Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 999~enwiki (talk | contribs) at 20:31, 18 July 2006 (→‎Please don't remove cited information). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconThelema (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Thelema, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
  1. April 2006 – April 2006

Isn't this link just an ad for someones particular system?

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Unconventional statements

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)Reply[reply]

Major additions and reorganiztion

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)Reply[reply]

Making article NPOV

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

Philosophy. etc.

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

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)Reply[reply]

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

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

Please stop reverting

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.
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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • 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.[1]. 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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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 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)Reply[reply]


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)Reply[reply]

  • Oppose article was split due to size -999 (Talk) 19:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
Yeah we're done voting, seeing as how my question was answered. Zos 22:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unexplained changes by Dan

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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 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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Please don't remove cited information

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]