Talk:Aleister Crowley/Archive 1

Crowley documentary uploaded to youtube
heres the link, its in 3 parts

http://youtube.com/watch?v=E93_N1dXYCg

i'm no wikipedian, so um yeah. . . can someone else add it if you think its worth it?

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

Removed the following line:
Removed the following line: ''Crowley died without leaving a clear line of succession for Thelema and the OTO. See Kenneth Grant''


 * 1) There is no "line of succession" for Thelema, which is a religion/philosophy.
 * 2) Crowley left a very clear line of succession for OTO: Karl Germer. On March 14, 1942, Crowley wrote to Germer: "I shall appoint you my successor as O.H.O." Seems pretty clear to me. Crowley also gave Grady McMurtry letters that make it clear that he was next in line if something should happen to Germer (who did not appoint an "heir"). So, the line was clear: Germer, with a backup plan in case of an emergency.

Ashami 06:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

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

Interesting stuff here
Interesting stuff here. A typical Wikipedia editing question: it seems to me that the one sentence regarding Crowley's death (listed under "Miscellany" in the article) should be part of the "Biography" section instead. His condition at the time of death seems like an interesting and important part of his life story. However the transition from the current last paragraph in that article to this one sentence on the end of his life seems like it would be rather abrupt. Any suggestions on joining these?

Question for any experts watching: this article (currently) contains the Crowley quote "Apparently Parsons and Hubbard or somebody is producing a moonchild. I get fairly frantic when I contemplate the idiocy of these louts." Just before this quote the article relates it to Crowley's previously mentioned book of fiction, "Moonchild," but fails to actually define the term "moonchild." Does it perhaps have something to do with Babalon Working? --Jarsyl 07:12, 2004 Sep 16 (UTC)

Okay, writing NPOV about Crowley is extraordinarily hard
Okay, writing NPOV about Crowley is extraordinarily hard. I have read and been interested in Crowley's ideas on and off for some years, though I am not a Thelemite or occult practitioner (or any other sort of religionist for that matter). I have left out of this extensive rewrite a lot of information about his life because I'm not sure I know how to write it neutrally. On the one hand he seems to have been a very interesting person with a very interesting story to tell; on the other hand he seems to have frequently been a scoundrel -- if not a borderline sociopath who for all his ethical philosophy did not know how to treat others very well.

It seems to me that the three Non-Neutral Points of View that writing on Crowley risks falling into are as follows. I'm not going to be very sympathetic to any of them:


 * The Tabloid-Christian view, as espoused by the press during Crowley's career in Britain and by certain fundamentalists since then: "Crowley was a Satanist who sacrificed babies and did perverted things with goats!"
 * The Gushing-OTO-Cultist view, as espoused by some Thelemites today: "Crowley was a Saint and a Prophet of the New Aeon! See, it says here in Liber Q vel Schnipp-Schnapp that ...."
 * The Beyond-Skeptic-to-Cynic view, as espoused by far too many of my fellow atheists: "Crowley was nothing but a crazy con-man who wasted all his money publishing crazy poetry and seducing crazy women."

Thank you, and have a nice fishie. --FOo

random sidenote
One more random sidenote: "Aiwas" or "Aivas" is Etruscan for the Greek name "Ajax", the name of two of the heroes of the Trojan War. --FOo

Good ol' Fubar
Fubar, I like most of what you've done on this page, but I see a problem with the line, "Yet like Leary's, Crowley's method had many evident failings". I suggest citing someone's critique of his method instead, or describing what you call its evident failings without comment. (The evident doesn't need comment, after all.) As you say, writing NPOV about Crowley presents difficulties. I think one of these modifications would improve the situation. Oh, and kudos on Liber Schnipp-Schnapp. ^_^


 * Looks better. However, I think it may contradict the facts, at least in regard to Leary. I feel confident I could give some objective evidence for some of his hypotheses (notice the stress on the word 'some'.) We can say, for example, that his experiments produced zero suicides, zero psychoses, zero bad trips. We can say that researchers found a certain percentage of former prison volunteers still out of jail x years after an experiment in rehabilitation, and compare these numbers with national statistics. In other words, I think we could and would have tested some of Dr. Leary's psychological theories in an objective fashion, if not for Prohibition. --Dan

Removed from the page
Removed from the page:

(This idea of foreshadowing Dr. Tim seems to have come from an interview Dr. Tim did with Robert Anton Wilson http://www.rawilson.com in which he was asked if he felt he was continuing the work of Mr. Crowley.)

Actually, none other than Israel Regardie commented on Leary, Aldous Huxley, and others in the mid-20th-c. seeming to continue Crowley's work -- in the introduction to Crowley's The Law is For All, the annotated Liber Legis. That was written in 1970. When was the Wilson interview?

Writing NPOV about Crowley is hard.
Writing NPOV about Crowley is hard.

That has got to be an understatement. I'd suggest sticking to the documented, undisputed facts of his life. I think you included everything that is undisputed by all sides.

Maybe adding a section: Crowely: Legends and putting in some/all of the stories that are told of him.

Whats the story with the V-Sign?
So..it is also just a "story" that he "invented" the V-sign? ..and it is also just a "story" that he was the archetype of the witch doctor in "Rosemary´s baby"? ..and it is also a "story" (just half-told) that he was claimed by Charles Manson as a teacher, predecessor etc.? ..and then we have the cycle: Charles Manson kills Sharon Tate and John Lennon was killed by another Crowley believer..in front of the same building where the movie was shot. Perhaps laughing is even possible in a coffin. So: watch your words! Eulenspiegel.
 * This story is refered by Lon Milo Duquette in Understaning Aleister Crowley's Thoth Tarot, page 8. User:Sepand

Removed section
Removed section:

==OTO and the Hellfire Club==

'' Alister Crowley is well know as a satanist, sorcerer, and black magician and for saying "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.", which was originally coined by Sir Francis Dashwood of the Hellfire Club. There are many incidences of the Hellfire Club, which are all surrounded with rumours of sexual orgies and satanism. He was the founder of Ordo Templi Orientis (OTO), which is recognised as some the unoffical ranks above Freemasonry. Crowley was one of the most prominent members of the secret society netowrk, also a member of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn and 33rd degre Freemason.''


 * It's difficult to say what isn't inaccurate here. Crowley was not a Satanist. The phrase "Do what thou wilt thall be the whole of the Law" is from Rabelais. Crowley did not found OTO; indeed, one of today's OTO sects (Hermetic OTO) does not accept Crowley's "reforms" of that organization. Crowley was apparently involved with Masonry for a while, but not in a particularly regular fashion. OTO is not an appendant branch of Masonry; if it were (as, say the Shriners are) that would mean that one must be a Mason to join OTO, which is not the case. --FOo 03:45, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

He made the list of Hundred Greatest Britons which was done by the BBC. Is this interesting enough for me to try and find out how high he polled? I'm guessing it was a bit like the Jedi campaign in the census but I may be wrong. Secretlondon 22:26, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * It's here BBC list. It was voted for by the public - they only published the top 10 which he didn't make. Secretlondon 22:34, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

We seem to have a copy of the list at 100 Greatest Britons Morwen - Talk 23:37, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

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

There should be some criticism of Crowley
Criticism: There should be some criticism of Crowley on any text on him. I personally think some of his writings are important, but there are issues in such a controversial figure that have to be criticised:

Crowley and Satanism: He wrote a letter (or wanted to write - I saw both versions) to Trotzky asking him to eliminate Christianity. (Source John Symonds: The Great Beast)

Crowley and Sexism: Crowley was (often) a sexist and wrote for example that women were soulless beings. (New Comment on Liber 220: Note that a woman, having no soul of her own, can be used always as a 'Form' for any Being. This explains why Nuit can incarnate at will in successive women, careless of the physical limits of life. {WEH NOTE: Crowley's opinion regarding the soul-less state of women refers to a matter of expression. He believed it more generally, but probably based it on Victorian male conceptions of "unliberated women". The Comment to this and the previous verse may say more about the defensive insecurity of Crowley the man than the verses of Liber AL. In Chapter I Comment, remember that all this is a male mind trying to contemplate the revelations of a goddess. Square peg and round hole problems may arise.})

He did beat some of his women.(Source John Symonds: The Great Beast) There are many sexist and antifeminist statements in his writings, and I don't have the time to search them all. To be fair, he did write some sentences that could be labelled as pro-feminist. But on the whole, I have the impression that he was rather antifeminist.

Crowley and Totalitarianism: Crowley favored a monarchist and aristocratic society. He was against democracy. Or at least his writings can be interpreted in this way. (Confessions of A.C. "There is no need for the fraud of divine right or the cant of democracy.")


 * Even a superficial examination of the quoted text from Confessions shows that it does not support claims about Crowley as a totalitarian, or even as a "monarchist." To the contrary, Crowley explicitly condemns "divine right" in that passage.  That is, the supposed divine right by which kings rule.  The quoted text is explicitly opposing monarchy.  Crowley's condemnation of democracy in the same breath is of a piece with his opposition to monarchy: Crowley upheld the will of the individual as supreme, and disliked the "tyranny of the majority" inherent in democracy.  If one were to label Crowley with any single political POV it would probably have to be anarchism, though that greatly oversimplifies his views.  For a citation on Crowley's moral and social philosophy, see Liber OZ.   Editing Note: I also added quotation marks around the cited passage in the original comment.Psuliin 17:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Crowley and Racism: He wrote for example: "..,we always somehow instinctively think of the Italian as a nigger. We don't call them "dagos" and "wops" as they do in the United States, with the invariable epithet of "dirty"; but we have the same feeling." (Source: Diary of a Drug Fiend, BookI-Chapter 9)
 * You could probably write off 80% of Europeans as racist on similar grounds. Moreover, this is written in character, and I'm not sure that this Diary is necessarily of Crowley himself (despite the introduction claiming this is a true story). It seems like any late 1800s early 1900s writer has post-mortem racism charges piling upYeago 18:48, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There's a lot more to tell, about the accuracy and correctness of some of his writings, his influences, his megalomaniac nature, etc. --Lcmwda 22:57, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with you in some impressions. For instance, Crowley varies all over the place in his regard for women -- in one moment praising Woman as equivalent to the goddess Nuit and thus the infinite universe; at the next ascribing to women very little active role in his rituals.


 * I can't agree with you on the "Satanism" charge. A person can be opposed to Christianity without being a Satanist -- except in the fervid imaginations of certain fanatics who believe that every Hindu and Muslim and Neopagan is a secret Satanist. If you contrast Crowley's writings with (say) Howie Levy's, you will find that Crowley does not use the image or ikon of Satan. He does use the image of Antichrist or Beast 666 (which even in Christian eschatology is distinct from Satan) -- if you dig into Crowleyana you will find that this stems from his own mother (a shriekingly pious member of the Puritan sect of the day) calling young Ed Alex Crowley "The Beast" for his mischief as a child. It is a metaphor. Crowley certainly does frequently invoke Pan, whose classical Greek goatish image was perverted into Satan's by later Christians -- but here Crowley reflects the Neopagan Pan much more than the Christian Satan. Satanism is basically a Christian heresy; and Crowley is no Christian, neither orthodox nor heretical.


 * What about his "Hymn to Satan" in The Equinox (Vol. I., No. 10)? What about his commentary on the barbarous names of Liber Samekh? There really must be a section on why he is regarded by some as a Satanist, even if he did not actively promote Satanism as such himself. Adityanath 02:09, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree, thanks (see my comments below on "Crowley Satanic?" thread).

Ideocentric RoyBot (AKA: "Dave", AKA: [69.248.43.27])


 * On "totalitarianism", it is difficult indeed to see how the man who penned Liber OZ, and that "every man and every woman is a star," can be called "totalitarian". Anarchist, if anything!


 * This is actually an odd aspect of Crowley that deserves more attention, from someone with more knowledge on the topic than myself. Crowley's views on this actually seemed to change over time. For instance, his "Do as thou wilt" started out as one of the most concise and coherent statements of free will ever expressed. However, by the end of his life, his interpretation of The Law of Thelema had changed so much that he seemed to think it an endorsement of determinism! I recall reading a quote from him (I believe it was in the Equinox, although I couldn't tell you where) in which he advocated the formation of a government office to determine what people's "True Will" was. Which sounds suspiciously like fascism to me... But my knowledge of Crowley's writings is far from complete, so I may be mistaken. Zorblek (talk) 16:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * As for your "racism" quote, my copy of the novel Diary of a Drug Fiend seems to be missing at the moment, so I can't confirm it. I wonder if you would mind quoting to me the context -- say, the surrounding couple of paragraphs? Is this quote in the narrator's voice, or that of a character? --FOo 00:07, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Link suggestions
An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Aleister_Crowley article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience. Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add to this page. &mdash; LinkBot 01:02, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I added the links that made sense.

nowiki>

Maybe it's just me, but wouldn't it make more sense chronologically to have the "Crowley and Rock & Roll" section placed after the "Mountaineering" one? (I don't know how to wikify a change like that. ;>) That would keep the biographical info consistently in front of the "Crowley's impact" type of material and the miscellany.

Also, regarding Crowley's racism, it's interesting to note that someone who's perceived as relatively benign (in non-academic circles) and contemporary like Rudyard Kipling was as glib with the stereotypes as was Crowley (see the Norton Critical Edition of Kim, for instance).

MitÃ¤a? 08:51, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Fay ce que vouldras"
Unless I'm wrong, the motto of the Abbey of Theleme (which is written as "Fay ce que vouldras" in the article) is supposed to be French- meaning it should be "Fait ce que voudrais". Just an observation.

S o L O 5010


 * I am given to understand that you are correct in modern French spelling, but Rabelais was not writing in the 21st or even 20th century. I believe the quote is correct as stands (it is certainly at least widely cited) though I have not read Rabelais in the original. :) --FOo 02:24, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The correct modern French would read: "Fais ce que (tu) voudras". "Fay ce que vouldras" is the correct quote. Renaissance French spelling was not normalized and significantly differs from today's.Philippe Magnabosco 12:45, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

POV
"Crowley being visceral towards the frigid and bigotted social views Victorian England exhibited throughout the first half of the twentieth century."

This is just plain wrong. Quite apart from Crowley's own intense racialism and authoritarianism - which is unproven, so I will not put it in the article - it seems rather peculiar to charge all of England with bigotry and frigidity (the word is spelled 'bigoted', by the way).

In addition, Queen Victoria died in 1901, after which there could be no Victorian England.

Matthew Platts 03:53, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I assume the author meant bigoted against non-Christian religions (or perhaps non-monotheistic) and against open homosexuals (they had laws against honesty, remember?)


 * It's a possibility. But my main point is that 'visceral' and 'frigid' as descriptors don't really have a place in a Wikipedia article, given that they have emotional baggage. The author also needs to say what exactly the bigotry concerns. And, also, Victorian England - if meant literally - is incorrect, if meant figuratively is NPOV. Matthew Platts 02:31, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It isn't just an NPOV problem. It is incoherent and insulting language, and has no place in a Wikipedia article. --FOo 03:38, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To do (not necesarily by me)

 * A few paragrphs on Thoth Tarot - a deck widely used today - he not only wrote about it, he designed the deck with Lady Frieda Harris
 * Disjointed - among other things the Moonchild references are scattered about. So is info about the 1904 Cairo experience. (I've moved the Cairo info)
 * The bankruptcy and death stuff probably belongs in the biography section. (I've now moved this)
 * Rock and roll references could be an article or list unto itself --sparkit 21:17, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Wife(s) and children? --sparkit 22:44, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Brothers and sisters? --sparkit 23:36, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * How did he come to be called Aleister? --sparkit 23:40, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Did she deny these were his last words or that he died alone? "His last words were supposed to have been: "I am perplexed.", though he did not die alone and the only other person with him (Patricia MacAlpine, the mother of Crowley's son) denied this." --sparkit 00:06, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Some notice should perhaps be taken of his poetry; a few pieces by Crowley appear in The Oxford Book of Mystical Verse, and there is also the amusing collection White Stains, that in particular probably deserve mention. Smerdis of Tlön 14:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The whole section on Thelema and "Fais ce que voudras" should be removed and merged with Thelema. No need for reduplication.  This is definitely on my list. Meantime, just fixing the Greek.  The Dogandpony 00:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)  (Doublechecks.)  No, this section contradicts itself -- Thelema IS an Ancient Greek word, it did NOT "come from the Bible", and as it was not popularised by Rabelais "as a word".  Just needs to be removed and redacted.

Satanism?
Does Crowley belong in category:Satanism? I'm adding him, but those who know him better are free to remove him if appropriate. Cheers, -Willmcw 08:38, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * I would say that he does belong. At the very least it is very clear that modern day satanists tend to have a lot of interest on his works.  Also, the attitudes match very well indeed - both camps (Thelemites and Satanists, as well as AC himself) tend to love misdirection and self-centered, manipulative goals and strategies.  One side effect is that it is very hard to acquire reliable detailed info about them.  But for the purposes of wikipedia categories I would say there it fits well. Luis Dantas 11:51, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Anton LaVey also had an interest in halloween decorations, but I don't see that falling under the category of Satanism. Crowley was not a Satanist and he should not be placed under that category. --69.18.22.215 18:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Satanism groups on the web (orkut, Yahoo, etc) often mention Crowley and Thelemic concepts, and it is my understanding that the reciprocal is not unusual either. It may be arguable whether Crowley himself was a satanist (although I would include him in the category anyway), but his teachings are of interest to satanists. Luis Dantas 13:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Aleister Crowley does not belong in the Satanism category as he was not a Satanist. Satanism and Thelema both have an interest in the occult but that's where most of the similarities end. You see them mentioned together because of the occult connections and the percieved wickedness of Crowley and LaVey.--Aboverepine 21:08, August 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * As an ex-Satanist myself, I would agree. While there are some similarities between Satanism and Thelema (and the former was probably greatly influenced by the latter), there are some very substantial differences. Satanism is all about unleashing the ego, while Thelema is very much about controlling it and channeling it towards useful ends. And while both tend to use some variant of "Do as thou wilt", they mean very different things by it.


 * Comparing Thelema to Satanism is almost like comparing Wicca to Satanism. There are some cosmetic similarities, and they both have bad reputations, but they're very different. Unless anyone has a serious objection, I'm going to remove Crowley from Category:Satanism.
 * Zorblek 11:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree, he should be removed, whatever people may think of Crowley as a man, his ideology is not based upon any kind of Satanic cosmology. In fact Crowley made many more references to Qabalah, Yoga and Taoism, than anything related to Satan. It is more of a tabloid connection than a factual one. Influence in modern Satanism is not enough of a reason, as many modern Satanists draw influence from very diverse areas including ancient Egypt, which I don't think anyone would say should be included in Category:Satanism. - Solar 12:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

In order to be a satanist, you have to worship satan. Crowley did not do so.
 * That would exclude LaVey's "Satanism" from being Satanism. Personally, I believe there is a connection between Crowley (which is not to say his Thelema 'will based faith') and Satanism; mostly because he called himself TO MEGA THERION ("the Great Beast" in Greek, which added up, in Greek gematria to 666). Furthermore, he exalted the "whore of babylon" as the feminine extention of the surpeme godhead. Many of his references seem to call the Christian church 'the black brotherhood' and denote them as the enemy. He obviously made some attempt at a Satanist aesthetic without going so far as dubbing himself such. There is definitely enough reason to put a link to Satanism, even if he wasn't flagrantly self assigned such. Nagelfar 06:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It doesn't exclude LaVey because LaVey called his system "Satanism". "If A then C; If B then C" does not mean that it follows "If A then B".  (A is Satanism, B is Crowley, C is the Book of Revelation).  The evidence you cite are all quotes from that text -- it would be better to link to that.  I am not aware of Crowley viewing the Christian church as 'the enemy' or referring to them as 'the black brotherhood', unless he meant some individual faction of "Christians".  He includes Christ on the Tree of Life in 777, and of course the notion that he 'completed' the work of Christ in Thelema. Neither of these means that he was a Christian, or that we ought to link to mainstream Christianity.  The Dogandpony 20:18, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm a Thelemite, so if I have a bias it would be in Crowley's favor. However, I would argue that Crowley does belong in an article on Satanism.  I argue this not because Crowley was a Satanist himself (he was not), but because nearly all of modern organized Satanism (e.g. the Temple of Set and the Church of Satan) was heavily influenced by Crowley's writings.  That's certainly not Crowley's fault, but it is nonetheless true.  I think that any mention of Crowley in that context should be carefully written and confined to a discussion of that influence.  It would be dishonest and incomplete to simply ignore the historical roots of modern Satanism.Psuliin 17:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

According to Christianity, anything that deviates from Christian doctrine (such as the God’s Transcendence, the Atonement, the Trinity or the existence of evil and sin, and so on and so forth) or in some other way helps Sheten Helil (admittedly, the methods for determining this often being highly questionable) is deemed Satanic, to some degree. As long as it somehow weakens God’s authority or His relationship with mankind, wittingly or not, then it helps Sheten, thus of Sheten. To clear it up, Satanism should probably be in the context of Christianity unless explicitly admitted by the suspect him or herself (i.e. Anton LaVey clearly affiliated himself with Satan so we can be sure of that as a default classification, Theosophy, on the other hand, being efface to Christian doctrine while not explicitly Satanic, should be identified as “Satanic according to…” or “Satanic under…”).

So is Crowley a Satanist? Yes, if you are a Christian (and he does seem to gravitate towards Satan, at least he shows quite a bit of hostility towards Christianity in general, and, if my suspicions about his religion is true, he would have to be quite maltheistic though whether that is true Christianity he is against is an open topic).

Thank you, hope I contributed anything of significance,

Ideocentric RoyBot [| 69.248.43.27] 21:31, 30 December 2005

Sentence Ambiguity
The following sentence is ambiguous and I do not have enough knowledge of the subject matter to correct it:

"His father, after retiring from his daily duties as a brewer, took up the practice of preaching at a fanatical pace."

Does this sentence mean his father, after his normal day's work, began preaching? If so, what and to whom? Or does it mean after he retired from the profession of brewer went on to another career as a minister? Also, I would remove the word "practice" unless he was actually rehearsing to preach. Further, the last phrase could be simplified to "preaching fanatically."

Skepticism
For you Crowley experts, my cursory research seems to indicate that Crowley's skepticism would be classified as philosophical skepticism rather than scientific skepticism. What do you folks think.

Hans Joseph Solbrig 20:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes and no... Crowley definitely framed his skepticism in terms of science, but his definition of science may have been a little broader than most. Certainly he advocates experimentation, but a great deal of his work relies on subjective experience rather than empirical evidence. Crowley's skepticism contains elements of both scientific skepticism and philosophical skepticism. I think that a simple link to skepticism is probably appropriate in this case.
 * Zorblek (talk) 16:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Moonchild
I was wondering if anyone here knows if Crowley was the coiner of the term "Moonchild", or merely borrowed it from somewhere else? I am asking this question partly because I am considering to create a separate article on his Moonchild - BorgQueen 22:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Asa far as I know the term moonchild existed before Crowley.
 * A little reference will be nice, if you could provide any. --BorgQueen 09:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Crowley was the author. In fact is a "key novel" with parodies on members of the hermetic order of the golden dawn. --asathoor
 * Please note that I was enquiring about the term, not the novel itself. --BorgQueen 04:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok the article on Moonchild has been created. Feel free to contribute. --BorgQueen 09:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * To the best of my knowledge, before Crowley's novel, the term "moonchild" was a euphemism for a child born with mental disabilities. Crowley seems to have been the first to apply the term to a "spiritually engineered" conception, gestation and birth. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.185.211.21 (talk &bull; contribs).

Education
http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/crowley.htm briefly covers Crowley's education at Malvern and then Tonbridge. Also mentioned in Tonbridge_School

Music References
I wanted to add a music reference (one by Kimya Dawson) but section's edit link took me to the miscenally section, and the 'edit this page' did not seem to include it. Is this a delibrate attempt to stop people from including every single musical refence to the man (no doubt a large list) or is this an error? Hegar 17:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC) And now the entire music section is gone... I can see that there is an argument for removing it, but shouldn't it have been discussed first? If this was just an act of vandalism can someone put the section back?Hegar 20:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No, it wasn't vandalism. It has been made a separate article Crowley in Popular Culture. Please check the history of article before suspecting vandalism in the future. Thanks. --BorgQueen 20:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

A Request for uploading Diary Of A Drug Fiend
I have prepared the following stuff for the article Diary Of A Drug Fiend; Due to my internet account filters I am not able to upload it myself.

--Sepand 05:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@BEGINS HERE@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Aleister Crowley's first published novel was Diary of a Drug Fiend. The book was originally published in London in 1922. Although written over seventy-five years ago, the book is still relevant for today's readers. The book paints a vivid picture of the mind of drug users. The drug user's highs, lows, and sometimes strange thought patterns are described in great detail in this interesting book.

The infamous Aleister Crowley invokes a reaction with some people. Some say he was strange and went off the deep-end with his involvement in Magick, the practice of using various techniques to exert control over the forces of nature. If one is too close-minded to read this book because of the author's reputation, he or she would be missing a great read.

This story is supposedly based on truth. False names were used to conceal the identities of the people in the book. For instance, Aleister Crowley is called Peter Pendragon in the book. Peter went to a pub and was socializing with some people he knew when he saw the woman that would change his life, Lou.

''Across the moaning body of the blackmailer, I was looking at the face of a girl that I had never seen before. And I said to myself, "Well, that's all right, I've known you all my life." And when I said to myself "my life," I didn't in the least mean my life as Peter Pendragon, I didn't even mean a life extending through the centuries, I meant a different kind of life --something with which centuries have nothing whatever to do

(Crowley 11).''

This truly eloquent description of Peter's first glimpse of Lou reveals that Crowley was truly a master of language. The book is written in such a clever way that the reader continues to want more.

Basically, the story is of Peter falling madly in love with a woman named Lou. They run off to Paris and travel throughout Europe. Lou introduces Peter to cocaine and heroin and they quickly become dependent on the narcotics. When their supply of drugs runs out, the withdrawal troubles begin. King Lamus, helps the two overcome their addiction by the application of practical Magick. Both Peter and Lou find their true purpose in life and live happily ever after.

"Diary of a Drug Fiend" would be a beneficial source of information for professionals involved with the psychology of addiction. Doctors, lawyers, police, and the average person would gain insight into the thought patterns of a drug addict from the first high, to the constant effort to regain the effects of the first high. The craving for the drug, and how it is the only thing the user thinks about when he or she does not have the drug for a period of time is covered thoroughly. How selfish and careless one becomes when he or she needs a fix is also mentioned in the book. Peter lost his love for Lou because he could only think of the drugs. He quickly knew this was wrong and constantly tried to regain his love for Lou.

If people are open-minded and enjoy challenging their beliefs, then Diary of a Drug Fiend may be the book to read. At the time of reading this book, we may find many useful insights that could dramatically change one's life contained within its pages.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ENDS HERE@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

--User:Slaugther 06:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The two entries by 68.40.20.48 seems wrong and is probably some form of vandalism but this is not my field of knowledge so i will leave them alone


 * Looks roughly similar to the Amazon listing for the book so am inclined to create an article for it. The Land 17:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I deleted: "Lou's father, " in reference to Lamus... ...wait - Lamus was Lou's father? I would like a clear line from the booking saying this - as if this were the case Peter would not have had a sort of jealousy for Lamus and Lou's envolvement!

Daughter
Just read in an article about funny or weird names names (http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/0,1518,390891,00.html) that Crowley had a daughter by the name of Nuit Ma Ahathoor Hecate Sappho Jezebel Lilith. Probably that is worth mentioning in the article. Unfortunately that is the only thing I really know about this. I don't have any more information on the daughter, when she was born and so forth. Probably someone with more knowledge on this matter could add it? BigBen212 20:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * "Nuit Ma Ahathoor Hecate Sappho Jezebel Lilith"

Poor girl, that is even worse than "Mortheus", "Neo", or even Sue...

Ideocentric RoyBot (AKA: "Dave", AKA: [69.248.43.27])

Here we have an article that goes a long way to proving that Wikipedia is fatally flawed. A curious person has been described as a serious person. Newton was an alchemist. He also happened to be relevant. Oh well.

Crowley: A Hyper-Calvinest?!
Were his parents Puritans (as in Calvinist)? Because if they where then that may explain allot not only about his obvious dislike of Christianity and social Puritanism, but also his cosmology. I suspect him of taking Calvin’s doctrine of predestination and irresistible grace to it’s logical limits and ended up becoming a form of Monism, in which God is equally good and evil (and if one is a proscriptive eutheist then there is little difference between the two then, though one of the Prophets does warn of confusing “ the light for the dark and the sweet for the bitter”, which reflects a purely descriptive, Platonic morality). When one goes this step, then the next is accepting Satan as being merely another manifestation of God (such as the Hindu Kali), whether literal or not, and since we are including Satan, then the door is left open for all of the other Pre-Christian European gods to begin taking their respective stations within their Pantheons, the fact that they may be affiliated with the devil irrelevant because the devil, lying spirits, hardened hearts and evil in general are already established to themselves be different manifestations of God. See: Problem of Evil, Problem of Hell and Theodicy for related subjects).

Please note: I am a Christian (Generically Protestant, ideally Lutheran, though I have strong leanings towards Orthodox Catholicism and reformed Arminian churches), so I DO NOT believe any of this doctrine to be true and do consider it heresy, as with Calvinism, and am none-too surprised if Crowley figured this out, if, indeed, that is what he was doing (remember, this is all SPECULATION, I am aware that I am not stating facts). See these two external links, and which show how, if one is ideologically honest, TULIP, alongside the traumatic hypocrisy of Puritanism, can produce people like Crowley (this is why the separation of Church and state is so important, given we are fallible beings and thus will eventually fail at any absolutist system, especially Churches).

RoyBot 69.248.43.27 30th December 2005, 19:45 Ů
 * Crowley's family were Plymouth Brethren. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 19:12, 17 March 2006 (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 Wikipedia'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)
 * remember that this information as presented in the article violates several 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 through your new alterations to the article. We can discuss things here. Generally I think that the established prose structure is a lot more user friendly than the alteration you are proposing. However, I welcome you to make your case here at the Talk Page. We can always go to an RfC if we find that we cannot agree. For the present, however, the status quo must stay in place, as per WP:BRD. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Neither the BLP noticeboard or admin mediation are relevant to this situation. The appropriate venue would be WP:RfC. I am happy to initiate that process if it helps to resolve the impasse. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I can decide for myself where am I going to take it. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 20:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to imply you were incapable, Dereck, and I apologise if that was the impression I gave. But with a decade or so under my belt here at Wikipedia I can honestly say that an RfC is, fairly undeniably, the best way to go in this situation. The other main alternative would have been a Third opinion but an RfC involves more people and thus is often more definitive in helping to solve a dispute. A BLP noticeboard is not relevant given that Crowley has been dead since 1947, and we don't need an administrator specifically on an issue like this; editors who aren't administrators are just as good. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have 8 years from been working on Wikipedia, however I would hold to those options for now whilst I see the results of the RfC. And I wasn't menacing with edit warring, I was just remembering that the 3RR does not apply in these cases. Also BLP policies state that even if the person is dead most policies still apply, but even if the issue is not for BLP the presentation of unproven fringe hypothesis presented so prominently on an article is certainly an issue that some other noticeboard would work. Wikipedia is supposed to be an enciclopedia divulging scientific and academic knowledge. What it more interesting is that I'm nor even suggesting to remove the info (as questionable as it is) just to move it to a more suitable location. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 03:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Midnightblueowl just for the record, I wasn't in favor of the RfC in the first place, as policies should be follow, not subjected to vote, specially those regarding pseudoscience. I'm thinking in requesting an admin mediation just in case you want to be preparing. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 10:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You are more than welcome to do so, but I'd have thought that an administrator would simply recommend waiting until the RfC has finished before intervening. Moreover, the point of the RfC is not to override or ignore policy, but rather to interpret it in the light of the situation. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll do wait, however Wikipedia:Is not a democracy and I'm confident I'm correct on the issue, and also the RfC does not overrides the need for consensus which hasn't been reached either. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 11:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

'Crowley as a child' image
The photograph found in the 'Early life' section looks to have various utterly fake additions. Surely it should be removed.

37.228.242.13 (talk) 11:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You're right. The image is a fake. I've removed it from the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC: How should we present the claims that Crowley worked for British Intelligence in this article?
Question: In a 2008 book, Richard Spence argued that Crowley worked for British intelligence from the 1890s on and that this was the reason behind several of his foreign travels. This claim was further promoted in a 2011 biography by Tobias Churton. It remains unproven. How should we best present this argument to the reader?


 * Option A: (the status quo); by mentioning the argument at those points of the article which chronologically describe events which Spence and Churton interpret in light of their theory.
 * Option B: (new proposal); mentioning the argument in a separate section later in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Votes:
 * Option A: The status quo has served this article well for many years; Spence and Churton's argument has been presented in this fashion since before the article passed GAN in 2013. This is the first time anyone has raised concern about how the argument is presented here, suggesting that this is not a particularly acute problem (and, I would suggest, the new concern derives largely from a conviction that the Spence/Churton theory is wrong and should not be presented in a way that gives it any credence). Spence and Churton present alternative readings of specific events in Crowley's life (i.e. why he travelled to Russia etc). It is therefore simpler for the reader to read about their interpretation straight after we describe those events rather than moving it to a separate section altogether. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Does Spence and Churton have any proof of their claim or is just an speculation? Because if is the second is at most a hypothesis, something merely speculative to say the least. And notice that in science the term theory is not what colochially is known as synomous with hypothesis. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The focus of this RfC is on ascertaining how to present the theory/hypothesis/notion/idea/argument, not whether it is true or not. What is apparent is that two WP:Reliable Sources present the argument that Crowley was working for British intelligence from the 1890s, and while their case is certainly unproven, it appears in RS and thus should be included in the article. (Crowley himself later stated that he worked for the British war effort during the First World War). Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment How do you know it's ludacris and is pseudoscience pure and simple? WP:RS, please. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Tgeorgescu: For several reasoning fallacies incurred by the authors including cherry picking, confirmation bias, circular reasoning and mere blatant speculation. For example to say that Crowley as a "British agent" was investigating oil reserves in Mexico... with what evidence? How do they know that Crowley traveled to oil-rich areas or had the technical knowledge for the task? That the London lodge conflict was orchestated by Crowley under orders of the British secret service... that's circular reasoning; a conflict ocurred, Crowley was involved, the conflict must have been ordered by the British secret service to happened. This among other many investigative and epistemic flaws in reasoning, is pseudohistory at its best. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 03:41, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you the only one who has noticed this? No WP:RS? Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll have to check, however by onus probandi the burden of proof is on the authors, not on the rebuter. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 21:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Option A per nom. ~ HAL  333  20:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The policy is to locate fringe theories on the bottom and not giving them the same space than non-fringe theories. This is why Wikipedia policies are not for voting, they are to be applied. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 21:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What policy? And do you have RS calling the Spence/Churton argument a "fringe theory"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Midnightblueowl see Neutral_point_of_view:

"Pseudoscientific theories are presented by proponents as science, but characteristically fail to adhere to scientific standards and methods. Conversely, by its very nature, scientific consensus is the majority viewpoint of scientists towards a topic. Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other. While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community. Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included. This helps us to describe differing views fairly. This also applies to other fringe subjects, for instance, forms of historical revisionism that are considered by more reliable sources to either lack evidence or actively ignore evidence, such as claims that Pope John Paul I was murdered, or that the Apollo moon landings were faked."


 * And in Neutral_point_of_view

"While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world."


 * Now, even if Churton and Spencer outlandish claims were not to be fringe, they are still unproven and controversial,but they are also a minority position. There are only two scholar claiming such thing and they nor even agree (Spencer claims things like that the "Agent 666" (his worlds) was on the road investigation oil reserves in Mexico and causing trouble to carlist whilst Churton mentions that he traveled to Moscow (evidence of such does not exist) to investigate commies. This is by all means a minority position (as only two scholars claim such view) thus it would apply this:

"Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth). To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well. (Neutral_point_of_view)" --Dereck Camacho (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Option A: per Midnightblueowl -- Idealigic (talk) 23:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Option A I speculate that the first option (A) looks to be more profitable/related, i.e. : "(the status quo); by mentioning the argument at those points of the article which chronologically describe events which Spence and Churton interpret in light of their theory." Ali Ahwazi (talk) 09:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * * Fringe theory --Dereck Camacho (talk) 10:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Option B: Firstly, I am coming to this from a random RfC invitation. It is over 40 years since I read anything substantial by or about Crowley, so am unfamiliar with the works by Richard Spence and Tobias Churton. Just reading the present article, though, I am inclined to agree with 's original point above: in summarising Crowley’s various movements and disputes, there is too much interwoven suggestion of the British Secret Service as motivator. I feel that neutrality would be better served by distilling these into a separate subsection (not ideal, but probably under Personal life), preferably citing any material evidence of Crowley’s links with Secret Service bureaux and personnel. AllyD (talk) 10:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Option B: It barely deserves a paragraph to keep it proportional. "Two writers have asserted that Crowley blah blah blah Secret Service blah blah blah." Seems to me that it's poorly supported pseudohistory. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 15:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Option B Until such a time as any theory is at least somewhat proven, far more than the speculation of two writers, it ought to be described as a theory and not otherwise integrated with the article. Option A writes a speculative history. (Also here via random RfC invitation.) Lindenfall (talk) 23:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't wish to become embroiled in this dispute, but for information I can point out that, in his Introduction to a collection of pieces by Crowley (The Drug and other stories, Wordsworth Editions 2010) that he edited, William Breeze devotes around 250 words to an outline account of Crowley's WW1 Secret Service work in New York. Breeze gives no specific sources for the Introduction (the stories themselves are copiously sourced and annotated), but evidently had extensive access to Crowley's private papers.
 * Of course, Crowley himself in his autobiographical The Confessions of Aleister Crowley (ed. John Symonds & Kenneth Grant, RKP 1979) describes these activities in some detail in Chapter 76 (pp 740–761 in the Penguin Books 1989 edition), but I'm sure that this material is already familiar to all involved above. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.203.10.153 (talk) 03:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Midnightblueowl do not remove the tags I place, non of the criteria for Help:Maintenance_template_removal has been acomplished. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 16:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Option A: Richard B. Spence is a Professor of History at the University of Idaho, whose peer-reviewed research on Crowley's possible involvement with British intelligence has been published in the International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence, which is published by Taylor & Francis. Marco Pasi, an Associate Professor at the University of Amsterdam, finds the claims worthy of extensive attention in his Aleister Crowley and the Temptation of Politics, which was published by Routledge. He ultimately doesn't buy the idea, but certainly does not dismiss it as "pseudohistory". His treatment of Spence's ideas should be enough to convince us that this is the subject of a serious debate between the relevant experts, and not "pseudoscience", "pseudohistory", or "ludacris [sic]". I don't feel particularly strongly about the idea that this information should be portrayed in the "option A" style, but I do think that people claiming that this is "poorly supported pseudohistory" should reassess. It's the subject of peer-reviewed research published in an established journal, debated in print by established academics at major institutions, and so on. It's not for us to sit and try to weigh up the evidence (and certainly not for us to claim that a Professor of History is published "pseudohistory" in peer-reviewed journals), it's for us to follow the reliable sources; and the reliable sources seem to present this as a viable theory, even if far from established truth. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The issue here is that as you mention youself is at best under debate that mere fact means it should not be presented in the current form. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with you (if this is what you are saying) that disputed claims should not be presented as fact, but as a view of some/certain scholars. (Obviously, there are different levels of "disputedness", and we need to offer due weight, but that's a separate question.) I don't really follow why this means that all discussion about the claims need to be dropped to a separate section somewhere in the article; you've alluded several times to this being what some policy or guideline demands, but I'm not sure you've ever actually said what policy or guideline that is. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I put direct quotations from the guidelines here in this discussion, right in the top part of this subsection. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 07:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You claimed that "The policy is to locate fringe theories on the bottom and not giving them the same space than non-fringe theories." You were asked what policy you were referring to by Midnightblueowl. You then included a large blockquote about pseudoscience. There are certainly issues related to the subject of this article that could be called pseudoscience, but this is not one of them, so I struggle to see the relevance of this blockquote. You then provided a blockquote to a discussion about undue weight. I can see why that would be relevant to the current discussion, but it provides no support for your claim that "The policy is to locate fringe theories on the bottom and not giving them the same space than non-fringe theories." So, I ask again, what guideline are you referring to? Or have I perhaps misunderstood what you are claiming? Josh Milburn (talk) 11:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Josh Milburn locating this disputed and unproven claims (and in some cases slanderous) in a special section is my suggestion in order to reach a compromise, as what should be done is remove them, however I was trying to suggest something less radical just to be polite. Unfortunetly nor even that reasonable suggestion was accepted and this is why we're having this discussion. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If it was merely your suggestion, why have you repeatedly claimed that unspecified guidelines and policies demand it, even when questioned? Let us be crystal clear. Are you now saying that you were incorrect when you said that "The policy is to locate fringe theories on the bottom and not giving them the same space than non-fringe theories" and when you claimed someone should move "the fringe unproven statement on a special section as proposed and as the guideline and policies demand"? If so, perhaps you will forgive people for finding you rather difficult to talk to, and perhaps you could tone down your "I don't need to listen" rhetoric. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Josh Milburn I do think that the idea that Crowley was the "agent 666" spying for the British government to the point that if he went to Mexico was to check oil reserves and causing trouble on the Golden Dawn under orders of Her Majesty's secret service is in did pure pseudoscience and clearly I'm not the only one as other commentors who voted for option B said the same, however if you think that the proposed has academic validity, knock yourself out. The issue here is that the matter is not proven even if of valid academic study and as such should not be given more weight that it deserves. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 19:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You've not answered my question, yet again, and you're putting words in my mouth. You're welcome to believe that this is pseudoscience. It isn't, of course - it doesn't purport to be science. (As best as I can tell, you literally do not know what the word pseudoscience means.) And your claim that other people have called it pseudoscience in this conversation is false. (Are you lying, or are you just confused?) Anyway, and with all due respect, I don't give two hoots whether you think it's pseudoscience. We follow what the reliable sources say, not what angry people on talk pages say. People have asked you for sources; not only have you not provided any, but you've suggested that you don't need them. People (including me) have provided highly reliable sources suggesting that your interpretation of this as "pseudoscience" is not supported in the relevant literature. You have simply ignored that. And now you're edit warring. You are being, to put it mildly, unreasonable. This is not how we're supposed to interact with each other. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Josh Milburn "your claim that other people have called it pseudoscience in this conversation is false. (Are you lying, or are you just confused?)"

User AllyD said:

"Firstly, I am coming to this from a random RfC invitation. It is over 40 years since I read anything substantial by or about Crowley, so am unfamiliar with the works by Richard Spence and Tobias Churton. Just reading the present article, though, I am inclined to agree with Dereck Camacho's original point above: in summarising Crowley’s various movements and disputes, there is too much interwoven suggestion of the British Secret Service as motivator. I feel that neutrality would be better served by distilling these into a separate subsection (not ideal, but probably under Personal life), preferably citing any material evidence of Crowley’s links with Secret Service bureaux and personnel."

User jpgordon said:

"It barely deserves a paragraph to keep it proportional. "Two writers have asserted that Crowley blah blah blah Secret Service blah blah blah." Seems to me that it's poorly supported pseudohistoryBold text"

User Lindenfall said:

"Until such a time as any theory is at least somewhat proven, far more than the speculation of two writers, it ought to be described as a theory and not otherwise integrated with the article. Option A writes a speculative history. (Also here via random RfC invitation.)"


 * Clearly at the very least jpgordon considers it to be pseudohistory which is a form of pseudoscience, whilst AllyD agrees with me in my original point (which is, among other things, that is pseudocience. Ergo, yes, other users not only me consider it to be pseudoscience.


 * "You've not answered my question" I did answer your question, twice. Assuming you mean this question: why have you repeatedly claimed that unspecified guidelines and policies demand it, even when questioned? you yourself quote me on the guidelines I quoted while answering to Midnightblue. There's your answer. On the other hand your tone is quite unpolite and will be reported. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 21:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Dereck, what you are saying is still based upon falsehoods. (I cannot say that in a more "polite" way, and I'm not just going to not mention it.) Your quotes most certainly do not prove (without butchering the English language) that other people have called this pseudoscience, and the "answer" you have "twice" given does not support the claim that guidelines and policies demand that this content is moved to a separate section: those words simply do not appear in the quotes you have offered (maybe they are somewhere else...) and repeatedly claiming otherwise will not make it so. I have done my best to be reasonable with you, but, you will probably be pleased to hear, I am now giving up. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Josh Milburn fine if it make you happy I change the term pseudoscience for pseudohistory as the user bellow me suggests. Yes, other commenters have refer to this claims as pseudohistory (do you need the quote on that too?), also the guidelines may not say that a special section for pseudohistory or minority views are needed, fine, that what I suggest we use because even you admit that the guidelines do say that minority positions should not give desproportional weight. My suggestion to deal with the matter (the presence of bogus unproven claims) is to create a subsecion for them, if you have another suggestion on how to deal with it let us know. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 08:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Option B, per AllyD, jpgordon, Lindenfall, et al above. An unproven fringe theory needs to be handled with WP:RS, WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. Just because someone (or 2 in this case) managed to get outlandish theories about an outlandish long dead figure published doesn't make them anything other than "fringe" without some real documentation, or at least something other than "what ifs?". And I think the term the editor above is probably looking for is "pseudohistory" and not necessarily "pseudoscience", but the same policy still applies.   He  iro  22:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Yu-Gi-Oh
Aleister Crowley heavily inspires the entire invoked archetype in Yu-Gi-Oh. Thiis mentioned in the page for the book of the law as that's a card in yu-gi-oh and I feel warrants at least a mention here--RyouBakura13 (talk) 13:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not even mentioned in Yu-Gi-Oh!; why should it be mentioned here? --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 15:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Yu-Gi-Oh is heavily inspired by modern life. If every mention of a real life person appeared in the Yu-Gi-Oh page it would be pretty full. The popular culture article on the divine comedy mentions the burning abyss archetype from Yu-Gi-Oh. It is not mentioned on the Yu-Gi-Oh page. As I have mentioned if the quick play spell card the book of the law is mentioned on it's real life counterparts page this archetype and at least the multiple forms of aleister should be mentioned here RyouBakura13 (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

So can I add a mention for yugioh in here? RyouBakura13 (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Not unless there are WP:Reliable Sources discussing the Crowleyan influence on Yu-Gi-Oh. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Allan Bennett Revert / Addition
(edits removed to make more readable...)


 * Thanks for bringing your concerns to the Talk Page, NirodhaDhamma. I appreciate that you are new to Wikipedia, so just to clarify things, the procedure here is covered in WP:Bold, Revert, Discuss - you were bold with your additions, concerns were raised and so these additions were reverted, and it is now important that we discuss the situation. A lot of new-ish editors just WP:Edit war to impose their desired changes into an article, and often find themselves blocked or banned as a result, so I thank you for not taking that disruptive path.


 * There were several concerns that I had with your additions. First, I was concerned that some of the added prose was clunky, contained errors of grammar and punctuation, and was not written in an encyclopaedic style. I gather that English is not your first language, and that's okay, but it's important for the English-language Wikipedia to be written in perfect English and to be encyclopaedic in tone. Statements such as "Bennett was a luminous mind in the order" or "Crowley makes a note of why he too did not follow Bennett into the yellow robes," are, for instance, at odds with the style of Wikipedia's prose. Second, the additions made heavy use of WP:Primary sources, namely Crowley's own biography (Confessions), but also an article from The Equinox. Primary sources are not forbidden at Wikipedia, but we generally favour secondary or tertiary sources when available - and when it comes to Crowley, we have a vast number of secondary sources written by biographers and scholars. That being the case, there is really no reason to cite primary sources in this article. My third point is the most important. Wikipedia articles are meant to be concise and to the point; your additions were not really touching on key, vitally important facts about Crowley's life. Rather, they were primarily a series of quotations; a quote about Crowley seeing a disabled man in India, or a plethora of comments that he made about Bennett. This is not the sort of information that we normally include on Wikipedia.


 * If you feel that there are crucial facts about Crowley, and about Crowley's relationship with Bennett, that are absent from the article, then please do let us know and we can have a discussion about that. (I can accept, for instance, that you may have a good case for mentioning Ponnambalam Ramanathan in the article). It is important, however, that the article doesn't become rambling and over-stuffed with randomly selected facts and quotations. This article is rated as one of Wikipedia's WP:Good articles, and it is important that it remains at that standard. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

--- Edited in relation to Psychologist Guy If you have a moment also, do you have any comments on the above suggestions also for this article, do you think any changes would be useful? Or no changes are necessary.

With Peace & Thanks NirodhaDhamma (talk) 00:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The Aleister Crowley article is rated as a good article and has high traffic. Allan Bennett is already mentioned 12 times on the article, I think it is enough. Midnightblueowl raises a good point it "is important, however, that the article doesn't become rambling and over-stuffed with randomly selected facts and quotations." I believe your edits on the Bennett article are good quality. I am not so sure that what you are proposing on this article is going to be accepted. I have only ever been reverted a few times on this website but like most users I started a debate on the talk-page. It never went anywhere and I gave up. I have learnt to move on and edit other articles and not get angry. You seem to be the opposite of angry so you are a rare one :) But my advice is that if things are not going your way just edit other articles. There are plenty here. I don't know much about Crowley myself so I can't really comment about all this. I did some editing in the past on the Bennett article that's how I noticed this. A person you might be interested in is Alexander Cannon (psychiatrist). His article really needs to be improved. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Psychologist Guy... Thanks for the help NirodhaDhamma (talk) 01:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC) --- Good Day Midnightblueowl Ok, this thread seem to be dead, so I have cut out some fluff, I shall start again.

Any way I think the point is that of the things they worked together on, it was very little to do with what was mentioned. There is bare reference of them working on the Solomon stuff together, most references are for Jones not Bennett. What is often quoted in many places is Bennett reprimanding Crowley for working with the Solomon stuff:

Sutin, Kaxzunski, Campbell 2018, all have these things.

“... 'Little brother, you have been meddling with the Goetia!' (... 'the Goetia has been meddling with you.' The conversation went no further. I returned home in a somewhat chastened spirit; and, having found out where Iehi Aour lived, I determined to call on him the following day.”

Kaczynski: "For now, Crowley found him intimidating. “Little Brother,” he observed, “you have been meddling with the Goetia.” Crowley stared into his burning eyes, transfixed. “No, I haven’t.” It was a lie. He had been playing with magical tomes like Abramelin and the Goetia or Key of Solomon ever since he moved into his Chancery Lane flat."

With Kindness and Thanks NirodhaDhamma (talk) 09:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Anyway I do think the attribution is misguiding, as what they worked on was so vast.

Anyway I placed some of Crowley explains of what he thought of Bennett on the Ananda Metteyya page, Crowley seemed to highlight Bennetts focus on the white. And he two writes about that focus himself.

Interesting I thought though some of the very Buddhist contemplations that Crowley wrote around the first time Bennett had gone off to Asia. Clearly Buddhism influenced him, though their path to the ultimate, their views changed dramatically after that period. Bennett truley shifted to Buddhism, Crowley to the occult gnosis.

Midnightblueowl, I guess this conversation is closed now. With Kindness and thanks NirodhaDhamma (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

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