Talk:Ordo Templi Orientis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Additional information: B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. Feel free to make short comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. Low This article has been rated as Low-Importance on the assessment scale.

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details

Ordo Templi Orientis is part of WikiProject Thelema, an attempt to expand, improve, and standardize articles related to Thelema. You are invited to participate by editing the article or by joining the Thelema WikiProject as a participating member. B This article has been rated as B-Class 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.) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Secret Societies, a WikiProject which aims to improve all articles related to Secret Societies. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. Low This article is on a subject of low-importance within Secret Societies articles. This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. Occult Portal Ordo Templi Orientis is supported by WikiProject Occult in order to expand, improve, and standardize articles related to the occult. Feel free to edit the article attached to this talk page and/or become a participating member. B This article has been rated as B-Class 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.)

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2

[edit] Notable members sourced?

L.R.H. has been added again. Should not be on here, correct? Also I don't see citations for any of these others listed. Maybe if we actually give a source for every person, it will discourage people from adding "suspected" members. Also perhaps the lead paragraph for this section should be changed since determining what is "commonly believed" is not really the same as simply reporting what is claimed in reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thiebes (talk • contribs) 19:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Source 'em all, and if not possible, delete. That's how Wikipedia works. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm copying this from my user talk page:

Its been awhile since I've checked up on the article, and I've noticed that you removed the entire section we had for notable members. Are you adverse to the proposition that I add it back, citing each one? SynergeticMaggot (talk) 08:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• If you have a clean reliable source for each one, no problem. But previously there was little we'd consider a reliable source if it had appeared in any other article; mostly it was a list of people not notable or interesting in any other way except that we knew they were more or less prominent OTO members. I mean, really, I love him dearly, but who other than in the context of the OTO would know or care about Bill Heidrick? Or likewise, Ebony Anpu? We don't get to make exceptions just because the OTO doesn't publicly say anything about anyone's membership. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 13:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I get your point now. Thanks for the response. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 20:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FA or GA

I've begun making small edits again to the article. My intentions are for good article or featured article status. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 10:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)