Talk:Thelema

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Thelema article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4: 12 months

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Thelema was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 14, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
February 12, 2021	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

Religion: New religious movements Mid‑importance

	Religion portal This article 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as High-importance).

Neopaganism Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neopaganism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neopaganism 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.NeopaganismWikipedia:WikiProject NeopaganismTemplate:WikiProject NeopaganismNeopaganism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Occult Mid‑importance

	This article 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women in Religion Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of the Women in Religion WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women in religion. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Women in ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject Women in ReligionTemplate:WikiProject Women in ReligionWomen in Religion
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Thelema (inactive)

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

Thelema Today

There seems to be an almost complete lack of information about the current status of the religion. How many practitioners are they? How are they distributed across the world? Is it a growing, stable or shrinking religion?

Lead image

What about using the symbol of Aleister Crowley's rendition of the unicursal hexagram in the lead section just like the articles of other religions such as Theosophy, Satanism, and more? And use the image of Crowley in somewhere else in the article (obviously according to context). User:AimanAbir18plus (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AimanAbir18plus: This image has been on the article for years. It shows Crowley, the founder of the religion, together with the most holy objects of the religion, the Stele of Revealing and The Book of the Law, and you have given no policy or guideline based reason justifying the change. Generally, per WP:EDITCON, we assume there is consensus for the current image and you would have to give a good policy or guideline-based argument for the change. Neither your own personal preferences or how it is done on other articles are valid arguments for making changes. Skyerise (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not my personal preference. It is a proposal to use the symbol based on what most of the editors say. It depends on the majority of the editors' opinion. But, articles of other religions such as Theosophy, Satanism, and more use symbol in the lead. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AimanAbir18plus: Yes, it is your personal preference. The creators and maintainers of articles have broad editorial discretion on the article content and images. They are not required to take any other articles' styles into account — those article's editors also have broad editorial discretion. There is no guideline that dictates any kind of consistency between articles. The only valid arguments for overriding the choices of the original creators and maintainers of the article is that what they have done violates one or another policy or guideline. If you don't explain how you think the current choice violates a guideline (citing the guideline), there is little chance that you will gain a consensus to change the image. Skyerise (talk) 01:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it was my personal preference, I just put it for discussion. Just leave it on the talk page. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 09:23, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course; but just be aware that if no other editors respond, it means no other editors support the change. Skyerise (talk) 13:00, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Testament question

The source used for the majority of the New Testament sub-section is a WP:FRINGE citation that has been incomplete for four years without improvement. @Randy Kryn I am removing material that is not appropriately sourced. The last several edit summaries that addressed the same source made that clear - I didn't think I needed to be so explicit with every single edit summary. Would you please kindly self-revert? This is a bad source. Simonm223 (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Simonm223. The first source which lists the Bible count is good, and no reason to remove that sentence. The rest is a book I don't have a copy of, why would you say it's a fringe book for this religious article? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first source, which lists the Bible, is a primary source that only really indicates that the word is used in the Bible. This has WP:SYNTH problems for the topic of the article which, as we are not Wiktionary, is about Thelema as a specific concept divorced from the mere presence of the word in other contexts. Basically, without the bad source, the good source is meaningless. Simonm223 (talk) 15:46, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The word as it related to this topic is being defined with the first source, and shows the words meaning in a religious context. Why is the book a bad source? I'm not aware of the reach of the fringe guidelines as applied to religions. This isn't science or related to historical topics, but an article about a religion. Where is that line drawn, and why would it reach into religious beliefs and practices rather than just science, theories, and history etc.? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]