Talk:Ordo Templi Orientis

Archives

• /Archive 1

Freemasonry and OTO

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)

Prove "Founding members of almost all esoteric or occult org's/orders were freemasons". Tell the board that when you try getting in to FM and see how many black balls drop into the bag. Never met any brethren called patatas or whatever either. Imacomp 18:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

Lets take another look... Name any regular Grand Lodge in Freemasonry that says there 'is' a link. Orange Order, Oddfellows, ect., also claim a link - as wanabees - but not one Grand Lodge of Freemasonry agrees. To prove So-and-so was a Freemason, name the Lodge and dates of initiation etc. I await you reasurch with interest. Imacomp 18:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

I see, so back in the real world you cannot find a link. Imacomp 18:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

For your information, the web sites of organizations are considered to be good references on the WP page about that organization. Again, I quote WP:V, "Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves". Please familiarize yourself more thoroughly with WP policies. -999 (Talk) 18:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

Beginnings - comments, various rites and Freemasonry

I have some issues with the wording of the section on "The beginnings":

• "...He then aspired to create an Academia Masonica that would unifiy the various systems of Masonry."

The article should mention that this aspiration failed... the various systems of Masonry are not unified.

• "Kellner, along with an associate, Theodor Reuss (1855-1923), decided to call it the Oriental Templar Order. In 1902, Reuss, along with Franz Hartmann and Henry Klein, purchased the right to perform the irregular Scottish, Memphis and Mizraim rites of Freemasonry, the authority of which was confirmed in 1904 and again in 1905. These rites, along with the Swedenborgian Rite, formed the core of the newly established Order."

First, Purchased from whom? No legitimate Freemasonic body sells the "right to perform" their degrees. Second, the Rights of Memphis and Mizram have never been considered legitimate in Freemasonry (thus my addition of the word 'irregular'). I am not sure about the Swedenborgian Rite (never heard of it before). This need to be better explained in the article. Blueboar 20:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

During the late 18th C and through the 19thC there was quite an active trade in selling patents, mainly for the higher degrees rather than craft but the principle applies. It would, of course, be useful to identify from whom the patent was procured. I'll admit that I didn't think that A&AR and the M&M rites were as intimatly related as is implied in the text, in fact I've just finished reading quite a lot on A&AR and don't see a relationship, at least from the A&AR side; not out of the question that someone else used those rituals to develop M&M.

Notwithstanding all of that I think the article tries too hard to cause the reader to infer more of a relationship with Freemasonry than there actually is.ALR 21:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

ALR may have hit part of my problem on the head... while I can not point to one particular passage or line, the general wording does seem to imply a larger relationship to Freemasonry than there is. I think that it is a given that some of the founders of O.T.O. were at one point Freemasons (of either regular or irregular bodies). And they did borrow the structure and some of the symbolism of Freemasonry when designing their order... but that is as far as the tie goes. Lots of orders and fraternities did this. Oddfellows, Elks, even the Knights of Columbus. That does not make them Masonic. The article tries too hard to make O.T.O. sound like a Masonic society, which it is not. As Imacomp states above, not one Masonic Grand Lodge or Grand Orient recognizes ANY tie to O.T.O. It is its own thing. Blueboar 23:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, you see...If its on the main web site, it can be used, and I'm seeing this info, in parts, on the main web site. So its gotta stay. It just has to be re worded. Zos 15:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It probably needs to be heavily qualified, as well. Crowley was never a regular Freemason; as a result, there is an associartion issue involved between Crowley and every single lodge recognized by UGLE, because he was never part of them, and will not and should not be claimed as such. See the relevant page on Crowley on freemasonry.bcy.ca. MSJapan 15:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Whilst it may be on the OTO main site, that doesn't mean it has to be replicated here. The argument is specious. I'd agree that there is some value in rewording, the initiatory system has a great many examples, Christian baptism (either as a child or adult) followed by confirmation in the Christian church is one useful example.ALR 21:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it does have to be replicated here, in some form, in better formulated words, seeing as how its an autobiographical source. Since there is a dispute with a few sentences, and although I wasnt the one who put it in the article, I've found where its discussed and should be reworded, but it must remain. Danke. Zos 21:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Why should it be in? I'm afraid that 'just because it happens to appear elsewhere' doesn't convince me. Indeed I would say that a verbatim copy of the OTO site probably falls foul of WP policy.ALR 21:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, which policy are you refering to. It would help if you state this first. Zos 21:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll leave it as an intellectual exercise for you to work it out, but I note that you haven't actually addressed the point I made above; substantiate your assertion that it has to remain in the article.ALR 21:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

This isnt an intellectual exercise, its Wikipedia. Wikipedia:List_of_policies

I'm not sure if you intend that statement to be ironic or not, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are though :) Can you make clear though, are you a member of OTO or not? I rather assumed that you were but your immediate preceding statement would suggest that you're not.ALR 07:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Please point it out to me, as I'm not here for your game. I've addressed the reason why it needs to be included as a source, and as for the sentences: I've already noted that they might need to be reworded. So look here for reasons what Wikipedia says about this. Zos 22:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand the idea that as long as the OTO web site says something is so, it can be repeated here ... it happens to be one of the Wikipedia policies I disagree with (as anyone can say anything on their web site, without any fact checking or iota of truth involved) but, as it IS policy, I won't quibble... However, WP:V makes it clear that any such statements should be qualified with "OTO claims that..." or something similar. Also, WP:NPOV tells us that other, conflicting, information should also be included. Thus, these sections will need more that a small rewrite to reflect these policies.Blueboar 22:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The statements need to be rewritten, I agree, yet where is the conflicting information? The only thing ALR is offering up at this time is intellectual games. Zos 22:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that conflicting info needs citations as well :p Zos 22:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I've already editind the early reference to reflect the relationship.

The conflicting information is in the alleged tie to Freemasonry. While it is true that some of the early founders of OTO were Masons (either regular or irregular) at some point in their lives, this does not mean that OTO is Masonic. It needs to be stated clearly that NONE of the supposed "Masonic" degrees that OTO borrowed are considered Masonic, except by OTO. I did some research and the Memphis/Mizram Rites were definitely irregular, and the Swedenborgian Rite was a scam to raise money... There are several good articles on all of this on the Grand Lodge of BC and Yukon web site. So there is one source. I know I can find others. Blueboar 22:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that we need to put any effort into substantiating the absence of a link. I'm content that the statement is softened to reduce the inference that the two are related, that in itself should suffice. OTO was clearly influenced by the craft and it's reasonable to reflect that.ALR 07:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that can be used. Freemasonry web sites can be used for Freemasonry pages such as the united grand lodge article citing its main web site, yet it cant be used for another article, such as this one. You'd need a book source for that, OR, an author who is online, and reproduces his info. Zos 23:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Where is THAT in Wikipedia policy?... By your logic, you could never cite an opposing oppinion! If we followed that rule, I could say the same about your using the OTO web site ... that you would need a book source OR an author who is on line and reproduces his info. Of course you can use Freemasonry related pages (or any other site) as sources, as long as the statement is properly attributed and sourced. Besides... in the specific case that I mention (the articles posted on the GLBC&Y web site), these are scholarly papers that are re-published by GLBC&Y. It may take some digging, but I am sure that most (if not all) of them could be traced to other, published sources. Sorry, but your argument is rediculous and clearly is against Wikipedia policy. Blueboar 00:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It's true. It's in WP:V under self-published sources which includes organization's websites, "Self-published sources may never be used as sources of information about another person or topic." They may, however, be used in articles about themselves. It's an explicit exception. -999 (Talk) 01:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Its not my logic, its whats Wikipedia states.

• Self-published sources may never be used as sources of information about another person or topic, subject to the limited exceptions discussed above.

The above is taken from here, as previously mentioned. Please review this, and I'd recommend reviewing Wikipedias talk guidelines on having good faith in discussion because you are violating it by your claims (and thats an official policy). And if web sites are available, with published authors discussing the matter, then fine, add the material, but its neither here nor there until its provided for fact checking as per Wp:V. Thanks. Zos 01:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The guidance on verifiability states that personal websites may not be considered as verifiable, there is nothing there about organisational websites, in particular many of the papers published on the sites referred to are published by the organisation, not the author. It should therefore be reasonable to assume a degree of peer review and rigour.

I find it somewhat disingenuous to declare one organisational website as acceptable whilst another, which balances the discussion, is declared unacceptable. It's also interesting that you now choose to throw around the good faith argument when Blueboar does not appear to have been anything less than constructive and positive in this discussion. there are a number of conslutions that one might take from that observation.ALR 07:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Look at it the other way. Do you want OTO to be able to insert itself into articles on Freemasonry based on the claims on its websites? This is precisely the reason for the rule; yes, it cuts both ways, but if there is a real controversy rather than just organizational competitiveness, there will be printed sources and the topic can be introduced with only a little more effort. I think that is the case here, and I've suggested a couple of acceptable sources below that also happen to be on the web. -999 (Talk) 13:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The above quoted guideline is from the section entitled: "Self-published sources in articles about themselves"... In other words, in this case the guidelines would relate to using statements from the OTO website, not other websites. Just so the record is clear... here is the entire guideline section:

Self-published sources in articles about themselves Material from self-published sources, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as there is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it, and where the material is:

• relevant to the person's notability;
• not contentious;
• not unduly self-serving or self-aggrandizing;
• not contradicted by reliable, third-party published sources;
• about the subject, and does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject.

Self-published sources may never be used as sources of information about another person or topic, subject to the limited exceptions discussed above.

Thus, the sentence you quote does not apply to using sources from other organizations, such as a Masonic Grand Lodges' web site.

Finally: Throughout the article there are statements that OTO is "similar" to Freemasonry: "The O.T.O. structure is initiatory, with a series of degree ceremonies, similar to that of Freemasonry and similar organisations."... "O.T.O. uses a degree system, similar to that of Freemasonry and other fraternal orders" ... "Admittance to each degree of O.T.O. involves an initiation and the swearing of an oath similar to those used in Freemasonry" .... etc. Since the article states this supposed similarity, it is absolutely appropreate to include statments from Masonic sources that give a contrary view... that OTO is NOT "similar" to Freemasonry. Blueboar 12:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, as long as the source is citable, i.e. something which is not only available on a Masonic website. I've listed two sourced I'd consider acceptable below a couple of sections down also with reasoning why they are acceptable sources. -999 (Talk) 13:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, think about the reason for the rule. If you can use Masonic websites here, then the OTO can use their website to introduce themselves into Masonic articles. Is that what you want? -999 (Talk) 13:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

If one of the Freemasony articles discussed OTO, or made claims about it, then it would be absolutely appropriate to cite to the OTO web site in support of a statement about OTO's views. It really depends on what is being said. The key here is that this article makes statements about Freemasonry (that OTO is "similar" to it)... thus the article has opened the door to rebuttal or contrary statements from Freemasonic web sites. Remove or change the statements in question, and you remove the need (or opportunity) to cite to these web sites. Blueboar 14:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

How about this: Remove any statements in which no citation is presented to this talk page under the header "awaiting sources", then, when someone finds a source for the majority of the issues concerning OTO and Freemasonry, it will be restored. Thanks. Zos 14:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It is similar to Freemasonry, intentionally similar. I don't see that such claims are a problem, nor do they need to be rebutted as long as the word similar is included. As far as I can tell, you are trying to show that it is not the same as or not part of Freemasonry. Again, the sources I've given below go into the historic reasons why OTO is similar to but derives from irregular forms of Masonry. That's all you're trying to do, right? Why not use sources that are specifically about the issue... -999 (Talk) 14:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I am saying that it is not even "similar", at least not in the way the article implies. I suppose it depends on how the use of the word "similar" is interpreted. If by "similar" you simply mean that OTO has a system of degrees, and makes its members swear an oath, etc. ... then yes, it is "similar"... but it is also "similar" to any other fraternal order. So why single out Freemasonry?

The same is true at the next level of interpretation ... if you mean that OTO uses a phrasiology and structure that is modeled on that used by Freemasonry. Here too, you could just as easily say it is "similar" to the Oddfellows, Elks or the Knights of Columbus. Again, lots of orders modeled their rituals on Freemasonry's. So, again, why single out Freemasonry?

You see, the repeated use of the phrase "similar to Freemasonry" puts an emphisis on Freemasonry, and implies to the reader that there is a deaper tie... it implies that OTO is in some way a form of Freemasonry. Thus, a cited statement that indicates that this is not the case would be appropriate. Blueboar 15:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Direct comment to ALR:

I noticed you had posted a comment inside my own. Please do not do this, it causes confusion to time stamps and users. Place your comments with respect to time stamps.

• I'm not sure if you intend that statement to be ironic or not, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are though :) Can you make clear though, are you a member of OTO or not? I rather assumed that you were but your immediate preceding statement would suggest that you're not.ALR 07:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Please check my talk page. It addresses other users "claims" to the fact that I am a member of so and so. But for the future, if I were a member, it would mean nothing at all. I'm not pushing anything as of right now (yet you are, and you're a mason) besides Wikipedia policy.

Maybe you should focus more on the article, and less on intellectual games. Thank you. Zos 19:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I note your concern over readability of the discussion, but would suggest that there are bigger issues with regard to readability than my own use of an inline comment. Both yourself and '999' might appreciate that one can use various control tags in sequence to enhance the nesting and bulleting of various areas of discussion. But I take your point that you have difficulty dealing with my usage and will take that into account in future.

As to your membership, I only ask in order to clarify your position with respect to the order. I find it interesting that you choose to become defensive and characterise my question as a claim, but merely note that and bear it in mind during future interactions. I am happy to acknowledge my membership of a number of bodies associated with Freemasonry because I believe that openness and honesty with respect to ones position and expertise only serves to enhance the editing process, despite the fact that it can become a little heated at times. Indeeed you'll note that in the portfolio of FM related artiocles there are frequent disagreements between those of us who are in the craft. Specifically with respect to this topic of discussion you'll see three Freemasons each taking a different position, two of us very different from the other. You do yourself an injustice by seeking to characterise us as all the same.

I am somewhat amused that one would see the development of an encyclopaedic article on a topic as anything other than an intellectual exercise though. It takes intellectual horsepower to communicate a balanced and comprehensive review of a topic, making it readable to both the informed and casual reader whilst maintaining a concise structure.

To the point of the debate, despite having addressed it previously in the discussion without response from either yourself or '999'.

• The article as it stood before I made a mild amendment, and still to some extent, is over-reliant on the statement that it has similarities to Freemasonry. This is not balanced by any statement with regard to how it might have been influenced by a Freemasonic organisation, and the regularity of that body with respect to what is commonly perceived by the general public as Freemasonry.
• I have no issue with identifying the debt that OTO owes to Freemasonry but would suggest that accuract is best served by more detail than is currently provided.

  OTO and Freemasonry are both initiatory traditions, as are a number of other bodies including the Christian Church.

  OTO rituals were heavily influenced by the irregular Freemasonic rituals which Crowley undertook.

  Freemasonry consists of three degrees, viz. initiation, passing and raising. OTO, as with other Thelemic orders, consists of somewhat more than that.

  Masonic ritual is considered private, whilst a diverse range of exposures of ritual exist it remains policy that it is private. OTO ritual is ostensibly public.

So you should see from my position that the bland statement that OTO is similar to Freemasonry is both understatement and deceptive in its' simplicity. The statement as it stands does not provide an adequately comprehensive coverage of the topic.ALR 20:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Proceed descendingly within topics: Within each topic, chronological order should also be preserved: the further down the contribution to talk, the later in time it was made. (taken from Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Layout)

This is what I mean with respect to time stamps. Its a guideline for making comments on the talk pages. Its helps in conversation.

And again, my membership of any kind has no baring on this talk page. I never said you were claiming anything, although other have made claims, and Ive addressed them on my user page (which is what I stated). The only poistion I hold here on Wikipedia is per their way of doing things. I stive to show no bias in any way shape or form.

• "You do yourself an injustice by seeking to characterise us as all the same." direct quote from ALR

When did I do this? Now you are putting words into play that do not belong, and are not assuming good faith (one more time and I'll report you, I believe I've given you enough chances)

As stated before, anythng added to the article needs proper citations. I'd like primary or secondary sources if you dont mind. Published authors with opinions to give on this issue of OTO and Freemasonry.

Thanks for the bit of wisdom on masonry, I already know enough to disagree with you about privacy. Rituals have already been displayed on television. Oh and again, you still have not responded to my question. Which policy? Evading questions is also disliked on Wikipedia as per intellecual game. Zos 20:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou for once again referring to a guideline, however I'd highlight that a guideline is not a rule, in fact since we're all grown ups then guidelines are more appropriate to reasonable and civilised behaviour.

Choosing to interpret my points as anything other than constructive might be considered by some as being counter to an assumption of good faith, however I choose not to suggest such a thing as it could be considered that tossing around the suggestion that one is not assuming such could reasonably be considered as not assuming good faith in its own right. I'm saddened that you choose to suggest, repeatedly, that I am not assuming your good faith. You'll note that I continue to attempt to have a reasonable discussion despite the various accusations and obstruction.

It appears to me that there is a level of defensiveness about the issue from both yoruself and '999'. Blueboar and I are both seeking to provide a useful and meaningful article and yet it would appear from the discussion thus far that you assume some other agenda. I've already made clear my position on the line to take (twice) yet you have chosen not to address the substantive points in my discussion, or Blueboars' for that matter. It appears to me that you see more value in playing us as contributors rather than the points with regard to the article itself.

Might I suggest that you review the discussion above, you'll note that neither of us seek to excise the mentions of Freemasonry, merely to provide a useful context.

Given the level of defensiveness about the inclusion one might wonder why OTO can't stand on its own two feet, so to speak, but appears to require an association with another organisation in order to be taken seriously.ALR 21:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You should really let this go, its not helping the discussion in the slightest. Point is, there is a citation in place, and you seem happy to changes words around, not based on a source. So please stop, since we are reaching a consensus by voting on it. By the way, you still have not answered the questions, which policy? Zos 21:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

So, why do you choose to be confrontational and defensive about this?ALR 21:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Degrees

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)

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)

Freemasonry and OTO - references

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Initiation issues

There appears to be a desperation to include a verbatim extract from a reference, viz involves an initiation and the swearing of an oath similar to those used in Freemasonry. I would suggest that the latter part of the sentence similar to those used in Freemasonry adds little to the discussion being articulated, and constitutes padding. It is clear from the discussion at the article oath what is included in the form of words used and the additional wording adds nothing to the paragraph.ALR 20:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

There appears to be a position to exlude freemasonry more over. We can vote on this now.

Revoval of the perposed statement.

• Disagree - Reason: no source to say otherwise. Zos 20:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Disagree - The subarticles make a direct comparison of the OTO oaths to the oaths in Duncan's. It is a direct discussion of the fact that they are similar. -999 (Talk) 21:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Agree - the oaths are not at all similar, except on a very, very superficial level (I/Name/promise something/under a penalty)... THAT is not new or Freemasonic. It goes back to oath swearing common in Medieval times, and probably could be traced even further. I would also point out that Duncan's is not a reliable source for accurate Masonic Ritual (See the Signs, grips and passwords section in the Freemasonry Article). Finally, many of the references are to the Free Encyclopedia of Thelema. I would hardly call this a reliable source. It primarily copies Wikipedia articles under GNU Free. Since Wikipedia does not allow other Wikipedia articles to be used as citations... I would say the same guideline should apply to citing Wikipedia Articles that are simply repeated on some other on-line encyclopedia. I could even throw 999's argument about no on-line "web only" citations (I won't ... but I could). Blueboar 22:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Addition to article: It should also be mentioned in the article that the OTO first three degree were originally the Blue Lodge degrees until Crowley rewrote the initiations. -999 (Talk) 21:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree there too. I'll go looking for sources soon (gotta order these kinds). Theres no way that anyone could possibly say that there is no simularity (even with the Golden Dawn). Zos 21:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree, but with caviat - IF an independant source (ie other than OTO) can verify that Crowley used a Blue Lodge ritual originally, then I would say it could (and probably should) be included. If this can not be verified by an independant citation then no, it can not be included. Blueboar 22:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

To be honest you pair amuse me more than anything else. The edits I've already made should clearly demonstrate that I have no wish to excise Freemasonry from the article. As I've already said above, noting that neither of you acknowledge the statement, OTO does owe a debt to Freemasonry. However it does not aid readability to needlessly pad out the wording. Effective writing of scholarly material is greatly aided by brevity and clarity. My reason for suggesting that the section be removed is that it is clumsy, surplus verbage.

As a matter of interest, why do you choose to immediately take a confrontational stance with the discussion?

As to your latter point, I would appreciate if you did not conflate the suggestion that there is material to add to the article, with my suggestion for streamlining the wording. Should you identify supporting material for your assertion, and you can include it in a useful and meaningful way, then I have no real issue with that.ALR 21:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I shall direct you here where you did in fact remove "similar to those used in Freemasonry", which is cited. Zos 21:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. There is no disputing that. In fact that's why I raised this topic. It's excess verbage, pads out the sentence, and in it's form when I removed it added nothing of value to the article.ALR 21:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, neither of us agree with that assessment. -999 (Talk) 21:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, however neither of you have really substantiated that yet, you merely choose to be confrontational about the issue.ALR 21:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Neither have you. It's a simple matter of opinion. You have one opinion about it, and we disagree with your opinion. That's pretty simple. Stop acting like there's some sort of objective measure we could refer to. -999 (Talk) 21:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I don't think I am being confrontational. I simply stated that I disagree with your assessment. Are you trying to suggest that my opinion is not relevant here? -999 (Talk) 21:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

What I think happened was: he interspersed comments again, and this is the cause of the confusion. I asked him not to, and he did it anyway. The comment was for me. And I thought he was refering to the vote as being confrontaional, and its only to reach a consensus. Go figure. Zos 22:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

hmm, it may be presumptious of you to imagine that I can't hold two conversations at once.ALR 22:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• "why do you choose to immediately take a confrontational stance with the discussion?"

Because this helps settle disputes on Wikipedia talk pages.

Does it really, or does it merely exacerbate dispute? Clearly the confrontational approach doesn't actually lend itself to achieving consensus.ALR 21:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• "I would appreciate if you did not conflate the suggestion that there is material to add to the article"

So now we can't say "there is more information out there that canbe added and cited"...? Please explain this.

I didn't say not to, I highlighted that it doesn't contribute to the debate to conflate the two points, I'm sorry that you are unable to identify the subtlety of the point.

Plus, its does add to the article, aside from your personal reasons.

I didn't say it wouldn't, in fact with my caveats that I've mentioned then it may well do.

By the way you havent voted yet. Zos 21:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

That's because this isn't a schoolyard.ALR 21:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the use of surveys is an official Wikipedia method of dispute resolution. -999 (Talk) 21:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't describe this as a dispute at this stage. I'm attempting to have a civilised discussion. I don't see that there is any need for such a crude instrument as a vote at this time.ALR 22:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Beat me to it. I'm not sure who told him talk pages were schoolyards either. Zos 22:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Considering that there are basicly only four of us discussing this, and we know where each of us stands, I do have to admit that having a vote is pretty silly (and yes, I "voted").

As a potential compromise, I have tried to solve the issue by adding the text "O.T.O. claims that" in front of each reference to "similar to Freemasonry"... this is backed up by the citations and is a true statement. O.T.O. does make this claim. Blueboar 22:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Its not silly, but there were only 3 who had voted to reach a consensus based on what ALR wished to do. There are more contributors here than just us. They can vote as well.Zos 23:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Fixed citation

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)

I thank you for attempting to help Blueboar, but the reference didnt say what you added. Zos 22:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

OTO claims that....

I hoped we had reached compromise language by inserting "...which OTO claims is..." where statements about the similarity to Freemasonry were concerned. Now some of these are being reverted. I have to ask: What was wrong with the insertions? OTO does claim that its rituals are "similar" to or taken from Freemasonic rituals. That is a factual statement that is supported on their web site and in other sources. Without such a "claims that" qualifyer, however, we are right back where we were... and I have to question the accuracy and factualness of the statements, and the legitimacy of the citations. Since the only people who are saying that the OTO rituals are "similar" to Freemasonic rituals are people tied to OTO in one way or another, we would need a third party reference to back up any unqualified statements. You would need to cite a detailed analysis of OTO ritual and Masonic ritual. And here we have a problem... there is no analysis of Masonic ritual that would be acceptable. You can not use an exposé such as Morgan's or Duncan's, since multiple Grand Lodges have stated clearly over the years that they are not accurate representations of Masonic ritual (and while I can not be cited as a source under WP:NOR, I can assure you that they are not accurate). At the most, all you can say is that Russe, Crowley (et al.) used rituals that they thought were Masonic. Blueboar 16:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, King is a third-party reference. -999 (Talk) 16:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I have two points, first I don't like the 'OTO claims that...' form. It strikes me as a contrived and clumsy form of words which appears defensive and it could be inferred from the phrasing that there is much ore to the situation than there really is. OTO is derived from irregular Masonry, however that topic shopuld be adequately covered in the article. The wording at present, prior to this addition, does not adequately communicate the nature of the derivation, and also does not make the distinction between regular and irregular FM (10 degrees?????? Given that Masonry only has three then that's fairly easily discredited).

Notwithstanding all of that any attribution with respect to the historical, and inaccurate, exposures can be fairly quickly undermined as well. It also does not do justice to the topic under discussion to blandly cite these statements without qualification as the current supporters of the status quo appear to prefer..ALR 17:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I would fully support the inclusion of the word irregular rather than O.T.O. claims that... I don't think anyone denies that O.T.O. started with irregular masonry, and I don't think anybody is trying to prove that it is derived from Regular Freemasonry, either. -999 (Talk) 17:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Yet where is a citation to state that its irregular?

In King, it says, "For the O.T.O. not only had, as we shall see, connections with spurious and clandestine masonic groups but functioned as a recruiting office for one of these" -999 (Talk) 17:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Without access to King, I can not tell if this is a third party citation or not, but I will take your word for it until shown otherwise. From what I have read, I would agree that OTO was inspired by irregular Freemasonry... and I do not doubt that its founders used rituals borrowed from those degrees. However, we have no way of knowing if those rituals were accurate in any Masonic jurisdiction (given that they were fringe degrees, I would lean towards "probably not") or how much they were changed by Crowley and friends. Thus my problem with stating that OTOs rituals were or are "similar" to anything we can call Masonic. The only comparison of texts I have seen is that on the Thelema encyclopedia (and I still have doubts about the legitimacy of using that as a citation)... This does not convince me that there is any large overlap between the two rituals (and the Masonic ritual is inaccurate). We seem to be at an impass. Oh well, I will try to think up some other compromise versions and bounce them off of you... I am sure that we can find something acceptable to both sides here. Blueboar 17:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that Francis King was ever a member of O.T.O., if that's what you mean. -999 (Talk) 17:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Blueboar, why not look for a source if you wish to add anything. I don't see alot of citations being added by you, or ALR, for your inclusions. Zos 17:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

At the moment, I have not added anything that needs a citation... my addition of "claims" were backed by exitsting OTO sources (unfortunately, that suggestion does not seem to fly). Actually, you will note that I have not really been talking about adding anything of substance to the article as of yet. I have been concentrating on how to reword things, which does not need citation. Obviously, if I add something (which is looking more likely) I will provide proper citations. Mostly, I wanted to raise my concerns and hash them out here on the talk page, rather than add to an article I am only periferally involved with. Blueboar 19:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I've seen the edit history, so I know whats been going on. Theres a whole lot of talk, and nothing to back it up. Checking the history shows additions to wording and other additions with no verifiable citations (here is an example). You can talk about freemasonry over at that main article. Thanks. Zos 19:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

So what you're suggesting is that any mention of Freemaonry is removed and discussed elsewhere. That would be a diservice to OTO wince there is a clear claim on the OTO page that there is an association, and from a Masonic perspective then I'd happily acknowledge that OTO owes a debt of gratitude to Freemasonry for providing a basis for the developments. It hardly seems reasonable to fail to recognise that in this article.ALR 20:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

ALR... if that last remark was addressed to me... No, I am not saying that there should be no mention of Freemasonry. I am suggesting that the existing mention of Freemasonry is slightly skewed and misrepresents the facts to a degree. I am still trying to figure out how to correct this situation. If your comment is directed to some one else... never mind. :>) Blueboar 21:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

No it wasn't. I appreciate that the poor use of the nesting facility by others doesn't lend itself to useful debate, and I'm sorry I hadn't noticed the misalignment above. Hopefully I've fixed it now though.ALR 21:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

ALR: Any "talk" (excuse the confusion). This talk page is for the OTO, not freemasonry. Zos 21:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

You've already said that, however the point of the debate is the attribution of OTOs origins. Since you and User:999 seem so keen to retain the point then the relationship needs to be discussed. Clearly OTO is off topic in the portfolio of Masonic articles, so it has to happen here. I'll ask the question again, are you suggesting that any mention of Freemasonry be removed from the article?ALR 21:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Zos, hold on a second... first, the sample addition that you cite above to claim that we are not giving citations was not posted by either ALR or myself... here is the link to where it was added. Second, that edit was an attempt to add a citation. Not a good one, I will admit (I agree with you on your explanation of why you removed it, as it did not specificly mention OTO)... but it WAS a citation. As for not talking about Freemasonry, as long as this article makes reference to Freemasonry, it is appropriate to discuss how that reference is made. We are not saying you should remove the reference, we are just trying to figure out a compromise on the wording. Blueboar 21:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The reference does not explicitly mention the OTO, since this organisation is not notable enough. However it is implicit in the general rebuttal. Imacomp 22:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

ALR, since I never said that, my answer is no. Zos 22:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Blueboar, if it wasnt added by you then I apologize. As for talk about freemasonry...I tend to see too much talk about freemasonry, and then saying you dont have citations for whats being said (not just by you). I find this kinda pointless, personally, and was asking for it to cease. I'd rather focus more on additions or removal of material of the article. Zos 23:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)PS See if comes back... Imacomp 22:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

PPS Should this link be added about Thelma? Imacomp 22:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Glad you can clarify that.ALR 23:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: "Scotch" Rite. Think we should be told, by a cited ref, how may bottles of Scotch are used? Imacomp 23:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)