Talk:Ordo Templi Orientis/Archive 3

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&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 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&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 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)

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)

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&#39;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 Core content policies --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 07:24, 30 May 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)

Primary sourced material
There appears to be a lot of primary sourced material used here as well stuff that comes from internal self published O.T.O newsletters and questionable website sources. I think it might be time to tidy this page up.

I'll delete the Crowley sources today as he can't be deemed a reliable source of information. He was too much of a megalomaniac to quote without qualifying what he said about himself or his projects - so secondary and tertiary sources are preferred when it comes to Crowley, as they are on the Aleister Crowley wp page. I'll leave the other dodgy citations for others to edit/improve upon and will check back in a few days to see if the article meets WP standards. Thanks. Dara Allarah (talk) 14:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you need to sit down and check the policy on self published sources again - this article already meets WP standards for verifiability. There is no need to delete sections published by OTO that describe the Order's internal structure, because they are not in any way "exceptional claims" nor is the article primarily based on those sources. They are completely fine under Wikipedia's policies, and have never been challenged before on any grounds. If you feel that those veracity or verifiability of those statements should be challenged on the basis of the policy (listed below for easy reference), then by all means let's hear your argument. Alternately, if the only problem is that you are uncertain about the strength of the citations, please find other sources to verify the info, rather than simply deleting large swathes of the article. There should be plenty of other sources available if you look hard enough.

Also Crowley's statements about OTO should not be taken as "exceptional claims". As a former Head of the Order and author of many of its documents and policies in the past, his statements about the structure and purpose of the Order are ENTIRELY germane to the article, not least as historical references. Again however, if you feel his statements alone do not stand, please see any of the several fine Crowley biographies that go into detail about his relationship with OTO, I am sure there are plenty of third-party references to be found.


 * Please sign your posts? Who am I talking to?


 * I think we can afford to go slowly. Lets go on a case by case basis - starting at the top then...


 * Crowley claims the OTO is in possession of a 'supreme secret'. Furthermore - Crowley claims the whole of the system is directed towards communicating this secret to its members.  This is an exceptional claim that should not be published without a secondary source.  Please provide one or we should delete Crowley as the primary source.


 * You know - I recently added a section all about the Lost Word on the A.C. page but as it was all primary sourced then I had to take it out again. I don't see this is any different.  Roll out any second or third party sources that talk about the Word or the secret - or delete the exceptional primary sourced claim.  Rules are rules and we must both abide by them and put WP above other affiliations or perspectives while we contribute here.  If it turns out there is no supporting material because of the oaths of your membership - then I am sorry, but it appears you are in exactly the same boat as I was in.  Annoying isn't it - to not have any independent sources because of oaths and whatnot?  But there it is... lol. Dara Allarah (talk) 01:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves
Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:


 * 1) the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
 * 2) it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);
 * 3) it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
 * 4) there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
 * 5) the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Criticism Section Revised / One-Sided Bias
Looking over the "Criticism" section as it exists now and as it existed in 2003 we discover that the history is being redacted to make it seem as if the OTO had no critics prior to Allen Greenfield. It would seem that P.R. Koenig's criticisms have been long-standing and are well-documented, certainly they warrant mentioning? Indeed, Koenig's criticisms were once listed here but now this section focuses almost entirely on Greenfield's beef with the Caliphate O.T.O.

If someone is interested, could this section please be cleaned up and expanded so that it at least no longer appears to be an advertisement for Greenfield's books and bogus bishop consecrations by mail? Thanks Eyes down, human. (talk) 17:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed it would be good to have some clearer references for everyone's sake. Otherwise it can look like a bit of a whitewash. Either deleting some statements that cannot be substantiated or giving sources for contrasting opinions. It's an interesting page (and some interesting names!) but as a Wiki document people will doubtless look to it for some authorities. I see that under 'Questions of legitimacy' the history page includes relevant sources that have been deleted where they question the simpler account. Some references might be seen as self-serving, whether mainstream or non-mainstream. Even court cases are not accepted by some parties as having spiritual authority. But they are at least public records of disinterested parties and presumably someone has the complete record even if the complete record is not online? I've offered online court sources that are easy to access. If there are others that are worth quoting, or better please do so. Ones that are supportive of a particular 'side' could easily be deleted? I am sure there are persons on here more experienced with Wiki etiquette, but it would be nice to see the page tidied up in a factual way with references. Or limited to verifiable facts. I hope I haven't stirred it up too much - perhaps someone can take the points on board and come up with proper text that is more encyclopedia-like! Or just have a page dedicated to the specific organisation from a specific date. Just some suggestions - hope they help! Parzivalamfortas (talk) 02:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)parzivalamfortas

Proposal: Paragraph on Sex Magick and Neo-Tantric Character of the O.T.O.
please add a paragraph explaining that the O.T.O. promotes itself as a 'sex magick' information source and is a neo-tantric initiatic group. support for this proposal may be found below.

a major omission in this article on the O.T.O. is barely hinted at by the link to 'sex magic' (but which see where you will find a large number of contentions within Wikipedia already mapping out the neo-tantric aspect of this order and its most popular author). there are numerous sources available, many being biographies of Crowley, which make mention of the fact that the order styles itself (by intimation, implication, and at times overtly) as a sex magick school, and it is properly considered to be of neo-tantric character (because while it has no aged lineage connections to anything Indian, its modern social activities have included attempts to shore up that neo-tantrism by establishing initiatic links to extant tantric groups (e.g. HHHO, a.k.a. 3HO, and Mahendranath via Magee).

however, the O.T.O. started off under Reuss, continued under Crowley, had numerous members who were exponents of, and focussed expositors on, the subject of sexual mysticism, conceived as "tantric" likely on the basis of popularizers of this semantic significance (including Kenneth Grant). sociologists and anthropologists, as well as a number of primary source documents, have reliably concluded that sexuality is more of an obsession with neo-tantrics than with active tantric traditions (the further one goes from India, one may find 'Tantra' used as a puritanical blind for 'sex education', and the O.T.O. capitalizes on this to a certain extent; cf. June McDaniel, "Offering Flowers, Feeding Skulls : Popular Goddess Worship in West Bengal", amongst others, who document this distended variation in 'tantra').

for THIS article's purposes, the important aspects of this proposed section would be the following: 1) Theodore Reuss' "accusation", 2)  Aleister Crowley's proclamations on the initiated significance of several O.T.O. rites, primarily that related to the central rite of the O.T.O. or Gnostic Mass, but also several documents published outside the domain of the order but attested as to their sex magick relevance (these being "Energized Enthusiasm", "IX˚ Emblems and Mode of Use", "De Arte Magica", "Amrita", and "Erotocomatose Lucidity", at least a portion of which, at times within the order, was apparently significant enough so as to pass on as the kernel of initiation during times of low membership).

Theodore Reuss' "accusation"
Theodore Reuss was a neo-tantric without initiation in any Indian tradition who sought to promote the O.T.O. as a source for information on sexual mysticism. this is attested to not only by Crowley, who claimed that Reuss 'recognized' (in a crypto-Masonic style) Crowley's initiatic status on the basis of his having published "the secret of the order" in his "Book of Lies", chapter 36, in reference to sexual symbolism of the Rood and Rose. the usual language is that Reuss 'accused' Crowley of having published this supposedly closely guarded secret and immediately initiated him into the order's upper echelon so as to constrain him to responsible silence on the matter of so delicate a subject.

without going into a psychoanalysis of the subject and its titillating use to draw membership through repetition of the story itself, suffice it to say that this story is the basis for Crowley's followers' attestation of his authority with respect to sexual magick in the O.T.O., and sets a tone extant from at least Reuss onward of neo-tantric promotion. it is repeated in numerous sources and i will point merely to a few of them here:

A) "Aleister Crowley: A Visual Study," by William Ramsey

http://books.google.com/books?id=QuhIAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT127&lpg=PT127&dq=Crowley+Reuss+O.T.O.+initiated&source=bl&ots=DvD2lKQgZu&sig=pyyAUmzoSegXrZpFsKekbB16r9o&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sJnJUui5CI7ZoATk0oKoAg&ved=0CGIQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=Crowley%20Reuss%20O.T.O.%20initiated&f=false

B) "Handbook of Contemporary Paganism," edited by Murphy Pizza, James R. Lewis http://books.google.com/books?id=rwzttsI9-NwC&pg=PA87&dq=Crowley+Reuss+O.T.O.+initiated+Book+of+Lies&hl=en&sa=X&ei=W5rJUo3RPIbzoATfs4KABA&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Crowley%20Reuss%20O.T.O.%20initiated%20Book%20of%20Lies&f=false C) "The Roots of Modern Magick: Glimpses of the Authentic tradition from 1700 ...," by Allen Greenfield

http://books.google.com/books?id=UM1TI_3l0GcC&pg=PA179&dq=Crowley+Reuss+O.T.O.+initiated+Book+of+Lies&hl=en&sa=X&ei=W5rJUo3RPIbzoATfs4KABA&ved=0CFIQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=Crowley%20Reuss%20O.T.O.%20initiated%20Book%20of%20Lies&f=false parenthetically, Crowley himself related the event of their meeting in 1912 to this effect and is probably the general source from which these biographers all repeat it: The Equinox: The Review of Scientific Illuminism : the Official ..., Volume 3 By Aleister Crowley, Hymenaeus Beta

http://books.google.com/books?id=JMXOBCtNMvkC&pg=PA94&dq=Crowley+Reuss+O.T.O.+initiated+Book+of+Lies&hl=en&sa=X&ei=W5rJUo3RPIbzoATfs4KABA&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Crowley%20Reuss%20O.T.O.%20initiated%20Book%20of%20Lies&f=false

one may also find sexual references in wiki-quotes from Reuss here: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Theodor_Reuss

Aleister Crowley's proclamations on the initiated significance of several O.T.O. rites
these are reflected by countless biographers also, particularly the "fact" that "Liber XV, The Mass of the Gnostic Catholic Church," {*Ecclesiae Gnosticae Catholicae Canon Missae*} contains all symbolic kernels to the vast panoply of sex magick secrets it is attested that the O.T.O. may reveal to its initiates. even Gerald Gardner, originator of Wiccan sex magick (in the 'Great Rite') was an O.T.O. initiate and drew heavily from Crowley in writing his first 'books of shadows' (cf. Aidan Kelly's "Crafting the Art of Magic"). the notion is commonplace, and sufficiently documented that it should factor into a paragraph on the sex magick focus and neo-tantric character of the order. below are a few cited sources indicating the Gnostic Mass is claimed to be packed with sex magick information or, variably, at least contains the central secret of O.T.O. magick ("ninth degree").

A) "The Varieties of Magical Experience," by Lynne L. Hume Ph.D., Nevill Drury

http://books.google.com/books?id=_7BmacKsEYoC&pg=PA164&dq=Sex+Magick+Crowley+Gnostic+Mass&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GaLJUvLuMMHYoASS3YKoDQ&ved=0CE0Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=Sex%20Magick%20Crowley%20Gnostic%20Mass&f=false

B) "Wicca and the Christian Heritage: Ritual, sex and magic," by Joanne Pearson

http://books.google.com/books?id=Au_paUclEZkC&pg=PA80&dq=Sex+Magick+Crowley+Gnostic+Mass&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GaLJUvLuMMHYoASS3YKoDQ&ved=0CGAQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Sex%20Magick%20Crowley%20Gnostic%20Mass&f=false

C) "Nelson's Illustrated Guide to Religions: A Comprehensive Introduction to the ...", by James Beverley

http://books.google.com/books?id=ul0kFIxtMfkC&pg=PT427&dq=Sex+Magick+Crowley+taught+Gnostic+Mass&hl=en&sa=X&ei=w6bJUq7bGsn2oAS3-4LIDg&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Sex%20Magick%20Crowley%20taught%20Gnostic%20Mass&f=false

and parenthically, the O.T.O. is not itself quiet on this point, nor are its members, despite the occasional contention that its members are sworn to secrecy on the issue. as an example, here is an O.T.O. member (well known as such) providing exactly the same data while presenting Crowley's writings on the subject:

"The Best of the Equinox, Sex Magick," by Aleister Crowley {Lon Milo Duquette}

http://books.google.com/books?id=GdbebRN9PhAC&pg=PT8&dq=Sex+Magick+Crowley+Gnostic+Mass&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GaLJUvLuMMHYoASS3YKoDQ&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Sex%20Magick%20Crowley%20Gnostic%20Mass&f=false

similar citations could easily be drawn up for coverage on several other writings by Crowley (mentioned by title above and printed in text such as "Modern Sex Magick" by Donald Michael Kraig, amongst other titles), proclaimed as sex magick secrets instructed or maintained as rite-keeper and educatory vehicle by the O.T.O.

{I and others contributing to this article's talk page are initiates of this order.} -- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)