This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles 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.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kabbalah, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Kabbalah 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.KabbalahWikipedia:WikiProject KabbalahTemplate:WikiProject KabbalahKabbalah
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
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Thelema, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ThelemaWikipedia:WikiProject ThelemaTemplate:WikiProject ThelemaThelema
the Qiploth is absolutely not evil. It's a map for the psyche. It is also used by a lot of psychiatrist for that reason and because it's transferable. It starts at the top which is the absolut, pure divinity, not evil. It then goes through a system of processes until a thought becomes material, or manifested. Who told you this information... And you call the dark evil, because you can't see. Both light and dark are capable of the most evil deeds. The World is not Christian and you offer their mindset in Wikipedia, or did you ask ai. I'm not irate or upset, just let down... 80 million pagans tortured and killed and they still walk amongst us, judging, creating war. Please someone study this and provide an intelligent explanation that isn't biased or complete misunderstanding, or whatever this is. Hail humanity.
@Prezbo: This is in regard to the edit with comment "better to avoid citing nazis". I was asked to clarify in the talk section why i reverted that. My reason for reverting the edit was: Removing a citation based on his political beliefs is just bonkers. Are you removing all citations to nazis? You want to go down that road? · · · Omnissiahs hierophant (talk) 11:29, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I now reverted you removal of the source. Its just nuts to remove stuff because they are nazis, or you believe them to be nazis. Wikipedia:Verifiability#WP:ONUS does not apply to removing stuff because the authors political opinions does not align with your own (or if you just claim they are nazis, etc).
Also, a lot of the contemporary authors on this subject (qlippoth) are outspoken nazis, or could be claimed are nazis. O9A and all their offshoots for example. The article does not include any contemporary material but cuts off at about halfway through the 20th century, and this is also irrelevant to the fundamental argument per se, but imagine if nazism was a reason to not include them, then when the late 20th century and later parts are eventually written? Should we just leave all that material out? Of course not. · · · Omnissiahs hierophant (talk) 11:18, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
1) It's not supporting anything that we don't already have citations for 2) It's published by a boutique occultist press, i.e. not particularly reliable by normal Wikipedia standards. 3) His abhorrent politics does speak to reliability.
I'm not objecting to citing Nazis as primary sources but that's not what we're doing here. I wouldn't consider a history of O9A written by an adherent to be a reliable secondary source, would you? Prezbo (talk) 11:56, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Flowers owned Runa-Raven Press[1] so this is effectively self-published. Wikipedia doesn't really enforce WP:RS on articles like this, maybe for the better, but this is a good place to start. Prezbo (talk) 12:05, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've never read the Reliable Sources policy top to bottom but here's a relevant passage:
"Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest. Such sources include content farms, websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited." Prezbo (talk) 12:28, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
1) It's not supporting anything that we don't already have citations for 2) It's published by a boutique occultist press, i.e. not particularly reliable by normal Wikipedia standards. 3) His abhorrent politics does speak to reliability.
Argument 1: The more sources the better, up to some point. Argument 2: This is the ‘fringe-argument’ I’ve seen others use. I am not a fan of it, but maybe others can chip in and give their thoughts?
Argument 3: Here I believe is your real reason for deleting the citation, the very reason given in the original edit. The author is evil. Why does that matter??! How is that an argument?
Everything on Wikipedia comes down to reliable sourcing even when it's clear to everyone involved that that's not what the argument is really about. So forget about the author's moral character and focus on the fact that it's a self-published book by someone whose extremist views make it a "questionable source" per WP:RS. You've yet to mount a positive argument for Flowers' status as an expert in this area that would make him qualified to comment on Kenneth Grant's beliefs. Prezbo (talk) 11:07, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your final question, it matters because it's bad for society to give power and influence to Nazis, and scholarly prestige is a kind of power. It doesn't matter that much because this is Wikipedia not Harvard, but you could say that about everything we do here. If Flowers actually deserved the prestige we're giving him by citing his work, if he was a widely recognized expert in the field whose work was published by academic presses, etc., then I wouldn't challenge a citation like this, but I don't think that's the case. Prezbo (talk) 11:17, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, you began this with deleting the citation and giving the argument that he is a nazi, and then after some debate, changed your reason to be that its because its a small publisher and therefore too fringe. You have also not stopped saying that its because of the original reason. It seems to me that you are just attempting to find any reason to remove him now, but the real reason is his perceived evilness. · · · Omnissiahs hierophant (talk) 11:35, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Why not both? His harmful politics are my internal motivation, the noncompliance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines is the argument that I expect to hold water with other Wikipedia editors. They do go hand in hand since big mainstream presses and academic publishers generally avoid publishing Nazis, and WP:RS lists "views that are widely acknowledged as extremist" as one of the qualifiers that makes a source "questionable." Prezbo (talk) 11:42, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter for the text if he is there or not, there probably is enough sources for supporting the statements anyways. This is about you wanting to remove a citation because the author is a nazi and citing nazis lends them power, according to you (see above conversation). But you can not just go about removing citations to people with the wrong political ideas!!! Are you removing all the commies too, are their texts fine for you? What about republicans? · · · Omnissiahs hierophant (talk) 11:52, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The other point to reiterate here is that WP:ONUS is applicable here (why wouldn't it be?) so the citation shouldn't be there without a clear consensus to include it. If you don't like the point I'm making about why it's bad to cite Nazis (in a way that's not comparable to communists or Republicans) then just ignore it and focus on the policy-based arguments I'm making above. I could pretend that this is just about Wikipedia policy and real-world politics don't enter into it, that's usually what people do here, but I think it's a pointless pretense. Prezbo (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just pretend its not a political reason for deleting the citation?? "Ignore the reason why and focus on that the source is contested, and until the contestation is resolved via consensus agree to leave it out." - No. Wikipedia should preferably not be a place for political battlefields but a place where we gather some kind of knowledge :( Yes a lot of people treat it as a political battle field but that does not mean that we should too. I urge you in general to also reconsider those choices and beliefs that led you to that conclusion. · · · Omnissiahs hierophant (talk) 11:08, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
.png){kind=small}
.svg)
