Talk:Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

QUOTE more recent work seems to suggest that Dr. Westcott was a considerable influence END QUOTE What is this research? This whole article would benefit from proper academic referencing.

   Reply: Done.

Famous members of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn have included W.B. Yeats and Aleister Crowley -- is this correct? (If so, could someone please add it to article.)

Thelema links?

I've removed the links to the Thelemapedia and the Free Encyclopedia of Thelema homepages. Sites with such a general Thelemic orientation do not clarify issues for the casual encyclopedia user. Thelema has a different ethic, and draws from a wider array of traditions, than the GD. I wouldn't object if one were to deep-link to those sites, selecting articles that explain the relationship between the GD and Thelema. Alternatively, the links could be reverted intact if one were to discuss in this article Thelema and its relevance to the GD. Vorpal Suds 05:56, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

hess

hi everybody, sorry for my english ;-D

I've read something about the contacts between Rudolf Hess, the Thule Society and the Golden Dawn. On the french wiki, they said that Hess was a Golden Dawn member. Does know anybody more on that point? thanks Topf of fr 07:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Reply

When the GD was disbanded in 1903, Hess was 9 years old.

I would be surprised to find the Thule Society and the GD completely unrelated, as the GD was watched closely by groups in the rest of Europe and in the very small occult scene of that time the networking had to be pretty dense. But as their main ideas are pretty much divergent (detailed judeo-christian-masonic system vs. a back to the roots rage against anything jewish, christian, or masonic), I find it extremely hard to believe they were connected in any deeper way. Denial 15:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Repeated attempts to insert the same off-topic POV text

• 00:31, 14 December 2005 65.141.49.66
• 14:39, 8 December 2005 65.139.116.143
• 02:43, 8 December 2005 65.139.117.103
• 21:14, 5 December 2005 65.139.116.13
• 18:31, 23 November 2005 65.139.116.24
• 01:17, 22 November 2005 65.139.117.205
• 03:33, 21 November 2005 65.139.117.34
• 01:29, 15 November 2005 65.139.117.197
• 01:42, 10 November 2005 65.139.117.63
• 00:56, 9 November 2005 65.139.116.235
• 13:06, 6 November 2005 65.139.116.138
• 16:10, 31 October 2005 65.139.117.157
• 23:26, 30 October 2005 65.139.117.80

All of these edits pasted into the article the same text, which is both POV ("particularly significant") and off topic (as it does not refer to the historic Golden Dawn). In a remarkable act of boneheadedness, the anonymous vandal has repeatedly overwritten the link to Golden Dawn tradition, where the same text would still be POV, but at least on topic. (This is mostly a note to admins who may want to check what the frequent reverts mean.)

Have you checked this page to report vandalism? --Jdemarcos 23:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

That page is to be used "If you witness a particular user or IP address repeatedly engaging in vandalism" (emphasis original). I don't think that applies here, because the IPs shift, if in a very small range in West Palm Beach, FL. Still blocking all of that range would be too much to ask. I'll rather write an email about it to The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc., which just happens to be Florida-based.Denial 23:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I guess that these addresses belong to a single ISP that uses dynamic IP address assignment, a system that provide a different IP address within a limited range every time the PC connects to the internet. But this is very probably a single user. You may also check with the ISP that owns those addresses. --Jdemarcos 10:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The Florida corporation is not the group promoted by the repeated POV edits. Google Groups searches in alt.magick for "Griffin + nazi", "Cicero + mafia", etc., will show a flame war in progress between the (presumed) fans and supporters of the group promoted by the POV posts, and the (presumed) fans and supporters of the Florida corporation. Those interested in maintaining the NPOV content of Golden Dawn related articles would be well served to watch all of these articles. --Cheech Wizard 23:33 16 November 2024

Would it be worth it to add acknowledgement of this dispute to the page, in a factual NPOV way? Or would that just encourage bad behavior? DenisMoskowitz 18:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Now one of the other groups, the Esoteric Order of the Golden Dawn (run by Robert Zink) has been making their own POV edits to the entry, including lots of links to their own website in the text being offered up as "truth in the Golden Dawn". I've tried to edit the entry in a facutal POV way, without promoting one group over another, but just as Griffin's group was doing before, Zink's group is doing now.

I wrote a factual account of the GD history that has been published since 2002, which has many outside links going to it. It can be seen at: http://www.osogd.org/library/biscuits/history.html. My own group is affiliated with the Florida Corporation, but I did not even make a special paragraph describing ny group, much less blatantly promoting it.

I have based my edit of the entry on verifiable scholarship from sources like R. A. Gilbert and Ellic Howe, not claims of "secret oral transmissions" and unsupportable assertions that the founders had temples in the USA, from which Mr. Zink's organization makes specious claims of descent. The edits their group has made also includes some blatant factual errors, such as claiming Bram Stoker belonged to the Golden Dawn.

I have already made a request for meditaion to the Mediation Cabal, and I have contacted Mr. Zink via e-mail to work out a solution. I have not yet received a reply. But I will continue to re-edit the article until someone at Wiki comes to a decision about what to do. Joseph Max 23:33 16 November 2024

Cleaned Up Non-POV Version Submitted

In response to the clean-up request, I've submitted an expanded article with more references and topic headers/TOC. I hope it doens't get anonymously reverted to the POV version again.

Joseph Max 23:33 16 November 2024

Reasons for 1/12/2006 Revision

It looks like there is some controversy surrounding this article, so I'd like to explain some of the minor revisions that I have done with this article.

1. In the Background section, no mention was previously made concerning Christian or Jewish mysticism, but the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn's influence on these areas of thought was enormous, so links were made to these topics.

2. In the Origins section, the impression is made that Mathers, Westcott and Woodman were Freemasons throughout their tenure with the Order of the Golden Dawn, but this is simply untrue. A sentence was added to clarify Mathers' relationship with Freemasonry.

3. The structure of all Golden Dawn ritual is based on the Cipher Manuscripts. In The Cipher Manuscripts section, this fact is unclear, so a sentence was added to clarify.

4. In the Sources of the Cipher Manuscripts section, mention is made of the possibility that Fraulein Sprengel could have been a code word, but it does not explain why it could have been a code word. Thus, a sentence was added which explains how the word 'Sprengel' may have been short for 'Sprengelrecht'.

5. My two primary sources for this material were Ithell Colquhoun's book, The Sword of Wisdom, and an online article called The Truth About the Cipher Manuscripts. Although I do see that someone objected to its use in someone else's previous revisions, this is simply where I obtained some of the information that I have.

Frater HH 23:33 16 November 2024

Response to Frater HH

Very well, Frater HH -- now we're getting somewhere. I agree with your adding the translation of name "Sprengel" and its significance.

I did send a message to Mr. Zink regarding this controversy, but he has not answered. But it seems my advice to have someone in his group actually register with Wikipedia, instead of posting anonymous edits, was taken to heart.

If you like, you can e-mail me at: maxx58585@yahoo.com and we can discuss this matter fully.

What I still take issue with you over are the following edits:

"However, after becoming a member of the Golden Dawn, S.L. Macgregor Mathers resigned from Freemasonry." This is a parenthetical comment at best, unless you have it in mind to discount Freemasonry as an influence on the GD, which is ridiculous. I don't think Mathers IMMEDIATELY resigned from the UGLE, which is what you seem to be implying here. I don't even think it's worth mentioning, but if you do you should attach a time frame to it -- for example, after he moved to Paris. What reference do you have that shows if and when he resigned from the Grand Lodge and/or the SRIA? (I've never found any, but this could be checked in Masonic records.) Maybe he just stopped paying his dues and went inactive. What it seems you're doing here is a backhanded slap at Masonry, trying to separate the GD from its genuine Masonic roots, and I've never understood why you guys are so obsessed with doing that, except possibly due to your leader's Catholic sympathies.

"The Cipher Manuscripts and other documents called the Z documents provide the basis of the Golden Dawn tradition, and define the structure of Golden Dawn ritual." This is "biased POV" in the language of Wikipedia. In other words, it's what YOUR Order purports to believe, but it is not in any way universally accepted. No reputable, published GD scholar recognizes the Z Documents as being of the same foundational nature as the Cipher. Neither Gilbert nor Howe has ever advanced this idea. Not even Cicero, who sticks to a very traditional GD form, will back you guys on this one. In his "The Essential Golden Dawn', there is a whole chapter on the Cipher, which begins, "No history of the Golden Dawn can be given without some reference to the Cipher Manuscript -- the enigmatic document upon which the rituals and the knowledge lectures of the Golden Dan are based." Period. The Z Docs are mentioned in passing only twice, and not as a fundamental basis of the GD. What you're trying to do with this one is de-legitimize any group as being "not real Golden Dawn" if they don't revere Mathers and the Z Docs like you do. In other words, it's a reflection of an exclusively biased POV, and has no place in a general encyclopedia article.

What the Z Docs really are is an exegesis by Mathers of the original system of the Cipher. The Z Docs are NOT in any way "original materials" in the way the Ciphers are, because the Ciphers pre-dated the establishment of the original Isis-Urania Temple No. 3, whereas the Z Docs were created AFTER it's establishment. They are Mathers' interpretation of the Ciphers, but they are in no way the ONLY possible interpretation. Even if you buy into the mythology given by Westcott of Fraulien Sprengel and the "German Rosicrucians", as your group does, your claim doesn't stand up. Part of that mythology (specifically mentioned in the Sprengel letters) is the existence of a GD Temple PRIOR to the one created by Westcott and Mathers, referred to as "Hermanubis Temple No. 2". This being the case, then a GD Lodge was in fact formed BEFORE the Z Documents were written by Mathers, even before Mathers had ever heard of the Golden Dawn! Logically, therefore, the Z Docs are not "foundational documents", since a GD Temple (recognized by Sprengel) was founded before they existed!

Be aware I'll continue to keep eliminating this edit to the article, and I'll make my case to the Wikipedia Mediation Cabal if I have to. I expect to hear from them in three days. If you want to describe the Z Documents as part of Mathers' work to refine and develop the Cipher materials into a workable form, I'll go along with that, but not with any idea that they are universally accepted as foundational. That is YOUR group's opinion only, not one shared generally by the rest of the Golden Dawn community, and you have no right to present it as if it is.

"(This should not, however, detract from the importance of the Cipher Manuscripts.)" Expressions like this are OPINIONS, not statements of fact. The preceding paragraph that I wrote states the FACTS: "The actual material itself described in the Manuscript is of known origins. Hermeticism, Alchemy, Qabalah, Astrology and Tarot were certainly not unknown to 19th century scholars of the Magical arts; the Cipher is a compendium of previously known Magical traditions. The basic structure of the rituals and the names of the Grades are based on those of the S.R.I.A." The appending of an OPINION on "importance" is yet again, a biased POV.

" Many Golden Dawn scholars believe that Mathers received his materials from the "Secret Chiefs" connected to his German Rosicrucian predecessors..." You changed "some" to "many", and added the appellation "scholars" to what I wrote. I challenge you to find ANY reputable scholar of GD history who has EVER given any credence to Mathers' claims of contacts with these "Secret Chief" representatives. Howe does not, nor does Gilbert, nor Kuntz, nor Runyon, nor King, nor Cicero. They don't even claim that these "Secret Chiefs" existed at all! So who are these "many scholars"? The only "scholars" claiming this are those who belong to groups who have a religious faith in their actual existence, such as your group and Mr. Griffin's.

"Some believe that S.L. Macgregor Mathers and his wife Moina invoked the materials, and he refined and developed them, as he had with the Cipher Manuscripts." You replaced my descriptor of "channeled" with "invoked." That is non-sequitur. "Invoking" is something you do with a spirit or deity, not with textural material. "Channeling" is the proper term for receiving raw material in a trance state from a spiritual source, which is what she (and you claim also Mathers himself too, but I won't quibble about that point) actually did. It's unfortunate that "channeling" has acquired a somewhat touchy-feely "New Age" connotation, but it's the proper descriptive term.

Adding Ithell Colquhoun's book to the references was a good idea, as it's certainly influential. But adding your own website link, "Truth About the Cipher Manuscripts", to the list of actual published BOOKS on the subject is, once again, promoting a biased POV. You already have a link to your "Golden Dawn Research Center" in the article, and someone can find that essay and others promoting your POV on your website. But it has no standing to be included as a primary reference in a general encyclopedia article.

I will be making the above factual corrections to the article, and I hope you will contact me soon to discuss these matters so we can come to a fraternal solution. Be aware that refusing to even try to discuss these issues between us will not put you in a good light with Wikipedia's Mediators.

Note: this message has been posted to Fraterhh's talk page, and also to the "Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn" talk page.

- Joseph Max [Jmax555]

Z Documents

No matter how you understand the Z documents, no discussion of the Golden Dawn tradition would be complete without mentioning them. Thus, I included a brief quote from Regardie's Golden Dawn.

--Frater HH

Copyrighted materials are not allowed on Wikipedia

This is far too long of a passage to qualify as "fair use", Frater HH.

You have also put the article size over Wikipedia's 30 Kbyte limit.

As for your assertion that "no discussion of the Golden Dawn tradition would be complete without mentioning them", in the entire book "The Essential Golden Dawn" by Chic and Tabitha Cicero, considered by many as one of the basic textbooks for GD studies, the Z Documents get "mentioned" in TWO SENTENCES, each in a different part of the book! By contrast, the Cipher Manuscript gets its own chapter heading.

Write your own Wikipedia article on the Z Documents if you wish, and put a link to it in the text. So long as you don't try to maintain that they are equally fundamental to the tradition as the Ciphers, I won't complain.

- Joseph Max [JMax555]

Slow down fellows

As to the section JMax555 removed. I was going to do the same, not because I am disputing it, but because the formating is no consistent with WP:STYLE. It also is not in accord with WP:NPOV. Fraterhh, I'm not passing judgement on what you are saying in this section, I for one welcome all contributions to Wikipedia, but you need to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies. In this case especially to layout and text formatting. By putting the spaces at the beginning of your paragraphs you have introduced formatting that you probably weren't aware of. Perhaps you should try your edits in the Sandbox until you have become familiar with how thing work. I'm trying to avoid taking sides in this edit war, but every one involved needs to adhear to policy. What's going on is making us all look like squabbling children.--◀Puck^talk▶ 16:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Revision Concerning Second Order

Concerning the Second Order, the name of the Second Order was corrected, and a sentence was added which explained the connection between the First and Second Orders.

Links Added

Links to the Cipher Manuscripts were added in a new section called External Links. More links are welcome; hopefully, these links will be kept through the gauntlet of criticism...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.22.204.79 (talk • contribs) 2006-01-14 22:26:55 (UTC).

If you're talking about the little bout of reverts on Golden Dawn tradition, it was because the link that actually went to fascimiles of the Cipher Manuscripts had been deleted and a link to EOGD's speculations about it was put in its place with out changing the wording Photocopies and the translation of the original Cipher Manuscripts can be found on-line at. If there were actually copies there I probably wouldn't have had any problem with it, but there isn't, at least not at that address. Putting the link in the External link section is OK, though at one point we've had three or four links on the same page all going the the EOGD which is a bit excessive if you ask me.

I didn't have a bone to pick until a few days ago when a change on one of the pages I watch lead me to realize there have been many anon and new users over the past few months whose only contributions are adding links to EOGD web sites and editing articles to introduce a pro EOGD POV on occult and magick related articles. Whether or not this a conscious policy coordinated by the EOGD's leadership or not, it does not make the organization look good in the eyes of someone like me who is relative novice. It certainly gives the appearance of a wannabe grasping for attention. If the EOGD is as wide spread and established as it claims to be it shouldn't be concerned about establishing a presence here, especially not by what could be interpreted as link spam.--◀Puck^talk▶ 23:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

More POV

Dr. John Gold Has joined in adding biased POV [1]. I don't have the energy to chase you guys around any more tonight. I just hope the mediation process has more success here than I have. Have fun.--◀Puck^talk▶ 06:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted it yet again, to the last version that Frater HH submitted (which was an edit of my version, which I was willing to let stand in the hopes of ending the edit-war.) But here we go again! Mediators, please help! JMax555 07:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I can live with these

[2]

[3]

Barthimaeus seems to be doing a good balancing act. I wouldn't mind hearing from him on the talk pages, though, or having him leave an edit summary when he makes his changes.--◀Puck^talk▶ 01:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Added Links

I added the links from the Golden Dawn tradition to the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn page, since they both would benefit from the links. Frater HH 20:30 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I can live with these too

It's passed through the JMax, FraterHH and Barthimaeus filters now. How about the anons leave it alone! - JMax555 00:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Still seeking mention of Z docs

I changed one of the sentences concerning the Cipher manuscripts to at least reflect the existence of the Z documents.

--Fraterhh

My only issue there would be is many justified, or would some be better. I honestly don't know. In my own limited experience, the Z documents are something I had only been aware of tangentially, but one of the grand high mucky-mucks at the O.T.O. lodge were I hang out, someone whom I have a measure of respect for, seems to place a great deal of value on them. Whether he considers them foundational or simply a good reference I couldn't say. Obviously they are significant, but as to how much and to how many I'm in the dark.--◀Puck^talk▶ 22:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

In certain GD circles at least the Z docs are extremely important. They were not foundational to the formation of the original order in the same way as the Cipher MSS but they are key to understanding the system. I think they are worthy of a separate article but they are probably a bit too esoteric (pun intended) for the article at hand. Barthimaeus 23:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Branched the Cipher Manuscripts section

I branched out the Cipher Manuscripts section into its own article. I wanted to see more information on the ciphers added and they were already given a little too much space in the main article. Hope the general consensus will approve. I also don't think we should merge this article with GD Tradition, and propose to remove the "merge" tag at the top of the page. Barthimaeus 23:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

On the Cipher Manuscripts I agree, I'd like to see more, and I'm too lazy to do the work myself :). As to the merge I could go either way.--◀Puck^talk▶ 00:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Removing Link Redundancy

I moved all the links directly related to groups practicing the GD tradition over to the "Golden Dawn Tradition" article, and replaced them here with links to articles from non-affiliated sources, such as the About.com, Witchvox and Llewellyn encyclopedias. - JMax555 05:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Bias toward "HOGD/A+O" is not the same as "non-biased"

The clear promotion of one group by 69.219.103.195 in the edit-bombing of this article, with with long-winded expounding of that group's unsupported "theories" about GD history, is not "non-bias". No amount of Orwellian word-twisting can make it so, since it's so damn obvious what's going on. We thought this edit-war had settled down, but now it looks like it needs at least semi-protection from the latest wave of self-promoting historical revisionists.

It wouldn't be, if that's what were happening, but it's not.

This is reminiscent of right-wing extremists accusing the American mainstream media of "liberal bias". To some extreme conservatives, anything NOT extremely conservative is, by automatic definition, "liberal bias."

The article as revised to NPOV gives the basic history of philosophy of the Order as known and described by respected, published authorities in the field. If the "HOGD, Inc." happens to agree with respected, published authorities in the field, that is not "bias". Kephera, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia guidelines for Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources."

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

None of the revisionist "theories" that keep being edited in by Kephera and others can be verified by reference to any PUBLISHED authoritative source. (See the reading list for examples, such as R.A. Gilbert and Ellic Howe.) Other parts of the Edit that Kephera keeps inserting (such as references to a "Third Order" and it's description) pertain ONLY to ONE particular Golden Dawn order's beliefs, and are not universally accepted by other practitioners or verified by reliable, published experts.

The "political" position of the group Kephera represents, "HOGD/A+O", is that they are the one and only true and authentic Golden Dawn order. They are in fact a small minority of the Golden Dawn community. Their revisionist "history" of the Order is not verifiable, except by their claims of being in possession of "inner order secrets" which they refuse to publish or present to the academic community for peer review and independent verification. Until this happens, such information is not acceptable for inclusion in a general purpose encyclopedia article.

The External Links in the "Golden Dawn Tradition" article includes a link for the "HOGD/A+O" organization. Interested parties can follow that link and get their unique, minority POV.