Talk:Gerald del Campo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

See here for previous discussion resulting in deletion of this article.

The deletion of Gerald del Campo's wiki page smacks of bias and censorship due to the fact that it comes directly on the heels of the suspension from membership with Ordo Templi Orientis.

It would behoove Wikipedia to prove to the userbase that the users moving for deletion are not the lickspittle lackeys of the current mismanagers of U.S. and Grand Lodge O.T.O. merely acting in biased retaliation against a vocal critic whose complaints, like those of Bishop T. Allen Greenfield, are weighty and meritous.

It is a specious argument at best that his years of involvement in and original contributions to the Thelemic occult community do not constitute noteworthiness. Again, it smacks of bias and inappropriate involvement of the very authoritarian figures in the O.T.O. who come under the criticisms of del Campo and Greenfield.

Contents

[edit] Why this and not that

I would like to know why the Gerald del Campo page was deleted. Please note that the page was just as well made as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lon_Milo_Duquette or even http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_Orpheus which features a one sentence blurb.

A little history is in order. I left the organization Ordo Templi Orientis due some ethical problems. This puts me on the wrong side of the organization, which has many members who edit for Wikipedia and who are also petty enough to see my leaving the organization as some sort of threat to their "coolness."

I'd like to know why http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MensKeperRa, who lists on his own editor's page that he is on a "crusade" to get all of the "self-aggrandizing" occultists off Wikipedia has managed to get the page deleted, but has said nothing of the two aforementioned pages belonging to Lon DuQuette and Rodney Orpheus.

The differences between the Gerald del Campo entry and Lon Milo DuQuette's is that DuQuette is still a member of Ordo Templi Orientis. Again, I feel it is necessary to point out that Ordo Templi Orientis and its members exert a lot of influence on what is and what is not included in this encyclopedia and that they are highly biased and show unfair favor to members of OTO. My leaving the organization did not sit well with many people who are editors here. The fact that these editors are allowed to make edits and decisions on deletions while hiding behind some pseudonym makes it suspicious. Even more so where the editor does not provide a way to contact them for questions. So I am asking a fair question: Why does Lon DuQuette's page cut the mustard, while this one does not? I expect that this question will be answered fairly, since I am pretty sure that Wikipedia would like to keep its reputation for being an independent source of information. Thanks.

I would appreciate it if you would please pass this on to the necessary Wikipedia authorities and/or management.

Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.239.165.38 (talk) 07:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

I find it somewhat suspicious this activity to erase from Wikipedia two of the most critical members of the O.T.O.

at a time so close to their resignations (either forced or given in protest of the current actions and communications of high-ranking O.T.O. administrators). I would like a better justification for deleting Gerald's page yet still keeping Rodney Orpheus' single-line mention, IF WIKIPEDIA IS ACTUALLY JUST ADHERING TO PREEXISTING STANDARDS.

[edit] Not the OTO

No, I am not a member of the OTO. I, too, left the Order after a problem with its lack of ethical leadership and mis-management. Further, I nominated the inclusion of Ex-OTO member Sallie Ann Glassman for inclusion in Wikipedia. Why would a pro-OTO flunky do THAT?

I was unaware that Rodney Orpheus even had a Wikipedia entry. If it were only that Rodney was a high-ranking OTO member with a book to his name, I would nominate him for deletion. However, Mr. Orpheus has made something of a small splash in the experimental / gothic / industrial music arena with his band The Cassandra Complex. Mr. Orpheus's contributions to the world thus may merit inclusion in Wikipedia.

Lon Milo DuQuette, on the other hand, may need a review. However, Mr. DuQuette has managed to make a name for himself as a genuine authority in academic occult circles. He has made numerous appearances on television, many of them for reputable programs investigating occult topics.

Quite simply put, had I never been involved in the OTO I never would have known the names of Gerald Del Campo or Allen Greenfield. Yet there is a chance, however slim, that my involvement in music would have lead me to learn of Rodney Orpheus. Further, just being the kind of person who will admit to watching the Discovery Channel, it is within reason that I would have learned of Lon Milo DuQuette.

No, the OTO does not play a role in this matter. What matters here is merit. Despite my dislike of the OTO, Orpheus and DuQuette do, in fact, merit Wikipedia entries. Del Campo and Greenfield, in my estimation, do not. Eyes down, human. 10:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not the OTO, but

You may be one of the Thelemic pseudo-intellectuals that doesn't like the fact that some one has written something that wasn't Crowley based. Since you do not identify yourself one can never know, but the fact that you defend a one line "article" on Orpheus is telling of your bias.

It has been argued that Gerald del Campo has not made a contribution to the world, and that Rodney Orpheus has because of his involvement with the Band Cassandra Complex.

This boggles the mind. Gerald del Campo has been the only Thelemic personality to make public contributions to society via the Order of Thelemic Knights. (Please see: http://thelemicknights.org/)

Please also see http://thelemicknights.org/work.html, for some examples of the work that he has initiated with the Order. He may not be well known by the people who listen to Rodney Orpheus' Cassandra Project, but he is certainly well known by thousands of hurricane Katrina victims, the American Red Cross, and other emergency organizations. He is also well known in the Gnostic community and serves in the ethics committee in the College of North American Gnostic Bishops

Furthermore, The Order of Thelemic Knights is the ONLY true Thelemic Knighthood, receiving its fons honorum from an Ecclesiastic source. And it is the ONLY Thelemic Order which does work outside of the secrecy of its temples and actually provides a benefit to society.

His literary works have laid a foundation for the understanding of Thelema. His New Aeon Magick was the first book to attempt to illustrate Thelema as it was manifested in his own life. The book was originally written for his children who were very young at the time, NOT for publication - and yet this book was recommended reading by the OTO while he was a member.

His second book, New Aeon English Qabalah Revealed was perhaps, the first book published which explained the history of the New Aeon English Qabalah, explained it workings, and expounded on the magical system by showing a new, never before system of magical squares.

Gerald del Campo is a prolific writer, whose ideas of Thelema are helping to shape its public understating. He continues to reach out to the world via the work of his Order (The Order of Thelemic Knights), his Church (The Gnostic Thelemic Church of Alexandria), and his music via a project called Trick Sensei, which has just released its first album.

In other words, Gerald del Campo has done more for the Promulgation of Thelema than many of the Thelemites listed in the page of Thelemites on Wikipedia. His work is public, and his influence is not limited to what takes place behind the veil of secrecy. The work he does in the outside world with his Order dwarfs the social influence and benefit provided by other organizations. This is indeed noteworthy, don't you think?

[edit] Not really....

You stoop to calling me a "pseudo-intellectual" and then demand I identify myself when you have not identified yourself. Quite simply put, I am not willing to play this childish game. Regardless of what the Order of Thelemic Knights may or may not do, I do not think that Gerald Del Campo is worthy of recognition in Wikipedia. It would seem that a significant number of admins and editors agree with me.

Now, I posit that you are the same Solis93 as found at http://solis93.livejournal.com/profile and thus a member of the Order of Thelemic Knights. Further, I submit that you seek Mr. Del Campo's inclusion in an effort to further that organization's agenda. If this is the case, then your arguments to include Mr. Del Campo violate Wikipedia's Five Pillars (Neutral point of view being the most notable violation.)

Please, note that Wikipedia is NOT an advertising service, a vanity publisher, or a recruiting ground for occult organizations.

Thanks. Eyes down, human. 04:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You have not answered the questions

I posit that you are a member of Team418. And that you did not like New Aeon Magick because it did not appeal to your superior intellect even if said intellect missed the part about New Aeon Magick having been written for del Campo's kids.

You have not answered how it is that you could support Lon DuQuette's and Orpheus' admission to Wikipedia, and have not explained why, in spite of all of the work that the Order of Thelemic Knights and Gerald del Campo have done in the world you still do not think that work is worthy of mention and why it does not meet the merit that you place on Lon DuQuette's and Orpheus' work.

You appear to have a chip on your shoulder. You have posted on your profile some egotistical rant about "... the vast bulk of occultists in the world are self-important, ego-aggrandizing, pompous entities with little to no real substance to who they are or what they are trying to achieve. I have made it my business to weed these people out of Wikipedia and to help make this site a source for reliable, non-commercial information" and don't even realize what a self-serving, pompus, slef-serving, fat headed and egotistical statement that is. This amounts to the pot calling the kettle black. Not only that, but you don't see anything wrong with Lon DuQuette's page and don't appear to view THAT entry as self-promotion.

Furthermore, you deleted the entry after I had placed "hold on" on the page to debate this. The thing is you have debated nothing. Not a damn thing.

You are going to have to do better than this. You have lost your objectivity. You are not fit to determine what belongs here and what does not. Perhaps some one needs to watch everything you do in Wikipedia to make sure that it does not fall into the hands of sour-grapes indivisuals who do nothing with their lives and have nothing to do but to throw stones at those that do. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Solis93 (talk • contribs).

Guy... I told you over and over to supply reliable published sources to show this guy's notability and you didn't, so I've locked the article. (Primary-source websites don't count.) Please do that if you want to recreate this. And please sign your comments. Grandmasterka 08:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I am still learning. Like I said in my mail to you, I am not Wiki savvy. But if there is anything good that is coming out of this headache is that I am quickly learning. Solis93 21:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] And so it comes to this....

I must ask an administrator to step in here and consider the above posts by "Solis93" to be personal insults to me, in violation of Wikipedia's rules of conduct. He has repeatedly used abusive language and made absurd accusations against me. In my initial post about Mr. Del Campo's article, I clearly stated that I did not have any sort of personal axe to grind with Mr. Del Campo yet Solis93 continues to insist that I do (further, he stoops to name-calling to make his case.) How do I reach an admin about this behavior? Eyes down, human. 15:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I have since requested advocacy regarding this matter. Eyes down, human. 15:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why do you think it is insulting....

Why do you think it is insulting to point out that you are highly biased when you failed to answered the questions I asked you? I am glad you requested mediation, because the bias is clear. Put the del Campo page along side of the Lon DuQuette page. Look at them both and tell me why one page is a better fit for Wikipedia than the other. That is all I asked you to do and you failed to answer adequately. I look forward to hearing from some one regarding this matter. Thank you. Solis93 21:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I FOR ONE

would welcome an administrator looking into this. I am not at all Wiki literate, and it is tech friendly, but not user friendly for non-techies with a complaint to make. The article about me was taken down also, after a second vote (the first was a "KEEP") initiated by yet another "ex-OTO" member, and both Gerald and I are (A) established authors and (B) the most cursory input of our names in any search engine will show from many sources unrelated to either of us that we are at least, what I claim to be, in the words of one of the "Keep" voters in the first vote on the page about myself, "a moderately well known author in his field". It bothers me that OTO, Inc. has a history of silencing critics in one way or another, and there is a huge debate - largely on many live journals - right now over the suspention of disenters within OTO from membership just before those suspended (as opposed to those who are not) being taken down on Wikipedia. All I have really asked for is non-biased administrators with no OTO history have a look at this interesting "coincidence" if such it is.

Fair enough... You're welcome to open a deletion discussion on the other article if you don't think it is worthy of inclusion. It seems like there are rivalries playing out here that are way beyond my scope of understanding. All I care about are applying our policies and guidelines. If you could provide links to external secondary coverage of this guy that constitute reliable sources here, that would be great. External links are made with single brackets, like [http://www.wikipedia.org] or [http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia.org] which produce [1] and Wikipedia.org respectively. Grandmasterka 22:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Where should these relevant links be placed? Here in the talk page? Solis93 02:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Sure. Grandmasterka 08:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OTO? No.

No, I am not affiliated with the OTO in any way. How many times must I say this? Yet the truth is that blaming this issue on "OTO Boogey men" is a convenient way to claim victimization and censorship.

The fact of the matter is that if you want the DuQuette and/or Orpheus pages deleted, you should nominate them for deletion with an AfD tag. I have stated my views regarding both DuQuette and Orpheus (DuQuette is an established author, as well, and is an out-spoken and highly visible figure in the occult world. Rodney Orpheus is an experimental musician of some repute and who also contributes largely in the realm of computer technology and video games. Orpheus also has an IMDB entry to his credit.) If you did elect to tag the DuQuette page with an AfD request, I would probably voice "weak keep." If you did the same to Orpheus, I may very well back that deletion nomination. (To be honest, I'd need to research Rodney a bit more and make certain that he is Wiki-worthy. Even now, I have three browser tabs open and I'm doing just that!)

The blunt fact of the matter is that Wikipedia is not a place to toot one's own horn. It is not for a single person to make an entry about themselves and then expect that they deserve recognition and inclusion in this forum. Wikipedia is also not the forum for secret societies, chivalric orders, etc. to engage in recruiting new members or promulgating their agendas.

Now, if you wish to create a page about the Order of Thelemic Knights, be my guest. The organization does, in my estimation, merit inclusion in this forum based on its good works, approach to the Thelemic philosophy, and distinct difference from various other Thelemic orders and societies. The OTK, in my estimation, merits inclusion in Wikipedia as a charitable, religious organization which adheres to a much maligned religious philosophy. Eyes down, human. 03:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining this a little better. As I have stated before, I am not Wiki savvy. If I insulted you, you have my sincerest apologies. I have nothing against you per se' - I don't even know who you are, but I felt that I was asking a sincere questions on "why this and not that?" I am afraid I still disagree with you regarding the DuQuette situation. I do not believe that he is more outspoken than del Campo. He has written a bunch of books - yes, this is true. He is a member of OTO, yes, that is true also. But del Campo has also been published, he is quoted and his material is recommended reading. It very difficult understanding Wiki policy when looking at these pages side by side: that DuQuette's page qualifies and del Campo does not is not logical. I am still puzzled over that. As far as marking DuQuette and Orpheus for deletion - I don't want to do that. My intention was not to imply that they had not made any meaningful contribution. My contention all along has been that if their page qualifies, then mine must also qualify. I still feel that way when I look at them side by side. A Thelemic Knight's entry is in the works.Solis93 04:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Just an observer here, I think that the criteria as specified in Wiki policy is good. It has been linked to in this discussion I think. Are there any reliable publications out there which focus on del Campo or his works? If so, then simply cite those as evidence of noteworthiness. You can compare this article to others all you want, but it has no bearing on the question of noteworthy. If you think other articles do not pass this muster, then nominate them for deletion and a separate debate will ensue, and the same criteria evaluated. e.g., are there reliable sources which have Dequette or Orpheus as primary subjects? If no, then they may lose and get deleted like del Campo's page did. But those pages have not been nominated for deletion yet so theres no point in comparing. Nominate them for deletion if you think they should be deleted.
I was just thinking, wonder what Mr. del Campo thinks of all if he has seen it! I imagine it must be embarassing and flattering to see you making such a fuss trying to get his bio reinstated here. Do you know him? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.239.250.209 (talk) 19:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Some references

Do these qualify?

Here are some links where del Campo is quoted and referenced in other Wiki articles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thelema (Rabelais: The First Thelemite)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C3%A7ois_Rabelais

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Aeon_English_Qabala

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAEQ

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thelemic_gematria

Book reference Dummet, Michael, Ronald Decker History of the Occult Tarot: 1870-1970 Duckworth Publishing (November 2002)

Various references

Your input would be appreciated. Solis93 00:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This also was added to the list by 216.239.166.26:

Ordo_Templi_Orientis#Known_members —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.239.166.26 (talk)

Note that Gerald del Campo publicly resigned from the OTO. --Jackhorkheimer 18:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Note that the page reads: "The following individuals are commonly believed to be current or former members of Ordo Templi Orientis." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.239.167.251 (talk) 02:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/e/r/Talk%7EGerald_del_Campo_26e5.html"