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 articles
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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Religious textsWikipedia:WikiProject Religious textsTemplate:WikiProject Religious textsReligious texts articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Thelema, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ThelemaWikipedia:WikiProject ThelemaTemplate:WikiProject ThelemaThelema articles
In the 'Interpretation' section are 3 subsections: Via Hermetic Qabalah, Via Prophecy, and Via English Qaballa. The first two are methods that Crowley used to interpret the Book; the last one is a method not used by Crowley but by English occultists starting in the 1970s. I question why English Qaballa is given this status, when it is merely one of many attempts at 'interpretation' using a version of English gematria and qabalah. The root idea behind these interpretations is the fulfillment of verse 2:55 which states: "Thou shalt obtain the order & value of the English Alphabet; thou shalt find new symbols to attribute them unto."
I suggest a change to this subsection, making it about Crowley's own attempts at fulfilling verse 2:55 using English gematria (via Liber Trigrammaton, as he noted in both his Old and New Comment in The Equinox), with a simple mention of English Qaballa and English Qabalah as attempts made by later researchers, with a redirect to their already existing wikipedia pages. Catalyst418 (talk) 23:58, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Catalyst418: It's included because there are third-party sources for it, specifically about using it to interpret the Book. You're free to include other systems or "Crowley's own attempts" as long as you can provide third-party sources for them. The article already has too many quotations and citations to primary sources. Book reception sections should include all notable views, not just those of its author. This is an article about a book, not about Crowley's interpretation or failure to interpret that book. Skyerise (talk) 00:04, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand that the article is about the book and not about Crowley per se, but given that the first 2 subsections are about his own interpretations, it seems odd that the only other approach mentioned is the English Qaballa, which is only one of many attempts at exegesis via English, (while ignoring what Crowley had to say on the subject). I am not advocating that only Crowley's views on the book matter, but that later attempts should be contextualized in the light of Crowley's initial efforts in the same direction. In that regard, it would be more neutral to make the subsection about exegesis via English in general, and not about E.Q. specifically. Catalyst418 (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Catalyst418: Yes, but you see, nearly all the other systems listed at English Qabalah are self-sourced. There are no secondary sources that confirm their notability. Most of that article should be deleted, almost every section violates our rules against both primary sourcing and sourcing to self-published material. Also, Wikipedia is a collaborative project. I've no interest in expanding on Crowley's efforts myself. But you can, provided you can source the material to a biography or some other secondary source. We call that WP:SOFIXIT. Skyerise (talk) 14:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
