Talk:Society of Guardians

[Untitled]
Someone seemingly claiming to be Dermot (User:Yahuel) has added/altered text to the effect that the Sydney Guardians as run by Frater Carfax has no especial claim to being the Society of the Guardians, and that any person can if they so wish call themselves a Guardian. This sounds suspiciously like a continuation of the old arguments between Dermot and Leonard, and this article is not an appropriate war-ground. If there are opposing views to what's published, and they appear in a reliable source, then we can cite them in the article, with attributions to their sources. Otherwise we can't publish them. If anyone feels that the information currently in the article comes from unreliable sources, then we can discuss that too. But I don't want to see this article turn into a battle between unverifiable positions. Fuzzypeg★ 03:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point Fuzzypeg. Seeing the it is okay to claim 6th degree or 666th degree prompted me to added in a few things, which I have provided with references. I.e. Document on the 7 grades of the Guardians by Michael Freedman. So the 666th degree claim by so-called Yahuel is completely wrong and not anything to do with the Guardians. If this or any any other verifiable documents that are useful to you please email me at guild_decabalis@yahoo.com though I send the bulk to Frater Carfax in Australia, I do have a some materials remaining - Jean de Cabalis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.40.79 (talk) 06:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately these need to be publicly verifiable documents, that is, available to any member of the public over the internet or from a university library, or some similar information source. Furthermore, the sources need to be deemed reliable. For information about a group, the publicity of the group itself can sometimes be used, even if it is not considered reliable: then the information is normally presented couched in phrases like "they claim that", and so on.
 * Fundamentally, Wikipedia articles are based on what is verifiable, rather than what is "true". Fuzzypeg★ 04:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Fuzzypeg, I don't understand. I have copies of these documents here. Most being published by the Guardians and written by Michael Freedman (though the warrant is from Dermot) How can you get more reliable than original source documents. If I scan the documents and send to you will that make them verifiable?! Frater Carfax also has copies of these documents - Jean. Ps: Rules and Constitution of Guardians Inc written by Michael Freedman a public document held at Companies Office N.Z states that in the absence of the Senior Guardian for a period no less than a year a new Senior Guardian shall be appointed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.44.133 (talk) 05:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, J, I thought I had written a lengthy reply to you, but I obviously didn't commit it properly! I'll try to explain (probably more briefly this time, I'm sorry). All documents need to be publicly verifiable; that is, Joe Bloggs in Texas needs to be able to check up on the cited sources for the information and find out that a) the documents exist and b) the citations in the article are faithful to them. So, for example, Mr. Bloggs goes to his local university library and tries to get some help tracking these documents down. They find nothing, even when they contact the Auckland University Library for help. The only thing they can find (via interloan) is the Society's rules and constitution held by the NZ Companies Office. But even that doesn't explain the statement in the article that it's supposed to be supporting: that L legitimately took over from D. It merely gives some rules regarding change of leadership, but does not state that such change of leadership occurred.
 * So poor Mr. Bloggs can verify nothing. Now, if you email the documents to me then I can read them (can't necessarily tell if they're authentic!), but Mr. Bloggs still cannot read them, so this really wouldn't improve the situation. If you publish them somewhere on the net then we start making headway, because then at least we can establish that someone has published these documents and claims that they are authentic; we still may have some problems establishing that the said website is a reliable source or even that they are who they claim to be. You are probably familiar with how convoluted such arguments over legitimacy in esoteric orders can be, from the ridiculous carryings-on of the Golden Dawn (TM) groups. So many of their posturings are entirely uncheckable by the wider public, and all that can be reported about them is "so-and-so claims this, whereas such-and-such claims that".
 * If a bit more information were supplied about the history of the SoG on its website, then that would get you much closer to it being verifiable. Then at least we could say things like "according to the Society, such and such is the case", that is, if we have a one or two third-party sources that can help corroborate that the website does indeed belong to the Society of the Guardians. And if there are any other reliable third-party sources like the Ellwood book that talk about the Society, even briefly, they are pure gold, and could go a long way to authenticating anything the website might say. I hope this helps. Fuzzypeg★ 01:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC).
 * Okay, now I understand what you are saying. hmm... kind of makes things hard. So if an University library had copies of the materials then some would be verifiable. The only other thing I can suggest is the file folder of the Society of Guardians at the Companies Office does have other historical information concerning what you mention above, *as well as* the Rules and Constitution of the Guardians. Still not matter. Warm Regards to you.  Jeandecabalis

Some proposed changes
Request for edit from someone in the Wiki community (as this page needs tidying up). I have neither the skills to this and even if I had, according to Wiki guidelines I have a Conflict of Interest. Any interested persons could also contact myself for assistance, photos etc. jeandecabalis@aol.com Thank you Wiki Community. Signed Lenny (aka Jean de Cabalis) I recommend that this page is completely deleted. Jean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.68.164 (talk) 01:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Notability
Sourcing is poor and partly primary; notability looks like an issue. Tacyarg (talk) 15:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)