Talk:Aleister Crowley/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Page Locked

I've removed all the 'fact' tags and locked the page. Please work out your disagreements here. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Once I figure out how to do it, I'm reporting Catherine on a number of things. Shes basically attacking me, cursing at me, and I see you've moved it. I've tried to be polite and discuss this, but seeing has she would like to just argue instead, I cannot help her. Zos 17:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I think now would be a good time to archive all of this. Its rather large and Catherine has stated on her user page that she is leaving. So now I'm all for discussing changes in detail if need be, as I have previously said. Zos 18:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Now we can get back to working on the article. Zos 19:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Catherine also deleted my reference to AC's remembered past life as Ko Hsuan, which seems eminently relevant to the question of his racial views about the Chinese. I also wanted to add more about his views on India. The article says he thought Britain conquered them by "moral superiority", which seems frankly dishonest considering what he wrote before that (still in Confessions Ch 34):

England is losing India by consenting to admit the existence of the conquered races; by consenting to argue; by trying to find a value for incommensurables. Indian civilization is far superior to our own and to enter into open competition is to invoke defeat. We won India by matching our irrational, bigoted, brutal manhood against their etiolated culture.

and

India can be governed, as history proves, by any alien autocracy with sufficient moral courage to dismiss Hindu subtlety as barbaric and go its own way regardless of reason. But India has always conquered its invaders by initiating them. No sooner does the sahib suspect that he is not Almighty God than the attributes of Jehovah cease to arm him with unreasonable omnipotence. Our rule in India has perished because we have allowed ourselves to consider the question of divine right. The proverb says that the gods themselves cannot contend with stupidity, and the stupidity of the sahib in the days of Nicholson reduced India to impotence.

Dan 22:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah hopfully we'll get this page unlocked soon, and we can fix that right up. Also I'd like to apologize if I accidentally removed it too! I had been trying to fix as many things as possible, that she did. Zos 04:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I made a mistake. She didn't delete the passage, she moved it away from the paragraph that it responded to. But I want to change that paragraph, unless someone makes arguments to the contrary. Let's have a new talk section:

Useful Note For ALL

Amazon.com now has a "search in book" option for almost all of their books - notably including most of those by and about Crowley. I wouldn't recommend using these online versions as cites, but this feature gives you the ability to do virtually unlimited text searches in these book - which you can then use to find relevant passages in your hardcopies. It's like the ultimate index.Psuliin 06:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

racism vs bigotry

I don't know if AC actually did publish "vicious denouncements of the people whose cultures had produced" the teachings he stole, at least not in any way that would contradict his respect for foreign teachings and teachers. Allow me to explain. First, he does not call Indians "inferior animals" as the paragraph suggests. He puts that phrase in the mouth of others and suggests that he considers it dishonest or foolish: To begin with, they cannot stand the climate, which compels them to live lives whose inevitable tendency is to relax the moral fibre. Thus even highclass memsahibs sometimes have themselves bathed by their beras. The excuse is that any sexual irregularity with such inferior animals is unthinkable. [1] I've already reproduced the context for this passage and the article's misleading isolated quote about "moral superiority". We don't know if he meant what he said, or offered some or all of it as a Modest Proposal to people who wanted to keep ruling India, but we do know he explicitly rejected the 'white man's burden' garbage about bringing our superior culture to that subcontinent. Second, the following quotes on the subject of Jews and Chinese (from the pages that the article cites as evidence of "racist statements") do not seem racist in the original sense of calling one race inherently or uniformly better than another. Not one of them blames the alleged negative traits on genetics. Instead they mention cultural factors, specifically the effects of suffering and oppression:

They (the "lower class" Chinese) respect any man who acts as their own mandarins act; with absolute lack of sympathy, justice or any other human feelings. They treat the traveler well in proportion as he is overbearing, haughty and avaricious. [2]

and

I do not believe that their universally admitted baseness is due to a mixture of blood or the presumable peculiarity of their parents; but that they are forced into vileness by the attitude of both their white and coloured neighbours. A similar case is presented by the Jew, who really does only too often possess the bad qualities for which he is disliked; but they are not proper to his race. No people can show finer specimens of humanity. The Hebrew poets and prophets are sublime. The Jewish soldier is courageous, the Jewish rich man generous. The race possesses imagination, romance, loyalty, probity and humanity in an exceptional degree.

But the Jew has been persecuted so relentlessly that his survival has depended on the development of his worst qualities; avarice, servility, falseness, cunning and the rest. Even the highest-class Eurasians such as Ananda Koomaraswamy suffer acutely from the shame of being considered outcast. The irrationality and injustice of their neighbours heightens the feeling and it breeds the very abominations which the snobbish inhumanity of their fellow-men expects of them. [3]

All of that belongs in the article. (On the other hand, we don't need Sutin to tell us that AC slanderously accused Jews of child-murder in Book Four. That work appears online, bigotry and all.) Meanwhile, I could make a case that AC held racist beliefs about blacks. But I don't think the words "Black School" or "Black masters" belong in the article unless we explain what he could have meant (see here and here), which would take rather a lot of space. Dan 21:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you about references to "Black Schools," the "Black Brothers," etc. That had nothing to do with race, but might be a little too complicated for this article. I don't quite agree with you (or with Sutin) about Crowley's "anti-semitic" remarks in Liber ABA. If you read the hardcopy version you see that Crowley added a footnote to that comment in which he suggested that allegations of the blood libel were mistaken. As the editor points out, Crowley's meaning in that passage is likely more complex than it looks on the surface.Psuliin 06:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Accordingly, I've moved the following italicised paragraph from the article and tried to rephrase some other parts in objectively verifiable terms. The first sentence of that section still needs work; I'll see if I can find Sutin actually using the word "racist". We probably want to mention his arguments about India, but I don't have time to put it together now (see previous talk section). Dan 06:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

His expressions of chauvinistic nationalism included the belief that the British military conquest of India had been won not by superior technology, but "by sheer moral superiority" His ideas concerning white supremacism and racial purity were such that he declared that male Indian students should not be allowed into Britain because they might have sex with British women . He likewise felt it was a mistake to allow British "white women" to live in India, where they might intermarry with Indians,.

Anti-Semitism

While I think it important to discuss the apparent examples of Anti-Semitism and Racism in Crowleys work, and indeed it is wrong (in my opinion) to defend such attitudes, we must be careful to frame these sort of remarks with context. Were these an attitude of the times in mainstream British society? Afterall, The poetry of T.S Eliot and Ezra Pound, two of the Twentieth Century's most celebrated poets features examples of apparent Anti-Semitism which would today seem shocking to many people, as they can seem very aggressive attacks. T.S. Eliot however seemed to be oblivious to this and indeed had Jewish friends despite this aspect of his work and and Ezra Pound was famously involved with the British facists. Pound later apologised. Anyway, returning to my point, is it not feasible that people seize on Crowley's racist views simply because he is Aleister Crowley, whereas we are more than happy to forgive T.S Eliot? I'm concerned that these aspects have been raised with the intention of defemating his character. We must try, I think, to put them into a wider context without apologising for them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.39.155.142 (talk • contribs).

We shouldn't be framing the discussion at all. All content and discussion of the matter should be taken from biographies. That is Wikipedia policy. I think it safe to say that none of the editors of this article have the necessary depth in both understanding of Crowley and understanding of the period and typical attitude of his contempories to contexualize these issues properly. That is why WP has the no original research policy. I will continue to object to any presentation of this material unless it is coming from a reputable biographer, who can be expected to have done the necessary research to put it all in context, including having had access to Crowley's unpublished writings and diaries and education in the typical standards and attitudes of the times in which he lived . -999 13:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Wait. The editors don't have the necessary understanding of Crowley? or the contributors? Zos 16:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Please read all my words :-) The editors of this article do not have the necessary understanding of both Crowley and his times (together) to do original research into his alleged racism and/or anti-Semitism in the context of his times. Thus, any critique of his racism or anti-Semitism should come from existing biographies. This is WP policy in any case. One can not just criticize the subject: one must report not only the criticism, but also identify the critic. -999 17:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Alas. And editor can remove as well. Which is what I've been limited to (I've made attempts at adding info, which was removed!)doing. Thus marking a distinction. Some people just edit the article. But I actually refer to a nice quote I found on a wiki policy/guideline page: "The burden of proof lies with the contributor, not the editor." Zos 17:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

That's an odd phrasing. I think it means contributor=the WP editor adding the fact vs editor=the WP editor removing the fact. Yes, an uncited fact may technically be removed by any editor. But a lot of WP articles would be stubs again if this was applied regularly. :-) -999 22:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, which bring us back to this page...I've already noted a number of issues that need to be worked on, and no one has commented in length. Simular to me taking the racism section down. I dispute, no one answers. I remove, some one goes mad. Zos 22:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's frequently the way of things on WP. :-( -999 22:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm at a loss to understand what the bit about Victor Neuberg proves. Crowley was a bottom; he may have just been trying to provoke Neuberg to ride him move violently. -999 22:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

If you're refering to what I wrote, its just to add more info in the way of his sexual preferences. I see an area devoted to women (Catherines doing, and again, no citations), but nothing in the way of men. I'm hoping other editors see this and have a nard copy that I don't own, for citations.

Oh and off topic, check out the Talk:Golden_Dawn_tradition page! Zos 23:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Please see section on WP history pages. (Does this fit your commenting norms?) Dan 00:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's another quote that people might want to consider in discussing Crowley's "anti-semitism." It's cited by Kaczynski (Perdurabo, page 415), from a letter that Crowley wrote to a member of the OTO in Germany. He wrote:

As for the ravings about the Jews, they are simply unintelligible. Almost the whole of life in Germany above brutality, stupidity and cruelty, servility, and bloodthirst was Jewish. Germans are far below Jews, generally speaking, as monkeys below men, but I have always been fond of monkeys and don't want to offend them by comparing any German to one.

This should be added to other quotes that I see already cited here in balancing the view Cat wishes to present of Crowley as a rabid racist and anti-semite. The truth, based on Crowley's writings (and the fact that his secretary and student, Regardie, was Jewish), is clearly more complex than that. I've been pushing for recognition of that complexity ever since Cat started her campaign, and it seems that we now have the materials needed to make the case. Here's what I would suggest:

First, put Crowley's racial attitudes in their cultural and historical context. Racism, as a concept, was barely coming into vogue during Crowley's lifetime, and racial attitudes that would offend modern sensibilities were literally unremarkable among upper-class Edwardians. I'll find a source to cite on this.

Second, note the way that Crowley's attitudes vary in his writings - and particularly how they change over the years. Cat has provided more than adequate sourcing for one aspect, and we now have others. I think the best way to present this information is chronologically, to show the development in Crowley's views.

Third, let's try to come up with some reason why the reader should care about all of this. The fact that Crowley evinced attitudes consistent with his time and place is no more remarkable than the fact that Tacitus writes disparagingly about Christians. However there are critics who use Crowley's personal beliefs as ad hominen arguments about his work and legacy - as though they had some sort of relevance to the validity of Thelema. I think we can say something in the article along these lines: "Crowley's racial attitudes are controversial to modern readers, and have excited much comment among his critics. Those attitudes are complex, and changed over time." Then list 3-4 representative quotes from those we've collected, to show that development, and put it to bed.

What do you all think?Psuliin 06:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, mostly. I agree that there is complexity in his remarks, and can be taken as racist. But I havent really seen any REALLY racist remarks. Just mild racism, that can be taken any way you like. A history should of course be done, but I'm not sure the sentence you suggest would work, unless someone is saying that specifically. Maybe if we toss every remark hes made, in the most popular biographies, onto the talk page, and see how he's using these terms. Then make the best NPOV sentences we can, using the biographies. This would end all debate I think.

I've seen Crowley use old slang, and other words that were not racist in his time. I've also seen where he has disagreed with racism, alot. So...I think we'd need someone making a note of that complexity, that would greatly help. Zos 06:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

In light of that, a quote I stumbled across today, refering to his views circa 1902 (a period before Liber AL, when he was engaged in no practice and had adopted a materialist viewpoint): "He [Fra. Perdurabo] analyzed God, saw that every man had made God in his own image, saw the savage and cannibal Jews devoted to a savage and cannibal God, who commanded the rape of virgins and the murder of little children." (emphasis added) Crowley, Aleister (1998) [1912]. "The Temple of Solomon the King, 'The Priest.'". In Mary d'Esti Sturges [Mary Desti], ed. (ed.). The Equinox I(7). in collab. with J. F. C. Fuller. London: Weiser. p. 368. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); |editor= has generic name (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |origmonth= ignored (help) rpt. in Crowley (2004) [1994]. "Part IV: Genesis Libri AL, Chapter VI: 'The Great Revelation'". In Hymenaeus Beta, ed. (ed.). Magick: Liber ABA, Book 4 (2nd. rev. ed. ed.). Boston: Red Wheel/Weiser. p. 406. ISBN 0877289190. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); |editor= has generic name (help); |format= requires |url= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) --Geoff Capp 05:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Issues

Here are a few things that need to be done on the article, as far as I can see.

• The bio has not one citation, and is pretty long for no citations.

• The same for the Thelema and Mountaineering sections.

• The Science, magick, and sexuality section has only one citation.

• I'm still looking for a page number for the citation for this statement "Crowley was a habitual drug user and also maintained a meticulous record of his drug-induced experiences with laudanum, opium, cocaine, hashish, alcohol, ether, and heroin. " in the Drugs section. Also the citation needs to be fixed there, its double cited but is only using one footnote.

• The Susan Strong section is a mess, and has no citations.

• And I'm wondering why there is even a Misc. secton (Miscellany) on this page. Can't we move this to other areas or section of the article?

• The Controversy: racism, anti-Semitism, gender-bias section needs to be rewritten, again. I previously fact checked the section, and I'd like someone with the hard copy to validate that these are not conflicting with the online version (as was suggested before, and also by others).

• And last, there is an issue of footnotes. Maybe the references retittled to Sources, the footnotes can be called Notes, and the references can be used for the citations. The current section is riddled with notes, on top of the cited sources.

I'm more than willing to discuss all of this, so we can get the page unlocked and fixed. Zos 19:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Strike that, citation (or note) number 8 has THREE sources. Its triple cited and has no page numbers for fact checking. Zos 19:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, note 3 would be better (as in, more complete, thus more checkable) as:

 {{cite news 
 |first = Horatio]
 |last = [Bottomley
 |url = http://www.lashtal.com/nuke/module-subjects-viewpage-pageid-18.phtml
 |title = The Wickedest Man In The World
 |work = John Bull
 |date = [[1923-03-24]]
 |accessdate = 2006-05-28
 }}

This would show: [Bottomley, Horatio] (1923-03-24). "The Wickedest Man In The World". John Bull. Retrieved 2006-05-28. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Also, for note 9, which is presently a bare reference:

 {{cite book
 | last = Owen
 | first = Alex
 | authorlink = Alex Owen
 | title = The Place of Enchantment: British Occultism and the Culture of the Modern
 | accessdate = 2006-05-28
 | edition = Hardcover
 | date = 2004-04-14
 | publisher = U. Chicago Press
 | language = English
 | id = ISBN 0226642011
 | pages = 192
 | chapter = Aleister Crowley in the Desert
 | chapterurl = http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/642011.html
 }} 

Produces: Owen, Alex (2004-04-14). "Aleister Crowley in the Desert". The Place of Enchantment: British Occultism and the Culture of the Modern (Hardcover ed.). U. Chicago Press. p. 192. ISBN 0226642011. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

I can, of course, make these changes myself once the article is unlocked, if there are no strenuous objections. Or, someone else can do it - I am not an edit counter. --Geoff Capp 01:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Shouldn't "Abrahadabra", which currently links to Abracadabra, instead link either directly to Abracadabra#Thelema or else the main Abrahadabra page itself? --Geoff Capp 02:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no objections myself, but cannot speak for the other. I'd raher sources be cited as best as possible to allow readers the ability to properly fact check and is better all around for verifing. And yes the link to Abrahadabra needs to be changed as well. Not quite sure who did that. Zos 03:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

One assumes it dates to a time before the Abrahadabra article existed. I probably made the link and forgot it until I checked back here to find a war in progress. So yeah, go ahead and fix it. I'll try to help add some citations. The misc. section doesn't seem unreasonable in theory, but at least one point deserves a longer treatment and context. Dan 03:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent disputations

First off, shoud the RFC section have been archived? Perhaps it should be copied to this active talk page. The RfC was very recently filed at WP:RFC/POLICIES by Bearcat (talk · contribs):

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 the primary one? 01:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Secondly, I have found some independent, non-fiction sourcing for some of Crowley's disputed views. The following quotes are taken from:

Booth, Martin (2001) [2000]. A Magick Life: A Biography of Aleister Crowley (Coronet ed.). London: Hodder and Stoughton. p. 507. ISBN 0340718064. {{cite book}}: |format= requires |url= (help)

All {braced} insertions are mine; [brackets] are in the original as such.

attitude toward women

"His attitude toward the women with whom he fornicated was, however, one of low regard. As they were for the most part uncultured, uneducated young women, he found them morally and mentally contemptible.

"'They had [he stated] 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.'

"This low opinion of women was coloured by Crowley's animosity for his mother, and his general misogyny arose out of his relationship with her. Women were oppressors to be vengefully oppresed, a commodity, Crowley surmised in his autobiography, which should daily be delivered to the back door, with the bottles of milk. They were there to be used: and yet, at other times, he would declare that he was unselfish towards women, liked their company and saw it as his function to pleasure them sexually. In his verse, he either idolized women or portrayed them as sexually rapacious demons." (60-61)

"In his diary for September 1916 he noted, 'It is impossible to make a tragedy of a man leaving his wife; because women don't count. They only exist insofar as they seduce or otherwise destroy men. A deserted woman may be comic or pathetic; never tragic.' Several months later, he added, 'Note that we naturally an inevitably divide women into chaste and unchaste; thereby subconsciously affirming that Cunt is the only important thing about them.'" (342)

bisexuality

"Despite his precocious heterosexual activity, Crowley was essentially bisexual with a predilection for aggression and sadomasochism, the reasons for which have been variously attributed to his repressed upbringing, his loss of a father figure during his formative years, his exposure to sodomy at Malvern College, the cruelty of Champney's academy, his attempted seduction by a tutor, and a variety of other esoteric psychological causes." (62)

homosexuality

"In homosexual dalliances, Crowley was usually the sodomized, taking the passive role, with no emotional participation. He preferred to be buggered for it apealed to his masochistic side. Later in life, Crowley defended homosexuality: in The World's Tragedy, he wrote, 'lest "broad-minded" prigs come to smash me by their aid, I shall fight openly for that which no living Englishman dare defend, even in secret — sodomy! At school I was taught to admire Plato and Aristotle, who recommend sodomy to youths. I am not so rebellious as to oppose their dictum; and in truth there seems no better way to avoid the contamination of woman and the morose pleasures of solitary vice.'" (63-64)

sadism

"An entry in {Victor} Neuberg's magical diary indicates the form of some of the instruction: 'He [Crowley] is apparently a homosexual sadist for, in giving me thirty-two strokes with a gorse-switch which drew blood, he showed great unction. He performed the ceremony with obvious satisfaction. The ceremony was quite painful, though it aroused no emotion in me save that of laughter.'" (268)

beastiality

"One of the rituals Crowley devised included a naked Leah {Hirsig} being mounted by a billy-goat. The idea was that Leah went down on all fours so that the goat could copulate with her. At the moment of its orgasm, Crowley would slit its throat. All went well until the goat steadfastly refused to play its sexual part." (376)

anti-Semitic views

"'My Guru rude; his personalities are becoming monstrous. They are grossly offensive ... If I am again insulted I shall depart immediately,' Neuberg wrote. He could have packed his bag at any time, walked the mile to Foyers and caught the ferry to Inverness. Yet he stayed. The romantic, sadomasochistic bond between them was simply too strong.

"It was not unusual for Crowley to express anti-Semitic sentiments. He believed that Jews frequently earned their reputation although, he allowed, the 'Hebrew poets and prophets are sublime. The Jewish {note: not Israeli} soldier is courageous, the Jewish rich man generous. The race {sic} possesses imagination, romance, loyalty, probity and humanity in an exceptional degree. But the Jew has been persecuted so relentlessly that his survival has depended on the development of his worst qualities; avarice, servility, falseness, cunning and the rest.' Crowley's attitudes may today be condemned, but they were widely shared in contemporary Britain." (268-69)

Nazi influence

"{Karl} Germer may have been regarded as an enemy of the Nazi state but the same could not be said of Martha Küntzel. She considered Crowley the mystical world leader and Hitler the temporal one. She sent Hitler an annotated German edition of The Book of the Law, knowing of his deep interest in the occult. Both Crowley and Germer came for a while to be convinced that Hitler was her magical son, his Nazi philosophy containing many elements of the Law of Thelema. Certainly, there are obvious similarities between Crowley's writings and Hitler's conversations, as printed in Rauschning's Hitler Speaks. These do not prove, as Crowley's detractors would have it, that he influenced Hitler. It was more a case of Hitler's own philosophy being based upon the same occult principles as those of Crowley. {...} As for Crowley's opinion of Hitler, he was under no illusions. He had visited the Third Reich on a number of occasions and considered the Führer to be a magician who misinterpreted the occult and, therefore, brought about his own destruction." (468-69)

nothing appears in the sections on his travels I have had the chance to read, nor are there any index entires for "racism" or anything similar, aside from the entry for "anti-Semitic views" cited above. If I do find anything, I'll add it here.

Regarding the RfC proper, I support the view that general biographical material should appear in the main article for any given person, including Crowley, and that if the article becomes overlong, it is other sections that should be forked and summarized, as is currently the case with Thelema and Aleister Crowley in popular culture. --Geoff Capp 00:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as how the bio was moved back and remains, and no one has put up a fight to move the content to another page, I archived it. I was the one who moved the bio section to a main page, and I agree now that it should be the whole article, and not a seperate section as it was before.

Wonderful. I see you have more sources. Once we get the page unlocked, it can be added of course, seeing as how I'm not against the idea of adding the subject to the page (previously mentioned). Zos 01:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

from above: "I have, unfortunately, been unable to find anything yet either supporting or refuting the allegations of racism in this source;" -- Try "Do What Thou Wilt...." by Sutin. look in the index, under 'Crowley' and within that biographical section for 'racial views of'. from there you should also be able to find your way back to Confessions, Magick Without Tears, and 777. btw, we already had numerous direct quotes from Crowley on many of these topics; why you would now wish to shift to AMBIGUOUS SECONDARY SOURCES after Crowley's own expressions and Sutin's clear and referenced text pointing to Crowley has been placed before us is *highly* suspicious, possibly obscurant -- this is the manner by which objectionable material is removed from the bios of mystic masters. E6 64.142.90.35 02:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Because original research and the opinions of Wikipedia editors are not suitable material for Wikipedia per WP:NOR. There must be an citable person or source for the opinions. As racism is a subjective, rather than objective, subject matter, a citable source is required per Wikipedia policy. This is, by the way, true of all encyclopedias - they summarize the research of others, they do not create new material. -999 02:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I notice Booth does not mention the fact that Crowley physically removed the section on sodomy from all copies of The World's Tragedy except those he gave to close friends (Sutin, ch.10). And while Crowley did claim that Kuntzel succeeded in giving Hitler a copy of the Book of the Law, Sutin gives strong reasons to think otherwise. (Also, I have yet to see any proof that Hitler saw his own views as "occult" in any way, much less that he shared "the same occult principles as those of Crowley.") I hope that if we use any claim from this author without confirmation from other sources, we describe it as a claim by Martin Booth. (Sutin appears to confirm the goat story with a citation from AC's diary, OTO archives.) Dan 05:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I just moved this ( ^ )content down here. Dan, please dont insert comments inbetween comments. This is why they are time stamped. It makes it more confusing :) Zos 05:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Dan (talk • contribs) writes: I hope that if we use any claim from this author without confirmation from other sources, we describe it as a claim by Martin Booth. I believe the whole point to WP:CITE to is to show the source of information, bor both to adhere to WP:V, and to allow the reader to evaluate for themselves how much trust to place in any given piece of information. I would also certainly hope that any use of Booth's information (or Sutin's, or Crowley's) is properly cited, and that any controversial claim is backed up with citations from multiple sources where possible. One of the nice things about collaborative work such as this is that no one editor needs to own the entire canon on the subject, and we can all fact-check each other. --Geoff Capp 06:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC) edited 07:20, May 29, 2006 (UTC).

Quite so. But I see an important difference between a statement of the form, 'Crowley did such and such (citation from Booth)', and a statement like, 'Booth claims such and such (citation).' I don't mind if we include claims that we can't find in other works provided we use the second phrasing. Dan 22:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

64.142.90.35 (talk • contribs) writes: why you would now wish to shift to AMBIGUOUS SECONDARY SOURCES after Crowley's own expressions and Sutin's clear and referenced text pointing to Crowley has been placed before us is *highly* suspicious.... A) Sutin is a secondary source. B) Booth quotes at length from primary sources (see above, quotes from Neuberg's record, Crowley's diaries, &c). C) Where multiple sources agree, confirmation of facts exists; where they differ, evidence of controversy exists - both seem notable. D) Note where you quoted me: in this source, which implies "in Booth." If I had a copy of Sutin, I'd certainly look there as well. E) To date, no one but me has cited any biography apart from Sutin, which certainly seems one-sided. --Geoff Capp 06:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you mean the practice seems one-sided. At first I thought you meant Sutin's work. I keep citing him because he includes material that 'both sides' (pro- and anti-Crowley) would prefer to ignore, and in general seems an order of magnitute more objective than any other biographer whose work I've seen. Zos, will you actually see this response here in its chronological place, separated from the comment it responds to? Dan 21:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Dan, yup. Anyone reading this can, if they're willing to read the whole page. Zos 17:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for unprotection

I've requested that this article be unprotected Here, seeing as how I was the one who supposedly caused it to be protected. Zos 03:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Please learn to read WP history pages

I shall not be contributing to this page or to WP again, but i do note that again some ill-informed pseudo-editor has attributed to me something i did not write, this time the section on "woman" (now "Susan Strong"). I did not write it. I simply got sufficiently annoyed with its totally off-topic title that i titled it properly. It is about a woman named "Susan Strong." It is not about women (plural). Frankly, a person who does not have the simple competence to read a page's HISTORY record correctly (or at all) should not be editing WP. But, of course, WP lets anyone edit, even those who could not be bothered to look up something as simple as who wrote what. Meanwhile, in another forum, a propsective editor of this page claimed that because my husband and i use the same broadband account (well, duh, we live on the same 2 1/2 acre property, although we have 7 different networked computers in a total of 5 different offices in 2 different buildings -- and we never work at each others' computers at all), that somehow i was responsible for his writing, and implied in more than one forum that we were sockpuppeting. This is equally daft, as anyone would know, who was a writer married to another writer, which the editors here evidently are not. But, of course, when speaking of editors here, we are speaking of folks so deft with prose that one of them wrote, and the other edited, a page claiming that Chinese Taoism might have been created by a trio of anonymous mystical writers of the Edwardian era. The mind boggles. Catherineyronwode 05:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Stop saying you didn't write stuff. If it's under your account then we say you wrote it. The History pages show you adding the material, [4], [5], [6], and [7]. We also have [8] to show that Boboroshi only made one non-minor edit on the page. That is why I don't care if you did add this section or not, because you falsely denied the last one. Stop insulting everyone and leave if you're going to leave.

KV 16:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

She meant the section formerly called Women, now Susan Strong. Hence her use of the name "Susan Strong". I don't know why SS still has her own section, by the way. Seems like it would have made more sense to expand the Women section with the new material on AC and women. Dan 00:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

catherine, that comment appears to mean the material on women within the Racism, etc section. And I want it to stay in the article; I thought it did have citations, and I could find cites when I have time (not now). Also, the current article retains my response to that paragraph without the context. (Correction after re-reading that bit: I want to keep the quotes in the article. I don't know about the rest of the deleted material.) Dan 00:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

catherine yronwode's original research

Dan,

Please read WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR. catherine's web page is unpublished original research and cannot be used. I have no objection to expansion on the topic itself, but the citation will have to be to a published book, not a web source. Also, please note that per WP:WEASEL, phrases like "some people have said" are not permitted. To introduce the material about Crowley's alleged gender-bias, you will need to find a reliable book reference to back it up and mention the author's name and what s/he said about the topic.

-999 13:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I gave two published references for the more general charge of sexism. The website just gives slightly more specific examples. And of course, we have citations for the AC quotes themselves. The link to catherine just serves as a citation for the sentence fragment introducing those quotes (in addition to the Sutin&Maroney cites). But if you insist, I could try to find a different introductory sentence fragment that refers to Sutin. Dan 15:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the A.C. quotes is that you are projecting an interpretation onto them. Another solution would be to start a quotes section, with a section on quotes about women, and let the quotes stand on their own w/o attempting to tell the reader what you (or some other unpublished person) think they mean. WP doesn't allow us to interpret the data, but only to cite the published interpretations of others. -999 15:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You are most certainly allowed to interpret data, if it is not complex. That is what a primary source is called. In this case, it is not "what did Crowley mean by his riddle in the Book of the Law?" but basic comprehension. There are statements for him going both for and against racism, and you can say that he made these racist statements and he made these anti-racist statements...... and then since there is ambiguity, and it would require complex reasoning, you get your secondary source. But if there is one side to an issue, like I believe there was with sexism, you can state that he was sexist, because that is basic comprehension. If someone says "women are inferior to men" to be overly simplified, if you cannot see that they are a sexist, then you cannot comprehend what they said and need some english classes. In fact, you cannot write a single line in Wikipedia unless you cannot interpret sources, because if you write it at all different than the exact wording given, you are interpretting it, understanding what it is saying and pulling forth that understanding of the material. That you are interpretting what Adam Smith is saying on p. 452 to mean that he believes X. If you don't do that, you are using the same wording, and you are plagiarizing, and if it was a work in 1982 instead of 1776, you are also violating copyrights.

KV(Talk) 16:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm refering to such interpretation as the influence of his failed marriage and other projections of the editor. That is speculation about the reasons and influences that account for his statements and is original research. Similarly, putting the statements under the heading "gender-bias" without a third-party source that uses the term is interpretation. The same material under the heading "Crowley's attitude towards women" might be considered much more acceptible; it does not lead the reader toward conclusions of the editor not otherwise documented in a third-party source. I'd recommend splitting the the section into two parts, one on racism and anti-Semitism, which is adequately documented, and another on his attitudes toward woman, documented in his own words without leading the reader or imposing an interpretation not found in any citable third-party source. -999 16:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I indented for you, but the use of the term is not out of the question at all, though I wonder why "gender bias" and not "sexism" which is much more well known of a term and shorter... I also don't understand why anti-semitism needs to be mentioned apart from racism, as it is a type of racism. Is it more or less wrong to be racist against semitic peoples like the Hebrew people, the Babylonians, the Palestinians, etc than to be racist against africans, indians, asians, latinos or white people?

KV(Talk) 16:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

On indentation, please see WP:TALK: rather than walking across the page, it is recommended that each incoming voice take the next indentation level, then maintain it. I've put my indentation back and corrected yours.

I have reinserted most of the sexism material back into the article. I think I agree with you on the headings: a simple Drugs, Racism and Sexism in that order would be preferable to my last edit. Agree? -999 16:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I have had many discussions with administrators, moderators, etc, etc on highly controversial pages. WP:TALK, I checked over and said nothing like you said, and rather it works in their example WP:TALK#Formatting as it is used all over, if you're replying to the post above you you indent once more, if you're replying on a new tangent, you start over, and if you indent too far you go back.

But I am glad to hear that the simple titles have your personal consensus.

KV(Talk) 16:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Come on, even you must be able to see how unwieldy walking across the page gets. The reference I meant to cite is Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Layout. That's one problem on WP, you get used to something being somewhere, then it gets moved :-( -999 16:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

To quote:

The first contributor is all the way to the left, the next person starts with one colon (:), the next person starts with two colons. Then, when the first contributor responds, they start at the left margin again, and the second and third persons continue to mark themselves with one and two colons respectively. In that way, who is saying what is clear. Other indentation systems are equally acceptable and widely used (such as a threaded tree format, like that often seen in email clients).

I have never seen anyone follow such a guideline.

KV(Talk) 16:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Susan Strong

I don't know what the point of the section with this title is. Shouldn't it be integrated into his biography or something? Text preserved below....

During March 1899 Crowley met, at one of the semi-public performances of MacGregor Mathers' Rites of Isis, an American soprano by the name of Susan Strong (3 August, 1870 - 11 March, 1946). Susan was the daughter of Dennis Strong, an American Congressman and mayor of Brooklyn. She had gone to the UK at the age of 21 and had enrolled in the Royal College of Music, London under the tutelage of the famous Hungarian musician Francis Korbay. Crowley met up with her again in London when she sang the part of Venus in Tannhäuser on 22 June 1899. A torrid romance followed during which Susan swore to divorce her American husband and devote herself to Crowley. However on her return to the US, around October 1899, she apparently cooled in ardour. Crowley followed her to New York City in June of the following year, but by then she was already on her way back to the UK to appear in performances of the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden. During 1900, while in Mexico City, Crowley experienced an epiphany, during which he transcribed his play, titled Tannhäuser. He attributed the inspiration of this play to his romance with Susan Strong.

Well, possibly someone intended to use the play as an example of Crowley's relationship with women. (Someone certainly entitled that section "Women".) If so, we could move the gender-bias controversy bit to that section. But if nobody can find an NPOV way to do this, I don't know if the Susan Strong material even belongs in the article. Dan 16:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Fiction Citation

Citation number 10, is a quote from Robert Anton Wilsons fiction book Cosmic Trigger:The Final Secret of the Illuminati, p. 62 . Now, as far as I knew, fiction books are not to be used, so why is it being used. Anyone? Zos 17:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think Cosmic Trigger is fiction. Speculation and conspiracy theory, yes, but it is not part of the fictional Illuminatus trilogy. -999 (Talk) 17:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I must be getting it confused with the other book I've read. Huh. Zos 17:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. As I recall, the three Cosmic Trigger books chiefly contain essays and anecdotes, with some fictional vignettes. --FOo 04:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was mistaking them for another series of books I've read (and no its not the Illuminatus! Trilogy :p ). Zos 12:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)