Talk:The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc.

Archives

• /Archive 2
• /Archive 3

HOGD vs. HOGD, Inc.

Hey folks - the "Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn" is the legal name of the Order. There is no "inc." after its name. The HOGD, Inc. coporation is just a coporation, and has only three officers. It has no Temples, Chiefs or anything else that could make it a stand-alone Golden Dawn Order. As the entry already states, the Order was founded in 1977. The corporation was founded in 1988. They are not one and the same. I'm willing to meet half way on calling the entry "Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc." simply because 1) it helps distinguish this entry from the one for the original Golden Dawn. And 2) because it would be silly to have a separate entry for the modern HOGD *and* the corporation that was founded to protect the modern HOGD (and several other Orders to boot). My problem is with treating the modern HOGD as "one and the same" with HOGD, Inc. Kheph777 12:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read more carefully, the subject of the sentence is "The history of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc.". Not putting the Inc. is confusing, as the history of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn started much earlier. Your criticism assumes that the Inc. is the subject of the sentence; it is not, the history of the Inc. is the subject. 999 (Talk) 17:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I would really hate to see us begin to quibble over semantics. The fact is that the article- as it is written- makes it appear as if the Cicero HOGD were named "HOGD, Inc." It isn't - and I think we should make the distinction clear in the article. I would suggest giving "HOGD, Inc" its own section, explaining its relationship to both the HOGD and the greater community. Kheph777 05:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC) Edited: Kheph777 09:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

A bit silly of them to confuse the issue by recycling an old name. It's like Engelbert Humperdinck and Engelbert Humperdinck (singer). Same name, same artistic field, but quite different people. We need some easy way to differentiate the two. Fuzzypeg☻ 21:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be a 'tradition' in its own right. It's an homage thing, I'd say. I'm happy when groups admit they are modern and don't try to imply they ARE the older Order. Kheph777 09:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Which looks like what has just been done now with the following content which is obviously contradictory or confusing at best: "According to published accounts, Chic Cicero was one of the key people who helped Israel Regardie resurrect a legitimate, initiatory branch of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn in the early 1980s.[10]" So we are saying here that the HOGD, Inc. has resurrected a legitimate branch of the original Order. I am editing this out. You aren't even stating it as a claim but more as fact.

Kephera975 17:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Kephera975

Article or advertisement

This article currently reads as an advertisement for the order rather than an article about the order. I suggest trimming some of the lengthy quotes down to more simple statements; also remove the "according to the official website of the HOGD(R)" structures that preface many statements and instead simply just stick the attribution in a footnote. I haven't yet checked the article for neutral point of view, but fixing these initial points will make the article seem much more authoritative, rather than a self-promotion. Fuzzypeg☻ 01:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, in my opinion this article as well as all reference to ALL modern Golden Dawn groups should be completely eliminated from Wikipidia as they are not encyclopedic. Moreover, despite numerous attempts at mediation and compromise, disputes always arise regarding which groups should be included as well as have links. The best solution is to keep an objective, historical article, however, without any mention whatsoever regarding modern groups. This will end these senseless conflicts once and for all. Protection of pages did not help. Compromises have only helped temporarily. Now that the lawsuit is over, HOGD, Inc. is sending agents to use Wikipedia as a means of advertisement and to attempt to misrepresent the truth to thier advantage. As long as this continues, there will be disputes erupting on a regular basis. I say, get the lot of them out of here and we will not have this nonsense any longer!#REDIRECT --Hogd2007 02:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Spurious lineage claims edited

It is patently erroneous and factually incorrect in the extreme, that I. Regardie initiated Charles “Chic” Cicero into the Golden Dawn. Thus, I have edited forthwith, all spurious claims that Cicero’s order (HOGD, Inc.) holds initiatory lineage to the original order through I. Regardie’s lineal transmissions. Cicero has even admitted himself that he has never received any form of initiation from I. Regardie. In support of this, I offer the following original documentation, which has also been widely published on the Internet and is unquestionably signed by Cicero himself.

File:CiceroRegardieInitiation.pdf

The astute reader may note from the supra documentation, that Cicero clearly states that he ‘self-initiated’ himself into the 0=0 Neophyte degree of the Golden Dawn. However, Cicero was only thereafter physically initiated by Adam Forrest, who was a Regardie initiate, from the 1=10 degree of Zelator onwards. Hence, Cicero was never physically initiated by Adam Forrest as a Neophyte and Cicero’s non-traditional and significant irregularities exhibited in his grade initiations in the documentation supra, does indeed confirm that all of Cicero’s subsequent initiations from Adam Forrest are, in fact, invalid. Cicero made a critical error in judgement in not getting Adam Forrest to initiate him from 0=0 upwards, as Cicero can not now claim to hold any lineal affiliation from I. Regardie as his initiations by Adam Forrest are, by virtue of this irregularity, null and void. The supra documentation specificially details this and is undoubtedly signed by Cicero himself. MA'AT 22:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

We don't need any organizational squabbles like this on Wikipedia. An email, which can be easily forged, does not conform to Wikipedia reliability requirements. Also, you can't upload PDF files to Wikipedia, they will simply be deleted. GlassFET 22:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Emails do conform, hwoever, if they are evidence from US federal court. This does not address the real problem, however, which is that of competing groups wishing to present their own, biased view of history. HOGD Inc has been sending agents to attempt this on a regular basis. The only solution is to keep only oe historical article eliminating ALL reference to madern groups on an equal basis. The lot of them are not encyclopedic anyway. I say "give them ALL the boot." --Hogd2007 02:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You are right. We also do not need you and user Fetpeg reverting without comment here. Disagreements should be solved by intelligent discussion rather than unilateral reversion as you just did putting spam and links providiing information in violation of Wikipedia's rules of verifiablity back into the main HOGD article. In this instance, however, you have shown more objectivity. The problem is, however, that the SRIA makes spurious and unverifiable claims that are hotly contested, yet nonetheless linked to from this article as though they were true. I believe that your change helps. Adding the word verifiable helps even more. Why do you insist on including spam and unverifiable information in the main article. Please be reasonable.--Hogd2007 02:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)