Talk:The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc./Archive 2

"Autobiographical" articles

Just a quick note about WP policies as they apply to this article. An article about an organization or website may use that's organization's website or other self-published sources only as a source for information about itself. All other references must be reliable published sources per WP:RS (e.g. published books). In particular, information about any other organization must have such a reliable published (book) reference, and information from the website of a competing organization may not used for citations in this article. For details, see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources in articles about themselves. -999 21:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Do not delete

Frater, it's poor form to undo the work of other editors. By all means, add to it. But cite as you add. It's extremely rude to remove another editors work like that. Please read WP:POINT, etc. about trying to make a point by taking a dispute with an editor to another article. It's frowned upon. Thought you might want to know... -999 (Talk) 03:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted him twice now. He still is not learning, sadly. Zos 03:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, it appears we may have to report Frater FiatLux soon, I've reverted him 3 times. Zos 04:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Will I have to tell him that two editors can gate a single editor? And gangs are certainly not within Wikiquette. Nobody can stop him from adding cited information, but two can stop him from a revert-revert approach to bear fruit. -999 (Talk) 04:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

This is Vandalism by maggot, I’ve reverted back to the verifiable accurate version, maggots cited version in incorrect. Discuss your changes in the talk page like I have. You will all have to prove your sources like I have. I will be reporting you all. You’re all obviously pro Cicero propagandists. Frater FiatLux 04:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Its not "my" version, but its the one that has citations. I'm not pro-anything either. Please report me, it will only prove you wrong. Thank you. Zos 04:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Just remember, guys, no personal attacks. -999 (Talk) 04:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to ask where you discussed the need to delete cited material on this talk page Frater FiatLux? I'd also like to ask that you address me by the name I sign my comments, some might get confused as to who you are talking to. Thank you. Zos 04:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Your name is Synergistic Maggot and you and 999 have been trying to present a biased and Cicero POV page here showing Cicero's "legal superiority". It's obvious. Please discontinue in this line of editing. Kephera975 01:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

We are allowed to present any cited information we wish. as long as it is cite, you should not remove it, but add to it. If you remove other editors material, you will be reverted. If you leave it in, then we can discuss the relevance of your additions. -999 (Talk) 02:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and if your remove this cited material, you will be reverted as well, and we can discuss the relevency of what you previously edited in in order to show HOGD, Inc.'s "legal superiority". Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view policy. Kephera975 02:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

But if you remove our in the process of adding yours, we may revert. Try adding it without removing our, then we will discuss it's lack of pertinance to this article. -999 (Talk) 15:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

POV Bias

The conflict caused by pro-Cicero users 999, Zos, and Cicero Lisencee JMax555 on the Golden Dawn Tradition, then on the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (Rosicrucian Order of A+O) page has spilled over to this page as well as onto the Heremetic Order of the Golden Dawn main page as well. 999, Zos, and JMax555 are unrelenting in their agenda of promoting a pro-Cicero POV and edit out anything that does not fit in their POV agenda. They refuse to discuss and compromise. Some of us will no longer allow their bullying, however--Zanoni666 01:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

What we have here is a miunderstanding. A large one. All we would like, is for you to ADD info to the article, not delete cited material. This is not how you edit articles. Zos 03:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You mean as long as we all toe the JMax-999-Cicero party line and promote only their revisionist vision of GD history, right? Just because material is cited does not make it true. Just because it is verifiable does not make it free of revisionist POV either, as in the scewed revisionist vision of Golden Dawn history being rammed down everyones throats by JMax555, 999, and Zos with their guerrilla edit warfare tactics!--Zanoni666 07:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not allow you to remove cited information! Don't you get it? Please see WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." By verifiable, it means that one can cite a reference and the material is included in the cited reference. It doesn't matter whether you think the infomation is true or not - you MAY NOT REMOVE IT. So STOP. -999 (Talk) 13:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

999, you may not publish shameless advertising for fundraising campaigns on Wikipedia. Pleaes stop immediately. Reference your POV biased version includes: --Zanoni666 14:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. Zanoni666, you're HermeticScholar? I just checked the history on this talk page and it appears you are using two user names. Im not sure if this is going to help your argument at all but we need to come to a compromise here. Please allow cited material to remain, and if it conflicts, then we can remove the sources that dont add up, and maybe place a few statments in a controversy section in the article. Sound fair? Zos 15:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

We can, and have to, cite any page from which we obtained information. We can even add to the article about the lawsuit and directly mention the fundraising campaign - it's information provided by the org on its website. -999 (Talk) 15:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

We shall see if this is true. I am presently discussing this with Admin. I would suggest that you guys quit your gang tactics and work together to gain consensus. Be advised that Wikipedia administration is presently considering the possibility of deleting everything about the HOGD due to the way this is presently coming down. Please stop the ramrod tactics and begin to compromise and collaborate instead.--Zanoni666 15:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I quote:

"I'm not sure any of this material is encyclopedic anyway. I'm still thinking about just recommending the whole lot for deletion. Tom Harrison Talk 15:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)"

Still want to keep trying to bring in more people to out-revert us instead of workijng for compromise. Go ahead then and get everything deleted. Is this not warning enough from Admin? Wake up and smell the coffee guys before it is too late. They are aware of all of the pages involved in this as well. --Zanoni666 15:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

We've always been willing to compromise. Just don't remove our material when you add yours. Get it? -999 (Talk) 15:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I also have been willing to compromise. And I'm not a member of a gang. I'd like you to stop accusing others of being members of golden dawn also. Thank you. Zos 16:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Tom Harrison would be shot-down in any AFD if he tried nominate this article for deleation. Don't be silly. I think you misunderstand the roll of administrators on wikipedia... they don't have any more say in policy then we (non-admins) have. ---J.S (t|c) 23:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of addition of inappropriate material + survey

Regardie

It was Cris Monnastre, aka Patricia Behman, who was Israel Regardie’s primary student, having studied magic with him for hundreds of hours. Under Regardie’s tutelage, Behman founded the Osiris Khenti Amenti temple of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn in Los Angeles in 1982, then travelled in with Regardie to Columbus, Georgia to be initiated into the Adeptus Minor grade in a Vault of the Adepti built by the Ciceros. This visit was the first time that the Chic Cicero met Israel Regardie. During the visit, Cris Monnastre and Adam Forrest were initiated by Regardie into the Adeptus Minor grade and Eva Cicero into the Neophyte grade.

• Again, this is immaterial to the article. Belongs in biographical articles about the subjects of the paragraph. -999 (Talk) 16:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Omit - not pertinent. -999 (Talk) 16:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed: How does this help the article in question? It could remain if it establishes actually history, yet its only proving a point (that someone was initiated and by who). It might need to be moved to a bio page such as Chris Monnastre, if this is the legal name. Zos 17:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree: the information belongs in seperate articles - JMax555 22:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree: The founders of institutions are highly relevent to those institutions.Kephera975 04:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • No opinion - but it appears to lack context. It needs an explanation about how and why this is significant to the organization. Perhaps a quote should be used. It's not clear to me that all the text is from the actual cited source. Is the sentence "This visit was the first time that the Chic Cicero met Israel Regardie" supportable, or is it actually an unsupported allegation introduced by the WP editor who wrote this. ---Baba Louis 18:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree: We do not need 15,000 seprarate articles on the modern HOGD. Chic Cicero does not deserve one. The founders of institutions are however highly relevent to those institutions. Furthermore, it is relevant to put claims made on the website into perspective.--Zanoni666 19:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Nope, you can only rebut claims in the article. If it's not in the article, there is no claim to rebut. Rebut it on your own website. -999 (Talk) 20:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Ok, so are we saying that Israel Regardie and his foremost student who founded HOGD, Inc. are not pertinent at all to HOGD, Inc.? I would be amazed to hear HOGD, Inc. claim that Regarie is not pertinent to their Order in helping found it. If there were no Regardie, there would be no contemporary Golden Dawn. The statements including Cris Monnastre are verifiable in Regardie's own "black brick" book. All of this is verifiable by the citations given. Kephera975 04:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
        • I've got Regardie's "black brick" Golden Dawn book open in my lap. I can't find ANY reference to the founding of the HOGD Inc. in her introduction anywhere. She says in 1979 she started her magical practice with simple banishing rituals according to Regardie's advice. In 1981 he gifted her with many pieces of "magical paraphenalia". Between 1981 and 1983 she studied under his tutelage (the "hundreds of hours of personal instruction" source). In 1983 they travelled together to New Zealand. When they returned, she never saw him again. That is the sum total of the historical account for the period in question. There is nothing about founding temples, or about group magical work, much less any mention of an association with Mr. Cicero or founding an organization with him. Since this source does not mention the HOGD Inc., how is it a source for anything regading thei article, except that Ms. Monnastre was a private student of Regardie for two years? - JMax555 00:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
        • I haven't seen a reference that says that Cris Monnastre helped to found HOGD, Inc. Have to have that before any details about Cris become relevant. -999 (Talk) 16:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Continuing discussion

I don't find anything wrong with this bit.

During the visit, Cris Monnastre and Adam Forrest were initiated by Regardie into the Adeptus Minor grade and Eva Cicero into the Neophyte grade.

So I've gone ahead and added it to the article and added strike marks above to indicate that we are now only discussing inclusion of the remainder of the material -999 (Talk) 15:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Schism

Following a schism in 1994, Ms. Monnastre was summarily replaced on the HOGD, Inc board of directors by Tabatha Cicero. Ms. Monnastre continued to operate her original Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, together with David Griffin, independently of the Ciceros.

• Immaterial to article, belongs in bio of Ms. Monnastre, perhaps? The article should be about the org itself based on the orgs website, not a criticism of the org based on the view of a competing order. -999 (Talk) 16:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Omit - immaterial. -999 (Talk) 16:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Undecided: This shows who is running the org right now and why. I'm inclined to say that the first sentence should stay in, while the second sentence is immaterial. Zos 17:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Omit - immaterial, and in dispute between the factions. On the HOGD Inc. website it states that Ms. Monnastre voluntarily resigned, rather than being "summarily replaced". But there is no verifiable documentation either way, so it should be omitted. - JMax555 22:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Include: Again, the founders and the history of prcedent founders is of essential importance to any institution or organization. Kephera975 04:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, if anything is to be included, it should be from the HOGD, Inc. site - this article is about HOGD and what it says about itself. The opinions of others, unless they be printed in a reliable source, are not appropriate for this article. That's very clearly stated in WP:V, which is non-negotiable. -999 (Talk) 04:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Omit - What is the source for the phrase "summarily replace"? Who said it? Without a source, it should not be included. ---Baba Louis 18:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Include': Again, the founders and the history of prcedent founders is of essential importance to any institution or organization. Besides you guys already included the corporate record. Either these records are relevant or they are not. If so, then the board members are also relevant.
    • Are you saying that the records say "summarily replaced"? If not, that is POV. -999 (Talk) 20:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Website references

Kephera, the citations of the date are published in Wikipedia-acceptable sources, so they can be used. Which, if you think about it, also means if Mr. Cicero is going to wave something around in court to prove his contention, it's going to be copies of those books, not a print-out of a Wikipeida article. This whole "legal advantage" argument is nonsensical. You know very well a judge isn't going to give a load of dingo's kidneys what Wikipedia says about anything. It's notoriously unreliable and carries zero weight in a court case.

But, I'm sorry to say, what's in books published under a major imprint are the trump card in the Wikipedia sourcing game. If something's in a book like that, it can be used in Wikipedia, period. Even if you think it's a lie, even if there's legal wrangling going on over it. - JMax555 07:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Kephera et al. has a point that the link to the "Feather of Ma'at" page on the HOGD Inc. website has material in it that is negative toward the HOGD/A+O.

If the link to the HOGD Inc. website that describes it's own history is so objectionable, how about using their front page, which states, "The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn is a non-profit Florida organization whose goal is the continued preservation of that body of knowledge known as Hermeticism or the Western Esoteric Tradition. This organization promotes the teachings of the original Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, a magical fraternity founded in London in 1888 by Dr. William Wynn Westcott and Samuel Liddell MacGregor Mathers", and "The Golden Dawn was designed by its founders to be an Hermetic Society dedicated to the philosophical, spiritual, and psychic evolution of humanity." Their front page contains nothing about court cases or fundraising. Would that be acceptable? I've placed an edit in the page to this effect. - JMax555 15:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I could agree with this. What would the problem with this be? Why get controversial on purpose? I'm noticing in the text below that 999 does not even answer this question and encourages perpetuating the conflict. Why? Kephera975 16:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it should not be changed. I got a piece of information from that page, which is completely acceptable practice. I mean, the A+O page links to the Agreement between HOGD, Inc. and A+O, which they think is supportive of their case. Why should they get to link to material about the case and the HOGD, Inc. article not be allowed to? -999 (Talk) 15:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting that you have this opinion here, but under the A+O page you have this to say:

"I don't know, and don't care, what that result should be. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. That's why WP:RS says we can't use primary sources (i.e. uninterpreted legalese), only court transcipts. Either side could still win, or negotiate with each other, or whatnot. The outcome is not yet known. It will be a matter of interpreting the law - I don't know know if this exists, but it should- Wikipedia is not a judge, jury or courtroom - from what I understand, the case is still pending. Isn't it normal legal procedure that nobody wants to say anything about the dispute so as not to bias the case or something? I think "There is a dispute..." however you want to phrase it is what we need to be reporting here." Or just not mention it at all. Up to all the editors, right? -999 (Talk) 03:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hermetic_Order_of_the_Golden_Dawn_%28Rosicrucian_Order_of_A%2BO%29"

So you're arguing that HOGD, Inc. should be allowed their side on their page while the A+O should not be allowed thier side on their page without prefacing it. What's the deal, 999? Even if you aren't a member of any organization, you are certainly taking sides. Kephera975 12:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

What "side" the verifiable citations favor is irrelevant. The citations of the founding date of HOGD Inc. come from books published under major imprints. Whether it is in fact true or not doesn't matter here. Verifiability, not "truth", remember?

You may think what's allowable under Wikipedia rules is unfair to your "side". I can understand why you think so. But that doesn't change the rules. If the your "side" of the story is only sourcable to the HOGD/A+O website, it has to be prefaced as such. - JMax555 01:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, material and citations from the A+O website are completely disallowed in this article. Self-published website material is only allowed in the article about the site and it's owning organization. So stuff from the A+O site may ONLY be used in THAT article. -999 (Talk) 02:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, see above quote, "not be allowed their side on their page" by Kephera975 - that's what I was replying to. But what I think Kephera is complaining about is not "allowing" their negative commentary about HOGD Inc. from their website to be used in their own (HOGD/A+O) article.

What I think he's not understanding is that the reference to the founding date of HOGD Inc., which has a verifiable source, is allowable in the article about HOGD Inc., however the dispute about that founding date, which is only sourced to the HOGD/A+O website, can't be used in an article about HOGD/A+O, because that particular datum is not about their group (the subject of the article), but about another group. At least, that's how I read the rules. Of course, they can say anything they damn well please on their own webpage about other groups, but they can't do it on Wikipedia unless it has a source other than their own webpage.

I think NEITHER of them should get to do so. They should keep their legal dispute out of the pages of Wikipedia. But if the article on HOGD/A+O remains locked down, then you might be right. Put the info back in then. I was just trying to make peace. (See how terribly biased I am?) - JMax555 15:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and at the moment, the point is moot. Their webpage has been knocked out by a massive Denial-of-Service hacker attack. Someone out there thinks it's worth breaking federal law to silence them. Curious, that. - JMax555 15:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that. I hope the culprits get caught and imprisoned.

Actually, I think that the fact that there is a legal dispute is a valid topic for inclusion. As long as the articles do not attempt any legal analysis, it is completely valid to mention it and perfectly acceptable for each Order to link to their web page on their site that discusses it. -999 (Talk) 15:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I hope they get caught too. Apparently the A+O site has been hit with massive DDOS attacks on at least four separate occasions over the past years as well that took down not only thier site, but crippled many sites on the same server as well, Curiosly, the person who reported this latest attack (on HOGD, Inc.) on the internet is alleged to have at one time been a hacker himself. I am not suggesting that he is behind any of these DDOS attacks, but someone certainly seems to have it in for HOGD orders and their web sites. It would be great to get to the bottom of this and find out who keeps taking down those servers. Quite despicable, really. On the other hand, HOGD, Inc. made some statements of questionable judgement in that last communique without properly considering the potential consequences of such a knee-jerk reaction.--Zanoni666 02:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like a threat. Is it? ---Baba Louis 15:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

External input

Hello, I found this page listed on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy. I'll be looking it over and then adding my independent opinion to the fray. ---Baba Louis 17:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice try but not very honest. The truth is that you were recruited for reversiond on yout talk page by 999. Please be more honest in the future if you expect to be of any value at all here. Under the circumstances, You can by no means be considered independent. Don't worry though. I am sure 999 will recruit some pther 'external' participant but will be more careful not to get caught this time to preserve at least the 'appearance' of 'independence.'--Zanoni666 05:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you calling me a liar? You're wrong - I came here from RfC just as I said - look at the time stamps - I posted the above message at 17:43 UTC. 999 posted a request to also look at another article at 19:31 UTC, almost two hours later.

Now you can start acting more civil or I'll file a user conduct RfC on you so fast it will make your head spin. ---Baba Louis 15:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Zanoni666

Ok, this is a bit strange now. I've seen this user, in this talk pages history switch between two different user names. First he/she was HermeticScholar, and now it appears that they are Kephera975 as well. This is in turn affecting the consensus. Zos 20:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I think Zanoni666 simply made a cut and paste error. Look at the time stamps. Apparently coming up with his own words is beyond him. Next time, just say "agree with Kephera975", okay, Z? -999 (Talk) 20:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

More accusations, is it? A user hardly needs a whole section devoted to them based on some witch hunt, thank you. Kephera975 03:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I moved your comment, please note the time stamp. I wasnt accusing anyone of anything, just saying its a bit strange. And it was. I was waiting for a comment from Zanoni666 on this. Plus, this is a talk page. Headers can be created to discuss the editing, and the users who edit, so its like seperating this from the rest of the conversaion, k? Zos 03:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I suspect thqat you Zos are a sock of SynergysticMaggott. How do you report that agaiin 999?--Zanoni666 05:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Zos is SynergeticMaggot! Zos is simply his signature line and links to the correct user page. -999 (Talk) 15:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if I've rattled you enough to assume I am me. Zos is the nickname is put when it asked me for it upon starting my account. But thanks for the concern Zanoni! Zos 15:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Done

Looks like the addition of this has consensus, assuming a good citation is provided. The second part is already in the article, so... can you give a date for this meeting? That would be helpful.

Following this meeting, Cris Monnastre, Chic Cicero, and Adam Forrest began working together in the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, later incorporated in 1988 as a non-profit organization in the State of Florida, with Chic Cicero listed as its registered agent.

• The verifiable part of this is already included in the article. Do you have a source for the "Following this meeting, Cris Monnastre, Chic Cicero, and Adam Forrest began working together in the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn" part? -999 (Talk) 16:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Include additional info only if verifiable. -999 (Talk) 16:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Omit: Remove it to the talk page until its verifiable. Zos 17:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Omit: Remove to talk page until its verifiable. - JMax555 22:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Include: This is relevent historical information on the organization and its establishment. Cris Monnastre, Adam Forrest, and Chic Cicero deserve to be included as the original founders of this organization. Kephera975 04:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Only if you have a book source for it. What book is it from? -999 (Talk) 04:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Include - if there is a reputable source that can be cited for the three parties working together within the organization at this time. Should include a date. Omit if no reputable source. -Baba Louis 18:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Include: This is relevent historical information on the organization and its establishment. Cris Monnastre, Adam Forrest, and Chic Cicero deserve to be included as the original founders of this organization. --Zanoni666 20:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Trash

Since the following appears simply to be an uncited and uncitable attempt to smear Chic Cicero in violation of WP:LIVING, I am moving it here to the trash section. If you want to revive it, please provide a reference to somebody who made these allegations in print. -999 (Talk) 16:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

OTO Camp

In 1978, Chic Cicero was initiated into the Ordo Templi Orientis and began to operate an OTO camp in Columbus, Georgia.

• This is immaterial to the article and more appropriate to a biography of Chic Cicero. It has nothing to do with the subject of the article.
  • Omit not pertinant to article. -999 (Talk) 16:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree: A bio page should be started for Chic Cicero and Tabitha, for good faith, and any content pertaining to it should also be placed there. Zos 17:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree: not pertinent to the article. - JMax555 22:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree: The above quote is pertinent to the origins of HOGD, Inc. and is verifiable.Kephera975 04:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Exactly how is it pertinent? Be specific. What published source makes it pertinent? -999 (Talk) 04:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Omit - this information lacks context (how is it connected to the subject of the article, why does it matter?) ---Baba Louis 18:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree This is essential information about Chic Cicero.--Zanoni666 19:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Who is not the subject of the article. Why don't you start Chic Cicero and put it in there. How, exactly, is it pertinent - explain? -999 (Talk) 20:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Dont play stupid. I know that you are not. You know full well its relevance. Cicero is the president of HOGD, Inc. and is personally reaponsible for many of its policies, including the legal mess and all of the garbage on the forums, etc.--Zanoni666 00:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
        • You don't play stupid. What does his alleged OTO membership have to do with the HOGD? - nothing unless a published source has made an allegation that it does; a WP editor may not make such an allegation - that's called original research. -999 (Talk) 00:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Cicero has subsequently claimed that he instead operated a temple of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn at that time, although there exists no verifiable evidence of this except Mr. Cicero’s unsubstantiated autobiographical claims (and hearsay based on the repetition of these claims by other authors).

• Who is making this claim? Is their a reliable source that makes this criticism, or is it original research on the part of the editor? -999 (Talk) 16:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Omit - not verifiable. -999 (Talk) 16:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree: Leave the comment on this talk page under a special no comment header called "Awaiting Sources". I think this is how wikipedia actually prefers it. Zos 17:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree: Frater FiatLux et al. simply thinks the reputable published sources of this date are lying. His opinion is not relevant to the fact that the cite exists in a source permissible under Verifiability guidelines. - JMax555 22:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree: The website of HOGD, Inc. verfies that they are claiming to have been a GD temple while there is verifiable evidence to the contrary. Kephera975 04:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • What is your source? Without the name of someone who has made this observation in print, then it is WP:WEASEL, "somebody says". -999 (Talk) 04:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Omit - there is no precedent that allows you to introduce negative information into an article without a citation from a reputable source. ---Baba Louis 18:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree: The website of HOGD, Inc. verfies that they are claiming to have been a GD temple while there is verifiable evidence to the contrary. --Zanoni666 19:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Precisely what verifiable evidence are you refering to? Cite your source that said this. -999 (Talk) 20:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Continuing discussion

What precisely is this supposed prove? How is affiliation with one organization incompatible with affiliation with another? Somebody's not stating some premise here that begins, "Because he was in the OTO, he couldn't have been founding a Golden Dawn temple." But that's just a bald assertion, so you're trying to hide what you're really trying to say in a glamour. Bad form. Out with it. -999 (Talk) 03:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The part I've struck is right out' unless you have a quote. It appears to violate WP:LIVING, potential derogatory statement against a living person, and this requires the strictest verifiability - who said it, where? Quote it. -999 (Talk) 04:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Regardie

Contrary to popular misunderstanding, Chic Cicero was never initiated by Israel Regardie, but rather by HOGD, Inc. board member, Adam Forrest, and there exists no verifiable evidence that Chic Cicero ever even met Israel Regardie in person on more than two occasions.

• Again, who says this? Where is the reliable source that makes this claim in print? -999 (Talk) 16:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Omit - not verifiable. -999 (Talk) 16:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree: Place this statment under a header called "awaiting sources" but only on the talk page. Zos 17:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree: Who initiated Mr. Cicero should be in an article about Mr. Cicero. It is irrelevant to the nature of the HOGD Inc. - JMax555 22:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree: Israel Regardie is relevent to the formation of the contemporary Golden Dawn, including HOGD, Inc., in a paramount way. There is no verifiable information that Cicero was initiated by Regardie, who is considered the link from the old Stella Matutina to the contemporary American orders. It is relevent historical information. Kephera975 04:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • There was no claim in the article that he was. You can't put criticism of a claim that has not been made. Again, you have to provide a book source - who says this? -999 (Talk) 04:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Omit - lack of verifiable evidence is not proof of anything. You can't just say things like "There is no proof that X has stopped beating his wife, therefore he must be a wifebeater." It's invalid logic. Now if somebody has said this in print, they could then be quoted. However, it would say more about their lack of logic than about the subject, so including it would still be questionable. -Baba Louis 18:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Include - This is essential information about Chic Cicero and HOGD, Inc. --Zanoni666 19:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • But still requires a citable source. Where is this from? -999 (Talk) 20:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Continuing discussion

popular misunderstanding - this is simply a WP:WEASELterm used to introduce a null subject - a claim which itself has not been cited. It doesn't exist. From anything, anything follows. You have to document that someone has made a claim first. Then we can discuss whether there's a suitable source for a rejoinder.

"was never", "no verifiable evidence" - lack of evidence does not prove anything. This is uncited original speculation, so struck. -999 (Talk) 16:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk instead of revert

Your revert game will not work, 999. When are you guys going to stop playing games and talk in good faith?--Zanoni666 17:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I have. There are open questions in this section to which you have not responded. The ball is in your court. I'm waiting to hear how the OTO camp is pertinent and what source you have that says it is pertinent. -999 (Talk) 17:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Protection

This article is hereby protected. Resolve your disputes here, on this talk page. This article will not be unprotected until a concensus is reached about the disputed material. Once a concensus is achieved, contact me to request unprotection. Page protection is not an endorsement of the current page version. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 19:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Mediation.

You will all note that I have filed, and requested for mediation in this disputation; I feel the time is certainly right at this stage, seeing we’re in a deadlocked situation with no coherent consensus, and moreover, now the edit/revert wars (games), are over, as I requested the pages to be locked; to now put forward serious negociation, proposals and substantial compromises. I want to seek mediation in this highly problematic, long-standing case now, as want to propose what I think will settle the disputation by making significant compromises and proposals. I fear that if I were to proceed in executing these to the discussion page, that under current circumstances and without mediation, my proposals and compromises will be lost; and further unrest and schism will be the only result, as per tradition with this discussion. I would like to make these proposals with a mediator involved to as I feel this will put a halt to the never ending arguments, intrigues and disputes. In the hope that some immediate ground will be made on this now that the edit/revert warring is not now taking precedence over serious discussion and consensus building.

I trust you will pledge your agreement to the mediation and start the ball can start rolling and this can be sorted out properly and in a dignified manner. I will be shortly making my recommendations and proposals to the discussion page herein, very shortly.

At this juncture, and in recent days, I have been exceedingly reticent at involving myself in any of the supra postings, as it never seems to get us anywhere, thus, I have indeed, refrained from doing so. I now will now involve myself again with constructive consensus building hopefully, under the guidance of a mediator; any other effort is completely wasted otherwise in my own opinion, as it only degenerates into further argumentative schism.

I trust you will find this in order gentlemen. Frater FiatLux 21:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The meditaion page is here, for all those who are involved. Zos 05:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)