Talk:Lon Milo DuQuette
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
||
 |
Lon Milo DuQuette is part of WikiProject Thelema, an attempt to expand, improve, and standardize articles related to Thelema. You are invited to participate by editing the article or by joining the Thelema WikiProject as a participating member. | |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-01-28. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
[edit] Can't talk?
So can we take that we cant talk about DuQuette? The libel notice is a bit over the top. My 2 cents worth about DuQuette is, that he is someone who hasnt developed Thelema in any new way. All he has done is taken Crowley's material and republished it with some lazy writing of his own. Has an occultist he has a very poor reputation amongst Thelemites and occultists since he has stifiled development in the Caliphate OTO in the US and has failed to provide fresh and new insight into Thelema. I welcome any debate on these points. ( Bongo666)
On the positive side "his" books have helped bring people to Thelema who wouldnt have been intelligent enough to understand Crowley's writing by itself. Duquettes books act has a primer for the more complicated stuff. Discuss.
I disagree that the Duquette "books" have helped people come to Thelema. Most of his work has essentially ripped off Crowleys work and hasnt added anything to the writing.
- This is the wrong forum for debating personal opinion. The "talk" pages are for discussing improvements to the article. Thanks for understanding. Jkelly 22:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Its not a forum. It says discussion. And i am discussing Duquette's legitimacy on the occult scene. Most have Duquettes material has been second hand from other sources (Mainly Crowley) Anyone could write the simplistic books Duquette has released if they had copyright access to the Crowley archive!! So i am looking to someone to debate these points! (Bongo666)
- It's not about the criticism of his books unless the criticism can be found elsewhere to substantiate said critical reviews' existence, if I understand the procedures and allowable material for Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.5.173.22 (talk) 05:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Why this and not that
So why was Gerald del Campo's page deleted and this one is allowed to stay? I wouldn't have enything to do with the number of editors who are also members of OTO, would it? Or the fact that Gerald del Campo quit the OTO because it could not ethically continue to support the organization, and Lon is still a member in good standing? I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be fair and unbiased? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Solis93 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC).
- Well... I am the creator of Lon's page and "surprisingly" am not an OTO member. Wikipedia is not a place for debating "your" biases. Lon is a writer and any writer has a place in any encyclopedia. --Sepand 18:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Gerald del Campo is a writer as well. Oddly enough, his page has been deleted.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.239.167.161 (talk) 20:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Still Nominated for deletion?!
If Wikipedia's policy is to delete an article only because the corresponding debate has resulted in a "no consensus" situation, I think we should change the policy itself. --Sepand 19:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
