Talk:The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc./Archive 3

HOGD vs. HOGD, Inc.

Hey folks - the "Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn" is the legal name of the Order. There is no "inc." after its name. The HOGD, Inc. coporation is just a coporation, and has only three officers. It has no Temples, Chiefs or anything else that could make it a stand-alone Golden Dawn Order. As the entry already states, the Order was founded in 1977. The corporation was founded in 1988. They are not one and the same. I'm willing to meet half way on calling the entry "Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc." simply because 1) it helps distinguish this entry from the one for the original Golden Dawn. And 2) because it would be silly to have a separate entry for the modern HOGD *and* the corporation that was founded to protect the modern HOGD (and several other Orders to boot). My problem is with treating the modern HOGD as "one and the same" with HOGD, Inc. Kheph777 12:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read more carefully, the subject of the sentence is "The history of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc.". Not putting the Inc. is confusing, as the history of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn started much earlier. Your criticism assumes that the Inc. is the subject of the sentence; it is not, the history of the Inc. is the subject. 999 (Talk) 17:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I would really hate to see us begin to quibble over semantics. The fact is that the article- as it is written- makes it appear as if the Cicero HOGD were named "HOGD, Inc." It isn't - and I think we should make the distinction clear in the article. I would suggest giving "HOGD, Inc" its own section, explaining its relationship to both the HOGD and the greater community. Kheph777 05:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC) Edited: Kheph777 09:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

A bit silly of them to confuse the issue by recycling an old name. It's like Engelbert Humperdinck and Engelbert Humperdinck (singer). Same name, same artistic field, but quite different people. We need some easy way to differentiate the two. Fuzzypeg☻ 21:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be a 'tradition' in its own right. It's an homage thing, I'd say. I'm happy when groups admit they are modern and don't try to imply they ARE the older Order. Kheph777 09:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Which looks like what has just been done now with the following content which is obviously contradictory or confusing at best: "According to published accounts, Chic Cicero was one of the key people who helped Israel Regardie resurrect a legitimate, initiatory branch of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn in the early 1980s.[10]" So we are saying here that the HOGD, Inc. has resurrected a legitimate branch of the original Order. I am editing this out. You aren't even stating it as a claim but more as fact.

Kephera975 17:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Kephera975

Article or advertisement

This article currently reads as an advertisement for the order rather than an article about the order. I suggest trimming some of the lengthy quotes down to more simple statements; also remove the "according to the official website of the HOGD(R)" structures that preface many statements and instead simply just stick the attribution in a footnote. I haven't yet checked the article for neutral point of view, but fixing these initial points will make the article seem much more authoritative, rather than a self-promotion. Fuzzypeg☻ 01:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, in my opinion this article as well as all reference to ALL modern Golden Dawn groups should be completely eliminated from Wikipidia as they are not encyclopedic. Moreover, despite numerous attempts at mediation and compromise, disputes always arise regarding which groups should be included as well as have links. The best solution is to keep an objective, historical article, however, without any mention whatsoever regarding modern groups. This will end these senseless conflicts once and for all. Protection of pages did not help. Compromises have only helped temporarily. Now that the lawsuit is over, HOGD, Inc. is sending agents to use Wikipedia as a means of advertisement and to attempt to misrepresent the truth to thier advantage. As long as this continues, there will be disputes erupting on a regular basis. I say, get the lot of them out of here and we will not have this nonsense any longer! --Hogd2007 02:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The irony of this is that the behemoth quotation from the talking head in the middle of this article talks about the importance of not "self-aggrandizing". This is clearly a vanity page and is, as it stands, a possible candidate for deletion. Kephera975 05:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

That won't do. Regardless of how het up things seem to be here, you both need to assume good faith of other editors. The article won't become perfect immediately, but it should hopefully improve with our combined efforts. The most important thing is to represent truth. I believe an article is warranted for this organisation, for the simple fact that it is a very interesting part of the recent history of magical orders. In fact the controversy over names and charters is one of the most interesting things about this particular organisation, and that controversy alone is almost worth an article in itself. This is what most readers of this article will be interested in, I'd guess. And I reckon this article will have its fair share of interested readers.

The best way to deal with controversy in an article is to fairly and fully represent the views and arguments of each of the parties. As such, removing information that contradicts your position is a dirty tactic. Instead you should offer some opposing evidence or testimony that undermines that information. Make sense? All this talk about removing articles is a little too eager, and calling the addition of cited comments as "vandalism" or "spam" is insulting to the editors who have added them, in good faith, and suggests you are not being cautious enough in fairly evaluating these sources. In fact, lets not mince words here, to call this link "spam" or "vandalism" is patently rubbish and you won't impress or convince other editors by throwing your weight around in this way. Fuzzypeg☻ 05:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Spurious lineage claims edited

It is patently erroneous and factually incorrect in the extreme, that I. Regardie initiated Charles “Chic” Cicero into the Golden Dawn. Thus, I have edited forthwith, all spurious claims that Cicero’s order (HOGD, Inc.) holds initiatory lineage to the original order through I. Regardie’s lineal transmissions. Cicero has even admitted himself that he has never received any form of initiation from I. Regardie. In support of this, I offer the following original documentation, which has also been widely published on the Internet and is unquestionably signed by Cicero himself.

File:CiceroRegardieInitiation.pdf

The astute reader may note from the supra documentation, that Cicero clearly states that he ‘self-initiated’ himself into the 0=0 Neophyte degree of the Golden Dawn. However, Cicero was only thereafter physically initiated by Adam Forrest, who was a Regardie initiate, from the 1=10 degree of Zelator onwards. Hence, Cicero was never physically initiated by Adam Forrest as a Neophyte and Cicero’s non-traditional and significant irregularities exhibited in his grade initiations in the documentation supra, does indeed confirm that all of Cicero’s subsequent initiations from Adam Forrest are, in fact, invalid. Cicero made a critical error in judgement in not getting Adam Forrest to initiate him from 0=0 upwards, as Cicero can not now claim to hold any lineal affiliation from I. Regardie as his initiations by Adam Forrest are, by virtue of this irregularity, null and void. The supra documentation specificially details this and is undoubtedly signed by Cicero himself. MA'AT 22:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

We don't need any organizational squabbles like this on Wikipedia. An email, which can be easily forged, does not conform to Wikipedia reliability requirements. Also, you can't upload PDF files to Wikipedia, they will simply be deleted. GlassFET 22:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Emails do conform, hwoever, if they are evidence from US federal court. This does not address the real problem, however, which is that of competing groups wishing to present their own, biased view of history. HOGD Inc has been sending agents to attempt this on a regular basis. The only solution is to keep only oe historical article eliminating ALL reference to madern groups on an equal basis. The lot of them are not encyclopedic anyway. I say "give them ALL the boot." --Hogd2007 02:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You are right. We also do not need you and user Fetpeg reverting without comment here. Disagreements should be solved by intelligent discussion rather than unilateral reversion as you just did putting spam and links providiing information in violation of Wikipedia's rules of verifiablity back into the main HOGD article. In this instance, however, you have shown more objectivity. The problem is, however, that the SRIA makes spurious and unverifiable claims that are hotly contested, yet nonetheless linked to from this article as though they were true. I believe that your change helps. Adding the word verifiable helps even more. Why do you insist on including spam and unverifiable information in the main article. Please be reasonable.--Hogd2007 02:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't be insulting. "Fetpeg" didn't revert without comment. I gave clear comments explaining my edit. GlassFET also gave a comment, although he wasn't quite so verbose. If you don't like the edits, then please explain what your problem with them is, and we can have a fact-based discussion of their merits. Now I not from above regarding the PDF: yes the US federal court may use emails as evidence, if it can track them back to some server and authenticate the source. Wikipedia is different in that every reader needs to be able to authenticate the source, within reason. The file you uploaded cannot be authenticated by me or anyone but yourself. Fuzzypeg☻ 05:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Reverting non-controversial edits

Please be respectful to the other editors of this article. Do not revert multiple changes just because it is the easiest way to get back to "your" version of the article. Any non-controversial changes, like changes to style, headings, outline to conform to WP style standards, should not be reverted. It is rude. GlassFET 15:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Maturity please

There's a whole bunch of you who have taken to rudeness and insults right from the get go. This is not acceptable in Wikipedia. This is supposed to be a pleasant and collaborative community of adults, so please help us make it that. The fact that we each hold different opinions should be no obstacle to this, as long as we are interested in establishing truth in the article. There are clear Wikipedia policies regarding attribution and neutral point of view, as well as guidelines on etiquette, but the basic things to bear in mind are:

1. Always assume the best intentions of other editors, and graciously answer their queries and concerns. Words like "spam", "lying" and "vandalism" are highly insulting, and if there is the slightest doubt that someone's contributions are "spam", "lying" or "vandalism", then don't accuse them of this.
2. All statements in the article must be attributable to a reliable source. That is, non-controversial statements don't necessarily need any attribution (citation) as long as it would be possible to easily supply attribution if it were requested. Statements that are challenged must have attribution. The simplest way to challenge a statement is to add a {{Fact|date=month year}} tag following the statement, and explain the nature of your query or concern. Don't demean the other editors' contributions though.

Phrases like "snarkiness", "vandalised", "angry bias", "bullshit", "vanity", "prob. forged" are absolutely out of line, and are unwelcome in this community. Either improve your manners or go somewhere else. Fuzzypeg☻ 22:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment

I've removed one section (almost) entirely composed of quotes, and removed another long quote from the next section. I believe this resolves the issue. IPSOS (talk) 20:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a third party reference for the contentions claim of a connection or lineage between the historical organization of Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn and this organization, The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. found here: SRIA: Lineal Affiliations, Charters and Honorary Degrees. Kephera975 20:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a third-party references that claims it is contentious. IPSOS (talk) 22:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a controversial claim to claim lineal descent from the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn with only a web page. I don't need a reference for that. The article does. Kephera975 23:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Here ya go, from T Allen Greenfield, ROSICRUCIANISM AND: THE ROSICRUCIAN CONTROVERSY, "The S.R.I.A. unquestionably gave rise to the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, and spawned an American counterpart, the Societas Rosicruciana in America, which continues (since 1964) through the good offices of the Qabalistic Alchemist Arcanum." IPSOS (talk) 23:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The same page contadicts that claim. It says, right after your quote, which is taken out of context, that the S.R.I.A. has been continued but that any claims to the "Golden Dawn" are false. What is this source, by the way? Who is it published by? It looks like its from a newsgroup of some kind. Kephera975 00:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment I came here because of the RFC, but I am not sure of what the controversy is or what help you guys are looking for? Can somebody please, in a neutral manner, present the two sides of the issue so that those unfamiliar with the controversy can weigh in.Balloonman 23:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I will be as neutral as possible. The controversy is between myself and User:IPSOS, mainly. User:IPSOS believes that this article is verifiable and notable in whole. I believe that it is not entirely verifiable, reads like an ad, and contains claims which are not verifiable, like the claim now under discussion. I have nominated the article for AfD for the reasons given for my side, and IPSOS would like to keep for the same reasons given. Kephera975 00:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

You have already taken it to AfD, and now you are in a panic because the community does not all agree with you. You have been vociferously arguing your case in the AfD. You should have simply sit back and let the community decide. Things are are done on consensus here, and not on your say-so. And the controversy is not simply between you and me. A number of other editors thought the article should be kept. You are a single-purpose account as evidenced by your contributions. Your edits and attitude have been extremely disruptive, including nominating this article and five related articles for deletion simply to make a point ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]). Now that your unstated goal has not been met, you are continuing to try to recruit and convince editors to agree with you. I think you are a ripe candidate for a community ban. You have exhausted my patience. Now I simply need to wait for you to exhaust the patience of a few more editors. IPSOS (talk) 00:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

My intentions have only been to keep Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn bias free and fair. That is what they (my intentions) have always been. You have not answered my questions about your reference. Claims need to be verifiable for Wikipedia. You are behaving as though you have a vulcan mind link with me and know all of my intentions. You don't.Kephera975 00:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm done talking to you. I've explained my point of view and lack of conflict of interest repeatedly, and you continue to make false accusations and attempts to disrupt Wikipedia process. You need to leave. IPSOS (talk) 00:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok then, my conclusion then is that the claims of lineage to the original Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn given in this article are unverifiable. Kephera975 00:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I was not the author of that material. Perhaps you could wait more than a few minutes for other editors to respond, such as the one who did add it. Sheesh, there is no deadline. Chill a bit, would you? IPSOS (talk) 00:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, here's my (vaguely informed) take on this: The historical Golden Dawn was started by three members of the SRIA (Societas Rosicruciania in Anglia), however they they did not form this new order under any warrant or charter of the SRIA, but by permission of a quite different Rosicrucian group, represented by one Fraulein Sprengel, who now appears, along with her group, to have been most likely fictitious. The sober reading of it is that these three founders saw some potential in the rites of the SRIA and Freemasonry that they felt was not being properly explored, and could not be properly explored in that order (it only admitted Trinitarian Christian Master Masons, and hence only men, for a start). Nor were they able to form their new order under the auspices of the SRIA, since they were effectively going to reveal rather a lot of Masonic secrets to non-Masons. The approach they chose was one that is time-honoured in occultism: invent a fictitious history for yourself and an independent origin for your strikingly familiar rites. It is not even necessary that all three of the founding members knew of this duplicity, just that whichever one did had sufficient charisma to pull it off.

But however you explain the murky myths of the order's inception, it was definitely not formed by the SRIA; it just happened to have overlapping membership, and overlapping ideas. Formally it was an entirely independent order. So the SRIA is not in a position to charter Golden Dawn temples. The SRIAm has an even more tenuous link to the historical Golden Dawn: the SRIAm (Societas Rosicruciania in America) is a group that apparently ceded from the SRICF (Societas Rosicruciana in Civitatibus Foederatis) and is not formally recognised by the SRIA. According to the SRIA they are not even entitled to form Rosicrucian Colleges, let alone Golden Dawn temples.

Now looking more closely at the SRIAm: They say on their website that "At the present time we are strongly affiliated with The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (R) (Florida based) and all lineal transmissions of our Society have also been transmitted to the above named corporation." So it seems highly likely that a lot of membership is shared between the modern HOGD Inc. and the SRIAm.

Based on these points I agree with User:Kephera975 that the lineage claim is highly contentious; I would even venture to say they would need to produce some pretty miraculous evidence, such as one of the offspring of Anna Sprengel, to convince me (or Fraulein Sprengel herself, if she is still incarnate, which would be no greater miracle). It certainly requires better verification that some poorly-supported claims made on what is probably a highly partisan website. Lets not forget that there is a major dispute going on here over trademark and lineage. I also have to say that I find it suspicious that this website is sitting on the sria.com domain name, when the acronym SRIA properly applies to Societas Rosicruciania in Anglia, not America. To me this smacks of propaganda by impersonation, and I sense a certain de-ja-vou; I wonder where else I have come across a modern group that has adopted the name of an older and unaffiliated order? Fuzzypeg☻ 05:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems completely reasonable in light of this history (scroll down past Anglia to find America) and these letters: [6], [7], [8]. It seems Woodward was involved in the history of the SRIAm. IPSOS (talk) 09:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Fuzzypeg. The GD lineage claims of the SRIA seem convoluted at best. I removed the citation. Enough already. However, the American SRIA seems to have used the initials “SRIA” for over century. I think it's only been in recent years that historians like Gilbert have used “SRIAm” to distinguish the two groups. I don’t think that the continuing use of the initials “SRIA” by the American Order is any big conspiracy. That is what they call themselves. User:Hogd120 10:25, Aug. 13, 2007

OK, that makes it seem more plausible, although it doesn't establish any line of charter; it merely establishes (and I am assuming that these letters are genuine) that Westcott was in contact with the SRIA (America) and that he requested a certain person (name blanked out, perhaps from the SRIAm? Who knows?) to be executor of his will, at least in regards to distributing his papers.

However this doesn't explain whether Westcott had left these papers with the SRIAm (when he speaks of them being housed in the "Rosic Library" I would assume he means the SRIAnglia in England); it doesn't establish that Westcott chartered the SRIAm to perform Golden Dawn initiations or open temples; it doesn't explain who the "leading member of the SRIAm" who chartered HOGD Inc. was, or his/her relationship to any hypothetical charter that might have been given to the SRIAm or one of its members. And no-one's actually said what this unnamed individual "chartered" HOGD Inc. for, or what he/she chartered them as!

There is an assertion on the second letter page you link to that states "the Societas Rosicruciana in America received the status from Dr. Wm. W. Westcott to work with the Golden Dawn system". This is very strange wording. What does "status" mean? Surely if they received a charter, the word would be "charter"? Perhaps the "status" mentioned was the "status" of being in possession of some rituals? Who knows? It seems that Westcott is intimating in that second letter that he may, if the "council" approves it, transfer something to the SRIAm, but my natural assumption would have been that this was related to the SRIA more likely than the GD.

This is interesting, and certainly makes HOGD Inc.'s case seem stronger, but it is far from conclusive. This should probably be covered in the History section of the article, including the claims that the SRIAm makes regarding what the letters actually imply. It will suggest much to the reader. I think it is worth going into detail regarding the history of this connection, since controversy and loose threads make for such interesting reading. Fuzzypeg☻ 22:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yet, it is all a bit fuzzy to peg down. :-) IPSOS (talk) 23:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Page split

Currently this article is about two seperate yet related organizations. Hence, we need to split this page in two- the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn Inc., and .....

The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (Isis-Urania temple)?

One page for the order and one page for the corporation. Any suggestions for the "order" page? Sethie 00:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

That's already right here: Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn . I agree, this page should be solely about Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. Kephera975 00:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the other article already exists, Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. IPSOS (talk) 00:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see what your misunderstanding is. This was an Order which was an informal association calling itself "Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn" which then incorporated in 1988. It's one and the same. Somebody possibly from the corporation insisted on distiguishing them, but it's the same organization and its legal incorporation in the State of Florida. IPSOS (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Huh?

That's not what the article says. "The Order and the corporation are related organizations, but they are not one and the same." Sethie 01:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with that. It is an organization that incorporated. Why somebody insisted on trying to say they were distinct is beyond me. I'll remove it, as it is not cited. IPSOS (talk) 01:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to disagree with it, and their own website says they are two different things. Sethie 01:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but only in the sense that the corporation is the legal shell and administrative body for a preexisting order. I'm not sure why they make that distinction, but the head of the order and the CEO of the corp are the same person. They are the same group of people and they are doing a splitting of hairs for some unfathomable reason. I think it would be silly to have two articles because of that. IPSOS (talk) 01:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, wait a minute. I think you are confusing their distiguishing themselves from the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn which was renamed in 1903. They picked up that name in 1977 and incorporated in 1988. So, I admit it is very confusing, but the article is about the latter. IPSOS (talk) 01:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I don't know how to word it. What I've done is clearly not optimal, but I can't think how to make it clearer. Perhaps the article is misnamed. Can somebody suggest a way to resolve this so its clear that the the article is about an informal organization started in the 1970s which incorporated in 1988? Would it be better to move it to The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn? I know that Wikipedia policy is to leave off the "Inc." unless absolutely necessary. IPSOS (talk) 01:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

"Can somebody suggest a way to resolve this so its clear that the the article is about an informal organization started in the 1970s which incorporated in 1988?" I'm not sure why we would want to do that given that we currenlty have no sources for that position. I am seeing two organizations which say that they have link via membership yet are very different. Sethie 03:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Those people seem to have set out to be professionally confusing. I agree, the opening paragraph is very confusing, first mentioning two associated but different modern institutions (the company and the order) and then an unassociated but similar historical order. I'll try to clarify this. If I can. Fuzzypeg☻ 05:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Please

If you are going to undo my edits, please at least acknowledge my edit summary! :)

I did not remove it because it was controversial, I removed it because " removed more self-promoting unsourced ideas."

The paragraph has so many problems. Where's your source that they

"The modern Order promotes the teachings of the original Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn"

That kind of claim needs a source.

"a magical fraternity " Ughhhh The Golden Dawn is a "Magical" order?

Its stated goal is "the continued preservation of that body of knowledge known as Hermeticism or the Western Esoteric Tradition."

I'm okay with this sentence.Sethie 00:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the original Golden Dawn was a magical order, see Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. It is the published teachings of that order that this order promotes. It's accurate and substantiated by the citation at the end of the paragraph. IPSOS (talk) 00:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

My mistake, I had never heard of the orders reffering to themselves as magical.

Then instead of saying "continued preservation of that body of knowledge known as Hermeticism or the [[Western Esoteric Tradition]" let's say "It is the published teachings of that order that this order promotes." No need to get into the "origonal teachings" thing, which with secret ininitary societies is next to impossible to prove. Sethie 01:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've got no objection to that. I've argued elsewhere that we can't really say anything about secret teachings except that so-and-so claims to have them. Nothing about the actual nature or source of the teachings could ever be verifiable. IPSOS (talk) 01:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

In fact, we might want to mention that they were first published by Aleister Crowley in The Equinox, and later by Israel Regardie, whom the article already mentions. IPSOS (talk) 01:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)