Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Thelema/Archive 3

RELIGIOUS movement??
Did I miss something? In my expirience Thelema is quite the opposite of religion. I'd suggest to replace "religious" by "spiritual" or whatever you think suites the topic. Or has Thelema really become a religion? (leael93 on de.wikipedia.org)

Although the Caliphate OTO do use the term "religion" the Caliphate dont speak for all Thelemites. For those who are more independent Thelema is a collection of ideas and guidelines to help align with their true will. Although Crowley did use the term "religion" its very easy to take Crowleys meaning out of context. Thelema didnt begin with Crowley. So it is right to raise the issue of Thelema being a "religion"--Redblossom (talk) 20:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you are completely unaware of the running debate of whether Thelema is a religion or not... it seems so. The OTO currently gets benefits from being legally a religious entity and they often refer to Thelema as a religion. Crowley himself called Thelema a religion many, many times. It seems many people are averse to this simply because of (a) they have prejudices built up around the word 'religion' and/or (b) they think the label 'religion' is too constrictive. In the case (a), I have to say I am sorry but these are your prejudices; in the case of (b) I could agree, but I found most labels restrictive in one way or another (even 'spiritual,' 'tradition,' 'philosophy,' 'system,' etc.) Psionicpigeon (talk) 21:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Paraphysics article in danger
there is currently a big discussion going on at the paraphysics sections wether its going to be deleted or not. if this article is to be deleted, it would be a shame, and a great loss to paranormal, occult and spiritual research. i suggest, and hope, that you vote for its continuing. and maybe even write a few sentences about the subject if you know about it, as it is currently very messy, and not much has been written about it yet.

details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Paraphysics

thank you. user:openforbusiness

Clean up of the Diversity of Thelemic thought section in Thelema article
I have made some proposals in the discussion section of the Thelema article concerning the diversity of Thelemic thought section. These are the proposals:

1: The LaSara Firefox assertion be removed. 2: The "Amado Crowley" points put into a section concerning legitimacy, but not Thelemic diversity. 3: The Thelemites who practice other religions paragraph be removed or changed. My reason for this is that if someone is following their true will then no other religion is needed since its a distraction, so this idea of other religions comes across has a contradiction and doesnt make sense. What would be better is to make comparisons between various religions and Thelema to show the differences and to show that Thelema is actually beyond the restrictions of any religion. --Redblossom (talk) 07:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This discussion should be continued at Talk:Thelema, where I've already responded. Nothing is to be gained by splitting the discussion into multiple places. Will in China (talk) 13:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What is a Thelemite under Wikipedia criteria?
Further to my exchanges with some of you i am including this section to see if there can be any clarity to what constitutes a Thelemite under Wikipedia criteria (if there is any). Now from my understanding the basic is that any person who claims to be a Thelemite and that claim has a citation in written form then they "are" a Thelemite under the Wikipedia criteria. If this is the case why is the criteria/threshold for inclusion so low and flimsy?--Redblossom (talk) 12:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I suppose that that is inherent to Thelema, as there is no Pope or other orthodox authority to force any particular definition upon anyone. If "do what thou wilt" makes the kitchen too hot for you, I suggest you choose another religion. In case you hadn't noticed, the term Thelemite predates The Book of the Law by some centuries. Will in China (talk) 01:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Concur with Will. No offense, but I do not need an organization or a "guru" or a piece of paper to "authenticate" my praxis. Estéban (talk) 09:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: Change of title for Thelemic Gematria article and other changes.
I put forward the proposal to change the heading /title Thelemic Gematria to something else. The title doesnt make sense. How is gematria "willed" exactly? Doesnt make sense. Bad grammar. A more suitable heading would be "Liber AL cipher" or RPSTOVAL cipher" .This would make more sense in the context of its place in Liber AL. Also at best the material presented would be better has a sub section for the Liber AL page. Thelemic Gematria has it stands doesnt really merit its own page. Or better still just use all the material to be put in the Gematria section has an "alternative gematria" sub section. --Redblossom (talk) 12:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The Goetia article needs more material
.

The Goetia article needs elaboration concerning its history and various forms and inclusions. It also needs to suggested that The Goetia though it was used by Crowley when he was younger in his Golden Dawn days, The Goetia is in itself not Thelemic in practice and use since the user has to surrender to the will of the Christian god before commencement of the goetic demons evocation/appearance. But has a historical documeent it does have relevance to Crowleys evolution in Magick. But its relevance has a Thelmic document is dubious at best.--Redblossom (talk) 12:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Wheres Agape?
Why is their no inclusion of the Agape article under the Thelema section? And why has no one put any relevant Thelemic material into the Agape article? Does someone want to volunteer to do that?--Redblossom (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). But please be sure to cite your additions to reliable sources. Will in China (talk) 17:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Changing the title for 93(Thelema) article
.

I propose that the title for the 93 (Thelema) article be changed to 93 Current. Since this is a common term amongst thelemites this would make it easier for everyone. At the moment you have to trawl through different versions to find 93 relevant to Thelema. Changing the title will make it easier for the search engine.--Redblossom (talk) 11:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Opening paragraph for Thelema article needs re-write.
The opening paragraph for Thelema article needs a re write. It strongly comes across as POV and is using Peacock terms that are not possible to verify either way. Especially the assertion that Thelema is a relgion. This is POV, and is also a peacock term. Also when a logged in editor attepts to re-edit it the page doesnt allow a edit, so someone as gone to the trouble to stifle the editing process. Also why has someone included Christian points of reference of Tne Devil and God in the concept of Will? doesnt make sense. And it seems to be protected from editing. Possible trolling. Why?--Redblossom (talk) 08:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
 * The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
 * The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
 * A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot  ( Disable )  21:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge duplicate navboxes
Template:Thelema series and Template:Thelema have been suggested for merge. I've checked that all of the content is in the 1st template, and suggest that the 2nd be depopulated and redirected to the 1st.

Reasons (as given at Template talk:Thelema series) include avoidance of content duplication/forking, and because the set of links does not form an WP:Article series (but is rather a cohesive "See also" navbox).

It's not my topic, so I'll let you decide where to remove, and where to replace, the Thelema sidebox. Thanks. -- Quiddity 18:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Staff of Solomon
Is Staff of Solomon relevant for this project? I tagged it with Expert-subject for Thelema, but I really don't know much about either. My guess is that it is the same as Aaron's rod. The article needs a lot of attention, if it is worth keeping. – Leo Laursen – ✍ ⌘ 10:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Thelema
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)