This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aleister Crowley article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Aleister Crowley is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astrology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Astrology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AstrologyWikipedia:WikiProject AstrologyTemplate:WikiProject Astrologyastrology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OccultWikipedia:WikiProject OccultTemplate:WikiProject OccultOccult articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Secret Societies, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Secret SocietiesWikipedia:WikiProject Secret SocietiesTemplate:WikiProject Secret SocietiesSecret Societies articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Thelema, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ThelemaWikipedia:WikiProject ThelemaTemplate:WikiProject ThelemaThelema articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Warwickshire, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Warwickshire. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page.WarwickshireWikipedia:WikiProject WarwickshireTemplate:WikiProject WarwickshireWikiProject Warwickshire articles
How come a bunch of conspiracy theories about Crowley such as him being a spy living a lie for his whole life and being responsible for the sinking of Lusitania is treated as legimite research here? Martianmister (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Martianmister: What makes you think they are a "bunch of conspiracy theories"? Do you have a source for that? Looks like what's in the article is supported by multiple biographies. Skyerise (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would I need a source? There is no source on those biographies' claims, other than their own conjectures. If Crowley was really a spy it would be revealed by the official files years ago, like all those cold war era anti-communist survelliance and phone tapping reports. There is no reason for the British Intelligence to hide the work of someone dead for decades. Martianmister (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The biographies are perfectly good sources and we do not cast doubt on sources without a source that explicitly expresses that doubt. If you want to contest what a source says, you need a source that does so, not just your own opinion. I've reverted your edits and will do so again if you make such changes without a source to support you. Also the use of words like "alleged" and "claim" are not neutral. We don't write like that, see WP:CLAIM. You can say, "according to source", but you can't cast doubt without citing a source that casts that doubt explicitly. Skyerise (talk) 11:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A cited source is all the proof Wikipedia requires. WP:CLAIM always applies. Please also see our Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. If your edit is disputed, the article stays at the status quo until you can show consensus for the change on the talk page. So keep talking and wait for other editors to respond. Don't edit war. If you're right, you'll find a consensus. Skyerise (talk) 22:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Skyerise here, he just beat me to the revert! Come up with some good sources, see WP:RS for guidance on that, and we can have a discussion here. DuncanHill (talk) 22:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which part of my edits were problematic? If anything, they were consistent with the sources themselves. Crowley's intelligence work is an allegation, so it makes more sense to call it "alleged intelligence work". Spence and Churton themselves only "suggest" a link, they themselves admit that they have no proof. Also, tge writing itself is needlessly long, it keeps repeating "did x for british intelligence" over and over. Martianmister (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The part where you violate WP:CLAIM. The "claims" were already qualified with the identities of the writers making them and with the word "suggested". Nothing in the original text alleged anything: it merely reports on the opinions of several writers. What you wrote was, in contrast, a sort of sensationalizing of the content in a manner more worthy of a tabloid than an encyclopedia. Plus, you provided no source which critiqued those writers in that way: the sensationalism of your context reflects your own beliefs about the matter rather than the sourced opinions of others, which is what is being presented in that section. You can contrast sources which hold a different position: you cannot present the matter from your own unsourced perspective. Skyerise (talk) 22:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Headings are convenient titles; they do not establish anything and they do not require citations. Only the text of the article can do that, and it is accurate. Skyerise (talk) 19:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know that Crowley's Tao Teh Ching, etc. are called "new translations", but it is well known that Crowley could not read Chinese, that his "translations" were actually adaptations based on the then-existing English translations, which Crowley adapted according to his own poetic style and "initiated knowledge". See Robinson, D. (2017). Exorcising Translation: Towards an Intercivilizational Turn. India: Bloomsbury Academic. p. 128, where is it mentioned that Timothy Leary used the same approach. This can also be confirmed is some of his biographies. Skyerise (talk) 10:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, the source I mentioned just above, on p. 128, which I linked. There are also others. It's well known by his biographers, most of whom mention it if they discuss his "translations" of Chinese works, and therefore well known by those who have bothered to read his biographies. If you think he could read Chinese, what's your source? Skyerise (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not generally considered 'paganism' by religious scholars
Thelema is not normally classified as 'paganism' by religious scholars, because it is a revelatory new religious movement. The article on Thelema itself is not categorized as such. Therefore I have removed the added category. Skyerise (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.png){kind=small}
