Talk:List of Thelemites/Archive 1

Archive 1

Why you shouldn't use Cookies

The recent additions attributed to me were made by a well-meaning friend on my computer. I am not so egotistical as to place myself on a list such as this. Ihateswine 22:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Rabelais

In the process of cleaning non-notable people from the list and unlinking red links, I notice that Rabelais was on the list and I see from the talk page that this is controversial. Therefore I've removed him. Founders of religions can rarely be called adherents, as the doctrines are formulated after their deaths. I don't think Jesus should be considered a Christian either. Alabaster Crow (talk) 04:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy Page

Anyone know for certain one way or the other whether well-known Aleister Crowley fan-boy Jimmy Page belongs on this list? AFAIK, he's no O.T.O. member, but is he a Thelemite? --Geoff Capp 18:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Tough call. I'd say no. SynergeticMaggot 18:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd say yes, but we'd need a citation first --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 22:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion

We cannot be making the statement that all OTO members are Thelemites. If we want a list of OTO members, that should be at List of OTO members. Rabelais' inclusion is an anachronism; it is an outlandish claim that requires reliable sources. Jkelly 18:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

All Crowleyan OTO members are Thelemites. They are required to attest to this before initiation. -999 (Talk) 18:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

cross-posted from Talk:Gerald Gardner That is both not our call to make (as it includes a number of assumptions outside our purvue, such as correctly performed initiations, that the oath was made in good faith, that the oath was in any way binding, that it makes sense to use such an oath as a criteria for religious beliefs, etc.) and the adoption of an OTO point of view. Find reliable sources that describe Gardner as a Thelemite before including him in that list, and please don't replace Rabelais without a serious scholar making such a comparison. Jkelly 18:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

We don't need to. Gardner plainly expressed the creed of Thelema in the Wiccan creed, "An ye harm none, do what thou wilt." You seem to be using a much less inclusive definition of Thelema and thus of Thelemite! Of course, I wouldn't include the everyday Wiccan, but Gardner basically created the Creed. He plainly professed Will and thus was an adherent of Thelema. -999 (Talk) 18:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

999, I know that you understand Wikipedia:No original research, because I have seen you apply it correctly. Why do you think that this particular brand new definition / connection is appropriate to make here? Why do you think sourcing these statements isn't required here? Jkelly 18:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not a brand-new definition. It is a quite common one outside of OTO and religious Thelemites. A Thelemite is one who professes "Do what thou wilt" (or "fay ce que vouldras"). There are articles which refer to Rabelais as a Thelemite on this basis. Dashwood carved it over the door of Medmenham Abbey, Gardner enshrined it in the Wiccan creed. As I say, this is not new but has been common usage since I learned the word in the early eighties. There are those who wish to restrict the word to Crowleyan Thelemites only. Some are even more restrictive. I oppose these attempts to redefine the term. -999 (Talk) 18:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Show me a scholar who is using the defintion you want to use, and show me citations for applying that definition to the people on the list. Jkelly 18:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I will look. But such a reference is not needed if it is common usage. And it is common usage, see Google search for Thelemite+"do what you will" (note that I didn't use Crowley's rendition of the phrase). -999 (Talk) 18:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

We're currently leading our reader to conclude, without any references, that Rabelais, Crowley, and Gardner shared fundamental religious beliefs. That's not "common usage", and is precisely the kind of thing WP:NOR is supposed to make sure that we avoid. Jkelly 19:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

But Thelema is not a religion, it is a philosophy. They all shared that philosophy of "Do what you will". Crowleyan Thelema is a development of that philosophy as a religion. If you insist, the name could be changed. Perhaps you could suggest something that is not too awkward? -999 (Talk) 19:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that if we want a list of OTO members, then we should make a List of OTO members. If we're going to make a list of people who hold to a particular philosophy, our evidence that they do cannot be "They are a member of x organisation that holds that philosophy". I'm not really objecting to a List of Thelemites per se, just the inclusion of people who never called themselves Thelemites and who their biographers would never call Thelemites. Jkelly 22:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I just removed Gardner and Rabelais again. Why were they still there? We can't have a "List of people Wikipedia editors think should be called Thelemites", and disputed facts without reliable sourcing should be removed. Please don't replace these entries until we have an authoritative citation that refers to these two as Thelemites. Jkelly 22:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm no expert on the subject, far from it, but a casual reading of the thelemite article indicates that it's just a brief philosophical statement that people adhere to rather than a religion or some kind... therefore anyone quoted as stating they belive that philisophical statement is a thelemite? I can see Gardner fitting in here. But I might be missing something. Kuronue 16:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the primary issue with inclusion or exclusion depends on the definition of "Will" in "Do what thou will." While it is true that many notables have used such a philosophy, it must be understood that Will in Thelema has been radically redefined as a very specific concept, rather than the broad (and imprecise) concept used in general language. Thus while Augustine of Hippo did, indeed, use the phrase in his own writings, I feel certain that he would have been horrified to be associated with the Thelemic ideology.

I personally would vehemently object to the inclusion of any names in this list who lived before Sir Francis Dashwood's lifetime. However, I also realize that I am only one voice here, and I hope that we can come to a consensus, rather than an edit war. Justin Eiler 05:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

999? Jkelly? Anyone have anything to add for constructing a viable criteria for inclusion? Justin Eiler 23:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:NOR, we include someone who self-identifies, or has been identified by a reliable source as a Thelemite. We don't come up with our own definitions, or reach our own conclusions. Jkelly 20:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Frankly, even for such cases as Gerald Gardner, extending the similarity between the Rede and the Law of Thelema requires a leap of logic that, while certainly understandable, is not verifiable. 999, do you concur? Justin Eiler 04:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

By a startling coincidence, Kuronue, I had this argument with 999 at Talk:Thelema. I gave what I still consider decisive arguments for a simple criterion: don't say that someone believed in Thelema unless they verifiably used that name for their own views. Which, as far as I can tell, would exclude everyone before Crowley. Dan 04:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, Dan. While I tend to agree with your definition, I also understand that 999's understanding is one made in good faith (even though I feel it is a "faith based" definition rather than a fact based one, and I do tend to disagree with it). Is it possible that we can come to some form of consensus or agreement? 999, what do you say? Justin Eiler 15:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Technically I don't want to propose a definition. I want to avoid taking a stand on the Thelemite status of people like Rabelais, to the extent that we can. This list can explicitly say, 'not exclusive, includes only people who self-identify,' or words to that effect. See List of Satanists, though I see that page goes farther than I would by labeling disputed cases "Mislabeled Satanists". Dan 00:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Sorry for the delay, I've been offline for a while. My position is this: I object to the view that the only form of Thelema is Aleister Crowley's version. There exist many Thelemites who are not Crowleyan Thelemites. The statement made by Justin Eiler shows the confusion: "Augustine of Hippo ... would have been horrified to be associated with the Thelemic ideology." I disagree - this is only true if you make the incorrect assumption that Thelemic ideology = Crowley's ideology. It doesn't. The Thelemic ideology is "Do what thou wilt." Period. Crowley then piled a heap of rubbish on top of that, but that is neither here nor there. Crowley was simply one of a number of streams of Thelema. Confusing Thelema with Crowley-specific Thelema violates WP:NPOV. That is why the article is broader than Crowleyan Thelema and why the list of Thelemites should also use a broad definition of Thelema, including Rabelaisian Thelema. 999 (Talk) 17:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, 999, and welcome back. I can see your point of view, but my problem with being that inclusive is that, when Crowley said "Do what thou will," he had a radically non-standard definition of the word "Will" in mind. Now, I do not disagree with his definition--indeed, though I don't consider myself a Thelemite, I have incorporated aspects of Crowley's thinking into my own practice. But it must be recognized that his definition of Will is so idiosyncratic as to make "Will" a very specific jargon word within Thelema.

The meaning of Will as expressed by Crowley is non-standard, but the vast majority of clients and editors of Wikipedia use the more "standard" definition. In the context of the standard definition, I feel it makes far more sense to restrict ourselves to including only those who explicitly self-identify. That does run the risk of not including various people who might have been Thelemites had they known about the jargon definition, but if we are more inclusive, then we run the risk of having our subjective opinions being incorrectly treated as "objective fact" by those who do not comprehend the jargon definition. Justin Eiler 18:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but that response is quite flawed. Why should Crowley's definition of will make any difference? His definitions and additions are specific to Crowleyan Thelema. They have no effect on those Thelemites who do not accept Crowley as prophet. There are independent references to Rabelais as a Thelemite: [1], the word "Thelemite" predated Crowley: [2]. So why do you insist that only Crowley's definitions be used on this page? That is not NPOV. -999 (Talk) 17:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Friend, the response is not flawed: it's a matter of context. Within the context of Thelema, you may indeed, be correct--however, Thelema is (by far) a minority context. Encyclopedias deal with the majority context: they may mention the minority context as a comparison, but the "mainstream" context is the one that provides the base definition.

While you (and certain Thelemite sources) cite the existence of Rabbelaisian Thelema, and cite Rabbelaise as a Thelemite, you are working from within that Thelemic context. That is POV--now, I'm not using that as an insult. There is certainly nothing wrong with working within a POV context within the world, and indeed, all of us have our own POV contexts.

Now, as a compromise, I would certainly not object to subdividing the page into specific categories, such as:

• Rabbelaisian Thelemites
• Dashwood Thelemites
• Crowleyan Thelemites
• People who held similar views to Thelema ("Do as thou will")

But as it stands, calling Rabbelaise or Augustine a "Thelemite," without explaining the divergence in context, is representing the minority context as the "one, true definition." And that is truly a violation of NPOV. Justin Eiler 17:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

PS: Where did Violet Blue]] come into the list? Justin Eiler 17:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

999, nobody suggested we use only Crowley's definition. Instead, some of us suggested using this list for people who call themselves Thelemites. This would not violate NPOV in any way. Whereas using the name for people who didn't self-identify as Thelemites very well might assert a disputed POV as fact. Dan 19:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Now that 999 aka User:Ekajati has gotten himself banned, perhaps we can discuss this again. Does anyone see a reason to put people who did not provably self-identify as Thelemites on this list? Crowley did indeed write an essay purporting to prove that Rabelais foresaw his whole religion. (Our banned friend called this an "admission" when defining Thelema.) But this understandably seems like a minority view among Rabelais scholars (in the sense that I haven't seen any credible scholar make this claim). In fact, it seems strikingly similar to claims that the 'Old Testament' clearly predicts the life of Jesus, and I don't think Crowley could fail to see this. You can't take anything the man says at face value. So how about we limit the name to people who verifiably called themselves Thelemites? Dan 18:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It's simple and inarguable. --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 22:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)