Talk:Personalities in Thelema - Revision history

Paradoxosalpha at 04:11, 19 February 2005

2005-02-19T04:11:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:11, 19 February 2005
Line 22:		Line 22:

	::::I really think any attempt at linear categorization is doomed. Where does Theodor Reuss go? (Past Master of OTO, member of OTO, Gnostic Saint.) If it were possible to link within a page (is it?), I could see a bunch of category listings that just listed names as links, pointing to the full entries in the format I proposed above. --[[user:craig berry\|isomeme]]		::::I really think any attempt at linear categorization is doomed. Where does Theodor Reuss go? (Past Master of OTO, member of OTO, Gnostic Saint.) If it were possible to link within a page (is it?), I could see a bunch of category listings that just listed names as links, pointing to the full entries in the format I proposed above. --[[user:craig berry\|isomeme]]

			:::::I don't see any real problem with putting an individual in multiple lists. The short description might even vary, based on the context. See, for example, the two entries for Charles Stansfeld Jones.--[[User:Paradoxosalpha\|Paradoxosalpha]] 22:11, 18 Feb 2005 (CST)

			==Category Changes==
			"O.T.O. Past Masters" really meant "O.T.O. Past <b>Grand</b> Masters," so I fixed the heading. I narrowed the focus of "Scarlet Women" to "<i>Crowley's</i> Scarlet Women," which had the result of moving a bunch of the entries into other categories. One of the benefits of the change, is that it no longer looks as if all of the "notable" members of OTO and A.'.A.'. were men.--[[User:Paradoxosalpha\|Paradoxosalpha]] 22:11, 18 Feb 2005 (CST)

			==Living Members: Data Reliability and Confidentiality==
			In my recent big revision to this page, I added Regardie to the "Notable O.T.O." section because he was in fact a IX° OTO initiate, as testified by surviving correspondence from Crowley. Now, during his lifetime, Regardie never advertized that fact. So my question is about Kenneth Anger. I know that he is rumored to be an OTO member, but has he publicly proclaimed himself to be one? If not, whether the rumors are true or not, they are unverifiable (due to OTO confidentiality policies), and I think Anger should be left out of the OTO category, while still being a Thelemite of unquestionable note. --[[User:Paradoxosalpha\|Paradoxosalpha]] 22:11, 18 Feb 2005 (CST)

Isomeme: /* "in" Thelema? */

2004-09-29T00:03:38Z

"in" Thelema?

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:03, 29 September 2004
Line 20:		Line 20:

	:::I think we need some categories, or it might get unwieldy. I myself like the OTO Past Masters category and the Golden Dawn category. We could make one that is "Notible members of OTO and AA". I am also thinking about lists of people who Crowley mention promenently, but who aren't Gnostic Saints. Finally, I am thinking about adding the ancestors of Thelema, so to speak...the mystics and philosophers that influenced Thelema (but again, aren't GSs). Ideas? [[User:Ash\|Ash]]		:::I think we need some categories, or it might get unwieldy. I myself like the OTO Past Masters category and the Golden Dawn category. We could make one that is "Notible members of OTO and AA". I am also thinking about lists of people who Crowley mention promenently, but who aren't Gnostic Saints. Finally, I am thinking about adding the ancestors of Thelema, so to speak...the mystics and philosophers that influenced Thelema (but again, aren't GSs). Ideas? [[User:Ash\|Ash]]

			::::I really think any attempt at linear categorization is doomed. Where does Theodor Reuss go? (Past Master of OTO, member of OTO, Gnostic Saint.) If it were possible to link within a page (is it?), I could see a bunch of category listings that just listed names as links, pointing to the full entries in the format I proposed above. --[[user:craig berry\|isomeme]]

Ash at 23:31, 28 September 2004

2004-09-28T23:31:04Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:31, 28 September 2004
Line 18:		Line 18:

	::--[[user:craig berry\|isomeme]]		::--[[user:craig berry\|isomeme]]

			:::I think we need some categories, or it might get unwieldy. I myself like the OTO Past Masters category and the Golden Dawn category. We could make one that is "Notible members of OTO and AA". I am also thinking about lists of people who Crowley mention promenently, but who aren't Gnostic Saints. Finally, I am thinking about adding the ancestors of Thelema, so to speak...the mystics and philosophers that influenced Thelema (but again, aren't GSs). Ideas? [[User:Ash\|Ash]]

Isomeme: Category fix proposal

2004-09-28T11:58:05Z

Category fix proposal

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:58, 28 September 2004
Line 12:		Line 12:

	:These are good critiques. I can see this article's list growing quite long, so I think we need some basic categories. By all means, let's work this out and come up with logical ones that can carry new additions without inappropriately holding the current ones.		:These are good critiques. I can see this article's list growing quite long, so I think we need some basic categories. By all means, let's work this out and come up with logical ones that can carry new additions without inappropriately holding the current ones.

			::The more I think about it, the more it seems to me is that the only reasonable solution is to retitle the page simply "Personalities" (leaving "in (or near) THelema" implicit given it's a page on Thelemapedia), and on that page list everyone in alphabetical order by last name. Perhaps each name could be followed by a list of affiliations, like

			::Smith, Wilfred T. (OTO, AA)

			::--[[user:craig berry\|isomeme]]

Ash: /* "in" Thelema? */

2004-09-28T11:39:47Z

"in" Thelema?

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:39, 28 September 2004
Line 10:		Line 10:

	What does it mean to be "in" Thelema as specified in the title of this article? The only initiates of the original Golden Dawn order who considered themselves Thelemites were Crowley and George Cecil Jones, as far as I know.--[[User:Paradoxosalpha\|Paradoxosalpha]] 06:20, 28 Sep 2004 (EDT)		What does it mean to be "in" Thelema as specified in the title of this article? The only initiates of the original Golden Dawn order who considered themselves Thelemites were Crowley and George Cecil Jones, as far as I know.--[[User:Paradoxosalpha\|Paradoxosalpha]] 06:20, 28 Sep 2004 (EDT)

			:These are good critiques. I can see this article's list growing quite long, so I think we need some basic categories. By all means, let's work this out and come up with logical ones that can carry new additions without inappropriately holding the current ones.

Paradoxosalpha: "in" Thelema?

2004-09-28T10:20:49Z

"in" Thelema?

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:20, 28 September 2004
Line 6:		Line 6:

	Part of the Scarlet Woman problem that Craig notes is the issue of overlap, which is even more true of notable OTO and A.'.A.'. initiates. There's Jane Wolfe, Wilfred Smith, Jack Parsons, C.S. Jones--all in both orders, and those just off the top of my head.		Part of the Scarlet Woman problem that Craig notes is the issue of overlap, which is even more true of notable OTO and A.'.A.'. initiates. There's Jane Wolfe, Wilfred Smith, Jack Parsons, C.S. Jones--all in both orders, and those just off the top of my head.

			== "in" Thelema? ==

			What does it mean to be "in" Thelema as specified in the title of this article? The only initiates of the original Golden Dawn order who considered themselves Thelemites were Crowley and George Cecil Jones, as far as I know.--[[User:Paradoxosalpha\|Paradoxosalpha]] 06:20, 28 Sep 2004 (EDT)

Paradoxosalpha: Overlap

2004-09-28T10:18:51Z

Overlap

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:18, 28 September 2004
Line 2:		Line 2:

	:I second that. There can be a separate listing of the historical "Scarlet Women" in the [[Scarlet Woman]] article! --[[User:Paradoxosalpha\|Paradoxosalpha]] 05:59, 28 Sep 2004 (EDT)		:I second that. There can be a separate listing of the historical "Scarlet Women" in the [[Scarlet Woman]] article! --[[User:Paradoxosalpha\|Paradoxosalpha]] 05:59, 28 Sep 2004 (EDT)

			== Overlap ==

			Part of the Scarlet Woman problem that Craig notes is the issue of overlap, which is even more true of notable OTO and A.'.A.'. initiates. There's Jane Wolfe, Wilfred Smith, Jack Parsons, C.S. Jones--all in both orders, and those just off the top of my head.

Paradoxosalpha at 09:59, 28 September 2004

2004-09-28T09:59:27Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:59, 28 September 2004
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Do we really want to put the women into the "Scarlet women" category as distinct from past OTO and AA members? I would be far more comfortable with the latter option.		Do we really want to put the women into the "Scarlet women" category as distinct from past OTO and AA members? I would be far more comfortable with the latter option.

			:I second that. There can be a separate listing of the historical "Scarlet Women" in the [[Scarlet Woman]] article! --[[User:Paradoxosalpha\|Paradoxosalpha]] 05:59, 28 Sep 2004 (EDT)

Isomeme at 09:40, 28 September 2004

2004-09-28T09:40:37Z

New page

Do we really want to put the women into the "Scarlet women" category as distinct from past OTO and AA members? I would be far more comfortable with the latter option.