Talk:Typhonian Order

Ordo Templi Orientis (Typhonian)
It is Wikipedia policy that an article about an organization should consistently use the name that the organization calls itself, not some other informal name that others may give it. Please observe this convention. Please also note that "Ordo Templi Orientis" is Latin for "The Order of the Temple of the East" - adding "the" in front of it is redundant and also falsely implies that there is only one. Please refrain from introducing this unnecessary and misleading article in front of Ordo Templi Orientis or O.T.O. Thanks. Will in China (talk) 07:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Observe the conventions...hmm, sounds like the McMurtry OTO, at it again... I thought those California scandals would have improved your sense of decorum regarding both what conventions TO OBSERVE and those that are superfluous to True Magical Potency.. or is this the Caliphite? oh wait!! THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE!! 93 93/93.. You Prick

Hi, Will.

Thank you for your guidance.

Here are my thoughts on the matter. Please do not misinterpret my comments to believe that I am rejecting your views. I do think that some discussion may be helpful, however.

1. While the T.O.T.O. does indeed formally refer to itself as Ordo Templi Orientis, it is as "guilty" of using the "Typhonian" convention as other Thelemic organizations. This can be seen by consulting works by Michael Staley and Simon Hinton, for example, not to mention Kenneth Grant himself. It may, as a result, be seen as a de facto self-description rather than a de jure self-description.

2. The term "Typhonian" indicates that the T.O.T.O. delves much deeper, in its own view, than competing Thelemic organizations. I am not sure that this can be resolved objectively, as this is a view that the T.O.T.O. holds of itself, and it is controversial among other O.T.O. branches.

3. I accept your correction on the article "the." I will re-edit my work to remove it.

Thank you very much.

Cordially,

hmmmm..King Against King.. according to THE BOOK OF THE LAW.. My Law, the LAW OV THEE STRONG! whats with the whole step and ferch it routine, Brother? Estéban (talk) 07:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Using T.O.T.O is extremely problematic. First, there are clear rules for disambiguating articles on topics which share a name. This seems to have been correctly done for this article by using Ordo Templi Orientis for the title with (Typhonian) as the disambiguation.


 * Next, the name used in the lead paragraph should be the same as the article title, but without the disambiguator.


 * By all means what it is called and why should also appear in the lead section, and should be in bold like the actual name.


 * It would be much better to have a clear explanation of what Typhonian means in the lead section.


 * Repeating the word throughout the article, though, as part of the organization name is not correct form.


 * For one thing it implies that Wikipedia is taking some position with respect to disputes between the two organization, which we cannot do.


 * If and when the organization either voluntarily changes its name and/or is forced to do so though legal action, then the article can and should be moved and the new formal name used throughout the article. Until then it should be referred to by its chosen formal name with an explanation of what else it may be called and why. Will in China (talk) 14:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Will.

1. Please point me to the "clear rules" that you cite for "disambiguating articles on topics which share a name." Thanks.

2. I will give some thought to "what Typhonian means," and try to come up with a succinct way of addressing this in the lead section. I agree that the term should be explicated. I have tripped across discussions of this matter recently. I simply have to remember where I read them, and locate the sources.

3. You say that "repeating the word (meaning "Typhonian") throughout the article....as part of the organization name....implies that Wikipedia is taking some position with respect to disputes between the two organizations."

I think that removing the term Typhonian could be tantamount to taking a position in favor of the T.O.T.O. over the O.T.O. As you know, the T.O.T.O. asserts that it is the genuine O.T.O.

My goal is to explain the organization in as clear a fashion as possible. Using the term T.O.T.O. with consistency facilitates this, and it helps contrast it with other branches of O.T.O.

As I have already stated, the convention T.O.T.O. is one that is used by Grant's organization itself, as they find it as necessary to distinguish themselves from other branches as do any other interested parties.

As I understand it, you are basing your recommendations on an interpretation of Wiki rules.

I suspect that your interpretation may be fallible.

Regards,

Estéban (talk) 14:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Stop and think about it for a moment. Would you agree that we should modify the article on the Caliphate O.T.O. to prefix the word "Caliphate" in front of every occurrence of Ordo Templi Orientis and change every instance of O.T.O. to C.O.T.O.? That would obviously be non-neutral, despite that fact that there are many more Thelemites than C.O.T.O. members and therefore it's likely the disambiguating term is used more often than not. Neutrality says we have to use the same approach in both articles. Either or both could be genuine and it's disrespectful as well as non-neutral to use something other than the formal name of the organization. Putting "Caliphate" in front of every occurrence in the other article would open Wikipedia to possible legal action, and so would putting "Typhonian" in front of every occurrence in this one. The rule of using the formal name of the organization was not created not only for neutrality sake, but for the legal protection of Wikipedia. Both organizations need to be treated precisely the same by Wikipedia. We cannot take sides, and treating the names differently could easily be seen as taking sides. No one can reasonably blame Wikipedia for using an organization's formal name. They could reasonable blame Wikipedia for using something other than the formal name, even some members use it themselves.


 * The rules about naming disambiguation pages can be found here.


 * Will in China (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Guidance re article edits to reflect closure of Typhonian OTO
I look for guidance as to how best to update this article to reflect the contents of "Starfire II:3" (March 2009 but published "Winter Solstice MMVIII An 105") by Michael Staley (Kenneth Grant's deputy in the Order) to the effect that the Typhonian OTO has ceased to operate as an Order and that its functions and objectives have been taken over by the newly established Typhonian Order? (Confirmed in conversation with Mr Staley on Thursday 2 April 2009.) Starfire itself, once self-described as "The Official Organ of the Typhonian OTO", is now declares itself to be "The Official Journal of the Typhonian Order". Certainly, much of the content of the article is now dated and could at the very least do with some changes of tense or perhaps a change of title. Ankhefenkhons (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, according to Wikipedia standards, such changes would have to wait until chronicled in a reliable third-party source. Until this occurs, the article will need to stay as it is. This is not unusual, encyclopedias frequently lag up to a decade behind real world changes due to sourcing requirements, especially for something as obscure as T.O.T.O. Will in China (talk) 22:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Understood - thanks for the clarification. Meanwhile, does it merit a passing time-limited mention based on the announcement in the official house journal of the Order? Or perhaps as a disambiguating link? And how about my update regarding the succession document forgery? Do we have to wait until Koenig, for example, reports that too? Ankhefenkhons (talk) 23:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not inclined to remove it myself since "the perpetrator" is not named. If that person is still living and someone else adds their name, it'd probably trigger a removal. With respect to moving the article, I don't know if this sort of organization is likely to register with the UK gov't, but if so and some record of the name change can be found online on a gov't site, that might be good enough to move the article. The redirect and mention in the lead of the new name seems harmless, even helpful, so I've gone ahead and done it. Will in China (talk) 23:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with Ankhefenknons that the article needs considerable updating. For one thing, I think it concentrates too much on the legitimacy questions of the Order, which is of decreasing relevance, and not enough on what it actually is and does. I'm also confused by the policy mentioned above about needing a third-party source for the name change - surely if the organisation itself says it has changed its name, in its own official publication, that can be considered reasonably reliable information? If not, I bow to your superior experience in these matters Will :-) --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 08:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and changed the page title to reflect the name change. Wikipedia guidelines do consider the Starfire statement valid:

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves

I'll update the article content slightly now to reflect this information. --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 08:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Updated the article using language given by Ankhefenkhons above, and cleaned it up a bit. I think it reads much more clearly now. I've also toned down some of the more contentious (and contradictory) statements derived from the selective quoting of Koenig & Evans --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 23:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Coming back to this article after a long absence. I think that you gentlemen have done some nice work. Estéban (talk) 06:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Lead is a summary
The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article body. However, currently the lead contains claims which are not cited and not covered in the body of the article. The alleged facts need to be added to the body with citations or removed from the lead. Skyerise (talk) 22:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)