Talk:Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn/Archive 4

some suggested edits and questions.

Hi, I have a few questions and suggestions on edits I would like to make or have someone else make...

• In the "Origins" section - the line: (However, sometime after becoming a member of the Golden Dawn, S.L. Macgregor Mathers became inactive in Freemasonry.) Does this mean to say that Mathers was a Freemason and then became inactive, or does it mean that he joined Freemasonry after joining Golden Dawn... it isn't clear.
• Also from the "Origins" section: The three founders were also members of the Societas Rosicruciana in Anglia (S.R.I.A.), an exclusive lodge founded by the noted Grand Lodge Freemason Kenneth MacKenzie, author of The Royal Masonic Encyclopedia. The S.R.I.A. was established in 1866 with Lord Bulwer-Lytton as honorary patron. SRIA rolls were later forged[citation needed] to give the appearance that it had been founded by the noted Grand Lodge Freemason Kenneth MacKenzie, author of The Royal Masonic Encyclopedia. I don't think you need to repeat "the noted Grand Lodge Freemason Kenneth MacKenzie, author of The Royal Masonic Encyclopedia" in two adjoining sentences.
• The constant mention of the Masonic ties of the founders seems a bit forced... as if you are trying to say that Golden Dawn is part of Freemasonry. You make it clear in later parts of the article that, while Freemasonry was an inspiration for Golden Dawn, they quickly became very different things. The reader is left with the question: "why all the mention of Masonic membership if the two organizations are so different?" I think you could mention the affiliation at the beginning and then let it go. (note: Yes, I am a Mason... but I assure you that this is not an attempt to "downplay" the connection. I fully acknowlege that one exists. My comments are only geared towards improving the readability of your article. Well except for the following ....)
• .... Under "The Structure of the Order" - Here I do have a Masonic quibble. while I do not doubt that the line: "The Golden Dawn follows a "fraternal lodge" model similar to freemasonry, with titles, degrees and initiations." is true, I would like to add a small quote from the United Grand Lodge of England that states "There are numerous fraternal orders and Friendly Societies whose rituals, regalia and organisation are similar in some respects to Freemasonry's. They have no formal or informal connections with Freemasonry." [1] - just so there is no doubt in a readers mind that Golden Dawn isn't part of modern Freemasonry. Thanks Blueboar 19:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• However, sometime after becoming a member of the Golden Dawn, S.L. Macgregor Mathers became inactive in Freemasonry.

I think this is clear. Its saying that after he became a memeber of the Golden Dawn, he stopped caring about freemasonry. The only thing I would change is, he didnt become a member, he co-founded it.

• I don't think you need to repeat "the noted Grand Lodge Freemason Kenneth MacKenzie, author of The Royal Masonic Encyclopedia" in two adjoining sentences.

Agreed.

Oh no, not the UGLE citations again! Zos 19:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

hey, it was your idea for me to pop over and take a look :>) ! But as I said on your talk page, I am not nearly as adament this time around. The article does make it fairly clear that Golden Dawn isn't Freemasonry. I can live without the cite if people object. Blueboar 20:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I never asked you to pop over. I merely asked you if you had singled out the OTO article, or moving on to other pages. Zos 20:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, SRIA is not a Lodge, but a discrete Order which draws its' membership from Craft Masons. As to the detail of membership, I'm not convinced that it adds much value to the article, it reads as a pretty contrived criticism of SRIA rather than supporting the discussion of the OGD. Given that the SRIA article already exists, and has done for a while, then it probably makes sense to slim down that section.ALR 21:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

It adds to the article ALR, trust me. Once I get done with some personal things, I'm thinking maybe tonight, I'll add a ton of citations. And anything that sounds like its argumentitive is leaving the article. Yet, the SRIA is quoted in almost everything I've read thus far on the GD as being part of the origin, so its not leaving the article. If the section or whatnot is too long, I'd agree to shortening it a bit, but nothing more than that and a link to the main article. Zos 21:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I just looked at the Origins section and I now see what you mean ALR. I'm going to be adding to the origins tonight and going to start removing anything not germane to this article. But I'll discuss it first :p Zos 22:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I've got no problem with attributing SocRos as a major influence on the order at its foundation, it clearly was and Soc Ros appears to have no difficulty with acknowledging the origins. It's just that the slightly petulant wording and unsupported commentary didn't really read well and removing them has improved the article. There is still a jarring wording in the first snetence with mixed tenses though. I'll have a think about it.ALR 08:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of connections...

After doing a bit of research, I've found several references (including published books) that proclaim the Golden Dawn was a Satanic orgnaization, an Illuminatti conspiracy to dominate the world:

"As those who investigate the Illuminati find out, the Illuminati control the press. Here was a man who helped do it for them Last newsletter issue (1/15/93) went into some detail about how important the Satanic Societas Rosicruciana is in relation to the Satanic groups such as the O.T.O., Golden Dawn, and Stella Matutina. The Societas Rosicruciana is definitely a high level exclusive Illuminati organization."

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/the_collins_bloodline.htm

The URL below contains excerpts from a book that details the connections between the Golden Dawn and Satanism:

http://www.ritualabusefree.org/The%20Golden%20Dawn.htm

These things come from the "Freemasons are taking over the world" conspiracy buffs, but they do put out books. So, since these are "published accounts", shall we include them in the main article? If not, why not?

Especially considering that the idea of a GD group being "satanic" has already been breached by editors here, aren't we then justified in linking ALL GD groups to Satanism, including the historical order, using the above sources for citations?

Or is pushing a "satanic" connection to the GD opening a can worms that would be better left unopened? Once you start putting "satanism" into Wikipeida articles, it pops up on search engines. Then the conspiracy buffs find it, and they come along to push their OWN agenda, and I doubt any editors here want that to happen. But if an editor already here has put "satanism" into ONE sub-article and thinks they're justified in doing so, how can we then argue AGAINST the paranoid conspriacy types doing the same to ALL the articles? - JMax555 16:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

That seems quite simple really. If the article is to be about the historical Order which called itself the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn from the turn of the 19th century and the beliefs and rituals of that notable organization from that time, there is really no published historical account on the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn that would suggest anything resembling Satanism by all verifiable accounts. Any contemporary conspiracy theories would not apply to an article devoted to a purely historical account. If the conspiracy theorists wanted to create their own articles on their own obscure theories using their own verifiable and published accounts, they are free to do so. I seriously doubt the real controversy in contemporary Golden Dawn circles over whether your distinct minority Order and organization's POV of replacing the original(or traditional)ritually invoked god of Horus to Set( an egyptian god often concieved of as a god of darkness and choas who has also been associated with the so-called Temple of Set or with Setianism )would really catch the eye of a whole lot of these people. I understand where you are coming from, but I'm not sure the OSOGD is that notable of an organization to those people or, for that matter, by Wikipedia's standards. I'm afraid that to percieve this might be a little paranoid of a view in itself. If for some reason, a flock of conspiracy theorists descend upon this article, I think, in the end, their extreme bias would be thoroughly purged by our editors here, inclusive of yourself. ;) I'm sure those people probably have bigger fish they want to try to fry, like certain politicians? :)Kephera975 23:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected

I requested unprotection, and it has been granted. Lets get back to work. Happy editing! Zos 23:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Golden Dawn offshoots

Ok, I'm suggesting that a header be created for some of the offshoots (not all of them). None of it needs any citations, as there will be citations in the main articles. Any objections? Zos 23:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Other changes

I'm noticing some things that may have already come up, but I'm starting fresh here. Just think of this more like a list to work on, not an attack or anything designed to provoke an argument, or accert authority/ownership.

• SRIA material might need to be removed to its own page, only leaving the material neccessary for its origins in the Golden Dawn. Which would only be a few small statements like: Some founders were memeber / this is how it influenced the Golden Dawn etc etc. i.e anything really pertinent.

• The cipher manuscripts section is a bit long and might need shortening. The main article goes into detail about it, and shouldnt here. Only enough so where you dont really have to go to the main article to understand why its important to this article.

• The break up section is way too small. There were at least 10 different factions of the Golden Dawn after the revolt. This might need some expansion (see above this, Golden Dawn offshoots talk section).

• The modern revival section is a bit weak. Its my opinion that its purpose is not really clear.

• Also, the GD A+O is an order directly relating to the original Golden Dawn. The old one, not the new one. So the way I see it, it shouldnt be listed as an offshoot, its more like a direct lineage to the original (I say this because Mathers started it, and is the only one that I know of who can claim lineage at that point in time, as he was the chief of the order).

• And the Secret Chiefs section might need to be shortened as well. Just enough info that pertinent to this article, as the main article goes in depth. Plus, shouldnt this section be moved closer to the top? I think it constitutes as part of the origins.

If anyone thinks there ought to be more changes, please add to the list! Zos 23:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh and whats the deal with the Light in Extension section? Why is this even here? (LVX!) Zos 23:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Why have you unprotected these articles?

Zos, why the hell have you unprotected these articles, when no consensus has been made. This is going to re-start the revert, you should of waited.

Frater FiatLux 15:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Look. user 999 and I got into an argument as to editing article being concidered for mediation. He added a few more things to the mediation, and this caused me to rethink my agreement to mediate. So I apologized on the talk page on RfM, and then user 999 declined right after me. This caused the RfM to be denied. Once this happens, the tags need to be removed, since there is no longer a request. I then asked for the article to be unprotected so we can work together this time, in editing these articles. If you wish to go back to mediation, you can kindly ask 999 if he will agree to not argue anymore about this, and him and I will agree once more to mediation. Then all we have to do is relist it, and ask for it to be accepted. The only issue here is me and 999 agreeing to mediate. Then mediation can get under way. I'll agree to mediation if 999 does, so please ask him nicely. Thanks. 16:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I asked 999 myself on his talk page. Just don't start an edit war and there wont be one, k? Zos 16:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Compromises that will get us somewhere.

All modern history from the main GD article should be deleted. Only essentials that can be agreed on should be included therein, furthermore, the Cipher manuscript should be included within the main article. This will make for a shorten article but ultimately one that will put an end to all these disputations. The Golden Dawn’s historical importance should prevail above all, along with the aims and purpose of the order. The article as it stands at the moment is unacceptable, and sourced from biased POV, that benefits the political agenda of JMAX555 and his licensor HOGD, Inc.

The main GD article should only contain the links to the contemporary orders web-sites, and no other comment about these contemporary orders should be made, to purposely avoid arguments and disputes. We should essentially leave the cotemporary orders web-sites to do the talking and not Wikipedia.

All the contemporary orders articles should be deleted. Contemporary orders having their own pages is unnecessary on Wikipedia and I feel was a bad, unsupported idea from the last disputation, and it was pointed out that edit warring would prevail on those pages if this happened. And it has sure as hell happened, and probably will do again now the articles have been unprotected. You should have waited Zos really before doing that and consulted others first.

It is biased in its self-that HOGD, Inc. has many of its licensees with pages of their own, the HOGD/A+O has only one. At the very least all HOGD, Inc. articles should be under the HOGD, Inc. article, with just simply a link and synopsis of the order.

The Sodalitas Rosae Crucis et Solis Alati is not a traditional Golden Dawn order, and is far better, and should more properly be listed under Martinism. The Sodalitas Rosae Crucis et Solis Alati is also yet another HOGD, Inc. licened order along with the EOGD, OSOGD and the OSM/HSoM. That makes one HOGD/A+O page, and five HOGD, Inc. organisations.

The August Order of the Mystic Rose however, a true, and traditional Golden Dawn order that is unaffiliated with the HOGD, Inc. is not included in the list of contemporary orders. Although, this is irrelevant as the whole lot of the contemporary articles should be deleted, as they are unnecessary and links only should be provided in the main GD article.

The bottom line, and a wise proposal is:

I do not feel it right that the main GD article should be deleted completely from Wikipedia. What I propose is that we have the whole lot deleted, the contemporary articles permanently, and the main article temporarily. We scrap the whole lot and start all over again here in the discussion page. We exclude all modern history and controversial talking points and produce a short factual article on the historical importance of the Golden Dawn, let’s not turn an encyclopaedic article into an advertisement for various other orders, or a tug of war competition. The only mention of contemporary Golden Dawn orders should be the links ONLY to the contemporary orders.

The historical legacy of the Golden Dawn and its aims and purposes, with short biog’s on the founders, as the Golden Dawn should be considered as important as the Freemasonic movement and tradition. The historical facts is really all that should be documented and all modern material should avoided as will inevitably lead to further revert warring and conflict.

Please note the main GD article in its present state is not acceptable as it contains modern history and controversial talking points, all of which produce disputations and conflict that lead to edit & revert warring. Something has to change here, and unless the usual sequence of events of reverting is to be avoided by both parties. I feel it is far better to have all the contemporary articles deleted, the separate Cipher manuscript article deleted, and the main GD article deleted so that we can work together in, incorporating all the material in one article from scratch, thus avoiding, and putting an end to this never ending disputation. All the relevant information is then in one place rather than fragmented and hidden across several Wikipedia pages.

You can be certain that without changes like this we will never get anywhere, we should delete the whole lot and simply start again, afresh, with the main article and other points given supra.

They are the main points and wise compromises for now that would stop possible and imminent edit warring and disputes. When people agree then we can get to work and edit the article accordingly from scratch and avoid conflict and end this whole thing.

I hope other parties involved will give this careful consideration. I am sure that following these points we can put a dignified and speedy end to all of this.

Frater FiatLux 20:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

You clearly have no idea how deletion on Wikipedia works. I'll give you a hint - the editors of an article can't just decide to delete it. I'll leave it up to you to do some research and figure out how it actually works... --198.16.17.88 03:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You on the other hand have clearly not read and understood what I've put. I don't want the Golden Dawn article deleting from Wikipedia, I want to start it again, wipe the whole screen blank, and then discuss each stage in the discussion page, as it is re-built. My private correspondence with administrators and mediators has shown that they all thought that proceeding in such a way, would be a very good idea. If any more of this nonsense continues I will try to get them involved.

I do not agree with the changes Zos has made and still is making, therefore, the only thing to do is to start again, to avoid conflict and reverting. But then you’ll evade the points made and carry on regardless anyway.

Frater FiatLux 16:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Ok. Look, lets not remove everything and start from scratch. We can rewrite the article piece by piece if thats what you want, yet there is a lot of information on this and other pages need to remain. None of the other orders pages need to be deleted because they have sources and need a link from this article because they derived from this main organization. I dont feel I should have waited first before requesting unprotection, simply because the talk pages have settled down now.

Also, there already exist bio's on the members of the order, and sub order. This wouldnt belong on this article. Plus, you are saying way too much here to even think about commenting on. Please try to convey your message in fewer words. Zos 20:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Instead of criticizing the way that FiatLux communicates, I would rather focus on what he is trying to get across about the contribution/article. Which is, that this article should be about an organization which is notable historically. None of the contemporary information in this article, including the contemporary organizations' vanity articles have barely any scrap of verifiability. Not that I am any big fan of nor member of the EOGD, but it seems to me that if they are going to be deleted out of this article for lack of notability and verifiablity, the same could be said for all of the organizations. Otherwise, we also have a biased article on our hands as well, don't we, if we delete one group and keep the rest? I say, avoid this controversy and eliminate them all. I am certain that keeping this article a purely historical one would be in the best interest of not only ALL of the organizations involved in this article, but also, more importantly, for Wikipedia. I'd say that if we want a featured article we'll need to keep the vanity pages and the bias completely out by making an article which preserves the historical order of 1888 as this would make the article an exceptionally well cited and verifiable article on all accounts. Dissenters to the historical version would be easily thwarted by having absolutely NO verifiable evidence in support of their various POV revisionisms of history. Furthermore, ALL contemporary historical theories, in my opinion, should be thrown out as irrelevent to factual, historical editing. Otherwise, I can assure you that I will not agree to this article by any means as it currently stands as a neutral or acceptable article worthy of notability, let any being featured, in and for Wikipedia.

Furthermore, I think it is truly a shame that yourself, Zos, and user:999 decided not to mediate. Apparently you had no desire to mediate. We may need to call in arbitration on this one.

Oh yeah.. and now we have yet *another* article on the "secret chiefs"? Is this really necessary? If so, why? Additionally, why didn't you use the talk page to discuss placing an entirely new article in the main article?

Kephera975 03:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

No one asked for your opinion. It had nothing to do with anyone other than me and 999. And I've already offered to put my name back up for agreeing to go to mediation. All we would have to do is relist it. Arbitration wont accept it because we never got to mediation. So good luck. Zos 03:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

About the secret chiefs...I dont need to tell everyone I'm adding a link to a main article. Especially when its a section of the article. Zos 03:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Seriously. Some things just dont need to be addressed on the talk pages. Zos 03:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I think your thwarting the mediation process just to try to take over this article like it is your sole possesion is enough grounds to bring this to arbitration. I can show that myself and other editors attempted it, but it was thwarted. Kephera975 03:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, how about you check the archive on the RfM talk page. I gave a full reason why I left mediation. Try reading it, instead of slinging insults. I dont own the article, I'm only working to get citations in, and make it verifiable. Zos 03:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Insults??? This should be about making an article which is as neutral and verifiable as possible, right? Making this a purely historical account would do just that. Although you've already made it clear that my opinion doesn't count, I would be interested in knowing why you think this isn't the best option? Noone has really answered that. Kephera975 03:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I never said anything about this. I was talking about your remarks about me owning the article, as well as about the mediation that never took place. As for the article...add to the history if you want, no one said that was a bad idea. I just dont care for your remarks about the mediation. Zos 03:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Changes

ALR pointed out that the Origins section has a bit more information about the SRIA than it needs. I'm about to remove some of this, as it is not pertinent to this article, but to its main article. If anyone does not feel it needs to be removed, we can discuss it before reverting. Thanks. 22:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I removed some of the material that goes into detail about the SRIA, as its not pertinent and it belongs on the SRIA page. The orgins section does in fact need expansion, possilby adding the section for the secret chiefs and cipher manuscripts into it, to form a complete origin. Zos 22:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I think this is going to be the smartest idea. Seeing as how the origins are the cipher manuscripts and the secret chiefs. I think I'm gonna combine these section together, giving citations where I can. Zos 02:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I began to make small changes and added a few citations. I'm in no way done, but I've added a header for the founders, as its loose information, and can be expanded if needed but esentially has no place right now. I'm thinking about just removing it, since its mostly bio material anyway, but I'm leaving it up, as to not remove too much info at one time. But also it might add credibility to the founding. Zos 05:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I did what I could tonight for formatting and citations. I'm going to work on the secret chiefs section in the morning. Zos 05:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Zos you're trying to own this article, please stop editing the article until a compromise has been reached between both parties before you make anymore edits. Your editing is not acceptable and will only degenerate into more revert warring, as it is controversial. You should discuss any changes in the discussion page first.

Frater FiatLux 12:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

IMO, it is you who would like to own the article and you don't know how to compromise. There is no edit warring except when you get involved. I'd recommend that you go respond to your RfC, because if you start edit warring like you have in the past you will end up with a community ban and your ill-mannered presence here will be over. On second thought, go ahead and start warring again. 198.16.17.88 13:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

As you can see below, who ever you are, I am very willing to compromise, it is Zos that opposing my wise compromises that will put an end to conflict. He would rather though remain defiant with his version. I am willing to sacrifice my version for a completely new, non-POV article with no modern, controversial, talking points, and just the essential agreeable information.Frater FiatLux 13:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Please also refer to my message supra: Compromises that will get us somewhere. Frater FiatLux 13:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The Bottom Line

The bottom line is, we’re prepared to sacrifice our version of the article for a non-controversial article; the point is Zos, are you, 999, JMAX555, prepared to sacrifice your own version and compromise.

The article in its present state, is unacceptable and also are your recent additions. There is conflict over these articles because some do not agree with the controversial points in the article, subsequently, we are saying let us remove all of the modern history and simply rewrite an article that is agreeable to everyone. The only way that will happen is if we start again, and that is the only way to end conflict, as it is brewing already.

What you can not expect, after all this conflict, is remain defiant with your own version of the article that is creating conflict and is bound to create revert warring. I’m sure the other parties involved are not just going to roll over and allow you to remain defiant with this controversial and bias POV version.

Zos, if you do not compromise then we have no other option to revert the article. You must realise also that if that happens, I have made a comprehensive and wise compromise to end all conflict, and it will only reflect badly on you if do not compromise, and remain defiant, in that you want the article to remain in a highly controversial format. We need to bring an end to disputations.

I have offered a potential way out of all this conflict and revert warring, and hopefully it will be supported. You need to refer to my compromises made above “Compromises that will get us somewhere”, and give it some careful consideration.

And stop evading the points I have brought up so that you can remain defiant with your version of the article, please address the points I have made. I can assure you that I am, and I’m sure others will be willing to sacrifice the other version of the article so that proper compromises can be made.

Frater FiatLux 13:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You haven't offered a compromise, you've delivered a lecture. It is not an option on WP to delete articles and start over. You always start from precisely where the article is - without reverting to an earlier version. If you feel the article is not NPOV, then you follow the NPOV process which requires calling out and discussing individual points in the article which you think are biased, then reaching a consensus and then abiding by it, even if you are outnumbered and don't get to make the change you want. Try discussing - nobody listens to your lectures. TL;DR. 198.16.17.88 13:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You on the other hand have clearly not read and understood what I've put. I don't want the Golden Dawn article deleting from Wikipedia, I want to start it again, wipe the whole screen blank, and then discuss each stage in the discussion page, as it is re-built. My private correspondence with administrators and mediators has shown that they all thought that proceeding in such a way, would be a very good idea. If any more of this nonsense continues I will try to get them involved.

I do not agree with the changes Zos has made and still is making, therefore, the only thing to do is to start again, to avoid conflict and reverting. But then you’ll evade the points made and carry regardless anyway.

I'm not interested whether you think I'm lecturing or not, I couldn't care less; I'm, simply attempting to sort this out. With the amount of conflict on both sides and dirty tricks, active recruitment by certain users to revert the articles, openly on other users discussion pages. The only sensible thing would to be to start again and delete all modern history and controversial talking points, especially as I do not agree with Zos‘s editing.

Frater FiatLux 17:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Look, its not my intention to own the article. My only intention is to constribute the best way I know how. And thats by citing sources, removing POV comments, and making the article flow better. I have been the only one working on this since the article has been unprotected. This does not mean anything at all. If you look at the history, you will see that my edits have been fair. I've left a lot of uncited statements in the article, and combined most of it into a better format. This to me looks like an improvement on the article. Sorry you feel differently. Zos 14:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Plus, I never made it to the Secret Chiefs section yet either. Its a lot of work finding sources per section. Sometimes things just dont fit into a section. Frater FiatLux: try to limit what you say to about 100 words or so. It gets too confusing because you say so much and think there is some sort of ownership of an article when one edior is doing most of the work. If you really cared about the article, you'd spend less time talking and more time adding citations to it. Zos 14:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Frater FiatLux: The article can be worked on, and is being worked on. I've added citations and references, without starting from scratch. How can you honestly say that my additions are not an attempt to get the article in good shape?

You have made no valid points as of yet to the history of the Golden Dawn. Do you have sources to say what you wish? If so, then add them. Zos 17:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

More changes

I've made some more changes. I moved some of the material around to where it looked like it should go, as some of the material is common sense, and many sources say the same thing. I got rid of the founders section and put it into the intro, as a section for teh founders was another of one of my bad ideas. Now I'm about to start working on the secret chiefs section, and work my way down to the revolt area, or its called the break off section. I'm going to be added much more citations to other areas as well, hopefully soon. Zos 15:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Also there a bunch of statements in the cipher manuscripts section and secret chiefs section that doesnt pertain to the history. I think it should be put to those articles. Only things strictly pertaining to the history should be in this article. Zos 15:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You may have citations Zos, but that doesn't mean to say that you're creating a neutral article does it. You're making changes that neither Kephera nor myself agree with, such as another page for the secret chiefs and Cipher manuscript article. So, where is that going to get us Zos? Nowhere. We do not agree, thus, conflict looms. What will happen for instance if we edit the article with what we think should be on there, without discussing it with you, as it looks like you're trying to claim ownership on this article now. You will probably run to admin.

I would advise you to stop making changes and talk to us to see whether or not we agree with your editing. Before you actually just go right ahead and make the changes.

You now say:"Only things strictly pertaining to the history should be in this article." Which is what I've already said. Modern history should simply be deleted. And quit whining about the length of my compromises. You really think that such a troublesome case like this is going to sorted in few lines...sadly you appear to think it is so.

Frater FiatLux 17:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Look. You can add to the article all you want, but please make sure new statements are non argumentitive, and cited from sources. I have problem working with you Frater FiatLux, so long as you do not removed "cited information" without discussing it first. I have addressed, no this talk page, everything I intended to do, before making changes. I dont have to do this actually. I only need to discuss a revert or a disputed statement.

As for things being striclty pertaining to the article. Yes, thats right. Main articles only discuss whats relevant to the article. There are other main articles to discuss other matter in depth. This is how things are done on Wikipedia.

And I'm not whinning about the length of your speaches. Try reading Wikipedia's talk guidlines. In it, it clearly says that if you cannot convey your opinion in under 100 words or less, theres no reason for you to be saying it. And seeing as how you havent outlined what it is you dont like, how can i work with you to change it? Zos 17:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

History

So far I've been contributing to just the main history of the Golden Dawn, nothing in the present tense. Merely its origins. I fail to see, Frater FiatLux, how you could have a problem with these additions, but can I have you outline what you disagree with? Please limit your words, and also please dont bring up past disputes, as I am not a recruit of any other editor. I am making my own additions, from my own sources, and I think you can clearly see that my additions harm no one. Zos 17:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

See above, and stop telling me to limit my words; I will comment as I see fit. I will take a good look at your editing, however, on first sight, I do not agree.

Frater FiatLux 17:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

See above also. Please follow wikipedia talk guidelines. You have also not outlined what you dont like about the article, to where we can work toward a compromise. We just cant get rid of everything and start from scratch. Thats called blanking and not allowed. Zos 17:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

by the way, which section are you refering to when you say modern? Do you mean the moedern revival section? Let me show you how its done. First you remove the material that is not cited to the talk page, under a header called "Awaiting Sources". Then, when someone has sources to cite it, they can be added back. I'll do this for you, so you can see how I did it. Zos 17:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Now, you see how I did it? Zos 17:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Your other disagreement was with the Secret Chiefs. Now, I think you know that the Secret Chiefs are directly related to the Golden Dawn, in many ways. I'm going to remove alot of comments about it, and replace it with cited statements right now. Zos 17:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Well the admins I talked to said in this case, starting again would be a good idea, and still think that it is.

The Servents of the Light are not to my knowledge a traditional, or even part based Golden Dawn order. I will be adding, "The August Order of the Mystic Rose" to the links section. I will be deleting the SRC&AC, as that's not eithier, and the servents of the light.

Frater FiatLux 17:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

yes but the admins are not here right now, and I have no way of knowing who or what was being talked about. I've already started the article over again, piece by piece. Zos 17:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I dont think you want to remove the SRC&AC. Its stated on the main article that its in keeping with the Golden Dawns teachings. Zos 17:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)