Talk:Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Awaiting Sources

After discussion between Frater FiatLux and I, I'm removing a section to the talk page, which doesnt really pertain to the article that much, and has no citations:

  • The Modern Revival

In 1914, Aleister Crowley published the texts of the Initiation rituals of the Outer Order in his serial publication, "The Equinox". Real circulation of the materials didn't happen until after World War I, when they created quite a stir in the occult community. The secrets of the Golden Dawn became available to the general public, and were a major part of the occult "revival" of the 1920s. Israel Regardie, who was once Crowley's secretary, published the complete initiation rites, along with a selection of the workings and instructional documents that were in his possession, of the Stella Matutina (essentially identical to the original Golden Dawn rituals and teachings) in the early 1930s. While this action supposedly violated the Order's oaths of secrecy, Regardie claims he believed at the time no functioning lodges remained, and feared the work of the Order would otherwise be lost forever.

In the 1920s and 30s more schisms occurred, and by the onset of World War II most of the original Lodges were gone, except for a few small groups (notably in North America and New Zealand) that could claim direct descent from the original Lodges, finally dying out in the 1970s. But even as the original lodges died away, new adherents and Initiates of the old Adepts began to revive the Order, reclaiming the name of the Golden Dawn. Lodges currently exist in Europe, the Americas, South Africa and Australia. Numbers are hard to estimate, but there are likely hundreds if not thousands of people currently involved in organized Golden Dawn groups, and many solo practitioners. Some can claim lineage of one kind or another to the original lodges by succession (i.e. Adepts having gone on to establish their own Lodges without any official charters), others simply follow the legacy of the original Order according to the wealth of published material available to the public, either in organized lodges or as solo practitioners. This being the case, there is no universally recognized central authority, though there are lodges and individuals that lay claim to it.

There are a few organized Golden Dawn groups today that lay claim to the "undiluted" lineage of the original Temples. Generally, this takes the form of issuing claims (especially on the Internet) of being chartered by an offshoot Temple of Isis-Urania Lodge No.3. Moina Mathers, having assumed the role of Imperatrix after her husband's death in 1918, chartered a few Lodges in Europe and America after her husband died. Claims of lineage are usually by connection to one of these temples.

The publication of the Golden Dawn corpus figured prominently in the occult "revival" of the 1960s. Before his death in 1985, Regardie was involved in initiatives to reestablish the Golden Dawn tradition. Other groups founded by former Golden Dawn associates, such as the Builders of the Adytum (B.O.T.A.) of Paul Foster Case and the Society of Inner Light of Dion Fortune, continue to exist today. The historical and cultural legacy of the Golden Dawn has been more influential on modern occultism than any other esoteric organization or body of knowledge. Although the original Golden Dawn teachings showed a strong influence of esoteric Christianity, almost every expression of Western occult spirituality and neo-paganism today owes a debt to the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn.

Once someone finds sources to discuss some of this, its can be put back into the article in a proper place. Zos 17:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The Order is meant to be the repository of great spiritual knowledge passed down from ancient sources. Though some sources such as Imhotep, King Solomon, Hermes Trismegistus and Christian Rosenkreutz are part of the legendary history of the Order; the original founders (in particular Mathers) expounded a doctrine of "The Secret Chiefs", who collectively represented the "Third" or highest Order of the Western Magical tradition. Mathers declared these Chiefs of the Order were living human beings, or perhaps "evolved" human beings, that possessed the secrets of immortality, omniscience, and superhuman magical powers. He claimed to be in personal contact with certain of these Chiefs, and based his authority as the indisputable leader of the Order on instructions supposedly handed down from them.
  • Other Golden Dawn Lodges and Adepts also claimed to be "in contact" with Secret Chiefs, and the original schisms of the Golden Dawn can almost be seen as various "Chiefs" issuing conflicting orders to their contacts. Mathers claimed that he actually met Chiefs in person and that they had physical bodies. Florence Farr believed herself to have psychically contacted a Chief, in a manner similar to what is now called "channeling", and was even authorized by Mathers in 1897 to form a working group, "The Sphere Group", to make further contact with this Chief. Aleister Crowley claimed that a spiritual entity named "Aiwass", who was a Secret Chief, dictated to him in 1904 the Book of the Law which was to be the basis of a new Hermetic philosophy. Another faction led by F.W. Felkin, moved their Temple to New Zealand to await the physical arrival of their Chief, who unfortunately never showed up. Generally, each faction refused to acknowledge the authority of another faction's contact with a "Secret Chief."
This was taken from teh Secret Chiefs section, it also needs sources, and most do not even discuss the original Golden Dawn. Zos 18:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The Golden Dawn follows a "fraternal lodge" model similar to freemasonry, with titles, degrees and initiations. The Order purports to be a meritocracy, with advancement based on tests of knowledge and demonstration of skills.
  • In the Outer Order, both the layout of the Temple and the functions of Officers seem to closely mirror those of Craft Freemasonry. The names of the Grades, or degrees of initiation, as well as the titles bestowed upon initiates, were taken from old sources such as the German Masonic "Gold und Rosen-kreutzers", and Pianco's 1781 book, Der Rosenkreutzer in seiner Blosse. In the Inner Order, the Rosicrucian drama enacted in the initiation rituals is reminiscent of that in the "Rose Croix" degree of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, and is certainly related to the ceremonies of the S.R.I.A. The Grades in the Golden Dawn are based on the symbolism of the Qabalistic Tree of Life.
Heres more info without citations taken from the Structure section. Its being disputed below, and can be put back once sources are provided. Zos 19:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chopped up article

It looks like someone accidentally(?) chopped off the end of this article? Hopefully, it's not a vandalism. Just drawing the editors' attentions to this. Kephera975 19:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I've corrected it. Let's be more careful when we make spelling corrections. :) Kephera975 19:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contemporary Orders section

I have seen no reasonable arguments for the inclusion of the vanity pages on the contemporary Orders. They lack verifiability, are hardly notable, and we have an article now which goes from the Breakup of the Original Order to Influences(on the historical Golden Dawn) with these orders just seemingly sandwiched randomly there. It makes no logical sense, nor do these stubby articles appear to comply with Wikipedia editing policies. This would be like having an article on Christianity and including a section illogicaly and randomly thrown in the center of the article advertising different churches one could belong to. Keep in mind that encyclopedia articles are for people researching a topic, not for people interested in joining organizations and perusing different advertisements for membership to those organizations. Including links to websites at the bottom of the article should suffice for those interested in the various contemporary fraternities and organizations.

Kephera975 22:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

All fixed, buddy. I moved it to the end of the article. Wasn't that easy? —Hanuman Das 22:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Some of those arent vanity. This section you refer to has a history of disputes. I'd recomend a vote/survey to see what other editors think first. I'll start it off with a vote.
  • Remove: - Reason: I will soon be expanding the Revolt/Breakup/Offshoots section very soon, and any orders or spinoffs that have sources can be placed in such a section, as long as it has sources. Some of the orders included in the section now, do not reflect the orders of that era (the Golden Dawn break-offs era), but are newer groups, with new names. Zos 22:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove: - Reason: See my opinion previously posted addressing this issue. Kephera975 22:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: - if they don't have a section, they'll end up in the "See also" list. At least with their own section there can be a brief introduction to what they are: G.D. revival or reconstruction groups. —Hanuman Das 22:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: -reponse to Hanuman Das. One organization's article is looking like it is going to be deleted. In my opinion, a neutral article should then delete them all. Furthermore, each special interest group has a link on this page to their respective websites as it is. This should suffice in providing information about G.D. reconstructionist groups. Where better to get information about them, than at their own websites? Additionally, to keep these pages on Wikipedia will cause further conflict between the fraternities who are engaged in fraternal conflict(just as including articles advertising different churches or temples in a religious article would encourage further disputation). Just look at the history of these articles to see this. Kephera975 22:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Let me explain something K. I don't give a shit what you think. You are clearly biased against one or more of these groups and that is the real reason you want to delete them. I have no respect for someone who is not honest about their motiviations. —Hanuman Das 22:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Very civil. An ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy and should not be counted in this discussion. Kephera975 22:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I've seen your edits to the articles in question. Your intent is low and your methods are sneaky. You have yet to provide one citation for your derogatory additions, and keep trying to sneak them into cited material, pretending that they are from the same source. So say what you will, methinks the lady doth protest too much. —Hanuman Das 23:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
This is a simple survey on whether to keep or remove the contemporary Order articles. If you have an issue with me or my opinions, please take it to my user page so you can continue your personal attacks on me there. Thank you. Nothing further. No one needs to deal with this kind of pettiness from you or myself here. Kephera975 23:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Precisely. I'll thank you not to try to change my opinion in a simple vote, whether it be here or on AfD. I see through you, Dung Beetle god, and what I see ain't pretty. —Hanuman Das 01:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Exactly Kephera. Please keep it civilHanuman Das and no more gratuitous ad hominem attacks please. Especially since you've not been involved in this disputation until now, therefore, I suggest you leave this to the established editors. Anymore and you’ll be reported to the relevant administration page. Frater FiatLux 23:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Mind your own business, FiatLux. Any Wikipedia editor may edit any article they please. Nobody made you King. Thanks. :-) —Hanuman Das 01:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Please do behave yourself. Please govern yourself accordingly to Wikipedia's protocol regarding civil conduct. Frater FiatLux 13:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC) 13:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove: - Reason: I would think that these articles should be deleted altogether, because there is no consensus about what should be in this section. It makes more sense to have it all deleted. Opuaut 08:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove: - Reason: I've said all along they should be deleted. Frater FiatLux 23:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove: - Reason: I don't believe that the various orders will ever agree on content. Heck, they won't even agree on which ones are included.--GDHistorian 23:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    • 'Comment: I striked out this vote, as this is a completely new editor, not having worked on this article at all, just appearing here now to vote. I wonder. Zos 23:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Hanuman Das: Any group or offshoot that has in fact been a branch off of the Golden Dawn should remain in the article, in its own section, yes. But I do believe that I am the only one currently in possession of such source. I say this, because this is one of the many reasons we were to go to mediation. Bit now that I have found some sources, I will be adding, as previously mentioned, an expansion on the break up/revolt section. This will include any links that are now available, but, there are some that simply do not belong. And need to be removed from this article, as they are not german to the topic. Zos 00:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Cant we get along for one minute? Theres something about this articles talk page that just screams lets argue over nothing at all. Just calm down everyone and try some breathing excercises from Regadies Golden Dawn book :p Zos 01:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Known members

Arnold Bennett was a name given in I. Regardies What you should know about the Golden Dawn. There might be in fact, two Arnold Bennetts, I'm not sure :/ This is all I know about the subject matter of this individual. I'll see if I can spot anything else, in other books, or maybe a middle name. Zos 15:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh and yeah. My mistake not the alphabetical order. Zos 15:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
While looking into Regardie's book, you might have considered listing Regardie himself as a known member. No matter that he was "in at the death" (so to speak) of the Order.
Nuttyskin 21:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, actually, G.D. was dead by then. He was a member of Stella Matutina, IIRC. —Hanuman Das 22:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Structure question

Reading the structure section it talks about GD ritual in the first order being similar to Blue Lodge ritual. I've changed that to Craft lodge because Blue is a very US specific term. The section then goes on to talk about the structure which is very similar to SocRos, with the addition of an extra grade at the top being the main difference. In the first order the grades are all named the same as SocRos, so it seems more sensible to me that the ritual is similar to Soc Ros, rather than Craft, particularly wince the history section emphasises the SocRos affiliation of the founders, rather than their craft membership. Is there a reference which explicitly says the rituals are similar to craft freemasonry, rather than SocRos? I'd emphasise the point by highlighting that craft only has three grades anyway, not four, however SocRos has four.ALR 18:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Not really sure, gonna have to dig for that one. I'll look over my sources, and check though. Its hard to really say which is which because the first sets of rituals were taken directly from the cipher manuscripts. Now, if the cipher man's come from SRIA, then its safe to speculate it. But since there are many theories jumping around about these manuscripts, we can't get a definite answer to that, only guessing and assumptions made by editors and occult historians. But like I said, I'll look at a few of my books. Zos 18:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok. Quickly skimming I found that the outer order rituals were based off Rosicrucian grades, which were decoded from the cipher manuscripts. So I'd remove the statement about craft masonry altogether, since there is no citation there. Zos 18:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh yeah, just so you know...my source is Francis King Ritual Magic of the Golden Dawn. It doesnt mention anything about freemasonry as being in the outer. Zos 18:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
That makes sense, one has to be a Mason to be admitted to Soc Ros, but the rituals are very different. An interesting collection, with SocRos used for the first order, then A&AR used in the third order. Both SocRos and A&AR are explicitly Christian orders, and whilst I've done the Rose Croix degree in A&AR I'm only as far as Adeptus Minor in SocRos, so don't know what the 8th and 9th grade rituals are like. There may be a similarity. But again SocRos and A&AR are different from craft, they just require that one is a craft Mason; 5 years in to join SocRos, 10 years in to join A&AR.ALR 18:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Well I'm removing anything pertaining to this, that has no citation. I'm placing it in the Awaiting sources section on this talk page. Zos 19:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Its done. As you already know, I've been working on this article, adding as many citations as I can, to get this article in working shape (although other editors have been having fun with my poor grammar :p). I havent even gotten to the Structure section, as I'm just focusing on a chronological history right now, and then attacking the Break off section, because there is alot not being said in this article that needs to be said.
Its also my opinion that there shouldntbe a contemporary Golden Dawn section. That should be for disamb. Zos 19:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added citations surrounding Frater Kenneth Mackenzie.

I’ve added four separate citations to make the section regarding Frater Kenneth Mackenzie and his initiation in to a Rosicrucian continental mystery school, by Count Apponyi of Hungary, to make this more verifiable. The citation for this previously was the Bruce paper at the SRIA. As the citations I’ve given are in print sources that can be verified easily, I have simply made an edit to show this. Rather the section in question stating: “A different and much more controversial theory states.” With the new in print verifiable citations I’ve edited it to: “A different, and additional theory states.” Seeing that the new citations make this event less controversial and is documented in more than one source and by more than one author, and are as well as the Bruce paper at the SRIA. Frater FiatLux 21:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

But what does any of this have to do with the Golden Dawn? Maybe this should go into the SRIA article? I think it should. As its not talking about the Golden Dawn at all. Zos 21:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
It is information of vital, and essential, historical importance as to the Cipher Manuscripts, and furthermore, the founding of the Golden Dawn; It should therefore, stay in this article. Frater FiatLux 21:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I understand. It holds importance to the cipher manuscripts. Although, the cipher manuscripts used by Mackenzie, not used by the Golden Dawn, so it should be placed in the Cipher Manuscripts article, where it belongs. We cant just add anything we like to the article just because it has a slim connection. As far as I've read, Mackenzie gave the manuscripts to Woodford, and this is the only connection, besides being in the SRIA, that Mackenzie has to the Golden Dawn. Zos 21:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't like to see this moved to the Cipher manuscript article; I believe its relevance is within the Golden Dawn article. It is important to have at least some historical relevance of this development in the Ciphers and lineage of the GD to Rosicrucian sources; I believe the developments surrounding Frater Mackenzie is very relevant to the GD article because of this.
I note that you've only brought this up since I've added more citations to make that account more verifiable, and it is only after my additions that you have now decided it should be moved. You didn't want this to be removed before I made my editing, and I do not support moving this and believe it should remain in the Golden Dawn article in its proper context. I want to work with you Zos, so don‘t make this difficult, as I have improved the article with my additions. Frater FiatLux 22:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC) 22:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
No I've been having a problem with that part of the section for while now, I just forgot to mention it. I bring it up now, because you added a citation to it, yes, for I had temporarily forgotten about that material. I've been working on alot of other things, and dont think I requested it being removed because you edited the area. I would be saying the same thing no matter who added the citation. And I've said nothing else about your other edits so please step back and think about this for a minute. What I am asking is, that it be placed in the actual Cipher Manuscripts article, as anyone reading the Golden Dawn article may see further discussion on the cipher man's once they click the link. But Wikipedia wont allow us to add material that is not relevant to an article, and that which you added a citation to, is not. Zos 22:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind, I just looked back over it and found I was wrong! I must be getting another edit confused. Theres no need to remove it, good work on the structure. Zos 22:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I see that here is where you discussed this, FFL. And I see no editors agreeing with you and one editor disagreeing. Please don't attempt to mislead others about whether or not there is a consensus on an issue. Any further attempts to mislead will be added to your RfC. ---Baba Louis 02:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To begin with

Ok everyone, I'm going to begin to work on the Break off section, but I think I'm renaming it Revolt, as it sounds much better in my opinion. I suspect I will get some quarrels pertaining to this section (based on previous disputes), so wish me luck! Zos 22:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing citations

Baba: I noticed you removed a cited statement before discussing it. You'll have to understand the history/reverting here, and to not get anyone jumpy, we need to disuss it first. The statement was done poorly yes, but needs to remain, as it shows why Woodford is not really credited with being the fourth founder (he died). Zos 15:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Tell you what, I'll edit my way, you edit yours. It's easy enough to put back and I wasn't sure how to phrase it. You put it back better, no problem. The edit history is always there to resort to... It's not the fault of an editor editting in good faith if another editor gets upset instead of finding a solution... I'm not going to pussyfoot around simply b/c Frater FiatLux tends to get hysterical. ---Baba Louis 15:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Well if you werent sure how to do it, then dont. Its not in good faith to remove a cited stated. Discuss it first, as your edits will be a waste, per revert. As for the revert history, its a common understanding on talk pages that have a history, please respect this.
And your remark about finding a solution....so this means removing a cited statement is a solution for not knowing what to do huh? Zos 15:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Yup, I definitely don't like your attitude. We're all adults here (I think), please refrain from telling me how to edit. Assume good faith and move forward from where the article is. No need to moan about how other editors do things differently that you would prefer. From now on, I'll not respond to any such discussion. Thanks. ---Baba Louis 19:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I just want you to not remove cited statements. I'm tired of expressing this to you nicely. You're unwillingness to understand this is the real concern. I'll leave it alone, until you do it again. Zos 20:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
But there is no policy against removing material to improve the article, regardless of whether it is cited. I can see that you believe there is or should be such a policy, but there isn't. You're welcome to cite the policy if you can. ---Baba Louis 20:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll help you out, here is the official editing policy - please note that discussion is not at all required and one of the main precepts is Be bold! ---Baba Louis 21:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes I know that one. And since I cannot find a policy, as there should be, I'm requesting one be created just for you Baba! Zos 21:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's a waste of time. Just because something is cited doesn't mean it is topical, pertinant or important. I removed a short phrase I found both irrelevant and poorly integrated. You put it back because you thought it relevant and you improved it in the process. I still think it irrelevant, but since it is now well integrated, I'll leave it be. This is a fine example of how WP is supposed to work. ---Baba Louis 21:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
But it is topical, pertinant and important. Go back and look at what you removed. It was an addition to give reason why Woodford is not the fourth founder of the Golden Dawn. Very pertinant to the history of the Golden Dawn Baba. And no, wrong again. Theres a difference in being bold, in editing, and what you are doing. The removal of cited material is not stated as being a policy, but this does not mean you should do it as you please. So, in wasting my time, I will work towards helping Wikipedia, in clarifying their policies, for editors like you. Zos 21:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I changed it from "yet Woodford died shortly after the Order was founded" to "although Woodford died shortly after the Order was founded". All you had to do was remove the parentheses, as it was my mistake. Not delete the statement. Which is what caused this. Zos 21:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
You speak as if there is some sort of absolute. There isn't. What is important or relevant is a matter of opinion. Sometimes insisting something be included is backed by an agenda to imply something that can't actually be said. In this case, I deleted a parenthetical expression. Putting something in parentheses is a way of saying it is less important than the surrounding text. If you want to say "why" Woodford is not considered the fourth founder of the G.D. and think it is important, then you should be explicit and say it directly, not imply it with the contents of a parenthetical. Clearly, we do not think alike, but we are both trying in good faith to improve the article. That, I think, is sufficient. The policy says that I can delete shorter or smaller amount of text and being irrelevant is one of the acceptable reasons. If it were longer, I'd have discussed it. I don't think it adds anything to the article in its current form, and runs the risk of being removed again by someone else unless you make explicit your reason for including it by expanding it to a sentence and including the "why". You can't expect other editors to be mind-readers. ---Baba Louis 21:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
And I realized my mistake already. I didnt wish to imply anything, as that would have been WP:NOR. Yet the author clears it up in another book (check the citations), showing why he isnt the fourth founder, but he still feels he should be.
Which policy are you refering to again? Because if you mean WP:EP, I'll quote it:
  • Reasons for removing bits of an article include:
    • duplication
    • irrelevancy
    • patent nonsense
    • copyright violations
    • inaccuracy, or where the accuracy of the information cannot be established
I fail to see exactly which reason yours fall under :/ I can't expect other readers to be mind readers as you say, but I also cannot insert my opinion into the article, just a valid source's opinion. So I will not be filling your request. Zos 21:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I already stated irrelevancy and thought I had explained that relevancy is a matter of opinion. Didn't you read what I said? Or did you just not get it? ---Baba Louis 01:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes but just saying "its irrelevant" won't work. Its relevant to the early history, and was included as such. Its only my opinion to add to the article any way I can, so I wasnt looking at it in a POV when I added it. I simply asked myself, is it relevant, then added it. Id rather answer as many questions for the reader as I can, with the sources I have obtained. Poor Woodford. Zos 01:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Of course it works. I removed it because I thought it irrelevant. That is still my opinion. It doesn't matter to either the Golden Dawn or the article whether or not whats-his-name is considered the fourth founder or not. It's just not that important. You think it is relevant and put it back. We both did the right thing based on our own opinion on the matter. Your bald assertion that it's important does not make it so... ---Baba Louis 01:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
How'd you know I shave my head? :P Zos 02:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
If you didnt get the joke, it was based off of this "Your bald assertion that it's important does not make it so" :p Zos 01:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I got the joke. I just couldn't think of a witty comeback. Sometimes discretion is the better part of valour. :-) ---Baba Louis 01:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contemporary Golden Dawn Orders

Cant we just make this a disambig and add it to the top of the page. Consensus is showing for deletion but just to be fair, I think a disambiguation page should be made, or if one exists, add these to it. What say you? Zos 00:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, one does exist: [[1]] Zos 00:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slight seperation

I think there need to be a slight speration between three things. One, theres the actual revolt, which has its section. Which needs expansion upon other editors contributing with their sources. Two, the controvery about the bogus Golden Dawn set up by Mr. and Mrs Horos (which I do have sources for), needs it own section. Its not part of the revolt, just happened to be right along side of it. Also, any other controversies can be added into that section. And third, the splinter groups need to be seperate from the revolt, possibly a sub section from the Revolt section. And heres where I think I'm gonna end up getting into a dispute about this. The Alpha et Omega is, by heritage or lineage, the Original Golden Dawn. Mathers was rightful Chief, it then went to his wife, etc etc. Then I believe it actually went dormat but was revived in modern day as Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (Rosicrucian Order of A+O). But as far as keeping with the teachings of the Golden Dawn, this can be a number of the actual splinter groups. We have the other temples which were originally Golden Dawn temples, seperating from the original order. But none of these can be concidered to be a direct lineage to the original, and I doubt a source will state that any are. I'll have the other editors know that I wont be adding my bias or POV into it either. Zos 19:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I just realised that there should be a new heading for reconstruction of the original order as well. Seeing as how its particulary not a revolt to reconstruct. If anyone disagrees with it, I only ask that it be brought up on the talk page. Zos 20:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, well, I did what I could thus far. If I find any other groups that would constitute as a splinter from the original order, I'll add them. Although, there is also the A:.A:. and O.T.O., which has used golden dawn material, and if one wishes to dispute it, I could find enough sources to say that Crowley had replaced this and that in constructing rituals. Zos 22:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Awaiting even more sources

  • Controversy
    • In 1900, Mathers had entered into a disastrous relationship with a husband and wife known as Mr. and Mrs. Theo Horos. The Horos' had apparently developed some kind of relationship with one of the American temples and had either acquired or forged some Order papers and credentials. Based on these credentials and their mesmeric personalities, the Horoses were able to obtain further Order documents from Mathers, which they used to set up spurious "temples" and operate confidence schemes. Word of their illicit operations eventually reached Mathers, who subsequently denounced them as frauds, and they were tried and convicted of fraud and sexual misconduct in 1902.[citation needed]
I personally dont care much about this section, I removed it because its been in need of citations for some time now. It can be readded upon sources, as I really dont feel like using mine for this one. Zos 21:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/e/r/Talk%7EHermetic_Order_of_the_Golden_Dawn_Archive_5_259a.html"