Thelemapedia talk:Community Portal

(Difference between revisions)

Revision as of 03:59, 5 Nov 2004

Hit the tab above with the + sign to start a new topic on this page. If you want to answer someone's topic on this page, click on the "edit" link next to the topic title (not the one at the top of the page). To indent your entries, just put a colon in front of the first line of every paragraph. The more colons you type, the more indented the paragraph will be. Please sign all your entries.

Table of contents

1 Editorial Principles

2 Added "Using Images" to Help page

3 Thelemapedia comments

4 style issues

5 kinda new to all this

6 Suggestion for new topic

7 Godforms?

8 T-shirts

9 Linking to Wikipedia

Editorial Principles

The little debate with m1thr0s below has given me an opportunity to think about what principle should guide our editorial policies. This is what I have come up with:

The prime editorial principle could be: the promotion of clarity, understanding, and accuracy. Any other reasonable principle, such as "the promotion of personal expression", is acceptable in practice until it violates the prime editorial principle. As I mentioned to m1thr0s, an example would be the issue of spelling variants of "magick" also with a "k", like "magickal" and "magickian". Allowing this spelling violates the PEP, because it might confuse people who see "magician" in one article and "magickian" in another. Add to this the fact that the variant spelling is not used by Crowley or any other major Thelemic writer, such as DuQuette, Regardie, Sabazius, etc., lending support to the argument that the varient spelling is based not on technical reasons, but on personal expression. "Personal expression" is a principle that, as a Thelemite, I strongly support. However, as managing editor of Thelemapedia, I believe that the PEP trumps it.

I would be very interested in other people's thoughts on this. —Ash

UPDATE: for anyone interested, I have created the Primary Editorial Principles:

Whenever executive editorial decisions have to be made on Thelemapedia, they will be based on the following primary principles:

Articles should be sympathetic with the principles, culture, practices, and beliefs of Thelema whenever possible.
Articles should promote clarity, accuracy, and the will to inform without distortion or fabrication.
Articles should reflect knowledge that is generally accepted in the Thelemic community, drawing from expert sources or common knowledge.

This is open to comments...please give feedback. —Ash

Added "Using Images" to Help page

For those of you who would like to use images in your articles, this is a good page to learn how...Thelemapedia:Using Images. —Ash

Thelemapedia comments

This is a great idea!

Frater C.U.G.

This is fantastic!! Thank you Scarlet Woman Lodge! :)

Glad you like it!

...of course, it will be as good as we all make it. I am hoping that over the next couple of years, we will make Thelemapedia the single best source of information on Thelema anywhere! The world will be ours! Muwahahaha! —Ash

Indeed ! This is an outstanding venture and excellent execution. At lease from what I see so far. I am sure I'll get a good deal of milage at of this in my office as PIO. Thank you my brothers, and please let me know if I can be of assistance with this project.

93/93

In L.V.X.,

Frater Hrumachis

Well, of course you can be of assistance...write an article! :) —Ash

I especially appreciate you allowing us young'uns (Thelemically speaking) to add to the corpus of Thelemic knowledge.

DVV

There's no age limit for the ability to write a good article! Thanks for contributing. --Ash 19:12, 21 Sep 2004 (EDT)

---Okay, read your profile...sorry, that was presumptuous of me. I should have said, "there's no limits on Thelemic newbies of whatever age to write a good article." My apologies. —Ash, the insensitive dope

Actually, this is a good vehicle for someone who is "just learning" to research topics of interest. --DVV the old fart.

style issues

Can we get a standard on spelling? I am extremely averse to the spelling magickal. Now, for those who must have a K, the word magick is a perfectly proper adjective, as in "magick wand." But Crowley never used the word "magickal," and I recommend that we also stick to magical when the three-syllable adjective is in order. -paradoxosalpha

I agree 100%, Nix on magickian also. -- Frater C.U.G.

"Magickal" and "magickian: are not words, as far as I'm concerned. —Ash

To hear is to obey, effendi. "Magickal" shall be magickally removed from my posts henceforth. DVV

Ok, here's a trickier one: qabalah? That's Crowley's spelling, approximating transliteration, but it's usual to spell it Kabbalah in reference to Hebrew mysticism, and cabala in reference to Christian esotery and systems of word calculation and symbolism. Should we have a standard? --Paradoxosalpha 19:31, 24 Sep 2004 (EDT)

I made some redirect pages last night Kabbalah and cabala both go to qabalah now. Frater C.U.G.

In my original entry, I used "qabalah" to refer to Hermetic Qabalah, and "Kabbalah" to refer to Jewish Kabbalah. Purely arbitrary and any modifications are welcome. DVV

I can't agree that "magickian" is not a word since it is the logical extension of the term "magick" and has the same advantage over "magician" that "magick" has over "magic". Moreover, I should think that Thelemites have infinitely more important matters to attend to than this kind of thing though. If we cannot excercise a little tolerance against little things that might happen to irk us, how on earth can we expect to overcome the really important issues in life? Censorship is a poor way to begin any project involving the free expression of ideas towards a greater exploration of Higher Self and Will. Unless it can be demonstrated that the use of these terms is patently wrong, any call to banish them is fundamentally pushy, if not a bit selfish. Words evolve constantly...that is in their nature. If these words have caught on for some reason, isn't it possible that they have done so because they feel right to a lot of people? And if this trend continues as I suspect it will, aren't we making mountains out of molehills to make a big thing of it? I submit that a person's intent is much more important than the spelling they may choose and unless there is a definite problem of some kind, whether a person says magic or majik or magick, magical, majikal or magickal is all about the same thing really and should not be fussed over but simply accepted in lieu of natural human differences...m1thr0s

You use the word "censorship", but incorrectly in this case. Censorship is defined as the banning of information or ideas. Instituting an editorial policy for spelling does not ban any idea or piece of information. Do you see the dictionary as a tool of censorship? Ultimately, this particular spelling policy is based on three things:

the words "magickian" and "magickal" do not appear in any Thelemic holy book or work of Crowley,
the invariant spelling is less commonly used in modern Thelemic writings, and
if articles are using both forms, it could cause confusion about assumed differences in meaning between the two spellings.

Please note, we do not take the position that using these words are somehow wrong, or that we want to stop its use everywhere. We have no opinion about other people adding the "k" anywhere else they want. However, using the variant spelling is largely a matter of personal expression, like some feminists using the spelling "womyn". Personal expression is obviously a central value of Thelema, but Thelemapedia is not a forum for personal expression...it is an encyclopedia, and as such it is here to reflect the general body of existing knowledge and substantial works of Thelema. If you quote a published work, for example, that uses the variant spelling, then that is of course acceptable. However, in all other cases, we want to have a single, standardized, consistent term for Thelemapedia articles, and using the traditional form makes more sense at this time.

—Ash

I see. Good luck with your project then. I certainly will not be contributing any articles that force adherence to such an arbitrary standards which - as you have clearly stated - are primarily based upon your own personal sensabilities. I don't know that these words do NOT show up anywhere in the holy books as you have stated and I don't believe it really matters. Nevertheless, it's your project so good luck with that...m1thr0s

Curious...the reasons I mentioned are not arbitrary at all, and are based more on logic than "personal sensabilities". However, this little debate has given me an opportunity to think about the general principles guiding our editorial policies. See "editorial Principles" above...

'Magick' defined Thelemicaly is distinct from 'Magic' defined as a performance art. This is a technical spelling which, though not in use by everyone, has been helpfull to distinguish Thelemic practice and Will based Magick from Magic as it is commonly understood (usually by the public as a performance art). So this is a matter of taxonomic distinction. Similarly 'magical', and 'magician', would be extentions of the word 'magic', just as 'magickal' and 'magickian' would be extentions of the word 'magick'. I think that this goes beyond the personal and into the realm of skillful means. I use 'magickian' and 'magician', both, and they have a technical difference. I think it's helpful to have recourse to that expression in this Encyclopedia, just as it is helpful to be able to evolve language along divergent lines of thought... Ibisis

Crowley didn't think so...he never used the spellings "magickal" or "magickian". Considering he was the originator of the term "magick", I will defer to his taxonomic expertise (for the purposes of this site). I won't ban anyone for using the alternative spellings, or anything drastic like that, I will simply edit the entries. I realize that some people will find this unreasonable...however, I have given my reasons above, and I believe they are, in fact, perfectly reasonable. Ultimately, it is about clarity, and my opinion is backed by the fact that no major Thelemic author has ever used the alternative spellings, putting those words outside the bounds of "technical terms". The words "magician" and "magical" are technically aligned with the term "magick"—based on their usage as such by Crowley, Regardie, DuQuette, Rodney Orpheus, Martin Starr, Dionysos Thriambos, Sabazius, Hymenaeus Beta, Tim Maroney, etc., etc. You mention the alternatives as "expressions" and I agree...they are personal expressions, not academically accepted technical terms. As an illustration, I know lots of people who refer to Aleister Crowley as "Uncle Al", but that doesn't make it an acceptable reference on this site. —Ash

kinda new to all this

kinda new to this. This site, I'm sure will be invaluable.

Welcome! You'll catch on. It took me 10 minutes to get writing; a week to get all the basics; and a month or two to really "get it". Now that I'm an admin and watching the site grow, I'm having to learn a whole new set of skills. If this site has done nothing but that for me, it's been more than worth it. —Ash

Suggestion for new topic

Godforms?

I see that we have a whole list of "godforms" but no entry under "godform" itself. Maybe an entry as to what a "godform" is?

I'd write it myself if I knew how to define "godform" (as opposed to "deity," "god," or "grand wazoo."). -- DVV

I'd say that the principal differences are 1) relationship with a lack of invested belief in the objective existence of the godform (Liber O I:1), 2) the option for the magician to identify with the godform through invocation (Liber O II:1-2). See also Magick Without Tears pp. 145-6; and the use of godforms in GD initiation. The most important godform, often mentioned by Crowley for its utility, is that of Harpocrates (http://www.livejournal.com/users/paradoxosalpha/34059.html).

For that matter, is there a clean way to link a plural to a singular? I was writing an article earlier where I wanted to refer to the word "Thelemite" (which should have an article) but the word in my text was "Thelemites". Any trick for this? -- isomeme

Yes there is! You just open double brackets and type the name of the article that you want to link ("Thelemite"), then a vertical line | followed by the word that you want to actually appear ("Thelemites") and close the double brackets. You can see an example right here in the Community Portal if you look at the way that the earlier signatures are scripted. --Paradoxosalpha 11:35, 27 Sep 2004 (EDT)

T-shirts

Okay, when do we get Thelemapedia T-shirts? You can't have a community project like this without T-shirts. :D DVV

This idea is too good! I will look into it... :) —Ash

Consider a CaféPress store. Thiebes

Linking to Wikipedia

You can link to the original Wikipedia for mundane things such as countries, cities, etc. For example, use [[Wikipedia:London|]] to produce London - note that the final '|' is needed or the link will appear as Wikipedia:London.

I would recommend that we hack the code to put some kind of inidication on these links, perhaps something like London W and I also think it would be a good idea to make such links open a new browser window so people don't get confused about where they are...

Also, we have to be careful not to do this for entries of a spritual nature, in order to encourage article to be written from a Thelemic pov in the Thelemapedia.

Adityanath

To tell the truth, I really don't think we should worry about linking "mundane" things like London at all.

Frater C.U.G.

Well, articles imported from the Wikipedia may have references that we don't want to duplicate in the Thelemapedia. I see no reason to remove them when the Wikipedia is available. Sure, everybody knows where London is, but the are many more obscure places and references in Crowley's life. Why not link to Wikipedia for completeness? Is is a great convenience for the user to be able to click through to say, Wikipedia:Kangchenjunga from Crowley's bio than not, don't you think?

Adityanath

Retrieved from "http://thelemapedia.org/index.php/Thelemapedia_talk:Community_Portal"

 :::::'Magick' defined Thelemicaly  is distinct from 'Magic' defined as a performance art. This is a technical spelling which, though not in use by everyone, has been helpfull to distinguish Thelemic practice and Will based Magick from Magic as it is commonly understood (usually by the public as a performance art). So this is a matter of taxonomic distinction. Similarly 'magical', and 'magician', would be extentions of the word 'magic', just as 'magickal' and 'magickian' would be extentions of the word 'magick'. I think that this goes beyond the personal and into the realm of skillful means. I use 'magickian' and 'magician', both, and they have a technical difference. I think it's helpful to have recourse to that expression in this Encyclopedia, just as it is helpful to be able to evolve language along divergent lines of thought... Ibisis
+::::::Crowley didn't think so...he never used the spellings "magickal" or "magickian". Considering he was the originator of the term "magick", I will defer to his taxonomic expertise (for the purposes of this site). I won't ban anyone for using the alternative spellings, or anything drastic like that, I will simply edit the entries. I realize that some people will find this unreasonable...however, I have given my reasons above, and I believe they are, in fact, perfectly reasonable. Ultimately, it is about clarity, and my opinion is backed by the fact that no major Thelemic author has ever used the alternative spellings, putting those words outside the bounds of "technical terms". The words "magician" and "magical" are technically aligned with the term "magick"—based on their usage as such by Crowley, Regardie, DuQuette, Rodney Orpheus, Martin Starr, Dionysos Thriambos, Sabazius, Hymenaeus Beta, Tim Maroney, etc., etc. You mention the alternatives as "expressions" and I agree...they are personal expressions, not academically accepted technical terms. As an illustration, I know lots of people who refer to Aleister Crowley as "Uncle Al", but that doesn't make it an acceptable reference on this site.  —[[User:Ash|Ash]]
 == kinda new to all this ==