Talk:Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn/Archive 5

Awaiting Sources

After discussion between Frater FiatLux and I, I'm removing a section to the talk page, which doesnt really pertain to the article that much, and has no citations:

• The Modern Revival

In 1914, Aleister Crowley published the texts of the Initiation rituals of the Outer Order in his serial publication, "The Equinox". Real circulation of the materials didn't happen until after World War I, when they created quite a stir in the occult community. The secrets of the Golden Dawn became available to the general public, and were a major part of the occult "revival" of the 1920s. Israel Regardie, who was once Crowley's secretary, published the complete initiation rites, along with a selection of the workings and instructional documents that were in his possession, of the Stella Matutina (essentially identical to the original Golden Dawn rituals and teachings) in the early 1930s. While this action supposedly violated the Order's oaths of secrecy, Regardie claims he believed at the time no functioning lodges remained, and feared the work of the Order would otherwise be lost forever.

In the 1920s and 30s more schisms occurred, and by the onset of World War II most of the original Lodges were gone, except for a few small groups (notably in North America and New Zealand) that could claim direct descent from the original Lodges, finally dying out in the 1970s. But even as the original lodges died away, new adherents and Initiates of the old Adepts began to revive the Order, reclaiming the name of the Golden Dawn. Lodges currently exist in Europe, the Americas, South Africa and Australia. Numbers are hard to estimate, but there are likely hundreds if not thousands of people currently involved in organized Golden Dawn groups, and many solo practitioners. Some can claim lineage of one kind or another to the original lodges by succession (i.e. Adepts having gone on to establish their own Lodges without any official charters), others simply follow the legacy of the original Order according to the wealth of published material available to the public, either in organized lodges or as solo practitioners. This being the case, there is no universally recognized central authority, though there are lodges and individuals that lay claim to it.

There are a few organized Golden Dawn groups today that lay claim to the "undiluted" lineage of the original Temples. Generally, this takes the form of issuing claims (especially on the Internet) of being chartered by an offshoot Temple of Isis-Urania Lodge No.3. Moina Mathers, having assumed the role of Imperatrix after her husband's death in 1918, chartered a few Lodges in Europe and America after her husband died. Claims of lineage are usually by connection to one of these temples.

The publication of the Golden Dawn corpus figured prominently in the occult "revival" of the 1960s. Before his death in 1985, Regardie was involved in initiatives to reestablish the Golden Dawn tradition. Other groups founded by former Golden Dawn associates, such as the Builders of the Adytum (B.O.T.A.) of Paul Foster Case and the Society of Inner Light of Dion Fortune, continue to exist today. The historical and cultural legacy of the Golden Dawn has been more influential on modern occultism than any other esoteric organization or body of knowledge. Although the original Golden Dawn teachings showed a strong influence of esoteric Christianity, almost every expression of Western occult spirituality and neo-paganism today owes a debt to the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn.

Once someone finds sources to discuss some of this, its can be put back into the article in a proper place. Zos 17:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• The Order is meant to be the repository of great spiritual knowledge passed down from ancient sources. Though some sources such as Imhotep, King Solomon, Hermes Trismegistus and Christian Rosenkreutz are part of the legendary history of the Order; the original founders (in particular Mathers) expounded a doctrine of "The Secret Chiefs", who collectively represented the "Third" or highest Order of the Western Magical tradition. Mathers declared these Chiefs of the Order were living human beings, or perhaps "evolved" human beings, that possessed the secrets of immortality, omniscience, and superhuman magical powers. He claimed to be in personal contact with certain of these Chiefs, and based his authority as the indisputable leader of the Order on instructions supposedly handed down from them.

• Other Golden Dawn Lodges and Adepts also claimed to be "in contact" with Secret Chiefs, and the original schisms of the Golden Dawn can almost be seen as various "Chiefs" issuing conflicting orders to their contacts. Mathers claimed that he actually met Chiefs in person and that they had physical bodies. Florence Farr believed herself to have psychically contacted a Chief, in a manner similar to what is now called "channeling", and was even authorized by Mathers in 1897 to form a working group, "The Sphere Group", to make further contact with this Chief. Aleister Crowley claimed that a spiritual entity named "Aiwass", who was a Secret Chief, dictated to him in 1904 the Book of the Law which was to be the basis of a new Hermetic philosophy. Another faction led by F.W. Felkin, moved their Temple to New Zealand to await the physical arrival of their Chief, who unfortunately never showed up. Generally, each faction refused to acknowledge the authority of another faction's contact with a "Secret Chief."

This was taken from teh Secret Chiefs section, it also needs sources, and most do not even discuss the original Golden Dawn. Zos 18:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• The Golden Dawn follows a "fraternal lodge" model similar to freemasonry, with titles, degrees and initiations. The Order purports to be a meritocracy, with advancement based on tests of knowledge and demonstration of skills.

• In the Outer Order, both the layout of the Temple and the functions of Officers seem to closely mirror those of Craft Freemasonry. The names of the Grades, or degrees of initiation, as well as the titles bestowed upon initiates, were taken from old sources such as the German Masonic "Gold und Rosen-kreutzers", and Pianco's 1781 book, Der Rosenkreutzer in seiner Blosse. In the Inner Order, the Rosicrucian drama enacted in the initiation rituals is reminiscent of that in the "Rose Croix" degree of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, and is certainly related to the ceremonies of the S.R.I.A. The Grades in the Golden Dawn are based on the symbolism of the Qabalistic Tree of Life.

Heres more info without citations taken from the Structure section. Its being disputed below, and can be put back once sources are provided. Zos 19:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Chopped up article

It looks like someone accidentally(?) chopped off the end of this article? Hopefully, it's not a vandalism. Just drawing the editors' attentions to this. Kephera975 19:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I've corrected it. Let's be more careful when we make spelling corrections. :) Kephera975 19:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Contemporary Orders section

I have seen no reasonable arguments for the inclusion of the vanity pages on the contemporary Orders. They lack verifiability, are hardly notable, and we have an article now which goes from the Breakup of the Original Order to Influences(on the historical Golden Dawn) with these orders just seemingly sandwiched randomly there. It makes no logical sense, nor do these stubby articles appear to comply with Wikipedia editing policies. This would be like having an article on Christianity and including a section illogicaly and randomly thrown in the center of the article advertising different churches one could belong to. Keep in mind that encyclopedia articles are for people researching a topic, not for people interested in joining organizations and perusing different advertisements for membership to those organizations. Including links to websites at the bottom of the article should suffice for those interested in the various contemporary fraternities and organizations.

Kephera975 22:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

All fixed, buddy. I moved it to the end of the article. Wasn't that easy? —Hanuman Das 22:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Some of those arent vanity. This section you refer to has a history of disputes. I'd recomend a vote/survey to see what other editors think first. I'll start it off with a vote.

• Remove: - Reason: I will soon be expanding the Revolt/Breakup/Offshoots section very soon, and any orders or spinoffs that have sources can be placed in such a section, as long as it has sources. Some of the orders included in the section now, do not reflect the orders of that era (the Golden Dawn break-offs era), but are newer groups, with new names. Zos 22:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Remove: - Reason: See my opinion previously posted addressing this issue. Kephera975 22:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: - if they don't have a section, they'll end up in the "See also" list. At least with their own section there can be a brief introduction to what they are: G.D. revival or reconstruction groups. —Hanuman Das 22:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: -reponse to Hanuman Das. One organization's article is looking like it is going to be deleted. In my opinion, a neutral article should then delete them all. Furthermore, each special interest group has a link on this page to their respective websites as it is. This should suffice in providing information about G.D. reconstructionist groups. Where better to get information about them, than at their own websites? Additionally, to keep these pages on Wikipedia will cause further conflict between the fraternities who are engaged in fraternal conflict(just as including articles advertising different churches or temples in a religious article would encourage further disputation). Just look at the history of these articles to see this. Kephera975 22:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Let me explain something K. I don't give a shit what you think. You are clearly biased against one or more of these groups and that is the real reason you want to delete them. I have no respect for someone who is not honest about their motiviations. —Hanuman Das 22:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Very civil. An ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy and should not be counted in this discussion. Kephera975 22:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I've seen your edits to the articles in question. Your intent is low and your methods are sneaky. You have yet to provide one citation for your derogatory additions, and keep trying to sneak them into cited material, pretending that they are from the same source. So say what you will, methinks the lady doth protest too much. —Hanuman Das 23:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a simple survey on whether to keep or remove the contemporary Order articles. If you have an issue with me or my opinions, please take it to my user page so you can continue your personal attacks on me there. Thank you. Nothing further. No one needs to deal with this kind of pettiness from you or myself here. Kephera975 23:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. I'll thank you not to try to change my opinion in a simple vote, whether it be here or on AfD. I see through you, Dung Beetle god, and what I see ain't pretty. —Hanuman Das 01:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly Kephera. Please keep it civilHanuman Das and no more gratuitous ad hominem attacks please. Especially since you've not been involved in this disputation until now, therefore, I suggest you leave this to the established editors. Anymore and you’ll be reported to the relevant administration page. Frater FiatLux 23:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Mind your own business, FiatLux. Any Wikipedia editor may edit any article they please. Nobody made you King. Thanks. :-) —Hanuman Das 01:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do behave yourself. Please govern yourself accordingly to Wikipedia's protocol regarding civil conduct. Frater FiatLux 13:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC) 13:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Remove: - Reason: I would think that these articles should be deleted altogether, because there is no consensus about what should be in this section. It makes more sense to have it all deleted. Opuaut 08:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Remove: - Reason: I've said all along they should be deleted. Frater FiatLux 23:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Remove: - Reason: I don't believe that the various orders will ever agree on content. Heck, they won't even agree on which ones are included.--GDHistorian 23:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Comment: I striked out this vote, as this is a completely new editor, not having worked on this article at all, just appearing here now to vote. I wonder. Zos 23:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Hanuman Das: Any group or offshoot that has in fact been a branch off of the Golden Dawn should remain in the article, in its own section, yes. But I do believe that I am the only one currently in possession of such source. I say this, because this is one of the many reasons we were to go to mediation. Bit now that I have found some sources, I will be adding, as previously mentioned, an expansion on the break up/revolt section. This will include any links that are now available, but, there are some that simply do not belong. And need to be removed from this article, as they are not german to the topic. Zos 00:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Cant we get along for one minute? Theres something about this articles talk page that just screams lets argue over nothing at all. Just calm down everyone and try some breathing excercises from Regadies Golden Dawn book :p Zos 01:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Known members

Arnold Bennett was a name given in I. Regardies What you should know about the Golden Dawn. There might be in fact, two Arnold Bennetts, I'm not sure :/ This is all I know about the subject matter of this individual. I'll see if I can spot anything else, in other books, or maybe a middle name. Zos 15:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh and yeah. My mistake not the alphabetical order. Zos 15:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

While looking into Regardie's book, you might have considered listing Regardie himself as a known member. No matter that he was "in at the death" (so to speak) of the Order.

Nuttyskin 21:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, actually, G.D. was dead by then. He was a member of Stella Matutina, IIRC. —Hanuman Das 22:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Structure question

Reading the structure section it talks about GD ritual in the first order being similar to Blue Lodge ritual. I've changed that to Craft lodge because Blue is a very US specific term. The section then goes on to talk about the structure which is very similar to SocRos, with the addition of an extra grade at the top being the main difference. In the first order the grades are all named the same as SocRos, so it seems more sensible to me that the ritual is similar to Soc Ros, rather than Craft, particularly wince the history section emphasises the SocRos affiliation of the founders, rather than their craft membership. Is there a reference which explicitly says the rituals are similar to craft freemasonry, rather than SocRos? I'd emphasise the point by highlighting that craft only has three grades anyway, not four, however SocRos has four.ALR 18:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Not really sure, gonna have to dig for that one. I'll look over my sources, and check though. Its hard to really say which is which because the first sets of rituals were taken directly from the cipher manuscripts. Now, if the cipher man's come from SRIA, then its safe to speculate it. But since there are many theories jumping around about these manuscripts, we can't get a definite answer to that, only guessing and assumptions made by editors and occult historians. But like I said, I'll look at a few of my books. Zos 18:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Quickly skimming I found that the outer order rituals were based off Rosicrucian grades, which were decoded from the cipher manuscripts. So I'd remove the statement about craft masonry altogether, since there is no citation there. Zos 18:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, just so you know...my source is Francis King Ritual Magic of the Golden Dawn. It doesnt mention anything about freemasonry as being in the outer. Zos 18:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense, one has to be a Mason to be admitted to Soc Ros, but the rituals are very different. An interesting collection, with SocRos used for the first order, then A&AR used in the third order. Both SocRos and A&AR are explicitly Christian orders, and whilst I've done the Rose Croix degree in A&AR I'm only as far as Adeptus Minor in SocRos, so don't know what the 8th and 9th grade rituals are like. There may be a similarity. But again SocRos and A&AR are different from craft, they just require that one is a craft Mason; 5 years in to join SocRos, 10 years in to join A&AR.ALR 18:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm removing anything pertaining to this, that has no citation. I'm placing it in the Awaiting sources section on this talk page. Zos 19:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Its done. As you already know, I've been working on this article, adding as many citations as I can, to get this article in working shape (although other editors have been having fun with my poor grammar :p). I havent even gotten to the Structure section, as I'm just focusing on a chronological history right now, and then attacking the Break off section, because there is alot not being said in this article that needs to be said.

Its also my opinion that there shouldntbe a contemporary Golden Dawn section. That should be for disamb. Zos 19:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Added citations surrounding Frater Kenneth Mackenzie.

I’ve added four separate citations to make the section regarding Frater Kenneth Mackenzie and his initiation in to a Rosicrucian continental mystery school, by Count Apponyi of Hungary, to make this more verifiable. The citation for this previously was the Bruce paper at the SRIA. As the citations I’ve given are in print sources that can be verified easily, I have simply made an edit to show this. Rather the section in question stating: “A different and much more controversial theory states.” With the new in print verifiable citations I’ve edited it to: “A different, and additional theory states.” Seeing that the new citations make this event less controversial and is documented in more than one source and by more than one author, and are as well as the Bruce paper at the SRIA. Frater FiatLux 21:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

But what does any of this have to do with the Golden Dawn? Maybe this should go into the SRIA article? I think it should. As its not talking about the Golden Dawn at all. Zos 21:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It is information of vital, and essential, historical importance as to the Cipher Manuscripts, and furthermore, the founding of the Golden Dawn; It should therefore, stay in this article. Frater FiatLux 21:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand. It holds importance to the cipher manuscripts. Although, the cipher manuscripts used by Mackenzie, not used by the Golden Dawn, so it should be placed in the Cipher Manuscripts article, where it belongs. We cant just add anything we like to the article just because it has a slim connection. As far as I've read, Mackenzie gave the manuscripts to Woodford, and this is the only connection, besides being in the SRIA, that Mackenzie has to the Golden Dawn. Zos 21:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't like to see this moved to the Cipher manuscript article; I believe its relevance is within the Golden Dawn article. It is important to have at least some historical relevance of this development in the Ciphers and lineage of the GD to Rosicrucian sources; I believe the developments surrounding Frater Mackenzie is very relevant to the GD article because of this.

I note that you've only brought this up since I've added more citations to make that account more verifiable, and it is only after my additions that you have now decided it should be moved. You didn't want this to be removed before I made my editing, and I do not support moving this and believe it should remain in the Golden Dawn article in its proper context. I want to work with you Zos, so don‘t make this difficult, as I have improved the article with my additions. Frater FiatLux 22:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC) 22:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

No I've been having a problem with that part of the section for while now, I just forgot to mention it. I bring it up now, because you added a citation to it, yes, for I had temporarily forgotten about that material. I've been working on alot of other things, and dont think I requested it being removed because you edited the area. I would be saying the same thing no matter who added the citation. And I've said nothing else about your other edits so please step back and think about this for a minute. What I am asking is, that it be placed in the actual Cipher Manuscripts article, as anyone reading the Golden Dawn article may see further discussion on the cipher man's once they click the link. But Wikipedia wont allow us to add material that is not relevant to an article, and that which you added a citation to, is not. Zos 22:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I just looked back over it and found I was wrong! I must be getting another edit confused. Theres no need to remove it, good work on the structure. Zos 22:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I see that here is where you discussed this, FFL. And I see no editors agreeing with you and one editor disagreeing. Please don't attempt to mislead others about whether or not there is a consensus on an issue. Any further attempts to mislead will be added to your RfC. ---Baba Louis 02:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

To begin with

Ok everyone, I'm going to begin to work on the Break off section, but I think I'm renaming it Revolt, as it sounds much better in my opinion. I suspect I will get some quarrels pertaining to this section (based on previous disputes), so wish me luck! Zos 22:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Removing citations

Baba: I noticed you removed a cited statement before discussing it. You'll have to understand the history/reverting here, and to not get anyone jumpy, we need to disuss it first. The statement was done poorly yes, but needs to remain, as it shows why Woodford is not really credited with being the fourth founder (he died). Zos 15:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Tell you what, I'll edit my way, you edit yours. It's easy enough to put back and I wasn't sure how to phrase it. You put it back better, no problem. The edit history is always there to resort to... It's not the fault of an editor editting in good faith if another editor gets upset instead of finding a solution... I'm not going to pussyfoot around simply b/c Frater FiatLux tends to get hysterical. ---Baba Louis 15:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Well if you werent sure how to do it, then dont. Its not in good faith to remove a cited stated. Discuss it first, as your edits will be a waste, per revert. As for the revert history, its a common understanding on talk pages that have a history, please respect this.

And your remark about finding a solution....so this means removing a cited statement is a solution for not knowing what to do huh? Zos 15:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yup, I definitely don't like your attitude. We're all adults here (I think), please refrain from telling me how to edit. Assume good faith and move forward from where the article is. No need to moan about how other editors do things differently that you would prefer. From now on, I'll not respond to any such discussion. Thanks. ---Baba Louis 19:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I just want you to not remove cited statements. I'm tired of expressing this to you nicely. You're unwillingness to understand this is the real concern. I'll leave it alone, until you do it again. Zos 20:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

But there is no policy against removing material to improve the article, regardless of whether it is cited. I can see that you believe there is or should be such a policy, but there isn't. You're welcome to cite the policy if you can. ---Baba Louis 20:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll help you out, here is the official editing policy - please note that discussion is not at all required and one of the main precepts is Be bold! ---Baba Louis 21:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes I know that one. And since I cannot find a policy, as there should be, I'm requesting one be created just for you Baba! Zos 21:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's a waste of time. Just because something is cited doesn't mean it is topical, pertinant or important. I removed a short phrase I found both irrelevant and poorly integrated. You put it back because you thought it relevant and you improved it in the process. I still think it irrelevant, but since it is now well integrated, I'll leave it be. This is a fine example of how WP is supposed to work. ---Baba Louis 21:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

But it is topical, pertinant and important. Go back and look at what you removed. It was an addition to give reason why Woodford is not the fourth founder of the Golden Dawn. Very pertinant to the history of the Golden Dawn Baba. And no, wrong again. Theres a difference in being bold, in editing, and what you are doing. The removal of cited material is not stated as being a policy, but this does not mean you should do it as you please. So, in wasting my time, I will work towards helping Wikipedia, in clarifying their policies, for editors like you. Zos 21:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I changed it from "yet Woodford died shortly after the Order was founded" to "although Woodford died shortly after the Order was founded". All you had to do was remove the parentheses, as it was my mistake. Not delete the statement. Which is what caused this. Zos 21:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You speak as if there is some sort of absolute. There isn't. What is important or relevant is a matter of opinion. Sometimes insisting something be included is backed by an agenda to imply something that can't actually be said. In this case, I deleted a parenthetical expression. Putting something in parentheses is a way of saying it is less important than the surrounding text. If you want to say "why" Woodford is not considered the fourth founder of the G.D. and think it is important, then you should be explicit and say it directly, not imply it with the contents of a parenthetical. Clearly, we do not think alike, but we are both trying in good faith to improve the article. That, I think, is sufficient. The policy says that I can delete shorter or smaller amount of text and being irrelevant is one of the acceptable reasons. If it were longer, I'd have discussed it. I don't think it adds anything to the article in its current form, and runs the risk of being removed again by someone else unless you make explicit your reason for including it by expanding it to a sentence and including the "why". You can't expect other editors to be mind-readers. ---Baba Louis 21:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

And I realized my mistake already. I didnt wish to imply anything, as that would have been WP:NOR. Yet the author clears it up in another book (check the citations), showing why he isnt the fourth founder, but he still feels he should be.

Which policy are you refering to again? Because if you mean WP:EP, I'll quote it:

• Reasons for removing bits of an article include:
  • duplication
  • irrelevancy
  • patent nonsense
  • copyright violations
  • inaccuracy, or where the accuracy of the information cannot be established

I fail to see exactly which reason yours fall under :/ I can't expect other readers to be mind readers as you say, but I also cannot insert my opinion into the article, just a valid source's opinion. So I will not be filling your request. Zos 21:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I already stated irrelevancy and thought I had explained that relevancy is a matter of opinion. Didn't you read what I said? Or did you just not get it? ---Baba Louis 01:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes but just saying "its irrelevant" won't work. Its relevant to the early history, and was included as such. Its only my opinion to add to the article any way I can, so I wasnt looking at it in a POV when I added it. I simply asked myself, is it relevant, then added it. Id rather answer as many questions for the reader as I can, with the sources I have obtained. Poor Woodford. Zos 01:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course it works. I removed it because I thought it irrelevant. That is still my opinion. It doesn't matter to either the Golden Dawn or the article whether or not whats-his-name is considered the fourth founder or not. It's just not that important. You think it is relevant and put it back. We both did the right thing based on our own opinion on the matter. Your bald assertion that it's important does not make it so... ---Baba Louis 01:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

How'd you know I shave my head? :P Zos 02:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

If you didnt get the joke, it was based off of this "Your bald assertion that it's important does not make it so" :p Zos 01:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I got the joke. I just couldn't think of a witty comeback. Sometimes discretion is the better part of valour. :-) ---Baba Louis 01:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Contemporary Golden Dawn Orders

Cant we just make this a disambig and add it to the top of the page. Consensus is showing for deletion but just to be fair, I think a disambiguation page should be made, or if one exists, add these to it. What say you? Zos 00:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, one does exist: [[1]] Zos 00:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Slight seperation

I think there need to be a slight speration between three things. One, theres the actual revolt, which has its section. Which needs expansion upon other editors contributing with their sources. Two, the controvery about the bogus Golden Dawn set up by Mr. and Mrs Horos (which I do have sources for), needs it own section. Its not part of the revolt, just happened to be right along side of it. Also, any other controversies can be added into that section. And third, the splinter groups need to be seperate from the revolt, possibly a sub section from the Revolt section. And heres where I think I'm gonna end up getting into a dispute about this. The Alpha et Omega is, by heritage or lineage, the Original Golden Dawn. Mathers was rightful Chief, it then went to his wife, etc etc. Then I believe it actually went dormat but was revived in modern day as Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (Rosicrucian Order of A+O). But as far as keeping with the teachings of the Golden Dawn, this can be a number of the actual splinter groups. We have the other temples which were originally Golden Dawn temples, seperating from the original order. But none of these can be concidered to be a direct lineage to the original, and I doubt a source will state that any are. I'll have the other editors know that I wont be adding my bias or POV into it either. Zos 19:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I just realised that there should be a new heading for reconstruction of the original order as well. Seeing as how its particulary not a revolt to reconstruct. If anyone disagrees with it, I only ask that it be brought up on the talk page. Zos 20:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, well, I did what I could thus far. If I find any other groups that would constitute as a splinter from the original order, I'll add them. Although, there is also the A:.A:. and O.T.O., which has used golden dawn material, and if one wishes to dispute it, I could find enough sources to say that Crowley had replaced this and that in constructing rituals. Zos 22:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Awaiting even more sources

• Controversy
  • In 1900, Mathers had entered into a disastrous relationship with a husband and wife known as Mr. and Mrs. Theo Horos. The Horos' had apparently developed some kind of relationship with one of the American temples and had either acquired or forged some Order papers and credentials. Based on these credentials and their mesmeric personalities, the Horoses were able to obtain further Order documents from Mathers, which they used to set up spurious "temples" and operate confidence schemes. Word of their illicit operations eventually reached Mathers, who subsequently denounced them as frauds, and they were tried and convicted of fraud and sexual misconduct in 1902.

I personally dont care much about this section, I removed it because its been in need of citations for some time now. It can be readded upon sources, as I really dont feel like using mine for this one. Zos 21:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Known members

Arnold Bennett was a name given in I. Regardies What you should know about the Golden Dawn. There might be in fact, two Arnold Bennetts, I'm not sure :/ This is all I know about the subject matter of this individual. I'll see if I can spot anything else, in other books, or maybe a middle name. Zos 15:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh and yeah. My mistake not the alphabetical order. Zos 15:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

While looking into Regardie's book, you might have considered listing Regardie himself as a known member. No matter that he was "in at the death" (so to speak) of the Order.

Nuttyskin 21:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, actually, G.D. was dead by then. He was a member of Stella Matutina, IIRC. —Hanuman Das 22:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

How long does this list have to get before it's split off as a "List of known Golden Dawn members" page of its own?--The One True Fred 07:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Bram Stoker:

I've never found any source of proof Stoker was a member. This reference used to be in the article a long time ago, and I got an e-mail from someone connected with the Stoker literary club in England, who told me they had never seen any proof of his membership either, but were interested if anyone could ever find any. So the reference to Stoker got removed. During the Horos scandal at least one lodge burned its membership rolls (viz:Gilbert) and other rolls have never been found, so it's not impossible he was once a member. But I'd say the reference should be taken out according to WP:V guidelines, unless there's a reliable print source that mentions the rumor, and that could be included. JMax555 (talk) 08:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Unicursal Hexagram (UH)

Aleister Crowley’s rendition of the Unicursal Hexagram

Traditional rendition of the Unicursal Hexagram, without the five petalled rose

Right, it has been removed twice now the image (shown below) of the UH stating that the HOOTGD did not use it or it wasn't their symbol. Like I said, any half decent research by yourselves can find this out. Also, Any credible historians documenting the History of the Hermetic Order will had has given this information.

Tow smal examples are as follows:

• The Complete Golden Dawn System of Magic (ltd edition) (Hardcover)

by Israel Regardie, Christopher S. Hyatt

• http://altreligion.about.com/library/glossary/symbols/bldefsunicursal.htm
• http://www.smokindragon.com/new_page_2.htm
• http://www.geocities.com/Paris/2110/unicursal.html

Crowly is credited with creating both design innacuratly by some historians. But, he amended the original and placed a five pettled rose in the middle. The original was devised and used by the HOOTGD.

The Unicursal Hexagram originates from the Golden Dawn document "Polygons and Polygrams". When Israel Regardie published his book "The Golden Dawn", he did not have access to document, and it was first published by Crowley, which lead to the generel misconception that Crowley originated the Unicursal Hexagram. Now however, he credits them with this.

Combined with the Marian Rose, the Unicursal Hexagram becomes Crowley's personal sigil, which is the magical union of 5 and 6 giving 11, the number of magick and new beginnings.

FK0071a 17:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

None of the sites you give meets Wikipedia requirements for references. Please see WP:V - the editor wishing to add the material is responsible for supplying a credible reference. In this case, a historical work showing that the symbol was used by the Golden Dawn and NOT some successor organization, Stella Matutina, modern G.D. reconstruction, etc. That is, a book reference, with a page number so other editors can verify it. Per WP:V, any editor may remove uncited additions. The burden of proof is on the editor who wishes to make the addition. In any case, it doesn't belong at the top of the article! —Hanuman Das 04:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Values and Beliefs

Although there are a lot of good historical and topical explanations of the Order here, this page really needs some in-depth examination of the actual beliefs that ground the Order -- something that can give the reader some insight. Something to the effect of 'Religious Doctrine' in the Judaism article, or 'Beliefs' in Christianity and Islam. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Perditor (talk • contribs) .

I'm not sure that's workable, Perditor. The HOotGD was not a religious organization, and as such did not deal with issues of religious doctrine or belief. As such, members followed various religions, such as Allan Bennet, a Buddhist, or Aleister_Crowley, functionally an Atheist (in that he did not seem to believe in a "personal God"). Many GD members were Christian (nominal or devout). Justin Eiler 21:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless, Perditor raises exactly the point I logged in to raise. This article provides extensive details of the structure of the organisation, its evolution, rituals and so forth - but I still have absolutely no idea of what they actually did or believed! What, for example, is meant by the teaching or learning of magic? Ritual hallucination, chanting, wands at five paces? What qualified people to move up in the hierarchy? From that point of view, the article is very unhelpful. Ravenclaw (talk) 23:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a valid point, but the basic description is in there at the end of the introductory section. But one has to follow the links to Qaballah, Alchemy, Hermeticism, etc. to get explanations of those elements of the Order's curriculum. It would be ponderous to load this article with lengthy explanations of those element. But some clarification, such as Fuzzypeg's edit, might be a good idea. I'm going to add a mention of Qabalah, which is a very important part of the Order's teachings. JMax555 (talk) 06:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Picture

I suggest changing the picture that is shown in the article. It may be relevant for the article on MacGregor Mathers (actually it is also found there), but if the ritual is not a Golden Dawn ritual, then why is it here? My proposal is to use an image from an actual "historical GD" ritual, or of objects used in it. --Jdemarcos 11:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• I would second that proposal - it detracts from the article by presenting a scene from a non-GD action. docboat 12:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

More balanced?

Hi everyone,

The article on HOOTGD is pretty good, but I'd strongly suggest that you add the following:

1) That the Cipher MSS is undoubtedly fake, and was most likely created to lend an air of authority to the nascent order;

2) That the communications from 'Anna Sprengel' were likewise nonexistent, and again served only as a method of bolstering the idea that the Order had authority and lineage.

69.158.180.15 17:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

No inter group squabbles on Wikipedia

User Glass FET, Please stopp reverting and discuss here instead. The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn® is the proper name of the outer order of the Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega as they are the owners of this trademark in Europe as was noted this morning. Your revertig instead of discussing is in violation of Wikipedia policies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hogd2007 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

User Glass FET, it is also inappropriate to put spam for the article on the HOGD Florida corporation at the header of the main HOGD article. Your behavior is completely inappropriate. Please discuss here instead of reverting.

Moreover, your addition of the link to Roel Van Loeven's baloney attack on the lineage of the A+O shows that you are a HOGD, Inc. troll! This has no place here. Please discuss here before further vandalizing this article.

Van Leeuwen's article doesn't seem to be a "baloney attack on the lineage of the A+O". He has provided clear, well-researched information. He is merely stating, quite sensibly, and with full explanation of his reasoning, that none of the modern orders seem to have charters going back to the original Golden Dawn. One of the modern orders claims that the Ahathoor temple was in abeyance for some decades and was then "reactivated" — and thus it claims to still be working under the original charter. That in itself is very interesting information, worth keeping. The article's wording was indeed that the chartered status of modern orders was "debated", which is correct. In fact Van Leeuwen is only one of many people out there wondering how, after so many decades of inactivity from all but one of the Golden Dawn, Stella Matutina, A+O temples, there is now this sudden profusion of modern orders claiming to be the Golden Dawn. They may or may not be validly chartered, and it's not the place of this article to draw that conclusion. However it is its job to present the relevant information on this very interesting subject. Burying any discussion of these charter claims is quite inappropriate. If you feel there are other sources which discuss this better, then please add them by all means, but don't just sweep it under the carpet!

Also, please refrain from describing another editor's alterations as vandalism, unless it is clearly not a good-faith edit. "Vandalism" means something quite specific in Wikipedia, and is treated very seriously; it also has bearing on editing rules, since editors are exempt from the 3 revert rule when reverting vandalism. Fuzzypeg☻ 01:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Links to websites are not suitable for citations according to Wikipedia rules as they violate rules of "verifiability". (See Wikipedia rules regarding the verifiability of sources.)Furthermore the addition of external websites are spam. Thus the inclusion of the website by Van Leuvan is clearly in violation of Wikipedia rules. Furthermore the post by user Fuzzypeg violates the revert rules. Additionally, the inclusion of the link at the top to the Florida corporation "For the non-profit corporation of the same name, see The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc." is also obvious spam in further violation of Wikipedia rules. There is already a link to HOGD Inc in the appropriate section and this spam link has no place at the header of the article. Moreover, there is no justification for reverting the entire article merely to include spam and unverifiable sources.--Hogd2007 01:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Websites are certainly not prohibited as sources for attribution. Certain types of website are, such as blogs or personal webpages. This site may be challenged along these lines, however it seemed like a reasonable inclusion to me, being a summarised lecture by a relatively well-respected occult historian. That is certainly available for discussion though. The inclusion of external websites is in most cases not spam; see WP:SPAM. The inclusion of Van Leeuwen's website is not clearly in violation of Wikipedia rules. My posts do not violate the revert rules. The link to the Florida Corporation is not spam (again please see the SPAM policy). If you believe I am wrong, please excuse my oversight and quote the pertinent sections of policy for me.

Now what is in clear violation of Wikipedia policy is your obnoxious, insulting manner and particularly your accusations of "vandalism" on the part of other editors. I have already asked you not use this term except in clear cases of actual vandalism; so please pull your head in. This kind of immature behaviour is anathema to the pleasant and co-operative atmosphere we're trying to establish here, and it is in violation of etiquette, assumption of good faith and edit warring guidelines. You could end up being blocked from editing, and may want to read WP:TEND.

Please take a step back and consider that I and some of the other editors here are actually more experienced with how the encyclopedia works and what the policies and guidelines are. Our suggestions might actually have some merit! I for one couldn't care less about any of the modern GD orders; I don't work their system and I have no allegiance to any of them. I am simply trying to make an informative and balanced article.

Now I demand an apology and a retraction of your accusations of "vandalism". Fuzzypeg☻ 05:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Why not eliminate ALL refernece to modern groups entirely

There will always be inter group squabbeling as long as there is any reference to modern groups whatsoever. Indeed, in my opinionall reference to ALL modern Golden Dawn groups should be completely eliminated from Wikipidia on an equal basis as they are not encyclopedic. Moreover, they tend towards advertising and merely cause sporadic conflict. In the present instance, the conflict is caused the a legal settlement followed by one group (HOGD, Inc.) atempting to promote its view of history at the expense of its rivals. This nonsense will continue as well, as long as there is ANY reference whatsoever to ANY and ALL modern Golden Dawn groups. Moreover, despite numerous attempts at mediation and compromise, disputes always arise regarding which groups should be included as well as have links. The best solution is to keep an objective, historical article, however, without any mention whatsoever regarding modern groups. This will end these senseless conflicts once and for all. Protection of pages did not help. Compromises have only helped temporarily. Now that the lawsuit is over, HOGD, Inc. is sending agents to use Wikipedia as a means of advertisement and to attempt to misrepresent the truth to thier advantage. As long as this continues, there will be disputes erupting on a regular basis. I say, get the lot of them out of here and we will not have this nonsense any longer!--Hogd2007 02:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that you've edited this article under a previous username? If so, please see Wikipedia policy on using sockpuppets. If you are a member of any of these modern orders, please see conflict of interest rules. Any member of one of these groups should not be editing either their own article or those of competing orders. IPSOS (talk) 03:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I am most definitely not saying this. I have merely observed this page for a long time. I do suspect that you are a sock though as well as an agent of HOGD Inc. If you are not, then why did you put the spam back into the header of the article for HOGD Inc. that was placed there by your sock Fuzzypeg? Also, why did you revert to the unverifyable link to the Van LEuven website, although this has been pointed out to be in violation of Wikipedia verifiability rules?--Hogd2007 03:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Please view our contribution histories: Special:Contributions/IPSOS and Special:Contributions/Fuzzypeg. IPSOS has approx 2000 contributions to a wide variety of articles, and I have more. Clearly you're basing your accusations here on pure fantasy. I therefore add to my demands that you give an apology and retraction for your claim that I am a sockpuppet. Fuzzypeg☻ 06:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The contemporary orders are relevant to the HOGD as the modern incarnations of the tradition that sprung from this order, and while it is arguable that any individual one is not notable enough for its own article, they are relevant in the context of this article, or as a whole. A decent contemporary orders section would be unmanageable and just as prone to revert wars. This kind of nonsense is likely to go on forever be it on this page, the individual articles, or whatever future form the whole heap takes. I say all we can do is be vigilant.--The One True Fred 03:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that the correct way to go about making such a change to the article would be to call for comment. I think several of the subarticles may not establish notability. Perhaps the whole set should have more eyes go over them. IPSOS (talk) 03:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The spam link does not belong at the beginning. The link to HOGD Inc is there in the appropriate section. Also, the unverifiable link to the Van Leuven site should no longer be reverted by Fuzzypeg and his sock puppet IPSOIS either.

That's called a disambiguation. Funny, three brand new users all at once. I hope you are not all on one side! Anybody got some popcorn? IPSOS (talk) 04:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. If they're notable subjects, then they are entitled to an article. If you think these organisations aren't notable, then argue that. But we're not going to remove them just because editors like you make a complete pain in the neck of themselves. You, HOGD2007, seem to be creating the most effort for other editors at the moment. We've dealt with worse, though. You might want to see the wars that have flared up over at Freemasonry! Fuzzypeg☻ 06:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Contemporary Orders Section

The registered trademark should remain on the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, the outer order of the Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega entry in the contemporary orders section, as they own the HOGD trademark in Europe and Canada. Recently the HOG/A+O settled litigation victoriously preserving their perpetual and irrevocable right to use the name of their outer order, the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, without interference in the USA. The registered trademark rightly and properly distinguishes the HOG/A+O from the exorbitant number of -unlicensed Golden Dawn based study groups and should NOT be removed. The registered trademark is a distinguishing character integral to the association of, and a privilege entitled by law reserved exclusively for the HOGD/A+O as the owners of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn in the European Union and Canada as aforementioned. It is certainly improper and somewhat unlawful to deprive the HOGD/A+O of using that privilege of the registered trademark they reserve the right to fully represent themselves therewith. Please do not remove the trademarks from the HOGD/A+O entry again.

Furthermore, as the A+O’s outer order is named the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn and they reserve all rights to that mark in the European Union and Canada. It should be correctly stated in the contemporary orders section that the HOGD/A+O is: “a modern order headquartered in the European Union using the same name being also the outer order of the Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega®. This is paramount, as it distinguishes the HOGD/A+O as a completely separate entity from the independent organisation which is the HOGD, Inc. who are a modern independent order of the same name.

For information regarding the trademark usage, please educate yourselves by perusing this this web-page entitled: “The Status of the Trademark of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn:

http://www.golden-dawn.com/temple/index.jsp?s=articles&p=trademark

Leviathan6 19:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

‘See also’ links section

If the Stella Matutina link is present in this section, then also present should be the link to the Alpha et Omega article. The Alpha et Omega was founded thereafter and in consequence of the public Horos scandal. The trial of the Horos’, which was publicly scrutinised by the media at the time, revealed the name of the Golden in the Outer and which brought it into disrepute. Hence, Mathers reconstituted the name of the outer court to Alpha et Omega to avoid publicity from the then profaned Golden Dawn title. The link to the Alpha et Omega article is highly significant component of the main article, which documents the order’s progression under the tutelage of one of the original orders co-chiefs after the Horos scandal and the revolt of the adepti. There is no logical reason as to why the link to the Alpha et Omega article keeps being removed. I can only deduce that is a HOGD, Inc. agent acting under a phoney ID and misguided aegis that keeps removing it for their own improper bias. Please cease and desist with this improper editing and deleting integral links from this article. Leviathan6 19:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You and the others seem to have the same misunderstanding of the rules. If an article is linked from the body of the article, it is not correct to repeat it from the see also section. The see also section is for things not already mentioned. GlassFET 20:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

External Links

The additions to the external links section with reputable Golden Dawn based orders should remain. Before these recent additions, the external links in this section were improperly biased and severely limited to putative HOGD, Inc. licensees. There has now been added a conservative number of reputable orders that have formal affiliations which uphold the standard of excellence in their fields. This is both relevant to article and modern teaching orders on the Internet today, and now constitutes a more neutral and venerable resource for the discerning aspirant. The external links is now an improved and more noteworthy inclusion to the article as a whole and represents proper, logical balance between the leading organisations. Either the additions remain, or the whole lot should be deleted and only the links to the contemporary orders articles should remain in that selfsame section.

Leviathan6 19:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I had to remove 3. Two were hosted on free hosting services (i.e. personal websites). The third was using copyrighted Dead Can Dance music. All have to be removed per WP:EL. There are notability requirements for linking, and linking to a site which violates copyright is never allowed. GlassFET 20:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Top section of the article

I have performed a minor edit thereon the (prelude) section at the top of the article. It is absolutely essential to clarify the notable distinction between the two organisations, as the previous amendments inferred that they were one conglomerate, the A+O being the European branch and Inc. the US branch of the selfsame order. This, however, is horrendously incorrect. The HOGD/A+O and the HOGD, Inc. are two completely separate organisations and operate independently from one another.

The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, the Outer Order of the Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega, although headquartered in Europe, are nonetheless, an international esoteric order of the same name. Thus, the minor edit I have made properly clarifies the notable distinction between the A+O and Inc. as two separate organisations. I consider the above amendments a factually correct and important improvements upon the prelude to the main article to avoid any confusion between the two.

I worked on this article many months ago the last time there were problems with it. Other than the amendment I've made, which I've mentioned, the rest of the article looks fine. Frater FiatLux 15:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I also had to make some corrective edits to remove repeated characters in the section at the top where the two orgs. are mentioned. Frater FiatLux 16:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes to the World-Wide Status of the HOGD/A+O & the Contemporary Orders section.

The consistent vandalism, constituting the removal of the world-wide status of the HOGD/A+O is purposely devised to misrepresent the trademark owned and executed by the HOGD/A+O. The mark owned by the HOGD/A+O is an international trademark for all nations of the European Union. Thus, the section at the top of the article now reads: “For the EU-headquartered, international organisation, see Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn®, the Outer Order of the Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega®.

The information on their (HOGD/A+O) trademark page clearly states this. Furthermore, information from the organisations own websites are agreed criteria for citation in these Golden Dawn articles. Therefore, the aforementioned trademark information, regarding the prestigious international status of the HOGD/A+O, can be viewed in full at this location on their website, at www.Golden-Dawn.Com:

http://www.golden-dawn.com/temple/index.jsp?s=articles&p=trademark

Not that this is at all necessary; but however, for some especially motivated persons unknown, who repeatedly vandalise and thereby rape the HOGD/A+O of its rightful international, world-wide status. A third-party source regarding the international status of their (HOGD/A+O) mark can be found through the on-line Pacer system for the US District Court for the Northern District of California. The appropriate records can sourced via the reference number: CO-432 JSW.

A further third-party source, citing the international status of the HOGD/A+O trademark, can be located at the following location:

http://oami.europa.eu/CTMOnline/RequestManager/en_DetailCTM_NoReg

As it crucial and absolutely necessary that the two organisations, HOGD/A+O, and the HOGD, Inc. are distinguished as two separate, independent organisations. I have therefore, also amended the contemporary articles section to represent this important distinction more clearly.

Please discuss all changes or reverts before tampering with these supra edits. Not that there should be any reason why the changes outlined supra should warrant editing or removal. However, those responsible for any mindless, redundant vandalism will be reported forthwith to the appropriate administrative pages.

Frater FiatLux 00:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not accuse other editors of vandalism in content disputes, it is considered a violation of the no personal attacks policy. Thank you. IPSOS (talk) 03:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I've not accused anyone of anything. Where exactly do I mention names? I have the right to express what I view as vandalism, so you are unjustified with your supra comment. I've provided what was asked in a pricise and logical manner citating third-party sources. There is no way that international should be removed. Quit trying to misrepresent the proper legal status of the HOGD/A+O trademark.

Frater FiatLux 03:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Neither of the sources you give meets WP:V. The first is self-published, and cannot be used for dubious claims. The second is simply about a trademark. To be "international" or "world-wide" the organization must have chapters throughout the world and have been noted for this by third-party sources. In fact, I'm not even sure your organization meets notability requirements. I'll look into whether there is enough third-party sources to establish notability and perhaps nominate it for deleteion if there are not. IPSOS (talk) 04:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll step in here and give my view on this. First, personally, I don't think I'm biased, since I don't care whether the above organisation(s) are local or international or whether they are separate or identical. I have no affiliations. Now that that's out of the way, I agree with IPSOS about not throwing the word "vandalism" around. That word has very specific meanings in the Wikipedia context, and can be claimed as rationale for not following WP:3RR, for instance. Please don't use this word where it isn't appropriate. Not to mention that it is insulting, even if you don't explicitly name who you're directing the insult at.

But I'm not sure I agree with IPSOS about the lack of notability of either of these organisations. I think it's an interesting new addistion to the history of the Golden Dawn movement, and I think some clear information about these orders is valuable to readers who are wondering exactly what/who they are and what relationship they have to the historic order. And the Ciceros and their order are by now certainly notable. I don't know about the other one. Fuzzypeg☻ 05:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the objective words. I can't believe it can be so important to add the word "international" or "worldwide" into a disambiguation link. The disambiguation link should only have the barest information needed to distinguish the two organizations. The details belong in the individual articles. If anything, the dab as it is has too much information and should be shortened, not lengthened.

Also, I think it is telling that Frater FiatLux must rearrange the order of the alphabetic listing of modern organizations and use pipes to change the way the names of the articles are displayed. If the articles are not properly named, then we should discuss renaming them. We shouldn't artificially be using pipes to force one particular group to the top. I also object to the addition of questionable language describing the two organizations to the list. None of the other groups have a description. The correct place for details is again in the articles themselves, where self-published sources are allowed to be used. Self-published sources are not allowed to be used in this article, since it is about the historical order and not the modern ones. Self-published claims do not belong here. Details about the modern orders and their trademarks again do not belong here. They are offtopic in this article and lead to edit warring. Therefore they should not be here but rather in the individual articles about each modern organization. IPSOS (talk) 13:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You are both incorrect on all points. The link to the trademark office clearly states by nature of the mark that it is an international mark. Furthermore, the court documents which can be found through the on-line pacer system clearly state the HOGD/A+O are world-wide and internatinal organisation. The HOGD/A+O are an international organisation as the mark they own is an internatinal mark! It covers all states of the EU. It says that on the trademark page I linked to.

Please provide proof here on wikipedia where it says third-party sources must be given and where self-published websites that constitutes the organisations operational base cannot be used in articles.

Frater FiatLux 14:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Reliable 3rd party sources are always preferable for verification over primary sources, which obviously can have conflict of interest issues.--Isotope23 ^talk 14:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no conflict of interest here from my posistion. I cannot comment on others, however. I helped build this article and have edited it along with others thereafter. So you are saying third-party sources are preferable, but not mandatory in such cases. So the primary HOGD/A+O trademark page from their website stands up as a credible citation then? Yes, that’s what you’ve just said if I understand that correctly. So user IPSOS is being entirely unreasonable by demanding a third-party reference, which, I might add, I’ve provided two: one from the on-line court pacer system, and one from the international trademark page, where I’ve linked to the HOGD/A+O mark open to public domain. The HOGD/A+O trademark page says quite clearly they are a world-wide, international organisation. So this primary source on their website can actually be used as a citable document. Thank you for that. I just think that should be properly noted as factual accuracy in the title. Frater FiatLux 15:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Without clearly documenting that the HOGD/A+O are international or world-wide, the two organisations sound like one conglomerate, with the A+O as the EU section and the Inc. as the US. This is absolutely unacceptable. By the inclusion of “International”, which the trademark owned by the A+O constitutes, this properly distinguishes that the HOGD/A+O is EU based, but in fact international and is not the EU based body of Inc.

This is just one word that I want there to properly clarify the distinction between the two organisations. Yes, just one word.: International. If you are so unreasonable, User IPSOS, to allow it, then it strongly looks although you have a conflict of interest and are in fact a Cicero agent provocateur trying to devalue the rightful international status of the HOGD/A+O.

The admin. has also just said, supra, that primary sources can be used. So all the pages from the HOGD/A+O website, most notably, the trademark page, can be used as citable evidence in this article. There is no conflict of interest here, only your baseless threats on my talk page! Have a nice day, amigo.

Frater FiatLux 15:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No... that isn't what I said. Read my statement below. Also, the fact that I'm an admin is wholly irrelevant...--Isotope23 ^talk 15:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

First off, relax. Stop throwing around wild accusations. Be civil. Second, I didn't say you had a conflict of interest, but sourcing something to the HOGD/A+O trademark page from their website is a problem because obviously HOGD/A+O may have a conflict of interest in regards to this. It's the same reason why it is bad practice to source subscription information to a magazine's website... there is no way it can be reliably vetted for accuracy. I would not consider the HOGD/A+O trademark page to be a reliable source for the claim. You need a reliable third party source for this claim. Primary sources should only be used for non-controversial statements. Obviously given the dicussion here, the international status of HOGD/A+O is not non-controversial.--Isotope23 ^talk 15:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean relax? I’m cool; I'm not in the wrong here. User IPSOS has waded in and removed the world-wide status of the HOGD/A+O, which was agreed on by past editors. To reinstate this important information, I've provided two, credible, third-party sources. The link to the international trademark office, which has international trademarks available through public domain. I have linked directly to the HOGD/A+O trademark there. I have also provided details whereby the international and world-wide status can be found on court documents from recent legal action though the on-line pacer system.

And, who says, and who can prove that HOGD/A+O have a conflict of interest in this article. Therefore, with no proof or evidence availble that they have and only baseless speculation; the primary sources can still be used from the HOGD/A+O website.

I helped build this article last year and just have an interest in the Golden Dawn. For Christ sake, all I want to be left in the article, before IPSOS came and removed against the consensus of the last editors is International. It's just one word that distinguished the organisations and the areas they serve.

Frater FiatLux 15:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has to "prove" conflict of interest here. Again, I would consider this a situation where the primary source is not sufficient to back this claim up. As it stands, the HOGD/A+O main article itself is too reliant on primary sources.--Isotope23 ^talk 15:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

That, is your opinion. As it stands, there has been no dispute until IPSOS came over here. AS it stands I have provided two other third-party sources for the international status of the HOGD/A+O trademark. The direct links are supra. One is to the international trademark page iself where the HOGD/A+O international trademark is open to public domain; and the on-line pacer system to court documents from the recent legal action over the trademark status. So the one word I want to remain in the article, as it was before IPSOS started attacking the status od the HOGD/A+O id "International", and for the contemp. articles section to remain as it was also, which clear distin. of each modern order. Frater FiatLux 15:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Fiat Lux, you are causing confusion. The problem is that there are two modern Hermetic Orders of the Golden Dawn, one European based and the other American. Each are trademark owners of the Same trademark, one in Europe and the other in America. The European one calls itself also a longer name in the USA, BUT NOT IN EUROPE. It is sufficient to distinguish between the two by identifying one as the Florida corporation and the other as the European based one.--Rondus 03:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Self-published sources

I'm not going to edit the article, but I believe you are wrong about self-published sources. Please read WP:V, where it says:

"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources."

Later on, an exception is made allowing the use of self-published sources in an article specifically about the person or organization which published them:

"Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

• it is relevant to their notability;
• it is not contentious;
• it is not unduly self-serving;
• it does not involve claims about third parties;
• it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
• there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
• the article is not based primarily on such sources."

The way I read this, the HOGD/A+O website cannot be used as a references in this article about the historical Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. It can, however, be used in the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (Rosicrucian Order of A+O), as long as such uses adhere to the limitations listed. GlassFET 15:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Great, thank you. So the HOGD/A+O website can be useded to back up all the information on the Rosicrucian of A+O article. That sorts that one out. So everything on the A+O page can be certified by the HOGD/A+O's own website.

And, the two third-party sources that I have linked to regarding the international status of the trademark owned by the HOGD/A+O serves to validate the inclusion of the HOGD/A+O being an EU based, but international order. I linked 1); to the international trademark body, where the HOGD/A+O international trademark can be viewed as public domain; 2), to the online pacer system to the court documents from the recent litigation regarding the trademark. So the international status of the mark in main artile at the disam. section at the top to properly distinusih the two different orgnisations should remain as it was agreed months ago before IPSOS propagated confusion by editing it out.

Frater FiatLux 15:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, no. Right now the HOGD/A+O article is based primarily on the website, which goes against WP:V. That is the issue with that article.--Isotope23 ^talk 15:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, in that case, then; the HOGD, Inc. article;the OSOGD, and all the rest of the contemporary articles are in the same posistion. Either they all remain, or they are all deleted.

Frater FiatLux 15:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

That is a fair assessment, though I'm not suggesting an AFD tagging frenzy on any of those articles quite yet, they all are in need of sourcing diversification. On a separate note, I'm not so sure "International" is even particularly useful as a disambiguation here. "For the EU-headquartered organisation" is just as good of a differentiation from "the Florida based non-profit corporation". I don't think anyone is going to confuse the two whether or not "International" is in the title.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, in that case, refrain others from singling out the HOGD/A+O article. Otherwise, I will do the same to other contemporary articles. It is unfair in the extreme to single out one organisation. Either they all toe the line and observe the same trreatment and rules, or no one does. No one single org. should singled out. And I will, if this treatment continues raise issues with the HOGD, Inc. article and the other contemporary articles.

Again, the International status of the HOGD/A+O ensures the public that the HOGD/A+O and the HOGD, Inc. are not the selfsame organisation. The EU based org., can be interpretive of A+O being the EU jurisdiction of the Florida based, HOGD, Inc. To avoid this confusion, editors last time amicably agreed that HOGD/A+O should go as EU based, but world-wide to distinguish the fact the HOGD/A+O are not the EU branch of HOGD, Inc. because they operate worldwide, but however, from a EU base. Thus, HOGD, Inc. and HOGD/A+O appear clearly as two separate, independent organisations. The contemporary orders section also represented this and was agreed on by established editors last time.

Frater FiatLux 16:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I personally wasn't singling out HOGD/A+O... you may notice that I tagged all three for being overly reliant on primary sources. That said, I still think "the Florida based non-profit corporation" is differentiated from "For the EU-headquartered organisation" whether you throw "International" in there or not. I find it rather hard to believe anyone would confuse the two or see one as being under the jurisdiction of the other. Even if someone would misinterpret one as being under the jurisdiction of the other, "International" doesn't really do much to solve that. Of course we could always rely on people actually reading the articles to get a clearer picture.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I was just making the point clear to you about what IPSOS is doing. He hasn't for instance gone over to the HOGD, Inc. article and done the same there or to the other orders in the contemp. section that are licensed by HOGD, Inc.

Both organisation go by the same name in the Outer: The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. It should be clear from the start of the article who is who, and not to confusingly mislead the public or merely leave it to an unexperinced newcomer to the GD to decided the distinction. The distinction should be made perfectly clear from the outset, as it was before the world-wide status of the HOGD/A+O was removed. Therefore, it could appear as if there are two halves to the same organisation or a conglomerate. Inc. is the US branch and HOGD/A+O is the EU branch. There is much confusion on many public forums regading this, as being an avid GD follower I would know. I assume you are not, and this is why it helps to have editors that are not only interested in the subject, but actually have some experince in the magical community sourrounding these organsations. This, I belive, is why the HOGD/A+O on their website have always strived to provide a clear distinction between themselves and HOGD, Inc.; to aviod any confusion. So I still think the international staus, as reasoned supra many times, as an experinced editor on this article and GD related articles with experince in the community is needed.

Frater FiatLux 16:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm familiar with HOGD and associated groups; not an expert, but familiar enough (I just generally have little interest in editing the articles). The problem is that while "International" may be distinctive to you, it's probably absolutely meaningless to someone who has never heard of HOGD or any of the myriad of other organizations with HOGD in their name. Please remember that we are not writing articles for people who are familiar with the subject, we are writing them for people who are not, which is the whole point of an encyclopedia. Personally I don't see how "International" in that disambiguation would in any way clarify the relationship (or non-relationship as it were) between these organizations. If "International" is primarily being used to separate the groups then I'd suggest a better distinction should be found.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course it isn't. International is distinctive of the two organisations being seperte entities, for clarification for newcomers and people who know nothing of the two organisations. As much clarification as possible should be entered to save confusion. That's exactly the point I'm making. I know the two organsisations are not one and same; however, the misrepresentation occurs in people not knowing who the two different organsisations are. Thus, the last editors and myself decided that world-wide was distincitive enough. It's only one word, for god's sake. Frater FiatLux 17:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, if what you say is true, Frater FiatLux, then right off the bat I'd say that the two articles, The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. and Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (Rosicrucian Order of A+O) both need to be renamed. I will look into it a little deeper before suggesting new names for the articles. GlassFET 16:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Nothing needs changing. Both articles are named as per the organisations names. The claification needed, occurs in the disam. section at the top of the main article regarding a clear distinction between the two organisations being not the same organisation. Frater FiatLux 17:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

...and my point is that I suspect that "International" isn't nearly as distinctive of these two organizations being separate as you seem to think it is. If anything it suggest that HOGD Inc, is a local chapter of the "International" body, thus still giving the wrong impression. I understand that you know they are separate FiatLux, as do I. My point is that it is not sufficiently differentiated that anyone unfamiliar with these groups would understand that from the way the disambiguation is written. If that is the purpose of the disambiguation then I'd say it needs to be rewritten.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Renaming data

Ok, I'll start with the HOGD, Inc. name. According to the trademark data, the mark they own includes the word "The":

• The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn

However, the Florida registration also shows the word "The" with an original filing date of 1988.

• THE HERMETIC ORDER OF THE GOLDEN DAWN, INC.

Since it is Wikipedia policy not to include "Inc." unless absolutely necessary, I'd say the article should be moved to The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. Next I will look into the other org. GlassFET 17:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, next pieces of data. The A+O org's trademarks appear to be:

• In Canada: ORDO ROSAE CRUCIS, ALPHA ET OMEGA
• And also in Canada: THE HERMETIC ORDER OF THE GOLDEN DAWN INTERNATIONAL

and for the EU:

• Ordo Rosae Rubeae et Aureae Crucis (000063891)
• Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (000063925) - no "The"

So, it appears that Ordo Rosae Rubeae et Aureae Crucis might be the best title to distinguish it from the US order. GlassFET 17:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that's probably not a good ideas. I don't think we need to include "The" or "Inc." How about:

• Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (US)
• Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (EU)

That is where their headquarters are based. Another suggestion is that the EU org seems to claim that their HOGD is the "outer order" of "The Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega". That is, it is HOGD is only a part of a larger whole, and the article should then be at Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega (perhaps with "The") which can then include a subsection about their outer order, Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. I think I like this idea better:

• The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. (unchanged)
• The Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega (changed from the awkward "Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (Rosicrucian Order of A+O)")

GlassFET 17:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No. You are incorrect. The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn is the first, or Outer Order of the Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega. Thus, it is named: The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, the Outer Order of the Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega. As the Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega has three operative orders, the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn being its Outer Order. This is explained on the Rosicrucian Order of A+O article.

Again, the only thing that needs changing and was up for discussion is the disam. page at the top of the main article. Not the names of the Orders.

If the HOGD/A+O entry is changed, which it should not be, it should be changed to: The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, the Outer Order of the Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega.

Frater FiatLux 17:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Is that the official name? GlassFET 17:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute, let me get this straight. You say, "the Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega has three operative orders". I think you mean three operative sub-orders. That would make "Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega" the primary organziation and the title under which the article should be filed. I see no possible reason other than promotion for having such a contorted title to the article when this is the case. GlassFET 18:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The official name of the organisation is the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, the Outer Order of the Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega. The order has another two orders with a three order structure with the HOGD being the first, or outer order. The Order's official name however, is the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, the Outer Order of the Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega.

I agree, with the disambig. section in the form that it is presently in. To wit:

This article is about the historical organization of the late 19th century. For the Florida based non-profit corporation, see The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc.. For the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, the Outer Order of the Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega, see Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega.

Frater FiatLux 23:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Critical flaw in article

The article makes absolutely no mention of why or when the order ceased to exist. It ends at the first world war with Mathers establishing two to three american temples. Thats it. What happened to the order after that is simply not mentioned. Question2 06:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it does. In 1908 the name was changed. That was the end of the original order. It's in the Reconstruction section. Free free to make it clearer. I quote it below. GlassFET 16:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

By 1908, Mathers and Brodie-Innes were in complete accord,[31] and at about the time of the conclusion of the alliance, the Outer Order was changed from the Golden Dawn to the Alpha et Omega.[32]

User Ipsos Inaproptiately Attempting To Cover-Up Inapproptiate Manipulation of Wikipedia by HOGD, Inc.

I am not a sock puppet of Fiat Lux as can easily be verified by my IP address. User IPSOS has falsely accused me of this on my talk page as a lame excuse to revert this page in an inappropriate attempt to cover-up his personal involvement in HOGD, Inc's delibertate, inappropriate, and tortuous manipulation of Wikipedia, as well as to inappropriately interfere in any balanced discussion for deletion of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. as well as of the Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega. I am posting below the material that IPSOS is trying to cover up. Would someone here please tell me how to report what IPSOS is doing here to Wikipedia administration?

HOGD, Inc. Manipulating Wikipedia for Unfair Business Advantage

I would like to point out that what is actually happening here is that Wikipedia is allowing itself to be dragged into a fifteen-year old legal dispute between two esoteric orders. One of the parties, the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc., is presently sending its members en masse here to Wikipedia to “edit” in a misguided attempt to use Wikipedia as an advertising medium for their order in an attempt to 1. gain an unfair business advantage, 2. misrepresent the status and results of litigation, 3. misrepresent the current status of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn trademark, and to 4. falsely portray HOGD, Inc. as the successor of the historical, Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, while depriving the other party of its legitimate and legal rights.

The following is true and correct information that elilminates the HOGD, Inc. biased POV:

The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, outer order of the Rosicrucian Order of the Alpha et Omega, is, through its Chief Adept, David John Griffin, the sole and exclusive owner of the “Hermetic Owner of the Golden Dawn” trademark, registration number 000063295, in the European Union (making it the registered owner of the “Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn” trademark in all 27 member-states of the European Union, and “The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn International” trademark, registration no. TMA 510,385, in Canada. On November 20, 1996, David John Griffin and Patricia A. Behman, as general partners of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (H.O.G.D.), a general partnership, as owners of the “Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn” in the European Union, and Charles Cicero, as president of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. (H.O.G.D., Inc.), as owners of the same mark in the United States, entered into an Agreement to manage the “Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn” mark on a worldwide basis whilst preventing infringement of the mark by third parties. On May 8, 1998 Behman sold her partnership interest to Griffin, at which point Griffin became sole proprietor of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. Griffin, however, always differentiated his organization in trade and commerce, while primarily identifying it as the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, as the outer order of the Rosicrucian Order of the Alpha et Omega so as to differentiate it from a plethora of identically or similarly named groups in the United States relying on no more than the published Regardie materials.

On January 28, 2005, H.O.G.D., Inc. attempted to repudiate the November 20, 1996 Agreement by filing suit against Griffin for trademark infringement in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Griffin counter-sued for breach of contract. This litigation consisting of 169 documents filed in the public record, may be accessed by any interested party at https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl?609863100750398-L_835_0-1 through the Pacer system of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.

On January 17, 2007, the parties reached a Settlement Agreement read into the public record by U.S. Magistrate-Judge Maria Elena James as FTR 3:44-4:07 of date 1-17-2007.The Settlement Agreement provides that: 1) H.O.G.D., Inc. recognizes Griffin as the sole and exclusive owner of the “Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn” trademark in the European Union; 2) H.O.G.D., Inc. recognizes Griffin as the sole and exclusive owner of “The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn International” trademark in Canada; 3) Griffin recognizes H.O.G.D., Inc. as the sole and exclusive owner of the same mark in the United States; 4) the parties will not contest the ownership of each parties respective marks and mark: 5) H.O.G.D., Inc. will not contest the use, validity or ownership of the mark “Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Outer Order of the Rosicrucian Order of the Alpha et Omega” in the United States; 6) the January 17, 2007 Agreement supersedes the prior Agreement between the parties; 7) the parties covenanted not to interfere with the operations of each other; 8) the Agreement inures to the benefit of the successors and assigns of the parties. On February 12, 2007, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice both H.O.G.D., Inc.’s claims and Griffin’s counter-claims while retaining in perpetuity to retain enforcement of the January 17, 2007 Agreement through motion filed by either of the parties.

Over a period of several months, editor IPSOS, who has acknowledged that he is an associate of H.O.G.D., Inc.’s Charles Cicero, has repeatedly (nearly 30 times) vandalized the H.O.G.D./A.O. article from the first below quotation to the deliberate misrepresentation in the second quote below.

“According to their web site,[27] the Rosicrucian Order of A+O is the registered owner of the trademarks Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega® [28] and Ordo Rosae Rubeae et Aureae Crucis (R.R. et A.C.)®.[29][30] The Alpha et Omega is also the registered owner of the trademark Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn® in the European Union[31] and in Canada.[32]. The Rosicrucian Order of A+O in 2007 settled litigation with The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. guaranteeing the Alpha et Omega's right to use the name of its outer order, the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, in the United States without interference.[33]”

has been repeatedly vandalized to:

"According to their web site,[27] the Rosicrucian Order of A+O is the registered owner of the trademarks Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega® [28] and Ordo Rosae Rubeae et Aureae Crucis (R.R. et A.C.)®.[29][30] The Alpha et Omega is also the registered owner of the trademark Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn® in the European Union[31] and in Canada.[32]. The Rosicrucian Order of A+O in 1996 contracted with The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. a mutual "right to usage" of the trademark Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn® worldwide while acknowledging each Order's "exclusive ownership" of their respective nationally registered trademarks. A copy of this contract was filed for recordation with the United States Patent and Trademark Office."

The repeated vandalism by Cicero-associate IPSOS shows a remarkable familiarity with the above-referenced litigation by the parties. Whilst Cicero’s attorney maintained that the 1996 Agreement was a “right to use” agreement in which each party accorded to the other party a “right to use” its respective mark or marks, Griffin’s attorney never characterized the 1996 Agreement but maintained that each party acquired a vested property interest in the mark or marks of the other party by virtue of the specific language of the Agreement. The matter was never settled in that the parties settled on January 17, 2007, two weeks before they were scheduled to go to trial on January 28, 2007, and the January 17, 2007 Settlement Agreement superseded the November 20, 1996 agreement. When the knowingly inaccurate and misleading defacement of the H.O.G.D../A+O article by Cicero-associate IPSOS was repeatedly corrected, IPSOS subsequently enlisted the assistance of Wikipedia editorial staff in freezing the H.O.G.D./A+O article; and unlawfully depriving the H.O.G.D./A+O of its legal name and mark by arbitrarily renaming the article describing the order to “Rosicrucian Order of the Alpha et Omega.” It is therefore requested that the H.O.G.D./A.O. article be unfrozen and returned to its appropriate legal name of “Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (Rosicrucian Order of the Alpha et Omega).” In order to avoid confusion both with the HOGD/A+O, as well as with the historical “Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn,” the H.O.G.D., Inc. article should be re-named “Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc.” or “Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (Florida corporation).”--Rondus 06:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

There one problem with your ranting legalistic diatribe. I'm not and have never been an associate of Cicero or a member of any Golden Dawn Order. Period. IPSOS (talk) 06:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed the spacing in Rondus' comments above so that it's readable, and taken the liberty of making the altered section in each of the two compared paragraphs bold, for easier reading.

Now, I can't log into the Pacer system, so I can only assume that what Rondus says is correct. In that case couldn't we word it as follows?

"The Rosicrucian Order of A+O in 1996 contracted with The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. a mutual "right to usage" of the trademark "Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn®" worldwide while acknowledging each Order's "exclusive ownership" of their respective nationally registered trademarks. A copy of this contract was filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. However in 2005 H.O.G.D., Inc. filed suit against Griffin for trademark infringement in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Griffin counter-sued for breach of contract. The two parties settled in January 2007 with The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. guaranteeing the Alpha et Omega's right to use the name of its outer order, the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, in the United States without interference.^{[Appropriate reference needed here]}"

I have to say I'm not impressed by this scrabbling to trademark a name that already has prior use by an unconnected group. It's a bit like me trying to trademark "East India Company". It just doesn't make sense, and seems like a prime example of a trademark office not doing their job properly. As for the claims regarding an "international trademark", such a thing doesn't exist (see Trademark#International trademark laws). There is no such thing as an international trademark, so don't use this as evidence of an "international order". Not that trademarks make the order, as IPSOS has previously noted.

And please, all, calm down and stop spouting legalese. Assume good faith. I hope you all realise that this behaviour is not going un-noted by the greater occult community, and many will apply the principle: "By their deeds shall ye know them". Fuzzypeg☻ 05:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Modern Revivals section

I am noting that there was no consensus to merge the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. which was deleted and enforced in review into the main article and there is nothing listed here on the talk page for making such a sweeping change. Kephera975 17:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not a merge. It's a complete rewrite leaving out all the contentious bits, quotes, and other material from self-published sources. IPSOS (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but it looks like you've merged the majority of the deleted article. There was no consensus for this. Kephera975 17:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong, it's well less than half the length of the original. I need no consensus to be bold. IPSOS (talk) 17:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It was already decided by consensus that this page would be about the historical organization only a year ago. You are reverting a consensus that was already determined here long ago. Kephera975 17:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus can change. IPSOS (talk) 17:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You didn't work to make a consensus in the first place. You unilaterally made this decision without posting anything to the talk page. Consensus requires more than one editor. Kephera975 18:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't be dense. IPSOS (talk) 18:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't insult me anymore. Why do you persist on bringing edit wars to this page? Wikipedia is not a battleground. Kephera975 18:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't call the kettle black. IPSOS (talk) 18:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

←I concur with the addition of the modern revival section. --Parsifal _Hello 18:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I also agree to the addition of the section. John Carter 18:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I also believe that this addition is appropriate given the circumstances. I guess a new consensus has now been established. (Cue sockpuppets, stage left). GlassFET 19:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we have to wait for the puppeteer to hie himself to his alternate location. Give it about 30-40 minutes. IPSOS (talk) 19:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL! GlassFET 20:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why the HOGD Inc article was deleted, since I was under the impression that the AFD discussion was far from a delete consensus. I imagine a merge could work fine, but either way, lets not lose the information entirely (i.e. lets restore the modern revivals section here, or else undelete the other article). If we keep the modern revivals section here, then we should also make it a bit more balanced. HOGD Inc are the loudest of the modern revivals, but they are not the only notable revival, and this section seems entirely devoted to them. There's quite a bit of useful info at the deleted article's talk page, which could be used to help flesh out the modern revivals section here. I think it would particularly interesting to describe the recent trademark dispute HOGD Inc were embroiled in. Fuzzypeg☻ 02:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The AfD is under deletion review right now. You are welcome to enter your comments on that topic here.

I think the DRV will close in a day or so, then we'll find out. If is deleted, on request an admin might restore it to a user page so the information can be retrieved and refactored for other uses. --Parsifal _Hello 03:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The other deletions have pretty much made it clear that none of the other Orders, with the exception of OSOGD, have any reliable sources. HOGD, Inc. does, but apparently not enough for a separate article. As I'm sure you know, self-published sources can only be used in an article solely about the publisher. Since there are no third-party sources for the other Orders, they can't be included here at all. They are non-notable from Wikipedia's perspective. Personally, I believe the deletion of the HOGD, Inc. article was in error, but as there are good sources, believe a stripped-down version primarily reliant on non-self-published sources could be included here. The dispute simply couldn't be reported until it is written about by a third party and published by a reliable publisher. IPSOS (talk) 03:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

External link proposal

I propose that we remove all the links to individual orders titled "Contemporary Golden Dawn Order websites", since it has been determined that only one or two may actually be notable, and those will have articles with links to their associated websites. I propose that we instead replace the section with a single link to DMOZ added to the end of the main external links:

• Golden Dawn at Curlie

After all, Wikipedia is not a web directory, but DMOZ is. Let's let DMOZ determine what groups and websites are worthy of listing, and keep Wikipedia out of disputes about these groups. IPSOS (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This seems like a reasonable suggestion to me. I've seen it done on other articles. GlassFET 20:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm reverting the recent addition of a web link added by a new user to one particular GD group, for the above reasons.JMax555 03:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Substituted FAQ

I've just reverted a change to an external link. The old GD FAQ link was moved to point to a different FAQ, one which claims sole legitimacy for a particular European GD order, and is strongly critical of all other orders. Whether or not this information is true, it's different to what is stated in the article, and doesn't reflect the neutral point of view that the article strives to take. It would be better as an inline link or a link within a reference, at some point of the article where the claims of the European order are being discussed. Basically, it needs to be given in context with accompanying explanation of the surrounding controversy, or not at all.

The old FAQ I've read less carefully, but it appears to be more neutral and have less of an agenda. If anyone feels it is non-neutral, perhaps the link should be removed outright. Cheers,  Fuzzypeg  ^talk  00:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

I've started cleaning up this article. It needs a lot of work, not least addressing the unquestioned acceptance of the origin myths (Sprengel, Cipher MSS, etc) of the original Order. Even as someone who has worked in the GD paradigm, I find that a little too POV. Working on all this may take me some time, just wanted to give a heads-up. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 10:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

If you've got a better origins description, with citations, then by all means. The problem here, is that its an accepted view by multiple sources. Thanks for the heads up. — _Maggot^Syn 10:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on it. The problem with 'accepted view' is that it's only accurate inasmuch as it has been accurately reported as being what Westcott et al. said, and not what is supported by the evidence. I note, for example, that the Cipher MSS article clearly shows all theories, which is prominently lacking in this article. Err... shorter version: for example the commonly 'accepted view' is that the late Diana, Princess of Wales was called Princess Diana, a title that she was never entitled to hold at any time. Similarly, what is commonly accepted as the internal mythology for the GD should not be accepted in an encyclopedia. I mean, under 'creation of the world' (or whatever the relevant article is called), we don't say (I sincerely hope) that 'The world was created in six days', citing Genesis as the source material. It's quite late, but I hope you see what I'm getting at. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 10:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed what you did. If removing cited statements is cleanup then I question your intentions. Its now been reverted. We can discuss it from here on out. The reason that the Cipher MSS goes into detail and not in this article is because it would be considered off topic. The Golden Dawn article does not have to explore every little theory about the Cipher MSS, only the pertinent and relevant matters concerning the Golden Dawn. — _Maggot^Syn 10:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that you look at the diff again. I removed precisely zero citations or cited statements; I copied and pasted wholesale the paragraph was there (with one minor edit for readability about Westcott decoding in 1887). Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 10:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and to make it simpler: diff. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 10:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that was an error. It at first appeared to be the case. Moving on: Your addition, specifically to introducing the sources, is questionable.

• Within Golden Dawn orders, the following explanation of the Cipher Manuscripts is commonly claimed:

The statements do not come from any Golden Dawn orders but from Francis King, a biographer and historian of the Golden Dawn (and other related topics). When I seen the changes I may have been a bit hasty, but this one change in particular you will definitely have to be justified. — _Maggot^Syn 10:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

No harm, no foul. As for King, his sources are Westcott, Mathers, Regardie, etc etc--it's all self-reporting. As covered at the Cipher MSS page, there are multiple competing theories as to where they came from, and thus how the Order was founded. The moment of founding is not in doubt; it's the actions leading up to it that are. So yes, it may be documented by King, but his sources are suspect; all secret societies have founding myths that have no basis in reality, and are often flatly contradicted by evidence. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 10:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Well its s third party source, and he isn't affiliated with any of the orders as far as I know. I suggest another third party source that challenges it. And for a show of good faith, I'll locate the source you provide and purchase the book or books. But until then, I think the comment should be removed, as it does not accurately reflect where the information is coming from. — _Maggot^Syn 11:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

pentagram words like Oip, emor, teaa, etc;

Merry Meet, I have a serious question, for the moderator, Could you please tell me that if one was to replace the words, and all their like in the Supreme ritual, for instance Bitom and Nanta, for Feminine names, connected with A. Sh. R. H. instead of Y.H.V.H. Would it necessarily be a failure, and if so why?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.2.3.103 (talk) 15:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. This page is really for discussing improvements to the article, not for asking general questions. You might want to look at http://www.occultforums.net for an answer to your question. // roux   15:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)