This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I have temporarily locked the page from editing, to allow the different parties to work out the best way forward on the article. Lack of dialogue from the party preferring the current version will be seen as evidence of a lack of any desire to collaboratively edit. Take this opportunity to discuss writing a more verifiable article written from Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View. Jkelly 22:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Recent editing
Dear J. Kelly,
I will comply with your suggestion and create an account with wikipedia, as I want to ensure that this page is not irregularly deformed and misrepresented by JMAX555, and M1ss1ontomars2k4. The recent editing I had to perform was to ensure the article was not a POV article, and adhered to a neutral as possible standpoint. furthermore, to ensure that the article was not misrepresented by unscrupulous persons.
The recent editing performed by merciless opportunists that wish to create intrigues and misrepresentations in regards to this article. Was made, I believe, to deliberately misrepresent the facts given in the article, to their own biased point of view.
Therefore, naturally, I strongly contest and show appropriate contempt for the recent editing made by such integrity lacking persons, and I corrected the article with the TRUTHFUL, FACTUAL, NON POV VERSION; as any upstanding member of the community would.
You’ll hear from me shortly.
User ID
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Dear J. Kelly,
Further to my message supra on this discussion page, recently protected by yourself, with the correct, non-tampered, FACTUAL and NON POV version. I can confirm to you that I've taken your advice, and now have a Wikipedia account.
My reason for doing so, is to ensure that the correct, factual article is not abused and corrupted under biased presumptuous editing. I will of course go through the proper channels and observe proper protocol, to ensure that unscrupulous integrity killers do not prevail in deforming the article corruptly.
My user name is: Frater FiatLux
Hello! Glad to see you here (and logged-in too). However: Please sign your name using four tildes ~~~~ when making your posts. It's much faster than typing it out. --M1ss1ontomars2k4(T | C | @) 02:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Suggestion
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Suggestion:
I would like to point out that a merge can be done, and is merited. The preferable space size for an article is about 32 kilobytes yes, but there are ways around that. Merging the two articles together would result in extra information, which could then be moved to its own page.
For instance, the main article should probably be the original title of the Order. This page would have the complete history of the order, as well as its members and any other pretinent information. The information on the various offshoot should get its own section, summarized, and contents moved to its own main article. This way, size limits can be reduced, but the main history (roots/origins, development, grade structure, authors/members/contributors, break up/court cases) should remain on one article. This is usually done anyway. Once a page gets too large, sub-pages or main articles are created as long as there is enough information, and I do believe there is an abundance of information on the Golden Dawn. Zos 04:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Points of dispute?
Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Can someone identify the points of dispute, other than whether or not a merge is a good idea? Jkelly 18:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure (I came here while on RCP and followed User:JMax555's edits) but I think it's mostly a war between to factions of OGD. --M1ss1ontomars2k4(T | C | @) 22:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
See above, "Regarding recent anon edits". --M1ss1ontomars2k4(T | C | @) 22:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
In R.E: Recent editing/dispute G.D. article
Dear J. Kelly:
The only evidence that Cicero operated a Golden Dawn temple in 1977 comes from Cicero's own book, and one reference to that same book by a friend. In fact, Cicero's only formal contact in the Occult community in 1977 was the O.T.O.'s Major Grady McMurty.
While, like tens of thousands of others, Cicero may have bought a copy of Regardie's doorstopper/black book, he did not meet Regardie until Pat Behman (a/k/a Cris Monnastre) and Regardie flew down, at Behman's insistence, to Athens, Ga. This was in the early 1980s (where Cicero, as is a matter of public record, see the attached links to the affidavit of Charles Cicero, infra to this text; Cicero operated a strip club- "The Shady Lady").
Monnastre did in fact write the introduction to Regardie’s -black book- and it is P.O.V. of J.M. to attempt to link Cicero to a work totally unrelated to him. Llewellyn in fact has largely stopped publishing Cicero's works, which H.O.G.D., Inc. now markets through Thoth Publications.
Regardie's ONLY students were Pat Behman, Larry Epperson, William Kelly and Alan Millar, and Cicero has admitted that he was never initiated into ANY grade of the Golden Dawn by Regardie (all Cicero's initiations come from Epperson). In fact, Cicero only briefly met Regardie on two or three occasions. Regardie left the bulk of his papers to Alan Miller/Gary Ford's "Isreal Reardie Foundation," and gifted his magical tools to Pat Behman, (who gifted them to David Griffin).
As to the fact that Cicero licensees deviate from Golden Dawn tradition, please see the landmarks provision of the contract between Griffin/Behman's H.O.G.D. and Cicero's H.O.G.D., Inc. (and the associated sale of partnership from Behman to Griffin). The links infra to this text, to which the attached documents originate, are from public records. There is currently ongoing litigation, which seeks to invalidate these licenses. (Including those of J.M.'s group, which is heavily Thelemic in orientation).
Please note that J.M. has inappropriately, and in a very unprincipled manner, altered the H.O.G.D. entry in a manner that is not only P.O.V. but incorrect, defamatory and malicious. The correct entry should be:
The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn/Rosicrucian Order of the A+O
is currently a sole proprietorship originally organized as a general partnership in 1992 by Patricia Behman (aka Cris Monnastre, a student of Regardie's) and David John Griffin. Behman had operated the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn temples in Los Angeles throughout the 1980s. Prompted by Regardie, Behman formed an unincorporated association with Charles Cicero and Adam Forrest. After withdrawing her endorsement from that organization in 1992 to continue the unschismed version with Griffin, she eventually sold her partnership interest to Griffin in May, 1998. Griffin's H.O.G.D. has modernized the practices of the original Order of Westcott and Mathers since it teaches all the previously published Inner Order materials and practices (notably by Regardie) in the Outer Order. It thus allows adepti to follow a structured curriculum in advanced Hermetic Alchemy. The material taught in their Outer Order is described in "The Ritual Magic Manual: A Comprehensive Course in Practical Magic", by David John Griffin. Mr. Griffin holds the European Community trademark to the name "Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn" registered with the Office of Harmonization in the Internal Market (O.H.I.M.), holds the trademark in Canada, and has a contractual agreement with H.O.G.D. Inc. to share the name "Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn" on a worldwide basis."
Please contact me should you have any questions. Thank you.
Frater FiatLux 01:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
There is a lot to digest here. I'll take a closer look shortly. I suggest that we all keep in mind some important points about Wikipedia articles. Mostly that it is that we don't do investigative reporting here. We're interested in verifiability, not truth. If every reliable source gets something wrong; we're going to get it wrong as well. What is going to matter for this article, in the end, is that what our article(s) say about each organisation merely repeats what the mainstream accounts say without trying to solve anything here. Figuring out what constitutes a "reliable source" in this context is likely to be a challenge (I say this from past experience, not because of the material above or because of the article's subject). Our expert contributors are best equipped to point out previously published reports, ideally from a disinterested party, about the Golden Dawn tradition as it exists now. Jkelly 03:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
First thoughts
Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion
Dear J. Kelly,
You wrote:
“Mostly that it is that we don't do investigative reporting here. We're interested in "/wiki/WP:V", not truth.”
That’s exactly why I’ve posted all this information up. The information I have given here verifies, absolutely and comprehensively that the Golden Dawn tradition article, -as it currently stands- is the most accurate, non P.O.V. version, that is as neutral and as reliable as there can be.
So, thus, from the evidence I have provided, it should appear apparent to all that the article as it stands at present is a totally reliable source.
I think what JKelly is trying to say is, you'd need published authors to specify any new statements. I however, didn't see you mention any besides the web site. For more information about using online sources are please see: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Using_online_sources. Thank you. Zos 04:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Court documents and verifiability
I have to disagree with you. The information in this, the present article, now under protection, is derived from “published” book sources. I’m not trying to make any new statements, the article in it’s present, protected form is the most accurate and the one that I am in agreement with. I’m merely validating the present version, under protection, with HARD, VERIFIABLE, ORIGINAL COURT AFFIDAVITS; as evidence for why the present version of the article, after it was rightly protected from the unscrupulous persons that kept trying to tamper with it, with a NON P.O.V., biased version. Is indeed, the correct and most neutral non P.O.V. version I feel is possible. My EVIDENCE and points made in the supra postings only go to confirm this.
I reiterate I’m not trying to change the article, or make any new statements; I’m trying to preserve the article in its present, correct, non P.O.V. version. Which is now, quite rightfully under protection from opportunists, with heavy motive, to deform and corrupt the article to their own biased P.O.V. and exacting needs.
I would consider original court documents, downloaded from the source, as matter of public record, a reliable source; it is absurd to imply that they're not. In fact, even more so than a so called "published" book sources, given, that the author could be solely expressing their own P.O.V. in published print.
Therefore, the original court documents I have served, and are used as evidence in this case, to illustrate and prove a point, far out do any biased, bogus, claims made in published print by Charles "Chic" Cicero.
The original downloaded from the source affidavits only go to prove that the present version of the article is by far the correct version.
Please contact me, should you have any further questions.
Thank you,
Frater FiatLux 14:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, sorry to break it to you, but most of your uploaded documents aren't verifiable. They sure aren't original documents, as I have yet to see court documents issued as jpg's or pdf's, and just about anyone can make up the documents you posted. How do I know the signatures on the documents you uploaded are valid? How does anyone know that the notary stamp is valid on the documents you uploaded.--Vidkun 15:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Source of documents
You people really are going to have to read my postings with due care and attention.
I have complied with complete rectitude and served verifiable documents that prove, without any shadow of doubt, that the now protected article, is indeed the correct, truthful, and non P.O.V. version. That adheres to the protocols of the Wikipedia guidelines explicitly. I further reiterate that it is persons with heavy, gross, biased motive that are endeavouring to deform and corrupt the article; which has prevailed into this recent bout of malicious and biased editing and subsequent dispute. The present protected version should not be altered in any way as it serves a truthful, verifiable and non P.O.V. account of the present standing of certain Golden Dawn groups in the tradition. Although, I must stress, this is only a present viewpoint as eminent legal proceedings are sure to change the present standpoint of certain putatively licensed orders.
The court affidavits are downloaded from original sources, so the signatures and information held repository in those attached(Linked)documents are completely, and absolutely verifiable and patently truthful. As they’re downloaded from a public domain, on-line, court file, that is indeed, of public record.
The H.O.G.D/A+O, encourages their members to go to public records, download original documents, and form their own opinion from these original sources. In fact, they give instructions on how to do so on their public forum: Hermetic-Order-of-the-Golden-Dawn at Yahoo groups and or at www.golden-dawn.com at the aforementioned link.
So please, no more ill judged messages saying that official court affidavits are “non-verifiable.” As it is ridiculous -in the extreme-
Frater FiatLux, what's happening above is that you're running into Wikipedia jargon. "Verifiable" has a specific meaning as a Wikipedia policy (you can read it at Wikipedia:Verifiability). Using original documentation is often in conflict with another policy -- Wikipedia:No original research. The challenge here is not to convince other Wikipedia editors that any one version of the article is getting things right, it is getting an article put together that is properly sourced and doesn't rely on any judgement calls from editors whatsoever. Jkelly 16:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, he is making the claim that all of what he uploaded is from a public domain court source, yet he only points to a GD page, which lists one public domain source for one document. All the other stuff could be easily contrived by anyone.--Vidkun 19:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Please see my full reply infra to this short message, addressing your dispute fully.
Please find infra the information on how to download the public domain court affidavits for yourself, from the original court public domain source. Your argument that I only used a G.D., web-site source is now quashed with this information and all your other disputes thereof.
Please find infra: the ECF link at the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. You can find the original court affidavits I used in my postings with: The case number which is- C05-432 JSW, and the ruling court for this case is the San Francisco Courthouse.
"https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/index.html"
The message contains clear and comprehensive instructions on how to download the original court affidavits, from the original court public domain source, for people to be able to form their own opinions from the actual original court documents. Which I did to produce the affidavits, court documents, I used in my postings. Which again I took directly from the public domain court source.
This information supra is all the proof anybody needs of the original source of the affidavits, and comprehensively quashes any arguments as to the verification of the original source of the affidavits.
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Dear J Kelly:
The present article, which is rightfully protected from corrupt editing is currently, properly sourced and doesn’t, and hasn't, relied on judgement calls from any editors.
The article was fine, and has been fine for a while, until recently, unscrupulous people, namely: JMAX555, started to corruptly, interfere and maliciously edit the article under presumptuous means; to purposely misrepresent the article in a defamatory tone. This is because JMAX555, is a leader of a putatively styled Golden Dawn rival group and wants to deform the truthful, accurately sourced information in the present, protected version of the article. Because he has a potent dislike for certain orders in the Golden Dawn tradition that are listed in the article, that rival his own group. Please note that JMAX555’s group forms no part of the present article.
The present, rightfully protected version of the article is pre-eminent over the corrupt editing that was performed recently. The court affidavits go to prove, beyond any shadow of doubt, that the information that I stated in my initial e-mail to you, is indeed, the whole truth. The court affidavits aren’t included here as a source to base the article on; they’re given here to back up the claims that the present version of the article is indeed, PROPERLY SOURCED, truthful, and non P.O.V.
So, hence, I don’t need to rely on any editors approval, as I have facts, evidence, properly sourced to back up, that the present, protected version of the article is properly sourced and compiled from the information thereof. Hence, the present version of the article that is under protection, is indeed, PROPERLY SOURCED and adheres to Wikipedia guidelines; to which I might add, the court affidavits back up -comprehensively-
Regardless of court documents, you'd need a source to be talking about them. THAT is verifiable, and that is what you need to back up a statement. I've seen you mention POV, well, the article needs a point of view to be an article. Its only the statements themselves that need to be NPOV (neutral point of view), so Wikipedia doesnt look like its for for or against it. And plus, you dont have to start a new section on the talk page to respond. Zos 19:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Source of documents
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I used the term “non P.O.V.”, in the context that the present protected article in question does not form a biased point of view and is therefore neutral, or as neutral as can be. Which the article, in the present protected form, certainly is. I am new user to Wikipedia, and subsequently are not aware of certain Wikipedia abbreviations I'm afraid.
As to your constant protesting that you need a source to verify court documents, if you follow the instructions and carefully read my posting with due care attention you will know where the sources are. Evidently you have chosen, for whatever reason not to and are still making ill judged comments.
Just to make this even more explicit, comprehensive and absolutely fool proof I will provide further details on the source. This infra text will quash yours and any others arguments about needing the original source, as this information will take you directly to the original source of the affidavits. So there is now -no dispute over this- as there is no opposing argument that can be made. You and everyone else now have the relevant information to download the affidavits for yourself, as I did.
So, thus, I HAVE A VERIFIABLE SOURCE FOR THE AFFIDAVITS. WHICH IS INDEED, THE ORIGINAL SOURCE, as I have stated previously.
Please find infra: the ECF link at the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. You can find the affidavits with: The case number which is- C05-432 JSW, and the ruling court for this case is the San Francisco Courthouse.
The message contains clear and comprehensive instructions on how to download the original court affidavits, and information about the current litigation; for people to be able to form their own opinions from the actual original court documents. Which I did to produce the affidavits, court documents, I used in my postings.
This information supra is all the proof anybody needs of the original source of the affidavits, and comprehensively quashes any arguments as to the verification of the original source of the affidavits.
I reiterate so there can be now no doubt whatsoever: I HAVE GIVEN COMPLETE, COMPREHENSIVE INSTRUCTIONS AND THE LINKS TO THE ORIGINAL, VERIFIABLE, SOURCE FOR THE COURT AFFIDAVITS.
Please do not trouble this discussion asking for the same information again on the original source of the court affidavits. All has been verified.
FiatLux: Court documents can be used, but it helps out alot on Wikipedia if you use a source. Now when we say sources, we mean this (mostly):
A fact is an actual state of affairs, which can be an historical event, or a social or natural phenomenon. To say of a sentence or proposition that it is true is to say that it refers to a fact.
An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable. However, that a certain person or group holds a certain opinion is a fact, and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group holds the opinion.
A primary source is a document or person providing direct evidence of a certain state of affairs; in other words, a source very close to the situation you are writing about. The term most often refers to a document produced by a participant in an event or an observer of that event. It could be an official report, an original letter, a media account by a journalist who actually observed the event, or an autobiography. Statistics compiled by an authoritative agency are considered primary sources. In general, Wikipedia articles should not depend on primary sources but rather on reliable secondary sources who have made careful use of the primary-source material. Most primary-source material requires training to use correctly, especially on historical topics. Wikipedia articles may use primary sources only if they have been published by a reliable publisher e.g. trial transcripts published by a court stenographer, or historic documents that appear in edited collections. We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a reliable publisher. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability
So we are looking for someone who has said anything about the documents, published it, and has an opinion about it.
You have only offered a few books (with no titles), a web page (which needs to be verifiable), and a yahoo e-group discussion (which is not aloud on Wikipedia, see below).
"At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources. Rare exceptions may be when a well-known professional person or acknowledged expert in a relevant field has set up a personal website using his or her real name. Even then, we should proceed with caution, because the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking." Taken from Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Using_online_sources, which I previously have mentioned. Thank you. Zos 23:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Response to the Mediator
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Dear J. Kelly:
Thank you for responding to my request for mediation.
There are a number of issues at work here. The article underwent a great amount of editing some months ago, and there were persons from all the various factions in the community involved, including persons (presumably) from "Frater Fiat Lux's" organization. After much discussion, debate and revision, the various parties came to a compromise and the "edit war" died down. All this can be seen reflected in the pervious entries in the Talk section, and the revision history of the article itself. Then an anonymous user comes along months later and re-edits the article -- repeatedly, and ignores all requests to discuss the edits in the Talk section (this can also be seen in the revision comments as well as the Talk section postings.) Only after I make a request to re-open the mediation process does "Frater Fiat Lux" come forward, get an account (after also having ignored repeated requests to do so) and post to the Talk section -- and that is only to call the rest of us in the community that had accepted a compromised, non-POV article derogatory names and impune our integrity and motives.
To claim that I am "irregularly deforming" the article, or that I am "misrepresenting" or that I am an "unscrupulous person" is silly. I only kept restoring the article to the version that was hammered out by all the various parties several months ago. You may also note that I was accused at one point during that process of being prejudiced toward one of the HOGD Inc.'s licensees! So the other side of this dispute once accused me of "prejudice" too. I figured if both "sides" are complaining, then I must have been standing somewhere in the middle ground.
"Frater Fiat Lux" seems to still be unfamiliar with what Wikipedia requires for verifiability. The court documents he gives instructions to access are not published works in the sense that Wikipedia uses the term.
They are records of court filings made by "Frater Fiat Lux" and his client, the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn/A+O, in a lawsuit currently being heard in US Federal Court. The case has not been adjudicated and no court has ruled on the veracity of the filings he has made on behalf of his client. Just because documents have been submitted to a court by one side in a civil case, does not mean the information in them is necessarily true, correct, or confirmed. They are one side's opinion in the case, and no court has made any determination concerning them. This is not "verifiability" according to Wikipedia's rules.
If anything, these court filings made by "Frater Fiat Lux" constitute what Wikipedia refers to as "original research".
"Frater Fiat Lux" also seems to still be unfamiliar with what Wikipedia's policies about "facts". Statements of fact must be verifiable by reference to reliable, published sources, like major book publishing houses or reputable academic sources.
The pertinent example is his claim that "The only evidence that Cicero operated a Golden Dawn temple in 1977 comes from Cicero's own book, and one reference to that same book by a friend." The "friend" in question here is author Gerald Shuster, who has several scholarly works published by major publishing houses.
When Mr. Cicero met Dr. Regardie is a null issue. There is a published account (by Shuster) that Mr. Cicero did indeed operate a Golden Dawn group as early as 1977. Therefore it meets the verifiability requirement of Wikipedia to be included in the article.
For reasons of a trademark dispute currently being heard in Federal Court, it serves the interests of the HOGD/A+O to discount the fact that Mr. Cicero did indeed operate a G.D. group in 1977, as this is a major point of contention in his court case -- it has to do with the "first use" requirement to claim a trademark.
"Frater Fiat Lux" is on a campaign, in my opinion, to denigrate Mr. Cicero and his organization. (See my entry above, "Regarding the recent anonymous biased-POV edits".) The tone of his posts here to the Talk section show this quite clearly, I think. He keeps insisting, in a rather rude manner, that papers he filed in a court case on behalf of his client constitute some kind of verifiability as Wikipedia defines the term. These court filings are not, as you so correctly put it, "previously published reports, ideally from a disinterested party." He is not a disinterested party -- his "references" are court filings that he himself wrote! You and others have tried to explain the difference to him, but to no avail.
As I pointed out above, to depict Mr. Cicero's Golden Dawn group as being "started as an OTO Camp" is an attempt to smear the HOGD, Inc. Many members of the Golden Dawn also belong to the OTO, but some others dislike the OTO. And as far as the scope of the article goes, it's irrelevant in any case. Someone could operate a Wiccan coven, or an OTO camp, or a New Age group, or some other spiritual organization prior to establishing a Golden Dawn order, but that doesn't mean that Golden Dawn order was "started as" it. This is clearly a biased depiction.
The US Patent and Trademark Office granted Mr. Cicero the right to use the trademark of "Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn" and validated his declaration of first use of the trademark dating back to 1977. "Frater Fiat Lux's" client, Mr. David Griffin of the HOGD/A+O, filed a challenge to that trademark, but it was withdrawn and the challenge was dismissed "with prejudice". Two books by reputable publishers have verified this 1977 date -- one indeed by Mr. Cicero himself, but it had to go through the usual vetting process by his publisher's editors. It therefore constitutes the "mainstream account" of the subject. No mention of or connection of the HOGD Inc. with the OTO has ever been made in any mainstream account.
I can also point out that "Frater Fiat Lux" is also including more superfluous information in his Talk posts here to further denigrate Mr. Cicero, myself, and others. That is neither here nor there, but I think it does show what his intentions are with these edits.
So to be clear about the issues I have with "Frater Fiat Lux's" edits, I'll reiterate the objections I made before:
1. It is prejudicial, and unprovable by reference to any reputable published source, that the HOGD Inc. was "started as an OTO camp." The only possible reason to include this sentence is to stir up controversy among those Golden Dawn practitioners who have a negative opinion of the OTO and Thelema. This is the same reason he tossed off the reference to my own GD group being "heavily Thelemic in orientation."
2. in the entry for his own organization he wrote, "After withdrawing her endorsement from that organization in 1992 to continue the unschismed version with Griffin..." This is a prejudicial account of the events in question. The other side of the story is that Ms. Behman resigned from the HOGD Inc. and her partnership with Mr. Griffin WAS the "schismed version". It was better to leave BOTH side's versions out of the article entirely so as to not stir up a controversy that cannot be settled in the pages of Wikipedia.
3. Not a single group currently practicing the Golden Dawn system adheres without exception to the "traditional" practices and teaching system of the early British Lodges, notably the HOGD/A+O, which has completely altered the teaching curriculum of the traditional Order. Thus the mention of such deviations ONLY in context to the HOGD Inc. and it's licensees is still another attempt at POV-bias. The previous version simply said that "Some of the autonomous licensees have modified and/or expanded on the original forms" and left it at that. That was the way to settle the controversy which the parties in the prior edit dispute finally arrived at. Another example is in the entry for the Ordo Stella Matutina, "However, Self-Initian[sic] itself does not conform to thede[sic] teachings." Again, the major revision of the curriculum of the Golden Dawn made by the HOGD/A+O does not conform to the teachings of the orignal Order either, which specifically and empahtically declared that advanced techniques should not be taught to beginners in the Order, as the HOGD/A+O does. But no mention is made in "Frater Fiat Lux's" edit to his own group's deviation from "tradition". So the best solution is to entirely AVOID these controversies about what is properly "traditional" and what is not in the text of the article.
4. The aside added about the Llewellyn Books edition of Regardie's "The Golden Dawn" -- "though this collection is unconnected to the Ciceros (in fact, the introduction was written by Patricia Behman a/k/a Cris Monnastre)" is again intended to prejudice the reader against Mr. Cicero. It's also true that the Epilogue to Regardie's book was written by Sam Webster, who as a former member of Mr. Cicero's group and a current member of the Board of Directors of the HOGD Inc. IS "connected" to the Ciceros. So what is the point of including that passage, except to prejudice the reader against the Mr. Cicero and the HOGD Inc.?
It is entirely unfair to allow one faction to completely re-write it's own section AND the section describing the group(s) on the other side of a ongoing legal dispute and controversy, when it is done in such an obviously prejudicial manner.
I did not "inappropriately, and in a very unprincipled manner, alter the H.O.G.D. entry in a manner that is not only P.O.V. but incorrect, defamatory and malicious." What I did was restore the article to the version that was hammered out by the various factions months ago -- not only by myself, but also several others from different points of view (including factions from "Frater Fiat Lux's" organization). It was a success story in Wikipedia editing disputes: the factions talked it out, bounced edits back and forth, agreed on a compromise POV that those disputing it could live with, and the edit war ended. That is, until "Frater Fiat Lux" came along and anonymously edited the article without consulting anyone, ignored repeated requests to discuss the edits in Talk and come to a compromise, until forced to do so by the Mediation request that I re-activated.
The one thing I did change in an minor update was to correct a factual error regarding the Whare Ra temple of Pat Zalewski. The old article stated that the temple was "in abeyance" when in fact it is still operational and has been for many years. Mr. Zalewski himself brought this to my attention, and I see no reason to doubt him. He even states this to be the case in two of his books on the Golden Dawn, also published by Llewellyn, which fulfills the requirement of verifiability as far as I'm concerned. But "Frater Fiat Lux" throws out that minor correction too.
My request to the mediators is to restore the article to the version that was hammered out by various sides of the dispute months ago and leave it at that. If "Frater Fiat Lux" wishes to make changes regarding the entry for his own group, it should be discussed in Talk first and a compromise reached. That is how editing Wikipedia is supposed to work.
As I see it, less is more in the case of this article. The entries for the various groups should not be long and drawn out, or used as a soap-box to promote one side's POV. A short bit of non-controversial background info is enough, along with a link to the group's own website where their own POV can be freely disseminated to their heart's content. I firmly believe that the final result we came up with months ago fulfilled this goal, but I'm always willing to discuss matters in Talk and reach mutually satisfactory decisons regarding edits.
Thank you, JKelly, for putting up with this long response. If you have any questions, please send them to my user page. JMax555 04:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I need to clarify here -- I'm the administrator who locked the page. I'm not a volunteer mediator. I want to be clear that my interest in this is to get enough of a sense of things to know when the page sould be opened to normal wiki editing, and to get a general agreement on following Wikipedia policy. That said, there has been a lot of material posted on (and linked to from) this Talk page, I am reviewing it, and hope to offer some assistance on making everyone's experience less frustrating. But my attention here is not part of the semi-official Wikpedia dispute resolution process. Jkelly 04:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I've tried to request another mediation, and I thought you were responding to that. My apologies. JMax555 04:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Citations
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I'd like to point out at this moment, of the lack of actual citations in this article (not one citation). And for clarity, I don't mean the references. Citations are used to specify where this information is coming from, and help readers of these articles to "fact check" the sources. So for the moment, this can all be disputed. I'd kindly recommend that this gets sorted out before the page is unprotected, since its up for debate and likely to be disputed again. Zos 05:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Response to JMAX555
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
To J Kelly and JMAX555:
I wish to make absolutely clear from the outset, a fact that needs to be understood, categorically and vehemently. Mr. David Griffin is not my client, and I am not the person you’re referring to “JMAX555,” by making that unsubstantiated accusation. In fact, if you check the IP addresses for the recent edits to the article, that I had to make to preserve the integrity of the article. To indeed ensure that you’re biased, unprincipled, egregious editing did not deform and misrepresent the article into a biased P.O.V. You’ll find that I cannot be the person you imply, and refer to me being.
Please do not make this same, ill judged, unsubstantiated statement again, as it is patently untrue, and is thus, quashed, period.
The person that tampered with the HOGD/A+O entry, who did so, in a P.O.V., malicious, incorrect and unprincipled manner. I believe did so, and solely intended to damage and interfere with the on going lawsuit, and furthermore attempt to deliberately damage and sabotage the HOGD/A+O’s case. It must be pointed out, as a matter of fact, and public record, that present lawsuit was most frivolously instigated by Mr. Charles “Chic” Cicero, on behalf of his HOGD Inc. Such was the misguided frivolousness of Mr. Cicero’s HOGD Inc. lawsuit; Mr. Cicero now faces the very valid counter claims of the HOGD/A+O.
“JMAX555” is a leader of a group licensed by Mr. Cicero, and it is in the context of the directly supra text, that “JMAX555,” has been altering the HOGD/A+O article entry; because he has a vested, and conflicting interested to do so. It is “JMAX555” that is performing egregious, defamatory edits to the HOGD/A+O article entry to support his licenser, Mr. Cicero’s HOGD Inc.
Really, this article shouldn’t concern “JMAXX555,” as his group isn’t a present concern in the article, -whatsoever- One can only deduce that because his group is licensed by Mr. Cicero’s H.O.G.D. Inc., that he has heavy motive and a vested interested in corrupting and sabotaging the HOGD/A+O entry, and the article as a whole to a biased P.O.V, in favour of Mr. Cicero’s HOGD Inc.
This is not only in a misguided attempt at trying to interfere with present litigation by misrepresenting the HOGD/A+O entry in a defamatory tone. But in an attempt to divert, and misinform the public, to make Charles “Chic” Cicero’s, HOGD Inc., appear more favourable and appealing than the other entries, and viz. the HOGD/A+O’s entry specifically.
So the fact of the matter is that “JMAX555,” is not impartial and is a pro Cicero supporter that has conflict of interests, and heavy motive to bring the HOGD/A+O entry into disrepute and ignominy.
All of these recent improperly made changes performed by “JMAXX555” on the HOGD/A+O entry were not, I repeat, were not discussed in the talk page first. He simply carried on regardless to the obvious objections to change the article in egregious, biased, defamatory means solely to bring the HOGD/A+O entry into ignominy. He’d have been aware of this staunch objection to his improper changes because the article kept being reverted to the correct, presently protected version.
-There’s no entry at all by “JMAX555” in this discussion board about him making the recent egregious, defamatory changes to the HOGD/A+O entry- He just went right ahead and changed the entries without notifying anyone, which has now resulted in this most recent disputation and lockdown of the article.
As a point of fact, the article was fine up until most recently when “JMAX555” started to edit the article from his own biased P.O.V., to give support to Mr. Cicero‘s HOGD Inc entry. As aforementioned “JMAX555” group doesn’t form any part of the article; the article really hasn’t got anything to do with him. So, in view of the facts I’ve served, it’s not difficult to see exactly why he is proactive in getting involved with an article that doesn’t concern him, and why he’s attempting to sabotage the HOGD/A+O’s entry on the article in question.
The one and only organisation that was represented at this “hammering out” that “JMAX555” mentions, was in fact “JMAX555” group the OSOGD which is as aforementioned, licensed by Charles “Chic” Cicero’s HOGD Inc. This again only goes to show the completely biased, P.O.V., of “JMAX555” and why he is exasperatingly incessant upon changing the HOGD/A+O’s entry in a defamatory tone, and in a totally misleading pretence. There’s also the question of why no other representative from the other groups actually involved with the article have come forward, to past disputations of various versions of the article, and this, the now, current version that is rightfully under protection.
The only person that keeps moaning and creating constant disputations about this article and creating mediation cases here is “JMAX555,“ and that’s only when people try to correct his egregious, defamatory, misleading and improper changes.
I will state explicitly what I want to see happen:
The present article, that is the factual, correct version of the article now under protection should remain untampered. The persons that are attempting to exploit and interfere with the article under biased means, are to cease and desist with their misguided editing and attempt to bring the HOGD/A+O article entry into disrepute and ignominy.
"Frater Fiat Lux" still seems to be confused as to the revision history of this article, or he's deliberately trying to create confusion.
It was originally spun off from the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn article after it had been merged to it previously, because it had exceeded the length limit. This occurred in January 2006.
The "edit war" that sprang up around it mostly took place during that period. The first request I made to the Mediation Cabal was:
So, "Frater Fiat Lux", when I refer to the non-POV version that had been worked out by the various parties, I mean the version which had been pretty much in place by February of 2006. When I reverted the article, I was reverting it back to more or less the same article that had been in place, as I have pointed out, for months.
Compare the last revert I made to the version that was reverted to, not by myself, but the one from March 1st, 2006, by user That Guy, From That Show! who does not belong to any Golden Dawn group and is a long time Wikipedia contributor:
You'll see that the only significant difference is an extended entry for Ordo Stella Matutina, which gives more details as to the workings of their group. You even edited THAT section, adding the superfluous comment that their "self-initiation" program is not "traditional". "Traditional" is a matter of opinion and a loaded subject in the GD community. Your own organization follows an equally non-traditional format, in that it has completely altered the original teaching curriculum. Again, the only reason to add such a comment is to cast suspicion and negativity on that organization. If the previous editors (including myself) were as intent upon belittling other groups as you are, a similar comment about being "non-traditional" could have been put into the section dealing with the HOGD/A+O. But it wasn't. Adding loaded comments about what is or is not "traditional" only causes edit wars to occur, which is exactly what happened. So by mutual consensus, all claims regarding "traditionality" had been left out of the article and all the parties involved accepted it.
So it's quite obvious who is promoting a biased POV here and who is not. There is nothing in that previous version which had any bearing whatsoever on court cases.
I was you who came to Wikipedia anonymously and edited the article to a biased point of view favoring your organization yet again, long after it had been worked out by various parties, both interested and disinterested, to a form generally acceptable to all concerned. It was you who did this without discussion, without explanation, and anonymously and repeatedly. You ignored multiple requests to discuss changes in Talk before making them. Your changes contained, and still contain, errors in spelling and syntax. This was also pointed out, and you still made the same errors in subsequent edits.
What's clear is you don't understand the process of acceptable editing. You came in and made the anonymous edits to the previously existing version. Therefore it was your responsibility to discuss the matter in Talk before doing so. If someone simply reverts the article BACK to the previous version, it is not attendent on that person to discuss the issue in Talk. That was your responsibility, which you ignored.
Nothing in your response above addresses any of these issues, but is simply a long rant impugning my integrity and not much else. Which is neither here nor there, because others have tried to do that too -- and in fact they were on the OTHER side of this dispute. This isn't about me, or about any organization I belong to. It's about the facts, and the revision history and Talk archives contain the facts concerning this issue.
Fact: a version of the article generally acceptable to the various parties was in place by the end of February 2006.
Fact: the reverts I made to your edits were essentially the same as that consensual version. It was the version that was in place BEFORE YOU EDITED IT. You were changing that generally agreed upon version, I was putting it back the way it was.
Fact: you don't seem to understand, or are deliberately ignoring, Wikipedia's policies on Verifiability and No_original_research. Court papers filed by one side in a pending civil suit are not Reliable_sources that can serve as verifiable references under Wikipedia rules. (They constitute original research, if anything.)
JKelly - I have placed another request with the Mediation Cabal regarding this article:
Thank you again for your attention to this matter. - JMax555 22:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Proposal for a solution
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I propose that the descriptive text of the entire Section 4, "Contemporary Golden Dawn Orders" be permenently removed from the article, and replaced only with a list and reference to the Links section below for persons interested in the various contemporary Orders. That way, each group can promote it's own POV on their own websites and leave Wikipeida out of it.
This solves the problem neatly and with complete fairness to everyone. - JMax555 23:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Even though I'm not an editor of this page (I would like to be, when it gets unprotected), I'd have to agree, but heres why. There are no citations, just web sites. The only exception is the inline citation to amazon.com: "Self Initiation into the Golden Dawn Tradition" for the The Ordo Stella Matutina sub-section. So thats only one sentence (and isnt properly cited at that), for the whole Contemporary Golden Dawn Orders section (and sub-sections). Plus, I've also made this suggestion on this talk page (in the header, Suggestion).
The only thing is, if sources are found, it's allowable on Wikipedia. So nothing can be "permenently removed".
I realize, of course, nothing can be "permenently removed" in the sense it can be locked out of the system. (Forgive my turn of speech there.) I completely agree with your proposed solution of creating sub-pages that persons from the various groups can administer.
The problem with citations concerning the makeup of the various Orders and groups is that very little if anything has been published (in a form acceptable to Wikipedia standards) by third parties concerning them. All the information either comes from the various group's own webpages, or culled from discussions on forums and the like. That's why I think turning that sub-section into a simple list of links to Wiki articles, websites, or both is the most equitable solution. If the administrator unlocks the page, I would submit an edit to that effect. - JMax555 03:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I vehemently do not agree on the other hand. The article should stay in its correct, rightfully protected form, immune from the biased corrupt editing of “JMAX555.” The editor should protect the present correct verifiable version until “JMAX555”, ceases and desists with his unprincipled and defamatory editing crusade.
FiatLux, you've proven now, that no one can compromise with you. The fact is, you have no sources (as of right now), and will not be the one who wins this until you do. As far as I see, once citations are given (pointing to which sections are being used for which books that are listed in the reference section), whatever is not cited, needs to either be cited, or removed until citations are found (this is normal). So can you at least agree that the article needs citations, and sources for each claim, statement, and accusation (because as far as I can see, you are holding up editing this article to prove a point). If JMax is accusing anyone, he is going to have to show a source, and cite it properly.
This isnt about rival factions. This is about proper Wikipedia articles.
JMax: I understand, and if needs to be removed then so be it. I know for fact that there are factions, but I currently cannot find a source I would use. Zos 04:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Reply to the above/Proposal for a solution
Latest comment: 17 years ago16 comments6 people in discussion
Once again there is more fact twisting on behalf of “JMAX555,” in reply to his biased viewpoint to support Mr. Charles “Chic” Cicero of the HOGD Inc., which licences “JMAX555” group. The only reason “JMAX555” is involved with this disputation is the very notion that he insists, insatiably to deform the article in a defamatory tone so that Mr. Cicero’s HOGD Inc., is seen in a superior light to the rest of the entries.
“JMAX555” group has nothing whatsoever to do with the present article and forms no current part thereof.
“JMAX555” didn’t discuss any of his recent changes on the discussion page, so why should I have. The very first time I was asked to discuss the article I did forthwith and complied with complete rectitude, and adhered with Wikipedia’s protocol.
My proposal is that the article should stay its correct, rightfully protected, NON-biased HOGD Inc. form. The version "JMAX555" wants to revert to is disgracefully defamatory to the HOGD/A+O, and is inaccurate in every instance. It was “JMAX555” that inappropriately and egregiously instigated this recent disputation with his biased defamatory editing, that he didn’t discuss here on the talk page before he made his highly incorrect inflammatory editing. The proof can be seen here on the talk page, there is no entry made by "JMAX555" whatsoever, regarding his recent editing.
Please govern your house accordingly Mr. Max and cease and desist with your outrageous, defamatory editing and completely unsubstantiated comments.
I also thank the dear J Kelly for the assistance given to me in order to defend the -correct in all instances,- rightfully protected article, from “JMAX555” unscrupulous and biased editing.
FiatLux. JMAX was trying to make a compromise, and if he is a member, or in any way affiliated with one of those orders...how would suggesting that the whole section should be removed promote his personal bias? This negates your point.
Also, the current version is not verifiable, and will more than likely not remain. All articles on Wikipedia go through these proccesses, and sources can be challenged at any time. So if you have any book sources, lets discuss them, and what they say. Thank you. Zos 02:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Dear ZOS:
Please read postings with due care and attention. I did not say I wanted anything removed, hence, nothing is negated as you put it, your dispute is quashed. The current version is totally verifiable as previously stated numerous times in supra postings with in print sources, and original public domain court affidavits. If you had carefully read previous postings of mine you'd know this.
Due to your not reading postings carefully and thus creating more work than is necessary, I personally wouldn’t like to see you as an editor of the article. That’s just my opinion from your posting and comments thus far, and having to correct your misleading statements on my postings.
Dear FiatLux: This is not a letter. I have read your posts with due care, you have not with mine, as well as any other editor discussing the views. I never implied you wished anything removed, I'm aware you want it to remain as is (but it wont). Yet, the negation is strictly due to the lack of "due attention" to what is going on. If JMax is a member, or affiliated with any of the orders descriptions he wishes to be taken off of this article, then how is this bias? Furthermore, it prooves, he is unbias to the issues at hand, and is working toward a compromise.
Hence, a negation, and I'm thinking you are the actual one who is obfuscating the conversation.
If the article is "totally verifiable", then where is the proof? Can I get you to show us all of your sources on this talk page please?
And you can keep your opinions to youself please. Any one can edit Wikipedia. Thank you. Zos 04:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Dear Zos:
Correcting misrepresentations by Zos (again)
God, really, you guy’s; I’ll spell it out for you then. “JMAX555” group is not part of the present article, in any way. The OSOGD is not listed in the present, and correct, rightfully protected article. Or the other defamatory version that “JMAX555” purposes. Hence, JMAX555 should have no interest in this article, as it doesn’t concern him, he should stay out of it and further cease and desist performing egregious edits.
The HOGD Inc. entry is their own business and should have nothing to do with “JMAX555;” the HOGD Inc entry is their own concern not “JMAX555,” unless he’s acting as an emissary thereof. He is only a licensee and per my knowledge holds no rank or authority in Mr. Cicero’s organisation. So why is so proactive and seeks absolute involvement in something that has nothing -whatsoever- to do with him is indeed, an enigma.
Therefore, when JMAX555 involves himself in the egregious and defamatory editing of the article that really has nothing to do with him and shouldn’t be his concern. He only partakes in this unprincipled behaviour because of his biased disposition.
So please do not trouble this discussion again with misleading, and out of context nonsense comment, through not reading my postings with due care an attention.
I will not repeat myself to you again. Your negation is quashed forthwith.
And Zos my user name is in full: Frater FiatLux 13:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC) please do not use your own abbreviations, this is unprofessional and would not be seen from a neutral wikipedian administrator.
Frater FiatLux 13:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
It should be pretty clear by now that Frater Fiat Lux is not particularly interested in a compromise solution. It's also pretty clear he's not really listening to what's being said by anyone. He says my GD group is affiliated with HOGD Inc. (which is true, we are independent licensees) and therefore "biased", but then complains that I have "nothing whatsoever to do with the present article and forms no current part thereof." So which is it? And of course none of that has anything to do with whether I have the "right" to edit any Wikipedia article I wish.
Also, on the Mediation Request page I filed yesterday, the following comment appeared today:
"Having found this whole can of worms by having another editor's talk page on my watch list, I'm getting increasingly disturbed by the repeated use of legal terminology by one of the parties to this dispute. It suggests that the party is portraying themselves as a legal expert, and possibly one involved in litigation on this very subject, and I feel that inherently biases and possibly endangers wikipedia's status as a neutral resource. Occasionally the wording has bordered on what some might consider to be threats of legal action. This really needs to not happen on wikipedia, and I do hope the Foundation's general counsel has been made aware of it.--Vidkun 02:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)"
So whether or not Frater Fiat Lux is an attorney involved in the legal dispute, his abuse (I don't know what else to call it) of the Wikipedia system by portraying himself as "a legal expert", including his repetative use of legal terminology and references to pending lawsuits, might endanger the Wikipedia Foundation. Nice. - JMax555 04:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Vidkun: You'd have something to do with the article if you had a source to say you were :)
I might show up on the mediation page, to find out what has to be done to open this back up for edits. Zos 04:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm a newcomer here, but I've been around WP awhile. Browsing this talk page, one thing occurs to me. WP requires reputable verifiable sources. The only exception is that a page solely about an organization or web site can use that organizations promotional material or website ("autobiography"). That should create a clear dividing line in this article. Anything that does not have a reputable, third party, verifiable source does not belong in this article - it belongs in a separate article titled per the name of the org in question. Whether such org meets WP notability requirements is another issue... -999 04:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Great. You found where it can be its own article. So yes, this should clear things up. Self-published sources may never be used as sources of information about another person or topic (from: WP:V#Self-published_sources). So this means its to be taken off (the other orders section) and moved to its own page. Zos 04:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me, but aren't court documents considered primary sources? What do you mean by self-published? We're not talking here about books with publishing houses, but a public trial. If both parties in the litigation would like to cite public government documents as primary sources it would seem to me that this information would not be original research, nor self-published, but verifiable primary source work. Kephera975 05:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but peer reviewed books are the standard. Got court documents? Great, but in an article about your org alone... -999 05:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
What wikipedia policy are you referencing? If you are referencing the self-published policy, court documents are not published like books, but are "published", per se, by courts and not an author or organization, correct? How are court documents self-published? Kephera975 05:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I've already listed what consitutes a primary source for Wikipedia. But if you are going to add a statement about the court documents, you'd have to cite it, and we'd need a source for it. The part that says "self published", is a reference to a Wikipedia page dealing with how to go about using a web site to validate or verify these other orders or factions, not the court documents. And since these court documents are being disputed, I myself would like to see a citation for them if they are to be used.
As for the policy...its called verifiability. The colored links can be clicked on, so you can see where that is being said, or taken from. Zos 05:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I understand how to go to those policies, and I have examined the verifiablity policy. I have also examined the "no original research" policy. Within that policy, it is stated that data collected from public trials and hearings is considered primary source and is encouraged on Wikipedia as source worthy of citation, correct? So if Frater FiatLux wants to use these primary sources, than he would need to cite them in the article, correct? Kephera975 05:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
For the Wikipedia policy, see: WP:RS "In general, Wikipedia articles should not depend on primary sources but rather on reliable secondary sources who have made careful use of the primary-source material. Most primary-source material requires training to use correctly, especially on historical topics. Wikipedia articles may use primary sources only if they have been published by a reliable publisher e.g. trial transcripts published by a court stenographer, or historic documents that appear in edited collections. We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a reliable publisher."
So, court papers filed by one side's attorney in an ongoing, unsettled litigation are not "reliable secondary sources". The only thing that seems allowable is "trial transcripts published by a court stenographer", and there has been no trial. An attorney can put anything they want in an affidavit, but that doesn't mean the information in the affidavit is correct, factual, or verified by the court. It will naturally be biased in favor of the attorney's client, because that's the lawyer's job. Such affidavits are, in the Wikipedia sense, considered either a "self-published source" or original research, not "information made available by a reliable publisher." What's in those "court documents" is simply what the lawyer for one side of a legal dispute put there. They are in the court record, but that doesn't mean anything in the sense of verifiability. The only thing that's "verified" is that the lawyer for one side wrote them and submitted them, and the court system has archived them. I don't see why it's so hard to understand the difference. - JMax555 05:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Kephera975: Who brought up NOR (before JMax's last comment)? Its worthy of citation yes, but in what manner? And who is using it? And for what argument? This is why we need a published source on the matter. Readers of the article need to be aware of a court document, and why its on the article, or they will be left with no actual knowledge on the situation (and more questions when they read the article). Try making a statement that is NPOV, about the document. And we will discuss it. But unitl then, it needs a proper citation if its going to be used. Thank you. Zos 06:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Court documents
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
It is my belief that to be consistent with Wikipedia policy, that court documents of an unsettled case should only be used in an article about the case itself. After all, an affadavit is simply a sworn statement - each parties affadavits are essentially autobiographical in nature - they are describing the facts as they see them. So they would also be acceptible to cite in an article about the person or org who wrote them, but not in a general article or to be used to criticize, degrade or rebut an article about the legal opponent in the case.
In this case, really it is the outcome that matters. Once that outcome is known, then articles can be retitled and the resolution of the case noted in the article about the orgs in question. For now, there should probably not even be a mention that there is a court case, unless it has been reported in some citable media. --999 13:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
The So-called Neutrality of user JMAX555
Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
As for the editor JMAX's neutrality in these issues, I would like to note, regardless of what is currently being negotiated, that JMAX is indeed severely biased against the HOGD/A+O and this can be substantiated all over the various "GD" styled Yahoo forums in his own words and on his own forum. His own editing of the organization HOGD/A+O as being "deviant" from the G.D. tradition and his assertion that Pat Behman a/k/a Cris Monnastre "resigned" from HOGD, Inc. are pure HOGD, Inc. POV statements and prove, within the context of this article, his own POV editing. In the context of allowing this article to contain biographies of the different Orders, if an HOGD, Inc. bias is allowed to be edited in by users like JMAX, than this should be neutralized by the currently opposing bias. Therefore, I agree with Frater Fiat Lux that the current version is about as neutral as is possible given the current circumstances. Kephera975 05:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
And none of this has anything to do with the price of tea in China. Any opinions I express anywhere else is irrelevant to Wikipedia. It's also irrelevant if I post my "POV" opinions and observations that would be inappropriate in the article itself to the Talk discussion section -- that's what Talk is there for. None of those things were in the article itself; in fact, I specifically said they don't belong in the article itself. I said such controversies should be completely avoided.
You yourself were part of the "edit war" process that took place last January and February, on the same "side" as Frater Fiat Lux, and we seemed at that time to have come to an equitable version of the article. Certainly you made no attempt to re-edit it in all this time since then. Until Frater Fiat Lux came along last week and started it all up again, the version was essentially as we left it as of the beginning of March 2006. I previously posted here a direct link to the comparative versions -- the one I kept reverting to after the anonymous edit-bombing by Frater Fiat Lux began, and the one by another User (not myself) from 1 March 2006. This proves that all I was doing was reverting the article back to the form that I thought we had come to concensus about months ago (with a minor addition to the Ordo Stella Matutina section).
My proposal is to remove ALL descriptive paragraphs ("biographies") regarding "Contemporary Golden Dawn Orders" and replace them with links to seperate Wikipedia articles or external websites. This completely eliminates all possibility of bias from any side of the dispute. How can I possibly make a more unbiased proposal than that? - JMax555 06:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
The fact is, which you have just admitted, that you are not a neutral editor and you appear to be presenting yourself as such.
As for your proposal, since you have dominated this scene from the beginning, it is apparent to me that if there were distinct pages for each Order, you would definately be involved in making sure that anything HOGD/A+O has to say on their own entry would be deemed too POV or too unverifiable as you have done here, would you not? What's the difference, besides having to move around to six different pages?
How is your compromise of benefit to all parties involved, including the HOGD/A+O? Kephera975 16:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, this isnt yahoo or an e-group. His actions there really don't bare a significance here. Plus, we are talking about how to get this page unprotected. And as far as I know, the only thing being disputed right now is:
Regarding the structure of the "contemporary orders" section, this is my proposal:
Contemporary Golden Dawn Orders
Today, several organizations carry on the Golden Dawn tradition. Among these, the following are particularly significant due to their presence on the World Wide Web:
Clean, simple and completely unbiased and uncontroversial. If the various groups wish to create their own seperate Wikipedia articles about their own organzations and add links to those articles, they are free to do so, so long as they adhere to the Wikipedia policies regarding sources, verifiability and no original research. If they find that too limiting, they have their own websites where they can say anything they wish.
This also eliminates the need for any citations whatsoever -- they would be hard to come by in any case. Court papers filed by one side in a legal dispute are not "reliable sources" even if they are archived by the court system. Almost everything else is in the form of self-referential websites, or chatter from various Internet forums. It could be reliably proven that certain groups exist as business entities by consulting business licenses. As mentioned previously, that Mr. Chic Cicero had a operational Golden Dawn group in 1977 is verifiable in two publications by Llewellyn Books, one by Mr. Cicero and another by Gerald Shuster. The physical existence of the Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn is documented in a book by Christine Wicker, Not In Kansas Anymore (Harper SanFrancisco, 2005), wherein she gives a first person account of attending an OSOGD ritual. There may be other references to various groups scattered around, but nothing I can think of verifies anything more than simply that they exist or existed. Certainly there is no secondary-source references I'm aware of that document the information contained in the disputed section.
Regarding merging the articles, if the "Contemporary Golden Dawn Orders" section is shortened as I propose, then merging would certainly be good idea. - JMax555 06:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. The links should be in the external links section, and if there is a Wikipedia article for any of them, it should be in the See also section. Then the external link can be removed (as articles for these orders are created) seeing as how it shed no baring on this article. Zos 07:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
It would be a simple matter to place the section header "Contemporary Golden Dawn Orders" at the very end of the article with something like "Today, several organizations carry on the Golden Dawn tradition. Those listed below in the External Links and See Also sections are particularly significant due to their presence on the World Wide Web" or somesuch.
Now all we need is for the parties who began this edit war all over again to agree to this reasonable solution and we can get the article unlocked. Is that too much to hope for? - JMax555 07:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I believe its up to mediation right now. Plus, we havent gotten a response from FLux yet. So anything it possible. But, there shouldnt even be a section for it, seeing as how there are no sources. Being in the see also and external links section is about all I think that can be done right now (if more can be done tell me). Zos 07:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Disagreement to the recent biased proposal.
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I on the other hand, again, vehemently disagree with this ill-judged decision of deleting the page wholesale. Just because “JMAX555,” cannot get his own biased, defamatory way with the article, and has in a very unprincipled way, defended a corrupt, hopeless position now just decides that he wants to disperse the whole article. Simply because he cannot get his way to publish his defamatory version of the article.
This is preposterous and I will NOT agree -whatsoever- to any deletion of the article, when there is a perfectly good, correct, verifiable, truthful and accurate in all cases article that is now presently, and one might add, rightfully under protection from the dastardly corrupt editing of Mr. Max555.
I also object to the user “Zos” being involved in this discussion as it has transpired he has biased leanings and could be in cahoots with “JMAX555,” therefore, any decision made between the two should quashed forthwith.
I'd like to you point out where I am bias. I had just gotten here to see you complaining, without sources. And no one is talking about "deleting" material. We move it to another page, that deals with the topic in which the sources allow, this is not deleting". And before you accuse me of being involved with a user, check my contributions. I've never met, nor spoken with JMax before this talk page. Yet he seems more reasonable than you. Zos 15:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Dear Zos
Again, I’m not surprised you’re saying things like this now, given your disposition. It doesn’t prove a thing that there’s no evidence of you and him exchanging any correspondence through Wikipedia. You’re hardly going to be that foolhardy; at least I don’t think so. You’ll obviously be corresponding through private e-mails.
I’m not holding your hand wasting my time yet again, with out of context, silly remarks that just creates more work. Look through the infra postings all the proof you need is there.
Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Zos, you are a member of the OSOGD aren’t you in cahoots with “JMAX555”? Someone has tipped me off via private e-mail, and whistle blown that you‘re actually a member with the OSOGD with “JMAX555.” Can you confirm or deny this? I’m sorry but I’m going to discredit your apparent misguided efforts thus far to ensure that the correct, rightfully protected version is taken down, and the “JMAX555” defamatory editing is put up in its place.
Furthermore, I request that you distance yourself from this discussion as there is a cloud of murky questions and an air of biased perspective around your involvement with “JMAX555.” This making you an inept mediator or editor as you have a biased standpoint on the article, no wonder you wanted to be editor of the article once it was unprotected!
If anyone has further information on this matter and requires anonymity please e-mail me privatly at Verumincrebresco@yahoo.co.uk or post up on my user page Frater FiatLux 12:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
You are border lining on uncivil. If you persist, I will report you. I'm not a member of any faction of the GD, and you have unrealiable sources. Plus, I'm no mediator. But this needed to be discussed before mediation. Editors dont get to just complain about the way an article is without a valid reason. The way it appears, is that we have more reasons to move the content, and you are running out of ideas. Zos 15:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I had a feeling you'd try to say something like that. I have the truth on my side I don't need to come up with "ideas." The present article is the factual, truthful version as the supra postings prove beyond any shadow of doubt.
Fine. May I please see this "e-mail" verification that I am a member of the OSOGD? I believe in open source, yet I don't think this makes me a member. Zos 15:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Dear Zos:
I will ask the person weather or not they want to be revealed as my source. They requested anonymity and unless they state otherwise when I ask them, about revealing my source to you as to the incriminating e-mail; I will have no other option other than to respect their wishes. I am a man of strict integrity and will -not for anyone- conduct myself in an unprincipled manner against someone's strict wishes for anonymity.
I will do my utmost within respecting their wishes to bring this information to you forthwith.
With no verifiable source, your statement regarding someone's membership in an organization is hearsay. It seems, again and again, you have no concept of reliable sources are for the purposes of wikipedia, and that you have no interest in consensus, as you have repeatedly said that the current content and format of the page are what YOU want to remain. That's NEVER going to happen.--Vidkun 17:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Correcting misrepresentations by "Zos" (again).
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
God, really, you guy’s; I’ll spell it out for you then. “JMAX555” group is not part of the present article, in any way. The OSOGD is not listed in the present, and correct, rightfully protected article. Or the other defamatory version that “JMAX555” purposes. Hence, JMAX555 should have no interest in this article, as it doesn’t concern him, he should stay out of it and further cease and desist performing egregious edits.
The HOGD Inc. entry is their own business and should have nothing to do with “JMAX555;” the HOGD Inc entry is their own concern not “JMAX555,” unless he’s acting as an emissary thereof. He is only a licensee and per my knowledge holds no rank or authority in Mr. Cicero’s organisation. So why is so proactive and seeks absolute involvement in something that has nothing -whatsoever- to do with him is indeed, an enigma.
Therefore, when JMAX555 involves himself in the egregious and defamatory editing of the article that really has nothing to do with him and shouldn’t be his concern. He only partakes in this unprincipled behaviour because of his biased disposition.
So please do not trouble this discussion again with misleading, and out of context nonsense comment, through not reading my postings with due care an attention.
I will not repeat myself to you again. Your negation and false disputation is quashed forthwith(again.
And Zos my user name is in full: Frater FiatLux 12:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC) please do not use your own abbreviations, this is unprofessional and would not be seen from a neutral wikipedian administrator.
Frater FiatLux 12:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Sure, I will apologize for the shortening of your user name....but who said I was supposed to be an administrator? I'm not an admin. Zos 15:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Poll
Latest comment: 17 years ago20 comments5 people in discussion
I propose that each seperate Order have its own Wikipedia page, and that this page simply be an overview. --999 13:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Support - per my nom --999 13:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Support - per my nom --JMax555 15:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Support - per my nom -- Zos 15:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Vehement Disapproval: Frater FiatLux 16:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Supra participants are conspiring together for their own biased opinions. With the schism ringleader “JMAX555” at the helm orchestrating this sorrowful display, that will only degenerate into more disputation.
Comment: Please note that the Wikipedia process is based on concensus. Please read the linked page about how consensus is typically acheived. Your repeated long-winded adament assertions are unlikely to get you anywhere. -999 16:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment :I remain user 999, completely uninterested by your comments. I will consider perusing the factual document you link to; but I omit everything else in your posting and most others. Thank you for your help. Frater FiatLux 16:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)]
Comment - which simply shows that you are not even attempting to make a good faith effort to achieve concensus with other editors. --999 17:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Dear User 999, that is a false statement of yours, I was not interested in your personal remarks towards my comments. That is all, I'm not interested in personal attacks using needless rhetoric. If want to put a comment, I assume I'm free to do so, no matter how long.
Today, several organizations carry on the Golden Dawn tradition. Among these, the following are particularly significant due to their presence on the World Wide Web:
(These should be ordered by founding date, if known)
Comment:This arbitrary proposal supra to change the HOGD/A+O name is UNACCEPTABLE in the extreme. David Griffin's H.O.G.D. owns the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn TM in the European Union and Canada, and entered into a contract with Cicero's H.O.G.D., Inc.to regulate the TM on a worldwide basis.
File:Document4-2.pdfThe landmarks provision of the contract between Griffin/Behman's H.O.G.D. and Cicero's H.O.G.D., Inc.
. Mr. Griffin's signed on behalf of "H.O.G.D" while Charles Cicero signed on behalf of "H.O.G.D., Inc." Mr. Griffin's organization should be referred to as "H.O.G.D"; while Charles Cicero's should be referred to as H.O.G.D., Inc.".
Comment:Please follow the inferred link in the supra text to find the affidavit of this agreement which both parties signed
user 999: Er. We tried that? :p The main problem right now is Frater FiatLux. Try telling him he has no sources and he will tell you that you are involved in one of the factions of the golden dawn.
That Zos is a misleading and libellous remark. I will do nothing of the sort. It was a person that e-mailed me privately about your involvement with “JMAX555.” You’re just making yourself look silly now with these insidious, nonsensical postings.
Actually, you did just that. [1] I guess you're pretty predictable... :-) -999 19:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Although I agree with you actually about this, I am correct about it. It’s a patently bad idea that should not be given any consideration -whatsoever- The fact that the schism maker "JMAX555" that instigated this present disputation supports this woeful degenerate idea, is well, hardly surprising. Seeing that his defamatory editing was also ill judged -in the extreme-
Frater FiatLux, Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --999 17:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Regaredless of who "instigated" all of this, JMax is trying to reach a compromise. And as far as the consensus is concerned, you're being out voted. Try prooving your accertions if you wish to compromise. Thank you. Zos 17:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
999: The HOGD/A+O has a contractual agreement with the party above mentioned currently to use the trade and service mark "Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn" and your assertion that they do not seems to be taking sides in current litigation. This is hardly neutral, and it should not be the purpose of Wikipedia to take sides in litigation. Kephera975 16:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that is indeed correct Kephera, there is attempt by some to wilfully interfere with the present litigation and this is one, out of many, prime examples highlighted on this page. Furthermore you’re absolutely correct, Wikipedia, staff such as editors should remain strictly impartial. All conflicts of interest should be quashed from the disputation also. Such as members of any GD orders, or, of a biased disposition to any one GD organisation.
I'm afriad it does make a huge difference if he instigated this present dispute. Please see my infra postings about this. Please stop making false, silly statments.
Frater FiatLux, Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --999 17:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, you mean like your personal attack on me for making a comment when showing my disapproval for the idea put forward. I will comply -as always- and as I find them, with Wikipedia;s protocols. Frater FiatLux 18:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC) are you sure you don't like me simply becasue I thought you're idea was a bad one; that I might add was backed up.
Reply to Poll
Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion
This is a woefully poor idea as it will degenerate, with all the other orders editing and making further defamatory, biased, misleading comments about the other orders pages. There’ll be then potentially totally biased and corrupt editing to slander another groups page, because of what they’ve written about another certain order.
It should all be kept to one page; this proposal will make more disputations and stand off's than we presently have now. Having a page for every different order out there will generate mass unrest and intrigues with each group side attacking other orders within their own article.
Furthermore, spreading the orders out over separate pages will be more difficult to moderate and keep non-P.O.V., and propagate a monumental task of discussing all the editing that would prevail under such a system. Thus, making it incredibly difficult to keep any groups page to account and verifiability.
Totally bad idea, period.
There's no need for all this as the article in its present, rightfully corrected form should prevail, as it is the most truthful and neutral standpoint on the article possible. Please see my supra postings for the reasons, as all explanations are contained in my supra postings.
This disputation has only degenerated into this sorrowful display because "JMAX555" didn't discuss his recent defamatory editing here in the talk page. The present, verified, and rightfully protected page should remain. All biased editing that seeks to tamper in an unprincipled, defamatory way should cease and desist.
I am going to say this just once, here: this page will NOT stay as it is, as ALL pages on wikipedia are constantly being updated, and evolving to fit the ever changing world of reliable sources, when new information is published. Your current phrasing "All biased editing that seeks to tamper in an unprincipled, defamatory way should cease and desist." sounds like legal threats, and should probably not continue unless it is made directly the the Wikipedia Foundation's General Counsel.--Vidkun 14:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Dear Vidkun:
The present, rightfully protected version, is an up to date representation of the present orders in the Golden Dawn tradition, and is unequivocally and comprehensively true to the current evolution of verifiable standards; -in all instances-. As stated in supra postings of mine.
My phrasing is not a legal threat, and is taken out of context when it is proclaimed as such. It is simply a strong statement to suggest that the unprincipled editing of biased persons, that leaves the article in a defamatory tone, must, stop. In other words cease and desist.
The HOGD/A+O article entry was deformed in a defamatory, unprincipled manner that was indeed libellous, and patently false in meaning and intent. Which was rightly and justly changed forthwith.
I am very direct and accurate with all of my postings and if it were such a legal threat, I would not postulate or imply at all. I would state if it were such a legal threat, clearly and unequivocally, if it were to be.
FiatLux: I believe you are having trouble understanding that there is no source right now, to elaborate, that they belong on this article. They deserve their own article, and will get one. Other editors who care about the article, can make sure these other articles are of NPOV in nature. Zos 15:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Dear Zos:
I am not having trouble understanding anything, so please quit your harassment. Beleaguering me all over this board will not get you anywhere I’m afraid. Although, I can't tell you to leave it alone as you’re implicated with “JMAX555” to exalt the HOGD Inc., posting above all other entries in a superior light. So when you come out with nonsensical postings like this, it’s hardly surprising
There should, and quite rightly is a source at the moment. The present, rightfully protected neutral as can be article.
Please quit making naive, nonsensical, misleading posts that create inordinate amounts of work to correct.
Frater FiatLux 15:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Um, the "source" for an article can't be the article itself. That's nonsensical.
The article is not "rightfully protected", whatever that means. It was protected by an administrator due to inordinate amounts of editing (known as an "edit war"), and the version it was locked as was simply the luck of the draw. As the tag states clearly, "Protection is not an endorsement of the current page version."
And for the record, I do not know Zos, have never communicated with him in any way, shape or form in my entire life (outside of these recent Talk pages), and he is not a member of the OSOGD.
If you’d read my posting in the proper context with due care and attention “JMAX555” you’d have realised that wasn’t the case. The present article that is already, rightfully under protection and from respected verifiable sources. Until you edited the article in the usual defamatory and unprincipled manner without discussing your improper embellishments here in the talk page. Thus, its you, and ONLY YOU, from your biased Cicero view point that has kicked up this latest disputation. If you weren’t around embellishing articles with misleading and defamatory statements there would be none of this.
Please do govern yourself accordingly Mr. Max and cease creating misleading statements in regards my postings.
And the fact remains you have no rank or authority to act on HOGD Inc. behalf, do they know you’re bringing their organisations name into disrepute?
The article is rightfully under protection, so thus, I mean that it is immune from your defamatory, schism making hand, and dastardly unprincipled editing.
Well you would say you haven't had any communication with user: Zos. Your word or say so means nothing to me.
Whats more misleading than claiming that I am a member of the OSOGD? You are not assuming good faith in discussion, and are in clear violation of Wikipedia: Civil. I'm reporting you for misconstruing the matters relating to the unprotection of the article. Zos 17:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Reiteration of the History of this dispute
Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
Frater FiatLux: Repeating something that is demonstrably false over and over again doesn't make it true. One simply has to consult the History page for the article to determine the facts.
The article reached a general consensus as to its form around 1 March 2006. That revert was made by That Guy, From That Show! from a previous edit made by Kephera975, who has also recently reappeared in this Talk page. In his Edit Comment, That Guy, From That Show! said, "(rv, again, take this to the talk page before making large changes and also avoid original research)". Except for minor changes to links, the article remained in that form for over a month with no complaints.
I made one revert to the article on 7 April 2006, which removed a VERY long section pertaining to Ordo Stella Matutina, containing unsourced material. I commented, "(removed unsubstantiated claims of "evidence". Extensive quotes should be linked to. See TALK.)" I should point out that Ordo Stella Matutina is an affiliate of HOGD Inc., so this belies any accusation that I'm "biased" in favor of them.
That form was the one that the article was in when the anonymous biased-POV editing began in mid-May. There is more than one IP address logged doing these edits, but they are the same edits that were done by you when you finally admitted you were the anonymous editor.
Once again, here is the link to comparative History pages which shows that the MOST RECENT revert I made to the article is essentially the same form as it was when in March 2006, long before you began your edit war. The only substantial change is the somewhat expanded section for the Ordo Stella Matutina, which included a link to an actual published source:
After a month of inactivity, the edit-bombing began on 7 May 2006. Some other anon user reverted it back to the previous non-POV version on 23 May 2006. I reverted it back AGAIN to the PREVIOUS CONSENSUS VERSION on 26 May 2006. On that day, I posted to the Talk page regarding the revert, commenting, "(rv to non-biased version yet again. and corrected errors yet again - see Discussion section for this article)". In other words, I did exactly what you are accusing me of not having done. It's documented in the History of the article and the History of the discussion page, so nothing you say can change that fact.
I reverted the article to its previous non-POV form again on 27 May 2006, and again pointed to the Discussion section, repeating the same comment. It was changed yet again, presumably by you (it was still an anonymous edit), and as per my posts to the Discussion page, I resubmitted the case to the Mediation Cabal, and stated that in my comment (in all caps, to make sure it wouldn't be missed), and again requested "see TALK". As of 28 May 2006, M1ss1ontomars2k4 began reverting it to the previous non-POV version, as it was BEFORE you began your anonymous edits without any discussion on the Talk page, and commented, "(Revert: PLEASE DISCUSS CHANGES ON TALK PAGE. Thanks.) You still did not make any posts to the Talk page, not until the administration advised you in no uncertain terms to get a Wiki account and do exactly that.
So to re-iterate, the article had reached a consensus as of 1 March 2006 and was essentially unchanged for months. THEN, in mid-May, you (or someone posting exactly the same edits as you) began edit-bombing the article, and making no attempt to discuss the edits in Talk, despite repeated requests by myself and others to do so. It was YOUR responsibility to go to the Talk pages and discuss the changes you began making in mid-May 2006. YOU were changing the article that had been left basically unchanged by consensus for months. I and others were simply reverting it back and asking you to go to the Discussion page and work out the changes by consensus, which is how Wikipeida works. You ignored those requests, and now you think you can turn the facts upside-down and claim that I was the one editing the article without discussion or consensus. Simply put, you are wrong, and the Wikipedia archives for this article bear this out. - JMax555 17:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Dear JMAX555,
Well it’s not very surprising that you say that is it. You should have made an announcement here in the talk, discussion area, when you were making your defamatory, libellous and unprincipled editing in MAY. Never mind March. This recent bout of defamatory editing of yours is a sneaky attempt to change the article in a misleading way with out anyone noticing you'd done so. You didn’t mention your changes here in the talk discussion area because you were being sneaky and hoping people wouldn’t notice. That’s the truth of it, and I’m new to Wikipedia and I’ve only just found my way around. It was up to you to make a clear statement to your editing in the talk discussion page in MAY, when the latest editing was taking place.
And I did so. In May. 27 May 2006, to be exact. My revert comment was, "(rv to non-biased version yet again. and corrected errors yet again - see Discussion section for this article). Consult the History section to confirm that date, and consult the Archive of this Talk section to see the following message posted by me on that date:
Regarding the recent anonymous biased-POV edits
The HOGD, Inc. did not "start as an O.T.O. camp" -- this is a biased POV statement intending to link the HOGD, Inc. to the OTO, since some Golden Dawn practitioners have a prejudiced opinion of the OTO. As such, it is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article and violates Wikipedia's policies of neutrality.
Likewise, the aside added about the Llewellyn Books edition of Regardie's "The Golden Dawn" -- "though this collection is unconnected to the Ciceros (in fact, the introduction was written by Patricia Behman a/k/a Cris Monnastre)..." is again intended to prejudice the reader against one Golden Dawn group against another. The HOGD/A+O (which this anonymous editor obviously represents) makes much of their connection to Ms. Behman as being the "true lineage" of the Regardie legacy, and this is reflected in the edited text of the entry for their own group.
The comment concerning how certain groups which are licensees of the HOGD Inc. non-profit "diverge from tradition in that they practice Thelema, Martinism, self-initiation, and astral initiation", is again a biased POV, since not a single group currently practicing the Golden Dawn system adheres without exception to the "traditional" practices and teaching system of the early British Lodges, including the HOGD/A+O. Thus the mention of this in context to the HOGD Inc. ONLY is still another attempt at POV-bias.
If this anonymous biased-POV editing continues, I will again take this dispute to the Wikipedia mediation board for review. The likely result will be a lock-down of the article and NO ONE will be able to edit it, not even to correct honest errors or add new material. No one wants this, so please discuss edits here in the Discussion area before making them. And get a Wikipedia account so people know who you are.
(And please learn how to spell and use appropriate sentence structure and punctuation. That's what spell-checkers are for.) -
At that stage you were still making anonymous edits, and refusing repeated requests to discuss the edits in Talk BEFORE you make them. What I predicted is exactly what happened, the article was locked down.
You can say anything you want, but the archives of this article and discussion keep showing you are incorrect. - JMax555 19:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Dear JMAX555:
You're wrong I'm afraid. And where's the date gone from the post that you have pasted, conveniently gone missing hasn’t it. I’m sure I didn’t see the posting you pasted here from an old dispute during the most recent disputation in late May(when I was making edits, to correct your defamatory changes). In which case I’m not incorrect and your actually distorting the facts. Furthermore your only making things more confusing for the present mediator by bringing old posting from past disputations into this one. One which can not be verified as it has no date on the posting.
The date I placed that in the Talk section is easy to determine, since I referenced it in the edit comments: I referred editors to the Talk page to read what I had posted on 27 May 2006 in Talk. When 999 moved the old Talk comments to the Archive, the date didn't come through. But it doesn't matter. I jolly well wouldn't have sent people to go read something if I hadn't actually put it there, now would I?
The anonymous edits -- that are essentially identical to the ones you admit to making -- began on 7 May 2006. Being anonymous, there's no way to know who made them, but they are all the same (typos and all) so it's obvious they came from one source, the same source your edits came from.
27 May 2006 qualifies as "late May", so I was talking to YOU trying to get you to discuss your edits in Talk. You ignored those requests.
Look, the record is in the archives here so there's really no use in trying to weasel out of it. Me and other editors kept trying to revert the article back to its concensus version while you and your associates kept trying to change it to your POV version beginning in early May. You may be confused about how WikiMedia works, but I assure you that the mediators and administrators here can read and interpret an Archive and a History page just fine.
We're still waiting for your offer of compromise. JMax555 00:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Dear JMAX555:
I didn't ignore anything, stop twisting things, there's no date on the post you pasted here from a past disputation. I didn’t see any message by yourself mentioning the defamatory biased editing you were carrying out on the HOGD/A+O article entry, just that an anonymous user was editing the article. When I was requested to obtain a user name I did so forthwith, and explained why I was making such editing fully in supra postings. You'll have to wait for my offer, as I will have to find the relevant page, or method in which to submit it, and furthermore, I‘m not on the Internet, permanently, twenty-four hours a day either. I‘ll submit the compromise in due course, very shortly, when I know where and who to make it to. I do not feel this is unreasonable, so there’s no value in you being disingenuous towards me taking time to make my submition of the compromise. I can assure the mediator that I will definitely be producing this compromise very shortly.
In the meanwhile, I feel, all messages should be suspended and no more past disputation pages should be pasted to the present disputation, as it will only confuse matters. The mediator will need time to go through the information on this page, it is only now fair to the mediator to leave further pointless disputing and actually put all efforts, into compromise and sorting this out with the mediator directly. I do hope you can respect this.
Treat others as you wish to be treated. For example: please do not use your own abbreviations, this is unprofessional and would not be seen from a neutral wikipedian.--Vidkun 22:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I have corrected this. I would appreciate it if you’d address me directly, with my user name when speaking to me. Thankyou for your assistance.
Frater FiatLux 22:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Frater FiatLux
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I have reported FiatLux. Anyone wishing to add to this, is appreciated.
I’ve addressed your falsehoods in the appropriate areas. I am new to Wikipedia and subsequently I’m not in total possession of the facts of all the policies, as I am not infallible. Your action is frivolously served compared to the misrepresentations, harassment and out of context comments by yourself; That I have to keep correcting.
You have even stooped as low to use my user name in disingenuous terms.
Your also seen here trying to instigate and encourage people to join you in trying to silence me, so that you can go unhampered and not opposed with your defamatory tones and biased article editing with "JMAXX555."
Latest comment: 17 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion
Hi I am willing to try and mediate this discussion however I feel this would probably go better under the cloak of the mediation commitee. Anyway. I think the important thing is for Frater FiatLux to establish some sources for the articles. As noted above these need to be such things as books, thesis or articles (eg news articles) rather than the actual documents. After we establish sourcing for the information then we can get down to discussing what actually can be done with the article. -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)talk 17:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Note: I see FFF has been reportted to administrators, that issue will have to take precedence but perhaps we can try some sort of mediation process in the meanwhile -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)talk 17:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
At last! I will provide you with the sources, may I contact you regarding certain aspects?
I’ve addressed user "Zos" falsehoods in the appropriate areas. I am new to Wikipedia and subsequently I’m not in total possession of the facts of all the policies, as I am not infallible. His action is frivolously served compared to the misrepresentations, harassment and out of context comments by him; That I have to keep correcting.
He has even stooped as low to use my user name in disingenuous terms.
He can also be seen supra to instigate and encourage people to join him in trying to silence me, so that he and "JMAX555" can go unhampered and not opposed with their defamatory tones and biased article editing.
Hello, Tmorton166, and thank you for offering to mediate.
There is no need for me to "contact you regarding certain aspects", as the dispute is described here in the above section, "Reiteration of the History of this dispute". You can refer to the History page and the Talk Archive to confirm the account I give in that section. The basic issue is that any description of the various Golden Dawn order factions that is written by one of them will almost certainly be objected to by another. So the compromise position that I offered (see above section and poll) is to remove ALL of the controversial (and mostly unusable under Wikipedia guidelines) material in the "Contemporary Golden Dawn Orders" section, and simply provide links to the individual groups' websites or Wiki pages. That way the article is guarenteed to be non-POV, since no one is disputing the information in the other sections. This is a simple, neat and equitable solution, but Frater FiatLux will not accept any comprimise or concensus whatsoever, and has become increasingly rude and contentious to the other contributors here. If you can convince him to compromise somehow, you have my support. - JMax555 18:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Dear Mr MAX,
If I want to contact someone I will, and you will not stop me. Once again more fact twisting by JMAX555
IT IS PATENTLY UNTRUE THAT I WILL NOT COMPROMISE. I WILL NOT COMPROMISE WITH SOMEONE THAT WANTS TO PLACE DEFAMATORY, LIBELLOUS, DELIBERATELY MISLEADING ENTRIES, IN PLACE OF A FACTUAL, UP TO DATE, VERIFIABLE ARTICLE. JUST BECAUSE THE USER JMAX555 DECIDED TO MALICIOUSLY EDIT THE TRUTHFUL ARTICLE AND REPLACE WITH A LIBELLOUS AND BIASED VERSION.
I WILL NOT REASON WITH SUCH UNLAWFUL BEHAVIOUR THAT IS INDEED, LIBELLOUS AND DEFAMATORY IN TONE.
I apologise for writing in capitals, but this is point that needs to be put across as this point is being misrepresented. It is now clear, I am willing talk about resloving the disputation.
I believe this outburst might be considered a violation of Wikipeida's No Legal Threat policy. - JMax555 18:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree. It is one thing to call someone's edits libellous - it is a completely different thing to call their behavior unlawful - it is required by law to report actual unlawful behavior to the authorities. Thus the use of the word unlawful clearly implies a legal threat, namely that the person making the comment may feel obliged to call the police. --999 18:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Dear Mr. MAX
It is not an outburst -whatsoever- I wrote in capitals because people keep making the same point over and over that I will not compromise, but I will. I will not comprise when person such as yourself want to use defamatory, libellous, biased material. I needed to make the point unequivocally, which I have now done so.
Once again, you attempt to twist the facts to your advantage, you’re the one that cannot be reasoned with; the supra comment is a prime example.
Frater FiatLux 18:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Very well then, sir -- propose your compromise. I have proposed removing all the controversial material and replacing it with links to the various groups own websites or Wiki pages, thereby eliminating ALL bias by any side concerning the disputed material. The only thing you've offered -- demanded, actually -- so far is to leave all your disputed edits in place exactly as they are, and that is not a "compromise". Remember, you're not offering a compromise to me, you're offering it for consideration by the mediator. So, offer your compromise. We'd all like to hear it. - JMax555 19:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I will be doing so shortly. However, I feel the best thing for now is to suspend all entries to this discussion, to allow the mediator time to catch up with the correspondence on here, as there is now copious notes for the mediator to go through. I think it will be far more productive at this stage to commence the mediation and submit all correspondence now in view of sorting through the disputation to the mediator in due course. Do you agree?
Ok, ok guys, Frater FriarLux you are welcome to contact me regarding this discussion. My talk page is ok or if you prefer to email privately then morton.thomas@googlemail.com is my personal email address. Please remember though that anything you wish to keep private I cannot take into account when making my comments or recomendations (just ot be fair to all involved), unless it involves breaking of wikipedia guidelines / rules in which case I will pass on such info (anon.) to an admin.
I will say however at this stage that there the only way top solve disputes like this is for people to try and compromise. However I think the first stage is to establish the sourcing for the current article. Then the next step will be to identify issues people have with the revision and the final step will be to resolve / compromise on them.
Ill admit am still reading through all the art8icle and material in question but i hope to get through thast soon.
Jkelly (if your still reading this page) I would welcome any input from you (as a leyman who has so far helped try to diffuse this situation).
Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
I will be doing so shortly. However, I feel the best thing for now is to suspend all entries to this discussion, to allow the mediator time to catch up with the correspondences on here, as there is now copious notes for the mediator to go through. I think it will be far more productive at this stage to commence the mediation and submit all correspondence now in view of sorting through the disputation to the mediator in due course. Do you agree?
Yes that may be an idea, I will mull over what has been said and read everything to catch up fully on the issue then I can start off on a sound footing. Give me till sometime tomorrrow [Fri] (say lunchtime) or something. In the maen time if you want to get in touch please email me or get me on my talk page. -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)talk 01:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes I think its best like that, you can get up to speed on things. Is it yourself that I submit my compromise to, I'm a new user to Wikipedia and still finding my way around. Is there any mediation page? or is all on your user, talk page?
Just in case you miss this most recent posting of mine, I'll include it here as it concerns the mediation. The full version is not far up from this one, if you need to take a look.
This is the section in question I'm refering to in reply to "JMAX555.":
You'll have to wait for my offer, as I will have to find the relevant page, or method in which to submit it, and furthermore, I‘m not on the Internet, permanently, twenty-four hours a day either. I‘ll submit the compromise in due course, very shortly, when I know where and who to make it to. I do not feel this is unreasonable, so there’s no value in being disingenuous towards me taking time to make my submition of the compromise. I can assure the mediator that I will definitely be producing this compromise very shortly.
In the meanwhile, I feel, all messages should be suspended and no more past disputation pages should be pasted to the present disputation, as it will only confuse matters. The mediator will need time to go through the information on this page, it is only now fair to the mediator to leave further pointless disputing and actually put all efforts into compromise and sorting this out with the mediator directly.
Ok I have taken a look and I have to admit that almost nowhere on this page has any of you brought up a specific piece of the article they find wrong! So now have the background (I think) but not the issues. So heres how I think we should continue.
Frater FiatLux - it would be helpful if you could establish sources for the article in it's current revision and specifically for the sections you edited (mmore specifically syill the one entitled "The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn/Rosicrucian Order of the A+O")
In this case you need sources of discussion - for example a book or thesis rather than court or legal documents.
Jmaxx and Zos - can you identify your personal issues with the article in it's current state, providing sources to back them up.
I will say however that there is one NPOV statement in the current revision of the article. In the section on the Estoric order the words, very tenuously, the word very should not be there as well as the word tenuously for that matter. However that is just a personal (technical) gripe.
Ive put sections below this for you to answer in (as well as criticism) and would be obliged if you could try and stick to them - then I will draw all of the issues together into one post so we can address them. I would be much obliged if you could defrain from actually discussing the issues as yet but just post as asked - that way we can get all the issues into the open and then talk about them together. And of course please avoid personal attacks etc. etc.
Sorry, forgot to mention; will be away until Saturday lunchtime(GMT) so you wont get a reoly from me till then. cheers, Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)talk 10:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Frater FiatLux - sourcing
Latest comment: 17 years ago15 comments4 people in discussion
Dear Mediator:
Please find herein disclosed a proposal for the article under disputation, and for the main points at the heart of this current disputation, viz. the HOGD/A+O and HOGD Inc., article entries. I have provided verifiable sources that adhere to Wikipedia’s verifiability procedures.
I have taken the liberty at this point in the discussion to make relevant revisions to the article, to endeavour to avoid any further direct conflict and attempt to make a proactive, and concerted effort in trying to bring the disputation to a close. Realising that further argument at this stage is only likely to be productive in propagating further intrigues, unrest, and further perpetuate the on-going disputation, which of course, is of no value to anyone.
Please find my revisions on the article currently locked, and where necessary I’ve included sourced, verifiable information that adheres to Wikipedia’s policies. With the verifiable sources and slight revisions, I now believe that the article is a completely neutral, verifiable, truthful and up to date assessment of the prominent contemporary orders, that today work the Golden Dawn system.
I will initially deal only with the actual entries of each Golden Dawn order in the present locked article, seeing that therein are the points in question under the present disputation. Each entry will be dealt with in the order in which it appears under the sub-heading “Contemporary Golden Dawn Orders.”
The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc.
Section 1:
“The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn Inc., a non-profit religious foundation established in Florida, USA, by Charles 'Chic' and Tabitha Cicero and Adam Forrest, holds the United States trademark rights for "Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn", and are the foremost proponents of the traditional Stella Matutina system.”
Comment on section 1:
There are no immediate defamatory, disingenuous, P.O.V. violations in section 1. It is factual up to date information and is common knowledge in the Golden Dawn community, which has never been a matter of dispute. This information can be clearly obtained and verified by consulting both Cicero’s HOGD Inc. web-site, and in a number of Cicero’s books. Therefore, I consider section 1 an accurate assessment of the HOGD Inc., and its founder members.
Section 2:
“Cicero and his first wife, Eva, started as an O.T.O. camp in 1977, were introduced to Regardie by Behman in 1982, and were in contact with Regardie until his death in 1985.”
Comment on section 2:
It is again common knowledge and even wrote in print by the Ciceros themselves, that Cicero was directly involved in O.T.O. practises from as early as August 1978 as an initiate of the O.T.O.
In the Ciceros introduction to the third edition of the Middle Pillar by Regardie: ISBN1-56718-140-6. It is stated in the Endnotes on page XXIV. That Charles “Chic” Cicero was initiated as a “Minerval into the O.T.O. in August of 1978”. This clearly and comprehensively states that Cicero was not only just involved with O.T.O. practises, but initiated into the O.T.O., which is to be a fully operative member, which further implies heavy involvement and commitment to that sole aforementioned organisation. I will reiterate for clarity, that the introduction and endnotes were indeed written by the Ciceros themselves, and states August 1978 as the date of Cicero’s initiation into the O.T.O., at the Minerval degree.
Therein the aforementioned footnote it also explains that a house was bought with the intentions of producing a working Golden Dawn temple, however, although this house had been bought with the sole intentions of it existing as a Golden Dawn temple, and I quote directly from the footnote: “But it also became the site of our O.T.O. temple.” The endnote further states at the time of Cicero’s “Minerval” initiation into the O.T.O., Grady McMurtry, the former Caliph of the O.T.O., walked through the framework of Cicero’s intended site for his Golden Dawn temple. This then establishes through verifiable means that Cicero did start as an O.T.O. temple, camp and initiate before he instigated, and finished the construction of his Golden Dawn temple site. Cicero had already received a “Minerval” initiation of the O.T.O., while evidently the Golden Dawn site was barely under construction as Grady McMurtry, as documented by the Ciceros in the footnote on page XXIV, only witnessed the framework of the Golden Dawn temple.
This information found therein the footnotes of this aforementioned book -contradicts- the points made by the Ciceros in the main body of text in the introduction.
Taken from the cover notes made by the esteemed and highly reputable Llewellyn publications, furthermore a neutral source. A short biography of the Ciceros includes the following information: “Chic was a close friend of Israel Regardie, and helped Regardie resurrect a legitimate branch of the Golden Dawn in the United States in the early 1980’s.” There is no mention here of Cicero’s Golden Dawn temple, or any other for that matter dating to 1977 or even the late 1970’s in any Golden Dawn context whatsoever. The mediator should note that Llewellyn publications were responsible for that direct quote and not Cicero himself, thus it constitutes as a neutral, verifiable, book source.
This short biography by the neutral verifiable source can be found on: “The magicians craft: Creating Magical Tools”, by Chic Cicero and Sandra Tabatha Cicero. ISBN1-56718-142-2. The biography quote made by Llewellyn is on the back cover thereof.
In fact, there is no proof whatsoever that Charles Cicero ever operated a Golden Dawn temple of any sort prior to 1983.
Moreover, Cicero's credibility must be evaluated in light of the 1999 affidavit he gave in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. While Charles Cicero claimed that he had not received a dishonourable discharge from the U.S. armed services, Ralph Fytton, a former "adept" of the Cicero organisation, provided this conflicting affidavit:
Moreover, the 1999 affidavit EXECUTED BY CHARLES CICERO HIMSELF, provides further factual information on the credibility of Charles Cicero: it makes it quite clear, as does his web site at http://www.hermeticgoldendawn.org that he is - whatever his representations elsewhere- in the business of marketing books and Tarot cards for a profit.
Cicero’s first wife is herein entered into the article so to distinguish between Cicero’s earlier partner Eva Cicero, and his present partner Sandra Tabatha Cicero that he has co-written several books with. This is contained in the article, and should remain so, purely to avoid any confusion between the two.
The references to Cicero’s former partner and to the O.T.O. are not herein arbitrarily entered into article to prejudice the reader. It is indeed, factual and completely verifiable information that Cicero was not only involved with the O.T.O. as early as August of 1978, but an initiate of the O.T.O., and that his present wife at that time was Eva Cicero. These are merely essential verifiable facts as to the history and establishment of Cicero’s Golden Dawn temple, which is relevant to the reader, as biographical background on Cicero. These points are not to be misconstrued though as a prejudice or P.O.V., but verifiable biographical material prior to Cicero’s establishment of a Golden Dawn temple; that is relevant to the article’s background on the Ciceros.
There can be found therein Regardie‘s publication: “The Original Account of the Teachings, Rites and Ceremonies of the Hermetic Order of: The Golden Dawn.” As revealed by Israel Regardie in the sixth edition. ISBN0-87542-663-8. There can be found on page XXII a statement by Behman in her introduction to the sixth edition: “Between 1981 and 1983, I studied magic under Regardie in his home and personal Temple in Sedona, Arizona. Hundreds of hours of personal instruction, stimulating conversation, practical ritual, magic drill, and warm companionship replaced his reticence of discussing magical topics ten years before!”
This is evidence from a verifiable source that Behman was a student of Regardie’s and had a long-standing close relationship with Regardie, at the time Cicero was attempting to get into contact with Regardie. It transpires as common knowledge that it was Behman that first introduced Cicero to Regardie, as she was the Praemonstratrix of the newly resurrected order by Regardie in the United States. Regardie was considered the last living Adept of the traditional Golden Dawn, and as Behman was Regardies’s student she rightfully inherited the sovereignty over the newly founded Golden Dawn temples.
Charles Cicero did not have any contact with any Golden Dawn leader until Behman introduced him to Regardie in 1982. His only "Golden Dawn" involvement if any, before then is that he might- along with tens of thousands of others- have purchased a copy of the Regardie book. Charles Cicero, though he disingenuously states that, he "worked closely" with Regardie, was never initiated into any grade of the Golden Dawn by Regardie (the only Cicero family member initiated by Regardie was his former wife, Eva, who was initiated into 0=0 by Regardie). Cicero has admitted that all his initiations were performed by Larry Epperson (a/k/a Adam Forrest). Regardie, of course, left all his papers to Alan Miller (a/k/a Christopher Hyatt)/Gary Ford's "Israel Regardie Foundation"; and gifted his magical tools to Behman (who gifted them to Griffin).
At the same time, Charles Cicero WAS initiated a Minerval in the O.T.O. by the late Major Grady McMurty.
The two contracts uploaded, which Cicero does not dispute signing, are: contract by David John Griffin and Patricia A. Behman, on behalf 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" mark in the European Union, and Charles Cicero, on behalf of The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. (H.O.G.D., Inc.), as the then applicant to the U.S. mark, agreeing to share the "Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn" mark on a worldwide basis; and the Sale of Partnership Agreement from Behman to Griffin. The one affidavit provided was executed by Charles Cicero in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in 1999. All three can be retrieved, as a matter of public record, from:
Please find infra: the ECF link at the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. You can find the original court affidavits I used supra in my posting with: The case number which is- C05-432 JSW, and the ruling court for this case is the San Francisco Courthouse. ""https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/index.html""
Furthermore, please find again infra a message served to the Hermetic-Order-of-the-Golden-Dawn public forum, at Yahoo groups: ""http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Hermetic-Order-of-the-Golden-Dawn/message/5095""
The message served to HOGD public forum contains clear and comprehensive instructions on how to download the original court affidavits, from the original public domain source.
The fact that some Golden Dawn practitioners in the Golden Dawn community have a disliking for the O.T.O., or Thelemic practises doesn’t even enter the argument as its completely a point of view, non-verifiable opinion, based on prejudices.
The verifiable evidence for the autonomous licensees diverging from the traditional curriculum is: “The Original Account of the Teachings, Rites and Ceremonies of the Hermetic Order of: The Golden Dawn.” As revealed by Israel Regardie, in the sixth edition. ISBN0-87542-663-8. There is no mention of “Thelema, Martinism, self-initiation, or astral initiation,” which comprise any part of the original teaching materials in the textbook aforementioned, that reveals the Golden Dawn tradition explicitly. In fact, such methods of self-initiation, and astral initiation are derived from the Golden Dawn tradition, subsequently from the publication of “The Golden Dawn.”
The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn/Rosicrucian Order of the A+O
Section 1:
“Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn/Rosicrucian A+O
is currently a sole proprietorship originally organized as a general partnership in 1992 by Patricia Behman (aka Cris Monnastre, a student of Regardie's) and David John Griffin.”
Comment to Section 1:
There are no immediate defamatory, disingenuous or P.O.V. violations in section 1.
Furthermore It is only necessary to reiterate this information given supra: The two contracts uploaded, which Cicero does not dispute signing, are: contract by David John Griffin and Patricia A. Behman, on behalf 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" mark in the European Union, and Charles Cicero, on behalf of The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. (H.O.G.D., Inc.), as the then applicant to the U.S. mark, agreeing to share the "Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn" mark on a worldwide basis; and the Sale of Partnership Agreement from Behman to Griffin. The one affidavit provided was executed by Charles Cicero in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in 1999. All three can be retrieved, as a matter of public record, from:
Please find infra: the ECF link at the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. You can find the original court affidavits I used supra in my posting with: The case number which is- C05-432 JSW, and the ruling court for this case is the San Francisco Courthouse. ""https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/index.html""
Furthermore, please find again infra a message served to the Hermetic-Order-of-the-Golden-Dawn public forum, at Yahoo groups: ""http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Hermetic-Order-of-the-Golden-Dawn/message/5095""
The message served to HOGD public forum contains clear and comprehensive instructions on how to download the original court affidavits, from the original public domain source
Section 2:
“Behman had operated the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn temples in Los Angeles throughout the 1980s. Prompted by Regardie, Behman formed an unincorporated association with Charles Cicero and Adam Forrest. After withdrawing her endorsement from that organization in 1992 to continue the unschismed version with Griffin, she eventually sold her partnership interest to Griffin in May, 1998.”
Comment to Section 2:
There are no immediate defamatory, disingenuous, P.O.V. violations in section 2.
It is clear from the comments supra contained therein “comment for section 3” of the HOGD Inc entry, as quoted from Regardie’s “The Golden Dawn” from Behman’s introduction as to what the relationship was between Regardie and Behman. The quote by Behman: “Between 1981 and 1983, I studied magic under Regardie in his home and personal Temple in Sedona, Arizona.” This holds authoritative proof that that it was Behman as Regardie’s student, prompted by Regardie who resurrected the Golden Dawn in USA, that operated the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn temples in Los Angeles throughout the 1980’s. It was therefore the sole right and sovereignty of Behman to withdraw from an unincorporated association with Charles Cicero and Adam Forrest, when Cicero aggressively attempted to gain sole authority in the order in which he had no claim or authority -whatsoever- to do so. This is an accurate, verifiable portrayal of the biographical details surrounding the immediate background history of Griffin’s HOGD, as inherited through the sale of partnership agreement from Behman to Griffin (in which she ceded to Mr. Griffin, who had been the managing partner for some years, all her rights )
“JMAX555” has no grounds, or rights whatsoever to contest this factual information that is derived entirely from available court affidavits, that are a matter of public record. It should be noted that “JMAX555” has no official authority or rank in Cicero’s HOGD Inc., and has no right to edit any part of the HOGD/A+O biographical information. I believe “JMAX555” recent editing to the HOGD article entry was a deliberate attempt on his part to interfere in a biased pretence, to create misleading, defamatory and disingenuous P.O.V. editing because of his biased disposition as a Cicero licensee; and furthermore attempt to interfere with the present litigation.
Section 3:
“Griffin's H.O.G.D. has modernized the practices of the original Order of Westcott and Mathers since it teaches all the previously published Inner Order materials and practices (notably by Regardie) in the Outer Order. It thus allows adepti to follow a structured curriculum in advanced Hermetic Alchemy. The material taught in their Outer Order is described in "The Ritual Magic Manual: A Comprehensive Course in Practical Magic", by David John Griffin.”
Comments to section 3:
I have herein included Kephera975’s reply to “JMAX555” as it addresses necessary points, and is needless to repeat over. I have entered additional comments infra to the quoted text.
“Once again, MAX's bias (based on a very real fear that current litigation will result in the revocation of his license) towards the HOGD/A+O is clear. He deliberately attempts to paint a picture of the HOGD/A+O that is without neutrality. The HOGD/A+O, as the owner of the trademark in the European Union and Canada, and with a vested interest by contractual agreement in the U.S. mark, has every right to modernize their Order according to these rights . To portrat H.O.G.D//A+O ad "deviating from tradition" is extremely prejudicial and tortiously interferes with current litigation. Furthermore, the HOGD/A+O DOES NOT deviate from the traditional landmark rituals of the original HOGD but has incorporated all published landmark ritual material in the outer Order. Since Regardie and Crowley, there is no Order that could be the same as the original Order. However, incorporating other traditions, completely different rituals and methods of initiation is using completely foreign material and ideas from what has been published and what is historically landmarked per "The Golden Dawn" by Regardie. I source "The Golden Dawn" by Regardie as to what the landmark rituals of the Golden Dawn are.”
I might add that the profaned teachings of the Golden Dawn and R.R. et A.C., through publication have been rendered obsolete in recent times. Far removed and antiquated is the modus operandi of the Victorian era of the published and profaned original teachings. As the initiate as evolved so must the Golden dawn to meet needs of an ever growing market of magical publication, and the demands of an ever-evolving initiate. The HOGD/A+O having such foresight has made such necessary natural evolutions of the Golden Dawn corpus, in the spirit of and adhering to the integrity of the tradition of the Golden Dawn and R.R. et A.C., to meet the needs of initiates in the present time.
I may add once more that the natural advancements made by the HOGD/A+O, with foresight to naturally evolve to met with the needs of the modern day initiate. Is not solely based on the fact that the HOGD/A+O are owners of the trademark in Europe and Canada and in the US by consented, contractual agreement. It is through their awareness of the current magical climate and foresight to make such revisions, the trademark ownership rightfully adds to these natural evolutions the legitimacy that such foresight deserves. Again attempts were made by “JMAX555” to irregularly distort the advances made by the HOGD with his own Prejudiced, biased P.O.V. in his recent unannounced, defamatory and egregious editing.
Section 4:
“Mr. Griffin holds the European Community trademark to the name "Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn" registered with the Office of Harmonization in the Internal Market (O.H.I.M.), holds the trademark in Canada, and has a contractual agreement with H.O.G.D. Inc. to share the name "Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn" on a worldwide basis.”
Comment to section 4:
I don’t see any immediate defamatory, disingenuous or P.O.V. violations in section 4. This is yet again verifiable through information that can be downloaded from publicly available court records. The records and information on how to do this can be found by following these links:
Please find infra: the ECF link at the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. You can find the original court affidavits I used supra in my posting with: The case number which is- C05-432 JSW, and the ruling court for this case is the San Francisco Courthouse. ""https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/index.html""
Furthermore, please find again infra a message served to the Hermetic-Order-of-the-Golden-Dawn public forum, at Yahoo groups: ""http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Hermetic-Order-of-the-Golden-Dawn/message/5095""
The message served to HOGD public forum contains clear and comprehensive instructions on how to download the original court affidavits, from the original public domain source.
Section 1:
The Ordo Stella Matutina
The Ordo Stella Matutina is a modern esoteric order that offers traditional Golden Dawn teachings. The primary vehicle for instruction over the Internet is through the Hermetic Sanctuary of Ma'at. The group offers traditional physical temple initiations as well as courses on Self-Initiation into the Golden Dawn Current. The Order's teachings primarily adhere to the original Stella Matutina versions, as taught by Dr. Felkin, and Dr. Israel Regardie, as well as teachings of the Traditional Golden Dawn and its primary founders; Dr. Willianm W. Westcott, Dr. Woodman, and S.L. MacGregor Mathers. However, Self-Initiation itself does not conform to these teachings. The Order provides online instruction for distance members who do not live a nearby temple. pace and may receive initiations at one of the local temples or by using the Self-Initiation techniques outlined in the book entitled "Self Initiation into the Golden Dawn Tradition" by Sandra Tabatha and Chic Cicero of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc.”
Comment to section 1:
There is nothing defamatory, disingenuous or P.O.V. in the supra entry, it is compiled with up to date and matter of fact information. The source to prove this, and the only verifiable source is: The web-site for “The Ordo Stella Matutina”, which will verify that the biographical information is indeed, correct and accurate and faithful to their organisation. The other source to prove that self-initiation doesn’t confirm to the original teachings is: “The Original Account of the Teachings, Rites and Ceremonies of the Hermetic Order of: The Golden Dawn.” As revealed by Israel Regardie, in the sixth edition. ISBN0-87542-663-8. There is no mention of self-initiation in the original teachings of the Golden Dawn whatsoever, of most notable of these teachings are: “Z1, the enterer of the threshold” and the “Z3, the symbolism of the admission of the candidate.” Both of which deal explicitly with the subject of initiation on multitudinous levels on the GD tradition and neither papers mention, or imply self-initiation in any form whatsoever. Thus, this entry is a factual, non-P.O.V., accurate assessment of the “The Ordo Stella Matutina”, with completely verifiable sources.
Section 1:
The Esoteric Order of the Golden Dawn
The Esoteric Order of the Golden Dawn (E.O.G.D.) is a modern Golden Dawn Order founded by Robert Zink, Sonya Zink, John Brawl and Zack Ramsey in Fontana, California in the early 1990s. The original name of the order was Eternal Circle of Light and then Hermetic Order of the Eternal Golden Dawn. The name underwent change to "Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn International". Under threat of a lawsuit over the use of the name "Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn International" in the USA, the group chose to go by the name "Hermetic Order of the Morning Star International" for a number of years. After being granted a license by HOGD, Inc., they then again changed their name to "Esoteric Order of the Golden Dawn". The organization holds a license with the H.O.G.D. inc. The E.O.G.D. has several Temples and Sanctuaries and study groups around the world. In addition to these local groups, the E.O.G.D. offers teaching and on-line classes for correspondence members. The E.O.G.D. is well-known for long-distance or "astral" initiations of correspondence members, a practice very tenuously based on the Emerald Tablet of Hermes statement: "That which is above is from that which is below, and that which is below is from that which is above, working the miracles of one.”
Comment to section 1:
The changes to the name of the organisation now known as: “The Esoteric Order of the Golden Dawn”, is crucial, historical, biographical information that can be verified through the EOGD’s own web-site and others pertaining to that organisation. The fact that the threat of law suit is mentioned is also biographical and should be included in the article as this refers to the present litigation, and necessitates why the now known EOGD had changed name numerous times.
HOWEVER, CHARLES CICERO, WHO LICENSED THESE PEOPLE (ALBEIT IMPROPERLY), REFERS TO THEM AS “THE HERMETIC ORDER OF THE MORNING STAR, INC. D/B/A THE ESOTERIC ORDER OF THE GOLDEN DAWN.” (http://www.hermeticgoldendawn.org). This should, therefore, be changed to reflect that “The Hermetic Order of the Morning Star, Inc. currently, as a result of the Cicero license, uses the name “The Esoteric Order of the Golden Dawn.”:
There is P.O.V. statement in this article entry and my proposal for a revision is: The E.O.G.D. is well known for long-distance or "astral" initiations of correspondence members. Whilst this practise is non-traditional to the G.D. tradition, the E.O.G.D. claim validation of this non-traditional practise based on the premise of the Emerald Tablet of Hermes statement: "That which is above is from that which is below, and that which is below is from that which is above, working the miracles of one."
My verifiable source for astral initiation being non-traditional to the G.D. corpus is again: “The Original Account of the Teachings, Rites and Ceremonies of the Hermetic Order of: The Golden Dawn.” As revealed by Israel Regardie, in the sixth edition. ISBN0-87542-663-8. There is no mention of self-initiation in the original teachings of the Golden Dawn whatsoever, of most notable of these teachings are: “Z1, the enterer of the threshold” and the “Z3, the symbolism of the admission of the candidate.” Both of which deal explicitly with the subject of initiation on multitudinous levels, and neither mention or imply “astral” initiation in any form. Thus, with the revision, I believe this entry is now a factual, non- P.O.V., accurate assessment of “The Esoteric Order of the Golden Dawn”, with completely verifiable sources.
Section 1:
“====Whare Ra====
While most temples of the Alpha et Omega and the Stella Matutina became dormant by the end of the 1930s, the exceptions were the Hermes Temple in Bristol which continued until World War II, and the Whare Ra temple in New Zealand which lasted into the late 1970's. In the early 1980s, the Whare Ra Temple was re-organized by Pat and Chris Zalewski, and continued operation until the end of the 1990s. The Zalewskis have written several books on the Golden Dawn (also published by Llewellyn Books). Though the Whare Ra temple is in abeyance, Zalewski offers private courses in advanced Golden Dawn studies.”
Comment on section 1:
There is nothing defamatory, disingenuous or P.O.V. in the supra entry. The fact that Pat Zalewski offers private courses in advanced Golden Dawn studies, can be found as a verifiable source, and the only verifiable source on his Yahoo “Golden Dawn Group”, in the files section thereof.
The direct link for the “Golden Dawn Group” is: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/golden-dawn-group/
The verifiable source for the information about historical facts and dates given in section 1, can be found in: “Z5: Secret teachings of the Golden Dawn” by Pat Zalewski, ISBN: 0-87542-897-5, on page XVII.
The only revision I would make to this entry is: that after Whare Ra withdrew from the Stella Matutina in 1933, it was known in New Zealand as the “Smaragdum Thalasses.” I propose this addition as a matter of historical fact and accuracy.
In conclusion the mediator should note that I have provided comprehensive, verifiable sources for the complete article, with what I might add is overwhelming verifiable evidence. Therefore, I vehemently propose to keep the article in the revised and verifiable form, rather than seeing this accurate, neutral, up to date article be deleted wholesale. Especially when it can be of greater service, to accurately and faithfully guide aspirants to their preferences in what they’re seeking in a contemporary Golden Dawn order.
Please can FFF post source material for his changes to the article as outlined above
Criticism
Anyone who has an important critique about any or all of theses sources should post it here. I am talking about specific reasons such as proven bias, non-sources (eg sources wikipedia policy does not accept) or similar. No personal attacks etc. and please try and refrain from replying to posts in this section.
(Note: I'm moving all the previous improperly placed material down the page and inserting the response to the "sourcing' section above here - JMax555)
Response to "Frater FiatLux - sources"
Despite the general consensus of the editors participating in this discussion page that the controversial and largely unsourceable sections of this article be removed, thereby avoiding all the controversy, and the remainder of this article be merged into the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn article, Frater FiatLux still insists on leaving the article essentially unchanged from the locked-down version. He has offered nothing in the way of compromise, except for the change of a word here and there. He's clearly shown that he's not interested in compromise at all.
He repeatedly uses the expression "common knowledge" as if that carried any weight in respect to acceptable Wikipedia sources. Common knowledge is irrelevant. Opinion is irrelevant. Speculation is irrelevant. Logical inference is irrelevant. Consensus of editors is irrelevant. The credibility of any of the persons involved, or their personal background, is irrelevant. Even the actual, unvarnished truth is irrelevant. The rules are clear and non-negotiable. To wit: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's three content-guiding policy pages. The other two are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. They should therefore not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three. The three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus."
Frater FiatLux needs to read and understand the Wikipedia:Verifiability page and stop offering his speculations, and references to "common knowledge", as if they carried any weight.
Again, he offers court affidavits submitted by one side's lawyer in a currently pending and unsettled case in the US Federal Court, and expects these to be acceptable, neutral, third-party sources under Wikipedia rules. The contract he keeps referencing is currently being disputed in a lawsuit in US Federal Court. Some or all of that material could be rejected as evidence by the trial judge -- we don't know because the case has not yet come to trial. Allowing the use of such documents as a Wikipedia source before a verdict in the case they are a part of has been handed down would set an enormously dangerous precedent for Wikipedia itself. If such a thing is allowed, the lawyers for the other side in a pending lawsuit could conceivably sue Wikipedia for prejudicing an ongoing court case. The only possible acceptable source for anything remotely connected with a court case is a courtroom stenographer's transcript of a trial, and at this point in time, there has been no trial.
I am certain beyond any doubt that the Wikipedia General Counsel would not allow such a precedent to be established, and if Frater FiatLux tries to use these one-sided court affidavits as sources, I am also certain that the attorney for the other side of the case will formally protest to the office of the General Counsel once they hear about it. If Frater FiatLux will not change his mind, I think you have no choice but to kick this one "upstairs" to Wikipedia Administration-level authority.
Without those "sources", and without his speculations about "common knowledge" and chains of inference, Frater FiatLux has little left with which to construct the sub-section anyway. Absolutely nothing in the bio about the Esoteric Order of the Golden Dawn can be found in any published third-party source, because websites, especially those created by either the group itself, or by another group with animosity toward them, are not acceptable under the guidelines. (Just like they won't let the Israeli Anti-Defamation League write the article on Hamas, or vice-versa.)
Likewise the section on the Ordo Stella Matutina. Nothing can be found in published literature about them. Websites and "common knowledge" are not suitable third-party sources for this purpose.
More can be documented about Whare Ra, but no temple or lodge by that name is operating as a "Contemporary Golden Dawn Order", which is the name of this section. The sources are historical only, and there are several other historical G.D. groups that no longer exist that are not included in this section. The one currently operating group affiliated with Pat Zalewski, who was the last person to carry on the Whare Ra temple, calls itself "Order of the Golden Dawn", not "Whare Ra". So inserting Whare Ra into this section makes no sense.
And again likewise, and more significantly, there is little if any reliable, third-party sources for information about the HOGD/A+O group. No reputable, published, third-party source that I know of ever mentions them. None of the alleged "history" regarding the circumstances of the breakup of the contemporary HOGD into factions can be documented by published accounts from independent third-party sources, and Frater FiatLux offers none. Again, websites are unacceptable. Internet forums are unacceptable. Original research is unacceptable. Affidavits written by their own lawyer are unacceptable. Frankly, there are no references in reliable third-party sources that the HOGD/A+O is in fact any more than one person with some registered trademarks and his lawyer. Their original partner Pat Behman left years ago. There are no published third-party accounts or photographs of their meetings, ritual performances, or public appearances that I am aware of. Their business address in the trademark office records is the private family home of Mr. Griffin's parents. Except for their own self-promoting website, one self-published book by Mr. Griffin, chatter on Internet forums, and their lawyer's volumnous legal filings, there is no outside confirmation of their existence other than as a legal and business entity that I've ever seen anywhere. They may indeed be more than that, and probably are, but Frater FiatLux offers no reliable, third-party evidence of it that could be used as a Wikipedia source.
Affidavits by the lawyer for HOGD/A+O are not "independent" sources by any stretch of the definition. That they were submitted to a court record means nothing in terms of verifying what is in the affidavits. The case is still open, no findings or verdicts have been issued by the court, so it would be impossible to allow any such thing to be used as a Wikipedia source. The Wikipedia General Counsel's Office simply won't let it happen. They have no reason to let it happen, not for the sake of one tiny article about an obscure occult group. Once it comes to their attention, they will err on the side of caution, as they always do in these matters. It's much easier to simply ban the article and spare themselves the trouble. And that, in the end, is what I predict will happen if Frater FiatLux will not agree to the consensus.
Frater FiatLux's speculations on what does or does not constitute "traditional" in the Golden Dawn are also irrelevant. Referring to a single book that details SOME of the old practices (and leaves others out, and adds some that weren't original practices), and essentially claiming that if it isn't found in that book, it isn't "traditional", is meaningless in the context of providing a verifiable third-party source. A "negative proof" is not proof. A source that DOESN'T say something is not the same as a source that DOES say something. If what he claims is significant, out of the hundreds of books that have been produced by large, reputable publishers by dozens of authors on the history and practices of the Golden Dawn, wouldn't ONE of them say unequivocally that 'X', 'Y' or 'Z' are NOT acceptable Golden Dawn "traditions"? But none of them do. So this is can't be used under the guidelines as a source for what he's claiming.
Finally, Frater FiatLux's personal opinions of me are irrelevant. One thing he doesn't seem to understand is that anyone can edit a Wikipedia article, unless they get banned by an administrator. Another thing he doesn't seem to understand is this: the fact that I have "no official authority or rank" in either of these feuding organizations is not a negative recommendation, but a positive one, as far as Wikipedia is concerned. People are discouraged from editing Wikipedia articles that concern them personally, or are about organizations, particularly political or religious, that they belong to. This is why in all my editing of this article, I refrained from writing a section about the organization I do belong to, the Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn. It would be a breach of Wikipedia custom and etiquette to do so. But Frater FiatLux has no reservations about writing a section to this article that is (in my opinion) deliberately tilted to make his own organization look superior, and all others look inferior.
So again, I propose the issue be settled in the simplest and most unassailably impartial way: eliminate the "Contemporary Golden Dawn Orders" section, and merge this article with the "Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn" article. Let any editor who wishes to add a link to a website of any of these groups, or any others, to do so -- and take this never-ending argument out of Wikipedia. - JMax555 11:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Quite frankly, I think we should bring Frater FiatLux's activities to the attention of Cicero's lawyers. Anybody here know how to do that? --999 13:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
999: Frater Fiat Lux may be using a formal and beauracratic style of writing, which if anything I find humorous at times, but your own statement above looks very much like a definite legal threat. It would be appreciated it if you remained civil. Kephera975 18:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC) 18:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Certainly not. I am not a member of any of the feuding organizations, nor a party to any lawsuit. However, I do believe that when there is any possibility that an individual is being slandered on WP, it should be brought to that individual's attention, if possible. -999 18:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I have already addressed the legal threat directed at myself with the relevant comment, however, I appreciate Kephera’s support. Any other comments on this matter though I feel are rather unnecessary and will only further perpetuate the schism makers, and further add to the burden of the mediator. The relevant comments have been made; I now feel it best that the outright threats by these schism makers should be treated with the appropriate disdain.
I consider it very appropriate to treat such misleading, defamatory attacks on the HOGD/A+O's integrity seriously, to which I'm a member, and feel this rightly constitutes a formal and proper form of correspondence. This is not to be misinterpreted as some have in a very ill judged manner, to claim that I am legally threatening users, or that a formal comprehensive style is slanderous. User 999, your message supra however, is a direct threat and a perfect example thereof.
I have only stated the facts and have not therein my posting attempted to deliberately slander Cicero, although, to biased eyes it could be appear that way. The fact that Cicero doesn’t appear to have a whiter than white background when the facts are compiled , or that these facts do not live up to expectations of Cicero supporters or licensees; frankly is not my fault. The sources in my posting cover a range of books, some of which are even written by Cicero, and original from the source court affidavits; and these aren’t all based around Cicero, or with the sole intent to slander Cicero, whatsoever.
I am not interested in -anyone's- opinion of my writing style, and furthermore my writing style has nothing -whatsoever- to do with any of the matters at hand in this disputation. The fact that I treat correspondence seriously with schism makers attempting to misrepresent and defame the order I am a part. I consider is highly appropriate and should not be misrepresented as slanderous or threatening. Although, user 999 has given us a perfect example of what a direct threat constitutes.
Comment: By Frater FL
Your threat of informing Cicero’s lawyers doesn’t bother me -Whatsoever-; he cannot do a single thing about anything that I’ve written. I’ve back up the articles entries with comprehensive sources that are in the main, books in print that are verifiable, and even written by Cicero. The affidavits are publicly available documents and are open to anyone. I am in violation of nothing, therefore he can do nothing, so your threat is unfounded.
All important points of the disputation are verifiable from books in print with relevant quotes, to which I have duly, and comprehensively given in my posting. The affidavits are only therein included to back up verifiable information that is obvious, and are the only integral documents to back certain claims in the HOGD/A+O entry. Such as the agreement between Griffin and Behman. This type of biographical information can only be soured from actual publicly available original sourced documents, that are signed by the hand of Griffin and Behman. To which I might add, is comprehensive factual, and accurate information.
HOGD, Inc., section 2 - I don't see how this is pertinant to an article or section about HOGD. It might be used in an article about Chic Cicero, but it has nothing to do with Golden Dawn for the following reasons: 1) Taking Minerval is not equivalent to having a camp. Generally one has to be III° or higher in OTO to get a camp charter; 2) even if he hosted OTO activities in his home, what does that have to do with GD? OTO does not allow combining meetings with another organization, so the most that could be said is that the OTO also met in the same location but at different times than the GD did. Sounds like the two groups of people use the same meeting location. Big deal. Some OTO bodies meet at Masonic Lodges, does that mean that they started out as a Masonic organization? You are projecting your own personal prejudices and unreasonable assumptions into the article.
Similarly, your speculations Cicero's credibility have no place on Wikipedia, unless someone else has published similar speculation is a book, which you can then quote. Even then, it would belong in an article about Chic Cicero, and not in the article about HOGD, Inc.
Finally, the legal documents are not acceptible sources for Wikipedia. Only a transcript of the outcome of the trial would meet Wikipedia standard. Wikipedia is not a courtroom and it is not the appropriate place for you to try Chic Cicero. In fact, if Mr. Cicero's lawyers find out about your activities, and if you are a member of the other party to the lawsuit, you may find that your activities get used in court to the disadvantage of your organization. You are clearly, in my opinion, engaging in malicious and potentially slanderous activity. (Disclaimer: IANAL and I don't even play one on TV).
I can't believe that you think someone's statement about something they heard (i.e. hearsay) would trump Mr. Cicero's actual Honorable Discharge, which according to his affadavit was actually attached as an appendix. Why don't you post that too?
I move that all these documents, which are not acceptible sources on WP, be speedily deleted. --999 15:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment: By Frater FL
It is proved from a verifiable book source that, in the introduction footnotes written by Cicero himself. That Cicero had an OTO camp and was an initiate of the OTO, directly before his involvement with -any- GD group. The date 1978 of Cicero's Minerval initiation again confirms this. The publicly filed affidavits herein contained comprise of fully verifiable information from the original public domain source. Information on how to download these documents for yourself are provided on the files pages themselves. They should not be deleted as the user that is attempting this “999” is of a rival order and is attempting to sabotage and interfere with present discussions and litigation to their own biased POV by deleting these public domain affidavits from the original source. What’s more they are publicly available so NO one can say a thing, as the affidavits are matter of public record.
But they are not acceptible sources according to Wikipedia policy. End of story. Unless you can show where WP policy says that affadavits are considered reliable sources, you can't use them at all or refer to them in any way on WP. -999 17:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and for the record, I am not a member of any Golden Dawn organization, so please correct any assertions to that effect that you have made anywhere on WP. Thanks. -999 17:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Coment: By Frater FL:
All important points of the disputation are verifiable from books in print with relevant quotes, to which I have duly, and comprehensively given in my posting. The affidavits are only therein included to back up verifiable information that is obvious, and are the only integral documents to back certain claims in the HOGD/A+O entry. Such as the agreement between Griffin and Behman. This type of biographical information can only be soured from actual publicly available original sourced documents, that are signed by the hand of Griffin and Behman. To which I might add, is comprehensive factual, and accurate information.
Your threat of informing Cicero’s lawyers doesn’t bother me; he cannot do a single thing about anything that I’ve written. I’ve back up the articles entries with comprehensive sources that are in the main, books in print that are verifiable, and even written by Cicero. The affidavits are publicly available documents and are open to anyone.
Thanks for your help. I will, unlike "JMAX555" in his proposal section, refrain from making personal attacks and lengthy extraneous comments in my proposals. I do not agree with deleting the page wholesale, as it would appear to me that this unnecessary, and just solely because I feel “JMAX555” has conducted himself in an unprincipled manner, and performed defamatory edits, on what is basically a good, neutral as can be article.
In my proposals, I will make my comments only in relevance and context to sorting the disputation out, and make these comments of a manageable length for the mediator’s convenience. I will be making my proposals in the next day or two, but definitely no later than that.
I agree with the mediator that the word "tenuously" should be cut from the EOGD entry. And NPOV phrasing put in place, or when I look at the changes more closely tomorrow, I will submit a NPOV line to replace it with for your consideration.
I will comply as fully as I can with your requests.
Furthermore:
I must however, include in the discussion at this stage before I start my proposals tomorrow, that the arbitrary proposal in red infra on this discussion page viz: “Today, several organizations carry on the Golden Dawn tradition. Among these, the following are particularly significant due to their presence on the World Wide Web:
· Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc.
· Rosicrucian Order of the A+O (since HOGD, Inc. currently holds the trademark H.O.G.D.)”
This arbitrary proposal supra to change the HOGD/A+O name is UNACCEPTABLE in the extreme. David Griffin's H.O.G.D. owns the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn TM in the European Union and Canada, and entered into a contract with Cicero's H.O.G.D., Inc.to regulate the TM on a worldwide basis.
File:Document4-2.pdfThe landmarks provision of the contract between Griffin/Behman's H.O.G.D. and Cicero's H.O.G.D., Inc.
. Mr. Griffin's signed on behalf of "H.O.G.D" while Charles Cicero signed on behalf of "H.O.G.D., Inc." Mr. Griffin's organization should be referred to as "H.O.G.D"; while Charles Cicero's should be referred to as H.O.G.D., Inc.".
Please follow the inferred link in the supra text to find the affidavit of this agreement which both parties signed.
I feel it was essential to state this most categorically so that I can make my proposals from a grounding of fact and truth, as the HOGD/A+O entry is the one that has been most distorted by the defamatory editing by “JMAX555.”
I consider that I have comprehensively quashed any disputation as to the naming of the HOGD/A+O in the articles entry.
I will now from this sure footing, in fact, state my proposals.
You can "quash" all you want, but I didn't propose that version. I proposed "Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn/Rosicrucian Order of the A+O". If you scroll back up this page, it looks like this:
Contemporary Golden Dawn Orders
Today, several organizations carry on the Golden Dawn tradition. Among these, the following are particularly significant due to their presence on the World Wide Web:
The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn Inc.
Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn/Rosicrucian Order of the A+O
The Esoteric Order of the Golden Dawn
The Ordo Stella Matutina
The Hermetic Sanctuary of Ma'at
Sodalitas Rosae+Crucis & Solis Alti
Mountain Temple & Order of the Golden Dawn
The Order of the Golden Dawn
The Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn
THAT was the version I proposed, signed and dated JMax555 06:56, 1 June 2006.
Besides that, I think you're missing the point. In the section ABOVE this one, called "Frater FiatLux - sourcing", the mediator wants you to provide the independent, third-party sources for those changes you made, acceptable to Wikipedia standards and policies. THIS section, "Criticism", is for OTHER people (not you) to critique YOUR explanation (in the above section) of the edit changes you made to the old version of the article, and challenge whatever sources you offer. Please read and try to follow the instructions of the mediator, because now you've screwed up the formatting he created for this purpose.
Let me help you by means of an example. Where you made the edit that the HOGD Inc. was "started as an OTO camp", you need to provide a third-party account by a reputable independent source that states that to be the case. A hypothetical example would be:
From the book "Stuff About The Golden Dawn" by Herman Etic (Imaginary Books, 1995, ISBN 1-234-5678-9), in Chapter 5, 'Chic Cicero and the HOGD', page 123, paragraph two, reads: "Chic Cicero, by his own account, started his Golden Dawn Order as an OTO camp."
That, my friend, is a "source" as Wikipedia defines it. So, with that in mind, let's see your sources.
Latest comment: 17 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion
Please can Jmaxx and Zos outline their issues with the article and post sources backing this up.
Thank you for volunteering to mediate.
To be clear, the "HOGD/A+O" in this context refers to the GD organization founded by Mr. David Griffin that Frater Fiat Lux and Kephera are advocating for. "HOGD Inc." refers to the organization founded by Charles "Chic" Cicero, which is currently has a lawsuit before the US Federal Court with Mr. Griffin over contractual disputes and alleged trademark violations.
I'll try to reiterate my specific objections to the article revision made by Frater FiatLux. Some are objections to particular passages. The overall objection is stated below, which is not that I have "sources" to back up any particular version of the "Contemporary Golden Dawn Orders" section, but that NO ONE DOES. This is why I feel the best compromise is to remove the section entirely and replace it with links to websites or Wikipeida articles about the individual groups.
1. It is prejudicial, and undocumentable by reference to any reputable published source, that the HOGD Inc. was "started as an OTO camp", a reference to the Ordo Templi Orientis, the fraternal organization established by Aleister Crowley to endorse the religion of Thelema. Even if a person who started one group later started another group doesn't mean that the second group "started as" the first. The passage implies a causal relationship when there is no evidence to prove it. The only possible reason to include this sentence is to stir up controversy among those Golden Dawn practitioners who have a negative opinion of the OTO and Thelema.
2. In the entry for his own organization (HOGD/A+O) he wrote, "After withdrawing her endorsement from that organization in 1992 to continue the unschismed version with Griffin..." This is a prejudicial account of the events in question. The other side of the story is that Ms. Behman resigned from the HOGD Inc. and her partnership with Mr. Griffin WAS itself the "schismed version". Being labelled the "schismed version" carries a certain stigma in the Golden Dawn community. It was better to leave BOTH side's versions out of the article entirely so as to not stir up a controversy that cannot be settled in the pages of Wikipedia.
3. Not a single group currently practicing the Golden Dawn system adheres without exception to the "traditional" practices and teaching system of the early British Lodges, notably the HOGD/A+O itself, which has completely altered the teaching curriculum of the traditional Order. This is another "hot button" issue in the GD community. Thus the mention of "deviations" from tradition ONLY in context to the HOGD Inc. and it's licensees is yet another attempt at POV-bias. The previous consensus version simply said that "some of the autonomous licensees have modified and/or expanded on the original forms" and left it at that. That was the way to settle the controversy which the parties in the prior edit dispute finally arrived at. Another example is in the entry for the Ordo Stella Matutina, "However, Self-Initian[sic] itself does not conform to thede[sic] teachings." Again, the major revision of the curriculum of the Golden Dawn made by the HOGD/A+O does not conform to the teachings of the original Order either, which specifically and emphatically declared that advanced techniques should not be taught to beginners in the Order, as the HOGD/A+O does. But no mention is made in "Frater Fiat Lux's" edit to his own group's deviation from "tradition". So the best solution was to entirely avoid these controversies about what is properly "traditional" and what is not in the text of the article.
4. The aside added about the Llewellyn Books edition of Regardie's "The Golden Dawn" -- "though this collection is unconnected to the Ciceros (in fact, the introduction was written by Patricia Behman a/k/a Cris Monnastre)" is again intended to prejudice the reader against Mr. Cicero. It also happens to be true that the Epilogue to Regardie's book was written by Sam Webster who, as a former member of Mr. Cicero's group, and a current member of the Board of Directors of the HOGD Inc., IS "connected" to the Ciceros. So what is the point of including that passage, except to further prejudice the reader against the Mr. Cicero and the HOGD Inc.?
5. Most importantly of all (and which renders most of the above moot) is that almost the entire content of ALL of these disputed "biography" sections in ANY form cannot be verified by reference to reliable third-party sources, the threshold for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. The official policy is, "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed. Sources should also be appropriate to the claims made: outlandish claims beg strong sources." Furthermore, "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic."
Court papers filed by one side in a legal dispute are not "credible third-party sources" even if they are archived by the court system. A lawyer can put anything they want in an affidavit, but that doesn't prove the information in the affidavit is correct and factual, because it has not been verified by the court. Such preliminary filings will naturally be biased in favor of the lawyer's client, because that's the lawyer's job. Such affidavits, by Wikipedia standards, must be considered either a "self-published source" or original research, not "information made available by a reliable publisher." What's in those "court documents" is simply what the lawyer for one side of a legal dispute put there. They are in the court record, but that doesn't mean anything in the sense of verifiability. The only thing that's "verified" is that the lawyer for one side wrote them and submitted them, and the court system has archived them.
For the Wikipedia policy, see: WP:RS "In general, Wikipedia articles should not depend on primary sources but rather on reliable secondary sources who have made careful use of the primary-source material. Most primary-source material requires training to use correctly, especially on historical topics. Wikipedia articles may use primary sources only if they have been published by a reliable publisher e.g. trial transcripts published by a court stenographer, or historic documents that appear in edited collections. We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a reliable publisher."
So, court papers filed by one side's attorney in an ongoing, unsettled litigation are not "reliable secondary sources". The only thing that seems allowable is "trial transcripts published by a court stenographer", because a court stenographer is a professional "reliable witness". Furthermore, there has been no trial and no verdict. The case is ongoing, and allowing affidavits from one side's attorney in an unsettled civil case to be used as "reliable sources" for a Wikipedia article is something I don't think the Wikipedia Foundation's General Counsel is going to want to touch with a ten-foot pole. It could be seen as tacit approval of one side's position in an ongoing lawsuit, and that is a blatant contravention of Wikipedia's strict policy of neutrality.
6. Almost all the other information in the disputed section is sourced from self-referential websites, or chatter from various Internet forums. There may be other references to various groups scattered around, but nothing I can think of verifies anything more than simply that a group exists or existed. I am aware of no secondary-source references, in such form as books from reliable publishing houses, newspaper articles or media journalists, that confirm the information in the disputed section. It could be reliably proven that certain groups exist as business entities by consulting business licenses. Mr. Cicero's group is of course mentioned in works written by himself or his wife Tabitha Cicero. I presume Mr. Griffin's book also mentions his own group, but that book is self-published, unlike Mr. Cicero's books, which were released a major publishing house, Llewellyn Books. Self-published books are generally not acceptable "second-source" reliable references under Wikipedia guidelines.
Therefore, my proposal is that the entire "Contemporary Golden Dawn Orders" section be truncated to a simple list of names, or removed entirely, and the reader be directed to the links for each group's individual websites and Wikipedia articles (if they exist) for information on these groups. That way, there is NO possibility of bias in any direction whatsoever, and each group has the opportunity to address these issues on their own websites, where they are free to make any claims they wish.
My biggest concern is that Frater FiatLux will refuse to accept such a compromise, and if the article is unlocked, will again post the unsourced materials while claiming that these court affidavits he incessantly touts as "reliable sources" qualify as such and allow him to do so. I fear, as you have said previously, that this may have to be referred to the Administration of Wikipedia and a truly binding decision be made at that level to disallow the use of court affidavits from one litagant's lawyer of an unsettled lawsuit as "reliable third-party sources" in a Wikipedia article.
Again, thank you for taking the time to mediate this dispute.
I completely support the points made here by JMax555. -999 20:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I just moved from Mi to Pa, so I'll try to keep this short. I'm in the process of ordering a few Golden Dawn bio/histories so I can edit, and would like to open the article back up to do this. Once this is done, I will have sources. Zos 04:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Criticism
Anyone who has an important critique about any or all of theses sources / issues should post it here. I am talking about specific reasons such as proven bias, non-sources (eg sources wikipedia policy does not accept) or similar. No personal attacks etc. and please try and refrain from replying to posts in this section.
I will address JMAX555's comments in order as organized by JMAX555.
However, before doing this I would like to reiterate the point made by Frater Fiat Lux that the proposal made by user "999", who is in support of JMAX555, in his proposal of changing H.O.G.D. to the Rosicrucian Order of A+O, would be totally prejudiced and without neutrality. As I stated above, there is an agreement ( see: http://www.golden-dawn.com/images/agreement.jpg ) between these parties to use the "Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn" mark on a world-wide basis. This agreement was written up by an independent, third-party source. Such a proposal having been made only proves here, in this talk page, that there is a lack of neutrality on the part of 999 as well.
1. MAX has no proof of the statement "started as an O.T.O. camp" being prejudicial. He only assumes this. He cites no evidence that all people who are "Golden Dawners" are against the O.T.O. In fact, he himself is part of a Golden Dawn-based Order mixed with Thelemic elements and considers himself a Golden Dawner. In fact, it is possible to be both a "G.D." person and a member of the O.T.O., is it not? The previous statement that HOGD, Inc., on the other hand, was established as a Golden Dawn temple in 1977 is not verifiable as this information is self-published by the owner of that group, Chic Cicero. The quote by Gerald Shuster given by MAX, who was a friend of Cicero's, shows POV, biased sourcing. Additionally, the editing in by MAX and others who advocate for HOGD, Inc. as licensees of HOGD, Inc., of the 1977 date, interferes with the current litigation and tries to bias the reader to show HOGD, Inc's legal superiority. If you go to HOGD, Inc.'s website you will see in their "Feather of Maat" page that this is one of their main arguments. It is currently being disputed in court, and if this editing in of the "establishment of '77" is allowed to remain in the article, it will not be a neutral article, but one that sides with one party in current trademark litigation. The evidence that Cicero's group began as an O.T.O. camp is clear from a perusal of Israel Regardie's letters to Eva Cicero found on their "feather of Ma'at" page, wherein the formal O.T.O. greeting "Love is the Law" is used. These letters are historical archives published on HOGD, Inc.'s org. website. Israel Regardie is considered a prime authority in the G.D., as well, ans these historical archives are sources.
2. As for his comments about Patricia Behman who wrote the introduction to Regardie's 'Golden Dawn', MAX's comments about her "resigning" from HOGD/A+O once again show his POV and lack of neutrality. This was what was being edited in by MAX in the HOGD/A+O section as the reverted to "NPOV" version and why this needed to be corrected. This section should be allowed to remain as it stands as it is autobiographical and the editor MAX should not be allowed to interfere with another Order's autobiography. In fact, MAX should not be allowed to interfere with HOGD, Inc.'s autobiography either since he is not a representative of that Order.
3. Once again, MAX's condescension and bias towards the HOGD/A+O is clear. He deliberately attempts to paint a picture of the HOGD/A+O that is without neutrality. The HOGD/A+O, by contractual agreement, has had every right to modernize their Order according to that contract and to attempt to paint the HOGD/A+O as "deviating from tradition" is extremely prejudicial and interferes with current pending litigation. Furthermore, the HOGD/A+O DOES NOT deviate from the traditional landmark rituals of the original HOGD but has incorporated all published landmark ritual material in the outer Order. Since Regardie and Crowley, there is no Order that could be the same as the original Order. However, incorporating other traditions, completely different rituals and methods of initiation is using completely foreign material and ideas from what has been published and what is historically landmarked per "The Golden Dawn" by Regardie. I source "the Golden Dawn" by Regardie as to what the landmark rituals of the Golden Dawn are.
4. Once again, MAX assumes prejudice without any evidence. It is completely verifiable that Ms. Behman wrote the introduction to "The Golden Dawn" by Regardie and it is prejudicial of MAX to try to downplay her fundamental role of reviving the Golden Dawn in the United States.
5. Much of the autobiographical sections can not be verified, agreed, except for what I have referenced above. However, MAX's proposal to seperate the page up into many different pages would not solve anything. Instead of everything being in one convenient area, all this would do is create inconvenience and more disputes on each Order's page. In contemplating how this would work, all I can envisage is making things more convoluted.
6. What seems to be more and more apparent is that the user MAX is attempting to use the Wikipedia policy of verifiablity in order to negate the policy of neutrality, and just about everything about the HOGD/A+O to him is unverifiable and unworthy of an article, even of its own article, based on this policy. Just because something is taken from a verifiable source does not mean that incorporating it is neutral or unbiased. There are plenty of POV sources that are verifiable.
7. It is interesting to note that much of this article and the "Hermetic Order of the Golden Article" with a merge currently pending with the present article are taken VERBATIM from user MAX's organization's website from an article written by him as "Frater A.o.C.".
In conclusion, if this article is to remain neutral to both parties who currently have trade and service mark rights globally, as well as business licenses, that it is imperative that the editing of user MAX should not be given dominant weight. The current proposal should be looked at in light of this lack of neutrality. Instead of scrapping out references to modern Orders and relegating them to the background, it is my opinion that autobiographical sections should be allowed to remain and should be merged with the "Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn" article.
Kephera975 writes, "Much of the autobiographical sections can not be verified, agreed..."
Yes, exactly. This is the important issue here. If it cannot be verified, it cannot be used in a Wikipedia article. Those are the rules, and we all have to abide by them.
1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.
2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.
3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.
Note provision #3. You and/or Frater FiatLux have the obligation to provide reputable sources acceptable under Wikipedia guidelines for anything you wish to include in the article. It means that those of us who wish to see the material removed are under no obligation whatsoever to prove it is false, misleading, or even biased. The only obligation is yours, which is to provide a reputable, third-party published source for everything you wish to include in the article. I'm sorry if the rules don't favor your position, but those are the rules.
Kephera975 continues: "...except for what I have referenced above."
Then let's examine what you have referenced above:
"MAX has no proof of the statement "started as an O.T.O. camp" being prejudicial."
I don't need to provide any. It's my opinion, but my opinion doesn't really matter. The burden is on you to provide a reliable, third-party source that confirms the statement. Do you have any?
"The previous statement that HOGD, Inc., on the other hand, was established as a Golden Dawn temple in 1977 is not verifiable as this information is self-published by the owner of that group, Chic Cicero.
A publication by Llewellyn Books, a major publishing house with hundreds of titles in print, is not "self-published." Let me try to explain the difference to you. A major publishing house has an editorial department, with fact-checking facilities and editorial oversight. Submissions from authors are vetted for consistency and accuracy. This is why they are more reliable, which is why Wikipedia accepts them as sources. Since it was a major publishing house that allowed the information to be published under their imprint, it passes the Wikipedia threshold for verifiability. All the more so since another author with many titles in print, Gerald Shuster, referred to the same information. This is now a third-party source from a reliable publisher.
But once again, the point is moot. I want that material removed also. I am surrendering the argument, just for the sake of the peace, even though I can provide a second and a third-party source for it. Please remove it. Remove ALL of it.
Kephera975 writes: "Once again, MAX's condescension and bias towards the HOGD/A+O is clear. He deliberately attempts to paint a picture of the HOGD/A+O that is without neutrality."
But I am not painting it in the article. If I did, and I can't source it, then it should be removed. My bias or lack thereof is totally irrelevant. In fact, I surrender. I offer no acceptable sources for anything I ever wrote in this article concerning the HOGD/A+O. You have my complete capitulation. My compromise proposal is to remove the section with the biographies of the GD groups completely. How can anything be more neutral than complete absence?
But I will expect other editors to comply with the same Wikipedia rules I am voluntarily following.
Kephera975 writes: "It is completely verifiable that Ms. Behman wrote the introduction to "The Golden Dawn" by Regardie and it is prejudicial of MAX to try to downplay her fundamental role of reviving the Golden Dawn in the United States.
Which sounds to me like she deserves her own Wikipedia article. So write one, and include a link to it in the "See Also" section of this page. If your real intention is to insure that Ms. Behman's considerable contributions to the Order are properly recognized, then that is what you should do. But to place it in the biographical section of the group that she broke away from and draw negative attention to it there doesn't serve that purpose, it serves the purpose of belittling that group.
If you placed a line or two in the article that simply described her role in the revival of the Golden Dawn movement in the USA, and you can source all the claims in it, fine. But you can't wrap unsourced material around it and keep that in the article too.
Kephera975 writes: "What seems to be more and more apparent is that the user MAX is attempting to use the Wikipedia policy of verifiability in order to negate the policy of neutrality, and just about everything about the HOGD/A+O to him is unverifiable and unworthy of an article, even of its own article, based on this policy."
See WP:V: "Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's three content-guiding policy pages. The other two are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. They should therefore not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three. The three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus."
In other words, neutrality doesn't "trump" verifiability, or the other way around. Information in articles must be both neutral and verifiable. You may sincerely believe your edits are neutral. Maybe they are. But if any statement of fact fails the verifiability test, it cannot be included in Wikipedia, whether you or I think it's neutral or not. And the burden of proof is on you, since you want it included, and I want it removed.
Kephera975 writes: "Just because something is taken from a verifiable source does not mean that incorporating it is neutral or unbiased. There are plenty of POV sources that are verifiable."
Unfortunately, the rules are the rules. This is not your website, nor mine. It is Wikipedia, and if we are to contribute to it we must do so under the rules that Wikipedia has every right to establish, even if we don't like the rules or think they are unfair.
See WP:V: "'Verifiability' in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. As counterintuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.... Just because information is true, that doesn't mean that it meets our verifiability requirements — information has to be sourced if it is to have a place in Wikipedia."
This is why the mediator has asked for you and/or Frater FiatLux to list sources acceptable under Wikipedia guidelines for the information you wish to keep in the article. He provided the sub-section "Frater FiatLux - sourcing" above for this purpose, and as of this writing, that section is still empty.
JMAX555, Although I agree with some of what Frater Fiat Lux has stated, I am not the same person and was not asked for sourcing. If FFL can come up with some sourcing or feels it is worth the possibly time consuming research in order to try to preserve this page as it is, fine. All things considered, I think your proposal is a fair and neutral compromise and I would personally save any research work for the distinct autobiographical articles. As for any sourcing on the current article, this can be considered delegated to him, since at this time I am not worried about it, personally. Perhaps he will come up with a compromise as well, or will agree? Myself, I wouldn't mind the proposed compromise.
However, my main concern here has not been verifiability, but neutrality. In considering verifiability and neutrality as integrated policies within Wikipedia, though, and after considering your reasoned responses and your willingness for compromise, it is my opinion that the proposal as laid out by yourself may very well be a good idea. Of course, I think 999's biased proposal should be thrown out. This would be agreed to in consideration of the above statement by yourself:
"But I am not painting it in the article. If I did, and I can't source it, then it should be removed. My bias or lack thereof is totally irrelevant. In fact, I surrender. I offer no acceptable sources for anything I ever wrote in this article concerning the HOGD/A+O. You have my complete capitulation. My compromise proposal is to remove the section with the biographies of the GD groups completely. How can anything be more neutral than complete absence?"
This sounds reasonable to me. After thinking this over my thought was that hopefully this will also eliminate the need for further dispute. I see no harm in this regarding neutrality. Now we shall just have to see what FFL has to say.
Now, what would the mechanism of dispute be on Order autobiographical pages? As I am fairly new to Wikipedia and its policies, could anyone tell me more succinctly(since my time is far and few between these days), if you don't mind, what policies do or do not apply to autobiographical pages? For example, let's say that an article is set up for HOGD, Inc. and it states that the HOGD, Inc. was established in '77. Considering that this might not be considered a neutral POV in light of current litigation, would someone be able to dispute this? On the other hand, let's say that the creators of the HOGD/A+O article include that Ms. Behman was unjustifiably expelled from HOGD, Inc., would someone be able to dispute this? What mechanisms would be in place to defend an Order's own page?
Also, this proposal would save up some space for the current merger being discussed with the "Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn" article and the "Golden Dawn tradition" article.
Thank you for your reasonable and polite response. I propose we give Frater FiatLux a bit more time to make his case of sources, and let the mediator weigh in. Then we can discuss your proposals and issues with the creation of sub-pages. - JMax555 15:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry guys Im glad your getting on ok without me. Ive got a slight crisis going on here (sudden release deadline took me by suprise) but I will make time (much) later on tonight to go through what you have all written - sorry about that. It's funny how quickly the month's fly by -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)talk 16:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Welcome mediator. The only thing I would request is to please explain to Frater FL that he shouldnt accuse people on talk pages as he has done to me, and about policy, which he is not understanding. I'd like to see this article unprotected, and I see Frater FL is about the only one stopping this from happening. Thank you. Zos 04:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I have noticed that user "999" has decided to go ahead and make big changes to the 'Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn' article which was currently under a proposal of merger with this article. Was he given the authority to do so? It is also interesting to note that user '999' has decided to completely exclude the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn/Alpha et Omega from his list of contemporary links.
He hasn't changed much in the article itself, except for adding Crowely to the list of famous members (entirely appropriate), "Wiki-fying" it (putting in Wiki-links), and adding links to "stubs" of the article -- "sub"-articles about the various GD groups, which is basically what the compromise being offered here has been talking about. He's simply gone ahead and done it, as is his right (or anyone's) to do. And it's appropriate for him to do it, since he is not a member of any of the groups he has created articles about. Those links in the main article are to existing sub-articles about the various groups. All we need to do now is merge the rest of this article into the main article and delete this one, and move the external links from this page to the main article -- viola! peace restored.
And the sub-articles 999 has created are good examples of how to go about it -- notice that everything in them is referenced. Using a group's own website as a source for information is acceptable (with the qualifier, "according to their website...") because the sub-article is about that group and that group ONLY. It wouldn't be appropriate to put information about other groups that is carried on a particular group's website. For example, it wouldn't be appropriate for anything the HOGD/A+O says about the HOGD Inc. to be put in the article about the HOGD/A+O, or vice-versa.
The only reason there isn't an HOGD/A+O stub-article is simply that no one has created one. By the customs of Wikipedia etiqutte, someone who is NOT a member of the HOGD/A+O should create the article about it. (That's why I never created a section in this article about the OSOGD -- it's a major faux pas.) If 999 doesn't feel motivated to create an article about the HOGD/A+O, perhaps the way he's been treated in this discussion has something to do with it. Which is too bad, because he does very good work.
Are you guys beginning to see how all this works now? - JMax555 07:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok thanks for all that, most of all to FFF for providing those sources and the others for their proposals / ideas. Im gonna need time to read and digest it all so give me a day and I will come up with my suggestions and recommendations -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)talk 18:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
