Talk:Illuminates of Thanateros

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Insubordinate[edit]

In the article it says that Every Adept, Magus, and Magister Templi (leader of a local group) has an Insubordinate. In the UK this position is pretty much a theoretical ideal only and doesn't often exist in practice.Merkinsmum 17:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for that statement? 217.234.239.226 01:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Frater Infinity; and I was the insubordinate for Bob Williams shortly after he made Magus. Much of the history of the IOT has not been published nor is there any agreement as to most of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.249.123 (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Williams[edit]

"It can be little doubted that Mr. Williams was able to create influences long after his transition, [citation needed] as would be the case if he were an adept of time magicks."

I'm afraid it can be doubted, because I don't know which Bob Williams is being referred to, the only ones with wikipedia articles are sportspersons:) Please can someone enlighten or share which Bob Williams is being referred to in the article?Merkinsmum 18:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed, as no encyclopedic value was apparent. 217.234.239.226 01:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am a former Adept of the IOT during the Williams Magushood. Mr. Williams costarted the chaos magick, pact, and IOT while a resident of Los Angeles, CA. The early temple had only a few practitioners. Carlos Melendez, Kenneth, Bob, Lola Babalon. Later as more interest surfaced, others joined and the Temple of Oblivion was the first. EPIC temple was the second in the Los Angeles area, headed by Kenneth. Each temple was sovereign and as such much disagreement surfaced, but on the whole the quality of magick was the best. Mr. Williams was later to become OHO and took reigns of the entire organization. His input was not really long lasting, but respect for Mr. Williams is merited. Carlos Melendez continued forming rogue temples in Santa Barbara, Oxnard, and Summerland; and Lola branched out into other areas of interest. Kenneth moved to San Luis Obispo and disappeared from the scene. Of the few remaining active members; there is a temple in Virginia declaring complete sovereignity from the Pact and IOT; but is a traditional lineage temple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.249.123 (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Section IOT in the USA[edit]

This section seems clearly the weakest in the article, with no sources and much ado about individuals that do not otherwise seem to merit Wikipedia notice. Someone might be able to salvage it, but perhaps to remove it completely would be best. 217.234.239.226 01:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

67.177.27.74's edits[edit]

Hello 67.177.27.74, I find your contributions to this article distinctly unhelpful. You keep removing sourced material and replacing it with fairly blatant POV. You also keep adding "In 1991, the IOT proper was drawn into an inner order, with the outer public manifestation becoming the Pact.", which is such a huge and unique claim (it basically says the whole group is a charade on the behalf of some supposed more secretive "inner order") you obviously need a source to quote it, let alone state it as fact. I find it hard to believe you are trying to be encyclopedic here. 217.234.215.248 (talk) 17:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Only uncontroversial and plausible statements can go without sourcing, and this clearly isn't one. The new version of the schism description is clearly POV. It is unfortunate we don't have third party sources for this bit, but primary sources are better than none (provided they have caveats), so they should go back in. Denial (talk) 09:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. If every ex member of Pact, which is only one arm of the IOT is to weigh in on the schism, giving their opinions, this page will be worthless. I am attempting to remove PBC's bias, and leave in what is actually known to occur non pov. To use the "pontiffs" statement as fact in this matter is way too biased. So sorry, wrong. You attempt to attribute much to persons sworn to secrecy fails pov. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.27.74 (talk) 06:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know of contrary claims we might quote in order to compose some kind of "he said, she said" paragraph? I don't, which is why your perception of bias mystifies me. This particularly concerns the claim that there was some inner order. If it exists, it is secret indeed.
I just had a look into the Wiki guidelines. They say that primary sources, such as the Peter Carroll ones, should only be used in support of secondary sources. I'll have a look into Dave Evans' book and a new anthropological book by Gerhard Mayer on the German magic scene. If they substantiate what Carroll is saying, I'm putting those in. In that case, the Carroll statements do belong in. Denial (talk) 10:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, disagree on having the schism noted in anyway other than in passing. Other than to report extremely biased points of view, what can it add? If all you include is Ralphie T. and Petee C. disparaging each other? When you have a "he said she said" situation in a secret society, the only way to report on it, is not at all. We agree with you that a schism occurred. As to the cause, we doubt we will ever agree. Nice to see you take this seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.27.74 (talk) 20:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. It'd be good to have some reliable source on this matter, but ultimately the group may be too insignificant to merit such research. Well, I'll be looking anyway. See you around. Denial (talk) 20:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edit to add: what is it with this inner order bit anyway? Why are you quite obviously violating wiki guidelines by continuing to re-enter this bit? Denial (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughtful remarks. One would ask why the "inner order" statement would be a violation of wiki policy? It is an accepted matter of historical fact, and should not be controversial. The IOT is a form, while Pact is a shadow of that form.

Gerhard Mayer's book "Arkane Welten" describes the IOT, the schism and ice magick in some detail, partly based on interviews with two ex members. The "accepted matter of historical fact" you are claiming is completely absent from the book: there is neither a "non-Pact IOT" nor any distinction between Pact and IOT. Just like it is absent from all sources included in the article.
I find it impossible to believe that Mayer, an impeccable scientist with a long list of publications that includes two monographs on the magic scene, would have overlooked what you describe as obvious. I therefore find it impossible to believe your statement is a truthful one.
So I'm removing it. If you revert this removal, better bring some excellent new sources to the table, because otherwise that would be vandalism. Denial (talk) 10:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

67.177.27.74 (talk)Sorry to counter your forceful, yet wrong-headed, single source, from an obscure book, and that really could not be considered exaustive in addressing a subject so fraught with innaccuracies as the modern occult. Mentioning Ralph T by name, not even a footnote on the occult histories, shows your own bias, and the bias of the single German author, we believe. It is an absolute accepted fact that the IOT, which existed before the IOT Pact, continues as what is essentially an inner-initiate temple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.27.74 (talk) 02:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you did not introduce new sources even after repeated requests, you do not seem to have any. You're repetitively and intentionally making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, which is the definition of vandalism. Looking at your list of contributions, it is apparent you have done so before. I'm therefore reverting your edit. And just in case I'm mistaken, I'm requesting comment and third opinion as well. - Denial (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for third opinion[edit]

I have come here in response to a request for a Third Opinion. I have no knowledge of the topic under discussion, but the heart of the problem here appears to me to be a matter of application of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. According to WP:V, when a claim is contested, the editor inserting the claim is obliged to provide a reliable source to document. The more unusual the claim, the more reliable a source is required. "If such sources are not available, the material should not be included." Accordingly, even if an editor knows a fact to be perfectly true, if he cannot provide a reliable third-party source, then there is no justification for not removing it. Since two editors here have called on 67.177.27.74 to provide reliable sourcing for the material he or she wishes to add, it is his/her responsibility to do so – or yield the point. Please note, that if no such source can be found immediately, it can still be added later, if and when appropriate sources are found. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since there has been no further discussion, I will be unwatching this article. If further questions arise, please alert me on my talk page. Cheers, Askari Mark (Talk) 21:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RfC Comment: The IP contributor repeatedly says that the addition that he is making is undisputed fact; if that is the case, it should be easy to find a reference that backs up his additions. In the absence of such a reference, the addition of this material obviously fails WP:V and should be excluded from the article. --Clay Collier (talk) 03:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RfC Comment: If the claim is factual, then there certainly should be reliable sources as per WP:RS that substantiate that. Any information added to any article which is not reliably sourced is eligible for deletion. As long as the material is not sourced, it should be excluded from the article. John Carter (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published sources and linkspam[edit]

I've removed mention of Z(cluster) because the one source was self-published and the other was simply linkspam to their website. I didn't tag the article as such, but it looks like there are many, similar problems in the article. --Ronz (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Pact?[edit]

The phrase "the pact" is first used in the History section, Crisis sub section, paragraph 2, without any explanation as to what the phrase "the pact" actually means. From the context, I am guessing that "the pact" is a vernacular name for the Illuminates of Thanateros, but I do not know much about this group, so I can not say for certain. Can somebody who knows more about this define "the pact" somewhere in the article? Bubblesort (talk) 10:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I think. I added an explanation in the Name section and replaced most instances of "Pact" in the text. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 10:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits[edit]

Anyone have any idea what the IP's problem is? They're reverting a huge mess of recent improvements so it's hard to tell. They mentioned something about "Australia spam" and apparently me promoting something, but I'm not affiliated with IoT or anyone in there in any way, nor with any of the sources I used. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 01:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, but i just protected the article for a month. The IP is, of course, welcome to come here and discuss the issue rather than edit warring. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ugh[edit]

@User:Purple streaks, "In 1984 The Circle of Chaos was formed, but began to fragment after three years, as the name of the group would suggest." -- since you reverted my "unnecessary deletion"(??), then please tell me what this means and which source did it come from. specifically the "as the name of the group would suggest" bit. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 07:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. A proud chaos magician with a conflict of interest.
I see that you were angered by the truth of that phrase, hence your behaviors of repeatedly reverting it, feigning obliviousness to its obvious meaning, and absurdly demanding a reference for that simple common-sense phrase that obviously requires no reference. But regardless, the edit is not as important to me as it is to you, and I have more important things to do than to fight over this, so I'll let you have it. Purple streaks (talk) 23:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give me a reply that doesn't include personal attacks? You definitely crossed the line here with your unfounded and inaccurate accusations. Maybe I'm being ignorant here but, as I said, I literally do not understand what "as the name of the group would suggest" was supposed to mean. Please answer that. If you have an answer. In any case, we don't do editorializing here, that's why I removed it and that's why I asked for a source. Welcome to Wikipedia. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 09:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Illuminates of Thanateros. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Illuminates of Thanateros. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Illuminates_of_Thanateros&oldid=1202918099"