Jump to content

Talk:Aleister Crowley/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

POV Vandalism

"was a British occultist, writer, mountaineer, poet, yogi and nutjob."

I'm going to edit out "nutjob" because that's definitely not encyclopedia/is vandalism. Might revert to a previous version depending on other changes and such. . . I don't do a lot of editing here, mostly just typos on articles when I catch them, so if there's something else I'm supposed to do (noting the IP address of the vandal, or something), please inform me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.47.148.124 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 8 March 2009

Although "nutjob" is a fun addition, and one I suspect Crowley wouldn't terribly mind himself, it does cross the line. As he was a provocateur and could make a sort of show out of being "mad" I must add that "nutjob" is not entirely as out of place in this article as one may initially think. Gingermint (talk) 20:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Excessive

This article is excessively-long for someone who wasn't that important in the course of human events. For example, Crowley was no Alistair Cooke, no Arthur C. Clarke, on Paul McCartney and no Elton John. There needs to be some sense of proportionality, and this article needs to be re-edited and greatly-reduced in length.74.249.77.168 (talk) 17:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Its no longer than the article about Kevin Keegan, someone whose sole claim to fame is being good at playing football. Oh whoopie bloody doo. Well, thats the future of mankind sorted out then isnt it. Jeez..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.198.33.252 (talk) 11:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, for one, this is a blatant example of subjective thought with no basis in reality. Crowley (in my subjective view) far, far outweighs any of the lesser names mentioned above like Elton John for god's sake. What nonsense is this? The article is not long enough. The request above is simply ridiculous and not important enough to take anymore of our time with. If you cannot take the time to understand just how monumental and important this man (Crowley) was, than I simply cannot take the time to bother with you.159.53.46.140 (talk) 21:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, for one, this is a blatant example of subjective thought with no basis in reality. Sorry, but I really had to pitch that one back at you. Crowley is no more intrinsically estimable than Kevin Keegan, and probably about the same number of people think the sun shines out of Crowley's arse as Keegan's. And that's from someone with more interest in Crowley than in Keegan, I do assure you.
Nuttyskin (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

"This article is excessively-long for someone who wasn't that important in the course of human events. For example, Crowley was no Alistair Cooke, no Arthur C. Clarke, on Paul McCartney and no Elton John." You know, I was almost with you until the Elton John bit. Really? I must say that Aleister Crowley is far more significant than some bloated Rock guy. Really, Elton John?! At any rate, I think the length of the article on Crowley is about right and shouldn't be messed with unless someone thinks something should be added. Gingermint (talk) 20:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

We're not going to take out reliable information simply because you believe the person's popularity should be reflected on the size of the article. --98.217.61.141 (talk) 23:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

An article is never too long. Maybe it is the pages on "important" people that should be longer ? Ze gobou (talk) 14:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

confusing layout

It is stated in the section on Crowley's childhood that the death of this father 'was a turning point in Crowley's life, after which he then began to describe his childhood in the first person in his 'Confessions. However, the section of 'The Confessions' quoted thereafter is in the third person!!

Why does this create so much confusion? If you look at the dates, the quote plainly refers to a time before his father's death. Furthermore, it comes before that event in the article (I don't know why you said "thereafter"). Dan (talk) 22:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, Crowley consistently refers to himself as a boy in the third person.
Nuttyskin (talk) 14:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Confusing Language

"In 1895, he went to Trinity College, Cambridge, after studying at the public schools Malvern College etc..." Now, in England, for some reason, "public" school actually means "private" school. Depending on if this was written by someone English or not this sentence means different things. At least the word "whilst" doesn't rear its ugly head every paragraph! Gingermint (talk) 20:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

They're called public (i.e., run by members of the public)to distinguish them from church schools, which at one time were the norm and tended not to teach Enlightenment ideas.
As to the comparative beauty or ugliness of the head of whilst, that, as you Americans would say, is a whole nother thing :D
Nuttyskin (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

There is another confusing construction: "His mother, Emily Bertha Bishop, drew roots from a Devon and Somerset family and was despised by her son, whom she described as "the Beast", a name that he revelled in." I don't know enough to correct this but at a guess it might be re-written: "His mother, Emily Bertha Bishop, drew roots from a Devon and Somerset family and despised her son, whom she described as "the Beast", a name that he revelled in." hypotaxis (talk) 07:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Photo Switch

I think that we should switch the photo of Crowley with the Mason hat with the photo of him in his arm chair. It looks more professional--Gpshaw (talk) 05:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why. That was his profession. Dan (talk) 01:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe that the opening photograph really gives the right impression as to someone not informed on cults etc. may simply think that he's a nutter who adorned himself in peculiar garments and symbols. If someone as controversila as Adolph Hitler is entitled to a proffesional photograph then I'd say that Crowley deserves one also. 86.10.97.187 (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC) Moustan
Agree. Normal pic at top of page, wacky cultist pic further on? - It doesn't stick. (talk) 18:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Aleister Crowley; his character described by Somerset Maugham

Maybe I overlooked the subject in this page. Would it be inappropriate to ad a topic on his relation to contemporary writers such as Maugham? Apparently Maugham wrote “the magician” with Crowly in mind. Not his best writing though. 82.95.60.124 (talk) 11:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Paedophilia

Until I removed it, the term paedophile was among those used to describe Crowley at the beginning of the article, yet the article does not go on to explore or substantiate this claim. There is no evidence to suggest that Crowley ever engaged in sexual activity with under age children. I therefore think it misleading to describe Crowley in such terms.

Deantuhka (talk) 13:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. - It doesn't stick. (talk) 18:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the source material at hand at this moment, but I do recall in his "Confessions" that Crowley had his first sex encounter with a house maid when he was about 13 years old. According to conventional wisdom, that would make him a victim of paedophilia ! He presents that incident in his autobiography as "a great conquest." But let's be reasonable. A thirteen year old boy is not responsible for having sex with a maid any more than a student is with a teacher. He was abused (if he enjoyed it or not) according to our modern legal system. This may explain much about his macho attitude later in life. It was a self-defense mechanism to allow him to believe he was in command of the situation, when in fact he was a victim of maltreatment and child abuse. None of his biographers have picked up on this very important psychological detail ! Fkapnist (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, at the Abbey of Thelema, he did get people to engage in bestiality with goats, but a paedo? I think that this might be an over-exageration. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC))

M, did you mean that last comment as a response to the one from February? (The one from Oct has several problems, starting with the fact that my source says 16). Dan (talk) 00:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Collin Wilson touched on Crowley's pedophillia in The Occult: A History. Crowley's own writings seem to allude to it as well, "She (Rose Kelly) hath given Her two year old bastard boy to her lover’s whim of sodomy...She hath tounged Her five-month old girl, and asked its father to deflower it." I'd say if he wasn't a pedophile, he certainly fantasized about it, it seems. ---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtillman68 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


Wilson's book if far from being authoratitive, it's full of errors and incredibly out of date. Also, I'm extremely familiar with Crowley's life & works, and cannot for the life of me place where this supposed quote derives. Can you be more specific? There's nothing whatsoever in any of Crowley's works that even hints at an interest in paedophilia. --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 19:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Confusing: "Here he finally broke with religion"

The article says "Here he finally broke with religion" but then contradicts itself by saying that Crowley "decided to pursue a path in occultism and mysticism". Maybe it should say "he finally broke with conventional religion" or "mainstream religion". Or maybe "he finally broke with the Church of England." Honestly, I don't know enough about Crowley to feel comfortable to change the article, but the way it is currently worded is confusing. 12.10.248.51 (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Technically speaking, he had broken with the Church of England even before he was born, as his family were Plymouth Brethren, a Nonconformist sect.
Nuttyskin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.199.50 (talk) 10:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Occultism isn't exactly the same thing as religion (in the sense of, f.ex., Christianity), it's merely the study of the supernatural. ktr (talk) 12:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Theology is the study and development of dogmas. Theology is part of religion. It isn't exactly the same as religion, but it is part of religion. So it is occultism. Occultism supposes some kind of faith in the supernatural phenomena. This is religious faith, according to the definition from Hebrews 11:1, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." "Things not seen" means occult phenomena, since occult means something that cannot be seen, hidden, mysterious, secret, charming. This makes Christian religion be 100% occult, because it relies on believing evidence for occult stuff (angels, demons, God, messages from such beings and so on). This is verifiable information based upon a print-published book (the Bible). Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Religion is the belief in supernatural entities based on faith, unlike occultism. I think we should clear up what kind of faith we're talking about here. Maybe you're confusing a general term such as 'occultism' with Wicca, Satanism, neo-pagan religions etc? And are you suggesting that we use citations from the Bible to support that occultism equals religion? You must be joking; the Bible is 100% non-NPOV for this occasion.


Anyhow, Here are some quotes; they can be used as sources in the article:
"occultism:
1. belief in the existence of secret, mysterious, or supernatural agencies.
2. the study or practice of occult arts".
—From dictionary.reference.com.
"Occultism, belief in supernatural sciences or powers, such as magic, astrology, alchemy, theosophy, and spiritism, either for the purpose of enlarging man's powers, of protecting him from evil forces, or of predicting the future. All the so-called natural sciences were in a sense occult in their beginnings; most early scientists were considered magicians or sorcerers because of the mystery attending their investigations. In the modern world occultism has centered in small groups that seek to perpetuate secret knowledge and rites alleged to be derived from the ancients".
—Reference.com. Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia. Columbia University Press. http://www.reference.com/browse/columbia/occultis (accessed: May 26, 2008).
"'Occultism is the intellectual and scientific temperament trying to extend its field of consciousness'; or in other words, the effort to know Reality, or the structural facts and laws of the Universe, on all planes of consciousness, and not merely as a transcedental extraphenomenal experience. It is the 'Higher Science'".
—William Kingsland, Rational Mysticism.
"The philosophy of occultism is the philosophy of all sciences and all religions of the world put togetther".
—H.P. Blavatsky, The Theosophist.
"Like science occultism is the investigation of an outside world or of outside worlds in their multiplicity of forms and colours, presented in dimensions of time and space. As such it is the observation and investigation of a world-image; as ordinary science explores the physical world-image so does occultism attempt to explore an etheric, astral or mental world-image. It, therefore, has the same possibilities and limitations which science has".
—J.J. Van der Leeuw, Conquest of Illusion. ktr (talk) 04:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


We place no reliance/On virgin or pigeon/Our Method is Science/Our Aim is Religion -- Crowley. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

All of which is beside the point. Crowley was not irreligious. He was simply adamantly non-Christian. If you are going to cherry-pick quotes to support an argument as to Crowley's beliefs, have the sense to quote from the man's own works (of which, gods know, there is no short supply). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.58.109 (talk) 09:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


He was more than just "non-Christian", he was anti-Christian.---dtill68 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtillman68 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

General Tone

The entire article, entirely separate from the difficulty of figuring out exactly who was telling the truth about Crowley's life, reads as though it were exclusively written by fanboys. The underlying tone - that Crowley was basically right about everything, and everyone who opposed him was a fool - is not appropriate for an encyclopedia.

One example of many... >according to Freudian Steven Marcus, men in Victorian England had a common sexual fetish for thinly veiled descriptions of men spanking boys.[56]

Is this supposed to be accepted as fact? There's a BIG difference between "men in Victorian England..." and ONE FREUDIAN NAMED STEVEN MARCUS SAYING "men in Victorian England..." Why is being a Freudian enough to make him an authority? Anyway, granted that he is...

(In their reformatory institutions for children, men "were allowed to birch their inmates across the bare buttocks until the early 1920s, when under government pressure the cane or tawse over trousers became standard."[57]) OK, a website on corporal punishment - perhaps relatively authoritative..

And here we drift off into the authors' personal prejudice

>Many have cited one or both of these quotes from Crowley, without context, as proof of immorality and sometimes of a vast child-abusing conspiracy.[58]

Well, never mind Crowley, if you accept 56 and 57 as authoritative, then there WAS, IN FACT, a child-abusing conspiracy as big as Britain, at least. Why is the author so snippy about it? Al-Qeada is a conspiracy, Enron was a conspiracy, the CIA do nothing BUT conspire - it is their JOB, for chrissakes! All it means for an activity to be conspiracy is to have more than one person working for the same goal. Every business that has private strategy meetings is conspiring - we just need to get over our irrational fear of the word, and of looking at places in the world where people do band together to harm others for their own benefit.

Oh, and BTW - the argument that "being hit didn't hurt me, so it won't hurt others" is evidence of child abuse. A rational person would observe "being hit made me into someone who thinks other people should be hit against their will." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.180.126 (talk • contribs)

Apparently you've missed the point in a big way. The people talking about Crowleyan conspiracies are the people who bemoan the loss of this old-time child abuse, contrasting it with AC's principle of freedom and openness. And the Freudian bit is there to tell you where this information comes from, not to make it sound more authoritative (did you even see Crowley's reference to Freud in the previous sentence?) Dan (talk) 21:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that the mountaineering section needs revising for tone. The word 'obsessed' seems to me unreasonable applied to someone who at one time held several world records for altitude. Although Crowley took up mountaineering to improve his general health it was not to cure his asthma which developed later in his life and which he sometimes blamed on time spent at high altitude. Also Pakistan did not exist as a country at the time Crowley was there so I would change this to 'present day Pakistan'. I can find references for these changes and, unless anyone thinks otherwise, plan to make changes in about a week's time. Bamalantra (talk) 14:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamalantra (talk • contribs)

Crowley: human or godly?

According to Psalms 82.6, John 10:33-36 and Acts 17:28, Crowley is a god and a Son (or: offspring) of Elohim (YHWH). So, the Bible says that Crowley is a god. This is verifiable information based upon print-published sources. If you consider it accurate, please add it to the main article. If you don't consider it verifiable, please state below the reasons why it would not be verifiable, according to Wikipedia criteria on verifiability. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The reasons are mainly this is the twenty-first (21st) century. Dr.K. (talk) 13:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
It would be more appropriate in an article that had to do with the name itself. Something like Crowley (name). The overall reason it would have no place in this article is that it simply doesn't refer to the same person, or persons. — MaggotSyn 00:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Crowley described himself as a Saint, not a Deity.His ego would have demanded that he call himself a Deity, if he thought that he was one.jonathon (talk) 00:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't have a clue what you're saying, tgeorgescu, and I don't think any of these other commenters do either. It sounds like you refer to Bible passages that call the reader a god. But you haven't explained what, if anything, you think the article should say about this. Dan (talk) 05:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, the argument is as following: According to Psalms 82:6, all human beings are gods. According to John 10:33-36, wherein John is quoting Jesus Christ's own words, all human beings who heard the Scripture are gods. According to Acts 17:28, all human beings are the offspring of God (Elohim, YHWH). Till here this is simply reading what the Bible has to say, litterally, without any kind of "interpretation" (other than the purely litteral one). The Bible is a print-published source, peer reviewed by dr. Jerome of Stridonium and dr. Martin Luther (they established two different canons for the Bible; both such canons regard as valid and authoritative all verses quoted in this argument). All humans are thus gods and Sons of God. Crowley is (or was) a human being, therefore Aleister Crowley is a god and a Son (offspring) of Elohim (YHWH -- I use "is" instead of "was" since we may assume that gods do not cease to exist at the moment of their own death.) This is a valid syllogism based upon assumptions derived from the Bible. Does it count as interpolation? Since Baron Francis Bacon affirmed that syllogisms are no tool meant to increase our knowledge, we may consider that performing a syllogism upon some assumption is not interpolation. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Btw, Genesis 6:2 and 6:4 speak about the Sons of God (using a capital letter is justified, since the Hebrew writing does not have capital letters, thus so as far as the Bible authors are concerned "sons of God" and "Sons of God" are one and the same "thing", or the same idea). Therefore the Bible says that God has more than one Son. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Using that sequence of verses everybody is a deity. As such, it lacks significant to warrant mentioning here. jonathon (talk) 00:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
(to Tgeorgescu) No matter how peer reviewed you think the bible is, the book itself does not make mention of Crowley. The book predates him of course, so there is 100% no way it will be used as a source to determine such a haphazard remark. Do you bring this to the attention of every bio talk page, or is this just case specific? — MaggotSyn 10:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I admit it: the Bible says that we are all gods: you, me, Isaiah Berlin, Hitler, Stalin, Albert Schweitzer, Albert Einstein, etc. Therefore, it is applicable to all biographies from Wikipedia: the Bible says that all people whose biographies are present on Wikipedia are gods and Sons of God. If they happened to hear the Scripture being preached in churches, this makes the case even stronger, because it relies upon evidence provided by Jesus Christ, and quoted as a word of the Gospel. In Romanian language, the expression "word of Gospel" means "certain, sure, beyond any doubt". Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Well wikipedia is my church and I'm contesting it ^_^. We can't use the bible to claim deity on any article. Its just silly to even express such a thing. — MaggotSyn 13:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
This is the best talk page discussion I've ever seen! Thank you all! :D Zazaban (talk) 02:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Don't mention it. It was unusual and rather unexpected, to say the least, but fun. :-) Dr.K. (talk) 02:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

If Crowley is mentioned at all in the bible it is probably as the "Beast 666," which gets many people to worship it/him. That nickname was given to him by his mother but he apparently took it quite seriously and tried to play the part as best (or worst) as he could...Fkapnist (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

This is entire discussion is completely pointless non-sense. Beerman5000 (talk) 04:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC) 04:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Crowley said in The Law Is For All that he was to be a "demi-god" in the new religion (Thelema). Demi-god the meaning of demigod is half human, half god. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtillman68 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Cultural references section

I've removed the above from the article altogether. The song title is not the same as the book title and would have been more appropriate over at the article on the book (See:Diary of a Drug Fiend). Any content that does not make mention of the subject or his biography shouldn't be here. The above content about Misery Machine can be addressed on the Abbey of Thelema article in the section about the Abbey. None of this is directly related to Crowley. — MaggotSyn 06:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


Mr. Crowley was actually a song by the band Blizzard of Ozz, not Ozzy Osbourne. If you look at the Randy Rhoads article, you can see that this is the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.56.198.197 (talk) 00:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The original idea was to name the band Blizzard of Ozz, yes, but it was marketed as Ozzy's solo band by the record company. If you look at the album, you'll see that Ozzy Osbourne is printed in big letters and Blizzard of Ozz in smaller letters underneath it, making it the Ozzy Osbourne band. Erzsébet Báthory(talk|contr.) 00:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Freemasonry disputed

FTA: "Crowley had claimed to be a Freemason, but the regularity of his initiations with the United Grand Lodge of England has been disputed.[4]^ E.g. Starr M P 2004, "Aleister Crowley: freemason!", Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon, http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/aqc/crowley.html , BC"

The reference cited is credited the Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon, which is a different governing body than the United Grand Lodge of England. Most biographers and historians, pro or con, generally agree that Crowley was initiated to some degree as a Freemason. Just because some guy in Canada eighty years later doesn't want Crowley associated with Freemasonry doesn't make it so. Sounds like rewriting history to me. I'm deleting without prejudice unless someone can give me a reason why not. --- It doesn't stick. (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Until you can provide a counter citation, please do not remove content. — MaggotSyn 18:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Stay on the talk page and stop reverting, this will get you nowhere. — MaggotSyn 18:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
(Trying Again) ::What would you accept as a counter-citation? Any number of published biographies? Personal note from the estate of Regardie? Phonecall from a past Hierophant of the OTO? As it stands, I would accept "the regularity of his initiations with the United Grand Lodge of England has been disputed by some" as a safely NPOV compromise. Yes? No? Discuss. - It doesn't stick. (talk) 18:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Removing the entire section wasn't a positive move toward change. I agree that there is a problem and I thank you for pointing this out. The British Columbia and Yukon Grand Lodge is listed as a regular lodge, so it does carry weight (I believe I once argued against this being presented into the article; check archive 4). Although, the statement will need some modifications. We can't use words like some, as they're weasel words. We need to phrase it so that it accurately depicts who is saying what, and why, without going too far. On the topic of citations: a good counter citation would be one that discredits the current disppute of his connections with the UGLE or regular freemasonry. If you have these, then when can create a new section in the article that delves deeper into the matter and explores his connections with freemasonry. But phone calls, unrelated estate claims and biographies of other people will not work either (unless its the biography of a regular freemason who initiated Crowley, or the estate has information not previously published, but is now publishing). Lets try this and see if it works:
  • Crowley had once claimed to be a Freemason(citation), but the regularity of his initiations have been disputed by the Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon(citation), a recognized body of the United Grand Lodge of England(citation).
I think this accurately depicts what is being disputed, who is disputing, and why they have the authority to dispute in the first place. The why is what I'm most interested in, and I hope you can dig up some information to add into the article so we can further elaborate on this topic, as its much needed in the body on the article. Synergy 14:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Certainly much better than before. Let's see if it can be expanded. - It doesn't stick. (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Great. I've been waiting for you to return. Likewise, I'll be waiting for the information you can uncover, so we can sort it out. Synergy 09:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Did no-one actually read the article cited? It doesn't come from the Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon at all, it is merely published on their web-site! The actual article was originally written by a member of Ars Quattuor Coronati, which is a Masonic Research Lodge which meets in England under the auspices of the United Grand Lodge of England! All this talk about Grand Lodge of BC & Yukon is irrelevant. (NB: It's not actually a recognised body of UGLE - it's a Grand Lodge in its own right, i.e. an independent body with which UGLE is in amity).
The statement - "the regularity of his initiations had been disputed" - is a pure fact, and get this: Crowley himself admitted that people disputed his Masonic regularity in his book "Confessions." Note that in the sentence under discussion no attempt is made to discuss the thorny issue of whether an Irregular Masonic body is real Masonic body, or just something that purports to be Masonic.
Hence for these reasons, I propose that the original wording should actually stand. --Justificatus (talk) 13:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) For the sake of accuracy, it must be noted that Crowley MORE THAN ONCE claimed to be a Freemason.

It seems that Crowley was asked to become a Freemason but was thrown out of the United Grand Lodge almost immediately. I remember seeing a photo of him dressed in a Scottish kilt standing outside of the lodge in protest of his being expelled. Fkapnist (talk) 22:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

When did this supposedly happen? The kilt would make sense if it took place before he broke with ex-Master Mason MacGregor Mathers, and with Mathers' old patron Westcott, who at that point ran the original Societas Rosicruciana. But I have trouble fitting this into my mental time-line. Where did you find this information? Dan (talk) 04:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding regarding the role of the UGLE and the Grand Lodge of BC and Yukon, which I attempted to clear up with my various edits. The United Grand Lodge of England is not the "official body of Freemasonry", as none exists, but it is considered the standard for Masonic recognition (there are exceptions, but Crowley wouldn't fit into one of them.) The Grand Loge de France violates Anderson's Constitutions by not requiring a belief in a Supreme Being; as such, its regularity is not in question at all, but nonexistent. In addition, recognition is not disputed by the Canadian body (as mentioned before, no such dispute is necessary); that organization simply functions as a repository of responses, original and reposted, to common anti-Masonic allegations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ASigIAm213 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Confrontation with Gurdjieff

This page mentions only the Webb reference who Ronald Hutton in his Wicca book says is itself unsourced and "probably gossip". But I think you will find the reference is Fritz Peters in his Boyhood With Gurdjieff. (Or possibly one of his two following books, but I thinkm it is the first). Will eventually get round to putting in the reference. Jeremy (talk) 03:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Crowley was asked to become a Freemason
Masonic membership is not by invitation: prospective initiates must ask to join
Nuttyskin (talk) 13:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

From my understanding, a Mason must ask you first, and no one simply asks to join. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtillman68 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Your understanding here, as in many other places, is incorrect. --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 20:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

30 or 36 Clarendon Square?

Several websites show his bithplace as 30 Clarendon Sq., not 36 as it is in this article. Anyone know for sure - have the council put a plaque on the birthplace of their most famous son?

edit: having visited this dull town just the other day I can confirm that there is no plaque on either house. Pity, as it is by far the most interesting thing about this town. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.98.127 (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

According to the definitive biography (Kaczynski's "Perdurabo"), he was born at number 30 Clarendon Square. Photographs of the address can be found in Martin Booth's "A Magick Life" and in the Galleries of LAShTAL.Com (home of The Aleister Crowley Society). Acsociety (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

"scrambling on beachy head"

There is little scrambling to be had on Beachy Head. There is quite a lot of rock climbing though, and what Crowley was doing there was rather advanced for the time. The article should be edited to better reflect this. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 17:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Alisteir Crowley and Winston Churchill

Does this myth have any truth?

During the Second World War, at the request of friend and Naval Intelligence officer Ian Fleming, Crowley provided Winston Churchill with valuable insights into the superstitions and magical mind-set of the leaders of the Third Reich. He also suggested to the Prime Minister, if reports can be believed, that he exploit the enemy’s magical paranoia by being photographed as much as possible giving the two-fingered “V for Victory” gesture. This sign is the manual version of the magical sign of Apophis-Typhon, a powerful symbol of destruction and annihilation, that, according to magical tradition is capable of defeating the solar energies represented by the swastika.

source: http://www.redroom.com/publishedwork/understanding-aleister-crowleys-thoth-tarot Telaviv1 (talk) 10:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Weird. A second sourse would confirm it at least as a common myth and includeable I think. Unless it is prejudicial, but from what I read it doesn't seem so. It seems like an anectdote that may or may not be real, a second sourse would be enough, I think, to let it in.Sanitycult (talk) 15:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The part we can confirm, about Ian Fleming, already appears in the article. I guess it makes sense to mention the V sign as a common story. The Apophis connotation of the sign given here seems slightly off, by the way, though it may just be incomplete. Dan (talk) 00:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no truth to the Flemming myth. Crowley was never worked for British Intelligence at all. During WWII he wrote a about three letters wanting to apply, but was turned down each time. The last rejection letter was said to be quite terse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtillman68 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

If you could at least spell Fleming's name right, your argument might have more credibility. Nevertheless, see Richard Spence's excellent book for references to Crowley's spying career, which seems fairly certain according to modern research. --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 19:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

May I refer readers to User_talk:Quaeler#Aleister_Crowley? I have attempted to add the web site of The Aleister Crowley Society (of which I am the owner and editor) to the list of external links, as much as anything to provide balance to the frankly bizarre mix of existing links. Rotten. com, for example. The link to this non-profit site, which accepts no advertising, has been removed by Quaeler as "spam", which I consider an unreasonable action. I would ask that readers take a look at the site that I propose to include: [www.lashtal.com LAShTAL.COM]. It's a serious site that is broadly considered the definitive online resource relating to Aleister Crowley and the influence of Thelema on media and culture. The site has existed since 1998 and in its current format since 2003, receiving in excess of twenty million hits and a membership of more than five-thousand. Although it features Discussion Forums, the core of the site is its News Items, Galleries, downloads, etc. The site is non-partisan and impartial and membership includes senior members of all the major Crowleyan and Thelemic groups. Any comments would be much appreciated. Acsociety (talk) 23:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Based on a review of the LAShTAL.com site and WP:ELNO, I agree with Acsociety's assessment that the Aleister Crowley article ahould reference the LAShTAL.com site. The LAShTAL.com site is the home of the Aleister Crowley Society. As such, it is the recognized comprehensive authority on the life and works of Crowley and the repository of much original work on the topic. The LAShTAL.com resources are much more than collection links to existing work - they comprise the most accurate, scholarly analysis of the man and his works in any format. I would posit that much of the information contained in the Wikipedia article is sourced from the research and effort of the LAShTAL.com membership. In truth, the LAShTAL.com resources are significantly more extensive and comprehensive than the existing Wikipedia article. For completeness, the Wikipedia article should point the user to LAShTAL.com. 69.204.185.3 (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC) JP Martino

I can only second the opinions made above about the relevance and importance of both Lashtal.com and The Aleister Crowley Society. It has for a long time been a stable, balanced and definitive online resource relating to the life and influence of Aleister Crowley and Thelema. I cannot see what reason the editor has to mark the link as spam other than ignorance or some other ulterior motive. The sooner this is rectified the better. Wikipedia needs some quality to raise its head above the slime! 93 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougbrown93 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:EL clearly and specifically forbids driving traffic to social networking sites, forums and mailing list, which seems to be the primary function of LAShTAL.com. Wikipedia also forbids the use of role accounts , such as User:Acsociety, being used to promote a site. Were the site solely a news site, it might qualify for inclusion, but it is not. It entices users to sign up, use the forum, and make donations via PayPal. Wikipedia should not be used to help drive traffic to it. Will in China (talk) 03:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
This is a wholly unreasonable attempt to delte a link that the user presumably fears might be considered "pro"-Crowley. The Aleister Crowley Society site is not a social networking site, it is non-commercial, it has no partisan view to express or sell and it is considered generally to be the definitive Aleister Crowley site. I consider deletion of the link to be an act of vandalism. I have changed user name to reflect the requirements of yet another self-appointed editor to remove reference to LAShTAL.COM and am happy to change that yet again. However, prejudicial editing such as this cannot go unchallenged. Acsociety (talk) 12:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
You must have more information about Will in China than the rest of us as i can't see anything hinting that he's working under fear of something being pro-or-anti AC. Please give us some evidence of his motivation so we can all be on the same page as you.
It appears that the grievance at hand is that you're violating WP:EL#ADV and WP:ELNO's #4, 10, and 11. There does appear to be grey area in relation to forums (#10) - as the site obviously has forums, but is not just forums. This sort of amorphous situation is why i wanted you to get consensus from editors to begin with (of which you got none (save the dodgy Dougbrown93 who has existed at Wikipedia for exactly one action — to write in his endorsement above) before deciding to reinstate your link).
Lastly, WRT to "yet another self-appointed editor", this reads as unintelligible. Editors become editors in no other way than deciding one day to edit Wikipedia; could you also make this section of your response a little more clear?
So to recap, it seems like you need to explain how you're not running against WP:EL#ADV and WP:ELNO's #4, 10, and 11; if you can't get any editors who regularly use Wikipedia to comment in your favour here, perhaps you should seek redress via Wikipedia:Third opinion as your last resort in getting this put to bed. In the meantime, the article's external links will be restored to the state they were in before you attempted to add LAShTAL. Thanks. Quaeler (talk) 12:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Qualer, for your update. I will respond in due course. I would assert, however, that Will in China is acting in bad faith in proposing LAShTAL.COM as a Spamming Site. It seems that my error was in declaring an interest in LAShTAL.COM in my user page. To my mind, the issue is whether visitors to Wikipedia would be better served by a link to the impartial Aleister Crowley Society or to the links previously listed. Acsociety (talk) 13:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
(I (perhaps mis-)interpret your last sentence to be saying that there has to be a link to an external site in the article, which there does not have to be. If any given link fails WP:ELNO (or WP:EL#ADV, or ...), then it probably shouldn't be included - even if that means that there ends up being no external links in the article.) Quaeler (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The site also runs afoul of point 6 of WP:ELNO, which prohibits linking to sites which require registration to view the pertinent content. I tried to go to the "Galleries" but it seems all the images are behind a login. Clearly linking to the site is an attempt to drive traffic to the site and then entice the viewer to join the site in order to access the content. This is specifically the sort of thing our external link policy is designed to prevent. Will in China (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Further exploration shows that the same is true of the "Downloads" section, which simply displays "Sorry! You do not have authorization to access downloads" when I attempt to access it. Will in China (talk) 15:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

With regard to Quaeler's points, it seems Acsociety has violated WP:EL#ADV, but I would be willing to add the link instead to avoid that problem, not that I have much credibility here but we're all supposed to be able to edit this beast, aren't we? With regards to WP:ELNO #4, 6, 10 and 11, specifically:
4. Links mainly intended to promote a website. See External link spamming.
I think the link is being argued for on the grounds that the site contains relevant documentary information; and given the fact that the site is already well-established with high traffic, I don't think WP:ELNO #4 is the key issue.
6. Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content, unless the site itself is the subject of the article, or the link is a convenience link to a citation. See below.
I think this would only apply if the whole site were hidden behind a login. Whilst specific sections of the site (galleries, bibliography and downloads) require registration, principally for licencing reasons to do with requirements of the copyright holders of works hosted (e.g., with the Aleister Crowley estate), the bulk of the site (including, e.g., the many dozens of scanned articles and reviews, as well as the "Encyclopedia Thelemica") is open access.
10. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace),[1] chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), USENET newsgroups or e-mail lists.
This also seems to be a minor point: the site in question does have forums, but there is a huge amount of documentary material too, and it is mainly for this that the site is being linked. The forums are probably much too specialised for readers of a general article like this, so it is perhaps unfortunate for these considerations that they come up so prominently when one accesses the site in a browser.
11. Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority (this exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies).
The Aleister Crowley Society has been supported by the Aleister Crowley estate (Ordo Templi Orientis) for some time, and whilst Crowley is dead and can't really have an "official" site, it is "reliable" under the terms of Wikipedia's notability criteria, for one. Here we would have to get into discussion of general quality. In this respect, even the forums contain a wealth of biographical information written by experts (people who are biographers themselves, Ph.D.s and the like, as well as many of the heads of the various Crowley-related organisations), and (e.g.) parts of it were recently cited in a Masters level dissertation. Basically, Wikipedia loses if this link goes. Ian Rons (talk) 17:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. The fact that the site happens to include a forum doesn't bar it from being used as an external link; this is a valuable repository of information not otherwise available. And threatening to put this on the blacklist just doesn't make sense. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I've blacklisted this based on the abuse, not the stuff above that gets people hot under the collar. If a specific link is needed as a citation, It can be whitelisted on a case-by-case basis, where the url can be demonstrated as an appropriate source. --Hu12 (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
It's a shame no-one mentioned the technicality about owners posting links to their own site till such a late stage. Ian Rons (talk) 22:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
The issues that resulted in the blacklisting were both a conflict of interest and the use of meatpuppetry, as well as some degree of edit warring.
However, as Hu12 mentioned, it's still possible to request whitelisting of specific links for use within some articles. This is a means to add selected links without openning the entire domain. I urge those who have an interest to investigate this, and to discuss specific high-value links that could potentially be whitelisted. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
How about whitelisting a link to the "Encyclopedia Thelemica", which is at www.lashtal.com/wiki/ and which can't conceivably be considered a "social networking site"? Ankhefenkhons (talk) 02:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC) -- And just in case it's misconstrued, Ankhefenkhons is the new username of Acsociety, changed as part of my attempts not to get the site blacklisted.
This is pretty vexing by this point; myself and others keep referring you to WP:ELNO and yet you still suggest things like this. Do you think that your wiki (with 35 registered editors, 27 of whom have done 0 edits, 1 with 1, 2 with 2, 1 with 8, and 4 with a lot) meets the exception to no-wikis in #12, or you didn't read #12 or ? :- / Quaeler (talk) 19:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
My god what idiocy. What does it matter if there is a conflict of interest or if edit warring took place. The goal is to make Wikipedia as good as possible and, more specifically, this article as good as possible. Anyone familiar with the subject matter knows that LAShTAL is the primary website on Crowley. If the user misbehaved, you should have banned the user, not blacklisted the resource. (But note also that the user has only recently registered and obviously is still learning the ropes.) Blacklisting a site for reasons of Wikibureucracy sounds so hollow and ridiculous that I can only assume you are pushing some personal agenda. Why not come clean on it or get out of the way. You have pissed off people who could have made significant and most knowledgeable contributions to this article. Wikipedia loses because of you. Happy? --Sumafi (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
FYI, the link www.lashtal.com/wiki/
  • Fails Wikipedia's core content policies:
Please stop Source soliciting your Website. External links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, and in this case, you Own lashtal.com. Unfortunately your conflict of interest editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote lashtal.com. Such a conflict is strongly discouraged. Your contributions to wikipedia under:
It has become apparent that your account(s) and IP's are only being used for promoting links to lashtal.com and is considered WP:Spam. Neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, this is simply obvious case of continued WP:COI, and Source soliciting.
Additionaly there are some some additional rules you may want to review:
If a specific link is needed as a citation, an etablished editor can request it on the whitelist on a case-by-case basis, where the url can be demonstrated as a Verifiable and Reliable Source. Avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to promote lashtal.com right? --Hu12 (talk) 18:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Additionaly I advise some here to read Wikipedia:TALKPAGE#Important_notes. "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as a platform for their personal views, nor for casual conversation. Article talk pages are only to be used for discussing improvements to their associated pages." Additionaly Please adhere to WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:NPA.--Hu12 (talk) 18:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Him

naughty boy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.1.123.232 (talk) 13:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Throughout the period of 1895, he allegedly maintained a vigorous sex life, which was largely conducted with prostitutes and girls he picked up at local pubs and cigar shops, but eventually he took part in rapist activities in which he played the passive role. [my bold italics]

What is that but vandalism? I'm changing it to same-sex. Nuttyskin (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Good catch there. Apparently it came from an anonymous vandal who made a more obvious edit in the same vein and one other edit elsewhere. Dan (talk) 00:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


Led Zeppelin

Having just read a Led Zeppelin biography, I'm surprised no mention is made of Jimmy Page's reported obsession with Crowley and collection of his stuff. Any particular reason for this? Beanhead McGinty (talk) 19:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

That's covered in some depth in the Page entry on Wikipedia already, it's irrelevant here. --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 03:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Racism

The article says that he supported violence against Chinese, but that's not what the sourced quote says. That information should be changed to reflect the quote more accurately. --Revolución hablar ver 04:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

An old edit removed many "Cultural references" contents

An old edit removed many contents from "Cultural references" section (once of them was written by me):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aleister_Crowley&diff=243769717&oldid=243762520

The user who did it wrote they are "crap". IMHO the most of them are informations that are as useful as the others in that section. I think almost all of them can be restored.

--Lucas Malor (talk) 14:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

  • The edit, while brusque, was correct. I have removed the remaining insignificant examples. As a prominent figure, Crowley will, of course, be mentioned many times in works of popular culture, but not all of these are significant. I have pared down to those that show general importance in culture (and include references). Mintrick (talk) 15:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I can agree with your point of view, but anyway I consider 3 removed contents as significant:
  1. the collection of Crowley's items of Jimmy Page: it should be included somewhere in this article if not in "Cultural references", since it is interesting for who reads this entry
  2. the old info about "Lonely Girl 15", since it is popular over internet
  3. the old info about "Promethea" comic book (that was written by me), since even if this comic is not so famous, Alan Moore is a well-known comic writer, and the comic is full of references to Crowley's work.
--Lucas Malor (talk) 16:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Lucas - those references may not be significant to YOU Mintrick, but they may well be significant to many readers. In particular Promethea is a tremendous work by a man who has won several writing awards, who has had many works turned into blockbuster movies, and is certainly one of the most significant writers in the world today. Promethea is an important work on magick that contains much about Crowley and Thelema, and most certainly SHOULD be mentioned in any section like this. --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I would like to add also "Lonely Girl 15" seems not to be simply an allusion, if we trust what it was written before the old edit. I think you have done a good work, but IMO "Cultural references" section was cleaned up a bit too much.
--Lucas Malor (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realize we removed Promethea. Alan Moore also gave young Aleister a cameo in From Hell (he says so in the notes to one version), and Crowley probably inspired V's motto V.V.V.V.V. in V for Vendetta. Since Moore seems rather obviously notable, we should mention influence on his work, and P seems important for that reason. I don't know about Lonely Girl.

Mintrick also wanted to change the name of the section to "Legacy", saying we can include more of Crowley's actual legacy. I could see including more of his posthumous influence in the article. But if you think the name makes sense with some fixing, please go ahead and fix the section. I may not have time in the next few days. See Thelema, Wicca, magic, Discordianism, Timothy Leary and probably several other topics. (Do we include Scientology?) Dan (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Changing the name to "Legacy" makes no sense at all - Thelema in general is Crowley's legacy. The current title is perfectly descriptive, I see no reason to change it. --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


I could re-add reference to "Promethea", but now I have a scruple: I don't know much about Crowley. All I know is what I read in "Promethea" and what I quickly and badly read in this article. So I don't have anything to the contrary if someone else want to rewrite it.
For "Lonely Girl 15", there's someone that can check if this is true?

The popular internet show Lonely Girl 15 (also Kate Modern and The Resistance) feature Crowley as the founder of the Hymn of One Religion. His beliefs, person, and possession are often discussed.

For Jimmy Page's collection I think it can be restored immediately, if nobody is against it.
--Lucas Malor (talk) 12:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I found the connection between lonelygirl15 and Crowley:
http://www.lg15.com/lgpedia/index.php?title=Aleister_Crowley
IMO what was reported in Wikipedia was exxaggerated. So I changed my mind, it can be not restored.
--Lucas Malor (talk) 08:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

"Cultural references" again

Aleister Crowley's image was used as one of many on the cover of The Beatles Sgt. Pepper LP released in 1967. Crowley is listed as #2 of 87 characters (including several inanimate objects) in the inside sleeve of the album.

and

Ernest Hemingway references Crowley in his memoir "A Moveable Feast". In it, Ford Maddox Ford claims to have "cut" a man he thinks was Hilaire Belloc, but which in fact turns out to be "Alestair Crowley, the diabolist".

For the previous discussion, IMO these two references should be removed, since they are not so significant. --Lucas Malor (talk) 10:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the Sgt. Pepper’s is a significant appearance in a significant work by two significant artists, namely The Beatles (who compiled the list of names of figures to appear in the collage of famous faces), and Peter Blake, who actually put the cover image together. The inclusion of Crowley in a list thought to be comprised of heroes of the group - a list which also contained both Hitler and Ghandi - is interesting. When you add to that that his appearance on such a large selling and well known image is probably where more people will have seen him than anywhere else - far outstripping any of his own works - then, if only for that reason, it should remain; I would venture the opinion that people trying to identify the “who’s who” aspect of the picture should be able to find the article as much as people wanting to find out about his “magick” or poetry.
I’m not so certain that the information to the effect that he is listed as “#2” is of any real merit - the key to the different elements on the cover was added only to the CD release, and he’s only number 2 by dint of having been placed second from the left in the back row. As it stands now, it could be assumed that his being listed as #2 of 87 characters is some sort of "chart position" or standing in a hierarchy.
I would also vote to add the inclusion of Crowley as a recurring character in Simon Barnard’s series of plays, which appear under the banner The Scarifyers. [1] These have been made available first on CD, and then broadcast on the BBC. Crowley also appears in a short web-only skit, Mr. Crowley’s Christmas, in which the character is trying to have a quiet time at home during the festive season. The character is played as a variation on Kenneth Williams’ “Snide” radio and screen character, and the “Sandy” camp character he played on "Round the Horne", and is portrayed by David Benson, an actor who has toured internationally with a show on William’s life. The juxtaposition of “The Beast” and Williams’ broad comic persona is both effective for the comedy of the situation to be apparent, but has further resonance when looked at in terms of how both had lives which many found to be outré or unaccep[table, especially in matters of their sexuality. Jock123 (talk) 20:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Several biographies

Should the article not discuss the many biographies written about Crowley? __meco (talk) 19:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd definitely like to see more from Kaczinski's & Regardie's bios, most of this seems to be drawn from Sutin. --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 12:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
So, um, why would you? Sutin's biography has positive reviews from Library Journal and other mainstream sources. Kaczynski has a guy in Ashé Journal expressing surprise at facts and perspectives that I thought everyone knew from Sutin's earlier book. Sutin's appears in Google Books, many libraries (520 on WorldCat) and many physical bookstores. Kaczynski's came out in 2002 and is already suspiciously out of print. WorldCat has 30 results for it. Dan (talk) 20:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
As for biographies that I can actually find, can you think of a polite way to say that everyone besides Sutin has a clear and controlling bias? Dan (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, Regardie knew Crowley personally for a start, which gives his work a uniquely informed perspective. And Kaczinski's work is widely considered the definitive biography within the Thelemic world (and he's also the author of the Weiser Concise Guide to Crowley). If that makes him biased, so what? The whole point of quoting several good sources is to provide a broader viewpoint of the subject n'est pas? Isn't that how Wikipedia works? --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Kaczinski's book only gets props because he's in the OTO. Sutin's is far superior. OTO culture-jockeying = lame 68.168.165.56 (talk) 12:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

What??? Show me a citation that says Kaczynski (not Kaczinski) is a member of the OTO. The only "source" I see for this is Wikipedia, and its a spurrious claim with nothing to back it up. Yes, he is affiliated with the OTO in that he has worked closely with the Order in his research, but this does not make him a member. Besides, membership in the OTO is a private affair, not a public one. Please take your uninformed personal opinions elsewhere, or at least read the book that you are so quick to dismiss. OTO culture-jockeying? Did you coin that term yourself? Try practicing academic integrity. Its far superior to having the same chip on your shoulder that legions of anti-Crowley crusaders wear like a badge of honor. Kaczynski's book is a gold mine of information that is far more extensive and detailed than any other to date. Working with the OTO has certain perks, like access to literature and information that other biographers are not privy to. Its obvious to me that you haven't read the work that you flippantly criticize.

"Cultural references" again and again, Venture Bros.

The Venture Bros reference on the episode "ORB" is a satirical representation of Crowley and should be included based on it being the most modern and recent speaking image of Crowley. Its actually something people interested in Crowely could look up and view, plus the epsisode has its own reference here --Momosgarage.talk.contribs 18:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure how the Venture Bros reference is the only nonnotable trivia listed under cultural references and keeps getting deleted. I also see that this isn't the first time this has come up. It seems to me that some peoples interpretation of WP:HTRIVIA and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is letting some topics under an All-purpose heading survive and others ending up getting deleted. I think many of the deleted entries should be included. Some editors are not being consistant and essentially should wipe the whole section if they don't like trivia lists in the Crowley article --Momosgarage.talk.contribs 16:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
It seems DreamGuy(talk) has decided that some entires in this section are more "equal" than others. I have no interest in starting an edit war, so I will have to give up on the Venture Bros entry. However I will say that his position is inconsistant and the whole cultural references section should just be removed all together due to the inconsistant application of deleting some entires but not others. Everybody has an opinion on cultural relevance, so I don't see how this can be resolved amicably.Momosgarage.talk.contribs 8:06, 02 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting inclined to remove the entire section; it's gotten downright stupid. I mean, "Aleister Crowley first appears in Japanese Manga D.Gray-Man in chapter 32.". Really. So what? --jpgordon::==( o ) 23:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, except I think we already removed it and people just created it again. I don't understand why we don't (re)create a separate article for Crowley in popular culture. That would prevent the current page from growing until nobody could load it. Frankly, unless we urgently need server space I don't understand why Wikipedia would delete something the public wants that Britannica does not have. That seems like a poor way to gain users. Dan (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Another website to collect general information...

http://www.usminc.org/crowley

This is an absurd anti-Crowley website that repeats lies and distortions. Not a worthwhile source by any stretch of the imagination. --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 16:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The website draws its material from Colin Wilson's The Occult: A History as well as his biography of Crowley, in addition to Crowley's own writings. Collin Wilson personally knew Crowley, and seems to have been a follower to some degree. While the material may be embarrassing to Crowley fans, it is nonetheless very worthwhile. It is certainly more sober than some webpages that, for instance, try to paint a connection between Crowley and Hitler when there never was one.

How about we pick some choice quotes from the site itself?
  • "In fact, after an initial investigation of Crowley while I was an occultist, I pretty much wrote him of as a looser."
  • "He joined the Ordero Templi Orentis"
  • "He also helped H. Spence Lewis start the A.M.O.R.C. in America, initiating him during a ritual behind closed doors that lasted 3 days, and probably involved gay sex magic."
  • "Still, while Crowley lived in London, one of his maids quit and went to the police, complaining Crowley was killing children and dumping the cremated remains in the river Thames. [ what year was this? Waht book did I read this in? I remember it was in Sebring Library yeasr ago]"

If you think this is a worthwhile site, you clearly shouldn't be editing on Wikipedia sir. --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 20:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Island in the Hudson River

Is there any record of the island in the Hudson River where AC retreated to? It's mentioned on the page as 'an island' with no details of location, even general location "north of. . ." etc. Aleister Wilson (talk) 15:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Aleister Crowley Template

An AC Template could be put together listing his books, organizations he was a member of or founded, associates and students, terminology, and then place it on the pages of those mentioned and others. Thoughts. Aleister Wilson (talk) 23:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Update, there are two Thelema templates, a footer and a side template, which include much of the data I suggested. Spent the last. . .lots of time. . .placing the footer on sites, and expanding it to include some missing names. Lots of good data on the two templates. Aleister Wilson (talk) 02:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
May have finally succeeded in adding all or almost all Thelema and Crowley pages to the footer template, does anyone know of any others or new pages created in the recent past? Some topics, of course, could use a page (Hymn to Pan comes to mind). All in all, the template seems to have shaped up into a good document. Another idea as well, I'll add another note right after this one. Aleister Wilson (talk) 21:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
The Thelema footer template is closed on this page and open on most others, due to the presence of the Occult template. I would suggest dropping the occult template so that the Thelema stays open, which directly gives a window to the subjects listed to people who click on the site who are not familiar enough with Wikipedia to think of opening the template itself. Aleister Wilson (talk) 21:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Racism and Sexism sections

I've noticed in both sections that at the start the 'proof' of Crowley's racism and sexism is obvious, and this is expanded upon like a prosecutor's case, and then at the end of both sections all of that is disputed with Crowley's own words. A balance is missing, long speeches are made without balance present, and both sections take up, imho, too much space on the page. Does anyone else see these things, or am I giving a pov assessment? Aleister Wilson (talk) 21:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

You're right in that they certainly take up space alright... Either they must be radically cut down or moved to their own separate pages. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC))
I think we should cut them down, they are far too big for their relative importance --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 07:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Dubious

Much of the information attributed to Symonds contradicts the more trustworthy Sutin, or seems willfully misleading. I've left in the claim about AC cheating on his wife for now, but this needs more than a vague assertion considering that (for example) the article puts him in China at a time when Sutin puts him in India. Dan (talk) 05:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, useful piece of information... I have not yet read Sutin's biography, although I do intend to, and shall try and use that as a better reference. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC))

Bible Black

Being a fan of the anime Bible Black, I decided to add as an example of a use in popular culture thathe had a fictional daughter named Jody Crowley in the anime who hoped to succeed her father by finding the Scarlet Woman by herself. TurkishSultan (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)TurkishSultan

Another Pop Culture example?

I don't know if any of you have played the Konami game Suikoden. This RPG of "collecting" 108 characters in the game hosts character named Crowley whom is in fact a magician. Is this a reference to Mr. Crowley or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.97.9.194 (talk) 02:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It probably is, but nonetheless, we really don't need YET ANOTHER indirect pop culture reference to Crowley in the article, considering that there are probably hundreds that hypothetically could be included. We already have too many as it is. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC))

Theravada inversion

Re edit summary "what IS the proper word for someone who inverts Theraveda Buddhism, by the way?": I nominate avidyaist. —chaos5023 (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Ha, good. But Crowley or his source reversed traditional Buddhist doctrines from a perspective like that of one recalling nirodha-samapatti. Then he found or put together a way for people like the Society of Sensation to produce nirodha. For passersby who don't know about the Sensates: Faction (Planescape). Dan (talk) 06:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Satanism

But, was he a satanist or not?200.191.154.222 (talk) 08:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

NO. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC))

Crowley didn't use Satanic imagery in his occult and magickal work particularly. He used a lot more Egyptian, Jewish, Greek, Masonic, theosophical, Buddhist, and Hindu imagery. The major exception would be his acceptance of the name "The Beast" from the Christian Book of Revelation, and the attendant imagery (Babalon; Scarlet Woman; To Mega Therion; etc.) which originated with his fringe-Christian mother. Of course, plenty of what Crowley was into would be described as "satanic" by the sorts of people who go around calling other people "satanic". Does that make it accurate? Probably not. --FOo (talk) 08:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I think the best answer to that question is, "Define satanism." For some people "satanism" means Anton LaVey; for others it means Mick Jagger. zorblek (talk) 05:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Children?

The article mentions quite a few of his children with various women, but I got lost about 3/4 of the way through. Could someone summarise how many children he had, their names, and when they died? Thank you! --79.158.2.113 (talk) 05:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Undoing a removal

The source http://www.amazon.co.uk/Old-Malvernians-Aleister-Crowley-Angleton/dp/1155569954 confirms the link between Crowley and C.S. Lewis. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Wax recordings

How come they are not mentioned?

http://www.discogs.com/Aleister-Crowley-The-1910-1914-Wax-Cylinder-Recordings/release/600989 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.78.183.177 (talk) 20:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Nothing on fathering Barbara Bush?

Why not? There seems to be some very good evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faveuncle (talk • contribs) 14:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Where? -zorblek (talk) 06:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
It's a joke. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC))
I think there is a conspiracy theory film about the "atomic homunculus" which says that Crowley is related to Bush. I would not consider it a reliable source. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ Note that under WP:External links#What_should_be_linked, a link to a social networking site may be included when it is the official website for a business, organization, or person.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aleister_Crowley/Archive_5&oldid=1079603042"