Misplaced Pages

Ippy- El_C has not been proven to have acted wrongly, or be a 'rogue' admin.' he may have made an error or judgemhttp://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_sig.pngent but still you should not proceed in calling him such and your other comments against him until the matter is settled , not the deletion review but also any assessment of El_C which you say is taking place. You object to someone criticising your behaviour, but then you call someone else a 'rogue admin' etc. Even if El_C has made a mistake in this instance, that doesn't make him wrong in his every action as an admin.Merkinsmum 22:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. I have told User IPSOS over and over that if he has an issue, that it is with the administrator, not with me. This, however, has not stopped IPSOS from filing YET ANOTHER frivolous administrative comlplaint against me again today! This, by the way is just the latest in an ongoing harassment campaign that IPSOS has waged against me since I joined Misplaced Pages which has included vandalizing my talk page with tag after tag and the filing of one frivolous administrative complaint after the other against me after the other.--Rondus 00:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Quite right, I've struck the word "rogue". IPSOS (talk) 22:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Change current title. Obviously, as is clearly demonstrated by the sources provided, the correct name is "Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega."--C00483033 22:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC) — C00483033 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Just a thought- if the title is changed to R et A + O, it would have to be made clear that this is not the org of the same name whose page was just deleted. In fact we should probably mention that in this article, as the R et A +O is listed as an alternative name in the first line.Merkinsmum 22:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

That is one very good reason to not move the article. We shouldn't have to mention any non-notable organization at all. IPSOS (talk) 22:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no mention of it, IPSOS. If we follow the argument that you are using here, however, then we should have to truncat the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn article to Golden Dawn, simply because it might be confused with the non-notable, modern order of the same name, Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, whose page was just deleted. What we have here are two modern orders that are using the same names as historical orders. So far the modern orders hav been found to be non-notable and their pages deleted. This does not mean, however, that we should go around truncating the names of the historical orders for no good reason. Let us assume good faith and assume that your position here is not based on the "HOGD, Inc" activism (charicterisation of the admin, not mine) that has caused the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn page to be protected by a Misplaced Pages administrator. There is still a logical fallacy in your argument.--Rondus 23:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Since the contemproary order is not discussed anywhere on Misplaced Pages any longer, there should be no ambiguity with the historical one. I do not really see what you are getting at.--Rondus 22:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Rondus- I mean because the destinction is not made clear, people might be searching about that order, find this info and be given the impression that it is a continuation of this org. There is no harm in adding a sentence saying it isn't, anyway. Is there?Merkinsmum 22:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I hear where you are coming from, but I think the best solution would be simply to delete all discussion of the various modern Golden Dawn and related orders across the board. Are they really encyclopedic, anyway? Otherwise, the sort of activism that caused the HOGD page to be protected will surely continue ad infinitum. If we do what you suggest, we would have to, by the same token, do the same thing regarding the historical HOGD and the completely unrelated, modern HOGD whose page just got deleted. This opens up pandora's box all over again. It seems to me that this is just the issue that caused the HOGD page to be protected.--Rondus 23:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought we did that with the HOGDs. There's no problem IMHO in mentioning there is a modern order of the same name but it is not a continuation of the earlier org, but a revival'. I don't thin that would advertise that modern org, if anything it would remove some of its mystique. The same on the HOGD page, brief mentions of the few main orgs,- although I suppose that might cause aggro.:)Merkinsmum 00:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment. The question about the title of this page is completely unrelated to the title of Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. They are separate pages. The question of this RFC is what to title this page, based on reliable sources. That has nothing to do with so-called activism on any other page.

And, to be clear about the words of the administrator, the page was not protected due to "activism". What he wrote was: too soon to revert war over, or merge, content; let's tone down perceptions of Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn activism. He referred to perecptions of activism. That is not the same thing as actual activism. Please do not mis-quote to make your points. --Parsifal _Hello 00:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Change current title. The formal name of the historical organization was the "Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega". The shortened versions are simply colloquialisms. Kephera975 04:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Additional reference that Alpha et Omega is correct title. According to Mathers' bio at the Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon website, "The Golden Dawn ceased to exist by that name after October, 1901, replaced by Mathers' Alpha et Omega and the London group’s Order of the Morgan Rothe. No longer associated with the SRIA after 1902, ..." The abbreviation SRIA refers to: Societas Rosicruciana in Anglia. This is confirmation of the separation of Mathers' order from the Rosicrucian organization. It doesn't prove he didn't keep the name, but it adds doubt to the inclusion of the name and supports the not adding the word to the article title. --Parsifal _Hello 06:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I thought that it had been already determined that we were not using websites. Otherwise, we should also be able to site an official application for the A+O here: which makes it quite clear what the official name of the organization was. Kephera975 07:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you're sorry, but I don't know anything about not using websites, that conversation must have been before I was reading this page. I don't have any problem with a bio published by a reputable Masonic Lodge as one source of information. Regarding the links you placed, two of them show book covers that do not include the extra words and just say "Alpha et Omega", so I wonder why you posted those.

The third link, to the scan of the typed document, is interesting. However, it does not include dates and appears to have been from before Mathers made the name change. That's especially likely, since the document is hosted on the website of the American SRIA, not the English one, and in the bio of Mathers on that SRIA website, they state that "His irregular life in Paris and his overweening vanity led to his being deserted by his friends and supporters." So, since they disavow him once he was in Paris, and that's where he started the new branch of the order, why would they still use his name on their documents at that time? This does not add up. The SRIA website you linked is another contender to the title. It seems from those documents that there was a time when he was using that name, but later when he split from them he dropped the prefix from the name. That's all just guessing, I don't imply that we know for sure. But your references don't prove your contention.

There is one thing that we know absolutely for sure, because all the references agree, and that is that he used the term "Alpha et Omega". The variation you prefer is included in one or two references, but not all of them. That's a good reason to use the term that they all agree on as the article title, and, according to WP:NPOV, include the alternate name, along with its references, in the lead of the article.--Parsifal _Hello 08:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

We have already been over this. Please read the entire discussion. There are as many sources that refer to the Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega as the Alpha et Omega as there are sources that refer to the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn as the Golden Dawn. The use of such abbreviations for convenience sake, however, do not change the actual names of these historical orders. The former should not be shortened to Alpha et Omega for encyclopedic purposes any more than the latter should be shortened to Golden Dawn. Moreover, the source you give is particularly unreliable, as evidenced by the fact that they did not even get the name of the Stella Matutina correct!--Rondus 13:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikip doesn't name pages after the actual, formal names of things, it goes by the most commonly used name, such as Tony Robbins. Clearly A+O is the most commonly used one, plus users are more likely to search for it on wikip than write out the whole 'R of A + O'.Merkinsmum 18:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep current title - it's simply Misplaced Pages policy. GlassFET 18:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep current title due to reasons above.Merkinsmum 19:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

A Note About Contentious Self-Published Materials

It is the policy of Misplaced Pages that editors do not use self-published materials unless the author is an established expert in the field. Misplaced Pages defines one as an established expert only if reliable third-party sources have established this individual as an expert regarding the Order of the A+O. From what I can tell the author of this self-published book "King over the Water" is not an objectively established expert by disinterested third parties. Additionally, the editor, in reference to the book King over the Water makes contentious claims regarding another third party (namely, the organization named the A+O). According to Misplaced Pages, self-published sources should, if used at all, only be used in instances of autobiography or neutral articles not regarding possible living individuals or organizations made up of living individuals. Therefore I am removing this material as unverifiable according to Misplaced Pages policy. Please see: WP: SELFPUBLISH . LEpstein5 (talk) 02:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

How is it established that the book in question is self-published? The Wiki entry under Self-publishing states: "A self-published physical book is said to be privately printed. The author is responsible and in control of the entire process including design (cover/interior), formats, price, distribution, marketing & PR." On their official website, the publisher of the book, Kerubim Press ] lists four other authors as under contract and five books in print or pending that were not authored by Nick Farrell. If the book is not self-published as Misplaced Pages defines it, the fact that it contains "contentious claims" (contentious to whom?) does not disqualify it from use as a reference (or a whole lot of books wouldn't be usable!) I think the burden of proof that the book referenced is "self-published" is on the editor, User:LEpstein5 that objects to the entry. Can he demonstrate that Mr. Farrell was "responsible and in control of entire process including design (cover/interior), formats, price, distribution, marketing & PR"? Since Kerubim Press publishes several other authors, I don't see how such a claim can be substantiated. JMax555 (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I have done a search for anything that lists Nick Farrell as co-owner or partner at Kerubim Press. No mention of it on Kerubim Press' website, no listing for Kerubim Press at Corporation Wiki, and Google turns up nothing. LEpstein5, could you provide your source for Nick Farrell being a co-owner or partner at Kerubim Press? Thanks. Kheph777 (talk) 05:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The comment is based on fantasy by the editor that his group is the original AO order (even though it did not start until the late 1990s). This particular editor has been responsible for vandalism on this page (and pages to do with the subject matter) before and been warned before. The central issue are two books written by Nick Farrell both published by reputable publishers King over the Water which was published by Kerubim Press in Ireland and Mathers Last Secret by Rosicrucian Order of the Golden Dawn. Keribum has published other authors as has ROGD. These works cannot be considered self-published in terms of the WP: SELFPUBLISH rules. The fact that the books make contentious claims about the AO order is not a reason for exclusion from Misplaced Pages as neither works make reference to a modern order. Since the original AO closed its doors in 1939 according to sources which do not just include Farrell, it is fair to quote him. Given that the article is about the original AO order the fact that Mathers Last Secret contains a verbatim publication of that Orders rituals makes it a viable resource. The fact that King over the Water does not fit with an editor's peculiar views is also not a reason for exclusion. I am restoring this information according to Misplaced Pages policy.

At the very least the Kerubim Press website seems to be mainly driven by promoting two authors: Nick Farrell and Dean Wilson. Googling Wilson shows that he is a member of Farrell's organization. This brings up the more important notion, in my view, of conflict of interest here because we also seem to have the author himself adding his own material as a single purpose account called magus007 to the article. A cursory glance at the golden dawn blogosphere and one can see that Nick Farrell goes by the moniker Magus007. Additionally, Nick Farrell keeps referencing page 159 of Colquhoun's Sword of Wisdom and that page has nothing to do with what is being referenced. I own a copy of that book and that page is about Maude Gonne. Are there different versions of the book? If so, what chapter of the book addresses the subject matter in the sentence referenced? LEpstein5 (talk) 01:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Let me say that I'm glad that in your final revision of this comment you decided to take out much of the personal slagging about me and User:Magnus007. I appreciate that, I do. Because the point of these discussions is to improve the article. What we need to do is criticize the edits, not the editors. Please be careful about giving out personal information as this can be a violation of WP:Outing guidelines. "Never post personal details: Users who post what they believe are the personal details of other users without their consent may be blocked for any length of time, including indefinitely." Thanks.

You cite a conflict of interest. This is not an article about me, or any organization I belong to. I imagine Magnus007 is in the same situation. The published references - not just the book in question here - seem to agree that the A+O disbanded decades ago (and I think like the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn main article, this article needs to stick to the subject of the original, historical order.) There is no reliable evidence that anyone alive belongs to any duly chartered lodge of the original A+O today. I realize people make claims to that effect, same as with the Golden Dawn, so the wise course is to stick the historical A+O Order. The point is, only a person who belongs to the original A+O Order has a direct conflict of interest, as WP defines it. What you seem to be describing is called an appearance of a conflict of interest (at least, it appears so to you.)

Let's say, fair enough. An apparent conflict of interest has to be handled carefully. Other editors need to watch diligently what gets posted and vet it thoroughly. You seem to be up to the job, and that's a good thing. So we've got that covered. (See next section below.) But nothing in WP guidelines says that a person who writes books about a subject can't bring what information and expertise they have to add to an article. That is also a good thing. Even if Magnus007 is who you think he is, I can find nothing in the guidelines that would exempt an author from putting citations from his or her book into an article, provided it's not a self-published book as Misplaced Pages defines it. It would be improper for an author to write a WP article about their own book, self-published or not, or write their own biographical article. That's different.

Which brings us to the "self-published" issue. Kerubim Press has every appearance of being a bona fide publishing house, albeit a young, small one. Llewellyn Worldwide started out publishing Llewellyn George's astrology books, so that Kerubim published Dean Wilson's books to start with is not unusual. So they seem pretty legit to me. As I pointed out above, they have five authors and seven books in their catalog. Only one is by Nick Farrell. That a publisher is "mainly driven" by something (whatever that means) is only a matter of opinion (or, I suppose, of original research), unless there is some published evidence to cite (remember, forum posts and blog comments really aren't citations.) I don't see how one can make a case that Farrell's book fits this description: "a self-published physical book is said to be privately printed. The author is responsible and in control of the entire process including design (cover/interior), formats, price, distribution, marketing & PR."

So on the practical side, I think it might be good for Magnus007 to quote the relevant passages from the books in question so all of us can check the if reference says what is claimed. And of course, if any other editor has other citations that offer a different account than what's being cited, by all means it should be added. That certain citations often don't coincide is not that unusual, and the best thing is to have as many reliable sources as possible, even if they're not in perfect agreement. JMax555 (talk) 06:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The outing policy refers to information that is private. Anything which could be googled on the internet has become public domain such as the fact that you, Joseph Max, are listed as one of the contributors to the Kerubim Press' Golden Dawn community book. See: http://kerubimpress.com/2013/05/announcing-commentaries-on-the-golden-dawn-flying-rolls/. Now that it is pretty much determined that all of the other editors here are associated with Kerubim Press how can we pretend that the other authors are unbiased in their editing? I think you ought to recuse yourselves, so to speak. Additionally, I am still waiting on the supposed information from the Colquhoun book. LEpstein5 (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

What you have to do is point out specifically how the fact that I contributed to a collection of essays published by Kerubim has affected my edits of this article in any way. This is not an article about myself, or Kerubim Press, so that doesn't constitute a conflict of interest. (I would of course refrain from any editing of an article about Kerubim Press, or the book I contributed to.) You seem to still be impugning the editors, while not saying anything about the edits. This is not an article about the Golden Dawn per se, it's about the Alpha et Omega. I didn't have anything to do with the book reference you are objecting to, and certainly don't see any financial reward from some supposed "publicity" that Farrell's book might get from being ref'ed in an obscure WP article. Please indicate how the single edit I made was influenced by being one of over a dozen authors of a collection of essays about the Golden Dawn. Thanks.

I'm trying to work with you here, and make contributions to the article. I asked why you think that Kerubim Press is "self-published" by Mr. Farrell, when it certainly appears otherwise, but you haven't dealt with that issue at all. That's the only thing that matters in regards to using a Kerubim book as a citation. Please remember to Assume Good Faith and focus on content, not the contributor. Thank you. JMax555 (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

One can assume good faith until one knows that another is not acting in good faith. One can not be an objective editor if they are defending books to which either A> they are the author of said book or B> the author and/or publishing house are associations with which they have an alliance. There is a clear and undeniable bias in that kind of point of view and one of the main goals of wikipedia is to present articles with neutrality. LEpstein5 (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Lepstein5, this is a non-issue. First of all, how do you determine based on the discussion here or the edits I've made to this article, that I'm not acting in good faith? Are you reading my mind? You seem to be presupposing I'm going to write something biased and as of yet I've hardly done any editing at all. (Is this some kind of "Minority Report" pre-crime cognition thing?) And what kind of "point of view" are you referring to? I'm not even sure what you mean by "defending". If I'm "defending" anything, I'm defending the guidelines by which WP determines what "self-published" means. Honestly, this is going to go nowhere. I am not "recusing" myself from editing any article with which I have no clearly defined conflict of interest, specially when I haven't even done any editing yet!

There is really just one issue to resolve here: is Mr. Farrell's book published by Kerubim Press "self-published" under Misplaced Pages's definition of the term or not? I've presented evidence that it does not fall under that definition. I've asked you to cite evidence to the contrary, and you're only reply so far is to accuse your fellow editors of bias without offering anything to back that up either. Your personal opinion of a book is irrelevant to whether it is a usable reference under WP guidelines. I'll bet I can find a host of books which I think are written by complete idiots that are used as references under WP guidelines. But my opinion doesn't matter. The guidelines matter. If a reference is cited from that book where you think the author is expressing nothing but a personal opinion, that's a fair point - on a case-by-case basis. But dates, times, places, persons, etc. are not opinions, they are facts. For example, "The Alpha et Omega was founded in 1903" is a fact. "The Alpha et Omega were all a bunch of deluded fools" is an opinion. If you see myself or any editor citing any book's author's opinion, feel free to challenge the citation - as you should.

Please, one more time, present some evidence that the book in question must be considered "self-published". I've quoted the definition of "self-published" from the WP article on the subject twice. Otherwise, I'll have to assume you don't have any evidence, and we can all move on. Thank you. JMax555 (talk) 00:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Breaking up the "Origin" section

I propose splitting the current "Origin" section into three sections: Ending the Origin section after "...remained loyal to Mathers during the schism and became part of the Alpha et Omega as well." since that is the ending of their beginnings, so to speak. Then create a second section, "Expansion and decline", to cover the parts about expansion into the UK and America, and ending with "The three chiefs made a bonfire of all the equipment and papers at Isme Boyd's Hertfordshire house." Then, split off the part about the publishing of their rituals to its own "Rituals" section. This section could be later expanded - perhaps we can find a published reference that compares the A+O rituals to the better known Golden Dawn versions (e.g. Regardie's Stella Matutina.) Thoughts? JMax555 (talk) 19:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I second that. It'll make the page more clear. Kheph777 (talk) 05:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Where in Colquhoun does it say that the three AO chiefs burned all the equipment at Boyd's house? I cannot find it anywhere in that book. Did someone fudge the page number? LEpstein5 (talk) 01:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

(Yay! This is how it's done - thanks!) A very good point. As I mentioned in the above section, it would be a good idea for Magnus007 to quote the relevant passage here on the Talk page, so others can look for that passage, regardless of what page-numbering their edition might have. JMax555 (talk) 06:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, but since this is the discussion on breaking up the Origins section, what do you think of that idea? JMax555 (talk) 06:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Since that proposed structure was based on something stated as being in that book I think we need to clear up that issue first if we want to use that structure. LEpstein5 (talk) 18:23, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand. The section "Origins" right now covers more than origins. No matter where the refrences come from, the structure is clumsy and inaccurate. JMax555 (talk) 19:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The version prior to this version was not clumsy, in my view. Since the very existence of the added references is still under question at this point it seems premature to talk about rearranging the general structure of the article at this time. Perhaps we need to get an RFC going? LEpstein5 (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm talking about the formatting, breaking up the section called "Origins" into something more coherent. Obviously that section covers a lot more than the order's origins. And the same formatting has been in place for over two years - I'm referring to the version here, which is from July 5th, 2011. There are no references to any Farrell books in that old version. But the formatting hasn't changed. A section's heading should refer directly to the material under that heading. If there's material there that is not specifically about the order's origins, it should be spun off into another section with a new heading.

I looked at the :diff page of that July 5th, 2011 version and the current version here. There's much more there than just the additions you're referring to now. If the section is broken up to more logical headings, the handful of citations from the Farrell book being there or not doesn't affect that. There's no reason to stop all work on the article and sit around waiting for a response to a RfC, which in my experience might take weeks (or might be never) over an objection to one cited reference which has no bearing on what I'm proposing. JMax555 (talk) 02:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Since the Colquhoun references have now been cleared up, I'm going to go ahead and make the formatting changes JMax555 has suggested. I had to create a "Decline" section for the corrected references anwyay, so I might as well make the other changes so we can move on. Kheph777 (talk) 23:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The Incorrect Colquhoun Reference

It took me several hours pouring though an un-searchable PDF of Colquhoun's "Sword of Wisdom", but I *finally* found the correct references to the closing of the AO and the burning of its Vault and temple-furniture. There were actually three different places in the text (that I have found so far) that made reference to this. So, I have created a new "Decline" section to the entry so these references could be laid out logically. (I also note that the page reference to Farrell's "Mathers' Last Secret" was p159 - so I suspect that it was a copy/paste error that put the same page number on the Colquhoun reference. This is now, thankfully, fixed.) Kheph777 (talk) 23:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for hunting that down. I've done a general clean-up of the article, fixing WP links and putting in the Reference section books. I think that's most of the basic work to do, though I'm chasing down a few more references. JMax555 (talk) 08:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Good work, JMax555 - you got the references I lacked. I still want to know which Temple was #10, though. If it was both, we should add a note stating that to be the case. And if LEpstein5 can provide a solid reference to "King Over the Water" being self-published, we can settle that issue. Otherwise, I think we've got this entry pretty well cleaned up. Kheph777 (talk) 09:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Temple #10 - Neith or Ptah?

This article (see Expansion section) currently list both Neith and Ptah Temples as "#10." Where both of them given the same number? If not, which one was #10 and what was the proper number of the other one? Kheph777 (talk) 23:53, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Reassessment requests

I've sent requests for reassessment of the article to WikiProject Occult, WikiProject Religion, WikiProject Spirituality, WikiProject Philosophy and WikiProject Secret Societies. I think it's now significantly above Start Class, possibly B-class. It still needs work but it's not a Start anymore. JMax555 (talk) 04:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

We have been upgraded across the board to 'C' class! W00T! Let's keep on it and get up to 'B' Class! JMax555 (talk) 01:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)