Talk:Alpha et Omega

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: article expansion

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

text:  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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Corporate Activism Vs. Historical Accuracy 

message: 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)
replies: text:  Yes, that was a typo. It should be 1906. Thanks for finding that. I'll correct it. Kephera975 04:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it 1906 or 1903? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Say what the A+O is in the lead/first sentence or 2

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reliability of references 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: The Incorrect Colquhoun Reference

message: 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)
thread_title: Temple #10 - Neith or Ptah?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Reassessment requests