Talk:Ordo Templi Orientis/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Freemasonry and OTO - references

Here's some references that might prove useful

-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)
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)
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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)
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)

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)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)

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)

Glad you can clarify that.ALR 23:09, 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)
Do not move my comments out of context, or re-section them. Add your own comments if you want to say somthing. Imacomp 00:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Degree discussion

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, ISBN 1930097387) (For more information you can look at also cite to: Is True What They Say About Freemasonry, Chapter 3, by Art DeHoyos[1]) 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)

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)
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)
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)

Q: Is anything worn under your kilt? A: No its all in working order... :) Imacomp 23:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] More on citations

Interesting, but a rebuttal from UGLE still stands as a valid official stance - for all "Home" Grand Lodges. What Crowley's bio says is in just one citation. Imacomp 01:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
UGLE cannot be used as a source. It can be used for a freemasonry article, yet, this is te OTO article. Zos 01:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
"UGLE cannot be used as a source. It can be used for a freemasonry article, yet, this is te OTO article." What rubbish, a cited ref is a cited ref. Doh! Imacomp 01:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
We are back where we started...(sigh)... Again, UGLE can be used as a source in ANY article that talks about Freemasonry, as long as it backs up a statement about what UGLE says. If the article on Metamorphic Rock contained a statement about what the Freemasons say, it would be appropriate to cite to UGLE to verify the statement. And yes the same would apply to using OTO's web site ... If the Freemasonry article (or any other article) contained a statement about an official stance of OTO, it would be appropriate to cite that statement to some place where OTO says it... such as the official OTO web site.
In this case, the question isn't the use of UGLE as a citation... it's whether the citation to UGLE actually verifies the statement being made. Let's take a look:
  • Q - What is the relationship between Freemasonry and groups like the Orange Order, Odd Fellows and Buffaloes?
  • A - None. There are numerous fraternal orders and Friendly Societies whose rituals, regalia and organisation are similar in some respects to Freemasonry's. They have no formal or informal connections with Freemasonry.
Since the UGLE web page does not specificly mention OTO, the question then becomes: can it be implied that OTO is included in UGLE's statement... Is OTO "a group like the Orange Order, Odd Fellows and Buffaloes"? Is it one of the "numerous fraternal orders and Friendly Societies whose rituals, regalia and organisation are similar in some respects to Freemasonry's". Since this article goes to great lengths to repeatedly claim that its ritual and organization are "similar" to Freemasonry's, I would have to say the answer is: "Yes, OTO falls into that definition". And since it does, UGLE's official stance towards OTO is that it has "no formal or informal connections with Freemasonry."
Now... the final question is this: did the statement talk about what UGLE says. Here, I would have to say "No"... at least it didn't when Imacomp added the citation. The line in the article stated: "The O.T.O. structure is initiatory, with a series of degree ceremonies, which the U.S. Grand Lodge, Ordo Templi Orientis claims is similar to that of Freemasonry and similar organisations." It talked about what OTO says, not what Freemasonry says. However, I have corrected this situation by adding a line (in a foot note so as to not disrupt the flow of the article) stating: "For its part, Freemasonry disagrees and says that O.T.O. has 'no formal or informal connections with Freemasonry'." This is an appropriate addition under WP:NPOV, as it states a contrary view and thus balances what the article says. So... NOW, the citation is valid and should remain. Blueboar 12:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
The below is taken from here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources_in_articles_about_themselves

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.

So please, enough about the UGLE web site. Its not to be used for this article. Its a self published source, and can be used for Freemasonry main articles and what not, but this is the OTO main article. Please find book references to provide sources. Thanks. Zos 16:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
All of the above applies to self-published books, personal websites, and blogs, you'll note that it says personal, now I wouldn't describe the official website published on beahalf of an organisation as being personal. You're argument appears to fall flat based on that.ALR 16:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

As ALR says, The UGLE web-site is NOT a "personal website" nor a "Self-published source" - it is the official website of an organization. Even if it WERE a personal website, it could be used... Let's look at another passage from WP:RS (note the bolding has been for emphysis):

Personal websites as primary sources

A personal website (either operated by one individual or a group of individuals) or blog may be used only as a primary source, i.e., when we are writing about the owner of the website or the website itself. But even then we should proceed with great caution and should avoid relying on information from the website as a sole source. This is particularly true when the subject is controversial, and the self-publisher has no professional or academic standing.

In other words, even if you want to argue that the UGLE website is a self-published source - since we are using it as a primary source, in support of a statement about the owner of the website (ie UGLE) and what that owner says ... we CAN use it. Also, UGLE certainly has both professional and academic standing when it comes to defining their own rules and regulations. Do we need to take this to arbitration? Blueboar 17:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
ALR: Please re-read again. The first sentence states "Material from self-published sources, whether published online or .." and this is what the OTO and UGLE main web sites are. The OTO main web sites (UK and US) can be used for this main article, and only the UGLE main web site can be used in the Freemasonry article or such as related to it. This is very easy to understand. The addition of the term personal websites is only if you wish to create an article for an author, you may use his personal website for a source if...blah blah. I think you might understand by now.
Blueboar: The previously stated that "the UGLE web page does not specificly mention OTO", so if it doesnt, then its not a source on the OTO. Also you question:
  • Is OTO "a group like the Orange Order, Odd Fellows and Buffaloes"?
And answer:
  • Yes, OTO falls into that definition
I have no problem with this, if a source is given. And since the UGLE doesnt speak of OTO, it cant be used. Understand? And for the last time, please find book sources for this, as they will be included once you do. Thanks. Zos 17:38, 18 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)" OTO is not notable enough to be found explicitly in any Freemasonic related media, (as far as I know). To get an explicit OTO rebuttal from UGLE, or any other Grand Lodge, would be original research. Imacomp 17:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Zos... You forget the other part of the quotation...

  • "...numerous fraternal orders and Friendly Societies whose rituals, regalia and organisation are similar in some respects to Freemasonry's" (italics mine)

The OTO website (which is already cited) states that it uses "similar" rituals... This article says that it uses "similar" rituals. You can't have it both ways... either OTO does have "similar" rituals and orgainization to Freemasonry or it does not. If it OTO is not similar, then I will remove the citation... but you would have to change the wording of the article to reflect this fact. If it is similar, then OTO falls into UGLE's definition and the citation stays. As for book sources... since we are so fond of Wikilawyering, let me quote from another section of WP:RS:

Great for easy access

Full-text online sources are preferable to offline sources if they are of similar quality and reliability, because they are easily accessed by other editors who want to check references, and by readers who simply want more information.

You can't get more reliable on what UGLE says than the official UGLE website. Keep trying. Blueboar 18:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Look, why don't you check with an admin if you dont believe me. The UGLE main site doesnt speak of OTO, just misc. org.'s. And the section called "Great for easy access" is for books that are in public domain and have been issued online. And i'm not wikilawyering either. Zos 23:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me... One admin, coming up... (oops... this comment was by me, sorry Blueboar 00:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC))

Please remember to sign your comments. Thanks. Zos 00:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, just so you know, Wikilawyering refers to quoting law. Accusing me of this, Blueboar, is in bad faith. Zos 00:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Zos, no accusation was implied... perhaps I did misuse the term "wikilawyering"... I was referring to ALL of us, (and I include myself in this - note I did say we) in reference to the fact that we (meaning both of us) were tossing quotes from the rules and guidelines at each other. No bad faith involved, but I freely appologize if I offended. Blueboar 02:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I see you've requested Essjay. He's a great choice. If he says I'm wrong I'll leave it at that. Zos 01:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Yup... Essjay has helped resolve several issues with Freemasonry related topics, I trust his judgement. I also will "leave it at that" if he thinks I am wrong. Blueboar 01:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course, UGLE doesn't speak for American Freemasonry. Since I happen to know that several US OTO bodies meet or have met in regular Masonic Lodges by arrangement with the Masonic Lodge, that rather belies any claim of no informal association. -999 (Talk) 01:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree... Lots of non-masonic organizations rent or borrow Masonic Halls or lodge room for an evening. It does not imply an association of any kind. I know of one town in upstate NY where the Masons and the Knights of Columbus have gotten together and shared the cost of building a new hall for both groups to use. I don't think anyone would say that they are associated. Blueboar 01:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course that creates an association. Perhaps you're looking for another, more precise, word? -999 (Talk) 01:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Or perhaps you need a word that is less percise. Any way... "association" is not the correct word we should be debating the meaning of... the quote I want to cite to uses "relationship" and "connections". I am I correct in assuming that you would say that letting an outside organization use your room counts as a "relationship" or a "connection"? Perhaps marching in the same parade will do the same thing? :>)
A question before I turn in for the night ... is there any circumstance in which you could see a citation to the UGLE website being allowed in this article? Blueboar 01:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Nope. Unless Essjay tells me something I havent seen yet, regarding self published sources, it shouldnt ever be used. The best possible way to include what you want, is to have someone discussing the matter in a book. Possibly a Freemason or someone who researches freemasonry, that discusses these claims, links, or connections. That would help you out greatly.
Personally, if I don't have a source, I go out and get one. I've ordered 6 books (which should be arriving soon), 2-3 that may deal with this topic in depth. So thats my best advice right now. I myself only use web site sources as last resort, if i don't currently have a book on the subject. Zos 03:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Well... I'm still not going to agree that the official web site of an organization or a corporation counts as a "self published source"... but that is a different argument for a different place. In the interest of tryin to move this discussion forward... even if it IS a self published site, how do you square your interpretation of Self-published sources in articles about themselves with the guideline Personal websites as primary sources that says: A personal website (either operated by one individual or a group of individuals) or blog may be used only as a primary source, i.e., when we are writing about the owner of the website or the website itself... The way I look at it, this clearly states that if a article (any article) contains a statement from the owner of the UGLE website (ie UGLE), then we can use the UGLE website as a source to back that statement up - because the UGLE website is a PRIMARY source for any statement about what UGLE says... a book where someone discusses the statement would be a SECONDARY source. Primary sources out rank secondary sources in relyability. Blueboar 13:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I still wouldnt say that the OTO's mains site is personal, and this is where me and ALR are in agreement (even though hes gone now). Notice, that the section for personal websites has its own section, meaning its talking about a different thing. The OTO main sites are being used for autobiographical sources, as should the UGLE for Freemasonry (and I have confirmation from an admin that it is, for you to see here: User_talk:Jpgordon#Question). I hope this clears a few things up. Zos 14:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
You still have not jibed your stance with WP:RS#Personal websites as primary sources. If the material I would like to add quotes UGLE... I have to be able to cite to where UGLE says the quote. That's what verification is all about.
As for your conversation with User:Jpgordon ... I agree completely with what he says. But your comments to him do not touch on our issue... of course the OTO website can and should be used to back what OTO says. We do not have any argument there... What we are debating is whether the UGLE website can be used to back what UGLE says. I have added my two cents to your discussion to make this clear to him. - And, by the way, I agree with him that there are too many references to Freemasonry in this article (that is part of the underlying problem that got me upset in the first place). I hope we can work on that once the current debate is resolved. Blueboar 15:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jpgordon steps in to interfere or perhaps help

  • OK. Rewind. I'm not going to read through these arguments. Show me exactly which citation is being challenged, and what the citation is intended to be in support of. Disclaimer: I'm a "not in good standing because my dues expired long ago" OTO member; but from what I can tell, this should be irrelevant to the current conversation. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
At this point, I'm not sure anymore, as to which citation. Blueboar and ALR wanted to know if the United Grand Lodge of Englands main web site can be used here in any form. Zos 16:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, sure. It can be used to state official positions of UGLE. Wikipedia doesn't care that UGLE considers itself the voice of Freemasonry; the irregular orders may or may not agree; Wikipedia doesn't take sides. "OTO claims to be Masonic; some other Masonic orders disagree." I would like to see a specific example of a contested citation. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but the UGLE does not make any statements about the OTO. So its my opinion that Wikipedia doesnt allow web sites for citations to address articles they don't even mention. This is why I was asking for book references/sources. Zos 17:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Here is the full context of the citation... In the first paragraph of the article is the statement:
  • The O.T.O. structure is initiatory, with a series of degree ceremonies, which the U.S. Grand Lodge, Ordo Templi Orientis claims is similar to that of Freemasonry and related organisations.
To this I added a foot note (currently foot note #2) that says:
The page cited to is in the form of a Q&A.... the key part is this:
  • Q - What is the relationship between Freemasonry and groups like the Orange Order, Odd Fellows and Buffaloes?
  • A - None. There are numerous fraternal orders and Friendly Societies whose rituals, regalia and organisation are similar in some respects to Freemasonry's. They have no formal or informal connections with Freemasonry.
Now we can argue about whether MY addition is correct or not... but you can not argue that I can not cite UGLE to verify a quote made by UGLE. As for the argument that this citation does not specificly mention OTO... OTO itself, not to mention this article states that it uses rituals that are "similar to Freemasonry"... How then can they object to someone else including them in a list of fraternities "whose rituals, regalia and organisation are similar in some respects to Freemasonry's"? Blueboar 20:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Please remember to sign comments :)Zos 19:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, as I said. UGLE doesnt specify OTO, as there is no link as of right now for "Orange Order", "Odd Fellows", or "Buffaloes". Theres a citation needed tag for that in the Initiation section on the article. So as of right now, the UGLE isnt talking about OTO. Now, I do in fact understand that the OTO claims to be of or pertaining to Masonic origins, and the UGLE wouldnt accept that anyway. But they are not a valid source for OTO right now, until they change what they mean when answering questions on their own web site.
On another note, a book I just ordered has finally got here! I'll be using it for the origins of OTO, and comments to Freemasonry. Zos 19:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Your literal minded, narrow reading of the quotation astounds me ... the quote says "there are NUMEROUS fraternal orders and Friendly Societies whose rituals, regalia and organisation are similar in some respects to Freemasonry's." That means there are more than the three named in the question. OTO keeps saying that it is SIMILAR TO FREEMASONRY... thus OTO can not object to being named as one of those "numerous fraternal orders whose rituals, regalia and organisation is SIMILAR in some respects TO FREEMASONRY." See your own article and the OTO web page for reference. OTO is among the numerous fraternities that UGLE is discussing. Blueboar 21:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
This is still not a statements about the OTO. Aquire a valid source please. Zos 21:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I fail to understand why any "response" from UGLE or anyone else is necessary. The sentence says that the initiatory structure is similar to that of Freemasonry and other organizations. And so it is. No actual connection is claimed, so the footnote disclaiming such connection is irrelevant, whether or not it is true. I mean, I could start my own fraternal organization, base the rituals on the published Masonic rituals, and I'd have an organization with initiatory similar to that of Freemasonry -- without claiming any formal or informal connection. Besides, how can one disclaim an informal connection? There are quite certainly members of OTO who are also members of more traditional Masonic organizations, so there's the informal connection right there. But that's not worth arguing. Since no claim of a connection is being made when describing the similarity, there's no reason to bring up UGLE or anyone else; and if it bothers someone, we could even weasel more and say "OTO initiations appear similar to some other Freemasonic initiations." --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Source is valid... and the statement does indeed apply to OTO. By the way... Are you still saying that UGLE can not be used in ANY circumstance... or have you changed your mind? We seem to have moved on to a different debate. Blueboar 21:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
The source is valid, for Freemasonry, but invalid, for this article.
  • Self-published sources may never be used as sources of information about another person or topic, subject to the limited exceptions discussed above.
When are you going to understand this? Zos 21:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Going further, I havent changed my mind. The UGLE is a self-published source, but not a personal web site. Zos 21:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh well. I guess the issue of whether the source can be used is more important than whether the source is relevant. Have a nice day. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for helping. Zos 21:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
To Jpgordon... You bring us back to the original issue that lead all this debate about Wikipedia guidelines etc. I can not speak for ALR or Imacomp (the other editors who have been raising concerns)... but for me it is not the use of the words "similar to Freemasonry" that I object to (although originally I took that stance in over reaction), but the constant repetition of of the phrase. It is that repetition that could lead the uninformed to think that there may be larger connection between the two groups than there is. Someone could come in and think, "hey, if they are that similar, perhaps this OTO group is really the same thing as the Masonic Lodge my grand-dad belonged to". Thus, I feel it is important to clarify that this is not the case, and that Freemasonry does not recognize OTO as being Freemasonic. Now, this article IS about OTO and not Freemasonry... so adding such a disclaimer in the main text would jar the reader and interrupt the flow of the article. The least intrusive way I saw to do this was to add it as a foot note. I still am not happy about the repetition of the phrase... but with the disclaimer added I am at least somewhat content. Blueboar 21:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Zos.. you say above: The source is valid, for Freemasonry, but invalid, for this article.

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

When are you going to understand this? Zos 21:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

My reply is this... I understand it well. I am not using the UGLE web site as a source of information about another person or topic... I am using it as a source about UGLE and Freemasonry (in this case the fact that UGLE says that there are "numerous fraternal groups whose rituals, regalia and and organisation are similar in some respects to Freemasonry's", such as OTO and that "They have no formal or informal connections with Freemasonry"). Thus it is a primary source verifying that UGLE actually says this. Jpgordon said it above...
  • Well, sure. It can be used to state official positions of UGLE.
This was an administrator speaking... And since I am using the citation to state an official position of UGLE... it can be used to state the official position of UGLE. Blueboar 23:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Blueboar, uh, you are' using it for another topic. This article, is OTO, another topic altogether.
UGLE is a primary source, for Freemasonry. This is an article about the OTO. The UGLE doesnt say OTO. End of story. Get over it please.
As for jpgordan, that statements was before he seen which citaion you were using. Because he then says "I would like to see a specific example of a contested citation.". And once you give the citation and statement he says:
  • I fail to understand why any "response" from UGLE or anyone else is necessary.
And:
  • Now, this article IS about OTO and not Freemasonry... so adding such a disclaimer in the main text would jar the reader and interrupt the flow of the article.
So he is clearly not agreeing with you. Its over. Please find a book source. Thanks. Zos 23:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
You misunderstand the guideline. Note that the guideline does not say "in an article about another topic or person'"... but simply "about" another topic or person. I am not using it to talk about another person or topic. I am using UGLE to talk about UGLE... to verify that UGLE says what I say UGLE says. Thus it is about the topic of the sentence - UGLE.
As for books... The UGLE website is a Primary source for UGLE policy, whereas a book would be a secondary source. Primary sources are preferred.
As to Jpgordon.... he agrees with me in saying that the citation CAN be used. He simply does not understand the need for it. He left before I had explained why I feel there is a need. Thus, you can not take his question as a definitive statement (unless he comes back and states that I should not include the statement). Your second quote is from MY responce TO his question, not his comments. And you will note that (as I said) I did not add the disclaimer to the main article, but stuck it in a foot note.
Since it seems that Jpgordon has not solved the issue, I guess we will have to go to yet another admin, and await what Essjay says... since I have already asked him to pop over, why don't you add your request to mine. Blueboar 00:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes but you cannot use UGLE to verify what 'you say. You are not in the article. The statement you are trying to add a citation to says this:
  • The O.T.O. structure is initiatory, with a series of degree ceremonies, which the U.S. Grand Lodge, Ordo Templi Orientis claims is similar to that of Freemasonry and related organisations.
And it makes no mention of the UGLE, so stop trying to imply that it is! Its not the topic of the sentence, nor is it a topic of anything else in the article.
And again. The UGLE is a primary source for, and heres the gut clentcher, freemasonry. Not OTO. A primary source for this would be a published freemason, who is from the UGLE, addressing this claim. And a secondary sources is one who backs it up. You have neither!
I'll ask Essjay myself then. He in fact doesnt have to come over here and explain this to us, as he is more than likely very busy. Zos 01:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You keep missing the point... and I am beginning to think it is deliberate. I am not using the UGLE web site to verify what "I" say... I am using the UGLE web site to verify what UGLE says. It does not matter that this article is about OTO. Since the article itself mentions Freemasonry... a primary source statement from UGLE, on behalf of Freemasonry, is therefore appropriate. The fact that "I" added it is irrelevant. Especially after I amended the language of the foot note to remove all interpretation. To not allow a statement from a Freemasonic source in an article that mentions Freemasonry violates WP:NPOV. The only way I can see not allowing the source would be to remove any and all reference to Freemasonry (which I would not, and do not suggest you do). I am reluctant to slap a NPOV tag on this article... but if I have no other way to get you to see reason, I will. It's your choice. A very frustrated Blueboar 01:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Blueboar, direct quote: " am not using the UGLE web site to verify what "I" say... "
Another direct quote: "I am using UGLE to talk about UGLE... to verify that UGLE says what I say UGLE says. "
So I'm not confusing anything about this. The article doesnt mention UGLE, and you are the only one mentioning it (on a talk page).
Theres no way I'd remove freemasonry from the article, seeing as how there are valid sources discussing the matter. Slap the tag on, I'm tired of saying the same thing over and over again. The UGLE has no place in the article. And the NPOV tag is to address a non neutral point of view. You havent got a source, so you'd in fact be the one thats not conforming to the NPOV. Zos 02:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] amended statement

As we have been discussing the use of the UGLE website to verify something UGLE says (see above), I have come to the realization that MY statement about what UGLE says (in foot note #2 in the current article) was not quite accurate. I have therefore amended my material to more accurately reflect UGLE's statement. Blueboar 21:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah and it still says org's like OTO. The UGLE page does not say OTO! So stop trying to make implication here. This is left up to the readers. Zos 21:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I've removed your citation. Please find a real source. Thank you. Zos 21:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Please stop reverting. Your source is not valid. Zos 21:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Blueboar, if you revert one more time, I will have to report you for violation of the 3RR. Zos 21:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I won't revert (at the moment) ... but even if I did it would not (technically) violate 3rr... I have only reverted twice... 3rr violations happen when you do a FOURTH revert in 24 hours. What is your justification for removing a valid source? Blueboar 23:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah my mistake. I've addressed my issue with your source in depth here Blueboar. I'm not going to say it again. Zos 23:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
you say: "Yeah and it still says org's like OTO. The UGLE page does not say OTO! So stop trying to make implication here. This is left up to the readers." - Fine... that is a problem with the wording of my foot note. I will amend that wording so it exactly matches what UGLE says and return the citation. We will leave it up to the reader to interpret. Blueboar 23:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I changed the foot note to say: The United Grand Lodge of England states that "There are numerous fraternal orders and Friendly Societies whose rituals, regalia and organisation are similar in some respects to Freemasonry's. They have no formal or informal connections with Freemasonry." See: UGLE - Your Questions and Answers - Other Organizations Retrieved June 17, 2006. What is the justification for removing it now? I will wait to revert it, since I am up against 3rr... but to not allow a simple quote from a Masonic Grand Lodge in and article that mentions Freemasonry is a NPOV violation. Blueboar 01:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

One last point before I turn in for the night ... technically, since I significantly changed the foot note, adding the citation back would not be a 3rr violation. I will, however, concede that it would be against the underlying spirit of 3rr (to avoid revert wars) and so will leave it be for now. Blueboar 01:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, you're wrong here too. Here what WP:3RR says about the policy (first sentence, if you read it):
  • The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia article within a 24 hour period.
I repeat, in whole, or part. So it would still count. Zos 02:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Since I have a life, I do not watch Wiki 24/7. However I have reverted back to Blueboar's last edit now. At some point will you get the message? Imacomp 19:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you should have checked below before you did that. Its not to be used. Its OR (Original Research) and is not accepted. Zos 19:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you should stop inventing rules on the fly? Imacomp 21:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you should check Wikipedia policy. WP:NOR. Zos 21:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
2 reverts, so see ya in 24hrs and counting wanabee Freemasons (Black balls to the ready Brethren) Imacomp 22:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Start again please

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] Protected

I've protected the article. Work out the issues here. This is a really dumb edit war. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Jpgordon Try using your power to retain a true citation. This issue will not just go away. Imacomp 22:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

  • So tell me what you think the issue is. Instead of participating in discussion, you blindly reverted. That's not helpful. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OTO: A home for failed wanabee Freemasons

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)

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)
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)
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)
  • I'm trying to figure out just who Imacomp thinks is saying that OTO has any connection other than historical to Freemasonry. Did he actually read my discussion above? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
I wonder, what do you mean by "connection"? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
You can in fact let us see it here. Zos 23:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
Hes too busy reverting on the Hiram Abiff article, which sadly, I'm apart of. Zos 23:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Last word until editing is enabled. Imacomp 23:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
(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)
So sue me. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Was that an attempt to wikilawyer? Zos 00:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] And back to reasoned discussion

Thankfully, between work and other Non-wiki committments, I have had time to work out my frustrations and think about this issue in a reasoned and calm manner. I have come up with the following...

We are dealing with three distinct, but inter-related issues. 1) SHOULD a citation from Freemasonry be included in this article? 2) MAY a citation from Freemasonry be included in this article? and 3) Does the particluar citation I want to add relate to this article? Let me address these one at a time....

1) Should a citation from Freemasonry be included in this article? My answer is: Yes. Not only should one be included, it is MANDITORY under Wikipedia policy that one be included. This article mentions Freemasonry in one form or another 12 times (as of the current version). The article states several times that OTO is similar to Freemasonry, that many of its founders were Freemasons, that it originally used Masonic rituals, etc. This repetition stresses that there is some form of connection between OTO and Freemasonry. No, the article does not come right out and say this... but the implication is there. The repetition of reference to Freemasonry gives that impression. In fact, there is a possibility that an uninformed reader could easily come away from reading this article wondering if OTO is, in some way, Freemasonic. As responsible editors we are required to answer this question. Now, in answering any question, we MUST represent all sides and view points. To not do so would violate WP:NPOV. Thus, we MUST represent Freemasonry's view on the question. The United Grand Lodge of England is THE definative expert on Freemasonry's views in England (it defines Freemasonry's views in England) ... and outside of England its views have immence weight and influence. It is widly held as authorative on the the views of the majority of Freemasonry. Thus it is also appropriate to use UGLE to cite that majority view. (of course, since no one Grand Lodge speaks for all of Masonry... if you can find a Grand Lodge that disagrees with UGLE, you are welcome to add their view as well.)

2) MAY a citation from Freemasonry be included in this article? This is the question that we have been spending the most amount of time debating. You all know my view, and my interpretation of WP:RS... It will therefore not surprise anyone when I say my answer is: Yes. But let me lay it out again... WP:RS#Personal websites as primary sources where clearly states that a personal website can be used to cite a statement "when we are writing about the owner of the website or the website itself". The footnote I want to add simply says "UGLE states..." followed by a direct quote from the UGLE website. The citation links to where UGLE says this. Clearly my foot note is talking about what the owner of the website says. My reading of Jpgordon's comments is that he agrees with me on this point. But even if you want to go beyond the limits of my foot note, we are in sync with this guideline. The entire article discusses Freemasonry. Freemasonry is mentioned 12 times! Since the article itelf discusses Freemasonry, a statment from a Masonic website may be used. But... says Zos, the UGLE website is not a "personal" site... it is a "self published" site, so that guideline does not apply. Only WP:RS#Self-published_sources_in_articles_about_themselves applies. Obviously, I think Zos's logic is faulty. But for the sake of argument, I am willing to concede the point. This is because even under the "self-published" quidelines a source from Freemasonry may be used. Since this article mentions Freemasonry as often as it does, the article is almost as much about Freemasonry as it is about OTO. And thus citing to a Masonic source would not violate the "self-published sources in articles about themselves" guidelines. OK... I admit that this is also stretching the meaning of the quidelines, but if Zos wants to engage in technical, limited readings of the guidelines... well, two can play that game. I wanted to show that both sides can quote the same guidelines with equal vigor and technical accuracy. However, my ultimate reason for saying that a Masonic citation can be used relies not on a guideline, but on a policy... WS:NPOV. Even if this article only mentioned the word "Freemasonry" once, it would open the door for a statement from a Freemasonic source. As soon as you mention a person or an entitity, that person or entity becomes relevant to the article, and thus you open to alternative view points about that person or entity. WP:NPOV insists that alternative view points be represented. This in itself means that a Freemasonic source can not be kept out of an article that mentions Freemasonry. That is a sacrosanct Policy that trumps any interpretation of a Guideline.

3) Does the particluar citation I want to add relate to this article? And of course my answer is: Yes it does. OK... it does not mention OTO directly... I wish it did, as that would solve much of this debate. However, it does discuss "numerous fraternal orders and Friendly Societies whose rituals, regalia and organisation are similar in some respects to Freemasonry's." Since this article states (3 times... two of them in the same paragraph) that OTO has rituals that are "similar to Freemasonry", the article itself places OTO in this category. Thus, the statement that follows (that "They have no formal or informal connections with Freemasonry") relates to OTO. And this brings us back to our first discussion... this statement answers the question (from Freemasonry's POV) about the connection between OTO and Freemasonry. It tells the reader that they have no connection. (And by the way... the word connection does have a specific meaning in Masonic circles. It is one step above "similarities" and one step below "ties".) Again, while Freemasonry does not specificly mention OTO as one of the "numerous fraternal orders and Friendly Societies whose rituals, regalia and organization are similar to Freemasonry's", THIS ARTICLE does. Thus the foot note and the citation should be returned to the article.

Finally, I want to reply to the idea that, because the UGLE cite does not specificly reffer to OTO, linking them would be Original Research! Hogwash. I could just as easily make the same argument the other way... that it is Original Research to state that UGLE wasn't thinking of OTO in its statement.

In actual fact, neither of these arguments is a WP:NOR violation. Neither stance meets the standards for exclusion under WP:NOR... They do not introduce a theory or method of solution; they do not introduce original ideas; They do not define new terms; they do not provide or presume new definitions of pre-existing terms; They do not introduce an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position; They do not introduce an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source; And neither one introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source.

So... to sum up. My foot note and citation are needed, and indeed manditory. The source is valid. And the foot note and citation are relevant to this article. Furthermore to exclude them would be a violation of WP:NPOV. Enough said. Blueboar 03:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Let's try to take a different approach. Let's pick a few sentences and work with them -- I think a big part of the problem is that Freemasonry is mentioned so much in the article -- undue weight is thus given, and perhaps people might come to the conclusion Blueboar fears (that the OTO is formally or informally recognized by or connected to big-F Freemasonry.) So let's reduce that possibility without bringing in a self-serving source.

The O.T.O. structure is initiatory, with a series of degree ceremonies, which the U.S. Grand Lodge, Ordo Templi Orientis claims is similar to that of Freemasonry and related organisations.

How about, instead,

The O.T.O. structure is initiatory, with a series of degree ceremonies, loosely based on those of Masonic organizations.

It's accurate; it's correct about the sources, and it doesn't lead to the implication that there's any "connection" (any more than a sunset has a connection with a painting of a sunset).

--jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

  • To address Blueboars issues, one at a time :)
  • Issue one: Should a citation from Freemasonry be included?
My answer: Yes. Does Blueboar have one? No.
You say its policy, but which policy? See, there is implication that OTO is simular to Freemasonry because it is. And you are not representing any other view, because you do not have a source to make the kind of statements you wish to make. Its just sad you cannot find a source for everything you say about this issue.
    • Issue two: May a citation from Freemasonry be included in this article?
My answer: Yes. Does Blueboar have one? No.
What you, Blueboar, dont seem to understand, is that the UGLE cannot be used because it does not address any of the claims. Not one. And you're usage is off original research.
    • Issue three: Does the particluar citation I want to add relate to this article?
My answer: No. If it did, it would be allowed.
The UGLE addresses only the Orange Order, Odd Fellows and Buffaloes.
  • "Finally, I want to reply to the idea that, because the UGLE cite does not specificly reffer to OTO, linking them would be Original Research! Hogwash."
According to Wikipedia, since there is no link, you are putting words into the UGLE's web site, and this is Original Research, and is backed by policy (review WP:NOR.
  • "In actual fact, neither of these arguments is a WP:NOR violation."
They are until you find a proper source. How many times do I need to tell you. Find a source that addresses the claim! Are you base? Do you think this is fun? How do you think I felt when I knew something to be true, yet didnt have a source? Wanna know what I did? I went out and found one! I didnt complain about it for days!
Dude, go take that to another admin and say that its a violation of NPOV. You'll get the same answer as we are giving. Zos 04:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Zos... at least you are finally agreeing that a citation from Freemasonry should and can be used. But are you deliberately trying to be dense about the rest? I have addressed every one of your statements in my comments above, except one: your claim that the UGLE citation only addresses the Orange Order, Odd Fellows and Buffaloes. It is obvious that these are examples, and not the complete list. The next line uses the word "numerous"... as in lots more than the three mentioned. Blueboar 04:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Jpgordon - I am quite willing to go with a reword of some of the statements, as you suggest. In fact, when I first started editing here, that was my approach (see the edit history). I was quickly told that "that's not what the OTO website says" and my attempts to reword were reverted. That was why I tried to go the foot-note root with a simple statement and citation. If you can get Zos and 999 to agree on rewording, however, I am willing to give it another go. Blueboar 04:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I've stated that a citation from a Masonic source could be used before, you must have missed it. But the source you are using has no place here. You're attempts at rewording were off because the OTO main sites are a source for this article. I'll agree at re-wording if Blueboar is done using the UGLE as a citation on this article. Zos 05:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • By the way, I think that part of the problem we're having here is that issues of connections, formal recognition, informal affiliation, regularity, and so on are very important to Freemasonry, but not very much at all to OTO. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh, by the way, if you guys will agree to not edit war at least while we're discussing this stuff, I'll open up the article so other stuff can be worked on (and it certainly needs it.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Zos, I have some questions that may help us to move forward, even if it is only a tiny bit. You first say that a citation from a Masonic source can be used. But then you say that the masonic source I am using has no place. I am confused. What are you referring to when you say "the source you are using has no place"? ... to me the "source" is UGLE. Are you saying that UGLE has no place in the article? Or are you saying that this particular statement from UGLE has no place? I think we may be using the same words to talk about different things. To avoid confusion, could we agree on word definitions and use them consistantly? I would suggest:
  • "Foot-note" - to be used when discussing the wording of the text I would like to add.
  • "UGLE's statement" - to be used when discussing the wording that UGLE uses on its website.
  • "Source" - to be used when discussing UGLE's website in general.
  • "Citation" - to be used when discussing the link to the particular UGLE web page where the "UGLE statement" is found"
If you prefer to use different words and definitions, that is fine, but please post them here so I can differentiate what exactly you mean when you use a term. Blueboar 13:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Jpgordon... for my part, I do not intend to go into a revert war again. I am willing to leave my footnote and citation out of the article while we discuss things... at least for now. If I see no attempt to reach a compromise or to address my concerns in some other manner, I may have to change my mind and insist on its inclusion. Let's see how it goes. Blueboar 13:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Blueboar: Currently, the source you are using, has no place here. This means, that you cant use it. Its the same thing I've been saying since we first started talking to each other. Yes, I am saying the UGLE has no place in this article. But! It could have a place if you were to find sources to say what you want to the article to say. But you've been wasting your time, arguing from any angle you can muster up. Instead, you could have located and used a number of Masonic source.
I'm not u

sing differe nt terms here, what amazes me is that you cannot grasp the need for a source that is relevant.

It cant be used as a foot note, because its original research. There is yet to be an established "published" opinion we can use for citation.
UGLE can only be used for the United Grand Lodge of England Wikipedia article.
Source, someone saying what you wish was added to this article.
Citation: proof that the source is talking about the article, or a statement in the article.
Since the UGLE doesnt mention OTO, it cannot be used for this article. This is a very simple statement, made all over this talk page. Zos 15:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Jpgordan: As far as I can see, we're done discussing the matter. If he cannot locate a source, this is not my problem. The burden of proof lies witht he contributor (Blueboar), not the editor(Me). He says he will stop edit wars...at least for now. This implies he still cannot grasp why it cannot be used as a citation, source, or footnote in this article. Maybe we should allow a tree expert to be used as a source for the OTO, I doubt an expert on trees has mentioned OTO. Or maybe we can find a source that says OTO members are in fact trees. Zos 15:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, I think I know what Blueboar is having trouble with. Its me saying that UGLE is not a source. Let me rephrase a bit. Its a source, so long as its talking about UGLE. If it doesnt mention anything related to this article (OTO article), it cant be used. I hope this is clearer. Zos 15:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is clearer... and it is correct as to what my problem is. Thank you. Which means all we should now be debating is whether UGLE talks about something relating to this article (OTO article). I say it does. It talks about fraternal orders and Friendly Societies whose rituals, regalia and organisation are similar in some respects to Freemasonry's. So does this article. Therefore it can be used. Blueboar 16:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Besides this article, you mean? How about: the Free encyclopedia of Thelima - "....However, the oaths taken in all the degrees of Crowley's Ordo Templi Orientis remain primarily derivitive of Masonic oaths, having the same or similar penalties..." or Thelemapedia? - "It is a secret, fraternal organization similar to that of Freemasonry, with a series of graded initations." (italics added). These clearly support the idea that OTO uses rituals and organisation that is similar in some respects to Freemasonry's. Blueboar 18:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Good. Then what else do we need? Since no assertion is being made that OTO is actually part of or related to Freemasonry -- merely that its rituals and organization are similar -- what need is there for the UGLE cite, other than giving a voice for Official Freemasonry's point of view, which could fit in the "Criticisms" section quite well? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem placing it in the criticism section (although for styalistic reasons I would probably have it be a bullet point like the other criticisms as opposed to it being a foot-note.) I only put it in the opening paragraph because that that was the first mention of the simarlarity, and I put it as a foot note so as to not disrupt the flow of the first paragraph.) Zos? Can you agree to this?Blueboar 18:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

  • What's your proposed bullet point? PS -- I've unprotected the page. Let's in general talk before reverting. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
No problem with talking more before reverting. Essentially I would simply repeat what I put in my foot-note... with perhaps a NOPV lead in line. Something like:
  • While there are similarities in ritual and organizational structure between OTO and Freemasonry, The United Grand Lodge of England (the oldest Masonic Grand Lodge) states that: "There are numerous fraternal orders and Friendly Societies whose rituals, regalia and organisation are similar in some respects to Freemasonry's. They have no formal or informal connections with Freemasonry." (with cite to the page where UGLE says this).
That would be it. I am willing to discuss the language of my edit if someone has a problem. Blueboar 23:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I think that's OK. I still don't quite see the need for it, but I can understand how important the distinction might be to Freemasonry proper. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
As you said above, Freemasonry cares a lot about "similarity", "connection", "tie", "Recognition" etc. You should see some of the arguments we get into over at the Freemasonry article on these issues (how do you discribe the difference between "mainstream" (UGLE derived) Masonry and "continental" (Grand Orient de France derived) Masonry in a NPOV way ... when we can not even agree if the terms "mainstream" and "continental" are NOPV. It can get messy. When you get to groups that were founded by Masons (and/or possible Masons), are in some ways similar to Masonry, but are actually part of Masonry (such as OTO) the tempers really flair. So, it is important to Freemasons (and to the editors of the Masonry related articles here on Wikipedia, be they Masons or not) that very precise words get used to discribe the relationships. I am sorry that I have caused such a to-do with this, I really did not intend to do so when I started adding my edits to this article. But it does mean a lot to me and to most Freemasons.
Any how... In the interest of compromise and concesus, even though "an admin" (ie you) has given his OK to my (proposed) edit, I will still wait a while for a responce from Zos before I add my edit to the page. I hope he will agree with you and say that my (proposed) edit meets with his approval as well. Blueboar 00:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I wont agree with it. There is no reason I can think of for its inclusion. Plus its not allowed seeing as how its not related to the article. And lastly, due to its nature (being a web site source), it can only be used for articles relating to it. Zos 01:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Forget it. In an interest of settling this, to get back to other things (I've got other article to worry about), and start editing this page again, I'll agree to this, and this only:
A direct quote is made, but only once. It should go where the matter is first addressed, and that should be in the lead/intro of the article.
This is adressed in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources_in_articles_about_themselves as a limited exception.
It should not be a foot-note, but a proper citation. And it should only address exactly what the statement says. I think this is fair, and reasonable based on Wikipedias style guideline, as mentioned above. Zos 02:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I've added the quote myself. And I hope this is over. Once I get a comment from Blueboar, Im archiving this. Zos 02:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../o/r/d/Talk%7EOrdo_Templi_Orientis_Archive_2_7039.html"