Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc.

Add links
Page protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I am interperting the consensus to, broadly, indicate a failure to satisfy notability requirements. In particular, the extent to which it is covered by reliable sources (breadth of such publications, etc.), the organization's scope in terms of membership and finance. Not all organizations and corporations, for and not-for profit, are able to meet our notability criteria. In fact, the vast majority do not. El_C 11:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus to delete complicated by procedural problems (not listed in logs or categories). GlassFET 21:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 This was an invalid closure by a user which participated in the debate and even struck out their keep in the edit immediately preceding the closure ([1] [2]), an act I'm incliend to view rather severely. I, therefore, have struck out the closing comments, removed the unsubstituted closing templates and am protecting the page, which I have yet to review closely, for now. Thanks. El_C 10:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc.

AfDs for this article:
The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Relies upon self-referential material. The article is non notable. The only third party reference used is from A Suster, who was a member of this organization, therefore, in reality, it is not third-party. The same goes for the Gilbert citation. Ofcourse the rest of the article is the president, Chic Cicero, speaking about his own organization. Kephera975 20:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]

  • Delete as WP:SPAM. THF 20:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: NB the already-existing Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, a different animal that has arguable notability.THF 20:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject is undoubtedly notable and has multiple third party references. In any case, this appears to be a bad faith nomination made in violation of WP:POINT. See [3] and [4], and check user's contribs for recent multiple nominations of articles. IPSOS (talk) 20:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am acting in good faith by trying to keep un-notable articles out of Wikipedia and in neutraility by applying the same verifiability standards to all the articles. Verifiablity trumps all. If the Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega page wasn't currently protected, I would be asking for Wikipedia to verify its claims as well.Kephera975 20:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
I was unaware that I could put a protected article up for deletion, but the aforementioned article is now being debated in AfD as well. Thanks for informating me of this IPSOS. Just to illustrate your "good faith", I'd like to repost your challenge on my talk page: [5] . You have consistently ignored my please for neutraility and I think your own neutraility is in question. Wikipedia is not a place for inter-Order politics or advertisment. Bad faith, indeed. Kephera975 21:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
I disagree with this charaterization. You have been misusing the NPOV rule in a way that it wasn't intended to be used. This dispute was only about how to name an article, Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega. You said you would provide documentation of the correct name via incorporation papers or other legal documents. I said I would support a move if documentation of the correct name were provided. A day later, you instead nominate the whole set of article for deletion. Something is wrong here, but it is not my patient attempts to discuss at Talk:Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega. IPSOS (talk) 23:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, Merge - with Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn based on equal and appropriate treatment across the other AfDs on related articles here, here, and here. These four could be combined into a more fully developed main article, perhaps? Of all four though, this article seems fairly comprehensive to me. If it's a problem with sources, then verifiability can be improved by scouring for more, and this would be a constructive way of tackling the article. Another option is to merge with Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, but I really don't have any knowledge or experience in this area to know whether that would be appropriate. ColdmachineTalk 21:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - with Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, to integrate the numerous contemporary orders into one central and more comprehensive article, per AfDs here, here, here and here. ColdmachineTalk 21:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That could be an option, but any attempts to do this always lead to someone biased from one camp or another butchering one at the expense of the other. Wikipedia should not be a place for inter-Order politics and un-notable advertising. Either way, one third-party source isn't enough for a self-promotional article Kephera975 21:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
  • Comment. With respect, merging all those articles would cause ongoing problems. Since the merge comment was cross-posted I need to cross-post this response, though I am customizing it for each AfD page as they are unique. The fact that each of the listed organizations claim some connection to Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn does not make that true. They are not at all the same thing and there is no reference or source to support that they should be in the same article. If they are merged it will become much more difficult to disambiguate them and would create fertile ground for continual edit warring within that article. All of that aside, this AfD is about a WP:Notable organization with WP:RS that include notable authors, so it should be kept as a separate article anyway, whatever happens on those other AfD's. --Parsifal Hello 00:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. That's an argument for merger rather than for keeping this particular article. THF 22:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think not. Doesn't WP policy disallow use of self-published material unless the article is about the publisher? So if this article is merged somewhere, then the non-controverial things that the org says on its own website could not be used. I believe that both Chic Cicero and The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. each stand on their own, as the each have several third-party references. IPSOS (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Do not merge. This corporation is notable in that it has the support of notable authors. The article does need more references, but it does also already have some. Lack of references is not a reason to delete, that's a reason to improve, as long as we can verify that the topic is notable which in this case, it clearly is. Also, it should not be merged with Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, because they are separate entities, with separate histories, though they do share involvement by some of the same people, especially the very notable Israel Regardie. In addition, the history of the various branches of the Golden Dawn and the other related Orders is complicated and rich. Merging or deleting would obscure the histories and the remaining articles would become confused and more difficult to manage. This article should be kept and not merged. --Parsifal Hello 03:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Several third party references have been added. User:Hogd120 Aug. 6, 2007 This template must be substituted.
  • Comment I feel the need to explain why I nominated this article for deltion as I feel there is a strong editorial bias emerging. I base my arguments for nomination for deletion for this article on the following points:
1. Cicero writing about his own organization is self-referential and does not establish notability
2. Cicero's associates within his organization and friends writing on behalf of Cicero also do not establish notability in that these are biased sources and just as self-referential as Cicero writing about himself. This includes Darcy Kuntz and Robert Gilbert. John Michael Greer is not an objective third party as can be seen by his attendance to conferences sponsored by H.O.G.D., Inc. here: [6]. This site includes a pay pal account devoted to givng legal funds for this Order to take another Golden Dawn-based Order to court.
Your misrepresentations are getting tedious. This was a legal defense fund. It was the other order which filed a frivolous lawsuit and lost. Is it any wonder that they are not invited to multi-order conferences? This conference seems to include every Order but the litigious one... IPSOS (talk) 18:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevent and factually inaccurate. The name of the lawsuit was Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. v. David Griffin . You can verify this with the Northern District of California federal court. Kephera975 17:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
3. Gerald Suster was involved with the original American reversion of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn(which had no relation to the original Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn) with Cris Monnastre, who was an associate with Cicero in this group. Again, this is self-referential. Notability has to be established by entirely objective, third-party sources. This is in no way a third-party or objective source. Furthermore, the Suster quotation is incidental and does not go into the subject matter of H.O.G.D., INC by any depth.
Sorry, Monnastre had independent temples both before and after association with Cicero. You've presented NO EVIDENCE that Suster is directly associated, what period he was associated, whether he considers himself a member, or any other reason to exclude his works. Many people visit temples and go to conferences, that doesn't prove them a member. IPSOS(talk) 19:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is definately a connection, though, which isn't exactly independent and the citation is still incidental. Kephera975 17:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
4. The Wasserman citation is trivial. It says "here is an illustration of a golden temple created by Cicero." That's it. Its entirely trivial.
5. Two editors voting with "strong keeps" to keep the article here have a vested interest in doing so as they have worked on creating the article and may be members of Cicero's corporation.
Accusations of bias because of "maybe members" is just an attempt to muddy the waters. IPSOS (talk) 19:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Keeping this article at the expense of the other articles within the main Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn article presents only one POV on the contemporary direction of the Golden Dawn and invites further infighting. Deleting this article will keep this nonsense out of Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn.
The primary disruptions of these articles has always been from the pro-Griffin elements. The can can be blocked or banned if they continue to disrupt the article. IPSOS (talk) 19:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not entirely true. Yes, there were disruptions from one side, but there were also disruptions from pro-Cicero elements. See: User:999 who created this article and is now banned for sock puppetry. Kephera975 17:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
7. For Wikipedia to be a truly neutral encyclopedic source, it must remain neutral, and, as this article reads, it appears to be a promotion of one group above all others as an advertisement and looks like a SPAM article.
In conclusion, Wikipedia is not the place for biased reporting using sources within an organization or closely related to an organization. Therefore, the article should be deleted per WP:SPAM due to the fact that it does not establish objective verifiability or notability. Kephera975 17:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC) This template must be substituted.|[reply]
Actually, it sounds more like you have a vested interest in deleting this article. Care to disclose your associations and memberships? IPSOS (talk) 17:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've simply done some research. Please assume good faith. Kephera975 17:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
I am assuming good faith and have asked you a direct question. Please give a direct answer. IPSOS (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I entered into these articles as someone who witnessed the infighting that was going on here with all of these articles and worked with other editors here to keep such bias out of Wikipedia. However, this hasn't worked and now, once again, we have one group wanting to present their POV only. None of these articles were verifiable in the first place, however. As I said, I've simply done my research here to keep Wikipedia a neutral and SPAM free encyclopedia. My main interest is the Qabalah and not these modern Orders, none of whom have any direct relation or decent from the main Hermetic Order of the Golden DawnKephera975 17:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
Be that as it may, you are, according to WP:COUNT, a single purpose account, having edited only 8 articles, all on the Golden Dawn. IPSOS (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I'm a junior editor and these were the first articles I found that looked like they needed improvements. All on the articles on the Qabalah(which happens to be a strong component of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn) were pretty much already strong articles. You seem to have forgotten, however, that I have put all of these articles up for deletion. Not a very good case for bias on my part. Kephera975 17:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
Yup, but the motivations of a single purpose account can always be called into question. My motivations are the same, improvement of Wikipedia, and you can look at my edit history to determine that this is sincere. I've edited thousands of different articles. Now please take back your accusations of bias. I've told you I am unaffiliated, and yet you continue to attack me. IPSOS (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never mentioned you specifically. I was referring to User:Hogd120, a single purpose account of whom you have been collaborating with. I didn't feel I was attacking you, but if you feel that way, I apologize. Let's move on. Kephera975 17:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
  • Request for info – Can someone who supports keeping this article please point out which references they think are independent and establish notability? It's hard to check in the long list when many are not independent. Dicklyon 00:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This organisation seems notable, and is certainly referred to in many books, starting with those written by the Ciceros! The article is (or should be) helpful in clarifying the difference between the historical Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn and the modern order(s), which have no formal relation to the former. I believe the main reason this article is up for deletion is because it's a) poorly written and largely drawn from a single source, and b) such a pain to edit, being pretty much a war ground between various trademark holders making veiled legal threats left, right and centre, and accusing each other (and other editors) of vandalism, being agent provocateurs, etc. Despite that I think the article has a useful purpose, will be of interest to a significant number of readers, and should remain, but needs a lot of cleanup. Lets make it as simple as possible, redirecting readers to the website for most of the details about objectives, practices etc. That will make it much easier to keep in a stable state. Fuzzypeg☻ 02:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the article appears to meet Wikipedia standards with respect to third party sources and notability, and from the arguments on this talk page, the nomination seems to have been motivated by some sort of dispute external to Wikipedia between competing organizations. GlassFET 15:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: R.A. Gilbert is a member of this organization as can be seen from the fact that he attended a conference of corporation members. Hence the title "Golden Dawn Conference" in this article. This is not an independent source. The citation only goes into the history of a seperate, off-topic organization called the S.R.I.Am. Kephera975 17:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]

Darcy Kuntz has written extensively on the history of the Golden Dawn. He is the editor and compiler of The Golden Dawn Studies Series (Holmes Publishing Group) such as: The Complete Golden Dawn Cipher Manuscript (1996); The Golden Dawn Source Book (1996); The Golden Dawn Source Works: A Bibliography (1996); The Chronology of the Golden Dawn: Being a Chronological History of a Magical Order (with Mary K. Greer 1999); Ordinances and Regulations of the Golden Dawn; Golden Dawn American Source Book: Paul Foster Case and the Thoth-Hermes Temple (2000); The Hermetic Papers of the Golden Dawn: Percy Bullock, et al (1998), etc.

  • Comment: Darcy Kuntz is also a member of this organization, which would be known if you read these books. This is not an independent source. Kephera975 17:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]

Mary K. Greer : the author of Women of the Golden Dawn: Rebels and Priestesses (Inner Traditions, 1995) ISBN: 0-89281-516-7. From her biography on the slipcover: “ Mary Katherine Greer is a former professor of women’s studies and the author of The Essence of Magic and Three books on Tarot, including Tarot for Yourself: A Workbooks for Personal Transformation. She leads workshops in women’s mystery traditions, aromatherapy, writing, and Tarot throughout the United States and Europe and lives in Nevada City, California.”

  • Comment: The citation being used is by "Kuntz and Greer". Not just Greer. Kephera975 17:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]

James Wasserman bio in The Mystery Tradition: Secret Symbols and Sacred Art (Destiny 2005) ISBN: 159477088-3: “James Wasserman is a lifelong student of religion and spiritual development. After attending Antioch College, he spent several years studying with various teachers of meditation and other disciplines. Settling in New York in 1973, he began working at Samuel Weiser’s, then the world’s largest esoteric bookstore. In 1977, he left to found Studio 31, specializing in book production and graphic design. In 1976, he joined Oro Templi Orientis (O.T.O.), having explored Aliester Crwoley’s system of Scientific Illuminism. In 1979, he founded TAHUTI Lodge, the third oldest O.T.O. Lodge in the world. He played a key role in numerous seminal publications of the Crowley corpus. In addition to his work on the Thoth Tarot cards and The Holy Books of Thelema, his own book, Aliester Crowley and the Practice of the Magical Diary, first published in 1993, has been revised and expanded in a new edition. He is also responsible for the widely acclaimed restoration of the Papyrus of Ani, The Egyptian Book of the Dead: The Book of Going Forth by Day published by Chronicle Books in 1994. …”

  • Comment: This citation is trivial and does not cover the subject matter of Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn in any depth at all. If it does I politely challenge the provider of the citation to provide us with the direct quote. Kephera975 17:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]

Gerald Suster: From the back cover of Crowley’s Apprentice: The Life and Ideas of Israel Regardie (Weiser 1990) ISBN 0-87728-700-7: “In this new biography, Gerald Suster, a close friend and disciple of Regardie’, brings together his life and ideas in a thoughtful and knowing way.”

  • Comment: this citation is also incidental. It does not go into the subject matter of H.O.G.D., Inc. in any depth per WP:N (Organizations):
" The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." So far, it seems we only have one or two at best which are entirely independent (unbiased) sources and the depth of coverage is minimal. Kephera975 17:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]

John Michael Greer: From the back cover of The New Encyclopedia of the Occult (Llewellyn 2003) ISBN: 1-56718-336-0: “John Michael Greer (Seattle) has been a student and practitioner of the Western mystery traditions since 1975, and is the author of numerous books and articles on magical topics. A longtime practitioner of Hermetic magic, an active member of two Hermetic magical lodges, a certified tarot grandmaster, and a student of geomancy and sacred geometry, he is also an Archdruid of the Ancient Order of Druids in America (AODA), and a Druid Companion of the Order of Bards Ovates and Druids (OBOD), receiving OBOD’s Mount Haemus Award for Druid scholarship in 2003.” Other Greer books: Paths of Wisdom: The Magical Cabalah in the Western Tradition (1996); Circles of Power: Ritual Magic in the Western Tradition (1997); Inside a Magical Lodge: Group Ritual in the Western Tradition (1998) User:Hogd120 Aug. 7, 2007 This template must be substituted.

  • Comment This new editor who suddenly appeared in this discussion fails to note that John Michael Greer runs a group called the "Magical Order of the Golden Dawn" which is a licensee of the organization Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. and is therefore not an indepndent or unbiased source as well. Kephera975 17:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
  • Comment Wrong. John Gilbert runs the Magical Order of the GD.User:Hogd120 Aug. 7, 2007 This template must be substituted.
I think what we have here is a popular and likeable organization, given. It might be notable in a non-Wikipedia sense. This is probably why some find it easy to overlook this as an advertisement, which it still reads as. I can understand that, but this still doesn't meet independent verification standards of Wikipedia. The small amount of source material which is referenced does not cover the subject in any depth. Kephera975 17:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
  • Question do we have to include this repeated argumentation about sources from Kephera975 here? Or can it be moved to the talk page? It's tediously repetitive and is doing nothing useful but making the AfD extremely hard to read. GlassFET 17:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment his comments are fair comment and important to have in this AfD, IMHO, to provide the counterpoint/different POV to any possibly misleading impression given by the listing of sources by COI-driven HOGD120 (who's actually named after one of these orgs).Merkinsmum 18:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - well, I think that the real point to take away here is that Wikpedia does not exclude biased sources as long as the are not polemic or self-published. Most of these sources are published by respected publishers, who are assumed to have vetted the text for outright lies and actionable misstatements. It is not our job to do original research on the writers. Unless the material is self-published, it is sufficient to base our judgment on the reliability of the publisher. GlassFET 19:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is true in part. However, it is our job, as editors who have knowledge of the subject, to establish notability with independent verification. The president, members and associates of an organization do not establish such objectivity; indeed, they establish only self-published works. Kephera975 19:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
Comment simply not true about membership. For example, most people who write about Masonry are Masons, but these sources are not excluded from Masonic articles. This is true of a number of other organizations as well. In fact, the fact that a number of published authors are members actually supports the notability of the organization. GlassFET 20:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is true that self-published sources can be used in articles about themselves. However, notability must first be established with a multitude of third party sources. If this is not accomplished, the article fails WP:N as well as WP:V . Furthermore, other articles on Masonry are not the topic of discussion on this page. Just saying, "well other Wikipedia articles do it" does not make it meet the standards of Wikipedia. The article should be able to stand on its own. Kephera975 21:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
Please stop with the misdirection. These works are not self-published. They are published by Hermetic Research Trust, Llewellyn Publications, Holmes Publishing Group, Weiser Books and Destiny Books. These are valid references. GlassFET 21:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. If you don't believe me, I'll take it right out of the Wikipedia policy guide, then ( WP:N (organizations) ):
"Press releases; autobiographies; advertising for the company, corporation, organization, or group; and other works where the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself — whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people"[italics my own]Kephera975 21:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
Sorry, that's not the source of these publications. They are the work of authors, most of whom you have not provided actual proof that they are members, which were published by valid publishers. GlassFET 21:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And more:
"The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it."
And further to that, that cover the subject in depth. I challenge you, as a fellow editor, to provide that any of these citations cover the subject in-depth and independently. Kephera975 21:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
I don't have to. You haven't proven that any particular person is a member. That is, you have yet to cite a source where the author self-identifies as a member, which is the Wikipedia standard for membership disputes. You've given bald assertions, guilt by association (through a third party or based on conference attendance). These are well-known logical fallacies. You have done nothing but prove that you are very emotionally involved in the issue. Are you sure you're not a member of Griffin's group or the friend of a member? GlassFET 21:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have based my arguments on my own knowledge of these sources as an avid reader on all subjects occult. Please assume good faith and refrain from posting uncivil comments to my talk page: [7] . Kephera975 22:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
Sorry. You are beginning to bore me, and make me more and more certain that you are none other than David Griffin. Please have fun continuing to argue with yourself. I'm done. GlassFET 22:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A biased insult which may be noted. Kephera975 22:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
Not an insult, simply an observation. Don't you ever actually edit any articles? Once these articles are deleted, so will most of your edits. I'd suggest that if your interests are really improving Wikipedia, that you'd actually create some articles, or do some copyediting, or otherwise do something more useful than canvassing for the deletion of an article. GlassFET 22:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it is true that Llewelyn, Weiser etc can't really be called self-publishing and are good sources, if a book covers the subject of an article at length.

A lot of these organisations were discussed in the article Golden Dawn tradition then that was merged away, so I suspect these were created then. We could always recreate that article and put them all there lol, for more edit warring fun.Merkinsmum 10:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Answer to request for info: Wasserman quotes: “Chic and Tabatha Cicero of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn have generously allowed me to present what I believe are the first color images of the most secret and rare Inner Order Temple of the Golden Dawn—for which they have earned the thanks of the entire occult community …” (p. x) “S.L. MacGregor Mathers, a founder and later head of the Golden Dawn, is credited as the genius behind the adaptation of that legend to this extraordinary kabbalistic design. The Temple pictured here was constructed by Chic Cicero and consecrated by Israel Regardie in Columbus, Georgia in 1982.” (p.81) And John Michael Greer does not run the “Magical Order of the Golden Dawn. John Gilbert runs the “Magical Order” (no relation to R.A. Gilbert). User:Hogd120 8:34 Aug. 8, 2007
Thanks, but it still looks like minimal/incidental coverage. Kephera975 19:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
Yes but that is what their page is now called, HOGD,inc (see the title of this page). A lot of your post above belongs on the AfD on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rosicrucian_Order_of_Alpha_et_Omega As a sidenote- having a trademark which applies in some countries isn't the same as noteability.Merkinsmum 14:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, his post above was a crosspost that's there too. Sigh. None of this stuff is relevant. HOGD Inc being mentioned in books, respected media etc is what's important.Merkinsmum 14:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(note these comments of mine were in response to a longwinded page or two about trademarks by a user called something like Rhombus, which User:GlassFET has wisely removed.)
  • Merge The main issues are of legal violence between interested parties, and these issues are reflected in material which makes the whole article non-encylopaedic. It would require a rewrite and merge to reflect these issues as factual comments, not as diatribes of one group against another. docboat 04:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment merge to what? there's no common article. Did you have a specific suggestion? IPSOS (talk) 04:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would specifically suggest that there be a merged article on "Golden Dawn" to include the early beginnings, a mention of the splits - NPOV of course - and a list of the various websites for further information. The edit warring of factions is plainly unacceptable, non-encylopaedic, and a disservice to Golden Dawn adherents of any persuasion. Either that, or I would vote for a strong delete of this article. docboat 05:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete What we have here is spam. None of the sources quoted for notability are reliable, third party sources. All of them are either members of HOGD, Inc. or licensed by them. All are self-referential. Moreover, HOGD, Inc. is using Wikipedia to misrepresent an ongoing legal conflict and attempting thereby to gain an unfair business advantage. As an example of the deliberate misleading spam hapenning, note the reference to a charter and footnoted in 17 an 18. The notes refer to a website operated by Maria Babwahsing, who is listed on the Florida Board of Corporations as a Primary Director of HOGD, Inc. Again this source is self-referential. Moreover, it has not been established that Babwhsing's SRIA has any chartering authority to begin with. All sources self-referential. Not one single source has been clearly demonstrated to not be self-referential. This is clouded by the fact that Gilbert, Kuntz, Suster, Greer, etc. are attempting to conceal their membership and/or status as "certified" by the organization, and that given the nature of a "secret" order, this has so far been possible. However, in the absence of "proof" to the contrary, each of these sources must be considered as self-referential. The burden of proof is to prove that they are NOT in order to establish notabililty. Self-referential sources from members and certified partities do not constitute notability. Delete as spam.--Rondus 19:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
    I'm afraid you've got that backwards. It's you who have to show where these authors have self-identified as members, either in their own book or other writing or in an interview. Otherwise, we assume them not to be members. Why would we take the word of someone who appears to have an axe to grind? IPSOS (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sockpuppets Rondus (talk · contribs) and C00483033 (talk · contribs) have entered identical long attack-comments on many related pages. Here are two examples: Rondus diff and C00483033 diff. There are many more of these, reverted and restored repeatedly. --Parsifal Hello 07:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete And how exactly is this organization remotely notable? Avi 19:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep most well known currently functioning Golden Dawn style order. Definitely notable within its field. Motuleños 21:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
This is an ubsubstantiated opinion that contributes nothing at all to the present discussion of notability. On which reliable, third party sources referenced within the article itself is this opinion based? Are you member of HOGD, Inc? Were you sent here by them? What virtue do you see in the article besides spam? What non-self-referential sources in the article do you consider strong enough to merit notability, since Gilbert, Kuntz, Greer, Suster, and Cicero all are clearly self-referential as members or certified agents of HOGD, Inc.? What other article have you edited?--Rondus 22:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
Clearly? It's about as clear as mud. Where are the required statements where these individuals self-identify as members? Your bald assertion is meaningless. We don't know who you are, and even if we did, we'd still need citations that substantiate the truth of your allegations of membership. Our standard to mention membership in a religion or an organization in an article or category is that the subject must self-identify. I see no good reason not to require the same standard here, and for the same reasons. Verifiability. IPSOS (talk) 01:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've already done so, repeatedly. Your request is out of line, since you've refused to do the same yourself. IPSOS (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. You misunderstand. I am asking for those who have worked on this article to disclose this. If you have edited the article and worked on it that, in itself, is all I am requesting to be disclosed. Furthermore, the other editors listed above, User:GlassFET and User:Hogd120 have not disclosed anything.Kephera975 22:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and Question. First, to get it out of the way - I have not edited the article. Now, moving on: The AfD instructions request disclosure of involvement with an article only by the "primary author" or someone with a "vested interest", not editors in general. Besides, article history and contribs are available if anyone is curious. And: editing does not imply COI, or SPA, as in your situation for example. Your contribs show that you have edited nothing but Golden Dawn articles, and both in 2006 and recently with a long gap between, and that all of your edits have been complaints about one or another of the modern Golden Dawn-related entities and in particular their legal status and trademarks. Why do you not edit other articles? Are you here with an agenda about a particular Golden Dawn order, or are you here with a good-faith interest in improving Wikipedia? Even within your apparent area of interest, the Golden Dawn articles, your edits do not show productive contributions, only conflict, as far as I have been able to find (If I am wrong about this, please correct me). What is it that you are trying to accomplish with your single-pointed focus on these articles? --Parsifal Hello 23:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that I now believe that a number of disruptive editors pushing the same POV are not many, but one. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kephera975. There's a lot of evidence of this, but I don't have time to go through it all. If anyone else such as yourself Parsival would like to help, please do. IPSOS (talk) 23:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These accusations are entirely false as will be seen. This is the second time you have spuriously accused me of this. Kephera975 00:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from sockpuppet issues, let's not get distracted. I am interested in your reply to my question about what your purpose is in editing Wikipedia. And I will correct myself from my note above. I did find a few productive edits that you made on Golden Dawn articles, in early 2006, though not since then. So please help us understand... are you here to edit articles and improve Wikipedia, or are you here to accomplish a particular purpose in regards to the articles about the contemporary Golden Dawn orders? --Parsifal Hello 00:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've already explained this. Kephera975 00:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I don't know where you explained what your purpose is in editing Wikipedia or why you only edit articles related to the Golden Dawn. Would you please either paste your explanation here, or provide a diff to the original edit? --Parsifal Hello 05:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request for info regarding my interest: I have no affiliation with any Golden Dawn type group; I admire the system (but do not work it myself) and I find it distasteful that its name and tradition have been caught up in legal wrangles by people who, from what I've seen so far, have no better claim to them than any other initiates in the system. But I consider myself quite capable of being objective on the matter, and I'm sure any editor, regardless of their background, would find the argument over this page distasteful. Fuzzypeg☻ 07:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stub and Split Remove all uncited material and let the article start over. Also this article is about two seperate organizations. Sethie 00:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it is only about one. Why do you say it is about two? IPSOS (talk) 00:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The way I understand it from reading the article is that it is about one organization, with a legal definition and history as a corporation and a spiritual definition and history as religious order. They are the same group of people, and along the way at some point incorporated for legal reasons whatever those were. It may be that the article is not clear about that and the text needs to be improved to clarify, but it does not seem to be two separate organizations in one article. This is in contrast to Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, which actually is a separate order and therefore has a separate article. --Parsifal Hello 00:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have attempted to clarify this in the intro section. Also on the talk page. It is indeed about two very closely associated bodies, having the same name (apart from the Inc. on the end), one the commercial entity, the other the magical group. I don't know why the insistence that they are separate bodies. It just makes the whole thing that much more confusing. There is a third entity also with the same name, which is the historical Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, which the modern body(bodies) have no formal relation to, although they own the US trademark to its name! Fuzzypeg☻ 07:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is highly problematical that the title of this article is about the incorporation when so much of the citations rely upon events that transpired before the incorporation was incorporated in 1988. All of these citations are currently off topic to an article entitled The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc.. Merging it into the main article is problematical by virtue of the fact that there is no direct lineage to the historical organization proven by verification in this article anywhere. Kephera975 18:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: First the disclosure... I am not involved in any Golden Dawn org. nor have I edited any of the articles on the subject (however, I do edit a lot on articles dealing with Freemasonry - the fraternity that apparently inspired the historical Golden Dawn.) Now to the question: As far as I am concerned, the key here is whether the order and corporation in question is notable per Wikipedia's policy and guidelines. To me this boils down to one simple question: how big is the organization? How many members are there, and how many chapters exist? Blueboar 13:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I don't think that information is made public. Enough to support roving annual conference, publication of conference proceedings, and a Journal[8]. I'd guess from this that there are enough chapters and members to make it notable. In any case, my understanding is that WP doesn't really take size into account, but rather third-party references. The article has at least half-a-dozen of those. Maybe one of the members could give you some figures, but despite the protests of some, I'm not sure that there are any members acutally editing the article. IPSOS (talk) 15:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • What I am trying to get my mind around is how "Fringy" this particular organization is, which helps me to determine its notability (note: I am talking about the "HOGD inc." related group... not the Golden Dawn movement in total). I am not so sure that the sources are third-party... from the comments above, it seems as if many of them are tied to this particular organization in some way. More importantly, WP:FRINGE calls for some degree of notice by the "Mainstream", and I don't really see that here. As for having a roving conference ... that does not tell me much about its size. The group could consist of 3 chapters and a total of 20 people. If these conferences are simply the same 20 people meeting each year in different cities, I would not call this a notable organization. If on the other hand we are talking more like 5,000 people from 300 chapters, it is significantly more notable, and thus much more worthy of mention in an encyclopedia. I suppose it would also help to know how big the various competitors are... in other words how "Fringy" is the HOGD inc group within the larger Golden Dawn movement? Blueboar 16:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I believe it is similar in size to Ordo Templi Orientis. That is, more like the latter than the former. This is the least fringy of the modern G.D. orders. I am pretty sure that both its licensees and its main competitor are smaller. All those articles were deleted with a pretty much unanimous delete vote. IPSOS (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • That doesn't help me :>)... I have no idea how big OTO is. But I gather you are saying that this version of HOGD has more along the lines of 5,000 members. If so then the only question left in my mind is whether to keep this article or merge it into an over-arching Golden Dawn article. I tend to lean towards Merge. While there may not be a direct liniage between the historical HOGD and the current version, they are connected in phylosophy and name. I realize that merging will cause some degree of edit warring and agenda bashing, but I do not see this as a reason to keep two articles that should be merged seperate. Blueboar 17:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, that makes sense. But it will incite the agenda pushers and result in edit warring in the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn article, including trying to merge the 3 non-notable orders that were deleted. I'm not sure I'd want to start that myself. I think it's better all around to keep this article separate. IPSOS (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • 5,000 members? I seriously doubt that. How is this verified according to Wiki other than his word for it? From what I gather there is is a small group in New Port Richey, Florida, one in Bayonne, NJ, and some other small group in TX from anything remotely verifiable, and it would not appear that there is any centralization of the organization. What I can see from the interent is it appears to be mainly a vehicle of advertisement for Chic Cicero as an author. If there are this many chapters and members, someone should back that up with a third party source. Kephera975 18:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hmmmm... if what Kephera says is true, then I am not so sure about the "keep" part of my "keep or merge" determination. Without verification of this one way or the other, how do we determine notability? Let's try this a different way... I see several arguments as to why the article does not meet the notability requirements and should be deleted, and lots of statements as to why those arguments are wrong ... so let's flip this discussion on its head... give me the positive stuff... what does make this group notable? Why should we keep the article? Blueboar 19:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Please note that Kephera975 is a single purpose account whose history shows a disposition to promote a smaller competitor and to edit this article and other HOGD related articles contentiously, including inserting accusations of Satanism into one of the related articles. IPSOS (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I inserted into that article that they included the Egyptian god Set, which they do, by the way, in their practice and could be considered Setianism which is a variety of Satanism. That is all. I had retracted that anyway. I now know better that The Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn is not related to the Temple of Set. This other article is irrelevent anyway. That was a year ago. I think you can't answer the argument so you are making personal attacks instead. That is an ad hominem fallacy. Kephera975 19:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Positive stuff It's the oldest functioning G.D. derived Order in the US, as verified by the Suster reference. It's head temple is the oldest Vault of Adepti in the US and was consecrated by Israel Regardie, linking it back to at least the Stella Matutina offshoot of the G.D., again supported by the references. IPSOS (talk) 19:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • OK... I would say age does have an effect on notability. As does direct connection to the historic group. Anything else? Blueboar 19:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Positive stuff. (due to edit conflict, this is a reply to a prior comment, not the most recent one, but I put it here to avoid inter-threading) There is no evidence that this organization is a publicity vehicle for that author. On their main webpage here and their trademark announcement here, they state that their purpose is to protect the legacy of the Golden Dawn by a maintaining an archive of historical documents going back to the early 1900s, such as letters by Israel Regardie, and that they work with all sincere followers of those teachings and are not doing anything to limit the uses of the information. It's possible that all that is fake and they are really just advertising for those authors, however, unlike some of the other orders whos articles have been deleted (and who even had paypal order forms for signing up to be a member), this organization states on their website that membership is by invitation only and they specifically state their website is not for recruitment purposes but as a resource for practitioners of the Western Esoteric Traditions. They could be lying, but we have absolutely no references that support that idea. Let's use facts and not guesses. --Parsifal Hello 19:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability and Published Sources. The size of an organization does not determine whether it is WP:Notable, se this link: WP:NOTBIGENOUGH. What determines notability is whether or not the organization has been mentioned in third-party sources. We know that this organization has been mentioned in several books. Some of those books were written by members of the organization, but a few were written by others. Even those that were written by members of the organization, were not written by the organization itself, as in for example a press release that has been re-published elsewhere. That kind of thing, we can discount. But if a member of an organization writes a book and mentions the organization, and that book is then published by a third party publisher that is a real publisher and not a vanity press, that can be considered a usable source for purposes of notability - especially, as is the case in this situation - where the book is not about the organization and only mentions it within a more general topic. If we go through the references and remove all the self-published sources, we still see approximately 9 books (of which it appears that 4 were written by non-members) that are not self-published and therefore are acceptable as secondary sources. --Parsifal Hello 19:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question for Parsifal... You make a good point... so I don't have to go and read all of these books myself, how extensive are the references to the group in question (HOoGD inc.) in the 4 books that were written by non-members? Are we talking passing reference to the groups existance, or a more substantial reference? Blueboar 19:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I can't answer that question with certainty. I've seen some of those books but don't have then where I am now. I do know that the Golden Dawn orders are mentioned extensively, but I doubt that much of that was directly related to this particular organization because the books are mainly delving into the richness of the tradition. I was able to find the Greer reference on Google books and although the passage was short, that book does clearly state that Israel Regardie was involved with only three new Golden Dawn temples and that one of them was Cicero's new organization (the one we are discussing). The other two were one that is private and the third is in New Zealand. So none of the others (ie, the ones related to the recently deleted articles) were sanctioned by Regardie, according to the Greer book.
I don't have time to continue researching this. Maybe someone might ask the authors of the article to add contextual quotations to the footnotes so we can see more detail.
Aside from the other references, I find Regardie's involvement with this organization to be important, especially considering that their website shows scanned samples of his letters about the setting up of their temple, and considering that they are devoted to making sure that the valuable historical papers and teachings are not lost, ie... documents, letters, rituals, initiations, etc. --Parsifal Hello 22:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your input and patience. I am convinced. Based on all the above comments, and the discussions on various talk pages I now know how to "vote" ... for what it is worth (I'm not an admin so I can not make the final determination) I now firmly say the article is a Keep. I would say a Merge, and to hell with the edit warring ... (I am not sure if any of the modern itterations of Golden Dawn are really all that notable on their own, so I do think a good "Modern itterations" section in the main Golden Dawn article, one that lists all of the various offshoots and splinters, is the best way to go), but if that is not going to happen, this article is at least on a notable org within the movement, and thus worth keeping. Blueboar 22:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Golden Dawn is hugely important as the forerunner of all Western esoteric traditions. It deserves a great mention. What it does not deserve is small-minded edit-warriors witj POV to grind - the movement is way too importnat for that. The splitting into factions and warring in court all reflect a basic failure to put into practice the teachings of the Order. Reflecting that failure does a lot to discredit the value of the lessons the GD has to impart - hence the need to truly clear up this debacle on Wikipedia. docboat 01:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me like there is a clear consensus to keep. At the very least, there is no consensus to delete. It's been over a week when only 5 days is required for an AfD. How do we get somebody to close this? IPSOS (talk) 01:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quotations: Mary Greer and Darcy Küntz quotation: “(1977) Frater S. (Chic Cicero) and his wife establish an autonomous Golden Dawn Temple in Columbus, George called the Isis-Urania Temple, No. 18. (1978) Frater S. (Chic Cicero) begins construction of the Second Order Vault of the Adepti. Year-end: The Isis-Urania Temple, No. 18 reaches seventeen members. (1980) Frater S. (Chic Cicero) begins correspondence with Regardie. (1982) Early: Frater S. (Chic Cicero) completes construction of the Second Order Vault of the Adepti. (24 June) A.M.A.G. (Regardie) performs the Ceremony of the Consecration of the Vault of the Adepti. This event markes the re-establishment of a valid initiating Second Order in the United States. (25 June) A.M.A.G. (Regardie) lectures to the members of the Isis-Urania Temple, No. 18 on the Hebrew Alphabet” and “Crowley’s Relationship with Mathers.” (26 June) A.M.A.G. (Regardie) initiates Soror M. in the 5=6 Grade of Adeptus Minor. (27 June) A.M.A.G. (Regardie) initiates Frater E. in the 5=6 Grade of Adeptus Minor. (Year-end) Two members are initiated into the 5=6 Grade of Adeptus Minor.” (p 50-51). John Michael Greer quotation: “Several of these new Golden Dawn orders were created by friends and students of Regardie in the United States. Among these were Chic Cicero and Sandra Tabatha Cicero….” (p 205). Wasserman quotation: “Chic and Tabatha Cicero of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn have generously allowed me to present what I believe are the first color images of the most secret and rare Inner Order Temple of the Golden Dawn—for which they have earned the thanks of the entire occult community … (p x). S.L. MacGregor Mathers, a founder and later head of the Golden Dawn, is credited as the genius behind the adaptation of that legend to this extraordinary kabbalistic design. The Temple pictured here was constructed by Chic Cicero and consecrated by Israel Regardie in Columbus, Georgia in 1982.” (p 81) User:Hogd120 20:16 Aug. 13, 2007 This template must be substituted.


Request to close and keep, based on consensus.

This summary represents my view of the debate so far. I believe we have consensus to "keep", though others may not see it that way. I welcome your responses, whether you agree or disagree, or also if you find any error of fact in my note. If you reply, please post your comments following my summary signature. Please do not interrupt the flow of my summary with threaded replies, so as to preserve the flow of the reasoning. Thank you.

*I realize this is not a vote, we are seeking consensus, and I believe we have a consensus. But because there has been so much discussion caused by one disruptive SPA editor, it may be useful to to review the non-votes that we do have so far: By my count, we have 7 "keep", 2 "merge", one "stub and split" and only one "delete" 2 "deletes", plus the nominator who of course comes in on the "delete" side as well.

I've struck through the above section because additional !votes have been added and/or changed since the above was written, so the specific count listed no longer applies. --Parsifal Hello 22:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[Note: I stumbled upon an error in the page history here: diff where one !vote was deleted as part of an edit by SPA Rondus (talk · contribs). I have now repaired that error so the User:THF's original comment is correctly represented in its original location. --Parsifal Hello 06:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)][reply]
  • There is a "delete", that should be discounted because it is from an obvious single-purpose account. Rondus (talk · contribs) has never edited any article other than to campaign for deletion of this one, and to post long inflammatory negative comments about this organization on multiple AfD's and talk pages of related articles. His contribs show this clearly and beyond any doubt.
  • Most of the unusually long content on this AfD result from the nominator Kephera975 (talk · contribs) arguing with almost every comment. I don't know who he is or what he's doing, but it's clear that the nomination was not based on what's good for Wikipedia and is part of what seems to be his personal vendetta. His contribs show:
  • a single-purpose account with under 500 edits
  • never edited any articles other than Golden-Dawn orders
  • almost every edit concentrated on getting this article (and some other related ones) deleted, going back to his earliest edits in 2006 (followed by a long gap and then his recently resumed campaign for deletion).
  • he nominated an AfD on this corporation's founder, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chic Cicero, where the result was "no consensus for deletion".
If one were to view this page after removing his continual repeated arguments and the responses to those arguments, then we would see a clear AfD debate without disruption. I have nothing personal against this user and have never encountered him before. I am simply pointing out that his actions have interfered with this process and caused many editors to spend a lot of time on something that would have been otherwise routine.
  • Notability. Wikipedia is not paper, we have room for this article about a small but notable non-commercial fraternal order that is preserving historical knowledge of value. It has third-party references, though it could use more. Among those references is the very notable author and trustworthy source Israel Regardie. He is notable as historian; biographer; writer on ritual and temple techniques; and on various fraternal orders including Freemasonry, the OTO, the Golden Dawn and others; instrumental in preserving much knowledge that might have otherwise been lost; and, helped to resolve conflict in the early and mid 1900's between various orders.
  • Reasons not to merge. We should not merge this article into the main Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn article, because they are completely separate organizations, separated by more than half a century. The historical order is already a complicated topic, with heated disputes on its talk page including 5 pages of archives. Further, The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. states very directly that it is not the same organization. Merging them would create confusion and stimulate increased disruptive editing. I strongly recommend against merging, for the good of the articles and in respect of the time and energy of all dispute resolution noticeboard editors and administrators.
  • Summary. The consensus on this page appears to indicate the article is worth keeping, which is more clear after stripping away the extensive distractions caused by one editor with a personal agenda. I request that we do keep the article, and I recommend that we challenge the editors of the article (on the article's talk page) to bring it up to better standards of referencing, by finding more secondary sources, and properly attributing the quotations as in-line references with footnotes and context, rather than just a list of books.
If that can be done, then good, we develop a strong article. If it can't be done, or is not done, then the article can be renominated later and at that time, the debate will be easy because we will have this archived debate as a basis and if there has not been improvement that will be pretty much obvious. --Parsifal Hello 02:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request to Close and Delete, based on Conflict of Interest, Consensus, and Objective Argument
I know you consider me a SPA, but I feel I have the right to speak as much as anyone else here and should not be bullied or intimidated into censorship. I might be a a "SPA", but in your request for close you conveniently disregard 3 or 4 editors with alot of experience at Wikipedia who voted for deletion, one who voted for merge if possible and if not than strong deletion to keep this battleground out of Wikipedia and the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. I couldn't agree more and that is what I have been trying to say all along. Which is that neither Wikipedia nor the Golden Dawn benefit from this kind of POV pushing and WP:SOAP boxing from any party, hence why I nominated them all for deletion. In my opinion, this AfD nomination has proven to me that this and other articles by various contemporary factions of the G.D. have been inspired by POV driven editors who bully others who do not share their POV. In this case, all the pro-Inc. people had to do was tag me as a SPA, which I do not think I am since I have worked on all of the articles here on the Golden Dawn, including doing much of the spelling and grammatical editing on the main page. I never wanted any of these articles for this very reason, although I was convinced that they would restore peace and neutrality to the various factions and to Wikipedia. Instead, they have brought nothing but more infighting as I had suspected. Instead, the editors of this faction here now have accused me of sockpuppetry falsely on two occassions, harrassed me on my talk page, brought up issues that should have been kept long in the past, and tried to intimidate me into keeping silent. I was told to "put my money where my mouth is", that I must be David Griffin himself (a leader of a similiar organization whom this group tried to sue in court and failed to sue), and, sarcastically, that I was only doing myself harm by expressing my own unique POV. The verifiability and notability has improved slightly, given, but it is still minimal or weak at best, and next to nothing for the Incorporation (the topic of this article) established in 1988. I seriously doubt that the article can be any more improved as plenty of time has gone by during this AfD and it still reads alot like an ad for recruitment with so many links to a webpage.
Most of those who have voted keep here seem to have a vested interest as editors trying to keep the article at all costs, giving subjective reasoning, and behaving emotionally to questions regarding objective verifiability. This does seem to bring in the possibility that these users contacted eachother as members of this organization in order to keep this page for its recruitment and advertising value for their club. Yes, I assume good faith, but much of the bullying and personal attack has contradicted the assumption. Unfortunately. Unfortunately, it seems, for both the neutrality of Wikipedia and the teachings of the Golden Dawn. Kephera975 05:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kephera975, I don't have anything against you as a person, and certainly you have the right to state your views. It is your edits that have caused me to believe you have some kind of agenda about these articles. I did not mean to offend you or marginalize you. If you would edit some other topics, and in particular provide productive content rather than using all your edits to argue with others about deleting information, then I would view your participation in a different light.
I have not been watching your talk page, so I can't comment about whatever has been going on between you and the others there.
You may not have noticed, but on the sockpuppet report about you, I entered evidence about other users but not about you. I showed diffs that Rondus (talk · contribs) and C00483033 (talk · contribs) are the same person, which is doubtless (and C00483033 has already been blocked for 3RR once in this regard). I stated I did not know if you are related to those users or not.
Regarding your statement that I disregarded "3 or 4 editors...who voted for deletion", which ones did I disregard? I counted 2 delete votes, one of which was Rondus, an obvious SPA sockpuppet (I am not saying he is your sockpuppet, just that he is the same person as C00483033 and that he has never edited any WP articles other than these deletion debates). So that leaves one !vote for delete. Then I found an error in the edit history that caused one delete comment to be ommitted, so I re-edited my summary to add that one back in. Adding back in a missing delete comment that I found in the history and that maybe no-one else may have noticed, which is opposite to my own !vote to keep, certainly shows that I am acting in good faith and not manipulating the results. Besides, the closing administrator will make his or her own decision, and he or she will see the whole page, not just my summary.
After adding back in the error I found where the delete !vote was lost, that still leaves only 2 delete comments. If you see more that I missed, please show where they are. I also included the merge comments in my summary, and the stub and split comment. I am not trying to misrepresent anything, just trying to help this process along. I've never edited Golden Dawn articles, I have almost three thousand edits on many topics and I've done lots of work to help with dispute resolution processes. I see no problem with keeping this article and allowing some time for it to improve. What I don't understand is your seemingly emotional determination to remove this article. You've written so much about it, and tried so hard to discredit this organization (even though they have letters of support from Israel Regardie), it's hard not to wonder why you're so invested in removing this article. --Parsifal Hello 07:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I enjoy the "March of the Valkyries" by the composer Wagner but the march of the editwars bugs me as well as it does you, I think. :-) I will respond but please don't accuse me of talking to much if you ask for it. I don't think its great Wikipedia etiquette to list other editors but since you asked, on the deletion side, there was User:THF, User:Avraham, and docboat. All 3 of whom seem to be objective outsiders rather than purely SPAs or editors with some vested interest as editors who have worked on the article. I think you are misunderstanding my position. I am not trying to discredit this particular organization. Rather, I feel that no single contemporary organization should be singled out as the superior and most significant. If anything, we should be working on providing verifiablity and notability to all parties involved in whatever amount of notability they have. However, it seems apparent that this will not and has not worked for two years now. I believe that the best editorial compromise is for all groups to sacrifice their egos to the greater good here, which is the welfare of Wikipedia and the teachings and history of the original Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn.Kephera975 07:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say, Kephera, you seem to be your own worst enemy - if you wanted a great article, it would have been better to contribute positively than go about it the way you have done. What about writing another article entirely about western occult movement, and make it into an FA standard article? We would all like to see the result. docboat 07:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A fair enough criticism, I suppose. :-) Kephera975 07:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with docboat. I would like to see what you can do if you put your skills to writing an article. You clearly have a lot of knowledge and writing ability.
Regarding the !votes you listed as deletes: User:THF and User:Avraham (Avi) are the two deletes I counted. One of those is the one I recovered from where it was lost in the edit history. I counted docboat as a merge (docboat, please correct me if I am mistaken about that). So, I still don't see rest of the 3 or 4 deletes you mentioned. I did note a second merge, and a "stub and split". I listed all of those, and the 7 keeps. I don't mean to harp on this, but you said that I "disregarded" !votes. I'm sure you did not intend to to imply I did that deliberately. At this point, it seems my count was accurate. If you find any error, let's correct it. If you don't find any error, then it appears we have a consensus to keep the article. --Parsifal Hello 07:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I thought you were counting myself as a delete and this user:rondus user as the second and that was all you were counting for your "2". Sorry if I misread your comments. There are also very new editors on the keep side as well. Some of whom seem to have just come into being almost solely for this article like User:Hogd120 and some of the arguments are along the lines of "well, I just like this organization". I guess they look at the merits of the arguments rather than votes anyway. Kephera975 08:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good, I'm glad you cleared that up. Actually you have a point there, in that I didn't count your vote separately since you are the nominator; usually it's just assumed the nominator !votes to delete. I'll re-edit my summary above now to clarify that your delete !vote gets included too.
Regarding my reference to you as a "SPA" (single-purpose account), that was not intended as a personal comment, I was responding only to your actions, and I meant no offense. I don't know about those other editors. They provided comments or listed some references; they may have edited only related articles, but they did not raise a red flag because they were not "campaigning" to change the result of this AfD aside from entering their preference. But your method did seem like "campaigning", the way you were answering every comment and arguing with many. That's how the concern arose, because your campaign made it seem like you have an agenda about deleting this article, beyond just making Wikipedia better. Anyway, as I said, no offense intended. I recommend you edit some articles. You wrote above that your "main interest is the Qabalah and not these modern Orders" - so why not edit some Qabalah articles? I have no doubt that you can make them better. --Parsifal Hello 09:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, campaigning and advocacy for recruitment are exactly the reasons why this article should be deleted, especially when notability is only established trivially and by members of the organization. It is only fair that an adamant response be given to the aggressive advocacy which has been demonstrated here. Kephera975 17:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the only advocacy or campaigning here has come from you. I agree that some admin response to this is desirable. GlassFET 17:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just an FYI, I've requested at WP:AN that an admin come along and close out this debate one way or another. This has gone on well past the 5 day mark and it is time to put an end to the debate.--Isotope23 talk 17:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I noticed today that this page does not appear on the main AfD page under open topics for any of the categories or dates. This AfD was opened on August 5 but the AfD page lists August 9 as the oldest open debate. I didn't set up the formating for this page, but I wonder if a category or template item was omitted. Somehow it looks like this page fell of the technical radar, so. thanks for catching that and posting the note at WP:AN. --Parsifal Hello 18:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to other admins As of this timestamp, this AFD page is not listed in any of the daily logs. I strongly suggest a reboot via a brand new discussion page, as the above participants are unlikely to have offered opinions representative of the broader Wikipedia community. GRBerry 21:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please hold on about that. This discussion has been going on for nine days already and has input from at least 12 people. I've never edited the involved articles, so I'm from the broader community and there are others who have offered input as well who have not edited this article or the related ones. I've done a lot of work to help this AfD along, and there are other editors here also who have done so as well. Starting this over again will only extend this time-consuming and disruptive debate. There is plenty here to determine consensus, or at very least that there is no consensus to delete. I respectfully request that the information be reviewed and AfD closed without restarting it. --Parsifal Hello 21:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although I understand your concerns about having to do this over again, I respectfully disagree and believe this should be rebooted so that the broader community rather than a select group will be represented in the decision. This decision should be as unbiased and as neutral as possible, IMHO. If I had known this AfD would not have been out there for broader community examination, I would not have nominated it. I realize this is my error, and I apologize that I left off the word "The" from the title, but this should not preclude a reboot for a more fair AfD nomination from the broader community. Kephera975 02:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you support continuing this extended discussion. You nominated it and the current consensus is not to delete. You've campaigned relentlessly to get this article deleted throughout this nine day debate, arguing with every comment entered by every editor. And I repeat my question from above, why don't you ever edit any articles that are not related to this one? What is your agenda to remove this article about an organization that has notable authors associated with it?
(In case anyone is wondering - I've never edited this article or related topics, and I've never seen Kephera975 (talk · contribs) before, other than in these multiple related AfD's he nominated all on the same day and has argued continuously to delete.) --Parsifal Hello 03:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've answered you about 5 times now on how I am seeking to keep bias out of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn for Wiki. These are the first articles I chose to work on as an editor. I think a better question, Parsifal, is how you were alerted to this page being up for AfD since it was accidentally not posted out to the community even though you've "never edited.. any related topics" and are presenting yourself as someone who does not have any interest in these things? I am truly curious. Did someone tell you about it? Since it was not posted out to the community, I'd say we'd have a more biased slant than normal, wouldn't you? Please answer the question. Kephera975 04:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone ever told you that you're awfully effing rude? Well, they should, because you are. IPSOS (talk) 04:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Kephera975, How did I find these AfD's? Well, thank you for asking that question. I found them as a result of this WQA report about your incivility. I often help out with dispute resolution at WP:WQA. This time though, since the articles that were mentioned were on an intriguing topic (though as I said, I have not edited these articles), I chose to recuse myself. Instead I clicked the AfD link and found the pile of articles you had nominated for deletion. I reviewed each of those articles, and the main Golden Dawn article, reviewed the references, checked my bookshelf, and Google Books, and entered my comments on each of the debates. Further:
  • Your implication I am lying, with not one shred of evidence, is an uncivil personal attack. Please read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.
  • I did not say I don't have an interest in these things. I do find the topics of interest.
  • You are welcome to examine my contribs to determine for yourself if I have ever edited those articles. You will find I have not. Among my thousands of edits, I have once in a while edited articles on loosely related topics such as Freemasonry, but not this group of articles that you nominated or other specifically Golden Dawn-related topics.
  • I've gone out of my way to be neutral in my comments in this debate, as demonstrated by the fact that when I summarized the !votes, I found and restored a !vote from the edit history that was in opposition to my personal view. I could have left it hidden in the history, to support my position, but I did not, because I consider the process more important than my personal view.
  • Out of the six (approx) articles you nominated for deletion, I supported deletion of all but two of them, this current AfD that I feel should be decided as keep, and one other that was kept also. That I did not oppose you on every nomination shows that I am examining each article on its merits and that my decisions have nothing to do with you.
Now that I've outlined all that for you, I have to say this:
  • Kephera975, you have repeatedly shown bad faith in your dealings with me and the other editors here and in the other debates. You've accused many of us of lying. You've edited nothing but Golden Dawn articles, and almost all of your edits have focused on deleting related topics. You also posted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chic Cicero to try and delete the article about the published author who founded the organization described in this article you're trying to delete now. That AfD also resulted in keep.
  • Your contribs show you have been editing as a single-purpose account and that you have an agenda that has nothing to do with improving Wikipedia, and has everything to do with something personal that you have not revealed. Now that some editors on this page have put you on the spot with specific questions, I notice you have made some edits to Tree of life (Kabbalah). Good, I'm glad to see that. I reviewed your edits on that page and it appears you have added valuable knowledge. If a result of all this is that you start contributing to Wikipedia in the areas of your expertise, that would be a positive change. I hope you continuing doing that, and that it's not just a smoke screen to give a false impression. --Parsifal Hello 05:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I will assume good faith from now on unless incontrovertible evidence shows otherwise. It was just disturbing to me that albeit, by my own mistake, this AfD never got out to the broader community whatever the outcome for consensus is to be. Kephera975 17:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I'm personally not worried whether it's kept now or relisted. I'm familiar with Blueboar's methodical approach. If, based on the the questions he asked, he decided it was appropriate to keep, I'm sure that will be the outcome should it be relisted. The simple fact is that the subject of the article is notable. If it weren't, Kephera975 wouldn't have to argue so strenuously. IPSOS (talk) 04:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In light of this comment by IPSOS, I've reconsidered, and I withdraw my request that the AfD not be restarted. I would prefer that it not be relisted and that it be closed as "keep" or "no consensus to delete", which is what the consensus of 12 people shows, but I don't see it as a big issue other than just saving time to go through it again. The article topic is notable and has enough references for a start-class article, though it does need improvement. Hopefully the next version of this debate will not take 9 days and 85 KB to reach consensus. --Parsifal Hello 05:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Concur - Llewellyn Worldwide, the publisher of several of the references used, at least seems to me to be independent and is a relatively well thought of publisher in the field, as far as I remember. Agree to User:Parsifal's suggestion above. John Carter 16:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page should be read in conjunction with the discussion page to the main article; and to the discussion page to this project page itself. Both raise the strong possibility that this is an "advertisement" rather than a NPOV article.--C00483033 18:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, as per Wikipedia:Spam, if the article is about a subject which can be duly thought of as notable, even if written as an advertisement, that is not necessarily enough for the deletion of the article. John Carter 15:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Single-purpose sockpuppet accounts C00483033 (talk · contribs) and Rondus (talk · contribs) have made identical edits and tag-team reversions to multiple pages, as listed in two open sockuppet reports at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kephera975 and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Frater FiatLux (2nd). Both accounts were created within three days of this AfD nomination, and neither of them have edited outside this topic. --Parsifal Hello 21:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I came here after seeing the note on WP:AN. This article doesn't satisfy my reading of WP:N. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This topic does not satisfy notability requirements, and it seems like spam as well. .V. [Talk|Email] 17:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question for the two commenters above. Would you please elaborate a bit on your thoughts that this article does not meet WP:N? Also, how do you see the article as spam since the organization does not solicit membership on their website? I am not arguing with your choices, I just want to understand. For context, I've never edited the article, but I've helped a lot with this AfD and so have reviewed some of the references and related articles. I ask about your WP:N concerns because the organization is mentioned in several books (not self-published and not all from the same publisher), and there are other reasons disussed above about why there is notability. They are also preserving valuable documents from the early 1900's, correspondence of interest to people who study these kinds of topics. As you can see this AfD has become overly large due to arguments by someone who is campaigning to delete the article, so it's hard to pick out the real information from the long discussion. That's why I'm respectfully requesting elaboration on your comments. --Parsifal Hello 17:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it as satisfying the specific criteria that there are substantial reliable sources on this matter. To simply be mentioned in a possibly non-reliable publication is not enough for it to be notable. The coverage has to be in depth. As for the spam, the organization doesn't necessarily need to solicit memberships or anything else on their website. Recognition can be spammed for as well. .V. [Talk|Email] 18:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, they do not solicit membership. But if you go to their web site at http://www.hermeticgoldendawn.org/index.shtml, it's basically a solicitation to sell their Tarot decks, books, etc. Then then they give you a link to "Hermetic Virtues": which is a link to sell stuff they can't get rid of ("Tree Walks," "Zelator Pathworking" (sic)). --C00483033 20:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, if you do cruise the above link, this is just one example among many that they do PayPal: http://www.hermeticgoldendawn.org/Toronto.htm --C00483033 20:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then, and I would suggest that (after you read the discussion to this Project Page) that you check: http://www.hermeticgoldendawn.org/HOGDLF.htm (incidentally, they don't appear in Publication 76 as a 501-C). --C00483033 20:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC) — C00483033 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Uh, they say that they are a Florida non-profit, not a 501-C. Most states have their own non-profit status for corporations. There is no requirement that a state-registered non-profit register as a 501-C. There are actually a number of restrictions on political speech that one has to accept to get Federal non-profit status. This simply means that they choose to pay their Federal income tax rather than accept these restrictions. Bully for them. GlassFET 21:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no prohibition to linking to the main site of an organization from their own article even if it is commercial. It is adding commercial links to other articles that is considered spam. For example, the article on IBM links to ibm.com, which sells computers, same for Dell and every other company. Your reasoning is based on faulty premises. GlassFET 20:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, but the question here is whether the HOGD, Inc. article is an "advertisement." On another point, it is extremely disengenouus for a Flroida not-for-profit to claim "tax-exempt" status on its PayPal request for "donations" when it does not have 501-C status from the IRS; and Florida does not have an income-tax. What exactly are these "donations" through PayPal exempt from?--C00483033 21:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting my last comment. You are simply wrong. They are listed in Publication 78, and have 501(c) status through 2010. Go look it up yourself. Search for "Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn", seems the gvmt in their wisdom strips the "the" off the front. GlassFET 21:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Hermetic_Order_of_the_Golden_Dawn,_Inc.&oldid=1193888143"