Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Thelema

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Thelema:

edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:

Requests: Order of Thelema;

This is the talk page for WikiProject Thelema

[edit] RELIGIOUS movement??

Did I miss something? In my expirience Thelema is quite the opposite of religion. I'd suggest to replace "religious" by "spiritual" or whatever you think suites the topic. Or has Thelema really become a religion? (leael93 on de.wikipedia.org)

Perhaps you are completely unaware of the running debate of whether Thelema is a religion or not... it seems so. The OTO currently gets benefits from being legally a religious entity and they often refer to Thelema as a religion. Crowley himself called Thelema a religion many, many times. It seems many people are averse to this simply because of (a) they have prejudices built up around the word 'religion' and/or (b) they think the label 'religion' is too constrictive. In the case (a), I have to say I am sorry but these are your prejudices; in the case of (b) I could agree, but I found most labels restrictive in one way or another (even 'spiritual,' 'tradition,' 'philosophy,' 'system,' etc.) Psionicpigeon (talk) 21:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Although the Caliphate OTO do use the term "religion" the Caliphate dont speak for all Thelemites. For those who are more independent Thelema is a collection of ideas and guidelines to help align with their true will. Although Crowley did use the term "religion" its very easy to take Crowleys meaning out of context. Thelema didnt begin with Crowley. So it is right to raise the issue of Thelema being a "religion"--Redblossom (talk) 20:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paraphysics article in danger

there is currently a big discussion going on at the paraphysics sections wether its going to be deleted or not. if this article is to be deleted, it would be a shame, and a great loss to paranormal, occult and spiritual research. i suggest, and hope, that you vote for its continuing. and maybe even write a few sentences about the subject if you know about it, as it is currently very messy, and not much has been written about it yet.

details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Paraphysics

thank you. user:openforbusiness

[edit] Cleanup question

For the articles listed under "Cleanup," what sorts of actions are needed - general editing, adding cites and references, or both? Does the answer vary by article? If so then a more detailed list would be very helpful.Psuliin 01:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I took a look at the Rose Kelly article, made a few cosmetic fixes, and put a "to do" list on the discussion page listing the improvements I thought of. Perhaps that would be a good way to handle these?Psuliin 03:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 93 -> thelema

The {{93}} was changed to {{thelema}}... seems kinda arbitrary. Was there a reason?---J.S (t|c) 21:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thelemite vs Thelemic

We have this Category:Thelemite texts. My understanding is that "Who calls us Thelemites does no wrong" which is to say, Thelemites are people. The adjectival form which should modify "texts" would be "Thelemic", no? I'd be happy to do the work involved if there is consensus to correct this to Category:Thelemic texts. Looks like it should only require the page-move and 21 minor edits. --Geoff Capp 00:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Thelemite describes a person whereas Thelemic is the generally accepted adjective form of 'Thelema.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psionicpigeon (talk • contribs) 21:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Key articles for Wikipedia 1.0

Hello! We at the Work via WikiProjects team for Wikipedia 1.0 would like you to identify the "key articles" from your project that should be included in a small CD release due to their importance, regardless of quality. We will use that information to assess which articles should be nominated for Version 1.0 and later versions. Hopefully it will help you identify which articles are the most important for the project to work on. As well, please add to the Thelema WikiProject article table any articles of high quality. If you are interested in developing a worklist such as this one (new) for your WikiProject, or having a bot generate a worklist like this one automatically for you, please contact us. Please feel free to post your suggestions right here. Thanks! Walkerma 04:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OTO Bodies

Anyone feel that individual OTO bodies could use a wiki page? I just joined the project, and would love to help out. This isn't necessarily my strong suit (although back issues of Agape provide great sources), but would love to hear other opinions.

[edit] New transparent Unicursal Hexagram

I've created and uploaded a new transparent Unicursal Hexagram

Image was removed as non-free Will in China (talk) 17:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to replace all instances of the old jpeg one with this one, unless the jpeg version fits better within it's context (black background, etc).

Maybe a notice should be put on the front page? — zorkmid ^EA 16:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure it's fair use? It seems fairly likely to me it was created before modern copyrights... in any case, it's showing as having a grey background to me, but that might be an IE problem? ---J.S (t|c) 23:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OTO vs. the OTO

It seems like this project should have a standard for which usage should be preferred. There seems to be inconsistency over people referring to the Ordo Templi Orientis as "OTO" or "the OTO". I used to use mainly "OTO", but now looking at the 1917 constitution I'm going to switch over to the OTO. Then again, in the COTO's history page they seem to use only "OTO". --Jackhorkheimer 18:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

There are several issues here. Firstly the issue over the fact that there are several OTO's in existence. For clarification the main orders in this schism re:

The Caliphate OTO

Typhonian OTO (OHO Kenneth Grant)

OTOA (which has ties with some of Michael Bertiaux's occult work.)

Another issue is that a lot of Thelemites disagree with the Caliphate proclaming themselves has THE OTO , using pointless legal statements to affirm this stance. when in reality their "body" of occult/magickal work has failed to back this up.

I guess I didn't make myself clear. I'm not trying to sort out which is the "real" OTO. I'm just trying to figure out a simple grammatical point: whether the OTO should be referred to as "the OTO" or "OTO". --notJackhorkheimer ^{(talk / contribs)} 20:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Religious leaders

The current organization there is abit muddled, and needs some discussing how to deal with. A general proposal for cleaning it up is posted at Category talk:Religious leaders#Organization proposal, and more input would be great. It doesn't address the issue of Religious leaders/religious workers/religious figures, but that is another issue that exists. Badbilltucker 22:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Religion

The group indicated above was recently revitalized for, among other things, the purpose of working on those articles whose content is such that the article does not fall within the scope of any particular denomination. To most effectively do this, however, we would benefit greatly if there were at least one member from this Project working on those articles. On that basis, I would encourage and welcome any member of this Project willing to work on those articles to join the Religion WikiProject. Thank you. Badbilltucker 14:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thelemic Personalities

What needs to be done to add more people to the "Thelemic Personalities List?" In particular Ebony Anpu, Timothy Leary, and Robert Anton Wilson.<3 Captain Barrett 21:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Something for all: Sex economy (essay) Article proposed for Deletion, please discuss

Israel Regardie wrote in the introduction to the voluminous Complete Golden Dawn System of Magic that any aspiring magician should consolidate his work by submitting to some form of Reichian psychotherapy. The basis if this is outlined in an article which I have put up, Sex economy (essay), which details an essay written by Ola Raknes, Norwegian vegetotherapist and author of Wilhelm Reich and Orgonomy. This is an acute introduction to the theory of sex economy which all Reichian, and indeed neo-Reichian, therapies are based on. This should be of great interest to many people that are preoccupied with more than the mere trappings of magicianship. However, this article that I have put up may not remain a Wikipedia article for long, since it has already been proposed informally for deletion. Maybe an interest taken by some of the folks frequenting this forum could be significant in saving this article for Wikipedia. __meco 08:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I've replied in detail on Talk:Sex economy (essay), please take a look. To avoid deletion of the article, you can make it into a more Wikified article as discussed on that page - or other changes you might feel are in line with your thoughts. Also, you have the right to edit the page and remove the propsed deletion tag (just erase the tag between brackets that says subst:prod| that appears there. If you don't remove it by the date listed in the deletion box on that page, the article could be deleted without further discussion. For info about how this works, refer to: WP:PROD. If you remove the template tag, the editor who placed it there might submit the article for deletion through formal procedures (see WP:AFD), but then there would be a chance for discussion first.

I'm not removing the tag myself because I don't have time to jump in and start editing the article -- but I agree with your idea that there should be an article on Sex Economy so I encourage you to read the comments on the talk page and proceed with your edits. Good luck! Parzival418 05:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Deletion tag removed

After reading the article again and further consideration, I went ahead and removed the PROD tag. The article is a good summary of the topic of Sex Economy, which Regardie studied deeply and felt to be of great importance, and it has relevance to the Thelema project. That's not to say the text doesn't need improvement to become a better Wikipedia entry, it does. But I see no need to hurry up and delete it when it can be improved instead. Please refer to Talk:Sex economy (essay) for more info, and contribute there and in the article if you like. Parzival418 07:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Del. of Minor Arcana articles

I am a tarot player, but my AfD proposal has nothing to do with it. Nor has it anything to do with my skeptical worldview. It was proposed as a labor saving device. At least three other Wikipedians, most of whom are more sympathetic to divinatory tarot than tarot games, have found it absurd to have all these articles on individual cards. My views on divinatory tarot have nothing to do with it. I consider a debate over whether these stubs should be kept to be a fundamental first step to be taken before any labor is wasted trying to fix them.Smiloid 01:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. I posted "Keep" in the AfD because it seems to me these article are at the initial stage of their lives and in the long run there will be a lot of info added to them. If that happened in a merged article it would become very long. On the other hand, we can consider that if the individual cards were merged and then after a while it got to be too fat, we could split them out in different ways - for example, what might be appreciated by the Thelema project - split out the definitions of the Thoth cards as a unit in one article (and possibly related systems like the Golden Dawn cards), into a separate article about "Magickal" interpretations of the cards of the Tarot. The same thing could be done with the game interpretations if there is enough info on that (that subject area is not in my area of expertise, so I can't say if that would be useful or not).

In summary, although I voted to "Keep", I am also willing to consider these alternatives. My main concern is the same as yours - planning for the future editing of the articles, which method will be most effective for the readers and the editors...? Parzival418 01:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another related WikiProject

I notice no mention here of Wikipedia:WikiProject Kabbalah, which is probably closely enough related to be mentioned in the link box on thae article page... Grutness...wha? 22:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New project proposal

There is a new WikiProject task force proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Inter-religious content that is being proposed to deal specifically with articles whose content relates to several religious traditions. Any editors interested in joining such a group would be more than welcome to indicate their interest there. John Carter 15:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up of the Diversity of Thelemic thought section in Thelema article

I have made some proposals in the discussion section of the Thelema article concerning the diversity of Thelemic thought section. These are the proposals:

1: The LaSara Firefox assertion be removed. 2: The "Amado Crowley" points put into a section concerning legitimacy, but not Thelemic diversity. 3: The Thelemites who practice other religions paragraph be removed or changed. My reason for this is that if someone is following their true will then no other religion is needed since its a distraction, so this idea of other religions comes across has a contradiction and doesnt make sense. What would be better is to make comparisons between various religions and Thelema to show the differences and to show that Thelema is actually beyond the restrictions of any religion. --Redblossom (talk) 07:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This discussion should be continued at Talk:Thelema#Diversity of Thelemic Thought section, where I've already responded. Nothing is to be gained by splitting the discussion into multiple places. Will in China (talk) 13:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What is a Thelemite under Wikipedia criteria?

Further to my exchanges with some of you i am including this section to see if there can be any clarity to what constitutes a Thelemite under Wikipedia criteria (if there is any). Now from my understanding the basic is that any person who claims to be a Thelemite and that claim has a citation in written form then they "are" a Thelemite under the Wikipedia criteria. If this is the case why is the criteria/threshold for inclusion so low and flimsy?--Redblossom (talk) 12:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that that is inherent to Thelema, as there is no Pope or other orthodox authority to force any particular definition upon anyone. If "do what thou wilt" makes the kitchen too hot for you, I suggest you choose another religion. In case you hadn't noticed, the term Thelemite predates The Book of the Law by some centuries. Will in China (talk) 01:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal: Change of title for Thelemic Gematria article and other changes.

I put forward the proposal to change the heading /title Thelemic Gematria to something else. The title doesnt make sense. How is gematria "willed" exactly? Doesnt make sense. Bad grammar. A more suitable heading would be "Liber AL cipher" or RPSTOVAL cipher" .This would make more sense in the context of its place in Liber AL. Also at best the material presented would be better has a sub section for the Liber AL page. Thelemic Gematria has it stands doesnt really merit its own page. Or better still just use all the material to be put in the Gematria section has an "alternative gematria" sub section. --Redblossom (talk) 12:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Goetia article needs more material

The Goetia article needs elaboration concerning its history and various forms and inclusions. It also needs to suggested that The Goetia though it was used by Crowley when he was younger in his Golden Dawn days , The Goetia is in itself not Thelemic in practice and use since the user has to surrender to the will of the Christian god before commencement of the goetic demons evocation/appearance. But has a historical documeent it does have relevance to Crowleys evolution in Magick. But its relevance has a Thelmic document is dubious at best.--Redblossom (talk) 12:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wheres Agape?

Why is their no inclusion of the Agape article under the Thelema section? And why has no one put any relevant Thelemic material into the Agape article? Does someone want to volunteer to do that?--Redblossom (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). But please be sure to cite your additions to reliable sources. Will in China (talk) 17:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Categories: To do