Talk:Alpha et Omega

article expansion

This article is in dire need of expansion so I have expanded it and added some references. Any help with references would be great. Kephera975 21:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of sources, the Clark source you used appears very dubious. The ISBN was good, but belonged to another (fictional) title, "The Broken Seal and Other Cases". I did a thorough search for the title you used, but came up empty handed on Google, Amazon.com and Amazon.uk. Any suggestions? Was it perhaps a self-published book that never got an ISBN? I'm afraid such a book couldn't be used as a reliable source. The book to which the ISBN belonged was published by "Authorhouse", a vanity press. IPSOS (talk) 00:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm still looking for better sources. If you are familiar with the history of the Golden Dawn, perhaps you could find some as well? This article definately needed to be expanded. Kephera975 01:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Title of article

So what do you think about moving the article? Are the sources you list for the full name reliable? On the other hand, Wikipedia articles are supposed to be at the most commonly used form of the name, which I think is unarguably Alpha et Omega. If we keep it here, I think that name should be mentioned first, then (full name Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega) with the footnote. It's always best to make sure the first mention of the subject matches the title, then give the alternates and explanations. IPSOS (talk) 01:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. If we were to follow the logic of this argument to its logical conclusion, then user IPSOS would also be agruing that the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn article should be truncated merely to Golden Dawn as well. The only possible reason that I can see for truncating the name of the Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega to Alpha et Omega and not truncatiing the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn article to Golden Dawn is that this would serve the corporate interests of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. which has consistently attempted to misleadingly portray themselves as the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn and to gain an unfair business advantage over their main rival, the modern Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega. I believe that what is truly happenning here can only be fully understood by also considering that a Wikipedia administrator recently had to protect the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn page against what he called "HOGD, Inc. activism." It appears that this same activism may have spilled over to this page as well.--Rondus 18:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. First on the moving question. How are you suggesting possibly moving it? Kephera975 01:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not. But since you've changed the bolded subject introduced in the article, I'm trying to find out whether you also think the article should be moved to match the title to that subject. Or should we reverse the order in which the common name and the full name are mentioned? IPSOS (talk) 03:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the common name for the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn is the Golden Dawn. Therefore, it is my opinion that the full name should be the title and the common name should be used in most of the article so that it is not awkward, just like how it is done with the main article for the sake of uniformity. Kephera975 03:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I seem to have misplaced my Francis King book as far as the page number, but I'm sure it will turn up. Kephera975 03:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but in that case it's well-known and not obscure that that is the full name of the order. In this case, the full name is not well known and the short version is used almost everywhere. IPSOS (talk) 04:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The correct name of the Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega is not obscure at all, although H.O.G.D. Corporate activist, IPSOS would like it to be. Either the entire name should be used as the title of the article, or the related Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn article should have its title truncated to Golden Dawn as well. Of course, we all know why the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. corporate activists like user, IPSOS, oppose this. It would make it more difficult for them to go on inappropriately using Wikipedia as an advertising vehicle for their corporate interests.--Rondus 16:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. IPSOS (talk) 16:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I am not attacking User IPSOS. It was not I, but rather a Wikipedia adminstrator who protected the related Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn page due to that activities of user IPSOS and associates, which the administrator characterised as "HOGD, Inc ativism." I certainly intend no attack. User IPSOS hidden POV motivations, however, are highly relevant here --Rondus 17:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Accusing me of "hidden POV motivations" after I've repeatedly denied them is indeed a personal attack. IPSOS (talk) 17:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

For this, I apologize. How about toning down the rhetoric and discussing instead the issues of reliability iinstead of your making more reversions without discussing the relevant issues first here?--Rondus 17:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you've gone too far. And I did discuss the book reference in the very first section of this page several days ago. Try reading the talk page yourself befire YOU revert. IPSOS (talk) 17:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

'Reliability of Sources: Regarding the correct name of the order about which this article is about, I have provided 3 separate sources a references. User IPSOS has accepted the Francis King source, yet insists that the other two are unreliable. Curiously, during the discussion of “The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc.” User IPSOS previously argued that material from the SRIA website should be considered reliable, yet the same user now argues that a facsimile of an original Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega document from the same website is somehow unreliable. Let us give User IPSOS the benefit of the doubt and assume good faith anyway. Here are the references in question:

As a secondary reference, the cover of Enochian Chess: Book Three contains a facsimile reproduction of an original Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega historical document, clearly demonstrating the correct name of the order.

As a tertiary reference, the website of the Societas Rosicruciana in America, has published a facsimile of an original historical document of the Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega, clearly demonstrating the correct name of the order, at http://www.sria.org/alpha-omega-application.htm.

Steve Nichols is a well respected author within the field of Enochian Chess. Wikipedia rules regarding reliability indeed generally preclude self-published works, as authors may try to pose as experts. What we have here, however, is merely an author publishing a facsimile of an original Rosicrucian ORder of Alpha et Omega document. This is indeed reliable according to Wikipedia standards. Moreover, this is only a secondary reference, which is all the more reason that it should be kept.

I must admit that I personally do not believe that many of the claims made on the SRIAmerica website are reliable. However, there is no reason whatsoever to believe that the facsimile reproduction of the original Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega document in question itself is unreliable.--Rondus 17:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Uh, on an unreliable website, anything can be photoshopped. Plus even if it isn't, use of primary sources is original research. That document may or may not be from the organization cited. It could be from a similar organization in New Zealand or something. Without a reliable secondary source that analyzes its origins, both you and the site you are linking to are just guessing. In any case, if you want to use that site, I will insist that it also be acceptible to use in The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. which is likely to soon be restored. IPSOS (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

French Language Sources One of the reasons why this article has remained a stub for so long is because it is about a French organization. User IPSOS has consistently deleted each and every citation from a French language source. Please note that Wikipedia does not prohibit foreign language sources as references, but rather merely asks that preference be given to English language sources and that any foreign language references be properly documented. Let us assume good faith and that user IPSOS is not doing this merely to be obstructive to the development of this article beyond a stub. I would nonetheless like to request that user IPSOS please refrain form further deletion of references to French language sources. Since a great deal of material about this French order exists only in French, this is particularly important if this article is ever to be fully developed and not to remain little more than a stub.--Rondus 18:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't delete that, another editor did. Please be more careful with you reading of the history and diffs. I have other objections to that source, which is associated with a partisan profit-making organization. IPSOS (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

So you agree that French languages sources are appropriate in this article then?--Rondus 21:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Corporate Activism Vs. Historical Accuracy

The real reason why User IPSOS, is insisting on truncating the name of this historical order from the Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega to its nickname, Alpha et Omega, is because there exists a modern order of the same name that is the major rival of H.O.G.D., Inc., for whom user IPSOS has been engaging in coordinated activism, together with users Parsifal, Glassfet, and HOGD120.

Pleae note that the related, Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, page has presently been protected to prevent further such activism. To prove my point, here is a verifiable quote form Francis King, whom user IPSOS himself has elsewhere cited as reliable:

“On the whole of the flying rolls and other instructional material produced by the schismatic fraternities derived from the Golden Dawn after that orginization had broken up into internecine disputes (circa 1900) are of little interest. Notable exceptions to the general mediocrity are the papers of the Cromlech Temple, a side order to the Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega -the name adopted after 1900 by those temples loyal to MacGregor Mathers.”

-King, Francis (1971). “Ritual Magic of the Golden Dawn”. Chapter 8, P. 195. ISBN: 9780892816170.--Rondus 15:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Since you've provided source, I will integrate it correctly. Thank you. And please stop with the personal attacks. IPSOS (talk) 16:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, there is no attack intended. However, I still believe that the characterization of your activitiies by the Wikipedia administrator that protected the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn page is relevant to the present discussion.--Rondus 17:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

And again, I've informed you that that characterization is incorrect. Discussion of sources is below. Why not respond about that? IPSOS (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Retaining "Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn" as Outer Order

I don't believe that this is accurate or that the source supports it. Please provide a quote. Even if it does, the link is misleading, because the page linked to is about the Order which was closed. IPSOS (talk) 03:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bring this up on the talk page. As far as the contradiction you have placed on the page, are you talking about the Golden Dawn being the outer Order of the historical A+O?

Here is the quote from the Greer book from Dion Fortune who was initiated into the A+O in part: ".. anyone who made a study of them also speedily found out that the system of correspomndences taught in the G.D. they had got something of inestimable value." That is straight from the lips of someone who was initiated into the outer order of the A+O in 1910. As Greer states: "Dion Fortune was initated into the London Temple of the A+O in 1919 under the leadership of Brodie-Innes." This is from page 350 in Women of the Golden Dawn. I hope you have it so you can look it up for yourself. Kephera975 03:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Who cares about the one that was closed. That is gone now. This is a better page about a notable historical organization. Kephera975 03:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Those quotes do not support the statement. IPSOS (talk) 03:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Umm. Please explain why. Dion Fortune was initiated into the A+O and called what she was taught in the A+O Golden Dawn teachings. That can only be due to the fact that the outer Order of the Organization was still called the Golden Dawn. Change it to just Golden Dawn if you like but that seems fairly incontavertible to me. Kephera975 03:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that's reading between the lines and therefore original research. I don't dispute that people continued to colloqiually refer to the "Golden Dawn" material, they did so in Stella Matutina also, and Regardie published Stella Matutina material under that name. However, unless you can find a direct statement to the effect of what you wrote, you can't include it. It's an assumption. IPSOS (talk) 03:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's a fuller quote: "Dion Fortune was initiated into the London temple of the Alpha et Omega in 1919 under the leadership of Brodie-Innes. Her immediate teacher seems to have been Maiya Curtis-Webb, who later became Mrs. Trenchell-Hayes-a "walking encyclopaedia of occult knowledge." But Fortune found the Golden Dawn seriously lacking." Do you think Greer contradicts herself by calling it both Alpha et Omega and Golden Dawn? Greer's work is not original research. Kephera975 03:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I still think it is simply a colloquialism. Greer doesn't say that the A+O still formally used "Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn" as it's outer order. We can't assume anything from the sorts of references you are making. IPSOS (talk) 04:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I still think it does and that perhaps this is getting a bit too picky, but I can probably found another better quote and one that is more direct. Actually, I can probably find several sources for this. For now, I'll let that go. Kephera975 04:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, it's not a colloquialism when an initiate of that historical organization called it the Golden Dawn. Kephera975 04:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. And I note that they didn't call it "Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn". It's well known that the term "Golden Dawn" was used colloquially and even misused to refer to the the post-HOGD deriviatives. That doesn't make give it the significance you assert. A direct statement that such was the case is needed and the only thing that can support the kind of assertion you added to the article. IPSOS (talk) 04:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it 1906 or 1903?

Another contradiction you've inserted is that the old article and the current lead section based on Ruggiu say the A+O was founded in 1906. Later you say 1903 based on Greer. Is there really a discrepancy between the sources? Or is there a typo, or what? IPSOS (talk) 03:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was a typo. It should be 1906. Thanks for finding that. I'll correct it. Kephera975 04:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Say what the A+O is in the lead/first sentence or 2

It doesn't quite do this at the mo. I'll have a go but I don't know a lot about it so feel free 2 edit my gross errors.:) Remember most people won't have heard of the A+O, so rather than starting 'the A+O was started in the year 19--, ' it needs to say 'the a+o was an occult order type thingy.'Merkinsmum 23:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Reliability of references

You can't use the SRIA site. You've already argued on the The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. deletion that the source is unreliable. Plus is is self-published so by Wikipedia rules can only be used in an article about itself.

Second, you can't vaguely refer to a book and call it a citation. Please supply author, title and ISBN. I believe the book is question is published by vanity press and also can't be used. IPSOS (talk) 17:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Title of the Article. (first try, interrupted, see next section)

Editors can not agree whether the title of the article should be the full formal name Rosicrucian Order of the Alpha et Omega or the common name of Alpha et Omega. Kephera975 18:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Not true. Per Wikipedia policy, the most commonly used variant should be used. That's Alpha et Omega as there is only 1 reliable source which says any different. However, since there is that reliable source, it is also appropriate to mention the uncommonly used full name at the beginning of the article, with citation. That has been done. There's really no conceivable issue here, given Wikipedia's clear policy. IPSOS (talk) 18:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"Golden Dawn" is the more common variant used for Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn but that hasn't seemed to affect that article. I think Alpha et Omega is just a colloquialism, as you called these things earlier. Kephera975 18:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The above statement by user IPSOS is opinion and not established fact. I disagree. Is John F. Kennedy listed on Wkipedia as "Jack"? Moreover, here exist numerous original Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega documents that have been reporoduced as facsimiles by third parties which speak contrary to what IPSOS is arguing. He has thusfar not bothered to discuss the relevant reliability issues instead of making such sweeping pronouncements. Moreover, the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn page has been recently protected by a Wikipedia admintstrator due to what he called "HOGD, Inc. activism." This in itself, despite his denials, calls the motivations of user IPSOS into question.--Rondus 18:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. IPSOS (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

How exactly do you consider referring to the characterisation of your and your associates' activities BY A WIKIPEDIA ADMINISTRATOR an attack by me? I am merely referring to the opinion of a Wikipedia adminsitrator--Rondus 18:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you bothered to read the page on what is considered a personal attack on Wikipedia? It's been presented to you multiple times, I suggest you read it. When you talk in a disparaging way about an editor rather that content, you are running afoul of our policies. In fact, even if I were a member, it would still be a personal attack. Since I am not and have repeatedly told you that I am not, you are also violating Wikipedia rules against harassment. IPSOS (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Rondus (talk · contribs), let me make this simple: stop discussing editors, and most especially accusing them of nefarious motivations. Stick to the article content. If you continue making personal attacks, you will be reported for policy violations, without further delay, with a likely result that you will be blocked from editing. --Parsifal _Hello 19:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with these tactics, but come on now. You both use these same tactics by plastering accusations of sock puppetry all over the place. For examples, at the AfD page and deletion review for The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. article. ( [1] ) Or jest look at the talk page for Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn where you harass me. If anything, you both have been bad examples when it comes to that. Perhaps we should all stop going in that direction and stick to the content being discussed?Kephera975 19:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is a formal process for reporting suspected sockpuppetry. That is specifically excluded from being considered a personal attack. Repeatedly accusing someone of sockpuppetry without opening a formal report is indeed considered a personal attack. Using the formal process and mentioning it as a means to direct admin attention to the report is not. IPSOS (talk) 19:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

In that case, suspected sock puppeteer IPSOS, how about EVERYONE ending all of the back and forth MUTUAL accusations and let us deal with the issuess at hand instead, shall we? :-)--Rondus 20:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Rondus: Get off it. Just stop. These are not mutual accusations. Personal attacks were made and appropriate responses were entered.

And: your current comment includes yet another personal attack. It has been noted. You are walking directly towards the cliff. I suggest you take a deep breath and calm down.

Kephera975, why are you responding to defend an obvious policy violation by another user? Why are you bringing up sockpuppetry, when no-one has mentioned that here? What happened on this page is very clear. Rondus made an accusation that was a personal attack against another editor. Two editors responded and told him to stop doing that. Suddenly, you are now accusing those editors of using "tactics", and you bring up sockpuppetry out of nowhere.

You also are doing exactly the opposite of what you suggest. You said stick to the article content. Good, that's exactly what I wrote in my comment above that you replied to. Yet, instead of sticking to the article content, you have now issued new personal attacks against two editors.

So, let me be clear again: Everyone: Stop the personal attacks. Stop discussing editors. Discuss the content.

Isn't that what you want?

By the way, all of this has diverted attention from the question of the RFC about the article title. Perhaps that was the intention, or perhaps it was just an emotional outburst by a couple people. I don't know about that. But I do know, that the topic of the RFC is now lost in the distant past. So, I am going to refactor that and restart the discussion in a new section. If anyone wants to continue needless disversions about sockpuppets and AfDs, please keep that in this section and let the RFC proceed with clarity.

Also, the original statement of the question for the RFC as written by User:Kephera975 was biased in that it mentioned "the full formal name" and " the common name". Those are unproven characterizations and cannot be used to present the question. I am re-writing it in a neutral way.

If anyone doesn't like the way I stated this new RFC question, discussion is welcome. Politely, please. --Parsifal _Hello 20:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

IPSOS, with respect, in fixing the RFC, I needed to omit the first two words of your first reply which were directed to the previous formatting of the RFC. I also added formatting for your RFC response. I hope I did this correctly according to your intention. If you don't agree with my change, please make whatever adjustment you prefer. Please forgive the intrusion. --Parsifal _Hello 20:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem, Parsifal. Thanks for trying to mediate, but I'm afraid that Rondus has decided to push the issue until he is blocked for it. It's his choice. From now on, please don't remove personal attacks but rather tag them so that admins reviewing this page can see just how many final warnings he has received. IPSOS (talk) 22:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Kephera975, your response to IPSOS' comment was copied to the new location with no changes.

Rondus, with respect, I omitted your response to IPOSOS' comment because your reply included a personal attack. You are welcome to re-add the text of your response, or a new one, to the appropriate place below, but do not include any mention of IPSOS as a person. Respond only to the topic of the RFC discussion. Thank you. --Parsifal _Hello 20:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request for Comments: Title of the Article (closed)

Resolved

 – RFC closed with clear consensus to keep current title Alpha et Omega. The only votes to change the title were from accounts that have been indef blocked as sockpuppets. --Parsifal _Hello 05:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Shall this article retain its current title of Alpha et Omega or shall it be renamed to the correct historical title of the organisation, Rosicrucian Order of the Alpha et Omega?

• Keep current title. Per Wikipedia policy, the most commonly used variant should be used. That's Alpha et Omega as there is only 1 reliable source which says any different. However, since there is that reliable source, it is also appropriate to mention the uncommonly used full name at the beginning of the article, with citation. That has been done. There's really no conceivable issue here, given Wikipedia's clear policy. IPSOS (talk) 18:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"Golden Dawn" is the more common variant used for Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn but that hasn't seemed to affect that article. I think Alpha et Omega is just a colloquialism, as you called these things earlier. Kephera975 18:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but in that case there is a disambiguation problem, with "Golden Dawn" referring to several songs, another group, etc. So the full name had to be used as the best way to disambiguate it. IPSOS (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep current title. "Alpha et Omega" is the correct name. The article should not be moved or renamed. The alternate title appears in only one reference and is not in general usage. If more references can be found to support the change, I am willing to reconsider, but at this time, I have not seen anything to support the change of name for the article. --Parsifal _Hello 20:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Change current title. The Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega is the correct and verifiable name of this historical organisation.Note that the votes for keeping the current title do not repreasent an unbiased consensus, so far all come from users that have been accused by a Wikipedia administrator of HOGD, Inc corporate activism together with Users Glasfet and HOGD 120 resulting in the current protection of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn page..--Rondus 21:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

  • 

    This is your last warning.
    If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. IPSOS (talk) 21:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Please quit trying to divert this discussion with these tactics, IPSOS. The HOGD, Inc activism arleady resulting the protection of aa related page is highly relevant to this discussion, as the identical process and involving tow of the same users is happenning here that resulted in the protection of the other page.--Rondus 21:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC) — Rondus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

That's not at all true. The issues are not at all the same. The admin in question deleted an article despite the fact that there was no consensus to do so. That deletion was incorrect and is about to be overturned. The admin got upset that I summarized the better sourced parts of the article and added them to the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn article. He argument was that it was deleted content. However, since it was improperly deleted, he in fact had a conflict of interest and should not have protected the article at all. I believe a review of his actions in the matter has been requested. So before you start repeating a rogue admin you might want to consider that the fact that an admin said it will not save you from being blocked for harassment. After all, he only said it once. You I'd guess are nearing your 100th repetition. IPSOS (talk) 21:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Rondus is right in a way though, an admin did say it (regardless of the fact that admin may be wrong). If someone accuses someone of having a conflict of interest or being a sockpuppet, that is a failure to 'assume good faith,' but it isn't a personal attack in the way that 'f*** off merkinsmum, you HOGD Inc. a**-licking moose-pig' or something would be.:)Merkinsmum 21:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is categorized as a personal attack in WP:NPA to use "someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme." Obviously if it is consider a personal attack even when true, it is certainly harassment when it is not true. Again, I am not a member of any Golden Dawn order and am not acting as an agent for anyone. IPSOS (talk) 22:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I would really like to believe you. Still, the fact remains that your behavior has caused a Wikipedia administrator to protect a page for what he has evaluated to be H.O.G.D., Inc. activism. Your beef is not with me over this. The administrator called that one, not me. Your issue is not with me, but with him--Rondus 22:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No, my issue is with you, because you are the one repeating your personal attack to the point of harassment. IPSOS (talk) 22:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, your repeated warning tags, suspected sock puppet tags, frivolous administrative reports, etc. that you have engaged in since I joined Wikipedia are clarly harassment.--Rondus 22:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

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.wiki.x.io/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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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: [2] 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 Wikipedia policy. GlassFET 18:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep current title due to reasons above.Merkinsmum 19:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Note About Contentious Self-Published Materials

It is the policy of Wikipedia that editors do not use self-published materials unless the author is an established expert in the field. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 [[3]] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia policy. [Magus007]

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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)