Talk:Ordo Templi Orientis/Archive 2

message: What constitutes as a link? Founding members of almost all esoteric or occult org's/orders were freemasons. Right down to the usage of "brothers" (fraters), freemasonry can be seen in the GD and the OTO. Here is an interesting website for history in the OTO. This specifically helps to form a link. Zos 17:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Crowley was a Freemason (to some extent). Paul Foster Case was a freemason and he went on to co-found BOTA. In the Golden Dawn...Samuel Liddell MacGregor Mathers was a founder and freemason. Then Theodor Reuss is one as well....but wait. Why am I telling you all of this? It doesnt take that much effort to find this out. Have fun with the research. Zos 18:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: You more than likely wont find a Grand Lodge willing to state anything occult related. They like to distance themselves from it. Yet this doesnt mean that these people were not freemasons at one point or another. There is a link, if you like it or not. I'm not interested in disputing who was initiated and when (we're discussing "any" link. And user 999 has already found it on the OTO main site (which can be used as autobiographical). But you can do your own research on the subject.  Zos 18:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I see, so back in the real world you cannot find a link.  Imacomp 18:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've no need to, as I can cite several sources ont tinternet that say We Freemasons rule the world. So bow before me :) (Go your sigh turn) Imacomp 18:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freemasonry and OTO 

message: Soon, I'll be looking to add a few of the degrees not mentioned here. These would be the degrees in which include sex magic, self-sex magic, and same-sex sex magic. I'm wondering if anyone has sources for this, as I do (I'd like to see double citations is all, this sort of thing is likely to be diputed). Thanks. Zos 15:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok well I've added it. Now, I noticed it may have to be moved to another area in the article later, only if a section is made for what is taught in the other degrees. But I don't have any other sources for the rest of the degrees as of right now. Zos 02:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Degrees 

message: Here's some references that might prove useful
*Starr, Martin P. Aleister Crowley, freemason!. - since he's a published author, his web article should be citable.
*Howe, Ellic (1978). Theodor Reuss: Irregular Freemasonry in Germany, 1900-23 in Ars Quatuor Coronatorum - published by a well-known Masonic Research Lodge, Quatuor Coronati.
-999 (Talk) 15:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interestingly, these are exactly the kind of citations that I was referring to above.  Perhaps we are not that far apart in what we are talking about after all. Blueboar 15:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, I think the distinction is between web-only and web-also. Something that is web-only is disallowed, but something that is basically a web-reprint from something as respected in its area as Ars Quatour Coronati is certainly acceptible. Also, the rules allow exceptions for established authors and experts: thus even if the Martin Starr article should prove to be only on the web, it would still be acceptible because he has published books and an established reputation. -999 (Talk) 15:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think you are misinterpreting the guidelines, or at least not understanding what I am talking about.  A "web-also" citation is of course preferred, but a "web-only" citation is cirtainly acceptable, Wikipedia is full of them.  If we were to ban web-only citations, more than half of Wikipedia would be deleted.  The key is to make it clear who is saying what, and to present it in a NPOV manner.  As long as you say "Party-of-the-first-part says X, while Party-of-the-second-part disagrees and says Y," it is appropriate to cite to a web site run by Party-of-the-second-part to back the statement up.  Blueboar 17:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I am interpreting them correctly. What has happened is that the rules have become tighter over time. So there was a time before they were disallowed when web-only references were allowed. Now they are only allowed in articles about the site or organization that created the site. Of course, many old web references remain in WP and people who don't keep up on the changes to the verifiability policy may still use them, but all those references should be changed to print references and/or the information removed. -999 (Talk) 17:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I understand your confusion....  Having been involved in Arbitration proceedings about similar issues on other articles, I can assure you that organizational web sites can be used as citations to reference what that orgainzation says or believes. It is called verification.  However, that use is limited... While I may not (for example) use a Freemasonic web site to reference a statement about what OTO says or believes ... I can use it to reference a statement about what Freemasonry says or believes.  Blueboar 18:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  Jpgordon you have "protected" this article in a state that is against WP policy on a cited statement. Never mind We will be ready to edit in the truth. Imacomp 22:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please feel free to participate in discussion. Edit wars are harmful for all. I warned exactly what would happen if you blind reverted again, and did exactly what I said I would do.  --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freemasonry and OTO - references 

message: Ok, I fixed the citation. Yes wiki's are not aloud. I've also added a cite tag for the first sentence, seeing as how the citation I added doesnt cover it. Hope this helps clear some things up. Zos 22:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thank you for attempting to help Blueboar, but the reference didnt say what you added. Zos 22:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure I'll be able to find good citations for various things in The Secret Rituals of the OTO. -999 (Talk) 22:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixed citation 

message: OK... I have something specific we can discuss (and I have some citations that can be used to back it up)... 
The in the section entitled O.T.O. and Aleister Crowley it says:
In 1917, Reuss wrote a Synopsis of Degrees which showed O.T.O. dependence on the rituals of Freemasonry. The 3° was listed as "Craft of Masonry" and listed the initiations involved as "Entered Apprentice, Fellow Craft, Master Mason" and elaborated on this with "Full instruction in Craft Masonry, including the Catechism of the first three degrees, and an explanation of all the various Masonic systems." The same document shows that the 4° of O.T.O. was derived from the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry. It is also known as the Holy Royal Arch of Enoch. It was summarized by Reuss as the Degree of "Scotch Masonry", equivalent to "Scotch Mason, Knight of St. Andrew, Royal Arch", and he described it as "Full instruction in the Scottish degrees of Ancient and Accepted Masonry."
Now... I have added a citation request for the statement that the first three degrees were (originally) dependant on the rituals of Freemasonry... Obviously their names were the same, but I would like to see some evidence to show what other dependancy there was... I am not going to change or delete the statement until I have a chance to see that evidence.
However, I do have a problem with the next section... the Scotch Rite is not at all the same thing as the Scottish Rite, as can be seen by looking at Jonathan Blanchard's Scotch Rite Masonry Illustrated.  This was an exposure of Cerneauism - an illegitimate pseudo-Masonic organization founded by Joseph Cerneau and chiefly active in the 1800s. (cite to: Scotch Rite Masonry Illustrated, by Jonathan Blanchard, )  (For more information you can look at also cite to: Is True What They Say About Freemasonry, Chapter 3, by Art DeHoyos) If Reuss based his work on Scotch Rite, then this needs to be made clear in the article. Blueboar 23:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Scottish, or Scots - are the people of, or things pertaining to Scotland, etc. Scotch is an alcoholic beverage. Imacomp 23:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which merely demonstrates how poor your knowledge of Masonic history actually is.  Whilst it is technically correct to say that there are a number of 'Scotch' degrees which misuse the term.ALR 23:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hok Aye tha noo Laddie. I'm all for a Scotch Rite, do not get me wrong. (Hic) :) Imacomp 23:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I've ordered bio's on Crowley, and they should be here on monday. This may give double citations to this article as well as cite one, maybe two of your requests. ALR, I wouldnt comment to too much of what he says (just a thought). Zos 01:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Degree discussion 

message: Could everyone please step back a minute and let me interfere? Allow me to informally mediate from a hopefully knowledgeble point of view. It seems to me that you guys are going in circles.
1. There is no doubt that the OTO is based upon one or more of the irregular Masonic orders. (How many such orders are there, anyway?)
2. There is no doubt that the OTO initiations, at least up to the degree that I attained, are based on published, available Masonic initiations, though the details vary considerably.
3. There is little doubt that there exists no open formal relationship between the OTO and any mainstream Masonic organization. (I'm not sure how I would prove that, but I know it is the case from personal discussion and experience; since nobody is saying that such a relationship exists, there's not any particular reason to assert that it doesn't.) 
4. Is "informal relationship", as used by the UGLE statement that Blueboar wants to put in the footnote, a term of art? Does it have some special meaning within Freemasonry? Because, otherwise, I don't see what meaning denying that an informal relationship exists could have; of course there are informal relationships; people in one order know people in the other order. Perhaps Masonic orders have informal relationships in the way, say, the Anglicans and the Catholics do (or, for that matter, the United States and North Korea)?
5. The issue of sources is an entirely seperate issue and has little to do with this article. IF it were important to include a disclaimer that this one particular organization in the UK denies any relationship exists, then yes, the UGLE site would be an appropriate site to cite. Certainly nobody would be more authoritative than UGLE in saying that UGLE says there's no relationship. No more general disclaimer could be cited from there, though.
6. Blueboar says, "It needs to be stated clearly that NONE of the supposed "Masonic" degrees that OTO borrowed are considered Masonic, except by OTO." Why? The OTO certainly doesn't care what anyone else thinks of their initiations, and makes no claim that they are "Masonic" in anything other than origin. 
Feel free to ignore me completely. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jpgordon: Can you please exlpain how a web site, can be used as a source, when the web site doesnt mention the OTO? This is in fact all that needs to be addressed right now, as it clears up whether it can be used. If this article doesnt mention the UGLE, and the UGLE doesnt mention OTO, then there is no reason. Zos 03:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It can be used as a source for a general statement that there exist highly irregular organizations not recognized by UGLE. To say such a statement includes OTO is OR (though of course it is common sense, but we don't get to have common sense. Or something like that.) The statement would have to so general as to force the question, "why is this statement in this article?" By the way, I always referred to the OTO as a "quasi-Masonic organization"; avoids the issue completely. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And since there is no statement (nor citation, or source for that matter either) that the OTO is, in your words, a highly irregular organization, it cannot be used. If this is what you're saying, then this should end the dispute. Zos 04:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm nitpicking a little here. The issue of whether UGLE is a valid source is not relevant in this case. Assume for the sake of argument that the UGLE website is a perfectly valid source for issues regarding Freemasonry and related topics. The OTO is a related topic, certainly. If UGLE said something about the OTO, it could be cited as the official position of UGLE. However, the UGLE website says nothing specifically about the OTO. Therefore, the problem is not one of sourcing; the problem is purely one of WP:OR (or common sense, which amounts to the same thing. I'm having a hard time convincing someone of that over at Talk:Albert Einstein, if anyone wants a break from OTO stuff.) The issue of sourcing should never have come up, since the OR aspect is so overwhelming. (In other words, it should be omitted, but for the right reason, not the wrong one.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Theres no way I want to add to the mess over there jp, I'm right in the middle of the Golden Dawn issue, in which 7 articles were named for mediation, all at the same time! So I have my own mess to deal with. But thanks for clearing up the issue here (maybe I shouldnt say that until Blueboar gets here). Zos 15:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Start again please 

message: I've protected the article. Work out the issues here. This is a really dumb edit war. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not Wikipedias fault that the UGLE's web site doesnt make it clear who is not affiliated. They addressed three groups only. Neither of which are the OTO. If in fact a source is found to substantiate the UGLE doesnt recognize OTO, then it will be added to this article. Until then, leave it be. Thanks. Zos 22:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OTO is just NOT that important to Grand Lodge level Freemasonry, so live with it, and stop trying to make the connection. A connection will be rebutted and/or removed - by editors. Message ends. Imacomp 22:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as far as I knew, there was no connection to the UGLE. This is why the source isnt being used. Its you who can't live with it. :/ Zos 22:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No historical connection. Cite any FM Grand Lodge that says that there is. Otherwise do not make a connection. Imacomp 23:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder, what do you mean by "connection"? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Find out by allowing open editing on the, erm, article (for want of a better name). But I'm on 2 reverts anyway. Imacomp 23:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can in fact let us see it here. Zos 23:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. The proper place to discuss changes to an article is on the talk page, rather than in edit summaries amdist an edit war. What do you mean by "connection"? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Hes too busy reverting on the Hiram Abiff article, which sadly, I'm apart of. Zos 23:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Last word until editing is enabled. Imacomp 23:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you are the reason its protected, and you are not willing to compromise, it looks like it may never get unprotected. Zos 23:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll unprotect it when a consensus is reached, or an agreement to stop edit warring. Imacomp's silence can be treated as agreement to whatever terms are reached, since he's aware of and welcome in the conversation. No problem there. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  (Silence is no evidence of consensus, it is only evidence of silence. Wiki comes under US Law. Read it up.) Imacomp 00:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So sue me. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Was that an attempt to wikilawyer? Zos 00:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: UGLE, ie all regular Freemasonry, has NO connection to OTO - an organisation not notable enough to be singled out for an individual rebuttal. Read the official UGLE site, as Wiki prints crap on this subject - and protects lies from open access editing. Imacomp 22:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not Wikipedias fault that the UGLE's web site doesnt make it clear who is not affiliated. They addressed three groups only. Neither of which are the OTO. If in fact a source is found to substantiate the UGLE doesnt recognize OTO, then it will be added to this article. Until then, leave it be. Thanks. Zos 22:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OTO is just NOT that important to Grand Lodge level Freemasonry, so live with it, and stop trying to make the connection. A connection will be rebutted and/or removed - by editors. Message ends. Imacomp 22:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as far as I knew, there was no connection to the UGLE. This is why the source isnt being used. Its you who can't live with it. :/ Zos 22:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No historical connection. Cite any FM Grand Lodge that says that there is. Otherwise do not make a connection. Imacomp 23:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder, what do you mean by "connection"? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Find out by allowing open editing on the, erm, article (for want of a better name). But I'm on 2 reverts anyway. Imacomp 23:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can in fact let us see it here. Zos 23:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. The proper place to discuss changes to an article is on the talk page, rather than in edit summaries amdist an edit war. What do you mean by "connection"? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Hes too busy reverting on the Hiram Abiff article, which sadly, I'm apart of. Zos 23:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Last word until editing is enabled. Imacomp 23:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you are the reason its protected, and you are not willing to compromise, it looks like it may never get unprotected. Zos 23:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll unprotect it when a consensus is reached, or an agreement to stop edit warring. Imacomp's silence can be treated as agreement to whatever terms are reached, since he's aware of and welcome in the conversation. No problem there. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  (Silence is no evidence of consensus, it is only evidence of silence. Wiki comes under US Law. Read it up.) Imacomp 00:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So sue me. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Was that an attempt to wikilawyer? Zos 00:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  OTO: A home for failed wanabee Freemasons 

message: Please check archives before posting. Thanks. Zos 04:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I archived the talk page, as it was getting bulky and I assumed Blueboar wasnt going to contest me putting the citation in. Zos 05:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archived

message: I notice that you use the Free Encyclopedia of Thelema (2005) as a citation.  Wiki-type encyclopedias are usually considered not very reliable sources.  You would strengthen the article if you could find a better source for the material.  I am not objecting ... just suggesting. Blueboar 18:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didnt put that there, and I dont recall who did. Zos 18:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment directed at editors in general.  After all this time being negative about the article, I wanted to try to make a positive contribution... I would replace it with a better citation myself, but I don't know enough about Thelema etc. to know where to look.  It is an interesting part of the article, (and an interesting link) so I am hoping someone can find a solid cite. As for the wiki, perhaps that can go into an "external links" section (or something similar) so readers are still directed to it. carry on. Blueboar 20:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On a completely different topic... 

message: I changed the link to Rite of Memphis (which redirected to Ancient and Primitive Rite) and Rite of Mizraim (which was redlinked) to Ancient and Primitive Rite.  However, there are three separate articles which deal with this rite, the above mentioned Ancient and Primitive Rite as well as Rite of Memphis-Misraïm and Memphis-Misraim.  If someone here knows a thing or two about this rite/these rites, could they work on consolidating the articles into one which describes the history of Memphis and Misraim, their merging, and use today? OzLawyer 19:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, they're two different rites, right? So they'd need different articles in my opinion. Zos 22:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyway, after looking it over I suggested the merge. If there is no objection in a day or so, I'll merge the two. Zos 23:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, no, they're one rite (I think).  I think Misraim was first, Memphis grew from that, and then they joined together.  The "Ancient (or Antient) and Primitive Rite" is just another name for it (it's often called the "Ancient and Primitive Rite of Memphis and Misraim"). OzLawyer 00:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Memphis and Misraim / Ancient and Primitive Rite 

message: 999 - you removed the NOPV tag I placed on the article stating that I had to post my reasons on the talk page... I did (see above).  That said, I do not think the tag needs to be returned, as Hanuman Das's recent edit (which I had missed when I added the tag) satisfies my concerns.  Blueboar 14:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have done the same. The only dispute pertaining to NPOV is you BlueBoar. Find a source for what you wish to add. And again, if there is a POV, any POV, and someone wishes to add it to an article, you'd need to have a source saying this for a citation. And since you dont, its your POV until proven otherwise. SynergeticMaggot 17:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOPV tag 

message: some idiot keeps taking his name off the list and it's getting quite annoying.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/081840499X/ref=ase_conspiracyarc-20/104-8924776-1297547?v=glance&s=books —Preceding unsigned comment added by  172.138.164.249 (talk • contribs) 
:That idiot would be me. I previously placed the name on the list. 999 removed it, in which I had to recheck my source, and my sources in fact didnt say specifically that Hubbard was a member, only that he and Parsons did some weird freaky sex rituals to produce a blah blah blah it can be found here: Babalon Working. Anyway, showing me a book exposing Hubbard will do little to make me include him as a member of the OTO. SynergeticMaggot 18:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it is my understanding that Hubbard was never initiated into OTO and that Parsons simply shared OTO rituals and material with him even though he was not a member. We'd need a source that clear says he was a member before including him. This is important as we don't want any Scientologists to start an edit war about it. If some citable source says he was a member, then add him with a citation to that source... -999 (Talk) 19:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly like what is going on right now about Freemasonry POV pushers. SynergeticMaggot 19:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah. Anyway, to elaborate, every valid source I've seen has tended to include the claim that Parson's broke his oaths by sharing oath-bound material with Hubbard. That would certainly be the case if Hubbard was never a member, but would also be the case if Hubbard were say a Minerval or First Degree and was given IX° material. None of the sources I've seen clarify this by saying whether or not Hubbard was ever initiated... -999 (Talk) 20:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Ha! I searched for "Hubbard was never a member of OTO" and found a clear statement from Bill Heidrick (who did or maybe still does keep the membership books for OTO) and that should resolve the issue. -999 (Talk) 20:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It wouldn't have been a matter of "membership books", I don't think. However, Helen Parsons Smith (Jack's widow) was a font of information, and my guess would be that Bill would have gotten that information from her. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, yeah, on alt.freemasonry of all places :-) -999 (Talk) 20:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, but Aiwass is just wise Ass spelled sideways. -999 (Talk) 20:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gotta give that one a soldier and the hunchback clap ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? : here ends the clapping, on the square. SynergeticMaggot 20:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ron hubbard

message: By the way, the text of this book is available online at . I've looked through the chapter on Hubbard and Parsons and don't see any clear statement that Hubbard was an OTO member. Only an account of his magical work with Parsons. -999 (Talk) 20:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha! I searched for "Hubbard was never a member of OTO" and found a clear statement from Bill Heidrick (who did or maybe still does keep the membership books for OTO) and that should resolve the issue. -999 (Talk) 20:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It wouldn't have been a matter of "membership books", I don't think. However, Helen Parsons Smith (Jack's widow) was a font of information, and my guess would be that Bill would have gotten that information from her. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, yeah, on alt.freemasonry of all places :-) -999 (Talk) 20:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, but Aiwass is just wise Ass spelled sideways. -999 (Talk) 20:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gotta give that one a soldier and the hunchback clap ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? : here ends the clapping, on the square. SynergeticMaggot 20:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A Piece of Blue Sky

message: We have a categorical statement from an OTO official that "Hubbard was never a member of OTO". The section is "Known members" and it is going to stay titled that. Association is too vague and would open the list to a potentially infinite category. Hubbard was never officially associated with O.T.O. He was associated with Jack Parsons and the Babalon Working. Please feel free to add to those articles. Thanks. -999 (Talk) 18:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would really open it up to wicca via Gardner. SynergeticMaggot 18:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the sources for it, he was given one, but never used it. SynergeticMaggot 18:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's sort of debatable. I'd say he used it and was even encouraged to use it, to create a three degree system of Wicca based on the OTO rituals of the time. Now, I suspect he never collected or paid dues, but his first coven was basically formed under the auspices of OTO... -999 (Talk) 19:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoa there. Thats high speculation. I've seen articles about the subject but nothing to convince me that it was purely, I mean 100% taken from OTO or Crowley (Equinox). SynergeticMaggot 19:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, well, I'm not going to try to put it in any articles :-) -999 (Talk) 19:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. :) SynergeticMaggot 19:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: How you you say that he was never "officially associated"? Did he or did he not personally participate in OTO rituals with Parsons, et al.? If he did, he was clearly associated. As for your slippery slope argument that changing the section title would turn the section into a "potentially infinite category," I'm not convinced. As for your assertion that the section "is going to stay titled that," please see WP:OWN. Community consensus, not your personal preference alone, will decide what the section is called, as well as whether or not the section will even continue to exist. Hubbard has been reported by notable sources to be explicitly and directly associated with OTO. Either prove the sources unreliable, or leave the addition. Dick Clark 19:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I would add that L. Ron Hubbard is a person whose history is of great interest to many readers. This is not only a verifiable assertion, but also a notable, pertinent one. Dick Clark 19:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not a matter of OWN. There is more of a conensus to keep it like it is. SynergeticMaggot 19:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also "asociated" and "member" are two different things. SynergeticMaggot 19:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You can find this information at WP:POLL, or you can create an RfC. SynergeticMaggot 20:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In any case, you have NO SOURCE that says he was a member. And the former Treasurer of the OTO categorically states he has the membership records for the period and Hubbard is not on them - here. And no, I don't think that The Watchman Expositor qualifies as a reliable source per WP:RS. In any case, they are some interesting facts about Hubbard which have no real significance to the OTO article. Why not add them to the L. Ron Hubbard article, hmmm? -999 (Talk) 20:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the insights offered above, I would tend to agree that the lion's share of the details regarding LRH's association with OTO do belong in his article. However, it is a generally accepted convention on Wikipedia (in my experience, anyway) to at least note such associations in both articles. That is to say, I would agree that the details of Hubbard's association with OTO belong at the LRH article, but both articles should contain some nominal reference, especially since LRH is so notable relative to OTO. I, for example, never heard of OTO until I read a magazine article somewhere that discussed it in light of LRH's (perhaps brief) association with the organization. And to those who are objecting based on the section title, I would note that I changed the section title in order to comply with 999's objection that LRH was never a "member" per se. Dick Clark 20:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The OTO has a small association with Freemasonry. Yet we didnt go over there and start adding things that didnt belong. Seeing as how he was never a member, it should go to Parsons page. Yet there is already a page for what you wish include. I think its Babalon Working. SynergeticMaggot 20:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He was never a member at all. Being a member of OTO is a very specific thing; the only way you can "kinda" be a member is to be of at least a certain degree and not have paid your dues. Was Hubbard actually associated with the organization? I kinda don't think so, since after 1947, the organization pretty much ceased functioning. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[L. Ron Hubbard]]

message: anyone have proof that he's a member? 
what % of scientologists are OTO people?
and do they deal much with ordo sinistra vivendi?
*Has anyone even suggested he's a member? Probably few scientlogists are OTO people, since scientology is essentially a slave religion, while the basic idea of OTO is "think for youself, asshole." And 3, I doubt it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: mel gibson

message: Honestly, the revision of the section regarding criticisms of OTO regarding sexism struck me the wrong way.  Whatever one feels about the validity of these claims, they do represent an honest, ongoing line of criticism.  As such they deserve inclusion.  WP:POV and WP:NPOV provide some illuminating points on the usage of dissenting viewpoints in these articles.  
It truthfully just seems off to me that the section regarding claims of sexism be converted into simply "Some conclude that the teachings of OTO, which accepts both men and women as members, are misogynistic."  Which seems phrased in such a way as to be dismissive and internally contradict the assertion, like, "How can the OTO be sexist?  They admit both men and women."
Truthfully, P.R. Koenig has dubious merits as a scholar, however he has a valid point as a critic with this, namely that the sex magick of the OTO is geared towards male and not female use.  As such, I'm putting it back in.  If someone else has a suggestion about what source could be good to represent dissenting viewpoints in this regard, suggest it, but something needs to be up, so I'm going to put this back in.  --Jackhorkheimer 05:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision of criticisms 

message: It's high time Ebony Anpu got his own Wiki page.  I have created a very preliminary Wiki page.  Everyone who knew him or who is familiar with his work in the OTO or Hawk and Jackal is encouraged to contribute.  I also added refs to him in Ordo Templi Orientis and Grady McMurtry. "93,23,BB. Hut, Hike!" - Ebony Anpu.  <3 Captain Barrett 08:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ebony Anpu (Charles Reese) 

message: Can any info be provided over the court case in the UK over the use /"right" of the name "OTO" exclusively by the Caliphate. Supposedly the UK court ruled against the Caliphate. Any info on this?--Redblossom 23:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update on the court case over use of the term "OTO" in the UK? 

message: *He was a certifiable member I beleive.  68.123.176.174 (talk) 00:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That book can indeed be cited. However, I am unaware of any citable source as to whether King was or was not a member... Alabaster Crow (talk) 05:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does Francis King's Material Count as Citeable ?