Talk:Ordo Templi Orientis

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2

Notable members sourced?

L.R.H. has been added again. Should not be on here, correct? Also I don't see citations for any of these others listed. Maybe if we actually give a source for every person, it will discourage people from adding "suspected" members. Also perhaps the lead paragraph for this section should be changed since determining what is "commonly believed" is not really the same as simply reporting what is claimed in reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thiebes (talk • contribs) 19:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Source 'em all, and if not possible, delete. That's how Wikipedia works. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm copying this from my user talk page:

Its been awhile since I've checked up on the article, and I've noticed that you removed the entire section we had for notable members. Are you adverse to the proposition that I add it back, citing each one? SynergeticMaggot (talk) 08:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• If you have a clean reliable source for each one, no problem. But previously there was little we'd consider a reliable source if it had appeared in any other article; mostly it was a list of people not notable or interesting in any other way except that we knew they were more or less prominent OTO members. I mean, really, I love him dearly, but who other than in the context of the OTO would know or care about Bill Heidrick? Or likewise, Ebony Anpu? We don't get to make exceptions just because the OTO doesn't publicly say anything about anyone's membership. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 13:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I get your point now. Thanks for the response. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 20:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

FA or GA

I've begun making small edits again to the article. My intentions are for good article or featured article status. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 10:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Albion OTO

I deleted Albion OTO as a group who consider themselves legitimate OTO since they disbanded. Their founder, Rob Curley, stated on July 6, 2008:

"Due to the recent TM Case appeal ruling I have decided to disband the Albion O.T.O. My personal decision was easily made the instant upon reading about the ruling; and legally it also sets a precedent, that although debatable (like all COTO wins) yet makes it very likely that future cases would go their way."

Unfortunately I cannot publish the link to it as Wikipedia blocks the site name. Can we agree that they are no longer relevant to the article?

--Rodneyorpheus (talk) 08:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

As publisher of the site to which Rodneyorpheus refers, and as someone entirely impartial in respect of claimants to the OTO title, I can confirm that his quotation is accurate and that the Albion OTO no longer exists. The specific link can be provided if an administrator wishes to view and/or whitelist it. Ankhefenkhons (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course the site was blacklisted in part because it's not a reliable source, so what it may or may not say is irrelevant. However, I see no reason to keep Albion OTO in the article if they no longer exist. Though of course the suppression and intimidation of other branches of OTO is of course pertinent to the article. Perhaps that could be worked in. Will in China (talk) 01:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

"suppression and intimidation" is pretty subjective - one man's "suppression" is another man's "rightful legal defence", and I'm not sure if that's a can of worms that really belongs in the article - but I'd be happy to hear arguments to the contrary. For the record, I didn't take out Albion OTO for any reason other than preserving factual accuracy.--Rodneyorpheus (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Kennth Grant and 1951 claim

I've just noticed that the article states:

Kenneth Grant asserted this command in 1951, stating "I am authorized to operate the O.T.O. in England",[23] thus specifically claiming only Crowley's title as X° of "Ireland, Iona, and All the Britains". Germer responded by expelling Grant from O.T.O. in 1955

This would seem to be factually incorrect. Grant did claim (correctly) to operate OTO in England in 1951 since he had been granted a charter by Karl Germer on 5th March 1951 to run a Camp there. However AFAIK Grant did NOT claim the X* title at this point - can someone find a primary source to support that assertion made in the article? I can't remember seeing one...

The article is correct to state that he was expelled by Germer in 1955, but not as a response to claiming to be X* (and 4 years after the fact would be a pretty slow response!). The actual reason for his expulsion was spelled out in the notice that was sent by Germer on 20th July 1955:

By printing and distributing a so-called “Manifesto” without my approval, and behind my back, you have shown lack of the sense of decency and for due authority. By making false and misleading statements therein, printing outright lies, and generally sailing under false pretenses, you have shown moral and spiritual dishonesty and proved yourself utterly unworthy for leadership in a cause that is even slightly connected with an Order like the O.T.O., much less than with a cause like the Law of Thelema.

Can we agree on some better wording that reflects a more neutral and factual description of these events?

--Rodneyorpheus (talk) 07:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Just made a proposed change, but realised after I'd done it that I wasn't logged in... --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 16:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The Caliphate

The article said that Crowley bestowed the title of Caliph on McMurtry, when in fact he did no such thing (and it's arguable if it there even was such a title in O.T.O. in the first place). Crowley's letter of 21 November 1944 states that:

Fr∴ [Saturnus] is, of course, the natural Caliph; but there are many details concerning the actual policy or working which hit his blind spots. In any case, he can only be a stopgap, because of his age; I have to look for his successor

And then goes on to imply that McMurty could be that successor. That's as far as it goes. So I've edited the article to reflect that.

--Rodneyorpheus (talk) 13:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Black Lodge of Santa Cruz

Why is the self-published "Black Lodge of Santa Cruz" listed as a reference source?

Self-published sources are largely not acceptable, though may be used only in limited circumstances, with caution, when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

I don't think "Satyr" fits within these guidelines surely?

--Rodneyorpheus (talk) 13:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

'Agree and seeing there has been no response to this for well over a year, I'm going ahead with removing the reference. The source is particularly questionable and should not be cited in WP. --Thiebes (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Reverts

I see that jpgordon and I have both been forced to Revert what is pretty much vandalism of the article by someone pushing yet another so-called OTO in Mexico... Let's hope whoever is doing it gives up soon. --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 08:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking that maybe we should either add that Mexican SOTO link back in to the 'Other orgs' section, or alternately just remove the 'Other orgs' completely, I don't think it serves any useful purpose any more. Comments? --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 09:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Since no-one has replied to this, I've gone ahead and made the edit. There were only two organisations listed there, and one of them doesn't even claim to be Ordo Templi Orientis any more. The other appears to be a Russian group that no-one has ever heard of, so I think we can safely say it's pretty spurious.

I've just had to revert a bunch of anonymous edits re the initiation teachings of O.T.O. I'm going to assume they were made in good faith, so if the editor in question is reading this: linking to external sites from the body of the article is strongly discouraged, and linking to illegally published copyright material is highly discouraged. Please do not do it. The writings in question are already cited in the references at the bottom of the page, that's as it should be. --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining, yes it is certainly done in good faith and in the spirit of Wikipedia. I have put in the names of the texts again without linking to any copyrighted material. This is in order to give them the proper context within the O.T.O. system and I think adds greatly to the section. Indeed, an explanation of what these texts contains might be in order to properly highlight the teachings of the O.T.O. and I will look into doing so rather than linking to external 'copyrighted' material. An'el Haqq (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the new revision, looks a lot better now. As regards "explaining" the OTO texts, please see Wikipedia:Core content policies --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 07:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Typhonian Order

Changed several parts of the article to reflect the change of TOTO to the Typhonian Order in March 2009 - see in Volume 2, Number 3 of Starfire. Added citation for Grant that was missing, and deleted some extraneous text in a couple of places. --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 09:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)