Talk:Aleister Crowley: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 08:19, 12 May 2020 editMidnightblueowl (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users113,106 edits →Spy thing: added comment.← Previous edit		Revision as of 17:14, 12 May 2020 edit undoDereck Camacho (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users6,588 edits →Spy thing Next edit →
Line 122:		Line 122:
	::{{ping\|Midnightblueowl}} remember that this information as presented in the article violates several ] policies (and despite the name also applies to dead people) and among other things the 3R rule does not apply when reverting information that can be considered contentious on biographics. I suggest not to start reverting editions. Spence hypothesis, fringe or not, was not removed, just moved to a different place than the scatered place it was, I don't see the reason for starting a lenghty edit waring if the information wasn't removed. Otherwise I think I would request an intervention in the noticeboard but let's hope there's no need for that. --] (]) 15:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)		::{{ping\|Midnightblueowl}} remember that this information as presented in the article violates several ] policies (and despite the name also applies to dead people) and among other things the 3R rule does not apply when reverting information that can be considered contentious on biographics. I suggest not to start reverting editions. Spence hypothesis, fringe or not, was not removed, just moved to a different place than the scatered place it was, I don't see the reason for starting a lenghty edit waring if the information wasn't removed. Otherwise I think I would request an intervention in the noticeboard but let's hope there's no need for that. --] (]) 15:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
	:::I can't see how briefly recounting the published arguments of biographers in any way, shape, or form violates ] here. That's simply not a relevant policy in this situation. Moreover, please remember that as per ], it is incumbent on you to make the case for your proposed alterations to the long-established prose here at the Talk Page. You should absolutely not be edit warring to force your new alterations to the article. We can discuss things here. Generally I think that the established prose structure is a lot more user friendly than the alteration you are proposing. However, I welcome you to make your case here at the Talk Page. We can always go to an RfC if we find that we cannot agree. For the present, however, the status quo must stay in place, as per WP:BRD. ] (]) 08:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)		:::I can't see how briefly recounting the published arguments of biographers in any way, shape, or form violates ] here. That's simply not a relevant policy in this situation. Moreover, please remember that as per ], it is incumbent on you to make the case for your proposed alterations to the long-established prose here at the Talk Page. You should absolutely not be edit warring to force your new alterations to the article. We can discuss things here. Generally I think that the established prose structure is a lot more user friendly than the alteration you are proposing. However, I welcome you to make your case here at the Talk Page. We can always go to an RfC if we find that we cannot agree. For the present, however, the status quo must stay in place, as per WP:BRD. ] (]) 08:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
			::::The case was already made, the fantasy narrative made by Spence and Churton is ludacris and is pseudoscience pure and simple. I see no effort to make consensus in the removal of pseudoscientific fringe theories thus I would go to the BLP noticeboard directly or will request a mediation from a admin. --] (]) 17:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:14, 12 May 2020

Aleister Crowley is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Aleister Crowley has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 23, 2006	WikiProject peer review	Reviewed
October 30, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed
February 3, 2014	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
August 1, 2015	Peer review	Reviewed
A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 20, 2004.
Current status: Former featured article candidate, current good article

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aleister Crowley article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Template:WP1.0

Thelema (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Thelema, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ThelemaWikipedia:WikiProject ThelemaTemplate:WikiProject ThelemaThelema

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

LGBTQ+ studies: Person

	LGBTQ portal This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
	This article is supported by the LGBTQ+ Person task force.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Astrology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astrology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Astrology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AstrologyWikipedia:WikiProject AstrologyTemplate:WikiProject Astrologyastrology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Secret Societies (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Secret Societies, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Secret SocietiesWikipedia:WikiProject Secret SocietiesTemplate:WikiProject Secret SocietiesSecret Societies

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Alternative views Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Occult Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OccultWikipedia:WikiProject OccultTemplate:WikiProject OccultOccult
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Religion: New religious movements Top‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Top-importance).

Recreational drug experimenter, you sure?

Given this is unsourced in the article, there are tons of sources talking about his ritual drug use, which is the very opposite of recreational in this very context. I suppose whoever wrote or edited that paragraph had assumed being an 'experimenter' implied the 'recreational' part as well, but this is certainly not the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.20.235.182 (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Infobox Vandalism

Apologies if this is in the wrong format or whatever, and I don't know how to delete this in the article so I won't try and fail, but I'm fairly sure Crowley's daughter is not Barbara Bush (!!!) Somebody better at this than me should fix that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:245:C001:81D:5877:870D:EA24:5B19 (talk) 00:27, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Ironic

How Crowley is considered "wicked" for having consensual sex and doing drugs in his time.

If he did the same things today he would be considered downright progressive, but people keep parroting Victorian newspaper headlines, for whatever reason. I certainly don't understand it. I wonder if these "modern day" critics have acually studied his work and came to their conclusions by themselves. 108.200.234.93 (talk) 09:23, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

EDIT: And that IMDB thing below is not part of my entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.200.234.93 (talk) 09:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

What suggestions do you have for improving the article? --jpgordon 15:57, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Moonchild: Songs Without Words 2006 album by John Zorn

I have noted the instruction not to "ADD ANY FURTHER INSTANCES OF CROWLEYAN INFLUENCE ON POPULAR CULTURE" unless they are sufficiently referenced by third parties - and substantial enough to warrant inclusion. I think Moonchild: Songs Without Words by John Zorn does fulfil this criteria but I am not sure. John Zorn is a major living composer known to be a Crowley fan according to The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/music/tomserviceblog/2012/oct/30/scariest-classical-music which explains "Zorn's long infatuation with Aleister Crowley has one of its darkest, most vivid expressions in this album of surreal, sepulchral imagination, with Mike Patton's transcendently ghoulish vocals." Of course, Misplaced Pages itself acknowledges the direct influence of Crowley on this album too. (Moonchild: Songs Without Words is a 2006 album by John Zorn featuring performances by Joey Baron, Mike Patton, and Trevor Dunn (sometimes referred to as the "Moonchild Trio"). It was inspired in part by Aleister Crowley, who wrote the novel Moonchild...)

What do wiki editors think?

I'm not convinced, to be honest. I'd want to see academic scholarship make note of this before I think we could count it as being of particular importance. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:51, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Aren't The Guardian and Misplaced Pages itself (!) examples of "academic scholarship"? With that proviso in place you would have to remove at least 4 more examples from the list already allowed. Anyway, as you wish - you seem to be the gate-keeper. Anyway, it's a dreadful album so it doesn't really matter. Thanks Invulgo (talk) 11:35, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

No, neither of those represent academic scholarship; to be academic, it would have to be published in a peer-reviewed outlet. I suppose a really good press source would also be okay, but The Guardian source only seems to touch on the issue of Crowley's influence in passing. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:45, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Aleister

shouldn't it be something like ALL-ister? IPA -> US /ˈælɪstər/, UK /ˈælɪstə/ I'm sure it sounds different in Gaelic but still... Wathiik (talk) 09:57, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I would like to add that even "Crowley" is mispronounced here. The full pronunciation should be instead of . This is from his own poem, "The Convert":

"Where are you going so meek and holy?" "I'm going to temple to worship Crowley."

69.113.151.63 (talk) 17:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)corpho

References

https://books.google.com/books?id=1adnRtKaWakC&pg=PA9&lpg=PA9&dq=%22the+convert%22+by+Aleister+Crowley&source=bl&ots=hKvP9_zsw1&sig=ACfU3U2bRwN1D03KKTPMpIM1iYdUH2z_xA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi8z4Dg6KrjAhUxSN8KHTUqA4EQ6AEwEHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22the%20convert%22%20by%20Aleister%20Crowley&f=false

Misquoting The Book of the Law

In the section “Egypt and The Book of the Law: 1904”, it is misquoted as: “Every man and woman is a star.” The correct quote is: “Every man and every woman is a star.” 207.255.45.142 (talk) 23:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Done Corrected; thanks for spotting that!—Odysseus 1479 21:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2019

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please link to Moonchild (novel) (and also to The Stratagem and other Stories):

Now based in London, Mandrake Press agreed to publish his autobiography in a limited edition six-volume set, also publishing his novel Moonchild and book of short stories The Stratagem.

86.172.7.182 (talk) 15:37, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Crowley in Cornwall

According to an article in The Cornishman newspaper on 25 October, 2018, Crowley owned a remote cottage in Zennor. I am not intending to add anything to his wikipage but am putting the reference here in case anyone wants to follow it up.

Martin, Greg. Did infamous occultist summon Devil himself to this remote haunted house? The Cornishman (25 October, 2018). Page 3. Jowaninpensans (talk) 09:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Thelema religion?

Thelema has never been religion officially or unofficially. I think this perception is wrong and the information mischievous. See Thelema: An Introduction to the Life, Work & Philosophy of Aleister Crowley--Kalogeropoulos (talk) 19:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

"Officially or unofficially"? I don't think that makes a great deal of sense given that there is no formal body that is internationally recognised as declaring what is "officially" a religion and what is not. As for Thelema being a religion, however, it is noteworthy that not only does the modern Ordo Templi Orientis call Thelema a "religion" (here), but so does the website Thelema101 (here); clearly, many Thelemites (not necessarily all) are happy calling it a religion. Moreover, there are academic sources that refer to it as such too (for instance here, but also in Medway 2001, p. 44; Hanegraaff 2013, p. 42; Asprem 2013, p. 87; and Djurdjevic 2014, p. 38, all of which are presently cited in this article). We therefore have plenty of WP:Reliable Sources to attest to the fact that Thelema is widely considered a religion. Misplaced Pages's own article on Thelema, although not in very good shape, also repeatedly refers to it as a religion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I think Misplaced Pages's article clarifies what is official religion and clearly Thelema is not officialy religion. As it concerns "unofficially" Crowley's mandate is quite clear. So if there is no formal consensus about what is religion the lemma should refer Crowley's view about his movement. As it is, info is still point of view and mischievous, according to my humble opinion--Kalogeropoulos (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Impossible to libel?

According to the autobiography of Anthony Powell, regarding the libel trial relating to Nina Hamnett , "the case was not argued to an end, the foreman of the jury sending up a note to the judge expressing their view that Crowley was a man impossible to libel". Powell was present at the trial, representing his then employer, Duckworths publishers.

"Impossible to libel" !! Worth a mention? Anthony Powell, To Keep the Ball Rolling, vol 2 - "Messengers of Day", Heinemann 1978, p 84. - Sitush (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Spy thing

Reading this article every other paragraph has Spence's mention that Crowley was as spy working for the British secret service. Now this is a fringe theory that has not been confirmed and is subject of dispute. It's ok for it to be mentioned somewhere in the article but in almost every paragraph violates Misplaced Pages's policies in biographies. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 23:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Calling Spence's idea a "fringe theory" might be a tad strong, although his ideas are certainly very far from being established fact. It also has the support of Tobias Churton, another of Crowley's biographers, which is perhaps of note. At present, this article only mentions Spence's notion five times, at the appropriate locations in the article where Spence has offered alternative explanations for Crowley's actions. I don't think that that is excessive; it's certainly nowhere near appearing "in almost every paragraph", as you put it - it appears in fewer than one in twelve of the paragraphs. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

To be honest describing Crowley almost as a James Bond figure sounds pretty fringe, but disregarding that if is just an unproven hypotehsis five times is too many to be in the general body. In any case I don't advocate for its removal just for it to be in the proper place of every unproven fact. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 14:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Midnightblueowl: remember that this information as presented in the article violates several Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons policies (and despite the name also applies to dead people) and among other things the 3R rule does not apply when reverting information that can be considered contentious on biographics. I suggest not to start reverting editions. Spence hypothesis, fringe or not, was not removed, just moved to a different place than the scatered place it was, I don't see the reason for starting a lenghty edit waring if the information wasn't removed. Otherwise I think I would request an intervention in the noticeboard but let's hope there's no need for that. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 15:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I can't see how briefly recounting the published arguments of biographers in any way, shape, or form violates WP:BLP here. That's simply not a relevant policy in this situation. Moreover, please remember that as per WP:Bold, Revert, Discuss, it is incumbent on you to make the case for your proposed alterations to the long-established prose here at the Talk Page. You should absolutely not be edit warring to force your new alterations to the article. We can discuss things here. Generally I think that the established prose structure is a lot more user friendly than the alteration you are proposing. However, I welcome you to make your case here at the Talk Page. We can always go to an RfC if we find that we cannot agree. For the present, however, the status quo must stay in place, as per WP:BRD. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The case was already made, the fantasy narrative made by Spence and Churton is ludacris and is pseudoscience pure and simple. I see no effort to make consensus in the removal of pseudoscientific fringe theories thus I would go to the BLP noticeboard directly or will request a mediation from a admin. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Categories: