Talk:Magical organization

Untitled
do not remove the Elodrym link again. Just because an organisation is new or small does not mean that it is not valid as a magical organization. The Elodrym have been added to this page's list of Magical Orgnizations because not only is it an officially recognised Nonprofit Unincorporated Association by the state of California, (it is not a club.) but also because it fits the page's own description of a Magical Organization, and thus falls perfectly well within this category. --Arkayne Magii 22:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is higher than merely having registered as a nonprofit organisation. notability needs to be established too. Fuzzypeg★ 00:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Vanguard International
Someone has repeatedly added this group, which seems to have been created only a year ago, and has no established notability that I can find. The website at http://projectxcomic.com/vanguardsinternational/index.html is in the Project X comic site, which is for a fictional web comic. From everything I can see, Vanguards International hardly looks serious. The organisational heirarchy is just about as elaborate as that of the Catholic Church, despite the fact that far from being international their two stated centres of operation are both in the US, and the majority of the posts on their discussion boards seem to be by a single person, "Jim", who offers such pearls of wisdom as telling us that the means of opening the third eye is simply to imagine it opening, and blinking a few times. All up, it looks like the hobby of a handful of sci-fi enthusiasts rather than a notable magical order, and I would like to see some convincing third-party sources verifying its notability. Fuzzypeg★ 00:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Lists removed from article
It became clear that the person who added these lists had no intention of providing citations, and more uncited links were being added to them, so I am moving them to the talk page. Do each and every one belong here? Don't know, that's why they need citations. They should all be integrated in prose in historical order with citations. If you've got a special interest in one or another of them, why don't you take the time to integrate them into the article? Skyerise (talk) 22:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

These remain to be added (or not) to the article. Skyerise (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2023 (UTC)


 * All listed has since been added

Answers to above question

 * I was among the authors adding these to the list. I think they eventually belong to this article. Each one is a "magical organization", according to themselves. I agree that there should be citations for each one of them. Perhaps I was a bit too sloppy with citations, considering that this ("magical org") is such a weird topic. Storing the list here in the talk-page while we find these citations is OK i guess? What kind of citations should we provide? I suggest, 1) That they exist, or existed, and 2) that they claim they practice magic. (Providing sources that they actually do, is probably impossible.) · · · Omnissiahs hierophant (talk) 10:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Just a third-party source that they exist or existed. Would be nice to have foundation dates. The kind of thing an Encyclopedia of the Occult would have. For more recent orders, they may be mentioned in Dave's Evans book about magick in England after Crowley. Or in some of the new academic journals that study esotericism... Only thing we want to avoid is sourcing existing orders to their own web sites. Skyerise (talk) 14:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I've started to add those where the Wikipedia article actually mentions magic and which have sources which can be used to support a couple or three sentence addition here. Skyerise (talk) 04:19, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Removing off-topic content
my recent edits revised the prose of the lede, as well as removed off-topic content. I hope those two things can be discussed separately.

Regarding the removed content, The Satanic Temple is not a magical organization; mentioning TST in this article is off-topic (egregiously so in the lede). The lengthy note attached to the TST claim is a primary source unsuitable for citation in this context, and (most crucially) fails to support any claims regarding magical organizations. — H ip L ibrarianship talk 21:07, 11 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Be that as it may, there are two notes. You moved one into the citations. The article referencing style is set by the original editors. It was decided to split notes and references. Please maintain the existing citation style as required by WP:REFVAR. Skyerise (talk) 21:22, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Unclear why a citation style preference merits retaining off-topic content anywhere in the article. — H ip L ibrarianship talk 22:07, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Because you mix your edits all together. Perhaps you haven't noticed that I removed the off-topic content after I reverted you? Skyerise (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you haven't noticed that you created a new section to retain off-topic content? — H ip L ibrarianship talk 01:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Further reading is a standard section. Just because the article content was off-topic doesn't mean that the distinction is not of interest. The off-topic content was removed and I have not put it elsewhere. Have a nice day, okay? If you continue to find this difficult, perhaps a Wikibreak? Skyerise (talk) 15:40, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Your "gloss" for the Vice interview is erroneous; the source makes no mention of distinguishing magical organizations from non-magical ones. The only thing I'm finding difficult are your ongoing attempts to retain this off-topic content. — H ip L ibrarianship talk 21:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You seem to be using the word 'content' extremely loosely. Skyerise (talk) 21:22, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: per WP:BRD, you have to show a consensus for your change(s), without recruiting editors. If another editor should agree with you, I have no problem with that being the new consensus. Until then BRD says the status quo should be maintained. I could always revert back to how it was before you appeared, since you have not shown consensus for any of your changes. There are other editors who work on this article, so I suggest you be patient until one of them shows up and either agrees or disagrees with you. In a disagreement between two editors, there is no consensus and the article should remain unchanged. Skyerise (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You are evading a very straightforward claim: the Vice interview is irrelevant to this article. BRD offers no succor for preserving off-topic content. — H ip L ibrarianship talk 21:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I am waiting for a third opinion, as I was not the editor who added that material to the article, and that editor certainly has a right to express their opinion here as well. Tally ho! P.S. Patience is a virtue so it is beneficial for you to cultivate it. But feel free to request a third opinion at WP:3O if you're in a hurry. Skyerise (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * And you're mistaken. BRD always applies. Every editor thinks they are in the right and that other rules trump it, but they don't. Try to fix the misuse of bulleted list formatting for long paragraphs on Irvington, New York if you don't believe me. Skyerise (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Schools
Regarding this edit that was reverted - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1171388304

It was reverted because the schools are more open than the other types of magical organizations listed here. But it is quite easy to approach many of these organizations and seek membership (those that still exist), for example it is easy to approach OTO and get invited, and the AA (1907) has a postbox that would-be members can snail-mail to. The AA address and postbox is available in most copies of the Book of The Law, i think, and can be found online as well. Dragon Rouge have a similar setup. It does not seem very difficult to join them to me. To me it instead seems that the open web-based schools are examples of how liberal our societies have become in regard to the existence of these organizations, and that the stigma associated with a membership have dissipated. In the past, memberships have resulted in people getting fired, but that is no longer the case. Which results in these magical organizations becoming more open to the public.

Also, now when these schools are listed, how come the unicult (or, unicole unicult) being removed? Its also a public school for magic. How is that school less relevant than the "Grey school of Wizardry" for example? ;)

Also thanks for adding all the references to these orgs! · · · Omnissiahs hierophant (talk) 11:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The difference between schools and orders should be obvious. The schools listed are accredited as schools and are non-profits organized as schools with educational programs resulting in degrees or certificates of completion. Orders are not so accredited, do not issue diplomas, and even if they did, such diplomas would not be accepted by others as valid unless the organization is accredited as a school. I have not idea what "unicult" is, but I suspect it was removed due to being self-sourced and having no substantial independent coverage. That is, it is not notable. Skyerise (talk) 11:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the expediated and clear answer! (I think they do hand out diplomas and many of them do have programs, with literature to read, et.c. I doubt that even if they would be registered as educational schools with some government no one really cares for these diplomas anyways. Also, if one digs into this a bit deeper, some magical orders have non-profit org numbers actually. But they are not registered as schools.) · · · Omnissiahs hierophant (talk) 11:47, 13 December 2023 (UTC)


 * No, magical orders have "degree" or "grade" certificates which are simply recognitions of having undergone an initiation ceremony. Such "degrees" or "grades" are not transferable. If you hold the "degree" or "grade" of "Magus" in one order, that is recognized only by that order: one cannot transfer to another order as a "Magus", even if that order has such a "degree". You'd have to start at the very bottom in the new order, as a Neophyte (G.D., A.A. type orders) or a Minerval (OTO type orders). They are exclusively used to rank people within a specific Order's hierarchy, not as recognitions of accumulated knowledge. In contrast, regardless of how seriously other educational institutions would consider them, schools issue two and/or four year degrees which are based on the material studied and mastered. In contrast, progress in many orders is based on hierarchy and ass-kissing; it's who you know, not what you know, that counts. If the "degrees" are open and don't require invitation, in most orders progress is time-based: after a set period of time, you are eligible to take the next initiation, regardless of your knowledge. Sure, they have reading lists and such, but the OTO for example claims that it does not "teach magic" and progress is not dependent on passing exams, only passing time, at least until the invitation-only degrees. Skyerise (talk) 12:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Haha! Usually it is not put so blunt, but yes :) OK, good answer! · · · Omnissiahs hierophant (talk) 12:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Another significant detail is that for schools, you pay for courses. Once you get your degree, you don't have to pay anymore. For Orders, you pay for an initation. Once you get your "degree", you have then committed to pay dues annually for life, unless you resign. The "higher" the degree, the higher your dues! Skyerise (talk) 21:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Is this true for all occult orders? I think it seems true for OTO, it seems Dragon Rouge, but for everyone? It seems to have been the reason why L Ron Hubbard left OTO and made his Scientology Church, although it could maybe be difficult to find sources for that. If it is a common behavior it could have something written about it, in some article, maybe this? · · · Omnissiahs hierophant (talk) 23:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe all magical orders, like the Masons, are dues paying. It costs money to maintain a group temple. Incidentally, Hubbard was never a member of OTO. Crowley was all pissed off because Parsons gave Hubbard OTO material without first initiating him. Skyerise (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)