Talk:Stella Matutina

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


It cannot be merged with Ordo Stella Matutina. Material about the modern Ordo Stella Matutina from that orders website can ONLY be used if the article is exclusively dedicated to it. If this article is merged into it, that autobiographical self-published material cannot be used. That's why I separated all the articles in the first place: to comply with WP:V. Your suggestion countervenes that - it cannot be done while also abiding by WP:V. -999 (Talk) 17:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It could be (and already is) merged with Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn; it is my opinion that all the historical (i.e. terminated, defunct, etc.) Order for which all the sources are reliable (i.e. books) should be combined in a single article since this is allowed within WP policy. However, combining the modern orders in any way (i.e. with each other or with any histoical order) would prohibit the use of their website material. -999 (Talk) 17:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Please clearly specify where in WP:V it says what you are saying. thanks. Zos 17:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I already have on the other talk page. -999 (Talk) 17:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually you never showed me where I cannot add informtation to an aricle. Zos 17:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I never said you cannot add information. I said that you cannot combine the two articles about two different orders under a single title. -999 (Talk) 17:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I would like policy to say that I cannot add to an article that has existing references to its main web site as being autobiographical. Zos 18:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

As long as it does not change the SUBJECT of the article, you can. You changed the subject to a defunct order with the actuall order the article is about reduced to a footnote. -999 (Talk) 18:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I started the section called "Modern Day", and put the revival under that. The history comes before the revival, or else, what is it revived from? Zos 18:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

As I've been saying, these are NOT the same entity. The history goes in the article Stella Matutina, which is clearly indicated in the dab line. -999 (Talk) 18:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I still want outside intervention. Maybe an RfC. So don't remove the tag until this is over. Zos 18:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

If you wanted to add an "Historical Background" section AFTER the details about the modern corporation, I would only object if it was intended to be the main article on the topic. Add a header, a link to the main article on Stella Matutina and keep the historical background to a summary and I should have no objection. -999 (Talk) 18:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think I can add more information that you are allowed to add from your web site source. This is fact would be changed based on sources. This is not my intention and not my problem. Whatever happens to articles is of no issue to me, I only wish to contribute. Zos 18:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


Claims from the Ordo Stella Matutina website cannot be used in this article, as self-published sources can only be used in a article about the publisher. If you have a third-party book reference then such a claim could be included, but you cannot include non-vetted claims which only occur on a modern order's website in an article about an historical entity that was closed for business by 1937. -999 (Talk) 19:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Clarification of policy. Per WP:V, "For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." and "Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves..."
So, this source is not acceptable in this article, but is acceptable in the Ordo Stella Matutina article.
It is important to note that this is a claim of Ordo Stella Matutina and not an established fact with third-party verification. It is not the place of Wikipedia to implicitly accept this claim by combining two different entities into the same article w/o a reputable third-party book or peer-reviewed journal as a source for the validity of the claim. -999 (Talk) 19:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Awaiting sources[edit]

  • The Amoun Temple of the Stella Matutina in London closed down in 1920, due to problems with chief (Mrs. Stoddart), and by the mid 1920s Stella Matutina as a whole was in serious decline, which increased after the 1926 death of Felkin.[citation needed]
I'm removing this statement because it first, needs a citation and second, because I'm adding to the statment, in part, and expanding it from a source. The statement can be placed back in, in conjunction with the rest, as soon as a citation is given. This has been done in good faith, and is standard procedure. Zos 18:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Out of context paragraph[edit]

The chiefs of the Amoun Temple at this point were addicted to mediumship and and astral travel and seemed to have dereived their misinterpretation of the Golden Dawn techniques of astral projection and travel by Florence Farr's Sphere group.[1]

I removed this paragraph from the (unneeded) section "The Secret Chiefs" which does not give any context for "at this point" and seems to be displaced from its proper context. I'd also argue that the single remaining paragraph should also be moved back into its original place. A separate section is not needed for it. ---Baba Louis 20:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

And I'll put it back in. It pertains to the section it was in. I was adding to that section and more will come. That statement is needed for the remainder of the section. And next time, do not remove cited material to prove a Point. Zos 20:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't move it here to prove a point. I moved it here to improve the article. Please assume good faith - otherwise you will find me a tenacious adversary. :-) ---Baba Louis 20:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Removing cited statements to the talk page, before discussing it, is an act of bad faith. We need to discuss it first. Thus, you felt it was not needed, and in proving that point you removed it. And thats against policy. Zos 20:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

No such policy. If you think there is, cite it. Seems like you are trying to own the article. ---Baba Louis 20:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems like you are trying to pick a fight, and wont let me expand the article. The section for the secret cheifs demonstrate the inner workings of the order. I dont see why you think you need to remove the section, but i'm readding it. I didnt need to discuss the addition at first because its not needed to add material to an article. Please state why you dont want this info in the article, otherwise, you are showing a bias. Zos 20:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Will you please stop this. You are not letting me expand the article. Zos 20:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, I'm not trying to own the article. You havent even added a cited statement to the article and I've removed no one else material. All are able to contribute here.Zos 20:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
As soon as you stop removing the cited statement, I will commence with adding to the section. Zos 20:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

No, you are the one trying to pick a fight by accusing another editor of bad faith. I didn't think it was unneeded, simply out of place, and I didn't know where in the historical ordering "at this point" referred to or I would simply have moved it to the right place. I moved it here as a courtesy to you so that you could insert it into the proper context which defined the date or sequence intended by the phrase "at this point." Accuse me of bad faith again and you will regret it. ---Baba Louis 20:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not accusing. Its obvious you are coming here in bad faith when you remove cited material, not discussing it. I moved the citations "I" added to the article, into its own section because I have enough material to expand that section (the secret chiefs section). I wont regret it (intimidation wont work either), simply because at this point you have no reason to be removing anything from this page that is cited. But thank you for fixing my grammar, since I'm a moron when it comes to it. Zos 20:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
So lets finish discussing this instead of removing the material. Leave it as it is until you can come up with a valid reason why it needs to be removed. Zos 20:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm another editor of the article and WP consensus guidelines requires youto discuss and compromise with any other editor who comes here. Again, you don't ]own the article, regardless of whether you started it, made the best cited additions or what not. You've accused me of bad faith again after I explain my reasoning to you. You broke mediation on these articles, and I will RfC your conduct if you don't start learning how to work with other editors instead of simply insisting that your way is more right. ---Baba Louis 20:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S. You are accusing. I've bolded it above. And I DID discuss, I explained exactly why I removed it on this talk page. ---Baba Louis 20:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not bring up the break from mediation, as it has nothing to do with this discussion. I'm willing to accept that you might not have come to the page in bad faith, but your actions speak differently. Citations are not to be removed just because you disagree with its inclusion. I'll fix the problems and make sure I'll tell you next time I contribute, k? Zos 21:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

reason for inclusion[edit]

The statements already there to introduce inner workings into the article. They show how badly they wanted to commincate with the secret chiefs in order to maintain their independence. More material is going to be added, and would have if you didnt remove it. Now, why do you not want it in the article? Zos 20:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You are not reading what I am saying. The material is fine integrated into the timeline of the article. I object only to the separating of the Secret Chiefs as a separate section. I think it does not improve the article, but makes it worse. ---Baba Louis 20:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Well I'll add more to it so it makes it better, k?Zos 20:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd also like to know why you prefer to call me a bozo?
Sounds to me like you need to review WP:TPG.

Meaningless statement[edit]

"and the order chessmen had never been unmounted."

What does this mean? This is an encyclopedia for general readership. Are we suppose to know what "mounted" means with respect to "order chessmen"? Mounted to what? Unmounted from what? This part of the sentence makes no sense. —Hanuman Das 21:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

"and the order chessmen had never been unmounted" it means that the enochian chess set was never used. This statement was also re-added and cited. I'm kinda getting tired of people removing cited statements without challenging the source. If anything, you begin discussion of the topic first, and never remove a cited source unless you have a source to counter it. I'm going to re add this, and instead, adding it like this: "and the Orders chessset had never been unmounted". This is directly from the author, I'm only changing it because it in deed sound a bit off. Zos 21:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't add anything to the article. It's a head-scratcher. You are wrong, by the way, about not removing cited information. Any editor may add or remove as they see fit. Something can be cited but neither pertinent nor important. Such can and should be removed... —Hanuman Das 21:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah if its challenged. Quote the page or policy to are refering to please. Zos 21:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
But it's much better now that you've used words the general reader can understand, so I won't. I did add an apostrophe - Order's is possessive. —Hanuman Das 21:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Plus, the secret chief section is actually pertinent to the article. The article is about the Stella Matutina, and the information I was adding, shows how they were at that time. Whats the reason you feel its not pertinent? Zos 21:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

On the removal of cited information, it's common sense that something not important the article can be removed, even if it is cited. You'll have to quote me a policy that says that no cited material can be removed. Since such a policy doesn't exist, I decline to follow it.

On the other matter, I don't see you've really discussed it with the editor who disagrees with you. I reverted your revert as a matter of policy. Please discuss with other editors and find a way forward that is acceptable to both. Baba Louis is right when he says that you don't own the article.... —Hanuman Das 21:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

yeah but in removing teh secret cheifs section, and saying its policy, you fail to quote which policy, understand? so which policy are you refering to? Zos 21:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no comment on the Secret Chief section. It is policy to find a way forward by consensus with the other editors without reverting. —Hanuman Das 21:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Wait. You have no comment on the fact that you stepped in and removed my additions. I see. Well, just so you know. The section you removed deals with the inner working os the order and its how it derived the teachings it used. All of the material directly talks about the Stella Matutina. So I'd like to know why you removed it, as it deals with the topic. I was in the process of expansion when it was removed because the other editor didnt feel it related, giving no real reason. Zos 21:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I DO have a comment on your reverting. You started it, and you can't win. Your material has not been removed - one paragraph has been moved into the body of the article and the other to the talk page to figure out what point "at this point" means and where the paragraph should go in the context of the article to make that phrase make sense. So why aren't you discussing this?

We both know that nobody gets anywhere with revert wars, which you are trying to start. Well, if you start it, you lose in a one-on-one war. And you can't win by bringing in other people, you can only go back and forth, back and forth. If you are not going to discuss and compromise with those who disagree with you, you're done with this article, I think. —Hanuman Das 21:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Uh I didnt start a revert war. The other editor, who hasnt added to this article, only corrected grammar, removed the material before discussing it. I'm not trying to win anything, and this is not preschool. I'm about to make a compromise below. Zos 22:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the other editor graciously moved the material to the talk page with an explanation. You then accused him of bad faith. If he were editing in bad faith, he would have simply deleted your addition without bothering to move it to the talk page. Accusing another editor of bad faith is one of the best ways to start an edit war. Hardly ever fails. Is that what you indended? Cause that's how you seem to be coming off... —Hanuman Das 22:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes but the proper way I was told by an admin was to discuss a cited source before removing it. Under Wikipedia:Citing sources they only mention statements that do not have citations. Mine did. I assume bad faith when editors remove first, ask questions later. Discussion first, then removal upon consensus sounds alot more logical. My intentions were to expand the article, so I reverted back to the original version until a a decision was made about what to do. I've made a compromise, so lets see if thats any better. Zos 22:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, I exercised this myself, look at the section on this page called "Awaiting sources". I let other editors know what I was going to do, then i did it. Discussion first. Plus when I removed it to the talk page, there wasnt a citation. You dont remove cited material, which one of my statements were, just because it doesnt fit. If anything, the header might have needed to be changed, as per my compromise. Zos 22:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


I wish to continue to expand this article. I'll rename the header "Teachings and Practices", and mention anything about what went on in the temples there. This sounds more than fair, seeing as how all of the statements I have added discuss this, and the Secret Chiefs. Sound good? Zos 22:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

And I dont have all day to reach a compromise here. You may have noticed this is up for deletion. I'm working to expand the article. 22:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually. Everything I wish to add directly discusses the members of the Stella Matutina, attempting to contact the Secret Chiefs as well. So why is this not to be included for? Zos 22:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
So let me ask you this...what am I not allowed to add to the article? I mean, I want to contribute, and I have waited now, the rest of the day, for a reply. Zos 02:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I have a question - does this effort at communication primarily take place at a particular phase or period of years? —Hanuman Das 02:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Uh, its a particular phase, and goes in depth about the charactieristics of the members of the order. I'm thinking it should go under Amoun Temple, but then again, it might pertain to the other temples as well. Zos 02:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
So are you going to answer my question? Zos 02:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure you're allowed to add anything to the article. If I were you, I'd put it as an inline sub-section. As far as I can tell from reading the talk page, B.L. seems to be concerned about flow. If there is a way to keep the article in more or less historical order, while calling out phases and what happened in them, it is sometimes a lot more effective then pulling the trends completely out of context simply to have a subheading. Sometimes the same thing that doesn't work as a subheading works as a subsubheading within the flow.... Of course, I could be completely wrong... try to find out what BL's objection is - he's already said it isn't the content, but the placement.... —Hanuman Das 02:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok thanks. But thats going to be difficult because the section secret chiefs was started inorder to expand it, at that moment. Also, the secret cheifs were the reasoning behind the majority of the teahings and practices i was adding, so eh. I just dont want to have to wait until baba gets around to comment, meanwhile, I need to add more to this so others can see it can be expanded, is notable, and doesnt need to be deleted. Zos 03:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok well I readded some of the material but changed some of the wording and only added it to the history area. This appears alot better and seems to be what Baba would have agreed on. Zos 04:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello. Sorry, I'm mostly on during the day, so once I'm off for the day, there's no way to huury my response. H.D. did indeed get my concern. Maybe I'm not so clear, but I thought I said that it was the arrangement and not the content I was concerned with. It is much better the way you have resolved it, though I wouldn't complain about inline subsubheadings.
On the other hand, I do have an objection to the phrase "were addicted to" - does the source actually say that? If so, and you think the derogatory tone is necessary, I'd recommend quoting it. Meanwhile, I'm going to find another way to phrase it.
And my apologies for calling you a bozo... ---Baba Louis 15:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Apology accepted, sorry for accusing you of bad faith. And yes the sources says that, but its more than that. The source says addicted to a herion addict is addicted to herion. I left out the herion thing, and kept the addicted to. I thought it more than fair for inclusion. Zos 16:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I changed it back to addicted. My reason is, that they were in fact addicted to these things. It goes on so deep into this that is clouded their judgement. And this was all for the communication with the secret chiefs. You may want to concider letting me remake that section, so I can go further into it, as it will be out of place in the history section. Just a thought. Zos 16:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I've got no problem with that as long as you either make it a quote or add "According to Franis King (or whoever said it)..." The reasoning here is that it is a value judgment and WP shouldn't be presenting it as if it were a fact. There is a fact here, and that is that somebody made this value judgment and it needs to be clear to the reader that this is someone's opinion which they can evaluate based on the reputation of the person who made it. ---Baba Louis 16:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
As far as I knew, its made clear who is saying what, as soon as the reader hits the citation note. I've had simular complaints (not that this is a complaint) on other articles about who is saying what, even though citations clearly point to the author or editor or whoever is writings the words. I think I'd add "Francis King says..." when two sources are either disputing statements, or as in a controvery. And seeing as how there isnt one yet, I havent added authors names before statements. Being as most of this whole article is either written by the words of either Francis X. King, or I. Regardie. Zos 17:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I agree with B.L. on this. If it is a fact, then your method is fine. If it is in any way a derogatory judgment, it should be made clear to the reader in the text, not the notes, who said it. I'm assuming it was Francis King and adding qualification to the article. —Hanuman Das 17:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Well once I can figure out a proper header for including more information on the matter, I will. If it cant be called "Secret Chiefs" then I'm still at a loss as to what to call the header. Care to make a suggestion? I have alot more to add and this all doesnt seem to fit into the history. Zos 17:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Other Temples[edit]

I'm removing this header I had made, as it was a bad idea. Zos 04:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Ordo Templi Orientis[edit]

Well, I haven't quite started my wikibreak yet, so I thought I'd chime in on this. The use of degree rituals from O.T.O. doesn't seem very likely. The paragraph doesn't mention the year - that would help to determine the accuracy.

The main thing is the OTO rituals do not resemble Golden Dawn rituals. They are degrees and not grades. It was the A.'.A.'. rituals that were based on the G.D. rituals, and in the A.'.A.'. they are called grades.

Finally, the date when Felkin rewrote the rituals would help. Crowley did not join OTO until 1911 or 1912, and did not rewrite the OTO rituals until the early 1920s. What connection did Felkin have with the OTO that he would have had access to the pre-Crowley degree rituals? I think there is a mistake here, I think A.'.A.'. rituals is what is meant here. -999 (Talk) 16:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

These werent Golden Dawn rituals. They were Stella Matutina rituals. And I cant start a header for comparisons because I dont have enough information for it to be a sub header yet. But this was before crowley rewrote them, and I have other statements to include on how the OTO and Stella Mat under Felkin links. I wouldnt need a date for the actual rituals being constructed, I doubt many even know. Its just a loose fact. And no, I havent seen anything for the AA connection, so its not AA. Zos 16:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


I've requested unprotection for the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. Once this is unprotected, we can work on getting that material here, and leaving a brief section about the Stella Mat over there. heh Zos 16:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to wait to bring the material over. You can start any time. The only thing protection prevents is removing it from the other article. But that can be done any time whenever it is unprotected. —Hanuman Das 17:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
No I just mean I'm going to ask the editor or editors who added it, to add it here, as it was not my material, I'm not going to reproduce it here as there were not many citations. And then once the page is unpro, I myself can briefly describe the off shoot over there. One of the many problems at that time, to protect the page, was that there were no citatons for the offshoots, and now I have them. Zos 17:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
That's not really necessary. Just put in the edit comment where it is coming from. The editor(s) who added it there may be long gone... —Hanuman Das 17:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd rather not at risk of more confusion. I've had too many arguments over just adding things to pages concerning the Golden Dawn (nothing to do with Baba). I also meant, aside from the main web sites of those offshoots. Those were the only citations, and couldnt be used on the main golden dawn article. Zos 17:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


I think I've got it. I'm fixing the formatting so I can add more to the activities of the order. I hope this is all well and fine. I'm splitting up the history into a few section. One will deal with the origins, the next for other temples, reasons for their being other temples (some are other factions of this offshoot!), and the next section can deal with the order in search of the secret chiefs, why they were searching, and why they found/what happened. Let me get started! Zos 00:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Guild Origins[edit]

King, Francis (1989). Modern Ritual Magic: The Rise of Western Occultism is the only source I have come across linking Robert Felkin to the founding of the Guild of St Raphael. Recently (in Chrism, March 2006), minutes from the founding of the Guild in 1915 are published. The founders mentioned are the first Warden Revd Canon RP Roseveare, Vicar of St Pauls Depford and Secretary Miss Caroline Briggs (who seems to have been from letters one of the main early organisers getting it off the ground). There is no mention of Felkin, and I have to conclude that King is mistaken, or that perhaps more probably Felkin claimed to have founded that Guild when he only had a casual acquaintance with it. Consequently, I have amended the article to make this "founding" by Felkin more properly ambiguous, as King gives no source in his book.

--TonyinJersey 07:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference frking was invoked but never defined (see the help page).