Talk:Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (Rosicrucian Order of A+O)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] "Autobiographical" articles

Just a quick note about WP policies as they apply to this article. An article about an organization or website may use that's organization's website or other self-published sources only as a source for information about itself. All other references must be reliable published sources per WP:RS (e.g. published books). In particular, information about any other organization must have such a reliable published (book) reference, and information from the website of a competing organization may not used for citations in this article. For details, see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources in articles about themselves. -999 21:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] False accusastion of bias

User 999 is in violation of the policy developed by Wikipedia moderator T. Morton in attempting to end political bias in the description of modern Golden Dawn based groups. It was decided that each group would develop its own entry. Please consult with moderator T. Morton in resolving this issue. The version developed by users 999 and Kephera 975 is politically biased against the Rosicrucian Order of A+O. The slant is not objective and contains numerous inaccuracies. -User:Zanoni666 21:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

But, every single statement is cited against either the Order's website or David Griffin's book. You cannot own the article and any claims that any moderator gave you that idea are a serious misunderstanding. There was no decision that each group would develop their own entry; that is seriously against WP policy. The only decision was that there would be seperate articles. There are, and any editor is free to work on them, you cannot exclude anyone. Please try to reach concensus with all other editors of the article per the usual WP processes. Thank you. -999 01:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Let us Endeavor to Avoid A Revision War

I have followed the discussion here and on the Golden Dawn Tradition page (now defunct and merged with the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn page). That discussion degenerated into a ‘revision war’ which required administrator interventions and a blocking of further editing of the page. Since the same users, notably 999 and JMax on one side, and Fiat Lux on the appear to be initiating the same sad bahavior here which previously required moderator intervention on the GDT page, I have decided to intervene.

Rather than see the editing here descend to the ‘revision wars’ that it did at the GDT article, as a neutral third party I have created an entirely new and yet objective article on the A+O, based entirely on verifiable sources. Unfortunately, the published sources regarding the modern history of the Ahathoor temple exist until present only in French, they nonetheless have been published and subject to peer review for several years. These have been properly referenced by me at the end of the article.

Some of the claims made on the A+O’s web site are admittedly controversial. Nonetheless, they remain verifiable according to Wikipedia’s standard , especially since I have gone to great lengths to qualify them as ‘claims as arising from material published by the order about itself on its own web site.’

Hopefully, my contribution will help to put an end to the partisan editing bordering on an ‘edit war’ that has plagued the revisions of the article on the Golden Dawn Tradition and has apparently already begun to spill over onto this page concerning the Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega. -HermeticScholar 06:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Hermetic scholar - please note that new entries go at the bottom of the page.
What you have done is great, as far as it goes. However, a simple list of references is not sufficient on WP. You must also provide citations, to a specific page number or a specific web page. I will be happy to help you put them into the proper format if needed. I've noted throughout the article where citations are needed. If you could provide them, it would be appreciated.
I also rearranged a couple of things in the history section that were out of chronological order, and removed one or two statements that I found off-topic or possibly uncitable.
Best regards,
999 15:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations and Overcitation

Overciting is considered to be quite unndesirable in modern scholarship, although at the high school level is is still considered allowable. Many of the passages you say require citations, actually do not require them are they are clearly referenced to author or to the order's web site which is sufficient. There is no need to debate such anal retentiveness. I suspect that you are hiding an order bias behind a shcolarly veneer as was the case on the GDT article. Let us get an administrator in here right away and clear this up before you and Fiat Lux go at each other once again. In the meantime, I am reassigning the article to its proper catagories. HermeticScholar 16:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I am not a member of any Golden Dawn order. All the other Golden Dawn order pages are cited at this level of detail. Per WP:V, I have to be able to verify your statements. I cannot do so if you do not give page numbers or direct links to the pages from which the information was taken. Per WP:V, I can remove from the article any uncited information I find dubious. The burden of providing citations falls to the person who added the information. -999 (Talk) 15:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh REAALLY, now. Please stop trying to play games so that we may yet be able to resolve this without getting an administrator in here. Judging by both your and Fiat Lux past behavior, I consider it likely that this may yet be necessary, however. Start by looking at the main articlee again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermetic_Order_of_the_Golden_Dawn. Just how many footnotes are there? One. So why don't you go play games and add thirty footnotes there instead? OK, in the interest of fairness, go back and eliminate 70% of the citatiation requests that you asked for. Keep only those that you absolutely deem essential and your argument may look more like a valid one rather than the 'revision war' nonsense that has been going on.

I'm not playing games. These are good faith requests so that I may verify the information as is my right per WP:V. Kephera975 was happy to comply and we worked together quite well. Please excuse my pointing it out, but you just started editing WP yesterday (or was it today). I've been here since May of 2005 and am familar with how it works. Please see how I cited the following:
I'm not asking you to do anything I don't do myself. I'd also recommend that you read about WP's assume good faith policy. You will be able to collaborate with other editors better if you take it to heart. -999 (Talk) 16:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello everybody. I have made some footnotes according to what 999 put in for where citations are necessary on this article. I am still working on putting in more footnotes and these should become available within a week or so. I do have a question about possible overcitation, though. Is it necessary to have so many citations referencing the website when the website is already clearly referenced? I agree with User:HermeticScholar that there is an exorbitant amount of citation. Is there any way to minimize the amount of citation at all? Kephera975 20:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)20:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Im have no problem collaborating with you if you quit playing games amd make a serious and balanced request. One citation per sentence is bad style past the seventh grade, however. I am still hoping that we can do this without bring an administrator in here.

I'm afraid it's not "bad style" on Wikipedia. Certainly, if all the info in a paragraph is from a single source, a single citation on that paragraph would be sufficient. I'm simply marking what I think needs to be cited, which might not be clear with a single request on each paragraph. It is because all of these subarticles are contentious that the citations are needed. The problem on WP is that any of your work may end up getting reworded in a way that the source would no longer support. With citation, multiple people can ensure that the article stays true to its sources. The environment has very different needs and reasons for requiring detailed citations than print media, where no one is going to alter it when you're no longer paying attention. -999 (Talk) 16:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
In case you haven't figured it out, I have been trying to end the edit war. Detailed citations are part of that effort. They are needed so that the anti-Griffin faction cannot butcher the article. Properly cited material cannot be removed or altered, only added to with comparisons/qualifications from other reliable sources. I am actually neutral - if I weren't, I'd simply remove the uncited material rather than request citation. Again, I'm requesting citation not to make you prove anything, but to support your work and make it unassailable by truly hostile editors. -999 (Talk) 17:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
If you were so neutral, 999, than why did you not even include an article on the HOGD/A+O from the beginning? Why did you then proceed to create an article on HOGD, Inc. which cited and backed their currently disputed claims of "legal superiority"? Kephera975 02:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I didn't create an A+O article because of the way I was being treated by members of A+O. You and Frater FiatLunx are the only cause of any bias I may have developed. As to HOGD, I got the information from books and web site. As long as it is cited, it may not be removed. Try leaving it in. -999 (Talk) 13:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

A Hermetic scholar has asked me to help with the citations but I do the format: I´ll find the references. User999, could you help with the formatting?--Opuaut 17:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

I notice there are a number of references to books that have French titles. I'm wondering if this is actually acceptable seeing as how this is the english wikipedia. How can we fact check these books? Can I get someone to replace them with the english translations (if they exist)? Zos 18:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

They do not. Nearly everything can be verified from English sources, however.

Regarding the French sources cited, you must consider that the Ahathoor Temple is in Paris and that the A+O was founded in France. Therefore a certain number of French sources on tha page about the A+O are inevitable. --HermeticScholar 18:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Verification of Trademarks and Trademark Rights and Ownership Interest

To begin with, 999, you are out of line eliminating reference to the A+O's ownership interest in the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn trademark by contractual agreement in the USA. I am reverting that section to the original form. You state that this is not citable This is inaccurate. I am publishing a link to the contract in question together with the recordation of the ownership interest with the USPTO. Noth that the Rosicrucian Order of A+O is a sole proprietorship belonging to David Griffin. Here is the citation of the contract for iron clad verifiability: http://www.golden-dawn.com/images/agreement.jpg Here is the sale of partnership agreement: http://www.golden-dawn.com/images/sp.jpg Here is the recdordal of the Contract as proof of ownership interest by world-wide contractual agreement with the USPTO: http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=tm&reel=2810&frame=0405 Further is published at: http://www.golden-dawn.com/temple/index.jsp?s=articles&p=trademark The gist of the contract is that both HOGD, Inc. and HOGD/Rosicrucian Order of A+O covenented to share ownerhsip of their respective trademarks world-wide on a co-equal basis. This is completely verified via the above links. Please do not delete this again or you will be reported to an administrator. --HermeticScholar 18:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, if everything can be verified in english, then why isnt it? Plus, jpg images are not sources, as far as I know. Zos 18:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Facsimilies of legal documents are admissible as evidence in court as well as on Wikipedia. Indeed these same documents can be downloaded from a court docket. If you want to split hairs, I can reference that source as well. You guys are going way too far.--HermeticScholar 18:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, you are wrong. Only court transcripts are acceptable sources here. You may not use affidavits, contracts or any other legal document unless they have been published in a book by a third party. See WP:RS. -999 (Talk) 20:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I checked the link you gave and it does not state that affidavits , etc. are not good. In any case the USPTO link is sufficient. You are approaching the rule against edit wars with three retrofits. The OHIM European data base does not provide a static link. The user will have to search each time. ((unsigned|HermeticScholar}}
I quote, "Wikipedia articles may use primary sources only if they have been published by a reliable publisher e.g. trial transcripts published by a court stenographer, or historic documents that appear in edited collections. We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a reliable publisher." (emphasis in the original). Please explain how affadavits and contracts fit into this restriction. -999 (Talk) 20:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
In any case the United States Patent and Trademark Office qualifies quite nicely in this regard. The link now in the article more than satisfies verifiability. If you retrofit again 999, you will be in violation of the Wikipedia 24 hour rule! Not to mention that as it stands, it is correct and sufficient. If you still object, I propose that we call immediately for an administrator. --HermeticScholar 21:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources and Citations

I don't believe I'm asking for much. Just a few sources and citations to actually validate the information you wish to add are needed. Zos 18:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Zos, are you talking about trademarks or the other citations. Everything will be forthcoming. I am personally very busy, but a couple of friends are already working on pulling the footnotes together. I apologise that I am not familiar with Wikipedia formatting. Perhaps you would be so kind as to add the above references to the main article regarding the trademark rights in the USA where 999 has requested it? Other references will all be provided over the next few days. There are several people already working on this. By the way 999 perhaps I misjudged you. I have provided you with the first essential citation. Please assist me to place it where appropriate in the article.--HermeticScholar 19:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to indent my comments here, because my comment was moved from the previous section to this section. New headers do not need to be created to address the same issues. Also, please try to sign your comments. Thank you. Zos 19:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Then why not put it where it belongs and clearly state what you are asking for? --HermeticScholar 19:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I did have my comment where it belonged, and I did clearly state what I was asking for. Zos 19:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concerns about citations

Kephera975, I don't understand what you are trying to do. Your citation [5] is to a page which says NOTHING about 111 year cycles or a general reformation. You must link to a page that contains the information presented or I will remove the infomation as unsupported by the citation. Did you link the wrong page by mistake? -999 (Talk) 20:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, reading through your comments above, it appears it is on the website somewhere - you can't expect someone to browse a website looking for the info. Just cite the specific page in each instance and then there is no problem. -999 (Talk) 21:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
User 999, all citations should be available within a week or so. Kephera975 00:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I think excellent progress was made today, once you and HermeticScholar understood why I wanted the references. I'm very satisfied now at how we are all working together. -999 (Talk) 01:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page locked

Please work out you differences here. Let me know when there's a consensus. Tom Harrison Talk 00:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tom. Personally, I was unaware there were any major differences. Basically, 999 is asking for citations and different users have been providing them. Can someone let me in on why this page was protected? Kephera975 00:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC) 00:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I don't know if you noticed the edit history, but User:Frater FiatLux repeatedly tried to revert the article last night to your orginal version losing all the references and citations we worked on. He got blocked for WP:3RR. The first thing he did when he got unblocked was to file a false 3RR report against me. [1] The admin didn't buy it, but I suspect today's edit history looked like an edit war rather than forward progress. -999 (Talk) 01:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Crimeney Christmas! The only major dispute was regarding verifiability surrounding the inclusion of the trademark rights held by the A+O in the USA. I believe that the PTO records and the contract are enough to satisfy verifiability, are they not? If so, I can see no dispute and can not see why this page should not be unlocked immediately. That has been the only bone of contention that has gone back and forth, with 999 arguing what I considered to be unreasonable standards of verifiability. Is this not a settled matter now, however? If so, let us move forward so I can finish the footnotes! I worked all day to get them ready only to find the friggen-fraggen page locked when I was ready to upload them --HermeticScholar 01:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I doubt an admin will unlock it until User:Frater FiatLux makes an appearance here and deigns to acknowledge that the other editors have achieved some level of concensus and sign onto it. Which I highly doubt will happen. So it may be locked for awhile... If anyone can reason with Fr. F.L., please try. He won't listen to me. -999 (Talk) 02:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
P.S. I think we tried to save at the same time. Sometimes info is lost. So I put back your comment, hope this is okay. -999 (Talk) 02:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I had just withdrawn my comment as I looked at the page again and discovered that my painstaking work to answer the challenge that the trademark rights of the A+O in America are not 'citable'. Indeed, that passage was changed back and forth today so often that I can understand why Admin finally locked the page. I find the statement as it now reads certainly better than it was repeatedly deleted on fictitious grounds of a lack of 'citability.' Still, as it reads now it is factually inaccurate. Let us all sleep on this tonight and see if there is not some compromise in sight. We can do little else anyway, as I doubt that admin will reopen the page tonight. Whenever it does reopen, I have all of the additional citations ready to go. --HermeticScholar 02:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah Frater FiatLux wont listen to me either. My only concern is that there be actual sources for statments describing the court documents. Zos 03:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Tom, I’ve sent you an e-mail regarding this already, so I’ll just leave a quick note in case you miss the e-mail. Please do NOT unlock this article, as if you do, I believe that user 999 will continue to edit war the article. He is not offering any real compromise and is attempting to be as obstructive as possible and maliciously interfere in editing the article.
Please do not unlock this article, as if you do, I believe 999 will only undo work that has been done and further perpetuate the edit war with his conspirators.
Many users are all working in cahoots with user 999, the evidence for this can be found here, filed under the Golden Dawn entry at the bottom of the page: [[2]]
This just proves that 999 and others want to continue the edit war on the Rosicrucian Order of A+O article, and the other contemporary order articles. So it is my opinion that the article should remained locked, as if it is unlocked, 999 will only edit war the article, yet again.
Frater FiatLux 10:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Frater FiatLux, that's what happens when there is a concensus that you are not part of. Unless there is a clear violation of Wikipedia rules, the concensus determines the direction of the article, regardless of a single editor's disagreement. -999 (Talk) 14:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed resolution

THis is one of those cases where there is a dispute about about a dispute. So, the article needs to say

There is currently a dispute about a 1996 TM rights Agreement between X and Y, which has been filed, blah, blah, case # blah.

Or some such until there is a resolution, a court transcipt, about how the contract should be interpreted.

I don't know, and don't care, what that result should be. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. That's why WP:RS says we can't use primary sources (i.e. uninterpreted legalese), only court transcipts. Either side could still win, or negotiate with each other, or whatnot. The outcome is not yet known. It will be a matter of interpreting the law - I don't know know if this exists, but it should- Wikipedia is not a judge, jury or courtroom - from what I understand, the case is still pending. Isn't it normal legal procedure that nobody wants to say anything about the dispute so as not to bias the case or something? I think "There is a dispute..." however you want to phrase it is what we need to be reporting here. Or just not mention it at all. Up to all the editors, right? -999 (Talk) 03:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Mediation.

You will all note that I have filed, and requested for mediation in this disputation; I feel the time is certainly right at this stage, seeing we’re in a deadlocked situation with no coherent consensus, and moreover, now the edit/revert wars (games), are over, as I requested the pages to be locked; to now put forward serious negociation, proposals and substantial compromises. I want to seek mediation in this highly problematic, long-standing case now, as want to propose what I think will settle the disputation by making significant compromises and proposals. I fear that if I were to proceed in executing these to the discussion page, that under current circumstances and without mediation, my proposals and compromises will be lost; and further unrest and schism will be the only result, as per tradition with this discussion. I would like to make these proposals with a mediator involved to as I feel this will put a halt to the never ending arguments, intrigues and disputes. In the hope that some immediate ground will be made on this now that the edit/revert warring is not now taking precedence over serious discussion and consensus building.

I trust you will pledge your agreement to the mediation and start the ball can start rolling and this can be sorted out properly and in a dignified manner. I will be shortly making my recommendations and proposals to the discussion page herein, very shortly.

At this juncture, and in recent days, I have been exceedingly reticent at involving myself in any of the supra postings, as it never seems to get us anywhere, thus, I have indeed, refrained from doing so. I now will now involve myself again with constructive consensus building hopefully, under the guidance of a mediator; any other effort is completely wasted otherwise in my own opinion, as it only degenerates into further argumentative schism.

I trust you will find this in order gentlemen. Frater FiatLux 21:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I will weigh in on the mediation proposal as soon as you post the links to it. - JMax555 22:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
The important points are concerning references to court documents in a pending civil case. We need clarification whether or not affidavits, court filings, and written agreements from ONE SIDE of a litigation currently being heard in court can be used as verifiable references under Wikipedia policies.
The HOGD Inc. is suing Mr. David Griffin, sole propriator of the HOGD/A+O, for improper use of their registered trademark in the USA. The HOGD/A+O is contending they have an written agreement with HOGD Inc. concerning their use of the trademark. The filing HOGD/A+O made with the Patent and Trademark Office claiming their right to use the trademark was superceded by a subsequent filing, and it is also being challenged by the HOGD Inc.. But the important issue is that the case is still pending, therefore any statements to the effect that the HOGD/A+O does in fact have such rights by virtue of any agreement has never been established by any court. So any reference made to HOGD/A+O's trademark rights in the USA must be presented not as a fact, but that it is currently in dispute in the courts. When the court decision is handed down, the article can then be changed to reflect the court ruling. - JMax555 22:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
The mediation page is here. Frater FiatLux did not do it right, but all parties have to agree there, if they wish to go through mediation. Zos 05:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow. The history jumps from 1906 to 1982. I'll be adding to this soon enough. Zos 06:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Or removing. Really this should only cover from the founding of the modern order. The history should not duplicate what is in the main article, Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. But of course, this article should be considered under mediation unless and until the mediation request is denied. -999 (Talk) 15:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I doubt it will duplication anything, seeing as how I have other sources that were not used for the main article. And also there is a new issue to be mediated, that of removing all of the information not pertitent to the main article, to its sub pages. This would include the history. :p Zos 16:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Not in my book - the history is the part most pertinent to the main article. It all depends on what an individual believes is pertinent, now doesn't it? -999 (Talk) 16:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I only wish to fill in blank spots in the article, its needs a bit more material anyway. Are you implying that you don't want me to add to this article for fear of it not being pertinent? I also will not go by your book. Zos 16:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm saying that I think that you are potentially wasting your time until the parties in mediation acheive a consensus about where the dividing line is. Should the main artcle include everything up until, say, the publication of Israel Regardie's book? That's a reasonable dividing line which would result in the historical Stella Matutina and histoical Alpha et Omega both being included in the main article. Or should there be a separate article for each defunct offshoot as well as for the modern orders? Should the articles on the modern orders include any history before their founding (I say no) or should they simply refer to the main article for history prior to their founding date? (I believe this is the correct solution). -999 (Talk) 16:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
If you regard simple historic matters as a waste of time then fine, but I value every addition that is made by me and other editors on Wikipedia. The main article should only include those areas pertinent to the article. A+O is an extension of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, under Mathers, until such time that the order was changed under Mathers wife. The line is drawn when the original order is changed, and is no longer the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. Sub articles should be linked only because of the history. An account of the break up should be done regarding this. And any other offshoot can be linked from those sub pages where relevant. This is what I will be purposing once the mediation gets underway. This is not a complex situation. There was an Order, they broke up, and now there are sub-articles for each topic under this disagreement.
The only time it will get complicated is when the origins, and teachings come into the article. Most of the teachings were written by the founders, as well as the rituals. There were no Secret Chiefs, that was all made up.
And Regadie wouldnt be a line drawn because he was never a member of the Golden Dawn but the Stella Matutina, which was in no way the extension of the original order.
Theres alot the articles are leaving out and this all needs to be fixed and brought up in mediation so no ones quotes mediation saying that it wasnt a bullet point. There is life after mediation, and mediation will not decide what to do after Frater FiatLux's request has been discussed. Zos 18:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Awaiting sources

There's been some great work done on providing citations while I was on wikibreak. Thanks, Kephera975. I've removed the last two statements needing citations below. Anyone may feel free to add them back with a citation once found...

  • According to French occultist, Jean-Pascal Ruggiu, the flagship temple of Mathers’ Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega, the Ahathoor Temple No. 7, was revived in 1982 by Ruggiu and the Ukrainian nobleman Nicholas Tereschenko, who each had been intiated through the Adeptus Exemptus (7=4) Grade in London.[citation needed]
  • American alchemist David Griffin, author of The Ritual Magic Manual, was later initiated into the Adeptus Exemptus (7=4) grade at the Ahathoor Temple in Paris in 1997.[citation needed]
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/e/r/Talk%7EHermetic_Order_of_the_Golden_Dawn_%28Rosicrucian_Order_of_A%2BO%29_caba.html"