Jump to content

Talk:Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Copyediting questions and comments

[edit]

I'll just list my comments and questions here as I am copyediting.

  • Why are there citations in the lead? Is this material not mentioned elsewhere in the article? Awadewit (talk) 23:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Citations were placed in the lead due to disputes over the members status as freemasons (if memory serves me right, this was back in 2006). If its mentioned in a section below already, we can leave it there (frankly, its mentioned in the SRIA article as well, and is better suited there) and remove it from the lead.
  • The second paragraph of the lead needs more context - why is it relevant that the founders were Freemasons or that one of them was part of the Theosophical Society? Such connections are unclear to the uninitiated reader. :) Awadewit (talk) 23:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Any time there is mention of these other organizations, its showing, in my opinion, a historical perspective. Although I doubt that part is needed, and would be much better on Westcott's bio.
     Done Removed. Synergy 18:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am describing the Golden Dawn in the past tense since it no longer exists. Please let me know if this is ok. Awadewit (talk) 23:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Paste tense is correct. The original order was disbanded, and the remnants are scattered to various sub-pages (other orders/orgs).
  • However, the true origins of the Manuscript remain a mystery to this day. Many theories as to their genesis have been put forward and there is a lack of concrete evidence supporting any of them. - I've added a fact tag to these sentences. Awadewit (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    After some thought, I decided to just remove it altogether. Its speculation, and as such, would be better suited to its main article, where its theories reside. Synergy 23:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Manuscripts give the specific outlines of the Grade Rituals of the Order, and prescribe a curriculum of specifically graduated teachings that encompass the Hermetic Qabalah, astrology, occult tarot, geomancy, and alchemy. - What is the difference between "occult tarot" and just plain "tarot"? Awadewit (talk) 23:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The original tarot was a pack of playing cards. Over time, it grew to include differences in design, more (and sometimes fewer) cards, and the inclusion of symbols on the pictures. I believe it all links to the same article though. Synergy 23:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mathers and Westcott have been credited for developing the ritual outlines in the Cipher Manuscripts into a workable format - I'm not sure what "workable format" means. Why wasn't the material "workable" before? What exactly did they do? Awadewit (talk) 23:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The material was in a skeletal format. Just bits and pieces of data. By workable, the writer (I didn't add that I don't think, and if i did, hah) means that they took it (the data) and used it to create ceremonial rituals to initiate new members and also to pass to higher "degrees" or grades. Synergy 23:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am confused about the existence of Anna Sprengel. The Golden Dawn article does not acknowledge the controversy over her existence that is revealed in the Sprengel article itself. If she might have been made up by Westcott, shouldn't this be mentioned in the Golden Dawn article? Awadewit (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe it should be mentioned, but how much? Some sources acknowledge her existence, and others speculate that Wescott just made her up. I don't have a source at present that give absolute certainty, so it would have to be carefully worded in my opinion. Synergy 23:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition, there was an insistence on women being allowed to participate in the Order in "perfect equality" with men, in contrast to the S.R.I.A. and Masonry. - Who insisted on this? Awadewit (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My sources, if I recall, only mentioned it as a collective (i.e. the order/org). I assume it would have been insisted by the founders. I'm unaware of an individual member starting this. Synergy 00:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a short time, the Osiris temple in Weston-super-Mare, the Horus temple in Bradford, and the Amen-Ra temple in Edinburgh were founded. A few years after this, Mathers founded the Ahathoor temple in Paris - Do we dates for any of this? The phrase "A few years after this" is confusing because we have nothing solid to refer the "this" to. Awadewit (talk) 23:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Add a cite needed, I'll look for them. Synergy 00:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the founders were to contact the Secret Chiefs, therefore, it had to be done on their own - I don't understand this sentence. Why couldn't the founders contact the Chiefs? Awadewit (talk) 00:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was about this time that Woodman died, never having seen the Second Order - Would "met" be more accurate than "seen"? Awadewit (talk) 00:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No. The second order means another section of the organization. Its divided into three orders within the whole order. Once you pass the first order, there is a second and a third. So this means he died before they set up, or constructed this second order and its rituals. Synergy 00:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • These rituals were based on the tradition of the tomb of Christian Rosenkreuz, and a Vault of Adepts became the controlling force behind the Outer Order.[3] Later in 1916, Westcott claimed that Mathers also constructed these rituals from materials he received from Frater Lux ex Tenebris, a purported Continental Adept.[4] - This needs to be explained in more detail. For a reader like myself who is not familiar with this material, this is very obscure. I would also suggest moving it to another section or widening the scope of the "Secret Chiefs" section. It doesn't really fit there right now. Awadewit (talk) 00:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I've been dropping my jaw at a number of these types of statements. The tradition of the tomb of Christian Rosenkreuz, and a Vault of Adepts is an allegory and was used for the first order or outer order. But Wescott claims some of it was from another person, and "continental adept" refers to a secret cheif. I'll have to find these mentions and work this out. Synergy 00:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some followers of the Golden Dawn tradition believe that the Secret Chiefs are not necessarily living humans or supernatural beings, but are rather symbolic of actual and legendary sources of spiritual esotericism, a great leader, or teacher of a spiritual path or practice that found its way into the teachings of the Order - How does this change other elements of their practice?
    It doesn't. All this does it give a history, deeply rooted in mystery. A form of accreditation. Oldest link is the wisest, etc. Synergy 00:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is speculated that this was due to some occult papers having been found in a hansom cab, in which Westcott's connection to the Golden Dawn came to the attention of his superiors. He may have been told to either resign from the Order or to give up his occupation as coroner - Whose speculation is this? Awadewit (talk) 00:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've seen this mentioned in at least two sources, and the only say it is speculated. It doesn't mention who is doing the speculation, and it didn't appear to be from the author. Synergy 00:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the mid 1890s, the Golden Dawn was well established in Great Britain, with membership rising to over a hundred and including every class of Victorian society - 100 members? That doesn't sound like a lot to me. Perhaps a comparison with similar groups would make this a more striking figure? Awadewit (talk) 00:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Golden Age" section does not really flesh out why the 1890s were a golden age, other than that famous people joined. Could more be added? Awadewit (talk) 00:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure I could add alot more there. That section served for the addition of the more well known members, as well as a place to say "the order is flourishing" basically.Synergy 00:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Among the personal disagreements within the Isis-Urania temple, disputes were arising from Florence Farr's The Sphere, a secret society within the Isis-Urania, and the rest of the Adept Minors - I don't understand what the dispute was. This needs more detail. Awadewit (talk) 00:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I'll try to add more. It will get confusing because the chief at the time (Mathers) allowed groups to form inside of the order (I know right). The most popular was F. Farr's The Sphere. The other high members (adept minors) didn't like these groups inside of the order. :| Synergy 00:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mathers sent an immediate reply, declining to provide proof, refusing to acknowledge the London temple, and dismissing Farr as his representative on March 23. - To provide proof of what? Awadewit (talk) 00:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Arg. This is all wrong. That whole section needs to be changed. The proof was that wescott never was in contact with Anna Sprengal. Synergy 00:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Golden Dawn as system and book has been the most intensively used source for modern western occult and magical writing. As a book it is both a text and an encyclopedia. - The section on the Golden Dawn book needs to be expanded significantly. What is the book? Who wrote it? When was it published? What is in it? These two sentences are vague and the last one doesn't make much sense. Awadewit (talk) 00:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree there. The book doesn't need to be mentioned that much at all, since it was written based on the Stella Matutina and not the original Golden Dawn (i.e. this article). Synergy 00:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • While no temples in the original chartered lineage of the Golden Dawn survived past the 1970s, several organizations have since revived its teachings and rituals. Among these, the following are particularly significant: - The material in "Contemporary Golden Dawn Orders" needs to be significantly expanded. Why did these organizations revive the Golden Dawn teachings? When did they do so? Who did so? Etc. Awadewit (talk) 00:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a big part of this article is missing - an explanation of what the Golden Dawn members actually did. After reading this article, I still only have the vaguest idea of what these people did or why they felt the need to have this organization. I think that an extensive "Beliefs and practices" section must be added to the article. Awadewit (talk) 00:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur. I have most if not all of their rituals, and plenty of sources. Synergy 00:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Membership of Charles Williams

[edit]

This article lists Charles Williams as a member, but from my own understanding and his Wikipedia page, he was a member of the Fellowship of the Rosy Cross, and not the Order of the Golden Dawn. Does someone have a reference for his being a member? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.70.254 (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]

Links to the "Golden Dawn FAQ" and GD ritual video published by Rosicrucian Order of the Alpha+Omega offer an extremely biased POV. It is not a suitable substitute for the broken link to the classic old GD FAQ (which I found a working link to and placed in the article.) That organization already has a link in the article to its main website. Let's not start up the edit wars again, eh? JMax555 (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see from the history that user JMax555 is associated with one Golden Dawn group. His biased POV dows not qualify him to make these decisions. I can see no reason to link to a 16 year old version of a FAQ merely because one Golden Dawn faction supports it. As a compromise, I suggest removing the FAQ link entirely., Ritual Video is relevant no matter who produced it. JMax555, please defend your argument that it is not relevant. I can hardly see how a ritual video has a biased POV. Ritual video is ritual video. If you have a better one, please post the link. I do not find any better one. Content here on wiki, should not be determined by the politics of Golden Dawn groups, but by relevance of content. Ritual video is highly relevant.--AeliusHadrianus (talk) 19:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a friendly aside, please remember to assume good faith. I didn't accuse you of being biased. I was criticizing the content, not the editor. I said the link you provided led to a biased "FAQ" published by one GD group that strongly promotes it's own POV. It's simply not a proper FAQ as compared to the one that has always been on that link, written from a historical perspective by a non-member of any GD group, and which was maintained regularly on Usenet's alt.magick.* FAQ hierarchy for many years.
Also, please remember the whole reason this article is labeled as specifically about the historical Golden Dawn of 1888 was that it was one idea where there was very strong consensus among almost all the past contributors. It's the only way to keep the peace among quarreling editors. This isn't a general article about the Golden Dawn and all of it's extensions. It's about the original, historical Order known by that name. If information isn't specifically about the historical Order, it's not appropriate for this article. That's why a link to photos of a museum display of the Yeats' original GD ritual tools is relevant, but links to videos of modern groups doing their own interpretations of GD rituals is not.
You know what would be really cool? If someone would make a "re-enactment" video of one of the original GD rituals, right down to the gaslights, oil-painted tools and the natural fabric robes. Use the script from The Equinox of 1909, which is probably the earliest existing printed version. Now that would be relevant! JMax555 (talk) 06:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User JMax555, please explain here how Golden Dawn Ritual Video is not notable or relevant to this article instead of arbitrarily deleting links, and leave such decisions to consensus of non-biased POV users. I see that most of the other links here have also a biased POV towards one group or another, for example the Golden Dawn Pedia. Does that make them more or less relevant or notable to this article. Why do you arbitrarily choose to remove video but not the other links that likewise are produced by one group or another. In my opinion, all should remain here as relevant. --AeliusHadrianus (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one is "controlling" anything, least of all me. No one "owns" a WP article, and likewise, nothing is left to "decisions of non-POV users." A given editor having a personal POV is irrelevant. My association with a particular group is irrelevant. What you have to show is that I clearly display a bias that influences any edits I've made. For example, at one point it was part of the consensus that only links to Wiki pages of current GD groups should be included. But people came in and added links to webpages of groups not considered notable enough to qualify for Wiki articles. I did not complain, or try to remove those external links, including the one to the A+O. I don't think any group that does not have a Wiki article should be on that list, and that was the consensus. So I respectfully deny that I am exhibiting POV bias in my editing. Please go through the Archives of this discussion page and get up to speed on how we finally came to consensus among all the editors. Thanks. JMax555 (talk) 02:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since you bring it up, perhaps one of the external links is not proper for this article. Running through them I see:
  • The Golden Dawn FAQ (original from 1990s Usenet groups) - probably the first link in this article when it was written. Has lots of in-depth history of the early GD, written by a non-member of any group or "faction". (Written before there even were any factions.)
  • The Golden Dawn Library Project - contains only historical texts from original sources.
  • Golden Dawn entries in Llewellyn Encyclopedia - subject entry of the on-line occult encyclopedia by the largest and most reputable publishing company in the field.
  • Golden Dawn Tradition, by co-founder Dr. W. Wynn Westcott - text of a historical lecture by one of the founders of the Order.
  • Photocopies and the translation of the original Cipher Manuscripts - the foundational documents of the Order, without editing or commentary.
  • Lots of GD material on display in Yeats exhibition including Ritual Notebooks - self-explanatory
  • Golden Dawn Roll Call - a historical document listing members of the Isis-Urania temple. Someone might challenge the accuracy, but I think the information comes from either R.A. Gilbert or Ellic Howe's books, so it's verifiable.
  • Golden Dawn at the Open Directory Project - simply a link to Open Directory entry. (By the way, ODP would be a great place to put links to these various ritual performance videos. That's where they belong, not in this article.
That leaves only the link to GoldenDawnPedia, and to be honest, I agree that this link leads to some non-relevant and possibly biased information on a particular modern group's website. So I concur if you want to remove it. But I don't see any other links that show a biased POV, unless you think the academically accepted, verifiable history of the GD as described by several reputable publishing houses and authors for nearly 100 years is "biased." JMax555 (talk) 06:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that ritual video is notable and relevant to this article as other videos. No one Golden Dawn group should be allowed to control this article to this extent as user JMax555 is attempting to do. How about a video section where a collection of relevant videos could be placed? --Asariunnefer (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My objection to the posting of the video is not that it was biased per se, but because it is irrelevant to the subject of the article, which is the historic Golden Dawn of 1888-1902. (It says so right at the top of the page.) I apologize for not making that clear. This is not an article about contemporary groups. The "Contemporary Groups" section was only added to link to groups that had their own Wikipedia articles, not to serve as a link repository for every GD group in the world. There is no way to "filter" any other way. Why not include every single group with "Golden Dawn" in their name in that list? Because it would be either a)biased toward some groups, or )b be as long as the article itself. So if you have a video of the original Golden Dawn of 1888 performing a ritual (not likely!) then it would be relevant. Or perhaps a video of a documentary re-creation of a historic ritual. But a modern group performing a ritual is not relevant to the historical GD, which is the subject of this article. Therefore I am removing that video link on the basis of irrelevancy, not POV bias. JMax555 (talk) 02:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I am restoring the link to the original Golden Dawn FAQ. The old link was broken, the new one is the same exact material on another site. It's subject matter is the historical Golden Dawn, so it is impossible for it to be "dated". It's mostly about the history of the original Order, with some information about 20th century revivals. (For the record, the GD group I am associated with is not even mentioned in that FAQ, so including it can hardly be "POV bias" on my part.) Furthermore, that FAQ has also been linked to in this article ever since this article was created. It has historical significance for that reason alone. No editors have ever objected to its inclusion, even during the most heated bouts of edit-warring. Checking for broken links is always a good thing, of course. But if a link can be found to the same document that is working, that's what should replace it, don't you think? JMax555 (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism Removed.

[edit]

I just removed some vandalism. Under the "list of known or alleged members" was included "Manny and Bernard Swanhouse (1863-1912) (1863-1912); twins, suicide. Poets, writers, fans of chess" I need not mention that these people (named after characters from the TV program 'Black Books') are imaginary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.158.54.102 (talk) 03:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary Orders Section

[edit]
  • As I understand it, Orders belong in this section if they have verifiable articles associated with them. Therefore, links to websites and non-article Order listings will be removed as vandalism. Inciardi23 (talk) 12:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think the proper Wikipedia term is link spam. I'm adding a ((subst:NoMoreLinks)) tag to the link section of the article. JMax555 (talk) 07:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Is there a way to report persistent spammers? Inciardi23 (talk) 19:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See: XLinkBot. You can set up an auto-correct function to deal with a particular unregistered user repeatedly linkspamming. JMax555 (talk) 09:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re your initial point, I've put it back the way it was. The Alpha et Omega article is about an historical, not contemporary order. Any evidence of continuation or revival would have to come from a third-party source, claims on the website of the contemporary order cannot be used to establish that. I see the third-party link that supported the revival of Ordo Stella Matutina is dead, and will be removing it also if I cannot find another third-party ref to replace it. Yworo (talk) 00:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I've also removed the Alpha et Omega from the "See also" section, as it is already linked from the article text. Our policy is that the "See also" section is only for links not already present in the article and encourages that these links be integrated into the text as becomes possible. Yworo (talk) 00:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Known or alleged members

[edit]

Shouldn't John William Brodie-Ennis be listed?

I don't think alleged members should be listed. If membership in an organization is unproven it should not be assumed. After all, anyone can say anything about anyone, true or untrue. I think it is irresponsible to include anyone here who is only alleged to be a member. At the very least a separate list should be made for alleged members. Currently there is no distinction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elfonleft (talk • contribs) 01:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure breaking it into two lists makes sense, if only because the list of "alleged" members might be pretty short. How about in the list there is an asterisk denoting "alleged" and a REF link next to each "alleged" name, and the REF link is to a footnote citing the source of the allegation, because of course any "alleged" members still need a verifiable third-party citation. But unverifiable entries should be removed. The most prominent example is Bram Stoker. He never "outed" himself, and the Lodge he would have likely belonged to destroyed their membership rolls in the wake of the Horos scandal. But Stoker's name comes up in print as a possible member (King, I think) so it's verifiable under Wikipedia guidelines. JMax555 (talk) 11:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can somebody cite a source for Sara Allgood's membership in the Golden Dawn? I'd really appreciate it. From my perspective, we do need citations for each member. I was doubtful about Stoker, but the discussion here in Talk is really helpful. Thank you! Scogdill (talk) 23:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that Sara Allgood knew Annie Horniman and Yeats, for sure, at least, since Horniman made the Abbey her philanthropic project, but I had never seen that Allgood was a member of the GD. Scogdill (talk) 01:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regardie (1982) says that Arnold Bennett was a member "if rumour may be trusted" (16). This is the citation given in the article, but the citation somehow implies that Bennett was a member rather than making it clear that the most we know is that there was a rumor. Frater Alastor, in his website listing the mottoes, does not list Arnold Bennett ("Rollcall of the Golden Dawn http://www.angelfire.com/ab6/imuhtuk/rollcall.htm). Scogdill (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back to having doubts about Bram Stoker; according to Howe (1972), the rumor about Stoker's being a member comes from Pauwels' and Bergier's Le Matin des Magiciens (1960), which is non-fiction but is pretty speculative. Scogdill (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: improving the quality of the members information available here, Sally Davis has been working from the original membership rolls now held in the Freemason's Archive in London as originally used by RA Gilbert. Since her material is not a "reliable secondary source", it can't go on the main Golden Dawn Page, but here is a link to it which may be of use to people until a "reliable source" becomes available. http://wrightanddavis.co.uk/GD/index.html Wrighrp (talk) 16:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed Stoker's name from the list of members. The only two provided sources were both unreliable ('The Spear of Destiny' by Trevor Ravenscroft and 'The Templar Revelation' by Lynn Picknett) and R. A. Glibert says in the reliable book 'The Golden Dawn: Twilight Of The Magicians' that "Bram Stoker (despite popular claims to the contrary) was never a member" (p.81). AutobioGraphix (talk) 23:49, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn and Nazi Ideology

[edit]

Did the "Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn" affect the Nazi ideology? I have read an article about it. Acoording to the article, there are connections. For instance, the Nazis believe that the center of the World is empty just like the members of HOGD. And there are other similarities too. In addition the name of Greek ultranationalist, Neo-Nazist party is Golden Dawn. Lamedumal (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And depending on these informations, could I add the Nazis to the "See also" section of the article? Lamedumal (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In order to add such a edit, you must be able to back it up with reliable, verifiable references. "I have read an article about it" is not enough. What article? Where did it appear? If it was only on the Internet, such references are usually not allowed by Wikipedia Guidlines. Anybody can write an "article" on a website or a blog that says anything, true or not. Also, where is there any documentation about the HOGD or any of its offshoots believing in the "Hollow Earth" ideology? So far, no one has been able to document any connection between the Chrysí Avgí political party and the HOGD, other than the coincidence of the name. Can you provide a link to this article? Thanks. JMax555 (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Holy Books of Thelema

[edit]

Whatever their worth and value to the subject and study of Thelema itself, surely it is misleading and frankly wrong to give the impression that these texts are at all representative of the system and philosophy of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. They may very well derive their substance therefrom; but the same could be said of Gerald Gardner's Book of Shadows, and I don't see that represented as a core text. Nuttyskin (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC) Nuttyskin (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. To be fair, the only the Cipher MS are strictly GD, Regardie and Crowley are offshoots. Gardner (your link is hilarious) filed the serial numbers off masonic degrees and threw in flesh and flagellation, so I don't think he counts. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:08, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Conan Doyle

[edit]

The source cited to support Doyle as a member of the Golden Dawn is an article that does not mention the Golden Dawn at all. Further, in his 2007 biography of Doyle, Conan Doyle: The Man Who Created Sherlock Holmes, Andrew Lycett, the author featured in the cited article, describes several *unsuccessful* attempts by his acquaintances to recruit him to the Golden Dawn. It appears Doyle was not a member of the Golden Dawn, although he was a Freemason. I propose removing him from this article.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hermetic_Order_of_the_Golden_Dawn&oldid=1206048786"