# Talk:Temple of Set

Welcome to the Temple of Set Talk page.  Please feel free to make comments here concerning improving the quality of the Temple of Set article.  Thank you.  User:Balanone 07:02, 11 November 2001‎

Since the concept of "xeper" is so central to the Temple, do you think you could get permission from Mr. Webb to use a short excerpt from one of his books, as an entry for "xeper"? Legally of course someone could use a very short quote under Fair Use, but it would be better if the entry could include that "published with permission..." clause. Perhaps the Egyptian hieroglyph would also be appropriate here? RL Barrett 21:21 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

I've forwarded this request to both Dr. Aquino and Don Webb. User:Balanone 04:00, 27 May 2003

Hathor: this is the only place I've seen the term "Setianic"... would it be more accurate to just use the term "Setian"? I seem to remember that "Setian" is a noun which can also be used as an adjective to describe things (other than members or the ToS) that members of the TOS would find affinity with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.12.22.237 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 6 November 2004

Jan 7 2006: My apologies for not having been around for several months. My thanks to those who have attempted to improve the quality of this article. Unfortunately some others have also made changes not as beneficial to the Wikipedia. I've tried to clean those up, while not removing anything which does contribute to the 'pedia.  User:Balanone 07:57, 8 January 2006

This material is from the article List of purported cults, which we are paring down to a pure list. Editors here can best evaluate its statements and decide how to integrate it into this article. Thanks, -Willmcw 10:55, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Temple of Set
Lupo LeBoucher, a former member, had this to say about the Temple of Set:

"More trivially, they are your typical mail-order cult in any number of ways. They require large amounts of participation on the parts of their members, to the extent that participation in the group becomes a central organizing principle in their lives. They sponsor getaway vacation/conventions which all members are required to attend. They have strict hierarchy, a charismatic leader and apocalyptic prophecy (the "Gifted of Set") are supposed to survive an upcoming apocalypse, according to their Seminal document "The Book of Coming Forth By Night" - though lately they have been making noises that  this is only a metaphorical apocalypse (perhaps to avoid legal intervention in the wake of other post apocalytics), such as the Branch  Davidians and the Solar Temple mass suicides, and the Aum nerve gas  attacks; there was literal belief in this passage as prophecy in the not-too distant past. They have a number of secret documents which one must have certain levels of "attainment" to read; much like  the OT grade documents of Scientology. They have all manner of bizarre theories about atlantis, ancient astronauts, "Tesla Physics," a theory of creationism, holocaust revisionism, and so on..."

References:
Re: Michael Aquino's Latest Threats 
Note that a quick survey of Usenet posts and Internet web pages will likely show that those who disagree with Lupo LeBoucher are as numerous as those who agree with them. Further, while it is easy to find those who agree with him among past members of the Temple, it is equally easy to find those who disagree with him among past members of the Temple, as is the case with any purported cult.

"Many Archeologists and experts in ancient Hamo-Semitic languages, as well as critics of the Temple of Set, assert that if an ancient Egyptian deity were to communicate an ancient Egyptian word, that word would have at least been correctly pronounced by the deity in question as "Khe-per"."
Citations? This paragraph needs them badly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.138.121 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 26 June 2005

I think we should eliminate the material in this page about pronunciation altogether.  It's a bit silly: how could anyone possibly know how ancient Egyptian was pronounced?  Scholars even dispute - or, I should say, have long since stopped disputing - the "correct" pronunciation of Latin and Ancient Greek (which, one may safely gainsay, was pronounced quite differently than its modern counterpart, partly due to the inevitable vicissitudes of history, but more especially due to the sweeping cultural changes during the time of the Ottoman Empire).  Since no audio recordings exist from the Classical Age, determining the "correct" pronunciation of these languages is quite impossible - assuming (and it is quite an assumption) that there ever was a "correct" pronunciation uniform in all city-states and rural regions, throughout history.  As for Egyptian, it is far less likely that we could ever know its pronunciation for certain, since much of Ancient Egyptian history is even older than that of Ancient Greece and Rome, and since the vast majority of Egyptian writing is in pictographs (hieroglyphs) rather than in an alphabetic script. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.169.127.98 (talk • contribs) 06:55, 22 September 2005
Greek — Preceding unsigned comment added by OwarePlayer (talk • contribs) 13:35, 10 January 2006
I agree. -Willmcw 09:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Jan 2006: One of the edits I made this weekend was to remove: "In 1975 Aquino made the claim that the Egyptian god Set communicated the word Xeper to him under the pronunciation of "Kheffer", though the majority of Egyptologists and experts in ancient Hamo/Semitic languages agree that the word Xeper is correctly pronounced as "Khepper" ( with a hard "P" sound ), which indicates the probability that Aquino found the word Xeper in a book written by E. A. Wallis Budge, an Egyptologist known to have had a flawed grasp and understanding of ancient Egyptian language and grammar, further placing Aquino's claims as being in communication with an ancient Egyptian Deity into question."
Though I do use the "Kheffer" pronounciation rather than "Khepper", I have no great desire to see it pronounced either way -- both are fine, and I removed the statement largely because of the discussion above. (I also disagree with the conclusion of the statement, but that's a different discussion.) 
The contributor from 86.142.15.240 who reinserted this statement has not participated in this discussion. How do we resolve the question of removal/inclusion of this statement? 
Balanone 02:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
There is actually some evidence for how "xpr" was pronounced thanks to texts from Ptolemaic Egypt. See Hans Dieter Betz's  _The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation, Including the Demotic Spells_, published 1997 by the University of Chicago Press, ISBN 0226044475. Three times the name CHPHYRIS appears in these papyri, which were found in Thebes, and in all three cases Betz adds a footnote that this is the scarab Khepri. Such phonetic transcriptions using the Greek _phi_ are not uncommon: Plutarch and other Greeks writers apparently heard (and we moderns still use) "kyphi" as the name for an Egyptian incense whose hieroglypic name is "kpt".
"Hamo-Semitic" is a term that is strongly depreciated (see "Hamitic Myth" under Hamitic). The term used by academics is "Afro-Asiatic" (see http://www.ethnologue.com/ as well as Afro-Asiatic languages). Given that and the lack of any citation for the "Egyptologists and experts in ancient Hamo/Semitic languages" claim, as well as the evidence from Betz, the edit seems weak, and I'd agree with Willmcw that it should be removed. OwarePlayer 13:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
-->
Revision as of 08:57, 23 January 2006, added: The term came about in 1975, when Aquino made the claim that the Egyptian god Set 'communicated' the word Xeper to him, during a working of high black magic, as it is termed within TOS.
Not quite -- the term predated Michael Aquino's use by several thousand years.  However, the specific use by the Temple as a directive or incentive very possibly does not match the common uses in ancient Egypt. There should be a better way to phrase the addition to state this.
Of course, I thought everyone knew that.
The paragraph explains the TOS interpretation of the term, then states that the word in TOS context was orignally transmitted to M.Aquino by Set himself. Though of course, D.Webb all reinterpreted the term as well. I suppose the relevence of post-modernism to the interpretation of such terms, would be beyond the scope of the article?
The contributer wrote "as it is termed within TOS".  Yet search of Aquino's on-line draft memoirs as well as the Temple of Set web site yields no reference to "high black magic". There are, however, Setian references to this founding 'revelation' as the "Santa Barbara Working" or the "North Solstice X Working" (PDF; see also references to the "North Solstice" in quotes from the Setian Crystal Tablet floating around the Internet). I've edited the passage to use the latter term, since the Crystal Tablet quotes imply it is more-or-less standard usage. I've further replaced the link to Webb's "Xeper" essay (being on the organization's web site, it presumably mirrors recent Setian thought on the matter?) and added a pointer to Aquino's memoirs on his "Xeper" experience. -- OwarePlayer 04:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

          Just a short idea to this theme: I'm german. In the german language the
         word "Kaefer" means "beetle". So maybe - especially because of the 
         archeological work of the "Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft" (DOG) :-) who discovered for 
         example the Nofretete-bust - the Xeper-symbol was named simply after the animal it 
         showed: the beetle. So I think, it might be spelled as " K h e f f e r ".
         Anonymus, 5.11.2006

I've amended some phrases in this article to fall in line with NPOV. Most are minor adjustments such as changing "The Temple of Set was founded in 1975 by Michael Aquino who was charged with child molestation, and a group of other members who left the Church of Satan organization because of disagreements with its administration and philosophy." to the more accurate "The Temple of Set was founded in 1975 by Michael Aquino (who was charged with child molestation though the charges were dropped), and a group of other members who left the Church of Satan organization because of disagreements with its administration and philosophy." Other changes are visible in the page's history. - Reason. 25 October 2005
Jan 2005: Recent edit added the clause, "... though [it] is largly an American based organisation."  Question: How does one determine whether an oragnization is largely a [whatever geographic] based organization? The majority of Setians are Americans, but the majority of Catholics are South American -- does that make the Roman Catholic Church largely South American? Or because its offices are in Rome, does that make it a largely Italian organization? Members of the Board of Directors have served from Europe, conclaves (conventions) have been held in Europe, gatherings on at least four continents. Assuming (for the sake of this question) that the Temple of Set either is or someday will be an international organization, at what point does one stop trying to claim "though [it] is largly an American based organisation"?
Balanone 03:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Put simply, the majority of individuals whom join TOS are Americian, therefore TOS membership is largley made up of Americans. Maybe, in the future this statement should be changed, though in the present, the majority of members live in or are of american descent.
I have replaced 'more than half' to 'mostly' within the USA, as 'more than half' is missleading and evasive. One might conclude that every third year, it takes place outside of the USA, which is simply not the case.
Response: Our hope has been to hold a Conclave outside the USA approximately every 3rd year, and we've come close to meeting that goal, with multiple Conclaves held so far in England (London) and Germany (Munich and Berlin). We unfortunately had to cancel two additional scheduled Conclaves (one in Germany and one in Sweden), and that is why we haven't hit our 1/3 non-US goal.Balanone 05:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Again, maybe in the future it should change, though as far as I know the 'yearly' conclave has only taken place outside of the USA two or three times in the last decade. While hopes and good intentions are well intended, as within politics, they should not be used as an excuse to distort information.
I would also bring it to your attention, that the accuracy of your information may be taken more seriously as a representative of TOS, if the information on your website was accurate. According to that, D.Webb is still high priest? 3rd March 2006
17th August 2006: Removed the Balanone homepage link, as is badly out of date and does not seem to have been updated for a number of years.
Removed two links that are avalible through the link to TOS main website; the addition of links to members homepages and information that can be found from the main link, is not relevent to information on TOS and seems to be self promotion by TOS members.
Removed link that is avalible through the main TOS website; again the addition of links to members homepages and information that can be found from the main link, is not relevent to information on TOS and seems to be self promotion by TOS members. (5th March 2007)
Removed link avalible through TOS website; again the addition of links to members homepages and information that can be found from the main link, is not relevent to information on TOS and seems to be self promotion by TOS members. (8th April 2007)
Removed link avalible through TOS website; again the addition of links to members homepages and information that can be found from the main link, is not relevent to information on TOS and seems to be self promotion by TOS members. (17th April 2007)

In my edit last weekend, I added the statement, "All officers and workers within the Temple of Set are volunteers. All officers are selected from within the Priesthood."  A contributor from 86.142.15.240 added ", though recieve some payment", which is very false. As is appropriate in volunteer and non-profit organizations, the volunteers will receive reimbursement for expenses encurred in service to the organization, but no volunteer within the Temple of Set receives any payment in excess of those expenses. Any member of the Priesthood has full access to the Temple's books, on request, and can verify this (as has been verified to me personally). I am therefore reverting that addition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balanone (talk • contribs) 02:20, 11 January 2006

I note that someone deleted the statement that Dr. Michael Aquino is not an officer of the organization.  I added it back in, since he is not an officer.  I see that the Wikipedia page on him suggests he is current High Priest. He is not; his latest term of office in that position ended a while ago.  This can be verified if needed by the Executive Director.Balanone 06:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Removing Vitalyb's Satanism template, added by him Jan 6 2007.  It seems to be the consensus here that the Temple of Set no longer has anything significant to do with modern Satanism, and therefore the Template was removed without complaint by Darkahn on Nov 30 2006. Unless Vitalyb can suggest good reason for the template to be used here, it should be left off. Balanone 22:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Edited out the reference to the current chairman of the council of nine, this information is only relevent to the internal bureaucratic workings of the temple.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.155.90 (talk) 11:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC) 

Like most good Christians put a few Satanists together and they tend to fight each other like ferrets in a sack. Surely this aspect of the Temple of Set should be mentioned? its long and tiring war with the Church of Satan can be a source of fascination and much humour.
Some Setian philosophy is particularly silly, they unify Satan and Set, but with little or no justification. Researching this area myself I found that Satan probably does have a relationship with the Egyptian gods - except that Satan looks very similar to Horus rather than Set, and indeed the great pyramid has several names that connect it directly to Lucifer. (His name means 'bearer of the Light' while its name means 'the Light', it wouldn't be a great stretch for that to actually be 'bearer of the Light' instead). Moreover the logic of the situation suggests it quite strongly - the Jews had a habit of bundling their enemies Gods in as demons - eg Baal and Belial, and they certainly didn't see the Egyptians or their Gods as great friends. If Jehovah supposedly caused the Egyptian plagues then surely that would make him a good candidate for being linked with Set wouldn't it?.  Lucien86 (talk) 03:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

No horus was jesus aka moses aka the good guy. Set was the badguy. The hidden secret truth is that its all nonsense and nice guys finish last so you might as well lie cheat and steal.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.106.206.134 (talk) 00:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC) 

This article needs extensive work. It presently reads like a manifesto for the Temple with a superious comment added here and there by the Temple's detractors. It is also riddled with loaded words. I suggest a complete revision. FenrirRising (talk) 11:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

As per above request for quality of article consideration, I have recently made a number of edits to this page which, I hope, leave it reading less like something from an occult-fanzine. Before reverting, please raise specifics here if you feel they do not contribute to the article and we can reach a consensus that accounts for the most up to date and objective information concerning the Temple. I have removed the information relating to James Fitzsimmons as new High Priest as there is not yet a public confirmation of this. However, he is the new High Priest! Apex156 (talk) 12:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The previous version of the article had the following cited claims: The organization has been described as resembling an individualistic variation of the magical orders of 19th and early 20th century Europe, such as the Masonic lodges, Ordo Templi Orientis and the A.'.A.'. For members, self-realization and spiritual development is seen as more important than the temple as such. You removed the information, added your own interpretation and left the reference.
Same situation with the following wording from the previous version: The figure of Set, also called the Prince of Darkness, is understood as a real deity, but is not worshipped as a god. You changed "real deity" to "principal" and left the citation as it is.
You also removed sourced information. The article said: Joining more than one order is discouraged by the temple. The oldest and most important order of the temple is the "Order of the Trapezoid", which focuses on Grail mysticism and Runic magic. You removed these claims without any explanation why. This is also the case with the following sentence:  Only a handful of members have attained this degree, and most "fifth-degree" concepts defined in such a manner are no longer studied in the organization. You removed everything after the comma, even though the information has a reference to a reliable source.
I understand you are a member of this organization and might have more up-to date knowledge about its practices, but we still need reliable sources. Mvaldemar (talk) 12:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Firstly, thank you for taking a constructive approach to this. I am an affiliate of the Temple but I do not believe that that gives me automatic rights to this article. Unfortunately, I'm fairly unsure how to correctly cite within the articles here and so I offer my apologies if I've made an error due to that. However, I am familiar with the types of information that requires citation and I know where that information can be found, especially on this topic.
I have now included citations relating to the first two issues which you raise, both of which come from the Temple itself. If I have cited incorrectly then please alter as appropriate.
The information on the Order of the Trapezoid is actually incorrect. There are no "most important" Orders within the Temple and any claims to the contrary is speculation without foundation or supporting information. I would seriously challenge the scholarly status of any publication which claims otherwise. Ditto the idea that it focuses on the Runes which is a general misconception which none of the Or.T's public documents support.
The accuracy of the information on which concepts are studied is perhaps debatable, though (because of that) I take your point and I'll re-add it back into the article.Apex156 (talk) 14:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
It's problematic to cite the temple's own materials. We need a reliable third party sources as per WP:THIRDPARTY. Maybe we can find something on Google Books or Google Scholar. Otherwise, the content in question has to be removed.
We should also restore the membership figure to the intro. It had a reliable citation. Mvaldemar (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I understand. However, if information is relating to the Temple's self-statement and if information from third party sources is based on that, then it meets objectivity criteria. For example, it is impossible to write about the degree structure without using the Temple as a reliable source of information about itself. On the other hand, if there are reputable, third party sources contradicting that information (for example if a peer-reviewed scholarly article describes ToS as "theistic Satanists") or criticizing the Temple, etc. then I would suggest that both pieces of information are added with the fact that they conflict pointed out in the text. Apex156 (talk) 22:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The Controversy section of the article is rather sparse, and there have been plenty of accusations, from it being a cult, to it's founder and leader being accused of sexually abusing children and if nobody else expands it in the next few days, I'll do it.
Source of those accusations: [redacted]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bumblebritches57 (talk • contribs) 08:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC) 

So are Bill Cosby's recent controversy, yet they're still on his page... Bumblebritches57 (talk) 06:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to remove your link. This news article doesn't appear in the archives of the San Jose Mercury News. Given that the article was written at the height of the Satanic Panic, and contains nothing but innuendo, I am guessing it was retracted at some point. I'm not up on all of the edge cases for what makes a good reference, but I imagine that having been retracted the article could not be used for a reference by Wikipedia standards, since that's the whole point of reliable sources, that they correct themselves when they mess up. But, even if this were allowed as a source for the article, a link to a copy of this article on some right wing conspiracy blog wouldn't cut it for a cite either, since we have no way of knowing if the copy is accurate. And lastly, I'm removing the link, because looking at the circumstances, I think part of the motivation for putting it here was to advertise the blog on which it appears. 23.242.135.196 (talk) 10:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Temple of Set/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 18:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Very interesting. Happy to offer a review. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explicitly say (perhaps with bold text) that worshippers are referred to as Setians? Compare the first mention of Muslim in our article on Islam.
Great idea. Added. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
"the number of Temple memberships" is a slightly odd construction. I certainly understand what is meant, though.
Another good point. Corrected. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
"the scholar Kennet Granholm argued that it should not" Ambiguous- what should not what?
Ah - fair point. I've gone with "Conversely, the scholar Kennet Granholm argued that it should not be considered a form of Satanism because it does not place an emphasis on the figure of Satan.". Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
You have a linking error in footnote 9.
Well spotted! Corrected. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
"In this tract, teachings about the creation of the world, God, and humanity are presented, while also conveying a dualistic idea of Satan complementing God" Shift in tense/subject
Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Repetition of "In this tract"
I've removed this second appearance. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
"had both misunderstood its origin and message" I assume you mean "had misunderstood both its origin and message"?
Indeed! Well spotted. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
"In doing so, Aquino presented himself" In doing what? This needs to be clarified.
I've replaced this with "In making reference to The Book of the Law," Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
"Aquino expressed obsession with" How about "Aquino displayed an obsession with"?
That's a definite improvement. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
"who then presented Xem as his Aeonic Word to the Setians" I think this needs more explanation; I'm not really sure what is being claimed.
This is a sentence that was recently added by another editor (sadly I don't have access to Granholm's 2014 book; Brill does like to publish its work well above my price range!). I will see what I can do. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I have now moved the discussion of Xem to a more appropriate location of the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
"as a natural and necessary further development of Aquino's Xeper" This is the first mention of Xeper.
Similarly, this isn't my contribution and I don't have access to the source in question. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I have also moved this to a point in the article after the section in which Xeper is introduced. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
"aspects of Satanic philosophy with the modern Pagan religion of Heathenry" Just double-checking that you definitely mean Satanic and not Setian?
Yes, this one should be "Satanic" as opposed to "Setian". Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
"the Satanic Ritual Abuse hysteria" Are those capitals necessary?
It looks like our actual article on the subject uses the lower case so I shall change this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
"Amid the hysteria, in the United Kingdom tabloids like the News of the World and Sunday Mirror produced sensationalist coverage of the group." This needs cleaning. I was also a little worried about BLP concerns, but the discussion seems proportional and it is sourced to a highly reliable (in the Wikipedia sense) source.
I've gone with "In the United Kingdom during this same period, tabloids like the News of the World and Sunday Mirror published sensationalist articles about the Temple". I too considered BLP issues but as you say, this is well referenced to Reliable Sources, which don't shy away from discussing the issue. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to hear a little more about the happenings this century; the schism and the backing-and-forthing. You mention a Patricia Hardy further down the article; she might be a useful addition to the history section. And who leads the organisation right now?
Hmm. I'm finding this a little difficult. I've pretty much exhausted the Reliable Sources that I have access to and they don't deal with these more recent events, instead focusing on the early history of the Temple. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps for such uncontroversial(?) factual material as who's in charge, we could rely on a primary source? Josh Milburn (talk) 04:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
"However he criticised the latter as "fraud and/or self-delusion" which deceives the consciousness into thinking that it has been accepted in the objective universe." It's not clear to me what the latter or it refer to, here.
I've swapped "latter" to "white magic" although I've left the "it" — which refers to the consciousness — in place, because I'm not sure what synonym to use on that count. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
You have a couple of instances of small-s-satanic. Is this deliberate, or does it need fixing?
In one instance it is because of a direct quote, but in the two other examples I have replaced the small-s with a large one. It seems that there is some discrepancy in the literature on the subject; some favour the lower case in certain situations but others don't. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
"serves as a space to mutual evaluation" Is this grammatically sound?
I've corrected this to "for mutual" Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I wonder if the full version of the photo of Webb, seeing as it also has the Schrecks, might be preferable?
Good idea! I've swapped the image. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
If this was at FAC, I'd say that the "Pylons, elements, orders and conclaves" section is a bit choppy, but I'm not concerned for GAC purposes.
Again, if this were at FAC, I might quibble with the UK-focus in the demographic section. However, I'm happy for GAC.
I agree, it is a little UK-centric, but I can't find any reliable sources discussing the demographic aspects of the Temple in the US, at least at present. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I want to have a good look at the sources and images, but that's enough for now. My first impression is that this is a strong article which I will almost certainly be promoting soon. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

And please double-check my light copyediting. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I think that I have dealt with all of the issues raised, Josh. Do let me know if there is anything else. Moreover, thank you very much for taking the time to give this article a read through and for producing the review in the first place. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Great- I want to have a closer look at the images and sourcing, and I'll check up on a few bits of the text. I'll aim to get to it this weekend. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:15, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Ok, looking at sources...

The link in footnote 48 is broken. (I have a script that spots this for me; see User:J Milburn/common.js if you want to get it yourself.)
Fixed! (And thanks for the recommendation, I'll look into that). Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Other than that, nothing. The sources are all appropriately scholarly. If I'm being too picky...

Your Gallagher and van Luijk sources lacks publication locations.
Ah, this has arisen as another editor added these citations to the article after I had originally nominated it at GAN. I'll sort this out. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
ABC-Clio or ABC-CLIO?
I've standardised this to ABC-CLIO, which I believe is the correct form. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Petersen 2015 lacks a location and a publisher.
I've added location, publisher, and the names of the editors. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Looking at images... No concerns. I'll just want a last look at the prose before I promote. I'll try to get to that tomorrow. Josh Milburn (talk) 04:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Some small bits from a second look-through (also note my replies above):

ancient Egypt or Ancient Egypt
I've standardised appearances of this to the lower-case "ancient" throughout the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Is The Magicians: A Study of the Use of Power in a Black Magic Group worth sticking in the further reading? What about Painted Black and The New Satanists? Presumably they're all somewhat out-of-date.
I think that The Magicians could definitely go into "Further Reading" (and will do so), although I do not think that the same could be said for the other two tomes. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
"In that year, Schreck led a schism within the organisation" As above, I'd like more on this, but even if that's not possible, you should specify which Schreck.
Good idea. I've made it clear that this is Zeena Schreck who is being described. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
"through adherence to the left hand path" left-hand?
Good point. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Your dash formatting is inconsistent. Sometimes you space them (as in "Set") sometimes not (as in "Later development")
As I understand it, our policy is to avoid such spaces, so I shall remove them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
In case you're interested, I suspect Aquino is notable; Fontaine definitely is, and we already have an article about one of her books. The article's looking great, and I'm sure I'll be promoting soon. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that both Aquino and La Fontaine probably warrant their own Wikipedia articles; perhaps that's a task for me to get on with in future. Once again, thanks for taking the time to produce a review, Josh. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I'm going to go ahead and promote at this time. I still think the history section needs a bit more about post-2000 happenings, but I'll leave that hanging. This is a great article, and might, in the future, have a good chance at FAC. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:13, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Currently a search for "Michael A. Aquino" redirects to this article. Is there any reason why he doesn't have his own article? Michael Aquino is a former US military officer and former member of LaVey's Church of Satan; he is of interest as an individual, besides his connection to the Temple of Set. Can we create an article just for him?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MDCCLXXVI (talk • contribs) 01:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC) 

By all means. Just ensure that it is properly sourced using WP:Reliable sources. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, MW131tester (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Midnightblueowl:, @J Milburn:, I've written up a few research notes at Talk:Michael A. Aquino. I haven't been able to find a detailed biographical sketch anywhere about Aquino himself; most of what's out there seems to be his own religious commentary and stuff related to various lawsuits, investigations, etc. The latter could make it tricky BLP territory, because if that stuff dominates his biography, people are probably going to raise WP:G10 issues.
In the past, people seem to have also wanted to defer to Aquino's desire to not have a Wikipedia article, although it may simply be that he just preferred to have no article than whatever article existed in the past. If we could write a decent article, maybe he'd feel differently. MW131tester (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Moved from Talk:Temple of Set/GA1. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Personally, I think that Aquino warrants an article, so would be happy to see one created. As for Reliable Sources, there's material on Aquino's life in Massimo Introvigne's book on Satanism which would probably be a good starting point; there will also be bits and pieces in other academic literature about Satanism. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Aquino has died 86.171.216.46 (talk) 14:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

This would seem to be a long-uncreated article that yet still needs to at least have a stub article.
Not it.
Saintstephen000 (talk)

"In 1983, he performed a solitary rite at Walhalla, the subterranean section of the Wewelsburg castle in Germany that was utilised as a ceremonial space by the Schutzstaffel's Ahnenerbe group during the Nazi period." any source of that? Hardly imaginable, as the keepers of the castle in post-WWII Germany would not alllow anyone to enter the castle for ceremonies.
Also - Walhalla  -  "subterranean section"? No such thing there called Walhalla. American romanticism?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.108.18.130 (talk) 23:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC) 

Anyone else having a hell of a belly laugh reading the super serious nature of the writing then seeing photos of edgyboi's LARPing? Maybe the Christians in the 80's were right and dungeons and dragons did set us down a bad path! ROFL! :D 121.210.33.50 (talk) 16:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

There is a way to express these post Vietnam war zeitgeist concerns ... Role Playing Games/LARP are a method of the mystery schools that 'Temple Of Set' is certainly part of (revealing). Wikipedia non allows slang & meta-lexicons (see "Wikipedia is non a forum" / "original research" guidelines).  Text mdnp (talk) 20:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

M. A. Aquino b _ _ _ _ _ d _ _ _ _ _
http://heavy.com/news/2020/07/michael-aquino/
http://mythoughtsbornfromfire.wordpress.com/2020/06/29/michael-aquino-is-apparently-dead/
https://pedophilesdownunder.com/2020/07/21/is-michael-aquino-dead/
https://burners.me/2020/06/29/michael-aquino-dead-was-leppo-his-last-interview/

Wikipedia currently redirects a search for the term "Setianism" to the Temple of Set Wikipedia page. Yet the Temple of Set represents only *one branch* of contemporary Setianism. Not all Setians identify as "left-hand path" occultists or "Satanists." Please consider creating a separate page for the term "Setianism," then making it the "parent" of the Temple of Set Wikipedia page. Setians are an extremely complex and multi-faceted religious demographic, but there are two primary varieties: Setians who are left-hand path occultists, like Temple of Set members, and Setians who are Kemetic Pagans, or who actually worship Set in a devotional context. The Wikipedia article for Setianism only includes information about our occultist subpopulation, which can be misleading, so more information about non-ToS Setians who are devotional polytheists is needed.
 Not done: Wrong venue. Try WP:REQ. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 04:44, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

"In November 1986, San Francisco police had begun investigating claims of sexual abuse centering around the Army's Child Development Center at the Presidio of San Francisco. During the investigation, in August 1987, one of the girls ran into her abuser while on a shopping trip with her father. She froze, pointed to a person named Lt.-Col. Michael Aquino, and identified him as "Mikey". Mikey, with help of a member of the child day care center staff, had taken her off site to be abused at his home. During the following investigation, the girl could accurately point out the house of Aquino (282) and describe some of the interior details (283)."
"In October 1987, news of the Presidio molestings hit the local news and it was reported that at least 58 of 100 children who had visited the day care center showed physical and mental signs of sexual abuse (284). Some of the details that came out were that children had been tortured with needles (285) and that some had been forced to drink urine and eat feces (286). The parents sued the day care center for more than 60 million dollars (287), and as time went on, more and more claimed there was a cover up of the facts (288). Aquino was under investigation for a while, but never officially charged with anything (289). The case died a quiet death."

Lazzldkdm (talk) 04:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

What is this? Part of the silly Satanic panic from the 1980s? Dimadick (talk) 20:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
It could be added this might be part of satanic panic but we are not investigators neither we have the jurisdiction to say if the abuses did occur or not. The best we can do is to post the result of investigations. Of course potential child abusers and people who commit crimes will do everything they can, especially when they are in high positions of power, to downplay and silence victims. However this is subjective.
"In November 1986, the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Division Command (CID) began investigating charges that Gary Hambright had sexually molested several of the children entrusted to his care as an employee at the Child Development Center on the Army base known as the Presidio. On August 12, 1987, Army Captain Larry Adams-Thompson reported to the authorities that his three-year-old daughter, who had attended the Child Development Center during the period of Hambright's alleged crimes, had become visibly frightened upon seeing LTC Aquino and his wife at the Army's post-exchange that day and called them "Mikey" and "Shamby." In a subsequent interview by an FBI agent, the girl implicated "Mikey," "Shamby" and "Mr. Gary" in the sexual molestation of her and other children at "Mr. Gary's house." The investigation of Hambright was expanded to include Aquino and his wife.
Although the SFPD discontinued its investigation of the Aquinos in September 1988 for lack of sufficient evidence, the CID continued and in August 1989 issued a report of investigation designating both Aquinos in the "title block" of the report and describing the various child-abuse and related criminal offenses investigated. The report concluded that the investigation was closed because all further leads involved adults who refused to cooperate, and the applicable threeyear statute of limitations had expired in June 1989."
It should be pointed out the reason for the investigation closure.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/957/139/2044/
As a final note, it should be interesting to find out if the investigation files could be released to the public. Lazzldkdm (talk) 13:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
More info from the FBI https://vault.fbi.gov/michael-aquino/michael-aquino-part-01/view. As it is shown, parents and the kids who reported the abuse had no idea about Michael Aquino being a high priest of the Temple of Set in the 80s. Lazzldkdm (talk) 14:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC)