Talk:Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn/Archive 1

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

message: hi everybody, sorry for my english ;-D
I've read something about the contacts between Rudolf Hess, the Thule Society and the Golden Dawn. On the french wiki, they said that Hess was a Golden Dawn member. Does know anybody more on that point? thanks Topf of fr 07:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  hess 

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

message: Links to the Cipher Manuscripts were added in a new section called External Links. More links are welcome; hopefully, these links will be kept through the gauntlet of criticism...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.22.204.79 (talk • contribs) 2006-01-14 22:26:55 (UTC).
:If you're talking about the little bout of reverts on Golden Dawn tradition, it was because the link that actually went to fascimiles of the Cipher Manuscripts had been deleted and a link to EOGD's speculations about it was put in its place with out changing the wording Photocopies and the translation of the original Cipher Manuscripts can be found on-line at. If there were actually copies there I probably wouldn't have had any problem with it, but there isn't, at least not at that address.  Putting the link in the External link section is OK, though at one point we've had three or four links on the same page all going the the EOGD which is a bit excessive if you ask me.
:I didn't have a bone to pick until a few days ago when a change on one of the pages I watch lead me to realize there have been many anon and new users over the past few months whose only contributions are adding links to EOGD web sites and editing articles to introduce a pro EOGD POV on occult and magick related articles.  Whether or not this a conscious policy coordinated by the EOGD's leadership or not, it does not make the organization look good in the eyes of someone like me who is relative novice.  It certainly gives the appearance of a wannabe grasping for attention.  If the EOGD is as wide spread and established as it claims to be it shouldn't be concerned about establishing a presence here, especially not by what could be interpreted as link spam.--◀Pucktalk▶ 23:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links Added 

message: Dr. John Gold Has joined in adding biased POV .  I don't have the energy to chase you guys around any more tonight.  I just hope the mediation process has more success here than I have. Have fun.--◀Pucktalk▶ 06:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted it yet again, to the last version that Frater HH submitted (which was an edit of my version, which I was willing to let stand in the hopes of ending the edit-war.) But here we go again! Mediators, please help! JMax555 07:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More POV 

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

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

message: I changed one of the sentences concerning the Cipher manuscripts to at least reflect the existence of the Z documents.
--Fraterhh
:My only issue there would be is many justified, or would some be better.  I honestly don't know.  In my own limited experience, the Z documents are something I had only been aware of tangentially, but one of the grand high mucky-mucks at the O.T.O. lodge were I hang out, someone whom I have a measure of respect for, seems to place a great deal of value on them.  Whether he considers them foundational or simply a good reference I couldn't say.  Obviously they are significant, but as to how much and to how many I'm in the dark.--◀Pucktalk▶ 22:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In certain GD circles at least the Z docs are extremely important. They were not foundational to the formation of the original order in the same way as the Cipher MSS but they are key to understanding the system. I think they are worthy of a separate article but they are probably a bit too esoteric (pun intended) for the article at hand. Barthimaeus 23:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still seeking mention of Z docs 

message: I branched out the Cipher Manuscripts section into its own article. I wanted to see more information on the ciphers added and they were already given a little too much space in the main article. Hope the general consensus will approve. I also don't think we should merge this article with GD Tradition, and propose to remove the "merge" tag at the top of the page. Barthimaeus 23:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the Cipher Manuscripts I agree, I'd like to see more, and I'm too lazy to do the work myself :).  As to the merge I could go either way.--◀Pucktalk▶ 00:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Branched the Cipher Manuscripts section 

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