Talk:Aleister Crowley/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

NPOV Tag

There is discussion about this article being completely pro-Crowley biased on this page. Leave the tag there, because there are active accusations of this article not conforming to WP:NPOV.

KV 06:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

What parts do you not like? ---J.S (t|c) 06:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Who are you claiming to be pro-Crowley? I'm just wondering. Zos 06:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

KV, if you don't know what parts you think are POV, then we can't work to improve them. ---J.S (t|c) 16:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I am neither pro- nor anti-Crowley, but I've removed the NPOV tag. Per WP:NPOVD (quoted below), the person placing the tag must provide a point-by-point list of the perceived deficiencies in the article. No one can work to correct problems if the problems are not detailed, and the burden of detailing them falls to the person placing the tag. Once this is done, I will happily help keep the tag on the article until all points are addressed or dismissed by concensus. -999 17:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

If you come across an article whose content does not seem to be consistent with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, use one of the tags below to mark the article's main page. Then, on the article's talk page, make a new sectioned titled "NPOV dispute [- followed by a section's name if you're challenging just a particular section of the article and not the article as a whole]". Then, under this new section, clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article. Be active and bold in improving the article.

My objection happens primarily in the form of the old Prejudice section (which I think has an unnecessarily long title now, just as a stylistic concern. "Crowley made numerous public expressions typically considered racist, nationalistic, and sexist in his published writings."

There is no reason at all to have the words "typically considered", those are acting like weasel words. What cat has added needs to be rewritten (the part about Regardie's not wanting to include Crowley's preface is not proof btw), but there are logical statements which are rooted in citations that people want to out and remove from it.

"He is perhaps best known today for his occult writings, especially The Book of the Law," That there is a complete opinion. Though I could see occult writings even being cited, the Book of the Law I don't see as likely to find a citation. Someone picked what they best liked about Crowley. I feel that there is an attempt to glorify the man, and I do not feel that anything is cited except for the prejudice section. For both are not citations, but conversational footnotes.

KV 18:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Your examples seem to be WP:V problems and not necessary neutrality issues. I added the words "typically considered" because there is not unanimous agreement that the word "nigger" is racist. (For example, in the "black" community use of the word "nigger" or "nigga" can be a term of endearment.) How would you suggest it reworded? There is room for improvement, but I'm not sure how else to convey the meaning without implying our POV that "nigger" is racist. ---J.S (t|c) 19:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you pretend that in 1930 that this was true back then? This is a development of the 1990's, well after Crowley died, and it only applies if you are black, which Crowley was not. If I used that word towards an African who did not known me very damned well, I'd get my ass kicked. Crowley was throwing this word out in general, not to someone he knew very wll. And that is exactly what I am talking about, fallacious reasoning made to make Crowley look clean....... rather than asking why Regardie stated that he despised Crowley as a person, and not regarding to their own relationship.

KV 19:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

And yes, some people in the 1930s didn't consider the term "racist." "In the United States, the word nigger was not originally considered derogatory, but merely denotative of black, as it was in much of the world." (See: Nigger) Now, It's my opinion that it's clear that Crowley meant it in a racist way. But that is my -only- opinion. Language is such a subjective thing... Perhaps a better way to phrase that opening sentence would be to make the definitive statement and then attribute it to someone?

Frankly I don't care if he looks good or bad. I have no emotional attachment to Crowley either way. Your making poor arguments based on an assumptions of bad faith. ---J.S (t|c) 20:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to say, if that section is POV, it is only slightly so, and possibly biased against Crowley. The only objection I have to the section is in the last paragraph: the introductory phrase "Despite his racist expressions" presents his racism as a foregone conclusion. The section should not interpret the facts, that is original research and against WP:NOR. It may present any citable facts, and my also cite the opinions of others, but beyond this the editor of the WP article may not bias the reader either for or against Crowley's alleged racism. That's my opinion, and will apply a few changes based on it. -999 22:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It is in no way original research to interpret on base levels. This was in line with interpretting that someone who killed his family, intentionally, is a murderer. That level of interpretation is not only acceptable, but necessary in any scholarly pursuit.

KV 22:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, this is an encyclopedia, not a research paper. Find someone who has written opinions on the matter and cite them. You may not judge the subject in your own words, but only present citable opinions already written about him. Please read WP:NOR again... -999 22:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

"Racist" is subjective whereas "murder" is objective. ---J.S (t|c) 22:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOR states, "An article qualifies as original research if at least one of the following is true:

"It introduces a theory or method of solution

"It introduces original ideas

"It defines new terms

"It provides new definitions of old terms

"It purports to refute another idea

"It introduces neologisms"

Which of those is true?

Now, we have a defition from Racism, "Racism refers to a belief system that humans can be separated into various groups based on physical attributes and that these groupings determine cultural or individual achievement and the value of human beings." and "Racism often includes the belief that people of different races differ in aptitudes and abilities, such as intelligence, physical prowess, or virtue." We have it cited from Crowley himself that he believed that people can be separated into various groups based on physical attributes, which determine just that. It's not redefining anything or introducing a new idea.

KV 22:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems you left out the statement that applies, "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source" - this says that you can't call Crowley a racist simply because you think he is, you must find an independent reputable source which argues that he is and cite that source. What you have here is essentially a implied weasel phrase - somebody thinks that Crowley is racist, where the somebody is you. -999 17:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, if you would like a source to quote about Crowley's anti-semitism, you could try Tim Maroney's Introduction to Crowley, I think in the "Personality" section. However, since is is a self-published website, others may argue that it is not a reputable source. I don't know if any of his biographers discuss his racism, but again, it is perfectly within the policies of WP to quote and/or otherwise reference them. It is only the expression of your own opinion as if it is absolute truth that is outside the bounds of WP:NOR. -999 18:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Also WP:NOR#Disputes_over_how_established_a_view_is

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

So does this constitute a small minority? I think it does, since we can only find that Regardie excluded remarks and Crowley made remarks. Are these the only references being used? Or am i forgetting some? Zos 17:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think other references can be found by someone intent on proving this point. I don't disagree that Crowley was racist by current standards; whether he was racist by the standard of his time is a subject for an expert on both Crowley and the times. That's why such an expert must be cited; the opinion of an individual WP editor does not constitute a verifiable fact. -999 18:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been looking for a good biography of Crowley, but thusfar Barns & Nobal has been disapointing. I'll try again today. ---J.S (t|c) 18:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I think Tim's site is gonna be dispupted unless he publised it in book form. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Using_online_sources

I understand that other references can be found, but have they? Until they are found, I suggest nothing be added. Zos 18:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Archive

I archived the talk page, it was getting a bit long. I only left the last section commented on in the last few days ( I think). The link doesnt seem to be working right, so if someone could fix that it would be of great help! Zos 05:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Writings

Who else besides me feels that the writings section should be summarised? I mean, I believe all of that info is already on the main article already, and can free up more space. Zos 07:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. If anything, it could be expanded. WP is not paper, and space consideration do not need to be given much weight. In general, removing information from a WP article is frowned on, unless there is some valid reason such as WP:V or WP:NOR or other WP policy to justify it. -999 14:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I never claimed it "was" a paper. I was under the impression that when a main article is written, the content from the original needs to be summarized. I may be wrong, but its what I see from other pages. Zos 17:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Citations

Citations are to be done in the following format. (Author's name Book title if more than one work or "Article or shorter work's name in quotations" p. such and such or pp. something - something else if multiple) That way someone can simply look at the page it is said on and not read the entire book, so they can easily verify it is true. You put them in a Bibliography or Sources section below, with full information as you can find in Template:citebook

I am not going to let the poorly formatted versions that give little to no information and hard to verify stand for very long. Only long enough for you to fix it. For an example, look at Hermeticism.

KV 14:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Please try to work more collaboratively with other editors rather than making confrontation statements such as this. You are welcome to fix citations, but any removal will be considered vandalism. Don't demand that others do work that you could easily do yourself. -999 14:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

"I am not going to let..." I don't like that tone. ---J.S (t|c) 15:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not properly cited. You have to properly cite it. While it's fresh in your mind, go get the citations. You need to be as specific as possible. Notice how I cite page numbers, with the exception of webpages, which are technically not supposed to be marked which paragraph they're in unless the paragraphs are prenumbered. The reason for this is simple. If I say that something is in the Bible, your immediate question is "where in the Bible?" if you don't already know. The bible is thousands of pages, so I give you a book, chapter, and verse number. Likewise, if I tell you that something lies in Manly P. Hall's The Secret Teachings of All Ages Approx. 700 pages, you're going to want to know on what page it was on........ For example. (Hall The Secret Teachings of All Ages p. 95) tells you that you can verify that "The traditional secrecy surrounding Hermetic philosophy gave rise to the term 'hermetically sealed'" on page 95 of the book. Now, since different versions may vary, especially with works in the public domain that may be produced by various publishers, with different page numberings, we state that the book version is: Hall, Manly P. (1928 (copyright not renewed)). The Secret Teachings of All Ages. San Francisco: H.S. Crocker Company. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |year= (help) which is written as:

{{cite book | author=Hall, Manly P. | title=The Secret Teachings of All Ages | location=San Francisco | publisher=H.S. Crocker Company | year=1928 (copyright not renewed) | id= }}

Now I know that if I have that same version, that I should find that information on that page. If I have another version, I can trace another fact or look nearby to figure out the differences in pagination. But I know that if I get a copy of that book by that publisher from that year...... I will be able to find that information on that page. If I do not, then I know that the author made a mistake or lied. Myself, I want to get a copy of those books then find it. I'm still waiting for Cat to post the book versions of Confessions and Diary of a Drug Fiend that I've been waiting for.

But this is in line with WP:V, we're making it verifiable within a fair amount of time, not a month. I'm willing to reread a page if I missed it, I'm not willing to reread a 500 page book. You may not like the tone, but I'm standing up for verifiability, not attacking you personally, nor holding you to higher standards than myself. I'm simply asking for proper documentation, precise citations. And for the record, you cannot hear someone's tone through text, and you can only assume the tone. You did not like the tone you assumed, not necessarily the tone intended.

KV 16:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You're the second person in the last couple weeks to say something like "I will not allow this to stand" or "I will not let this stay", and this is the second time in the last couple of weeks someone has taken exception to it. It might well be that asserting this sort of power isn't a good idea on Wikipedia; if it's not meant to be in a domineering tone, it certainly sends the message that the writer is claiming some sort of ownership to the article -- which doesn't work well here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It's neither. "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references." "Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but some editors may object if you remove material without giving people a chance to provide references." as per WP:V. I am simply stating that I want a proper reference format, where the author's name is given (the book if more than one book by that author) and the specific pages. Right now, it is not readily verifiable, because it does not use the page. I am not outright deleting it right now, I am giving the person who referenced it the chance of redoing it properly (as I have given an example of, despite Cat not coming through with the actual books, which I'm going to have to look for soon or risk the same happening to all the citations on the whatever it's called now section), before I remove it as improperly cited. I care now only that the proper pages are given, and I won't require the citebooks until I provide the same. But this is how Wikipedia works, civility but not blind acceptance of everyone else's edits, sources are challenged all the time.

KV 16:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

KV, official WP policy does not require page numbers. The page numbers are an optional parameter on the template you cite. If you disagree, please cite the page where page numbers are required by policy. Thanks. P.S. Who made you King, anyway? We don't need any petty tyrants around here. -999 17:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, you may want to actually read WP:CITE, especially the section titled How and where to cite sources. There are multiple acceptable citation styles on WP, and the determination of whether a citation is acceptible is determined by "the article's main content contributors" which unless I am mistaken, does not include you. But thanks for playing. -999 17:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion of page numbers is what is credible, there is no academic paper that wouldn't include page numbers because you should have that. If you're citing from the book, you need to say where it is in the book. Now, it says that you use footnotes or Harvard referencing, and I point you to Wikipedia:Harvard_referencing#Example_using_Harvard_references_and_numbered_footnotes where it gives examples. There are page numbers right there. The source isn't noting pages in the "References" section, but the actual footnote (or endnote) does use page numbers.

KV 19:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Footnotes#Example also has page numbers, though one of the examples uses "46(78):46" a very hard to follow format. One way or another, you use page numbers when they are available. I have read many papers that use citations, harvard referencing and MLA........ both always use page numbers.

KV 19:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. It's not a matter of policy. If you remove cited material simply because it doesn't have page numbers, you'd better be able to point to an official WP policy that requires page numbers. You've already been written up on WP:AN/I (and not by me). [1] Are you bucking for a user conduct WP:RfC? -999 19:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think hes trying to get people to add the page numbers, if I'm not mistaken. Zos 19:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I am. I'm feeling that the complete refusal to add page numbers, to make it verifiable, is the result of it being faked, especially the threat of having me banned for asking for page numbers. It's standard.

KV 19:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the way you are doing it is in question. Next time, just bring it up to discuss it without asserting authority on the issue. This way, you won't have a few people (including myself) gaining the impression that you are owning the article. Thanks. Zos 19:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Point of fact, nobody is refusing to provide page numbers. They are objecting to your tone and attitude. Point taken? -999 19:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

But I also agree. If harvard referencing is being used, the page numbers are needed as well. Zos 19:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Page numbers are nice, and should be included, but are not required by policy and lack of page numbers is certainly not sufficient reason to threaten to remove material or citations. There is no hurry on Wikipedia: the editors who added the references in the first place may not be active on this talk page right now. They may come back in a week or a month, find this conversation, and add page numbers. This is a long term collaborative project: there is, IMO, no reason to be abrupt and hasty with others for not immediately responding to unreasonable demands. -999 19:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying the references will be removed within about a week...... I never said I'm going to do it right away..... and waiting a month is way too long. Especially with all this running around on this article lately, they'll probably be back in a few days.

KV 20:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

And I'm saying, it's not for you to decide. Policy clearly states that such matters are for the major contributors to the acticle to decide. So with all due respect, butt out. -999 20:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

And who are the major contributers? This is up for discussion. I'd like to see page numbers myself, so I and other can clearly see who says what, instead of reading a full book for one or two quotes.

Wikipedia:Citing_sources

"This page is a style guide for Wikipedia. The consensus of many editors formed the conventions described here. Wikipedia articles should heed these rules. Feel free to update this page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose major changes."

Wikipedia:Harvard_referencing

Check this out more closely. References are ok, but the notes need page numbers. Zos 20:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the examples show page numbers, but nowhere does it say they are required. Certainly, Harvard style references are not even required, see WP:CITE, and, unless I'm mistaken, I believe the page numbers are an optional parameter on the Harvard reference template. It's not that hard to track down a quote or statement about a specific topic in a book with an index... -999 20:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

As to who the major contributors are, I am certainly not one of them. I think User:Fubar Obfusco would know though: he seems to have been the first of the major contributors to the article and would be the one to decide if the other editors cannot agree. -999 20:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Just because we arn't "major" contributors doesnt mean our opinion is not important in the consensus process. Also, conversely, the "major" contributors don't get final say either. there is no ownership around here. As for page numbers.... by all means, lets get them as we can. I've been trying to find some other sources for this article. Would be nice to see some more diversity in the refrences section. ---J.S (t|c) 21:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:CITE - it explicitly states: "If contributors differ as to the appropriate style of citation, they should defer to the article's main content contributors in deciding the most suitable format for the presentation of references. If no agreement can be reached, the citation style used should be that of the first major contributor." -999 21:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Frankly WP:CITE is a "guide" and not a policy... however consenus is a cornerstone and can't be ignored. (frankly, all we relay need to do is pick one and stick to it... a strawpull would be sufficient imo) ---J.S (t|c) 06:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

And I would also like to stress that it is refering to whether you are using harvard referencing, Chicago style, or MLA format and the like........ not on whether you are citing page numbers. If I say it's on page 154, that's considered good enough, pages are never that long. But if I say it's somewhere in this 500 page book, that's just silly. And quite frankly, having completely rewritten Cat's additions into a much less POV, concise and precise form, (despite me checking up on the references and not having found those actual quotes yet) I think that makes me a major contributor. Where is major contributor discussed? Surely, they don't count people who come and just revert vandalism or change spelling, or bots that change citation formats (hint hint), but people who have added significant content.

KV 13:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Relativism and fuzziness

Some recent changes to the Controversy section seem to me to weaken rather than improve the article.

"Crowley made numerous public expressions typically considered racist" to "Crowley made numerous public expressions which would currently be considered racist" -- this is a implication that the expressions would not met with as much disapproval then as now, which itself is a POV.

"His gender-bias was in part influenced by his failed marriage" to "His expressions of gender-bias may have been in part influenced" -- well, I don't think this whole paragraph belongs -- it's essay stuff, not encyclopedia stuff; even so, to even imply for a second Crowley was not gender-biased is kinda silly for anyone who has read even one of his books.

"Crowley made racist statements against the Chinese" to "Crowley made apparently racist statements against the Chinese" -- considering that said racist statements are included in the next sentence, what's the purpose of the "apparently"?

"Crowley's anti-Semitism was disturbing enough" to "Crowley's expressions of anti-Semitism were disturbing enough" -- well, wait, the sentence goes on to describe Regardie's editorial decisions; were Regardie's decisions based on Crowley's anti-Semitism or his expressions of it? As it turns out, it's quite specifically his expression of it, so this change is a good one.

"On the other hand, Crowley also reported a matrimonial preference for Jewesses." Where did he report this?

--jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Confessions

I found a little mishap here. How is Confessions being used for citation? I have in front of me the whole book in text format, online. I'm looking through the book, and I dont see where he said these things on those pages being used. Is this from a book (held in hands book) or from the online book? Or is this a different edition? 'm having trouble reconciling this. It appears that KV took what Catherine had wrote, and used it to reference the statements. I admit it was in good faith, but this clearly can't be used if he isnt saying this on those pages. Can someone help me out on this? Zos 20:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh silly me. Here is the book. http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/confess/index.html Zos 20:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Find everything you needed? ---J.S (t|c) 21:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

No I didnt. The matter is unresolved seeing as there is no discussion. I feel these quotes need to be removed. The page numbers dont add up. I'm asking where this comes from if it does not come directly from those pages numbers. Its a misrepresentation in my opinion, and needs to be fixed. Zos 21:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

If we're talking about the "racism" section, I think the whole section ought to be removed. Looking at the references which do pan out, it appears to me to be a matter of interpretation. In some cases, Crowley is discussing how others have told him about how to conduct himself with respect to the "natives" and his observations of how that worked for him (or not) and how he handled it differently than advised. I think any charges of "racism" should be taken from biographies and not from someone's personal opinion of the meaning and intent of a primary source. -999 21:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm merely saying that if Crowley is to be used as a primary source, we had better get the quote right. 999, which references "pan out"? Can you please give examples, noting which version it comes from? page numbers too please. Zos 21:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

To 999: You say that Crowley was merely giving "his observations of how that [advice on how to conduct himself with respect to the "natives"] worked for him" -- but this is not the case.

• In his description of his violent assault on the "burly nigger" (a Bengali medical doctor) he simply states that he beat the man up. He was not advised to do so -- he did it all on his little lonesome.
• In his remarks on supposed Jewish cannibalism in Eastern Europe, he quoted no one's advice -- he just flat-out stated that it was senseless of British Jews and other people to protest the Russian pogroms because Eastern European Jews were cannibals. It's not a joke, it's not adice he took on how to treat "natives" -- it's just a racist man spreading the typical racist blood libel against Jews. Please take the time to read up on the matter: Wikipedia has some good articles on the massacre in Kishinev, the arrest of Beilis on charges of ritual cannibalism (he was acquited by an all-Christian jury), and pogroms in general.

What i do not see here is why you feel the need to remove valid biographical information that the man himself published for all to see and read. Can you explain, please? Catherineyronwode 05:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Catherine: I know this is in responce to user999, but I've stated numerous reasons, and ask many questions which are still not answered. Please take the time to see the examples listed below in the section called "examples". There in are the reason why it was removed. Zos 05:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey catherine -- do me a favor and tell me exactly which edition of "Confessions" the page numbers are from? I think these accusations against your integrity are pretty foul, and since some people seem to doubt anything they can't find online, it would be helpful to at least point them to the right edition. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

jpgordon, your remark was posted on May 28 and for three days now i have been asking you, KV, Maggot, 999, and others to stop asking ME for the sources for page cite changes that User:KV and User:Bo-Bo made to the page. These folks have talk pages. Talk to them. They post here. Converse with them. Do some looking at the history of the page. These are not my cites -- both KV and Bo-Bo revised them. If anyone wants to cite the online version it is ONLINE. If anyone wants to cite a printed version (e.g. Arkana) they will have to get i from someone else. I do not own a copy. I have cited the Weiser ed. of "777" -- check out the history. And here, for the record is a series of posts at my talk pag dated May 25th:

Catherine, your failure to note the book is disturbing at this point. I tried to find a copy myself, found one online in which the page numbers aren't matching up. Which could mean a different version, but I haven't found him saying anything overtly racist yet in what I have read, and you havent' given a version. It almost seems as if they were made up right now. If you can find one of your quotes in this version of the book, I'll forget my fears for right now, but I'm not finding them as I look. KV 20:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but your disturbance is wide of the mark and your fears are misplaced. I think you have me confused with Bo-Bo. He was citing book pages in footnotes, per your request a few days ago; i did not do that. I do not know which editions of which books he used. Please contact him at his talk page.

Yes, Catherine, but we still need to know where it was coming from. Zos 22:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

That was THREE DAYS AGO, and yet it continues and continues. I have already placed one complaint about this harrassment tonight, and i am ready to place others, and i will inlcude you in my next complaint as well, jpgordon.

Crowley was a racist. The quotes are there. The cites are there. Stop blaming ME for KV's sloppiness and for the fact that Bo-Bo has a different edition of the book than the online version. You all know that the cites are accurate. Do the research yourself. FIX IT, and don't keep removing it bcause it is not in the most ass-clenchingly tight format that Maggot can request or he will REMOVE IT ALL.

Meanwhile, if you are really an admin and not just another mobbing sycophant, go over to Talk:Abramelin_oil and you can see Maggot pulling the exact same jive over there, requiring me under threat of tearing the page down to provide dozens of uselessly detailed cites by page number that are already cited in the references -- and whle you're there, get a real good look at the one where he demands that i name every single magical tradition that works with plant matrials and givens plants symbolic ascriptions!

You all ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Catherineyronwode 10:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• I asked a simple question; I'm not going to go and read this whole overly noisy talk page and its archives and the history of the article when all I want is a simple answer about which edition the page numbers are from. The only reason I asked you, which I guess was a mistake, was to try to get some leverage to shut these people up and move on with the article; I figured it would be less likely people would continue these ridiculous accusations against you if I was verifying what you were saying. If you feel that warrants complaining about me, feel free to lodge an official complaint. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Examples

This is according to the internet book which was reproduced Confessions of Aleister Crowley

The page numbers do not connect well to the quotes.

• The first note, referencing to Confessions, does not give a page number.

• The second (note # 4), third (note # 5) and fourth (note #6) refer to chess, from page 140 of confessions, and I do not see this at all.

• The next, which is note # 11, refers us to page 254, which says nothing about Crowleys failed marriage. It does however go into detail of his disgust for a woman.

• Note # 12, provides another example for note 11, but also says nothing of a failed marriage.

• note # 14...this needs a major re-work in wording. but thats just my "opinion".

• Note # 15 refers us to page 471-474. And let me point out, that the next sentence say "On the other hand the Chinese gentleman is the noblest and courtliest in the world. " Now is this saying that Crowley was racist? He felt that whoever he was talking about was not a very good example of some chinese people, but he doesnt say that the whole race was bad! Plus, where does he spread racist remarks between 471-474?

• Note # 16 ,and 18 refers to 471-474 as well. And I can't seem to find remarks made about other races there either.

• (I cannot confirm as of yet, note # 17 b/c it appears its from magick without tears)

• Note # 19 and note # 20 refers us to pages 283-284. This needs a complete re-work in my opinion. If anyone takes what he says as racist, they are interpreting it wrong. Crowley is speaking in past tense, of the people of that time. Let me give a full quote.

"It was atrocious follow to allow Indians to come to England to study, to mix freely with our women, often to marry or seduce them. But we might have survived that scandal. The returned students, having forfeited caste, had forfeited credit. We could have dismissed their accounts of England as the bluster of rascals; and, besides, these students were as insignificant in number as in authority with their own people.

But we did worse. In the name of religion and morality (as usual!) we committed a political blunder, which was also a social crime, by permitting and even encouraging white women to go out to India."

He's saying that he didnt agree with the way things were done! He's speaking of the history, not making a racist remark. You have to understand the context of which he is talking when interpreting, or else you'll end up thinking he is saying this out of contempt. Previously, he states: "Our attempt to compromise between incompatible civilizations can only end in our confessing the impotence of our own." And also "As elsewhere observed, our modern acquiescence in the rationally irrefutable argument that the colour of a man's skin does not prevent him from being competent in any given respect, has knocked the foundations from underneath the structure of our authority."

I think this part needs to be taken out. He's not being racist.

• Note # 23, refers us to the same pages as notes 19 and 20. And does not refer to any of this as well. And this is the last of the notes pertaining to Confessions.

Now, I think I see some references here that dont reflect the situation, and I am disputing it. I will give it some time, for discussion, and if its not resolved, I'm taking it off the article, as per my right to challenge it for WP:Verifiable and WP:NOR. Zos 22:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok I found Magick Without Tears. The Book. Can I please get someone to tell me which chapter it is from? Note # 13 says its page 254, but I'd like to know which chapter that is so I can verify it.

Also, i got one of the notes confused, note # 13 is from Magick Without Tears, and is what I meant, not note # 17 (which is Diary of a Drug Fiend).

But while I'm at it, I'm not sure if Diary can be used. It was a fiction book. And there were characters involved. Zos 23:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Your statements attemtping to justify Crowley's flagrant racis, will not fly past anyone with historical knowledge or a knowledge of Crowley, Maggot:

You wrote:Crowley is speaking in past tense, of the people of that time. Let me give a full quote.

"It was atrocious to allow Indians to come to England to study, to mix freely with our women, often to marry or seduce them. But we might have survived that scandal. The returned students, having forfeited caste, had forfeited credit. We could have dismissed their accounts of England as the bluster of rascals; and, besides, these students were as insignificant in number as in authority with their own people.

It doesn't matter whether he is speaking in the past tense OR of the people of that time (the two are different, although you think they are the same). Tense does not matter. His BELIEF wwas HIS DURING HIS LIFETIME. By the way, that reference is in part to Crowley's great enemy Ananda Cooraswamy , a Sri lankan Indian who had married not one, but two, white women in succession, one of whom Crowley had an affair with -- except that she left him to go back to her "half-caste" (Crowley's term, not mine!) husband. Sour grapes. And yes, it is racist. Catherineyronwode 23:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Catherine :), please do not confuse the situation. I have already quoted that part and disputed it, you however did not add a direct quote. "it was atrocious to allow", was not said either. You however are missing the point here. Crowley was speaking about the history. He did not say he adhered to this belief. Please provide more evidence to this. Lets say, a "secondary" source. Zos 23:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore. This in no way validates each and every example I gave. Point is, those notes don't quote it properly, and should be removed as of this very minute (Providing sources for edits is mandated by Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability, which are policy. This means that any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor. taken from Wikipedia:Citing_sources.

Now, I'm bringing this up first, to discuss the matter before I take it off. Which is alot better than just doing it with no reason. Provide actual reasons why it should remain in the article. If none is provided, it will be taken off. So please stop ranting and start helping. Zos 23:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Yikes! Does someone have a hard-copy of it? Perhaps the page-numbering is more accurate there? ---J.S (t|c) 23:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

"as per my right" It's not a right, it's a policy. Wikipedia can't pass down "rights." (sorry, I just wish people would stop over using the word) ---J.S (t|c) 23:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I was asking for a hard copy before all of this. Also asking which version it was being taken from, a hard copy, or the internet version. I explained this in the above section "Confessions". There has been no answer. As for the internet version, I'd say using it would still be ok as long as the page numbers didnt conflict. But you should check out the internet version also, because I think this is where the info is coming from.

Sorry for over using the words, its just the way I phrase it. All I meant was, its being challenged, and Wiki says I can take it off right now if I wish to. Zos 00:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Plus I fail to see how it can't be used (only in the right context), since it is a reproduced copy. Is there a Wiki page for this? Zos 00:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

So far I only found this: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Great_for_easy_access.

Which says the online books can be used. So seeing as how it can be used, lets get back to actually working on the article. Any complaints? I wish to take the majoirty of the racism off until verifiable quotes are given. Using Crowley as a primary source is fine, but the quotes are wrong. Zos 00:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Also. Note # 7 is being used to refer to Confessions (must have missed that one). What chapter does it say he used all of these drugs? Can I get a chapter & page number please? Zos 00:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Plus, I seriously doubt that notes 8 and 9 can be used. These are web sites, not published authors. And they do not express the statements in which they are being used. Zos 00:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

And again. Note 21 is refereing to a Wikipedia page. I thought this isnt allowed? Can you use a wikipage as a source? Did anyone check these references before they were added? The majority of them are not used right, and cannot be used for these statements. Zos 00:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Found another one. Note 22 is refering to something that shouldnt even be in this article. It uses two web pages to validate a small paragraph:

""Human sacrifices are today still practised by the Jews of Eastern Europe, as is set forth at length by the late Sir Richard Burton in the MS. which the wealthy Jews of England have compassed heaven and earth to suppress,[22] and evidenced by the ever-recurring Pogroms against which so senseless an outcry is made by those who live among those degenerate Jews who are at least not cannibals.""

Where is the citation for it being removed from Liber 777? Why is an arbitrary section of this paragraph being cited? How does this have anything to do with Crowley? Zos 00:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

As you probably already know, I support the removal of the racism section. This is not because I am pro-Crowley, but because I think it has been incorrectly documented and is essentially original research and opinion. I fully support including references to his possible racism from any of his many biographies. As I don't own any, it will fall to those who wish to document his racism to obtain such biographies and find and cite the appropriate materials. -999 02:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the section now. That whole thing needed a rework. I'm hoping that next time, there will be better sources and better quotes. Zos 03:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to comment on the errors contained in this remark by Maggot, who wrote:

:::Found another one. Note 22 is refering to something that shouldnt even be in this article. It uses two web pages to validate a small paragraph:

""Human sacrifices are today still practised by the Jews of Eastern Europe, as is set forth at length by the late Sir Richard Burton in the MS. which the wealthy Jews of England have compassed heaven and earth to suppress,[22] and evidenced by the ever-recurring Pogroms against which so senseless an outcry is made by those who live among those degenerate Jews who are at least not cannibals.""

Where is the citation for it being removed from Liber 777? Why is an arbitrary section of this paragraph being cited? How does this have anything to do with Crowley? Zos 00:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the first paragraph: The note should be in the article. It is a fact, a biographical point of interest, and easily verified. The web pages cited are a digital transcription of the Christies brochure (printed) and a BBC article (published). It would be very simple to cite these in other forms, as, for instance, the Chsitie's bri[ochure NOT in digitized form. The cinvenience of digitized form, and its accessibility makes it a good source. But if one wishes only printed sources, then c=simply cite it as PRINTED. This is so simple, i cannot assume good faith in the removal of it.

Regarding the third prargraph: Where is the citation for it being removed from Liber 777? The citation for the "Praface" being removed was specifically stated to be from the unnumbered 6th page of Regardie's introduction to the Weiser edition of 777 in the 1975 edition. This is a perfectly good cite, from a pritned source. There should b no dispute.

Regarding further the third paragaph: Why is an arbitrary section of this paragraph being cited? Because when lengthier cites has been given, there has been dispute that they are not fair use.

Regarding further the third paragraph,: 'How does this have anything to do with Crowley? In the past, Maggot has stated that Crowley's own words cannot be used toi demonstrate his racism unless some other printed authior states as much. Here we have Crowley's own student and editor suppressing Crowley's words due to ther racist content, and then we cite that which was suppressed, with a cite to the printed appearance of the material (in the "Equinox" in this case). All of Maggot's requests for cites were fulfilled, and he still wants to dispoute the matter.

I am now charging Maggot with BAD FAITH because he removed an entire section of the article under the guise of removing a cite that was -- in utter contraditiction to his false claims -- precise, exact, and accurate, and given in the form he requested and demanded.

I am reinstating the Racism section and i hope that some fresh editors come in quick, because this is turning very ugly. At this point, the old archived talk oage is not accessible to me, and there are arbitrary cuts being made just to preserve some fake idea that Crowley was not a racist.

He was a racist, by all the usual definitions of the word, then or now. In 1911, at the precise time of the Beilis trial, Crowley published his belief in the blood libel against Jews. Those who hold otherwise have not proved their case, they have only vandalized and make hash of the work of writiers who added material that offended fannish, adulatory, and disturbingly chaotic and unprofessional editors.

This is one of the worst cases of abuse of Wikipedia i have seen, and i sure hope it is going to be dealt with soon by someone who can read the now-missing archived talk pags and who will take the time to read the complex history of the page itself. Catherineyronwode 02:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

First. Please don't call me "Maggot". This is why my nicknames is "Zos".

Second, I removed the whole section because page numbers did not add up, and was verified by two parties, and agreed upon by three editors.

Third, the Regardie preface wasnt cited.

Fourth, upon removing all of the false page quotes, I was left with only a few references that did not reflect the header, and as of then, a total rework of the racism section would need to be reworked.

Fifth, "the arbitrary section you were citing", It was citing something "inside" of the quote, not citing the actual quote itself (which was the Regardie preface).

So Its not my fault if you, or BoBo, or whoever did the citing, kinda messed up at the time. If the majority of the section is not properly cited, and KV is the one who re-wrote it for you by the way, then it all fails, until someone can re write it. No one put up a fight about it until you came back (even the one who re-wrote it for you).

Plus, you still havent answered a few of my questions. Zos 03:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

First, you call yourself a maggot -- i see it everytime i edit you stuff. If you don't like your own user name, get a new one. As far as i am concerned you are an anonymous troll. Second: your brouhaha about "page numbers" not adding up was in uter and complete contradiction to your own continuously stated gripes that ONLINE COURSES CANNOT BE CITED> the version used was a printed book. I am guessin it was the Arkana edition, but don;t know, as i did not do that citing. User Bo-Bo made the cites. he has a talk page. Ask him which edition he used. Third, the Regardie INTRODUCTION (not a "Preface" -- read the article, and see the difference) was indeed cite -- right in the body of the paragraph. It has bnow been added AGAIN as a ref cite, which is POOR FIORM oindeed, but you are so oblivious to that fact that you have asked for it to be cited again and again and again -- and so i is, for your sake, Maggot. Fourth, the "alse page quotes" arose from your use of an ONLINE SOURCE, something which you would not allow others to do. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, yet you make a special pleading case that YOU can use an ONLINE SOURCE to disprove a printed source's page cites. To which i say: BAD FAITH. Fifth: Your fifth paragraph makes no sense to me at all, sorry. And let me add a sixth: You are making a joke of Wikipedia and of your own self with this pathetic attempt to suppress Crowley's own public statements of racist and anti-Semitic belief. Catherineyronwode 05:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a different in online sources Catherine. If a full text is online, it can be used as a primary source. But if a misc. page is being used, it is not to be used because of verifiablity. If you call me maggot one more time, or a troll, I will report you. This is clearly against Wikipedia:Etiquette. Thank you. Zos 05:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not an issue of WP:V, that is verifiable. It is an issue of the subpolicy, WP:RS, it's not a reputable source. Accurate or inaccurate.

KV 05:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Women Section of Article is Drek

With all the talk about the racsicm and drugs sections needin to be delted, has anyone even READ the "women" section? What a pathetic nothing that is in terms of WOMEN. Where are Rose Kelly, Mary Strange D'Estes, Leila Waddell, Frieda Harris, The Tiger Woman, and Herbert Pollitt the female impersonator Crowley loved so much? This subsection is so amateurish that it makes Wikipedia look bad.

^--the above was written by....er i dont know who. Zos 05:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Writings Section

I propose that the writings section be moved off to a new page to leave room for the biographical article proper. I have seen other biography articles at Wiki about prolific authors in which the authors' writings / bibliography appear on a separate page. This article cries out for inclusion of more biography and less bibliogaphy, such as information about Crowley's friendship with William Seabrook, his abandonment of Rose Kelly and their child in China, the deaths that took place in Cefalu, hois writing for a pro-german paper during World War 1, and so much more in the way of true life material. Catherineyronwode 05:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The writing section is on another page. It just needs to be summarized, and any content that is not already on that other page, needs to be moved. I suggested it already, and user 999 said "no". Zos 07:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Other citations

Note # 9 is refering to an internet page. It doesnt even verify what the statement says either. I'm adding a citation needed for it. I alos think that the rest of this article needs more sources, I'm just not going to add fact tags all over the page just yet, but will challenge any existing citation, since I've found so many used in the wrong way. Zos 05:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

On racism and authorial intent

Some thoughts on the "racism" issue:

First, consider the following levels of statement:

1. In The Book of Screws, Joe Author wrote, "Purple people! Can there ever be a race more full of asshats?"
2. Joe Author wrote in The Book of Screws that purple people are asshats.
3. Joe Author thought that purple people are asshats.
4. Joe Author was bigoted against purple people.

There is a decreasing level of accuracy, and an increasing level of generalization and authorial judgment of the subject, as we progress from the first statement to the fourth.

In the first statement, we report an objective fact. (It may yet be out of context or unrepresentative, but it is true and cited.) In the second statement, we are still citing a statement, but instead of letting the author speak, we are paraphrasing him.

It gets worse in the third statement. Instead of reporting an objective fact, we are claiming to know something about the contents of the author's mind. There may be cases where we can fairly do this -- for instance, in philosophy or in political opinion writing, it is generally the case that writers write what they think as precisely or convincingly as they can. However, there are cases where a writer may write things they don't really mean -- for instance in satire. We wouldn't want to say, "Jonathan Swift thought that the English should eat Irish babies," even though Swift wrote that, because he was writing satire.

In the fourth statement, we go beyond even claiming to know what the author thought; we make a moral judgment of those purported thoughts. Bigoted has a negative connotation; it suggests an idiosyncratic, pointed spite rather than (for instance) mere socially acquired prejudice.

So. On to Crowley. I think that the third statement's problem definitely applies to many (although not all) of Crowley's writings. A great deal of what he wrote is simply not on the level. Crowley employed multiple levels of falsehood -- riddle, satire, coded meaning, or deception -- even in works that were otherwise "serious". For instance, in Book Four there is the notorious "Interlude" giving Kabbalistic significance to nursery rhymes. Taken at face value he is making claims about English literary history, but when read symbolically he's saying that esoteric thinking can be applied to any subject. It would be erroneous to say, "Crowley thought that 'Little Miss Muffett' and 'Old Mother Hubbard' were written to convey mystical ideas." There's also the infamous passage where, if taken at face value, Crowley claims that he has sacrificed hundreds of babies -- but at a different level he's describing an act of ritual masturbation; the babies sacrificed are potential lives, not actual ones.

Even a surface reading of almost any of Crowley's prose works shows him to be a notorious liar -- about himself, about others, about almost any topic he discusses. He exaggerated his accomplishments; he made absurdly grand claims; he contradicted himself freely; he even trumped up his own bad reputation in the popular press. It seems that he took on certain political positions (e.g. adherence to the German side in WWI) simply because they were unpopular and made him look outlandish and troublesome. Reporting any controversial-sounding statement he made as if it was an honest measure of his thoughts is likely to be an error, simply because he was such a liar.

Of course, liars can be racists. People who are dishonest or deceptive on some topics can still have honestly held beliefs on others. And people who deliberately set out to make themselves look bad on some fronts, can still have other authentically bad qualities too!

My point is that authorial intent is always hard to establish, and even more so in Crowley's case than usually. --FOo 06:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I hope anyone wishing to present Crowley as a racist does so in context of wiki standard, policies and guidelines. Zos 06:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Crowley and Racism

Interestingly, I was pointed to a work of Crowley's that specifically denounces racism as fear....... also shows some political views of his (against socialism for example). He mentions other inferior races, and when I say that, I should mention that Crowley quoted inferior as if to say that others call the races inferior, not him. The chapter, "Chapter LXXIII: 'Monsters', Niggers, Jews, etc" Some quotes:

Now we may return, refreshed, to the main question of monsters, real (like Treves') or imaginary like Jews and niggers.

It is peculiarly noticeable that when a class is a ruling minority, it acquires a detestation as well as a contempt for the surrounding "mob." In the Northern States of U.S.A., where the whites are overwhelming in number, the "nigger" can be more or less a "regular fellow;" in the South, where fear is a factor, Lynch Law prevails. (Should it? The reason for "NO" is that it is a confession of weakness.) But in the North, there is a very strong feeling about certain other classes: the Irish, the Italians, the Jews. Why? Fear again; the Irish in politics, the Italians in crime, the Jews in finance. But none of these phobias prevent friendship between individuals of hostile classes.

Find it at: http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/mwt/mwt_73.html

I am seriously doubting Catherine's citations at this point. I further would like to note that I had believed them to be accurate in "good faith", but am seeing much evidence to the contrary. I stand firm that the article lacks much citation and doesn't seem to have a single bad thing to say about Crowley, but the racism thing is etchy. I think his stand against racism here should be noted.

KV 00:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thats a realy interesting quote. ---J.S (t|c) 02:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Magick Without Tears contains some of Crowley's best work. That chapter (like most of AC's stuff) has to be read pretty carefully. I went over it a half dozen times while studying this whole racism issue. It's not really anti-racist as much as anti-class, which is a natural corollary to the individualism of Thelema. Read what he says about America in that chapter!
  • Also -- KV, what is it you doubt about her citations? Are you asserting she's falsely representing something as being by Crowley? By the way, he did the blood libel thing a couple of times -- in the preface to Sephir Sephiroth, and in Book Four. Bill Heidrick says a couple of times that Crowley recanted this later, but so far I've not found evidence of that recantation.
  • On a side note, my personal opinion is that though Crowley wrote some racist things, they weren't a significant part of his work. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the quotes anywhere, which is why I doubt them. I'm doubting they actually exist at this point. She hasn't made much of an effort to prove them.

KV 05:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Which particular quotes? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Jpgordon. Please see the section on this page called Examples. This is what KV is talking about. I had previously taken all of them off, since most of them matched with page numbers. And the rest were mis-quotes. Zos 05:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I meant they "didnt" match up with page numbers. Zos 05:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

No thanks. I'd rather not look at all that mess again. Too many words there. Accusing someone of fabricating quotes is extremely serious business. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Well those are all the reasons why the racism section is out. And I never accused anyone of anything. I was however, disputing the fact that almost all the references on this article were wrong, and no one but me bothered to check them. Zos 06:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand; that crack was directed at KV. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to outright accuse her, because I haven't read through the entire book yet. But of what I have read through, I have not found those quotes or anything quite like them. But I am beginning to feel very concious of not finding them, now that I have backed her quotes as being vital to be included.

KV 20:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, MT&P has had a lot of different editions. I don't know what edition the online one is, but it seems to have about 922 pages, while the one referenced in the article has 984 pages. Page discrepencies are to be expected. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Regardie knew of Crowley's racism and softened some of Crowley's presentations, occasionally even mentioning what was left in within his introductions, as he did in the Introduction to "Magick Without Tears" regarding Crowley's comments about Krishnamurti ("negroid Messiah"):

The Black School has always worked insidiously, by treachery. We need then not be surprised by finding that its most notable representative was the renegade follower of Blavatsky, Annie Besant, and that she was charged by her Black masters with the mission of persuading the world to accept for its Teacher a negroid1 Messiah. To make the humiliation more complete, a wretched creature was chosen who, to the most loathsome moral qualities, added the most fatuous imbecility. And then blew up!

-- http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/mwt/mwt_08.html

obtained 5/27/06 just now; I would like to draw attention to the note by Bill Heidrick on 'negroid':

" 1: Inject something about Krishnamurti here, and soften the racial remark made above – WEH." Ibid., same website. This comment was apparently entered during the transcription of the material, on or around November 13, 1988 by Bill Heidrick [WEH], Treasurer General, Ordo Templi Orientis. This is an indicator that at least one prominent Thelemite (someone instrumental to the survival of an initiatic order headed by Crowley for years and fairly identified with the man, despite the fact the Reuss started the O.T.O.) saw this as controversial, needing "softening". But Regardie and Heidrick weren't the only ones who thought Crowley needed softening. Crowley's most recent biographer explained in florid detail Crowley's warty societal underside and tracked this in association with this mystical aims (these being absolutely different than one another :

Sutin points out how Crowley lashed out racially at his hotel manager (DWTW, p. 150.)

But Crowley acknowledged, on other occasions,an element of sadism within himself. One may doubt, then, when he could consistently refrain from unneeded violence, particularly when inflicted upon persons of a racial and social rank -- as ruled colonials -- well below his own.(DWTW, p. 166, Sutin)

Sutin describes Crowley's assault on Neuburg's racial background:

Crowley saw Neuburg as a masochist and indulged to the hilt his own sadistic tendencies toward Neuburg -- this was, indeed, a constant not only during this retirement, but throughout the whole of their relationship. During these ten days, Crowley leveled numerous brutal verbal attacks on Neuburg's family and Jewish ancestry (or "race," as Crowley posed it erroneously -- an egregious lapse for one who had seen firsthand the Jews of Morocco). " (DWTW, p. 197).

Sutin later concludes to the positive regarding "blatant bigotry" where Crowley is concerned:

In his preliminary marks [to *Book Four*], Crowley inserted a vile repetition -- gratuitously out of context -- of the fraudulent "blood libel" charges of ritual murder made against the Jews of Eastern Europe. Blatant bigotry is a persistent minor element in Crowley's writings. He was aware of this, but regarded his bigotry as a kind of secondary excrescence that readers could take or leave as they liked, without undue concern; as he put in in the *Confessions*,apprehension o truth represents my real self, while my intellectual perceptions are necessarily coloured by my nationality, caste, education, and personal predilection." This, of course, corresponded to his analysis of the moral content of the "limbs" of yoga: Crowley refused to allow that his personal views of behavior, however, indefensible even by his own gentlemanly code of honor, could affect the value of his higher spiritual insights -- which were, kabbalistically speaking, on different planes. This will be most unconvincing to readers who would hold, as a criterion of the attainments Crowley claimed, a more harmonious interweaving of all planes. *Book Four* is flawed by these failings, as are, in a similar manner, certain poems of Pound and Eliot. (DWTW, p. 223-224)

bo-bo 07:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC) "my spiritual

I moved this content block down closer to the bottom. BoBo, please do not insert comments in the middle of the section. Talk flows downward. Zos 07:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Editions of Books

Accusing me of fabricating quotes is not only serious, but patently unecessary.

• First, the quotes exist. You can find them online and in books. Use google, with quotes around any phrases that interest you. For the racist statements about Indians, use "Aleister Crowley" plus "burly nigger" (page 473) and "Aleister Crowley" plus "Indian students" plus "atrocious" (page 284). Likewise for the belief that British women should not marry Indians use "Aleister Crowley" plus "white women" plus "memsahib" (page 284). Anyone can do this.
• Second: the revised page numbers as now given for "Confessions" and "MWT" were not the ones i had; they were revised by KV and later by Bo-Bo. Use Wikipdia's HISTORY function to determine this. Thank you.
• Third: The page cites that *I* added to the article were to the Weiser edition of "777" and to the "Equinox."
• Fourth, listen to the wise words of jpgordon: there are many editions of Crowley's books. The fact that you can find the cited material online but at a slgihtly different page number is no reason to say the cite is bad. It is, rather, a reason to go to User Bo-Bo's talk page and ask him politely which edition he used.
• Fifth, Maggott has releatedly insisted that ONLINE DIGITIAL SOURCES OF PRINT BOOKS CANNOT BE USED IN WIKIPEDIA (which is totally untrue but he is persistent in this opinion and keeps it up day after day). The result is that the hermetic.com version of "Confssions" CANNOT be cited and the Arkana version or other edition must be used. But -- and think well about it, because this is the logical turn-about of his claim -- the hermetic.com version cannot be used to DISPROVE the existence of the cited material on another page in the Arkana or another printed edition. According to Maggott, hermetic.com cannot be used AT ALL.
• Sixth: I have told this to everyone who continues to refer to "cat's page cites" and i am telling you now for the last time: STOP. KV and Bo-Bo revised the cites. User Bo-Bo has a talk page. Talk to him. If i see my name mentioned again with respect to KV'S and BO-BO's EDITS of the cites for the printed versions of "Confessions" and "MWT" pages, i will make a formal protest to the admins on a charge of harrassment, and no, i am NOT kidding. Catherineyronwode 08:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

(I am Bo-Bo responding to Catherine) I'll get around to confirming the precise locations of any contested notes as soon as I can. I haven't seen discussion yet about which people had the versions being cited and which were being contested precisely.

In the meantime I've scanned through Sutin, who had many choice things to say about Crowley's bigotry. how many biographers has this man had? there's bound to be at least a couple of more who made the same observations. All anyone has to do is go looking. I'll do so as I'm able to help. See above at the end of Section 12.

Bumped offline before attaching sig. sorry.bo-bo 08:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

^---unsigned

Please sign comments. Zos 08:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Bio Section

The bio section was moved to its main article so we can work on it there. More info is going to be added to this article as well. There are reasons why the content was moved. Please don't revert again. We can discuss this before hand. Zos 00:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not ever acceptable on Wikipedia for "So-and-So (biography)" to be a separate article from "So-and-So". The biographical information must be on the main title; we do not fork biographies off to their own separate articles. This is not a negotiable rule, but I'll put in an RFC. Bearcat 01:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Crowley is much more important than his biography. It does seem a bit premature to break off sections, but it would make some sense to have a shortened biography section, and have the fuller one in the other article.

KV 02:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Not to be a jerk... but can you point to a policy Bearcat? Don't get me wrong, I agree... if we need to "fork" we should do it with everything else. (Just wondering if it's a real policy) ---J.S (t|c) 02:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Of everything to be forked (other than his works which are already forked) the biography seems to be the only one which can stand as an article. Therefore, (though I think it may be premature to fork, 33kb isn't that much) when something needs to be forked, the bio section should be summarized and forked. The problem with the way it was before, in my opinion, is that it did not summarize the biography, and I think I mentioned that, but I can't say for sure. The biography is not the totality of the article, and in a sense the whole article is a biography, but the "Biography" section is specific life events, while the rest discuss who he was as a person, his interests, beliefs, etc.

KV 03:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I actually brought that up myself. When I moved the content, I automatically apologized for any mistakes I made, seeing as how it was my first attempt. And furthermore asked if someone could help fix any mistakes I did make. But seeing as how once we start adding moer content, which I plan to do, tonight and into the morning, the page is going to get larger. So can we have an actual discussion now as to what should be moved? Instead of pre-emptive edits with no conversation? I'm more than willing to discuss the matter in full. There were reasons for moving the content, and as i see, no valid reasons for leaving it. Zos 03:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

RfC

This section is for editors contributing as a result of WP:RfC, not for discussion by existing involved editors.
The suggestion to split off the biography into a separate article is totally unacceptable. That is what the main article on someone is for - their biography! It is the other topics that should be split off if necessary.Tyrenius 02:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Can I have proof of this please? I mean, just coming here, never seeing you before, and saying this is a bit out of the ordinary for me. It was suggested about a week ago, and seeing as how no one replyed, it was done. Please check archive 2 for this information. This page, is not the biography of Aleister Crowley. It is in fact the main article for him, but the bio was a section on the article, and seeing as it was a section, I'm sure it can be moved to another article, calling it Aleister Crowley (Biography).

Reasons: The reasons the section was moved, are numerous. There is already a few people looking for more information on the bio, to add to it, as well as it being up for review on Wiki Thelemites. Catherine was complaining that her browser was slow (mine was too) due to the content on the page at that time, and to alleviate this, it was moved. No one objected it then, but are now. And this is from someone who is just now showing up. I dont see him/her in the history of editors, until now. But here is a list of contributors: Contributrors. Zos 03:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

This is the request on the RfC:

Talk:Aleister Crowley and Talk:Aleister Crowley (biography) - Is it ever acceptable on Wikipedia to fork a person's biographical details off as a separate article from their primary one? 01:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I am just responding to that. The whole point is to have someone outside the current debate. The article is part of Wiki as a whole. People will go to an article called Aleister Crowley to find a biography of Aleister Crowley. It is completely against accepted practice to then set up another article called "Aleister Crowley (biography)" and it is likely to be put up for AfD. The Aleister Crowley article should be a balanced overview of his life and activities. Any aspects of that which need more in-depth examination should then have their own article. See Douglas Adams for a good model, as it is a featured article. You will find many links within it to other articles which expand on things mentioned, e.g. individual books. I hope this is of help. Tyrenius 03:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

For the record, the RfC is listed at WP:RFC/POLICIES. I haven't seen that pointer anywhere in the discussion, though Tyrenius quotes from there above. Geoff Capp 21:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Such a split would be a gross mistake. The point of this article is, largely, to be a biography! --FOo 04:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Query on RfC

I have not found any RfC listing. Please inform us of any RfC listing so it can be confirmed.

KV 02:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Further searching made it show up, I suppose there is no clear category for a person. But I still do not see any rule listed that any involved editors cannot comment. Please point that out, and I will personally delete my comments here.

KV 02:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

An RfC is made when there is a dispute between editors on an article, so that neutral editors can make observations on the dispute. By definition it is not a request for the existing editors, who have already made their points of view known. That is why there is a dispute in the first place. I suggest you see what outside views there are. Tyrenius 02:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Tyrenius. Please see the archive where it was suggested a while ago. Zos 02:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

My question about this is 1) There is still no mention of an actual policy. Is there a related section to be made? And 2)The RfC was made by someone who reverted twice, made one comment....... and then demanded RfC about an hour later, without giving time for those already contributing to discuss it and give room for comment. The RfC page suggests that this is supposed to be a mediation process, it was tried before discussing it.

Whatever the nature of the dispute, the first resort should always be to discuss the problem with the other user. Try to resolve the dispute on your own first.

There was no reasonable attempt at this. There had not been arguments laid out yet. To expect those who have already contributed to simply shut up and have it decided by others is a bit foolhardy. We should be able to be involved at this point.

KV 03:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Relax. This isn't for deciding anything. Article RFCs are a lot different from user RFCs -- they're really just calls for more eyes and more voices. Though I was surprised to see it stated so bluntly by Tyrenius, it does make sense to step back and listen to the fresh voices for a moment. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm still not seeing a policy being stated here either. Although I did make an atempt at a compromise, nothing is being discussed. I'm not the only one asking for a policy on the matter (KV, J.Smith) either. Zos 06:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a good start: BLP. By definition an article about a person is that person's biography. You probably won't find that put in those exact words anywhere, because it is generally taken for granted. Again, it might be a good idea to check out articles on other individuals to see how they have been handled. Certainly as jpgordon said - RfC isn't making any decisions. It's just giving a view, and that is how any of my comments should be seen. And it is quite right that first of all editors should have attempted to discuss with other editors to sort things out, before making an RfC. Tyrenius 18:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP would not be a good guide necessarily. In some parts, sure, but there is a reason it's for "living" persons..... whereas Crowley died in '47 or so. There must be a general guide. (One way this varies is that Crowley has had much more time for his life to be evaluated in its effect upon society, while a living person's still changes.)

KV 20:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Compromise

I can understand the point you are trying to make, based on other pages, so I am offering a compromise.

Maybe we can have a seperate bio article pertaining to Crowleys happenings in occult. For instance, as it suggest on the [Wikipedia:WikiProject_Thelema/Peer_review/Aleister_Crowley Peer Review] at the top of the page. Maybe, even, just his life pertaining to the Golden Dawn, then OTO, and AA, as well as life at the Abbey of Thelema. Then, the main Crowley page can focus on his personal life, and critique, and what not. Sound good? Let me know. Zos 03:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Well, yeah. That's how it should be -- the biography section becomes the main article, and everything else gets subarticles. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Is there enough information on anything else to make any other articles?

KV 17:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Probably not really. The article's not really that long anyway. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Sexuality

I'm thinking about adding a few things in the way of Crowleys sexual preferences. This would suggest his homosexuality or bi-sexuality tendencies. Any thoughts? Zos 22:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• He'd screw anything with a hole, as far as I can tell. His primary romantic preferences were for women, and I don't recall him ever writing about men in any homoerotic fashion; I'd venture he was heterosexual and adventuresome. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Well so far I've got a source (which is also a source on the article being used for soemthing else) which say Victor Neuburg sodomized Crowley, eh, let me give a direct quote:

"What happened in prosaic terms was that Crowley was sodomized by Neuburg in a homosexual rite offered to the god Pan."

Then I have Crowleys own words, from the Paris Workings ( Liber 415 AB Paris Working, The—A record of homosexual magick operations.), which says:

"You can get magic force from either women or men; but to use the former is more dangerous to the career of the magician, and there is the danger of impregnation, which, however, can be guarded against in the obvious way."

I am still, however, looking for secondary sources and more primary sources before I add anything. I've been trying, for the life of me, to make NPOV statements about this. Any help will be appreciated. I'm hoping we can get back to working on the article, instead of debating it all the time. Zos 01:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Contrary to popular expectations, Crowley was a bottom... -999 01:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

jpgordon: Crowley was indeed "writing about men in any homoerotic fashion" in the Buagimattar aka the The Scented Garden of Abdullah the Satirist of Shiraz (a Sir Richard Burton padstiche). It is a romantic paean to young boys being reamed up the ass until they have bleeding bum holes and it contains a simple to decypher cipher dedicating it to Crowley's great love, Herbert Charles Jerome Pollitt, ten years older than Crowley, whose theatrical spcialty was dressing up in women's clothes (Crowley: "In his time at Cambridge Pollitt had been very prominent as a female impersonator and dancer. He called himself Diane de Rougy --- aprés Liane de Pougy.") and who was a friend of Aubrey Beardsley. The Crowley-Pollitt love affair occured during the period about which Crowley wrote: "... morally and mentally, women were for me beneath contempt. They had no true moral ideals. They were bound up with their necessary preoccupation, with the function of reproduction. Their apparent aspirations were camouflage. Intellectually, of course, they did not exist. Even the few whose minds were not completely blank had them furnished with Wardour Street Chippendale. Their attainments were those of the ape and the parrot. These facts did not deter me. On the contrary, it was highly convenient that one's sexual relations should be with an animal with no consciousness beyond sex.") Pollitt fulfilled for Crowley "that ideal intimacy which the Greeks considered the greatest glory of manhood and the most precious prize of life." Unlike you, i get the impression that Crowley was a bisexual who formed romantic attachments to both men and women and who liked to have women around to dominate because men tended to assert their independence (vide Victor Neuberg). Catherineyronwode 02:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like some sources for that, so I can try to read it and attempt to make NPOV statements for the article. Where does all this information come from? Zos 02:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I just re-read it and found where all the info is coming from. It was just kinda hard to read it all in your paragraph. Zos 02:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• I can't believe I forgot about the Scented Garden! (blushing) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I've located the online version if anyone is interested. THE SCENTED GARDEN OF ABDULLAH THE SATIRIST OF SHIRAZ

Racism Section

Ok the racism section it back up. I'll be checking those source again and I see you've put the citation for Diary of a Drug Feind back in. I previously stated that I don't really think that can be used, since its a work of fiction. Anyone else agree here? Can Crowleys fiction words be used to cite racism against Italians? Zos 03:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Plus I'd like to say...now that the Bio section is back in, AND the racism section...now you can see why i moved the Bio to its own page. Its 39k now, plus I was going to add more. Zos 03:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think Diary of a Drug Fiend works -- I don't have it in front of me, but I imagine Lamus said some vile things; still, yeah, it's fiction, and pretty weak. As is (as I've said before) the "nigger" sentence, at least inasmuch as it's drawing a conclusion. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Catherine, you also cannot use a Wikipedia article for a citation: please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. You also cannot use a fiction book for a source. So I'm removing those. Zos 03:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Plus, you still have no source for this statement "Crowley made numerous racist, nationalistic, and sexist public expressionsin his published writings." I added a cite tag. Zos 03:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I've also just now added more fact tags to the section. There are still alot of "statements" being made (by Catherine? or KV's original?) with no sources. Zos 03:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Catherine please don't take the cite tag off again. There is no source yet that says Crowley "is" a racist. I re added the cite tage, so please leave it alone until you actually find a soruce. Thank you. Zos 04:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

This is the second time I've had to take the wikipedia citation off. Wikipedia is not to be used as a source for citation. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Bulletin_boards.2C_wikis_and_posts_to_Usenet. thank you. Zos 08:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I also just no added a cite tag for this sentence. "His derogatory application of the term "nigger" to Indians and Italians suggests he had a prejudice against Africans as well." I previously took off a citation for italians since Diary of a Drug Fiend was being used, and it cannot. Then someone placed that statement there to go around it. You can't get around the need for a citation. Zos 08:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

==Can fiction be used as a cite for an author's racism?==-

This is a really weird question. Of course it can, if the person is a professional writer and the same forms of racism are demonstrably found in his fiction, non-fiction, autobiography, and diaries. Catherineyronwode 08:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

I'm about to archive this page again soon. Its 82 kilobytes. Zos 08:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of Archives, i just found his in the previous archive and have pulled it out here because i didn;t see it then and had no opportunity to comment on it. My reply follows.

Aleister_Crowley#Miscellany

Catherine added a quote from the Book of the Law, where it states that:

"My number is 11, as all their numbers who are of us. "

Here's what I do not like about this. First, she quotes it, then adds a citation needed. Second, crowley did write the book, but its the character who was saying this. So I think the statement that was made needs to be rewritten. And here is the source for it.

Book of the Law --Section 1:60. My number is 11, as all their numbers who are of us. The Five Pointed Star, with a Circle in the Middle, & the circle is Red. My colour is black to the blind, but the blue & gold are seen of the seeing. Also I have asecret glory for them that love me.

Zos 06:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way...the character who was saying that was Nuit. The first section of the Book of the Law is Nu or Nuit speaking, the second section is Had, Hadit, Hadith, etc etc you get my point. One character per section (three sections). Zos 06:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok well I edited the section in question. You'll have to understand that Nuit's number is 11, not crowley. He may have had a fondness of it, but theres no source for that! So it may have to be re-edited again. Zos 07:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)