Talk:Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn/Archive 5

message: After discussion between Frater FiatLux and I, I'm removing a section to the talk page, which doesnt really pertain to the article that much, and has no citations:
*The Modern Revival
In 1914, Aleister Crowley published the texts of the Initiation rituals of the Outer Order in his serial publication, "The Equinox". Real circulation of the materials didn't happen until after World War I, when they created quite a stir in the occult community. The secrets of the Golden Dawn became available to the general public, and were a major part of the occult "revival" of the 1920s. Israel Regardie, who was once Crowley's secretary, published the complete initiation rites, along with a selection of the workings and instructional documents that were in his possession, of the Stella Matutina (essentially identical to the original Golden Dawn rituals and teachings) in the early 1930s. While this action supposedly violated the Order's oaths of secrecy, Regardie claims he believed at the time no functioning lodges remained, and feared the work of the Order would otherwise be lost forever. 
In the 1920s and 30s more schisms occurred, and by the onset of World War II most of the original Lodges were gone, except for a few small groups (notably in North America and New Zealand) that could claim direct descent from the original Lodges, finally dying out in the 1970s. But even as the original lodges died away, new adherents and Initiates of the old Adepts began to revive the Order, reclaiming the name of the Golden Dawn. Lodges currently exist in Europe, the Americas, South Africa and Australia. Numbers are hard to estimate, but there are likely hundreds if not thousands of people currently involved in organized Golden Dawn groups, and many solo practitioners. Some can claim lineage of one kind or another to the original lodges by succession (i.e. Adepts having gone on to establish their own Lodges without any official charters), others simply follow the legacy of the original Order according to the wealth of published material available to the public, either in organized lodges or as solo practitioners. This being the case, there is no universally recognized central authority, though there are lodges and individuals that lay claim to it.
There are a few organized Golden Dawn groups today that lay claim to the "undiluted" lineage of the original Temples. Generally, this takes the form of issuing claims (especially on the Internet) of being chartered by an offshoot Temple of Isis-Urania Lodge No.3. Moina Mathers, having assumed the role of Imperatrix after her husband's death in 1918, chartered a few Lodges in Europe and America after her husband died. Claims of lineage are usually by  connection to one of these temples.
The publication of the Golden Dawn corpus figured prominently in the occult "revival" of the 1960s. Before his death in 1985, Regardie was involved in initiatives to reestablish the Golden Dawn tradition. Other groups founded by former Golden Dawn associates, such as the Builders of the Adytum (B.O.T.A.) of Paul Foster Case and the Society of Inner Light of Dion Fortune, continue to exist today. The historical and cultural legacy of the Golden Dawn has been more influential on modern occultism than any other esoteric organization or body of knowledge. Although the original Golden Dawn teachings showed a strong influence of esoteric Christianity, almost every expression of Western occult spirituality and neo-paganism today owes a debt to the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn.
:Once someone finds sources to discuss some of this, its can be put back into the article in a proper place. Zos 17:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was taken from teh Secret Chiefs section, it also needs sources, and most do not even discuss the original Golden Dawn. Zos 18:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Heres more info without citations taken from the Structure section. Its being disputed below, and can be put back once sources are provided. Zos 19:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I've corrected it. Let's be more careful when we make spelling corrections. :) Kephera975 19:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: All fixed, buddy. I moved it to the end of the article. Wasn't that easy? —Hanuman Das 22:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of those arent vanity. This section you refer to has a history of disputes. I'd recomend a vote/survey to see what other editors think first. I'll start it off with a vote.
*Remove: - Reason: I will soon be expanding the Revolt/Breakup/Offshoots section very soon, and any orders or spinoffs that have sources can be placed in such a section, as long as it has sources. Some of the orders included in the section now, do not reflect the orders of that era (the Golden Dawn break-offs era), but are newer groups, with new names. Zos 22:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Let me explain something K. I don't give a shit what you think. You are clearly biased against one or more of these groups and that is the real reason you want to delete them. I have no respect for someone who is not honest about their motiviations. —Hanuman Das 22:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very civil. An ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy and should not be counted in this discussion. Kephera975 22:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen your edits to the articles in question. Your intent is low and your methods are sneaky. You have yet to provide one citation for your derogatory additions, and keep trying to sneak them into cited material, pretending that they are from the same source. So say what you will, methinks the lady doth protest too much. —Hanuman Das 23:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is a simple survey on whether to keep or remove the contemporary Order articles. If you have an issue with me or my opinions, please take it to my user page so you can continue your personal attacks on me there. Thank you. Nothing further. No one needs to deal with this kind of pettiness from you or myself here. Kephera975 23:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Precisely. I'll thank you not to try to change my opinion in a simple vote, whether it be here or on AfD. I see through you, Dung Beetle god, and what I see ain't pretty. —Hanuman Das 01:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Exactly Kephera. Please keep it civilHanuman Das and no more gratuitous ad hominem attacks please.  Especially since you've not been involved in this disputation until now, therefore, I suggest you leave this to the established editors.  Anymore and you’ll be reported to the relevant administration page.  Frater FiatLux 23:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mind your own business, FiatLux. Any Wikipedia editor may edit any article they please. Nobody made you King. Thanks. :-) —Hanuman Das 01:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do behave yourself.  Please govern yourself accordingly to Wikipedia's protocol regarding civil conduct.  Frater FiatLux 13:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Hanuman Das: Any group or offshoot that has in fact been a branch off of the Golden Dawn should remain in the article, in its own section, yes. But I do believe that I am the only one currently in possession of such source. I say this, because this is one of the many reasons we were to go to mediation. Bit now that I have found some sources, I will be adding, as previously mentioned, an expansion on the break up/revolt section. This will include any links that are now available, but, there are some that simply do not belong. And need to be removed from this article, as they are not german to the topic. Zos 00:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cant we get along for one minute? Theres something about this articles talk page that just screams lets argue over nothing at all. Just calm down everyone and try some breathing excercises from Regadies Golden Dawn book :p Zos 01:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awaiting Sources 

message: It looks like someone accidentally(?) chopped off the end of this article? Hopefully, it's not a vandalism. Just drawing the editors' attentions to this. Kephera975 19:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've corrected it. Let's be more careful when we make spelling corrections. :) Kephera975 19:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chopped up article 

message: I have seen no reasonable arguments for the inclusion of the vanity pages on the contemporary Orders. They lack verifiability, are hardly notable, and we have an article now which goes from the Breakup of the Original Order to Influences(on the historical Golden Dawn) with these orders just seemingly sandwiched randomly there. It makes no logical sense, nor do these stubby articles appear to comply with Wikipedia editing policies. This would be like having an article on Christianity and including a section illogicaly and randomly thrown in the center of the article advertising different churches one could belong to. Keep in mind that encyclopedia articles are for people researching a topic, not for people interested in joining organizations and perusing different advertisements for membership to those organizations. Including links to websites at the bottom of the article should suffice for those interested in the various contemporary fraternities and organizations.
Kephera975 22:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All fixed, buddy. I moved it to the end of the article. Wasn't that easy? —Hanuman Das 22:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of those arent vanity. This section you refer to has a history of disputes. I'd recomend a vote/survey to see what other editors think first. I'll start it off with a vote.
*Remove: - Reason: I will soon be expanding the Revolt/Breakup/Offshoots section very soon, and any orders or spinoffs that have sources can be placed in such a section, as long as it has sources. Some of the orders included in the section now, do not reflect the orders of that era (the Golden Dawn break-offs era), but are newer groups, with new names. Zos 22:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Let me explain something K. I don't give a shit what you think. You are clearly biased against one or more of these groups and that is the real reason you want to delete them. I have no respect for someone who is not honest about their motiviations. —Hanuman Das 22:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very civil. An ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy and should not be counted in this discussion. Kephera975 22:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen your edits to the articles in question. Your intent is low and your methods are sneaky. You have yet to provide one citation for your derogatory additions, and keep trying to sneak them into cited material, pretending that they are from the same source. So say what you will, methinks the lady doth protest too much. —Hanuman Das 23:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is a simple survey on whether to keep or remove the contemporary Order articles. If you have an issue with me or my opinions, please take it to my user page so you can continue your personal attacks on me there. Thank you. Nothing further. No one needs to deal with this kind of pettiness from you or myself here. Kephera975 23:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Precisely. I'll thank you not to try to change my opinion in a simple vote, whether it be here or on AfD. I see through you, Dung Beetle god, and what I see ain't pretty. —Hanuman Das 01:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Exactly Kephera. Please keep it civilHanuman Das and no more gratuitous ad hominem attacks please.  Especially since you've not been involved in this disputation until now, therefore, I suggest you leave this to the established editors.  Anymore and you’ll be reported to the relevant administration page.  Frater FiatLux 23:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mind your own business, FiatLux. Any Wikipedia editor may edit any article they please. Nobody made you King. Thanks. :-) —Hanuman Das 01:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do behave yourself.  Please govern yourself accordingly to Wikipedia's protocol regarding civil conduct.  Frater FiatLux 13:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Hanuman Das: Any group or offshoot that has in fact been a branch off of the Golden Dawn should remain in the article, in its own section, yes. But I do believe that I am the only one currently in possession of such source. I say this, because this is one of the many reasons we were to go to mediation. Bit now that I have found some sources, I will be adding, as previously mentioned, an expansion on the break up/revolt section. This will include any links that are now available, but, there are some that simply do not belong. And need to be removed from this article, as they are not german to the topic. Zos 00:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cant we get along for one minute? Theres something about this articles talk page that just screams lets argue over nothing at all. Just calm down everyone and try some breathing excercises from Regadies Golden Dawn book :p Zos 01:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Contemporary Orders section

message: Ok everyone, I'm going to begin to work on the Break off section, but I think I'm renaming it Revolt, as it sounds much better in my opinion. I suspect I will get some quarrels pertaining to this section (based on previous disputes), so wish me luck! Zos 22:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To begin with 

message: Cant we just make this a disambig and add it to the top of the page. Consensus is showing for deletion but just to be fair, I think a disambiguation page should be made, or if one exists, add these to it. What say you? Zos 00:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, one does exist: [] Zos 00:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contemporary Golden Dawn Orders 

message: I think there need to be a slight speration between three things. One, theres the actual revolt, which has its section. Which needs expansion upon other editors contributing with their sources. Two, the controvery about the bogus Golden Dawn set up by Mr. and Mrs Horos (which I do have sources for), needs it own section. Its not part of the revolt, just happened to be right along side of it. Also, any other controversies can be added into that section. And third, the splinter groups need to be seperate from the revolt, possibly a sub section from the Revolt section.
And heres where I think I'm gonna end up getting into a dispute about this. The Alpha et Omega is, by heritage or lineage, the Original Golden Dawn. Mathers was rightful Chief, it then went to his wife, etc etc. Then I believe it actually went dormat but was revived in modern day as Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (Rosicrucian Order of A+O). But as far as keeping with the teachings of the Golden Dawn, this can be a number of the actual splinter groups. We have the other temples which were originally Golden Dawn temples, seperating from the original order. But none of these can be concidered to be a direct lineage to the original, and I doubt a source will state that any are.
I'll have the other editors know that I wont be adding my bias or POV into it either. Zos 19:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just realised that there should be a new heading for reconstruction of the original order as well. Seeing as how its particulary not a revolt to reconstruct. If anyone disagrees with it, I only ask that it be brought up on the talk page. Zos 20:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, well, I did what I could thus far. If I find any other groups that would constitute as a splinter from the original order, I'll add them. Although, there is also the A:.A:. and O.T.O., which has used golden dawn material, and if one wishes to dispute it, I could find enough sources to say that Crowley had replaced this and that in constructing rituals. Zos 22:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slight seperation 

message: *Controversy
**In 1900, Mathers had entered into a disastrous relationship with a husband and wife known as Mr. and Mrs. Theo Horos. The Horos' had apparently developed some kind of relationship with one of the American temples and had either acquired or forged some Order papers and credentials. Based on these credentials and their mesmeric personalities, the Horoses were able to obtain further Order documents from Mathers, which they used to set up spurious "temples" and operate confidence schemes. Word of their illicit operations eventually reached Mathers, who subsequently denounced them as frauds, and they were tried and convicted of fraud and sexual misconduct in 1902.
:I personally dont care much about this section, I removed it because its been in need of citations for some time now. It can be readded upon sources, as I really dont feel like using mine for this one. Zos 21:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awaiting even more sources 

message: I've never found any source of proof Stoker was a member. This reference used to be in the article a long time ago, and I got an e-mail from someone connected with the Stoker literary club in England, who told me they had never seen any proof of his membership either, but were interested if anyone could ever find any. So the reference to Stoker got removed. During the Horos scandal at least one lodge burned its membership rolls (viz:Gilbert) and other rolls have never been found, so it's not impossible he was once a member. But I'd say the reference should be taken out according to WP:V guidelines, unless there's a reliable print source that mentions the rumor, and that could be included. JMax555 (talk) 08:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding Bram Stoker:

message: Right, it has been removed twice now the image (shown below) of the UH stating that the HOOTGD did not use it or it wasn't their symbol. Like I said, any half decent research by yourselves can find this out. Also, Any credible historians documenting the History of the Hermetic Order will had has given this information.
Tow smal examples are as follows:
* The Complete Golden Dawn System of Magic (ltd edition) (Hardcover) 
by Israel Regardie, Christopher S. Hyatt 
* http://altreligion.about.com/library/glossary/symbols/bldefsunicursal.htm
* http://www.smokindragon.com/new_page_2.htm
* http://www.geocities.com/Paris/2110/unicursal.html
Crowly is credited with creating both design innacuratly by some historians. But, he amended the original and placed a five pettled rose in the middle. The original was devised and used by the HOOTGD.
The Unicursal Hexagram originates from the Golden Dawn document "Polygons and Polygrams". When Israel Regardie published his book "The Golden Dawn", he did not have access to document, and it was first published by Crowley, which lead to the generel misconception that Crowley originated the Unicursal Hexagram. Now however, he credits them with this.
Combined with the Marian Rose, the Unicursal Hexagram becomes Crowley's personal sigil, which is the magical union of 5 and 6 giving 11, the number of magick and new beginnings.
FK0071a 17:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: None of the sites you give meets Wikipedia requirements for references. Please see WP:V - the editor wishing to add the material is responsible for supplying a credible reference. In  this case, a historical work showing that the symbol was used by the Golden Dawn and NOT some successor organization, Stella Matutina, modern G.D. reconstruction, etc. That is, a book reference, with a page number so other editors can verify it. Per WP:V, any editor may remove uncited additions. The burden of proof is on the editor who wishes to make the addition. In  any case, it doesn't belong at the top of the article! —Hanuman Das 04:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unicursal Hexagram (UH) 

message: Although there are a lot of good historical and topical explanations of the Order here, this page really needs some in-depth examination of the actual beliefs that ground the Order -- something that can give the reader some insight. Something to the effect of 'Religious Doctrine' in the Judaism article, or 'Beliefs' in Christianity and Islam. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Perditor (talk • contribs) .
:I'm not sure that's workable, Perditor. The HOotGD was not a religious organization, and as such did not deal with issues of religious doctrine or belief. As such, members followed various religions, such as Allan Bennet, a Buddhist, or Aleister_Crowley, functionally an Atheist (in that he did not seem to believe in a "personal God"). Many GD members were Christian (nominal or devout). Justin Eiler 21:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevertheless, Perditor raises exactly the point I logged in to raise. This article provides extensive details of the structure of the organisation, its evolution, rituals and so forth - but I still have absolutely no idea of what they actually did or believed! What, for example, is meant by the teaching or learning of magic? Ritual hallucination, chanting, wands at five paces? What qualified people to move up in the hierarchy? From that point of view, the article is very unhelpful. Ravenclaw (talk) 23:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a valid point, but the basic description is in there at the end of the introductory section. But one has to follow the links to Qaballah, Alchemy, Hermeticism, etc. to get explanations of those elements of the Order's curriculum. It would be ponderous to load this article with lengthy explanations of those element. But some clarification, such as Fuzzypeg's edit, might be a good idea. I'm going to add a mention of Qabalah, which is a very important part of the Order's teachings. JMax555 (talk) 06:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Values and Beliefs 

message: I suggest changing the picture that is shown in the article. It may be relevant for the article on MacGregor Mathers (actually it is also found there), but if the ritual is not a Golden Dawn ritual, then why is it here? My proposal is to use an image from an actual "historical GD" ritual, or of objects used in it. --Jdemarcos 11:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: Hi everyone,
The article on HOOTGD is pretty good, but I'd strongly suggest that you add the following:
1) That the Cipher MSS is undoubtedly fake, and was most likely created to lend an air of authority to the nascent order;
2) That the communications from 'Anna Sprengel' were likewise nonexistent, and again served only as a method of bolstering the idea that the Order had authority and lineage.
69.158.180.15 17:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More balanced? 

message: The registered trademark should remain on the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, the outer order of the Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega entry in the contemporary orders section, as they own the HOGD trademark in Europe and Canada.  Recently the HOG/A+O settled litigation victoriously preserving their perpetual and irrevocable right to use the name of their outer order, the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, without interference in the USA. The registered trademark rightly and properly distinguishes the HOG/A+O from the exorbitant number of -unlicensed Golden Dawn based study groups and should NOT be removed.  The registered trademark is a distinguishing character integral to the association of, and a privilege entitled by law reserved exclusively for the HOGD/A+O as the owners of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn in the European Union and Canada as aforementioned.  It is certainly improper and somewhat unlawful to deprive the HOGD/A+O of using that privilege of the registered trademark they reserve the right to fully represent themselves therewith.  Please do not remove the trademarks from the HOGD/A+O entry again.   
Furthermore, as the A+O’s outer order is named the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn and they reserve all rights to that mark in the European Union and Canada. It should be correctly stated in the contemporary orders section that the HOGD/A+O is: “a modern order headquartered in the European Union using the same name being also the outer order of the Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega®.  This is paramount, as it distinguishes the HOGD/A+O as a completely separate entity from the independent organisation which is the HOGD, Inc. who are a modern independent order of the same name.
 
For information regarding the trademark usage, please educate yourselves by perusing this this web-page entitled: “The Status of the Trademark of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn:
http://www.golden-dawn.com/temple/index.jsp?s=articles&p=trademark
Leviathan6 19:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Contemporary Orders Section

message: If the Stella Matutina link is present in this section, then also present should be the link to the Alpha et Omega article.  The Alpha et Omega was founded thereafter and in consequence of the public Horos scandal.  The trial of the Horos’,  which was publicly scrutinised by the media at the time, revealed the name of the Golden in the Outer and which brought it into disrepute.  Hence, Mathers reconstituted the name of the outer court to Alpha et Omega to avoid publicity from the then profaned Golden Dawn title.  The link to the Alpha et Omega article is highly significant component of the main article, which documents the order’s progression under the tutelage of one of the original orders co-chiefs after the Horos scandal and the revolt of the adepti.  There is no logical reason as to why the link to the Alpha et Omega article keeps being removed.  I can only deduce that is a HOGD, Inc. agent acting under a phoney ID and misguided aegis that keeps removing it for their own improper bias.  Please cease and desist with this improper editing and deleting integral links from this article.  Leviathan6 19:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You and the others seem to have the same misunderstanding of the rules. If an article is linked from the body of the article, it is not correct to repeat it from the see also section. The see also section is for things not already mentioned. GlassFET 20:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ‘See also’ links section

message: The additions to the external links section with reputable Golden Dawn based orders should remain.  Before these recent additions, the external links in this section were improperly biased and severely limited to putative HOGD, Inc. licensees.  There has now been added a conservative number of reputable orders that have formal affiliations which uphold the standard of excellence in their fields.  This is both relevant to article and modern teaching orders on the Internet today, and now constitutes a more neutral and venerable resource for the discerning aspirant.  The external links is now an improved and more noteworthy inclusion to the article as a whole and represents proper, logical balance between the leading organisations. Either the additions remain, or the whole lot should be deleted and only the links to the contemporary orders articles should remain in that selfsame section.
Leviathan6 19:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had to remove 3. Two were hosted on free hosting services (i.e. personal websites). The third was using copyrighted Dead Can Dance music. All have to be removed per WP:EL. There are notability requirements for linking, and linking to a site which violates copyright is never allowed. GlassFET 20:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links

message: I have performed a minor edit thereon the (prelude) section at the top of the article.  It is absolutely essential to clarify the notable distinction between the two organisations, as the previous amendments inferred that they were one conglomerate, the A+O being the European branch and Inc. the US branch of the selfsame order.  This, however, is horrendously incorrect. The HOGD/A+O and the HOGD, Inc. are two completely separate organisations and operate independently from one another.
The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, the Outer Order of the Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega, although headquartered in Europe, are nonetheless, an international esoteric order of the same name.  Thus, the minor edit I have made properly clarifies the notable distinction between the A+O and Inc. as two separate organisations. I consider the above amendments a factually correct and important improvements upon the prelude to the main article to avoid any confusion between the two.  
I worked on this article many months ago the last time there were problems with it.  Other than the amendment I've made, which I've mentioned, the rest of the article looks fine.
Frater FiatLux 15:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also had to make some corrective edits to remove repeated characters in the section at the top where the two orgs. are mentioned. Frater FiatLux 16:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Top section of the article

message: Ok, I'll start with the HOGD, Inc. name. According to the trademark data, the mark they own includes the word "The":
*The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn
However, the Florida registration also shows the word "The" with an original filing date of 1988.
*THE HERMETIC ORDER OF THE GOLDEN DAWN, INC.
Since it is Wikipedia policy not to include "Inc." unless absolutely necessary, I'd say the article should be moved to The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. Next I will look into the other org. GlassFET 17:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that the official name? GlassFET 17:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait a minute, let me get this straight. You say, "the Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega has three operative orders". I think you mean three operative sub-orders. That would make "Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega" the primary organziation and the title under which the article should be filed. I see no possible reason other than promotion for having such a contorted title to the article when this is the case. GlassFET 18:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming data 

message: I propose that we remove all the links to individual orders titled "Contemporary Golden Dawn Order websites", since it has been determined that only one or two may actually be notable, and those will have articles with links to their associated websites. I propose that we instead replace the section with a single link to DMOZ added to the end of the main external links:
*
After all, Wikipedia is not a web directory, but DMOZ is. Let's let DMOZ determine what groups and websites are worthy of listing, and keep Wikipedia out  of disputes about these groups. IPSOS (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems like a reasonable suggestion to me. I've seen it done on other articles. GlassFET 20:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm reverting the recent addition of a web link added by a new user to one particular GD group, for the above reasons.JMax555 03:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link proposal 

message: I've just reverted a change to an external link. The old GD FAQ link was moved to point to a different FAQ, one which claims sole legitimacy for a particular European GD order, and is strongly critical of all other orders. Whether or not this information is true, it's different to what is stated in the article, and doesn't reflect the neutral point of view that the article strives to take. It would be better as an inline link or a link within a reference, at some point of the article where the claims of the European order are being discussed. Basically, it needs to be given in context with accompanying explanation of the surrounding controversy, or not at all.
The old FAQ I've read less carefully, but it appears to be more neutral and have less of an agenda. If anyone feels it is non-neutral, perhaps the link should be removed outright. Cheers,  Fuzzypeg  talk  00:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Substituted FAQ 

message: Merry Meet, I have a serious question, for the moderator, Could you please tell me that if one was to replace the words, and all their like in the Supreme ritual, for instance Bitom and Nanta, for Feminine names, connected with A. Sh. R. H. instead of Y.H.V.H. Would it necessarily be a failure, and if so why??  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.2.3.103 (talk) 15:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. This page is really for discussing improvements to the article, not for asking general questions. You might want to look at http://www.occultforums.net for an answer to your question. // roux   15:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:   pentagram words like Oip, emor, teaa, etc;