Talk:The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc.

Initiatory Lineage

What does "initiatory lineage" through Regardie mean and how is this verified in the article exactly as being passed through Regardie to Cicero? Kephera975 04:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Given Kephera975's obvious bias and penchant for disruption, I suggest that from here on out, we simply ignore him. Let him talk to himself. IPSOS (talk) 04:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I just can't seem to find any third party information about this. Does anyone have a reference? The only thing the article has cited is the website. Kephera975 06:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

There is none. However, this is not a NPOV article. Moreover, any comment which does not coincide with IPSOS agenda is either ignored; or actually edited out of the discussion.It is patently untrue that Israel Regardie initiated Charles "Chic" Cicero and/or Tabatha Cicero into ANY grade of the Golden Dawn. Charles "Chic" Cicero "self-initiated" himself into 0=0. Larry Epperson a/k/a Adam Forrest, a student of Regardie, initiated Charles "Chic" Cicero in the elemental grades. Cicero has admitted that he was never actually initiated into ANY grade by Regardie.

In fact, Regardie's only students were William Kennedy, Patricia Behman a/k/a Cris Monnastre, Larry Epperson a/k/a Adam Forrestt, and Alan Miller a/k/a Christopher Hyatt. In fact, Regardie left his literary estate, papers etc. to Alan Miller a/k/a Christopher Hyatt as Trustee of the Israel Regardie Foundation. Charles "Chic" Cicero's contacts with Regardie were, at best, incidental: Regardie visited him in Georgia in order to initiate Patricia Behman a/k/a Cris Monnastre in his vault; and exchanged a few letters with Cicero. Most of the papers "preserved” by HOGD, Inc. were purchased by Maria Babasingh from the Trustee of the Israel Regardie Foundation; and then given by her to Cicero (Babasingh is a director of HOGD. Inc.). Thus, Cicero cannot claim to derive any "lineage" from Regardie. --C00483033 18:36, 15 August 2007

Funny, the lengths of the lines in this comment show that it was copy and pasted from somewhere. Care to disclose what website or mailing list you copied this from, C00483033? GlassFET 18:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, look, here is the very same argument in User_talk:Frater FiatLux/Archive 1. Seems like you are a sock of a banned user. GlassFET 18:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It would seem that anyone who does not agree with you is automatically a "sock puppet." This is particularly true when you do not wish to address a concrete issue.--C00483033 21:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm very selective, actually. A new, single-purpose account that supports another new, single-purpose account shortly after a contentious user was indefinitely blocked and who uses the same arguments as the blocked user is the level necessary to trigger my sock alert. Simply disagreeing with me is not enough. There are plenty of people who've disagreed with me, but don't have all the earmarks of a sock. I discuss with them and reach consensus. I find it's not really possible to reach consensus with the type of user who lectures rather than discusses. That appears to be the type of both yourself and your suspected puppetmaster. Ciao! GlassFET 22:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD Closure

I BELEIVE THAT THE DELETION DISCUSSION FOR THIS PAGE WAS ARBITRARILY ENDED BY GLAS FET W/O CONSENSUS. I REQUEST THAT IT BE RE-OPENED AND THAT THE FULL TEXT OF THAT DISCUSSION BE RESTORED. (CAPITALS INTENDED).--C00483033 23:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC) — C00483033 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

And as I said on your talk page, the closure was overdue. It should have been closed on the 10th at which point the result would have been keep. And when there is no consensus as you so rightly point out, we keep the article. And finally, this is not the proper place to complain and will get you nowhere. The correct place, as I explained already on your talk page, is deletion review. And all-caps posts look moronic. GlassFET 23:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion was closed in good faith by GlassFET properly in accordance with WP:DPR#NAC, on the basis of no consensus to delete, after 10 days of extended discussion. He removed his own !vote before closing the discussion to assure neutrality, and even after removing his own vote, there were comments by 14 editors and only 4 or 5 of them were in favor of deletion. There may not have been a clear consensus for "keep", but it was obvious that there was not a consensus for deletion. I have never edited the article and as an uninvolved party I found the action of GlassFET appropriate and in accordance with policy. --Parsifal _Hello 03:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, there is indeed consensus for the closure. Many have contributed to the edits and the AfD debate, and among the many, there is no consensus for deletion. There may also not be unanimity to keep the article, as your actions demonstrate, but your lone voice does not make a majority - no matter how loud you shout. As one who earlier suggested a merge, I am in agreement with the "no consensus for deletion" majority. docboat 04:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

More Refs

I've been sent a copy of a new age/occult magazine with interviews with Chic Cicero and Tabatha Cicero where they discuss their HOGD lodge. I'm not sure how to go about properly adding it to reference lists in the article, so I'm listing it here:

• Osiris, David "Interview with the Ciceros" in The Occult News (Victoria, BC, Canada. June 2006 Issue)

There's also the following podcast interviews wherein the Cicero HOGD is discussed:

• New Age Today #11: June 21, 2006, "The DaVinci Code and the Babylonian Tarot" w/Tiffany Johnson (Tabatha Cicero is the artist/designer of the Babylonian Tarot)

• New Age Today #18: August 2, 2006, "Tabatha Cicero - author of Tarot Talismans" w/Tiffany Johnson

The podcasts are on the Prime Podcast Network: http://www.primepodcast.com/new_age_bio.htm

I don't know if these are significant to lend weight to verifiability and notability, but here they are. If someone thinks they should be added and knows the proper format, please do. JMax555 06:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

In the magazine ref, is there any quote or detail that could be added to the article. Generally, for something to be a reference, it needs to verify something in the article. Otherwise it is just further reading. Unless there is something special about the podcasts, they probably should just be linked as external links, if there is a direct link to them. IPSOS (talk) 12:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)