Talk:Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Talk:Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

1 Misc
2 Whare Ra?
3 Known Members
4 Comtemporary Orders
- 4.1 Removal of Orders
5 More faction POV edits
6 POV Bias

Misc

Whare Ra?

Is Whare Ra considered a "comtemporary" GD order? Unlike the others in that section, they are no longer active, and haven't been for over 25 years. Is it therefore inappropriate to place them in that section? Should there be another section for "inactive" orders that have ceased operation? - JMax555 08:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, well it was in the old Golden Dawn tradition article under the same heading. Perhaps the heading should be changed to "Modern Golden Dawn Orders" ? I guess Whare Ra is mentioned earlier in this article so it could be taken out of the list. I was just following the old article.

Another thought here, will there ever be articles on Stella Matutina and Alpha et Omega? I think it unlikely. Perhaps we should just redirect those here as well, at least for now until someone is motivated to write a separate article. I know that quite a few articles have red links b/c those articles don't exist. -999 12:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Known Members

We need articles on Florence Farr and Pamela Coleman Smith! Farr was a renowned actress in her day, the partner of Yeats on many projects, and Smith is of course the artist who created the most famous Tarot deck of all time. They certainly deserve their own articles. If only I had the time... - JMax555 22:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Comtemporary Orders

Please note that each contemporary Order now has their own article. Please don't add the contents of the old Golden Dawn tradition article to this one. Thanks -999 17:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The additional “Contemporary Golden Dawn Orders” sub-section, gives the article proper depth and makes the links to the various contemporary orders, much more comprehensible to the reader. They should be included in the article as a matter of fact, to put the contemporary orders, and the developments made by certain contemporary orders, Into proper context within in the article. This is something that the links to the various contemporary orders own pages cannot do within the proper context of the article.

The sub-sections addition is a valuable addition to the article as the reader can now achieve the full scope and comprehension of what roles and developments that have been made in the GD tradition, by contemporary orders, in proper context with the article and the historical facts. The links and separate pages of the various other orders pages are devoid of this value, to put the relevant contemporary orders in an accurate context within the scope of the article.

The separate links and orders own pages are furthermore open to corruption, and blatant misrepresentations such as Cicero having established a Golden Dawn temple in 1977, when he clearly did not. It wasn’t until after Patricia Behman had introduced Cicero in the early 1980’s to Regardie, until Cicero had any involvement with a Golden Dawn temple. In fact not even until 1983, let alone 1977, Cicero was an initiated Minerval in the O.T.O. in 1978!

These separate links to the various orders pages are sure to be profaned in a defamatory and misleading tone by Users 999 and JMAX555, as the last article was. And I might add in the usual harassing, opportunist and unprincipled manner. The separate links give a free dispensation to all other orders to misrepresent the facts as Cicero's HOGD Inc. has seen fit to do so, and in so doing is wilfully and deliberately misleading the general public. These misrepresentations, such as the aforementioned instance surrounding Cicero’s own lies, will obviously have to be edited to represent the truth, otherwise other orders will be forced to provide contradictory evidence to correct Cicero’s lies and other misrepresentations.

Here’s the compromise:

The solution to this problem is to leave the article with the sub-sections so at least there’s a modicum amount of truth left to prevail in the article. Then at least the article is represented in clear and proper context, and readers will be aware of the facts surrounding the tradition and the development of contemporary orders in their rightful and truthful manner. Then the information in the orders own pages attainable through the links will at least be more comprehensible to the reader.

User 999, I do not honour your word, so please cease and desist with your threats to my talk page. If you leave any more ill judged comments and harassment I will report you.

Frater FiatLux 19:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

As explained to you before, WP rules require seperate articles, since they source information from the various organization's websites, which otherwise is not allowed to be used at all per WP:V (see also WP:RS). -999 19:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

FFL: That is not a compromise. That is just changing this article to the way you want it.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

Wikipedia is not a forum for you or your organization to preach "truth" to the public. It is not here for you to provide "contradictory evidence". Wikipeida is not a courtroom of public opinion. Wikipeida is not a place to correct the historical record. It only reports the previously existing historical record that comes from outside reputable sources. Either you still don't understand this, or you're simply trying to argue your way around it to get what you want. If you want to change what's reported in Wikipeida, go change what's in the verifiable sources. Go write a book manuscript, submit it to reputable publishing houses, and get it published by one of them. Then you can use it in a Wikipedia article.

What you think is "proper" or "rightful" isn't relevant to anything here. There is no guideline for "proper" in Wikipedia. There is no guideline for "rightful" in Wikipedia. What is a "historical fact" in Wikipedia is only what is verifiabile under the guidelines, and absolutely nothing more. If, for example, there are references to specific information, such as dates, that come from books by reputable publishers, that information can be used in an article about the specific group or person it refers to. If those sources should happen to be incorrect, then Wikipedia will also be incorrect, but that's how Wikipedia works. The standard for Wikipeida is verifiability, not truth. And verifiability has a very specfic meaning in Wikipedia, which you can read about here.

There's a reason for all this: nobody knows who you really are. If you report something that can't be sourced under the guidleines, it's just anonymous tesitimony. You have no accountability, no editorial oversight, there's no way to verify if you're an expert in the field you're writing about. But if you stick ONLY to what you find in reputable, neutral, verifiable outside sources, then it doesn't matter who you are.

Reputable means in the real world, not on alt.magick, or your own organization's forums. A neutral source doesn't include anything that was written by a lawyer for one side of a legal dispute between groups. And verifiable is what Wikipedia says it is, not what you seem to think it is.

The individual sub-article format works to avoid edit wars, because each one can only contain information about it's specific subject group. And it can only report what some other source has already published under the guidelines somewhere else. (See the Wikipedia Guideline about no original research.) So, the article uses qualifiers, "According to their website..." and then gives a capsule description of what the group says about themselves. But ONLY material from their website that refers TO themselves. You can't use material that refers to one group in the article about a different group. See the policy on claims about third parties.

Also, Wikipedia is not a repository for media files, which is why your uploads of them keep getting deleted. You got locked out because you broke the three revert rule.

Please learn and understand the rules of Wikipedia and govern yourself accordingly.

- JMax555 07:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

User 999 is malisciously and repeatedly editing the page of the Rosicrucian Order of A+O, in violation of the compromise reached by Wikipedia moderator T. Morton in the discussion of modern Golden Dawn based groups concerning the article The Golden Dawn Tradition. He has been reported for this incident to the administration of Wikipedia and is encouraged to refrain from further harassment in violation of Wikipedia moderator decision. -User:Zanoni666 21:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not the article about the Rosicrucian Order of the A+O, so why are you complaining here? Who are you complaining TO? There is no "moderator" from Wikipedia administration reading this.

There was no compromise "worked out" by a "Wikipedia moderator". There is no such thing as a "Wikipedia moderator". Wikipedia is not a Yahoo-like discussion forum with moderators. There are volunteer mediators and there are administrators. Please read and understand what Wikipedia is not. Also please read and understand the Wikipedia policies on editing: "Please bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. Wikipedia can be a very energetic place, and it's best for the project as a whole if we concentrate our energies on improving articles rather than defending our pet theories, ideologies, religions, etc." Editing an article is not "harassment", even if you don't agree with the edit. And since there is no such thing as a "Wikipedia moderator", much less any "decision" made by one, there is nothing to "violate". The only thing being "violated" by FFL, and now by you, are the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia - JMax555 14:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Zononi666 aka Frater FiatLux, I object to your characterization. I have been editing the article in good faith attempting to improve it according to Wikipedia standards. Please take the time to read WP assume good faith and civility guidelines. Thanks.

You might also want to be aware that evading blocks can get you permanently banned. I'd advise you to just wait until your block has expired. -999 (Talk) 15:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to remind the good Frater FiatLux that this is not "his" talk page. There is no ownership on Wikipedia. Danke. Zos 16:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Corresponsdingly, there is no "ownership" of the article about Frater FiatLux/Zanoni666's organization BY his organization. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Please remember this. - JMax555 16:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Orders

Esoteric770: I'd like to know why you are removing, and rearranging links that are there for a reason. Please discuss before you make another revert. Zos 19:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted you again. All of the links to other factions of the golden dawn are there for a reason. Please provide evidence that they are not golden dawn factions. Thank you. Zos 19:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to the administration for semi-protecting this article. The "Sodalitas Rosae Crucis et Solis Alati" is a licensee of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn Inc. and, according to their website, teaches the Golden Dawn curriculum as required by that license, so they belong in the list. This is just another edit-war being perpetrated by what seems to be a single person from a single contentious faction operating under multiple sock-puppets. This person seems determined to drive every article about the Golden Dawn on Wikipedia into an edit war, even when the other person sympathetic to his organization (Kephera975) managed to work out a concensus with other editors. - JMax555 21:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I cant believe this. Frater FiatLux went to the admin and asked for protection of the article. He then removed the protected tag. I've left a message on the admin's page stating this. Zos 22:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like an accident to me (the removal of the tag, that is). Kephera975 01:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

More faction POV edits

A large swath of information was added to the article that expounded the unique POV of one faction of the Golden Dawn, that of the HOGD/A+O. It was completely undocumented; the changes they made to their own curriculum and structure are NOT universal or described in any reputable, third-party source; they are the only faction that follows those changes. Therefore, it is inappropriate for inclusion in a general purpose encyclopedia article, especially when accompanied by multiple references to their own group by name, and its unique, non-mainstream doctrines. Please read and understand the Wikipedia Guidelines on verifiability and neutral point-of-view before making such large scale changes. Thank you. - JMax555 22:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I also reverted the changes that claim the membership documents of the SRIA were forged. Again, this is a part of the "mythology" of one and only one faction of the GD, not the mainstream account as published by reliable GD historians such as Darcy Kuntz and R.A. Gilbert. If there is any reliable, third-party sources for this specific claim of forgery, or any historical record of initiations of certain persons by secret societies over 100 years ago, please provide verifiable references for them. - JMax555 22:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

And further, I removed the reference claiming that the GD temple of the HOGD/A+O in Paris is the "revival" of Mathers' original Lodge No. 7, except in name only. Again, only one faction of the GD believes this, and unless they can offer as evidence a charter document signed by Mathers or his wife giving them the right to "revive" the Lodge, or any verifiable, third party reference to this being the case, it is again a self-serving POV that favors only one faction. Please don't make these unverifiable, self-serving changes to the article without offering evidence. Thank you. - JMax555 22:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

JMAX, please discuss creating entirely different articles on this page. Furthermore, please discontinue slanting this article towards your own "self-serving" motives and your own particular faction. It has become more and more obvious that you and your friends are slanting this article to your own OSOGD faction views. Please read the guidelines on Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view policy before making any major changes.Kephera975 01:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I did not "create an entirely different version", I only removed the sections that had been added that referred to one group and one group only. That belongs in their own article, not here.

When the edited version of an article repeatedly mentions one particular faction and it's leaders and offers that faction's version as the "authentic" version, that is not neutral. That material belongs in the article about that group. And once again, there is no "OSOGD" faction. There is only me. No one else in this discussion is a member of the OSOGD, or ever has been. I have never met any of them, corresponded with them or had any contact whatsoever with them prior to this edit war. They have said repeately they do not belong to any GD group, and you should be assuming good faith on their part in this matter and stop calling them a "faction". - JMax555 02:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

No, you are adding in an entirely new article on the "cipher manuscripts". This was not discussed. Therefore, I will be reverting it to the neutral article. Kephera975 02:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The article on the Cipher Manuscripts already existed. It was created months ago, the first time we went through all this, or don't you remember? The information on the Cipher was moved there. You people kept putting it back here with your constant re-editing. - JMax555 01:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

There are no published sources for it. If you can fnd a published source that is NOT the group's own webpages or self-published books by members, it's verifable under Wikipeida guidelines and can be referenced. But

This has already been done. See Bruce Wilson's article which is available from the S.R.I.A. Kephera975 03:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

POV Bias

The conflict caused by pro-Cicero users 999, Zos, and Cicero Lisencee JMax555 on the Golden Dawn Tradition, then on the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (Rosicrucian Order of A+O) page has spilled over to this page as well as onto the Heremetic Order of the Golden Dawn main page as well. 999, Zos, and JMax555 are unrelenting in their agenda of promoting a pro-Cicero POV and edit out anything that does not fit in their POV agenda. They refuse to discuss and compromise. Some of us will no longer allow their bullying, however--Zanoni666 01:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me try to explain it to you again. If the "pro-Cicero" (whatever that means) account of the history of the Order, and it's structure and origins, also happens to be the mainstream account, published many times in books by reliable publishing houses, then that is the Wikipedia version. If the "HOGD/A+O" account of the history, structure and origins can't be documented, and only exists on their own webpage and has never been confirmed by any published, reliable third-party source, then it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, it belongs on their own webpage.

This debate has gone on for months now. It carried over to discussion forums outside Wikipedia. I asked many times, on their own forum, if anyone at the HOGD/A+O could offer reliable, third-party documentation for their unique history of the GD, as well as the SRIA and Rosicrucianism in general. They had none. If it existed, I genuinely wanted to see it. I got told, by Mr. Griffin himself, it was "difficult to obtain" or that it was "Order secrets" he could not give sources for. Well, so be it -- that makes it ineligible for inclusion in Wikipedia. - JMax555 02:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

And how does what occurs on Yahoo forums have anything to do with the price of tea in china? References have now been included. The article as it stands is well balanced between your faction and another faction. Verifiability and neutrality go hand in hand, remember? Kephera975 02:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the long multiple paragraphs describing "esoteric orders" don't belong in the article. They belong in an article about eosteric orders generally.

The following statements are unsourced:

The Third Order apparently contains the Solar Mysteries. No citation.

The Third Order was supposed to place the capstone upon the pyramid, with the operative tradition of the solar mysteries. No citation.

...betrayal of the order by Aleister Crowley, who despite his oaths published the secret teachings of the RR+AC, thus preventing the completion of the entire Three Order system for over a century. No citation.

The Solar mysteries comprise an operative tradition that lies at the apex of the Rosicrucian as well as the entire Western Esoteric tradition. No citation

Here, we find not some mere mystical meditation upon alchemical images or psychological nonsense, but rather the supreme esoteric corpus of operative practices that all other genuine magical and alchemical operations only refer to by analogy. Promotes one faction's philosophy as being generally accepted. No citation.

Analogical operative systems are thus called lunar mysteries as, much as the moon reflects the light of the Sun, their light is reflected by analogical reference to higher operative processes. Nonetheless, despite her reflective nature, the moon indeed remains a luminary. So also the analogical operative systems remain powerful tools for spiritual development in and of themselves, despite their analogical nature. What does this have to do directly with the subject of the article? It doesn't belong in this article. Who wrote this? We don't know. It's a description of one group's philosophy lifted from the HOGD/A+O website. It's not admissable under Verifiability guidlines.

Mathers'Rosicrucian Order or A+O today claims to have received the Solar Mysteries of the Third Order, together with the Cypher Manuscripts for the Third Order initiation rituals from the Secret Chiefs in 2002. Mathers' order died out with his wife. There is no citation or proof of any connection of the current people running a group by that name and Mathers. It's all self-aggrandizing propoganda, And again, no citation.

In modern esotericism, there exist three types of esoteric orders. These fall into two general categories; symbolical and operative. Among the operative orders, there are those which are analogical (lunar) or direct (solar). How does the author of these words speak with authority? Who is the author? Why should we believe him? This is original research and is not allowed on Wikipedia.

You added ONE CITATION to the article, for the following:

Historical evidence indicates that Count Apponyi, who initiated Kenneth MacKenzie in Austria, was actually a member of this secretive order and that it was from these Secret Chiefs that MacKenzie obtained the Golden Dawn's original Cypher Manuscripts for the Golden Dawn's first or 'outer' order. S.L. MacGregor Mathers later claimed that the Secret Chiefs provided him with the materials for his creation of the Golden Dawn's second or 'inner' order. The Rosicrucian Order of A+O today claims that the Secret Chiefs in 2002 provided them with new Cypher Manuscripts for the creation of the Golden Dawn's third and final order, thus completing the entire three order system originally envisioned for the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn.[3]

The one fifty-year old short article containing sheer specualtion in a document that can't be easily obtianed is not a reliable third-party source. And the article cited says NOTHING about the HOGD/A+O, Secret Chiefs, new (or old) Cipher manuscripts, a three-order system "originally envisoned" or anything of the sort. If there's something to write about the HOGD/A+O's claims, it should be included in their own article, not here.

So I am reverting the article again to edit this vast amount of unsourced material.

Look, I'm asking with all due respect and sincerity, let's find a way to resolve this. You realize we can't have endless edit war. If it means everything in the article has to be cited, so be it. I would help with such a project, if that what it takes. But everything I ever put in the article comes right out of Howe, Gilbert, King, J.M. Greer, M.K. Greer, Zalewski and Regardie. If you've studied this at all, you know that. It's the mainstream account, and those are the reliably published sources for that mainstream account. You may not believe it, you may think there's a vast conspiracy to cover up the "real truth", but it is the mainstream account. I'm just reporting it.

Mr. Cicero is also a widely published author in that circle of "expert sources". He tends to agree with them in his own books. In other words, he accepts the mainstream account, but he's not the only one who describes the history and the structure of the Order the way he does. It's not a "faction". A dozen other authors have also done so. Mr. Cicero just happens to agree with them. So you can call it being part of the mainstream, or being part of the vast SRIA/GD conspiracy to deceive the world.

But among that circle of academic, mainstream published authors, none of them gives Mr. Griffin's claims any mention. If you've got sources that do, use them. Please! But it's a revisionist history that essentially involves conspiracies, cover-ups, forgeries, underground secret societies with no evidence of their existence, and immortal Secret Chiefs. It calls respected scholars in the field deliberate, partisan liars. This is what Wikipedia means by "outlandish claims beg strong sources", so it requires very strong, verifiable references. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

I really wish the persons adding these "theories" to the main article would come up with some verifiable sources. But no reliable third party has ever published any of this stuff. It's all from their own website and discussion forums. I've asked and asked for real references, sources and cites, because I'd really like to know. I've been asking for years now, and have never gotten much of anything that can be verified. So I'm very much opposed to including any of this material here in Wikipedia if it can't be cited. The guidelines on sources says explicitly, "The policy page that governs the use of sources is Wikipedia:Verifiability. About self-published sources, which includes books published by vanity presses, and personal websites, it says: "Sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight..." Also, "Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, wikis or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources."

The WP:V guideline page on "Burden of Evidence" says: "Be careful not to err too far on the side of not upsetting other editors by leaving unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living people. Jimmy Wales (Wikipedia founder) has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."

Edits that describe at length any members of the HOGD/A+O it should be in their article, not the main article. The additions gave the article more text about David Griffin than it has about Israel Regardie. That's absurd. There's no way that could be considered "neutral", unless you want to put a capsule history of every group's leadership into the article, which is also also absurd.

Just gather the verifiable citations for those sections and see what happens. I've tried, maybe you'll have better luck. My feeling is that if you eliminate the unsupportable claims in those additions, the problem will solve itself, because there won't be much left. Please, prove me wrong. - JMax555 05:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

That you, Mr. Max, regarding the history prefer secondary to primary sources published by the SRIA itself merely proves that you are not seriously interested in verifiability, but use it merely as an excuse to push a pro-Cicero party propaganda line. As a Cicero lisencee, you are certainly not objective. Your POV bias is showing brightly. For those of you lucky enough not to understand, Mr. Cicero belongs to the SRIA as Mr. Gilbert, the other source that Mr. Max likes to tout belongs to Cicero's order. Hardly objective. Certainly Bruce Wilson has less bias and his article is primary source material regarding SRIA history. Simply because Mr. Max is too lazy to obtain a copy (or rather makes it a point of not obtaining one so that he can go on touting revisionist history) does NOT make it hard to find!--Zanoni666 08:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Simply put, this is not an article about the SRIA. It is about the Golden Dawn.

If you're referring to Shuster, that he belongs to a Golden Dawn order is irrelevant. He's still a respected, well-published author in the field, working for major publishing houses with fact-checking departments and editorial oversight. As such, his writing is an acceptable source for Wikipedia. Whether you think what he wrote is true or not doesn't matter. It's a source citation, and it can be used. But in this case, Shuster is NOT being used as a source in this article. It's being used in the article about HOGD Inc., where it belongs. So you're bringing it up is a red herring.

So again, in the case of Gilbert, that he belongs to the SRIA is irrelevant. Masons write books about Masons too. You're calling a reputable, accepted source, with several major books on the subject in print, a partisan liar. Wikipeida is not here to provide a forum for conspiracy theories. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Just because others don't agree with your group's beliefs, doesn't mean there's some vast conspiracy afoot to persecute you.

As an admitted member of the HOGD/A+O, you are even less "objective". And my personal opinions have nothing to do with it. You have to demonstrate I'm allowing any bias to infect my editing. Bruce Wilson wrote nothing about the HOGD/A+O, because it didn't exist fifty years ago. Where does Bruce Wilson say that the HOGD/A+O "received the Solar Mysteries of the Third Order, together with the Cypher Manuscripts for the Third Order initiation rituals from the Secret Chiefs in 2002"? He doesn't. He wrote about the SRIA. So put your information in the SRIA article, not here. I've pointed out at length what is unsourced in the material you keep adding to the article, none of which comes from one short article by Bruce Wilson. You don't deny it's unsourced, you simply repeat your claims of my personal bias. Show exactly where this bias leads me to put unsourced, unverifiable edits into the article, otherwise, it's another red herring.

For example, one of the claims of the OSOGD on it's website is that they regard the work of Crowley as a direct extension of the Golden Dawn. On their website, they call Thelema "Golden Dawn 2.0". This is a controversial claim. Do you see me or anyone trying to edit this claim into the article? No. It's opinion. It's speculation. It's a philosophy not shared in general by the community. So it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, even if I personally happen to believe it. So don't even accuse me of editing bias into this article. Please point out how this bias has infected my editing. Be specific. - JMax555 15:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)