Talk:Thelema
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Thelema article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 12 months ![]() |
![]() | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
![]() | Thelema was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Thelema Today
[edit]There seems to be an almost complete lack of information about the current status of the religion. How many practitioners are they? How are they distributed across the world? Is it a growing, stable or shrinking religion?
Unused sources
[edit]The following are sources listed in the article that are not actually used (referred to). Putting them here in case anyone needs them later.
- Crowley, Aleister (1910). "Liber XIII vel Graduum Montis Abiegni". The Equinox. 1 (3–4). United Kingdom: Mandrake Press & Holmes: 5 ff.
- Crowley, Aleister (1919a). "De Lege Libellum". The Equinox: The Review of Scientific Illuminism. 3 (1). Detroit: Ordo Templi Orientis, Thelema Publications: 99 ff.
- Crowley, Aleister (1973). The Qabalah of Aleister Crowley: Three Texts. New York: Samuel Weiser. ISBN 0-87728-222-6. OCLC 821060.
- Bogdan, Henrik (2012). "Envisioning the Birth of a New Aeon: Dispensationalism and Millenarianism in the Thelemic Tradition". In Bogdan, Henrik; Starr, Martin P. (eds.). Aleister Crowley and Western Esotericism. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 89–106. ISBN 978-0-19-986309-9. OCLC 820009842.
- Djurdjevic, Gordan (September 2019). "'Wishing You a Speedy Termination of Existence': Aleister Crowley's Views on Buddhism and Its Relationship with the Doctrine of Thelema". Aries: Journal for the Study of Western Esotericism. 19 (2). Leiden: Brill Publishers on behalf of the European Society for the Study of Western Esotericism: 212–230. doi:10.1163/15700593-01902001. ISSN 1567-9896. S2CID 204456438.
- Gillavry, D. M. (2014). "Aleister Crowley, the Guardian Angel and Aiwass: The Nature of Spiritual Beings in the Philosophies of the Great Beast 666" (PDF). Sacra. 11 (2). Brno: Masaryk University: 33–42. ISSN 1214-5351. S2CID 58907340. Archived (PDF) from the original on 27 June 2016. Retrieved 10 January 2022.
- Hayward, Rhodri (2017). "Part III: Beyond medicine – Psychiatry and religion". In Eghigian, Greg (ed.). The Routledge History of Madness and Mental Health. Routledge Histories (1st ed.). London and New York: Routledge. pp. 137–152. doi:10.4324/9781315202211. ISBN 978-1315202211. LCCN 2016050178.
- Penczak, Christopher (2007). Ascension. Llewellyn. ISBN 978-0-7387-1047-1.
- Tully, Caroline (2010). "Walk Like an Egyptian: Egypt as Authority in Aleister Crowley's Reception of The Book of the Law" (PDF). The Pomegranate: The International Journal of Pagan Studies. 12 (1). London: Equinox Publishing: 20–47. doi:10.1558/pome.v12i1.20. hdl:11343/252812. ISSN 1528-0268. S2CID 159745083. Archived (PDF) from the original on 10 January 2022. Retrieved 10 January 2022.
- U.D., Frater (2005). High Magic: Theory & Practice. Llewellyn Worldwide. ISBN 0-7387-0471-7.
- Urban, Hugh B. (2012). "The Occult Roots of Scientology?: L. Ron Hubbard, Aleister Crowley, and the Origins of a Controversial New Religion". Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions. 15 (3): 91–116. doi:10.1525/nr.2012.15.3.91. JSTOR 10.1525/nr.2012.15.3.91.
- Urban, Hugh B. (2017). Lewis, James R. (ed.). "Secrets, secrets, SECRETS!" Concealment, Surveillance, and Information-Control in the Church of Scientology. Handbook of Scientology. Leiden: Brill. ISBN 978-9004328716.
▶ I am Grorp ◀ 08:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Grorp: Thanks for calling attention to those. The sources at the end in your list regarding the relationship between Thelema and Scientology were added by me years ago as references in-text. Obviously someone has removed the relevant text but for some reason left in the references. (I have not monitored this article for a long time.) I had long planned on adding a new section to the article about the immense influence that Thelema has had on religions, philosophies, and other movements and ideologies that came after the advent of Thelema. Those ideologies are as diverse as Wicca, Neopaganism, some variants of Satanism (which is unfortunate in my opinion, as, unlike Thelema, Satanism is a philosophy of narcissism, but I digress...), the New Age movement, 1960s counterculture, and the hippie movement, among many, many countless other ideologies and belief systems. One could potentially even argue that the modern gay rights movement wouldn't have happened without Thelema.
- Thelema has also been argued by many scholars of Religion to have been one of many influences on the development of Scientology. (For example, it is a well-documented fact that the founder of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard, was an early member of the O.T.O. and likely even knew Crowley personally.) This fact makes a lot of people very uncomfortable, both Thelemites who are afraid that this association will make people think that Thelema is a "cult", and Scientologists who are afraid that people will negatively associate Scientology with occultism. (The Church of Scientology officially denies that L. Ron Hubbard was ever associated with Thelema or Crowley, despite virtually undeniable evidence to the contrary.) I originally had a sentence or two in the intro of the article mentioning that Thelema had been an influence on the development of many diverse belief systems, Scientology among them. This angered some people, either people who thought it made Thelema look "bad" or people who thought it made Scientology look "bad", so I assume one of those such people removed it somewhere along the way but for some reason either intentionally, or more likely unintentionally, forgot to also remove the references.
- My intention was always to create a new large section of the article, perhaps even an entirely new article, documenting the vast influence that Thelema has had on society and other religious movements, but years go by faster than I ever imagined they would and it is one of countless tasks that I intended to do but never got around to. And for the record, my position is to be neither pro- nor anti-Scientology, nor pro- nor anti-Thelema when it comes to Wikipedia. My intent is to neutrally, factually, and without bias document the vast and often hidden impact that Thelema has had on the course of history and society. It's truly remarkable just how many seemingly unrelated things in society and culture can trace their roots back to Thelema.
- Writing the section--or hopefully an entire article--is still something I intend to do eventually. But for now, I'm just giving some backstory as to an explanation for at least part of that list of orphan references. I wonder if the other sources you listed may have become unused in the article for similar reasons: because they didn't fit with someone's personal bias/opinions/beliefs. Vontheri (talk) 23:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Proposed merge of List of Thelemites into Thelema
[edit]The list article is uncited (18 years!). It is short enough (without a TOC) to fit inside the Thelema article. Or simply provide a link to Category:Thelemites in the See-also section. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 08:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. Merge doesn't solve citation problem. Every single entry is cited in the linked article. Skyerise (talk) 12:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- You did a good job adding citations and/or citation-needed tags to each entry. Still not sure why it needs its own article. I cannot imagine it will ever grow. There are only 36 items on the list (10 still uncited). That's not a lot. Also, the letter section headings are distracting; it's a far more interesting list to just scroll through, not search. Below is a better rendition (if you put the # back to *; I used it to count the entries). ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 05:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Why would the list never grow? Vontheri (talk) 23:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- You did a good job adding citations and/or citation-needed tags to each entry. Still not sure why it needs its own article. I cannot imagine it will ever grow. There are only 36 items on the list (10 still uncited). That's not a lot. Also, the letter section headings are distracting; it's a far more interesting list to just scroll through, not search. Below is a better rendition (if you put the # back to *; I used it to count the entries). ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 05:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
The list
| ||
---|---|---|
|
- Um, it's still a living religion. Why would you think the list would never grow? There are a number of living people on the list, and there are most likely articles that could be added if support were added to the relevant articles. I'm sorry you're distracted by the alphabet, but I see no reason to change the headings. Not sure why you are discussing it here rather than there. Skyerise (talk) 08:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Lead image
[edit]What about using the symbol of Aleister Crowley's rendition of the unicursal hexagram in the lead section just like the articles of other religions such as Theosophy, Satanism, and more? And use the image of Crowley in somewhere else in the article (obviously according to context). User:AimanAbir18plus (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- @AimanAbir18plus: This image has been on the article for years. It shows Crowley, the founder of the religion, together with the most holy objects of the religion, the Stele of Revealing and The Book of the Law, and you have given no policy or guideline based reason justifying the change. Generally, per WP:EDITCON, we assume there is consensus for the current image and you would have to give a good policy or guideline-based argument for the change. Neither your own personal preferences or how it is done on other articles are valid arguments for making changes. Skyerise (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is not my personal preference. It is a proposal to use the symbol based on what most of the editors say. It depends on the majority of the editors' opinion. But, articles of other religions such as Theosophy, Satanism, and more use symbol in the lead. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- @AimanAbir18plus: Yes, it is your personal preference. The creators and maintainers of articles have broad editorial discretion on the article content and images. They are not required to take any other articles' styles into account — those article's editors also have broad editorial discretion. There is no guideline that dictates any kind of consistency between articles. The only valid arguments for overriding the choices of the original creators and maintainers of the article is that what they have done violates one or another policy or guideline. If you don't explain how you think the current choice violates a guideline (citing the guideline), there is little chance that you will gain a consensus to change the image. Skyerise (talk) 01:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Even if it was my personal preference, I just put it for discussion. Just leave it on the talk page. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 09:23, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Of course; but just be aware that if no other editors respond, it means no other editors support the change. Skyerise (talk) 13:00, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Even if it was my personal preference, I just put it for discussion. Just leave it on the talk page. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 09:23, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- @AimanAbir18plus: Yes, it is your personal preference. The creators and maintainers of articles have broad editorial discretion on the article content and images. They are not required to take any other articles' styles into account — those article's editors also have broad editorial discretion. There is no guideline that dictates any kind of consistency between articles. The only valid arguments for overriding the choices of the original creators and maintainers of the article is that what they have done violates one or another policy or guideline. If you don't explain how you think the current choice violates a guideline (citing the guideline), there is little chance that you will gain a consensus to change the image. Skyerise (talk) 01:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is not my personal preference. It is a proposal to use the symbol based on what most of the editors say. It depends on the majority of the editors' opinion. But, articles of other religions such as Theosophy, Satanism, and more use symbol in the lead. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delisted good articles
- B-Class Religion articles
- Mid-importance Religion articles
- B-Class New religious movements articles
- High-importance New religious movements articles
- New religious movements articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- B-Class Neopaganism articles
- Mid-importance Neopaganism articles
- B-Class Occult articles
- Mid-importance Occult articles
- WikiProject Occult articles
- B-Class Women in Religion articles
- Low-importance Women in Religion articles