![[Main Page]](http://www.thelemapedia.org/images/logo.gif){kind=logo}
Talk:Non-religious Thelemites and their views
(Difference between revisions)
|
Revision as of 18:44, 9 Mar 2005 Aleph (Talk | contribs) Two takes |
Current revision Horus210 (Talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | ==Two takes== | + | This article should be blanked and written from scratch. The article has been copied over from FET, which site contains degree secrets of OTO. As a project of OTO, it is inappropriate for Thelemapedia to link to FET; and any content originating from that site must be cited with a link back; therefore, we should not copy or derive articles from FET. [[User:Thiebes|Thiebes]] 05:01, 28 Oct 2005 (CDT) |
| - | '''[[User:Ash|Fr. Ash]] :''' Something to consider: this article might be made more neutral if it were split into two main sections: | + | |
| - | #It is possible to define Thelema as something other than a religion, offering various example definitions found in the literature or common enough to be considered common knowledge. | + | |
| - | #A focus on components of Thelema that are not overtly religous, such as philosophy/practice/ethics/lifestyle/etc. This section would not be about refuting the religious label, but detailing aspects that many might not label as religious. | + | |
| - | This article is currently more of an ''argument'' for the non-religious view, rather that an encyclopedic source of knowledge, which falls out of the scope of Thelemapedia. Naturally there will be some support for the view needed, but the tone is somewhat defensive and combative, and it doesn't need to be that way. By splitting up the article into two major sections as outlined above, the piece might become more neutrally informative than argumentitive. Remember, the goal is not to ''convince'' the reader, but to ''inform''. | + | |
| - | ::I don't think it comes off as an argument. I consider it informational about contemporary Thelemic culture. In any case, it is under development. Give it a few weeks. [[User:Aleph|Aleph]] | + | :Isn't that censorship? --[[User:Ahavah veemet|Ahavah veemet]] |
| - | ---- | + | |
| - | Use this article to discuss unorthodox interpretations of Thelema or its various off-shoots. Again, please try to stick with either the knowledge base or common knowledge. In other words, please limit entries to views or practices held by reasonably substantial numbers of people. Examples might be a focus on satanism or the various cults of Babalon. [[User:Ash|Fr. Ash]] | + | ::No, it is a request for total rewrite. [[User:Thiebes|Thiebes]] |
| - | :This is a, IMO, a much better way to allow for expansion than simply moving the section around in a much longer article. [[User:Aleph|Aleph]] | + | : This article would be tough to rewite, but I myself wouldn't object. It might be possible to discover what came from FET and simply delete/rewrite that, if such is your intent. [[User:Ash|Fr. Ash]] 20:47, 28 Oct 2005 (CDT) |
| - | ::I thought so too. I really hope editors add a lot of great material here. [[User:Ash|Fr. Ash]] | + | Doesn't this article predate the FET? (In fact it was the cause of the founding of the FET if I'm not mistaken). In that case the article does not need any references to the other site as it was not the source of the material. If I'm mistaken about the timeline please correct me. |
| - | The question remains: Alternative to what? By placing these nonreligious views in this article instead of the "Thelema & Religion" article, all that is being accomplished is to ghettoize the contemporary perspectives. Why not include this stuff in the section in [[Thelema & Religion]] where the question of differentiating between the religious and nonreligious is directly discussed?? This is what was proposed by myself and Paradoxos Alpha, and you said you wanted to see how it turned out. Why are you now, before it has been completed, trying to have it both ways? It makes for a very confusing presentation of the material and reduces the possibility that the material which you have included here will be found by those who are examining the question. --[[User:Thiebes|Thiebes]] 00:37, 9 Mar 2005 (CST) | + | Now original author of this (who is running the other site) retains copyright for this article and can do with it as he wishes (Including not linking back here in this case) but he can not revoke our right to use/edit as it stands. |
| - | ::I disagree. I feel that forcing non-religious views of Thelema into an article about "Thelema & Religion" is ghettoizing it. You are hiding the views down at the end of an article no one is going to read through. I am open to changes to the title of this article. I don't want my discussion at the end of your article. Thanks. [[User:Aleph|Aleph]] | + | [[User:Frater C.U.G.|Frater C.U.G.]] 01:35, 6 Nov 2005 (CST) |
| - | :::You haven't even looked at it if you think it's at the end. --[[User:Thiebes|Thiebes]] 10:01, 9 Mar 2005 (CST) Nevertheless I think the solution of calling your separate article non-religious and using that within the main article as a template could work. | + | :Incorrect. Per author who discussed this with me, the referenced article was [http://www.egnu.org/thelema/index.php/Thelema FET:Thelema] and contained original material written 20 Jan 2005. Material from that article was incorporated into this article on 9 March 2005. Therefore under the GFDL the reference link must be included. Also note that if the license agreement is not kept, the author does under the GFDL have the right to withdraw permission to use any of their material. I suspect it would be rather a hardship to have to revert all this authors edits on Thelemapedia. [[User:Horus210|horus210]] 14:11, 18 Nov 2005 (CST) |
| - | ::::The point is that it is essentially hidden is a large article mostly discussing religion. I did look at it. It hides and qualifies my views in a way that I don't agree with. As I said before, the topic deserves two viewpoints and two articles. Please simply link to the [[Non-religious Views of Thelema]] rather than attempting to copy or source this article into [[Thelema & Religion]]. This is an article that stands on its own, and it is not finished. I intend to expand it significantly. The whole point of trying to force me to put my material into [[Thelema & Religion]] seems to be to pre-qualify the idea of Thelema as "not a religion" with a "but it really is" context. I don't agree that that accurately reflects the views that I am attempting to document. [[User:Aleph|Aleph]] | + | ---- |
| - | + | ''This talk page prior to Oct 27 2005 has been [[Talk:Non-religious Thelemites and their views/archive|archived here]].'' | |
| - | :::::You wrote: ''The whole point of trying to force me to put my material into [[Thelema & Religion]] seems to be to pre-qualify the idea of Thelema as "not a religion" with a "but it really is" context'' | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | :::::No, the point is to present the facts of both views together with traditional means to examine the question. Like you would find done in an encyclopedia, as opposed to an editorial article where one opinion is presented. --[[User:Thiebes|Thiebes]] 10:20, 9 Mar 2005 (CST) | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | ::::::Look, if you and Ash and P.A. and the other O.T.O editors are intending to force me to do it your way, just say so. I will go elsewhere and stop wasting my time trying to discuss the issue with you. [[User:Aleph|Aleph]] 10:26, 9 Mar 2005 (CST) | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | ::::::: I have no doubt that is what you'd rather believe, than to simply confront, with logical argument, the question of what it is that ''you'' are trying to do. Instead you resort to these kinds of veiled accusations. --[[User:Thiebes|Thiebes]] 10:28, 9 Mar 2005 (CST) | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | :::::::: '''Time will tell, I guess.''' I am not ''trying'' to do anything other than write an article in the way I believe the information in it will be presented most clearly. It is typical on Wikipedia to break an article into sections when it gets too long or the presentation is trying to cover multiple viewpoints or schools of thought. I have added ''up front'' the distinguishing feature of this article and a pointer to the involved discussion of Thelema & Religion. I'm sorry you disagree with me, but can't we agree to disagree? [[User:Aleph|Aleph]] 10:38, 9 Mar 2005 (CST) | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | :::::::::Fine. I wish you would have given me a chance to complete my work before reverting my edits, or at least discussed your reservations rather than simply "giving up" as you put it. But whatever. --[[User:Thiebes|Thiebes]] 10:41, 9 Mar 2005 (CST) | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | The section called "Contemporary Opinions" ... I'm not sure whether we want those, do we? There is a question of credibility of contemporaries, and that they may well change their minds. We can study Crowley's opinions and decide which of them seem fairly persistant throughout his life, etc. But we cannot do this with contemporaries so much. I should add that I'm quoted there, something I wrote years ago which I now find narrow-minded -- not to mention I hardly consider myself an authority worthy of quotation in a scholarly encyclopedia, which is the point that I'm trying to bring up here. --[[User:Thiebes|Thiebes]] 10:41, 9 Mar 2005 (CST) | + | |
Current revision
This article should be blanked and written from scratch. The article has been copied over from FET, which site contains degree secrets of OTO. As a project of OTO, it is inappropriate for Thelemapedia to link to FET; and any content originating from that site must be cited with a link back; therefore, we should not copy or derive articles from FET. Thiebes 05:01, 28 Oct 2005 (CDT)
- Isn't that censorship? --Ahavah veemet
- No, it is a request for total rewrite. Thiebes
- This article would be tough to rewite, but I myself wouldn't object. It might be possible to discover what came from FET and simply delete/rewrite that, if such is your intent. Fr. Ash 20:47, 28 Oct 2005 (CDT)
Doesn't this article predate the FET? (In fact it was the cause of the founding of the FET if I'm not mistaken). In that case the article does not need any references to the other site as it was not the source of the material. If I'm mistaken about the timeline please correct me.
Now original author of this (who is running the other site) retains copyright for this article and can do with it as he wishes (Including not linking back here in this case) but he can not revoke our right to use/edit as it stands.
Frater C.U.G. 01:35, 6 Nov 2005 (CST)
- Incorrect. Per author who discussed this with me, the referenced article was FET:Thelema (http://www.egnu.org/thelema/index.php/Thelema) and contained original material written 20 Jan 2005. Material from that article was incorporated into this article on 9 March 2005. Therefore under the GFDL the reference link must be included. Also note that if the license agreement is not kept, the author does under the GFDL have the right to withdraw permission to use any of their material. I suspect it would be rather a hardship to have to revert all this authors edits on Thelemapedia. horus210 14:11, 18 Nov 2005 (CST)
This talk page prior to Oct 27 2005 has been archived here.