Talk:Magick (Thelema)

Major Crowley / Thelema Bias
I understand that crowley was a very influential figure in the occult. However, this article is titled "Magick."

It is, for some odd reason fully titled "Magick (Aliester Crowley)" which I think is mistake number one. Crowley may have revived use of the older english spelling of the word to differentiate it from stage magic-- one of the more brilliant moves of his career, but he is NOT the be-all-end-all of the occult. "Magick" is a very wide field of beliefs and practices.

Crowley may have had a massive impact on many of the schools of magick out there today, but regardless of this, it does NOT make the subject of "magick" one that is inextricable from crowleyism, nor does it fall solely under the umbrella of "Thelema."

Despite this, however, the article appears to have a huge bias in favor of crowley. Scanning the page it seems like every third paragraph begins with "Crowley..."

The article would be more appropriate as something like "Western Occultism," and would certainly be more fair to mention actual magickal GROUPS like the Golden Dawn and the OTO and their focus, instead of just focusing on one of their members/founders solely.

I mean REALLY-- this article even mentions yoga. Which, as stated in the article, "Yoga is not considered to be magick per se., by those who are really familiar with it." But the article mentions yoga... why? Well, because crowley practiced yoga, and advised his followers to as well. :@@:

(Further, this section refers to "hatha yoga," specifically. Whereas "laya yoga" is most assuredly a "magickal" practice.)

I wish some thelemites didn't think they had a copyright on magick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.63.39 (talk) 23:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I have to agree. While Crowley made many huge contributions to the study and practice, he was not the be all      and end all of things occult.  This article is incredibly biased and skewed towards him and his teachings. - Anonymous Mage --74.98.226.175 (talk) 02:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The title of the article is Magick(Thelema), and Crowley is the one attributed with coining the word. So, I don't really see how y'all can be railing against Thelemites supposedly co-opting a terminology that they've fundamentally been responsible for creating/disseminating. There are many other articles about ceremonial magic on Wikipedia, so it's not like this article constitutes a monopoly of the subject.

Essentially, it comes down to the fact that Crowley coined the word in the context of Thelema, so I don't think it's all that scandalous that the article favors Thelemic theory. Just because other groups and practitioners have some adopted it doesn't mean they must be mentioned in an article specifically devoted to the Thelemic application of said terminology. If you feel that there should be something more all encompassing in terms of other practices which use the term, consider writing one yourself. TheArcane03 (talk) 23:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposing a couple of significant changes
Okay, so this seems to have been covered to death over the course of the last 9 years but without resolution. Having contributed to a number of significant articles relating to wicca, magic in general and religion in general I've come to the conclusion that this really needs to be sorted out. So, I'm proposing the following:


 * 1. That this article be moved from the current title to Magick (Thelemic) (as was previously proposed, though informally) to specify that this particular article is about the modern use of the word which primarily relates to the teachings of Aleister Crowley.


 * 2. That this title (Magick) be redirected to Magic (paranormal) which itself probably should be renamed but it is what it is magic (the disambiguation) with an extra line referencing the spelling variation.

That the teachings of a single person from the 20th century should be allowed to monopolise a word in constant use since the 17th century is really a bit silly and completely unencyclopaedic. There is no doubt we should have coverage of the man and his teachings, but the current format is like having the word Apple monopolised by the work of Steve Jobs. Great guy, great phones but other people have been using the word "apple" for quite a while. Stalwart 111  13:59, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Question Can you elaborate a bit on why you feel that Magick (Thelemic) would be a good choice (I do know the vocabulary, though) or point me to a discussion of this? I'm uninvolved with this topic in general but am interested by the move idea.  It seems well-planned out, I'd just like a bit of elaboration as to the differences between the articles as well as any work that might be done on this current article to make it more suitable to the proposed new title?  --Jackson Peebles (talk) 07:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Jackson Peebles - of course! The current content of the article is almost entirely sourced to Crowley and his books. Each sub-section is effectively a summary of Crowley's views on that particular aspect of magic (in general) or ritual (in particular). I believe we should have an article that summarises Crowley's views on each of these things and in the context of the language he used ("Magick"). What I have a concern about is the apparent suggestion that Crowley was the only one who had views on "Magick" (in general) or ritual (in particular). He wasn't, of course, but this article monopolises a 400+ year old term for an article that summarises the views of one (admittedly contextually important) man. My suggested title came from the last comment in this thread above though I would be just as comfortable with Magick (Crowley) or something similar. I should note that Magic (paranormal) needs work, specifically with regard to the inclusion of a wider range of views about modern magic (like those of Crowley). For an indication of the sort of clean-up work I have undertaken (and would intend to undertake), please see both White magic (which didn't exist) and Black magic (which needed significant work). Many related articles are thousands and thousands of bytes of original research, despite the significant number of historical and modern sources available for citation. Stalwart 111  08:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. I'm not opposed to the status quo, but this idea does have merit.  I think Magick (Crowley) is a bit too restrictive and specific, however.  It would be like saying Physics (Newton) or Philosophy (Socrates) – not an entirely unreasonable proposition but still too restrictive, narrow, and specific.  I would suggest Magick (Thelema), but (Thelemic) is perfectly acceptable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What about Thelemic Magick? --Rhododendrites (talk) 21:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - Seems to make sense, but we haven't really heard from opponents to this move yet. Another possibility would be to create Thelemic Magick with this page's content and turn this one into a disambig (since it's ultimately just an alternative spelling except for Crowley, unless I'm missing something)? --Rhododendrites (talk) 21:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Rhododendrites, I'm happy to discuss it but I'm not sure there's a need for disambiguation. We would only ever need to disambiguate between Magic (paranormal) and the new Magick (Thelemic). Given my intention is to increase the coverage of Crowley at Magic (paranormal), the disambig could probably be taken care of with some good main tagging. Stalwart 111  07:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - The logic behind retitling is to me sound. I would posit the title Magick redirect to Magick (Thelemic) (as it seems to be the predominant usage of the term at this time) with a For|other varieties of Magick|Magic (paranormal)|Magic (stage)|etc and a Redirect|Magick (similar to what's in the Magic_(illusion) page. I'm fairly new (to editing) here, so my terminology may be totally off.  ~  Joga Luce ( t )( c ) 05:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Joga, as far as I know, the term "Magick" (with a "k") is really only used in relation to paranormal magic. Only much older sources would include stage magic in any description using that term (at least, of the ones I've seen). Stalwart 111  07:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Question What is the subject of this article? I have no subject knowledge, and to me the first sentence of this article introduces Magick as being an old spelling for Magic, while the rest of the article treats Magick as a particular subset of Magic (paranormal). I think that while this article is trying to cover two subjects it's going to be impossible to label it accurately.
 * I think this article needs renaming, but it also needs pruning. The sentence about Magick being an old spelling of Magic doesn't seem to belong with the rest of this article, but instead on the Magic (disambiguation) page. I suggest making that change, then renaming this article to whatever, then redirecting Magick to Magic. I think the only way point 2 of the RFC would fit is if you removed the first sentence of this article from WP entirely. Feraess (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Whether Magick should target the disambiguation Magic depends on whether the alt spelling is used for other senses, or is likely to be used. ... Thanks to our coverage of proper nouns, it already appears in one album title and one song title, as well as one Crowley book title. And "Magick" linked here is in the bullet list under the Magic (paranormal) heading --a listing to be revised by this proposal.
 * Magyk, one novel title, is listed.
 * Magik is a disambiguation page in section See also.
 * It now seems to me that Magick should redirect to Magic for disambiguation. --P64 (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC) --P64 (talk) 20:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Feraess, the subject is actually fairly simple (though you wouldn't think so looking at the lede, as you say). The word "Magick" (with an extra k) has generally been used only in the context of paranormal magic (ie. not stage magic) though there seem to be instances where authors have used the term in stage magic contexts to give their work more of a "paranormal" legitimacy. The line with which you take issue absolutely should be removed - you are absolutely right.
 * P64, per above, I wouldn't have a problem with Magick redirecting to Magic (the disambiguation). I think a redirect to Magic (paranormal) would be slightly more technically accurate but that accuracy would only be apparent to someone who had read the related articles. It is absolutely plausible that someone looking for stage magic might type in "M.A.G.I.C....K" and so a redirect to a disambig would be more in the interests of the reader.
 * In light of your comments (with my thanks to you both) I've amended the terms of the RFC (though not substantially) to reflect that which you have suggested, which makes more sense anyway. Stalwart 111  01:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I like Magick(Crowley): I'm not an expert on this topic and I'm not familiar with the history of edits to the page, just responding to the RFC. I support the proposal, but think the page should be renamed Magick(Crowley). This is consistent with the pattern of other pages such as [Ethics(Kant)]. To make this change, however, the latter have of the article, which is full of stub headings, would have to be cut since they are not related directly to Crowley. I don't think you'd lose to much in doing that, however. My 2 cents. Rex (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Appreciate your thoughts. Not sure what you mean about the sub-headings, though. By my reading, each one references Crowley except for "Magical formulae" (and even that is about his work; from his books). Stalwart 111  22:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support some sort of move. Magick should redirect to Magic as an R from alternative spelling. (Note that Magic is the dab.) --BDD (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support move to Magick (Thelema), given the role of that term here (classy template Thelema and cat tree under ). This means the article should cover more than Crowley (differences and extensions) where relevant.
 * Agree with BDD on redirect details. --P64 (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong Support Crowley didn't invent the term, nor was its use exclusive to him. It has been around for a very long time before his birth and many other authors have used it. I'd suggest that there be a section in the Thelema page about Crowley's magical conceptualisations and usage and that the information here specifically about Crowley be moved there, or possibly to an article titled Thelemic Magick, or Magick (Thelemic) (but I hate parenthetically names pages), which would have a section in the Thelema page which referred to it. I'd suggest that this page be redirected to Magic, which is a dab, as I think that is most likey to be the most helpful page for anyone entering the term 'magick' in search. Most of the information here, although mostly cited by work by Crowley, isn't specifically about him but is about magic in general and could usefully be incorporated into Magic_(paranormal) or the more specific pages such as Thaumaturgy, Theurgy and Ritual. Morgan Leigh | Talk 10:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Morgan Leigh, I'm not quite sure what you mean. You strongly opposed the proposal but then went on to explain why you support exactly what is being proposed (rename article to Magick (Thelemic)/redirect title to Magic) with the same rationale as the proposal. What is it that you oppose? I'm not being facetious - if you have concerns, I'm genuinely keen to resolve them. Stalwart 111  10:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * You've actually summarised what is being proposed (in a way) with this edit. Stalwart 111  10:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * D'oh! Of course I mean support. It's been a long day... Morgan Leigh | Talk 10:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Must have been! Not to worry, all good! Have a drink on us. Stalwart 111  12:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Question: Can the proponents of this move point to any recent source–from, say, the last century or so—discussing “magick” without reference to Crowley’s work or Thelema? AFAICT it was an obsolete spelling of the word “magic“ until Crowley began using it as a ‘disambiguated‘ label for his system. (Spelling such words with “-ck” seems to have only been in fashion in Modern English up to the XVII century; is anyone likely to look up “musick“ or “physick”?) Unless the case can be made that readers are likely to encounter or use the spelling “magick” in some other context—note there’s already a disambiguation link above the lead—I will oppose.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  01:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Sure; this proposal came about because in rebuilding Black magic and creating White magic, there were a substantive number of modern sources that used the older "-ck" without reference to Crowley. A Google Books search gives plenty of results:


 * Basic Magick: A Practical Guide by Phillip Cooper (Weiser Books, 1996) - no mentions of Crowley.
 * Modern Magick: Twelve Lessons in the High Magickal Arts by Donald Michael Kraig (Llewellyn Worldwide, 2010) - plenty of Crowley mentions.
 * True Magick: A Beginner's Guide by Amber K (Llewellyn Worldwide, 2006) - several mentions of Crowley though the book specifically defines "Magick" using Crowley's definition among 1/2 a dozen others.
 * Low Magick by Lon Milo DuQuette (Llewellyn Worldwide, 2011) - uses some of Crowley's definitions but expands beyond that with its own definitions.
 * Ascension Magick: Ritual, Myth and Healing for the New Aeon by Christopher Penczak (Llewellyn Worldwide, 2007)- references Crowley and Thelema but, again, talks about Magick beyond the confines of Crowley's work.
 * Advanced Magick for Beginners by Alan Chapman (Karnac Books, 2008) - Crowley features in the book's "Recommended Reading" list.


 * While most of these books reference Crowley (as would be expected for someone so influential), they certainly seem to have used the term independently of him. One publisher appears in the list several time - I can't help but wonder whether that publisher has told its writers to use the "-ck" version as part of some attempt to seem more historical or to strongly differentiate between magic (paranormal)/magick and stage magic. Who knows?
 * Did Crowley re-popularise the term? Absolutely, and that should be noted at Magic (paranormal) and at the new title adopted for this article. But plenty of people now use the term to describe their own work which, while perhaps influenced by Crowley, is independent of Crowley's work. It that sense, it's different to "musick" or "physick", in my view. Stalwart 111  04:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thorough response. I’m pretty sure DuQuette’s work would be classified as Thelemic—at least that’s his background. I’d also wager the other authors’ choice of spelling (or their publishers’ at least) was influenced by Crowley’s and not an independent revival of the obsolete version, so I still don’t think its age is relevant. (I’m not familiar with most of them, but I haven’t been keeping up for some time ….) That said, if the works themselves are clearly divergent in content from the Thelemic / hermetic / skeptical approach characteristic of Crowley’s, it would be something akin to an etymological fallacy to shoehorn them into an inappropriate category on the sole basis of the K, and a Bad Thing if the article were to become some sort of chimaera per Feraess. BTW I agree that “magick“ does not require disambiguation from stage magic. Support Magick (Thelema).—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  07:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries! Yours is a very good summary of the situation, I think. Appreciate your support on those terms. Stalwart 111  10:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Move completed - I've gone ahead and moved the article to Magick (Thelema). "Magic (Thelemic)" was a non-specific suggestion of mine trumped, I think, by the logically-thought-through commentary of Odysseus and the sensible suggestion from P64 that "Thelema" is the term used for categories and templates and that it would be the better option for consistency. Happy to discuss it further but there didn't seem to be any strong opinions that "Thelemic" was a better option than "Thelema" and those that had specifically commented on the option seemed to favour "Thelema". Stalwart 111  23:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

What links where concerning magic?
[Seven years ago someone pleaded for a different approach. See section 11, Talk:Magick (2006). The next one (12) and preceding section (20) are related, I see.]

Ritual magic redirects to the main article Magic (paranormal).

28 pages in article space now link ritual magic and I know that some can be improved by choosing a different target (including perhaps a section of the main article). For much more information see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Occult.

--P64 (talk) 00:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * P64, any chance you could rephrase your question as a contribution to the open RFC above? It would seem you have a good grasp of the broader issues and your opinion would be appreciated! Stalwart 111  07:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * There is now one comment from me above.
 * This weekend I visited all 150+ articles that link Magic (paranormal) via redirects and revised most of them --but none that use the "Ritual" redirects, see above. Then I changed several of the redirect targets. See Talk: Magic (paranormal), a report still in progress but now complete regarding basics.
 * --P64 (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, saw that - excellent work! Stalwart 111  01:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation
In the talk page archive, it is mentioned that Crowley intended magick to be an entirely new, separate word with a different pronunciation, rendered as "mayj-ik" there. Is this pronunciation anywhere explicitly recorded in his writings, or are there audio recordings where he uses it? Any reliable sources? That would be an important point to add to the article. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Requested move relevant to this page
See Talk:Magick (disambiguation). 22:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Yoga Section
Why is it talking about Crowley saying that yoga comes from Belzeebub? Or that it damns one's soul? I have never read anything of the sort in any of his writings. This is majorly suspect. If no one can give a source for this, then I'm going to delete that little bit of non-info. ネギ・スプリングフィエルド (talk) 00:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC)