Talk:Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn/Archive 3

Zanoni666 on Admin Page

I've copied this over from the admin page where it doesn't belong:

If you guys keep up reverting to pro-HOGD, Inc and remain unwilling to cooperate, the only good solution would be to delete ALL of the individual order pages and just keep the page on the historical Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn and allowing no modern history at all except links to the various orderss web sites. The other alternative would be to toss everything having to do with the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn entirely off ow Wikipedia. I can't believe how dishonest you are behaving, Max! Please stop this nonsense and collaborate...honestly rather than disingeniously by pretending that you have no vested interest.--Zanoni666 22:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Deleteing all the individual order's pages and leaving only the history of the original HOGD in London would actually suit me fine. Even removing all articles about the Golden Dawn from Wikipedia would be preferable to this endless bickering. So how's that for "unbiased"?

In this we finally agree and I am as unbiased as you. Let us delete and leave deleted all reference to the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn from Wikipedia and end this bickering once and for all. Or was that just empty posturing JMax555?--Zanoni666 04:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I actually mean it. I would be perfectly content with that outcome. - JMax555 05:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I keep trying to collaborate. I wrote out a list of what has no cited sources in the large addition you keep adding. Just scroll up the page here and look. Have you found any references outside of the HOGD/A+O website for any of it? The ball's in your court. If you find exact verifiable references for that stuff -- not from the HOGD/A+O website, or Yahoo forums, or alt.magic -- go ahead and put it in.

ONE reference to the SRIA-GD connection from fifty years ago has nothing to do with the HOGD/A+O, which didn't exist until 1998. Put in in the section on "Origins" where the SRIA roots are mentioned. But that's all that citation is useful for. You can't use this article to quote vast sections of your own website that have never been researched or published by anyone outside of your organization. That is bias.

I have my own opinions, and I've never denied it. What matters is if I put my opinions into my edits without reference to independent sources. At least you know who I am. I have no idea who you are. - JMax555 02:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

This is no collaboration. Let's start with something very basic. The assertion that the first order is analogical and symbolical is easily referencable and part of the "mainstream" account on the HOGD. It is well known in all GD circles that the first Order relies heavily on symbolism and the analogical process involving symbols. No one would disagree. Yet you do not even wish to include this portion, as it is not something you have written. That is not collaboration, but an attempt to dictate the entire article as if by executive power. Please try to work with the other party here. That is all. Either that, or let's just delete this whole thing as it is seems that it will become increasingly cumbersome and bitter. Kephera975 02:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's stipulate I generally agree with the "analogical and symbolical" interpretation of the First Order. So let's find a citation for that in the literature somewhere. Regardie would be a good choice for a cite. In fact, I would be comfortable with just about anything that could be cited to Regardie. Generally speaking, if you can cite it to Regardie's Golden Dawn, I'll have no objection to it. Just preface it with, "According to Israel Regardie..." and cite a page number in the "Big Black Brick." Can we all be comfortable with that?

Here's an example: "According to another important theory, however, the Cypher Manuscripts had been received by noted Masonic scholar Kenneth Mackenzie from the Secret Chiefs of the "Third Order," a contenental Rosicrucian mystery school into which MacKenzie had been initiated by Count Apponyi of Hungary."

Now, do you have the text of this source available? Can you post the pertinent sections here for us all to read in context, or give us a link? I saw it once. It seemed very limited in scope about what it was saying. Where it belongs, I think, is in the Cipher Manuscripts article. That article was spun off because it made the main article exceed it's word count limit. There was no choice under the rules here, it had to be moved. There's discussion about that concensus in the Talk archives. There's a lot of arcane speculation about the Cipher, with competing theories of it's origin. What Wilson is writing about is a source for the Cipher. That's fine, join the crowd. There's a laundry list of theoretical sources in the Cipher Manuscripts article. Go ahead and add your favorite theory. I won't object to that -- you've got a cite for it. But by the way, articles in private circulation journals don't have the same value as sources as do books from major publishing houses. Neither do self-published or vanity press. That's why Gilbert, Howe, King, Greer, Shuster and Cicero are fully verifiable here. That's how the Wikipedia game is played.

What that Wilson citation doesn't support is a chain of inference leading up to the immortal Secret Chiefs bestowing the Neuvo Cypher on Mr. Griffin one fine day over fifty years later. Where's the citation for that? On your website. You can't use that in the main article. You don't have any citations for anything that isn't specifcally mentioned in Wilson's article (which certainly leaves out anything that happened after 1945). But the way the edit is written is as one long paragraph with one cite at the end, with a lot of additional content that doesn't come from that cite. So the unsourced content can't be extracted from it without making it unreadable. The only choice is to remove it and ask that the changes be discussed and citations given, and then ONLY add the parts that can be sourced. And the way I see it, what can be sourced belongs in the Cipher Manuscript article anyway, because that's what Wilson was writing about.

In general terms, no information that can ONLY be sourced to your organization's website can be used in the main article, not even as "according to their website..." paraphrasing. Website sources can only be used in the group's individual article, not the main article. If we can all agree to that, I'd call it a breakthrough. - JMax555 07:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Which of the last two version shall we take as the starting point forward:

Ehheh's:

• Support -999 (Talk) 02:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support - JMax555 05:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Zos 12:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Kephera975's:

• Support: Considering that there seems to be a severe disadvantage with HOGD/A+O being a minority here, I think each vote on this side should count for 5. And, yes, I am voting for "my" version. Kephera975 04:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Can't present your case so as to win honestly, eh? -999 (Talk) 05:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • No, it's just that this shouldn't depend on Florida and Florida's brothers. Kephera975 05:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Only one of the editors you've been dealing with has even an indirect association. Don't you get it? You guys are transparent to everyone, even those who have no vested interest whatsoever? -999 (Talk) 05:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry you didn't get the joke. Of course, this a particularly American comedy.Kephera975 05:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I've noticed that jpg images were being used a reference! So I'm not supporting Kephera975's version. Zos
• Support--Zanoni666 15:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• --SororAC 16:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC) User's first edit. Smells like socks. -999 (Talk) 16:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Please note that these issues affect more than the HOGD, Inc. boys club who have been trying to dominate the discussion here. I vote that the votes of all Ccicero trolls, 999, Zos, Eheih, and JMax555 be discounted and those of us who are independent, like myself, should only be counted!--GnomedPume 16:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC) User's first edit. Smells like socks. -999 (Talk) 17:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Please note that this is a survey of editors who have actually worked on this article, not a vote. New users who have not edited the article may have their input discounted. -999 (Talk) 16:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

New Survey

All those in Favor of Keeping this Article at all:

• Support - this article would never get a delete vote on WP:AfD. So you're wasting your and everybody elses time. Remember also how Solomon picked the true mother from the false one. -999 (Talk) 05:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support - agreed: This article cannot be deleted for reasons of dispute, there are too many sources, and more can be found by ordering from amazon, ebay, or wherever. Zos 12:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

All those in Favor of Deleting this Article:

• Support -Kephera975 05:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Zanoni666 15:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• --SororAC 16:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC) User's first edit. Smells like socks. -999 (Talk) 16:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support--GnomedPume 16:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC) User's first edit. Smells like socks. -999 (Talk) 16:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Please note that User 999 socks' smell. Plese quit trying to rig the vote, 999.

• Support Frater FiatLux 17:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

999, I can smell your rotten stinky socks from here. Please quit your misrepresentations and harassment, I will report you to the admin page if you keep this up. I’ve told you before I don’t use sock puppets. Thanks for the link though, as when I report all your dirty socks to that page they will have hell of a lot of laundry to do.

• Support Opuaut

I'll be happy to list you, Frater FiatLux, and all your socks at WP:RFCU. -999 (Talk) 16:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if SororAc and GnomedPume can actully vote in this. This is the first time I'm noticing them on this talk page as well as in editing the article. Zos 17:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

They are shiny new users, just created this morning. They aren't even capable of editing the article, since it is semi-protected. -999 (Talk) 17:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Votes are generally discouraged on Wikipedia anyway. I suggest that everyone just forget about this little exercise and move on. Ehheh 17:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that reference is not even a guideline, it is an essay. Conducting surveys is an official process recommended under the official dispute resolution policy -999 (Talk) 17:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

There appears to be a definite concensus that etleast the contemporary orders section of this article should be deleted. I think the whole blasted thing should be deleted personally or else this controversy will never end. Hopefully, administration/mediation will agree. Kephera975 15:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Administrators aren't empowered to delete an article unless it meets the speedy deletion criteria, or it has been through a successful WP:AFD. Mediation doesn't touch on article deletion at all. I suggest you give Wikipedia:Deletion_policy a read. - Ehheh 16:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments

I would be in favor of keeping the article and making it FACTUAL and free of POV if only I could believe that there were any genuine will to compromise on the side of the HOGD, Inc. licenced trolls here. However, I am very pessimistic that this will be possible. Therefore I regrettably support the proposal of user JMax555 that all pages relaltive to the HOGD be deleted. Perhaps we could still keep the main page is we elliminate all reference to any modern developments and keep the material purely historical. This would mean at least deleting all of the pages about modern Golden Dawn derivitive orders where it seems the least likely that there can ever be any historical consensus at thiws juncture. I am, however, pessimistic, that even saving the main page will be possible as you folks seem unwilling to eliminate biased POV from that article as well, insisting on maintianing the illusion that the HOGD was somehow created by the SRIA, which is simply not true, despite the fact that MacKenzie, Wescott, Woodman, and Mathers were members of SRIA. You even try to argue that deception on the part of the SRIA regarding the creation of the HOGD is not germain to the article as "this is not an article about SRIA. No...it is about the HOGD, however, you editors trying to create the ILLUSION that the HOGD was created by the SRIA makes it germain. Furthermore, the fact that Chic Cicero, Gilbert, and Runyon all belong to SRIA makes is very clear the HOGD, Inc, POV bias of advancing this theory as though it were the only one as a backhonded way of supporting Cicero and HOGD, Inc.

Note: I want to point out here that this is exactly what I'm talking about below: these editors believe there is a conspiracy to silence them. As such, their "alternative theories" fall under the Wikipedia guideline regarding "exceptional claims", where it describes "Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them." By their own description above, their claims are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. They are trying to characterize the prevailing view of the academic community as "biased" and a "deception", with the explanation that there is a conspiracy against them.

Who knows? Maybe they're right and the entire academic community is wrong. Or maybe they're both wrong, and the Golden Dawn was really created by extra-terrestrials from Alpha Centauri. If I put such a "theory" out on the Web and gather a few people who believe it around me, does that mean my theory gets equal consideration too? If I don't have to provide any verifiable sources acceptable under Wikipedia policy, what makes my "extraterrestrial" theory any less usable here than the "immortal secret chiefs" theory they're expoundng? - JMax555 23:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Likewise, you all iinsist on mentioning only one theory regarding the origins of the Cypher Manuscripts "that they were invented by MacKenzie", without even mentioning the possibility that other theories exist. You refuse to mention even the POSSIBILITY that they might have been obtained by MacKenzie from an earlier Rosicrucian source. Again, you HOGD, Inc. supporters are proposing one historical theory as the only one and as though it were universally accepted exclusively for reasons of POV bias, refusing to even mention even the POSSIBILTY of alternative theories. In doing so, you are hiding behind a thini veneer of a verifiability argument. However, the real reason that you refuse to even mention the POSSIBILITY of another source is due to pro-HOGD, Inc POV bias due to the A+Os claim that they are presently in contact with that earlier source, ie, the Secret Chiefs of the Third Order in Contintntal Europe. The latter need not be mentioned, however, at least the theory of an alternative Continental origin should be mentioned as a response to the Ana Sprengel "forgery" argument proposed by Gilbert and not just that MacKenzie made them up.

In conclusion, due to the intransigence of the pro-HOGD, Inc. block presently trying to ramrod its pro-HOGD, Inc vision of history through the main page as though their vision were the only "mainstream" one, I see little hope of being able to reach a POV unbiased consensus here on main page either. Therefore, once again, and quite regrettably, I concur with the proposal of JMax555 that we may well have to delete even the main page to end this bickering. --Zanoni666 15:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't make that proposal, you did. I said I would go along with it.

Actually Tom Harrison threatened. I merely said that it might haved to be. Please donot twist things around.--Zanoni666 06:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

And I wanted to move ALL information about the Cipher Manuscripts to it's own article, including all the "theories", but you keep putting it back in. I propose all theories of the source of the Ciphers be kept in it's own article.

That all of the Golden Dawn founders were members of the SRIA is historical fact, easily verifiable in multiple sources. They were all Grand Lodge Masons too. The Golden Dawn bears remarkable resemblence to both organizations; the Golden Dawn essentially uses the same names for it's Grades as does the SRIA. So those facts are germaine to the history of the Order.

The Anna Sprengel "forgery" argument can be referenced to Gilbert's works still in print, and he's a widely published author in the field, so it's fully verifiable. Your arguement is original research about a conspiracy theory that's never been published anywhere, to my knowledge, except on your own website. I don't suppose you have any citations about "Secret Chiefs of the Third Order in Continental Europe", do you?

If you want to "answer" Gilbert's arguements, go get your original research published by a major imprint, with fact-checking and editorial oversight, like he did. Then you can cite it in Wikipedia. - JMax555 23:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

An article deletion poll on this page won't accomplish that aim. If you really feel the article should be deleted, you need to take it to the proper venue, which is WP:AFD. - Ehheh 15:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, we could certainly etleast discuss whether this should be a contemporary article at all or a purely historical one giving no pretenses to being a contemporary article under anyone's particular POV, couldn't we? Kephera975 16:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe it has already been decided that this is to be a strictly historical article. Do you wish to reopen that discussion? Why? Autobiographical web sources can only be used in an article about the person or organization which created the site. Therefore, no information from ANY of the contemporary orders web sites can be used on this page. -999 (Talk) 16:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Then what does (i.e.)"many golden dawn practitioners today believe..." have to do with the historical G.D.? That is putting in a contemporary slant about how some people think the Secret Chiefs are Buddha or Gandhi. There should be no mention of contemporary, and not even references of contemporary G.D. Orders in this article at all if it is purely historical. Kephera975 16:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually "many ... believe" is a violation of WP:WEASEL unless a specific citation is given. I'll remove it. -999 (Talk) 16:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Awaiting sources

Statements removed from the article pending provision of reliable sources:

The Ahathoor Temple No. 7 of Mathers' A+O is known to have been revived in Paris in the early 1980's, however.

The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn was originally conceived as a three order system. The outer order, the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, was a symbolical order. The Second Order, the RR+AC was operative, practicing a Qabalistic and Enochian magical system, yet working at the level of the lunar, analogical mysteries. The Third Order was supposed to place the capstone upon the pyramid, with the operative tradition of the solar mysteries. History was to prevent this from happening, however. While S.L. MacGregor Mathers was still manifesting his brilliant synthesis of Qabalistic and Enochian magic for the Second Order, the Adepts of the RR+AC rebelled in London, provoking the order's first schism. This was quickly followed by the Horos scandal and by the 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.

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). At the simplest level we find the symbolical orders like Freemasonry and the outer order of the original Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. In these orders, spiritual wisdom is presented in symbolical form; either exclusively during the initiation rituals in the case of Freemasonry, or together with supplemental study materials as in the case of the original Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn in the outer.

At the more advanced level come the so-called, operative orders. Operative orders employ special magical or alchemical operations for spiritual development. In a further distinction, there exist two kinds of operative systems and orders. Firstly, in the analogical, operative systems, practitioners operate with systems referring by analogy to yet higher, more direct, and more advanced operations and systems. 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.

The Solar mysteries comprise an operative tradition that lies at the apex of the Rosicrucian as well as the entire Western Esoteric tradition. The Solar operative tradition represents the capstone of the entire Western Esoteric Tradition, lying as it does upon the Hermetic pillars Alchemy and Theurgy. 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. It is the summun bonum, the apex of the pyramid. Very little is known about the solar mysteries, except that that they comprise the most jealously guarded and secret part of the Western Esoteric Tradition and involve the true and most secret preparation, rectification, and multiplication of the philosopher's stone. 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.

The Third Order apparently contains the Solar Mysteries. The only Golden Dawn order existing today which claims the teachings and initiation rituals of the Third Order is Mathers' Rosicrucian Order of A+O.

Like S.L. MacGregor Mathers himself, his Rosicrucian Order of A+O today claims that the Secret Chiefs are actually physical persons rather than disincarnate entities or some vague 'current'. MacGregor Mathers claimed to have physically met with the Secret Chiefs in Paris in 1891. Today the Rosicrucian Order of A+O claims to have reestablished contact with physical representatives of the Secret Chiefs in Paris in 2002. According to the A+O, the Secret Chiefs are physical members of an extremely secretive and ancient western mystery school. This most occult of all orders originated in Sumer, continued in Chaldea and Egypt, and was brought to Europe by the Greek and Roman empires and have provided materials for the creation of many of the known esoteric orders.

Many Golden Dawn practitioners today believe that the Secret Chiefs are not necessarily living humans or supernatural beings, but are the symbolic "current" of all the actual and legendary sources of spiritual esotericism. Any great leader or teacher of a spiritual path or practice that found its way into the teachings of the Order -- and that definition covers a wide range, from paganism to Buddhism to Judeo-Christianity -- can be considered as a Secret Chief of the Golden Dawn. They are "secret" not by virtue of being unknown to the outside world, but rather that their knowledge has found its way into the "secrets" of the Order. Their teachings are "secret" because they can only be fully understood by someone who embarks on the path of spiritual advancement and attains Adepthood.

Citations:

• The Place of Enchantment: British Occultism and the Culture of the Modern by Alex Owen (ISBN: 0226642011 - University of Chicago Press), page 62: "It remained generally understood that Westcott and MacGregor-Mathers were in touch with and spoke on behalf of the discarnate Secret Chiefs of the exalted Third Order. The Third Order was thus reserved for the elusive Secret Chiefs of occult tradtion, and within the Golden Dawn it was accepted that it was rarely (if ever) acessible to a mere mortal. In practice, therefore, the Grade of Adeptus Exemptus 7°=4° in the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn was the highest to which a man or woman might reasonably aspire."

• Spirit Allies by Christopher Penczak (ISBN: 1578632145 - Red Wheel/Weiser Books), page 27: "Some worldly organizations such as Madame Blavatsky's Theosphical Society and The Golden Dawn magical lodge are said to be led by such ascended masters. Ascended masters supposedly gave Alice Bailey her information for volumes of esoteric material she created. Encountered masters cut cultural, religious and gender lines, but include religious icons, saints and prophets like Quan Yin, St. Germain, Mother Mary, Simon Peter, Jesus, Thoth, Merlin, Aradia, and Kuthumi."

- JMax555 23:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's my proposal for a re-write of that paragraph:

Other followers of the Golden Dawn believe that "Secret Chiefs" are not necessarily living humans or supernatural beings, but are symbolic of actual and legendary sources of spiritual esotericism, a great leader or teacher of a spiritual path or practice that found its way into the teachings of the Order.{ref} Penczak, Christopher Spirit Allies (ISBN: 1578632145 - Red Wheel/Weiser Books), page 27.{/ref}

• Select - a much better choice of paragraph than the one below.:-) -999 (Talk) 03:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

- JMax555 00:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Here are some great examples of how USER:JMAX555 attempts to use Wikipedia's policy of verifiability as the end-all be-all policy while avoiding the fact that this article should be on the purely historical G.D. One reference above talks about the Theosophical Society, for example. Yet this section of the article has been included over and over by JMAX and the supposed "unbiased" editors who kept reverting back to it without a second glance, yet making sure that every little item that might be coming from the A+O needs a citation. Kephera975 03:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You can debate the value of a proposal without being rude, you know. If you wanted to challenge something previously in the article for a citation, you had every opportunity to do so. In fact, it was 999 who challenged it, the user I'm supposedly "in cahoots" with. I guess we make lousy co-conspirators.

Please notice I didn't propose using a reference to the Theosophical Society, I proposed an edit using one that refers to the Golden Dawn specifically by name. If you want, you can find it yourself online through Google Books. I used the search words "golden dawn"+"secret chiefs". Found a lot of stuff, mostly echoes of what's in Regardie's books, which is to be expected. Nothing about new Secret Chiefs handing out new Cipher Manuscripts, though.

Please also notice that I took the time and effort to type up the text so people could actually read what I was referencing. And so you or anyone could criticize it. And I did all this BEFORE I edited it to the article. See how this works?

So how about you or FiatLux taking the time to type up the text of this Wilson reference so we can all read it in context. We can't find it in a bookstore or even through inter-library loan. You say a small Rosicruian Order in England might sell us a copy, but it would take weeks at least. So if you have the text, how about providing it? I think that's a pretty reasonable request. - JMax555 04:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, then, I would suggest that you provide quotes from every text used for this article. I may as well put "needs citations" under everything that is written in this article and demand the text immediately. I'll be putting in the need for citatations at just about every sentence. Be ready to provide citations. Furthermore, I don't particularly care if 999 is a member of any GD organization. It is apparent from the way that he has handled this whole thing that he has taken sides. As far as the Wilson article, you will need to consult with the S.R.I.A., and I'm sure they'd eb willing to oblige you.You're favorite S.R.I.A. scholar(Gilbert) calls the work one of the most scholarly pieces written by the S.R.I.A. Kephera975 12:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

That would be a violation of WP:POINT. Let's clear up the current citation issues first. Then if you want to tag stuff that everybody agrees with out of spite, go for it. We'll all know how you are. -999 (Talk) 12:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Please discontinue projecting your own accounted for acts of spite upon me. For example, what do you call excluding the HOGD/A+O page totally from the list of contemporary Orders when you edited the contemporary orders in? What do you call trying to dominate that autobiographical article when it was edited in by people who cared to see that Order etleast included with an inexorable amount of citation? Please stop playing games and manipulating policy and other editors with it. Kephera975 03:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd advise you to "get over it." This is how WP works. Maybe you haven't encountered it before, having only been a user since Feb 26 and most of your edits have been since June 1st. But I assure you, the way you are going about things is only going to make you enemies and get you blocked. Discussion and compromise on the talk page is the only way forward. -999 (Talk) 04:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Awaiting Sources

JMax555, You neglect to mention that Mathers clearly stated that he only met with the secret chiefs physically o the RAREST of occasions. Ergo, Mathers also met with them physically on rare occasions. There is also his report of meeting with thiim in the Bios de Boulogne in Paris. All of the Mahatma a la Blavatsky nonsense came from Paul Foster Case later. Perhaps we should indeed move the entire section to another article. In any case, alternative theories should be mentioned. For a citation, Mathers statement should be enough. I am sure that we can dig up a reference for that. I sould suggest that you put POV aside, JMax555 and help me dig up those references. I think we can find them in the Sword of Wisdom. As long as we present both theories, then the article is balanced. What I always object to is when only one theory is proposed and other alternatives ignored. In the case of the physicality of the Secret Chiefs, we have Mathers own statements as sufficient citation.

Reply:The references for Mathers' claims he met Secret Chiefs in physical form is easy -- you cite Mathers' own letters to Florence Farr and to the London Adepts, circa 1900. Actual scans of these letters (and the text) can be found in Gilbert's Golden Dawn Scrapbook. Of course, if you read the letters they make Mathers sound as mad as a hatter. Remember, that was his Crowley period, the time of the "Revolt of the Adepti" led by Yeats. I think he was a little sketchy around that time. He thought the swindler Mrs. Horos was a secret chief! So frankly, I'm a bit skeptical about his ability to recognize secret chiefs. But, you can certainly cite that he said so in a letter, with Gilbert as the source.

You could take a look through the Flying Rolls too, which can be sourced to Francis King or Darcy Kuntz. But I think Westcott and Mathers were still sticking by the Ana Sprengel version when those were written. I don't think they ever wrote anything about meeting "superhuman" physical secret chiefs until Mathers made those claims in his letters. As far as I can tell, before that the story was that she was their sole contact to any continental secret chiefs. Gilbert would be your best source for this stuff.

According to M.K. Greer in Women of the Golden Dawn, Mathers supported Farr in her claim that she had contacted a secret chief astrally, the spirit of an ancient Egyptian priest, which led to the creation of the Sphere Group. He even went against Anne Horniman (who didn't believe it), and she was his only source of income! So Mathers must have also believed in "astral" secret chiefs, ascended masters along the same lines as the Theosophists. That can all be sourced to Greer.

Then there's Felkin, and Zalewski would be the source for that.

As much as I respect Colquhoun as a poet and artist, I don't tend to trust Sword of Wisdom as a historical text.

Adam Forrest reviews the book on the Hermetic Fellowship website:

"Published in the mid-70s, The Sword of Wisdom has been superceded on the factual front by the notable efforts of such researchers as R.A. Gilbert, George Mills Harper, and Ellic Howe. However, Colquhoun's idiosyncratic, gossipy conjectures and insights along with her deep sympathy with the Order and its members still make the book a valuable resource for those interested in the Golden Dawn as a true Magical Order."

Ithell Colquhoun is to the Golden Dawn what Margaret Murray is to Wicca. There's a lot of conjecture and embellishment mixed in with their historical reporting. I think of Sword of Wisdom as the "mythological" account of the early Golden Dawn. It's an inspiring story, but it plays loose with the facts. If you want to cite it, I think that any information sourced to Sword of Wisdom should be footnoted saying subsequent research contradicts Colquhoun's claim, if applicable. With that provision, I'm agreeable to using Sword of Wisdom as a source.

Regarding the origins of the HOGD, no one has objected to the notion that the founders were also masons and members of SRIA. It was the misleading way that the paragraph was worded that caused problems, creating the impression that the HOGD somehow grew out of the SRIA. Cicero, of course likes this, being himself a member of SRIA.

Reply:So why don't you try re-writing the paragraph in what you think is a more neutral manner? Not as a "present two sides" statement, but just noting that they all were Freemasons and SRIA. It can be sourced to Gilbert or Howe.

Hey, you guys keep wanting to claim that Cicero's organization "started out" as an OTO camp back in the 1970s, creating the impression that his Golden Dawn organization "somehow grew out of" the OTO. It's the same thing. Now do you see why it's objectionable to frame it that way?

The problem is not the OTO vs. HOGD, but rather by the imaginary date of 1977 that Cicero made up to back up his phoney claimi of legal superiority. This date is unverifiable except to autobiographical sources from and Suster's repeating them. In any case, this date is hotly disputed. The fact that he was still involved in the OTO clearly indicates that Cicero is being less than truthful about that very convenient date, which by the way he only began claiming on his PTO appliction, post schism with Monnastre because he knew full well that she actually had first use in commerce.

This is not a courtroom. The only place it's being "hotly disputed" is by Mr. Cicero's opponent in a court case, and that case is still undecided. To reiterate once again, the 1977 date comes from a verifiable source under Wikipedia guidelines. The guidelines clearly state it doesn't matter if an editor thinks the source is truthful or not. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball that can read the mind of Mr. Cicero and determine what he did or did not know. The citation clearly denotes that the reference comes from Mr. Cicero's "auotbiographical" account, so the readers can decide for themselves how much weight to assign to it. There is no source that I can find that says Monnastre had first use in commerce. Her introduction in Regardie's Golden Dawn says nothing of the sort. I looked. (And her introduction is also an autobiographical account, by the way. So we believe Monnastre when she talks about herself, but not Cicero? Why not?) If you think I missed where Monnastre writes about founding a GD Order, not just being Regardie's private student, cite the page number and I'll look it up. - JMax555 20:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You are using the word "verifiable" incorrectly. On WP, verifiable simply means that one can cite a reference. The 1977 date is verifiable by WP standards. End of story. -999 (Talk) 17:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Autobiagraphical sources are not allowed

That's not true. -999 (Talk) 17:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Autobiographies published under major imprints are acceptable, because it's assumed that such publishing houses have editorial oversight and fact checking. If you've got a problem with that, write to Llewellyn and Weiser and complain to them about it. - JMax555 20:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

And that's another article, people. Let's stick to this one. - JMax555 20:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Admittedly, alternative theories regarding the origiins of the CManuscripts is more complex. However, we are not talking about historical conclusions. We are talking about theories. Gilbert proposes a THEORY, not a conclusion. For balance, once again alternative theories should at least be mentioned. Facts and conslusions should and must be cited. But theories????? I think this is a bit of a stretch. Kind of like telling Copernicus, but you have no proof that the world is round.

Reply: I think EVERYTHING about the Ciphers should be moved to its own main article, which already exists. All there are is theories, there's no proof of anything. So a big list of all the theories with all their citations should be acceptable, but they have to have some good sourcing. I'm reluctant to go along with any theories that only have websites for sources. I mean, I could sit down tomorrow and create a website claiming the Ciphers came from the priests of Atlantis, or from extra-terrestrials. So do I get to add that too? Anyone can say anything on a website. So you're kind of stuck with Colquhoun for a source of the "Sprengel and the continental adepts" theory, outside of Mathers himself.

But let's move the Cipher section OFF of the main article -- except for the first paragraph -- we can hash it out there later.

Regarding the grade structure of the HOGD: Citing that it is similar in the SRIA is fine. However, the SRIA took it from the Gold and Rosy Cross order in 18th Century Germany. This is also not difficult to document. You have this in an English language source reproduced in the DOMA manuscript book published by the philosophical research society, together with the mystic titles of the grades, etc. G+RC is clearly the source of the mystic numbers of the grades, titles, etc, and not just the basis structure.

Reply: You have to have a source that specifically says the SRIA took it from them, in those words or similar. It's also possible they both got it independently from a common origin. You could point out the common similarity, but you can't claim that the SRIA "took it" unless you can provide a verifiable source. And if you go that far with it, it's pushing this article off its namespace -- these things belong in the SRIA article, not here. The Gold und Rosenkruntz isn't pertinent because none of the GD founders belonged to it (there's no source for that), but we know (and can source) that they belonged to the SRIA and the Grand Lodge. A reciting of SRIA lineage is irrelevant here. At that point we'd have to delve into Grand Lodge Masonic lineage too, and we'd be here all night. One step removed from the founders is enough.

Crimeney Christmas, Max, please look at the DOMA manuscript that I cited and quit being a pain. Let is not split hairs. We can state is non-descript but it is OBVIOUS that the Gold and Rosy Cross is the earliest source for the Grade Titles, Mystic Titles, Myswtic Numbers, etc. used in the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. The DOMA manuscript was originally published in the 18th Centuy, both pre SRIA and pre HOGD. Just take a look at the source and end this bickering, please. You asked for a source. I gave you the best one available in English.

That it's the earliest available documented occurence of the use of the Grades and Titles is not in dispute. But unless you find a source that says explictly that the SRIA directly copied the Gold und Rosenkrutz when the SRIA was created, it's speculation and not allowable here. So we state it as non-descript then, and I'm agreeable to that. But no speculation about anything being "obvious". - JMax555 20:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Note, however, that neither the G+RC nor the SRIA had 10 Grades, but 9. Both orders ended with Magus. The HOGD addes the Ipssissimus degree (10th Grade) to make the whole thing fit nicely on the Qabalistic tree of life.

I think the place to add the fact that the GD added a 10th-level Grade to fit the Tree of Life is in the section about the Grades, not in the "Origins" section. If at all.

Now, instead of working against one another, help me find the page reference in the DOMA manuscript book and lets cooperate to build some objectivity and balance between various threories in the article.

As I see it, moving all the Cipher theories to Cipher Manuscript article, and keeping the SRIA lineage discussion in the SRIA article, will go a long way to remove obstacles to consensus. Since the founders were all Grand Lodge Masons and SRIA members, which can be well sourced, pointing out similarities to the Golden Dawn and those two organizations is pertinent when discussing origins.

Agreed. We rewrite the paragraph to eliminate the false impression that the HOGD soemhow grew out ot fht SRIA. Cross-membership of its founders is irrelevant. Many on them also belonged to many other paramasonic orgainsations, for Eaxample the Memphis and Mizraim Rite of Egyptian Freemasonry as well as the Theosophical Society. All of this is equally irrelevant as is SRIA. Instead, we should merely point out that there are numerous structural features of the HOGD which bear resemblance to both the 19th Century SRIA and the 18th Century Gold and Rosy Cross as well as to Blue Lodge freemasonry. That is balanced, unbiased, not misleading in and way, factual and verifiable.

I'm agreeable to that form, but the fact they ALL belonged to the SRIA, and since both Woodman and then Westcott were the Supreme Magus of that organization, it's more than just "many of them also belonged." It's pertinent to include those facts. Do you have any sources describing what other organizations the three founders belonged to?

Here's a proposal: the mention of the founders' membership in the SRIA and Grand Lodge stays in the History section, written so as not to imply that the GD was a direct extension of the earlier organizations. The reference to the similarity of the Grades to both the SRIA and the Gold und Rosenkrutz is made a preface to the Structure section, with the mention that those older organizations have only 9 Grades and the GD has 10. Is that agreeable? - JMax555 20:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

How about you deal with any DOMA references. I've got most of Gilbert's books, so I can cover that side of it.

You should still buy the DOMA ms. It will open your eyes and give you a broader perspective.

Where can it be obtained? - JMax555

Perhaps there should be no mention at all of contemproary orders. Perhaps all of those pages should disappear. Are they really encyclopedic anyway? Even if they are, I doubt that we will ever agree which ones should even be included. Why should a Martinist order be there, for example, simply because they have a lisense from Mr. Cicero?

Reply: The sub-articles can keep the edit wars away from the main article. That's the whole point. Sub-articles can only give descriptions about themselves, and they can do with their own websites as sources, as long as they only contain information about that group, not what that group thinks about another group. Since they have a license that, in effect, affirms that they are teaching the Golden Dawn in their Outer Order, and they say they are teaching the GD system, they count.

Keeping the main article historical and eliminating all reference to modern developments would accomplish the same thing and would eliminate 99% of present disagreement. They are not encyclppedic anyway.

If we don't have anywhere for these individual modern groups to edit to, then sooner or later one of them, like the EOGD, will come along and add their OWN idiosyncratic spin (like adding parts about "secret oral teachings") to the main article, and there we go again with another edit war. That can be nipped in the bud by telling them to take it to their own sub-article. It's a safety valve, so to speak. - JMax555 20:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, why is there no mention of the August Order of the Mystic Rose and why do they not have their own page as well?

Reply: For the same reason as anyone else: no one has created one. No one has added a link. They don't have much of a web presence. That's their problem.

Regarding the points of debate on the Secret Chiefs and the Cypher Manuscripts, sure we can find suitable sources for verifiability.

Reply: My proposal is to move that debate out of here, so we can get a consensus about what IS in the article and get it unlocked.

This is not really the issue. The real problem is that, and please do not take this wrong, Britain finds itself right in the middle between Europe and America. Americans tend to myopically view the HOGD from a purely British-American perspective, and ignore the European roots of the Rosicrucian and Hermetic traditions. One clearly verifiable case in point is the mentioning in the article of the grade structure of the HOGD coming from the SRIA while neglecting to mention that the earlier source is the Golden Rosy Cross Order from 18th Century Germany. Let's keep out POV if we can. But let us also be objective and include a European perspective as well as an Anglo-American one. --Zanoni666 01:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply: I keep having to come back to the issue that this "European POV" can't be found in any of the verifiable sources. Why not? It's some real breakthrough historical information, if it's true. Why won't anyone publish this research in a form that meets Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion? I'd like to see you guys publish academically -- I've said so to Mr. Griffin myself. Look, I can understand you supporting what you believe in and wanting to see it gain credence, but this is not the place to do that. Wikipedia is just an echo of the "real" world of fact-checked, peer-reviewed major publishing.

Actually, it can be found for those not myopically inclined, admittedly, however that the best sources are not in English. Let's see...in English in addition to the DOMA ms that I already mentioned, there are also Christopher McIntosh's books on the Rosicrucians and the Golden and Rosy Cross. The latter even mentions the HOGD briefly in passing as a late Rosicrucian phenomenon. Regarding European POV, Max, I can understand your limited perspective because you have mostly read Gilbert et al. while you were in HOGD. The point is that you are no longer in the outer order and as such it is high time that you begin to explore your Rosicrucian roots. Christopher MacIntosh's books are an excellant place to start as is the DOMA manuscript. If you can read French of German I can give you some even better material to read that will give you a broader and deeper POV on your own tradition.--Zanoni666 17:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Point of order: I have never belonged to the HOGD. I have never been initiated, paid dues, or attended any functions of that organization. Furthermore, I'm always open to suggestions, but please don't lecture me on how to go about exploring my "rosicrucian roots." - JMax555 20:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, that's all in the realm of historical work, and you should read the Wikipeida:Reliable Sources section on history to get a grasp on what's acceptable for historical accounts.

Here's an example: the Scots traditional folk costume is a pleated kilt for men. We all know that. But the traditional folk costume of Albania is also a pleated kilt for men. They're remarkably similar. Does this prove that, when it comes to pleated kilts, one of them "took it" from the other? No. Not unless we can find a "missing link" between them. What's lacking in your presentation of your theory is that missing link. You've got similarities, but no causal evidence that links them together. That's just speculation. I could speculate that Westcott or someone predesssor to him just found some bits and pieces of this 18th century material somewhere in Europe and brought it back to England to play around with, thereby deriving some GD forms from it. That's not a causal link. If that's what happened (hey, it's a theory), saying the original HOGD was directly descended from that German group by something like apostolic descent is just not verifiable. IOW, maybe Westcott STOLE it. We don't know. We can't prove it. Inference is not proof. What you've got there is original research at best.

-JMax555 09:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Citations

The citations you are asking for are almost all incluced on page 12 of the Bruce paper which is already cited. So please quit being lazy,m quit , whining, contact the SRIA, get a copy and verify. Until then, quit making so mush noise and quit being disruptive with so many unwarrented reversions--Zanoni666 00:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Please give a book reference. Papers are not reliable sources unless they have been published by a reputable publisher. -999 (Talk) 00:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Look 999; Zanoni666 nor anyone else for that matter has any obligation to hold your hand through all this. You need to get out there and conduct some work of your own, the citation has already been given, in print form as Zanoni666 has said above, and has even given you a page number for goodness sake.

Please quit trying to be obstructive and propagating unrest when the information is already there for you to find. Oh, and call off all of your army of recruited users to so that we can get some kind of neutral consensus on the editing and reverting. And that means not going around to every users discussion page you can find, and pasting the links in to their discussion page and telling them to keep watch and revert the articles back to your egregious versions.

And please, don't cite another arbitrary Wiki link.

Frater FiatLux 01:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You have to follow WP:V and WP:RS - they are official policies. If you can't be bothered to educate yourself, you have no one but yourself to blame for your troubles. -999 (Talk) 01:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment:This citation is comprehensive, you're again being obstructive the information has been given, it's up to you if you if you want to prove this citation wrong. We stand by this citation as a verifiable source; it is up to you to contest this. Until you can say that the information is not given on page 12 of the Bruce paper at the SRIA then please cease and desist with your obstructive misrepresentations.

Please remember 999 no personal attacks and civility any more comments like that and I will report you forthwith.

Frater FiatLux 01:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, User:999 please refrain from accusing people of being "sock puppets" without evidence like our newest editors Opuat and Soror AC. This is uncivil and there is no need to "bite the newcomers" just because you're more "seasoned" in policy. I think these policies are in place to keep things together, and not to be used as devices of threat. Kephera975 03:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Quite right Kephera, I completely agree. 999, quit exploiting the newcomers to the article, as you have no proof that our newest editors are co called sock puppets. None whatsoever, I'm in the UK, Zanoni666 is in the USA and Opuat is in Germany for example. Please behave yourself 999. Obviously other people in the community, such as the new editors, are noticing the evidence 999 that was put up that went to show that you’re recruiting random Wikipedia users to form an army to edit/revert, so that you and your faction can evade the 3RR.

Frater FiatLux 03:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Might I suggest a quote or three from the source, not too long, but getting the essentials clear. It might help you to elucidate the matter. It's not clear, in your prose, where the source ends and interpretation enters. Language, as you know, is a virus from outer space. -999 (Talk) 02:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Might I suggest you refrain from extraneous incoherent messages? Like I've just said to you, nobody is under any obligation to help you verify our citations, we've cited a verifiable source and given explicit references such as page numbers to verifiable information, to us, this is a very lucid account of verifiable citation. Thus, the matter is perfectly clear to us; it is you 999 that needs the elucidation, not us. You need to go and prove our source wrong if you wish to dispute our citation, it is yourself that needs to locate our printed source from the SRIA and conduct your own research. If you cannot, or you’re not willing to, then I would suggest that you refrain from making unsubstantiated allegations about our verifiable source. If you'd rather make unsubstantiated accusations over the Internet regarding our source, just because you can't be bothered to go and look for it, might I suggest that you cease questioning the citation and quit your obstructive, interfering and superfluous rhetoric.

We have served verifiable information with specific page numbers, -It is up to you to prove this wrong not us- I suggest that you conduct the relevant research into this if you wish to prove your case. If not, to be frank, simply shut up.

I must be getting to you as you’ve reverted to personal attacks; I treat such misguided comments with the disdain that they deserve. I will only further reiterate: Please remember 999 no personal attacks and civility any more comments like that and I will report you forthwith to administration. Frater FiatLux 03:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I think your source falls under the definition of what Wikipedia guidelines call exceptional claims:

Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence.

Certain red flags should prompt editors to closely and skeptically examine the sources for a given claim.

* Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known.

* Surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reputable news media.

* Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended.

* Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.

I take particular note of the last point in that list of attributes.

We need to see the actual text of this article, to be sure it says what you say it does. And the burden of proof is always on the one who wishes to add or retain an edit, not the one who wishes to have it removed.

And frankly, when you scold someone else for incivility and personal attacks, I can't understand why your head doesn't explode.

- JMax555 04:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

JM, we are dealing with clandestine fraternities here, it is hardly going to be covered by the news media or such like is it, really, you do surprise me, this isn't the OSOGD you know. You have the page number and the name of the text and where to find it, therefore, it is not a surprising claim, it is verifiable print source that we can cite. I still feel that the whole lot should be deleted, as realistically both sides are never going to agree on a definitive version of the article from any number of sources. After all this discussion we are still no where near a solution. I would suggest that at this stage, it would appear by far the best option judging from the discussions, that the whole thing should be deleted; otherwise this rather pointless arguing will never end. All as we need is a consensus to delete the article. Frater FiatLux 05:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

If your organization is a "clandestine fraterinty", then I suppose you have a real problem with finding reliable sources under WP Guidelines. If your sources are not widely known because you're a secret society, then it falls under the WP definition of "exceptional claim". If your sources are not mentioned by reputable news media or major publishers, it falls under the WP definition of "exceptional claim". If it's controversial -- and I can't imagine how the charge of the SRIA forging it's membership rolls could NOT be considered "controversial", then it falls under the WP definition of "exceptional claim". And since that source's claim is contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community, which you don't deny, then it falls under the WP definition of "exceptional claim". Therefore, your source, a fifty year-old article in an obscure quasi-Masonic newsletter, that in the ensuing fifty years has never been confirmed or used as a source by any reputably published, academically recognized author in the field, is "exceptional", and the burden of proof is on you to qualify it, not on anyone else. Your obstinence over simply providing a quote from your source is itself evidence that it may not actually say what you claim it says. So how about you provide the quote and let's see? - JMax555 21:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I think JMAX555 is forgetting that the GD is what is called a "secret society", not a publishing house. Etleast, that is what it was historically. In this case, the verifiability element should actually not be as big of a deal. Now, if we are being edited by the OSOGD and most Thelema oriented individuals, they, ofcourse, do not believe in secrecy, but this is an article on the Golden Dawn which, historically, believed in the tenet of Hermetic Secrecy. If I were to read this article as a complete outsider, I would think this article were about a commercial entity of some kind selling new age publishing house material, rather than a secret society. I agree with Frater Fiat Lux that this should be considered in relation to the article. Kephera975 12:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Veirifability is ALWAYS a "big deal" in Wikipedia. It is one of the Three Guidelines that is "non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus." So even if I agreed with you, which I don't, it doesn't matter. If your organization wants to keep its "hermetic secrets" and not submit its original research and off-beat theories to editorial peer-review and fact-checking in order to get them properly published, that's your choice and your problem.

There's plenty of available public information about the Golden Dawn, both historical and regarding modern revival organizations. It hasn't been a "secret society" for decades, except for those organizations like the HOGD/A+O that have created their own idiosyncratic versions that only apply to themselves.

My own GD group has been interviewed, and had a ritual witnessed in person, by an author (Cristine Wicker) who published her account in a recent book (Not In Kansas Anymore)under the Harper-San Francisco imprint. Mr. Cicero's organization has had similar examples of being described by third parties in major published works. Our policies toward "secrecy" in this regard works to our advantage in the realm of Wikipedia. That yours does not is again your choice and your problem.

If your group is really a "hermetic secret society", what in the world are you doing creating public websites and pushing to get articles about you in an on-line encyclopedia? Secret societies are, well, secret. You should be avoiding all publicity like the plague. That's what the original "secret" Golden Dawn Orders did, and if that's the standard you wish to emulate, you should do the same. But it seems you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want publicity and you want to be a "secret society", all at the same time. You want to be able to make all sorts of outlandish claims in Wikipedia by having the Verifiability guidelines relaxed -- just for you -- and not have to offer any documentable proof by claiming it's a "secret". I'm sorry to say that Wikipeida -- and the real world -- doesn't work that way.

So, we're still waiting for citations for the list of material above. I showed you how it was done by providing a cite in a verifiable published work for the one paragraph of mine that was, quite rightly I might add, challenged by User 999. Did I go off on User 999 and accuse him of prejudice or a conspiracy of bias against me? No. I got out the books, did the work, and provided the text of a source for support (so people here could easily examine it for themselves), and then re-wrote it to conform with ONLY what I could find in that source. It would be an act of good faith on your part to do the same, instead of trying to get the rules bent for your convenience. - JMax555 16:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

And so is NEUTRALITY, JMAX. I have seen no real attempts for real neutrality, only a pretense of it. As far as the secrecy of the A+O, I don't think you are quite understanding me. Secrecy is impossible in relation to that which has already been published. However, regarding unpublished material, Hermetic secrecy can very much still apply. I simply find it ridiculous that we should claim that the *Hermetic* Order of the Golden Dawn would be defined more as 'open source' rather than hermetic, unless ofcourse we are trying to say that Aliester Crowley was a founder of the Order. Kephera975 03:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality is accomplished by Verifiability. Wikipedia is neutral precisely because it doesn't allow original research.

And I don't think you understand what neutrality really means. The dispute in the GD community really comes down to just about all the modern revival groups, all the published authors, and all the mainstream public accounts pretty much in agreement on ONE side, and just you guys disagreeing with it on the other side. You make a lot of highly controversial claims and steadfastly refuse to properly document any of it. Considering this situation, "neutrality" does not consist of drawing some arbitrary line in the sand at some imaginary "halfway point" between your controversial position and the position of the virtually all reliably published materials by reputable scholars in the field, and calling THAT "neutrality".

If you insist on keeping your sources and your materials secret and unpublished, that's your choice and your problem. It means the price you pay is that they can't be cited as sources in Wikipedia. You can't make references to "continental secret chiefs" and "new cypher manuscripts" and not provide a reputable, verifiable source for those claims. Wikipedia is not a tool for you to use to try to "mainstream" your controversial claims. If you want to see your point of view generally accepted, then get someone to publish your sources and materials under a major book imprint with fact checking and peer review. Or content yourselves to be a "secret hermetic society" and all which that entails. You can't have it both ways. - JMax555 04:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If anyone would like to look at the article on Thelema on Wikipedia, you will not have to look far for the reasons why 999 sides with J MAX(whose organization is referenced on 999's Thelema page). He has been the main editor regarding that article. Don't let him fool you into thinking he is unbiased. This article should not be written by a group of individuals who, in general, have contempt for Mathers, Westcott and the majority of the historical principles of the Golden Dawn!!! Kephera975 15:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

What articles other editors choose to edit has no bearing on their qualifications to edit other articles. Suggesting such might be considered rather uncivil. Thanks. -999 (Talk) 16:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember the part where I said I have "have contempt for Mathers, Westcott and the majority of the historical principles of the Golden Dawn!!!" (The three exclamation points must mean you really mean it.) Not that it matters even if I do feel that way, which I don't. This is just more mud in the waters. Other editors here keep asking you to provide verifiable references for your edits, and to provide the actual quotes from the one exceptional source you do cite. Is there any chance of that actually happening anytime soon? - JMax555 22:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Kephera: The only thing the Thelema page would prove, if only one user is editing it, is that the user is alone, working to strengthen an article. It actually doesnt show bias in itself! Other users arent willing to edit the article, and until more show up, who want to help, it will remain that way. So please stop ranting, and start helping. Thank you. Zos 22:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It proves quite definitively why you support a biased OSOGD version of this article. Kephera975 03:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

How exactly does it prove anything of the sort? And what exactly characterizes a "baised OSOGD version"? Please be specific. The OSOGD is not even mentioned here, and never has been in this article at all, in any version. First you claim without any evidence that Zos is a member of the OSOGD, now you claim that since he he edits a Thelema article here, and (I assume) the OSOGD has elements of Thelemic symbolism in it's practices, then by some tortured chain of logic that means he's... well, I don't really understand WHAT you're implying, to be honest. Some Vast Thelemic Conspiracy to undermine Wikipedia?

The relationship of the Golden Dawn to Thelema is controversial. Which is why no one among your alleged "conspirators" here has ever added any reference to Thelema to the article, even though, quite frankly, there's plenty available in verifiable published sources that could be used under the rules to describe a direct relationship. My personal opinion is that Thelema is the natural extension of the Golden Dawn system. But I refrained from using my opinions in my editing because it's controversial and no consensus would ever be reached. So by the same token, you should refrain from adding material about immortal "continental secret chiefs" and "new cypher manuscripts' because you know it's controversial and you'll never get a consensus for it. - JMax555 03:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate Deletion

This morning I readded the material inappropriately deleted using revert-revert tactics by the HOGD, Inc licencee faction. Listen guys, indtead of insisting on such tactics, why not discuss the changes here in good faith? Do we really need to get a mediator in here. Your 'steamroller' tactics will not work, no many how many other users you solicit to revert here we will stop you until you listen to reason and discuss the issues without trying to rig surveys with readers you bring in from outside to create an illusion of false consensus. We can and will do the same if you force our hand. We do not want this, however. You are the ones forcing the reverts, not us.--Zanoni666 17:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Please don't do that. Questioning sources and citations is a normal part of the evolution of an article on Wikipedia. Nothing should be put back in unless its citation is strengthened, like you did to the material that was left in the article by adding page numbers. I think there is still some disagreement whether the source used for the deleted material is allowable under WP policy. This should be resolved first via discussion with the other editors. If there is agreement that the source is acceptible, only then go on to give more precise citation and quotes. -Baba Louis 17:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

We will discuss this with you. However, your demonstrated recruitment by User 999, ant the tactics you are using are a breach if Wikipedia ettiquette and a subversion of 3RR rules. This will be brought to the attention of the mediator.--Zanoni666 17:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not breaching WP etiquette - you are. I am attempting to assist in an article by listing it for RfC. The best result will be achieved by following dispute resolution processes, not by arbitrary actions. Discuss with the other editors, or you will soon be receiving a lot of attention from a lot of long time WP editors who respond when a user conduct RfC is opened. -999 (Talk) 17:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Isnt Baba Louis the one who came in from the RfC area? How has he been recruited? He came here, being a third party in this mess, with nothing to proove, only to help. I don't think you should continue to accuse people trying to help Zanoni, its not helping your argument (but then again, what is?). Zos 18:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes he was, but it wasnt this talk page (getting confused as to which talk page is which now- HG inc.), it was this one Talk:The_Hermetic_Order_of_the_Golden_Dawn,_Inc.#External_input. Zos 18:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I did ask him on his talk page to also look at Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, just before I also listed it for RfC. But that was after he had already responded to the first RfC on HOGD, Inc. -999 (Talk) 19:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

User Zos would like to point out that this was only after confusion had set it, during a revert war, and before consensus was completed. I hope this helps. Zos 19:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Appropriate deletions

Why does all the material that refers specifically to the HOGD/A+O (or "Mathers' Rosicrucian A+O", which is the same thing) keep getting put back in the article? We're still awaiting sources for the vast majority of it, and the one reference provided is highly controversial.

The general rule-of-thumb that I thought we had all agreed upon was that references to any modern groups would be placed in their own sub-articles, not in the main article. If the only source is the group's own webpage, then it doesn't belong in the main article. It should not be put into the main article until it's been sourced in Talk. - JMax555 22:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Citations have been provided. Kephera975 03:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You provided ONE cite to an exceptional source making an exceptional claim (and you still refuse to offer to show us the text here), but that is NOT a "citation" that says anything about the vast majority of claims you're making. The list of points awaiting citation is on this discussion page. Your ONE citation does NOT cover them all. We don't even know what it covers exactly, because some reason you're reluctant to give the text of it here. If you were really interested in a finding a consensus, you'd quote your source here so we can discuss it.

By the way, in an exchange I had with the leader of your group on the HOGD/A+O forum, I asked if this paper by Wilson was available to be verified, and this was his reply:

"Quite certainly, although it is not easy to get ahold of. Although the SRIA has not exactly been quite encouraging of the wide publication of this information, I nonetheless managed to get a copy."

See: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Hermetic-Order-of-the-Golden-Dawn/message/6143

So, can this paper you're offering as a source "be obtained directly from the SRIA in England for verification purposes" as you say in your citation, or is its availability as restricted as your organization's leader describes it to be? All the more reason the text should be quoted here. Tell me, have you ever actually seen the original text yourself, or just read the editorial description of it on your group's website? Perhaps that explains why you refuse to quote it here -- you don't have it, and you've never actually read it for yourself. You're relying on a second-hand description of what it contains. Is this the case? - JMax555 05:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Cipher Manuscript

I proposing again that all material in the Cipher Manuscript sub-section be moved to it's own article, except for the first paragraph. That's why that article was created in the first place, months ago. - JMax555 22:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Protection

This article is hereby protected. Resolve your disputes here, on this talk page. This article will not be unprotected until a concensus is reached about the disputed material. Once a concensus is achieved, contact me to request unprotection. Page protection is not an endorsement of the current page version. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 19:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Consensus

Well lets get things rolling. I'm no mediator, but I'd like to have everyone list what they feel is wrong with the article, so we can reopen it for editing. And if you have an issue with a citation, please show a source. Once we get all of the issues listed in detail, we can all vote and reach this consensus. Thanks. Zos 22:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Any direct reference in the text of the main article to any contemporary GD group (aside from links) is right out.
  • Agree -999 (Talk) 20:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree Zos 20:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• I don't trust this Wilson citation. According to the HOGD/A+O's leader, the SRIA doesn't provide copies and it's difficult to obtain. Those who want to use it refuse to provide the text here in Talk so we can determine if it says what they claim it does. It's used as their ONLY citation to cover many long paragrphs of edits, including information concerning events all the way up to 2002, while the paper they offer as a source was written in 1947. That's nonsense. In fifty years, no researcher in the field has ever used this Wilson paper as a source. Maybe they consider it unrelaible, with good reason. What were Wilson's sources? Does he provide them in his paper? We don't know. The only other explanation is that there's a conspiracy by all other researchers (like Gilbert) to cover up "the truth", which seems to be what the HOGD/A+O says about it. So it definitely falls under the "exceptional source" definition and it needs more rigourous verification than does a published book reference.
  • Agree -999 (Talk) 20:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree Zos 20:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• All of the speculation about the inner politics of the SRIA, especially decades prior to the creation of the Golden Dawn, doesn't belong in this article, it belongs in the SRIA article.
  • Agree -999 (Talk) 20:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree Zos 20:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Once again, I think all but one paragraph about the Cipher Manuscript should be moved to it's own article.
  • Agree -999 (Talk) 20:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree Zos 20:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The issue I think the HOGD/A+O people here have with Gilbert, Howe, King, Kuntz, Greer, Cicero and virtually ALL the published authors on the subject (with the possible exception of Colqhuan, who was not a researcher but rather a poet) is that they really believe all of those other recognized experts in the field are deliberately lying in their published works to perpetrate a massive cover-up conspiracy. (Feel free to correct me on this, HOGD/A+O people.) So they want the so-called "other side", which basically consists of them and them alone, to be included in Wikipedia for "balance". They want to make it appear that there is a debate among scholars about what's published in those above named sources, when there really isn't any debate at all, except on their own website. And they want to avoid verifiability of the claims from their website, because they are a "secret society".

It reminds me of the Chirstian fundamentalists trying to wedge Creationism into school science eduacation in the name of "balance", even though they can't prove what they claim on the basis of science.

- JMax555 16:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

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 21:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Agree: To take this to mediation (as tag says). Zos 21:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Agree: To take this to mediation (as tag says). - JMax555 22:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Comments: Frater FiatLux: Please give us a link to the page where it is addressed. Zos 21:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Give me chance, I've only just put the tag up! Links will follow shortly as I have filled the template out and just need to post it to the mediation page; it requests that the tags are provided to the relevent pages first. I did do all this a couple of days ago, unfortuanatly the block went into effect and I lost the whole lot because of the dam silly editing and reverting, grrrr. I'm glad people are supporting this already, although we have to support this on the mediation page which I will give out very shortly. Something has to also be posted on all of your discussion pages also, so watch out for it.

Frater FiatLux 21:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is the link. All parties involved are to agree there. I mistakenly agreed here first, how silly of me. Zos 05:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Important comment on the mediation

No one is edit or revert the mediation file that I have submitted, user Zos/synergistcmaggot, has already taken it upon himself to edit the file, improperly, and against mediation rules. It clearly states that you all, are only to pledge in: AGREEMENT or DISAGREEMENT, ONLY. The mediator has asked myself to make changes on the file and I will provide them today as I was the one that submitted the mediation. I reiterate for total clarity and to evade all misunderstanding, do NOT edit or revert the mediation file, please only follow the rules on the mediation page stating you agree or disagree.

No one can add commentary on any of the content in any of the discussion pages or anything else for that matter. If anyone edits or reverts the mediation, and breaches mediation rules, I reserve the right to contact the mediator to inform them of this, and I will also report anyone that does edit or revert the mediation file to admin page. As you will be breaking the rules of mediation. The only thing anybody can write on the mediation file is agree or disagree under the header: "Parties' agreement to mediate", this is ONLY place anyone can make entries on the mediation form.

Furthermore, I just didn't get the chance to provide the link to the page last night, I have nothing to gain by holding the link back as all must pledge, agreeing to the mediation, on the mediation page.

You can view the current version before I make the changes to the file today, as per mediators wishes, to exclude all entries that appear to be commentary on the dispute. By clicking on the "/wiki/WP:RFM". on the tag at the top of the page. The mediation file is the second entry under the new submissions.

Once again, only myself is to make these changes as per the mediators request to myself, directly.

Please be patient while I perform these pages and observe good faith and adhere to the rules of the mediation page. I will report any one who breaks these rules: 1. To the mediator I in contact with. 2. The administration page. Frater FiatLux 13:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I was informed that I can added to the mediation request. Plus, this is what I get for helping you Frater FiatLux. Zos 19:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment on the important comment

I do think the mediator(s) are capable of determining what the rules are, and can tell if anyone is breaking them, without your help -- just as you had your own comments on the issues in dispute removed from that page without anyone having to "report" you.

Your deleted comment on that page was:

Editing and Revert warring by parties involved to biased political P.O.V. articles, to exploit ongoing trademark litigation and to advertise legal funds, so much so that all three articles involved in the disputation are currently fully protected. Unreasonable, and inordinate amount of citations on particular articles.

But I see no reason why this can't be discussed here, not on the mediation page. Let's unpack the statement and take the points it rasies one at a time:

• "biased political P.O.V. articles"

What it comes down to, as far as I can determine (because it's not made clear by FiatLux or Kephera) that a "baised POV" consists of a) accepting the consensus of the relevant academic community concerning the history of the Golden Dawn, b) using citations that are fully verifiable under Wikipedia polices, because Fiat Lux and Kephera happen to think the information found in those citations is not true. They believe virtually all of the published authors in the relevant academic community are deliberate liars, representing a conspiracy to silence them.

• "exploit ongoing trademark litigation"

This only concerns the "Hermtic Order of the Golden Dawn Inc." sub-article, not the main article. I'm not exactly sure what is meant by this. The one contention they raise that has any bearing on any court case is the reference to Mr. Cicero, the founder of the HOGD Inc., having established his first temple of the Golden Dawn in 1977. Apparently, this date is a matter of dispute in the pending court case. However, the citations come from books in print under major publishing house imprints, which means they are fully verifiable sources under Wikipedia polices. That FiatLux, Kephera, and the organization they belong to (HOGD/A+O) believe what's found in those sources is untrue is irrelevant to whether or not the citation is from a verifiable source, which is the only consideration as far as Wikipedia is concerned.

FiatLux seems to be under the impression that citing information from a source acceptable under WP verifiability policies is going to have some effect on a judge's decision in the case before him. Frankly, this is nonsense. WP articles are not admissible as evidence in a court. The citation refers to books still in print, so if one side of the litigation is going to use anything as evidence, it will be the books themselves, not a print-out of a WP article that merely refers to what's in those books. So this whole "trademark litigation" arguement is a red herring. They simply don't want the information cited from those books (the 1977 date) to be included because they don't happen to think it's true. They have not provided any citation to any verifiable source acceptable under WP guidelines that directly contradicts what's in those citations. They offer only claims made on their own organization's website, and court affidavits submitted by their side in the litigation. The other side of the litigation (HOGD Inc.) has also submitted affidavits that affirm the 1977 date. But neither of those sources are acceptable under WP guidelines. No editor has tried to use affidavits submitted to the court by HOGD Inc. as sources, only the citation to what's in two published books.

Now, if the court, when the case is settled, makes a determination regarding this 1977 date, the court transcript of that decision would be an acceptable source, and it can be added to the article at that time.

• "to advertise legal funds"

I'm unaware of any editor directly referring to the HOGD Inc.'s legal fundraising in the text of the article on the HOGD Inc. itself. But one of the citations made by an editor to the HOGD Inc.'s website links to a page wherein their legal fund is advertised. But the legal fund is not what is being referred to in the cite, but rather other information that happens to be on the same page. What FiatLux and Kephera don't want is a link to that page to be included at all, I assume because they don't like that HOGD Inc., a non-profit religious organization, is attempting to raise donations to help pay their legal expenses. (The HOGD/A+O, on the other hand, is being represented "pro bono" -- for free -- by one of their own members.)

So (in my opinion, of course) all of these points are simply muddying the waters. As I see it the important points that need mediation are the ones I referred to in the above section, "Consensus". To reiterate:

• Is the use of court affidavits, papers or filings made by either side in an ongoing litigation acceptable as verifiable sources under WP policy? I think not, because such sources are, by their very nature, going to be extremely biased toward one side in the litigation.

• A corrolary to the above is the use of JPG scans of contracts, affidavits, or legal papers as sources. Scans of documents are not allowed on WP because they can be easily altered. That they were submitted in a court case is no proof that they have not been altered. That can only be determined by the court hearing the case. To use these kinds of sources is "trying the case in the media", and I am quite sure that Wikipedia does not want court papers from either side of an unsettled court case to be used as sources, and this needs to be addressed in mediation.

• Regarding what he above comment calls "an inordinate amount of citations": they seem to believe that since they purport to be a "secret society", the sources for their claims should be held to a lower standard of verifiability, because they are constrained from revealing their sources due to their policies on "secrecy". But as I understand it, the WP policy on verifiability is non-negotiable. What they seem to be arguing is that since they are thus constrained, it's not their fault that they can't properly cite their sources, but they think without including their unverifiable information the articles will be "biased". But that is their choice and their problem. If it's so important that this unverified information be used as a WP source, they can change their organization's policy on keeping their sources secret. If it is more important to them that they keep their sources secret, they must accept that they cannot use them for citations in a Wikipeida article. They can't have it both ways. So the use of any claims that can only be directly sourced to their own website needs to be addressed in mediation.

• The one source that FiatLux and Kephera have offered that comes from outside of their own organization is a paper by Bruce Wilson supposedly published in an SRIA journal in 1947. However, this paper is not readily available, if at all, according to their own group's leadership. All requests to quote any actual text from this paper here in the Talk section have been rejected (rudely, I think) by FiatLux and Kephera. They say it's up to anyone who disputes the validity of their source to "disprove" that it exists and that it says what they claim it does. I don't understand how this can be considered a reliable, verifiable source. No subsequent history of the Golden Dawn by reputable publishers in the field has ever referenced that paper, much less confirmed what it says. This is a "red flag", according to the WP policy page regarding "exceptional sources". FiatLux and Kephera admit that the Wilson source contradicts the prevailing view in the relevant academic community, which is another "red flag". And they claim there is a conspiracy by the relevant academic community, notably R.A. Gilbert, the most widely published author in the field, to supress and silence them -- another "red flag". So the verifiability of this source needs to be addressed in mediation.

So as I see it, it all comes down to verifiablity -- the use of sources that are by their nature biased (court papers from one side of a case that has not been settled, or claims from one organization's website) or sources that are not, in any reasonable way, available to be checked. Indeed, this does eliminate virtually everything FiatLux and Kephera have tried to edit into the "Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn" article. So I can understand how they might consider this to by "unfair" to them or "biased" against them. But it is the policies and guidelines of Wikipeida itself that are "biased" against the sources they want to use. The personal opinions of other editors are not the issue, because all editors must abide by the same polices and guidelines. - JMax555 17:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Book Source's Publishing Dates

By the way, part of this dispute of the 1977 date is the claim that the Shuster source was simply repeating what was in the Cicero source. One of the editors here (Kephera975, I think, but the formatting makes it hard to tell) said in the "Awaiting Sources" section above:

"The problem is not the OTO vs. HOGD, but rather by the imaginary date of 1977 that Cicero made up to back up his phoney claimi of legal superiority. This date is unverifiable except to autobiographical sources from and Suster's repeating them. In any case, this date is hotly disputed."

But it occured to me today to look up the publishing dates of the books by those authors being referenced as sources in the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn Inc. sub-article.

According to an ISBN search, the Shuster (ref. ^3) book's 1st edition was published in February 1990. The Cicero (ref. ^2) book's 1st edition was published on February 1, 1997. So to claim that Shuster was simply repeating what was previously published in Cicero's book is absurd. Shuster refers to the date a whole seven years before Cicero refers to it himself. - JMax555 05:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

If someone is repeating a statement or otherwise saying the exact same thing, then its a secondary source. But if the primary source is wrong, its needs to be properly contested, i.e. cite where and how. This should settle a dispute in the matter.

I have, on the way, at least 2 books dealing with the history of the Golden Dawn, and just recieved 2 bio books on Crowley, which discuss the Golden Dawn as well (of course it would). So if mediation gets accepted, there will be enough sources going around to form at least a 75%-90% accuracy for this article. And by the time thats done, we can nominate it for a featured article (as I'm hoping the Aleister Crowley, addressed on the talk page). Zos 19:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

But I do get what your saying. Make a note of it for evidence once the mediation process starts. As noted above, the mediation can still be declined. Zos 19:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)