This article was nominated for deletion on 5 August 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Golden Dawn itself is notable ( 847,000 GHits). However, after 1903 it fragmented into multiple organizations. More recently, a number of descendents of the Golden Dawn (about half-a-dozen) which are still active now have web sites. Ultimately, their notability derives from the Golden Dawn and they continue the tradition of the Golden Dawn. However, for most of them, the only information available about them is their web site. Per WP standards, such "autobiographical" sources can only be presented in an article about the author or organization itself. Thus, a composite article such as Golden Dawn tradition is technically not permitted. Due to the fact that some of these organizations have rivalries, edit wars have and will continue to break out over a composite article. Thus I believe that the best solution is separate articles, even though the individual organizations may not meet independent notability requirements. Within the broader field ( Golden Dawn tradition), which is itself notable, an organization which has its own domain name and a well-established website is a notable branch of the Golden Dawn. -- 999 13:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
It's a guideline actually, and I think mentioned in more than one place, but here is one: WP:RS#Personal_websites_as_primary_sources -- 999 22:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Ah, rereading I see it quotes WP:V, so I guess it is policy... -- 999 22:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
The OSOGD was described in the book Not In Kansas Anymore by Christine Wicker (Harper San Francisco, 2005, ISBN 0-06-072678-4), on pages 206-212, wherein she gives a first-person account of attending a ritual at the Order's Het-Nuit Temple. In the book she provides confirmation of these facts:
Since I (Joseph Max) am a member of the OSOGD, it would be improper for me to edit the article itself, but the editors can use this published, third-party source information in the article as they see fit, and the book can be included in a Bibliogrpahy section. - JMax555 03:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Added comments to reveal the Setian (Satanic) bias of OSOGD. Citations will be added to numerous comments made by OSOGD Imperator, Joseph Max, defending the OSOGD Setian bias on various GD discussion forums.-- Zanoni666 18:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Here is a link to the mediation page. Zos 00:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Added to the middle of a paragraph by Kephera975. Please don't try to decieve other editor's that your material has a citation by adding into the middle of properly cited material.
You later changed to this in a misguided effort to smear the organization in question. The additional information is also uncited. Don't you understand that EVERY ADDITION MUST HAVE A CITATION? Hanuman Das 21:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Re: revert - There are two Lodges of the OSOGD outside of California: one in Seattle WA, and one in Manchester UK. See the "Lodges" page of the website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JMax555 ( talk • contribs)
Is the OSOGD an organization advancing proprietary interests or is it employing open-source licensing to ensure its published work is available under open-source terms? A visit to the OSOGD website shows a proprietary copyright message in the footer without any mitigating free-culture compatible Open Content license. A CC BY (Attribution) or CC BY-SA (Attribution/ShareAlike) license, or a CC0 Public Domain dedication would suffice to unambiguously indicate that the documents served by the organization are indeed being shared under universally recognizable open-source terms. The confusion here could simply be due to an oversight on the part of the website administrators. Alternately, the OSOGD could be advancing proprietary interests while claiming to be open-source. Can anyone offer some clarity here? Aharonium ( talk) 17:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 5 August 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Golden Dawn itself is notable ( 847,000 GHits). However, after 1903 it fragmented into multiple organizations. More recently, a number of descendents of the Golden Dawn (about half-a-dozen) which are still active now have web sites. Ultimately, their notability derives from the Golden Dawn and they continue the tradition of the Golden Dawn. However, for most of them, the only information available about them is their web site. Per WP standards, such "autobiographical" sources can only be presented in an article about the author or organization itself. Thus, a composite article such as Golden Dawn tradition is technically not permitted. Due to the fact that some of these organizations have rivalries, edit wars have and will continue to break out over a composite article. Thus I believe that the best solution is separate articles, even though the individual organizations may not meet independent notability requirements. Within the broader field ( Golden Dawn tradition), which is itself notable, an organization which has its own domain name and a well-established website is a notable branch of the Golden Dawn. -- 999 13:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
It's a guideline actually, and I think mentioned in more than one place, but here is one: WP:RS#Personal_websites_as_primary_sources -- 999 22:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Ah, rereading I see it quotes WP:V, so I guess it is policy... -- 999 22:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
The OSOGD was described in the book Not In Kansas Anymore by Christine Wicker (Harper San Francisco, 2005, ISBN 0-06-072678-4), on pages 206-212, wherein she gives a first-person account of attending a ritual at the Order's Het-Nuit Temple. In the book she provides confirmation of these facts:
Since I (Joseph Max) am a member of the OSOGD, it would be improper for me to edit the article itself, but the editors can use this published, third-party source information in the article as they see fit, and the book can be included in a Bibliogrpahy section. - JMax555 03:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Added comments to reveal the Setian (Satanic) bias of OSOGD. Citations will be added to numerous comments made by OSOGD Imperator, Joseph Max, defending the OSOGD Setian bias on various GD discussion forums.-- Zanoni666 18:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Here is a link to the mediation page. Zos 00:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Added to the middle of a paragraph by Kephera975. Please don't try to decieve other editor's that your material has a citation by adding into the middle of properly cited material.
You later changed to this in a misguided effort to smear the organization in question. The additional information is also uncited. Don't you understand that EVERY ADDITION MUST HAVE A CITATION? Hanuman Das 21:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Re: revert - There are two Lodges of the OSOGD outside of California: one in Seattle WA, and one in Manchester UK. See the "Lodges" page of the website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JMax555 ( talk • contribs)
Is the OSOGD an organization advancing proprietary interests or is it employing open-source licensing to ensure its published work is available under open-source terms? A visit to the OSOGD website shows a proprietary copyright message in the footer without any mitigating free-culture compatible Open Content license. A CC BY (Attribution) or CC BY-SA (Attribution/ShareAlike) license, or a CC0 Public Domain dedication would suffice to unambiguously indicate that the documents served by the organization are indeed being shared under universally recognizable open-source terms. The confusion here could simply be due to an oversight on the part of the website administrators. Alternately, the OSOGD could be advancing proprietary interests while claiming to be open-source. Can anyone offer some clarity here? Aharonium ( talk) 17:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)