Talk:Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn

Notability

The Golden Dawn itself is notable (847,000 GHits). However, after 1903 it fragmented into multiple organizations. More recently, a number of descendents of the Golden Dawn (about half-a-dozen) which are still active now have web sites. Ultimately, their notability derives from the Golden Dawn and they continue the tradition of the Golden Dawn. However, for most of them, the only information available about them is their web site. Per WP standards, such "autobiographical" sources can only be presented in an article about the author or organization itself. Thus, a composite article such as Golden Dawn tradition is technically not permitted. Due to the fact that some of these organizations have rivalries, edit wars have and will continue to break out over a composite article. Thus I believe that the best solution is separate articles, even though the individual organizations may not meet independent notability requirements. Within the broader field (Golden Dawn tradition), which is itself notable, an organization which has its own domain name and a well-established website is a notable branch of the Golden Dawn. --999 13:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I suppose it's better to have borderline notable articles than an edit war or violating WP standards. Just out of curiosity, which standard are you referring to about autobiographical articles? --Chaser (T) 21:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a guideline actually, and I think mentioned in more than one place, but here is one: WP:RS#Personal_websites_as_primary_sources --999 22:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, rereading I see it quotes WP:V, so I guess it is policy... --999 22:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Published Source

The OSOGD was described in the book Not In Kansas Anymore by Christine Wicker (Harper San Francisco, 2005, ISBN 0-06-072678-4), on pages 206-212, wherein she gives a first-person account of attending a ritual at the Order's Het-Nuit Temple. In the book she provides confirmation of these facts:

• The group is led by Mr. Sam_Webster, M.Div.

• The Het-Nuit temple is located in the San Francisco Bay Area.

• The group "is set apart from other Golden Dawn groups because it publishes the ceremonies and secrets of the Golden Dawn system of magic." (p.207)

• It publishes these ceremonies and secrets on the World Wide Web, which was "a controversial move that has inspired some enmity". (p.208)

• The term "open source" is used in the same manner as the open source software movement.

• The OSOGD "descends" from the original Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (although it erroneously states the HOGD was founded in 1880, an errata which Wicker says will be corrected in the next printing.)

• Wicker gives one page of historical background of the original HOGD, generally in accordance with other mainstream accounts.

• The OSOGD includes women.

• The OSOGD "does not rely on Christian teachings, but is distinctly pagan." (p.208)

• The Temple has about thirty members (although this information is dated -- it has doubled in membership since Wicker's attendence in mid-2004.)

• Wicker provides a simple two-page description of the GD 0=0 initiation ceremony she attended.

• Joseph Max is identified as a member of the Order.

Since I (Joseph Max) am a member of the OSOGD, it would be improper for me to edit the article itself, but the editors can use this published, third-party source information in the article as they see fit, and the book can be included in a Bibliogrpahy section. - JMax555 03:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it would be improper to add material JMax, unless you published a book about this particular article (check Wikipedia:Vanity anyway just to make sure). Many Freemasons are editing freemasonry articles, and this does not stop them. So if you have the sources, add them :) Zos 17:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Set and Satan

Added comments to reveal the Setian (Satanic) bias of OSOGD. Citations will be added to numerous comments made by OSOGD Imperator, Joseph Max, defending the OSOGD Setian bias on various GD discussion forums.--Zanoni666 18:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Citations to internet discussion forums are not acceptable references for Wikipeida, even if they support such an outlandish claim, which in fact they do not. The OSOGD is not "satanic", in any sense of the word, and this is deliberate vandalism of the article with inflammatory language. It is being reported to admin. - JMax555 19:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with being a Setian Order? Seems to me that noone except some kind of christian fundamentalist would have a problem with that. Kephera975 02:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with the accusation is that it isn't true. The OSOGD is not a "Setian order", whatever you think that means. Zanoni666 said the OSOGD was "satanic". Neither you nor he are one of Robert Zink's mail order neophytes, so you know damn well the OSOGD isn't "based on the principles of Set". I credit you with not being that ignorant. You also know that to the ancient Egyptians, Set was not "Satan", or three of their greatest Pharaohs in all their history certainly wouldn't have named themselves after him. This faux debate has been done to death on the forums, you've seen it, you know how the OSOGD frames the issue, and as far as I can tell, Zanoni666 is just muckracking to manufacture a controversy. His edits weren't even qualified with "some others believe" of anything of the sort. They were flat declarations that the OSOGD is "satanic", and that is deliberate, derogatory wording. If you want to quote the OSOGD FAQ page on this subject, feel free. - JMax555 05:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur. All additions to this article must be cited with references to reputable sources, e.g. books or peer-reviewed journals. Thanks. -999 (Talk) 19:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Same here. Zos

It's possible this was done to deliberately stir up a "controversy" in the editing of the OSOGD article, to justify having it be included in the mediation. Up until that edit was made by Zanoni666, there was no controversy among editors of this article, certainly not anything requiring mediation. A mediator would look at this Talk section and think, "what's there to mediate?" So a "controversy", no matter how absurd or insulting it might be, had to be contrived. In that light, I think it's significant that this edit was made after the request for mediation was submitted. - JMax555 05:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#Seven_Articles

Here is a link to the mediation page. Zos 00:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Awaiting sources

• Additionally, they have given preference to Set, the Egyptian God corresponding to darkness over the luminous God Horus traditionally invoked in the original officer role of Hiereus.

Added to the middle of a paragraph by Kephera975. Please don't try to decieve other editor's that your material has a citation by adding into the middle of properly cited material.

• Additionally, they have given preference to Set, the Egyptian god of evil and the night over the fiercely protective and luminous god Horus traditionally invoked in the original officer role of Hiereus in order to guard against the night and the evil persona.

You later changed to this in a misguided effort to smear the organization in question. The additional information is also uncited. Don't you understand that EVERY ADDITION MUST HAVE A CITATION? Hanuman Das 21:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Locations

Re: revert - There are two Lodges of the OSOGD outside of California: one in Seattle WA, and one in Manchester UK. See the "Lodges" page of the website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JMax555 (talk • contribs)

Wouldn't it have made more sense to just edit that bit accordingly? Also, long time no see... I used to interact with you quite pleasantly on the Yahoo forums. //roux   16:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi roux - You're right, but I tend to refrain from directly re-writing the OSOGD page because I am an officer of that organization (conflict of interest and all), but provide the information in TALK. (See above.) I figured you'd come around and fix it. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JMax555 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I personally don't see a COI as you are so open about your affiliations (or maybe that's just overflow from knowing you around Yahoo). Then again, I'd avoid editing much to do with EOGD for approximately opposite reasons ;) //roux   18:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyright claims of the "Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn"

Is the OSOGD an organization advancing proprietary interests or is it employing open-source licensing to ensure its published work is available under open-source terms? A visit to the OSOGD website shows a proprietary copyright message in the footer without any mitigating free-culture compatible Open Content license. A CC BY (Attribution) or CC BY-SA (Attribution/ShareAlike) license, or a CC0 Public Domain dedication would suffice to unambiguously indicate that the documents served by the organization are indeed being shared under universally recognizable open-source terms. The confusion here could simply be due to an oversight on the part of the website administrators. Alternately, the OSOGD could be advancing proprietary interests while claiming to be open-source. Can anyone offer some clarity here? Aharonium (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)