Talk:Order of Nine Angles/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Initial posts

This article was deleted on 2007 January 5, after a process begun by known sockpuppet Tunnels Of Set, where the vote yielded 2 deletes (one from sockpuppet), 1 comment, and 4 keeps.

I would like to ask a Wikipedia admin to reinstate this page, please. I'm also going to try to ask for reinstatement *properly* just as soon as I figure out how. :-) 72.12.133.163 23:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I also think its important that it remains. It needs more research. Who founded it? When was it founded? How does its philosophy differ from other so-called Satanic groups? Keep it and build upon it.

Practices human sacrifice huh? So those are more than urban legend? I'm calling BS on this article. --Wolfrider 01:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Considering that the founder David Myatt has been associated with the UK security services through the Combat 18 disinformation campaign, it could be assumed that Myatt is merely a spook who is carrying out policy for MI5. Considering that MI5 used Combat 18 to monitor extermists it wouldnt be far fetched to say that Myatt is a spook(security operative) who is a agent provocatuer. And the fact of him "becoming" a muslim" and encouraging violence seems to suggest either a very confused person or someone who is merely carrying out orders for MI5. The Order of the 9 Angles is merely a PSYOP of the UK securty services to attract and monitor nutters and malcontents under their criteria. Whats disconcerning is that the UK secret service is starting to perceive occult magickal groups/orders has a security threat....86.139.222.15 20:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, here's a few things to think about. (1) If ONA was a psyop, I think that the writings would be better advertised. (2) If Myatt was an agent for a proper spy agency, a civilian wouldn't be able to connect the dots between the ONA, the neo-Nazis, and his new little Muslim thing. (3) Such a kind of involvement in neo-Nazism and Islam are entirely in line with the ONA writings: read them and see. (4) Technically, if you're the type of person who agrees with the ONA writings, you should be considered a security threat, since the point seems to be to slaughter the inferior and enslave the world. So in summary, as Napoleon once said: "it's needless to assume the existence of a conspiracy when something can be just as easily explained by normal human stupidity". AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 13:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• • This allegation (and rumor) has been made against Myatt a few times, always without any supporting evidence, like the much touted allegation (and rumor) that Charlie Sargent, who founded Combat 18, was a Police or MI5 agent or informant. It's the kind of disinformation that seems to fuel some people's belief in various conspiracy theories - or the kind of disinformation spread by people who have an axe to grind (political or otherwise) or who want to discredit someone they don't like (for whatever reason). For those who can apply a little rational thought to the known facts, "the truth" is really out there and is often quite simple (Occam's razor, anyone?). But it takes a certain effort to find, in many cases. In Myatt's case, people who make such allegations, or repeat such rumors, don't bother to read his poetry, his personal letters, or what he's written about his own life in diverse autobiographical writings. That should allow them to get a complete picture of the man. Now, while I'm on the subject of Myatt - another unproven assumption about Myatt is that he is connected with, or led, or created (or whatever) this ONA. Myatt has consistently denied this assumption, and no one's ever offered any evidence in support of this assumption. Coolmoon 12:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, since it has been stated in a whole raft of secondary sources, we can still put it in this article. Feel free, though, to add as much as you want to the Myatt article from his own writings, if you've got them and the material can be added without violating the "original research" principle. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 14:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it is stated by them, but it is an assumption that those writers have made, without presenting any evidence to substantiate such a claim. Therefore, it is only fair to make it clear that it is their assumption, not a "fact" - certainly, not something Myatt himself agrees with. It might be fairer to mention in the article that Myatt disputes their claims. BTW, great work on restoring the article. Coolmoon 18:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I think it's better to mention that Myatt denies it. My rationale is, multiple independent sources corroborate something that he denies, and if you sit down and read the ONA writings you'll know one thing the author will do is deny he wrote any of it, especially if he's in a leadership position of some organization. As it is, though, it can be reported here following the manual of journalism - i.e., "Person asserts that Myatt wrote the ONA tracts, a charge which Myatt denies", and add footnotes. That keeps Wikipedia safe, while leaving it to the external source to deal with arguments. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW, how could they provide any evidence to prove that he wrote the ONA writings? I mean, I guess they could prove authorship by using Bayesian analysis (ooh, that gives me an idea for a project...), or by getting him to admit it. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Or, you can go to Google Books, and see there how David Myatt is listed as the author of one ONA book at Thormynd: [1]. He also published other books with Thormynd: [2] [3] [4] [5]. Unfortunately, all that counts as original research, which is not allowed in Wikipedia articles. That's the funny thing - according to Wikipedia rules, the ONA is an organization because it's asserted so by authors, when really the only proof I've ever seen of its existence is a Christos Beest recording and the tripod site. So it's a hoax that attained reality. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

OK - if you (or anyone) assume(s) it's (the ONA) a hoax/myth/creation of one person/does not really exist as an organization /[fill in the blanks...] then it sure as anything is a clever hoax, that's interested quite a lot of people, and also possibly then a genuine work of magic(k), as in, for example, manipulating people to react in certain ways or do one's bidding (and so on blah blah blah). But AFAIK many people have been involved over the years, from "Thornian" in the States, who ran his own public branch of the ONA and who published ONA material from an address in Texas (I think it was Texas anyway), to people in Sweden, Brazil, Russia and elsewhere. Some of these "others" have even written some ONA material. But then again, isn't it, as often, just a question of one's personal opinion about something, and of a "secret" (or purportedly secret) group being somewhat illusive by nature [and illusive, maybe, in the sense of being magic(k)al]? Personally, I like the comment that Anton Long (whoever he is) was, and maybe still is, having a good laugh at our expense - i.e. was/is a Trickster, in the Jungian sense of course! Coolmoon 11:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It'd be great if you could track down some of those other guys' writings, or otherwise figure out some way to add that information to this article. Cos right now, I think it reads too much like an article about a one-man hoax (or 2, if you include Christos Beest). And as far as being a trickster - that's actually rather Satanic of him, isn't it? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 12:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Some examples of writings by people other than CB or Mr Long are (1)camlad9.tripod.com/ea_1.html (2) Several stories about Sapphic relaitonships in early issues of the magazines Fenrir and "Exeat" (some signed Sister Bronwyn and one was called Dark Daughters of Chaos) (3) Articles - and some fiction - by Brenna, some published in later editions of Fenrir and elsewhere (there is one at ona.satanicwebsites.com/septenary/moon/griggins_nap.htm). The style of writing points to authors other than CB or Mr Trickster. Thornian had his own website, now long gone, but mainly sent printed material by mail from an address in Texas. Yes - it may be satanic (adversarial, surely is better) of Mr Long to do such trickster things, but as to who this person is, all we can do lacking proof or some "confession" or admission is make an assumption as to identity. Coolmoon 20:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Its good to see David and his security service handler adding to the already made up mythos behind the spook "David Myatt". 81.156.236.173 16:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing more depressing than when a person holds to a conspiracy theory that's not even rational or interesting. ONA as part of an MI5 sting operation? MI5 is actually cheap enough to re-use the same operative to infiltrate 3 different movements, after his connections to the first 2 were already exposed in published books? They're running short on agents? They let their operative publish books that all other Satanists disavow for being too hardcore? And there's no brown people in England who could be recruited to be agent provocateur muslim extremists? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 13:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Wolfrider

Please check the third party sources at the bottom of the article, e.g. by going to Google Books. The concern you have was dealt with in a previous AfD and Deletion Review - the group itself is notable because it is actually mentioned in third-party sources (some excerpts at google books were brought into the discussion at the drv), which then allows the first-party sources to be bootstrapped in when discussing what they "condone". Though you could just write that off as ONA being "merry pranksters" (um... or, as documented in third-party sources, white supremacist merry pranksters).

"Practice", however, was certainly an inappropriate word without third party sources, and I have deleted it.

This article used to be quite long before Tunnels of Set took the delete button to it before he AfDed the article, but to tell you the truth I've not felt like fixing the article up since it came back. Using their own social darwinist logic, if nobody sympathetic to ONA is interested in this article's continued existence, it may as well be deleted, so I won't contest your prod (though you can feel free to remove it yourself if you want). AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Update: OK, I'm presently trying to add information to the article, and seem to have done a decent job so far. If anyone is reading this and wants to improve my formatting, fine, cos I have no clue how to format a proper complex Wikipedia article; but let it be known, this article is on my watchlist. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 12:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Appreciation of the work done

I would simply like to express my appreciation of the work done on this article. I was one of the contributors to the original Order of Nine Angles article that was available on Wikipedia before it was deleted. Many excellent references. Good job contributors! :-) User:DYBoulet 7:47 9 June 2007 (AST)

Agreed. This is a MUCH better article than it was a few months ago. :) --Wolfrider 19:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Did it actually exist?

Did the "order" actually exist? We only have Myatts word ,and one or two other people willing to play along with the story. Although there were books published these were limited print runs and never got a wide audience. And the so called membership is also suspect. If the order existed why have there only been representations by psuedonyms? It just raises more questions. And how would a potential member apply for entry to the order? None of this is elaborated. which leads to the idea that there were no members.

Oh dear, here we go, again! If you had done some elementary research you would have found several ONA articles, and published letters, about using pseudonyms, and why they are used; and would have found some members who have gone public in the past - Vilnius Thornian in the States comes to mind (he even used his real name sometimes) plus some others. You would also have found *how to apply* even though the group was semi-secret in the 80's and 90's - for example, for years, there were contact details, via a series of PO Boxes, then an e-mail address, and so on blah blah blah. So, it is elaborated, in at least a dozen or so ONA essays and articles, some of which have even made it onto the Internet! Furthermore, *secret societies* by their nature are *secret* and the *secret* of joining is often knowing someone who's already a member, or a member sponsoring someone. This is how many Occult groups operated for centuries; and how some still do. There is life beyond the Internet, after all ;) Coolmoon 08:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to point out that there is still a link to SoDL. That website has been gone for months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.236.52.242 (talk) 02:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The "Vilnius Thornian" reference doesnt prove that the ONA actually existed as a group. It just proves that one other person as a vested interest in perpetuating the lie that the ONA actually existed. All the references to the ONA on the interent come from websites that copy Myatts original material and nothing else. So again this article is closer to propaganda for Myatt than anything approaching actual verifiable fact.

You forget WSA352 - which has several ONA groups in various parts of the USA, numbering dozens of members. You forget the Australian ONA group, the Temple of Them. There are other such ONA groups, worldwide. Like someone mentioned - there is life, existence, beyond the Internet. Suffice to say that verifiable, credible sources - the criteria used by Wikipedia - write of the ONA as an Occult group that actually exists. Some of these sources (often in book form, so not just of the Internet) are given in the ONA article. There are others. Therefore, given such sources, Wikipedia has an entry for this ONA Occult group. 86.149.14.119 (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

>> May I? IMO it's not a question of whether the ONA was real or not. Perhaps there is a middle perspective. The question should be: Does what was written by Myatt/Long [Black Book of Satan; Naos; Hostia; et al]have a value in the eyes of some individuals who resonate with what was written? The Order of Nine Angles was real enough for real Satanic Organizations such as the CoS & ToS to forbid it's members from joining the ONA with threats of "excommunication."

If you read Myatt/Long's various ONA writings carefully, you will see that Myatt/Long had written these MSS and books in such a way so that IF an individual did resonate with what was written, such individual would have all the knowledge, resource, and instructions on generating/creating the ONA "from scratch."

The Order of Nine Angles may very well have been just a garage invention of a very creative Mind, which may not have "existed" at all in the causal world in the beginning. But these seed ideas Myatt/Long disseminated through his writings were meant to take root in fertile minds - thus germinating the ONA via those "nexions" or fertile minds.

IF the ONA didn't exist before, it does now through those widely dispersed individual who saw something meaningful and insightful in these writings and in those groups of people who germinated their own ONA groups, as many of the writings themselves instructs "initiates" to do.

Perhaps in the past there were those people who perpetuated the "idea" of the "ONA" to take advantage of its copyleft material and sell books. But there are modern ONA groups such as WSA352 which do not "perpetuate" this myth for profit or adherents. Perhaps in the past a few people posted or sold the same old ONA writings, but there are now modern ONA groups, such as WSA352 again; that are progressing the ONA by breathing new life into it with new insights and material.

If the ONA did not exist before, it exists now thru its many groups which have form. There are quite a few ONA groups "on line" which are now well known; but due to the nature of the ONA, most ONA groups and members that do exist tent to stay off line, and work in the real world.

But isn't this the original intent of Myatt? He gives a clue to his intent in what he (as Long) calls Aeonics. Things are written as seed thoughts at a certain point in time, and these seeds germinate into actuality at a future point in time. Perhaps it has taken Myatt/Long's ONA seed ideas to fully germinate into a real world functioning organization 20-30 years to materialize?

Whatever it was back then, today the Order of Nine Angles is as real or unreal as any existing Satanic institution like the CoS for example. Both the ONA today like the CoS lack a physical church or building; both have their own adherents/members; both have an internet presence and utilizes the internet as an important means of propagating their respective organizations; both have their own unique set of beliefs/philosophy; Both came into being out of the insightful minds of a creative -Satanic- mind; and both now lacks their "Originator." Anton LaVey of the CoS has past away, and Anton Long of the ONA may now be a Muslim. What then is the difference? Besides the fact that the CoS is structured as a "church" with a "priesthood," and hierarchy; whereas the ONA as it's Originator had specified, eschews such concepts and was created to be a private path to personal progression made up of independent members and groups? Alphaomikron (talk) 02:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphaomikron (talk • contribs) 02:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to get your responses and evaluations of the following academic quotes:

James R. Lewis: "Whether anyone in [the ONA] has ever actually taken a life is unknown, but most outsiders reject ONA's discourse about culling as either macho posturing or a strategy for attracting attention by creating controversy." -- "Satanism Today: an Encyclopedia of Religion, Folklore, and Popular Culture", 2001 ABC-CLIO; p. 196, entry on "Order of Nine Angles".

Jeffrey Kaplan: "...[the ONA appears] to have been founded by Anton Long. Stephen Brown (a.k.a. Christos Beest) appears to have joined some time later, and David Myatt is a National Socialist who, while close to the ONA, is a distinctly different individual and the head of Reichfolk. ... Written interviews with both Myatt and Beest make clear that they are not the same person. ... Little information on the Order of Nine Angles is available. ... The ONA has few actual adherents. ..." and "The ONA claims ancient roots. In a history that is remarkably similar to that of Gardnarian [sic] Wicca, the ONA path is held by its adherents to be some 7,000 years old and to have passed down through a line of female initiates, or Mistresses of the Earth, until, in the 1960s, it was decided to expand the organization and Anton Long was initiated. The name 'Order of the Nine Angles' was adopted at about that time. Letter from Christos Beest, 18 August 1996." and "Myatt frankly states that his own long history of interaction with England's occult underground was undertaken in a clandestine effort to influence some of these adherents to adopt National Socialist beliefs. Letter from David Myatt to a Mr. Williams dated July 1994." - "Nation and Race: the Developing Euro-American Racist Subculture", ed. by Jeffrey Kaplan and Tore Bjorgo, within chapter 5 by Kaplan entitled 'Religiosity and the Radical Right: Toward the Creation of a New Ethnic Identity', 1998 Northeastern University Press; pgs. 115, 124-125.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Re the Lewis quote. He's simply quoting the opinions of un-named others about the topic. These opinions have repeatedly been expressed on the internet, for instance on Occult the600club forum recently at http://www.the600club.com/topic40911-1.html which became one of the most popular threads there, with some replies from some ONA people placing such opinions in context. The opinions of others are not the same as evidence or conclusions derived from detailed research. Coolmoon (talk) 06:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Re the Kaplan quote. Although this is dated now, no one has followed up Kaplan's claim that Myatt is not Long by looking for another suspect. Also, Kaplan confuses Stephen Brown (an Anton Long pseudonym) with Christos Beest. Facsimiles of correspondence between Brown and Aquino are in the British Library, and it's clear from them that Brown is Long, as Aquino himself maintained. Coolmoon (talk) 06:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Neat. So you're suggesting that when I listen to my copy of "The Self-Immolation Rite", I'm listening to the voice of Anton Long himself? Or was there really a Christos Beest who wasn't Anton Long? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 23:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

No, it means you're listening to Mr R. Moult, aka C. Beest, who isn't Myatt, Long, or Stephen Brown. Pointyhat9 (talk) 11:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

In reply to the question did/does the ONA exist - and in particular in response to User:Self-ref who deleted the ONA section from the main Satanism wiki page - I refer those interested to the academic Conference on Satanism in the Modern World held in November 2009 at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology where the ONA was the subject of two academic papers. I also refer them to the upcoming academic paper by Dr James Lewis to be presented at an academic conference on Satanism that will be held at the University of Stockholm in September 2011 which will detail his research which will include results of the questionnaire he compiled especially for members of the Order of Nine Angles. Given such recent academic research into the ONA and its members, it seems to me that the question did/does the ONA exist has been quite clearly answered in the affirmative by reputable academic sources, and that those who claim otherwise are therefore most assuredly incorrect. Pointyhat9 (talk) 23:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, no, but seriously, does any reference to this thing exist which is older than 1994? This thing has supposedly been around since the 1960s, the merger of three notable occult organizations. Is there any mention in any theosophical magazines? Scholarly work on the occult? Shoutout in The Satanic Bible by Anton LaVey? Offhanded mention in the Warrens' diaries? Basically, any evidence that this thing existed before the X-Files was popular on Usenet? And I don't mean things which claim (or repeat the claim) that it existed before then, I mean an actual written word from before 1994 that mentions this thing's existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.228.113.106 (talk) 07:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

This allegation has been answered many times, including here. Credible sources - according to Wikipedia criteria - have written about the ONA as an active occult group (i.e. one which exists) the latest of which mentions is in The Devil's Party: Satanism in Modernity published in 2012 by the world renowned academic Oxford University Press, and which book includes not only many mentions of the ONA but a whole chapter devoted to the ONA. Most of the Wikipedia article about the ONA references such credible sources. FYI, a simple internet search would have led to active ONA groups in places such as Russia and eastern European countries. Here's just two 1) http://abglodge.wordpress.com 2) http://interrogisticmethodologies.wordpress.com There's also a forum in Russian devoted to the ONA. Pavane7 (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Blackwood and ONA

Someone has been inserting a link to a personal website by one "Blackwood" which makes unverified claims regarding the association of this Blackwood with ONA. According to the official ONA blog, this Blackwood and his groups have nothing to do with the ONA: http://nineangles.wordpress.com/2008/06/06/the-fantasy-of-blackwood/. Therefore, I've deleted the external link. Coolmoon (talk) 11:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "Ryan" :
  • Ryan, Nick. ''Into a World of Hate.'' Routledge, 1994, p. 53.
  • Ryan, Nick. ''Into a World of Hate''. Routledge, 1994, p. 53.

DumZiBoT (talk) 17:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Dumzy, those are two different facts supported on the same page of the original source. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Dawn Perlmutter - thinking of stripping her out

It seems I only used Dawn Perlmutter once as a reference in this article. I'm tempted to strip her out of the article, sine I've come across a few other things she's written that make her look a bit nutty, or at least not a very good reference. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

External ONA Links

Have added two new links - one to the semi-official ONA site which gives their recent (as in the last ten years) works, and one to the US based WSA352 group, which currently is the most public face of the ONA. Also, removed link to Yahoo group, although if any object, please put the link back. 80.193.69.13 (talk) 09:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

holy geez - new huge source for you

[6] - has anyone checked this out? It's recently been added as a source. It's a 58-page conference paper, 100% on our favourite subject. We should synthesize all of this into our article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 23:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a good idea, although caution may be prudent in quoting it, as there are some pure suppositions in that Senholt document, and what appear to be some incorrect facts both about the ONA and Myatt. There is another new document which mentions this Senholt thesis a few times, located at http://www.scribd.com/doc/22888277/ONA-in-Historical-and-Esoteric-Context and which gives some further details about the ONA and some references to other documents about both the ONA and Myatt/Long. Coolmoon (talk) 17:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Anton Long

I have reverted the edits (? vandalism) by anon user 108.0.25.213 as Anton Long is the subject of an academic paper by Senholt presented at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology Conference on Satanism in the Modern World in November 2009 and has been referenced in academic articles by Professor Kaplan and Dr James Lewis, et al. Dr Lewis will also mention Anton Long at the upcoming conference on Satanism to be held at the University of Stockholm in September 2011. Therefore, the assertions made by this anon user are IMO untenable and require correction. Pointyhat9 (talk) 00:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

PS is there any information in this Senholt paper, and the other paper linked by Coolmoon directly above here, that can be included in this article? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 23:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Allegations About Myatt and NPOV

I've removed a paragraph about Myatt which quotes more allegations Ryan makes about Myatt, this time to do with Moult, an allegation Myatt emphatically denies (see his autobiography Myngath). Given that Ryan presents no evidence in his book, given that some other allegations Ryan makes are included in the preceding paragraph, and given that the next paragraph is given over to quoting someone else's opinion about Myatt, to include all these allegations and opinions about Myatt seems to me at least to tip the balance of the article away from NPOV. Pointyhat9 (talk) 00:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Allegations can be presented as allegations, on Wikipedia, as long as they don't violate WP:BLP. They are also pretty much the only information we have. Their refutation in a self-published internet autobiography shouldn't mean they get removed. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 23:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

But too many allegations don't make for NPOV, especially if those making such allegations have a political bias, as in this case. Hence, like I said, that I removed one of them. If you look at the entries of others listed in the 'far right in the UK' category I doubt you'll find many or any entries where allegations and claims about the person are as much in evidence as they are with Myatt. As for your quip about 'self-published internet autobiography' (which AFAIK are accepted as sources on wikipedia in certain cases) - the point here surely is the author and the content, not, these days, the mode of distribution, especially given the author doesn’t believe in the concept of copyright and he's just far to controversial (in the real sense of the term) to get anything published by mainstream publishers, even if he wanted to, which I doubt. Pointyhat9 (talk) 19:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

If of course it's provable that it's even the author who wrote the "autobiography". In any case, I'd much rather have a third-party source. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 23:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to give more detail. The section before my edit had the following - (1) Ryan has asserted; (2) This assertion is repeated by; (3) who claims; (4) Ryan states; (5) Gerry Gable said. That IMO is too many claims and opinions about Myatt in one section, and doesn't amount to a neutral point of view (NPOV). I've simply removed one of Ryan's claims about Myatt, for which claim he gives no evidence in his book. Pointyhat9 (talk) 01:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I probably wrote most of that, and I tend to present that sort of information using standard journalistic prose. I.e.., if Ryan is asserting or claiming something, I say "Ryan asserts/claims that". It's the proper way to present this information, and as this information is about all we have on membership of the ONA, then it should go in. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 23:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

PS - please read the above discussions on this talk page. Turns out I'd addressed this concern above.AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest pulling most of the David Myatt content out of this article, and put it in the David Myatt article. E.g. "The Numinous Way" has nothing to do with ONA. But at the same time, I've half a mind to put back the part about Christos Beest that was pulled out - as after all, he was a member of ONA. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 23:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

PS - did so. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 23:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

OK let's retain it - but two points here IMO. (1) If the claim is retained then Myatt's denial (perhaps a quote from his autobiography) should be added for balance and NPOV. (2) I did read the previous discussion about this - but my point was about way too many claims and opinions about Myatt in the article making it unbalanced, especially as no one provided any evidence at all for their claims and especially as those making the claims - like Ryan, Lowles and Gable - were all connected to the Searchlight organization and so had a political agenda to discredit Myatt. So, I'll add Myatt's denial about this and other claims to the ONA article. As for adding even more unproven claims about Myatt - from these people - to the Myatt wikipedia article, I think that would unbalance that article and give the views and opinions of the Searchlight crowd far too much prominence and far to much weight. Pointyhat9 (talk) 05:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't need a quote from an autobiography added. Just a footnote is enough. We'll let someone in the future argue over WP:RS. As for adding anything about Myatt whatsoever - it has to be connected to the ONA. To be clear, it's an ONA article, not a Myatt article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 23:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to delete the IMO weasel word 'self-published' you inserted in ref to Myatt's autobiography as it alters the tone. If you want to continue down the disparage Myatt route, then why not mention Ryan's connection to Searchlight which indicates he's not the unbiased source he claims or appears to be? But I'll let that pass. I'll also add a ref to his other writings and that he challenged Ryan to a duel for making this accusation, which BTW was in the wikipedia article before. Also contra to your statement after your edit, the BBC transcript does give a ref to Myatt living in Worcestershire (not Shropshire) but we'll also let that pass. Pointyhat9 (talk) 06:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

on sources

Please note, this subject's notability was originally established based on third-party sources. If you look through the sources given, you'll find third-party sources that address the notability of the article. This was already decided in an AfD a few years back. Since then, the article has been expanded, with a large number of first-party sources - mainly expositing on the details of the ONA's beliefs. Personally I'd like it if there were fewer of these first-party sources, but frankly you're not going to find many other third-party sources that go into any detail on the ONA's beliefs. We've already found pretty much everything we can. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a good third-party source written by one Professor Connell Monette PhD., Assistant Vice President of Academic Affairs of Al Akhawayn University in Ifrane Morocco. Dr. Monette is writing a textbook for his university called "Blood, Wine, and the Golden Chain. Mysticism in the 21st Century." Chapter Five of this textbook is entirely on the Order of Nine Angles. The professor has given ONA members a copy of Chapter Five to have and distribute. This can be found here: Chapter Five, "The Order of Nine Angles." The Chapter itself is 40 pages long. It would be cool if somebody incorporated some of its content into the ONA entry, or at least properly added it as a source or reference, which I don't know how to do. Otonen (talk) 21:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

That's not currently AFAIK a good source according to Wikipedia criteria because the book hasn't been printed and published yet and because the publisher - Sirius Ink - doesn't seem to exist just yet and so has no established reputation or back catalog. If it had been published as a paper in a reputable academic journal prior to publication in a book then it could be used. Also, I'm thinking of trimming the 'History' section of the article here as it reads like a fan blurb - thanks to AllGloryToTheHypnotoad for pointing this out to me. Frankly, in my view there's way too many non-reputable sources in the article as a whole anyway making it seem unbalanced and not in keeping with NPOV, so I may do some additional trimming also. Coolmoon (talk) 14:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I've gone and done a rewrite of the Beliefs section, cutting out most of the self-referenced ONA material and using reliable sources according to Wikipedia's criteria. This should IMO make for a better more balanced article. If or when other reliable non-partisan sources become available then maybe the section can be expanded. On another point, since the ONA website is now closed down, the external link should probably be removed. Coolmoon (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow, there's finally some Senholt in this too. Definitely a better article now. And to think this topic was AfDed once.... AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Attempt to Merge Article For Deletion With ONA Article

The merge tag is inappropriate here given that the ONA article is about the ONA not about groups that follow or claim to follow the ONA's take on Satanism. Also the article proposed to be included here is up for deletion anyway since it's about a group that does not meet the wikipedia criteria for notability and which non-notable group is led by an anonymous person who also does not meet wikipedia criteria for notability. There's also the fact that this small non-notable group makes the claim that it "now functions independently from the ONA" - so how is such an "independent" non-notable group, led by an anonymous person, relevant to the article which is about the ONA? Pavane7 (talk) 05:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It states in the Wikipedia guidelines regarding notability - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ORG - that "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." The organization in question has no significant coverage over a period of time in such sources, and is therefore not notable enough for an entry in Wikipedia. Furthermore, and relevant here, the guidelines additionally state that "An organization may be notable, but individual members (or groups of members) do not 'inherit' notability due to their membership." Since the group in question is not notable according to the criteria required here, and since it cannot 'inherit' notability by claiming membership of the ONA, there is no reason for it to be mentioned in the article about the ONA, let alone for details about it to be included in the ONA entry. Coolmoon (talk) 10:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion about this merger is on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Temple_of_Them Coolmoon (talk) 11:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

About the most charitable thing I could suggest is adding one sentence to this article along the lines of "According to a paper by Sieg, among the groups subsequently influenced by the ONA were...", and then footnoting the Sieg paper, for what it's worth. But merge of the entire Them article seems a bit silly. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I would agree about the charitable thing - if there were another source of a reliable nature. One that doesn't use the internet and emails from some anon guy as the only sources of info about the 'them' group. Pavane7 (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with everybody. This article is about the ONA specifically, and not necessarily about any ONA inspired group or "nexion" specifically. If countries where nexions exist were mentioned, the mention is in context to the ONA actually. Just because a random ONA inspired group or any of its nexions are inspired by ONA or associated with ONA, does not means that such groups do not have to go through what ONA had to go through to qualify to have a wikipedia article. If such groups exist then they also would need to follow wikipedia rules and guidelines and meet the list of criteria. I don't think any group - "nexion" or spin off groups - deserves to "piggyback" ride the ONA to get their own wikipedia entry without meeting wikipedia's criteria. And I don't think some association with ONA equals an entitlement to bypass wikipedia stated criteria. But personally I agree and think that a brief sentence about the Temple of THEM would be okay if one or two notable references can be produced. Otonen (talk) 23:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Problem solved, as an admin has deleted the article because it didn't meet the criteria for notability. If at some future date that 'them' group becomes notable it may merit the type of mention AllGloryToTheHypnotoad said above. Pavane7 (talk) 07:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The Star Game

Is The Star Game notable enough to be included in the see also section of the ONA article? I think so (though I'm open to correction) which I why I added it, given that the game is described in half a dozen or so mainstream books which discuss the ONA, and given its importance in the ONA's seven fold way. Pavane7 (talk) 13:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

To me, that article is a prime candidate for an AfD, if not a prod. If it described in detail in those third-party sources, as being significant, and is not simply mentioned, I'd be interested in seeing the quotes, or links to the Google Books pages for these sources. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

At most the mention in the sources amounts to several sentences, so the question seems to revolve around whether the detail that's given meets the Wikipedia guidelines for notability, i.e. Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail. So what does 'in detail' mean? Half a paragraph in a printed book? A paragraph? A page? Several pages? More? The definition of 'detail' in the complete (22 volume) printed Oxford English Dictionary gives "dealing with matters item by item; detailed treatment; attention to particulars." If that's how Wikipedia understands 'in detail' (and I couldn't find their understanding of it given anywhere tho I may have missed it) then half a paragraph and several brief mentions of the star game in mainstream books does not amount to 'in detail' and the article fails the notability criteria. Pavane7 (talk) 07:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Given the probable, the expected, deletion of the separate star game article, I've made mention of the star game in the main body of the ONA article here, giving references, and also removed the 'see also' tag. Pavane7 (talk) 18:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Seems like you did a good job of adding just enough on the topic. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 00:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Recent changes

Unless there's a specific wikipedia policy against it, I can't see why H.217.83 changed my antinomianism link in the article, from the relevant section of the article to the whole long article. I think it's better to link to the relevant section given how the term is defined and used by the author I quoted; otherwise it's just confusing to readers. The relevant section is the one that includes the "In contemporary studies of esotericism" paragraph. So I'm reverting the edit.

Also, H.217.83 asks a good question - does anyone other than Senholt make the claim about Myatt, the ONA, and the war on terror? Well, several other reputable sources have made claims about Myatt and Islamic terrorism - some are referenced in Myatt's Wikipedia entry. So the link is there, and Senholt has just 'connected the dots' so to speak by bringing in Myatt's (alleged) connection to and (alleged) central role in the ONA. I included the Senholt quote about this because it's from a reputable source - a peer reviewed book published by the well respected Oxford University Press, and because Senholt is the first to write at length about Myatt's Islamic connections being important for the ONA, as he says in the introduction to Secret Identities in The Sinister Tradition writing that "it's important that scholars document once for all that David Myatt is Anton Long, and it is pivotal point for the whole thesis of Myatt's apparent involvement with Islam that his connections to the ONA become clearly established". Pavane7 (talk) 05:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the wikilink to antinomianism, it states in Wikipedia policy - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Link_specificity - that "If an existing article has a section specifically about the topic, you can redirect or link directly to it." So, unless I've misunderstood the policy, I think my wikilink to the relevant section of the antinomianism is valid given as I mentioned above how that section shows how the term is used in the context of esotericism. Pavane7 (talk) 06:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your edit, I accept, of course. And I have nothing against including Senholt’s quote in general, I just asked because it was written as if he was not the only one claiming “ONA-inspired activities […] managed to enter the scene of grand politics” etc. --217/83 07:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the paragraph about Myatt and the smallholding allegation - in the authorship section - as it's covered in the Wikipedia entry about Myatt and doesn't have anything to do with Myatt's authorship of ONA material. Plus it doesn't contribute anything useful about the ONA either, save to mention Moult who's contribution to the ONA is much later and minimal (if not insignificant) anyway - a few articles, the sinister tarot - and a Wikipedia article is no place to mention any or all of those who've made minor or insignificant contributions to a group or organization. Pavane7 (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

External link

I've edited the external link and replaced the now defunct (expired) ONA website with a link to the 'official' ONA blog. For those interested, there's an archive of the website, as was in 2011, at http://web.archive.org/web/20120117235238/http://www.nineangles.info/ Pavane7 (talk) 13:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, here's the part of Wikipedia policy which I checked before editing the ONA 'external link' and replacing it with a link to the official ONA blog, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Official_links "An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following: 1. The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article. 2. The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable. Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself. These links are exempt from the links normally to be avoided..." Pavane7 (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Relocation

I've deleted the bit about the ONA 'relocating' to California, as all the links are dead, plus Chloe, the young Thai woman mentioned there, has now publicly left the ONA and taken down her blog. Plus the relocation has never, to my knowledge, been mentioned in any reliable third party source. Pavane7 (talk) 22:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Authorship

I'm reverting the edit by anon user 62.150.38.251 who truncated the quote from a credible source, and which quote in my view added something of interest and relevance to the ONA article in general and to the section on authorship in particular. Pavane7 (talk) 13:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Lead Section

I see no reason to change the beginning of the article. It introduced the Order of Nine Angles as it is perceived by academics and others - as "an extreme form of Satanism" - and which perception serves to distinguish it from other Satanic group. Hence I have reverted the edit. Coolmoon (talk) 20:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The beginning of the O9A article is apposite in comparison with the beginning of the Wikipedia articles about the Temple of Set, the Church of Satan, and The Satanic Temple, all of which groups are either linked to from or described on the main Satanism page:

"The Order of Nine Angles (ONA; O9A) "represent a dangerous and extreme form of Satanism."

"The Temple of Set is a left-hand path initiatory order founded in 1975."

"The Church of Satan is a religious organization dedicated to the philosophy of LaVeyan Satanism as codified in The Satanic Bible."

"The Satanic Temple, based in New York, represents a variety of Satanism that uses the literary Satan as a mythological foundation for a non-supernatural religion, which it believes can be used to construct a cultural narrative that can usefully contextualize life experiences and promote pragmatic skepticism, rational reciprocity, personal autonomy, and curiosity."

In addition, the O9A Wikpedia article is the only one which begins with a quotation from what Wikipedia define as a reliable, third-party, source. Coolmoon (talk) 04:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Recent extensive changes

Restored the previous informative (and well-referenced) introduction, removing contentious statements/assumptions (which use weasel words such as 'small' and copious repetition of the words 'claimed' and claim) that seem to not only contravene Wikipedia's NPOV but also contradict the referenced statements by Kaplan and Senhot re the ONA being "a secretive organisation" and it being difficult to ascertain "exact and verifiable information" about it.

Thus, particularly since the statement by Kaplan re 'small numbers' is contradicted by more recent information by Monette, it seems best to omit such contentious statements.

Also, as a perusal of O9A literature (of the whole O9A corpus) reveals that the O9A does not simply describe its beliefs as belonging to "the sinister tradition" but rather as being a 'sinisterly-numinous' tradition evident in their seven fold way; (ii) that Nazism is used purely as a heretical form (as in the Mass of Heresy) and suggested as an 'antinomian' Insight Role; (iii) that in no way can the terms 'religion' and 'theology' be applied to the O9A (as a reading of such basic texts such as the 'Satanic Letters' reveals), (iv) the O9A has never claimed - as an Order or group - to have "origins" which date back "aeons", nor claimed to be "the survival of an ancient pre-Christian tradition", only that some of their aural traditions recount certain myths and legends and practices not found in mainstream modern Western occultism; (v) as Monette has mentioned - and as many O9A texts indicate - the 'dangerous satanism' of the O9A may well be either cosmetic, part of the O9A's Labyrinthos Mythologicus, or - as they themselves state in texts such as https://omega9alpha.wordpress.com/o9a-101/ - "only one part of the sinister aspect of the sinisterly-numinous tradition: a necessary and novitiate pathei-mathos, a modern rite of passage." Finally, the identity of Mr Beest was well known long before Senholt wrote his thesis, just as the supposition of Long being Myatt was mentioned by various people many years before the 1998 article in Searchlight (e.g. by Aquino, among others).

Given such things, and many other contentious issues - and given that the O9A is "a secretive organisation" with it being difficult to ascertain "exact and verifiable information" about it - it seems best to avoid overburdening the article with too much minor detail. Those interested can find copious info and disinfo about it in the cited academic works (especially those of Goodrick Clark, Senholt and Monette) and - of course - on the internet. Coolmoon (talk) 22:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Woah woah woah there, Coolmoon! That's some fairly extensive removal of academically-referenced information you've gone with there. I'm more than happy to see edits and alterations made to any of the wording that I introduced (if you can improve on my wording, that's great) but removing academically referenced information is problematic. For instance, several academically-referenced pieces of information, like the alleged identity of Beest or Faxneld's comparison between the terminology of "Traditional Satanism/Traditional Witchcraft", have been removed without any clear explanation beyond the claim that they are "minor detail". I don't think that any of this should have been removed, and I would like to see it reinstated. Regarding the reversion of the lede, I also have some issues. The lede which you have restored has some NPOV problems (particularly by opening with the Faxneld quote) and, moreover, I fear that it is far too brief. If you look at the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section you will see that it states that the opening paragraphs should "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies" and that is what my wording had attempted to do. The current wording in the lede just doesn't summarize the entirety of the article. Anyway, apologies if my response has been a little negative here, but as you can see I have been working quite a bit on improving this article today and it's always a little unnerving to see it suddenly un-done. I am glad to see another editor taking an interest in the welfare of this article and on advancing it; I hope to see it brought to the point where it could be awarded GA status in the near future. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there is "some fairly extensive removal of academically-referenced information" because, to quote Wikipedia guidelines: (i) NPOV means "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic," and (ii) since the article is about the O9A, published material by the O9A - concerning its beliefs, practices, and so on - can be used as a reliable source provided "the article is not based primarily on such sources."

In terms of what "the significant views" of and about the O9A are, my opinion is that the article prior to your extensive changes presented them reasonably, even though the article undoubtedly could have been improved upon, and many of the changes you have made have indeed improved the article.

IMO, what is significant is: (i) overviews of O9A history (mythologised or otherwise) as recounted by them and mentioned by academics; (ii) some mention of the claims regarding authorship of O9A texts and of Long being Myatt; (iii) basic O9A occult beliefs and practices, including culling, nazism, aeons, and their type of satanism; (iv) some details regarding the term nine angles; and (v) 'in popular culture'.

IMO, what is not significant - and thus doesn't merit mentioning - are whole sections about 'aeonic cosmology', nazism, membership, and public emergence. Also not significant are mentions of Beest (who was only connected with the O9A for a short time, hence removal of stuff by and about him) and connections to now defunct groups.

Furthermore, the 1998 Searchlight article you referenced is, in Wikipedia terms, a "questionable source" given that it relies "heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion", given its political agenda, given the scurrilous accusations it makes, and given the multitude of factual errors.

In the case of Mr Beest, he was publicly 'outed' by the O9A in 2007 (some years before Senholt wrote his paper on the O9A), which confirmed speculation going back to the early 1990s. http://web.archive.org/web/20080106233852/http://nineangles.wordpress.com/legends-myths-tests-and-laughter/christos-beest-and-the-ona/

Hence I may make some further changes or reversions. As for me taking an interest in the article: well, I've been editing it for over ten years; since I created the article in fact. Coolmoon (talk) 00:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify my own revisions:

In the interests of presenting a NPOV, I've removed many of the negative comments about or claims made against the O9A, for in my view they unbalance the article. For instance, there is no good reason to mention what some (often anonymous) persons with a vested interest in trying to discredit the O9A have said or written about it even if such disinfo is recounted by some academic. For such disinfo/rumors/allegations/personal opinion do not amount to "a significant view" about the topic (the O9A). At best, they are symptomatic of the fact that many self-described satanists don't like or are opposed to the radical stance of the O9A - such as its avowal of culling, its amorality, its support for extremism and even terrorism. It is the animosity toward the O9A by many self-described satanists which might deserve a mention, but - to ensure a NPOV - in a general way without reporting details of their disinfo/allegations/personal opinion.

If whole sections such as the 'aeonic cosmology' one are to be included (and I for one do not think they should given the esoteric complexity of the topic), then they should at least give a balanced and esoteric view of the topic, starting with - or including - what the O9A has actually written about it. For the context of their promotion of ideas such as a 'galactic imperium' is given by Anton Long in articles such as Balewa – The Way of Kindred Honour and Dark-Empathy and The Error of Egoism: Magian Occultism, Satanic Subversion, and The O9A. In brief, it has to do with (a) the "four things" he mentions in the latter text, and (b) with their "practical incitement to disaffection" which includes 'diabolically' advocating what is heretical in society at a particular time, such as - in our own times - nazism.

If a 'public emergence' section is to be included then, to ensure NPOV, it should provide context from the O9A point of view: for example, some details of O9A strategy - outlined in documents such as Geneseos Caput Tertium - and of its 'sinister game' (outlined in texts such as 'Playing The Sinister Game – A Brief ONA History') and also of its Labyrinthos Mythologicus which has played such a role in provoking, over decades, many satanists (and others) to sound-off about the O9A and thus make the O9A known and controversial.

Which provision of context would - as with sections such as 'aeonic cosmology' - in my opinion make the O9A article too long, too detailed, or just plain confusing for many readers. Coolmoon (talk) 06:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your response Coolmoon. I do appreciate your longstanding involvement in the article and concern for its welfare and I hope that my own additions and improvements are not in any way detrimental to that. To clarify my own position somewhat, while I have no connection to the ONA and am no expert in it, I instead have an interest in many forms of British esotericism, and have been responsible for pulling articles such as Aleister Crowley and Madeline Montalban up to GA and FA status over the past few years. I thus have a fairly substantial and successful history of building up articles on this subject using reliable sources; that's pretty much what I had hoped to do here.

Regarding information on the organisation's more recent history, I do think that that text which you removed should be reincorporated into the article. I would like to open the issue up to other editors, to see what their perspectives on it might be; is this okay with you ? While the accusations made by Searchlight may (or may not) be totally spurious, they had a significant enough impact on the history of the group to warrant discussion by Senholt, one of the foremost academic specialists to have published on the subject of the ONA. Similarly, Beest was the actual leader of the group for many years, so I see no reason to avoid mentioning him here.

I can certainly appreciate that academics will not have been correct all of the time; in fact they do certainly contradict each other on several points. However, this article should rely primarily on these academic texts (rather than either the ONA's own written material or the writings of groups like Searchlight) because, according to WP policy, these represent the best form of reliable source. In essence, this article should summarize all of the academic work that has been done on the ONA, and we should go by the rule of thumb that if said academics think something is worthy of discussion, then this Wikipedia article should too. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Mention of the Searchlight article introduces (IMO) bias, since - as I previously mentioned - Searchlight is according to Wikipedia guidelines a "questionable source" (making unproven allegations as it does), is replete with factual errors, and had no significant impact, not even in neo-nazi circles who - despite Senholt's contentious statement, for which he provides no evidence - knew all about the Searchlight allegations given that Searchlight first made mention of Myatt in respect of satanism in its February 1984 issue, and subsequently repeated the allegation many times in the 1980's and 1990's. See for example the two page article David Myatt and the Occult-Fascist Axis, in the July 1995 edition of Searchlight. Interestingly, neither Goodrick-Clarke nor Monette make any mention of Searchlight either in connection with 'increasing public awareness of the O9A' or their allegations having any impact on Myatt's standing at the time in neo-nazi circles. Of Senholt's contentious statement, Myatt wrote in his essay A Matter of Honour that Senholt merely "repeats Searchlight's claim that their 'expose' of me in the April 1998 issue of their magazine caused internal strife in the National Socialist groups I was then involved with, whereas it had no effect at all, other than to make people laugh, since few if anyone of the extremists in such groups ever took seriously anything stated in Searchlight. Instead, as their name for it indicated - Searchlies - they regarded it as "just more Jewish propaganda" and indeed as something of a badge of honour to be mentioned in it, with the general feeling being that if you get mentioned in Searchlies you must be doing something right." He also makes mention of that particular Senholt contention in one of his published letters, and in the aforementioned essay also points out several other factual errors by Senholt.

Thus the particular contention by Senholt needs to be understood in context: in relation to other sources including those from the O9A itself (and from Anton Long/David Myatt) and which sources are acceptable - according to Wikipedia guidelines - in an article about the O9A.

Thus, your statement that "if Senholt thinks it is relevant information, then Wikipedia should too - for good or ill, we follow the academic sources" is not entirely correct.

Therefore, it seems best (at least to me) to omit this mention of the Searchlight article (with its scurrilous mention of paedophilia) and the particular contention made by Senholt in respect of its 'impact'.

However, if you et al believe these should be included then, to maintain a NPOV, they need to be balanced by quotations from O9A sources and also from Myatt himself, which I would happily supply. Thus, one O9A source in this context would be the O9A text regarding children that was published in 1991, was mentioned by Professor Kaplan in 1998 book Nation and Race: The Developing Euro-American Racist Subculture, and is included in the O9A compilation Children and The Order of Nine Angles.

To conclude, to my knowledge, no one - academic or otherwise - has so far provided a nuanced study of the O9A and its complex esotericism based on primary (O9A) sources, although the chapter on the O9A by Professor Monette in his Mysticism In The 21st Century is an excellent beginning as are the recent writings (on the O9A blog) of R. Parker in respect of the O9A hermetic 'seven fold way' and its antecedents in ancient Hellenic hermeticism, in Western alchemy, and elsewhere. Until such a nuanced study is produced, the O9A will doubtless remain a contentious, controversial, subject mostly referenced by "questionable sources" or by cursory academic studies replete with both factual errors and with assumptions made without any supporting reliable documented evidence. Coolmoon (talk) 10:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, if Senholt is the only academic source to place such a clear emphasis on the importance of Searchlight then I can better appreciate why it perhaps should not be included in the article. Were other academic sources to back his position on this one however then I would be more inclined to push for its inclusion. But what of Christos Beest ? Why do you object to including information on his leadership of the group in the article ? I think that the fact that he led the group for a number of years is most certainly worthy of inclusion in the article, no ? Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

First off, let me reiterate that I appreciate many of the changes you have made to the article, and that it is good to have such a dialogue as this. You certainly bring a fresh and much needed perspective. As for Beest/Moult, he never led the O9A but merely served as its public (exoteric) face for a few years, giving a few interviews and giving his personal opinion about various things. His contributions (as my decade long research into the O9A indicates) were minimal: a few texts; an interpretation of the O9A's sinister Tarot that palls (artistically and esoterically) in comparison to more recent ones such as the one by Joel Hrafnsson; and some not very 'sinister' chants. Last but by no means least, he left the O9A in the 1990s, having never progressed very far along the 'seven fold way'. Thus, unlike Anton Long - who founded the O9A, who spent some forty years following the 'seven fold way', and who established its esoteric philosophy and praxises and who wrote all of its foundational texts, from the Black Book, to Naos, to Hostia, to the Deofel Quartet, to more recent effusions - the opinions of Moult/Beest opinions are not authoritative. They are, at best, just the personal opinions of someone who was, for a while, associated with the O9A. Coolmoon (talk) 13:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Given your recent mention in the article of the O9A following Crowley in using the spelling 'magick' (a mention I have amended citing an historical reference) may I cordially suggest that you read various O9A texts concerning alchemy and the seven fold way which place into historical perspective many of the traditions of the O9A? Texts such as https://omega9alpha.wordpress.com/2015/08/19/azoth-and-the-o9a/ and https://omega9alpha.wordpress.com/alchemy-and-the-o9a/ and https://omega9alpha.wordpress.com/lapis-philosophicus-and-the-septenary/ and also https://omega9alpha.wordpress.com/seven-fold-way/ . Coolmoon (talk) 13:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining some of those points, Coolmoon. Would you object to me including a brief mention of the fact that Beest was "outer representative" of the order in the 1990s ? That way it does not over-emphasize his role (as my previous text did) but still at least mentions his name. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I've added a reference to Beest as 'outer representative' - referencing Monette - and also added references to two printed books that the O9A distributed in the 1980s and in 1990s. I intend to add a quotation from O9A material to balance the quotation about membership by Kaplan and Weinberg, given that quotations from O9A material are - as I mentioned here before - acceptable sources according to Wikipedia guidelines in an article about the O9A. 07:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolmoon (talk • contribs)

Good call Coolmoon, thank you. We must be wary not to over-rely on ONA sources, but the occasional usage of them does seem to be permissible. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the contentious statement by a journalist regarding human sacrifice as it is supposition, personal opinion, and biased and thus IMO contravenes NPOV especially as the journalist in question is associated with a rival satanic group. In addition, the section already contains the remark that "the ONA's advocacy of human sacrifice has drawn strong criticism from other Satanist groups like the Temple of Set, who seek to make Satanism more socially acceptable." Coolmoon (talk) 15:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

When incorporating that piece of information I tried to make it clear that the journalist in question was a member of the Church of Satan, thus making his particular bias apparent. All sources carry a bias of sorts (after all, every single commentator has an opinion and/or relationship to the ONA in some way), and that doesn't invalidate their usage here at Wikipedia; bear in mind that WP:NPOV states that we should represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Baddeley's views surely represented a significant view in a reliable source, and the prose was not misrepresenting his statement. WP:NPOV does not mean that we should avoid presenting criticism of the ONA; what it means is that we must represent all reliable sources that currently exist in a fair and balanced manner. I appreciate that in many ways that will actually work against the ONA, but in the part that is the nature of the beast when it comes to Wikipedia; it is institutionally designed to support broadly "mainstream" views and marginalise smaller alternative perspectives (and Nazi-Satanism undoubtedly falls within the latter, along with most far left, far right, and esoteric ideas). Moreover, I think that the information was useful as it helped to better explain what many non-ONA Satanists and other occultists actually thought of the ONA's status on human sacrifice. The text wasn't stating Baddeley's opinion as fact, but was reflecting his opinion based on many years of experience. Thus, as it was I don't think that the wording caused any problems; although I do think that it would have been problematic had I not specified the author's affiliation with LaVeyan Satanism. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The fact is that the section is about (or perhaps should be about) the O9A controversially openly advocating, since the 1970s, human sacrifice - aka culling - and the fact that they have published (i) ritual occult texts involving such sacrifice (e.g. The Ceremony of Recalling), and (ii) guidelines on choosing opfers, and (iii) philosophical articles justifying such culling (e.g. their text 'Culling As Art'). They have also consistently maintained - for over 40 years - that such culling is a necessary part of satanism and a necessary test of satanic character. That is, advocacy of human sacrifice not only concerns the very nature of satanism - philosophically, ethically, and esoterically - but also the O9A's type of satanism, and which type of satanism serves and has served to distinguish them from other modern satanic groups.

Relevant to this advocacy is the reaction of and/or the disapproval of other satanists. That is, whether such culling is part of satanism philosophically and ethically and in terms of magick. What is not relevant, IMO, are the personal opinions of other satanists opposed to the O9A - and the speculation or assumptions of journalists - as to whether the O9A has actually conducted human sacrifices.

Thus, the reaction of Aquino to such advocacy - evident in his letter to Anton Long dated October 7, XXV - is thus relevant and perhaps important to this section of the Wikipedia O9A article, for he writes that such advocacy is "thoroughly irresponsible" and goes to write that the ToS has certain ethics. Also relevant are the views, about modern satanic human sacrifice from a philosophical and/or ethical and/or historical perspective, of similarly authoritative individuals belonging to the Church of Satan, the Temple of Set, or other well-established satanic groups. Coolmoon (talk) 16:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your response Coolmoon. I agree that Baddeley's comments are certainly not as significant as say, Aquino's would be here, but I still think that it is worthy of inclusion in the article. Nevertheless, it certainly isn't an issue of great importance so I won't push it. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to add my appreciation of the work done on the ONA article by Midnightblueowl. It's a much better and more inforamtive article now. Pavane7 (talk) 12:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks Pavane7 - I hope to be able to bring this article up for nomination as a Good Article in the near future. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I've noticed that some editors use "ONA" and others "O9A". Would it be better to use one or the other, not both? If so, which one? Pavane7 (talk) 06:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Personally I'd go for O9A (as it's more distinctive) although since most academic sources use "ONA" I guess others would prefer that. Coolmoon (talk) 16:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Further imagery ?

I've managed to incorporate a few additional images into this article in the hope of making it a little more aesthetically pleasing for the reader, but note that it still appears a little visually sparse towards the lower half. It might be beyond the realm of possibility, but I wondered if an editor involved in the group could obtain a photograph of "The Star Game" for use in this article ? I appreciate that the game is played as part of an important esoteric rite by practitioners of the ONA's spiritual system, and thus there might be taboos regarding photographing it for the use in a non-ritual, mundane setting such as Wikipedia, but just thought that I would post here and see as I think that it could make for an interesting addition. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the picture of Ferir from the article for several reasons. I personally don't like the WSA. The inner O9A does recognize them. Other reason is that there is no proof at all that the WSA'S Fenrir is even connected with the original. Anton Long never sanctioned the WSA'S Fenrir. Please use a picture of the original Fenrir. The inner order watches this article for accuracy. OG9er (talk) 17:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for removal. Wikipedia doesn't care about sectarian claims. If Mormons claim to be Christian, and academic sources describe them as claiming to be Christian, we describe them as Christian. Likewise, if the WSA claims to be a part of the O9A, and academic sources describe them as such, we describe them as part of the O9A.

Members of the inner order should read On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog, WP:OWN, and WP:COI.

Ian.thomson (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The valid reason for the removal of the fake Fenrir created by Cloe Ortega is that her Fenrir has no real connection with the original Fenrir the ONA produced. There is no proof provided. The other valid reason is that the symbol on the cover of the fake Fenrir picture is NOT a sanctioned symbol of the ONA. It is a symbol of the WSA. You have neglected these valid reasons. All we of the inner order are demanding is that a picture of the original Fenrir be used for the sake of accuracy. Let's not make an issue out of this. OG9er (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

You've provided no real evidence that the Fenrir depicted is not the Fenrir of the O9A.

Claiming that you are a member of the O9A means (at most) that you have a conflict of interest and should not be editing the article.

The easiest way to resolve this would be to provide a higher quality replacement image. Then it's a moot point whether or not the old image is authentic or not. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

User OG9er is correct about the image used: it does not relate to the original O9A published Fenrir edited by Beest (aka Moult) but to the much later recent use of the title by others and which recent 'Fenrir' is not an 'official' O9A publication (BTW the O9A has never issued any publications designated as being 'official' or as 'authorized'). The difference between the old and new Fenrir zines was explained (by the O9A and not that long ago) to Professor Monette when he was in the process of revising the chapter on the O9A in his book Mysticism in the 21st Century. That said, all O9A material (nearly all of which was authored by Anton Long, with some recent additions by R. Parker) is not copyright but either 'in the public domain' or covered by the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs CC BY-ND license. So there is no O9A 'copyright' on the use of the name Fenrir for a zine publishing O9A and other material, and the publisher(s) are free to include whatever O9A material they want. So it's up to others to decide whether or not to use an image of the non-official Fenrir zine in the Wikipedia article about the O9A. Coolmoon (talk) 18:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I told you so. That Fenrir image being used is not officially associated with the ONA. Plus, Cloe Ortega was kicked out of the ONA by the new Outer Representative of ONA for treason and for not being a real Satanist. I vote we remove the fake Fenrir image and replace it with one Moult edited. We don't need to be advertising Cloe and her fake ONA. OG9er (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

There's an image - not very high res - of the front page from an 'original' Fenrir here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fenrir-o9a.png should anyone want to use it. Coolmoon (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I have replaced the fake Fenrir with the original one. OG9er (talk) 19:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for obtaining this image for our usage here at Wikipedia. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Sapphism and homosexuality in the O9A

I have added a reference - in the Initiation and the Seven Fold Way section - to one of the many Order of Nine Angles texts that emphasize that the O9A has always had, and supported, sapphic and gay members. For they have published several gay and sapphic occult rituals, with many of the works in their Deofel Quartet containing positive gay or bisexual characters: for instance Fenton in The Greyling Owl, Denise in Falcifer, and the bisexual Melanie in The Temple of Satan. In these 1970s and 1980s positive depictions and acceptance of such preference and such love as natural, the O9A was possibly somewhat ahead of its time in the occult world and in Western societies in general; again unsurprising given the Rounwytha tradition and the liberalism of the O9A, a liberalism that those stories, through their characterizations, often embody and something especially the stories themselves, through their characterizations, embody and something especially noticeable in the characters of Fenton, Timothy, and Julie, in the novel The Greyling Owl. In addition, they published a novel - Breaking The Silence Down - which deals with Sapphism.

Also, and in contrast to most occult fiction of the era - the 1970s and the 1980s - and previously, all of the works in The Deofel Quartet contain strong, independent, female characters: Susan in Falcifer, Melanie in The Temple of Satan, Lianna in The Giving, and Fiona in The Greyling Owl.

This rather neglected aspect of O9A esotericism and praxis certainly seems to me to deserve a mention in the Wikipedia article about the O9A. Coolmoon (talk) 21:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Outer representative

I've removed the section on the 'outer representative' as no such post exists and in the pending second edition of his book Monette (after consultation with Anton Long et al) corrects the error in the first edition about such an 'outer representative'. A draft copy of the second edition of the chapter about the O9A is available here - https://omega9alpha.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/o9a-monette-second-edition-v3.pdf. See also https://omega9alpha.wordpress.com/outer-representatives/ and https://omega9alpha.wordpress.com/the-sinister-game/

Mention of which 'sinister game' brings us to an interview by Anton Long in 2011 in which he makes clear that there never was a real O9A post called 'outer representative'. It was just a ploy - part of phase 2 of O9A strategy - used as an 'insight role' (in the case of Moult) and used (in the case of Ford) as a means to provide him with a spurious authority enabling him to (successfully as it turned out) more widely publish and distribute O9A material and generally make the O9A better known. That someone more recently has claimed to be - or is still claiming to be - the 'outer representative' is therefore quite amusing.

P.S. I added to the O9A article a mention of the tempel ov blood, with an internal wikilink as it may merit a Wikipedia page of its own if enough reliable sources can be found which mention it. Coolmoon (talk) 07:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I've undone the Outer Representative section. It is a genuine post since 1994 of the ONA. Professor Monette talks extensively about this post in both editions of his book. Providing links to a blog with questionable first party information is not proof otherwise. The blog Omega9alpha is run by chloe. Anybody can say anything on a blog. Please provide reliable third party source that says the post of outer representative if fake. If you believe that the obscure subject of lesbianism and gay sex needs to be mentioned in the article, then surely a subject Professor Monette talks about extensively warrants mention. The office of outer representative is a long held tradition of ONA. OG9er (talk) 15:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Given (i) that Anton Long, no less, has stated that the 'outer representative' is not a genuine post, and (ii) that the O9A has never had any official or even semi-official posts because such posts are contrary to the founding principles of the O9A, principles so evident in all their works (a fact Anton Long mentions in his 1990s letters to Aquino and in his several of his essays), and (iii) that Monette has amended what he wrote (as evident in the link I posted to the draft of his second edition), then your claim is unfounded. Consequently, I have reverted your edit.

As for your comment about the omega9alpha blog, it is run by Mr Parker and has published, over the past two years, the most detailed articles about aspects of O9A esotericism, aspects (such as links to Hellenic mysticism and alchemy) hitherto neglected even by academics and unknown to those who, associating themselves with the O9A, do not have an in-depth knowledge of the O9A. His articles reveal a detailed knowledge of the O9A and of O9A esotericism.

Furthermore, given your statements about the 'outer representative' and about Sapphism within the O9A being 'an obscure subject', you are apparently claiming to have detailed knowledge about the O9A. Perhaps therefore you can explain why Anton Long, from the 1970s on, emphasized that the O9A has always had Sapphic nexions, wrote Sapphic and gay characters into most of the his 'deofel quintet' novels, and wrote the O9A code of kindred honour to enshrine the principle those who are O9A have no prejudice in respect of such things as gender, ethnicity, or in respect of the sexual preference/orientation of others. Given your apparent claim to O9A knowledge perhaps you could provide a critique of Mr Parker's recent essays on the O9A and alchemy, and perhaps you can answer the following question: why there are two classical esoteric modes - rather than one - associated with the septenary planet named Sol, and does this have anything to do with the Somnium Scipionis? Coolmoon (talk) 08:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the unreferenced information that has been added to this article. While I'd be more than happy to see this information re-integrated back into the article at a later juncture, it simply must have reliable, third-party sources to back it up. That's Wikipedia policy. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Midnightblueowl. If I may add my 2 cents. The fact that OG9er is a new user who has only edited the ONA article and insists on adding dubious material about some particular things like some anonymous person called Jahl, or some such name, raises some concerns. One mention in one source about such an anon person doesn't make that person notable enough to deserve a mention especially the author has emended what he wrote and an article by Anton Long debunks the whole 'outer rep' thing. It's here in case anyone wants to read it - https://omega9alpha.wordpress.com/our-kind/. Also anyone can write Monette and ask him about the changes he's made to his book and the fact he sent a draft copy of both first and second editions to the ONA blog and allowed them to be published there is maybe indicative of the status of that blog. Pavane7 (talk) 11:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I have replaced the outer rep section. As ian.thomas said, if an academic mentioned it, then we treat it as such in the article. Professor Monette talks about the office of outer rep, he mentions Jall. Any body can ask him. What is happening here is sectarian censorship. Jall was voted as outer rep by the ONA. The vote still counts. It is the will of the Kollective. OG9er (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

If the information does come directly from Monette, could you please provide a citation to the book and page number, thus enabling us to reincorporate the information back into the article ? Thanks, Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Professor Monette talks about it! Why can Chloe claim to be outer rep for years and nobody says anything. But when the ONA elects Jall as outer rep the office is eliminated? Right, that's fair. You guys are a joke, making stuff up as you go along! OG9er (talk) 16:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

All I'm asking for is that you follow Wikipedia policy and include citations with the information that you add in. I'm not accusing you of making up false information. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The O9A does not now have and never has had a so-called 'outer representative' - except (a) as an insight role (qv. Beest/Moult) and as (b) part of their Labyrinthos Mythologicus whose purpose is to "intrigue, select, test, confuse, annoy, mislead, others". Given that, as I have mentioned here and as anyone who has studied the O9A (i.e. the texts by Anton Long from the 1970s to 2011) can appreciate, such an 'official role' - such a title - is contrary to the non-hierarchical (one could say anarchic) nature of the O9A which has never had any kind of officials or given any person any title, qv. (a) The Satanic Letters of Stephen Brown published in 1992 which includes letters to and from Aquino and Anton Long, and (b) Long's 2011 text Those Who Are Our Kind). The operative word is that some people have claimed to be the 'outer representative' (i.e. Moult and Michael Ford, aka Thornian) of the O9A, so that if others want to keep a mention of an 'outer representative' in the O9A article then this together with a quote from Anton Long's 'Those Who Are Our Kind should IMO be included, plus that Monette, for the second edition of his book has removed all mention of some anonymous person claiming such a non-existent title.

Thus, for now, I've removed the section, again. Coolmoon (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Just to re-iterate: no one - academic or otherwise - has to date provided a significant, comprehensive, view of the O9A and of O9A esotericism based on scholarly research and on interviewing Anton Long, the architect of the O9A and the author of nearly all its texts (the chapters on the O9A by Senholt and Monette are far from being comprehensive, given the complexity and extent of O9A esotericism). IMO, until such a comprehensive text is available, some of the quotations about the O9A from academics and journalists really should, to ensure a NPOV, be balanced by quotations from O9A texts, given that quotations from O9A texts are acceptable according to Wikipedia guidelines as a reliable source in an article about the O9A. This IMO most certainly applies to disputed matters such as 'the outer representative'. Coolmoon (talk) 18:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Pending consensus on whether there should be a section on 'the outer representative', I've added an edit which includes references by Senholt and Monette, who both mention it, and also (as I remarked above) not only some quotes from O9A material but also from Senholt and Monette which seem to me to support Long's view. If the consensus is against adding such a section, then feel free to delete my edit. Coolmoon (talk) 07:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted the edit by OG9er. As noted by user Pavane7, one mention in one text about an anonymous person does not merit inclusion in a Wikipedia article. The first salient point IMO is that - to (again) quote Wikipedia guidelines: NPOV means "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" - one such mention is not a "significant" view especially as the person is some anonymous person. The second point (again IMO) is that claims made by anonymous people really shouldn't be in a Wikipedia article anyway, and even if the identity of this anonymous person was known, and mentioned in several reliable sources, then his or her claim would still not merit a mention in the Wikipedia article since the article is about the O9A - its origins, its satanism, its occultism, the person who founded it and authored nearly all of its texts - and not about people claiming some association with it. The third salient point is that according to Anton Long there is in the ONA no such position as 'outer representative', for the ONA does not have and never has had any 'official positions'. Coolmoon (talk) 22:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

In respect of the recent edit by Midnightblueowl I have added the quotes by Monette and Senholt (without any comment) after the quote from Long, as IMO they're relevant there, especially the one by Senholt stating that the ONA "does not award titles" given that someone is claiming to have been awarded the title of 'outer representative'. Coolmoon (talk) 02:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Traditional satanism

It's important IMO to mention that the O9A first publicly used the now somewhat common term 'traditional satanism' way back, in 1984, as documented in their then published Black Book of Satan. Given that this is a statement of fact - not opinion - I have reverted the edit. As for the opinions of Faxneld et al regarding their use of the term, Anton Long explained, in an article published in volume 1 of Hostia (in 1992, long before the publication of such opinions) that "Traditional Satanism is a term used to describe the sinister path which for centuries was taught on an individual basis [...] To this path belongs the Septenary System, Esoteric Chant [and] the comprehensive training of novices (including the development of the physical side) and most importantly the Internal system of magick (the Grade Rituals etcetera)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolmoon (talk • contribs) 10:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

My concern is that, according to Wikipedia regulations, we would need a reliable secondary source that actually states "The ONA first publicly used "Traditional Satanism" in the Black Book of Satan", which we could then reference in the article. Using the book itself as a citation for a claim made about the significance of the book wouldn't cut it, and thus when this article comes under review by other editors they would pick up on that and use it as a justification for denying it GA status. See for instance Wikipedia:No original research, where it states very clearly that original research "includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

The Black Book of Satan was the first book openly published by the O9A, as a search of the BNB indicates. It contains the term 'traditional satanism'. So if the wording is slightly altered - such as "the term occurs in the first book to be published by the O9A, The Black Book of Satan, in 1984" - isn't the 'reliable secondary source' in respect of the date of publication the BNB? Also, there is a copy of the book in the British Library, and the citation gives both the BNB number and the shelf mark of the copy in the BL. Thus, no claim is being made about the 'significance' of the book, only that it was published in 1984 and contained the term 'traditional satanism', which can be ascertained from the book itself which is publicly available. Coolmoon (talk) 02:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Using "the term occurs in the first book to be published by the O9A, The Black Book of Satan, in 1984" would, I think, be perfectly acceptable. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Christos Beest

Since several academic sources - including Senholt and Monette - mention that CB is Richard Moult, and since (a) Moult has never (to my knowledge) denied the association, and (b) the ONA wrote several items about Moult, then it seems OK to reference Moult as the person behind the 'nym Christos Beest, just as the same sources academic sources have suggested that Anton is David Myatt, which suggestion is included in the O9A article. So, unless there are any reasonable objections, I intend to restore the recently deleted connection between CB and Moult. Coolmoon (talk) 14:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I have actually already included the identity of Moult in the "Outer Representative" sub-section of the article, bolstered by the Senholt and Monette references. I did so independently of reading this post of yours Coolmoon, so it appears that we are both of the same opinion here. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Myatt, the ONA, and authorship of O9A texts

Would it be useful to include a section dealing with Myatt and the ONA, given (a) that according to Senholt "the role of David Myatt is paramount to the whole creation and existence of the ONA", and "Myatt’s life-long devotion to various extreme ideologies has been part of a sinister game that is at the heart of the ONA", and (b) that Goodrick-Clarke wrote that Myatt codified "its teachings into a fully developed system of initiation and training for adeptship".

If not a new section, which would involve rewriting the 'Origins' section, then possibly incorporating the above quotes from Senholt and bringing together in one paragraph all the citied info about Myatt, together with citing Per Faxneld (possibly on the caption to the Myatt image) who wrote that the ONA's "main ideologist [is] David Myatt". Coolmoon (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm personally unconvinced as to the need for a separate section or sub-section devoted to Myatt at present. Goodrick-Clarke's comment actually applied to Anton Long but in Black Sun he simply took it for granted that Myatt was Long, and every time he was discussing Long's work and publications he just said "Myatt", which confuses matters. Furthermore, Senholt's statement is also based on his conviction that Long is Myatt. I am, however, not completely opposed to the addition of the Senholt quote within the "Origins" section, if placed in the proper place. We must be careful not to overload the article with quotations. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, which I tend to agree with. I'll go ahead and mention what Senholt said in the 'origins' section. Coolmoon (talk) 06:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Membership

In order not to drift away from NPOV, perhaps the statements made by Harvey, and by Kaplan and Weinberg, should be placed in context, which is that they simply gave their opinion about numbers in the 1990s before anyone - themselves included - had done any detailed research into the O9A or spoken at length with Anton Long. That is, their claims regarding membership were not based on any evidence, on any detailed research. So, for example, perhaps the phrase "Jeffrey Kaplan and Leonard Weinberg stated..." should be changed to something like "Jeffrey Kaplan and Leonard Weinberg were of the opinion that..."

So far, Senholt and Monette are the only reliable sources to have written more than a few paragraphs or more than a few pages about the ONA.

As for the comment by Beest/Moult, his knowledge and understanding of the O9A was quite limited (he had at the time of the interview only been associated with the O9A for a few years) and had no authority to speak on behalf of the O9A (no one had or has, except possibly Anton Long) so he was just giving the opinion of an initiate. Does such an opinion by such an inexperienced person qualify as a "significant view" and thus deserve a mention? I'm inclined to say it doesn't and inclined to remove his comment, but if others disagree then perhaps some context could be given. Would the opinion of a fairly new member of the ToS be suitable for inclusion in the ToS Wikipedia article? Coolmoon (talk) 18:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

It may be worth mentioning that in both the CoS and ToS articles there is no speculation about the number of members, and no negative speculations such as appear in the ONA article - that, for example, it is primarily a "mail-order" ministry with an "infinitesimally small" membership. Which speculations, together with a quote from Moult (see my comments about him, above) do IMO introduce a certain bias. Thus I have provided some context for the negative comments, and deleted Moult's opinion, although perhaps a better solution might be to just have only the paragraph which quote Senholt and Monette regarding membership. Coolmoon (talk) 22:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much about the fact that speculation as to membership numbers doesn't appear in the articles on the Temple of Set or Church of Satan; frankly, neither of those articles are in a particularly good state, and thus neither should be looked toward as models for this article to follow. (I would actually argue very strongly that both articles should have academically-sourced information on their membership numbers). This all being said, I'm certainly open to a tweaking of the wording, as you suggested in your opening paragraph. I'm more hesitant about removing the Beest/Moult comment, which I do think has value. Whatever his level of involvement, he was the de facto 'public face' of the ONA for a time, even if the "outer representative" position was not one with official recognition within the order. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, which (as always) are much appreciated. In respect of Moult's opinions re membership, my view is that to include them rather unbalances the section, given the included opinions of Kaplan/Weinberg and Harvey, and given that nowhere is it mentioned that Moult was at the time of that interview an inexperienced novice. To give weight to the views of such a novice as if they represented a "significant view" of the O9A is IMO not warranted. Coolmoon (talk) 11:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

NPOV

According to Wikipedia guidelines: "A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject." I added the quote from Long, and deleted the reference to "Harvey suggested" as I'm concerned that the article seems to be veering from a NPOV. For some of the statements in the article disparage the ONA. A few examples. (i) "infinitesimally small"; (ii) "paranoic insistence"; (iii) primarily a "mail-order ministry"; (iv) "tiny coterie"; (v) "a professed conversion to Islam". (Aside: given that Myatt has circulated and published his 1998 Testimony of Faith of Islam, signed by the Imaam of a Mosque and by a Qadi (his two required witnesses) and certified as the testimony is by the director of The Islamic Foundation, how is it a "professed" conversion? Professed: Self-acknowledged; openly declared or avowed by oneself. Sometimes with connotations of falsehood or insincerity, and hence: alleged, ostensible, pretended.)

The guidelines state: "Avoid stating opinions as facts." Some of the statements made by academics about the ONA are not necessarily facts but rather their opinion, with such opinion and/or speculation affecting the tone of the article. A few examples. (i) "these fanatics"; (ii) "might be influenced by Crowley's ideas regarding Thelemic Aeons"; (iii) "is inspired by the work of Toynbee"; (iii) "has strong parallels with"; (iv) Harvey suggested.

Such disparaging remarks, together with such opinion and/or speculation, do in my view affect the tone and balance of the article, especially if one considers that such opinion/speculation ignores the ONA view of the matter and/or no evidence or research is presented, in the referenced papers/articles/books, in support of such opinion/speculation. Thus, and for example, (i) Monette presents no evidence for his opinion regarding the ONA Baphomet and Kali, and does not mention how the ONA linguistically connect the name Baphomet with Ancient Greek (qv. the O9A text 'Baphomet - An Esoteric Signification'); and (ii) there is, in respect of quoted statement by Senholt and Goodrick-Clarke, no mention of how the ONA have always stated that their concept of aeons "has nothing to do with Crowley" (qv. The Satanic Letters) and admitted their concept of aeons is based on the work of not only Toynbee but also Spengler, (qv. 'Hostia' volume 1) and Myatt (qv his star game and his text Emanations of Urania).

Comparing the ONA article with - for example - the Ordo Templi Orientis one, highlights the difference, with the OTO one being informative and containing no comments which disparage it, and no speculation by academics about whatever may have influenced its esotericism or its occult praxises.

As the ONA article is already quite long, exceeding as it does the 60 kB mark, I'm inclined to remove many of the disparaging remarks and most of the speculation rather than balance them with even more quotations from ONA sources. Such a removal should make for an informative and still detailed article based on reliable sources, and one which presents a NPOV. Comments on my suggestion to remove such remarks/speculation are welcome. Coolmoon (talk) 10:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Coolmoon re the bias that's now in the ONA article. Phrases like "infinitesimally small", "paranoic insistence", "primarily a mail-order ministry", "tiny coterie", and "these fanatics", are disparaging. Likewise, the introduction of phrases such as "suggested" and "might be" really do alter the tone of the article. So I'm going to delete such comments. Pavane7 (talk) 14:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted some of the recent removals for now, as per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, although I'm not saying that they can't possibly be removed again in future if there is a clear consensus in favour of that course of action. (I have left some of the revisions, such as the removal of professed, where I think that your case is undeniable). Regarding the other issues, however, I do fear that there has been some misinterpretation of the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. Simply put, Wikipedia's neutrality policy does not mean that the subject of an article needs to be presented in a scrupulously neutral manner (would such a thing even be possible?). Rather, it means that we must neutrally present all Reliable Sources that currently exist which discuss that subject. Applied to this article, that means that we should not seek to create a scrupulously neutral presentation of the ONA that contains no negative or critical mention of it, but rather to neutrally present the work of those academics to have published on the subject of the ONA. If others disagree with me here then my suggestion would be that we perhaps take this issue to WP:Request for comments, through which we can gain a wider range of opinions from editors who are otherwise un-involved in the article itself. Are there any objections to this course of action? Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Midnightblueowl for your response. The problem as I see it is that there are just too many disparaging remarks and too many suggestions and/or personal opinions (by whomsoever) which, taken together, do in my opinion alter the tone of the article in a negative way. Furthermore, as I understand it, it is not a question of neutrally presenting the views of all reliable sources, but of presenting those deemed to be significant. Rational criticism, based on evidence/research, is fine and indeed should be included if balanced by (in this case) an ONA view. But are personal opinions - which have, in the quoted or referenced source, no evidence/research to support them - significant views? Just because the author of those views is an academic or the source in question is a peer-reviewed book or paper does not necessarily make their views significant, or does it? If so, is that not somewhat akin to the argument from authority? Thus I'm inclined to - if the consensus is to keep the multitude of disparaging remarks and personal comments in the article - to balance them with quotations from ONA material. Coolmoon (talk) 04:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

We could look at each case in turn and discuss their respective merits and problems? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I'm content to allow the disparaging remarks/personal comments to remain in the article as they now seem to be reasonably balanced with quotes from ONA texts, although one or two minor tweaks might be needed. Coolmoon (talk) 10:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I've added references to ONA texts to balance the comments of others about the ONA concept of aeons, and also reverted an edit regarding the spelling of magick since (i) there is already an apposite link in the article to magick making the link to 'Thelema' redundant, and (ii) because it's important to mention (contrary to a popular misconception) that the spelling 'magick' derives not from Crowley but from Elias Ashmole in his Theatrum Chemicum Britannicum. Mention of or a link to Thelema/Crowley is therefore IMO unwarranted. Coolmoon (talk) 05:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

You're right that Magick (Thelema) wasn't the best place for that link to go. Crowley undoubtedly popularized the term "magick" within the occult community, but if the ONA state that they developed it from Ashmole, then that's fine. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

You know, once again I have to thank you - Midnightblueowl - for your efforts in editing the ONA article. Such a dialectic as we seem to have developed re-presents not only what Wikipedia is all about but why Wikipedia is such a valuable resource in this 'internet age'. Coolmoon (talk) 10:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree; I think that our differing approaches and use of sources have complemented each other nicely, to the benefit of this article. Unfortunately, far too often editors end up clashing on articles about particular religious/spiritual/magical movements as a result of the strong emotions that many individuals feel regarding such belief systems (I've had far too much of that over at the Heathenry (new religious movement) page). I'm looking toward putting this article forward for Good Article nomination soon, however I am a little concerned that a number of the references to the ONA publications do not reference specific page numbers, which could prove an impediment; is this something that you could possibly look into, when you have the time? Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, will do re pages etcetera - probably in the next day or so. Coolmoon (talk) 02:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I see that you have added some page numbers already, which is great. If possible, I think that the following sources could definitely do with page numbers too:

1. 54: "Letter from Anton Long to Michael Aquino, 7th September 1990. Reproduced in facsimile in The Satanic Letters of Stephen Brown, two volumes, Thormynd Press, 1992."
2. 61: "Letter to Ms Vera, dated 27th May 1992, reproduced in facsimile in The Satanic Letters of Stephen Brown, Thorymnd Press, 1992."
3. 91: "Anton Long. Ritual Magick - Dure and Sedue Ceremonial. 1990. The MS is included in Hostia, 3 vols, Thormynd Press, 1992."
4. 124: "The letter is reproduced in facsimile - together with facsimiles of several other letters exchanged between Anton Long and Aquino - in The Satanic Letters of Stephen Brown, two volumes, Thormynd Press, 1992."
5. And in the notes, "According to Anton Long, writing in the text Selling Water By The River published in 1992 in Hostia..."

These needn't be formatted in the same way as all of the other sources, but I do think that a reviewer at GAN will ask for those page references, so we might as well add them in now. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The spelling of magick

The spelling of the word magic with a 'k' - as in magick - has a long literary history in English. It was used by Geoffrey Chaucer in the Canterbury Tales Prology; by Christopher Marlowe in The Tragicall History of D. Faustus (London, 1604) and by Daniel Defoe in A System of Magick. Or, A History of the Black Art (London, 1727). It was also used by Elias Ashmole in his influential Theatrum Chemicum Britannicum, published in 1652. Given such antecedents, and given that the ONA have consistently used that spelling (from the 1970s onwards and which word is thus part of their tradition) I have reverted the edit. Coolmoon (talk) 06:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with spelling magick with a k, the problem arises when you apply the k to the adverbial form. Magick is a word magickal is not. Because of the necessities of English pronunciation if you spell it 'magickal' it must be pronounced ma gik' kal because the following vowel will necessarily take the preceding consonant and cause syllabification in this way and force the accent onto the penultimate syllable. Archaic spelling, such as that used by John Dee preferred 'magikal' but this is non standard for modern encyclopedic style. This is why Crowley spelled magick with a k but never spelled magical with a k. To do so merely makes the writing look uneducated in the proper use of the English language and prone to new age neologisms. Wikipedia's encyclopedic standards abhor the use of such neologisms in common entries. You can reference the OED on the matter if you are curious. I, bye the way, didn't change magick only 'magickal' to conform with Wikipedia standards. Whatever you use in your cultic practice is up to you; I don't want to turn this into an edit war, but I would be happy to subject it to Wikipedia arbitration. Applying internal cultic usages to a general Wikipedia article is prohibited. It's use by authors uneducated in the formalities of proper English and usage not withstanding. Neither Llewellyn nor Kenneth Grant are authorities on such matters and this is not the ONA website but Wikipedia. § Stealthepiscopalian § https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Stealthepiscopalian(talk) 11:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Stealthepiscopalian is quite right on this point. I'm not sure what you are talking about with Chaucer who actually spelled magick as magyk (irrelevant of modern translations from the Middle English), or Ashmole who, though he spelled magick with a k, consistently spells magical properly, without a k. I am going to revert this page unless there is some substantial reason for allowing it to violate Wikipedia's policies regarding Encyclopedic style. Choronzonclub (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)Choronzonclub (talk)

The fact is, according to my understanding, that the ONA - the subject of this Wikipedia article - have a tradition of spelling 'magic' as magick following the example of Elias Ashmole et al, as is pointed out in the article. They also use the term 'magickal', as a perusal of their texts reveals. Also, the spelling 'magick' is mentioned in the printed Oxford English Dictionary (1989) which - at least to me - makes a case for accepting that it is 'a word'. Given that the ONA have a distinct (sometimes esoteric) terminology it seems to me apposite to use their terminology in an article about them. That this distinct (sometimes esoteric) terminology - which includes terms such as 'exeatic' and 'nexion' - is not, or may not be, found elsewhere, is IMO interesting in the context of a Wikipedia article about the ONA. Thus, while we may quibble about whether 'magick' and 'magickal' are acceptable in terms of Wikipedia's 'encyclopedic style' (in reference to Crowley et al) such terms are (again IMO) germane in respect of the ONA article and thus should be used in that article. Coolmoon (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Proper spelling is not a quibble. If the misspelling 'magickal' was a title of a work there would be no issue. And as before stated 'magick' is fine and if you were quoting an ONA document that used 'magickal' that would be fine as well (in quotes only). But when referencing something in general it is necessary to used the appropriately spelled adverb, not a neologism, unless that term is being used as peculiar jargon and even then it would be necessary to isolate it with quotes or follow it with (sic). It is not Wikipedia's job to conform to the particular cultic usage of a the group being discussed. In fact to do so is in direct violation of Wikipedia's policy regarding objectivity and secondary source usage. Wikipedia is not intended to promote either the propaganda or the peculiar practices of the groups that its articles cover. It is intended to have a high standard of English usage. We don't for instance use "thees" and "thous" in the article about the Amish just because they do. Many printed dictionaries contain the word 'magick' none, so far as I can tell (and I collect dictionaries with well over 300 in my present collection) authorize or identify the misspelling 'magickal.' Stealthepiscopalian 23:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)Stealthepiscopalian

Coolmoon, are you a member of the Order of Nine Angles or actually David Myatt? Your editing history shows what amounts to an obsession with the articles related to those topics. You realize that your posts and revisions are running dangerously close to a direct violation of Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy and display an unhealthy lack of objectivity in discussing the ONA bordering on a propagandistic promotion of that group. I suggest you review Wikipedia's policy on this matter and its style guidelines on spelling. Choronzonclub (talk) 23:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)Choronzonclub

Stealthepiscopalian: The point is - IMHO - that the ONA (the article in question) use the terms 'magick' and 'magickal' so that therefore it is appropriate to use such terms in the Wikipedia article about them. One has only to read ONA texts - such as Naos - to appreciate their usage of such terms. Now, 'proper spelling' may well be a quibble in respect of other articles here (such as Crowley), but not in respect of the ONA who do use and who have for decades used terms such as 'magickal'. Thus the question of whether 'magickal' is a misspelling is, in the context of the ONA, irrelevant, at least IMO: for they use it and have done so for decades. That they also use other currently 'undocumented' (and esoteric) terms - such as exeatic and dreccian and baeldraca - is (again, IMO) pertinent. Coolmoon (talk) 23:57, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Choronzonclub: If you review my contributions over the past ten or so years you will see many contributions unrelated to the ONA. That I have an interest in the ONA (and Mr Myatt) is undeniable, as is the fact that I have on many occasions striven to present a NPOV re the ONA and Myatt, as a perusal of my contributions will no doubt indicate. As a contributor to Wikipedia for over ten years I am also familiar with Wikipedia guidelines. Coolmoon (talk) 23:57, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Consider this matter taken to arbitration. I will formulate all of my complaints regarding lack of neutrality and submit them officially this evening. My guess is that the arbitrators will find your edits far more objectionable than I do. 90+% of your edits and contributions relate to ONA or David Myatt and if you are familiar with Wikipedia guidelines your edits don't indicate that you understand them very well. I just read the Neutral Point of View policy again and started counting your edits. I stopped counting when I found 25 that were obvious and overt violations of that policy. Choronzonclub (talk) 00:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)Choronzonclub

I refer you et al to my comments below in respect of Midnightblueowl who strove hard to make this ONA article a 'Good Article' nominee and who most certainly understood Wikipedia's NPOV. Coolmoon (talk) 00:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Why Choronzonclub are you considering taking this to arbitration? Surely the issue here is the usage in the ONA Wikipedia article of the terms magick and magickal and which issue is unrelated to who Coolmoon may or may not be. That you introduce the subject of Coolmoon's past edits seems to me to be argumentum ad hominem - irrelevant to the issue of whether the terms magick and magickal are appropriate in an article about the ONA. Given that your own Wikpedia contributions seem to be over 90% related to Crowley's A.A. group one has to wonder just how objective your own edits are. Pavane7 (talk) 02:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

My objectivity in thelemic matters would certainly be open to scrutiny. That's exactly what I am saying. None of us is unbiased, recognizing one's biases and being able to speak objectively is a skill, and one that is at the core of Wikipedia's values. I do think I am an expert in the matters of Thelema and Coolmoon appears to be an 'expert' about the details of the O9A, a little too much for someone not in the cult. I advertise the cults I belong to, so no one has any doubts. Coolmoon has the power to remain anonymous and keep his beliefs to himself, but we are going to suspect that he doesn't have a neutral point of view because he is speaking from a believers point of view, when he utters obvious cult speak. Not a problem here, so long as he identifies them as group claims and identifies the source. Even whether his association is past, present or future is relevant to his POV. He makes numerous categorical statements that are open to all kinds of speculation. They are the pronouncements of the O9A and are not given the condition of a claim nor always cited. The whole opening four paragraphs, esp. the last, have the strong aroma of internally generated propaganda or cult worship. Choronzonclub (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)Choronzonclub

I refer you to my reply in the section Believer's point of view below. Coolmoon (talk) 11:23, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

If I may weigh in here, I must state that I have worked alongside Coolmoon for some months now in building up and improving this article (to the extent that it has now been nominated as a Good Article). At those points where their edits may have verged on the promotional or overtly insider-oriented, I have sought to bring them back to a position of neutrality, and they have been very accepting of this. Accordingly, I see no reason at all why arbitration is required to deal with their edits. Generally speaking, I think that "magical" is the more appropriate spelling to use in this article; I personally would prefer "magickal" (because it is indeed more apposite when dealing with the ONA), but from my experience editing articles on esoteric subjects I have found that the majority of editors tend to prefer more commonly understood spellings. To cite a recent example, there has just been an RfC over at Genesis P-Orridge where P-Orridge's own chosen third gender pronouns were rejected as neologisms, despite my opposition. I would be happy to see the question of "magical/magickal" taken to RfC here, although I think that I can imagine what the resulting majority decision would be. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I entirely agree with the comments of Midnightblueowl regarding a RfC in respect of whether the ONA article should use the spellings 'magick' and 'magickal' in preference to the standard spellings of 'magic' and 'magical', and which RfC would hopefully take into consideration my point about the ONA usage of their spellings based as it is on documented literary antecedents. Coolmoon (talk) 11:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Believer's point of view

I have reverted the edit of user Choronzonclub because IMO it is inappropriate as a perusal of the discussions and edits between myself and Midnightblueowl (over the past few months) will reveal. For user Midnightblueowl strove hard to make this ONA article a 'Good Article' nominee. Coolmoon (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

You haven't answered the question of whether you are a member of the ONA or in fact David Myatt. But I do have to say that I find your objections to conforming with Wikipedia's standards nothing less that hysterical, given the stated goals and objectives of ONA. Stealthepiscopalian 00:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)Stealthepiscopalian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stealthepiscopalian (talk • contribs)

The asking of a question such as whether I (or indeed any Wikipedia editor) is or are member of some group or is some named person (whether such a person has a public profile or otherwise) is in itself a violation of Wikipedia policy, insofar as I understand such a policy, although I am most open to someone correcting this assumption of mine. Coolmoon (talk) 00:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

He/she does not have to answer such questions because it is argumentum ad hominem and thus has nothing to do with the issue in question which is the usage in the ONA Wikipedia article of the terms magick and magickal. Pavane7 (talk) 01:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Not at all. Believers POV is a real question here. It is generally considered de classe to write articles about oneself and to insert doctrinal statements as categorical fact. Hence the question. I am asking for transparency, but the person being questioned is in no wise required to answer it. If he can keep his identity and affiliations in a cloak of secrecy so be it. The statement: "The ONA lacks any central authority or structure, . . ." esp. without a citation sure looks like cult speak to me (nothin' wrong with cults per se). It may say that it does. If it does say this we are entitled to a source. Otherwise it is an unsubstantiated claim. The article is rife with these kinds of assertions and is clearly more often than not the utterances of a 'True Believer.' I think True Believers are entitled to an opinion but not the right to assert undocumented statements as fact, not here anyway. Stealthepiscopalian 02:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)Stealthepiscopalian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stealthepiscopalian (talk • contribs)

I don't think anybody cares if Coolmoon is David Myatt or if he belongs to the O9A. But if he is speaking for them as member, then one would think honesty in the matter would be appropriate in forum like Wikipedia. I for one like to hear from actual adherents, their opinions, words and ideas are important to an open dialogue. But the axioms of a religion are not fact, even when they pretend to talk about the real world. The article does not conform to Neutral Point of View and it expresses mostly A Believers Point of View. Questioning these presumptions is at the core of Wikipedia's logic and values. Choronzonclub (talk) 02:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)Choronzonclub

The point of contention here is not who the person behind the username Coolmoon is but rather whether it is correct, according to Wikipedia guidelines, to use in the ONA article words such as 'magick' and magickal' given that the ONA has for decades not only used those words (and thus spelling magic with a k) but also stated that their usage of such spelling derives from the likes of Elias Ashmole. As for whether my edits of the ONA article, over a period of some ten years (far longer than users such as Choronzonclub and Stealthepiscopalian have been active on Wikipedia) have conformed to a NPOV, one has only to refer to how I and Midnightblueowl have collaborated over several months this year in order to improve the article according to Wikipedia guidelines. In sum, the ONA article as it now stands is based on reliable sources (according to Wikipedia criteria) and does indeed present a NPOV, which is why it was nominated by Midnightblueowl as a 'good article'. Coolmoon (talk) 11:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Ashmole never used 'magickal' that is false. If they are going to use cult speak and misspellings, the least they can do is qualify them with quotes are (sic). Why are you justifying ONA's clear use of Wikipedia as a propaganda platform, down to justifying the use of cultspeak in the general terms of the article? Stealthepiscopalian 15:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)Stealthepiscopalian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stealthepiscopalian (talk • contribs)

You are wrong about Ashmole. Read what Ashmole wrote in the Prolegomena of Theatrum Chemicum Britannicum, published in 1652: "As for Magick, Pliny tells us, It flourished in Britaine, and that the People there were so devoted to it (yea, with all Complements of Ceremony) a man would think that even the Persian learned his Magick thence."

I attach a photograph of the relevant page of that book.

A page from the Prolegomena of Theatrum Chemicum Britannicum, published in 1652

Ashmole's own copy of the book is in the Bodleian in you want to check: MS Ash.972. Coolmoon (talk) 11:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Whether Coolmoon is a member of the ONA or not is not particularly relevant; demanding that they reveal their identity is actually pretty close to breaching policy. I totally endorse Coolmoon's comments as they have been expressed above. I see no reason at all for Choronzonclub's claim that this article "does not conform to Neutral Point of View and it expresses mostly A Believers Point of View"; in fact I do not believe that this is true in the slightest. Similarly, I do not believe that there is any validity to Stealthepiscopalian's claim that this article contains unreferenced claims. As anyone reading this article should find immediately apparent, this article is fully referenced and is based almost entirely on the use of academic and other 'outsider'-authored reliable sources that discuss the ONA. It has not been built up solely using primary sources. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Really now? Where exactly is this paragraph referenced and how isn't is just a cultic claim to make them look cool without any apparent basis in fact? "The ONA lacks any central authority or structure, instead operating as a broad network of associates – termed the "kollective" – who are inspired by the texts originally authored by Long and other members of the "Inner ONA". The group comprises largely of clandestine cells, termed "nexions", as well as gangs known as "Dreccs", artists known as "Balobians", and folk mystics known as "Rounwytha". With the first nexion based in Shropshire, Western England, the majority of groups have been established in the British Isles and Germany, although others have been formed elsewhere in Europe, Russia, South Africa, Australia, and North America. Academic estimates suggest that the number of individuals broadly associated with the Order falls in the low thousands."

- The claims about its leadership structure or suspect and unsubstantiated

- claims about its operating structure are likewise suspect and unsubstantiated. These are not framed as claims but as facts. What academic sources give these numbers by the way and on what basis? Much of their group mythology is likewise a mix of claims and categorical assertions such that is impossible to disentangle the two. Like I said Coolmoon is under no obligation to identify himself or his associations, but this article reeks of propaganda. As does the David Myatt article heavily edited by Coolmoon. If this isn't largely written from a Believer's Point of View then I don't know what is. From the facts in evidence, academic and otherwise, ONA appears to be a centrally operated organization, pretending to some kind fantasy anarchistic structure, with a minuscule membership that is trying to use Wikipedia to pretend it is something other than it is. I'm frankly afraid to try and edit for neutrality because Coolmoons's edit history just reintroduces his claims as facts and reintroduces his clearly in cult POV against any criticism or objectivity Stealthepiscopalian 15:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)Stealthepiscopalian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stealthepiscopalian (talk • contribs)

As per Wikipedia's Manual of Style on composing a lede, it is perfectly normal to create a lede which does not contain any direct citations but which appropriately summarises the information found in the main body of the article. It is this latter part, the main body, which should – and in this case is – itself fully referenced to appropriate academic sources. As such, there is nothing unusual or inappropriate here. Contrary to your claims that there are un-referenced claims being made in the article, each and every one is in fact supported by appropriate academic reliable sources. Your statement that "ONA appears to be a centrally operated organization, pretending to some kind fantasy anarchistic structure, with a minuscule membership that is trying to use Wikipedia to pretend it is something other than it is" is purely your own personal opinion and is clearly at odds with the claims about the group made by academics who have actually published studies of it. I have had no involvement with the David Myatt article so offer no comment on that or Coolmoon's actions there, but – with respect – I do find your characterisation of this particular article to be really rather erroneous and perhaps strongly motivated by your own dislike of the Order itself. I say this as someone with no personal connection to the Order whatsoever and who finds a number of its beliefs to be of somewhat dubious validity; nevertheless, I believe in presenting the academic sources in a fair and NPOV manner, and I think that the article achieves this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Moreover, Stealthepiscopian should be very careful about their actions here. It seems that the use of both the Stealthepiscopian and Choronzonclub accounts to contribute to a single debate may be an example of sock puppetry. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Your accusation is a Lie!!! In the spirit of full disclosure. (Would that that the members of the ONA using this page as a propaganda platform were so honest.) ChoronzonClub is my spouse. I don't think that because we have a healthy real life dialogue on these matters and edit each others work here and elsewhere is in any way precluded by Wikipedia. Stealthepiscopalian 19:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)Stealthepiscopalian

In reply to Stealthepiscopalian who apparently assumes that some editors of the ONA Wikipedia article are members of the ONA and thus are biased. Firstly, no evidence is provided to substantiate such an assumption.

Secondly, as Midnightblueowl has pointed out the article, as it now is, does present a NPOV balancing academic sources about the ONA with what the ONA states in its openly available literature.

Thirdly, the use in the article of some ONA literature - quoting directly or paraphrasing - is in accord with Wikipedia guidelines, which allow the use of such 'primary sources' by the subject/group in an article about that subject/group. Both I and user Midnightblueowl have, via our edits over some months, managed to find the necessary balance between academic sources and ONA statements.

Fourthly, Wikipedia policy states that "a neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject," which policy is applicable IMO to your disparaging claims about the ONA.

Fifthly, academic and other sources have, over the decades, made contrary claims or assertions in respect "ONA membership", with the most recent academic sources - Senholt, Monette, and J.R Lewis, all of whom are quoted in the ONA article - indicating that 'membership' of or support for the ONA is much larger than previous sources claimed. A fact easily ascertained by the survey conducted by academic J.R Lewis who stated that the ONA has more female supporters than either the Church of Satan or the Temple of Set; more women with children, and more older supporters. Both Senholt and Monette have stated that 'membership'/support is likely to be in the thousands.

Sixthly, credit is due to user Midnightblueowl whose edits enabled the article to be nominated as a 'good article' candidate.

Lastly, I am in no way personally involved with the ONA but have been studying it for well over a decade and have - as I hope my edits reveal - tried to abide by Wikipedia guidelines and thus neither sympathized with nor disparaged the subject, presenting the ONA in a neutral manner by (as I mentioned earlier) striving to balance the opinions or assumptions or claims of academics and other published sources with the beliefs and statements of the ONA itself, thus hopefully enabling the reader to acquire an unbiased view of the ONA. Perhaps I should also mention that in the past I have been asked here whether I am a certain academic, which question I did not answer because asking such a question about one's identity is - so far as I understand the matter - contrary to Wikipedia guidelines. Coolmoon (talk) 05:49, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Hamlet, Act III, scene II Stealthepiscopalian 01:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)Stealthepiscopalian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stealthepiscopalian (talk • contribs)

"Qui autem requirunt quid quaque de re ipsi sentiamus, curiosius id faciunt quam necesse est." Coolmoon (talk) 06:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that user Stealthepiscopalian - and the apparently related account Choronzonclub - have made allegations of bias based entirely on their own personal opinions about the ONA. Thus ignored is the fact that the ONA article, as is, presents a NPOV in line with Wikipedia policy and, as Coolmoon says, "neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject." That's because the article uses reliable verifiable sources (mostly academic) which provide the views or conclusions of their authors, together with sourced quotes from some readily-available ONA material, with differences of opinion (e.g. about membership) objectively presented leaving the reader to make their own judgment call. Which is precisely what Wikipedia policy demands. In addition, the secondary sources outweigh the ONA sources.

Also, Wikipedia articles such as LaVeyan_Satanism, and Crowley, and Thelema, have far more direct quotes from the writings of Lavey, Crowley, and Thelema - and their followers - than the ONA article has from Anton Long and his followers. But no one has lambasted those articles - and others like them - for giving a "believer's point of view". The Thelema article - for example - in its "ethics" section gives extensive multi-paragraphs quotes from the writings of Crowley just as the writings of Lavey are extensively quoted in the "basic tenets" section of the LaVeyan_Satanism. You won't find such multi-paragraphs quotes from the writings of Anton Long in the ONA article.

So the ONA article in fact errs on the side of giving more prominence to secondary sources. Pavane7 (talk) 18:48, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Membership Claims

"Academic estimates suggest that the number of individuals broadly associated with the Order falls in the low thousands."

This is a pretty vague claim. Is there more than one academic source for this? The statement more than implies that this is based on multiple academic studies. The cited Senholt would indicate that this is nothing more than a difficult to impossible assertion to actually justify, whereas the language here implies some kind of real membership numbers analysis. Unless there is more than one Academic source making this claim and that source not depending on another source used, this needs to be reworded to something like 'One academic estimate suggests that the number of individuals broadly associated with the Order may fall in the low thousands.' Stealthepiscopalian 17:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)Stealthepiscopalian

What are relevant are the non-ONA, academic, sources. Both Senholt and Monette are quoted in respect of membership, and thus provide a NPOV Coolmoon (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually what is relevant is that they both say that these are based on ONA's own claims and that they are subjective at best. You on the other hand have framed them as fact, my language is Neutral Point of View yours is not. But arbitration will settle this matter. Stealthepiscopalian 17:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)Stealthepiscopalian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stealthepiscopalian (talk • contribs)

"they both say that these are based on ONA's own claims and that they are subjective at best" - do they? Having read the academic sources in question and incorporated them into the article I am not entirely sure that this is an accurate statement. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Initiation and the Seven Fold Way

The picture here of rioters has no identifiable real association with the ONA. Unless the people pictured are identified as actual ONA members this is the worst kind of propaganda and academic dishonesty. Pretending that that real actions of others are the actions of a group is frankly disturbing to see on Wikipedia. I suggest that this picture be removed immediately unless a tangible link to the ONA can be established. People who actually put themselves in harms way against police actions being used in the veiled propaganda that constitutes much of the content of this article is extremely distasteful and disrespectful to those actually pictured. Stealthepiscopalian 17:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)Stealthepiscopalian

Have you read the caption that is accompanying the image? If you do so then you will see that your accusation that Wikipedia is "Pretending that that real actions of others are the actions of a group" is simply untrue. Nowhere is it being claimed that the individuals in the image are members of the ONA; rather it is stating that the ONA encourages its members to involve themselves in actions such as those depicted in the photograph. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Weasel words

I have reverted the edit of Stealthepiscopalian because the repetition of "alleges" and "claims" amounts IMO to weasel-speak and thus violates Wikipedia policy. Furthermore, the comments in the section regarding structure and organization are referenced in the article by reliable, printed, academic, sources, such as the book by Professor Monette. Thus what is described is how the ONA is understood according to such non-ONA sources and thus present a NPOV. Coolmoon (talk) 17:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Neither are weasel words and have no value beyond pointing out that these are claims and not facts. You are clearly incapable of understanding the difference between facts and claims or opinions. I have read the referenced documents and those sources do not make these claims categorically but merely repeat that ONA is making them. You have turned the academic research into ONA propaganda in clear violation of Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View Policy - Again! I think I have to agree that this whole page needs to be subjected to arbitration. See you later alligator as they say. Stealthepiscopalian 17:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)Stealthepiscopalian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stealthepiscopalian (talk • contribs)

To my knowledge, 'Anton Long' has never made any claims regarding membership figures, while both Senholt and Monette have expressed their view, based on their research into the ONA, as to what the membership and the extent of the ONA is. Given that such a view has been published and given that both are academics, their view merits a mention and presents a neutral point of view. Furthermore, it is the repetition of words such as "alleges" and "claims" which amount to weasel-speak especially as the statements that you disparage are made by academics, not by the ONA. Coolmoon (talk) 17:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

"You are clearly incapable of understanding the difference between facts and claims or opinions" - that statement of yours is a very clear violation of both Wikipedia's civility policy and its 'no personal attacks' policy, Stealthepiscopalian, and I would strongly urge you to be more polite in your dealings with other editors. To be honest, your recent edits to the article, coupled with your antagonistic talk page comments aimed at Coolmoon, smack of disruptive editing. Moreover, if you really "have read the referenced documents" as you claim then why don't you provide direct quotes from them to bolster your statements? If you have valid concerns about how those sources have been presented in the article then you should be able to provide evidence. Until then, your claims just come across as baseless and unnecessarily provocative. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The term nine angles

As Professor Monette has mentioned, citing academic sources, the term 'nine angles' pre-dates - by centuries - the use of the term by Aquino et al. Coolmoon (talk) 17:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

FYI, here is what Professor Monette wrote in his book 'Mysticism in the 21st Century' published in 2013: "It is clear despite claims that the term ‘nine angles’ was introduced in the twentieth century, the term is centuries older, especially in esoteric or cosmological discourse. See Pingree, D. The Latin Version of the Ghayat al-Hakim, Studies of the Warburg Institute, University of London (1986); Ritter, H. ed. Ghāyat Al-Hakīm Wa-Ahaqq Al-Natījatayn Bi-Altaqdīm (Leipzig : B.G. Teubner, 1933); al Buni, Shams al-Ma’arif (Birmingham: Antioch Gate, 2007)." Coolmoon (talk) 17:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Anton Long and David Myatt

I've restored (with some tweaks) the paragraph detailing, with references, the recent ONA claim that Anton Long is indeed Myatt since IMO it's important because it not only provides an ONA perspective - and thus balances (NPOV) the claims by various academics and others - but also because it's the first time that they have confirmed the identity of Long. Coolmoon (talk) 10:58, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure that the "A Modern Mage" document is actually stating that which is being attributed to it in the prose. As far as I can see, at no point does it outright confirm that Long is Myatt, but rather presents an argument that Myatt is Long. In Chapter One, for example, it states that "This is certainly true is one accepts, as many do {4}, the as yet unproven claim that Anton Long was a pseudonym used by David Myatt", and a little later on poses the unanswered question "And (3) was David Myatt really Anton Long?". In Chapter Two it states that "It will be argued that Myatt's strange, varied, and documented life is consistent with someone following that 'seven fold way'; that Myatt - under the nom-de-plume Anton Long is one of the most innovative of modern occultists and one of the few to attain the grade of Magus". It doesn't represent an admission from Myatt that he was in fact Long all along, and it doesn't represent such a claim coming from someone who actually knew Long. Accordingly, I'm not entirely sure of this sources' utility for our purposes in the article at this juncture, at least with the current wording that we use. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

A fair comment. But according to my reading of the texts what is presented, from ONA sources, is that they admit that Myatt is Long and thus, in that respect, agree with the thesis of academics such as Senholt, providing additional - admittedly mostly circumstantial - evidence. Their suggestion of Myatt being Long - and such evidence as is provided - is IMO an interesting departure, for hitherto (for decades) they have made 'no comment' about the matter. Thus they write, for instance, that (i) "it seems logical to assume that the person behind the nom-de-guerre 'Anton Long' is Myatt" and (ii) that "Myatt's life gives credibility to the O9A", as well as stating without any qualifications at all that Myatt's life "is a metaphor for the O9A's decades-long Seven Fold Way." In presenting such evidence and suggestions in a book - which the preface states was written by ONA insiders (who know Anton Long) - the ONA are (IMO) laying out the case for Myatt being Anton Long, which as I mentioned is a quite significant development. Coolmoon (talk) 15:55, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it does seem to be a significant change within the ONA. Problematically however, in our role as Wikipedia editors we do not have the ability to declare what is significant and what is not. That is up to academics studying the phenomenon and writing about it in published reliable sources. We then follow their example and summarise their writings in a neutral way. Given the recent concerns expressed about alleged 'insider'-oriented bias within this article, I think that we have to tread extra lightly with the usage of primary sources such as this one. Thus, I would recommend removing this particular part of the article, or at the very least rewriting it as something like "ONA member R. Parker has also endorsed the argument that Myatt is Long." Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

On balance, perhaps - as you suggested - a rewrite would be best, although I'd be inclined to somehow mention that R. Parker is an 'ONA insider' (or 'inner ONA') as his profusion of articles on the ONA blog (and his recently published books about the ONA) indicate. Coolmoon (talk) 21:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

FYI, there's an interesting article on the ONA blog - https://omega9alpha.wordpress.com/2015/09/08/o9a-history/ - where R. Parker interviews Anton Long and which article is a homage to an Elizabethan document by John Dee. Coolmoon (talk) 21:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I've made some prose alterations accordingly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Aeons and Blavatsky

I've reverted the edit by user 109.226.100.56 for two reasons. First, and primarily, there are no reliable sources (according to Wikipedia criteria) which support the supposition made. Second, a reading of primary O9A sources about aeonics (which O9A aeonic theory derives from Myatt via his 'Vindex: Destiny of the West' and other writings) and the writings of Blavatsky show no similarity whatsoever since O9A aeonic theory is based, via Myatt, on the works of Spengler and Toynbee, as the O9A admit and as reliable sources (such as Monette) state. Pavane7 (talk) 21:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps the most fundamental difference is that Blavatsky deals with mythical races (such as Lemurians) in a mythical time-frame of millions of years whereas the aeonics of the O9A - following Myatt, Spengler, and Toynbee - deals with actual historical cultures and civilizations over the past three thousand years, and which historical cultures/civilizations the O9A associated with separate aeons of around two and half thousand years. That Blavatsky mentioned five past and current mythical races and that the O9A mentions five past and current aeons is pure coincidence. Pavane7 (talk) 06:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Order of Nine Angles. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for https://omega9alpha.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/complete-guide-o9a-v7.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://regardingdavidmyatt.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/magian-occultism-and-the-sinister-way.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://regardingdavidmyatt.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/senholt-the-sinister-tradition.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)