Wikipedia:Peer review/Aleister Crowley/archive1

Aleister Crowley
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it has been rated GA for some time now but failed an FA last year. I'm hoping to send it off to FAC again in the near future, so a peer review of it beforehand would be appreciated.

Thanks, Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: It doesn't seem that any of the points which I identified more than a year ago in an informal talkpage review have been addressed yet. I don't see much point in resuming the review, until this is done. Brianboulton (talk) 18:54, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * A fair point Brian. If I may, I shall copy-and-paste your previous comments on the article here, so that I may work on them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "His father, Edward Crowley (1834–87), was trained as an engineer but never worked as one, instead owning shares in a lucrative family brewing business, Crowley's Alton Ales, which allowed him to retire before his son was born." Needs comprehensive rewriting. E.g.: "His father, Edward Crowley (1834–87), was trained as an engineer, but his share in a lucrative family brewing business, Crowley's Alton Ales, had allowed him to retire before his son was born."
 * I've changed this sentence to your suggested alteration. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "At age 8" is an Americanism
 * I've changed to "at the age of 8". Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "the preparatory Ebor school" → "the Ebor preparatory school"
 * Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "Inheriting a third of his father's wealth, he began misbehaving at school..." What is the causal relationship here?


 * "developed his interests" → "developed interests"
 * Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "Bernese Alps" should be wikilinked
 * Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "Having adopted the name of Aleister over Edward, in October 1895 Crowley began a three-year course at Trinity College, Cambridge..." Again, how are these facts related?


 * Readers will be confused by the information that Crowley's tutor approved his transfer to a course that was not on the curriculum. So how/where did he study it?


 * Chess is a "sport"?
 * I've removed mention of "sport" here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "Crowley also embraced his love of literature and poetry, becoming a particular fan of Richard Francis Burton and Percy Bysshe Shelley, and many of his own poems appeared in student publications The Granta, Cambridge Magazine, and Cantab." Again in need of a reconstruction job. There is particular awkwardness in the juxtaposition of the literary "embraced his love of" and the vernacular "a particular fan". I would suggest: "Crowley also embraced his love of literature and poetry, particularly the works of Richard Francis Burton and Percy Bysshe Shelley. Many of his own poems appeared in student publications such as The Granta, Cambridge Magazine, and Cantab."
 * Changed to your suggested wording. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "Another hobby was mountaineering" – this is redundant; his interest in mountaineering has already been establiahed.


 * The word "claim" or "claimed" appear to be much overused in the article. Try some synonyms, e.g. assert, declare, maintained, professed etc.


 * "Several biographers ... believed that this was the result of Crowley's first homosexual encounter, enabling him to recognise his bisexuality." I'd say "this experience", and rewrite the final clause: "which enabled him to..." etc
 * Changed to "experience", and changed the end of the sentence too. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "They broke apart because Pollitt did not share Crowley's increasing interest in Western esotericism, something Crowley regretted for years." The nature of Crowley's regret is somewhat ambiguously expressed here.
 * I've changed the prose here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "as he considered" → "as he was considering"
 * Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment on images
Comment on images: I would be interested in offering a full review, but, for now, just a comment on some images; these are things which will needed to be dealt with before FAC; image problems can (quite rightly) sink FAC nominations.
 * File:Aleister Crowley 1902 K2.jpg- While this is definitely PD in the EU because of the date of the author, we need to have some idea of the first publication to be clear about if/why it's PD in the US.
 * I've been able to find a little bit more information about the image (exactly where it was taken etc) but not where it was first published. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * File:OTOlogo.png- This is a non-free image with a template rationale. The rationale is not appropriate for this use; if the image is required (and I'm not necessarily convinced it is!) it'll need a careful hand-written rationale.
 * I think that you're probably right about the necessity of this image. I have removed it from the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Crowley unicursal hexagram.svg- The design looks complex enough to be copyrightable, to me. I am not clear why we should assume that this is PD.
 * File:Aleister Crowley's May Morn.jpg- This is a real problem. We're going to need some evidence of first publication and an indication of whether or not this is PD in the US.

You may remember that I had a bash at Crowley images in the past- I think this is something you're going to need to keep an eye on to stop problematic images sneaking through in the future. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Prose comments from JM

 * "He married Rose Edith Kelly and they honeymooned in Cairo, Egypt in 1904" Both in 1904 or just the honeymoon?
 * Yes, this was both in 1904. Do you think that the prose requires alteration at all ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh no, I was wrong on that. My apologies. The actual wedding was August 1903. I shall amend the prose accordingly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I wonder whether you are running into NPOV issues referring to his parents as "ultra-conservative" and "fundamentalist".
 * I think the terms are appropriate in these contexts; specifically the article describes the Plymouth Brethren as a form of fundamentalist Christianity (which it undeniably is) and the Exclusive Brethren were on the more extreme end of the Plymouth Brethren, thus warranting the "ultra-conservative" tag, although perhaps a more appropriate term could be found for the latter ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually it might just be better if I get rid of "ultra-conservative" all together here. It doesn't really add anything and as you point out could raise some problems. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "Following the death of their baby daughter in 1880, in 1881 the family" The family didn't have a daughter- the parents had a daughter.
 * I've changed this to "in 1881 the Crowleys". How does that sound ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Better! Josh Milburn (talk) 12:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Is your link to the right publication called The Cambridge Magazine? The linked publication seems to have been established a few years after Crowley left Cambridge.
 * According to the footnotes in Kaczynski, Crowley's poems appeared in various 1899 editions of Cambridge Magazine, so clearly this isn't the same magazine that the link send us to. I have de-connected the link accordingly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:15, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "They broke apart because Pollitt did not share Crowley's increasing interest in Western esotericism, something Crowley regretted for years." He regretted the breakup, or Pollitt's lack of interest?
 * I've dealt with this issue in my responses to Brian's original comments. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "a piece of decadent erotica" is a little non-neutral, I feel. "that had to be printed abroad" is also sensationalist- better to simply say he chose to print it abroad.
 * I've reworded this to "a Decadent work of erotic poetry"; does that work ? The use of "decadence" refers specifically to the artistic genre of the work, rather than being a mere descriptor. I have also reworded the second part of this sentence so that it is less sensationalistic in tone. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I see- much clearer. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "and the latter was a critical success" I'm unclear what you're referring to, here.
 * I've changed this to "although Jephthah was a critical success." Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "from the London rebels" Non-neutral? Also the next line.
 * I've changed this to the more neutral "London lodge members". Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * What was Why Jesus Wept? Another book of poems to woo Rose, or something else? Was it published? What year?
 * I've ammended the prose to the following: "While on his honeymoon, he wrote her a series of love poems, published as Rosa Mundi and other Love Songs (1906), as well as authoring the religious satire Why Jesus Wept (1904)." Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "Arabic and Islamic mysticism." Ambiguous- "the language of Arabic and the mysticism of Islam" or "both Arabic mysticism and Islamic mysticism"? (There will be better ways to phrase this. Wikilinks may be sufficient.)
 * I've reversed the wording to "Islamic mysticism and Arabic", which I think is a good improvement and erases the problems. I have also added links. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "Crowley was astounded, for the exhibit's number was 666, the number of the beast in Christian belief." Too rhetorical
 * Agreed and edited. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "According to later claims, on 8 April Crowley heard a disembodied voice claiming to be coming from Aiwass, an entity who was the messenger of Horus, or Hoor-Paar-Kraat." Later claims of his own? I feel that this is presented too uncritically.
 * I've changed the start of this passage to "According to Crowley's own later claims," to make this a little clearer. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "Crowley was unsure what to do with The Book of the Law, and often came to resent it. He ignored the instructions that it commanded him to perform, which included taking the Stele of Revealing from the museum, fortifying his own island, and translating the book into all the world's languages. Instead he sent typescripts of the work to several occultists he knew, and then "put aside the book with relief"." Again, this feels a little uncritical. I wonder whether this paragraph could be reworked to say first that he wrote the book and then that claims were made about disembodied voices and such. Surely, per WP:UNDUE, we shouldn't be privileging the claim that Crowley actually heard the voices of deities.
 * I've changed the prose to the following: "Crowley claimed that at the time he had been unsure what to do with The Book of the Law. Often resenting it, he said that he ignored the instructions which the text commanded him to perform, which included taking the Stele of Revealing from the museum, fortifying his own island, and translating the book into all the world's languages. According to his account, he instead sent typescripts of the work to several occultists he knew, putting the manuscript itself away and ignoring it." I hope that that better reflects that this account rests upon Crowley's own claims. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "Crowley was proved right" Non-neutral. According to the article, he made a judgement call that it was too dangerous, not a prediction that they would be killed. There's an interesting discussion to be had about proving judgements, but I don't think this article is the place to do it! (Also, I think the word "mutinied" is too metaphorical/prosaic.)
 * A very fair point. I have removed that particular wording regarding "proved right" but I'm not sure what to replace "mutinied" with. Any suggestions? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "rebelled", but then that has very similar connotations to "mutinied"... Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm assuming that the books without dates weren't published? If this is not correct, there seems to be some inconsistency. The Scented Garden and Snowdrops From a Curate's Garden are some examples, but I think there are others.


 * "after shooting dead a native who tried to mug him" A bit colonial. Why not just "a man"?
 * How about "a native man" ? I appreciate the colonial overtones of such wording but I think it is significant that the dead man was an Indian rather than a European colonialist, because that in part explains the reaction from locals. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "a native man" would be better- "an Indian man" is another possibility. Josh Milburn (talk)


 * "before sailing to Hong Kong" If they all went, rather than just Crowley, how about "before they sailed to Hong Kong"?
 * I'm not quite sure if they accompanied him to Hong Kong or not. I shall look it up. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've removed mention of Hong Kong as from the sources I looked at I cannot quite establish who exactly went to HK, whether it was just Crowley or his whole family. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "Heartbroken" Non-neutral
 * I replaced it with "Under emotional distress"; do you think that this works ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, better. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "He began short-lived romances with actress Vera "Lola" Stepp and author Ada Leverson,[69] and Rose gave birth to Crowley's second daughter, Lola Zaza, in February 1907.[70]" Not entirely clear what the two halves of the sentence have to do with each other.
 * Not a lot, I think. It just looks a little better to have them attached as one longer sentence than cut up into two very small sentences, no ? I shall replace the "and Rose" with "while Rose", which might help smooth things a bit with this passage. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "an influential essay on "The Psychology of Hashish" (1909)." First, I don't like the way you use the title as part of the sentence, and, second, in what way was it influential? Academic literature in psychology(?), among occultists, or in some other way?


 * "resulting in two further texts, "Liber VII" and "Liber Cordis Cincti Serpente", which was later classified in the corpus of Holy Books of Thelema." Unclear.
 * I've tried to improve the wording here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm struggling with the following sentences, too, and "In June 1909, when the manuscript of The Book of the Law was rediscovered at Boleskine, Crowley finally came to fully accept Thelema as objective truth.[75]" comes across as very pro-Thelema
 * Another good point (I'm not sure if that was my original wording or whether someone else has come along and made alterations). Either way, it needs changing. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And now I've changed it! Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "closest disciple and sexual partner" closest disciple and closest sexual partner, or closest disciple and a sexual partner?
 * I've switched the wording around to "sexual partner and closest discipline", which I think rectifies the problem. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "correspondences that borrowed from Mathers and Bennett" What does this mean? (Also, could we have a link to explain the term "Qabalistic"?)
 * I've linked to both Hermetic Qabalah and Correspondence (theology), which I hope will deal with this issue. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "Francis Henry Everard Joseph Feilding" Is that one name or have you missed a comma?
 * That's one name. Of course it would be simpler to ignore the middle names and just say "Francis Feilding" but his name appears to be cited in full in various texts. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "In March 1909, Crowley began production of a biannual periodical that acted as the "Official Organ" of the A∴A∴, titled The Equinox, which was billed as "The Review of Scientific Illuminism"." Could this be rephrased?
 * Good idea. I've gone with "In March 1909, Crowley began production of a biannual periodical titled The Equinox. Acting as the "Official Organ" of the A∴A∴, he billed this periodical as "The Review of Scientific Illuminism"." Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * A quick comment on the new wording- the second sentence doesn't quite work. The current structure means that the subordinate clause "acting as the "Official Organ" of the A∴A∴" descibes "he" (IE, Crowley). You could fix this by restructure the main clause, so that the sentence is "Acting as the "Official Organ" of the A∴A∴, this [or "the"] periodical was billed [by Crowley?] as "The Review of Scientific Illuminism"." Alternatively, you could move the subordinate clause so that it reads something like "He billed this periodical, which was to become the "Official Organ" of the A∴A∴, as "The Review of Scientific Illuminism"."" Josh Milburn (talk) 12:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've gone with your proposed wording Josh, I think that it works nicely. :) Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * "both articles on occultism, non-fiction pieces, and artworks" "both" implies two
 * Agreed, "both" has no place here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "Meanwhile, unable to stand her alcoholism, Crowley divorced Rose in November 1909, on the grounds of his own adultery." Non-neutral
 * Agreed and changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "he performed the 19 Calls of Enochian magic" ??
 * I was hoping that the Enochian article talked about the 19 Calls but it isn't in a good state and only mentions them, so I think it better to simply remove "19 Calls" here rather than go into unnecessary information in explaining them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "magical workings" ??
 * A "working" is a common term within occult literature to refer to a magical act. A "working" pertains to a specific, singular act (even one that takes many weeks) whereas a term like "ceremony" or "ritual" infers something that can be repeated again and again. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "and developed the spelling "magick" to differentiate what he practised from the tricks of illusionists" Again, this comes across a little pro-Crowley
 * I've rephrased this as "developed the spelling "magick" in reference to the paranormal phenomenon as a means of distinguishing it from the stage magic of illusionists." Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "XI° level initiates" Undefined jargon
 * I've rewritten this as the following: "syllabus for those O.T.O. members who had been initiated into the eleventh degree." Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "the gods Mercury and Jupiter" Links?
 * Added links. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "the working, among them Liber Agapé, a treatise on sex magic.[112] Following the Working" Inconsistency
 * I've reworded this section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * " resulting in an argument in which Crowley cursed him.[113]" In the magical sense, I assume?
 * Yes. I'll add a link to curse to try and make that clearer. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "In later years, detractors denounced Crowley as a traitor to Britain for this action.[122] In reality, Crowley was a double agent, working for the British intelligence services to infiltrate and undermine Germany's operation in New York. Many of his articles in The Fatherland were hyperbolic, for instance comparing Kaiser Wilhelm II to Jesus Christ; in July 1915 he orchestrated a publicity stunt – reported on by The New York Times – in which he declared independence for Ireland in front of the Statue of Liberty; the real intention was to make the German lobby appear ridiculous in the eyes of the American public.[123] It has been argued that he encouraged the German Navy to destroy the Lusitania, informing them that it would ensure the US stayed out of the war, while in reality hoping that it would bring the US into the war on Britain's side.[124]" Is there a clear academic consensus on these claims? The sources you cite don't seem ideal for such radical-sounding claims. (Also the later "aware of his intelligence work".)


 * "experienced past life memories" Claimed to, presumably.
 * Of course. I'll ensure that that is clearer in the text. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "making various slanderous accusations against him, but he was unable to afford the legal fees to sue them. As a result, John Bull continued its attack, with the stories also being picked up by newspapers in North America and throughout Europe." This feels very pro-Crowley
 * I've altered the prose accordingly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * What was To Man? The Heart of the Master?
 * I've provided explanations of both works in the article, as well as their dates of publication. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "There, prominent members like Karl Germer and Martha Küntzel championed Crowley's leadership, but others opposed it, resulting in a split in the O.T.O." The fact you name "prominent" pro-Crowley members but name no anti-Crowley members feels pro-Crowley.
 * A good point. I've added in the names of the prominent anti-Crowley figures. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * "He then returned to Berlin, where he reappeared three weeks later at the opening of his art exhibition at the Gallery Neumann-Nierendorf." By "reappeared", do you mean specifically that he came out as not really dead?
 * Yes, but do think that we should alter the wording here ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's an odd situation- the current works, but I do wonder if there may be a better way to phrase this. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:12, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * " Thelema revolves around the idea that human beings each have their own True Will that they should discover and pursue, and that this would exist in harmony with the Cosmic Will that pervades the universe." Why "would"?
 * Removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "Lord Boleskine" You used "Laird" further up the article
 * Changed to "Laird". Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "exotic women" If that's not a quote from Crowley himself, I don't think we should use it. It's very eurocentric.


 * " that people "must not be ashamed or afraid of being homosexual if he happens to be so at heart; he must not attempt to violate his own true nature because of public opinion, or medieval morality, or religious prejudice which would wish he were otherwise."" This should be "a person" or "a man" rather than "people".
 * Agreed and changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Concerning the prose, I think that, in places, the article has a slight pro-Crowley/pro-Thelema leaning. Concerning the sources, I wonder whether there is more academic material out there from mainstream academic presses/mainstream peer-reviewed journals; while the reliance on biographies is inevitable, I think the incorporation of more academic work could be valuable. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Also in Britain, an occultist known as Amado Crowley claimed to be Crowley's son; these claims have been refuted by academic investigation. Amado argued that Thelema was a false religion created by Crowley to hide his true esoteric teachings, which Amado claimed to be propagating" Is Dave Evans (author of the cited source) an academic?
 * Yes, he was. From what I gather (mostly from here) he held a PhD in history from the University of Bristol, produced under the supervision of historian Ronald Hutton. While the book being cited was not published through an academic press, it was based on Evans' earlier doctoral work and was reviewed in several academic, peer-reviewed journals. Evans himself (before his untimely death a few years ago) also co-edited the Journal for the Academic Study of Magic and established the Academic Study of Magic list-serve, even though he never held a professional academic post. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That's good enough for me. If his book was widely reviewed, he's probably actually notable- or, at least, the book would be. To offer a FAC style source review: The Churton and Kaczynski biographies look fine, as these are people who hold academic posts in a related field. Same for Spence, even if the book title does seem a little sensationalist. Sutin has an academic post and St. Martin's Press is respectable, so definitely reliable. And, for our purposes, everything from OUP edited collections, peer reviewed journals or broadsheet newspapers are surely reliable. I will note, though, that page numbers and perhaps DOIs would be good for journal articles, while there's inconsistency on whether to list publishers/locations (I wouldn't bother). Acumen is now part of Routledge, but was certainly respectable, if smaller, beforehand, so that gives me confidence in Pasi/Godwin. Booth, Cavendish, Evans, Landis and Symonds seem to fall the next level down- not quite "academic works from academics", but decent enough for solid biographical information. DuQuette is worrying me a little- he's an occult writer publishing with an occult press. Similar with Moore; he's presented as an academic, but I don't know how to take it- a "new age" type press from an occult writer. I think you've done well to be selective with your reference list- I was initially worried that you were leaning on some pretty questionable sources, but provided you're not relying solely on the "next level down" sources for anything rejected/ignored by the academics and providing you're particularly with the used of the autobiography, I think the only questions concern whether and how DuQuette and Moore should be used. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ideally I wouldn't have resorted to using DuQuette, for it isn't an ideal (i.e. academic) source. However, he is a respected figure within the Thelemite community itself, and there has yet to be much solid academic research and publication on Thelemic belief; the vast majority of academic studies have focused on Crowley himself, rather than on the belief system which he promulgated. Whether or not DuQuette should be included as a reference is a difficult one, however, and something that I shall have to seriously consider before proceeding to FAC. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The question to ask is whether you're citing anything particularly contentious to DuQuette/Moore, or, even worse, using them for information which is rejected in, or conspicuously absent from, "better" sources. I certainly don't think that they're terrible sources which should be stripped from the article (and there will be plenty of sources like that about someone like Crowley) but they have to be used judiciously. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:12, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for taking the time to read and review this article, Josh. As for the idea that the article carries a pro-Crowley/pro-Thelema leaning, I think that you are right. Certainly, a number of Thelemites have been active on this article over the years, although having looked at the wording of the page when I got it through the GAN system in October 2013 I can see that most of the pro-Crowley passages were still present then, and thus are probably the result of my own additions, so I'll have to take the fall for that one (perhaps a tad ironic, given that I am not a Thelemite and nor do I consider myself particularly 'pro-Crowley'). Certainly, you've done a good job of pointing out where a pro-Crowley slant has crept in and I hope that most of those instances have now been removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to have patchy internet access for a while, so may not be able to devote much time to responding to this peer review for the next week and a half. So if I'm not responding, it's not that I've forgotten about it, just that I'm not available! Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)