Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

These kind of references to an offsite article seem inappropriate. No doubt Thelemapedia itself is of interest to those who read this article, and I have modified the link to point to the main page of Thelemapedia itself.

Someone at IP address 70.244.201.193 did nothing but add article links on Thelemapedia to a dozen different articles in a single half-hour session - that is link spamming.

Wikipedia certainly would love for the editor doing this to actually merge new material into Wikipedia from Thelemapedia - then it would be appropriate to cite Thelemapedia as a reference. But simply to use Wikipedia to refer traffic to your site without actually contributing content is IMO simply a form of spamming....

This does not look like malicious link spamming to me, just overenthusiastic newbie behavior. Don't bite the newbies, please.

Thelemapedia is a nonprofit, non-advertising, topical wiki ... just like the many others Wikipedia supports interwiki links to. It looks like the user didn't happen to know about interwiki links and so used normal Web links instead. No harm done.

It's also not clear to me that material from Thelemapedia should be pasted in to Wikipedia wholesale, for the same reason that material from Theopedia (an evangelical Christian wiki we also support interwiki links to) should. These wikis are written from particular points of view and for particular audiences different from Wikipedia's. However, since it may be useful to Wikipedia users to be made aware of those other views, there is certainly place for interwiki links on topics that topical/POV wikis cover.

FWIW, I think 70.244.201.193 is the same as the registered User:Ashami who created the Thelemapedia article. I've already left that person some hints on how not to look like a spammer in the future. --FOo 01:24, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I think a link to an entire site with a focus on Thelema is very relevant to this topic. Keep it...if the language needs to be modified, then do that.

This article says The Book of the Law was produced through automatic writing, but the article for that book specifically states that Crowley did not use automatic writing. JoaoRicardo 20:37, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The other article is right. Crowley's descriptions of the process make it clear that it was not automatic writing. I've corrected the article. --FOo 22:27, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The current version of the article claims that

Thelema is a magickal philosophy of life based on Will. The individual Will in Thelema is called Had or Hadit. The Way, or the Pleroma of infinite potentiality is called Nu or Nuit.

Thelema is unique but also syncretic. Nu and Had correspond with the Tao and Teh of Taoism, Shakti and Shiva of the Hindu Tantras, Shunyata and Bodhicitta of Buddhism, Ain Soph and Kether in the Qabalah. Followers of the philosophy of Thelema may make use of the methods and practices derived from other traditions, including Alchemy, Astrology, Qabalah, Tantra, Tarot, and Yoga.

That is a rather bold statement. I can't for the life of me see how one could equate such definitions of Nu and Had with the Buddhist concepts of Shunyata and Bodhicitta. I suggest either a clarification or correction. Did Crowley himself make that claim of equivalence? Did some other named author? Luis Dantas 17:00, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This does seem a stretch, Nuit, is normally identified along these kinds of lines: The azure Egyptian Goddess of the night sky identified with AIN SOPH of Qabalistic symbolism. The continuous one of Heaven. The goddess of infinite space. And Hadit as the Lover of Nuit, the infinitely small, atomic, yet omnipresent. He is identified with Qabalistic AIN. I think Liber NV and Liber HAD, may shed some light on Crowley's angle, as well as 777 and the Law is for all. I would also say that to simply state that Will in Thelema (which means will!) is called Had is misleading and in this context inaccurate. --Solar 00:52, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is not really a stretch at all. Shunyata = Emptiness and I'm sure Crowley mentions Nuit as equivalent to emptiness. He correlates Hadit to Kundalini and Kundalini is correlated to Bodhicitta in Tantric Buddhism. For someone who knows all three systems in depth, the notion of equivalence is unremarkable. I'll see what references I can find when I have time. In any case, the view is common among Thelemic Buddhists or Buddhist Thelemites. Sam Webster might be one writer who has written about the correlation... Adityanath 21:19, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've added two references, and will probably find more... Adityanath 21:52, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thelemapedia clearly belongs in the See also section. I mean, if not here in Thelema which is its topic, then where? I suspect, but haven't checked, that the Thelemapedia page is an orphan and is not linked from anywhere. If that is the case, then perhaps it should be listed on Votes for deletion. If already has two strikes against it—it started as a vanity page written by its own managing editor, which makes it autobiography as well. Adityanath 21:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why is the Wiccan Rede in the See Also section? --Morningstar2651 17:10, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

I would guess because of the fact that the Wiccan Rede is derivitive of the law of Thelema. See the following paragraph in Wiccan Rede. Adityanath 07:34, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The combination of Wicca with no harm to others and do what thou wilt made its first known appearance in The Old Laws by Gerald Gardner, 1953. A similar phrase, Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law, appears in Aleister Crowley's works by at least 1909, in The Book of the Law.

That "German criticismen" (sic) really needs fixed... is it just babelfished? --Kiwibird 3 July 2005 03:30 (UTC)

I totally agree. In some places it is difficult to understand what is being said.

From the article -- Interior evidence supports the assertion that the Cairo Working, as it is called, was a psychic experience involving shared telepathy between Crowley and his wife, synchronicity, and Crowley's own unconscious psyche. Please cite a source for this claim within the article, and maybe explain what it means. It doesn't seem any more parsimonious than Crowley's claims. Dan 05:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

What is the fanetic spelling of θέλημα? So I can understand how it would sound. I am english.

Most U.S. Thelemites pronounce it Tha-lee-mah, but some pronounce it Tha-lay-mah. I think I read somewhere that the second pronunciation is more accurate based strictkly on proper Greek pronunciation.--◀Puck^talk▶ 04:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I am going to remove the section about Thelema from the Obeah page, replacing it with a short mention. I am also going to remove the book ref to Crowley. My reasoning is as follows:

Obeah is jamacan folk magic. Thelema has nothing to do with Obeah. Aleister Crowley mentioned both Obeah (Jamaican folk magic derived from the Congo) and wanga (the latter a term most often found in Haitian Voodoo, meaning a magical charm pcket derived from West Africa) in one sentence in one book. The fact that he threw Jamaican and Haitian terms -- or, if you will Congo and Benin -- terms together indiscriminately indicates his level of outsidership and non-practitioner status with respect to Obeah.

It's nice that Thelemites are somewhat interested in Congo magic, but since Crowley really knew nothing about it himself, having this lengthy Thelemitic tail wagging the Obeah dog here is a mistake.

However, the text is well enough written that i would not wish to lose it -- so i am carrying it to the Thelema talk page, where the Thelema people can decide what to do with it. Just please, do not bring it back to the Obeah page; it is not relevant here beyond the brif mention i will give to Crowley.

This message is duplicated at the Thelema talk page.

Thanks.

Catherineyronwode 22:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Deleted the article from here because I've put it in the new article, Obeah and Wanga. Frater5 23:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

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.

Prime Qabalah & Thelema— Information on a new system of English Gematria and its application to Thelema

This isn't that big a deal to me, but to avoid link clutter, wouldn't this link be more relevent in the Magick or Qabalah sections, rather than the Thelema article? –Frater5

No, I don't think so, as it relates specifically to the Qabalah of the Book of the Law and Thelema. Maybe on the Book of the Law page? Eventually there should be a page on Thelemic qabalah, and that's where it should really go. "Clutter" is subjective - I could get rid of any number of other links in the name of "clutter". By the way, your sig is wrong. It will always show the current time, not the time you posted your comment. You need to add "subst:" to each template invocation... -999 15:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Sig...oops! Didn't notice. Thanks. Re: Link: Like I said, it's not a big deal to me...just think about it. Re: Qabalah: I agree totally that there should be a Thelemic Qabalah page. It was so central to everything Crowley did, it seems negligent not to have a page that discusses his use of it. Hard to write an NPOV encyclopedia article on it, probably... – –Frater5 (talk/con) 16:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Based on this conversation, I have made the Thelemic Gematria article. Its not finished and i'm waiting for anyone to who finds it to add to it. Zos 20:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Those who do are the Perfect, who are beyond good and evil, i.e., all conventional moral codes and standards is more of a derivitive statement in reference to Friedrich Nietzsche--it is not a mainstream position of Thelemic doctrine. Ashami 05:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, when thelema was shown to me it showed that. things are where they are. and credit is where it already is.

In the Article the unconventional (and maybe misleading) opinions of Monsignore Tolli are quoted. Has anybody actually read his book? The only argument he has to make is, that the word thelema was used in the Biblia Graeca. This is a very dubious argument for constructing a lineage between Christianity and Thelema. If you check the german language version of Wikipedia, you will also see, that the article about Tolli himself is gone because he wasn't considered a important person enough, and his opinions spurious.

As is obvious, I have added a great deal of new info to the article. Because of this, it required a reorganization to make sense of it all. Please understand that in no way is this an attempt to undo anyone else's contributions. If I inadvertantly removed some important piece of information, by all means fit it back in. Ashami 03:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

This article is written from the POV of Crowleyan Thelema. As not all Thelemites are Crowleyan, which was grudgingly acknowledged in the Organizations section (I think), this article needs a major revision to be inclusive of Rabelaisian Thelema, which also has its adherents. See WP:NPOV for information on how to properly cover multiple points of view in a single article. I have started on this, but a lot more work needs to be done. -999 03:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, 999...nice to meetcha. In case you missed it, the section is called "Aleister Crowley's Thelema"...I think that's a smart way to work it, and allows for more "POV" langauge. Although the other sections can be made more objective, maybe, I think it's fair to say that Crowley is pretty central to modern Thelema. However, why not make a "Rabelaisian Thelema" section, so that they get a fair say? Still, considering that Thelema can be all things to all people, the article would be 100 pages long if we put in every single possible interpretation of it, don't you think? Or if we took out any and all bias, the article would lose any useful meaning at all. That being said, I like what you've been doing with the section titles. Somecallmetim 03:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it neatly resolved by putting in chronological order, and have done so. Not perfect of course, and a bit of editing for flow and a better intro to the whole topic are probably needed. -999 12:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Certainly we want the article to mention Rabelais, and Augustine, and diversity in modern Thelemic thought. But do we have a single verifiable example of anyone unambiguously using the name Thelema for their own "philosophy of life" before April 1904? Because we had better tell the reader the answer to this question in the first paragraph of the article. Dan 05:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I still haven't seen one example of anyone clearly using the name "Thelema" to refer to their own views or way of life before 1904 Gregorian. Barring a response, I'll change the article and related pages to reflect this. Dan 17:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you can document a negative unless you have a citable source. Otherwise, if would qualify as "original research". However, Rabelais used the word Theleme in his work, and Francis Dashwood and other members of the Hellfire Club used Rabelais' French version of "Do what thou wilt" (Fay ce que vouldras). -999 (Talk) 18:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know. Rabelais wrote a book of fiction, and members of the Hellfire Club used a phrase from a book of fiction. Do we, or do we not, have a single verifiable example of someone clearly using the name "Thelema" to describe their own philosphy/religion/whatever before 1904? I most certainly do have citable references saying that Thelema began with Crowley. Dan 02:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

And I most certainly do have references which say that Rabelais was a Thelemite. What of it? The article is fine as it is, and if you want to push your point, I'll push mine, and the article will be the worse for it. Stop being such a Crowleyite bigot. -999 (Talk) 13:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

civility wouldn't hurt here. Bigot is an article not an epithet to apply to another editor. - Peripitus (Talk) 13:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

And what point do you want to make, exactly? Your question seems like a no-brainer; if he didn't call himself a Thelemite, neither do we. Nobody objects to mentioning that Rabelais wrote a work of fiction with the word "Thelema" in it, nor do I object to mentioning fans of the book. So just what point do you want to push? So far you've spoken of a pre-Crowley philosophy of life, but haven't cited anyone openly saying they subscribed to this philosophy. Dan 05:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Christ didn't call himself a Christian, either. People don't write books which have the potential to get themselves excommunicated or burned at the stake unless they believe in what they write. Anyway, my point is, that even Crowley acknowledged Rabelais as a Thelemite. Crowley was to Rabelais what Paul was to Christ. Christ and Rabelais were the original prophets, Paul and Crowley were the hacks who popularized a religion insprired by someone else. Why don't you go bug the editors of Christianity by telling them that Christ never called himself a Christian, or the editors of Buddhism by telling them that the Buddha never called himself a Buddhist. -999 (Talk) 12:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I see one sentence buried in the Christianity article making the disputed claim that "Jesus of Nazereth" existed. And that line claims that he practiced Judaism. Later, the article acknowledges the claim that he never existed. This all seems more or less in order, although I'd say 'most historians (citations) say such and such,' instead of 'Such and such (citations)'. Again, what point do you want to make and what sources can you point to? Dan 19:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous reverter, do you have any better argument than "revisions are not improvements"? Dan 03:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

In what sense is this a philosophy? And what is a religious matrix? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, many self-professed Thelemites do not consider it a religion; some consider it a philosophy; I'd call it a way of life. What would you call it that includes non-religious Thelemites? -999 12:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with "way of life"? "belief system" might also work. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I've changed it to philosophy of life which will hopefully satisfy the all the parties ;-) -999 15:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Such is the way of thelemites; they want to have all the vices of (degenerated) religion yet pay none of the price of claiming to be one... Luis Dantas 16:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

There are many problems with the last edit by User:999, including the following:

• interpreted and implemented in the form of religion by Aleister Crowley: Crowley's Thelema is much more than an interpretation and implementation of Rabelais' ideas. It includes influences from yoga, mysticism, Buddhism, Tantra, Freemasonry, and Western occultism. To many Thelemites, it is an actual revealed Truth. To make it out to be a simple derivative of Rabelais is highly inaccurate.
  • Agreed. -999 17:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

To many Thelemites, it is an actual revealed Truth

How is that strictly possible? The Book of the Law obviously qualifies, but a synthetic system consciously constructed (sometimes very directly) from other sources by definition is not "revealed" in any sense.

Nuttyskin 23:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Thelema was revitalized in the form of a religion in 1904: same thing, Crowley's Thelema is much more than a revitalization of Rabelais, and has in toto many more aspects than just a religious one, including ethics, practice, philosophy, and culture.
  • Agreed. The way you have reworded it is fine. -999 17:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• The Crowleyan sect of Thelema begins with The Book of the Law...: This makes it sound like there is a bigger thing called Thelema that Crowley's work is just a small part of. This is not accurate. Also, a "sect" is a "group of people who share a common belief" which is "often derogatory." It is more encyclopedic to say "Crowley's system of Thelema begins with The Book of the Law"...which is both more accurate and less derogatory.
  • Not agreed. Thelema is bigger than Crowley. There are people who call themselves Thelemites who are either Rabelasian and do not accept the BoL at all, or who accept the BoL but not the other Holy Books, doctrine of True Will or other features of what is accurately termed "Crowleyan Thelema." -999 17:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• The core doctrine of Crowleyan Thelema: "Crowleyan Thelema" is an invented term which does not appear elsewhere. It should not be used to reflect the bias of a single editor.
  • It is not an invented term but has been used by others.[2]. It is also simply a distinguishing adjective and not intended to derogatory as Crowleyite Thelema might be construed. Crowleyan is IMO neutral. -999 17:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Crowleyan Thelema has a triadic cosmology: same as above. What is "Crowleyan Thelema"? Who invented this term and what is the exact definition? Answer: it doesn't exist and shouldn't be used in an encyclopedia. It is more accurate to say that "The Book of the Law establishes a triadic cosmology..."
  • Agree that your wording avoids the issue. -999 17:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Based on Crowley's writings, Crowleyan Thelemites recognize certain rituals...: Again, there is no such group as "Crowleyan Thelemites"...this is a made up term.
  • No it is not. See above. -999 17:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Two documents in particular help to define Thelemic ethics for Crowleyan Thelemites: Again, this fake term. Plus, it would be better to address the issue as it pertains to the system, not to a group of people, especially when they cannot be defined.
  • You are welcome to say O.T.O. Thelemites if you prefer. However, the fact of the matter remains that there a non-Crowleyan Thelemites who don't give special reverence to these documents -999 17:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

New wording has been put in place to make the language more accurate and encyclopedic while being less derogatory and dismissive. While the initial efforts to place Thelema within a broader frame led to some good changes, these last few have gone too far in the other direction. Crowley and his system now has its very own section, clearly delineated, and there is no reason to continually point it out in the section. If positions need to be taken in opposition to Thelema as developed by Crowley, put them in the other sections. Otherwise, there will be no end to this reversion battle. Frater5 06:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I've left some of your changes in place and put back only a few. Complaints against reverting can be leveled at you as well. Please compromise with other editors gracefully. Thelema is not defined by the O.T.O., regardless of the fact that they would like it so. Thanks. -999 17:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

OTO has nothing to do with these edits (although you mentioning this does hint at why you are adding so many biased terms and phrases...if you have strong feelings against OTO and viewpoints they've adopted, even to the point of being blinded to plain facts within Crowley's work, then perhaps you are too emotionally biased to edit these articles). The section should reflect the body of work that Crowley developed, without bias (for or against). If you want to add other sections that talk about Thelema as developed by modern organizations or scholars, by all means do so. Suggestion: maybe a good idea would be to take a break for a few days and come back with a fresh mind...the article will still be here. Frater5 21:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

User 999 today reverted the Obeah page to delete all references to Crowley. This bothered me, as you (Fater5) and i (cat yronwode) had come to what i believed to be a good compromise on the differences of word usage between standard Afro-Caribbean and Crowleyan terminology when you created the Obeah and Wanga page. Admitedly the Obeah page itself was a mere stub -- a problem i have addressed by re-reverting back to my version and then spending a couple of hours adding data and ext links dealing with the Myal / Obeah conflict of the mid 19th century in Jamaica -- but i simply want to go on record here as stating that i will continue to fight for having the section on Crowley left in the Obeah page, and also to have it pointing to the new Obeah and Wanga page. I think it is important to point out on the Obeah page itself, with respectful neutrality, Crowley's essentially colonialist word appropriation and redifinition, and also to praise the fact that modern Thelemites have made stapes to redress the problems that such cultural appropriations engender. I would appreciate your looking over the revised Obeah page for typos (i have low vision and cannot see my keyboard or monitor very well) and would appreciate as well your help in reachin a compomise with User999. My interest here is as one who is working on folk magic and folk religions. You can check my list of contribs to see where Obeah fits in to my larger program of writing for the WP. Thanks. Catherineyronwode 20:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I am beginning to suspect that 999 has a strong bias against Crowley, which would make him/her (sorry, I don't know 999's gender) perhaps too skewed to edit articles that are intrinsically related to him (e.g. Thelema). If 999 has an agenda to fix articles to show an inaccurate or biased view against Crowley, then his/her capability to work on them comes into question. I am more than happy to compromise with 999...some of 999's recent edits on Thelema, for example, were very good. But if 999 cannot recognize the difference between reasonable edits that add valuable information and increase comprehension, and those that reflect a spiteful agenda, then I don't know how well 999 can compromise. Hopefully 999 might take a few days to take a break and come back with a fresh view of these articles and his/her aspirations towards either improving or undermining them. Frater5 21:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I reverted Obeah not because of the section on Crowley, but only because another section had completely disappeared from the article and I thought the intent of starting the Obeah and Wanga article was to put all info on Crowley in that article. Even if I were anti-Crowley, which I am not, that would not exclude me from editing articles. WP must be WP:NPOV - that means any valid and citable criticism cannot be excluded by pro-subject editors. Otherwise, being pro-Crowley as you seem to be would also be grounds to exclude you from editing articles having to do with him... -999 21:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the cup of tea, Frater5. I think that some of the heated emotionality came about because, in addition to having different points of view, we also (at least i know *i* did) had temporal editing conflicts -- changes got glitched due to various among us trying to upload at the same time -- which made it look like an editing war was on, when it probably was not. (I hope.) Again, my interest here is not as a Thelemite, but as an occultist with a specific interest in folk magic practices (hence Obeah). In the interest of full disclosure, i will note that i have contributed to and help maintain web pages describing and specifically referencing quotes that can be taken as evidence of racism and sexism in Crowley's writings. The co-author and co-maintainer of those web pags with me is my husband, a man who has received intiation in the OTO and is a member in good standing of the order. There *are* Thelemites who can examine Crowley's racialist biases and still find something of value in the OTO and EGC and not fall into the camp of "anti-Crowleyites." The Catholic Church has recently made great srides toward reconciliation with those of other faiths and cultures when they admitted their own history of racially and anti-scientifically motivated cruelties. May Thelema, as a religion, do as well in future, and more quickly than the RCC! Catherineyronwode 18:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Not to get too off topic, but I don't think Thelema can really prosper without an honest look at Crowley's foibles. Personally, I think Thelemites need to extract the gold from the garbage. At the same time, I think great care needs to be taken regarding this material on Wikipedia. For example, although Crowley was most certainly racist and sexist, is his comparable to "average" racism and sexism among his contemporaries? And how large a role does it play within his system...is it incidental or fundamental? When did it come out and why? I strongly believe that Wikipedia articles that deal with Thelema need to make a clear separation between Thelema the system, Crowley the man, and contemporary Thelemic culture. This article has started to do that, but we have a ways to go, I think. Anyway, thanks for your thoughtfulness in all this. Frater5 19:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how there is a difference between this article and the Thelemic mysticism article. I've suggested a merge to discuss. Zos 19:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose article was split due to size -999 (Talk) 19:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

At first, I didnt actually see where it was split. I was looking for a direct to main article, but I found it at the bottom of the True Will section. Eh. I still think there is no difference though. Zos 19:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, what happened was a lot of little subarticles were created, then nominated for deletion. The author paniced and combined them into Thelemic mysticism. But then I think most if not all articles passed AfD. So perhaps Thelemic mysticism should be deleted as a duplicate? or maybe more has been added to it, not sure. -999 (Talk) 19:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I was just figuring, if there was enough info, to add it back here, and recreate the smaller articles, and this time add citations so nothing is nominated for deletion. But its fine with me, I just thought it was the same topic. Zos 19:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. I like this article for exactly what it does: it presents a specific aspect of Thelema that is too large to fit within the main article. While we could have individual articles for each of the subsections, having the one article puts it all in a single context. It would be much harder to piece it all together topic by topic. I can see no compelling reason to get rid of it. –Frater5 (talk/con) 20:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah we're done voting, seeing as how my question was answered. Zos 22:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted Dan's changes due to the unexplain removal of Dashwood from the introduction. The inclusion of Dashwood in the intro is essential to the understanding that there was at least one known practitioner of Rabelaisian Thelema and also essential to the summary quote by Mahendranath. This clearly establishes the context for multiple understandings of Thelema, namely the looser Rabalaisian form and the more formally developed Crowleyan form. As there are currently practitioners of both forms and the Rabelaisian Thelemites specifically use the term "Rabelaisian Thelema", it would appear that Dan is attempting to bias the article against this form of Thelema with this change. —Hanuman Das 05:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I just won't let y'all ignore my question. And I have a new question as well: can you cite one verifiable, notable case of someone practicing "Rabelaisian Thelema" by that name today, with no influence from Crowley? I've put a reference to Dashwood in the first paragraph. Dan 05:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I've addressed your concerns, kindly do not revert again without responding. Dan 05:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe your changes are misguided and I do not have to prove anything to you. The usage of the term "Rabelaisian Thelema" can be easily confirmed with a Google search. Whether its practitioners have been also influenced by Crowley is immaterial. You have a bias. Go edit something else while you think about the effect of offending actual Rabelaisian Thelemites, such as the one you are speaking with. I'm quite happy to open an RfC on your discrimintory conduct. —Hanuman Das 05:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean the emails? I saw one site decribe a link as including "Rabelaisian Thelema", but the link didn't seem to work. I used notable in the admittedly offensive but widely used 'pedia sense of the term. Again, the question pertains to people calling their views "Rabelaisian Thelema". (See also my previous question, which got no response until I decided to Be Bold.) I have no problem mentioning Rabelais and Dashwood in the first paragraph. Dan 05:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Dan, you might wish to explain why it is you feel it neccessary to remove an inline citation. The statement clearly expresses where it comes from, but if you require an actual citation, use a cite tage at the end of a sentence. Zos 05:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

...What inline citation? Dan 05:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You might also note that Rabelaisian is an adjective listed in the dictionary. Thus the term "Rabelaisian Thelema" is a valid English construction. I strenuously object to your less elegant rendition as "Rabelais and Thelema". As a person who practices Rabelaisian Thelema and who knows other people who do and use the term, I'm offended at your lack of tact and consideration. This article is not going to have much information on R.T. because there is very little written on it and most of it is on the web. But intentionally changing the name of the section because you refuse to acknowledge our existence when the phrase is a valid English construction and can stand on that basis simply exposes your bias against non-Crowleyan Thelemites. —Hanuman Das 05:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Zos, did you mean the inline reference to this book of Gargantua? The article says, Thelema is a philosophy of life initially described by Francois Rabelais. The book does not say, 'I call this philosophy Thelema,' or even 'the people at the abbey called this philosophy Thelema.' Instead, the story describes an unusual abbey with a Bible-derived name and includes one serious-sounding statement about life in the description. So far no-one has cited anybody calling this statement 'the philosophy of Thelema' before Crowley's time, much less calling their own philosophy Thelema. Certainly we have someone else saying that Dashwood practiced Thelema, but see previous discussion in the NPOV section. And H. Das, I took the phrase "Rabelais and Thelema" from the main article Francois Rabelais. Dan 06:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Dan, on the last item, this article is about Thelema and thus the section heading from the article on Rabelais may not be as apropo as the one already here. And you never said you wanted a cite of someone calling Rabelais' Thelema a philosophy - that's easily accomplished and need not be from someone pre-Crowley. Where did you get that idea? Anyway, the best way to request citations is to put {{citation needed}} at the appropriate point in the article, perhaps with a clarifying query on the talk page. Your discussion with 999 above seems rather pointless due to all the unnecessary requirements you seemed to be insisting on - proof that someone actually said they were practicing Thelema before Crowley. You ought to know better: Wikipedia generally uses secondary sources, not primary sources, and it would have been fairly easy as it was for me to find a citation calling Rabelaisian Thelema a philosophy. —Hanuman Das 09:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

When I said inline, I was refering to what appeared to be a book toward the end of the sentence where the information seemed to be coming from. I havent read the book myself, so I wouldnt know. Its up to other editors who own a copy to do the fact checking. Zos 11:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

H. Das, I got that idea because as far as I can tell, nobody verifiably endorsed or practiced the philosophy while using that name before the Book of the Law. And since people disagree about the definition of Thelema (even more than I thought, apparently) it seems NPOV to refrain from saying that people practiced it unless they made this claim themselves.

The name of this talk section ("unexplained") quotes my description of an edit by 75.24.152.45 with the title, rv, revisions are not improvements. I think I explained my own reasoning fairly well, but I admit I haven't put it all together in one place before:

1. Nobody has cited anyone clearly using the name Thelema for their own views before the writing of Book of the Law. I looked for proof that Dashwood did this, and so far I've found none. (Instead, I see various people disagreeing about what Dashwood and his so-called Hellfire Club actually did. I do see the claim that they had an image of Harpocrates looking like a god of silence, which I think deserves mention in the article.) As far as I can tell, none of the people whose names appear in the Rabelaisian section did this -- see the external link at Talk:The Monks of Thelema. For the reasons given in the first paragraph of this comment, and for the reasons 999 gave on his talk page (see previous discussion) it seems POV to call their views Thelema without any such citations. (By contrast, we can easily find Crowley calling his views Thelema, and I can supply many more references if the last edit seems insufficient.)
2. So far, nobody has cited anyone pre-1904 using the name Thelema to refer to a philosophy they might not have agreed with. Again, seeking information on the article's references did not show me proof. If we do find a citation, we could say 'as early as Bob(16th Century), people derived a philosophy they called Thelema from Rabelais, though without openly endorsing it,' (and remove that last part if they did openly endorse it, of course.)
3. As the quotes in my last revert show, people disagree about how closely Rabelais' views agreed with the published, self-described system of Thelema. It seems POV for the article to take a stand on this. Instead, it seems to me, the rules of Wikipedia say to describe the controversy. I tried to do this.
4. Finally, according to skeptical biographer Lawrence Sutin, Crowley almost certainly believed what he said about the reception of the Book of the Law (see first paragraph of that article). That book supplied the name of Crowley's system. Therefore, saying that Rabelais inspired Crowley when it comes to this name or other quotes from the Book endorses a hotly disputed claim. (This does not apply to anything else Crowley did, as far as I recall. He acknowledged having a hand even in the other "Holy Books", but not Liber AL.)

I have no objection to pre-1904 references that avoid these problems. I think my last revert included all edits by other contributors that followed Wikipedia rules on these four points. For example, I have no problem including the Mahendranath reference in the first paragraph, because it reports a published writer's POV as such and does not logically contradict the other POVs I mentioned. (Forgot to add: when it comes to the section on modern varieties of Thelema, I wouldn't mind if we used a broad definition of "notable".) Dan 19:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems like people have misunderstood my motives. My four points relate to Wikipedia rules and what they tell us about the article, not to the validity of Rabelaisian Thelema as a philosophy. Hanuman Das, I'll cheerfully recognize you as a Thelemite if someone asks me offline, assuming you want the title. I'll even argue for the inclusion of Rabelaisian Thelema in the article's section on Diversity of Thelemic thought. As others have pointed out, the bias you see stems directly from 'pedia rules about citations. One could argue - Zos would presumably argue - that any good encyclopedia must share this bias. In this connection, note that Gargantua and Pantagruel does not give your philosophy as the accepted meaning of Rabelais, but alludes to it as one interpretation among many. And as I mentioned, I found little consensus about what Dashwood did or believed. Dan 18:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Dan, in the process of your edit, you removed cited information and in some cases replaced it with uncited information. Please do not remove information which is cited, but feel free to add additional cited information. I will be correcting your removal of cited facts. Thanks. —999 (Talk) 15:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Please list these facts, and respond to the numbered list of problems with this article. I removed passages that state cited but disputed claims as fact -- keeping them as claims, along with an opposing viewpoint -- and I removed one claim about Crowley's inspiration that does not appear here. I can't tell if citation 2 refers to this or not, but the quote next to the footnote certainly appears here. That article by Mahendranath specifically mentions the Abbey of Thelema, and does not address point 4 on my list. Dan 19:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It says that Crowley "in reverence to the Rabelaisian masterpiece also revived the Thelemic Law". So I'm happy to remove inspired and replace it with verbiage that states that Crowley revived Rabelais' Thelema. Your call. I thought you'd prefer softening to inspired... -999 (Talk) 19:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Some time ago, I had a simular dispute. I was told that there really isnt any policy or guideline that says you cant remove cited material! I proceeded to take this arguement to the help desk, I believe it was July 4th. Nothing came of it. Its sad to see that there isnt such a policy and when asked if a policy could be made, I was told it would be a waste of time. :/ SynergeticMaggot 19:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is true, but one would have to argue that the material is off-topic or not important to the article or some other valid reason. That there are conflicting views is not a good reason: that should result in the addition of but so-and-so says something-else type of sentences... -999 (Talk) 19:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I haven't made myself clear. The current phrasing implies that Rabelais inspired Liber AL without making this claim explicitly. I've explained why I want us to change this. When it comes to the Abbey of Thelema, I have no problem flat out saying that AC took the name from Gargantua. Likewise, I wouldn't mind saying that he formulated his version of the Book's message "in reverence to the Rabelaisian masterpiece". If you see someone literally saying that Rabelais inspired the voice in Crowley's head, feel free to add that; otherwise, it makes little sense in my mind to add claims that ignore the facts as Sutin reports them (see first paragraph). As for the rest, see points 1 and 3. Dan 19:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, Crowley does not "acknowledge his debt to Rabelais" in Antecedents. He writes that "the masterpiece of Rabelais contains in singular perfection a clear forecast of the Book". Dan 19:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The latter is a matter of opinion, in the former case, "inspired" in its general sense was meant. It did not say "inspired the voice in Crowley's head" - you'd have to be intentionally reading into it to get that meaning from the simple use of a common English word. In any case I've corrected it to say what the source does say - that Crowley revived Rabelais' Thelemic Law, which is well-known. He would have read Rabelais at Cambridge years before he wrote the Book of the Law. -999 (Talk) 19:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If we agree that your phrasing in the Antecedents paragraph asserts opinion as fact, while my earlier version gives AC's words without commentary, then let's change it back. We can keep the part explaining the Sutin disagreed with Crowley, although personally I thought that seemed obvious. I don't know if I follow your other response. The article says that AC, inspired by Rabelais, took Thelema as the name of his philosophical, mystical, and religious system, which seems to mean that Rabelais inspired the name. If it doesn't mean that, I just proposed an alternate phrasing that we could presumably agree on. (Or maybe not. I got an edit conflict, and your addition suggests you disagree with my point 4. If so, please explain why.) Dan 20:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it seems clear that you disagree with all of the points I made in the previous oddly named section. I'd appreciate it if you'd address the arguments I gave. Dan 20:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know what you mean. I am using cited sources to back my view of Thelema which I've been studying for 25 years. You seem to have a much shallower view of Thelema and lack sources to dispute my cited info. I'm not interested in arguing your "points" as I don't see their relevance. Nothing in WP policy states that I have to find pre-1904 sources. Post-1904 sources are equally valid and I've used them in accordance with WP policy. I'm citing other people's opinions, not my own, and you are welcome to cite yet other opinions that contradict them. But you may not simply modify the article based on your own opinions. -999 (Talk) 20:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, let's see. I gave quotes and a citation sharply distinguishing Rabelais' views from what it calls "Thelema", and this source also provides the claim (with evidence) that Rabelais did not inspire the Book of the Law unless he affected the voice in Crowley's head. (Again, see the first paragraph here.) Plenty of people have written on Gargantua without saying that it described 'the philosophy of Thelema', and so far nobody has supplied a scholarly work saying that it did. (As I said, the Gargantua article at most vaguely alludes to this as one possible interpretation.) Nor has anyone shown that Crowley and the Book did not begin the habit of using the name Thelema or "law of Thelema" for some system. What would you like citations for? Dan 21:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC) Remember, I don't want the article to say that the naming habit dates from 1904. I want to remove the unproven claim that it doesn't. I'd happily add any unproven claim of "revival" in its proper place, before the two opposing views from Crowley and Sutin. And go ahead and add a description of modern Rabelaisian Thelema in the modern section. Dan 21:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I've cited Vere Chappell, a high-ranking OTO officer, who wrote "One of the earliest mentions of this philosophy occurs in the classic Gargantua and Pantagruel written by Francois Rabelais in 1532." And I've cited Shri Gurudev Mahendranath who was a personal friend of Crowley's in the 1930s and discussed Thelema with him at length and wrote about it in The Scrolls of Mahendranath. That, in my opinion, trumps Sutin who is simply spewing his own opinion in what I consider to be a very unprofessional manner. He's supposed to be writing a biography, not his own opinions on Thelema, but rather reporting on Crowley's opinions. Yet I've left this in as long as it is qualified by calling out that despite the fact that he wrote this in a bio of Crowley, it was his own opinion. I'm not sure what else you want here? What are you complaining about? What do you want to rephrase? (without taking out cited material, of couse). -999 (Talk) 21:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, since I take a similar view of claims of revival, you might start by likewise qualifying them as opinion. I've already made my argument at length. Dan 21:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I've cited the reference. It was you who disagreed with the word inspired. Would you like me to put that word back? -999 (Talk) 21:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I would like us to use the compromise I suggested in my 19:49 comment. But if you want to suggest a different solution to the 4 problems I listed, I'll listen. Dan 22:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the source says "revived" and you were the one who insisted that I follow the source more closely. Again, you are welcome to add another third-party's opinion which differs... I don't think you really have sources for your position, though... -999 (Talk) 22:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm sorry, but I've given at least one respected source for my view and explained my argument from NPOV (specifically, the second sentence of the Explanation section) at great length. And I'd think we could agree that an exhaustive list of POVs does not belong in the introduction, which can present non-disputed facts. Not that it really matters for my argument, but the new context for that last Crowley reference may clarify my view if you compare it to the famous passage from Rabelais. I'll also add and cite another interpretation of Gargantua. Dan 06:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Dan, but I think that 999's intro is much better and clearer than yours. If you'll look in the archives, you'll find that the current article was arrived at by consensus between 999 and Frater5. I personally think you are going about your changes in a non-constructive way. You should not be moving or removing another editors cited work, but adding other views to it. That is what WP:NPOV says you should do. NPOV does not mean the article has to take the most neutral point of view - it means that all points of view must be represented. As far as I can tell, they are.

What you need to be doing at this point is making proposed changes on the talk page, not in the article, and then discussing with the other editors of the article, which include many more than 999 and myself. These editors are not being engaged because of the rapid back and forth of the article. Please follow WP dispute resolution guidelines and do things like take a survey of the editors on the talk page about proposed changes. Thanks. —Hanuman Das 13:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I've supplied a numbered list of my points. Here, take a look at the part of my last edit describing various POVs, as a quick and dirty paste:

Mahendranath, who discussed meditation and Eastern studies with Aleister Crowley in the 1930s, wrote that Dashwood and Crowley both revived the Thelemic Law from Rabelais.^[1] Aleister Crowley acknowledged in The Antecedents of Thelema (1926) that Rabelais "set forth in essence the Law of Thelema, very much as it is understood by the Master Therion himself," and wrote further that "the masterpiece of Rabelais contains in singular perfection a clear forecast of the Book which was to be revealed by Aiwass to Ankh-f-n-khonsu 370 years later."^[2] But Crowley biographer Lawrence Sutin writes that in his opinion, which clearly differs with Crowley's, - :Questions of prophecy aside, Rabelais was no precursor of Thelema. Joyous and unsystematic, Rabelais blended in his heterodox creed elements of Stoic self-mastery and spontaneous Christian faith and kindness.^[3] - Some other scholars argue that Martin Luther influenced Rabelais, and that the French author wrote from a specifically Christian perspective. In particular, Alexander Pocetto of the Allentown College of St. Francis de Sales draws many parallels between him and the saint.^[4] Erich Auerbach (1946) disagrees,^[5] as does the old Catholic Encyclopedia entry on the Renaissance.^[6] and for other contributors, I'll throw in this split note from elsewhere^[7][8]

As for your confusion (others, see edit summaries) about why I included that long note -- the one I broke into two references in the reverted edit -- it cites Crowley defining "the Law of Thelema" in a way that seems quite different from Rabelais. I guess you could reconcile the two versions and say that Crowley revived Rabelais' Thelema if you accepted the Christian interpretation of Rabelais, and connected "Aiwass" with Jesus. Or you could accept Crowley's claim that Rabelais forsaw the later revelation in detail. But the article should not endorse either claim, since it would take real effort to find a more controversial position! Dan 18:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Dan, I think Hanuman Das went too far. He may not have bothered to scroll down to read all the diffs, but just saw the removal of my cited material in the intro.... In any case, I've put back most of your changes in the body of the article with minor rewordings and keeping a few cited phrase which you shouldn't have deleted, as they were cited... -999 (Talk) 18:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate this. But even if Wikipedia had a rule against removing cited information, I did include Mahendranath's words in the list of POVs. NPOV forbids stating his view as fact, for the reasons just given: "The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted." I posted my preferred compromise here, some time before adding it to the article. Dan 19:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd recommend not taking things out, but rather qualifying them. But personally I think quote marks and a footnote makes the matter clear enough. -999 (Talk) 19:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Quote marks? Oh, you mean the part in the Crowley section about naming rather than the introduction (which states the disputed claim as fact). The quote does not say, as the article does, that Crowley took the name from Rabelais. And indeed, he had another source -- the Book of the Law. I keep linking that article because the first paragraph seems kind of important. Dan 19:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but Crowley made quite clear to Frank Bennett, for whom he wrote Liber Samekh, that the HGA is the unconscious, so where'd Crowley's unconcious (Aiwass) get the word Thelema, eh? If it wasn't from Rabelais, it had to be from The Monks of Thelema. If you want, I can probably track down that conversation with Bennett. I think it was in Confessions. -999 (Talk) 19:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, his private diaries and Magick Without Tears show him attacking that interpretation. (addendum: also everything else I recall him writing about Liber AL.) Dan 19:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, in his later work he found it necessary to insist on Aiwass as a separate being, but earlier on he identified the HGA as the unconscious or the personification of the bridge to the unconscious. I'm not sure the two views are incompatible, myself, based on my success with Liber Samekh. However, once he felt abandoned by Aiwass, it would have been the only theory which made sense to him. Though if this were after he crossed the Abyss, it is easily explained... -999 (Talk) 19:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

On this matter, Bill Heidrick's footnote to MWT ch. 49 might be of interest:

• "Crowley identifies the influence of the HGA with the path of Gimel, and this is more remarkable in some ways than the Tarot attribution. If the K & C of the HGA comes from Neschamah, it would be expected to flow by the path of "The Lovers." Perhaps there is a distinction between unconscious influence and conscious Knowledge and Conversation. Crowley never completely resolved some questions related to Aiwass and some related to the objective existence of the HGA. Speculation on these matters is not closed, and this might be a good issue for resumption of the discussion – WEH."

-999 (Talk) 21:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and Crowley's notes to Liber Samekh itself (Point II, Section A, Line 5): "The Holy Guardian Angel is the Unconscious Creature Self - the Spiritual Phallus." and later (Point II, Section Gg, line 5): "This means the recognition of the Angel as the True Self of his subconscious self..." -999 (Talk) 22:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

And finally, I knew that I'd read the words Crowley said to Bennett somewhere. Apparently in Symonds' The Magick of Aleister Crowley of which chapter 9 is entitled "The Redemption of Frank Bennett." I no longer have a copy, but Robert Anton Wilson summarized in 1971 - The Realist:

In Chapter 9, "The Redemption of Frank Bennett," in The Magick of Aleister Crowley, John Symonds tells how with a few words Crowley brought a species of Samadhi or Satori to Frank Bennett, a magician who had been striving unsuccessfully for that achievement over many decades.

The words were, in effect, that the Real Self or Holy Guardian Angel is nothing else but the integration that occurs when the conscious and subconscious are no longer segregated by repression and inhibition. It is only fair to warn seekers after either-or answers that in Magick Without Tears Crowley flatly denies this and asserts that the Angel is a separate "Being... of angelic order... more than a man..."

-999 (Talk) 22:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

That's great, but aren't we getting a bit far afield? We started out talking about whether or not the article should assert disputed views in the introduction (we seem to agree that the dispute exists, at this point), and whether or not the Mahendranath quote says that Crowley named his system Thelema because he got the name from Rabelais (no). The rest of the discussion seems more suited to user talk. Dan 04:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, no, I don't agree that any dispute exists. The intro gives the history of Thelema as commonly understood by current Thelemites, both Rabelaisian and also many Crowleyan Thelemites. The source cited for understanding Rabelais as a philosophy of life (you'll note I've added the qualification that it was fictional) is Vere Chappell, a high-ranking O.T.O. official. There's also the anonymous Order of Thelemic Knights article, Rabelais: The First Thelemite. I belief Tim Maroney also wrote from this perspective. If you want, I can find many more references.

However, so far, you have not provided any citations from your view. Once you come up with some citations, then we can discuss how to present BOTH VIEWS. Changing the article from the POV I am presenting to a different POV is not an option. That is what non-NPOV means. If there are multiple views, then they are all presented. One does not get to "decide" that one is more right and so only that one can be elaborated in the introduction... -999 (Talk) 15:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You two were one step away from mediation! SynergeticMaggot 15:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

S.M., your view and suggestions are welcome in this. What do you think? I'm quite happy to add a "However, according to Joe Blow in his book, Rabalais Sucks, Rabelais was not really attempting to present his own philosophy in fictional form, but was just trying to yank the Catholic Church's chain." or something to that effect. But I haven't yet seen a citation or quote from Dan that allows me to integrate such a point of view.... -999 (Talk) 15:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

What, then, do you think the restored summary of POVs means? From my point of view, it seems clear that Sutin disputes the asserted relationship between Rabelais and Crowley, and that we have further citations for each part of his view. Dan 16:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, now, I find Sutin's position thoroughly disputable, but really not that important. He makes the mistaken assumption that all Thelemites follow the systemization and elaborate ritualization done by Crowley. While it is true that there are some hardcore Thelemites like this in OTO, my experience is that most Thelemites are much more "joyous and unsystematic" as Sutin describes Rabelaisian Thelema. That's the real point here: not all the Thelemic community accept all of Crowley's additions. Some pick and choose, some accept only the Book of the Law and interpret it for themselves, some only accept "Do what thou wilt." Sutin's possition only makes sense if you accept Crowley as the only defining factor for Thelema, but that only includes part of the community, and in my observation, they are actually in the minority. A large minority, but a minority nonetheless... -999 (Talk) 16:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, that's great, but I don't understand why you think it matters. You just said that a dispute exists, yes? Didn't I explicitly start from the premise that people disagree about the definition of Thelema, and thus the article should not say that people adhered to Thelema unless they said it themselves? "The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted." Dan 16:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but I think that they are presented fairly but not asserted as the article stands now. -999 (Talk) 16:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

And yet the introduction clearly states Mahendranath's words as a fact. Dan 17:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

And as I've said, I find no reason to disbelieve his position re Dashwood. Do you have a source that says that he did not base the Hellfire Club on Rabelais' fictional philosophy? -999 (Talk) 17:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I actually meant the part about Crowley, but in fact a Google search will give you various different views about the so-called Hellfire Club. Note the part about scant direct evidence. The one direct testimonial I've seen, from Wilkes, seems ambiguous and open to at least two interpretations even if we take it as fully-informed and truthful. Dan 17:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I should like to point out something that may not be obvious, but at the time of the transmission of the Book of the Law and for Crowley's Buddhist period thereafter where he ignored and did not develop the ideas contained in the Book of the Law, there was no Crowleyan Thelema, as what has now come to be known as Thelema complete with rituals, Oz, duty, Gnostic Mass, etc. did not yet exist. But Crowley's Thelema dates from 1904. Precisely what was it then between 1904 and say 1909 before the other Holy Books were received? Was it what the article calls Crowleyan Thelema as differentiated from Rabelaisian Thelema by Sutin? Thelema was conceptually revived with the transmission of the Book of the Law, but it was not immediately developed by Crowley. Seriously, what was it then? -999 (Talk) 20:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if I understand the question. And having studied Cataloging and Classification, I really hate the verb "to be". Crowley later classified his work as Thelema -- indeed, though he didn't fully accept every part of the Book at the time, he declared the Aeon of Horus before he even returned home (Sutin p.140) -- so I see no problem using the name. How does this relate to the article? Dan 16:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to review my list of 4 points from the first week of July in the light of recent changes. I think User:999 fixed point 4, except for the one phrase in Crowleyan Thelema about the origin of the name. And we'd remove that anyway because the source does not say what we report him saying. Mahendranath learned from Crowley (or at least took his advice), and their remarks on the subject seem technically consistent with each other. (In other words, Mahendranath seems technically consistent with the claim that Crowley got the name from Aiwass and Rabelais had a separate vision or revelation.) We've started to address point 3 together, and the article seems better in that respect.

I don't think we've completely solved the problem of point 3, and the dispute about what Thelema means, combined with 1 and 2. This relates mainly to the introduction. (But not the first introductory definition sentence. Nobody seems to object to that.) I tried to clarify my problem with using a disputed name ourselves when the subject did not so use it, and to explain what I think would solve this problem. As I wrote earlier, I don't know if balancing a violation of NPOV with a different violation counts as NPOV. Incidentally, where the article says AC "received" the Book of the Law, I might change that to "heard". It seems more strictly empirical and neutral. Dan 02:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You know...I'm beggining to think that these two topics should be seperated. I noticed something of the same in one of the pages for naming conventions. Somewhat simular to the seperation of an egyptian name, and its thelemic representation. SynergeticMaggot 21:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

To clarify: I don't mean everything needs to be moved to its own page. Its clear that there is a connection between the two, yet I think the former usage of Thelema needs its own page, to distinguish itself from the later. SynergeticMaggot 21:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

What two topics? I think we're just starting to get this worked out... Besides, the Crowleyite would insist that their article be the one called simply "Thelema" while the other would be called what? I think a single article is best. Not all Thelemites are Crowleyan, but they are still considered by themselves as well as perhaps most others to be Thelemites based on their self-identification. -999 (Talk) 21:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, thinking further about this, the article is getting a little long. That's why Thelemic mysticism was started. The big section now that does not have its own subarticle is Thelemic practices. Perhaps that should be split out? Certainly a separate article could go into more depth and detail... -999 (Talk) 21:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I take that back. Ethics is actually the longest section. I'm not so sure I like the idea of a Thelemic ethics article, though... -999 (Talk) 21:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Either way, it was just a thought. A disambig can be made, and a clarification would fall under it. For Crowleys Thelema it could be called Thelema (mysticism) (see, I don't always over-capitalize!), Thelema (Crowley/Crowleyanity), and other main articles could spring out from it. And for the other, of which I dont know much about, could be called Rabelaisian Thelema or Thelema (Rabelaisian). Either way is fine by me. Just something to think about. SynergeticMaggot 21:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think Dan would argue that there was no such thing as Rabelaisian Thelema. The word Rabelaisian is being used as an adjective here (yrs, it's in the dictionary). Beyond that, split articles might be more suceptible to AfD. For example, while there are a few occurances of the phrase "Rabelaisian Thelema" on the web, there are not enough that it is clear that the subject would be considered notable on AfD, with the likely result of getting merged into the article on Rablelais. We would then have deprived WP of the whole story of the emergence of Thelema. There is actually more to the story, as I've found references to previous Hellfire Clubs before Dashwood. It's not yet clear to me whether Dashwood was the first to use Rabelais work as a basis for his club. Perhaps he was following a tradition of which little has yet come to light... -999 (Talk) 21:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, theres already a François Rabelais article that discusses Thelema, if anything was sent to AfD it could be reproduced there. An article called Rabelaisian (minus the redirect) could also be an option, since the The American Heritage dictionary definition says:

• 1. Of or relating to Rabelais or his works.

Which might be a way to file anything of the like under it, but whats amusing is:

• 2. Characterized by coarse humor or bold caricature. :p

SynergeticMaggot 21:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, but what I'm saying is that the history of Thelema would no longer be all in one place. Thus I must and would strenuously oppose any suggestion to split the article into two if that split is to split Rabelaisian Thelema from Crowleyan Thelema. -999 (Talk) 21:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

And I never said split everything up. Some of it needs to remain for historical purposes. But I dont really care what happens until I get a history of Thelema book or something of the sort. SynergeticMaggot 22:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

999, no, not unless you meant the word "was" in the past tense. I accept that we have proof of Rabelaisian Thelema existing today. I don't think we have proof that it existed by that name before 1904, and I think applying the name to people who didn't choose it violates NPOV because of the dispute about the meaning of "Thelema" (among other reasons). I said exactly one month ago that reserving the name for people who used it seems like a no-brainer, and it still seems like the obvious course of action. Otherwise, do we call Augustine a Thelemite? What about Paul? (I won't make the case unless someone wants to read it, and then probably on user talk. Augustine seems more relevant, since other people have called his words Thelema.) I'd have no personal objection to Maggot's suggestion about Rabelaisian, but I also have no objection to keeping it in this article. Either way, I've argued for changes in the text so that instead of asserting disputed views as fact, it reports what people have said (either in books and essays, or on the walls of an abbey) in statements of the form 'X says Y'. Dan 16:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

On reflection, I failed to make it clear at first that my argument stems from WP:NPOV and involves citations (and so on) as a byproduct. I wondered why people seemed to think adding the Mahendranath citation addressed my argument. I apologize for the confusion. Reading new edits: yes, that seems better. I don't know if it quite satisfies my points, though. And calling it "initially fictional" may go too far in my direction, by asserting that Rabelais didn't hold whatever philosophy you have in mind. I'd prefer to say "X (verifiably) applies this name to a philosophy of life they derive from Rabelais" etc. Dan 19:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Dan, I'd just like to point out that the reason other editor's get upset with you is that you don't bother to find a way to leave their cited material in. I am not going to go through the trouble to figure out how to put that material back in. It is up to YOU to integrate your new material WITHOUT removing any other cited material. As long as you do not do so, I will continue to revert you. Such actions are rude and disrespectful to the other editors!!!! Please find a way to leave their material in!!! —Hanuman Das 03:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, Dan. I thought I'd read it thoroughly! Must remember not to jump to conclusions when reading only the diffs late at night when my eyes are tired!! —Hanuman Das 13:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I've done that myself. But as for "the weasel word some", all the cited sources mention this other POV about Satanism. Dan 15:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, then add a big list of references. WP policy on connecting people with Satanism, at least on List of Satanists is that they have to self-identify. I'd prefer it be left out, especially if the sources mention it but dismiss it as unlikely... But if you have to, you need to give it at least one citation. Really, the question would be, what is the earliest source to allege it? —Hanuman Das 15:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

What a good and useful policy! But I didn't call Dashwood a Satanist, I said that other people made the charge. I'll mention the contemporaneous charges with citations. Dan 15:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that was the point I was trying to make. Some (people, critics, sources) is considered a weasel word even if in introduces supportable material. You'll note on the WP:WEASEL page that the typical solution is simply to specify who said or alleged and that even one source is sufficient. —Hanuman Das 15:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't consciously intend to make a point with that line in my edit. But I'd like to point out that from an empiricist point of view, the words "Thelema is also" mean "Some people have also used the word Thelema to mean the following". Except the article's wording denies the possibility of disagreement, which of course exists. See my comment of 2:43 July 23rd. Dan 20:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC) edited for clarity Dan 20:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not on my account so i can't sign this, but in the first part of the article where it says "fay ce que vouldras", I believe "fay" may not be the correct spelling of the word, though it is a good phonetical spelling. I the word may in fact be "fais", which is the second person singular imperative form of the verb "faire", meaning "to do". I may be wrong though, the correction I'm suggesting comes from modern French, and the French used in the article may be archaic.

Friday, August 18, 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.183.31.147 (talk • contribs)

I think it's pretty clear that this is a direct quote in 16th century French from a 16th century book... -999 (Talk) 20:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Links to personal websites are discouraged by WP:EL. The website ashami.com is the personal website of the person who added the link, as is evident from the user name, Ashami, which is the same as the domain name. The page linked to also "does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes a Wikipedia:Featured article." In fact, it looks like a summary of the Crowleyan section of this article. —Hanuman Das 08:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

First, the WP:EL doesn't say anything about "personal websites." Many external links on Wikipedia are "personal" sites. Despite your opinion, the Eidolons site has a lot of interesting material that isn't on Wikipedia or this article, and the "Thelema 101" introduction has a different-enough take on the subject to be worthy of a link. It doesn't take up much room, is relevant, and doesn't violate any Wikipedia policy. Thanks! Somecallmetim 15:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

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)