where M. A. Screech says, "The point where I disagree (questions of omissions apart) is over his tendency to dismiss Thelema as essentially a by-way of Rabelaisian religion." Clearly Thelema is used as a noun. The article isn't about Crowley. 80.143.34.179 (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Another place where Thelema is used as noun referring to Rabelais' philosophy is the Thelema entry in A Brief Guide to Beliefs: Ideas, Theologies, Mysteries, and Movements by Linda Edwards. The entry starts "Thelema is a Greek word meaning 'will' or 'intention.' One of earliest mentions of this philosophy is in the writings for Francois Rabelais." The referent of "this philosophy" is clearly "Thelema". 131.173.32.97 (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

text: This is at least a recognizable response. It doesn't address the part about self-identification, or the fact that your chronological standard still seems to put the April 1904 meaning first. As for standard usage, one of your latest sources puts "Magick and Thelema" among "Pagan, Esoteric and Occult Thought" along with Rael and Wicca -- rather odd if it primarily talks about Rabelais -- and I can't tell what the other one means. But maybe this will sway somebody to your view of the article. Will you agree to stop reverting and focus on getting anyone else at Wikipedia to favor your version, for starters? Dan (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

text: As for why I'm making a fuss, User:Ekajati's sockpuppets created the current lead and shouted down discussion. More of his/her sockpuppets continued to flout the ban at least as recently as one month ago. Now, the whole point of sockpuppets is to help fake consensus, thereby subverting the workings of this site much as voter fraud and voter suppression subvert democracy. I think that when Ekajati's reign of terror definitively ends, we will see a real consensus that better fits the principles of Wikipedia. Dan (talk) 23:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm glad you think my response is recognizable. I'm afraid that I find your's rather less so. By chronology, I mean presenting the earlier formulation of the idea first. 1904 was not the date of the earliest formulation. So your suggestion that it is completely mystifies me. The same with the bit about self-identification. The article doesn't say a thing about people self-identifying as anything. It says that Dashwood used the ideas put forth by Rabelais. The sources agree that that is the case. I'm quite open to seeing how you might reword things, but I don't buy your arguments against terms that have been used by others. I've looked back over the history and apparently the section titled "Crowleyan Thelema" was once titled "Aleister Crowley's Thelema". Do you think that is any better? I just don't see "The Thelema of Rabelais" and "The Thelema of Crowley" to be any better. Do you? 85.214.118.178 (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Please answer the question at hand. Dan (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: (You know how I would reword the article. I looked at that again, and I still think it follows NPOV. The opening line does not logically rule out the possibility that "Thelema" means a philosophy from Rabelais. It just says nobody before April 1904 verifiably used it as the name of their philosophy.) Dan (talk) 00:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you mean, am I going to roll over and let you rearrange the chronology, no, I won't. Clearly, you don't have consensus, as there aren't enough active editors here to form one. I suggested that if you were sincere, you'd work on getting more eyes here, but I've had to do it myself. While we wait for responses to the article RfC, as I said, I'd like to see what other improvements you could make without rearranging the chronology. You seem to be using the user conduct RfC to intimidate me, but with no outside views, it's meaningless. 213.239.207.90 (talk) 00:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: You haven't looked at it recently? Dan (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Oh, and I've considered going to the most relevant project. What do you see at the top of that page? Dan (talk) 00:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Looked at what recently? Your sandbox? The RfC? If the later, an "outside view" is where someone not involved really looks at the matter and gives an analysis. This hasn't happened. So the Thelema project is inactive. Why doesn't this surprise me? Nobody edits Thelemapedia anymore, either. 71.112.133.30 (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: You have broken the rules of Wikipedia, certainly Wikipedia: Three Revert Rule and most likely others. Will you agree to stop doing that and focus on seeking consensus? Dan (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please try to stay focused on the content of the article, which I am trying to discuss with you. I believe it is also against the rules to use a user conduct RfC at the first apparent infraction of the rules (which has  not been repeated) in order to attempt to intimidate another editor. I am not the only IP editor editing the article, though as far as I can tell, I am the only one discussing on the talk page. I will not accept making discussing the content dependent on my making some agreement with you. I beleive that as soon as I do so, you will simply overwrite the article with your own and try to force me into breaking the rules again by reverting multiple times like you have done in the past. You may not have broken this 3RR rule, but you came right up against it yourself without engaging in discussion. So, let's see the discussion. Let's here your answers to questions about content I asked. That's how I'll be able to tell that you are sincerely interested in compromise, which you have not yet convince me that you are... 88.80.200.138 (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Okay, you can see the discussion whose existence you deny at #Definition: comments? And I cannot force you to break 3RR. I can't even make sure your version of the article doesn't return unless nobody else at Wikipedia agrees with you and several users agree with me, which admittedly seems true. Dan (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Presumably you believe your RfC and other comments will bring in someone else who dislikes User:Dan/Thelema. Will you therefore agree to follow the rules of Wikipedia? Dan (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I can see it. And I believe that I have repeatedly and in a detailed manner refuted it as a straw man argument. I don't believe that it is necessary that some before Crowley practiced Rabelaisian Thelema to use the term. It is simply necessary to show that the term is in use to refer to the expression of Thelema in Rabelais. I believe that I have shown that the term is actually used in that way. Repeatedly pointing to the same straw man argument does not progress the discussion whatsoever! 82.82.173.169 (talk) 19:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other terminology 

message: Whoever is making repeated reverts, using multiple IPs, knock it off. If you disagree with a change, discuss it here and work toward consensus. Reverting edits which have been discussed in advance is not the way it is done. A single person does not gain dominance over Wikipedia articles by being the most intent and prolific reverter. It is not a race. Explain your point of view and cultivate consensus. Thiebes (talk) 08:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dan is making the article more POV and claiming that the sources provided do not support the article text. The latter is a bald-faced lie, as has been demonstrated by adding the actual quotes to the notes. The outline of the article is fully supported by multiple sources which agree! If Dan wishes to add an additional POV to the article, he should simply do so. Restructuring the whole article to present the OTO party line is not acceptable. Noting the the OTO rejects (or rather the King of OTO rejects) a clearly historical development of Thelema is quite sufficient. It has been noted, but the OTO position could certainly be expanded upon using simple insertion of additional text. Major restructuring requires much more detailed discussion and agreement in advance than has occurred. 77.181.142.198 (talk) 12:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know what you mean about an "OTO party line" -- is that what you call "reality"? Anyway it is clear that the POV being pushed here is this concept of any particularly noteworthy historical development of Thelema before Crowley. Many questionable sources have been used to push this POV. For example, the parenthetical "some say hijacked" comment is one guy, there's no explanation for why "hijacked" is an appropriate term...it's just a drive-by aspersion. If I wrote an article about Dashwood "hijacking" the concept from Rabelais and posted it online, then put the same parenthetical comment after the bit about Dashwood, would that fly? The "Diversity" section, in its over-egalitarianism also gives the impression that there are serious contenders with "Crowleyan" Thelema while not making clear that it's a very small minority (literally a vocal handful of people) who hold such ideas. If we are going to include every possible conception of Thelema then we should be indicating their actual relevance in the world (or lack thereof), not making them all seem of equal importance. --Thiebes (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have studies you can cite which give clear indications of proportions or "relevance"? It's funny that you say "a very small minority (literally a vocal handful of people)". From the POV of the major religions, that all the whole of Thelema is. Perhaps the article should simply be deleted as not relevant. Sure, Crowley is notable, but notability is not inherited, as they say on Wikipedia... 88.80.200.144 (talk) 02:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  First of all I'm not the one who is making implications in the article about the relevance of these supposed alternative types of Thelema. The burden of proof about the existence and relevance of these supposed Thelemas is yours, since you are the one making implications about these questions in the article. And by handful I mean, less than five, if any at all. --Thiebes (talk) 00:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What was the question again? I'm simply arguing for keeping the structure of the article and the chronological order of the lead. What were you talking about again? 85.214.118.178 (talk) 00:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please stop reverting edits 

message: I've been poking around the talk page archives, and found that the last outside opinion of the article was very positive and that the text of the article has hardly changed at all since then , except for the addition of more references and quotations within those references. That opinion read:
: "Hi. I like this article and believe it is well written and sourced. I did find some small argumentation which I removed. If there is any other such then it is in need of removal or alteration. Of course alteration is preferred. Judging by the standard of this article any unsourced argumentation will not stand very long. If there are any sources for the arguments that I removed please reinstate with citations. AlanBarnet 06:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bizarrely, the "outside" user in question was also blocked as a sockpuppet and still seems blocked. S/he has not edited with that username since. Dan (talk) 00:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is weird. I didn't look at the talk page. But apparently not a sockpuppet of the editor you keep going on about. I checked the contributions, and the editor you mentioned doesn't appear to have edited the article at all, not a single edit, but I could have missed one... 69.121.76.210 (talk) 01:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and by a startling coincidence, 71.112.133.30 seems like another address for anonymous user. Dan (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, latest IP address, s/he did make minor edits to the article using that name. I haven't checked whether or not we can reasonably consider Alan another version of User:Ekajati/999/Hanuman_Das/TunnelsofSet, but it seems plausible on the face. Clearly neither has any respect for the rules of Wikipedia (rules like WP:3RR). Dan (talk) 01:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: But who knows? Perhaps the Ekataji version of the article has some mysterious appeal to people who flout the rules of Wikipedia, an appeal that has somehow failed to enlist anyone else here. Dan (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone else here? Seems that should be a question. As far as I can tell, there's only you and Choronzon. 217.162.87.31 (talk) 01:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/81.9.61.227#Users certifying the basis for this dispute (and following section). I started asking the question here at #Definition, three months ago. Dan (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: edit: make that four. Dan (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And this is supposed to mean what, exactly? 88.80.200.138 (talk) 04:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last neutral outside view 

message: I believe that the first sentence, perhaps the first few sentences, should focus on the "what is" of Thelema. We must reflect current discourse which allows of the possibility of people being thelemites w/o ever having heard of Crowley or even Rabelais. That is, the practice the maxim "Do what thou wilt."
The first sentence should contain "Do what thou wilt", this is more essential to Thelema than who dun it. The rest of the paragraph should explain why the word Thelema is related to the rule or law.
I propose the following first paragraph:
:Thelema is a philosophy of life based on the rule "Do what thou wilt." The ideal of "Do what thou wilt" and its association with the word Thelema goes back to François Rabelais and Sir Francis Dashwood, but was more fully developed by Aleister Crowley, who founded a religion named Thelema based on this ideal. The word itself is the English transliteration of the Koine Greek noun θέλημα: "will", from the verb θέλω: to will, wish, purpose. Early Christian writings use the word to refer to the will of God,Rabelais, Francis de Sales and the Abbaye de Thélème by Alexander T. Pocetto, O.S. F.S., Allentown College of St. Francis de Sales, citing other writers. Online version here, retrieved from July 20, 2006. the human will,e.g. John 1:12-13 and even the will of God's opponent, the Devil.e.g. 2 Timothy 2:26 
What do others think of this proposal? 70.112.55.203 (talk) 19:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: allows of the possibility of people being thelemites w/o ever having heard of Crowley or even Rabelais -- see #Definition. I've heard talk of some old dictionary using the word to mean libertine. I haven't heard of any dictionary makers using the word for themselves, or indeed of anyone on Earth verifiably calling themselves a Thelemite, verifiably saying they believe/practice Thelema, or even verifiably saying they follow a philosophy drawn from Rabelais' account of the Abbey of Theleme before April 1904. Dan (talk) 19:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please discuss my paragraph, which does not say that there were. My reason for keeping the definition open is a valid one. Since you have stated elsewhere on Wikipedia that Thelema (I presume Crowlean Thelema) is your religion, it seems you may have a conflict of interest or at least a bias. That should not influence the neutrality of the article. 24.127.84.183 (talk) 19:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Hmm, are you unaware that Rabelais used the term Thelemite in his work? and that that word was used after him and before Crowley? 24.127.84.183 (talk) 20:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "There were" what? People who verifiably self-identified? Cite them. I'll change "system" in the first line of User:Dan/Thelema to "school of thought", which I think makes it more clear that Thelema could mean a philosophy drawn from Rabelais (by Crowley and people after him). Will you then agree to follow the rules of Wikipedia? Dan (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That was a typo. The paragraph does not say that there were. You cannot fault a paragraph for saying something that it does not. You are not working in any spirit of cooperation or compromise. Please change your attitude and dump the straw man. Other people has described Dashwood's implementation of Rabeliais' ideal. He wrote "Do what thou wilt" in is Abbey. That is Thelema, whether he called himself a Thelemite or not. Don't be such a WP:DICK]. 212.227.82.218 (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Anonymous user just added the word "not" without changing the timestamp. I think that by saying the ideal (and association with the name) goes back to Dashwood, the paragraph makes claims about what Dashwood believed. And a cited source in the article says we don't know what he believed or what went on in the Hellfire Club's inner sanctum. Dan (talk) 20:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Perhaps this will help explain the issue. The source I just mentioned in my last comment explicitly denies Step 2. Dan (talk) 20:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Oh, and on that note, the first line of my revision says that Crowley "openly revealed" Thelema (edit: or put it together. I slipped too. See end for new timestamp). This includes both the Aiwass view of Crowley and the Dashwood view of Ekajati. Dan (talk) 20:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: So, now that I've explained why I believe User:Dan/Thelema follows NPOV, thereby removing any reason you might have to restore a banned user's edits, will you agree to follow the 3RR? Dan (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Can I take that as a no? Dan (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence and paragraph should focus on what and summarize who 

message: It seems some people are working under the false premise that only Crowley gets to define Thelema. That is simply not NPOV. Other people descriptions and definitions have to be taken into account, and the article can not be written in such a way that it implies that only the views of Crowley and his followers are the correct views. 212.227.82.218 (talk) 20:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, given that most don't find reductive methods of ridiculous assertions like this to be valid, any other definition of Thelema--as implied in this entry--outside of Crowley's would be inaccurate.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.244.62.36 (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you say that in English? If I get your drift, you are quite wrong, as religions "drift" or develop. Contemporary Thelema certainly ignores many of Crowley's archaic beliefs, such as that the True Will of all women is to have children. Just like Christianity, Thelema will come to be defined by its contemporary interpreters, scholars, and commentators, including those you don't agree with. Don't like it? Apply for a hermetically sealed time capsule... 88.149.233.105 (talk) 23:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Working with false premises 

message: I think this article is heading toward good article status. However, the section on Crowley is weak, with many subsections lacking references. These should be secondary references, we can't be interpreting The Book of the Law by making a statement and simply citing Liber AL. I've seen an article out there on Ethics in Thelema, was that by Frater Ash? And Duquette's book ought to cover most or all of the practical aspects. Let's get the Crowley section cited! 78.52.90.29 (talk) 07:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an article called "Ethics of Thelema" by Erwin Hessle which appeared in the first issue of theJournal of Thelemic Studies. There was also a consequent response by IAO131 called Thelemic Values: a new view of morality —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psionicpigeon (talk • contribs) 03:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

text: DuQuette's books dont even begin to cover the practical aspects of Thelema. They MIGHT be said to TOUCH upon the ceremonial magick aspects of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psionicpigeon (talk • contribs) 03:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article status 

message: Central to the Thelemic experience  
I don't believe Crowley ever referred to any practice or ritual as "central" to Thelema or "the Thelemic experience". The closest I can think of is his calling the Gnostic Mass the "central ritual of the O.T.O.", but that's an entirely different matter. I'd be very surprised indeed to find that Crowley called any practice or ritual "central" to Thelema. 85.140.207.159 (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Dubious

message: controverscial.com is the personal website of this author, so his essay on Francis Dashwood is self-published and not a reliable source. Do you have some reason to believe he is a well-known writer on this and/or similar topics and has been published elsewhere? 58.176.17.98 (talk) 15:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  George Knowles 

message: :How did you even expect me to do this, since putting these after their list items would destroy the numbers? I may add diff links later, I can't be bothered right now.
:2 minor point: replaced accurate claim with false one. Also for some reason removed a well-known fact with many possible sources available through an Internet near you.
:4 Crowley's writings support it? He doesn't say this even in Antecedents, and in fact he disputes it. See response to 17 and 18.
:8 along with 12, if I have the numbers right, removed a more accurate account of what he says in Antecedents.
:10 Here we come to the heart of the matter. You deleted an example of Crowley's usage ("not Works of Magick, according to the Law of Thelema"). It explains his definition. (And I added it as a note to the phrase system he called Thelema.) Now, the "Rabelaisian Thelemites" you've pointed to all use magic in a way that I doubt Rabelais would recognize, they all live after Crowley, and they don't even deny his influence. Again, one of them says flat out that "Rabelais is a convenient name to show that Crowley borrowed his ideas and was just one thread in much wider fabric." Yet even with a vast Historical Background section, even with a compromise first sentence that fits Ekajati's definition, even with the Contemporary Thelema section emphasizing variety, you still object to a clear account of the usage that apparently created all modern Thelema. (See #Definition and #Definition: comments?, not to mention the archive and my previous comment about the scholarly sources.)
:13 removed another central aspect of the system. If we mention this source (and we should), then we should tell the reader what it says. I trust you agree with the summary. I see nothing controversial in the sentence.
:14 weren't you just telling us somewhere that Wikipedia does not interpret scripture? And yet here you are doing it, giving a disputed interpretation as fact. (Are you noticing a theme here?) Would you prefer we added, "in the view of one guy"?
:15 I'm not sure why you'd think "both heterosexual and homosexual practices" is less misleading, since obviously the latter did not apply to every student. I'm not even sure about the first.
:16 this belongs in Aleister Crowley#Controversy, unless you honestly think Thelema needs a discussion of his seemingly contradictory views on the subject. Look at the size of the freaking article.
:17 claims that Crowley biographer Lawrence Sutin disagrees with his subject, which seems absurdly biased. Sutin disagrees with his subject's written words. Anyone who's read Aleister "Book of Lies" Crowley at all should know the difference, even if they haven't seen part III of this. Which brings us to:
:18 I'll explicitly add Sutin p 126 as a source here, since you seem unable to see the obvious. You also removed the whole quote from Antecedents that makes it clear we shouldn't trust everything Crowley says there. And presenting evidence instead of a necessarily biased summary does indeed seem like good form. By contrast, you and Ekajati have created the false impression that Crowley endorses your view clearly and unambiguously, when in fact he doesn't even say it ambiguously.
:19 to the contrary, the word "Thelema" in the heading adds nothing good and falsely (or at least unverifiably) suggests that a philosophy by this name exists independently of Crowley and Liber AL. (See response to 10.) This is also a User:Ekajati edit, of course.
:21 I don't think your feelings suffice. But of course we could change the wording as long as we take #Definition into account. The introduction at User:Dan/Thelema did so without actually making this claim. I think I've forgotten something here, but again I have no time for more. Dan (talk) 06:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Those who just got here may be interested to know that our unregistered friend here nominated his/her version using a now-blocked Tor node. See WP:No open proxies. Dan (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the policy specifically states that it does not prohibit the use of open proxies for legitimate editing, and that editors not engaged in vandalism may use them as long as they remain open, that seems rather like a smear attempt. -Will in China 05:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Dan's first respsonse

message: Dan said: "minor point: replaced accurate claim with false one. Also for some reason removed a well-known fact with many possible sources available through an Internet near you."
Response: I've replaced "three" with "several" which I believe resolves the inaccuracy. I am not responsible for searching out sources for uncited information which you added. You are. Will in China (talk) 18:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: point 2

message: I believe this has been resolved by using "may have" rather than "many believe". The issue here is not what people believe or how many believe it, it's that the simple common sense answer to where Crowley got the word Thelema and the phrase "Do what thou wilt" is Rabelais. We can't trust what Crowley said about preternatural entities. Unlikely claims require strong sources. Since there are no reliable thrid-party eyewitness accounts to the event, we have to defer to common sense. Will in China (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What on Earth are you saying? Who is common sense? Dan (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I take it you have no further objections to the current wording. Will in China (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I do think it seems foolish, and more weaselly than the other wording. The other way puts the focus on sources who believe it rather than asserting anything about the topic itself. Dan (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

text: But I do think we've made progress. Perhaps we should focus on the intro now. Dan (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But we don't really know what other people believe or how many is many. All we know is what some people have written. Will in China (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Thank you for acknowledging that. Can we strike this one off as resolved for the sake of compromise? Will in China (talk) 22:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Probably, yes. Dan (talk) 01:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Point 4

message: I removed all mention of Crowley in this section, as well as the sections on Rabelais and Dashwood. What Crowley says about these two points belongs in the Crowley section if it is important. I leave it to you to determine how best to integrate it with the existing references to Antecedents already in that section. These sections are under the heading Historical background, not Opinions expressed by Crowley on the historical background. How Crowley integrated the past usages of what became his Law of Thelema is explicitly part of Aleister Crowley's work. I am not prejudiced against bringing these points up in that section. Will in China (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: points 8, 12

message: You say this is a critical point of Crowley's system. Then why is it reduced to a footnote? In general, footnotes are expected to be sources, not explanations. Please find a way to integrate what you think is important about this into the article text. Footnote it with the source, not further explanation. I just don't see what's so important about this myself or even see precisely what the actual point of your footnote is. So you can't possibly expect me to integrate the point myself, I don't get it. Neither will other readers. Have I made my reason clear? Can you find another way to integrate your important and critical point?  I'm not deleting this to be stubborn. I'm deleting it because it is bad writing to do it this way... 88.191.50.87 (talk) 13:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better way of making this point. There is no need to use words like "purport" or "claim", see words to avoid. "Wrote", "stated" or "said" are much better. Now that I see what your point is, I think I've found a much better quote to illustrate it in Liber Aleph. What do you think? Will in China (talk) 04:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, you've got me then. First, I don't see how the astral plane is such a major part of Thelema that it even has to be mentioned here, rather than in Magick or Thelemic mysticism. And the problem with the quote you are using is that it simply doesn't have enough context to be understandable by anyone not already familiar with Crowley. In particular, "These mirror-images" has no context, so what the statement is actually saying about the Law of Thelema remains completely obscure to the average reader. That's why I took the quote out in the first place. It's clear that the astral plane is quite significant to magick, it's not clear from the quote just how it is significant to Thelema. I'd say we either have to stop trying to relate Thelema and the astral plane, or pick some other topic that he writes about in the "Light of Thelema" for which a clear and easy to understand quote exists. Or you could point out that the whole of Liber Aleph is a comment on the Thelemic way. Will in China (talk) 14:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Oh, go ahead and put it back your way if you must. Let's wait and see that the GA reviewer thinks of it and respond accordingly. Will in China (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: point 10

message: Dan says: "weren't you just telling us somewhere that Wikipedia does not interpret scripture? And yet here you are doing it, giving a disputed interpretation as fact. (Are you noticing a theme here?) Would you prefer we added, "in the view of one guy"?"
Response: there's a subtlety here that you are missing. You are correct that as Wikipedia editors we can not personally attempt to interpret scripture. But we can certainly report what other people have written about it. And no, it would not be approprate to add "in the view of one guy". The correct way to proceed would be to cite another source which differs on the topic. Nobody I think would disagree that Crowley spoke a about non-interference. But does anybody say that some specific verse in Liber AL dictates non-interference. That's the question here. If you come up with another POV, then we can determine how to word the some people think this, some people think that. But without the example, how would you suggest we proceed. We can't misreport what the source says simply because you dispute his interpretation. Will in China (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, again, Crowley gives this interpretation in Liber II. Dan (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We need third party sources. The article already mentions Crowley's interpolations under the Duty section as well. Will in China (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: point 14

message: I think I see what you mean about the word both. I've rephrased again without it. Nowhere does the section say that the practices listed were or are required of everyone or that they were or are taught to everyone. It is simply a list of the types of magick and other ritual put forth by Crowley as parts of his system, which you call Thelema. I personally distinguish between Thelema and magick, with the latter unnecessary to the former, but as that is clearly not the majority view I feel no need to cause even more of a dispute over that particular detail. Will in China (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: point 15

message: Thelema here is not a reference to a Rabelasian philosophy. It's a reference to the Abbey, country and utopia. Thelema is the English translation of Thélème. Two points here, we should use the English translation in the heading on English Wikipedia, and because there are actually three referents making it more specific doesn't really work for me. Would your prefer "Thelema of Rabalais" or "Rabelais' Thélème". Somehow I think you will continue to not get the point. And I'm not reverting to Ekajati's version, which was "Rabalaisian Thelema". I changed it because you convinced me there was no such thing. And now you criticize my correction. There's no pleasing you apparently. 68.144.168.46 (talk) 14:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it plainly does not solve the problem. If you want to add unnecessary words, we could say Rabelais' Abbey of Thélème, or even Abbey of Thelema if you have some strange attachment to the Latin alphabet transliteration of the Greek. Both remove the disputed implication. Dan (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe this has been resolved by using Rabelais' Thélème. Will in China (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Point 19

message: I don't see what the problem is. Do you dispute that Crowley developed a system around the ideal of "Do what thou wilt"? Do you really think using "championed" rather than "promoted" is really necessary? Try to be more clear about exactly what you think the problem is with my compromise attempt. Will in China (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought it was blindingly obvious; Crowley did it first, whatever you want to call it, and the article should either say so or stop suggesting otherwise. Dan (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And I thought it was blindingly obvious that Crowley was a plagiarist and made up a cockamamie story that only his followers take seriously. Will in China (talk) 22:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

text: To clarify, Crowley's system of magick that he assembled around "Do what thou wilt" and the word Thelema was original. Neither the law itself nor the name, nor the idea of an Abbey of Thelema, which Crowley also cribbed from Rabelais, were original. Crowley did not do "Do what thou wilt" first. He developed a system of magick around a pre-existing concept. As a professed follower of the religion, you can hardly be objective about this. Do you view Crowley as a prophet? Will in China (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

text: This seems irrelevant (aside from suggesting that you refuse to follow NPOV because of animus against Crowley's view). I thought we agreed that nobody openly self-identified as a Thelemite before Crowley and the Book of the Law. You said earlier that you agreed Rabelaisian Thelema in that sense did not verifiably exist. I'll try editing the introduction to show you what I mean, while adding the links you mentioned in their appropriate place. Dan (talk) 01:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are not understanding me. The ideal existed. It had been expressed by Rabelais and understood by Dashwood, but not yet elaborated into a formal system. An ideal by definition is not a realized thing. (See  Plato). Crowley developed this already expressed ideal in a practical way. That is the sense in which I meant "developed". Perhaps you'd prefer reified? No, not quite right, is it? My writing is trying to be very precise here, but if you misread ideal you would indeed miss the mark and misunderstand what I am saying. Will in China (talk) 02:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Point 21

message: A Third opinion has been requested, but it appears from the signed posts that five or more editors are participating.  How many are actually involved in this dispute?  — Athaenara  ✉  23:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. The IP addresses are a single user. I will start signing "Will in China" to avoid confusion. Thiebes doesn't seem to be really active in the discussion. It's just me and Dan trying to work out a compromise here. -Will in China 01:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And Stealthepiscopalian, at one time. And another user agreed with the summary at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/81.9.61.227. A second anonymous user who evidently does not use Tor also took part in the discussion here, but just as we cannot distinguish "Will" from User:Ekajati we do not know this other person's identity. Dan (talk) 02:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean your sockpuppets with 21 and 10 edits respectfully? They don't seem to be engaged in the discussion. But maybe you can fix that? Maybe they are about to chime right in? Or only once in a while, enough so you can claim third party isn't appropriate. You are both a liar and a loser. 70.16.81.96 (talk) 04:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The anonymous 70.16.81.96 user has been given a first level  warning (diff) after violations of the Civility and No personal attacks policies.  — Athaenara  ✉  20:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion request

message: Here is a self-identification as a Thelemite in 1841, before Crowley was born... Another interesting document using the term Thelemite from 1863 is this editorial, The Modern Thelemite. -Will in China 01:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Second seems to confirm the pejorative use. Dan (talk) 02:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Oh, and publishing a poem as "A. Thelemite" seems like the opposite of openly championing the rule of fay çe que vouldras. Dan (talk) 02:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So you weren't sincere. Nice knowing you. Apparently you can twist anything  to make it meaningless or so it agrees with you, even when it doesn't. -Will in China 04:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The anonymous 70.16.81.96 user has been given a first level  warning (diff) after violations of the Civility and No personal attacks policies.  — Athaenara  ✉  20:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-identification as a Thelemite before Crowley 

message: (Lost track here.) It took me a while to figure out what Will meant about the Liber II quote. Since the article goes on to speak of Buddhist and tantric traditions, and they do seem important here, why not just link nirvana so this reader you speak of can learn what the author meant? Dan (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, add the second sentence with a link to nirvana. If we also leave the first sentence it gives a much clearer picture, don't you think? Will in China (talk) 00:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Nirvana

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#:: 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#:: 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#:: 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:Fair representation without bias: 
#:: 
#It is stable.
#:No edit wars etc.: 
#:: 
#It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
#:a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
#:: 
#Overall: 
#:Pass/Fail: 
#::  jackturner3 (talk) 14:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Review

message: I need to challenge and query some of the points asserted in the Diversity of Thelemic Thought Section:
1: Who decided that LaSara Firefox was a notable Thelemite exactly? And why? She hasnt published any material that could be seen has Thelemic and the church of the Allworlds is not a Thelemic organisation. Unless there can be a reliable citation that doesnt involve a crap pagan "encyclopedia" i put forward that the LaSara Firefox reference be removed.
2: Amado Crowley. Although this person has made claims that have failed to stand up to scrutiny, including Amado Crowley in the Diversity of Thought section should be queried/challenged has well. Amados "material" is threadbare and he hasnt produced any written work that would suggest "Thelemic Diversity". So i put forward that this is removed has well unless references other than the "Dave Evans fan-club" are forth coming.
3: "Thelemites who practice other religions". Some of the assertions in this bit has well are open to challenge. How could a Thelemite be a Satanist when Satanism is subject to inverting christian parameters exactly? And vice versa? This doesnt stand up to any deep examination. I would argue that if your a Thelemite there is no need for any religion since you are seeking True Will. Why need the distraction of a religion when Thelema covers all the bases? Again i put forward that the 4th paragraph in the Diversity of Thelemic thought section is removed since it just contradicts itself.--Redblossom (talk) 14:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All of the items you bring up are referenced to sources which meet Wikipedia's requirements for source material. The article and its sources have been reviewed  against the Good article criteria back in February and the article was passed to GA status. Of course, if there are alternate points of view which you would like to add that can be referenced to source material which meets Wikipedia requirements, by all means add it. Though I would suggest that discussion of the details of Amado Crowley's claim be documented in that article, following the standards for biographies of living people. I'm not sure what you mean to imply by refering to the "Dave Evans fan-club". Dr. David Evans has a Ph.D. in the field and is certainly a qualified source for information on Thelema. This is an encyclopedia, not an OTO promo page. Will in China (talk) 21:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

text: The problem, my good man (or woman), is that a religion is define by its followers and evolves over time. It is a sociological phenomemon, not something defined by an orthodoxy. People are starting to observe and study Thelema as implemented in the real world by people who self-identify as Thelemites. I personally know many, many Thelemites who also identify as also practicing other religions, primarily Buddhism and Hinduism. This is the reality "on the ground", despite how you personally would like to define Thelema. Wikipedia policy on breadth and NPOV require the inclusion of these variants. They appear to me to be given the proper amount of coverage and in the proper position at the end of the article. This is not an article about what Thelema "should be" according to you or any other "authority". Crowley is not the whole of Thelema and no longer defines it. Will in China (talk) 12:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Um, that's not how Wikipedia works. A "consensus" of WikiProject members should not be removing valid cited material. That would damage the neutrality of the article and emphasize a single POV which happens to be yours. If you can find citable opposing opinions, those could be added to the information already present. Will in China (talk) 14:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

text: That is exactly the standard used by Wikipedia for religious affiliation, self-identification of religious tradition by the believer. It is not daft, it is the only reasonable way to know what religion an individual professes. It is not Wikipedia's place to determine whether their claim is correct or not, that would be original research. And by valid cited material, it means that it comes from the third-party source footnoted at the end of the sentence or paragraph. A third-party reported the self-identification in a chapter or entry on Thelema in the work cited. Check the reference yourself... The reference says that Firefox and others in the Church of All Worlds self-identify as Thelemites. Unless you have another third party reference which disputes this, I don't see why we should change the article. It accurately reports what the sources say about diverse views of Thelema. Will in China (talk) 20:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, I guess I just don't see it that way, RB. Most of the sources agree that the essence of Thelema is "Do what thou wilt." Not all Thelemites are Crowleyan Thelemites so what the Book of the Law says is not essential for them. Even "The Comment" says to destroy the book and not discuss it, so the step of ignoring what it says beyond "Do what thou wilt" seems entirely logical to me. Since there is not even agreement that Thelema is a religion, why would it be incompatible with being an adherent of another religion, if that be the individual's will? It seems to me that you are projecting your POV of what Thelema is or should be, and that's precisely what Wikipedia editors are not supposed to be basing Wikipedia articles on. Those who accept the law of "Do what thou wilt" are Thelemites, and the diverse ways in which they apply this law is the topic of this article. Will in China (talk) 04:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Since it doesn't seem like you are either reading or understanding what I have written or even the article itself, I see no point in continuing the conversation. In point of fact, I know quite a bit about Thelema both in theory and practice, and the view you are expressing is considerably narrower than that of many Thelemites. Also when you imply that I am not someone who knows about Thelema, you are coming very close to making a personal attack which is not permitted on Wikipedia. Will in China (talk) 19:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, no. I don't believe there is general agreement among Thelemites about True Will. That was a doctrine or dogma of Crowley's which is not mentioned in the Book of the Law. The book itself speaks of pure will and processes of purification of will, but Crowley's interpretation is only one way of understanding it. Both pre- and post-Crowlian Thelemites may not use Crowley's idiosyncratic approach. You also seem to be confusing Buddhism, Hinduism and other traditions with Christianity. It is simply not the case that deity yoga need involve "appeasements and surrender". That you think it does simply indicates that you have not looked into the matter very deeply and are projecting your superficial view onto a rather more complex spiritual world of which you remain unaware. Will in China (talk) 04:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Oh, give me a break. First, you completely ignored the fact that not all Thelemites accept Crowley's doctrine of True Will. Second, what about Liber Astarte where Crowley specifically recommends and gives instructions on how to approach, worship and become a diety? Your choice of Green Tara is also fascinating, because Tibetan Buddhism is not a religion, Tara is not a "god" in the sense you are using, and advanced practices involve the practitioner self-visualizing as the deity and essentially worshiping themselves in the form of the deity. The practices of Tibetan Buddhism strongly resemble westerm magical practices, albeit with an eastern aspect. Finally, The Book of the Law itself speaks of making sacrifices of cattle to Horus, an ancient Egyptian god. Take off your blinders, man! Will in China (talk) 12:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Redblossom, posting without logging in and pretending to be someone else is known as sockpuppetry, and it seems you have a history of doing this. Your understanding of Tantric Hinduism and Buddhism is seriously deficient. The keywords in the article which you are apparently too uneducated to appreciate are "Tantric" and "Vajrayana", in which self-visualization as the deity are the rule. Anyone who has not looked into the religions which Crowley himself studied deeply enough to know that the invocation of deities in these traditions does not involve subservience to the deity but rather the exact opposite is simply not deserving of Crowley's legacy. Will in China (talk) 01:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diversity of Thelemic Thought section 

message: In the opening paragraph of the article it says that "Crowley founded a relgion called Thelema". This is a POV being presented as some sort of bullet proof fact. There is no collective agreement in the Thelemic community on whether Thelema is a religion. So why is this statement allowed to stand? Could a better wording not be found? Like spiritual movement? Or Philosophy?--Redblossom (talk) 11:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, once you get a reliable reference (and blogs and forums can't be used as they are not considered reliable), you should know that to make a footnote, you put material between ref tags, like this:  Your source or other footnote . Also pay attention to where you are putting text. You can't put a footnote inside another footnotes. The text you are seeking is there, try using your browswer's search function. If you browser won't search text forms, get a different browser. Will in China (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crowley "Founded a Religion"? 

message: I've undid the current revisions to what I think is the better version. We can discuss it here instead of changing it everyday with no conversation. The way I see it, a link repair was done to bypass a redirect. Tarot needs no more elaboration in this article, and its obvious what it means. — MaggotSyn 00:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would disagree. I think we need to somehow specify it is an esoteric use of tarot even if the article as a whole is not a tarot article. The issue of re-directs has already been resolved. The issue at hand are my attempts to make specific that that the esoteric aspect of tarot is involved. I think it should be made explicit that Thelemists use tarot in a very specific manner.Smiloid (talk) 01:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What tarot tradition did they follow? I think in this article, tarot divination should be specified just as we specify runic divination when people practice that form of divination. I have preserved the proper link however and i believe I've followed proper form.Smiloid (talk) 01:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Smiloid isn't it starting to become obvious to you that you are labouring a point that others don't agree with? It is so totally obvious to what tarot refers in this article that to introduce mention of the games of Tarot would be a spurious inclusion, likewise your edits to the Major and Minor Arcana articles. Anybody interested in participating in this debate would be well advised to read Talk:Tarot Morgan Leigh | Talk 02:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I think its rather obvious what type of Tarot they were using, seeing as Thelema was a 20th century invention and its common usage is Occult in nature. But if you want to get into specifics, like which style is used, there isn't one. Thelemites can and will use whichever one they see fit to use (there is no standard). And if you notice, Occult tarot is a redirect to Tarot. So its the same thing. Further clarification is not needed. — MaggotSyn 10:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, "occult tarot" is not the same as "tarot". People in the 20th and 21st centuries still play tarot card games. Further clarification is needed to specify they were practicing a specific type of tarot which, although commonplace, is not the ONLY form of tarot. This is the real source of controversy. The word "tarot" should not be used to imply that the occult practices are the only application practiced. This is why I believe clarification is necessarySmiloid (talk) 00:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Once you fix the Tarot article, then come back here. We don't put words in sources mouths, nor do we, as editors, suggest to our readers our own personal views. Find your sources, edit the main article, then fix the minor articles. Not the other way around. — MaggotSyn 13:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting 

message: How is the word pronounced in English? "THE-le-ma"? "the-LEE-ma"? Someone please add pronunciation guide. SpectrumDT (talk) 17:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation? 

message: I recommend that the whole damn thing be deleted. The whole article is a farce designed by committee. No wonder Thelema has so many terminology problems. People here are neither qualified (obviously) nor inclined to discuss the properties of a religion (of which Thelema meets every academic qualification) or the particular tenets of Thelema itself. At least I have finally understand why academic institutions do not allow Wikipedia to be quoted as any kind of authoritative source. Articles designed by committees of unqualified editors who aren't even competent in the subject matter in the first place is for the birds.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.244.62.28 (talk) 23:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete This Mess