Talk:Ordo Stella Matutina

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Mediation 2 Seperation 3 date of founding 4 Merge 5 To Kephera975 6 Article deleted and rewritten 7 Citations Not Necessary

[edit] Mediation

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#Eight_Articles

Here is the link to the mediation page. Zos 00:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The request was rejected; although User:999 put the mediation request tag on this page, the very same user was one of two to disagree with mediation; see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rejected 7#Nine articles on the Golden Dawn. --Lambiam^Talk 08:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seperation

Ok. Just to give warning, I'm going to seperate the online material from the intro. I'm doing this so more can be added to the article. I'll put anything I move into a header for material from the online source, more than likely calling it "Modern Day". It can be changed to whatever later, I just want to seperate the history from the modern day order. Zos 04:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to work more on this later, I have more reading to do first. I'm having trouble with this article because I want to remain as NPOV as possible and yet this article is dealing with a rival Order, and is in no way the real Golden Dawn (rituals and teachings were changes after the split). Which is basically saying that Regardie was never in the Golden Dawn! Zos 05:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think there is some confusion here. This article is not intended to be about the historic Stella Matutina but only about the modern order with the name Ordo Stella Matutina. The historical Stella Matutina is intended to be part of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn article. -999 (Talk) 12:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, this should in fact be about both. There is enough information to include the history on its own page. There was no disambiguation until you changed it at the top. In my opinion, this provides historic information to this article, and anything pertaining to the Stella Matutina is going to be included into this article. I'll fix it when I have more time today or tonight. Zos 16:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it should not be about both. The whole point of the seperate articles was to confine them to the modern orders, not the historical orders. Stella Matutina is already covered in the main article. If there is a desire to cover it separately, then the article on the historic Stella Matutina should replace the redirect. This is why I said that any article changes should wait until meditation discussions proceed. It appears that not everybody is on the same page as to the reasons for separating the historic from the modern. There is no need to include historic material in the individual artcles, that is what the main article is for. ALL the modern orders share the same historical basis, so it is not accurate to put the historical Stella Matutina into this article, as that separates it from the historical article which ALL the subarticles reference. -999 (Talk) 16:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

And it should be removed from the main article. Once the split happened, the Stella Matutina was formed under the Amoun Temple. This is not the original Golden Dawn, and deserves its own article here, with its full history.

Its very clear that you do not wish me to add any more inforamtion to this article. This is causing a new dispute. I'd like to ask you to please allow more material to be put into the aricle, without my contributions being reverted. Thanks. Zos 16:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Please feel free to develop an article on Stella Matutina - THIS article is on and is titled Ordo Stella Matutina. Unless you intend to make and document the claim that the modern Ordo Stella Matutina is THE SAME AS rather than a revival of Stella Matutina. -999 (Talk) 16:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes and my sources also call this the Order Stella Matutina. Please just understand that this is providing historical information to the article. You are in fact making it appear that you have some form of bias to this. Zos 17:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

In fact, the revival can be a section in this article. There is a compromise for you. I wished to do this from the begining. Zos 17:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have a bias. I believe that an encyclopedia should distinguish different things by having separate articles and not trying to confuse the issue that Stella Matutina ended in the 1930s. -999 (Talk) 17:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and if we did that, they would be stubs. Then, someone would come and suggest a merge. Just allow this article to stipulate that there is in fact a history of the Stella Matutina, and then there was a revival (no matter how weak it is). Zos 17:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I've already started Stella Matutina. This article should grow by including more material from Ordo Stella Matutina's website. It CANNOT be combined with the other article as the autobiographical self-published material cannot be included in any article other than an article about the subject. If this article is expanded to include two subjects, then the web site may not be used. That's dumb, then there is no article on the modern order. -999 (Talk) 17:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Show me policy. Zos 17:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:V:

Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as:

• It is relevant to the person's or organization's notability;
• It is not contentious;
• It is not unduly self-serving;
• It does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
• There is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it.

and, a bit earlier:

As a rule of thumb, sources of dubious reliability should only be used in articles about themselves.

-999 (Talk) 17:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes and this doesnt say I cannot add to the article! I can in fact add to articles that contain self published sources. Look around, there are many articles that do this, infact, you do it to the OTO main article. Zos 17:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

If I have to, I'll get a mediator or admin to address this issue. Zos 17:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead. I have not said you cannot add to the article. I have said that you cannot make this a combined article for two different orders, one founded in 1903 and another founded in 2000. -999 (Talk) 17:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The old order was not founded in 1903, it was in fact older. And it closed its doors in or about 1914, by Dr. Felkin. The web site clearly states that is was a revival of Felkins temples/order, so I don't see what the problem is. Zos 17:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] date of founding

It makes no difference if the article or their web site says its a different order, or when it was founded. There are other who used the same name, and hence there is a history, which should be included. Zos 17:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This article is already in mediation, and I asked you not to change it except by consensus from the results of that mediation. This is why. And yes, it DOES make a difference. Combining the articles is making an implicit statement that they are the same. That is original research and not allowed. There is no reason to combine two different entities with NOT EVEN THE SAME NAME into one article on WP. Even if they acutally did have the SAME NAME, you can use a disambig. -999 (Talk) 17:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You asking me makes no difference. The article can in fact be added to during a mediation process, in which this mediation has no mediator, nor is it rejected/accepted. This is in no way OR. I have sources to provide historical information as to the founding, and closing of this order. It can pick up right after this, making a section in this article discussing its revival. Zos 18:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No. two orders, two articles. -999 (Talk) 18:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

For this is in fact, the history of the same order. Much like SRIA is for the GD, and then from GD into A+O. Zos 18:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. This order was founded by specific individuals on a specific date and incorporated. This is an article about a corporation, just as the OSOGD is an article about that organization, etc. Every modern order article must be exclusively about that order or you open every single article up to various bogus claims and imputations. Why not just keep separate things separate? -999 (Talk) 18:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

There is in fact a difference here. The OSOGD is a newer org who wasnt directly involved with the revolt of the original Golden Dawn. Are there sources to say that someone was using the name OSOGD before Sam Webster? If so, add them to that article. Zos 18:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

And furthermore, where are the bogus claims? They are coming from you. I have a source to say that there was in fact an order history here. And you're source, the web site, is backing me up! Zos 18:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me be blunt. There are two topics here, 1) Stella Matutina and 2) Ordo Stella Matutina. The LATTER was in NO WAY involved with the revolt of the original Golden Dawn. It didn't exist until the year 2000. And as for bogus claims, if you set this precedent for combining Stella Matutina with Ordo Stella Matutina, what prevents FFL was doing the same with his order? He could simply claim it is the same as the original Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn and insist to merge his order's separate article with the main article. How would that be different from what you are doing? You really need to think about the potential results of the precedent you are trying to set. I have very well thought out reasons for insisting on clear distinctions about the subjects of these articles. What you are doing is going to create very messy result. -999 (Talk) 18:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

My sources also state the same name: Order Stella Matutina. Which provides history for the revival in 2000. What makes this different from FFL (Frater FiatLux) is that he was using bunk sources. Francis King is a biographer of Occultism, and his work is more of a source than what FFL brought to the disccussions. Zos 19:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

"Order Stella Matutina" is not equal to "Ordo Stella Matutina". The latter was not REALLY a revival of the former, which was long defunct. They just used a similar name. Period. -999 (Talk) 19:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Our teachings primarily adhere to the Stella Matutina, as taught by Dr. Felkin, and Dr. Israel Regardie,

This is taken form the article, and comes from the Orders main web site, right?

Well, I'm elaborating on the Order from which Dr. Felkin helped start, and where this happened, and why!Zos 19:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

ADHERE TO - FROM BOOKS. There is no historical continuity. -999 (Talk) 19:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah,and does the main web site go into the history? Plus it would need to be backed by secondary sources :P Zos 19:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

ADHERE TO - FROM BOOKS. There is no historical continuity nor is there any claim to historical continuity of the organization. There is a distinct line between the two entities. An encyclopedia has no place for this sort of intentional fuzzy confusion of different but similarly named organizations -999 (Talk) 19:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Plus, Ordo means Order, does it not? There is no fuzzy confusion here, unless you mean, your words on the subject. Zos 19:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Ordo means Order. But these are the names of organizations and like the titles of books, are exact. There are TWO DISTINCT ENTITIES AND THIS REQUIRES TWO ARTICLES. DIDN"T YOU EVER LEARN LOGICAL DISTINCTIONS? -999 (Talk) 19:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

See, now instead of waiting until more people add to the conversation, you redirected the article you created for me to add to, to the Golden Dawn main article. The Golden Dawn article is protected and cannot be changed, so you're looking more like a fool now for doing all of this. Zos 19:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You made it clear you weren't going to add to the article, nor were you making any indication that you understood what my point was. So you look like a fool too ;-) -999 (Talk) 19:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No. I wanted a merger between the two articles. I just now figured I can add to the Stella Matutina article, and include the main web site as well. Both are specified as using the name, and should be in the same article. Zos 19:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

And you signed onto the mediation for this article. You should not be making any changes or decisions independant of that mediation. There are several points listed for mediation which has not yet been started that will determine where historical information should go and where modern information should go. If you cross those lines before the mediation has occurred, you are violating your agreement to meditation. -999 (Talk) 19:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

There are no bullet points up on the mediation page for adding new information to existing articles. Furthermore, you have in no way pointed me to where it says I cannot add more info to the article listed for mediation. We have already added to the Cipher Manuscripts, so why not add to this one? No one has stopped us before, so why now? Zos 19:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

If you don't leave this to mediation as you agreed (and there are bullet points which cover this, IMO), I will happlily withdraw from the mediation, which will then not occur. Is that what you would prefer? -999 (Talk) 19:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

In your opinion, only. This is a new issue, entirely. The addition of historical information to this article in paticular. This is no bullet point on the mediation page for this, as of the last time I checked. Zos 19:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Then I'll add one. -999 (Talk) 19:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Fine, add one. But I'm still going to add information. The request is neither rejected, nor accppted. Plus, there is nothing to say that I cannot add to the article while under request. Zos 19:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Which is why this article is not locked either. Zos 19:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

That can be fixed as well, since you are threatening to violate your agreement to leave the article to mediation. Why not go work on something else? -999 (Talk) 19:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I left those bullet points to be mediation upon, not new ones just created because you want to keep editors from contributing. Zos 19:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, I don't want to keep your from contributing, I only object to the merging or otherwise modifying the article such that the subject is no longer the Ordo Stella Matutina which was founded in 2000 and describes itself on its website. -999 (Talk) 20:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

My inclusion would not have taken that away. It would just merely provide some of the hitory to which this article is already refering to. Zos 20:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

But that's not what you did! I just looked at your version, and you actually changed the main subject of the article! I have to agree with 999 about this: you cannot combine the article without implying that one organization is a legitimate continuation of the other, and you cannot rely on claims on the Ordo Stella Matutina website for this. This requires third-party research which looks into the claim to determine whether it is legitimate or not. For example, it would have to be shown that one of the founders had been legitimately in line to inherit the leadership of the old Stella Matutina or some other reasonable descent of lineage from the one organization to the other - legitimate leadership lineage, not simply initiation. ---Baba Louis 20:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

No I didnt. My original starting point did nothing of the sort, and is here. I never added anything, saying that this was not for the new revival of the order. But history has to come first on the article before we can get into the revival. I was only adding history, where history is purported. This is a positive thing for the article. I do not see why you agree with 999 and his verbal abuse. Zos 21:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, if the main web site can be used as a source for them, it can be used for their history claims as well. Zos 21:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you bothered to read WP:V? It clearly says that self-published websites cannot be used for controversial or self-serving claims. I looked at your version of the article again and stand with my original assessment - a casual reader would assume that the article is about a single organization which goes back to 1900, because you put the "history" section right after the intro and did not qualify the connection between the historical and modern order in any way. ---Baba Louis 21:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Its first off, not a controversy, its a fact that they are using the name as a reference to the older order. And second, I wasnt using the web site to cite any of my statements on this article. The statements I included came from a published book. So I fail to see how WP:V sheds light on this matter. Zos 21:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To Kephera975

Please make your changes in such a way that you DO NOT REMOVE ANY CITED INFORMATION. If you do not edit in this way, I will revert any and all changes you make. 198.16.17.88 20:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article deleted and rewritten

Please see my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ordo Stella Matutina. Copyright violations take precedence over all other votes, but in the interest of consensus that the subject should be kept, I wrote a very brief sub-stub that doesn't violate any copyrights. Anyone expanding this article is strongly advised to not violate any copyrights in other articles. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I have attempted to expand this article beyond the existing stub. All information added is from the HoSM website. I'm new to Wikipedia, so I hope that the added material follows the rules. I don't know if the material has my stamp on it, as it looks like I might have been logged-out before posting it... (It does not appear under "my contributions.") Kheph777 09:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations Not Necessary

As I understand Wikipedia's rules, the only citeable reference for the Ordo Stella Matutina / SoM is their own website. That site is provided in the links for the article, so I do not believe we need the call for citations at the top of the page. Kheph777 11:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong. See WP:RS and WP:CITE. An external link in the external links section is not considered a source. You must cite at least any controversial fact and each paragraph with a ref tag and link to the precise page the information comes from. You cannot expect another editor to search the site in order to verify the statements. See the other Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn articles which are mostly up to standard on citations. -999 (Talk) 16:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Okey Dokey, then - thanks 999. As always, you're spot-on. I'll make a project of getting the correct citations in the article, then. Kheph777 08:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Can't quite tell if you are being sarcastic, but will assume good faith and ignore it if you are. Maybe you were around during the big GD battles? I wrote most of the other articles from the websites and fully cited them. Apparently somebody thought this one was too close to the website and deleted most of it. I appreciate the work you've put into expanding it. Just FYI, the main reason for fully citing these articles is that it help to prevent the edit warring between GD groups that was going on. I think they all deserve article and that no group deserves to be attacked by any of the others. Hope this helps understand why I think the article should be cited... -999 (Talk) 19:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yikes. No sarcasm intended at all, man! In fact, I have read the archived "GD battles" that went on (and I am familiar with WHO was involved in them as well). Your part in those battles is what led me to say you are "always spot on." You stuck to your guns on Wikipedia policy and we have ended up with a bunch of accurate and well-cited GD articles (which is NOT what we started out with).

At any rate - the article as I've expanded it is all drawn from the HoSM website, I just need to take the time to go back and get the necessary URLs for each piece of info in the article. I'll use your other GD articles as examples. Kheph777 08:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

OK. :-) the usual problem with this text-only medium. Carry on!! -999 (Talk) 17:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)