Talk:Aleister Crowley

From LGPedia
Jump to: navigation, search

i keep looking for this picture but i don't see it. is it on the back wall or on the left side?

I detailed its location a little more accurately in the article; it's above her bookcase, a few feet to the left of her door. - Dharmabum420 13:37, 2 October 2006 (PDT)

best view of the picture

i think the picture can be best seen in the episode "a change in my life" [1] and that makes sense because it's about her religion.


I'm removing a lot of this stuff as I don't see where it's coming from. Cthulhu is not mentioned in the Bible, and even if there is someone claiming that Leviathan is another name for Cthulhu, Leviathan does not appear in the book of Revelation (no 's'), nor anywhere in the New Testament. --Brucker 12:06, 9 November 2006 (PST)

Whats wrong with this: A text version of The Book of the Law is available on the internet.???--modelmotion 20:00, 21 November 2006 (CST)


I think I heard something about Crowley being described as a prophet. It would be nice to have a section about that.--modelmotion 17:26, 30 November 2006 (CST)

Any comment on the prophet question?--modelmotion 01:23, 2 December 2006 (CST)

Book of the Dead

According to this Crowley did infact translate the Book of the Dead and that secion should not have been deleted.--modelmotion 01:06, 1 December 2006 (CST)

No, according to that, Crowley had the Stele of Revealing translated from Egyptian...NOT the Egyptian Book of the Dead. The Egyptian Book of the Dead was not the only work ever translated from Egyptian to English. You really need to actually read the material you are quoting and actually follow up on the quotes. --Tannhaus 01:35, 1 December 2006 (CST)

I found this on an external site and it basically says what I've been saying

I have no problem leaving the book of the dead off the Crowley page for now. I need to read up a little on the subject like you suggest. I do however think the book of the dead is a very interesting topic for discussion.--modelmotion 01:22, 2 December 2006 (CST)
As for the Cake of Light comment in your article, what we have is a direct quote from Wikipedia, if thats wrong perhaps you can get them to change the soucre material and we can change the quote accordingly.--modelmotion 01:29, 2 December 2006 (CST)

But, the simple fact is that Crowley had nothing to do with translating the book of the dead. Crowley did not know Egyptian. When the Stele of Revealing was translated, he had to pay the curator at the Bulaq museum to translate it for him....and that's just a small egyptian tablet.

As far as the cake of light comment, you added the quotes after I made my change it appears. But, while the source material was not wrong on that quote, I just added to the information. --Tannhaus 11:51, 2 December 2006 (CST)

Magick section. In this section I'm really not sure what you're trying to say. How can someone confuse an entity: Cthulu with a practice: magick. It seems like that sentence doesn't fit at all. --Tannhaus 21:19, 2 December 2006 (CST)

Geneology Section

I'm editing out the geneology section. It was part of an April Fool's joke. It has no basis in fact and is not seriously considered by anyone, as evidenced by the blog that the original statement referenced:


It's really apparent that people can say anything about Crowley and someone will believe it, but this is absolutely ridiculous. --Tannhaus 06:07, 4 December 2006 (CST)

Speculation on a Moonchild

I'm not really sure about how speculations are handled here, but does this section really belong here in the Aleister Crowley article? --Tannhaus 15:39, 10 December 2006 (CST)

Now that we've been working on a Theories and Speculation category, a Moonchild article in place of that section would probably be more suitable. However, the section provides no info on the Moonchild or any other reasons why fans speculated that it could have any connection with Bree's ceremony. I'd investigate into that... if there are no other reasons, I'd say the connection is too weak to really merit an article, in which case the section should just be removed. Anyone else know about this? OwenIsCool 16:24, 10 December 2006 (CST)
I agree that this connection is too weak. It was rather far-fetched speculation at the time--there were no clues beyond references to Crowley to suggest anything of the kind. Moreover, since we know the ceremony which did take place was a fake, this entry is simply incorrect. I'll delete it now. --Treefunk 16:39, 10 December 2006 (CST)
WOW..UMMMMM its SPECULATION.... Open up the MoonChild Speculation page. Many of us thought this was what the ceremony would produce or that Bree herself was a moonchild. NOW..with the revelation that Bree was CHOSEN and given to a hand picked family in the order...OPEN THE DOORS! the DO you redirect a redirect. Also, I have Videos that reference the moonchild and it would be nice to have along with some of our old speculation. Pedia articles are not JUST about what IS happening..but about what did happen. EVEN if we barked down a wrong tree..the concept of a moonchild is rather important to impart to newbies in HOW we used it. I mean between spaciegirl and myself we musta had a few dozen posts or more dealing with Moonchild topics and Babalon workings etc. Also..ehem...I have videos in the can that reference some of this stuff.. I always did say I was a VW... --LordGreystoke422 23:03, 15 January 2007 (CST)
I'm not sure what you mean by "redirect a redirect", but I think I can answer your question. Right now if you search for "moonchild" or click on any Moonchild links, you'll be redirected to this Aleister Crowley article. Right underneath the title, in small type you'll see some text that says (Redirected from Moonchild). Click that moonchild link and you'll go to the "real" article. Click that edit tab and away you go! I'm not very familiar with the Moonchild speculation or why anyone thought that the story might be headed that way, so please state your reasons as well as some background for the clueless (e.g., me). Of course, references and relevance in LG422 would also be good material for it. We used to have a Moonchild article, but I'm not sure if it was outright deleted or if just the text was... you can check the history to see if there's any material there to get you started.
OwenIsCool 23:33, 15 January 2007 (CST)
Oh no... not the return of Moonchild!! I'm sorry, but I am opposed to a page on Moonchild. There's just nothing in the series that actually points to this. I don't mind speculation pages, but I'm opposed to nonsense pages. We've done a lot of work cleaning up the LGPedia from the days when we had pages on Vampires, Moonchilds, Orders of the Big Bang, and other wild theories -- these pages did nothing but confuse people. There's a thread at the forum right now discussing whether or not Jonas and Daniel are gayliens (it means what you think it means: gay aliens), but posts at the forum does not a credible theory make, nor one that deserves inclusion in the LGPedia. Moonchild was deleted through our LGPedia deletion process. If it is to be recreated, there needs to be compelling and new reasons for this page to exist.--JayHenry 08:28, 16 January 2007 (CST)
I agree totally. LGPedia had become a laughing stock on other sites because of the erroneous and totally ridiculous stuff in it. It took a lot of work for us all to get things to a point where things are reasonable. I'd hate to see it degenerate to those levels again. I personally don't even see why someone would give the Deacons the time of day, much less pedia entries. They're clearly someone trying to look spooky. But, a little fluff is no reason to throw in the towel and just throw anything up that anyone can dream of. --Tannhaus 14:35, 16 January 2007 (CST)
I was glad the first Moonchild page was put to sleep, and I myself have dedicated plenty of time to eradicating nonsense articles, but I thought LG422 was trying to tell us that there was indeed some discussion and/or relevance to Moonchild stuff in the series and/or fanfiction, and I'm not opposed to having an article on it provided (as I said in my previous comment) that reasons for its inclusion are clearly stated... which looking at the new article, they are not. Or if they are there, then they are definitely not compelling enough. I see no problem with this info being included in the LG422 article if it's of real relevance to his story arcs. But it appears not to be in the Breeniverse. Where to go from here? Give the article a week or so to see if it turns into anything worthwhile? OwenIsCool 18:41, 16 January 2007 (CST)
I have to say...I'm thoroughly amused by these indentations... but I personally don't see much reason for including the article...especially since the Aeon of Horus began in 1904. So, it doesn't make sense that she's a moonchild to bring about the Aeon of Horus when we're 100 years into the Aeon of Horus...
But, I think the only place where the article might have relevance is in Lordgreystoke's videos (I'm not sure...I haven't seen many of them). So, I think it should perhaps be included as a section in his page and not a separate pedia article.
Just my opinion though... --Tannhaus 19:57, 16 January 2007 (CST)

Some disparities...

There is a huge difference between Jimmy Page having a curiosity about Crowley and an interest in his writings and Crowley being an influence of Zeppelin's music!!

More evidence to support that statement is needed or it needs to be removed. Many connections? I think not.

Also, the statement that Crowley "has had an influence on Rock and Roll music" needs more backup than the article referenced. The article referenced would better suit a statement like 'Crowley has long been a subject of fascination to many people, causing even some famous musicians and artists to reference him in their works'

Also this article seems rather content-poor. There isn't much about Crowley's life other than a brief bit about his upbringing.

Hi Nursesinna,
Your points on the Aleister Crowley article are all apropos. It's been a difficult article from the start since it tends to attract all sorts of speculative edits. Please add anything you know about Crowley and his upbringing that you think should be mentioned, particularly where sources are available. Also, your rewording of the Zeppelin bit sounds very good. I definitely agree with that change. Thanks for taking note of all this.

OwenIsCool 21:47, 27 January 2007 (CST)

Information from "The Secret" article

Pasting this information here for now, in case we do want to merge it into this article. "The Secret" article was deleted.

"The existence of secrets within a religious order is often more important than the content of the secrets. For example, the Inca Priests kept secret their knowledge of the movements of the earth and the sun. This allowed them to predict the season to the masses and thus helped them maintain power over their followers. As one enters into the inner circles of a religion one gains more access to the secrets and hence more status within the religion.

Aleister Crowley understood the psychological importance of secrets and used them to develop power over his followers. It does not matter if the actual secret is relatively harmless. What matters is that the secret must be maintained in order to maintain the exclusivity of the group. However the secret must have some "perceived value' to those for who know it in order for it to be effective.

What Aleister Crowley was more noted for was the flaunting of alleged “secrets” in a way that mocked those who let their imaginations inflate their assumptions about said secrets."

OwenIsCool 16:56, 29 January 2007 (CST)

I'd recommend not merging it. The tie in is inflammatory and not factual --Tannhaus 02:38, 30 January 2007 (CST)

Tell you what... I don't know about inflammatory, but it sure does seem useless and irrelevant. I just thought the nomination to merge would go over better than that of outright deletion. In Talk:The Secret you can see how the consensus was to merge or outright delete. I moved the content over just to be on the safe side, but we certainly don't have to include it. OwenIsCool 08:39, 30 January 2007 (CST)
Well, it's just the "Aleister Crowley understood the psychological importance of secrets and used them to develop power over his followers". First, it implies that thelemites were aleister crowley's "followers"...which has a negative connotation..and then implies that he somehow has control over them. If the person knew anything about Crowley's life story, they would realize that's not the case. It's just meant to slam thelemites. --Tannhaus 21:01, 30 January 2007 (CST)

Crowley and Anonymous

We need to tread lightly here with regards to connections between Crowley..the organization Anonymous that is attempting to shake up Scientology. Other than the Crowley connections to L Ron Hubbard via Jon Parsons..there isnt mich connecting him to Scientology and Anonymous. We need to separated any speculative fictional references from factual as well. The comment I reverted seemed more like someone was confused and asking a question. In which would be a better place..but as I see it now...Anonymous has no place here on this article.--LordGreystoke422 20:05, 12 August 2008 (CDT)