Talk:Liber OZ
Latest comment: 3 months ago by Asilvering in topic Pronunciation of Liber OZ
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Liber OZ article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.png){kind=small}
 | A fact from Liber OZ appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 27 August 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
Arbitrary heading
editI've just stated this entry. References will follow shortly - please don't delete! Harbard the Ancient (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Took off the "unreferenced" tag - hope that's ok.Harbard the Ancient (talk) 21:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Bulked up the page a bit with extra information. FUTURI (talk) 02:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Did you know nomination
edit- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by SL93 talk 14:21, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
( )
- ... that in 1941 Aleister Crowley issued a manifesto of human rights which included the controversial assertion of the right to commit tyrannicide?
- Source: Crowley, Aleister; et. al. (2004) [1997]. "Editor's note to p. 689 Appendix VIII". In Hymenaeus Beta (ed.). Magick: Liber ABA, Book 4, parts I-IV (2nd. rev. ed.). York Beach, Maine: S. Weiser. p. 788: "[...] but I've got them down to five sections: moral, bodily, mental, sexual freedom, and the safeguard tyrannicide [...]".
- Reviewed:
5x expanded by Skyerise (talk).
Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.
Skyerise (talk) 11:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC).
- Comment only – the hook is falling foul of WP:EGG. The link to tyrannicide should point to tyrannicide the way this is written. Schwede66 04:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Point taken, I revised it. Skyerise (talk) 10:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Skyerise: I'm reviewing this. The article seems mostly good but I was concerned if you were relying on Crowley's primary source for the hook fact. However, it is Hymenaeus Beta's note that stated Liber OZ has the "controversial" assertion of the right to commit tyrannicide, right? I was wondering if HB actually used the word controversial in the writing; otherwise we'd probably need to remove the word from the hook. BorgQueen (talk) 01:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- @BorgQueen: oops, I'd meant to have both Readdy and HB. Added the quote from Readdy above. It's Readdy that calls it controversial, and HB that confirms Crowley himself called it a "safeguard", this is not just an interpretation made by his biographers. Skyerise (talk) 02:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| QPQ: None required. |
I don't know how well the subject matter will be received by those unfamiliar with Crowley or the occult in general, but the nomination meets the DYK requirements. BorgQueen (talk) 02:58, 15 August 2024 (UTC)Safeguard tyrannicide
editSomeone changed this heading, but this is the author's stated intent. quoted in the last paragraph of the history section. We would need sources that show that he intended it to be applied more generally than he stated, or that his modern-day followers interpret it more broadly, to change the heading. I am open to this change, just so long as the necessary text and citations needed to support the new heading are provided. Skyerise (talk) 08:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Article is far too long for subject
editThe entirety of Liber OZ is shorter than this article's "summary" of it. Mosi Nuru (talk) 17:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Mosi Nuru: That's your opinion. Most of the length is due to giving the historical context, which is essential. Also, when two editors disagree, policy says the article stays as it was. See WP:BRD. If you make a bold edit, and are reverted, then unless there is a consensus for change, the article is maintained as is was. You are also not permitted to canvass other editors to build a consensus, but typically must wait for editors already watching the article to respond. I get that you apparently don't like the topic, but you are only here to hound me due to a disagreement elsewhere. And as you have been informed, that's prohibited behavior which interfere with the work of other editors. Skyerise (talk) 20:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- "you are only here to hound me due to a disagreement elsewhere" - I wish you would stop accusing me of bad faith, it does not help the make the article better.
- WP:AGF Mosi Nuru (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Headings
editThe headings follow the categories from Crowley's own description, quoted at the end of the history section: ""five sections: moral, bodily, mental, sexual, and the safeguard tyrannicide...". If you want to change them, you must show a consensus to do so. Thanks. Skyerise (talk) 20:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
@Scyrme: @Randy Kryn:: your thoughts on the several ill-considered edits and comments from a relatively new editor above? Skyerise (talk) 00:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not aware enough of the topic in order to have an opinion. Thanks for the ping. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Removal of neutral material under false claim of WP:PEACOCK
editThe removal of short descriptive words like 'succinct' and 'these', does not fall under WP:PEACOCK. Problems with the article should be tagged in place and discussed here, per WP:BRD. JPS, you bold edit was partially reverted, so next it remains at the WP:STATUSQUO and gets discussed here. Skyerise (talk) 21:14, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- You do not WP:OWN this article and you have now reverted four times in 24 hours. jps (talk) 21:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Two of which were minor, and you didn't warn me before reverting me so I could self revert. That's bad form. You don't own the article either. Skyerise (talk) 21:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter how major or minor they were. You need to let other editors work and stop reflexively reverting. jps (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ditto, dude. Pot, kettle. Etc. I completely rewrote the material at Worship of heavenly bodies to address the concerns of multiple editors, but you seem to beleive that that MAGIC ALPHABET SOUP allows you to unilaterally remove and change things. It just ain't so. This is a collaborative process, an editor on that talk page has suggested that there is no hurry, yet you abandon ongoing discussion and your methods seem to me to be deliberately abusive. Skyerise (talk) 21:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Why are you talking about another article here?
- I am beginning to question your ability to edit collaboratively.
- Let's try discussion, I guess: You say that the word "succinct" does not fall under WP:PEACOCK. Can you explain how you came to that conclusion? Succinct is a judgement. It is not an objective measurement. jps (talk) 21:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- It means 'short'. And it is not one of the obviously peacocky words listed as examples at WP:PEACOCK, nearly all of which are used to attempt to glorify individuals rather than describe a textual attribute. You're grasping at straws here. 'Succinct' is not a peacock word unless you can show that a consensus of editors considers it so in the context where you want to change it. You have not so demonstrated that. You seem to be completely unaware that, in general, when two editors disgree, the article remains at WP:STATUSQUO until the editor who thinks the article should be changed can show that there is a consensus for that change, or that a consensus is not a simply majority, and than discussions once started should be let to proceed for a week at least, more if they are active. If you must, go to WP:3O to request a third-opinion: these issues don't have to be solved in 10 minutes flat. Your repeated reverts without talk page discussion are not collaboration, they are more like intimidation; whenever I make more than 1 revert, you can be sure I've opened a discussion on the talk pagee. But not you? You don't have discuss? Why? Slow down, dude. Skyerise (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- No, succinct means "brief and to the point" [1] Generally a positive judgement of communication. This is WP:PEACOCK. Wikipedia should not be making judgements in WPvoice. jps (talk) 22:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- It means 'short'. And it is not one of the obviously peacocky words listed as examples at WP:PEACOCK, nearly all of which are used to attempt to glorify individuals rather than describe a textual attribute. You're grasping at straws here. 'Succinct' is not a peacock word unless you can show that a consensus of editors considers it so in the context where you want to change it. You have not so demonstrated that. You seem to be completely unaware that, in general, when two editors disgree, the article remains at WP:STATUSQUO until the editor who thinks the article should be changed can show that there is a consensus for that change, or that a consensus is not a simply majority, and than discussions once started should be let to proceed for a week at least, more if they are active. If you must, go to WP:3O to request a third-opinion: these issues don't have to be solved in 10 minutes flat. Your repeated reverts without talk page discussion are not collaboration, they are more like intimidation; whenever I make more than 1 revert, you can be sure I've opened a discussion on the talk pagee. But not you? You don't have discuss? Why? Slow down, dude. Skyerise (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ditto, dude. Pot, kettle. Etc. I completely rewrote the material at Worship of heavenly bodies to address the concerns of multiple editors, but you seem to beleive that that MAGIC ALPHABET SOUP allows you to unilaterally remove and change things. It just ain't so. This is a collaborative process, an editor on that talk page has suggested that there is no hurry, yet you abandon ongoing discussion and your methods seem to me to be deliberately abusive. Skyerise (talk) 21:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter how major or minor they were. You need to let other editors work and stop reflexively reverting. jps (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Two of which were minor, and you didn't warn me before reverting me so I could self revert. That's bad form. You don't own the article either. Skyerise (talk) 21:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- If this is a dispute about the content in this edit here, [2] I would have to suggest that 'peacock' was an entirely appropriate description of the language used. Even 'hagiographic' wouldn't be much of an exaggeration for that matter. Wikipedia is not a platform for expressing ones personal admiration for the subject of an article, and nor is it a platform for random diversions into unsourced analogies with Alan Turing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Pronunciation of Liber OZ
editI find the IPA used in the opening paras of articles very useful.
I assume "Liber" sounds like the first two syllables of liberty.
Do people / "adherents" usually say "ozz", or Oh-zee (US) or Oh-zedd (UK) ?
Elmeter (talk) 05:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Elmeter, I've never heard anyone say the topic of this article out loud, so take this with a grain of salt, but it should probably be ˈli.ber, not like the first two syllables of liberty. It's a Latin word, not English. -- asilvering (talk) 06:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)