Talk:Golden Dawn tradition/Archive 2

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-01-11_Hermetic_Order_of_the_Golden_Dawn
===Locked===
I have temporarily locked the page from editing, to allow the different parties to work out the best way forward on the article.  Lack of dialogue from the party preferring the current version will be seen as evidence of a lack of any desire to collaboratively edit.  Take this opportunity to discuss writing a more verifiable article written from Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View.  Jkelly 22:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Case Re-submitted to Wikipedia Mediation Cabal

message: I have temporarily locked the page from editing, to allow the different parties to work out the best way forward on the article.  Lack of dialogue from the party preferring the current version will be seen as evidence of a lack of any desire to collaboratively edit.  Take this opportunity to discuss writing a more verifiable article written from Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View.  Jkelly 22:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Locked

message: Dear J. Kelly,
Further to my message supra on this discussion page, recently protected by yourself, with the correct, non-tampered, FACTUAL and NON POV version. I can confirm to you that I've taken your advice, and now have a Wikipedia account.
My reason for doing so, is to ensure that the correct, factual article is not abused and corrupted under biased presumptuous editing.  I will of course go through the proper channels and observe proper protocol, to ensure that unscrupulous integrity killers do not prevail in deforming the article corruptly.
My user name is: Frater FiatLux
:Hello! Glad to see you here (and logged-in too). However: Please sign your name using four tildes  ~~~~ when making your posts. It's much faster than typing it out. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 02:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User ID 

message: *Suggestion:
*I would like to point out that a merge can be done, and is merited. The preferable space size for an article is about 32 kilobytes yes, but there are ways around that. Merging the two articles together would result in extra information, which could then be moved to its own page. 
*For instance, the main article should probably be the original title of the Order. This page would have the complete history of the order, as well as its members and any other pretinent information. The information on the various offshoot should get its own section, summarized, and contents moved to its own main article. This way, size limits can be reduced, but the main history (roots/origins, development, grade structure, authors/members/contributors, break up/court cases) should remain on one article. This is usually done anyway. Once a page gets too large, sub-pages or main articles are created as long as there is enough information, and I do believe there is an abundance of information on the Golden Dawn. Zos 04:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: Can someone identify the points of dispute, other than whether or not a merge is a good idea?  Jkelly 18:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not quite sure (I came here while on RCP and followed User:JMax555's edits) but I think it's mostly a war between to factions of OGD. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 22:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See above, "Regarding recent anon edits". --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 22:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Points of dispute? 

message: Dear J. Kelly: 
The only evidence that Cicero operated a Golden Dawn temple in 1977 comes from Cicero's own book, and one reference to that same book by a friend. In fact, Cicero's only formal contact in the Occult community in 1977 was the O.T.O.'s Major Grady McMurty. 
While, like tens of thousands of others, Cicero may have bought a copy of Regardie's doorstopper/black book, he did not meet Regardie until Pat Behman (a/k/a Cris Monnastre) and Regardie flew down, at Behman's insistence, to Athens, Ga. This was in the early 1980s (where Cicero, as is a matter of public record, see the attached links to the affidavit of Charles Cicero, infra to this text; Cicero operated a strip club- "The Shady Lady"). 
Monnastre did in fact write the introduction to Regardie’s -black book- and it is P.O.V. of J.M. to attempt to link Cicero to a work totally unrelated to him. Llewellyn in fact has largely stopped publishing Cicero's works, which H.O.G.D., Inc. now markets through Thoth Publications. 
Regardie's ONLY students were Pat Behman, Larry Epperson, William Kelly and Alan Millar, and Cicero has admitted that he was never initiated into ANY grade of the Golden Dawn by Regardie (all Cicero's initiations come from Epperson). In fact, Cicero only briefly met Regardie on two or three occasions. Regardie left the bulk of his papers to Alan Miller/Gary Ford's "Isreal Reardie Foundation," and gifted his magical tools to Pat Behman, (who gifted them to David Griffin). 
As to the fact that Cicero licensees deviate from Golden Dawn tradition, please see the landmarks provision of the contract between Griffin/Behman's H.O.G.D. and Cicero's H.O.G.D., Inc. (and the associated sale of partnership from Behman to Griffin). The links infra to this text, to which the attached documents originate, are from public records. There is currently ongoing litigation, which seeks to invalidate these licenses. (Including those of J.M.'s group, which is heavily Thelemic in orientation). 
Please note that J.M. has inappropriately, and in a very unprincipled manner, altered the H.O.G.D. entry in a manner that is not only P.O.V. but incorrect, defamatory and malicious. The correct entry should be: 
The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn/Rosicrucian Order of the A+O 
["javascript:ol('http://www.golden-dawn.com');" Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn/Rosicrucian A+O] 
is currently a sole proprietorship originally organized as a general partnership in 1992 by Patricia Behman (aka Cris Monnastre, a student of Regardie's) and David John Griffin. Behman had operated the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn temples in Los Angeles throughout the 1980s. Prompted by Regardie, Behman formed an unincorporated association with Charles Cicero and Adam Forrest. After withdrawing her endorsement from that organization in 1992 to continue the unschismed version with Griffin, she eventually sold her partnership interest to Griffin in May, 1998. Griffin's H.O.G.D. has modernized the practices of the original Order of Westcott and Mathers since it teaches all the previously published Inner Order materials and practices (notably by Regardie) in the Outer Order. It thus allows adepti to follow a structured curriculum in advanced Hermetic Alchemy. The material taught in their Outer Order is described in "The Ritual Magic Manual: A Comprehensive Course in Practical Magic", by David John Griffin. Mr. Griffin holds the European Community trademark to the name "Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn" registered with the Office of Harmonization in the Internal Market (O.H.I.M.), holds the trademark in Canada, and has a contractual agreement with H.O.G.D. Inc. to share the name "Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn" on a worldwide basis." 
Please contact me should you have any questions. Thank you.
Frater FiatLux 01:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In R.E: Recent editing/dispute G.D. article  

message: There is a lot to digest here.  I'll take a closer look shortly.  I suggest that we all keep in mind some important points about Wikipedia articles.  Mostly that it is that we don't do investigative reporting here.  We're interested in verifiability, not truth.  If every reliable source gets something wrong; we're going to get it wrong as well.  What is going to matter for this article, in the end, is that what our article(s) say about each organisation merely repeats what the mainstream accounts say without trying to solve anything here.  Figuring out what constitutes a "reliable source" in this context is likely to be a challenge (I say this from past experience, not because of the material above or because of the article's subject).  Our expert contributors are best equipped to point out previously published reports, ideally from a disinterested party, about the Golden Dawn tradition as it exists now.  Jkelly 03:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: First thoughts

message: Dear J. Kelly,
You wrote:
“Mostly that it is that we don't do investigative reporting here. We're interested in "/wiki/WP:V", not truth.”
That’s exactly why I’ve posted all this information up.  The information I have given here verifies, absolutely and comprehensively that the Golden Dawn tradition article, -as it currently stands- is the most accurate, non P.O.V. version, that is as neutral and as reliable as there can be.
So, thus, from the evidence I have provided, it should appear apparent to all that the article as it stands at present is a totally reliable source.
Frater FiatLux 03:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what JKelly is trying to say is, you'd need published authors to specify any new statements. I however, didn't see you mention any besides the web site. For more information about using online sources are please see: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Using_online_sources. Thank you. Zos 04:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, sorry to break it to you, but most of your uploaded documents aren't verifiable.  They sure aren't original documents, as I have yet to see court documents issued as jpg's or pdf's, and just about anyone can make up the documents you posted.  How do I know the signatures on the documents you uploaded are valid?  How does anyone know that the notary stamp is valid on the documents you uploaded.--Vidkun 15:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Frater FiatLux, what's happening above is that you're running into Wikipedia jargon.  "Verifiable" has a specific meaning as a Wikipedia policy (you can read it at Wikipedia:Verifiability).  Using original documentation is often in conflict with another policy -- Wikipedia:No original research.  The challenge here is not to convince other Wikipedia editors that any one version of the article is getting things right, it is getting an article put together that is properly sourced and doesn't rely on any judgement calls from editors whatsoever.  Jkelly 16:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Additionally, he is making the claim that all of what he uploaded is from a public domain court source, yet he only points to a GD page, which lists one public domain source for one document.  All the other stuff could be easily contrived by anyone.--Vidkun 19:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First thoughts 

message: I have to disagree with you.  The information in this, the present article, now under protection, is derived from “published” book sources.  I’m not trying to make any new statements, the article in it’s present, protected form is the most accurate and the one that I am in agreement with.  I’m merely validating the present version, under protection, with HARD, VERIFIABLE, ORIGINAL COURT AFFIDAVITS; as evidence for why the present version of the article, after it was rightly protected from the unscrupulous persons that kept trying to tamper with it, with a NON P.O.V., biased version. Is indeed, the correct and most neutral non P.O.V. version I feel is possible.  My EVIDENCE and points made in the supra postings only go to confirm this.
I reiterate I’m not trying to change the article, or make any new statements; I’m trying to preserve the article in its present, correct, non P.O.V. version. Which is now, quite rightfully under protection from opportunists, with heavy motive, to deform and corrupt the article to their own biased P.O.V. and exacting needs.
I would consider original court documents, downloaded from the source, as matter of public record, a reliable source; it is absurd to imply that they're not.  In fact, even more so than a so called "published" book sources, given, that the author could be solely expressing their own P.O.V. in published print.
Therefore, the original court documents I have served, and are used as evidence in this case, to illustrate and prove a point, far out do any biased, bogus, claims made in published print by Charles "Chic" Cicero.
The original downloaded from the source affidavits only go to prove that the present version of the article is by far the correct version.
Please contact me, should you have any further questions.  
Thank you, 
Frater FiatLux 14:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, sorry to break it to you, but most of your uploaded documents aren't verifiable.  They sure aren't original documents, as I have yet to see court documents issued as jpg's or pdf's, and just about anyone can make up the documents you posted.  How do I know the signatures on the documents you uploaded are valid?  How does anyone know that the notary stamp is valid on the documents you uploaded.--Vidkun 15:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Court documents and verifiability 

message: You people really are going to have to read my postings with due care and attention.  
I have complied with complete rectitude and served verifiable documents that prove, without any shadow of doubt, that the now protected article, is indeed the correct, truthful, and non P.O.V. version.  That adheres to the protocols of the Wikipedia guidelines explicitly.  I further reiterate that it is persons with heavy, gross, biased motive that are endeavouring to deform and corrupt the article; which has prevailed into this recent bout of malicious and biased editing and subsequent dispute.  The present protected version should not be altered in any way as it serves a truthful, verifiable and non P.O.V. account of the present standing of certain Golden Dawn groups in the tradition.  Although, I must stress, this is only a present viewpoint as eminent legal proceedings are sure to change the present standpoint of certain putatively licensed orders.  
The court affidavits are downloaded from original sources, so the signatures and information held repository in those attached(Linked)documents are completely, and absolutely verifiable and patently truthful.  As they’re downloaded from a public domain, on-line, court file, that is indeed, of public record. 
Further information on these original files can be obtained at: "http://www.golden-dawn.com/temple/index.jsp?s=articles&p=trademark"
The H.O.G.D/A+O, encourages their members to go to public records, download original documents, and form their own opinion from these original sources. In fact, they give instructions on how to do so on their public forum: Hermetic-Order-of-the-Golden-Dawn at Yahoo groups and or at www.golden-dawn.com at the aforementioned link.
So please, no more ill judged messages saying that official court affidavits are “non-verifiable.” As it is ridiculous -in the extreme-
Frater FiatLux 16:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Frater FiatLux, what's happening above is that you're running into Wikipedia jargon.  "Verifiable" has a specific meaning as a Wikipedia policy (you can read it at Wikipedia:Verifiability).  Using original documentation is often in conflict with another policy -- Wikipedia:No original research.  The challenge here is not to convince other Wikipedia editors that any one version of the article is getting things right, it is getting an article put together that is properly sourced and doesn't rely on any judgement calls from editors whatsoever.  Jkelly 16:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Additionally, he is making the claim that all of what he uploaded is from a public domain court source, yet he only points to a GD page, which lists one public domain source for one document.  All the other stuff could be easily contrived by anyone.--Vidkun 19:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source of documents 

message: Dear J Kelly: 
The present article, which is rightfully protected from corrupt editing is currently, properly sourced and doesn’t, and hasn't, relied on judgement calls from any editors.
The article was fine, and has been fine for a while, until recently, unscrupulous people, namely: JMAX555, started to corruptly, interfere and maliciously edit the article under presumptuous means; to purposely misrepresent the article in a defamatory tone.  This is because JMAX555, is a leader of a putatively styled Golden Dawn rival group and wants to deform the truthful, accurately sourced information in the present, protected version of the article. Because he has a potent dislike for certain orders in the Golden Dawn tradition that are listed in the article, that rival his own group.  Please note that JMAX555’s group forms no part of the present article.
The present, rightfully protected version of the article is pre-eminent over the corrupt editing that was performed recently. The court affidavits go to prove, beyond any shadow of doubt, that the information that I stated in my initial e-mail to you, is indeed, the whole truth.  The court affidavits aren’t included here as a source to base the article on; they’re given here to back up the claims that the present version of the article is indeed, PROPERLY SOURCED, truthful, and non P.O.V.
So, hence, I don’t need to rely on any editors approval, as I have facts, evidence, properly sourced to back up, that the present, protected version of the article is properly sourced and compiled from the information thereof.  Hence, the present version of the article that is under protection, is indeed, PROPERLY SOURCED and adheres to Wikipedia guidelines; to which I might add, the court affidavits back up -comprehensively-
Thank you,
Frater FiatLux 17:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of court documents, you'd need a source to be talking about them. THAT is verifiable, and that is what you need to back up a statement. I've seen you mention POV, well, the article needs a point of view to be an article. Its only the statements themselves that need to be NPOV (neutral point of view), so Wikipedia doesnt look like its for for or against it. And plus, you dont have to start a new section on the talk page to respond. Zos 19:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source of documents 

message: Dear J. Kelly:
Thank you for responding to my request for mediation.
There are a number of issues at work here. The article underwent a great amount of editing some months ago, and there were persons from all the various factions in the community involved, including persons (presumably) from "Frater Fiat Lux's" organization. After much discussion, debate and revision, the various parties came to a compromise and the "edit war" died down. All this can be seen reflected in the pervious entries in the Talk section, and the revision history of the article itself. Then an anonymous user comes along months later and re-edits the article -- repeatedly, and ignores all requests to discuss the edits in the Talk section (this can also be seen in the revision comments as well as the Talk section postings.) Only after I make a request to re-open the mediation process does "Frater Fiat Lux" come forward, get an account (after also having ignored repeated requests to do so) and post to the Talk section -- and that is only to call the rest of us in the community that had accepted a compromised, non-POV article derogatory names and impune our integrity and motives.
To claim that I am "irregularly deforming" the article, or that I am "misrepresenting" or that I am an "unscrupulous person" is silly. I only kept restoring the article to the version that was hammered out by all the various parties several months ago. You may also note that I was accused at one point during that process of being prejudiced toward one of the HOGD Inc.'s licensees! So the other side of this dispute once accused me of "prejudice" too. I figured if both "sides" are complaining, then I must have been standing somewhere in the middle ground.
"Frater Fiat Lux" seems to still be unfamiliar with what Wikipedia requires for verifiability. The court documents he gives instructions to access are not published works in the sense that Wikipedia uses the term. 
They are records of court filings made by "Frater Fiat Lux" and his client, the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn/A+O, in a lawsuit currently being heard in US Federal Court. The case has not been adjudicated and no court has ruled on the veracity of the filings he has made on behalf of his client. Just because documents have been submitted to a court by one side in a civil case, does not mean the information in them is necessarily true, correct, or confirmed. They are one side's opinion in the case, and no court has made any determination concerning them. This is not "verifiability" according to Wikipedia's rules.
If anything, these court filings made by "Frater Fiat Lux" constitute what Wikipedia refers to as "original research". 
"Frater Fiat Lux" also seems to still be unfamiliar with what Wikipedia's policies about "facts". Statements of fact must be verifiable by reference to reliable, published sources, like major book publishing houses or reputable academic sources. 
The pertinent example is his claim that "The only evidence that Cicero operated a Golden Dawn temple in 1977 comes from Cicero's own book, and one reference to that same book by a friend." The "friend" in question here is author Gerald Shuster, who has several scholarly works published by major publishing houses.
When Mr. Cicero met Dr. Regardie is a null issue. There is a published account (by Shuster) that Mr. Cicero did indeed operate a Golden Dawn group as early as 1977. Therefore it meets the verifiability requirement of Wikipedia to be included in the article.
For reasons of a trademark dispute currently being heard in Federal Court, it serves the interests of the HOGD/A+O to discount the fact that Mr. Cicero did indeed operate a G.D. group in 1977, as this is a major point of contention in his court case -- it has to do with the "first use" requirement to claim a trademark. 
"Frater Fiat Lux" is on a campaign, in my opinion, to denigrate Mr. Cicero and his organization. (See my entry above, "Regarding the recent anonymous biased-POV edits".) The tone of his posts here to the Talk section show this quite clearly, I think. He keeps insisting, in a rather rude manner, that papers he filed in a court case on behalf of his client constitute some kind of verifiability as Wikipedia defines the term. These court filings are not, as you so correctly put it, "previously published reports, ideally from a disinterested party." He is not a disinterested party -- his "references" are court filings that he himself wrote! You and others have tried to explain the difference to him, but to no avail.
As I pointed out above, to depict Mr. Cicero's Golden Dawn group as being "started as an OTO Camp" is an attempt to smear the HOGD, Inc. Many members of the Golden Dawn also belong to the OTO, but some others dislike the OTO. And as far as the scope of the article goes, it's irrelevant in any case. Someone could operate a Wiccan coven, or an OTO camp, or a New Age group, or some other spiritual organization prior to establishing a Golden Dawn order, but that doesn't mean that Golden Dawn order was "started as" it. This is clearly a biased depiction.
The US Patent and Trademark Office granted Mr. Cicero the right to use the trademark of "Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn" and validated his declaration of first use of the trademark dating back to 1977. "Frater Fiat Lux's" client, Mr. David Griffin of the HOGD/A+O, filed a challenge to that trademark, but it was withdrawn and the challenge was dismissed "with prejudice". Two books by reputable publishers have verified this 1977 date --  one indeed by Mr. Cicero himself, but it had to go through the usual vetting process by his publisher's editors. It therefore constitutes the "mainstream account" of the subject. No mention of or connection of the HOGD Inc. with the OTO has ever been made in any mainstream account.
I can also point out that "Frater Fiat Lux" is also including more superfluous information in his Talk posts here to further denigrate Mr. Cicero, myself, and others. That is neither here nor there, but I think it does show what his intentions are with these edits.
So to be clear about the issues I have with "Frater Fiat Lux's" edits, I'll reiterate the objections I made before:
1. It is prejudicial, and unprovable by reference to any reputable published source, that the HOGD Inc. was "started as an OTO camp." The only possible reason to include this sentence is to stir up controversy among those Golden Dawn practitioners who have a negative opinion of the OTO and Thelema. This is the same reason he tossed off the reference to my own GD group being "heavily Thelemic in orientation."
2. in the entry for his own organization he wrote, "After withdrawing her endorsement from that organization in 1992 to continue the unschismed version with Griffin..." This is a prejudicial account of the events in question. The other side of the story is that Ms. Behman resigned from the HOGD Inc. and her partnership with Mr. Griffin WAS the "schismed version". It was better to leave BOTH side's versions out of the article entirely so as to not stir up a controversy that cannot be settled in the pages of Wikipedia.
3. Not a single group currently practicing the Golden Dawn system adheres without exception to the "traditional" practices and teaching system of the early British Lodges, notably the HOGD/A+O, which has completely altered the teaching curriculum of the traditional Order. Thus the mention of such deviations ONLY in context to the HOGD Inc. and it's licensees is still another attempt at POV-bias. The previous version simply said that "Some of the autonomous licensees have modified and/or expanded on the original forms" and left it at that. That was the way to settle the controversy which the parties in the prior edit dispute finally arrived at. Another example is in the entry for the Ordo Stella Matutina, "However, Self-Initian[sic] itself does not conform to thede[sic] teachings." Again, the major revision of the curriculum of the Golden Dawn made by the HOGD/A+O does not conform to the teachings of the orignal Order either, which specifically and empahtically declared that advanced techniques should not be taught to beginners in the Order, as the HOGD/A+O does. But no mention is made in "Frater Fiat Lux's" edit to his own group's deviation from "tradition". So the best solution is to entirely AVOID these controversies about what is properly "traditional" and what is not in the text of the article. 
4. The aside added about the Llewellyn Books edition of Regardie's "The Golden Dawn" -- "though this collection is unconnected to the Ciceros (in fact, the introduction was written by Patricia Behman a/k/a Cris Monnastre)" is again intended to prejudice the reader against Mr. Cicero. It's also true that the Epilogue to Regardie's book was written by Sam Webster, who as a former member of Mr. Cicero's group and a current member of the Board of Directors of the HOGD Inc. IS "connected" to the Ciceros. So what is the point of including that passage, except to prejudice the reader against the Mr. Cicero and the HOGD Inc.?
It is entirely unfair to allow one faction to completely re-write it's own section AND the section describing the group(s) on the other side of a ongoing legal dispute and controversy, when it is done in such an obviously prejudicial manner.
I did not "inappropriately, and in a very unprincipled manner, alter the H.O.G.D. entry in a manner that is not only P.O.V. but incorrect, defamatory and malicious." What I did was restore the article to the version that was hammered out by the various factions months ago -- not only by myself, but also several others from different points of view (including factions from "Frater Fiat Lux's" organization). It was a success story in Wikipedia editing disputes: the factions talked it out, bounced edits back and forth, agreed on a compromise POV that those disputing it could live with, and the edit war ended. That is, until "Frater Fiat Lux" came along and anonymously edited the article without consulting anyone, ignored repeated requests to discuss the edits in Talk and come to a compromise, until forced to do so by the Mediation request that I re-activated.
The one thing I did change in an minor update was to correct a factual error regarding the Whare Ra temple of Pat Zalewski. The old article stated that the temple was "in abeyance" when in fact it is still operational and has been for many years. Mr. Zalewski himself brought this to my attention, and I see no reason to doubt him. He even states this to be the case in two of his books on the Golden Dawn, also published by Llewellyn, which fulfills the requirement of verifiability as far as I'm concerned. But "Frater Fiat Lux" throws out that minor correction too.
My request to the mediators is to restore the article to the version that was hammered out by various sides of the dispute months ago and leave it at that. If "Frater Fiat Lux" wishes to make changes regarding the entry for his own group, it should be discussed in Talk first and a compromise reached. That is how editing Wikipedia is supposed to work.
As I see it, less is more in the case of this article. The entries for the various groups should not be long and drawn out, or used as a soap-box to promote one side's POV. A short bit of non-controversial background info is enough, along with a link to the group's own website where their own POV can be freely disseminated to their heart's content. I firmly believe that the final result we came up with months ago fulfilled this goal, but I'm always willing to discuss matters in Talk and reach mutually satisfactory decisons regarding edits.
Thank you, JKelly, for putting up with this long response. If you have any questions, please send them to my user page. JMax555 04:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I need to clarify here -- I'm the administrator who locked the page.  I'm not a volunteer mediator.  I want to be clear that my interest in this is to get enough of a sense of things to know when the page sould be opened to normal wiki editing, and to get a general agreement on following Wikipedia policy.  That said, there has been a lot of material posted on (and linked to from) this Talk page, I am reviewing it, and hope to offer some assistance on making everyone's experience less frustrating.  But my attention here is not part of the semi-official Wikpedia dispute resolution process. Jkelly 04:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification. I've tried to request another mediation, and I thought you were responding to that. My apologies. JMax555 04:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to the Mediator 

message: I'd like to point out at this moment, of the lack of actual citations in this article (not one citation). And for clarity, I don't mean the references. Citations are used to specify where this information is coming from, and help readers of these articles to "fact check" the sources. So for the moment, this can all be disputed. I'd kindly recommend that this gets sorted out before the page is unprotected, since its up for debate and likely to be disputed again. Zos 05:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: "Frater Fiat Lux" still seems to be confused as to the revision history of this article, or he's deliberately trying to create confusion.
It was originally spun off from the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn article after it had been merged to it previously, because it had exceeded the length limit. This occurred in January 2006. 
The "edit war" that sprang up around it mostly took place during that period. The first request I made to the Mediation Cabal was:
Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-01-11 Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn
...dated (obviously) January 11th, 2006. 
So, "Frater Fiat Lux", when I refer to the non-POV version that had been worked out by the various parties, I mean the version which had been pretty much in place by February of 2006. When I reverted the article, I was reverting it back to more or less the same article that had been in place, as I have pointed out, for months. 
Compare the last revert I made to the version that was reverted to, not by myself, but the one from March 1st, 2006, by user That Guy, From That Show! who does not belong to any Golden Dawn group and is a long time Wikipedia contributor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golden_Dawn_tradition&diff=55616159&oldid=41711201
You'll see that the only significant difference is an extended entry for Ordo Stella Matutina, which gives more details as to the workings of their group. You even edited THAT section, adding the superfluous comment that their "self-initiation" program is not "traditional". "Traditional" is a matter of opinion and a loaded subject in the GD community. Your own organization follows an equally non-traditional format, in that it has completely altered the original teaching curriculum. Again, the only reason to add such a comment is to cast suspicion and negativity on that organization. If the previous editors (including myself) were as intent upon belittling other groups as you are, a similar comment about being "non-traditional" could have been put into the section dealing with the HOGD/A+O. But it wasn't. Adding loaded comments about what is or is not "traditional" only causes edit wars to occur, which is exactly what happened. So by mutual consensus, all claims regarding "traditionality" had been left out of the article and all the parties involved accepted it.
So it's quite obvious who is promoting a biased POV here and who is not. There is nothing in that previous version which had any bearing whatsoever on court cases.
I was you who came to Wikipedia anonymously and edited the article to a biased point of view favoring your organization yet again, long after it had been worked out by various parties, both interested and disinterested, to a form generally acceptable to all concerned. It was you who did this without discussion, without explanation, and anonymously and repeatedly. You ignored multiple requests to discuss changes in Talk before making them. Your changes contained, and still contain, errors in spelling and syntax. This was also pointed out, and you still made the same errors in subsequent edits.
What's clear is you don't understand the process of acceptable editing. You came in and made the anonymous edits to the previously existing version. Therefore it was your responsibility to discuss the matter in Talk before doing so. If someone simply reverts the article BACK to the previous version, it is not attendent on that person to discuss the issue in Talk. That was your responsibility, which you ignored.
Nothing in your response above addresses any of these issues, but is simply a long rant impugning my integrity and not much else. Which is neither here nor there, because others have tried to do that too -- and in fact they were on the OTHER side of this dispute. This isn't about me, or about any organization I belong to. It's about the facts, and the revision history and Talk archives contain the facts concerning this issue.
Fact: a version of the article generally acceptable to the various parties was in place by the end of February 2006.
Fact: the reverts I made to your edits were essentially the same as that consensual version. It was the version that was in place BEFORE YOU EDITED IT. You were changing that generally agreed upon version, I was putting it back the way it was.
Fact: you don't seem to understand, or are deliberately ignoring, Wikipedia's policies on Verifiability and No_original_research. Court papers filed by one side in a pending civil suit are not Reliable_sources that can serve as verifiable references under Wikipedia rules. (They constitute original research, if anything.)
:JKelly - I have placed another request with the Mediation Cabal regarding this article: 
:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-05-31_Golden_Dawn_tradition
:Thank you again for your attention to this matter. - JMax555 22:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to the above

message: It is my belief that to be consistent with Wikipedia policy, that court documents of an unsettled case should only be used in an article about the case itself. After all, an affadavit is simply a sworn statement - each parties affadavits are essentially autobiographical in nature - they are describing the facts as they see them. So they would also be acceptible to cite in an article about the person or org who wrote them, but not in a general article or to be used to criticize, degrade or rebut an article about the legal opponent in the case. 
In this case, really it is the outcome that matters. Once that outcome is known, then articles can be retitled and the resolution of the case noted in the article about the orgs in question. For now, there should probably not even be a mention that there is a court case, unless it has been reported in some citable media. --999 13:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Court documents

message: I on the other hand, again, vehemently disagree with this ill-judged decision of deleting the page wholesale.  Just because “JMAX555,” cannot get his own biased, defamatory way with the article, and has in a very unprincipled way, defended a corrupt, hopeless position now just decides that he wants to disperse the whole article.  Simply because he cannot get his way to publish his defamatory version of the article.
This is preposterous and I will NOT agree -whatsoever- to any deletion of the article, when there is a perfectly good, correct, verifiable, truthful and accurate in all cases article that is now presently, and one might add, rightfully under protection from the dastardly corrupt editing of Mr. Max555.
I also object to the user “Zos” being involved in this discussion as it has transpired he has biased leanings and could be in cahoots with “JMAX555,” therefore, any decision made between the two should quashed forthwith.  
Frater FiatLux 12:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to you point out where I am bias. I had just gotten here to see you complaining, without sources. And no one is talking about "deleting" material. We move it to another page, that deals with the topic in which the sources allow, this is not deleting". And before you accuse me of being involved with a user, check my contributions. I've never met, nor spoken with JMax before this talk page. Yet he seems more reasonable than you. Zos 15:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Zos
Again, I’m not surprised you’re saying things like this now, given your disposition.  It doesn’t prove a thing that there’s no evidence of you and him exchanging any correspondence through Wikipedia.  You’re hardly going to be that foolhardy; at least I don’t think so.  You’ll obviously be corresponding through private e-mails.
I’m not holding your hand wasting my time yet again, with out of context, silly remarks that just creates more work.  Look through the infra postings all the proof you need is there.  
Frater FiatLux 15:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disagreement to the recent biased proposal. 

message: Zos, you are a member of the OSOGD aren’t you in cahoots with “JMAX555”? Someone has tipped me off via private e-mail, and whistle blown that you‘re actually a member with the OSOGD with “JMAX555.”  Can you confirm or deny this?  I’m sorry but I’m going to discredit your apparent misguided efforts thus far to ensure that the correct, rightfully protected version is taken down, and the “JMAX555” defamatory editing is put up in its place.  
Furthermore, I request that you distance yourself from this discussion as there is a cloud of murky questions and an air of biased perspective around your involvement with “JMAX555.” This making you an inept mediator or editor as you have a biased standpoint on the article, no wonder you wanted to be editor of the article once it was unprotected!
If anyone has further information on this matter and requires anonymity please e-mail me privatly at Verumincrebresco@yahoo.co.uk or post up on my user page Frater FiatLux 12:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are border lining on uncivil. If you persist, I will report you. I'm not a member of any faction of the GD, and you have unrealiable sources. Plus, I'm no mediator. But this needed to be discussed before mediation. Editors dont get to just complain about the way an article is without a valid reason. The way it appears, is that we have more reasons to move the content, and you are running out of ideas. Zos 15:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I had a feeling you'd try to say something like that.  I have the truth on my side I don't need to come up with "ideas." The present article is the factual, truthful version as the supra postings prove beyond any shadow of doubt.
Frater FiatLux 15:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine. May I please see this "e-mail" verification that I am a member of the OSOGD? I believe in open source, yet I don't think this makes me a member. Zos 15:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Dear Zos:
I will ask the person weather or not they want to be revealed as my source.  They requested anonymity and unless they state otherwise when I ask them, about revealing my source to you as to the incriminating e-mail; I will have no other option other than to respect their wishes.  I am a man of strict integrity and will -not for anyone- conduct myself in an unprincipled manner against someone's strict wishes for anonymity.  
I will do my utmost within respecting their wishes to bring this information to you forthwith.  
Frater FiatLux 16:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With no verifiable source, your statement regarding someone's membership in an organization is hearsay.  It seems, again and again, you have no concept of reliable sources are for the purposes of wikipedia, and that you have no interest in consensus, as you have repeatedly said that the current content and format of the page are what YOU want to remain.  That's NEVER going to happen.--Vidkun 17:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is user Zos actually in cahoots with JMAX555? 

message: God, really, you guy’s; I’ll spell it out for you then.  “JMAX555” group is not part of the present article, in any way.  The OSOGD is not listed in the present, and correct, rightfully protected article.  Or the other defamatory version that “JMAX555” purposes.  Hence, JMAX555 should have no interest in this article, as it doesn’t concern him, he should stay out of it and further cease and desist performing egregious edits.  
The HOGD Inc. entry is their own business and should have nothing to do with “JMAX555;” the HOGD Inc entry is their own concern not “JMAX555,” unless he’s acting as an emissary thereof.   He is only a licensee and per my knowledge holds no rank or authority in Mr. Cicero’s organisation.  So why is so proactive and seeks absolute involvement in something that has nothing -whatsoever- to do with him is indeed, an enigma.
Therefore, when JMAX555 involves himself in the egregious and defamatory editing of the article that really has nothing to do with him and shouldn’t be his concern.  He only partakes in this unprincipled behaviour because of his biased disposition. 
So please do not trouble this discussion again with misleading, and out of context nonsense comment, through not reading my postings with due care an attention.
I will not repeat myself to you again. Your negation and false disputation is quashed forthwith(again.
And Zos my user name is in full: Frater FiatLux 12:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, I will apologize for the shortening of your user name....but who said I was supposed to be an administrator? I'm not an admin. Zos 15:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correcting misrepresentations by "Zos" (again). 

message: I have reported FiatLux. Anyone wishing to add to this, is appreciated.
*Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Frater_FiatLux
:Zos 17:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Zos, 
I’ve addressed your falsehoods in the appropriate areas.  I am new to Wikipedia and subsequently I’m not in total possession of the facts of all the policies, as I am not infallible.  Your action is frivolously served compared to the misrepresentations, harassment and out of context comments by yourself;  That I have to keep correcting.
You have even stooped as low to use my user name in disingenuous terms.
 
Your also seen here trying to instigate and encourage people to join you in trying to silence me, so that you can go unhampered and not opposed with your defamatory tones and biased article editing with "JMAXX555."
Frater FiatLux 18:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frater FiatLux 

message: The Esoteric Order of the Golden Dawn (E.O.G.D.) is a modern Golden Dawn Order founded by Robert Zink, Sonya Zink, John Brawl and Zack Ramsey in Fontana, California in the early 1990s. The original name of the order was Eternal Circle of Light and then Hermetic Order of the Eternal Golden Dawn. The name underwent change to "Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn International". Under threat of a lawsuit over the use of the name "Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn International" in the USA, the group chose to go by the name "Hermetic Order of the Morning Star International" for a number of years. After being granted a license by HOGD, Inc., they then again changed their name to "Esoteric Order of the Golden Dawn". The organization holds a license with the H.O.G.D. inc. The E.O.G.D. has several Temples and Sanctuaries and study groups around the world. In addition to these local groups, the E.O.G.D. offers teaching and on-line classes for correspondence members. The E.O.G.D. is well-known for long-distance or "astral" initiations of correspondence members, a practice very tenuously based on the Emerald Tablet of Hermes statement: "That which is above is from that which is below, and that which is below is from that which is above, working the miracles of one.”
Comment to section 1:
The changes to the name of the organisation now known as: “The Esoteric Order of the Golden Dawn”, is crucial, historical, biographical information that can be verified through the EOGD’s own web-site and others pertaining to that organisation.  The fact that the threat of law suit is mentioned is also biographical and should be included in the article as this refers to the present litigation, and necessitates why the now known EOGD had changed name numerous times.
:HOWEVER, CHARLES CICERO, WHO LICENSED THESE PEOPLE (ALBEIT IMPROPERLY), REFERS TO THEM AS “THE HERMETIC ORDER OF THE MORNING STAR, INC. D/B/A THE ESOTERIC ORDER OF THE GOLDEN DAWN.” (http://www.hermeticgoldendawn.org).  This should, therefore, be changed to reflect that “The Hermetic Order of the Morning Star, Inc. currently, as a result of the Cicero license, uses the name “The Esoteric Order of the Golden Dawn.”:
There is P.O.V. statement in this article entry and my proposal for a revision is: The E.O.G.D. is well known for long-distance or "astral" initiations of correspondence members. Whilst this practise is non-traditional to the G.D. tradition, the E.O.G.D. claim validation of this non-traditional practise based on the premise of the Emerald Tablet of Hermes statement: "That which is above is from that which is below, and that which is below is from that which is above, working the miracles of one."
My verifiable source for astral initiation being non-traditional to the G.D. corpus is again: “The Original Account of the Teachings, Rites and Ceremonies of the Hermetic Order of: The Golden Dawn.”  As revealed by Israel Regardie, in the sixth edition.  ISBN0-87542-663-8.  There is no mention of self-initiation in the original teachings of the Golden Dawn whatsoever, of most notable of these teachings are: “Z1, the enterer of the threshold” and the “Z3, the symbolism of the admission of the candidate.” Both of which deal explicitly with the subject of initiation on multitudinous levels, and neither mention or imply “astral” initiation in any form.  Thus, with the revision, I believe this entry is now a factual, non- P.O.V., accurate assessment of “The Esoteric Order of the Golden Dawn”, with completely verifiable sources.
Section 1:
“====Whare Ra====
While most temples of the Alpha et Omega and the Stella Matutina became dormant by the end of the 1930s, the exceptions were the Hermes Temple in Bristol which continued until World War II, and the Whare Ra temple in New Zealand which lasted into the late 1970's. In the early 1980s, the Whare Ra Temple was re-organized by Pat and Chris Zalewski, and continued operation until the end of the 1990s. The Zalewskis have written several books on the Golden Dawn (also published by Llewellyn Books). Though the Whare Ra temple is in abeyance, Zalewski offers private courses in advanced Golden Dawn studies.”
Comment on section 1: 
There is nothing defamatory, disingenuous or P.O.V. in the supra entry.  The fact that Pat Zalewski offers private courses in advanced Golden Dawn studies, can be found as a verifiable source, and the only  verifiable source on his Yahoo “Golden Dawn Group”, in the files section thereof.   
The direct link for the “Golden Dawn Group” is: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/golden-dawn-group/
The verifiable source for the information about historical facts and dates given in section 1, can be found in: “Z5: Secret teachings of the Golden Dawn” by Pat Zalewski, ISBN: 0-87542-897-5, on page XVII.
The only revision I would make to this entry is: that after Whare Ra withdrew from the Stella Matutina in 1933, it was known in New Zealand as the “Smaragdum Thalasses.” I propose this addition as a matter of historical fact and accuracy. 
In conclusion the mediator should note that I have provided comprehensive, verifiable sources for the complete article, with what I might add is overwhelming verifiable evidence.  Therefore, I vehemently propose to keep the article in the revised and verifiable form, rather than seeing this accurate, neutral, up to date article be deleted wholesale.  Especially when it can be of greater service, to accurately and faithfully guide aspirants to their preferences in what they’re seeking in a contemporary Golden Dawn order.
Frater FiatLux 03:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Esoteric Order of the Golden Dawn

message: Despite the general consensus of the editors participating in this discussion page that the controversial and largely unsourceable sections of this article be removed, thereby avoiding all the controversy, and the remainder of this article be merged into the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn article, Frater FiatLux still insists on leaving the article essentially unchanged from the locked-down version. He has offered nothing in the way of compromise, except for the change of a word here and there. He's clearly shown that he's not interested in compromise at all.
He repeatedly uses the expression "common knowledge" as if that carried any weight in respect to acceptable Wikipedia sources. Common knowledge is irrelevant. Opinion is irrelevant. Speculation is irrelevant. Logical inference is irrelevant. Consensus of editors is irrelevant. The credibility of any of the persons involved, or their personal background, is irrelevant. Even the actual, unvarnished truth is irrelevant. The rules are clear and non-negotiable. To wit: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's three content-guiding policy pages. The other two are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. They should therefore not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three. The three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus."
Frater FiatLux needs to read and understand the Wikipedia:Verifiability page and stop offering his speculations, and references to "common knowledge", as if they carried any weight.
Again, he offers court affidavits submitted by one side's lawyer in a currently pending and unsettled case in the US Federal Court, and expects these to be acceptable, neutral, third-party sources under Wikipedia rules. The contract he keeps referencing is currently being disputed in a lawsuit in US Federal Court. Some or all of that material could be rejected as evidence by the trial judge -- we don't know because the case has not yet come to trial. Allowing the use of such documents as a Wikipedia source before a verdict in the case they are a part of has been handed down would set an enormously dangerous precedent for Wikipedia itself. If such a thing is allowed, the lawyers for the other side in a pending lawsuit could conceivably sue Wikipedia for prejudicing an ongoing court case. The only possible acceptable source for anything remotely connected with a court case is a courtroom stenographer's transcript of a trial, and at this point in time, there has been no trial.
I am certain beyond any doubt that the Wikipedia General Counsel would not allow such a precedent to be established, and if Frater FiatLux tries to use these one-sided court affidavits as sources, I am also certain that the attorney for the other side of the case will formally protest to the office of the General Counsel once they hear about it. If Frater FiatLux will not change his mind, I think you have no choice but to kick this one "upstairs" to Wikipedia Administration-level authority.
Without those "sources", and without his speculations about "common knowledge" and chains of inference, Frater FiatLux has little left with which to construct the sub-section anyway. Absolutely nothing in the bio about the Esoteric Order of the Golden Dawn can be found in any published third-party source, because websites, especially those created by either the group itself, or by another group with animosity toward them, are not acceptable under the guidelines. (Just like they won't let the Israeli Anti-Defamation League write the article on Hamas, or vice-versa.)
Likewise the section on the Ordo Stella Matutina. Nothing can be found in published literature about them. Websites and "common knowledge" are not suitable third-party sources for this purpose.
More can be documented about Whare Ra, but no temple or lodge by that name is operating as a "Contemporary Golden Dawn Order", which is the name of this section. The sources are historical only, and there are several other historical G.D. groups that no longer exist that are not included in this section. The one currently operating group affiliated with Pat Zalewski, who was the last person to carry on the Whare Ra temple, calls itself "Order of the Golden Dawn", not "Whare Ra". So inserting Whare Ra into this section makes no sense.
And again likewise, and more significantly, there is little if any reliable, third-party sources for information about the HOGD/A+O group. No reputable, published, third-party source that I know of ever mentions them. None of the alleged "history" regarding the circumstances of the breakup of the contemporary HOGD into factions can be documented by published accounts from independent third-party sources, and Frater FiatLux offers none. Again, websites are unacceptable. Internet forums are unacceptable. Original research is unacceptable. Affidavits written by their own lawyer are unacceptable. Frankly, there are no references in reliable third-party sources that the HOGD/A+O is in fact any more than one person with some registered trademarks and his lawyer. Their original partner Pat Behman left years ago. There are no published third-party accounts or photographs of their meetings, ritual performances, or public appearances that I am aware of. Their business address in the trademark office records is the private family home of Mr. Griffin's parents. Except for their own self-promoting website, one self-published book by Mr. Griffin, chatter on Internet forums, and their lawyer's volumnous legal filings, there is no outside confirmation of their existence other than as a legal and business entity that I've ever seen anywhere. They may indeed be more than that, and probably are, but Frater FiatLux offers no reliable, third-party evidence of it that could be used as a Wikipedia source.
Affidavits by the lawyer for HOGD/A+O are not "independent" sources by any stretch of the definition. That they were submitted to a court record means nothing in terms of verifying what is in the affidavits. The case is still open, no findings or verdicts have been issued by the court, so it would be impossible to allow any such thing to be used as a Wikipedia source. The Wikipedia General Counsel's Office simply won't let it happen. They have no reason to let it happen, not for the sake of one tiny article about an obscure occult group. Once it comes to their attention, they will err on the side of caution, as they always do in these matters. It's much easier to simply ban the article and spare themselves the trouble. And that, in the end, is what I predict will happen if Frater FiatLux will not agree to the consensus.
Frater FiatLux's speculations on what does or does not constitute "traditional" in the Golden Dawn are also irrelevant. Referring to a single book that details SOME of the old practices (and leaves others out, and adds some that weren't original practices), and essentially claiming that if it isn't found in that book, it isn't "traditional", is meaningless in the context of providing a verifiable third-party source. A "negative proof" is not proof. A source that DOESN'T say something is not the same as a source that DOES say something. If what he claims is significant, out of the hundreds of books that have been produced by large, reputable publishers by dozens of authors on the history and practices of the Golden Dawn, wouldn't ONE of them say unequivocally that 'X', 'Y' or 'Z' are NOT acceptable Golden Dawn "traditions"? But none of them do. So this is can't be used under the guidelines as a source for what he's claiming.
Finally, Frater FiatLux's personal opinions of me are irrelevant. One thing he doesn't seem to understand is that anyone can edit a Wikipedia article, unless they get banned by an administrator. Another thing he doesn't seem to understand is this: the fact that I have "no official authority or rank" in either of these feuding organizations is not a negative recommendation, but a positive one, as far as Wikipedia is concerned. People are discouraged from editing Wikipedia articles that concern them personally, or are about organizations, particularly political or religious, that they belong to. This is why in all my editing of this article, I refrained from writing a section about the organization I do belong to, the Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn. It would be a breach of Wikipedia custom and etiquette to do so. But Frater FiatLux has no reservations about writing a section to this article that is (in my opinion) deliberately tilted to make his own organization look superior, and all others look inferior.  
So again, I propose the issue be settled in the simplest and most unassailably impartial way: eliminate the "Contemporary Golden Dawn Orders" section, and merge this article with the "Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn" article. Let any editor who wishes to add a link to a website of any of these groups, or any others, to do so -- and take this never-ending argument out of Wikipedia. - JMax555 11:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite frankly, I think we should bring Frater FiatLux's activities to the attention of Cicero's lawyers. Anybody here know how to do that? --999 13:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  999: Frater Fiat Lux may be using a formal and beauracratic style of writing, which if anything I find humorous at times, but your own statement above looks very much like a definite legal threat. It would be appreciated it if you remained civil. Kephera975 18:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly not. I am not a member of any of the feuding organizations, nor a party to any lawsuit. However, I do believe that when there is any possibility that an individual is being slandered on WP, it should be brought to that individual's attention, if possible. -999 18:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to "Frater FiatLux - sources"