Talk:Aleister Crowley

Racism

Dude was famous for his racism, why no section? The Sausage Grinder (talk) 04:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

"Opinions on race and gender".--Bbb23 (talk) 13:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

"Intelligence work"

How come a bunch of conspiracy theories about Crowley such as him being a spy living a lie for his whole life and being responsible for the sinking of Lusitania is treated as legimite research here? Martianmister (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

@Martianmister: What makes you think they are a "bunch of conspiracy theories"? Do you have a source for that? Looks like what's in the article is supported by multiple biographies. Skyerise (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Why would I need a source? There is no source on those biographies' claims, other than their own conjectures. If Crowley was really a spy it would be revealed by the official files years ago, like all those cold war era anti-communist survelliance and phone tapping reports. There is no reason for the British Intelligence to hide the work of someone dead for decades. Martianmister (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

The biographies are perfectly good sources and we do not cast doubt on sources without a source that explicitly expresses that doubt. If you want to contest what a source says, you need a source that does so, not just your own opinion. I've reverted your edits and will do so again if you make such changes without a source to support you. Also the use of words like "alleged" and "claim" are not neutral. We don't write like that, see WP:CLAIM. You can say, "according to source", but you can't cast doubt without citing a source that casts that doubt explicitly. Skyerise (talk) 11:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Crowley's intelligence work is literally a claim, with no proof. WP:CLAIM doesn't apply here. Martianmister (talk) 21:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

A cited source is all the proof Wikipedia requires. WP:CLAIM always applies. Please also see our Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. If your edit is disputed, the article stays at the status quo until you can show consensus for the change on the talk page. So keep talking and wait for other editors to respond. Don't edit war. If you're right, you'll find a consensus. Skyerise (talk) 22:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Skyerise here, he just beat me to the revert! Come up with some good sources, see WP:RS for guidance on that, and we can have a discussion here. DuncanHill (talk) 22:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Which part of my edits were problematic? If anything, they were consistent with the sources themselves. Crowley's intelligence work is an allegation, so it makes more sense to call it "alleged intelligence work". Spence and Churton themselves only "suggest" a link, they themselves admit that they have no proof. Also, tge writing itself is needlessly long, it keeps repeating "did x for british intelligence" over and over. Martianmister (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

The part where you violate WP:CLAIM. The "claims" were already qualified with the identities of the writers making them and with the word "suggested". Nothing in the original text alleged anything: it merely reports on the opinions of several writers. What you wrote was, in contrast, a sort of sensationalizing of the content in a manner more worthy of a tabloid than an encyclopedia. Plus, you provided no source which critiqued those writers in that way: the sensationalism of your context reflects your own beliefs about the matter rather than the sourced opinions of others, which is what is being presented in that section. You can contrast sources which hold a different position: you cannot present the matter from your own unsourced perspective. Skyerise (talk) 22:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

It's still named "intelligence work" as if it's an established fact. Martianmister (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Headings are convenient titles; they do not establish anything and they do not require citations. Only the text of the article can do that, and it is accurate. Skyerise (talk) 19:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

What about something more neutral like "possible links to intelligence"? Martianmister (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Sure. Skyerise (talk) 22:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Translation categories

I know that Crowley's Tao Teh Ching, etc. are called "new translations", but it is well known that Crowley could not read Chinese, that his "translations" were actually adaptations based on the then-existing English translations, which Crowley adapted according to his own poetic style and "initiated knowledge". See Robinson, D. (2017). Exorcising Translation: Towards an Intercivilizational Turn. India: Bloomsbury Academic. p. 128, where is it mentioned that Timothy Leary used the same approach. This can also be confirmed is some of his biographies. Skyerise (talk) 10:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

What is your source on it being "well known" that Crowley could not read Chinese? Praiawart (talk) 15:32, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Uh, the source I mentioned just above, on p. 128, which I linked. There are also others. It's well known by his biographers, most of whom mention it if they discuss his "translations" of Chinese works, and therefore well known by those who have bothered to read his biographies. If you think he could read Chinese, what's your source? Skyerise (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Not generally considered 'paganism' by religious scholars

Thelema is not normally classified as 'paganism' by religious scholars, because it is a revelatory new religious movement. The article on Thelema itself is not categorized as such. Therefore I have removed the added category. Skyerise (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)