![]() | 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)
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.
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
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)
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
["javascript:ol(' http://www.golden-dawn.com');" 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. 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)
Here are the attached links to:
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)
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.
Frater FiatLux 03:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
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)
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.
Further information on these original files can be obtained at: " http://www.golden-dawn.com/temple/index.jsp?s=articles&p=trademark"
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 16:18, 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"
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 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.
Thank you. Frater FiatLux 21:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
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-
Thank you, Frater FiatLux 17:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
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.
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 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.
Thank you. Frater FiatLux 21:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
"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)
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'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)
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.
Thank you. Frater FiatLux 19:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
"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:
Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-01-11 Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn
...dated (obviously) January 11th, 2006.
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:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Golden_Dawn_tradition&diff=55616159&oldid=41711201
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.)
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)
Frater FiatLux 03:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
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.
Frater FiatLux 02:04, 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.
Frater FiatLux 03:31, 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 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)
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.
Frater FiatLux 12:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
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.
Frater FiatLux 15:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
Frater FiatLux 15:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
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.
Frater FiatLux 16:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
. 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
Frater FiatLux 23:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
Thank you. Frater FiatLux 18:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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.
Frater FiatLux 14:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
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.
Frater FiatLux 14:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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.
Frater FiatLux 16:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
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.
Frater FiatLux 18:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
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.
Frater FiatLux 22:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
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.
Frater FiatLux 01:28, 2 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)
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."
Frater FiatLux 18:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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.
Frater FiatLux
17:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
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.
Frater FiatLux 18:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
Frater FiatLux 21:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
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).
Cheers, -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote) talk 18:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Frater FiatLux 21:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
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.
Frater FiatLux 01:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
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.”
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: ISBN 1-56718-140-6. 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.”
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 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 (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.
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.
Frater FiatLux 03:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Please can FFF post source material for his changes to the article as outlined above
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)
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)
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.
Frater FiatLux 01:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
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.
Frater FiatLux 18:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
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.
Frater FiatLux 16:42, 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.
Frater FiatLux 17:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
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.
Frater FiatLux 21:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
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.
. 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.
Frater FiatLux 23:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
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.
- JMax555 20:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
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.
Kephera975 05:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Kephera975 03:48, 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)
![]() | 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)
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.
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
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)
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
["javascript:ol(' http://www.golden-dawn.com');" 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. 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)
Here are the attached links to:
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)
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.
Frater FiatLux 03:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
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)
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.
Further information on these original files can be obtained at: " http://www.golden-dawn.com/temple/index.jsp?s=articles&p=trademark"
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 16:18, 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"
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 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.
Thank you. Frater FiatLux 21:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
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-
Thank you, Frater FiatLux 17:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
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.
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 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.
Thank you. Frater FiatLux 21:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
"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)
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'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)
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.
Thank you. Frater FiatLux 19:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
"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:
Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-01-11 Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn
...dated (obviously) January 11th, 2006.
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:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Golden_Dawn_tradition&diff=55616159&oldid=41711201
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.)
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)
Frater FiatLux 03:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
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.
Frater FiatLux 02:04, 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.
Frater FiatLux 03:31, 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 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)
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.
Frater FiatLux 12:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
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.
Frater FiatLux 15:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
Frater FiatLux 15:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
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.
Frater FiatLux 16:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
. 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
Frater FiatLux 23:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
Thank you. Frater FiatLux 18:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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.
Frater FiatLux 14:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
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.
Frater FiatLux 14:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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.
Frater FiatLux 16:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
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.
Frater FiatLux 18:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
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.
Frater FiatLux 22:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
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.
Frater FiatLux 01:28, 2 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)
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."
Frater FiatLux 18:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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.
Frater FiatLux
17:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
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.
Frater FiatLux 18:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
Frater FiatLux 21:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
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).
Cheers, -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote) talk 18:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Frater FiatLux 21:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
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.
Frater FiatLux 01:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
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.”
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: ISBN 1-56718-140-6. 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.”
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 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 (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.
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.
Frater FiatLux 03:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Please can FFF post source material for his changes to the article as outlined above
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)
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)
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.
Frater FiatLux 01:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
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.
Frater FiatLux 18:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
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.
Frater FiatLux 16:42, 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.
Frater FiatLux 17:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
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.
Frater FiatLux 21:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
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.
. 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.
Frater FiatLux 23:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
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.
- JMax555 20:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
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.
Kephera975 05:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Kephera975 03:48, 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)