Talk:Thelema/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Frater UD and True Will section

I've changed the True Will section to reflect what I found in the cited source via Amazon. It says on p214 that "Crowley on occasion" rejected magical theism, specifically in the first few years of the 20th Century when he practiced a "skeptical" and "rational" form of Buddhism, "before he finally became a Thelemic mystic by accepting the Book of the Law as a revelation that can be applied to the entire world." By a startling coincidence, that agrees with the position of reliable-seeming biographer Lawrence Sutin. Dan (talk) 04:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

other changes

Several issues here that I want to change. Anonymous at 159.53etc, please read the last bit.

The first issue really concerns a host of other articles more than this one, but I'll put it here for convenience. We all seem to agree that the author of The Book of the Law refers to Rabelais at one point, kind of like how Lovecraft and Palahniuk refer to the Bible, or how Hegel refers to Kant. But if you insisted on editing Philosophy of Right to say that Hegel adapted his philosophy from the work of Kant, people might call it vandalism. And that seems like a much simpler issue involving no strange voices or deities. It looks like someone wants to define Thelema to mean Thélème and Thélèmites (which both have perfectly good names in scholarly use if you want to discuss them without bringing in Crowley or Aiwass). But you can't have it both ways. Either Heru-ra-ha belongs in the topic of Thelema, in which case the Rabelais-only definition rather obviously fails, or he doesn't belong, in which case Rabelais does not belong in his article.

Incidentally, the other user who recently took the side of anonymous editor WiC was banned user Ekajati, as indeed were all the others who actively took his position in previous years.

Second, Ekky's position led to a distortion of Rabelais. Not one recent scholarly source that I found took his side. As this did not suffice to calm fears of synthesis, I have some new references explicitly describing the current scholarly consensus.

Third, sources do not agree on what Francis Dashwood did at Medmenham. They agree that he used the phrase "Do what thou wilt," and that information appears in all versions of the introduction.

Fourth, this means we can streamline the introduction slightly. I don't think I'll remove any information from the article entirely, and I may leave Mahendranath in the intro. I assume that nobody minds if I give references for the terms we use to describe Thelema, and that for the obvious fact of conflict almost any source will do.

Fifth, the article presently gives a misleading picture of Crowley's views about Rabelais.

Sixth, I think Crowley does not give us a consistent picture of women and Thelema. The article presently gives one side which appears to contradict other statements. I don't see why it belongs in this article at all, as Aleister Crowley has more on the subject.

Seventh, the fact that "Ethics of Thelema" seems self-published doesn't bother me that much, but even the author describes it as a minority position. Let's not state it as a fact. Seems generous to leave it in. My citation for the other side happens to address the previous point as well, though I didn't intend that; I just went looking for the most conveniently located Reliable Source.

Eighth (more than I thought!) I have yet to see a reference for the claim that Ankh-ef-en-Khons personally wrote the words on "the Stèle of Revealing", or even that Egyptian priests of that period commonly engraved their funeral stelae. Any such reference should probably go at Ankh-af-na-khonsu.

I had a reference explicitly linking "astral" phenomena, and magick in general, with Thelema in order to help justify their inclusion. I don't recall why someone replaced it with another footnote, but I think the editor believed this other reference explained something important for the general reader. This seems backwards to me. If we need explain this matter further, then we should do it in the main article space rather than a note. People could reasonably disagree about the specifics, so I think I'll keep both refs for now. But I think an explicit reference seems better, for the purpose of helping fact-checkers, than one which does the job only if you accept some definition of "Thelema". And several of the quotes in footnotes seem a bit long, though it makes sense to put Mahendranath in context if we keep him at all.

Finally, I don't know if I understand the recent anonymous edit to the True Will section. The article should certainly talk about the mystical meaning of True Will. But we do make some reference to this at the end of the Ethics section. Perhaps it says too little, and we can argue about location, but explaining the link with Ain Soph Aur seems like too much for this particular article. And the part about deities, insofar as we can support it, seems implied by the article's previous sentence and the whole Cosmology section. The existing bit about the HGA and True Will relates to these issues as well.

-Dan (talk) 21:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Dan, we've been over all this before. In detail. Every element of the article which you've changed was supported by multiple sources. The article in the form it was in was passed as a good article. Please discuss your changes, don't simply make an announcement and then not wait for discussion. I'm reverting to the good article version pending discussion and consensus for your changes. Will in China (talk) 11:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Might I request that you make your changes one at a time rather than all at once so they can be individually discussed and consensus achieved. Making multiple unrelated changes all at once impedes partial reversion and slows down the process of achieving consensus. It makes it practically impossible to discuss, as we went through before. It would make it easier if you proceeded by changing one section at a time, then go through the back and forth of discussion and consensus, then move on to the next section. Your approach of making massive changes to multiple sections of the article seems disruptive to me, giving a "my version" versus "your version" approach that simply seems unnecessarily confrontational. I most likely agree with many of your improvements, but the monolithic way they are combined with your less supportable changes makes the whole process difficult. Please note that the version in place was a consensus version achieve via discussion between the two of us (with maybe one or two other parties chiming in) over a year ago. Since then the article passed GA. It needs to be treated differently now. "Be bold" doesn't really apply now; be cautious and edit in such a way that it facilitates rather than impedes discussion and consensus is the name of the game now. I'd rather not have the long multipoint type of discussion we had in the past. To avoid that, I ask that you work section by section to facilitate discussion. Will in China (talk) 12:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

No consensus ever existed. Please explain how you can dispute the description of the scholarly consensus on Rabelais, or the conclusion I reached starting from the obvious differences between his work and Thelema. Your own sources (or Ekky's) talk about the dispute on this point, and the more scholarly Sutin draws a sharp distinction.

Please seek one other non-banned user to take your side before reverting again. That shouldn't take much, if in fact the GA meant what you seem to think. Dan (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Dan, one of the things verified in the Good Article Review was that the facts currently in the article are "factually accurate and verifiable". This was done by an uninvolved and independent editor who specializes in doing GA rewiews. Therefore, the points of view already expressed in the article should not be removed. I agree with you that there are other points of view which could and should be included in the article. What I object to is your unilateral decision to remove some of the points of view already prsent and to replace them with other points of view. NPOV is not an either/or issue. It is a both/and issue. Many of the things you want to change are of the "some people or sources say this, other people or sources say that". You seem to think that if a majority of source that you have selectively picked say one thing, you can then eliminate other points of view supported by other sources. But this is not a correct application of NPOV! You have to leave the already support material in the article but show that not all sources agree. By all means *add* additional points of view to the article, but do it without doing a major rewrite on what's already there.

The second thing I object to is your disruptive way of editing. I've requested that you make one change at a time to facilitate discussion. If you insist on continuing to make all your changes at once, I can only assume that you are *trying* to make it *harder* to discuss the changes one at a time. So make what you think is your single most important change and I will happily discuss it without reverting it for at least one explanation and response cycle. Then I may modify it once I get the idea of what your are trying to *add* to the article. That's how Wikipedia is supposed to work once an article is longstanding and robust. Editors are *not* supposed to do bold major rewrites when an article is in such a state, especially when the article is the work of multiple editors who have evolved consensus over time. Your assertion that there was no consensus does not make sense. By definition, a version of an article which has remained relatively stable for over a year represents a consensus of the previous editors. On many points above on this very talk page we reached a compromise wording that we both could live with. You were involved in creating this consensus version through discussion. You cannot now simply bowl that work over. Again I ask, start making smaller changes, confined to a paragraph or a small section, then wait for me to respond and discuss with me, arrive at a compromise version we both can live with, then go on to what you consider the next more important change.

I'm not going to discuss your problems with other editors, and there is no requirement that I get some third editor to agree with me. If only the two of us are involved here, then it's the two of us that need to form the compromise wording that works for us both. Again, this is the way Wikipedia works. However if you insist on making large disruptive edits, I'll look into getting an admin to discuss with you how you might edit less disruptively. Will in China (talk) 05:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Breaking it up seems like a lot of work. Why don't you read the Rabelais section, and tell me what "facts" you think I've "removed". And take a look at Skinner, p.15. I guess we could reconcile it with p.149, if we assume what I put in the introduction. Dan (talk) 07:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

"seems like a lot of work" is not an excuse for mass reversions. It makes it harder to spot poor-quality edits if they're in among lots of other edits. Will is correct in saying that alternate points of view can be included (up to a point), but transposing one view for another is not on. Incidentally, I came here because of the wikiproject post, I don't have any particular opinion on Thelema itself. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I've done it piecemeal. I don't think I removed any points of view. Maybe if you count the part about women that does not explicitly concern Thelema -- that bit seems to contradict the new Ethics citations which do, explicitly, deal with the topic of the article. It also seems more suited to Aleister Crowley, which I think deals with this issue. Otherwise, I just gave more weight to the scholarly sources on Rabelais and Crowley. Dan (talk) 17:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, WiC, now you're openly misrepresenting the sources; claiming that the author of Ecumenical Thelema did not consider his views ecumenical, asserting that for some reason phrases in the scholarly literature like "Scholars are agreed" and "It is evident from the scholarship devoted to Rabelais" and "contrasts strongly with Rabelais scholarship, in which the theological significance of the Frenchman’s scatology is widely acknowledged," do not describe the scholarly consensus, claiming that when Natalie Zemon Davis of Princeton University says on p19 of "Confronting the Turkish Dogs:Rabelais and His Critics" (page 25 of this cache) that "The scholarly interpretation of the first episode—of Panurge of the multiple languages—has seen it as primarily an expression of Rabelais’ program of Christian humanism," this does not provide a source for his Christian Humanism. For some reason you even claim that a polemical source who says many will not agree with him does not provide evidence of disagreement. (And just now you failed to grasp a reference to a character in Rabelais, though I thought the source explained it quite well.) I ask you again to refrain from further reversion of this kind and see if you can convince any non-banned users of these curious claims. Dan (talk) 00:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC) (Incidentally, for those who don't feel like looking, that reference something contrasts with Rabelais scholarship meant Martin Luther. On some points, they treat Rabelais more uniformly as a Christian writer.) Dan (talk) 00:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Dan, hand-picking from snippet views in Google Books that vaguely support your position while ignoring the broader history does not really do justice to the subject. Why, your blinkered view does not even take account of the fact that it was only in the last three five years of Crowley's life that anyone even suggested that Rabelais was anything other than an anti-Christian atheist! The first scholar to suggest anything else was Febvre in 1942! And while maybe, just maybe, there is some sort of consensus about Rabelais' scatology, your synthesis of snippets stinks of intentional bias. I've fixed that by giving a broader outline and direct third-party observations about the lack of agreement about what Rabelais believed. Will in China (talk) 07:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

And I didn't put this in the article due to the growing length, but I thought you knew it followed the quote from Antecedents: Nor does the great Magician of Touraine stop with any mere symbolic identification; he indicates the Master Therion by name! Dan (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

So you just revert everything I did rather than progressing it? You realize that makes your third revert today, don't you? I'm patient, I'm sure another editor will notice what you're doing and will revert you in turn. Otherwise, I'll be back in 24 hours to revert to my version and give you another change to collaborate as I have been trying to do. Will in China (talk) 01:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. If you don't mind my asking, do you consider yourself an adherent of Thelema? Because if so that makes your judgement possibly somewhat biased to your particular view of Thelema. As a non-Thelemite, I consider my view rather more inclusive and without any need to bias things towards Crowley's outlandish claims as you seem to be doing. Will in China (talk) 01:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

refs borked

Refs 57, 58 and 59 are broken because the intial ref has been removed. Please fix this. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Urquhart

Thomas Urquhart was not a precise, academic-style translator. He was quite fast and loose with Rabelais, so can his work be fully relied on as evidence? I feel (and here I dive head first into the mud) that if Crowley used Urquhart's translation to develop his theories, then we should include Urquhart. If he used a more accurate translation then we should be very wary of Urquhart. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this. It seems to me that Dan is biased toward a view of Rabelais as Christian. In this case, Rabelais has two different characters dispute the meaning of a poem. One interprets it using Christian imagery and the other takes a non-Christian view. It's hard to see how this make Rabelais himself one or the other. Despite Dan's efforts, which there may be knots of consensus among different cliques of scholars, these cliques do not agree with each other and there is no consensus whatsover on what Rabelais himself actually believed. There may be some consensus that his scatological references can be given a theological interpretation, but this is rather a more narrow subject than Rabelais' broader beliefs, which we can never know for sure. Will in China (talk) 14:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Crowley's understanding of Rabelais

Dan, I fail to understand your focus on "proving" that Rabelais was in essence a Christian. First of all, it can't be done, all we can really write about are the opinions of scholars of Rabelais. Second, despite your contorted attempt to use improper synthesis of overly-specialized sources, the simple fact of the matter is that since 1942, there have been two or three divisions of scholarly opinion on Rablelais. Before 1942, and this is of the most interest to the article, the opinion was uniform that Rabelais was an ant-Christian atheist, and probably a militant one.

The style of your writing leaves your meaning unclear. Making a bold statement followed by a dozen disparate references is usually a sign of improper synthesis. Next, none of your quotes actually outright says what you are stating as fact in the article. Another sign of improper synthesis. It also seems that you may not be choosing the best quotes to represent the view you are espousing. If there is a more direct statement of what you intend to convey in your source, by all means use it, but combining two oblique reference to imply meaning is most certainly improper synthesis.

Next, I fail to see how, even if you could somehow cobble together a direct statement from a broad survey of the scholasticism of Rabelais that Rabelais or his philospohy were basically Christian, how you could then logically conclude that Crowley's Thelema was not derived in part from Rabelais, as other sources have directly stated. First, no one in Crowley's time believed that Rabelais was Christian! The only' opinion of the time was that he was anti-Christian and that would have the only view available to Crowley in the literature in his formative years and even in 1904 when he borrowed "Do what thou wilt" directly from Rabelais!

Your whole approach may seem logical to you, but these glaring holes of illogic are big enough to drive an 18-wheeler through! Will in China (talk) 13:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you read my edits in haste. First, you still haven't recognized that I accurately described the scholarly consensus today. You'll notice the article pointed out that people did not always take this view, and that back in 1946 you could find more people like the quoted Auerbach. But I didn't need to "cobble together" a direct statement of the current consensus, you had to delete one. (Probably more than one.) Second, you also deleted a reference from 1854, a footnote from a translation of Rabelais that, shall we say, might have influenced Crowley of 1904-1909 more than the 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia.

But then, that doesn't really seem like the issue. Your own favorite source, Skinner, said that Crowley received the Book of the Law (as I tried to point out earlier). His most scholarly biographer, Sutin, says in more than one place that Crowley believed what he said about this. So no, the scholarly consensus emphatically does not say that he derived part of it directly from Rabelais -- it says the Book refers to the Abbey of Rabelais, and by a startling coincidence I said this in the introduction.

My edits seek to give more weight to modern scholarly sources, and I do not believe they remove any points of view on Thelema. By a startling coincidence, at least one contributor rolled back your reversion -- though in a brusque way that T objected to -- and as far as I can see nobody has yet voiced agreement with your "nuh-uh" position on all these sources. I ask the other contributors here to please give us opinions on this dispute. Dan (talk) 16:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Dan, I haven't acknowledged it simply because I can't find that what you've written is accurate. You seem to be generalizing from opinions about details of Rabalais' work and somehow assuming that these details add up to some global consensus. When I go to your sources, I find no clear statements directly asserting what you claim the source says. The quotes you pick certainly don't support the broad claims you are making. Your writing style is nearly impossible to follow with so many references and quotations for so few words of text. Perhaps if you'd be more explicit about who specifically held what opinion at what time in the text rather than as generalizations based on reading between the lines in multiple sources, your writing would be more clear and make more sense! For example, in the footnote your refer to, I see nothing to support that Rabelais was recognized as espousing Christian thought rather than that the had made one of his characters to do so. How that little detail contributes to our understanding of Crowley's understanding of Rabelais is quite beyond me. Especially since you haven't established that Crowley used that translation of Rabelais! Please stop glossing over and start being explicit enough that your assertions can be easily verified. So far I have found them not easily verified and quite selective rather than general. Will in China (talk) 16:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Next, with respect to whether Crowley "received" the Book of the Law, that again is not known and there are a wide range of opinions. You also make the logical error of conflating the Book of the Law with all of Thelema! Even if the BoL was perceived "received" by Crowley, most psychogist would insist that then only place it was "received" from would be Crowley's unconscious, an unconscious that most likely had already assimilated Rabelais while at Cambridge if not earlier! And you can't take an "in-universe" view of this reception in an encyclopedia article in any case. The rational explanation is that Crowley borrowed both "Do what thou wilt" and "Thelema" from Rabelais, even if he really was as he claims not conscious of doing so at the time of this "reception". Most likely the whole story is a myth he made up about it, and this is certainly the view of some. Finally, as I said, Thelema is not solely the BoL, so even if Crowley did receive the BoL from an alien intelligence, it doesn't mean that in his explication of Thelema he did not conscoiusly draw on his knowledge of Rabelais! These amazing leaps of yours based on in-universe assumptions used to carefully select your less-than-general sources to support your not-so-logical position which you seem completely blind to is what I object to about your edits. Will in China (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Well now, if you look at the edits as they appeared, you may have less trouble seeing a quote about the work of Rabelais in general. You may also notice that I found and included a citation for someone talking about the unconscious in the Book section, though I don't recall offhand any published source claiming what you, personally, consider "most likely". You may notice that I tried to show the reader the scholarly consensus on Rabelais, Crowley and Thelema, including the link between Thélème and the Book as well as an explicit distinction between the work of Rabelais and Thelema. Dan (talk) 16:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Gordian knot mode: Rabelais's personal beliefs are entirely irrelevant. There's no need to prove or disprove that he was a christian, humanist, occultist or anything. What matters is that Crowley uses Rabelais to support his Thelema, which he seems to have pretty much invented (btw "received" the book of the law? No, he wrote it). There's been far too much argument about what Rabelais believed, and it's a red herring. Having read the article, I am unclear about which translation (if any) Crowley used - surely this is pertinent, and yet there's no mention. On to the Hellfire club: what evidence there is so contradictory that again it's not worth trying to define them - again, it's what thelemists believe about them, and thelemists' use of the evidence, that actually matters. Totnesmartin (talk) 17:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

How can you assert that he "wrote" and did not "receive" the Book of the Law? Do you have some evidence of this? Why even bring up the question? Note the Sutin quote below from Dan about straining credulity. Also FYI the term is Thelemite, not Thelemist. --Thiebes (talk) 06:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for joining in, but I think Totnesmartin and I may have come to an agreement on that particular matter that you wouldn't object to. Though I may not understand his position; Totnesmartin, feel free to weigh in. Dan (talk) 07:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Really? I don't understand then, because when it comes to Thelemic views, even the sources WC cites say that people disagree with them. I gave several sources for the variance within Thelema, and I think it seems awfully generous to our 3RR-breaking friend. Also, the article does not say which translation Crowley used because nobody has clearly shown that he used any translation! Dan (talk) 17:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I mean, if we're talking about Thelemic views rather than scholars' (again: really?) then WiC cites a work by Crowley that claims Rabelais foresaw the revelation to Crowley -- as a source saying that Crowley took something from Rabelais! And then we have third-party sources, like Sutin (who seems like the most scholarly of the lot) describing Al's views on the subject. Do you want more like that? Sutin p138 says "If the character of Crowley does not seem as savory as that of Jung or Yeats, he was no less sincere than they...It strains credulity to dismiss him as a mere fraud. And if he was deluded, it was by an experience of great and subtle power that also baffled some of the most profound of his contemporaries." Dan (talk) 17:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

No I don't want thelemists' views cited over scholastic views, that breaches WP:PRIMARY. The article should, ideally, avoid thelemists as a primary source. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Please desist with the personal attacks. I've made only one full revert in the last 24 hours at 13:56 on 23 March (UTC since we are in radiacaly different time zones). I also did a series of edits progressing the article w/o reverting it between 22:35 on 22 March and 00:11 on 23 March. You could probably count it as a partial revert, but I left a lot of your new material in. My changes to the Rabelais section in between were not a revert, and all other edits/reverts were over 24 hours old. In any case, it takes a 4th revert to break 3RR. I'm trying to stick to 1 and at most 2 per 24 hour period. You did three yesterday, a full revert at 07:03, then as a series of edits from 17:17 through 17:32 amounting to a full revert, then again a full revert at 00:09 on 23 March. In each of these you removed all my changes, not even trying to integrate any material. I am trying to follow the Wikipedia collaboration process, leaving your changes that I don't disagree with and only changing that which I do disagree with. You on the other hand do not seem to be doing so, using only full reverts as if they were a weapon. Will in China (talk) 17:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

"The article should, ideally, avoid thelemists as a primary source." So, um, stick with Sutin? Dan (talk) 18:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Crowley cite (ref 100)

this won't do. a statement about modern thelemists' views is "supported" by a reference to 777. Please replace with a reference to a more recent work. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

A good point. Maybe that reference in Cosmology would do, I'll have to look at it more closely. Dan (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC) edited to indent, I fail at wikicode Dan (talk) 18:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

That one definitely supports the Qabalah bit (p124), and directs people to Liber 777 (p131). What do you think? Dan (talk) 18:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Orpheus? I don't have a copy, but if it's about current Thelema then please go ahead. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Misuse of reference, improper generalization, improper synthesis

The following problems exist with Dan's presentation of Rabelais:

• LaGuardia (25), Bagchi (26): specifically about Rabelais' scatology. Improper generalization to all of Rabelais' writing, improper synthesis with other mis-generalized material.
• Davis (27): actual quote is "The scholarly interpretation of the first episode—of Panurge of the multiple languages—has seen it as primarily an expression of Rabelais’ program of Christian humanism." - again this is about a specific part of a specific book, not about all of Rabelais' writing as implied. Improper generalization, improper synthesis with other mis-generalized material.

This improper synthesis is quite simply poor scholarship, whether or not is it driven by any bias on Dan's part. Because of these glaring misinterpretations of sources, it is impossible to trust any of his other non-web-accessible citations.

Dan, please provide quotes from the following sources that directly support your text without synthesis or inference:

• 29. Rigolot, Francois, "Rabelais, misogyny, and Christian charity: biblical intertextuality and the Renaissance crisis of exemplarity." PMLA v. 109 (March 1994) p. 225-37
• 30. Williams, Alison. Sick humour, healthy laughter: the use of medicine in Rabelais's jokes. The Modern Language Review 101 pt3 671-81 Jl 2006.
• 31. Nash, J. C. 'Fictional Evil and the Reader's Seduction: Rabelais's Creations of "l'Esprit Maling".' Romanic Review v. 93 no. 4 (November 2002) p. 369-86 see also cited sources Griffin & Screech
• 32: Krause, V. "Idle works in Rabelais' Quart livre: the case of the Gastrolatres." The Sixteenth Century Journal v. 30 no. 1 (Spring 1999) p. 47-60
• 33: Russell, A. P. Epic agon and the strategy of reform in Folengo and Rabelais. Comparative Literature Studies v. 34 no. 2 (1997) p. 119-48
• 34: Marsh, L. Of horns and words: a reading of Rabelais's signs. Romanic Review v. 88 (January 1997) p. 53-66. Reads Christian symbolism into "frozen words" event.
• 35: Weinberg, F. M. Layers of emblematic prose: Rabelais' Andouilles. The Sixteenth Century Journal v. 26 (Summer 1995) p. 367-77

Each needs to have an explicit and unqualified statement to the effect that, as you write in the text they support, "Most scholars think the French author wrote from a specifically Christian perspective". Otherwise what you have done here is certainly improper synthesis. Will in China (talk) 14:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed the inverted commas around the following: "It is evident from the scholarship devoted to Rabelais that his texts ultimately depict the Evangelical preoccupation with salvation and the true faith, and the need for good Christians to work toward the ideal Utopia of Christ's kingdom." (emphasis added for this comment)

But Dan, that sentence says nothing about the "consensus of scholars". That's precisly why it is improper synthesis. It represents only one writer's opinion. Will in China (talk) 18:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you thought I meant by Article quote at p36, in that case. But it would certainly explain why you deleted that published quote, and otherwise, I don't know what to make of this objection. I tried to address your concerns from way back when you first broke WP:3RR with the refs I called syn1, syn2 and syn3. You responded by literally placing syn citation tags after my citations and quotes from published sources. I trust everyone here can see that in that quote just now, LaGuardia does not in fact limit himself to "a specific part of a specific book"? The Davis quote that you repeated does indeed start by talking about a specific scene -- with no reference to scatology -- before saying that scholarship "has seen it as primarily an expression of Rabelais’ program of Christian humanism." Do you believe she could have meant that the author suddenly had a program of Christian humanism when he wrote this passage but then abandoned it, and that this one scene somehow convinced scholars that he had a real, albeit puzzlingly brief, Christian humanist outlook? Because I don't see any way to read it like that.

Here's another published, third-party synthesis from the article:

"in 1959...Screech was writing against the view first articulated by Abel Lefranc but still widely defended at the time that Rabelais was a closet freethinker... Ned Duval has recently shown that Rabelais set out to write a Christian antiepic," according to Benson, Edward, writing in Sixteenth Century Journal Vol. 28, No. 3 (Autumn, 1997), pp. 961-963. Review of the book Rabelais and the Challenge of the Gospel: Evangelism, Reformation, Dissent by Michael Screech. Baden-Baden: Éditions Valentin Koerner, 1992.

Again, this say nothing about any consensus, only related the views for three specific scholars and their relationship. You are making up the consensus out of whole cloth. If you can prove otherwise, give a quote directly about "most scholars" having a "consensus". Will in China (talk) 18:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I could go on, perhaps question the idea of scholars naturally making the leap from feces to Christianity without a coherent Christian picture of the author. But I think I've made my point. Dan (talk) 17:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Dan, this is either acomplete misunderstanding of what synthesis is or complete and utter intellectual dishonesty. As an editor it is my right to insist that you provide quotes that support your "fact" directly without inference or synthesis.

Also, I have not broken 3RR. Either you misunderstand 3RR (4 reverts in 24 hours) or you are attempting to provoke me. Either report me or stop making false accusations. A******. Will in China (talk) 18:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Just FYI, WP:SYN says, "Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources.". In case you haven't bothered to read it. Will in China (talk) 18:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I referred of course to your initial reversions after I discovered the punchline to The Adventures of Dan and the Many Nyms of Banned Sockpuppeteer Ekajati (starts at "Unexplained changes by Dan", you may find it amusing). Dan (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Funny historical sidenote: the quote that anonymous (now WiC) objects to back then appears in one of WiC's sources. It would almost have to, since that seems like the best source for "Rabelaisian Thelema". In this connection, see my comment a few sections ago ("other changes") on Hegel and Kant. Dan (talk) 19:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Anywho, what do you think the three new sources and the one about Screech actually mean? Dan (talk) 19:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Dan, it seems you completely miss the point of WP:SYN. Neither of us gets to interpret the sources. They either make a direct statement about "Most scholars having a consensus" or they don't. What I'm saying is simply that they don't have such a statement, not in any kind of unqualified form.

As to tarring me with "3RR breaker" for things I may have done over a year ago before I even knew there was a rule about it, that's pretty low and a personal attack to boot. I'm requesting help from people familar with both synthesis and disruption to come take a look at your editing patterns. If you think I'm a sock of your preciously beloved banned user who you talk about so much, then report me. Otherwise, STFU about it. Will in China (talk) 19:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Well now, Davis for one explicitly says that scholars have agreed Rabelais had a program of Christian humanism. You just can't reasonably deny that, according to English grammar. And Christian humanism is a Christian position. As for reporting someone who uses Tor (anonymity network), I can't think what good that would do even if you were Ekky. Dan (talk) 21:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, I should mention that LaGuardia makes a stronger statement when he says the scholarship leaves no doubt on this point. If you don't like my attempt at NPOV, we can go with that until you find a unicorn source saying that the scholarship does leave doubt on this point and does not make it evident. Dan (talk) 21:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Dan. Problem is, the subject of the sentence is "scholarly interpretation of the first episode". You make an illogical assumption that if Rabelais had a "program of Christian humanism", that it might be the only program that he had, and you imply that most scholars agree that he did. Did you even *read* my broader, more general survey of the actual field? I included that some scholar saw Rabelais as a Christian humanist. However I did *not* find any direct evidence that this is a majority opinion. Apparently even you can't find that or you wouldn't be relying on synthesis. You'd just quote one or two clear unqualified statements on the topic. Will in China (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

My queries on the original research noticeboard (who knew there was such a thing), have yield agreement that you are engaged in improper synthesis, Dan. See Wikipedia:No_original_research/noticeboard#Help_with_original_synthesis_at_Thelema_.28Talk:Thelema.29. Thanks. Will in China (talk) 23:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

published syntheses, part 2

WiC wrote at that noticeboard: Dan, one thing that is unclear to me is how a quote can have two separate citations. Which source is it from, who is it quoting. It's simply unusual to put a quote into an article without saying who said it. Plus neither of the sources are web-accessible so I can't check which the quote is in or who said it or anything. I'd be happy to include that quote in my overview of the scholarship, but for the fact that it's ultimately unsourced by following it with two citations and no explanation. That's why I tagged it as well as the more obvious synthesis. Could you introduce the quote with text and cite it to its original source only?

Well, the quote comes from LaGuardia. The footnote/ref citation to LaGuardia, which comes first after the quote (and first in the previous list) ends with the phrase, "Article quote on p36". You will also see, if you look at the previous talk section here, that I repeated the quote and followed it by saying "I don't know what you thought I meant by Article quote at p36," if you didn't know it came directly from the source. (Note that you broke the comment at that very junction.) The other reference for the quote in the article goes to Davis, available here and elsewhere as I've said both in the reference and in discussion, because I think the part referenced shows clearly and explicitly that she agrees with LaGuardia's view of the scholarship. Also, you can find it online. Dan (talk) 02:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

A citation after a quote is supposed to simply be the source of the quote. Nothing else. You don't need to "support" it with another opinion! To add a second citation that doesn't actually include the quote is simply confusing.

If there are web sources, why aren't you linking them in your citations? Will in China (talk) 02:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

From the comment I just posted: Davis, available here and elsewhere as I've said both in the reference and in discussion

Also on the noticeboard, WiC just asked why I don't "want" to include earlier scholarship, saying it might have influenced Crowley. Well, the article has citations for how Crowley came by what you're talking about, and for the influence (direct or indirect) that scholarly sources agree on. If you have other published scholarly sources saying more, then by all means tell us. Dan (talk) 02:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

To put this another way, and I mean no disrespect by this because I do it to, it seems like you've mainly read the edit diffs rather than the edits as they appear. This makes it hard to, eg click on links. Please read the article, come back here and tell us what you think we should change on the merits, and see what people think. That's all I've ever asked (well, nearly all). Dan (talk) 03:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but you've removed many of the modern opinions specifically about Crowley and Rabelais, reorganized the lead to deemphasize Crowley's debt to Rabelais, pushed a slanted view of trying to combine the conclusions of various scholars as a consensus, included detailed and confusing reference citations, use weasel words and seem to be so intent of giving the article your own slant that your motive have become suspect.

And yes, I read the text and not only diffs, and I attempt to look at the references. I knew where to find Davis and use it myself. I didn't know where to find LaGuardia, and gee, you didn't provide that link at all. Do your other unlinked reference have web sources? If yes, please provide them so I can verify your citation. Otherwise, please provide the quote that you are using to support your conclusions about consensus. Will in China (talk) 03:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Well gee, now I feel more confused. Do you believe LaGuardia says what I directly quote him as saying? If so, what do those words you just posted mean? Dan (talk) 03:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

And for those who don't want to go to the noticeboard, I said this:

1. I think the quote that follows that line in the article does say that, or something stronger. I also think the Davis reference says it. (Both come from one of three references that I added to the list of examples.) You know the difficulty in finding citations for something that everyone knows. I don't think it gets much better than this. But I plan to visit a university bookstore and look for a textbook tomorrow -- the viewing for my dead neighbor should allow that -- and maybe check their library again. I will also request a book or two from someplace I cannot reasonably get to directly. WiC, please do not revert any part of the article before I get back to y'all on this.

2. I don't know why WiC has chosen to fight on this issue and demand that level of detail, but he has. Other users seem satisfied with the clear statement of Lawrence Sutin on the relationship between Rabelais and Thelema. Dan (talk) 02:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

3. If the bulk of current scholarship states the Christian views of Rabelais as a fact -- and it does, to the point where LaGuardia couldn't ignore this when writing on Rabelais in the context of his time's "medicine" -- how would you include the views of earlier scholars? Would you say the article on Thelema does not require us do so? Dan (talk) 02:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

copied Dan (talk) 03:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I found the LaGuardia text and verified it. It's the whole list above that I'd like links for or quotes from. Not too confusing, really, I think. Third time I've asked for them. Will in China (talk) 03:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Copied below from the previous section in case you still don't get it. Will in China (talk) 04:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Dan, please provide quotes from the following sources that directly support your text without synthesis or inference:

• 29. Rigolot, Francois, "Rabelais, misogyny, and Christian charity: biblical intertextuality and the Renaissance crisis of exemplarity." PMLA v. 109 (March 1994) p. 225-37
• 30. Williams, Alison. Sick humour, healthy laughter: the use of medicine in Rabelais's jokes. The Modern Language Review 101 pt3 671-81 Jl 2006.
• 31. Nash, J. C. 'Fictional Evil and the Reader's Seduction: Rabelais's Creations of "l'Esprit Maling".' Romanic Review v. 93 no. 4 (November 2002) p. 369-86 see also cited sources Griffin & Screech
• 32: Krause, V. "Idle works in Rabelais' Quart livre: the case of the Gastrolatres." The Sixteenth Century Journal v. 30 no. 1 (Spring 1999) p. 47-60
• 33: Russell, A. P. Epic agon and the strategy of reform in Folengo and Rabelais. Comparative Literature Studies v. 34 no. 2 (1997) p. 119-48
• 34: Marsh, L. Of horns and words: a reading of Rabelais's signs. Romanic Review v. 88 (January 1997) p. 53-66. Reads Christian symbolism into "frozen words" event.
• 35: Weinberg, F. M. Layers of emblematic prose: Rabelais' Andouilles. The Sixteenth Century Journal v. 26 (Summer 1995) p. 367-77

Offer of assistance

I would like to offer my assistance as an entirely informal mediator. Wikipedia:Mediation provides a nice overview of the general purpose and form of mediation. While it is the policy for formal mediation through the Mediation Committee, the general gist of the page is applicable across the board. I have a lot of mediation experience with the Committee and with the informal mediation group. I am also quite familiar with Thelema and Western esotericism. I also could help find another person with dispute resolution experience and/or find a couple of admins to help monitor the page. Thoughts? --Vassyana (talk) 04:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, your assistance would be greatly appreciated. I think the article should be reverted back to the last point where it was in basically the same form as approved by GA review and proceed from there with discussion and consensus for changes made. That version would be, IMO, that of 17:38, 11 March 2009. Here's the diff from the version that passed GA review at 14:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC) Since then the article had mostly minor changes and revisions maintaining IMO good article status until this major disruptive edit by Dan at 06:54, 21 March 2009. Will in China (talk) 05:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. If you go to the start of this page (or the archive if you want the sockpuppet fun), you can see how that version of the article came into existence. At no point did we reach consensus. My learned colleague here brought in someone who (I think) did not know the topic through the GA process. I think we should discuss the changes on the merits. User:Totnesmartin, WiC and I have started to do so. Now, I don't know if I fully understand T's term, but he seems to agree that we should emphasize the views of people like Sutin, which as you can see is roughly how this started. I think I've addressed all WiC's concerns, if you include my plans for tomorrow (see previous section or NOR noticeboard). Dan (talk) 05:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I completely but respectfully disagree with Dan's statment that no consensus was ever reached. Consensus was reached on this very page in this section (link updated b/c section was archived after this comment was originally posted), where differences were discussed point-by-point just before GA review. On most points a compromise was reached. On the other points, Dan simply stopped discussing. This was followed about a week later by the GA review. The article remained relatively stable following passing GA for 13 months. My understanding of how Wikipedia defines consensus is that a long-standing version of the article is de-facto a consensus version. We should return to the consensus version and proceed from there. Will in China (talk) 05:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:CCC which establishes that consensus can change. This is obviously a stage in the article's development which indicates that process may be happening. Coldmachine^Talk 08:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course consensus can change. I have no problem with progressing the article via consensus. However, with only two editors who disagree, there is no change in consensus from a long-standing version which has de-facto consensus. The article is GA and the changes degrade the article due to poor writing style, improper synthesis and POV pushing. On top of that, Dan is edit-warring with full blind reverts, 3 per day since March 22. I on the other hand believe some of Dan's changes are positive. Every revert of mine except the very first has been followed by an attempt to integrate some of Dan's changes that I don't object to. Any other full reverts I've done have been to these compromise versions. Dan appears unwilling to compromise and include any of the compromise material I've written. In such a blatant case of non-cooperative editing which could lose the articles GA status, I still believe that the article should be returned to the version just before Dan's edits and the changes discussed and consensus achieved before making compromise versions of the changes acceptable to all editors of the article. There is no conceivable reason to give into an edit warrior and move away from a GA-reviewed article without consensus. Will in China (talk) 13:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm still reading this talk page and the article before I comment further, but I'd be willing to help. Synergy 13:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

That might help. I hope your reading includes the part you archived, starting at Definition. Dan (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think going back to 2007 was going to help much. I'm more interested in what started the disagreement that lead to edit warring. Synergy 17:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Then you want 2006, and the sockpuppet comedy. Or the previous link if you mean my disagreement with the user now known as "Will in China". I came back recently with new sources on both Rabelais and Thelema. Dan (talk) 05:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

• Truce. No comments about other editors. No edit warring.

• Focus on building the article, not past infractions.
• Follow WP:BRD. If you make an edit and are reverted, let's hash it out here.

• Restore the article to the version that made good article status.

• Agree to restore any non-controversial and housekeeping edits.
• Review and discuss the article section by section.

Thoughts? --Vassyana (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'd like to discuss the definition of the article's topic before going back to a previous definition. Dan (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The underlying assertions forming the definition would be one of the first things discussed.[1] --Vassyana (talk) 16:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Does part of that section state or support the definition? I don't see any citation at the top, nor do I think we could find one as good as Sutin's usage. (Do you agree with Totnesmartin about preferring non "thelemist" sources about Thelemites?) Dan (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the article presents earlier movements as part of the history of Thelema. Deciding how to handle that section and what to include will have a direct impact on the question of definition. On the flip side, we can hash out a definition and then handle the section accordingly. Either way, we will need to examine how reliable sources deal with the subject. I am going to decline to offer any specific opinions at this time. Once we get the ball rolling, I may provide an article review akin to what I would leave if I found it as a GA nomination. For now, I'd like to deal with things one bit at a time. The first thing we need to hash out is a starting point and the general way we will move forward. Will you agree to the truce, restoration of the GA version, and a section-by-section review and discussion? --Vassyana (talk) 11:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

There's something from Chaos International in the article, a statement that I don't know how to reconcile with current Rabelais scholarship without taking the "ecumenical," 'essence of Thelema' view that I included in the article. (I mentioned that I plan to look for another summary of R scholarship today, and asked WiC not to revert before I get back to y'all on his objection there.) Do we agree that Sutin seems more scholarly than this particular Chaos article? Dan (talk) 17:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Vassyana's proposal. Will in China (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Very sensible and fairly standard proposal to get the process back into article building, so of course I agree. Synergy 17:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Vassyana, I agree with all that except the revert and -- well, I started to say I won't revert myself without discussion here, but then I remembered I can't. I won't take any action against you for it, if that's what you mean. Dan (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason you object to restoring the GA version as a starting point? (Bear in mind, it is just a starting point and won't be a prejudgement on the discussion.) --Vassyana (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it originally passed GA because the article looked stable. It looked stable because I and several other users behaved like good little Wikipedians, expecting a user RfC to result in some action. Dan (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, Dan, I really have to take exception to that. The article passed GA review for one reason and one reason only, because it meets GA criteria. The reason it meet GA criteria is that I worked my butt off reading about GA and spent much effort working to make the article meet the criteria. I must give you some credit. At first I did not believe your claims that the article was inaccurate and implied things beyond what the sourced said. But eventually after examining the actual sources I came to see that you were partially right. You did want to go on to deny thing that were clearly stated in the sources, and I thought that was going too far, just as you are trying to do now.

Not only did the article pass GA, and not only because it was stable but due to it being compliant with the whole list of GA criteria, it also passed two requests by Redblossom to have the GA status revoked. That means another independent GA reviewer or two looked at the article and verified that it met GA criteria in their opinion as well as that of the initial reviewer.

So please give credit where credit is due, I progressed the article to GA status, the only one out of the sorry lot of Thelema articles to be so progressed. And I hope only the first. If you'd put some real effort into some of the other articles perhaps you'd get a GA article to your credit too. Will in China (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

So, Vassyana, do you plan to revert before we discuss the definition (or wherever you want to start)? I don't know if you want to see, eg, the new cited quote from Bowen below. Dan (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussions below seem to be getting nowhere. Let's please revert the article and have Dan make specific proposals for change one at a time and see if other editors will be more willing to engage in the discussion if it is done that way. I still don't find Dan's arguments in any way convincing. He has found one very good new source, but only wants to use the part that agrees with his aims. That just doesn't seem to be the way to build an NPOV article. Will in China (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

published syntheses, part 3, update on the request

There are no textbooks for Sixteenth-Century French Literature, not in that store. I do have four library books to start with, and I can confirm that LeFranc's arguments for the atheism of Rabelais seemed "untenable" as early as 1985. Now, before we continue this discussion, I see two issues here.

1. LaGuardia should suffice to say that current scholarship agrees with Sutin on R.'s Christian perspective, even without all the supporting examples. We have a quote from Sutin, we have another reliable source describing the scholarship on Rabelais, and the two agree. Edit: agree on this point. 07:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

2. People want a citation saying that most scholars today accept this view that "is evident from the scholarship" (LaGuardia; I should mention that the issue seems incidental to most of what his essay says, and not essential to any obvious polemical point of his). Now, the same source tells us (from Thelema footnote 25), "Scholars are agreed that one must read these concrete and visceral passages of Rabelais in the most abstract of terms: the physical purgation of the body is an exact analog of the spiritual purgation of the soul." (emphasis added) He goes on to say that "The religious and theological context for Rabelais's seemingly scandalous preoccupation with scatology has, therefore, been well documented in the scholarly literature on the subject." Since he then spells out that context as the depiction, by R's texts, of "the Evangelical preoccupation with salvation and the true faith, and the need for good Christians to work toward the ideal Utopia of Christ's kingdom," this being "evident", the synthesis objection seems unnecessarily pedantic. I mean, I only said "most" because the laws of psychology tell us that some scholar somewhere must still disagree. But again, I'm looking for more sources -- ones that actually set out to describe the scholarship, rather than finding they couldn't avoid it.

-Dan (talk) 06:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

LaGuardia tells us:

• "The religious and theological context" for a motif in Rabelais is "well documented in the scholarly literature".
• The texts containing that motif "ultimately depict the Evangelical preoccupation with salvation and the true faith, and the need for good Christians to work toward the ideal Utopia of Christ's kingdom."

The English language tells us:

• Said depiction is religious, theological, and a context for the motif.

What do y'all believe follows from this? Dan (talk) 07:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

You're making assumptions and overgeneralizing from details, Dan. First of all, many writers use language like "it is evident". It simply means they are convinced of their own interpretation, which is what they are writing about. Second, spiritual purgation is not exclusive to Christianity. In Hinduism its known as extinguishing karma. Having ideas about the relation of spiritual and physical purgation does not in any way imply a Christian ideology. Your particular source may ignore this due to their own presuppositions, but the fact that something is a theological allegory does not make it an exclusively Christian theological allegory. You are reading in too much based on your own personal biases. This is not good scholarship.

You have also completely ignored the statements I used from more general overviews rather then detailed research papers. These follow:

• Timothy Hampton writes that "to a degree unequalled by the case of any other writer from the European Renaissance, the reception of Rabelais's work has involved dispute, critical disagreement, and ... scholarly wrangling ..."
• Mikhail Mikhaĭlovich Bakhtin wrote in his 1984 book Rabelais and His World that "Rabelais' artistic thought fits neither rationalist atheism nor a religious faith, no matter whether Catholic, Protestant, or the 'religion of Christ' of Erasmus". Bakhtin is a significant and recent figure in the scholarship of Rabelais! And clearly he is not agreed.
• At a September 1991 conference on "Rabelais in Context", Nina Eugenia Serebrennikov stated that "controversy among Rabelais scholars has proved more instructive than consensus"
• In the 2004 book Doubt: A History, Jennifer Michael Hecht uses the long-running controversy about Rabelais' beliefs as an example, writing that "What historians have gone back and forth on is what Rabelais himself actually believed".

The fact that there is not agreement is well established by these. You have no kind of quantitative survey to support "most"; maybe one side is in the majority, maybe the opinions are more or less equally divided. But you can't trust those on one side of the issue to accurately portray the other side! But that's just what you're doing!

Unless you can find a neutral survey article, a meta-article really on the scholarship of Rabelais rather than an article taking a position about Rabelais, you've simply picked and chosen what to ignore and what to synthesize.

When you ask "What do y'all believe follows from this?" you are asking us to synthesize along with you. That's precisely the problem with your position. Synthesis isn't allowed, by you, by me, or even by consensus.

Will in China (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: point 2, R. L. Stevenson Bowen, Barbara, "Rire est le propre de l'homme," Ch. 1 in Enter Rabelais, Laughing. Vanderbilt University Press 1998, which you will notice comes after 1984:

Twentieth-century academics have "discovered" a bewildering multiplicity of François Rabelais. Although most critics nowadays accept Screech's Rabelais the Evangelical Christian humanist, our author has also been firmly labeled an atheist (LeFranc), a Freemason (Naudon), a proto-Marxist (Lefebvre), a social subversive (Bakhtin)... (and many others) Some of these Rabelais are undoubtedly authentic (whereas others exist only in the fertile minds of their expositors), but even when authentic they are usually, for my taste, too exclusive. p2-3.

Note as well that the article does not claim Rabelais wrote only as a Christian humanist and not as, say, a humorist. Technically, it doesn't even take a stand on the Freemason question. Dan (talk) 03:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

fixed citation for the article 07:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That's most lovely, Dan. Best source I've seen yet. And yet you don't seem to appreciate it at all. Note in the introduction to the book that the author notes that she's making a comment about scholars with this book. In fact, she's laughing at them. And then how she goes on:

"Most readers are at least partially conscious, not of a Rabelais, but of many different Rabelais, and of the four book as belonging to a multiplicity of literary genres; ... I believe that the first step to reading Rabelais as he wanted to be read is to look for multiplicity, not for unity. ... He writes, very often, as a humanist; less often but quite clearly as a Christian; always, I think, as a devotee of classical literature...." etc. etc.

So using your sort of approach I could say

Barbara Bowen, while noting that "most critics nowadays accept Screech's Rabelais the Evangelical Christian humanist", ridicules this limited view of Rabelais with nearly Rabelaisian humor, exposing and exploring the multifaceted nature of both Rabelais and his works.

How's that grab ya? Will in China (talk) 05:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you might want to read the rest of page 2 and maybe 3 more closely, since I see we can read it at Google Books. Though really, I'm not sure where you're going with this. Dan (talk) 07:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

There you go again, Dan, stopping on the page where you find what you want. Try reading pages 4 and 5. In any case the point is that the issue is much more complex than you'd prefer to present it. And that in fact you presentation is aimed toward making an improper synthesis with Sutin. That sort of thing doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. We aren't here to make a statement that "most" Rabelais scholars agree with Sutin or Sutin agrees with them. It's not even true unless you add the qualification "post-Screech" or "since 1959". My point is, you need to drop your agenda. O hope that's clear enough for you. Will in China (talk) 13:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Freude, schöner -- er, I mean, the book I most wanted to find in the library has a relevant excerpt at Google Books. The whole Enigmatic Prophecy entry by E. Bruce Hayes (p68) confirms what the article says with the phrase "a true meaning" of the poem that (as the article also takes pains to say) receives two interpretations within Rabelais by two different characters. (This prophecy and its context seem like the most relevant parts of Gargantua and Pantagruel for the purpose of this article, though we can discuss that later.) The entry says in part, ...Pantagruel's interpretation of the enigma, as an allegory of the suffering of evangelical Christians in France, is also viable. Read in an evangelical context, the double interpretation can be seen as a device to thwart those who might attack the author's reformist text by offering the anodyne interpretation of Frère Jean. However, neither interpretation is exclusive, and both offer only a partial understanding of the text. Although both interpretations are correct, both are incomplete. (second emphasis added)

The entry for Thélème, Abbey of p243, continues the theme that difference does not imply disagreement (e.g. with Sutin) and flatly says that for Rabelais, "The Greek name Thelema declares that the will of God rules in this abbey", while many other pages (esp. 92, perhaps) describe specifically Christian aspects. p74 in the Evangelism entry by Harp connects the Abbey with free will "disciplined and educated," human nature "saved by grace", and the internal Christian dispute that receives its own entry on p102. Dan (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

For those who don't want to click through:

The Rabelais encyclopedia By Elizabeth A. Chesney, Elizabeth Chesney Zegura Edition: 3, illustrated. Published by Greenwood Publishing Group, 2004 ISBN 0313310343, 9780313310348

-Dan (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I thought the Bowen reference was great and that just maybe you might be opening your eyes to the big picture, Dan. But you're back staring at trees, blinded to the forest. I see no point in continuing this sort of game. You've not convinced me that focusing on what "most scholars" think is really more appropriate here than giving the big picture. Maybe we should just leave out the views of scholars about Rabelais, ending the section with the quote containing "Do what thou wilt" followed by a see also Rabelais. Anyway, why don't you directly engage the other editor who've stated an interest and find out what they think about your exertions? I notice they've not commented at all, which means that so far, nobody has agreed with you. I'd say it's time to revert the article and see if you can convince anybody of your suggested changes. Will in China (talk) 21:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I would think that whole dispute would belong better in an article on the History of Thelema, which for whatever reason doesn't yet exist. But I would have to seriously question placing much emphasis or space on such a topic in the main article for the subject. Oh, and, by the way, we should probably place a "seealso" template at the top of the article. God help me, but when I did a recent article check on the word "Thelema" no articles on the faith came up, but several articles about an Australian winery did. I'm guessing that business is notable, although I still think that at this point the Crowley belief system is by far the better known subject. John Carter (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds about right to me, John. I've said before I think Sutin might suffice for one of the questions here. Dan (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The Cream of the Jest

You know, the GA article isn't quite as good as I thought. It has a glaring omission. It mentions that Rabelais is listed in Crowley's list of saints, but it neglects to note that it's one of the italicized names. Those in the know will realize that this means that Crowley not only was claiming that Rabelais foresaw Crowley's coming; he was also claiming to be the reincarnation of Rabelais. Given Crowley's notion of the great work, no doubt to complete what he'd started. This makes quite clear what Crowley believed of Rabelais' theology, at least.

It also means that Sutin was talking out of both sides of his mouth. On the one hand claiming that Crowley was beyond doubt, but at the same time denying his continuation of Rabelais' work and thus simultaneously doubting Crowley's claims of reincarnation! One wonders if this was intentional, but ultimately has to conclude "probably not". Sutin possesses none of the genius of either Rabelais or Crowley, that's for sure. No offense intended Dan should you just happen to be Sutin. Will in China (talk) 06:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking about a different Sutin and Crowley? The Crowley I know (as presented in Sutin) claimed not to assert any theory of what his "past life" impressions really meant, and described many such "incarnations" that did not know their own purpose. Dan (talk) 07:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? Is everything you know about Crowley taken from Sutin?

From the Wikipedia article on True Will (no, I had nothing to do with writing this, it appears to have been lifted directly from OTO's Thelemapedia):

"The Message of the Master Therion" (Liber II) is a seminal document that attempts to delineate the doctrine of True Will. By reference to "Liber Thisharb", Liber II suggests a theory of metempsychosis, whereby the individual True Will is the resultant of a person's prior incarnations."

Crowley italicized a long list of names in Liber XV, indicating that they represented the previous incarnations of himself: Lao-tzu and Siddhârtha and Tahuti, Dionysus, Mohammed and To Mega Thêrion; Pan, Mentu, Hêraclês, Catullus, Rabelais, Swinburne; Apollonius Tyanæus, Pythagoras, Bardesanes and Hippolytus; Jacobus Burgundus Molensis the Martyr, Christian Rosencreutz, Roderic Borgia Pope Alexander the Sixth, Sir Edward Kelly, Alphonse Louis Constant and Sir Aleister Crowley. Crowley claimed that all these were his incarnations. Crowley's claim to be the reincarnation of Eliphas Levi (Alphonse Louis Constant) is well known and cited in Sabazius's short bio of Levi, "Aleister Crowley considered him to have been an Adeptus Major, as well as his own immediately previous incarnation."

This is precisely why multiple sources need to be presented. Sutin clearly has a bias and an agenda. Of course, so do the other biographers. I question, for example, Suster's biography is not used as a source here; in fact, is not even mentioned! Will in China (talk) 13:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Will: I fail to understand what it is you are talking about. You say that there is mention of saints (found in the section called AC's works, second paragraph under the bullet points), and Rabelais is not italicized, inferring that "some people" (people in the know) will take this the wrong way. Well, no proper names are italicized on wikipedia, and it quite clearly states that he was a hero and saint to Crowley. So whats the problem? I do not come to the same conclusions as you do, and I am well aware of all of Crowleys writings. The rest of your comments can be addressed with neutral wording when citing Sutin. Claims are claims, and can be addressed as such. If you want Suster here, we can begin with what you want to add, and work from there. Sound reasonable? Also note that the True Will article is a separate article, and unless is has actual baring on this article, we should stay on topic, please. Synergy 00:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

As I clearly stated, the list of names, some of which are italicized, are in Liber XV also known as The Gnostic Mass. Will in China (talk) 00:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The italicization of the names of saints in the Gnostic Mass is not an indication that Crowley thought he was a reincarnation of them. It is only an indication of which names are said at every Mass, while the non-italicized names are read at the more special occasions (to paraphrase). It is patently obvious that the italicized names cannot all be pre-incarnations of Crowley since at least one (Reuss), and possibly one or two more (this is off the top of my head), were his contemporaries. Crowley did consider Rabelais to be his pre-incarnation (which is totally irrelevant to the article unless you want to claim that Thelema was founded by Lao-Tzu), and all the pre-incarnations are italicized, but the italicization is not denoting pre-incarnation and there are many italicized names which are not pre-incarnations. --Thiebes (talk) 19:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Red herring alert: Reuss is not one of the italicized names, at least in properly formatted versions of Liber XV. Crowley wrote somewhere, and if I don't find it I'm sure someone else will, that the italicized names represented his pre-incarnations. ALL the italicized names are pre-incarnations. Your argument based on Reuss falls flat b/c his name is not italicized. Will in China (talk) 00:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Every published version has Reuss italicized. So you're saying that every published version is incorrect? What an odd assertion to make. On what do you base this? Anyway it doesn't matter, Crowley did see Rabelais as his pre-incarnation, and as I said, that doesn't really indicate much about Rabelais' role in the history of Thelema except the simple fact that the founder of Thelema considered Rabelais to be his pre-incarnation and to have been an influence on his thinking. --71.236.167.39 (talk) 00:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I've seen no published version which has Reuss italicized. That includes the online version published by Sabazius online at [2]. Now it may be that someone recently, not knowing the import of the italicization, italized Reuss thinking that he should be so honored as a "past master" of OTO, and that such a version has been distributed recently. Such versions also typically add Kellner, Germer and McMurtry, italicizing them as well. But none of the versions published during Crowley's time had Reuss italicized and most subsequent versions are true to the originals, at least until the current revisionism fad hit the OTO. Will in China (talk) 01:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I haven't found where Crowley stated that the italicized names were intended to represent his incarnations, but Hymenaeus Beta wrote in Book 4 in the note on page 777 that "The italicized saints (from Edward Kelley to the end) in MTP are previous incarnations of Crowley". He also notes that one publication or manuscript labeled TS2 had some italicization errors: "TS2 italicized Khem but not Heracles, and Doctor Theodor Reuss but not Roderic Borgia Pope Alexender the Sixth". Will in China (talk) 05:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Equinox III:1, III:10, and Gems all have Reuss italicized, as well as Khem, Heracles, and Borgia, and Kellner, but do not have Germer or McMurtry. Can you tell us where HB stated that the italicization in "TS2" was erroneous? Though, again, this entire discussion is irrelevant to the question of the founding of Thelema. --Thiebes (talk) 06:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

He strongly implies it by stating that versions have the italicization different followed immediately by the observation that one version makes sense in terms of Crowley's previous incarnations. I believe that Grant noted in his edition of Magick that the italicized names were all supposed to be incarnations of Crowley. This was I believe sourced to either letters in his possession or verbal instruction on the matter by Crowley. I'm sure a source for this will turn up in time. The version by HaLayL or whatever his name is is simply a complete fiasco thrown together by someone whose depth of knowledge of the history of the mass was lacking. This observation has been made by others as well, noting mistakes that he introduced into the Greek. Will in China (talk) 14:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure this all seems fascinating to someone, but here you can see Crowley explicitly changing the work of Edward Kelley on the grounds that this "previous incarnation" did not understand his own work: Vision and the Voice, Second Aethyr, fn 24 and the line following that number in the main text. Dan (talk) 06:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Top down or bottom up

Despite the lengthy obfuscation, I think we have a very basic question here. Do we approach the subject top down or bottom up? Arguing from details embedded in specialized literature is all very well in a research paper. A research paper is intended to build up a view from the details. But not an encyclopedia article. That should be more of a top down view, which naturally tends to prevent improper synthesis - allowable in a research paper but not in an encyclopedia article. This is more than a question of style, though it includes stylistic concerns. Does anyone else see the dispute in this light? Does anybody have any observations to contribute at this level of abstraction? Do we have to perpetually be drawn down into details with no end in sight? Let's get the conversation back on track. Will in China (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I think the objecting party needs to summarize their issues with the GA version, and come to a compromise. We need to start working on this. I'd like to see an outline of all of the objections, without the harsh critique of biographers, editors opinions, and the assumptions of other texts, claims, etc. Nice, neat, and concise. Synergy 01:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Well now, I posted a somewhat quick and dirty account here on March 20 before editing the article. But I told Vassyana I have no problem discussing the article point by point, starting with the definition of the topic or wherever he wants to start, as soon as V wants to see it. I would also have no problem making a cohesive outline as you suggest, and of course this would start (as before) with the definition. Dan (talk) 02:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC) edit to rem stray comma Dan (talk) 02:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Will, I may be wrong and it's nothing personal, but you do not appear to be operating in good faith here. Dan did summarize his critique, as he says above, and then on your demand he went into detail about each individual edit. You are now criticizing him for getting into too much detail? You are the one who demanded it, thereby creating significant obfuscation to the point that it has been difficult for me to even follow along, much less contribute to the discussion. And now you are making a bizarre, abstract, and borderline meaningless demand for a "top down" and simplified approach. This just looks like you are creating smoke screens to prevent anyone with a day job from understanding the arguments taking place here. Heck I am currently unemployed and I still have had trouble keeping up. I have not delved into every detail of Dan's arguments but I definitely agree with the overall problems he has noted of crediting Rabelais, the Christian parodist, for the founding of a religion that every reliable source claims was founded by Crowley. --Thiebes (talk) 19:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Red herring alert: You are misrepresenting my position. Dan's "critique" was in no way detailed. It did not directly find fault with any specific sentence or reference of the GA article, so should be adding to it only, not rewriting it. My problem with Dan's original edits was that they synthesised from detailed analyses of specific aspects of Rabelais. A problem which the Bowen book does not have, but which the next presented source falls into again. That's pretty clear I think if you bother to read the page about improper synthesis being a form of original research. Will in China (talk) 00:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to represent your position, but rather to reflect back to you how it seems to me. If he rewrote things, that sort of means de facto that he found fault with those specific parts of the article that he rewrote. And... now you are saying that his critique was in no way detailed, but you were saying that it was too detailed before. What is the problem exactly, too much or too little detail in Dan's critique? I will review the page on improper synthesis again, but I haven't seen how Dan is engaging in this so far. --71.236.167.39 (talk) 00:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The synthesis issue was taken to the original research notice board, here where an independent editor agreed that Dan was engaged in original research, writing:

"The current version has eleven references for the first clause of the disputed text. There should never be a need to use 11 citations for one statement. While not a necessary and sufficient condition of a synthesis, it is a red flag. Another red flag is the use of the weasel word most. Unless there is a specific reference that uses the word most to describe Rabelais as writing from a Christian perspective, at the minimum, this needs to be re-written. Of the other sentences tagged with synthesis, one of them is a direct quote, or is presented as a quote. A quote can be used in synthesizing a conclusion, but by itself, cannot be a synthesis. Looking at the sources available to me at the time of writing, it does appear that most of this paragraph is a synthesis of information to advance a position. To include the information that most or a consensus of scholars think X, it is necessary for a reliable, secondary source to say this. It is not sufficient to collect a list of primary sources that agree with X, and conclude there is a consensus, which is what appears to have happened here. But this is no excuse for citation warring—the information should still be presented to the reader, but in a way that is not an original synthesis. Both editors need to stop edit warring and remain civil while writing the encyclopedia article."

The real issue is that the article was reviewed by an independent editor during the Good Article review process. It was reviewed twice more when another user attempted to argue that the GA status be revoked. The edits by Dan are seen as flawed by myself and an indepedent editor on the OR noticeboard. Plus there are more editors involved now. All this argues that the article should be reverted to the GA article and proposals for changes reviewed and consensus achieved before making changes. That's how Wikipedia is supposed to work once article reach a GA state which remains stable for over a year. Will in China (talk) 01:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

A humble suggestion

Thelema, for better or worse, ought to be treated as a religion-- or at least a way of thought and life.

In my galactic mistakes in editing certain pages, I've learned one thing: DISPASSION. Clearly, Thelema cannot be approached with anything but dispassion.

So I agree with the venerable one who says it ought to be redone, from the bottom up, that is to say, with the simple definition and history of Thelemic leanings going straight through Rabelias, Crowley and Thelema today.

One thing with which I can empathize is the passion of contributors, but please remember one thing about this resource: it must be like an encyclopedia! Thelema is simple enough to define, as a "Do What Thou Wilt" way of life.

Its history may not be so easy, but I don't think the page needs to be a raging debate about the "natures" of Rabelias or Crowley, which ought to be full entries unto themselves. Let Thelema be Thelema, and how about someone approaching Thelema itself and asking for a little help [3] ?

Gosh, everybody is making it so complicated to be involved in Wikipedia. Think of it this way: someone asks for a good page on neurology. Are you going to define it, outline its history in general and put the greatest names on that page?

Or will you argue throughout eternity whether Charcot or Itard "came first"?

I await an exciting response! RevAntonio (talk) 23:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The GA version of the article stated precisely what you suggest, that Thelema is a "Do What Thou Wilt" way of life. As such, it's been discussed since Augustine, but it was Rabelais who first associated the Greek word θέλημα (transliterated as Thelema in English and Thélème in French) with the phrase "Do what thou wilt". Will in China (talk) 00:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You can find the GA version of the article with its consensus neutral presentation here. Will in China (talk) 00:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Rabelais? Why not Augustine?

If someone wants to talk about the history of the word then why not trace it to Augustine of Hippo? His philosophical ideas about the divine and the human will are just as relevant, if not moreso, as the parodies of Rabelais. Maybe we need a disambiguation page to distinguish between the religion of Thelema, which was obviously founded by Crowley according to every reliable source, and the history of the Greek word.

If we're talking, on the other hand, about the religion called Thelema, Rabelais' relationship is no more significant than is Hippolytus'. Certainly he has antecedent ideas which contribute to Thelema, just as Solomon contributed eventually to Christian doctrines, but you won't find anything saying that Solomon founded Christianity just as you won't find a single reliable source indicating that Rabelais founded the religion of Thelema. What religion doesn't have antecedent influences? These influences do not however confer credit for founding the religion. --Thiebes (talk) 18:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Red herring alert: The GA version of the article never claimed that Rabelais founded the religion of Thelema. That's the first red herring. The second red herring is that there is no agreement that Thelema is a religion. This is documented among other places on Thelemapedia, where there are two articles: Arguments for Thelema being a religion and Arguments against Thelema being a religion. A reading of these articles shows that even Crowley was ambiguous about whether Thelema was or was not a religion, and may have changed his mind about this over the course of time.

What the GA article did do was acknowledge Rabelais as the first writer to associate "Do what thou wilt" with the word Thelema, which Crowley was not the first to do, and introduce the topic in historical order rather than promote a sectarian view. Rabelais originated the rule or law called Thelema, "Do what thou wilt." This rule or law preexisted Crowley and was called by Rabelais the "Rule of Thelema" (using French transliteration of course). The the BoL the same phrase is called the "Law of Thelema" and states that there is no law beyond "Do what thou wilt". The religion or philosophy created by Crowley around this Law was Crowley's expression based on this preexisting Rule. And numerous sources support this view and are cited in the GA article to support the text. It would seem to me that to put Crowley first would be to put the cart before the horse. Indeed credit him for his "religion", which the GA article did in the second sentence! Will in China (talk) 01:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

second explanation of changes (outline)

I don't know if our moderator wants this or not, but Synergy requested an outline of the reasons for my changes.

My version of the article has citations for the definition, while the previous version does not. And I have other scholarly sources I didn't add last time. I'm literally picking the first two I can find in my notes here, from a set of at least five: The Encyclopedia of magic & witchcraft says AC developed the topic of this article from the Book he received, and that "Thelema was a new cosmology and set of ethics for the Aeon of Horus." It also agrees with Dictionnaire critique de l'ésotérisme in placing "the idea that the individual was a star" at the heart of Thelema along with "Do what thou wilt"; the Dictionnaire actually lists three fundamental principles, including love as a basis for "la magie sexuelle". The Rabelais Encyclopedia, meanwhile, does not have an entry on "Thelema" (only "Thélème, Abbey of".) It mentions no "philosophy of life" by that name. It does mention an ideal, namely "the ideal of Christian charity," on which the Abbey story and many others are predicated (p34). Now, a private citizen might reasonably take an ecumenical view and focus on similarities between this Christian story and Thelema, instead of their differences. We can even include this view in the article, and I have. But I see no justification for starting off that way. In both previous disputes on this point I mentioned the Christianity article:

"Christianity (from the word Xριστός "Christ") is a monotheistic religion centered on the life and teachings of Jesus as presented in the New Testament."

Thelema is a religious or philosophical system centered on the rule of "do what thou wilt" as presented in Aleister Crowley's Book of the Law (which combines it with other principles we don't need to put in the intro).

Certainly the word Xριστός comes from pre-Christian tradition (which merely used another language). Even the rule that Paul calls "the one rule" and "the law" in Romans 13:8-10 comes from the Hebrew Bible. Oh, and I've seen published sources identify Melchidezek, a person from that earlier book, with Jesus. What of it? None of that belongs in the introduction. Please explain why this does not apply here, citing your sources.

There are a number of problems with your changes. First, they are one-sided. Other sources clearly state precisely what you are eliminating. I think, for example, that we can consider Vere Chappell, a high-ranking OTO official, as reliable. He says here:

"Thelema (”THEL-ay-mah”) is a Greek word meaning “will” or “intention”. It is also the name of a new spiritual philosophy which has arisen over the past several hundred years and is now gradually becoming established worldwide.

"One of the earliest mentions of this philosophy occurs in the classic Gargantua and Pantagruel written by Francois Rabelais in 1532."

Then there is Mahendranath, who after writing about Rabelais and Dashwood, writes:

"In more recent history Saint Aleister Crowley, who did much to reform and revive the Western Occult Tradition, in reverence to the Rabelaisian masterpiece also revived the Thelemic Law; and even, for a short period, established an Abbey on an Italian island."

The point here, in case you missed it, is that Rabelais was the origin of the Law of Thelema upon which the so-called religion of Thelema is based.

The other problem with your edit is that it relies exclusively on tertiary sources (i.e. encyclopedias and dictionaries). Secondary sources are preferred on Wikipedia where possible, and there are plenty of secondary sources for all the points of view that both you and I have brought up. Will in China (talk) 13:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Two other points seem closely related. First, the old article promoted a false and outdated view of Rabelais (by claiming that Crowley just further "developed" a phrase that loses one meaning and takes on another in Thelema). It seems like the Humanities equivalent of letting the reader think that bees are celibate, spontaneously-generated paragons of obedience to their male King. And while we can discuss this in more detail when we look at the details, I've thoroughly addressed the recent worries with more new sources. Second, I thought the article should do a better job of including Crowley's view of the Book -- given that it appears in several non-Thelemite sources -- while stating (without weasel words) what no source seems to dispute, namely that the Book makes implicit reference to Rabelais. Mind you, I now think we should change the statement about "the reception of the Book", as Skinner puts it on the cited page, as long as nobody tries to claim the same source says something that logically contradicts it.

And as I've pointed out, the views of Rabelais current at the time of Crowley is also important. They would have influenced his thinking, something which a view first espoused five years before his death would not have done. Also, the sources I've provided indicate that there is still a debate, regardless of whether some simply majority have congratulated themselves that they have found a consensus. I'm happy to develop (and have been developing) a better presentation of this, something that you've simply reverted even though it is based on sources as good or better than yours. Will in China (talk) 13:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Two other issues seem distinct from those, but involve similar principles. The bit about women in True Will just seems one-sided and inappropriate for this article. The Ethics section in the old version depends on one privately published third-party source; mine adds one from St. Martin's Press, another non-Thelemite.

I insist that the bit about women's True Will stay. Crowley actually didn't say much directly about True Will and the reason this is included is that it is a specific example of Crowley's ideas about True Will. If you have any other points of view from Crowley specifically about women's Will, but all means add that information. You say it is one-sided, so there must be another side that you can present, correct? Will in China (talk) 13:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's see, what else- I removed an unsourced anonymous addition that WiC had removed earlier. I removed the word "Crowleyan" from before "Thelema" in the account of Tolli. I rephrased the account of a recent conflict to follow NPOV, as you can see here. I added sources and tried to clarify what sources said. That seems like the lot. Dan (talk) 06:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Please do not break my comments. As far as Chappell goes, Pope Ratzinger quotes Augustine as follows: "The New Testament lies hidden in the Old; the Old is made explicit in the New." (And from Christianity: "The Christian concept of the Messiah differs significantly from the contemporary Jewish concept.")

The "Law of Thelema", according to some of my sources, includes other fundamental principles. One source gives the law as the combination of two quotes from the Book, and I know you can guess which two. Several others list the "star" doctrine as fundamental. The French source gives those three "principes fondamental".

The article explicitly mentions that Rabelais scholars in the past did not always share the modern consensus. Also, all the sources I've seen indicate that no scholarly dispute on his Christian humanism exists today.

We can argue about True Will at True Will if you really want to, but Sutin specifically relates a ban on sexual harassment and more to Thelema (quoting Crowley on the Law). Note that the previous version of the article gave AC's supposed views on women and True Will with no secondary source.

Speaking of which, "Our policy: Tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources." This article calls for a broad summary of Rabelais and his relation to the article topic. Though as far as Crowley and Thelema goes, I used multiple secondary sources. Edit 18:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC): and I recently filled a request for a summary of Rabelais scholarship to go with or replace eighteen bazillion secondary sources.

-Dan (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

improvements and compromises

I know at least the first two parts of this seem uncontroversial. Add Bowen reference after the "Most scholars" phrase. Remove all non-repeated footnotes that follow it. A few sentences later, add In the story of Thélème, which refers in part to the suffering of loyal Christian reformists within the French Church, the reference to the Greek word θέλημα "declares that the will of God rules in this abbey". This results in the following code before "Alexander Pocetto":

Most scholars think the French author wrote from a specifically Christian perspective, while pointing to disagreements with the Church. "It is evident from the scholarship devoted to Rabelais that his texts ultimately depict the Evangelical preoccupation with salvation and the true faith, and the need for good Christians to work toward the ideal Utopia of Christ's kingdom." This applies even or especially to the author's scatological motif. In the story of Thélème, which refers in part to the suffering of loyal Christian reformists within the French Church, the reference to the Greek word θέλημα "declares that the will of God rules in this abbey".

Uncontroversial: add something like this at the beginning of the last paragraph of the introduction: Part of the system looks to the past.

Definitely uncontroversial: change the second line of the "Aleister Crowley's work" section to read "wrote or received".

-Dan (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Add this to the quote from Antecedents, and remove as much of it as we can without sacrificing clarity: ...Nor does the great Magician of Touraine stop with any mere symbolic identification; he indicates the Master Therion by name! Dan (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Belay that edit request. No consensus has been achieved. Article is under mediation by Vassyana. It has not even been decided yet whether to proceed by reverting to GA article or by moving forward from here. One editor's repetitive insistence does not a consensus make. Will in China (talk) 01:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

GA version restored

I have restored the GA version of the article, as the only objecting party conceded to restoration as a starting point. Diff of change: [4]. --Vassyana (talk) 03:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Moving forward

I've restored the GA version, as noted above. My intentions for moving forward:

• Discuss the article section by section.
• Discuss the inclusion of any additional material.
• Resolve the introduction last, as it should reflect the article content and trying to handle that before then will result in a large number of issues coming up at once. We can decide how to introduce and summarize the article after the other issues are resolved.

A few points to consider:

• Thelema is a very well-studied topic with a lot of material available.
• We should try to make good use of the best independent sources available on the topic, relying heavily on them (especially academic sources).
• There is a large amount of discourse about Thelema in occult and esoteric sources, especially from Weiser. (This is similar to how Llewellyn publishes a large amount of material about Wicca.) Most of these will not be independent sources, but nonetheless are very reliable sources about Thelema and represent the "mainstream" view(s) within occult circles (in the sense of published sources).
• Much of the discourse about Thelema and the development of Thelemic philosophy takes place in non-public and general discussion venues (letter exchanges, private meetings, mailing lists, etc), but these are generally not reliable sources. While some of this material may be "better" than published accounts, it's simply not appropriate for Wikipedia. (It may be appropriate for a Thelemic Studies program over at Wikiversity though.)
• We should rely on Crowley's writings as little as possible. There is a lot of debate about what he meant. Also, considering the tradition of purposeful misdirection and omissions ("blinds") in Western esotericism, it is wise not to take them at face value. There is also a fair amount of debate about the intent and meaning of much of Crowley's writing. To draw a (poor) parallel, Christianity articles should rely on the Bible very sparingly, because the result is more apt to reflect what the editor thinks than to portray how reliable sources present the topic. However, there are certainly key phrases and points where a quotation, or reference to, Crowley's work will be appropriate and helpful to the reader. We generally should take our cues from reliable sources on this point.
• We shouldn't try to exclude views, but present all of them where there are multiple views. The main caveat to this point is to avoid undue weight. If a view is isolated to a single author or source, or otherwise represents a tiny minority view, we are not obligated to provide the view with coverage.

Just some general thoughts and points. --Vassyana (talk) 04:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Historical background

• Thelema#Historical background. Only the introduction of the section. We can address the further subsections individually.

Are there reliable sources that discuss these points in relation to Crowley's Thelema? (Specific points: Biblical references. Augustine. Colonna's Thelemia.) Let's review those, if they are available. If not, should we remove those claims? Please bear in mind the prohibition on original research and our need to present the topic of Thelema in proportion with reliable sources. --Vassyana (talk) 04:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

A good analysis of the usage of the Greek word prior to and in the context of Rabelais appears in:

Gauna, Max. The Rabelaisian Mythologies, pp. 90-91. Fairleigh Dickinson Univ Press, 1996. ISBN 0838636314

The biblical context is mentioned, stating "The word is central to the Gospels (see Matthew 6:10 and 26:42)" in

di Jorio, Sophie; Oliver St. John. The Ending of the Words - Magical Philosophy of Aleister, p. 31. ISBN 1847536050

Sutin discusses Crowley and Augustine on p. 127 of his biography of Crowley. The comparison is also made or at least mentioned in:

Fritscher, Jack; Anton Szandor La Vey. Popular Witchcraft: Straight from the Witch’s Mouth, p. 34. Popular Press, 2005. ISBN 0299203042

Symonds, John. The magic of Aleister Crowley, p. 22. F. Muller, 1958.

Blondel, Nathalie. Mary Butts, p. 99. McPherson, 1998. ISBN 0929701550

Kraig, Donald Michael. Modern Magick, p. 474. Llewellyn Worldwide, 1988. ISBN 0875423248

As to Colonna, I'm not finding anything reliable. The best source mentioning it appears to be self-published:

Bowie, John 'Ash'. "A Guide to the Study of Thelema". Ashami.com.

I believe this individual was the author of the article in Thelemapedia from which I believe this section of the article was originally derived.

Anyway, that's my input into the process for this section. Will in China (talk) 05:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the self-published source, do you think it meets the requirements WP:SPS? If not, do you think it would be an appropriate external link? --Vassyana (talk) 08:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

While 'Ash' appears to be a good researcher and represents a point of view within Thelema which clearly exists but is difficult to find sources for, I don't believe he has ever been published in third-party publications (except perhaps O.T.O. journals, would that count?), so no on meeting SPS unless publication in O.T.O. journals is sufficient and can be verified. Yes on inclusion as an external link for the reasons given. Will in China (talk) 13:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about di Jorio and Oliver St. John, since that book gives the publisher as Ordo Astri, but it certainly does mention the Biblical use of the Greek as well as calling Nietzsche one of "(t)he more modern antecedents of Thelema" (p51). Note that Sutin distinguishes Augustine and Christianity from Thelema (though I doubt it matters for the purpose of this short section.) Dan (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Getting started

Since we've identified some good sources for the section, let's move forward. The article protection has expired, so please make the changes directly to the article. --Vassyana (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I forgot and made most of the changes in one edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thelema&diff=281136507&oldid=281010779 Dan (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Biblical reference

“ The word θέλημα (thelema) is of some consequence in the original Greek Christian scriptures, referring to divine and human will. One well-known example is from “The Lord’s Prayer” in Matthew 6:10, “Your kingdom come. Your will (Θελημα) be done, On earth as it is in heaven.” Some other quotes from the Bible are:

He went away again a second time and prayed, saying, "My Father, if this cannot pass away unless I drink it, Your will be done." —Matthew 26:42

But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. —John 1:12-13

And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect. —Romans 12:2

…and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will. —2 Timothy 2:26

Worthy are You, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and because of Your will they existed, and were created. —Revelation 4:11

”

People seem to have access to the sources that discuss the Biblical use of the word. Could someone be bold and replace the above with paraphrases of the sources with citations? (As it consists of excessive quotations and original research, replacement is preferable.) Once the change is made, please note it here on the talk page with the diff of the change and we can discuss it. --Vassyana (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I left the quotes that the source mentions. Dan (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Augustine

“ In the 5th century, Augustine of Hippo wrote "Love, and do what you will" (Dilige et quod vis fac) in his Sermon on 1 John 7, 8.[18] ”

As above, people seem to have access to reliable sources dicussing Augustine in context of Thelema. I'd invite someone to be bold and add material paraphrased and cited to those sources. (Since it's a simple statement of fact that illustrates the point, direct citation to Augutine is a good compliment to the other cited material.) Also as above, please post a note of the change with diff here for discussion. --Vassyana (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Forgot the adding on first edit, but see final attempt at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thelema&diff=281139314&oldid=281137541 Dan (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Colonna

“ In the Renaissance, a character named "Thelemia" represents will or desire in the Hypnerotomachia Poliphili of the Dominican monk Francesco Colonna. Colonna's work was, in turn, a great influence on the Franciscan monk Francois Rabelais, whose Gargantua and Pantagruel includes an Abbey of Thélème. ”

We should remove this material until a reliable source can be found to support the claims. Unless there are objections, we can add an external link to Ash's site with a short note that it links Colonna to Rableis. Thoughts? --Vassyana (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I just found a reference to Colonna in The Rabelais Encyclopedia. I'll look at it more closely and see about all these edits. Dan (talk) 18:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I needed another source for the meaning of the character, so I used a Scarlet Lodge book review for that part. But I've seen a statement of what Thelemia represents in a non-Thelemite's published source, and I don't think it needs that much support. Diff at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thelema&diff=prev&oldid=281136507 Dan (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

If you like, we can replace that second source with this: Paper Palaces By Vaughan Hart, Peter Hicks, p 98 Dan (talk) 20:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Note, however, that the book review mentions "two critical antecedents of Aleister Crowley's Thelema: Saint Augustine and Francois Rabelais." Dan (talk) 20:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

So do you want to discuss the first subsection? Dan (talk) 04:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I've made some minor improvements of my own and unless anyone feels a need to dispute what I've done, am also ready to proceed to the first subsection and will be bold and start a new section for it. Will in China (talk) 10:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Rabelais' Thélème

I have come to agree with Totnesmartin that whether or not Rabelais was writing from a Christian perspective or not and whether scholars agree on this or not is simply irrelevant to the article. What is important to the article is what the predominant view of Rabelais' was during Crowley's life. If this cannot be mentioned without contrasting the modern view, then I suggest something like (adding sources as needed of course):

During most of Aleister Crowley's life, Rabelais was viewed as espousing an anti-Christian philosophy (cite to Catholic Encyclopedia, Abel Lefranc). This view began to change in 1942 with the publication of Le Probleme de l'incroyance au XVIe siecle: La Religion de Rabelais (The Problem of Unbelief in the Sixteenth Century: The Religion of Rabelais) by Lucien Febvre. In 1998, Barbara Bowen wrote that "most critics nowadays accept Screech's Rabelais the Evangelical Christian humanist", though at least one major Rabelaisian critic, Mikhail Bakhtin, disagrees with the majority view, having written in his 1984 book Rabelais and His World that "Rabelais' artistic thought fits neither rationalist atheism nor a religious faith, no matter whether Catholic, Protestant, or the 'religion of Christ' of Erasmus".

I think something like this paragraph covers all the bases. It makes clear what the view that would have influenced Crowley was, that it has changed, how it has changed, notes the majority view and also notes that this view is not unanimous citing the most well-known advocate with a differing opinion. Will in China (talk) 10:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, that should read "disagreed", insofar as Bakhtin died before that edition of the book came out and devotees of his such as Bowen take the Christian view (as does pretty much everyone in the field, she says). Second, the anti-Christian view of Rabelais did not just "begin to change in 1942". That outdated view started with LeFranc, according to one source, which I think would put the heyday of said opinion in or after 1905 with his Les Navigations de Pantagruel in French. And I already cited a footnote from Urquhart in 1854 showing that some scholars took the crucial Abbey prophecy to have a Christian meaning at least that early. And of course, unless you have a more recent source disagreeing with Bowen, her summary of the research does not seem like a personal opinion. ("Differences in tone rather than substance characterize Rabelais criticism in the most recent phase of its evolution." Bruno Braunrot in R. Encyclopedia p.130. "Whatever controversy still surrounds Rabelais studies can be found above all in the application of feminist theories to Rabelais criticism." p.46.) Dan (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This should go without saying given the discussion we just had about sourcing, but we have no sources even saying that Rabelais scholars of Crowley's time influenced him. We have sources saying that part of The Book of the Law refers to the Gargantua of Rabelais, and I changed the article to say that with no weasel words like "may have". Dan (talk) 17:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This next bit obviously can't go in the article. But the available translation of Rabelais that most closely resembles the English quote in Crowley's Magick -- and they still don't quite match -- comes from W. F. Smith in 1893. The 1893 intro says the following:

How far Rabelais really gave up his belief in Romanism, is hard to say. At all events, outwardly he seems to have conformed to its practice. But he was just as obnoxious to the stern Calvinists as to the Papists. He was probably a man of too liberal a mind to be tied to believe in the efficacy of any forms of worship, (Catholic Hail Mary and Our Fathers, etc?) though in several passages, where he seems to be genuinely speaking for himself, he utters sentiments of the truest piety. full text

And the following appears to come from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, though obviously that one (like LeFranc and the cited Catholic E. edition) comes after 1904:

The accusation of free-thinking, if not of directly anti-Christian thinking, has always been more common (than concealed Protestantism) and has recently found much favour. It is, however, remarkable that those who hold this opinion never give chapter and verse for it, and it may be said confidently that chapter and verse cannot be given.

...there are in the book, in the description of Gargantua's and Pantagruel's education, in the sketch of the abbey of Thelema, in several passages relating to Pantagruel, expressions which either signify a sincere and unfeigned piety of a simple kind or else are inventions of the most detestable hypocrisy...As regards one of the accepted doctrines of his own church, the excellence of the celibate life, of poverty, and of elaborate obedience to a rule, he no doubt was a strong dissident; but the evidence that, as a Christian, he was unorthodox, that he was even a heretical or latitudinarian thinker in regard to those doctrines which the various Christian churches have in common, is not merely weak, it is practically nonexistent. The counter-testimony is, indeed, not very strong, and still less detailed. But that is not the point. It is sufficient to say that there is absolutely nothing within the covers of Rabelais's works incompatible with an orthodoxy which would be recognized as sufficient by Christendom at large, leaving out of the question those points of doctrine and practice on which Christians differ. Beyond this no wise man will go, and short of it hardly any unprejudiced man will stop. text

Synthesis problems aside, it would seem baldly dishonest now to suggest that the anti-Christian interpretation of Rabelais must have influenced Crowley. I trust everyone here knows about this? Dan (talk) 17:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Comprehensive diff at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thelema&diff=281592204&oldid=281410250 Dan (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Dan, I thought we had an agreement here to participate in mediation. Yet you have gone ahead and made changes anyway. I am now of the opinion that no analysis of Rabelais belongs in this article. People can easily click through to the Rabelais article. What you've added is not about Thelema, it's about Rabelais and is off topic here. I am removing all off-topic material. If you have a problem with that, please restore the GA version and wait for the involvement of the mediator and other editors. Will in China (talk) 01:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Just one point before V gets back to us, you now think that what "Thelema" meant to Rabelais does not relate to Thelema? Then why do you believe Rabelais belongs in the article at all? It has no Nietzsche section, nor one on Molinos or "Abramelin" or any of the sources on Crowley's actual recommended reading list. Dan (talk) 02:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The fact that Crowley borrowed from or was inspired by Rabelais is mentioned in multiple sources. Those source relates Crowley's Thelema and Abbey of Thelema to Rabelais' Abbey of Thelema and the philosophy expressed in Rabalais' book. Obviously, this is part of the background of Crowley's work. Sources may differ on how it influenced Crowley, but the relation is established at least in the minds of the writers of these several sources.

But with no evidence that Crowley was influenced by any particular school of thought about Rabelais, what do modern views of Rabelais add to the article? If it's "dishonest" to note the views held by scholars during Crowley's life, it's doubly dishonest to imply that modern views of Rabelais have anything to do with the relation between Rabelais' Abbey and Crowley's Thelema.

So, please answer these simple questions. What precisely does your proposed addition add to the article that requires it to be here rather than in the article on Rabelais? What end does it serve? What is your goal in adding material doesn't relate to both Crowley and Rabelais?

I don't believe that I added the paragraph about views of Rabelais to the article in the first place. It was either there already when I started working on the article, or, and I think this is correct but am not going to go back and find diffs, you added it in the first place. IIRC, I compromised by leaving it in, possibly tempering it in ways you didn't like. It doesn't matter to me that there is not any analysis of Rabelais in the article at all, except as it relates Rabelais with Crowley's work (or denies that connection). Please explain why it is so important to you? What's your goal? How does scholarly opinion of Rabelais which is totally disconnected with how Crowley and Rabelais are related add to our understanding of Crowley? It adds to our understanding of Rabelais, that's clear, so why here rather than in the article on Rabelais? Will in China (talk) 02:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Will in China (talk) 02:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I want the article to say that part of The Book of the Law refers to Rabelais -- since the sources agree on that, and that alone -- and I want it to quote Sutin explicitly describing the relationship between Rabelais and Thelema. The article presently does a lot more than that. The introduction in particular gives undue weight to Rabelais (not to mention Dashwood) and asserts that someone developed Thelema from Rabelais or a Platonic ghost of his. Why? Dan (talk) 03:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

To spell this out: if the core of the religion comes from him, then his meaning matters. Dan (talk) 03:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, Dan, what you want the article to say is irrelevant unless you can cite a source that says that directly. And since there are multiple source that say otherwise, that describe an evolution of a philosophy around "Do what thou wilt" starting with Rabelais, that point of view also belongs in the article. In fact, that's the predominant view, and Sutin's view is in the minority. So what you are saying here is that you want to give undue weight to Sutin's view over multiple sources stating the opposite? How is that NPOV?

And if that's why you want to add your particular selection and presentation of what modern scholars think about Rabelais, isn't that attempting to lead the reader to a conclusion? The article may be slightly imbalanced due to views that haven't yet been added to the article, but what you are attempting to do would make it more imbalanced rather than less. I believe that Vassyana is objective enough to see that. Is that why you are so impatient to force these changes into the article without input from the mediator? Will in China (talk) 03:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Will in China (talk) 03:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, the article and even the Rabelais section treat him differently from any of the other people who influenced Crowley or The Book of the Law, despite published resources on the influence of Abramelin, the Golden Dawn and others. Dan (talk) 04:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Dan, I didn't write this article, I simply "buffed it up" to make it a GA candidate. In the process I read the sources used and made the article conform more closely to what they actually said. In the form I found it, it was quite loose and implied a number of things not in the sources. I don't believe that it does so any longer and the GA reviewer(s) must have agreed or they would not have passed it.

I find it interesting that you claim "published resources on the influence of Abramelin, the Golden Dawn and others" and yet these are not the sources you are trying to add. No, you are trying to add sources solely about Rabelais, from books that don't even mention Crowley in a footnote. I expect that we will find, if instead of this tilting at windmills you apply yourself to adding information and sources about these additional influences, that the sources themselves treat Rabelais differently, and that it is this difference precisely that is reflected in the article. Will in China (talk) 05:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Sources

What reliable sources talk about Rabelais in the context of Crowley's Thelema? What do those sources state? Like with the previous section we worked out, we should stick to reporting what reliable sources have stated about the topic. Let's compile some sources, noting what they report, and move on to reporting that information in the article from there. --Vassyana (talk) 08:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, on the general relationship between the Frenchman and Thelema we have Sutin saying exactly what every Rabelais scholar today accepts. And on 'influence', we have various sources (Journal of British Studies, possibly Skinner) saying that The Book of the Law refers to his Gargantua at one important point. Note that Skinner also mentions Crowley's "reception of The Book of the Law in April 1904," so either he contradicts himself or he means indirect 'influence' on this point. Dan (talk) 08:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe it is a contradiction, particularly in historical context. Scholars studying the Restoration movement and turn of the century Anglo-American religion often talk simultaneously about the "reception" or "inspiration" of a writing and the external (even secular) influences upon that writing. No particular comment otherwise. I am just noting that that type of handling is common for such a topic. --Vassyana (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

So, should we add briefly mention Sutin and the scholarly sources on Rabelais, like how we cited The Rabelais Encyclopedia on Colonna? We can deal with 'influence' in a later section. Dan (talk) 18:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide a few suggested paraphrasings of what Sutin says about Rabelais in relation to Crowley's Thelema, cited to the appropriate publication and page numbers? --Vassyana (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I see the R. section just now sprouted claims about him creating Thelema, in which case the meaning of Thelema to Rabelais cannot logically be irrelevant. Though the actual meaning according to the scholarly consensus might cast doubt on the claim. (I nevertheless tried to include it, in a later section, and tried to make a more general statement of conflict in the article introduction.) Dan (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

What do the sources say about the matter? --Vassyana (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Sutin: was already in the article. Last cite goes to the quote (which incidentally shows the misleading nature of the first cite). As for other sources, you can see a diff at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thelema&diff=281857740&oldid=281708337 though due to a technical shortcoming it does not highlight the fact that Sutin specifically mentions the Abbey story. Dan (talk) 07:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Dan, I believe Vassyana has indicated at the top of this section that we should restrict ourselves to the use of sources on Rabelais which include the context of Crowley. Material about Rabelais outside the context of Crowley is off-topic in this article and belongs in the article on Rabelais only. If you want to use Bowen to note that Sutin's view is in accord with the view of most modern scholars, the correct place to introduce that one fact is in the same place that Sutin's opinion is introduced. Unless and until there is mediated agreement that your Rabelais-only analysis is not off-topic for this article, please desist in repeated adding it. Will in China (talk) 14:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Rabelais, Dashwood and Proto-Thelema

Some nice quotes on the topic from an article in The Journal of Thelemic Studies v. 1, no. 2. Note the presentation of the "subconscious" authorship Dan so recently denied anyone had asserted as an alternative to the "received" woo woo.

"It is today widely accepted that Crowley's Thelema was not written on a blank slate. The ideology has many antecedents in the Western Esoteric Tradition, some genuinely extending back to the Knights Templar (though not as many as some might have us believe!) and several parallels with eastern philosophy. It would perhaps be fair to say Crowley cherry picked traditions that were of use to him and gave them a more radical spin. Whether this was done entirely consciously or unconsciously is now hard to tell with any certainty, but if we take his stories of pychism seriously, as well as his apparent surprise at the content of some of the 'transmissions', a subconscious authorship seems most likely. Crowley was also in touch with many people who may have been the contemporary custodians of these traditions, both at Trinity College Cambridge and within the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. But the tradition he selected as the primary skeleton of his new ideology was of course that of Rabelais, as preserved in England by the philosophy of the Order of Knights of West Wycombe, better known as the 'Hell Fire Club'."

Later:

"Rabelais has no obvious connection to the occult other than his creation of the philosophy of Thelema."

And:

"The influence of Rabelais is more obviously found amongst the follower of Sir Francis Dashwood, who placed his philosophy at the heart of his decadent, rake's club, the Order of the Knights of West Wycombe."

And:

"Crowley was not only well versed in this history, and the traditions associated with it, at Trinity College ... he rubbed shoulders with the descendants of several of these very same families. The inclusion of the Abbey of Thelema and its philosophy in his evolving ideology was thus no accident."

I think all that's pretty clear and mirrors exactly what the Wikipedia article states based on other sources. Also note the sources at the end of the article. Wikipedia was not one of them. Nor were the sources used in the Wikipedia article. This is a completely independent source. You can find a PDF of the journal linked on this page. Will in China (talk) 06:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Please link to a diff of its inclusion in the article or post a proposed draft paragraph that would be cited to the source. --Vassyana (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, really it's simply further citations for material already in the article, particularly the lead. However the part about creation of the philosophy of Thelema needs inclusion. A range of things have been said in sources, from that he created it to, and I'm waiting for Dan to provide this, that he didn't. I'm quite sure that there must be a source that says that, and when found will complete the range, created, first mentioned, first adherent to no relation (Sutin says this of Crowley's religion, that it is not derived from Rabelais, but doesn't take a position I think on whether Rabelais authored the philosophy (not the religion) or Thelema. This sentence needs the addition of the so-and-so says it was only fictional or whatnot. A source should probably be found that disputes Rabalais being the first in favour of Augustine. Whether or not Crowley begged borrowed or stole from R belongs in the section titled "Crowley's Work", which section may well need a retitle. Will in China (talk) 05:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Dan, I don't like your summary style. I intentionlly quoted three different opinions as described above and I insist that you not change my prose without consensus. I've agreed that other points of view could and should be added and will not object to properly supported additions. Thanks. Will in China (talk) 14:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Additional sources / points of view

According to Maxine Sanders and Alex Sanders in an article titled Wicca, Crowley "stole" his axiom from Rabelais:

The first similar utterances of it were: "fay çe que vouldras"

Which means simply "Do what thou wilt," and is taken from a fictional satire Gargantua by François Rabelais. This was adopted by one of the Hellfire Clubs, whose membership admired the text.

Aleister Crowley later picked up on this, and stole most of the Thelema axiom from Rabelais via the Hellfire club and adapted it to: “Do What Thou Wilt shall be the whole of the Law, Love is the Law, Love Under Will.”

Note that the authors of this essay are notable published authors.

In an article titled "Thelema and the Equinox of the Gods in Literature, Soror S.O. wrote:

Did Our Father Aleister Crowley borrow from such things to "create" Thelema and the A.·.A.·.? Come now, only an intellectual moron would ask such a question. A.C. merely found the truth, transmitted to humankind in many ways, and revealed it. He did not "create" Thelema nor the A.·.A.·.. The Adepts, the Secret Chiefs of the "Great White Brotherhood" have existed since the dawn of time and they have been conditioning humankind, always readying us for the next step and the advent of a new Logos, of a New Æon...

Note that this is an article from a 1978 edition of The Newaeon Newsletter, V. I, No. 2 and thus is not self-published. Will in China (talk) 17:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Geocities is not a reliable source. (There are questions of accurate reprinting and potential copyright violation involved.) Is there a better source that reports that content or is the original souce accessible? Similarly, is there a better source for the other? It seems to essentially be a personal website. --Vassyana (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. I'm not aware of where one would find the original source. I think it's the personal website of the editor of the newsletter, sort of a "best of" set of articles, rather than the author, but don't really have the details. Will in China (talk) 05:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

P.R. Koenig, an author noted for his published histories of O.T.O. (in German), is another proponent of the plagiarism theory, here, including Augustine and Nietzche as plagiarized sources in addition to Rabelais:

Most Crowleyan O.T.O. groups are much preoccupied, even obsessed, with his concept of Thelema: a religious revelation whose key phrases are 'Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law', and 'Love is the Law, Love under Will.' This was Crowley's missionary enterprise that was supposed to sort out History, Religion, Philosophy, Magick and everyday life. That it is largely a straightforward plagiarism and distortion of Augustinus, Rabelais and Nietzsche does not appear to worry them; ...

Again, this is an author with comprehensive published books on the history of various occult groups. Will in China (talk) 17:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

This seems acceptable, as it is the personal website of the authority in question. --Vassyana (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Dave Evans wrote about Crowley's plagiarism in Aleister Crowley and the 20th Century Synthesis of Magick. Although I don't have a copy, notable reviewer Peter Carroll wrote of the book:

He presents some interesting background material on some of the people associated with Crowley, and most controversially for Thelemites, he suggests that the Book Of The Law shows evidence of plagiarism from other sources, and he doesn't mean Aiwass.

Evidence is building up that this is not simply a minority view that can be dismissed from inclusion in the article. Will in China (talk) 17:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone find a copy of the book to use as a reference? --Vassyana (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, gee, I tried to include the various points of view in the Book section and describe what Evans actually says. Dan (talk) 18:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Dan, perhaps it escaped you that my primary objections to your changes and additions were restricted to the rewrite of the lead, removal of cited material and use of improper synthesis. Except for my very first revert, my subsequent reverts were all partial reverts left your other additions unchanged. It was your repeated insistence by means of reversion that all of your changes had to be included without modification that ultimately led to the reversion to the GA version of the article. Now, we can discuss those proposed additions when we get to the section in which you'd like to include them. Will in China (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed addition and deletion

I propose that based on these sources,

• Ash, Steven J. "Rabelais, Dashwood, and Proto-Thelema" in Journal of Thelemic Studies, V. 1, No. 2. (online here in PDF form)
• Chappell, Vere. What is Thelema? at Thelema101.com.
• del Campo, Gerald. Rabelais: The First Thelemite. Ecclesia Gnostica Universalis.

that the following sentence be added as the first sentence of the Rabelais section:

François Rabelais has been variously credited with the "creation of the philosophy of Thelema",(ref Ash) "one of the earliest mentions of this philosophy",(ref Edwards, Chappell) and with being "the first Thelemite".(ref del Campo).

Of the three references, the first is published in the only academic, non-partisan journal dedicated to Thelema. The second is self-published, but the author Vere Chappell, is a well-known lecturer [5] and writer within the Thelemic circuit, has been a Grand Lodge Officer of O.T.O. and is currently holds the positions of Bishop and Sovereign Grand Inspector General within that organization. Based on these credentials he can be assumed to be knowledgeable about the topic at hand. The third source is a published writer and the article itself is not self-published.

I also propose that the final paragraph beginning with "Some scholars" be deleted. None of the sources deal directly with Crowley or Thelema. The argument as to whether Rabelais' works are fundamentally Christian in nature has no bearing on the other points that Dan is attempting synthesis with. Will in China (talk) 02:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Add another source that say precisely the same thing as Chappell:

• Edwards, Linda. A Brief Guide to Beliefs: Ideas, Theologies, Mysteries, and Movements, p 478. Westminster John Knox Press, 2001. ISBN 0664222595.

Also note from this source that what is being called Rabelais' "philosophy of Thelema" is also called Pantagruelism in other sources. Will in China (talk) 13:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Confirmation on this point can be found in Marian Rothstein's "Androgyne, Agape, and the Abbey of Thélème", where in a footnote on p. 17 she notes that:

G. Mallary Masters (63) insightfully points out that the Tiers Livre is as much about thelema, being open to God’s will and to the proper uses of human free will, as it is about marriage. Thélème, in addition to being a satirical anti-abbey, is also a pattern of the ideals of Pantagruelism, of the whole of Rabelais’s fictional undertaking. See also Edwin Duval.

Of course, we all know that Thélème is simply the French transliteration of the same Greek word which is transliterated Thelema in English. So here we have a Rabelais scholar pointing out that Thelema in Rabelais does not refer just to the abbey, but to the ideals (i.e. "Do what thou wilt") of Pantagruelism, which other writers refer to as the "philosophy of Thelema". Will in China (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Well gee, I'd love to have an article on Pantagruelism. Such an article would say what Sutin and the scholarly sources all say today, though it probably wouldn't need to cite Sutin. Dan (talk) 17:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, then write one. I still don't see how whether scholars say Rabelais' philosophy is Christian has any bearing on this article. This article is about Thelema. Some sources date the beginning of the philosophy of Thelema to Rabelais. Some prefer to start with Crowley. I've even seen one source that dates Thelema to Augustine. Your Sutin quote in context is speaking about Crowley's religion called Thelema amd saying that in his opinion the philosophy of Rabelais was not the source for it. You are assuming one definition of Thelema over another, the one that your source happens to be using. Other sources specifically credit Rabelais with the the creation of Thelema. You can't just say one source trumps another. All views must be presented. That's NPOV. So Thelema may have started with Augustine or with Rabelais or with Crowley. There's no doubt that Crowley made something of it that wasn't in Rabelais. There are even other definitions of Thelema, for example, Kenneth Grant defines Thelema as "the magical or 'true' will that is veiled beneath the psycho-sexual complex of man's deepest consciousness." If we accept this definition, and in an NPOV encyclopedic context we have to, then Thelema predates even Augustine and is as old as humankind. Will in China (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

"There's no doubt that Crowley made something of it that wasn't in Rabelais." Yes! Thank you! And then later followers of Crowley took part of what he made and attributed it to Rabelais. I have absolutely no problem with including their views, and indeed have tried to do so, but we cannot give them alone without telling the reader what Sutin and Rabelais scholars say about this. Dan (talk) 21:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

"And then later followers of Crowley took part of what he made and attributed it to Rabelais." I don't agree with this. Rabelais introduced what has come to be called the "philosophy of Thelema" as distinct from the "religion of Thelema" which was Rabelais' philosophy of "Do what thou wilt" plus the Book of the Law plus Golden Dawn plus pseudo-Egyptian gods and Kabbalah, etc. Crowley's religion is based on the premise established by Rabelais. Some sources may dispute this, but some sources clearly state it, from pure out and out plagiarism to subconscious copying to "Aiwass is real and dictated the Book of the Law". There is no objective way to determine the "reality" of any of these positions. Nor are there any survey articles which have taken polls as to which if any of these are the majority view across all sources. It's not even clear to me if the "Aiwass is real and dictated the Book of the Law" is actually the majority view of adherents. They may take it as metaphorical. Anyway, my point is that all the views must be given equal footing in the article. Do you disagree with this? Will in China (talk) 22:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

What Sutin says about it is fine. The "Rabelais scholars" you've cited don't say anything about the topic. Whether or not Rabelais introduced the philosophy of "Do what thou wilt" to the world is completely independent of whether he was or was not writing from a Christian perspective. It's completely indepenent of whether he "really meant it" or intended it as a joke. That he did introduce such a philosophy and called it the "Rule of Thelema" is indisputable since his works are still extant and include the direct evidence. Will in China (talk) 22:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

This is my last comment until Vassyana responds. If you took a short description of US jurisprudence and replaced the symbol for "Constitution" with that of "King", you would change the meaning of the whole. Similarly, Rabelais did not have a philosophy of "Do what thou wilt," or even a philosophy of "Fay ce que vouldras" -- he had a (religious) philosophy of Christian humanism that he expressed in a story which happened to include those words. All the reliable sources you've mentioned say that for him, Thelema or Thélème referred to the will of God. And as Sutin points out, you can't remove "God" or add more deities or even make "God" optional without creating something new. The article can cite people claiming that you can, but only if it presents their views together with this scholarly account. Dan (talk) 23:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

That's simply your opinion. The sources have other opinions. The "philosophy of Thelema" is an object of discourse. The phrase "decline and fall of the Roman Empire" was made up in 1776, yet no one would buy the argument that Rome didn't really fall because nobody called it that at the time! I suggest that you read Foucault's The Archæology of Knowledge to get a better idea how knowledge proceeds by making up terms of discourse that are not inherently part of the original object so that it can be written about and discussed from a new point of view. Many modern day Thelemites explain the "thou" in "Do what thou will" as either God or the "Higher Self". (For example, Lon DuQuette in The Magick of Aleister Crowley, p. 12) There is a continuity running through the expressions of Thelema which you are either unaware of or insist on denying. Will in China (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Sutin's view is no more valid than any other viewpoint. To treat it otherwise is not neutral. The Rabelais scholar's opinions are, as I say, unrelated to the issue of how Rabelais' writings are related to Crowley's writing, because they don't mention Crowley! Will in China (talk) 23:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

True Will

I edited the True Will section back to how I originally wrote it in order to give a more accurate and in-depth analysis, since the section as it stood today was fairly weak and opinionated. Having read and studied Aleister Crowley for over ten years now, I am fairly confident that statemets regarding (my own words) the absence of any GOD, is wildly inaccurate. I may revert the editor to the actual writings of Aleister Crowley instead of second hand accounts passed down from Amazon.com. True Will in Thelema is a central theme, a concept that deserves great discussion and perhaps a more agile and probing mind to fully analyze and in turn, write about. It is extremely important to emphasize that, to each individual, the True Will is unique, whether that entails removing some form of "God" from the equation or not.

I would question wheather or not the editor of this section has really taken the time to meditate and study the meaning of True Will.

With regard to the comments directed towards me below, and I quote:

"Finally, I don't know if I understand the recent anonymous edit to the True Will section. The article should certainly talk about the mystical meaning of True Will. But we do make some reference to this at the end of the Ethics section. Perhaps it says too little, and we can argue about location, but explaining the link with Ain Soph Aur seems like too much for this particular article. And the part about deities, insofar as we can support it, seems implied by the article's previous sentence and the whole Cosmology section. The existing bit about the HGA and True Will relates to these issues as well."

Certainly the fact that the Cosmology section "implies" the inclusion of Deities should give some indication that the claiming otherwise in the section proceeding it is illogical. Reference to accuracy in other sections (i.e. Cosmology and Ethics) does not preclude the same ideas in regard to True Will. In other words, simply because something is glossed over in another section doesn't make it any less important in other sections, especially if there are statements which contradict each other (as is the case with the Deities). Nothing personal, but like I stated, the concept of True Will deserves and begs further extrapolation and analysis, forgoing personal prejudice. I welcome further discussion and meant nothing personal towards any one individual.

159.53.110.141 (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC) JAB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.110.141 (talk) 17:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I see someone inexplicably removed my changes from way back that more accurately described the source for that material you object to. So I can see why you did that. Again, the source refers to Crowley's stated views right before the events in Cairo 1904 rather than his later work. We can probably improve the treatment of this topic, but I don't think the current version works. (Moved to end of page in accordance with normal wiki practice.) Dan (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I am down with editing the current version, but please remember that simply because Crowley "once" held a certain degree of rational skepticism during the years he practiced Buddhism, does not in any way define his attitude or ideas regarding the nature of The True Will. Taking Crowley's "stance" before he received Liber Al would be missing a considerable amount of progression, both spiritually and philosohpically, in which Crowley's ideas, especially with regard to Thelema (since he wasn't propigating the Law of Thelema until long AFTER the events in Cairo) were able to flourish and develop. It makes no sense to take Crowley's stance PRE-Thelema, when presenting an article which attempts to synthesize data concerning Thelema itself. The section we are editing is about "True Will", not Crowley's ideas of rational skeptical buddhism before he even received Liber Al. My point is that it is erroneous to assert such statements that narrow the idea of "True Will" to some sort of rational/skeptical atheist, when it couldn't be farther from the truth. I refer to a voluminous amount of Crowley's work, both Pre-Thelema and post the events which led to Liber Al. Also, I apologize for the anonymous entries, as I am currently stuck at work. I would thoroughly enjoy further discusssion though. If needed, I can delve into my library at home and provide ample support for the ideas I presented earlier in the actual article. I really wish to dispel the notion that one must abandon all ideas with regard to "God" or be a satanist to get down with Thelema or Crowley. This type of thing only perpetuates abuse and misunderstanding. 159.53.110.141 (talk) 20:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The article is currently undergoing mediation, making changes only by consensus section-by-section. We have not yet reached this section. Please create an account and refrain from making unilateral changes. Wait until we have reach the section you desire to edit, then join the discussion. Will in China (talk) 01:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The section I edited is the section I felt needed updating. It isn't perfect, but no one has to wait around for consensus to edit pages here. The changes I made were hardly UNILATERAL, considering there are others who have contributed. Is this some control issue, because I don't play those games. The point is to dig as deeply into the analysis as possible. But do give me a ring whenever you are ready to proceed. Just kidding. If this happens to be your property, than I acquiesce of course, but otherwise, educated and informative entries are welcome whenever by whomever. I see that the True Will section is back to being weak, shallow and misinformed though. Have it your way. It is unfortunate though, that subjects as important as this are being lorded over this way. 159.53.110.141 (talk) 16:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You should feel free to raise your changes for discussion here. You made a change. It was reverted. We should be able to discuss it. --Vassyana (talk) 22:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Aleister Crowley's religion of Thelema

I know this may be controversial, but I propose changing the heading "Aleister Crowley's work" to "Aleister Crowley's religion of Thelema". I know this sounds awkward so suggestions on other ways to phrase it are welcome. The important point in my opinion is to include the word "religion". I also believe this section should be reworded to refer to Crowley's system primarily as a religion, while noting any sources which disagree.

The reason I think this should be done is to lessen confusion. There is broad agreement I think that Rabelais originated the philosophy of Thelema, which some people persist in confusing for a claim that the founded the religion of Thelema. I don't think that fact that Rabelais' philosophy was presented in a fictional context makes it any less a philosophy or means we should call it a "fictional" philosophy. Note for example the popular book Sophie's World which presents many elements of philosophy in the context of a fictional setting. This in no way makes the philosophical points presented in the book fictional themselves.

In any case, I think it important to make a clearer distinction about where in the historical presentation the philosophy is transformed into a religion. I don't think it unreasonable to use the majority view in headings to achieve this end, just so long as we also present any minority views in the text. Will in China (talk) 16:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand a word of this. No "philosophy of Thelema" verifiably existed before The Book of the Law, nor do I see any agreement on such an odd claim in any community. If we want to talk about Rabelais and those who place him at the heart of Thelema, we cannot avoid saying what his words actually mean according to scholars (and why would we start doing that in the Crowley intro section?) Dan (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Dan, verifiability on Wikpedia means that sources can be cited supporting a statement. That's all. Multiple sources specifically refer to a "philosophy of Thelema" and either date the beginning of the philosophy of Thelema or its creation to Rabelais. Denying its existence as a object of discourse simply seems obtuse to me. You are welcome to provide a source that says that it doesn't exist and add that as a counterbalance to the sources that discuss it. Since you seem to be unable to refrain from edit warring, I'll be asking Vassyana to revert to the last consensus version (that is, to the last change to the introductory section of "Historical background" before you started making changes without any consensus having been achieve) and reprotect it. Will in China (talk) 22:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Take this step by step. We know at least three communities we could look to for sources. In the most obviously relevant group, reliable sources on Crowley's Thelema and Rabelais, Sutin talks about the Abbey story and says: "Questions of prophecy aside, Rabelais was no precursor of Thelema. Joyous and unsystematic, Rabelais blended in his heterodox creed elements of Stoic self-mastery and spontaneous Christian faith and kindness." (Do What Thou Wilt p 126, like it says in the article.) Then, in the community of modern Thelemites, we see people vehemently disagreeing on whether Rabelais even put a philosophy of life in that story. I tried to cite the speech by Sabazius that touches on this point, and this disagreement. (The Contemporary Thelema section cites both, but the line still doesn't quite seem neutral.) Finally, among Rabelais scholars today, we see uniform agreement with Sutin that frankly makes all those Thelemic sources look silly. I won't give my personal opinion on the subject unless someone asks. Dan (talk) 00:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Problem is, your steps are not connected. The only thing that counts is what the sources say. Whether or not Rabelais scholars agree that Rabelais was writing from a Christian perspective has nothing to do with whether he, intentionally or unintentionally, created something that other sources call a philosophy. That Sutin agrees with these scholars about Rabelais' Christianity has nothing to do with whether or not Crowley borrowed from Rabelais. Sutin saying that Crowley didn't can't be supported by any number of Rabelais scholars who say nothing directly about Crowley. You are trying to use some sort of logic to produce a conclusion. Not what is done in an encyclopedia. I've repeatedly stated facts about points of view, and invited you to add to this other points of view, but you persist in removing or altering what I've added to reach what you consider a "logical conclusion". But we aren't supposed to be leading the reader to any conclusion. We are simply supposed to present what all the sources actually say and allow the reader to draw their own conclusions. What you say may seem perfectly logical to you, but to me it reeks of false assumptions and improper synthesis. Will in China (talk) 01:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Eh? That is what the sources say. Sutin addresses the question of Rabelais creating Thelema. And we can easily present the fact that The Book of the Law once refers to Rabelais without taking a side in any of the disputes I've presented. The article as it stands now leads the reader instead to take sides with the opponent of Sabazius. Dan (talk) 02:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

My only conclusion here, in other words, is that we should change the article. Dan (talk) 02:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, and why in the Nine Hells would you think that Sutin in that passage says anything about Crowley or Aiwass taking a quote from Rabelais? Like I said, nobody disputes that part. Like I said, Sutin addresses the question of Rabelais creating Thelema (as your source claims). He also addresses the "unsystematic" nature of anything you could call a philosophy in Rabelais, and identifies it with R's "philosophy" or religion of Christian humanism (a "creed" as Sutin puts it). Dan (talk) 02:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Sutin does not address the question of whether Rabelais created a philosophy of Thelema. It only states that Crowley's religion is, in Sutin's opinion, unlike the philosophy expressed in Rabelais' work! Which is why it belongs in the section on Crowley's religion rather than in the section on Rabelais' philosophy. Will in China (talk) 02:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Love is the Law, Love under Will

This is the other statement of 93 (Thelema). I've never really understood what it meant, though I've read various vague things. This article doesn't mention it much. I think we should mention it. Can someone explain it, with WP:RS? Sticky Parkin 00:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPOV tag, plus saying 'Will' and other thelemic rituals

Could we remove the WP:NPOV tag now? Also, I used to like 'Will'[6] and I'm sure there's other stuff we can include. Thelema's not just magick- at least in the OTO, some of them don't practice individual magick as such. They like initiation and rituals though.Sticky Parkin 22:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

If we do it this way rather than reverting and then adding improvements, it will take a while to go through the article and decide. Dan (talk) 08:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. People just need to look over the article and see if/where they see a prob in the current version, rather than challenge or scrutinise every single thing. It saves an atmosphere of edit warring, and the article gets fixed more quickly and less heatedly. Is there anything you object to in the current version? Makes no odds, anyway, we can just start from here and use your method if you like. It seems a bit labour intensive/at risk of quibbling and increasing rows over each detail. This way, people will only argue with each other if they intensely object to something. But whatever you prefer. I intend to just edit, but I'm more detatched from the subject. I'll just add to sections I think need improvement, such as the Magick section a little bit, and expanding the True Will one. I'll steer clear of the Rabelais parts if you like and you and WiC can argue over it while he's with us on wiki. Hopefully it will help to have someone involved whose not that interested in the subject, but knows a fair bit about it from studying it a fair few years ago. As long as people don't just rv me for the sake of it, I'm happy.:) But I'll leave you to it on the Rab front if you like.:) Sticky Parkin 15:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Will has now gone, alas, so maybe this article will have a change of ambiance.:) Sticky Parkin 17:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Fire away/Npov tag/mediation

With the banned user gone, there's no longer an NPOV dispute, as I agree with you over the Rabelais issue. Just fire away and make any changes you feel are necessary. If any of us us really objects to another's edit we can follow the normal editing practice of WP:BRD. The tag just makes me stressed that's all lol:) as it implies there's an argument in progress. This is my proposal on the mediation front- WiC and his many faces have (perhaps temporarily) gone, possibly removing most of the need for mediation. He's not typical of the editing style of most users, and mediation is not typical of how articles are edited. Vassyana is mediating, but is away for a few days. What I suggest is seeing how we get on without him, editing as we feel is right and whether we can avoid excessive arguing (which might not have any reason to exist now) and edit in a friendly way by ourselves. Sticky Parkin 14:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Required acknowledgement of GFDL sources

Original text sourced from Free Encyclopedia of Thelema was added on March 13th, 2005, original text sourced from Thelemapedia was added on April 16th, 2006. The GFDL requires acknowledgment of all GFDL sources used in the creation of a derivative document. Will in China (talk) 13:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

We need to remove all content in this article from those wikis as they are not WP:RS. Once all content's gone in the existing article, we don't need to credit them, regardless of what was in the past article, as it's no longer there. We can keep any info that's also sourced to other sources (as all of it should be) and rephrase it. So we can remove the unnecessary tricksy attempts at putting in his links and keeping there, that violate WP:EL and WP:RS, by a banned user.:) I really can't be bothered though as I'm not a Thelemite and don't have sufficient interest to rewrite a the phrasing of the article in small details (which is all it is). I've done mostly enough and fixing that issue is not a big deal to me. I don't object to the non-WP:RS origin of the content (although any weak and non WPRS web sources should be removed as they're not necessary, most of it is also sourced to WP:RS). But it's not major. I object to the indiscriminate spamming over thelemic articles by a perennial edit warrior and sockpuppet who abused this site is all, and of a not useful site which is only here because of his own involvement in those sites, WP:COI. More interesting to me is whether the WP:NPOV tag can go now, in other's opinions?:) Sticky Parkin 16:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Eventual Featured article standard

Eventually this could beWP:FA standard. Not yet of course, and unlikely, but we can at least try and meet the standard, even if we don't pass it. An example of a WP:FA on minority religion is Bahá'í Faith. We'd have to stop edit warring.:) Sticky Parkin 18:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Frederico Tolli

I'm somewhat mystified to find Frederico Tolli's obscure work given a whole paragraph here. He's far from being a reputable source. I really don't see that his work even deserves a mention, never mind a whole section; it's totally irrelevant to Thelema. --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 00:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Google doesn't show much related to him at first glance. Go ahead and remove that bit if you really think it seems irrelevant. Dan (talk) 23:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Done --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 09:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Further Reading

What's with the Further Reading list? Surely if we're going to have such a thing (and I have no objection to it) something like the Commentaries on the Book of the Law or Magick Without Tears would be rather more obvious contenders? --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 00:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

MWT sounds like a good one to include. I don't know who wrote most of the further reading list, I removed some spam from a banned user from it recently. Sticky Parkin 19:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)