Template talk:Thelema

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OccultWikipedia:WikiProject OccultTemplate:WikiProject OccultOccult articles

Religion: New religious movements

	Religion portal This template is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
	This template is supported by New religious movements work group.

Thelema (inactive)

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Thelema, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ThelemaWikipedia:WikiProject ThelemaTemplate:WikiProject ThelemaThelema articles

Untitled

Hi pipo tell me how does one join the thelema organisation?

The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 08:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Parsons

Should we include Jack Parsons (rocket engineer) in the list of key figures? That is, does the Book of Babalon make him different than those who simply regurgitate(d) Crowley to feed to their baby chicks? (eg. Hymens A & B, Seckler, DuQuette, Wasserman, etc.). The figures I've added have all added something to the modern views and practices of Thelema. Grant and the darkside of the tree, Lees and his English Qaballa, and Nema with her receipt of a holy book and her interweaving of the dimension of Ma'at with that of Horus. Yeah, I think I answered my own question, Jack deserves to be in. Skyerise (talk) 02:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes

@Skyerise: The new changes look good me; much better than before. It's a bit long though. I've been considering making this template collapsible, to make it more compact, so it doesn't displace images, "see also" lists, refs, etc. on shorter articles. What do you think, should I do it? Shouldn't take long. -- Scyrme (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, that sounds productive... Skyerise (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- We should probably take ceremonial magic out of the methods section, since it's listed as Magick in the core concepts section. Don't want to accidentally step on your edits, so leaving it for now. Skyerise (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Skyerise: It's done; how does it look? Had to make it a bit wider, but most sidebars are so I think it's worth it. Btw, you want to look over the navbox, Template:Thelema series; it still has some old links that don't reflect your mergers. -- Scyrme (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, but could you change is so it doesn't put AA and OAA together like that? make it look like a single entry. Skyerise (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I put it at the end. Putting it in alphabetical order made the list look messy. -- Scyrme (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found a better but counterintuitive solution which leaves them on the same line but more clearly separated. Skyerise (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The Rights of Man" should not be its own section or the top section in this template

"The Rights of Man," more commonly known as "Liber OZ," is a one-page broadside by Crowley. It is not a "Class A" Thelemic text (see http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_bibliography#Libri_of_Aleister_Crowley), and it gets only two brief mentions on the page Thelema and one brief mention on the page Aleister Crowley.

In my view, it doesn't merit a link in the Thelema template at all. Many of Crowley's more notable works, like Liber Aleph and Liber ABA get no such link. But even if it does, it should not have its own section, let alone the top section. Instead, it should go under "Thelemic texts." Mosi Nuru (talk) 18:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you know by now that Wikipedia doesn't care about your view.^[1] Liber OZ is a 'core' document of Thelema. Nearly every single Thelemite has it framed on their wall and probably have a dozen copies in a drawer to hand out. Certainly every temple space does. What you are saying is offensive, like saying that the article on the Ten Commandments is too long, because it's such a small part of the Bible. It's too bad you feel the need to dissemble about your true intent here. @Scyrme:, @Randy Kryn:. Skyerise (talk) 23:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. I've never read it, will do so at some point. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. You might also want to check out Liber Resh, which apparently has never existed. Though perhaps it was simply deleted back in the day for being completely unsourced, which frequently happens. Skyerise (talk) 21:09, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ By which I mean that if you want to base an argument on the relative notability of Crowley's texts, you'll need to provide a source that ranks them.

[1] By which I mean that if you want to base an argument on the relative notability of Crowley's texts, you'll need to provide a source that ranks them.

[1]