Talk:Builders of the Adytum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Religion Portal This article is supported by WikiProject Religion. This project provides a central approach to Religion-related subjects on wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start	This article has been rated as Start on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

The spelling of Kabbalah, Qabalah, Kabalah, ... Just as the article Kabbalah uses one consistent english spelling throughout the article, I think we should here.

Here's the quandery: Although the generally accepted practice is to spell Qoph Beth Lamed Heh (קַבָּלָה) as 'Kabbalah' (See http://www.nostradamus.net/files/uahc1977.pdf and http://urj.org/_kd/go.cfm?destination=ShowItem&Item_ID=4029), Case and B.O.T.A. spell[ed] it 'Qabalah'. My suggestion is to spell it 'Qabalah' throughout the article (just as B.O.T.A. does and its founder Paul Case did.) Further, we can set all the links to refer to 'Kabbalah' but to display 'Qabalah' like this Qabalah. This is the pattern on many of the Thelema/related articles, and by analogy how several articles handle the related 'Cabala' vs. 'Kabbalah' question.

For those wanting to weigh in on this, check out the article on transliterating Hebrew into English: Romanization_of_Hebrew which makes the statement "Hebrew-to-English transliteration is wildly inconsistent. Different standards occur simultaneously, often in the same document." Duquette would say arguing over spelling is worse than pointless, and he may well be correct.--Jason Richards 17:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Since there've been no objections, I'll go ahead and make the change.--Jason Richards 18:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Controversy

I moved the Gay exclusion conversation off the article page and into the talk page--it needs to be rewritten to match wikipedia's NPOV policy. I do not disagree with the effort to inform and add to the article, but the language should be written from a neutral point of view. --Jason Richards 19:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

So here's the original section in question:

Needing NPOV help--start

==Caveat Emptor: B.O.T.A. Homophobia==

Initiation into the mystery school tradition requires receptivity and trust. If you are a sexual minority and/or are committed to promoting social justice, there is reason to question B.O.T.A.'s worthiness on both counts. See / "B.O.T.A.'s Pink Triangle of Prejudice" on tribe.net for an illuminating and disturbing thread regarding B.O.T.A.'s policy of excluding gays and other sexual minorities from Inner Order initiations that are offered to heterosexual members. This link provides evidence showing that this policy was kept secret from BOTA's membership as of 1990 and possibly as late as 1997. The rationale for this policy is elucidated by a former officer in B.O.T.A., whose / letter claiming that barring gays from higher initiations was an "act of mercy" is available for public viewing. The originator of this thread claims that B.O.T.A.'s justification for this destructive policy was pretextual and that the real driver was homophobia. The thread contains a number of cogently presented arguments that support that view. B.O.T.A.'s policy can hardly be kept secret from its membership or the public anymore. In September 2006, B.O.T.A. was asked to publicly repudiate this policy and clarify whether it is still in effect. Updates will follow as appropriate.

==External links==

• / "B.O.T.A.'s Pink Triangle of Prejudice"

Needing NPOV help--end

[edit] Recent Vandalism

A user, or users has been repeatedly blanking the article -- save for a section about the BOTA's policy on homosexuals -- I've reverted the article twice -- I'm going to stop now so as not to run afoul of 3RR -- I'd appreciate it if an admin would intervene. Zero sharp 02:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed the following quote in the section that keeps getting reinstated "Note that BOTA appaarently keeps deleting this post, which is against Wikipedia policy. Each time it gets deleted, I will delete one of their blurbs." -- leaving aside that this person has no way of knowing who is 'deleting this post' (I'm sure he or she meant 'article') -- the tit-for-tat strategy described is, I'm nearly certain _NOT_ in line with Wikipedia policy. Zero sharp 18:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Since this report is substantiated by a letter that appears on BOTA’s own letterhead, no “vandalism” of its statement on Wikipedia can be asserted and none is intended. Since this report has stood for about a month with no repudiation from BOTA, I am assuming that it is reasserting its covert intent to be secretive about this policy. There is no reason for secrecy. In an attempt to build consensus and issue a “neutral” report, I acknowledge BOTA’s right to include not so secret homophobic or racist policies into their policy structure. If BOTA wants to espouse openly Nazi policy, in fact, that’s just fine with me. The issue for me is OPENNESS. If BOTA or Wikipedia removes this edited post from inclusion on Wikipedia, please justify this in an email to me.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mdgr2000 (talk • contribs). Zero sharp 00:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Mdgr2000, I *exhort* you to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy, in particular WP:NOT#SOAP. If you have an axe to grind with Builders of the Adytium, this is NOT the place to do it. If you have referenceable, verifiable, non-POV content to add about BOTAs policies, please, by all means add it. No editor at WP "owes" you a justification, in email or otherwise. Zero sharp 00:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Zero sharp, It looks like, someone is upset; but not enough to bother wikifying their concerns. I'll look into other wiki pages to see how they deal with similar controversy and see if we can find a neutral POV way to say, "B.O.T.A. does not publicly acknowledge the existence of ritual groups other than Pronaos. However, some [I don't know of any publicly available documents to cite here] have alleged that B.O.T.A. members at the Los Angeles temple participate in additional rituals, perhaps akin to Golden Dawn Lodge rituals [this would also need a citation]; and a few have even alleged [citation], including allegedly the late Joseph Nolan, a former B.O.T.A. officer [citation to the letter], that in addition to excluding 99.99% of all B.O.T.A. members from the alleged ritual group, a policy allegedly exists to also exclude homosexuals from the alleged group."

There are so many allegeds in there that it starts to sound like a tabloid or something.... I don't know whether we'll be able to avoid the taint of "Original Research," here. But if there is a policy like they describe, and someone happens to go shopping for a Mystery School here at wikipedia, and they plan on rising through the ranks to the very highest offices in that Mystery School; they might want to know that their sexual orientation might have a bearing on their goal. It seems a little out there, but if it'll stop the vandalism.... --Jason Richards 15:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the way the Boy Scouts of America article handles it might work here too. They mention the controversy in a paragraph in its own section of the main article and include a link to a separate article where the controversy is covered in greater detail.--Jason Richards 17:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

So what do you think? Vote here:

I think that is a good solution. Highlighting the controversy separately in a seperate article would also allow for the discussion of other controversies. Johnfryar 18:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)