Talk:Freemasonry/Archive 16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] RFC link

RFC link is here MSJapan 04:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

This is not how article RFC's are conducted. Please review WP:RFC Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I did, and that is precisely how they are conducted. Where do you think I got the template? MSJapan 04:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Apologies - the template was vandalized by -Ril- in mind February - I expect no one noticed. That is not the prefered format for RFCs, which take place on article talk pages. Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, until somebody goes and fixes it, I'm going to use that format because that's what it says to do. It's pretty well-done for vandalism, and clearly took a lot of effort. I would imagine somebody would have noticed before now and changed it back if it was an issue, seeing as how it's an infrastructure page. MSJapan 04:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
If you INSIST, but I must ask that you review the previous RFCs - you will find no one has EVER used that incredibly bad-idea broken format. Hipocrite - «Talk» 05:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I'll bring it to an admin's attention, then, although I don't see that this was reverted as part of vandalism rvs on that page at all - there are <10 edits in the last two months to the page. Maybe it changed and nobody noticed? It's a good way to get rid of frivolous RFCs, because now you need to be able to articulate an argument to support your position. MSJapan 05:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
It was a change to the template - note that none of the rfcs since the template change (except for yours) used the new format. I have brought it up in the appropriate locations. Hipocrite - «Talk» 05:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, most people don't even look at that small template, since the way article RFCs are done (adding a link to the relevant article talk page) hasn't changed for ages. Only two RFCs ever used this different format (the creation of which was not a lot of effort — it's almost a straight copy of the way user RFCs are done), one being this one, and the other having been made by a notoriously quirky user (and thus his use of a different format was probably ascribed to his quirkiness). --cesarb 18:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Does the use of this format makes the RFC invalid? If so, we can always redo it properly. If not, then I don't see much point of belaboring the issue. Blueboar 19:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
It's just wikilawyering, it distracts from the lack of substance in H's argument.ALR 19:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
No, it doesn't make it invalid. It's kind of hard to make invalid what's nothing more than an informal request for outside help. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Besides, it has alredy been redone correctly (changed into the usual format, with a note pointing to the misplaced page). --cesarb 19:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Given what's going on it's fairly easy to see why a discussion on the topic that comment is requested on is easier off the article page. The discussion can focus on the point at issue and it's up to the various protagonists to actually articulate their position in a reasoned manner. Attempting to have the discussion here, at the same time as continuing to work on editing the rest of the article results in a confused and poorly articluated arguments which depend on hyperbole and sensationalisation to succeed. From that perspective it means that Hipocrite et al are favoured by having the discussion here, whereas a more rational argument would tend to support those editors who don't see the material as being value adding in this article. As much as anything else an observation of the various discursive techniques is interesting; evasion and misrepresentation across a wide range of pages, personal, talk and edit comment boxes versus a tightly presented discussion. Anyway, the inclusion of the material in Wikipedia isn't so much an issue to me, since they're not the secrets of Masonry anyway, they can go live somewhere else as far as I'm concerned.ALR 23:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
It's not really an issue someone simply didn't understand how to file an rfc. It's been fixed now. Seraphim 23:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
If you read the RFC page it's internally inconsistent, and the approach that Hipocrite et al have an issue with is more in line with the rest of the dispute management process, so it makes sense to do things in that way. I didn't say it was an issue, more an interesting manifestation of information manipulation. I think I mentioned before that I'm doing a Masters degree in Information Management, so I'm more amused by the blatant attempts at attempting to undermine a sensible process. Although looking around it appears that undermining established processes is a bit of a hobby for some users who'd rather do that than contribute substantive material. It's inevitable in any social networking space that people find their confort zones, and wikipedia is no different.ALR 23:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
"I'm doing a Masters degree in Information Management, so I'm more amused by the blatant attempts at attempting to undermine a sensible process." And your Dyslexic as well ALR . Well done. Imacomp 17:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
As a note, we got a 7-3 in favor of not including the material in-depth (Keystrokes' vote I discounted, as he was blocked). 70% is considered to be consensus as far as WP policy goes. I haven't heard anything further on this since the 11th, and no other votes came in despite Hipocrite's posting the material in the proper place. So, shall we close it and consider it settled? MSJapan 20:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Seems fair to me, although I'm sure there'll be a Wikilawyer along in a moment to disagree ;) ALR 20:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Where is the Albert Pike information? Like it or not, Masons, Reptilian Watch has a LOT of Masonic imagery and symbolism. I've never met an honest Mason who played fair, though. Jason Gortician 14:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Reptilian Watch? ROTFL! :D Are you serious? --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

(copied from User talk:MSJapan) I've protected this article to stop edit warring. User:Keystrokes has been delisted from AIV, as they don't seem to be making obvious vandalism, and commented on the protection on 3RR Reports. I'm going to recuse myself from determining the possible 3RR breach on this article though, and will revist the protection in a few days if antoher admin has not lifted it. Thanks, xaosflux Talk/CVU 16:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Addtionally, I'm sure that some will argue that I've protected The Wrong Version, but I have no personal interest in this article, just in stopping the edit war. -- xaosflux Talk/CVU 16:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
The tag says the current version isn't necessarily endorsed, so I see no reason why it would be an issue at all. I'm sure my "followers" (as noted below by Keystrokes), would agree. MSJapan 16:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Nothing will change until JASpencer gets up the druthers and files motion with Wikipedia Admin to have MSJapanand his fellow travellers permanently banned.Keystrokes 17:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Banned for what exactly? JASpencer 17:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
You figure it out genius.Keystrokes 17:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Please tell me. JASpencer 17:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I've downgraded this to semi-protection, to see if that works. William M. Connolley 17:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Having blocked Keystrokes, I shall remove the semi too, and see if thats OK William M. Connolley 17:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Why do you, as an Admin, feel you have to ask the Freemason Editors if the actions you just took 'are o.k.'?Healthy eating 19:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
It's not about Freemason editors, it's about sockpuppets and new editors coming to only this article. If those editors worked on other articles and contributed to the community, it might prove good faith, and then they get in enough edits to get around semi-protection. Ardenn 19:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
You have misinterpreted me William M. Connolley 19:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

No-prot is clearly not going to work, as new users are too easy to create, so I've made it semi again William M. Connolley 19:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It has been protected since the 11th of march. I suggest that you remove the protection for a while to see what happens. It looks bad when articles are protected for a week. Lapinmies 13:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
It does look bad... but it is needed. Over the last few months, this article has been repeatedly attacked by the same POV pushing vandal using multiple sock pupet names. This vandal has been barred by arbitration from editing all articles related to Freemasony, but since new accounts are so easy to create, he keeps returning. The second we lift the lock, he simply starts to attack the article all over again. With the semi-lock in place, he is limited to this talk page long enough that we can usually catch him before he can vandalize the article. I suspect that the semi-lock will be on here for quite a while longer. If you have a something to add... contact one of the editors who are not locked out and we will be happy to add it for you. Blueboar 14:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
It has now been over a week. Semi-protection policy states:"Semi-protection should only be considered if it is the only option left available to solve the problem of vandalism of the page. In other words, just like full protection, it is a last resort, not a pre-emptive measure. Remember to lift the semi-protection after a brief period.". I think a week is a brief period. Lapinmies 10:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I will have to disagree. Under normal circumstances a semi-block would indeed have been lifted by now... but this is not a normal circumstance. We have tried lifting the block... only to have the vandal return and attack the page. I expect that the semi-block will have to stay on for a lot longer. Sorry. Again, if you have something you would like to contribute, post it pn the talk page or to one of the editors who is not blocked and we will be happy to include it for you. Blueboar 13:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't have anything to add and I could add it myself if I wanted. Semi-protection is bad faith against every new user. Lapinmies 23:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
If wikipedia could work out a way to keep the vandal from making new socks, I would have no problems. As it is, new editors can still post on the talk page and make their suggestions. Blueboar 00:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
It looks more like a content dispute than vandalism. Articles are supposed to evolve and not be locked. Lapinmies 00:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Trouble is that the master of socks in question is banned indefinetly by ArbCom to edit any article or talk page related to freemasonry. So at the moment a new user is determined to be a sock of this banned user, he is in violation of the ArbCom, and therefore a vandal. Personaly I would have loved to be able to lift the semi-prot on this article, but the times it has been done it's only been a matter of hours or days at the most before the army of socks return. WegianWarrior 07:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Section

"US Roman Catholic contextual view" added as a usefull insight into a certain mindset, in a NPoV straight Cited quote. Note RCs say P2 is irregular. This contextual defn. is up-to-date and far more of use than the Roman Catholic "CE". Imacomp 12:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It might be apposite as a reference, I don't think it needs it's own section.ALR 18:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
If it fits in an existing section, that would be good. Also, it should probably be incorporated into the Catholicism and Freemasonry article, because it represents a marginal shift in a positive direction. MSJapan 01:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linking to Freemasonrywatch

Back from a rather long hiatus (double-law undergrad, dropped my masters for it, don't ask) .. I have noticed whilst reading over the digressive circumlocutory of this talk page that content has been brought into question by anti-Mason conspiracy theorists yet again. Some are familiar names, such as Lightbringer, ADR and a few of his other sock puppets which are perm-banned from even sniffing this articles socks. Many are new. So perhaps some clarification is in order: -

It was decided a long time ago (in a galaxy far, far away) that Freemasonrywatch is a libelous and vilifying site that should not be linked to on Wiki as a source of reference. It's content being derivative and an outright breach of various copyrights for one and the fact that there is precedence set likewise for such *watch sites.

Allow me to suggest a case example; of all the 'people' 'religion' 'race' issues, the Jewish are an example of a complex transgressive ethos/religion/culture based system that can be affirmed as almost identical in principal to that of Freemasonry.

Both break the mould of linkage of religion and ethos based on race, some say jews are a race, others a religion, others a school of thought. Just because the direct links are not overt and easily made between a class or type of person, their religious, moral and dogmatic beliefs does not invalidate them by any means. Thus, Jews also have a history of persecution, something that Freemasons share with them.

Even if we just accept the latter as self-evident fact, allow me to put it to you, the reader, that if you wish to place freemasonrywatch on this article as an official 'source' for anything, that you likewise approach the community of the jewish articles and insist on placing jewwatch.org there. What response do you believe you will get?

I wouldn't be hard pressed to say you could expect a subpoena to your ISP to gank your address from your IP and face a rather nasty vilification law suit, which you would lose, in a heartbeat.

Now bring that context across to the Freemasonry article. Whilst there is no AFL for Freemason's it could be argued that the same grounds are valid, just because it is not as readily enforced nor not as publically witnessed nor does it (unfortunately) fall under the umbrella of any modernism catchwords such as 'anti-semitism' does not in any way make it right.

Thus the decision was made that the authors and maintainers of this article will outright refuse such farcical and defaming sites as Freemasonrywatch just as our fellows maintaining the Jewish related articles reject their likewise defamining sites from the same genus of conspiratorius nuttius casius.

I hope this has cleared a few things up on this issue, but as this is Wiki and is open for discussion, I would -LOVE- to hear some valid arguments against this decision we, ze Wiki community who haunt these articles, deduced oh so many moons ago. Jachin 14:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

That decision was never made, it was brought up in the lightbringer arbcomm case and was thrown out. FreemasonryWatch is a collection of anti-masonic writings, that's all. If it is followed by a disclaimer explaining that the site is anti-masonic it is 100% valid to link to. It's not up to us to decide how a reader should interperate information, just to present it. (Also fmw does NOT violate copyright, your allowed to include other published source texts in your writing as long as you credit the original source) From WP:EL "On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first." Seraphim 16:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
This seems to come up a lot. Apparently this ruling was made(or not made?) a long time ago ... before I became a contributer, and certainly before Seraphim joined us. Can someone who was actually present at the time fill in the details? How was the "ban" decided upon? Was it an internal decision by the editors working on this Article, or was it decided by the admins? It may be that, to settle the debate on freemasonrywatch's acceptability once and for all, we will need to (re)present it for arbitration. It would help if there is something in the record that we could point to to say: "yes, Freemasonrywatch is out... look here". Blueboar 16:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
It popped up as a potential ruling in lightbringer's arbcom case, along with some other potential rulings that included limiting a few users that currently edit this page (including msjapan) to 1 revert a day on freemasonry related articles. They were not part of the final ruling. You can look through the lightbringer arbcom case to see it. It's not an issue arbcom can address, it is a content issue which they have no control over. For example, if they don't allow freemasonrywatch links, what stops people from using the same ruling to remove all of the holocost denial links from the holocost denial page. Also the discussion surrounding the proposed ruling was discussing if it should be used as a reference, not about posting it as an external link which follows a completly different set of guidelines. Nobody will beable to say "yes, Freemasonrywatch is out... look here" since it isn't. Seraphim 17:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Here are links Proposal on workshop page. Voting on Decision the proposed decision was dropped before it even got to this point. Final ruling since it didn't even make it off the workshop page, obviously it's not here either. Seraphim 17:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the links Seraphim... What do you make of this section from the RFA?

  • Comment by Arbitrators:
  • Despite good information on some freemasonry pages there is conflation with fantastic conspiratorial material. I think this may render the site unable. Useful information needs to be sourced to the original source freemasonrywatch copied it from Fred Bauder 18:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

As I read it, it says: "use the originals, not the stuff from fmwatch." Not sure if that means an outright ban, but it certainly means it's use should be restricted. Also, what is wiki policy on "see also" links to sites with copyvio problems. I know we can not use them directly, or in sources... is it your understanding that it is OK to use them as "see also" links? Blueboar 18:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

That's one arbitrator's opinion, it's not an arbcom opinion but that of an individual editor with just as much say on the issue as you or me (unless it's actually brought to a vote of course). I agree that freemasonrywatch should not be used as a source (which it isn't) because it fails WP:RS, but that has nothing to do with including it as an external link. WP:RS does not apply to external links since your not using it as a source. The key difference here is that listing a site as an external link is not including any material sourced to that site in the article, instead it's just saying "this site is related, this is it's pov, if you want further reading go here". Seraphim 18:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
OK... I understand your take on it... I don't fully agree, but I do understand. thanks. Blueboar 18:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
What do you disagree with? Seraphim 18:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Considering your intransigence with any editor who openly declares their affiliations in an open and honest manner then I can understand why BB hasn't said what the disagreement is with. He's said he sees where you're coming from and that he doesn't agree with you. It should be clear from that termination of the conversation that there is clearly little value in continuing the interchange. Why do you feel a need to antagonise the debate in this way?ALR 19:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
You seem to be confusing intransigence with adhering to wikipedia policy. Fact: WP:RS applies to sources only. Fact: WP:EL applies to external links. Fact: We are discussing adding FMW as an external link not as a source. Fact: WP:EL allows linking to biased sources (from the "what should be linked to")"On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view.". And final fact: arbcom never ruled in any way shape or form on including FMW as an external link. Seraphim 19:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you're confusing everyone else's view of policy with yours. EL says in full regarding what to link to (my comments after the asterisks:

1. Articles about any organization, person, or other entity should link to their official site, if they have one.

  • Doesn't exist as a single site.

2. Sites that have been cited or used as references in the creation of an article. Intellectual honesty requires that any site actually used as a reference be cited. See Wikipedia:Verifiability.

  • I removed those links that were already cited.

3. An article about a book, a musical score, a webcomic, a web site, or some other media, should link to the actual book, musical score, etc. if possible.

  • N/A.

4. On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first.

  • We don't have multiple POV here, as it is handled in separate articles. Also, one runs into issues with link balance if we need the same number of links for all POV when referenced links are externalized as well.

5. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference.

  • There's nothing from FMW in-depth here. It is linked in its appropriate place, the Anti article.

6. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as textbooks or reviews.

  • N/A here.

What not to include:

1. Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, unless it is the official site of the article's subject or it is a notable proponent of a point of view in an article with multiple points of view. (See WP:RS for further information on this guideline.)

  • Notable, but fails according to RS.

2. In general, any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose.

  • all the FMW material is stolen from other places.

3. Links that are added to promote a site. See External link spamming.

  • probably N/A.

4. Sites that primarily exist to sell products or services.

  • N/A

5. Sites with objectionable amounts of advertising

  • N/A.

6. Sites that require payment to view the relevant content

  • N/A.

7. Sites that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content unless (1) it is the official site of the subject of the article (2) the article is about those media, or (3) the site is being cited as a reference.

  • N/A.

8. Bookstores. Use the "ISBN" linking format which gives readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources.

  • N/A.

9. A website that you own or maintain (unless it is the official site of the subject of the article). If it is relevant and informative, mention it as a possible link on the talk page and wait for someone else to include it, or include the information directly in the article.

  • N/A.

Also, from "occasionally acceptable": 5. External sites can possibly violate copyright. Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page. Whether such a link is contributory infringement is currently being debated in the courts, but in any case, linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on us (see Wikipedia:Copyrights and in particular Contributors' rights and obligations).

  • They do. FMW has articles that clearly require payment of fees for redistribution, and no copyright notices on said articles.

From RS:

Personal websites as primary sources

A personal website or blog may be used only as a primary source, i.e., when we are writing about the subject or owner of the website. But even then we should proceed with great caution and should avoid relying on information from the website as a sole source. This is particularly true when the subject is controversial, or has no professional or academic standing.

  • Although it is a .org site, it is a personal site run by one individual.

Personal websites as secondary sources

Personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources.

That is, they may never be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website. Another possible exception to this rule occurs when somebody had written secondary source material that is suitable as a reference that he now refutes or corrects on his personal website, though even in this case one should be careful and try to find out the reason why the material has not been published elsewhere.

The reason personal websites are not used as secondary sources — and as primary sources only with great caution and not as a sole source if the subject is controversial — is that they are usually created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world. It is impossible to know which is the case. Visiting a stranger's personal website is often the online equivalent of reading an unattributed flyer on a lamp post, and should be treated accordingly.

  • This is certainly applicable to FMW.

Partisan websites

Partisan political and religious sources should be treated with caution, although political bias is not in itself a reason not to use a source. Widely acknowledged extremist political or religious websites — for example, those belonging to Stormfront, Hamas, or the Socialist Workers Party — should never be used as sources for Wikipedia, except as primary sources i.e. in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group, but even then should be used with great caution, and should not be relied upon as a sole source.

  • FMW does not discuss opinions, but it is widely acknowledged as extremist.

So, as a matter of fact, the arbitrator's opinion is fully in keeping with WP policy regarding EL and RS. As we see, it either fails the acceptance guidelines, or conforms to the avoidance guidelines. Therefore, the only real course of action in accordance with policy would be to avoid it completely except in its appropriate context, which is what the situation is if it is not in the link list. MSJapan 07:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Your using WP:RS incorrectly. WP:RS only applies to articles that are being used as sources that's why it's called "reliable sources". I'll 100% agree with you that it's a site that shouldn't be used as a source in the article. However that is NOT what we are talking about. We are talking about including the site as an external link only, which means that WP:V and WP:RS have 0 impact on this situation. I'm only going to talk about the WP:EL requirements since they are the only things that apply here.
For number 4 on what should be linked to you wrote "We don't have multiple POV here, as it is handled in separate articles. Also, one runs into issues with link balance if we need the same number of links for all POV when referenced links are externalized as well." that is 100% incorrect. We do have multiple POV here, if we didn't have multiple POV here the article would fail WP:NPOV. You are claiming that all of the anti-masonic POV should be kept to the anti-masonry page. That is 100% against WP:NPOV. The seperate anti-masonry page is a sub page used to keep this page small and is represented on this page in summary style. The anti-masonic POV must still be present here, it's not a debatable issue. There is multiple POV here on this page. Now your issues on the what not to include section. For number 1 you say "Notable, but fails according to RS." you are admitting the site is notable, which means number 1 doesn't apply to it. You say it fails WP:RS but it doesn't matter since it's not being used as a source. For number 2 you say "all the FMW material is stolen from other places." which is also not the case, they collect articles and then Comment on them, their commentary is not stolen. Now your last reason under occasionally-acceptable you say "They do. FMW has articles that clearly require payment of fees for redistribution, and no copyright notices on said articles." which shows that you do not understand copyright and what redistribution is. It is 100% legal to copy the text of a news article onto your site as long as the original source is given credit, that is not redistribution. What redistribution is, is actually distribuiting the content. For example, it's ok to copy paste the text of an AP news story into your blog and credit the AP. What's not ok is for you to put an AP story into your newspaper and distribute it without paying for the distribution rights.
FMW is a notable anti-masonic site, it does not violate ANY copyrights, it should be included as an external link with the caveat that WP:EL says to attach to biased sites that would read "A collection of anti-masonic documents and strong anti-masonic commentary". Seraphim 18:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Seraphim, Freemasonrywatch is a hate-site. It is orchestrated to spin their belief on the link between Freemasonry, the New World Order and all other such conspiratorial subject material under one guise. It is equal to jewwatch in so far as it has no first hand sources, citations are lacking and it is in no way encyclopedia material. I suggest you take a long hard look at the site and think about the implications of precedent you're setting. If we allow hate-site's on here, where does it end? Do we then link neo-nazi sites to affirmative action sites? I recall seeing a good expose on Martin Luthar King that passes itself off as more concise and authorative than FMW where it refers to him as a 'nigger', shall we link that up to MLK's page? Where does the insanity end once we start allowing hate-site's into Wikipedia man, seriously? But I'm guessing from your defensive stance on the matter that hate isn't something you particularly have a problem with. 211.30.80.121 04:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of ritual as a reference

To avoid pettiness associated with making the wording in the article as clumsy and unreadable as possible I'll take this here. The statement made carries a reference, I can give a page number when I get home next week but the statement is printed, in full, in the reference. There is no need for any caveat around the nature of that reference and it's integrity. If we applied the principle of caveating all the references then the article would become completely unreadable. There is a demonstration of clear editorial bias from Seraphim when bracketing and caveating the majority of edits by self declared Masons at the moment which is becoming, even more disruptive, disruptive.ALR 19:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

That's fine that it's ritual. However it should be made clear for npov purposes that it is masons describing their own ritual. We have already had this discussion many times. If on the anti-masonry page someone added in "Masonry has been described as a satanic demon worshiping cult" and then nowhere in the paragraph explained where that description comes from you would protest and add in where the claim came from. This is the same exact situation. If I call myself pretty and my reference is my own writings, for example "Seraphim has been described as pretty <ref>my own diary</ref>" that would be inappropriate to include in an article on me since it is a vanity opinion. What would be appropriate is to post "Seraphim has described herself as pretty <ref>my own diary</ref> since the bias of the describer is made apparent. I'm not making this stuff up, it's from WP:POV "Each POV should be clearly labeled and described, so readers know: Who advocates the point of view/What their arguments are (supporting evidence, reasoning, etc.)"
We have already had this discussion when the line was in the top paragraph, simply migrating it in the article does not change the situation. Also I love how you claim that i'm showing a clear editorial bias when your the one who changed the line to say "Freemasonry is a System of Morality, veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbol" presenting opinion as fact is the defination of POV pushing. Seraphim 19:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Another example from WP:NPOV: "Sometimes, a potentially biased statement can be reworded to a more NPOV version. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" can be reworded to "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by many". Even better would be, "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre", as long as those statements are correct and can be verified. Similarly, "Joe Bloggs has poor habits" can be reworded to "Joe Bloggs has often been criticized for his habits, by observers such as Momar Kadafi and Anwar Saddat."" Seraphim 19:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Allow me to compare with some other similar self definitions: ATOS KPMG is a Management Consulting Firm, Triumph is a manufacturer of motorbikes, Cadbury Shweppes is a confectionary manufacturer. The statement is 'System of morality......', indeed I would suggest that caveating it with 'claims to be' is inserting a POV on the statement since it implies a level of skepticism on the part of the editor. Incidentally the discussion over the top paragraph was whetehr it was beautiful or not, a description I disagreed with myself since it was second order and conflicted with the ritual.ALR 19:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Your confusing publicly avaliable information with private information. It's easy to look up with ATOS KPMG, Triumph, and Cadbury Schweppes are, however since masonic ritual and meetings are closed to the public it is not public information that someone could easially confirm. The published ritual is telling it's readers what it claims freemasonry is, the readers have no way of confirming that beyond trusting the source. Seraphim 19:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Which rather misses the point that the reference contains the ISBN of the ritual, a notification that I put on your talk page as requested some time ago. It is also fairly easy to get hold of ritual books for a number of different ritual forms (Emulation, Taylors, Nigerian etc) where the reference can be confirmed. In that sense the reference is wholy verifiable. Before you make any pronouncement on what the ritual says can I suggest you get a copy. I have copies of several variants, and know emulation virtually off by heart, and your suggestion that I am not faithfully representing the explicit content reflects badly on your motivations in respect to the treatment of any contributions and provides some illumination of your motivations with respect to editors who have chosen to make explicit their affiliations in order to ensure a balanced and fair treatment of the topic.ALR 21:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, that reporter from the Guardian, who is not a Mason, quoted the same phrase. The quote appears in other books, which are even more easily publically available than, say, ordering Emulation Ritual from Amazon? But, if you still want to claim it as private, we can get the same quote without using a ritual source. Also -- "Having no choice but to trust a source"? You'll trust a corporate source, but not an organizational one? They're both readily accessible, as we have long debated. Or is this a wider philosophical issue, from which we are to conclude that we should not bother reading or writing anything, because by your argument, nothing can be trusted? One has to trust the dictionary to be correct, too; you can't pick and choose what to trust and what not to trust and then apply your preference to everyone. You still display a marked lack of understanding, and you seem to interpret things only as they fit your arguments, and ignore things otherwise. The result is that we have not one single shred of concrete evidence to back up any of your complaints. You either really don't get it, or you're purposely trying to argue in circles. I don't care which it is, but it's got to stop either way. You're either going to have to start listening to what is being said and be constructive, or simply leave the article be. I'm really starting to wonder if it's an accident that if it's not an LB sock complaining, it's you complaining; AGF only works when some constructive is being done. MSJapan 21:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm just going to state some facts here, stuff that you (meaning alr/msjapan) have pointed out to me on the jahbulon article. Fact: Ritual changes between groups so any ritual content made public can only be applied to that specific jurisdiction not freemasonry as a whole. (This was used to make sure the jurisdiction that duncan's talked about was not confused with freemasonry as a whole, and that ALR kept insisting made the UGLE claim that freemasonry is not a religion unrelated to the article) Fact: Published Ritual is Obsfucated (this was used a few times to prevent me from using ritual books as verifiable sources) Fact: The freemasonry "secrets" include much of the ritual so the upcoming masons aren't "spoiled" (this was in the article for a long time and was pointed out to me over and over and over in the first discussion I ever entered here) If masonic ritual is kept secret, ritual changes between jurisdictions, and published ritual is obsfucated how can any blanket description of freemasonry that is always sourced back to the same place (remember they are all quoting the same person much like all those other publications use mackey as a source for jahbulon) be considered fact? It isn't it's unverifiable, it is a claim that must be presented as such. It seems like a common tactic that is forming is that you are trying to turn my insistance on NPOV into me being stubborn or unwilling to compromise, that is not the case at all, if there is a blatant violation no matter how much you complain or slander me it doesn't change the fact that it's a NPOV violation which must be addressed. NPOV is NOT negotiable. Bash me all you want, but your not going to beable to file an arbcom case against me because I'm not an obsessive anti-mason, heck 1/2 of the mediation request on jahbulon is me trying to include a pro-masonry factoid. If you haven't learned by now i'm here to stay, you can't just slander me and hope I go away like you have with other editors in the past. I'm here to make sure that this article is up to wikipedia standards and every single thing I do has policy backing it. The WP NPOV page clearly states that if a statement could be considered biased it should be re-worded to a more NPOV version. There is nothing wrong with stating that the quote comes from masonic ritual, that is where it comes from and that is what the reference is. It's not something false being added into the article, it's not something unverifiable being added into the article, it's a verifiable fact. The only reason to remove it that I can think of is that somehow you feel that pointing out that the source is masonic changes the content, which implies that you want the reader to believe that it is a fact instead of an observation. That is the absolute defination of POV pushing. Accuse me of whatever you want, I don't care, nothing will stick and you will just end up with egg on your faces. Seraphim 22:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, you are misrepresenting the argument spresented to you elsewhere, yet again. That rather strengthens the impression that your not acting in good faith. Particularly given our extant agreement to wait for mediation in a different article which is not Masonic. However one point with regard to ritual, elements are obfuscated however large portions are presented in plain text, which rather supports the argument that only the recognitions are private. The subtelety, which was made clear at the time the statement was made, has been missed in your comments above. If you choose to interpret an understanding of Masonry and a desire to produce a meaningful, fair and representative series of articles on Masonry and subjects which influence and are influenced by Masonry as trying to present your intransigence in a bad light then I'm sorry you choose to feel that way. I would suggest that your position tends not to treat sources as equal, tending to denigrate the contributions of self declared informed editors as some way lesser than others. Indeed I noted a comment of someon elses today which might be construed as being a slight on the integrity of those editors who acknowledge their expertise on the topic. Nobody is suggesting that there should be an arbcom case however personally I no longer view your contribution (for want of a better description) as being in good faith. With reference to the statement which prompted this discussion, the wording you suggested was clearly NPOV because it indicated skepticism.ALR 22:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I have one question. Why does saying "Freemasons often describe the fraternity as a System of Morality...." cause you to get all upset, yet saying "Freemasonry is described in ritual as a System" doesn't? Seraphim 22:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
That's not your wording, thats BBs.ALR 23:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
It's the same meaning. He simply changed "Freemasonry has been described by masons" to "Freemasons often describe the fraternity". Lets do some simple word shuffling. Lets change the word "Freemasonry" in mine to say "the fraternity" (they are interchangable) and lets change the word "masons" in mine to the word "freemasons" (they are interchangable) so now mine says "The fraternity has been described by freemasons" which when you flip it over says "Freemasons have described the fraternity" and then he changed have to often which is just semantics. It is the same exact meaning yet because I added it you automatically had a hissy fit. Who is the biased editor now? Seraphim 23:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Once again you are less than honest. Your wording was 'Freemasonry is described by masons', different words might literally mean the same thing but they carry different emotional and perceptual strengths. In that sense the excess caveating around the statement serves to minimise the import of the phrasing and indeed is highlighted as weasel wording in the guidance that you are so fond of quoting. Words mean things however words can be used in various ways to strengthen or weaken a satement, your wording seeks to throw doubt on the integrity of the statement, mine and Blueboars wording sought a level of neutrality.ALR 23:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
What??? Hello Damage Control, how is "freemasonry is described by masons" in any way shape or form more POV pushing then "Freemasons have described the fraternity" it simply isn't, both point out that masons are describing freemasonry. And don't say "mine and Blueboars" wording, you changed it to "Freemasonry is ...". Plus since i've left up blueboars wording and even complimented him on his talk page, and you claim that you helped come up with that wording, would make your comments that i'm never willing to compromize flat out lies, since if that is infact your wording that I have agreed with (which it isn't it's blueboars) it would be a compromise. Seraphim 23:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I've just read through a lot of comments here, and thought I would add my two cents: Seraphim's wording seems quite reasonable, and I can't detect any negativity or connotation of skepticism in it. It indicates clearly why the wording used is so strange ("system of morality veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbol" is pretty odd by normal English standards). The problem otherwise is that the article looks like it's been written by Freemasons, using their peculiar language, which gives the uncomfortable feeling that you're only getting their point of view. Basically the article will read more authoritatively if doesn't sound like the voice of Freemasonry, but rather like the voice of an independent third party.
I also, as an outsider to this debate, see nothing to make me think that Seraphim is being dishonest or has any hidden agenda. I haven't been party to any other debates you might have had, but her arguments here
seem quite valid. Fuzzypeg 23:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
My position is that I don't think the statement needs caveating at all. Freemasonry is a 'system of morality, veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbol' . In fact if you went to the source rather than persisting in nitpicking and seeking to reduce brevity of communication then you'd find that the source does not say Beautiful. I've already said that I wasn't happy with that use previously and you seem to choose to ignore that statement. I would suggest that the only reason you left it as Blueboar suggested is because you could reasonably be caught out on 3RR had you not. Borderline and it could be argued either way, but I suspect it's a risk you recognised and chose not to take. Anyway I fail to see how the statement can be seen as POV pushing. Freemasonry is a System of Morality in that the ritual content contains moral lessons. Fact. Freemasonry is veiled in allegory in that the ritual uses allegorical vehicles to communicate the content. Fact. The broad use of symbols illustrates the messages conteained in the ritual. Fact. There si nothing to debate and no reason for the statement to carry caveats.ALR 07:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
As was noted before when this came up, Freemasonry is not "described by some Masons in this way" - it is described as such in a well-known (some might dispute major) ritual branch, and thereby is known to hundreds of years worth of English Masons (at the very least; it is used outside of the UK as well). This is obviously not a small group by any stretch of the imagination. This makes Emulation authoritative wherever it is used. Ritual may differ depending on jurisdiction (or it may not; this is due to the lack of a central authority), but no one Mason can change ritual, and this particular item I'm sure will never change. Therefore, to then ascribe the quote to "some Freemasons", or even just "Freemasons" personifies (and thereby subjectifies) and limits something which is not personifiable, limitable, and certainly not subjective. The statement is thereby misrepresented - it is of the same caliber as a GL statement would be, not a statement made by one man or one Lodge. The quote, no matter the source, is, was, and always will be a collective statement, not an opinion. As a statement, NPOV does not apply to this quote. Therefore, the so-called "NPOV wording" is wrong, and the reason this is persisting is because the person espousing the opinion would rather fit statements to preconceived ideas, rather than fitting ideas to statements. MSJapan 00:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The line was written by a freemason, he described what he believe freemasonry is. It is not fact. I suggest you look at WP:NPOV under bias. The original writer obviously was a very "hardcore" mason if he was writing a ritual book. Pointing out that it is an observation made by a freemason about freemasonry is not POV pushing, trying to supress that information is. You are trying to present the quote as a statement, which is incorrect, it is an observation, infact the complete quote calls it "beautiful". You are trying to present opinion as fact which is incorrect. Just because alot of people hold the same opinion doesn't make it a fact, it isn't a "collective statement" it's a "collective opinion". For example, Pope Clement XII said that "because the scope and object of Masonry are "wicked" and condemnable". The roman catholic church has over a billion members (appx 1,085,557,000) who all believe that the pope's word is dogmatic law. That means that at one point all of the roman catholic church believed that "the scope and object of masonry [is] "wicked" and "condemnable"" does that mean that all of asudden because so many people believed it that it is a fact? Should we add into the article that "the scope and object of masonry [is] "wicked" and "condemnable""? Of course we shouldn't because it is an opinion. If you change the wording to say "is" your making an unverifiable claim. It's a widely held opinion, nothing more. Seraphim 00:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Mistake 1: It was most likely not written by "a" Freemason, but rather a group. Mistake 2: The quote's existence in established ritual makes it a valid fact, the same way you say that claims are valid because they are made, and the background is irrelevant. Mistake 3: An observation is made by a third party, so this is not an observation, but rather a statement, as presented. Mistake 4: ritual is not "an observation made about Freemasonry by a Freemason"; it is the foundation of the whole group. Furthermore, I would bet that the quote in the ritual reads "is", which would indeed make it correct.
You've definitely got a conceptual problem with the entirety of Freemasonry, because you are still consistently backing up your arguments with incorrect statements. You're also making a disprovable and irrelevant statement about the Church here; if there are Catholics who are Masons (and there are), then the dogma is not universally held belief, and for you to claim otherwise is erroneous, as it is an easily disprovable statement. OTOH, I don't think you would find a Mason who would disagree with the Emulation quote. So I fail to see how it is not a fact or statement. You also can't claim ritual as a biased source, because it's not; it's a fundamental text. If you refuse to take it as it is, then there's no point in writing this article, because nothing in it is valid if you discount the original text. I don't care who wrote what expose, the fact is it all came from some branch of ritual.
Further note: Catholic dogma, BTW, is ostensibly written by one man (the Pope), and is therefore one man's opinion based on his interpretation of religious law. Freemasonry is at the very least a group effort. So, you're trying to compare apples and oranges. Also, why do you always sidetrack every discussion into a different unrelated argument? Catholic dogma has nothing to do with the current discussion at any level whatsoever. Lastly, do you have any other way of proving your argument without resorting to rhetoric and semantics? I still don't see any solid evidence other than your interpretation of meanings of words and policies (which are wrong) couched in tangential and/or incorrect statements and assumptions. MSJapan 07:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Seraphim, I have a question about what you are trying to say... Do you think that there is a contrary view about the statement? In other words, do you think that someone dissagrees, and says that Freemasonry is NOT a "system of morality, veiled in alegory and illustrated by symbol"? I can understand that saying it is a "beautiful" system (or even the more common "peculiar" syestem) might be considered a value judgement and thus POV. But I find nothing POV about the statement if you cut the adjective. Does it not, at that point, become a statment of simple NPOV fact? Where is the POV? Blueboar 15:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I absolutely believe that someone might disagree with the statement. First off freemasonry is not a single homogenous movement, nobody speaks for all of freemasonry, and different groups of freemasons can have radically different practices. For example some groups allow females to join, others don't require you to believe in a god, some allow just about anyone to join. There is no "proper" freemasonry (this article is UGLE and GDoF centric but that should be fixed eventually). Ritual changes between jurisdictions so the masonry that someone in London might learn could be completly different then the masonry I would learn in a local OES chapter. It's impossible to make a blanket statement about the contents of masonic ritual as is being done here, it's simply impossible to verify as truth. Now about the actuall quote itself: "a system of morality, veiled in alegory and illustrated by symbol". This assumes that all masonic jurisdictions use the alegorical ritual and symbolism to teach their lessons to their member masons. This is not the case. In MA where I live the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts your allowed to become a EA with a 1 day crash course in freemasonry, and they don't require people to study ritual "Not everyone will want to learn the ancient ritual – as it takes great time and study – but those Masons who chose to learn it are rewarded with the satisfaction of upholding a powerful tradition and helping their fellow brothers further their Masonic understanding.". The ritual is where the alegory comes in, giving masons crash courses in masonry is hardly alegorical. On top of that (please note this part is not my stance at all i'm just stating facts) many many many people and groups have challenged that masonry is a system of morality, I don't think I need to go into the details on it a quick look at the anti-masonry article which will outline that for you. So yes, alot of people do disagree with the opinion presented in the article that freemasonry is a "system of morality veiled in alegory and illustrated by symbol". What makes the statement not a simple NPOV fact is that some people do disagree with it, and it isn't true for all freemasonic jurisdictions. It is a statement that a group of freemasons put in their ritual to describe the group to other freemasons(since it's in some ritual). Just because it's in some jurisdiction's ritual does not make it fact, it is still the original authors' interpertation of what the freemasonry that they practiced was. Seraphim 17:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'll bite. First off I'll agree that the article needs some development, many of the references are from UGLE, equally many are from a book written by an American Mason. There also needs to be a more rigorous discussion of regularity and the issue of androgynous and feminine Freemasonry. However progress in improving the article is being significantly impeded by the regular visits by Lightbringer which is unfortunate. Notwithstanding that, can I be first to highlight just how flawed your understanding of Masonry is in general :)
You will not learn about Freemasonry in OES, that fact has been pointed out in this page, on your own talk page and can be clearly derived from the OES article itself.
One day classes are an abomination and should not be allowed. That is my view, UGLE dispenses with the bit about them being an abomination. However just because the process does not take every candidate through the ritual individually does not mean that allegory and symbol are not used, just that the initiate observes rather than experiences. One learns the ritual to be able to understand it and to communicate it to others. Some may feel that they do not wish to learn it but extend their masonic researches in other directions. The 'one day class' structure does not generate the demand for brethren who have learned the ritual that the more individual approach does, that does not mean that the ritual allegory and symbol is not used. You might actually want to toddle off and understand what allegory means before pronouncing on whether it's used in ritual or not. You may also want to check your facts about what the one day class allows one to become, because here in England one becomes an EA after about a 3 hour participatory ritual, which is a little less than a one day crash course.
A system of morality, hmm. Get hold of the reference and then try to disagree with what it says. I'll acknowledge that at times some may not capitalise on the lessons contained within the ritual however that is not the fault of the vehicle but the individual. A comparison might be Doctors who have taken the Hippocratic oath yet take some action in contravention of it; is it the fault of the oath? Your argument would suggest that it is.
I'll articulate issues around ritual differences, yet again, since you seem to have difficulty with the many previous articulations: The general direction of Masonic ritual is common across Regular Masonry as recognised by UGLE, it is also common in much irregular Masonry viz The elucidation of lessons of a moral nature using allegorical methods and symbolic representation of the various principles embodied in the ritual. Within that general thread there are commonalities; three degrees; the Hiramic Allegory; the seven Liberal Arts and Sciences; moral conduct with ones fellow creatures and the development of ones relationship with the Supreme Being to which one owes an allegiance. Detail within the ritual varies however some statements can be made with respect to what Freemasonry is in a universal sense, since otherwise it would not be Freemasonry. There are elements within that which are considered private and the extent of that privacy varies according to the Jurisdiction which controls and governs the ritual. Some of that which is private does vary in terms of detail.
Please bear in mind that I'm continuing to humour you despite your lack of substantive contribution across this topic.ALR 18:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Your continuing to dance around my key point. Freemasonry is NOT only the jurisdictions that are percieved by UGLE to be "regular". It is Impossible for anyone to make any claims that speak for all of freemasonry. This is a situation where a group of masons wrote something in ritual and now your trying to claim that they are able to speak for freemasonry as a whole. They cannot. Freemasonry is not only "regular masonry as recognised by UGLE". And by the way, stop with the "I'm continuing to humour you despite your lack of substantive contribution across this topic" statements. Seraphim 18:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
and I would contend that you're continuing to dance around the real point. There are several key components of Freemasonry Whether it is regular or not without which something could not be described as Masonry. Given the active dialogue between Masonic bodies in the research field, regardless of their regularity, there is a clear understanding of the commonalities and differences. The point about regularity may become clearer when there is an opportunity to insert a section on it. You once again reflect back to me exactly what I've said many times before about FM being more than just UGLE. Indeed you may not be aware that many HFAF lodges use UGLE emulation ritual. And as to your last point, is there an issue with continuing to state that I don't believe that you're acting in good faith for the benefit of the article?ALR 18:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
You can believe whatever you want about me, it's not going to hurt my feelings. It doesn't change the fact that your attempting to change a small group's opinion into a fact. If you feel i'm not acting in good faith file an RFC against me. Don't keep personally attacking me. Seraphim 18:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
It's not an attack. It's a statement of my position, it is useful and beneficial to be completely open and honest about issues which are influencing my perspective at present and unhealthy to keep the position concealed. I note that you haven't actually responded to the substantive points in my most recent discussion, which is illuminating.ALR 18:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Seraphim... I am going to have to disagree with a lot of your statements. No matter what ritual is used, or how rushed it is... Freemasonry is still a "system of Morality, veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbol". Even in a one day class, the candidate is rushed through a ritual that uses allegory and symbol to teach freemasonry's moral lessons. In fact, EVERY form of Freemasonry, regular or irregular, from UGLE to GOdF... even related side organizations such as OES or Rainbow Girls uses some form of allegorical ritual and symbol to teach moral lessons. The lessons may be different... the ritual may be different, but the statement still holds true.
Dispite your disclaimer, I suspect that your real problem is with the word "Morality"... but even here, you have to admit the statement as fact... Some critics may feel that what we say is a moral thing to do is not in fact moral... but that is their POV and does not make the statement false. Our system of morality may not be correct in some people's view... but it is most definitely a system of morality.
Let me take the statement a phrase at a time: 1) Freemasonry is a system of morality in that it teaches some form of moral lessons, whether you agree with those lessons or not 2) It uses allegory to teach these lessons. 3) It uses symbols to illustrate those lessons. Which of these sub-statements do you disagree with? Blueboar 19:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Your point on the morality comment is correct, It didn't click in my head that the anti-masonic groups claiming that it is immoral are still claiming that it is a system of morality. I'll concede that point, however it really wasn't my main objection anyway. Your explanation actually explains partially my point. By making the statement "Freemasonry is ..." that means that it's true for all freemasonic jurisdictions. The Grand Lodge of Massachusettes does not require people to study ritual (which is where the allegorical stories are) instead they just teach the different lessons, therefore the statement "fact, EVERY form of Freemasonry, regular or irregular, from UGLE to GOdF... even related side organizations such as OES or Rainbow Girls uses some form of allegorical ritual and symbol to teach moral lessons." is not true because there is an exception (i'm sure there are more groups that have broken off from the historical methods, but the GL of MA is the only one i've looked at since I saw their commercials on tv :P). Instead of saying "Freemasonry is" it needs to be made clear that it's not a blanket statement that covers all freemasonry, just the vast majority. I can't think of any wording for it, the word "most" seems too weak, same with "majority", but the fact that even 1 group doesn't require people to learn through allegory makes the statement "Freemasonry is" invalid. Seraphim 20:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The Grand Lodge of Massachusettes does not require people to study ritual (which is where the allegorical stories are) instead they just teach the different lessons Just what are you basing this on? A commercial? Can you give the exact citation, as in a direct quote? I ask because I know people who created the commercial, and I also happen to be an officer in a MA Lodge, and the "teach the different lesson" is done VIA RITUAL. Also, UGLE isn't the only place where Emulation Ritual is used, it is used by quite a number of GL's in the world. But, of course, my comment regarding the fact that MA still uses the rituals, which include allegorical stories, is going to be put down by you as original research. Fact: the GL of MA has not stopped using symbols, allegory, and ritual to teach candidates for freemasonry.--Vidkun 20:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
It says on their website that not everyone is required to learn the ritual. Go to their askafreemason website and then go to the FAQ's section 11. It makes it very clear that not all masons must learn the ritual. I am not making this up. Seraphim 19:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the difficulty here is that you fail to recognise the difference between seeing and participating in ritual, and learning it after having been through the experience. To become a Mason one must undergo the ritual experience, whether as a spectator as in the one day class model or as a participant as in every other model. Now I don't know whether this is a wilful misinterpretation or not but the discussion has gone round in circles for some time and should be clear by now.ALR 19:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
No, you aren't making it up, here is what it says, and sure as HECK doesn't mean you are trying to suggest it does: " 11) What is Masonic "ritual?" The nature of Masonic ritual is both complex and beautiful. "Ritual" is actually a recitation of certain tenets and truths that have been passed down for generations – mostly from mouth to ear. This "Ritual" takes the form of lectures and theater in the Lodge, and is used to teach new Masons the value of truth and the necessity of helping those in need. Not everyone will want to learn the ancient ritual – as it takes great time and study – but those Masons who chose to learn it are rewarded with the satisfaction of upholding a powerful tradition and helping their fellow brothers further their Masonic understanding." Right, they don't have to learn the ritual, but they still have to participate in it. Just like not every Catholic needs to learn the Mass (that is, how to perform it, ALL of the words to be said etc) but will participate in it. Face it on this one point: you do NOT know what the heck you are talking about. It never says, ANYWHERE on that webpage that candidates do not have to participate in ritual.--Vidkun 01:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Note to Anti-Masons: Just because Vidkun used an analogy to the Catholic Mass in discribing the ritual of Freemasonry, please do NOT start thinking that we consider our ritual to be a Masonic form of the Mass... It isn't and we don't. Once again: Freemasonry is NOT a religion or a substitute for a religion. (sorry, but it needed to be said) Blueboar 02:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of ritual - part 2

The topic was getting a bit long and difficult to scroll down... so I am continuing it here.

Seraphim, I think you have misunderstood the commercials for the GLMA... Even in a one day class, the candidates sit and watch the ritual. The "no studying" part is a waver of having to memorize and recite questions and answers about that ritual before advancing to the next degree. It is sort of like attending a college class, but not sitting down and taking the exams. The material is presented, there is just no way to be sure that the student fully understands it. Nevertheless, the System of morality, the allegory and the symbolism ARE indeed presented to the candidate. So, again... which phrase of the statement do you consider not to be factual? Blueboar 20:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, the one day class is not a mandatory way of joining. In fact, it is a very controversial, and possibly not long for this world, bandage to slap on the wound of losing members though death and other forms of attrition. The GL still has many Lodges who do standard one night per degree rituals, and some which are moving towards requiring more than one month between degrees. But, yes, the candidates still see the ritual. Looks like I am going to have ANOTHER sit down with a GL officer about how stupidly worded the commericals are, if they can be interpretted the way Seraphim has.--Vidkun 20:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
So... just to hammer the point home, when Seraphim says "it needs to be made clear that it's not a blanket statement that covers all freemasonry" she is incorrect. Instead, it needs to be made clear that it IS a blanket statment that covers all of Freemasonry. Freemasonry is a system of morality. It is veiled in allegory. It is illustrated by symbols. This statement applies to ALL forms and branches of Freemasonry. In short the statement is fact. Now, I am perfectly happy to leave the wording as... "Freemasons often refer to the fraternity as...." for that is a true statement. But so was "Fremasonry is ...." The insistance on the change was overly petty. Blueboar 21:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's that bad - it's a case of having an idea in mind before seeing the evidence, and making the evidence fit the idea. There is no real plausible way to jump from "no memorization is required" (or whatever it is) to "we don't use ritual in One Day Classes" unless one has it set in one's head that that is what it means. However, having seen DeMolay and Rainbow material, I think it is more than fair to say that all these related systems teach morals in some way shape or form. A system that doesn't probably isn't really considered Masonry. MSJapan 21:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Principles and activities

This is "my" edit:

Both 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica and Catholic 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia agree that Freemasonry, according to the official English, Scottish, American, etc., Craft rituals, is most generally defined: A peculiar (some say particular or beautiful) system of morality veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols. (ref) http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09771a.htm 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia.(1911 Encyclopædia Britannica agrees)(/ref) The continued use of this definition is illustrated in the example of the 1991 printing of the English Emulation Ritual (ref)Emulation Ritual ISBN 0 85318 187 X pub 1991, London(/ref)

As such Freemasonry uses ritual to convey the principles of "Brotherly Love, Relief and Truth" - otherwise related, as in France: "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity".(ref) Freemasons for Dummies, by Christopher Hodapp, Wiley Publishing Inc., Indianapolis, 2005, p.783, sec. "Masons marked for life" (/ref).

The above edit should put this issue to bed for any reasonable editor(s)? (Although I do not like quotes from rituals in use, I've left the ref.). Imacomp 21:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a very verbose way of saying Freemasonry is...... by all means add them as references.ALR 21:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
It's also not as concise or succinct as the other statement, but if it'll solve the issue, we might as well use it. MSJapan 22:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


The snag with verbose content is it that it's vulnerable to the accusation that it's hiding something, particularly with the current insistence on wiki-lawyering. Brevity helps avoid that suggestion.ALR 22:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
That is an almost direct quote, and covers all the bases. It is not realy my work, just "my" edit. Nit picking at me for doing the work is of no use (and I use this to all editors), since the work stands on its own, and should be left as such. Read both the 1911 EB and 1913 CE articles on the web, for a check. For "very verbose" read Accademic - as in encyclopaediae (ias) Imacomp 22:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
"The snag with verbose content". Well tell them to build a time machine and tell it to the editors of the "sources", because as I said if you trace the section back it is an almost, wikified cited ref to 1913 Catholic ecnyclopedia in particular (as the 1911 EB is less "encyclopedic" there). "Endex". Imacomp 22:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

That works for me. Seraphim 19:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 22:12, 15 March 2006 Gabbe m (readd duplication reduction by me)

Anyway what about the "new" editor cliping out citations and refs? Should they be put back? Imacomp 22:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't really understand, you're saying that you actually prefer a dozen references to the same thing web address labeled as 12 separate references? The only difference I made was that references to the same thing were labeled as one and the same recuring reference. I never removed any information or reference as such from the article. —Gabbe 23:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Thats how they all like it, except for those who say not here. Silence is read as keep status quo here. Imacomp 23:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
That makes no sense. It was a purely stylistic edit, no information was removed from the article, I don't see how there could be anything controversial with my edit. —Gabbe 23:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, not my idea (head butting). See your/my talk page, as of now. Imacomp 00:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Imacomp, I am not sure I follow what your argument is about... I do not see how Gabbe's changes have actually changed anything other than having one citation where there used to be many. That said, I freely admit that may have missed something... so please explain. Gabbe... this page IS controvercial, and has been recently been the subject of repeated attacks by POV agenda pushers. Thus all the regular editors are very leary of any change at the moment. Please discuss what you intend to do and why ... to ease our fears. Blueboar 04:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

tbh I don't see what the issue is here, the changes improve the information content of the document by reducing redundancy. and damned if I know where this de-facto standard is coming from? Sounds a little like the 'baselining' initiative at the top of this talk page, ie noise that gets in the way of useful editing.ALR 18:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Additions to Freemasonry Page

I feel the following proposed additions to the Freemasonry page have not been adequately discussed. I feel they would be an excellent and informative well referenced addition to the page.40 Days of Lent 12:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Note: These "proposed changes" have been discussed to DEATH... (See archives ... multiple archives). Posting this material again (I think this is the 4th time) is nothing but vandalism by a sock puppet of a POV agenda bashing user who has been banned from editing any article related to Freemasonry. Just ignore until he is blocked and then we can delete the vandalism. Blueboar 15:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I'll second that suggestion Blueboar. WegianWarrior 15:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Concur, maybe if we ignore him he'll go away. Admittedly that's never worked on af :) ALR 18:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't think he will just go away. My point was to leave this here as evidence of his MO. I have already asked for a user check... hopefully it will show his sockness. Of course, he will be right back again under a new sock ... and he will probably just revert the page and bring this all back (or post it again under a new sock name). But each time he does, it will be more and more clear to the admins that he is interested in nothing but vandalism hidden in "content dispute" trappings. Blueboar 19:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)




[edit] The Morgan Affair

Main article: William Morgan (anti-Mason)


[edit] 40 Days Sock Off

Here we go again... the exact same "proposed" additions that were "proposed" by Lightbringer/Basil Rathbone/Humanum Genus/your favorite sock name here. Same material, same MO. The sooner this POV agenda pushing puppet is proven for what he is, and blocked, the better. Blueboar 13:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh... by the way... while we could simply delete his vandalism, I would suggest that we leave it for now - as evidence for the Admins. We can delete it once he has been blocked. Blueboar 14:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


Yeup had to deal with an idiot on another page before, you have to leave up the junk untill the admin bans them, then you can remove it. Seraphim 19:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
40 Days, if you are going to enter these citations for a book you should give the date, publication details and page numbers. If necesary you should also enter the quotation. If posible it will be preferable to point to a website. JASpencer 20:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism removed. Admins can read the History page. Imacomp 21:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Dear Admins "21:23, 16 March 2006 Computerjoe" was the last edit to show all the "Lighbringer vandalism", before I removed it for you. Imacomp 21:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Dear Admins. The (permo-blocked) Lightbringer sock 40 Days of Lent added his rejected "Vandalism" again. I thus Rv. this page back to 01:26, 17 March 2006 MSJapan (→New Section). Thank you for you time. Imacomp 13:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Patience is a virtue... check-user result
Proven to be a sock of a sock... all leading back to Lightbringer. The good guys win another battle... unfortunately, I know he will be back under an new name soon. Blueboar 19:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I notice he isn't (yet) blocked for infinity. Has anybody notified an admin? I don't think a positive checkuser automaticly results in a bannination. WegianWarrior 22:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Have asked William Connolley to look into it. Blueboar 22:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You

I'm not sure if this is the correct forum to say this, but I am grateful to all who are responsible for the information contained in this article as well as the all of the opposing opinions that have gone into the editing of the article. I was simply curious about Freemasons and I came across a gem of an article. I realize the sometimes controversial nature of the Freemasons and am suprised how much information you have all provided. Thanks again for your efforts. Tim mrvanh@yahoo.com

[edit] Mass Deletion

Should everything that 40Days has put in be deleted or simply put into seperate archive pages? JASpencer 14:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Why not burn it and put on "St Morgan"'s shrine? (next to the urinal?) Imacomp 19:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

All of it is already in TWO of the Archive pages... why clutter up yet another. His posting it yeet again was simply vandalism pretending to be suggested content. Blueboar 17:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a reference to the archive pages then? I don't like removing talk even from blocked users, it smacks of censorship. I'd feel the same way about taking out Imacomp's Talk contributions if he ever gets blocked. JASpencer 19:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
After thinking about this, I would prefer a reference to the Archives to anything else, but if the reference can't be given then the contributions should be restored. Similarly contributions that are not in previous archives should not be deleted at all. I'm basing my view on this policy in WP:VAND:
Talk page vandalism
Deleting the comments of other users from article Talk pages, or deleting entire sections thereof, is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long Talk page to a separate file and then remove the text from the main Talk page. The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where users generally are permitted to remove outside comments at their discretion, except in cases of warnings, which they are prohibited from removing.
The presumption is that Talk Page content should never be removed, although archiving content is fine and removing personal attacks may be OK. There may be an over-riding policy somewhere, especially in relation to banned users - but this should not be assumed. If it is duplicate text that is already in the archive then I'd not have a problem with it merely being referenced in the current talk page. However I am not satisfied with simple deletion, unless the censorship is explicitely endorsed in a Wikipedia policy.
For reference the deletions were here. JASpencer 22:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying... and it does give me pause. I do not like censorship either. With the various Lightbriner socks, however, I think it may be justified. He has posted the same LONG section of "proposed" edits over and over and over again under various sock names. The first few times he "proposed" this material, we took it seriously and responded... in depth... to his suggestions. We pointed out where he had his facts wrong, cited respected references to counter what he proposed, and basicly demonstrated why his edits were not acceptable. We went through all this at least twice. It is obvious that he is not really making "proposed" edits anymore... instead he is simply trying to get "his" material onto any new talk page that we make. Keep in mind that each of these socks had eventually been indefinitely blocked for his disruption to the Article and its editors. This is a user that arbitration ruled should not be posting ANY Freemasonry related page. PERIOD. In short, I feel that what he is doing constitutes vandalism. As such, I have no problems cencoring him. We may need some form of official arbitration ruling on this... something we can point to and say: Material deleted as per (link to ruling), and then move on. Blueboar 22:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Well this seems to go against Wikipedia policy on Talk Page Vandalism, so it's not just about personal feelings on censorship (although that is where it started up). As I said unless he's making any new points I would be perfectly prepared to have a simple reference to where any duplicate material could be found on the archives. This would avoid an arbitration report. Try to think about it this way, if Imacomp gets banned as a sock, would you be happy for the precedent to be set that all his Talk Page entries get deleted? JASpencer 23:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
If Imacomp, or anyone else, were permanantly banned from editing any page relating to Freemasonry, and yet still returned to post the same material over and over again... then yes, that material would eventualy become nothing but vandalism and could be deleted.
Please note that I am not saying that every word written by this sock should be deleted... If he came and made new accusations or new "suggested material" I would leave it... I would delete just the repetitious and gratuitous material. The ruling I would look for from Arbitration would be that this specific material, written in this specific manner (allowing for minor changes designed to evade the ruling), and posted by this particular user (or a proven sock of the same) be considered pure vandalism and may be deleted if posted. Blueboar 23:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
We're not deleting all his entries, only the ones that were already discussed and continue to be reposted out of spite. Plenty of objective factual evidence was given to contest his claims, and basically, what the repeated postings fall under is not nonconformity to "Talk page vandalism" per se, but rather WP:POINT or WP:NOT, which are a little more overarching, I think. In short, because LB believes Masonry is Satanic, etc., he thinks he is getting the "true word" out by dumping said material on the talk page, in spite of the fact that there is plenty of proof that says otherwise. He never discussed those edits or had any intention of discussing those edits. They take up a good chunk of the talk page, too, which is disruptive to the talk page. So, the rest of his stuff can stay, but this particular repost should not. This is a lot motre than an issue of simple censorship.
Free speech (which is really what's at issue here) is a right that only applies when used responsibly. Once someone else's rights are violated as a result, that right ends. This is why we have laws against public disorderliness, because you're free to do what you want until you adversely affect someone else. MSJapan 23:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Blueboar and MSJapan, some new comments were deleted, which I take it that we're happy to reinstate. I'll do that later. Could one of you post a friendly warning on Imacomp's page on deleting new material even from proven banned users? He may will take it better from one of you rather than me. JASpencer 23:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
MSJapan we've moved beyond the philisophical point about censorship and are now looking at the policy on deletions from Talk Pages, which seem quite clear - don't. If you can find a policy over-riding this then fine. I am prepared to compromise by a simple pointing to material on the archive in the current talk page. JASpencer 23:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
JASpencer. Why is my avatar being specifically discussed, above, in a “what if he was blocked” scenario, when the discussion is about the rubbish continuously re-inserted by “Lightbringer” in acts of vandalism? You once wrote that “lightbringer” is a Catholic version of “Me”, you are obsessed with trying to get me blocked, and you are somewhat of an apologist for “Lightbringer”. Try to get over yourself, so as to stop wasting our time. Imacomp 10:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I can assure you Imacomp, when I say that Lightbringer is a mirror image of you it was not meant as a compliment towards him. Quite the reverse. And no, I am not obsessed with having you blocked. JASpencer 15:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
So, JASpencer, why did you tag my Home page with a sock tag, after my last post above? (I removed it, and will do so any time that you replace it). You actually define word word obsessed. WP:DICK. Imacomp 18:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US Roman Catholic View

I've put a POV-Section on this as the quote is in my opinion taken out of context, making Freemasonry seemingly acceptable for American Catholics in a letter that actually said the opposite. JASpencer 17:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:DICK So what? A Roman Catholic Cardinal defines his view, in a letter about Freemasonry, and you say this is POV against His Church. Huh????????? Imacomp 18:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Did anyone actually see the new Pope's election? (That is "Pope" JASpencer I) Vatican III should make intertesting reading? Imacomp 19:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Freemasonry is ecceptable for American, and other, Roman Catholics. Some Clergy seem to have problems with it. Imacomp 22:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The papacy still has a prohabition against joining freemasonry. If someone is a Roman Catholic they follow the pope (That's the "Roman" part). If the pope says something it's not acceptable for some roman catholics and not-acceptable for others. Seraphim 14:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Suspect there's a wording issue there. But Many RCs are Masons, I have a number in some of the Lodges I belong to. Indeed lots more in the Rosecrucian orders, which is interesting in its own right.ALR 14:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
No reason given for removal of POV tag, so reinserted. JASpencer 22:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Reinserted again. Please discuss and give reasons for why it's inappropriate. JASpencer 23:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I am also very surprised to find that some people here think that the RCC finds Freemasonry acceptable for Catholics. That is absolutely not the case. The current Pope Benedict XVI as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger made it very clear in "Declaration on Masonic Associations (Quaesitum est)" that "The faithful, who enroll in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion." There can be no disputing that statement. (Simonapro 22:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC))

Well there are some conflicts here. Firstly there are a couple of Catholic Masons around here. Like homosexual Catholics and avowedly atheist Freemasons they exist and we should not be surprised that some of them find their way on to Wikipedia.
Among the non-Catholic Masons here most of them seem to have friends who are both active Freemasons and practicing Catholics - and so there is an element of battling for these conflicted brothers.
Lastly, in some of the areas which combine a liberal hierachy with less anti-clerical lodges - places such as the United State, England & Wales and Germany - there have been quite a few moves on either side to allow Catholics to become Freemasons. All have been squashed by Rome and/or more conservative local elements - but they are notable. (In fact the Ratzinger intervention was one of these squashings of a liberal initiative).
JASpencer 06:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV Fork (Again)

It has been made very obvious that some editors feel that this page is not required to have any anti-masonry content because there is an anti-masonry page. For example in this edit, MSJapan listed as one of the reasons for not including a Freemasonry Watch link "We don't have multiple POV here, as it is handled in separate articles.". This is not allowed in wikipedia articles, all articles must adhere to a Neutral POV not a pro or anti pov. This is a perfect example of a Content Fork. From the top of the Content Fork page "This guideline in a nutshell: Wikipedia articles should not be split into multiple articles solely so each can advocate a different stance on the subject.".

What is being claimed by some editors is that the Anti-Masonry page is linked to as a Main article and is therefore considered an article spinout which is allowed in summary style articles. However what is not adknowledged is that if content is spun out it doesn't get removed entirely, instead a summary that accurately summarizes the content on the spunout page must be replaced. Also in summary style articles editors are not permitted to pick and choose what sections to spin out. From WP:SS "The top or survey article should have general summary information and the more detailed summaries of each subtopic should be in daughter articles and in articles on specific subjects.". It is not ok to spin off all the anti-pov sections, but then still have lengthy sections on things like "history of freemasonry".

With that said I do realize that it is very unlikely this page will be brought into line with the guidelines of WP:SS. However the POV fork must be addressed. I'm not going to make any changes now because I know it will be blanket reverted, so i'm hoping someone will step up in the next few days and makes sure that the content of the anti-masonry page is accurately summarized here, instead of linked to in a section that does not present any anti-masonic content, but is instead about persecution of freemasons, and the masonic responce to common criticisms of freemasonry. There is currently no section in the article that presents an anti-masonic pov, yet the entire article is written as if it could be placed on a Lodge's website under "What is Freemasonry". This needs to be addressed. Seraphim 18:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

"There is currently no section in the article that presents an anti-masonic pov"... huh? What do you call the "Criticism, persecution, and prosecution" section? That definitely discusses the anti-masonic POV. Perhaps it needs more work, but it does discuss it.
And, once again, I am going to disagree with you on the POV fork... I understand that you see the Anti-Masonry page as being a fork, and yes, it did start off that way. But this is no longer true as I see it. I see them as two seperate articles that deal with similar subject matter. This Article is about Freemasonry. That article is about Anti-masonry. They are related but seperate topics.
You bitch and moan a lot about the POV problems you see in this article... but rarely do you make any concrete suggestions as to what exactly you want to change. If you feel something here is too POV, then bring it up and we can work on it. If you have a suggestion as to how something could be worded in a more NPOV manner, then bring it up and we can work on it. If you feel that there is something missing, bring it up and we can rip it to shreds... I mean work on it. :>) Blueboar 20:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Sadly whenever any anti-masonic information is inserted into this article, it's removed with the reason that it belongs on the anti-masonry article. It's impossible to insert any such information untill the editors realize that "We don't have multiple POV here, as it is handled in separate articles." is not acceptable. Seraphim 21:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree Blueboar. The Anti-Masonic lot should not fork around on this article. :) Imacomp 20:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

That is not what I said, Imacomp... Anti-masons may edit this page like anyone else ... as long as their statements are verifiable and properly cited, and as long as they add their comments in a NPOV manner I have no problems with that. The problem is that usually neither happens when an anti-mason posts something. Blueboar 20:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I know you did not say it, but I could not resist "The Anti-Masonic lot should not fork around on this article". They can always make positive posts. :) Imacomp 21:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I think it's a valid point that the article should move more towards a summary style, I'd suggest that the treatment of the Anti-Masonry page has demonstrated that the topic is too big to really capture in a single article. Admittedly working towards a more appropriate treatment of the topic is greatly hampered by thge POV attacks from the Lightbringer sock farm and by the refusal of some editors to work productively and in a collaborative manner towards the optimum structure. Notwithstanding that I'd personally take the view that Summary Style has some weaknesses. Some areas don't have the volume of legitimate content to justify an article in their own right and a pure summary approach doesn't allow them to be treated, in this case the Charity section springs to mind. An important point but limited content, although I'm sure someone might come up with something now that I've said that.ALR 07:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
As far as I remember, the section started as a summary of the (then) anti-freemasonry article when it was branched out a few months back. However, after all the editing, sock-attacks and other things that has been going on, bot the section and the (now) anti-masonry article has evolved. But feel free Seraphim; write up a summary and be bold (ie: place it in the article). Just don't loose any relevant information that is in thesection today that is not in the main anti-masonry article (in fact, be bold and add it there as well). And do remember to bring any references over, or we'll get into yet another cripplefight over citations... WegianWarrior 07:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I'll gladly do it. I just want everyone to be aware that removing it because it's anti-masonic content is inappropriate. Seraphim 13:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
So what you're saying is that you want to add stuff because it's anti-masonic rather than a useful and relevant contribution to the article?ALR 13:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
No it will be added because it's both. Right now this article is the "Pro-Freemasonry" pov article and the anti-masonry article is the "Anti-Masonry" pov article, both must represent both POVs. Seraphim 13:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Now, this is my opinion, and has no basis in any policies or guidelines on Wikipedia, but... If you're not willing to do something yourself to mprove the article, you really shouldn't complain in the first place. As I said, just my personal opinion. Your milage may vary, off course. On the other hand, and this too is my personal opinion, if you're willing to do something, why not just do it and then explain your edits after the fact. I'm sure no one (with one or two exceptions, sadly) would disagree with a NPOV summary of the Anti-Masonry article, provided no verified info was lost from this article. WegianWarrior 14:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Nowhere did I say I wouldn't do it. I just posted it here first for discussion incase someone else wanted to do it first. Since if I simply just post the changes before having any discussion it will get outright reverted by the editors that believe that this is the "Pro-Freemasonry" article. Seraphim 14:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I note that you have ignored my point previously made, the topic is too big for a single article to treat it adequately. It is more appropriate to cascade a number of child articles out from a parent. The portfolio of articles needs to present a balanced and comprehensive coverage of the topic. Notwithstanding that a number of areas in the current article don't in themselves justify a child. That leads to the requirement for a hybrid article as parent with a number of child articles cascaded as required to present that balanced overarching NPOV treatment. Of course it would be cynical of me to suggest that is not what you're interested in promoting.ALR 14:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
It was noted. There are only 2 options, a long article, or summary style. If a section doesn't have enough information that's fine since it is already a summary. Seraphim 14:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm only going to make one comment on this issue, and that is that one again a false premise has been used as the basis of an argument. It is very interesting that Seraphim pulled out one comment I made on the Talk page regarding usage of FMW, and decided that that was what made a content fork. What that comment really was was a response to explain why we should not use FMW as a link. The reason we do not have multiple POV here as I stated is because it has been clearly demonstrated that it is functionally impossible to do so and stay anywhere mear the article length limits. So it is not a content fork at all; it is a necessary division to allow the subtopics to be covered in the depth they require, not an attempt to separate POV for the sake of separating POV. MSJapan 15:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Whilst I'd generally agree that once again Seraphim is misrepresenting the arguments presented (and is probably demonstrating behaviours that suggest WP:POINT ), the dialogue does suggest that we should try to agree how to treat the subject. It really isn't clear in this article that much of the discussion of the topic is out in other articles and there is a lot of clean-up needed following work elsewhere. I'm not a big advocate of a slavish adherence to arbitrary rules, particularly given WP:IAR, so I tend not to support his/ her suggestion that the covering article should adhere completely to the Summary style, but I would suggest that this article could be tighter and a spin out material elsewhere. There is a lot of verbosity and contrivances because of the attacks on the article, and the integrity of the editors who are actually contributing substantive content, which could be streamlined.ALR 15:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
MSJapan, just to make it clear for everyone reading this page. Your argument could easially be summarized as "The main "Freemasonry" page does not represent multiple pov's due to article length limits." is that correct? Seraphim 16:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
And would you agree that your representation of subtleties of argument is in itself rather avoiding the debate and being somewhat needlessly antagonistic.?ALR 16:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Not at all. I feel that MSJapan is the user that is most likely to revert any attempts to bring this article in line with wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. I feel that understanding his argument as to why he feels it is appropriate for this article to only represent a single point of view and discussing that argument is crucial to moving forward in the editing of this page. I cannot understand how asking someone to verify their position is in any way antagonistic. I'm just trying to make sure I understand his position before moving on further in the debate. It has become apparent that an argument that some users present in one discussion they sometimes feel is useable in that discussion only, so it is impossible to understand some user's positions unless they are clearly illustrated. MSJapan stated in this discussion "The reason we do not have multiple POV here as I stated is because it has been clearly demonstrated that it is functionally impossible to do so and stay anywhere mear the article length limits." so i'm merely asking for clarification that his main argument is that "The main "Freemasonry" page does not neet to represent multiple povs due to article length limits." to prevent any confusion down the road which will allow the debate to continue. Seraphim 16:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
However your statement above did not reflect a recognition that a number of articles are required to present a meaningful and representative treatment of the topic. As to that being antagonistic, perhaps. You might wish to review my user page, you'll note that I am a Management Consultant and a specialist in Knowledge Management. As such I am aware of how communication is effected and how one moves an argument forward by selective and and appropriate abstraction, simplification, layering and conflating issues. I'm also aware of how inappropriate use of thos techniques can be used to undermine the position of an interlocutor. I would suggest that your previous usage was inappropriate in the culture of mutual collaboration which will allow the portfolio of articles to properly represent the breadth of Freemasonry.ALR 17:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
My statement didn't reflect it since everyone in the discussion already understands that the NPOV policy exists. MSJapan has stated an objection to the incorperation of multiple points of view in this article. I'm merely requesting that he makes his objection clear so work on the article can continue. I believed his position was already stated by him in another related argument, but he has stated that i'm misusing his words. I'd like his position on this issue clearly stated so we know where everyone stands. You said "I'm also aware of how inappropriate use of thos techniques can be used to undermine the position of an interlocutor.", i'm confused as to how you feel that askingn someone to outline their position is considered innapropriate use, the point of a debate is to discuss and obviously to undermine the other party's position, that cannot take place untill someone has made their position clear. MSJ stated his position however it was stated in many words, I feel that it can only be beneficial to this discussion that he clarifies exactly what his position is. Otherwise we risk arguing for days and then him saying "[your] misrepresenting the arguments presented". I simply cannot understand why you feel that asking someone to clarify a statement they made is in any way innapropriate. If both sides of a debate are un-aware of the other side's position then no meaningful debate or discussion can continue. My position is obviously that this page needs to fall inline with the NPOV rules on wikipedia as they are written on the WP:NPOV page. MSJ's position is that this page doesn't need to represent multiple points of view, i'm merely asking him to explain his reasoning why, which is completly appropriate for when a user is acting against wikipedia policy. For transparancy purposes, I obviously already have a strong counter-argument against MSJapan's stance on the issue, however when I present it if he has not already confirmed his position he will argue that i'm misrepresenting him and that his position is not what I believed it to be. The first counter is [1] where jimbo states that "NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable" the second is from WP:NPOV "All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias. This includes reader-facing templates, categories and portals." the third is from WP:SIZE "In most cases, it is a violation of the neutral point of view to specifically break out a controversial section without leaving an adequate summary. Consider other organizational principles for splitting the article. Be sure that both the title and content of the broken-out article reflect a neutral point of view." the forth is from wikipedia:content forking#Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles. which states that "the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary" which it currently is not, also the page contents do not qualify as a summary style article since this page is not written as a summary style article in that it has some sections that do not reflect a summary of the spun off page but instead are actually indepth. And lastly this isn't a counter-argument but a suggestion that takes his position into account, I would suggest that the summary of the anti-masonry page that is presented be limited so it is no bigger then the current contents of the "Criticism, persecution, and prosecution" section that it would be replacing so the page size is not increased. Seraphim 17:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I look forward to hearing her scream when I revert all her hard work! :>) OK, seriously, Seraphim - until I see what you write, I can not promise what my reaction will be. Hopefully, you will write something that is indeed NPOV, cited, verifiable, and accurate. If I have issues with what you add, I can (and do) promise that I will discuss them with you before I undertake any reversions. Good luck with the editing. Blueboar 19:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

From WP:NPOV: NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification. Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties.

From Jimbo Wales, September 2003, on the mailing list:
  • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

Ardenn 19:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that anti-masonry is an opinion held by a significant minority (It's easy to name prominent adherents). Others believe that it it's own seperate entity as important as anti-semitism. Either way It is significant. Seraphim 20:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd suggest that there is a useful debate to be had about the level of opposition. Many of the sites listed rehash exactly the same arguments, and it is noticable that much of the critical discussion recently added to various articles is predicated on a single source which offers a stated perspective on its own analysis. Whilst I'd agree that it is a perspective held by a minority I'd question just how significant that minority actually is. There is a degree of cultural momentum and in many cases the media will take the path of least resistance, in an effort to illustrate a story which has a tangential or tenuous relationship then it's too easy to use icons emblems or symbols as used by Masonry and a number of other organisations.ALR 20:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents Ardenn 21:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Um... in this case, I am going to have to back up Seraphim... at least where it comes to the Religious Anti-masonry POV. I'd say The Pope and Pat Robertson are both prominent, and they have both repeated some of the anti-masonic claims she is talking about. Blueboar 22:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
The Papacy... Hitler... Seraphim 23:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I've now twice been unreasonably accused by Seraphim for personal attack and my comments, in good faith, removed from the talk page. I choose not to engage in an edit war on this talk page.ALR 00:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Make sure to add these "unreasonable accusations" against your "good faith" to the RFC you and MSJ are going to bring against me. Seraphim 00:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Ah. I had wondered why I had been mentioned specifically by name so often lately. MSJapan 02:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Whilst I'm cognisant of the risk that this will inflame the situation yet further I will attempt to take some heat out of this particular interchange: I regret that you feel that my comment was a personal attack, that was certainly not the intent of the comment which was merely flippant. I am conscious that what I see as flippant may well be seen differently in a foreign culture and as such I will attempt to be more aware of the potential impact of my sense of humour on our interactions in the future.ALR 09:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


Perhaps, then, the page on Israel should include more of the Yemeni POV, or the Palestinian.

[edit] Mormons

The name of the Mormon church is "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints", not "The Church of Latter-Day Saints". Also, how about citing a source where it says that the first five presidents of the church were masons? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 157.127.124.141 (talk • contribs).

Corrected as to the name of the Church... added fact tag for presidents. (Note to editors: Do we need do citations on the Cultural references? If so... do we cite all of them or just those which in our opinion might be potential controversial? Or do we cite if requested (as here), but otherwise not.) Blueboar 20:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it was the first five presidents of the Church, but rather Joseph Smith, his brother, and a few of the other original founders of the Church. If they were all presidents, then there's no problem, but it's fairly easy to find info on Joseph Smith, Jr., Hyrum Smith's, and Brigham Young's Masonic membership, and the others I'm sure I've got a citation for in a recent Philalethes, but I keep forgetting to get the thing. MSJapan 23:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Holocaust

The defence that "I was only following orders" was thrown out at the War Crimes Trials after WWII. So get your facts right please (again). Freemasons were MURDERED. And no I'm not going to look up the trial transcripts for you either. Imacomp 00:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You need to do some research on Nuremberg, the people they tried were not the low level soldiers that were running the death camps, if anything they were the people who were giving the execution orders, the "I was only following orders" defense was thrown out when it was used by high ranking officials that were actually directly following hitler's orders and were designing and coming up with the plans for the genocide. Nobody that was tried at Nuremberg and convicted was actually the person flipping the "On" switch. I suggest you look up what Murder and Execution mean and then also look up the difference between Mass murder and Genocide. "Executing a person in accordance with a legally imposed sentence of death" is not murder, it is carrying out an execution. Calling it murder trivializes what happened, it makes it seem like some bad guy just went around shooting people. They were executed by an oppresive and corrupt goverment. If you want to argue this go do it on the Holocaust page, i'm merely following their lead, they do not refer to the genocidal killings as murder. Seraphim 00:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I sugest you plot elseware (Re talk on your page about "other fish"). If you think I'm going to ref or cite each word here your defo WP:DICK. Also the Holocaust page says the same, with the same citation, because I just put it into the section I added about FMs being murdered by the Nazi Party (contolled by Austrian Catholic A Hitler). Imacomp 01:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm just stating facts. They were ordered executions. An ordered execution is not by anyone's defination a murder. This is why the commandment actually states "Thou shall not Murder" instead of the mistranslation "Thou shall not Kill". If it was simply "Thou shall not Kill" every person in the crusades would have been damming themselves to hell. There is a difference between someone going crazy and just shooting people which is a mass murder, and a corrupt dictator ordering mass executions of people. Saying they were "murdered" doesn't present the correct context, they were Executed. Edit: I just realized you changed the text on the holocaust page to follow your ideals. I have a proposal, go to that page and everywhere you see "executed" or "killed" change it to "murdered" see how long it lasts. Seraphim 01:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I am NOT just following orders. Imacomp 01:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Huh? Seraphim 01:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. Imacomp 01:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The jewish people probably believe that they were murdered during WWII, and not just "legally executed". Ardenn 03:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I think with this one I'm tending towards Seraphims perspective, although tbh I don't feel that the section adds any value to the article whatsoever in its current form. It's worth drawing a distinction between attempted genocide based on ideas of racial or religious philosophy and the purely political threat that Masonry, and other fraternal organisations, presented to the National Socialist government. Masons were political prisoners because they were constituted a sizable body of individuals who were a potential threat to the dominance of the nazi party. Perosnally Ii'd get rid of the section it is too lengthy and uses overly emotive language to strengthen its purported value.ALR 07:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
On a related note, I think some of the political subsections should be combined; otherwise there seems to be equal importance ascribed to every one of them, and that's not entirely accurate. MSJapan 17:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the german language link that was to a general web site rather than any detail or document highlighting the disputed point. I've also removed the more emotive language and attempted to highlight the ambuiguity about whether Masons died because they were Masons or for other reasons. I've left in the issue about Holocaust day but think it's open for debate as to whether it needs to be here, I think not. I also changed the 'services' word to 'armed forces' since that's how its better known outside the UK. Expect Imacomp will straight revert this anyway but I feel it adds value.ALR 21:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Imacomp was 24hr 3rr blocked for re-inserting a paragraph about hitler to Catholicism and Freemasonry. He won't be back for about 12 hrs. Seraphim 21:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't mean it won't get reverted as soon as he gets back though. :( ALR 21:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The Nazis believed the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion-hoax and the Conspiracy theory of jews and freemasons. So they wanted to destroy freemasonry in Germany. Some Grand Lodges tried to assimilate at first, some vanished before something could happen. (Too complicated to explain here.)

January 3rd 1934: Göring-decree against freemasonry. A plague of terror followed. Lodges were destroyed and plundered by the state police, the "SA" and "SS". To avoid further agitation of the public, Hitler and Rudolf Heß forbid further action - at first.

August 17th 1935: the minister of the interior of the Reich Wilhelm Frick prohibited all masonic lodges by forbidding all activity. The capital and all documents were confiscated. Most property resides now in the "Geheimes Staatsarchiv Preußischer Kulturbesitz" in Berlin.

The "Internationales Freimaurerlexikon" says that it is known that (around) 62 of the 80,000 freemasons (1933) were murdered, including Julius Leber, Wilhelm Leuschner and Carl von Ossietzky mostly because they were freemasons, but also because they were against Naziism. 238 of them were displaced from Germany, 52 were put into concentration camps, 377 were dismissed from their job. 44 were known to be members of the resistance. After 1945, only 5,000 of the 80,000 freemasons finally survived the war.

Hjalmar Schacht was a freemason, too. He published an essay in the magazine of the lodge Zur Freundschaft in 1914(sic!), where he emphasizes, that German freemasonry never allowed exaggerated nationalistic sensations. He was accused of being involved in the 1944 July 20 Plot to assassinate Hitler, and was arrested and sent to Dachau concentration camp as a "special prisoner", but I don't know if this he was really falsly accused. Since 1949 he was again member of the lodge Zur Brudertreue an der Elbe.

My secondary sources are "Verschwiegene Männer - Freimaurer in Deutschland" by Matthias Pöhlmann (EZW-Texte 182), ISSN 0085-0357 of the Protestant Church: http://www.ekd.de/ezw/ezw_index.html and the "Internationales Freimaurerlexikon" by Eugen Lennhoff, Oskar Posner, Dieter A. Binder, ISBN 3-7766-2161-3

Hope, I could help a bit.


PS: There was even a masonic lodge Liberté chérie founded within the concentration camp Esterwegen. You can see some memorial photos in this article: de:Liberté chérie (Freimaurerei)

PPS: The Forget-Me-Not was first used by the grand lodge "Zur Sonne" in 1926 as a convention badge of the day of the grand lodge in Bremen. It was produced by the porcelaine manufacture in Selb/Oberfranken. Wearing badges of all organizations was forbidden since . But there was the "Winterhilfswerk des Deutschen Volkes" (charity) lead by Göbbels. Everyone who donated got a sign badge for that. Between march 17th and 26th 1938 they accidently used the same sign as the grand lodge "Zur Sonne" in 1926: The Forget-Me-Not. Since this was an official sign, it was possible to wear it furtheron "because it was so beautiful", just as adornment...

One of my sources: http://www.internetloge.de/arst/forgetd.htm

This Forget-Me-Not is still used today.

de:Benutzer:Webmaster@sgovd.org ("liberal" freemason) - Germany 84.61.5.97 03:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Danke. MSJapan 04:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


I hate to be the Devil's advocate, but not many others seem to line up for the position. I just wanted to express my dissent with ALR's view on the subject matter of 'murder' / 'execution' debate, namely: -

It's worth drawing a distinction between attempted genocide based on ideas of racial or religious philosophy and the purely political threat that Masonry, and other fraternal organisations, presented to the National Socialist government. Masons were political prisoners because they were constituted a sizable body of individuals who were a potential threat to the dominance of the nazi party.

I disagree strongly with the above, namely on the grounds that Freemasonry has always and will always been seen as a 'flavour' of religion. In Islamic countries Freemasons are persecuted because they are seen as Judaeo-Christian based, which it is. However in WWII Germany the difference between a Freemason and a Jew was irrelivant, they were both seen with the same lenses, this can be corroborated by any German Freemason over the age of seventy/eighty who lived through the period.

Also, it could be argued that if Freemasons were political prisoners due to the political threat, likewise were the Jews as the predominant reasoning for the 'final solution' was due to crippling financial constraints that were put on Germany by the banks at the time (which, interestingly, were run by Jews and Freemasons alike, funny that). That being said, I think the lines are reasonably blurred enough that if we apply execution we do so across the board.

I personally believe that any killing carried out in war in a legal manner per the authorising officer (whether this is debated, judged, tried and found wanting AFTER the fact by a biased body (ie: winners write history)) is irrelivant to the fact that in each sides eyes their actions are justified. If actions aren't justified a human being will not carry them out, regardless of the amount of brainwashing (CIA/Cuba scenario gives us evidence of this, another example would be Pol Pot's executions of own soldiers for not carrying out irrational kill-orders).

Thus, in summary, I believe that execution is an apt word as murder brings forth some personal aspect as well as implies that every trigger man on the Axis side in WWII who executed a Jew or a Freemason was of mental wanting to the degree that they would fit the profile of a murderer and not merely a soldier carrying out orders. Or at least that is a flipside that is worthy of representation that has been overlooked in Seraphim's argument. Jachin 02:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

So you agree with my conclusion that the wording should be executed rather than murdered, but you take issue with two lines of my argument to reach that conclusion? Fine. Although it's not only my position if you review the discussion again. Just as a point of interest, why pick me out specifically?ALR 06:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
They were MURDERED (STOP). Live with it, or start an edit war. Imacomp 16:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I concur. Ardenn 16:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not censored. Ardenn 18:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Here we go again

User: Fossick is reinserting the material in the article as previously tried by User: Lightbringer and User: Basil Rathbone. I'll wait until he finishes before I respond to it, the content has been previously discussed, at length, in a number of archives and demonstrated to be inapproriate for an article on contemporary Freemasonry.ALR 07:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I took the liberty to report this suspected sock to the Admins - if anyone has any more evidence, feel free to add it. WegianWarrior 07:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Also asked for a checkuser on him, just to make sure we are in fact dealing with whom I suspect. WegianWarrior 07:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
That was quick - he's blocked indefinitly, according to the summary for blanking section on self at WP:AN. WegianWarrior 08:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference for Occult - Esoteric Disambiguation

The ancient Greek term for occult is esoteric.

In the preamble to the paragraph it correctly identifies Freemasonry as an 'esoteric' society.

Therefore the statement 'Freemasonry is not an occult society', is incorrect.

See Wikopedia occult page.Fyodor Dos 01:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you had read the entire article as opposed to picking out one line, the idea behind the the occult is supernatural phenomena, i.e., secret magical knowledge. The esoteric article, by the way, makes a distinction between magical societies and Freemasonry. Esoteric knowledge is merely knowledge not known at large. By your definition, Shingon Buddhism is occult. Which you probably think it is, BTW, if your username is any indication.
As Freemasonry is not a magical society, it cannot be considered occult. The ancient Greek word is irrelevant, because "occult" and "esoteric" now have very different meanings, as illustrated by the articles. Freemasonry was not created in ancient Greece, and neither was the modern occult. Rosicrucianism also predates modern Freemasonry, BTW, so your claim on Occult was also wrong.

You're going to have to do a lot better in terms of sourcing your information, and I would suggest waiting for input from others before you start making changes to the article, especially when you don't have anything to back it up. MSJapan 02:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Reference asked and provided. The word Estoric is defined as occult, therefore if Freemasonry is an esoteric society it by definition also has to be an occult society. Please provide your reference that "esoteric and occult have a very different meaning". I would suggest you can't because they in fact have the exact same meaning. Your point that Freemasonry was not created in ancient Greece is bizarre. What possible relevance could that have? The issue is the meaning of the word esoteric, as even you admit Freemasonry is an esoteric society. Esoteric is the Greek word for Occult. I don't even have to document the lengthy communality between Freemasonry and Occultism and Occultists. Fyodor Dos 02:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I just told you that the Wikipedia articles say they are not the same thing, but here's dictionary.com's results -

1. a. Intended for or understood by only a particular group: an esoteric cult. See Synonyms at mysterious. b. Of or relating to that which is known by a restricted number of people. 2. a. Confined to a small group: esoteric interests. b. Not publicly disclosed; confidential. [Greek esterikos, from ester, comparative of es, within; see en in Indo-European roots.] Note the root is not "occult"

oc·cult Pronunciation (-klt, klt) adj. 1. Of, relating to, or dealing with supernatural influences, agencies, or phenomena. 2. Beyond the realm of human comprehension; inscrutable. 3. Available only to the initiate; secret: occult lore. See Synonyms at mysterious. 4. Hidden from view; concealed. 5. a. Medicine Detectable only by microscopic examination or chemical analysis, as a minute blood sample. b. Not accompanied by readily detectable signs or symptoms: occult carcinoma. n. Occult practices or techniques: a student of the occult. v. (-klt) oc·cult·ed, oc·cult·ing, oc·cults v.tr. 1. To conceal or cause to disappear from view. 2. Astronomy To conceal by occultation: The moon occulted Mars. v.intr. To become concealed or extinguished at regular intervals: a lighthouse beacon that occults every 45 seconds. [Latin occultus, secret, past participle of occulere, to cover over; see kel-1 in Indo-European roots.]

And this comes from Latin, not Greek. Proof posted, sockcheck requested, edit reverted. End of story.MSJapan 02:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The two words have the same definition - hidden from view. Esoteric is defined as Occult, Occult is defined as Esoteric. This is varified by the references you just provided. Thank-you. Your comments are rather unhelpful in terms of their tone. Why do you seek to silence those who disagree with you?Fyodor Dos 02:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't seek to silence anyone. What concerns me is when people leap on the first thing they see as "proof" without bothering to look any further to see what something actually means. Would it be responsible of me as an editror to allow factually incorrect material into an article? No, it would not. However, that is precisely what you want to do.
You say "occult = esoteric" because that's what the occult article says. Problem is, the words don't come from the same language and to say that they are equal is a mistake made by somebody on that article (there's no citation, and a dictionary check, as I posted, shows that they are not equal terms). On top of that, there are two separate articles, one on Occult and one on Esoteric. Yes, they both mean "hidden", but the nuance and usage is completely different. You sidestepped my point about esoteric Buddhism being occult, because your definition does not fit, and your definition does not fit because it is wrong. To pick up a different thread we had here, "killed", "murdered", and "executed" all mean the same thing superficially, but they are not directly interchangeable.
When you see what you want to see rather than what is actually there, of course people are not going to agree with you. At what point are you planning to make a "logical" jump to "Freemasonry = occult, and occult = Satanism, so Freemasonry = Satanism", I wonder? You see, I looked up Fyodor Dos, and his big thing was that he converted to Catholicism later in life and wrote some books. I don't believe in coincidences. MSJapan 04:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
You still haven't provided a single reference to your claim that esoteric and occult do not have the same meaning. You have a POV, a POV which I would suggest goes something like this: I am a Freemason and I do not want any information that could be construed as negative being associated with Freemasonry on Wikipedia. While I commend your loyalty to your chosen belief system it is not encyclopedic. I also find your tone and attitude not very congenial or fraternal to non-Freemason editors. Perhaps you need to take a breather from this subject if you can't conduct yourself in a civil manner.Fyodor Dos 12:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I also note that you deleted sentence on occult page that said esoteric is the Greek word for the Occult. You provided no reference or discussion for your deletion, something you just demanded of me, and frequently also of others. Are you planning on deleting sentences in the esoteric section which give history of the meaning of the word Esoteric as the Greek word for the occult? Who is trying to harm Wikipopedia here? Who has the POV pushing non-encyclopedic agenda?Fyodor Dos 13:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Freemasonry is not a belief system, that is clear btoh from this article and a great deal of the discussion previously. If your understanding of the craft is not sufficiently advanced that there is a lack of understanding about that then I would suggest that dealing with more developed concepts such as this relationship might be insufficiently developed to take such a dogmatic position. You'll also note, from WP:RS that wikipedia itself is not a primary source and should not be used as such. The principles inculcated in WP:RS should also be used in relation to other sources used. I would also suggest that in order to demonstrate your point then it may be valuable to actually dig up some etymalogical evidence and draw out your arguments rather than dig up another website of doubtful authority which merely restates your claim.ALR 13:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
My knowledge of Freemasonry is 'sufficiently advanced' to ascertain the following:
  • 1. Freemasonry is a Secret Society.
  • 2. Freemasonry is an Occult Society.
  • 3. Freemasons seek to conceal point #1 and #2 from the public.

Fyodor Dos 15:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Go somewhere else. MSJapan 22:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure someone, somewhere, values your opinion on this matter greatly.Fyodor Dos 13:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
So how many secret societies have large buildings which are readily recognisable, public notifications of their meetings and whose membership are at liberty to discuss that with others?ALR 13:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Now that you seem to have conceded the point on Freemasonry being a secret society we may have the time to explore this new research you have raised.Fyodor Dos 13:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
There is no concession of anything in the question I asked, indeed I note you haven't actually asnwered it because to do so would immediately undermine your assertion. Noting that Great Queen Street, the home of UGLE, is pictured on the article page and is clearly identifiable as UGLE hence FM cannot be a Secret Society.ALR 13:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Even the so called Old Charges of the first grand lodge were promoted in the "postboy" (Feb. 28th 1723). 84.61.5.97 03:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Fyodor Dos... I find it quite telling that as soon as your block for 3rrr is over, you return and make the exact same POV edits.
1. Freemasonry is NOT a Secret Society.
2. Freemasonry is NOT an Occult Society.
3. Freemasons seek to conceal nothing from the public.

Blueboar 03:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

It is all well and good for you to say that Freemasonry is not a Secret and Occult society but you have to provide some references to justify those statments, like I have done - multiple references from trusted accepted sources. Ergo you may not continue to delete my edit of this topic.Fyodor Dos 05:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I would say that both MSJapan and ALR have provided more than enough refrences and counter argument. You are simply pushing an anti-masonic POV agenda ... which is not acceptable editing practice and goes against wikipedia rules.

I see. Perhaps you could list these references those two editors have provided backing up their position. I can't see any that are related to the subject at all.Fyodor Dos 05:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

where I leave they're reconigzed as a satanic group since its foundantion, because there are lots of people who quited it and decided to tell what are the "secret rituals" and it ranges from homosexual parties to satanic cults with re-crucifying jesus, eating bread and blood and exchanging blood with a goat to make a pact with satan. most of it were told by men that were at high levels or whatever is the name and gave up because didn't support the things behind the courtains of this organization. the point is that any freemanson complained nor denied, and not even sued these people. the fact it's that if you don't disagree, you're agreeing.

OK, I disagree... happy? Blueboar 02:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, poor victim. Keep careful or I might eat you because I have now your IP address! >:-P Greetings to Brasil, The Freemanson --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 00:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Resecrucianism

Noting the cut and paste of a section of the Rosecrucianism article straight into the Freemasonry article I'd suggest that as it stands it doesn't add value here. Not least because it is illustrated by a collar jewel from the Scottish Rite, an appendant body which has no authority over the craft. Whilst I do see that there might be some value in the section in general it needs some work before it is applicable. To that end I'll create a sub-page from here to allow it to be worked on, and just put a placeholder comment into the main article:

  • /Rosecrucian

Further to the above, if it does stay then it probably needs to fall under the ritual and symbolism section. OTOH I think deriving a rosecrucian influence on Craft Masonry is a bit tricky, from my own knowledge the influences aren't demonstrated, however there is a fairly clear thread in the appendant bodies which are subjects of different articles.ALR 08:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Having a summary of the material on the Rosicrucian page as it relates to Freemasonry is no different than the other sections on this page such as History, Women, etc., etc..
I find the information quite interesting and relative, especially in light of the attempt to deny Freemasonry's connection to the occult. No one would deny Rosicrucianism is not part of the occult. I certainly find the Rosicrucian ties to Freemasonry quite a bit more plausible than other rather fanciful claims by Freemasons to their origins.Fyodor Dos 12:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


No problem with the discussion, but to be useful and appropriate it has to be as accurate as possible and meaningful in the context of craft Masonry. The direct cut and paste you inserted is not a summary but a duplicate and neither accurate nor useful in relation to an article on contemporary craft masonry.ALR 13:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not even sure it's meaningful. Neither the facts nor the speculation are supported, and historically speaking, that article has no relevance to modern regular Craft Masonry, which is what this article is about.
Also, the Rose Croix A(A)SR degrees (where this influence is supposed to take place, at least according ot the article) are overtly Christian in nature. So, the claims do not reconcile at all if we are to believe Rosicrucianism is not related to Christianity. Here's a thought: Do we know of any formerly Jewish or Muslim or Buddhist Rosicrucians, or are they all originally from some Christian denomination? I think that would answer the religious relativity question right there. MSJapan 15:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
You're all just playing more games. It is a summary of the Rosicrucian section on Freemasonry, no different than many other sections on that page - about aspects of Freemasonry . There would appear to be little point in engaging in any "discussions" with Masonic editors. Either Wikipedia Admins stand up to the antics of your group or the credibility of this subject on the Wikipedia site will be nil. It is not very impressive the way you grown men manipulate Wikipedia, especially the Admins, who after reading a selection of Admin user pages, seem to consist largely of teenage highschool students. What a noble distinguished 'craft' you are. Fyodor Dos 15:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with MSJapan above, and have hence reverted to Blueboar in the article. Imacomp 16:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
How nice for you all. Unfortunately I am not a Freemason and thus I disagree completely with your position.Fyodor Dos 13:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
So your position is that your edits are 'because you are not a Freemason' rather than because they are accurate, defensible and meaningful contributions to the development of the article? That does strike me as an interesting posture given your previous comments which fail to substantiate your 'contributions'ALR 13:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


That is not my position. My position is my edits are entirely accurate, defensible, and meaningful contributions to the development of the article. My position is also that the edits of the referenced editors, who self identify themselves as being Freemasons who are in agreement with each other, are not accurate, defensible, and meaningful contributions to the development of the article. Thus I conclude I am not in agreement with the espoused position of those editors.Fyodor Dos 13:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I think that your conclusion was self evident anyway and didn't actually add to your argument. If you believe that your contributions are accurate and defensible then feel free to support that with adequate sourcing. The section you cut and pasted carries a number of requests for citation. It can be shown from checking the source page that they were added by JASpencer and I'm sure he'll be as keen as the rest of us are to see the relevant evidence. Once you've done that then we'll be in a position to judge whether they are defensible or not. I'd be interested to hear why you feel that a contribution by someone with a more developed knowledge of the subject is less able to present meaningful, accurate and defensible material, notwithstanding certain individuals.ALR 13:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
One of us may have become confused on the object as well as the subject of our present discussion. Let me clarify my understanding of what we are talking about. I added a new section on Rosicrucianism and Freemasonry consisting of a summary of material already existing on the Rosicrucian Wikipedia page on the topic of Freemasonry. It is my contention that in fact Freemasonry is related to Freemasonry and thus information on Freemasonry should be included on the Freemasonry page.Fyodor Dos 13:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
No problem with that assertion, however a straight cut and paste becomes a clearly orphaned section and requires work to integrate it into the rest of the article in a meaningful, accurate and defensible manner. I've attempted to facilitate achieving that but it appears that you are unwilling to do that. In its current state the material has no place in the article. No confusion whatsoever.ALR 14:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

In the absence of any real contribution I've moved the assertion to the origins section and stated a requirement for a citation, then removed the Rosecrucian section.ALR 10:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Citation provided for Rosicrucian-Freemasonry historical ties, please refer to article page reference.Fyodor Dos 05:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Try the history of the article page instead. With all the other stuff F2 keeps adding, his reference will be reverted by the time you see this. Blueboar 05:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Since we're going to play the edit war game....

I would like a point-by-point, sourced explanation of why the following links are relevant to this article, given the reasons I have provided.

  • Secret society - (why list it twice?)
  • Esotericism - Esoteric knowledge (given that you have a link to Esoteric already)
  • Mysticism - (do you have proof other than your opinion or a partisan website?)
  • Occultism (do you have proof other than your opinion or a partisan website?)
  • Essenes - no historical connection.
  • Manicheans - no historical connection.
  • Sufism - no historical connection.
  • Knights Templar - you linked the wrong one.
  • List of occultists - no relevant relation.
  • List of spirituality-related topics - inaccurate.
  • Western mystery tradition - not relevant.

MSJapan 15:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW, don't accuse me of unicivil edits, and then state you reverted to ALR when you actually reverted to yourself. MSJapan 15:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I reverted to ALR not self. ALR had requested citations for 'esoteric or occult' as well as 'secret society' which I was providing until you deleted entire edit, along with citation requests, and citations provided. Your conduct is quite uncivil, espcially your false accusations and your unsummarized, unreferenced deletion of sentece from occultpage that stated Esoteric is the Greek word for the Occult, as well as the numerous comments and threats you made towards me.Fyodor Dos 04:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Do you have any references for your claims that above subjects are not directly related to Freemasonry? If you go to the Wikipeida pages that link to them you will see entire sections and many references. Of course I could provide you with some additional citations if you like.Fyodor Dos 05:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
The burden of proof is on you, because you claim it as true. However, citations: "no one man speaks for the fraternity" (which is cited in the article) - that means that if there was one or two occultists who were also Masons, this does not make the entire group occult.
Freemasonry is not a religion (also cited in the article), which means it has nothing to do with spirituality.
Essenes and Manicheans were long gone before modern Freemasonry began, so unless you can prove a connection that isn't a crackpot theory, the connection does not exist.
Freemasonry is not mystic or occult, based on the definitions given in the respective articles, and conflating Latin and Greek is not going to change that, no matter how hard you try. MSJapan 06:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and I provided more than adequate references to accepted sources, unlike you for your repeated deletions. You points above are just filler of unrelated subjects to give the appearance you are actually providing references and engaging in a discussion, when in fact you are not.Fyodor Dos 06:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fact check

I have recently come across a wikipedia article on Lewis Masonic publishing co. (I suspect it is a vanity Article placed by someone at the firm... but that is besides the point) In the intro, The article states: "Lewis Masonic, founded in 1886, the largest and longest standing masonic publisher in the world. Lewis Masonic is a brand known to every English Freemason as Lewis produces the ritual books used by all UGLE lodges and chapters." I know there are several rituals used in England... are they ALL published by Lewis Masonic? Blueboar 16:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I would doubt that, but look and see what's on Amazon UK. There's 47 or so rituals in use, though, and they're not all on Amazon. Maybe ALR could save us a lot of trouble and call them up and ask if they publish everything? Nevertheless, as it stands, the article is really a vanity article about Faulks (who posted the thing in the first place). It comes down to "Lewis is a little company that Martin Faulks resurrected because of his advertising ability". The second paragraph is also questionable, as the lewis definition as stated applies only to UGLE and its furnishings. At least in the US, we consider a lewis to be a second generation Mason, and I've never seen a real one. I'm probably going to AfD or pare down that article at some point, depending on how factual any of it really is. MSJapan 16:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I can drop Martin an email, I got a catalogue through the post a little while ago and will check that if I can find it. I don't imagine that they'll produce all of them, some won't be viable and I know of some rituals which are just typed sheets. And from a discussion at GL yesterday apparently they won't be publishing the new version of the Complete Royal Arch ritual, following SGCs changes, as sales aren't high enough to warrant it. FWIW it does read as a vanity article and I'm not sure they're notable enough in their own right.ALR 16:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Lewis is a term in general masonic use (in England) for a 2nd generation Freemason. In the Mark degree (In England anyway) the candidate is told to look after his elderly parent with the strength of a "Lewis grip". Imacomp 12:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Lewis is known as German Lufton or Louton, French Louveteau or Louvetou. There's also a song, written by Goston, included in the Constitution of 1738: May a Lewis be born. 84.61.5.97 21:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
That's what I thought. Is there any reference ragrding it as furnishing as stated in the article? Also, since there is an article, we should move the discussion over there, I think. MSJapan 06:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

I heard at the 30th degree Freemasons pledge aliegence to lucifer. I won't believe it until I have proof since the source i got this from... is unreiliable. (He exagereates every thing) anywas tell me. MegaloManiac 18:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You are correct to question this... The truth is that Freemasons do not pledge aliegence to lucifer in any of thier degrees. If you need the facts, look at this page: Is It True What They Say About Freemasonry?. Blueboar 18:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks MegaloManiac 19:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Quite interesting is also the Taxil hoax to that reproach. 84.61.7.55 00:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Secret society"

I think we could safely assume that it proved that His Brittanic Majesty's Government required for 300 years Freemasons to register with the government under The Secret Societies Act. Of course if you feel it proves something different please feel to add to this discussion thread.Fyodor Dos 08:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Secret society"

Freemasonry of today since the foundation of the first Grand Lodge was never a secret society in England. The so called Old Charges by Anderson of the first Grand Lodge were promoted publically in the "postboy" (Feb. 28th 1723). How can this be secret? George Washington etc. are members of a secret society but wear their masonic clothes in public? This statement should be changed. In Germany, we use the term "discreet society" instead. webmaster@sgovd.org, 84.61.7.55 00:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Up until 1967 the United Grand Lodge of England was required to submit to the Government a current list of their membership - under the 'Secret Societies Act'.Fyodor Dos 05:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
So... it still does not make them a secret society NOW. (and dispite what the name of the Act is, I do not consider them to have been "secret" even then... private, yes... but hardly secret. Blueboar 05:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Er, no. It just means that the United Grand Lodge of England no longer is required to submit their membership lists under the act - because the act was dropped completely in 1967. In otherwords the U.K. no longer has a Secret societies act. That is the only meaning in law.Fyodor Dos 05:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Being required to submit something doesn't proof something at all. 84.61.7.55 06:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I think we could safely assume that it proved that His Brittanic Majesty's Government required for 300 years Freemasons to register with the government under The Secret Societies Act. Of course if you feel it proves something different please feel to add to this discussion thread.Fyodor Dos 08:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but how does 1967 - 1799 = 300? Furthermore, freemasonry was exempt from certain elements of the Act, when the Secret Societies Act was in force in England, and in order that Craft lodges could be exempt from the proscriptions of the Act, the attendance/appearance book needed to be taken to the local office of authority so that the State knew who was meeting in the lodge room. Hardly a secret society.

[edit] Rosicrucianism

I don't think I'd go so far as to say it's anti-Masonic historically, as there was a lot of overlap between Masons and 18th century supposed Rosicrucians, though I think the Societas Rosicrucianis links ot Freemasonry go a long way to support certain types of Rosicrucianism to be compatible with Masonry. That being said, exactly what Rosicrucianism consists of is not very clear, even from the Rosicrucian article. So we many need to table this as "under construction" until we get more info. MSJapan 06:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I note you made this comment after you and User:Blueboar deleted it four times. Not withstanding others Editors to continually misspell word so as to disable the Wiki link. Are you planning on providing some references for your assertion, or will you will you take the same approach you are taking for the occult-esoteric, and secret society edits?Fyodor Dos 06:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
If you mean, post material right on the talk page so you can ignore it and claim nothing was sourced, yes. I posted the dictionary entries from the online American Heritage Dictionary for occult and esoteric that show they are completely different words from two differnt languages, and you decided it wasn't proof, notwithstanding the fact that the original claim was also not sourced (and therefore wasn't a fact). You can't accept certain unsourced things as true and other sourced or unsourced claims as false as it suits you. You've already admitted that you believe certain things about Freemasonry, and clearly you will not listen to anything that does not support your preconceived ideas. Also, the reason it was continually misspelled is because that was in the edit, period, and to sneak in the "Freemasonry is occult" line under cover of a spelling fix (which the diffs show clearly, BTW) is considered vandalism, no matter what you claim in the edit summary. MSJapan 06:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
The dictionary entry? It said esoteric and and occult had the same meaning. You mean that reference? It must be some other reference you are referring to, in between you making four complaints against me, on every Wikipedia Admin topic page that there is! Yes, you are really trying to engage in a discussion here, that is clear! Oh and I am glad you acknowledge the intentional misspelling of Rosicrucian by Masonic editors who are trying to make the link non functional. I have provided 7 references and you have yet to provide a single one. You are just posting filler of unrelated subjects to try and make it seem as if you are providing references! Your complaints about me are false personal attacks, you are causing the problems, not I! Fyodor Dos 07:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Your check user request against me three days ago was denied, you remember that don't you? You know the one where you falsely accused me of being a sock and making accusations and statements of satanism. This is an encyclopedia not a games room.Fyodor Dos 07:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Then where are the sources? MSJapan 07:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm a member of SocRos (5th Grade) and can say that it is, as practiced under SocRos in Anglia/ Scotia and California, is entirely compatible with FM.ALR 13:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Compatable, perhaps... but not the same. Blueboar 13:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Entirely agree with that, they aren't the same. There is a lot of use of symbolism but the members are ancouraged to do their own investigative work, the papers we deliver are up to us with the only constraint being that they do not discuss Politics or Freemasonry.ALR 14:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
One thing to keep in mind is that while individual Masons in the late 17th and early 18th century may have dabbled in Rosicrucian philosophy (Isacc Newton and Elias Ashmole come to mind), it does not mean that the craft as a whole was influenced by it. Freemasony is no more Rosicrucian than the Royal Society to which these same individuals were members. And I doubt anyone would call the Royal Society a Rosicrucian inspired cult.Blueboar 13:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps compatible concerning their rituals, but not on their goals. Rosicrucianism is not based on enlightenment, but Freemasonry is. Rosicrucians even fought against the Illuminati of Adam Weishaupt because the Illuminati were racical enlighteners. webmaster@sgovd.org, 84.61.7.55 16:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

What were the goals of the Rosicrucians? The Rosicrucianism page is quite well put together, especially the section detailing Rosicrucianism and Freemasonry, don't you think?Fyodor Dos 08:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
It is now. webmaster@sgovd.org, 84.61.16.215 19:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protected (again)

I've protected the article again, to give yet more time for talking...

BTW, the article is 69k long - how about shortening it a bit?

William M. Connolley 11:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Why shorten? It lives in cyberspace, so no printing costs, and seeks to be encyclopedic. No information should be lost if it is brocken down into sub-articles. Imacomp 12:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The point about the size is entirely legitimate and reflects back to the discussion User: SeraphimXI raised related to summary style. Some of the sections could be reaonsably shortened as long as the topic is covered in a child article. Actually getting stability will help a lot with reaching that state.ALR 13:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

That's precisely the problem. We can't rewrite or summarize because the article keeps getting vandalized and reverted, and those edits are lost. MSJapan 16:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
The paragraph History of Freemasonry contains more details than the article History of Freemasonry. --webmaster@sgovd.org, 84.61.7.55 16:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
True... I have been trying to draft a major rewrite of that article for months... but keep getting sidetracked by POV agenda pushing here and at a few of the related pages. Feel free to work on it. Blueboar 22:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
There are many extremely dry lengthy sections on the page that should be only one or two pararaph summaries underneath a link to the main page covering that topic. Unfortunately a number of editors, who state on there user pages they are members of the Masonic organization, appear to keep reverting attempts to effect that very necessary editing. Then there would be ample space for new sections, such as Rosicrucianism, occult, esoteric, secret societies, etc..Fyodor Dos 08:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I find it interesting that despite the opportunity to collaborate in a Rosecrucian section for inclusion in the article you have as yet not provided anything to the extract. It would be a useful articulation of your concerns should you do so, however equally the lack of any effort to do so does rather undermine your protestations.ALR 09:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
This is one of the main problems on this page - duplications of pre-existing sections or pages covering the same subtopic. There is a very good page already on Rosicrucianism with a section on how it is related to Freemasonry. We don't need "our" section on this simply a brief summary of material related to Rosicrucianism and Freemasonry from that page under a link to 'main page rosicrucianism'. We should go through the entire Freemasonry page and do this. I don't wish to "collaborate" on any Rosicrucian section, I just want a paragraph summary pulled from that page under the link. There are other editors working on Rosicrucianism not involved on this page.Fyodor Dos 13:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
That really is my point, merely cutting and pasting a section from one article to another merely duplicates information, and disputed information at that. Should there be a requirement for a discussion of Rosicrucuanism and Craft Freemasonry, and you have yet to provide a convincing argument that there is, then it should be a summary not a duplicate.ALR 13:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Case studies in politics and crime

There's a link missing to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion since the claims against freemasonry of the nazis were mainly based on that propaganda-fake against jews and Freemasonry. webmaster@sgovd.org, 84.61.7.55 16:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

This section is an example of a section that should have only a brief summary under the link to the Anti-Freemasonry page where more info is available.Fyodor Dos 08:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time to solve the current edit war

As a general note. I find it funny how I become a target for character assassination by trolls et al. when there's a problem/edit war, but let the page get protected, and the selfsame individuals all of a sudden disappear into the woodwork and won't even mention, much less discuss, the material they so badly want in the article when they have the ability to edit unchecked.

Now's your opportunity, Fyodor - post, explain, and source what you want in the article here on the talk page so it can be discussed. You're right, this is an encyclopedia, not a games room. Therefore, I'm going to treat you like an adult and let you know exactly how it's going to be before we get started: if you cannot or do not source your edits in accordance with Wikipedia policies here and now on the talk page, and you try to force them in later, it will be a clear and objectively provable case of bad-faith editing, which will be pointed out as such in any future 3RR or vandalism complaints against you, should they become necessary. MSJapan 02:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I was asked by User:ALR to provide citations for my edits and I did - seven to be exact. You and your Masonic chums deleted them all four times yesterday, four times the day before, and four times the day before that. Now what was it you wanted again?Fyodor Dos 05:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Which doesn't actually answer the question and merely demonstrates the type of behaviour MSJ alludes to. Notwithstanding that why don't you report them here so that they can be subjected to critical analysis. fwiw when I did see them I didn't think they actually substantiated your assertiions, but we can open that for debate in a civilised manner.ALR 07:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Uh huh. There are a dozen copies of the references available by clicking on my user name on the article history page. He won't have much trouble finding them, since he deleted most of them. Of course most of his time these days is spent filing malicious complaints against me on every conceivable Wiki Admin dispute/complaint page. He owes me a big apology for his behaviour.Fyodor Dos 08:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Equally it would be a demonstration of good faith to expose your evidence for debate here, in the interests of clarity and positive development of the article it would be useful to cite each of them to allow a discussion on their utility and legitimacy within the article.ALR 09:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Note User:MSJapan filed 5 complaints against me on Wiki Admin Noticeboard pages demanding I be permanently banned. Wiki Admins appear to have ignored and/or denied all his complaints. Since this user has caused so much disruption on this page and across wikipedia in the last few days, a number of his complaints consisting of very uncivil comments and false accusations (such as 'meatpuppet' and accusing me statements related to 'satanism', as well as similar uncivil comments on this page, I think it would only be appropriate for him to make a apology for his conduct. Frankly I don't see him as a being very interested in any of my edits or references. He knows what they are, Merriam Webster, Catholic Encyclopdia, etc., they are perfectly good references, the best really.Fyodor Dos 09:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Before we get to analizing your citations, let's discuss MSJ's complaints with the Admins... This page has been repeatedly attacked by a banned POV agenda pushing vandal, out to "prove to the world" that Freemasons are satan worshipers or something. This vandal has no interest in cooperating with the regular Editors on this page, and insists that "his" version must be included. It has been particluarly bad during the last month or so. Thus, when a new user such as yourself comes in, with no other edits to any other article, and starts to insist on including "your" version of specific sections (tieing Freemasonry to the Occult, and thus inferring that Freemasonry = devil worship)... we get suspicious. Perhaps we jump the gun and accuse people who don't deserve it, and if you are one of those, then we appologize. However, MSJ's complaints seem justified to me... you certainly have violated 3rrr several times. And you have certainly stated your view that you tie Freemasonry to Satanism:

From Talk:Occult: "Generally most occult organizations and writers try and claim they have the real hidden truth about Christianty as part of their self-aggrandizement, to deceive potential christian or catholic recruits, or as part of subtle insult to christian orthodoxy, i.e. a form of satanism or sacriledge of christian holy beliefs or items. There is not a single Christian denomination which has any Rosicrucian Rites or beliefs, in fact most major Christian Church's have denounced Rosicrucianism as simply another 'Rite' of Freemasonry. As an aside it may interest some readers to know that in Catholic and Christian tradition it is claimed that Satan seeks to imitate Christ and Christology, which may provide a reason, for those who chose to believe it, for the many crosses and the like found in the occult. Simple mockery.Fyodor Dos 13:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)"

If I follow your logic ... Occult = satanism... Rosicrucianism = occult... Rosicrucianism = Freemasonry... thus, Freemasonry = occult and thus Freemasonry = satanism. Can you really fault us for wanting to find out whether or not you are yet another sock of this vandal. If you are not, the evidence will back you up, so you have nothing to fear from accusations. NOW... on to your citations....

1) Your first citation was to the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Freemasonry. There are two instances of the word "occult" in that entry. The first discusses the idea that the historical Knights Templar dabbled in the occult, not Freemasonry. The second is a Quote from Albert Pike. First, Pike was a bit of a loony and made all sorts of claims about what HE thought Freemasonry was all about... it does not make it so. Pike's oppinion is his own and he does not nor did speak for Freemasonry. Second, the Catholic Encyclopedia often misquotes Pike (we have had this problem on other articles). So your first citation does not back up your claim that Freemasonry is occult.

2) your second citation was to the myriam webster definition of cabala. It reads: "1 : a medieval and modern system of Jewish theosophy, mysticism, and thaumaturgy marked by belief in creation through emanation and a cipher method of interpreting Scripture. 2 a : a traditional, esoteric, occult, or secret matter b : esoteric doctrine or mysterious art" Note that the words "Occult" and "esoteric" are in two different definitions... ie they are not quite the same. Also, this citation says nothing about Freemasonry.

3)Your third citation is to Sacred Texts.com... and a list of "religious texts" that they lump under occult and esoteric. OK... freemasonry is in the list. But that is the oppinion of one editor. I would contend that this person does not fully understand Freemasonry. The simple fact that it lists Freemasonry as a religion (when it most definitely is not) tells me that this is not a reliable source.

4) your last citation is to the Wikipedia article on Esotericism. Wikipedia rules say that citing to another article is not to be done and there is good reason for this. But that is besides the point... even if you accept this Article as a citation, it does not say that Freemasonry is occult. It makes a distiction between the traditional, historical form of esotericism (Historically, 'esoteric knowledge' generally described knowledge kept secret from outsiders by certain select groups, such as Freemasons or magical orders, either for reasons of exclusivity, or to protect themselves against prejudice.) and a more modern view that includes the occult (More recently, as occult and mystical teachings have become more publicly available (through such groups as the Theosophical Society and the Rosicrucian Fellowship), another sense of esoteric has become more prominent: that which is complex and difficult to grasp except by the few who are more perceptive or aware.)... in other words, that article lumps Freemasonry into the OLDER view of esoteric and not the more modern one. ie: Freemasonry is esoteric, (as our concensus version states) and NOT occult (as your version states).

SO.... while you did cite your version, your citations do not really support your view. I will also point out that in making your edits, you continually cut material that DID have proper citations that DID support the concensus version.

I await your comments. Blueboar 14:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

He's been blocked, Wegian Waarrior demonstrated a high likelihood of it being LB.ALR 14:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
What a surprise! :) Well, we can save this until he returns. Blueboar 14:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archive 15

I took the liberty to move the discussions that hasn't been commented on the last two weeks to /Archive 15. It brought the size down from 249 kB to 167 kB. WegianWarrior 12:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merged Material to the History of Freemasonry article from the main Freemasonry Article

I have merged the material from the main Freemasonry Article (subsection History) to the History of Freemasonry in an attempt to more fully develop the History of Freemasonry article and to allow the Freemasonry editors to shorten the history section on the main page. Hopefully, this will be a good step to summerize the history and bring down the size of the main article. I've also spent some time restructuring the History article so it's more cronological. There are alot of headings that have no materal, just to support the structure, so please feel free to add to as you wish :) Chtirrell 04:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] missing articles

Some articles that might be important:

--SGOvD webmaster (talk) 20:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Can I suggest that the Old Charges might reasonably be dealt with in the History article. I would tend to agree that the Magic Flute is strongly Masonic, I remember seeing it both before I was initiated and after I was raised and the increase in my depth of understanding was immense. With respect to the Order of the Pug, unfortunately I can't read German so would be grateful if you could expand on that, there might already be an appropriate article to include it in.ALR 21:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Please review my translation: The Order of the Pug. :-) --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I do not think that the Order of the Pug should be included (at least not in any significant way). This article is about today's Craft Freemasonry, ie the basic 3 degrees. Thus we do not go into great depths about historical offshoots, side orders, and things like that. While I suppose we could include a section on "Other Orgainizations that were heavily influenced by Freemasonry" or something like that... (I envision a simple list of organizations like the Oddfellows, Order of the Pug, Elks, Tammany, etc. that would link to their articles.)... I would not advise doing so. The problem would be determining when to cut the list off. So many societies used Freemasonry as an orgainizational model that the list could end up being huge. Thus any influence would have to be very close and direct. I also think that we would be constantly having to fend off those who want to put their "pet society" on the list, dispite only tenuous connections to Freemasonry... not to mention the conspiracy nut jobs who would want to add things like the Counsil for Foreign Relations, Skull and Bones, or the CIA. Blueboar 13:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't want to mention this in this article. I just missed an article at all. I missed an article about the Order of the Pugs, so I created one. And there is this Category:Freemasonry. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 14:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Ah... I misunderstood. In that case I fully agree. And good job creating the Pug article. Blueboar 15:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] The Magic Flute

There's just a small paragraph about Freemasonry in the German article, but it's quite profane:

The idea and the music by Mozart is influenced by the spirit of Freemasonry: Mozart was a Freemason and hat connections to the Illuminati of Vienna and Ignaz von Born. The repetition of different rhythmic chords (esp. those of the overture, the prelude to the second part and the end) ought to be the characteristic sounds of the hammer blow of the Masonic degees.

But which seems more interesting for me as a Member of a Grand Lodge with female Freemasons is what Volkmar Braunbehrens writes in his book "Mozart in Wien" (1988). One example:

Sarastro is portrayed as a misogyne person:

Das Weib dünkt sich groß zu sein, hofft durch Blendwerk und Aberglauben das Volk zu berücken und unsern festen Tempelbau zu zerstören. Allein, das soll sie nicht.
A woman thinks to be powerful and hopes to discourage the masses by phantasmagoria and superstition and tries to destroy our building of the temple. But solely, she shall not do that.

But he is corrected by the priests - some of them seem to be female since the choir includes soprano. Pamina is initiated, too:

Froh Hand in Hand in Tempel gehn./ Ein Weib, das Nacht und Tod nicht scheut,/ ist würdig und wird eingeweiht.
Joyful going hand in hand in the Temple./ A woman that is not afraid of night and death,/ is honorable and gets initiated.

Furthermore Braunbehrens writes that there were Adoptionslogen (Lodges for both genders) in that time, but these are quite uninvestigated by ("UGLoE-regular") Masonic historians because of their POV.

--SGOvD webmaster (talk) 22:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the Magic Flute was inspired by Freemasorny, but I would not call it "Masonic" as it does not directly relate to the Craft, its rituals or its teachings. The Magic flute is mentioned in the Cultural references section ... perhaps that mention could be expanded a bit, but I feel that is good enough. Blueboar 13:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Directly enough that it is used for rituals and - it includes its teachings. Eg. "In diesen heil'gen Hallen":
SARASTRO
Within these sacred portals
revenge is unknown,
and if a man has fallen,
love guides him to his duty.
Then, with a friend's hand, he walks,
glad and joyful, into a better land.
Within these sacred walls,
where man loves fellow man,
no traitor can lurk,
because enemies are forgiven.
He who is not gladdened by such teachings
does not deserve to be a man.
In diesem heil'gen Kreise (circle),
wo man nach (for) Wahrheit (truth) ringt (struggle)
und nach der Väter Weise (tradition)
das Band (string) der Eintracht (concord) schlingt:
da reifet unter Gottes Blick
der Wahrheit (truth) und der Menschen Glück (joy),
der Menschen, Menschen Glück.
http://www.loge-zur-wahrheit.de/lieder/in_diesen_heilgen_hallen.htm
http://www.loge-zur-wahrheit.de/sounds/in_diesen_heilgen_hallen.mid
But this should be mentioned in the main article The Magic Flute, not here. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 14:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Feminine Freemasonry again

Just found this link to an article on the BBC website [[3]] old one that someone had sent to me at the time.ALR 10:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can't we all just get along?

This discussion deserves it's own cup of tea. --Avillia 19:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

LOL, you're not wrong :) ALR 20:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible additions

I observe that the list of affiliated organizations includes the Ancient Arabic Order, Nobles of the Mystic Shrine (requiring high-level Masonic affiliation), but does not include the Mystic Order of the Veiled Prophets of the Enchanted Realm (usually called the Grotto, from the name of its local unit, and requiring only that its members be Master Masons). I think that might be added; also three orders for girls, the Girls of the Golden Court, the Triangles, and the Order of the Constellation of the Junior Stars.

I think it would also be useful to list the officers of a lodge, and tell how they are chosen and what their respective duties are, as the system is widely replicated, not only by the many Masonic and affiliated organizations but also by many other organizations with no connection to Freemasonry. J S Ayer 21:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

See Masonic Appendant Bodies and feel free to add the junior organisations in the appropriate place, I haven't added that internal link because the main article has been locked for a while. The Grotto is listed there, as is the Tall Cedars. The Officers are listed at Masonic Lodge. The appendant bodies article mentions non-masonic bodies which model themselves on the craft, but not in any depth so it would be useful to add a little to that section.ALR 21:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Belay my last, I just realised that you have already edited the appendant bodies article. I should have said that once the page is unprotected again I'm intending on working the section on appendant bodies to summarise the other page. Shriners, and some of the others, will probably come out as a result of that edit.ALR 21:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you; I don't know how I missed the link to Masonic Lodge. J S Ayer 01:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations and Footnotes

An issue has come up on a related page (talk:Catholicism and Freemasonry) regarding the need to add quotations to all the footnotes and citations. I want to take this to a different level, divorced from any specific citation or footnote or even any specific page. We need to create a consensus policy for the various Freemasonry related articles regarding citations and footnotes. JASpencer seems to feel that every citation and footnote should contain a quotation. I disagree. I feel it is enough to cite a link to where the statement that we make in this article can be found (or where clear support for the statement can be found if we are not actually quoting something). I find all the quotations in the footnotes to be clunky, overly burdensome, and potentially misleading (the potential is there for someone to take a snippet from what is said in a source, quote the snippet here (out of context) to support a statement, when in fact the original in the source does not support what is being said here at all). So, I want to toss this debate out to all the editors. Do you think we need all these quotations in the citations?... please explain your view so we can come to some consensus. Please respond on this at talk:Catholicism and Freemasonry so we can consolidate our replies in one location. Blueboar 15:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

No. A footnote is to direct a reader to a source, not to give them the source text. I don't think that any citation needs a quotation. If it needs to be said, then say it in the main part. Imacomp 18:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I repeat: Please respond on this at talk:Catholicism and Freemasonry so we can consolidate our replies in one location. thanks. Blueboar 20:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I have. :) (And I'm not just following orders) :) Imacomp 20:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Imacomp. I suppose what I meant to say was "Please DON'T respond here... respond at talk:Catholicism&Freemasonry instead. But as they say down under... No worries. Blueboar 21:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other Organizations with masonic affiliations.

Brothers, why no mention ov M.O.V.P.E.R. Grotto (unless of course, I missed it). Also, I think it would be a nice blurb for American Masonry to have a link to the George Washington Masonic Monument's website....just for the pictures with symbols, etc. Anyone agree? SAWgunner 22:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)SAWgunnerSAWgunner 22:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The "A in a circle" as first used by the Federal Council of Spain of the International Workingmen's Association
Enlarge
The "A in a circle" as first used by the Federal Council of Spain of the International Workingmen's Association

Yes, perhaps there should also be a mention of the anarchist wing of the international Workingmen's Association? (see Anarchist symbolism.Harrypotter 23:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no, because the International Workingmen's Association is not open only to Master Mason's in good standing with their prospective lodge. Also, Freemasonry has no ties to anarchy (although some members could loosely be affiliated with anarchy (Very loosely)), it has no bearing on the fraternity. Another interesting note is that most "Anarchists" usually instill a form of government if the upheaval works, therefore cancelling out anarchy...so in other words, anarchy is just a word....there is no such beast. Even if there is civil war, there is still a "governing" presence and a purpose.SAWgunner 00:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)SAWgunnerSAWgunner 00:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

That's not an "A" for anarchy but an "A" for "asociacion" as a plumb-bob. Additionally, the First International was not based on anarchy. This is why the anarchistic International Workers Association was founded. It's equivalent is the Confederación Nacional del Trabajo in Spain which was founded in 1910. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 13:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Clearly this is a contentious point. Several observations:
The image presented here is from the AIT Federal Council of Spain, which was set up by Giuseppe Fanelli (see Anarchism in Spain - which admittedly is in need of substantial work). My understanding is that both Franelli and Bakunin were Freemasons (Fanelli had a background of involvement with Garibaldi, and they were using the old tactic developed by Philippe Buonarroti of using Freemasonry as a political vehicle. I don't know if anyone has checked out the list on Marx's Marginal Notes on the Program and Rules of Bakunin's International Alliance of Socialist Democracy, but it would be interesting to know if there is any evidence of he signatories involvement with freemasonry. Bearing in mind the involvement of the Philadelphians around Mazzini, I am sure that everyone would love to see the relationship mapped out clearly. One thing which seems obvious is that there were substantial between Grand Orient of France and united Grand Lodge of England in this period - something which could do with some work on.Harrypotter 13:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Harrypotter, even if your understanding that Franelli and Bakunin were Freemasons is correct, you would have to clearly show that any such tie to the Fraternity played more that a circumstancial role in influencing them. I think you may be assuming that European liberal activists of the mid to late 1800 became active in liberal politics because they were Freemasons... when in fact it was usually the other way around: they became involved in Freemasonry becuase they thought it would mesh with their pre-existing liberal leanings. I would suggest that you go slow, discuss your ideas here on the talk page, and build consensus prior to adding anything on this topic to the article.
I would also like you to clarify your final sentence... you say "...there were substantial between Grand Orient of France and United Grand Lodge of England in this period." First, what period are you talking about? And second, substantial WHAT between GOdF and UGLE? If you are talking about the mid to late 1800s then I would have to say that what is obvious is that there was growing emnity and tention between these two bodies... leading up to a complete split in 1877. Blueboar 14:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I think you will find that I am going slowly and discussing things on the talk page. Sorry for the Freudian slip, the missing word is of course differences, though growing emnity and tension perhaps better discribes it. I think it would also be useful to link this to the operations of Grand Orient in Ireland particularly in Belfast, but I can't find my copy of the intersting pamflet with an account of this. I am not sure whether this complex relationship can be fitted on a small page, or whether a short section here could then have links to other pages which would enable the reader to enlighten themselves in these issues.Harrypotter 19:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotected

Article is now unprotected. I will keep an eye for revert wars, and if these resume, the article will be protected again. Happy editing. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edited Organizational Structure

I noiced that while regularity is explained, the "consequences" of irregularity were ignored, so I added that. I also fixed the misspelled "jurisdiction" (which seems to be a recurrent issue). There was some circular logic around the Landmarks, and while they aren't fixed per se, there are a few standards. This needs to be noted because GOdF was deemed irregular for violating the VSL landmark (which also needs to be mentioned and cited, BTW), which wouldn't make any sense of the Landmarks weren't fixed. Also, if somebody feels like looking over the UGLE constitution, can somebody post a list of the Landmarks so we can incorporate them into the article? MSJapan 04:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

While there are a few basic landmarks (such as having a VSL, Belief in God, and No women) that the majority of Grand Lodges hold as Landmarks... the problem is that the Landmarks are not really fixed, and the decisions on recognition and irregularity often do not make sense ... They often involve insider politics between competing Grand Lodges rather than real Landmark issues. That said, we should point out that, while each GL can determine what are and are not Landmarks, and that each can determine who to recognize and who to deem irregular, most GLs follow the lead of UGLE decision on these matters and a GL that bucks the trend will find itself shunned by all the others. Blueboar 16:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The First Great Schism - 1753 (was not a "schism" -- and it happened in 1751)

There are all kinds of things wrong with this section. 1) First of all, the Grand Lodge formed in 1717 did not call itself or consider itself to be "The Grand Lodge of England." It was simply, the "Grand Lodge."

2) It expanded from one degree to two degrees before 1725, and the MM Degree appeared as a third degree about 1725.

The current article states that "The Antients broke away in 1753, prompted by changes to the Ritual and a wish to have a fourth Holy Royal Arch (HRA) degree within Craft Masonry." This is simply not true.

4) First of all, the "Ancients" ("Antient", spelled with a "t" is simply a variant spelling. Ivor Grantham, in his report appearing in A.Q.C. Vo. LXIV, pp. 76-78 (1953), stated that throughout the 62 years of the life of the Ancients Grand Lodge, its minutes and records use the term "Ancient" exclusively, with the exception of four individual instances in 1764, 1765, 1766, and 1792. The name appeared consistently throughout all editions of Dermott's "Ahiman Rezon" up to the Union of 1813; and the name of the body just prior to the Union was "Most Ancient and Honorable Fraternity of Free and Accepted Masons, according to the Old Institutions." I don't know why some insist on using the incorrect spelling, "Antient", when even the "Ancients" themselves used the correct spelling far more often than not.

5) The "Ancients" did not "break away" from anyone. Their Grand Lodge was formed on 17 July 1751, and NOT in 1753 as the article states. And it was formed by five lodges that had never been on the roll of the Moderns Grand Lodge. The unsupported assumption that there had been a split or a "schism" within the Moderns Grand lodge was proven to be wrong by Henry Sadler, Librarian of the U.G.L.E., and his findings were published in the book "Masonic Facts and Fictions," published in 1887. (That's almost 120 years ago, for those who need to catch up on their Masonic reading.) PGNormand 06:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pats on the backs all round

I would like to congratulate all the editors for their work on this article, since the last un-protection. I have been very happy to watch some interesting and informative additions and corrections, achieving a very high standard. Well done for getting back on track. :) Imacomp 23:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] I edited the Organzations with Masonic Affiliations section

I have added Mystic Order of Veiled Prophets of the Enchanted Realm to the section because it is a group for Master Masons by Master Masons and is held in regard as such. "While in no way connected with Masonry proper, its membership is restricted absolutely and exclusively to Master Masons in good standing." The same can be said of other Organizations such as Tall Cedars, so i included it here.SAWgunner 17:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)SAWgunnerSAWgunner 17:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you clarify that you are actually writing an associated article? As it stands that is a dead link.
I think there is probably a more general point of principle here, a number of the links in that sequence have no article associated with them, and haven't had an article since they were created, in some cases some time ago. That adds little value in a see also section since that should point to substantive articles. The second issue is that WP is not a collection of lists. given the amount of development of associated articles I'd suggest that the see also section probably needs rationalised with most of the other bodies links moving elsewhere.ALR 17:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I actually had no intention of writing a MOVPER article. I added it to that list because that is the only one in the article for Organizations with Masonic Affiliations. I also noticed that there were some without links, and I think the section would be better suited if the list was not based on Wiki articles. It needs only be a list. On the second note, although Wikipedia is not a collection of list, one needs not restrict information because of that fact. All of the Organizations in that section as much belong in that article as does the main body because they are comprised of nothing but Master Masons. I hope I made sense here, but I did not want to delete/rewrite that section, so I was left with adding it without a link. SAWgunner 17:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)SAWgunnerSAWgunner 17:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
There is another article on the topic of associated organisations, and it would be more approriate to discuss these bodies there. If you feel that there is a need for the article then use the WP process to request someone writes it, however if you have knowledge of the subject it would be useful to share that. The Grotto doesn't exist where I am and it would be interesting to me to hear from you something of the organisation. But in the absence of an associated article then the link really shouldn't be there. Although I note that Ardenn has already dealt with the issue.ALR 18:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to edit the see also section. It's meant for people to find other articles that are written on Wikipedia, it's not meant to have red links. Ardenn 17:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no objections to adding MOVPER to the list... but I agree that the whole point of a "See Also" section is to link to other articles. SAWgunner, if you feel that MOVPER is worthy of inclusion in the list, then it should be worthy of at least a stub article. Why not start one? All it need be for now is a brief descripton of what the organization is, who can join, and what it does. Others can come along later and fill in the details. I would encourage any one who belongs to one of these Affiliated organizations to write similar stubs if not entire articles. Blueboar 18:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, having looked at the Masonic Appendant Bodies article, I am having second thoughts ... shouldn't this entire list be cut in favor of just the one pointer to that article? Blueboar 18:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
List cut as per above ... link to main article added. Blueboar 18:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


Sounds good...I will write an article. I hope I didn't come off brash, I was just trying to clearly represent my idea. Anyway, I see that you noticed that too, along with ALR about the need to just put those in the article as opposed to having a list.SAWgunner 18:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)SAWgunnerSAWgunner 18:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
And here I was worried that we were coming across as a bit brash! By the way... Grotto IS mentioned in the Masonic Appendant Bodies article (although not by the MOVPER acronym). Blueboar 19:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From the Blue

I’ve noticed an out-o-da-blue comment for "position 2" logged by Jacobcolbert [4] at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Freemasonry. Just thought I'd report this one-off interest, out of interest. Imacomp 21:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article length

Large article...the whole History section probably should be moved into a subarticle "History of Freemasonry" and a summary put there in its place (IMO). Kaisershatner 19:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

There already is such an article, and once it's finished, we'll swap in a new summary. MSJapan 16:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Blueboar

Just in relation to your reversions of my edits, from edit to previous edit. If you took a moment to examine the history, you will note that my removal of the 'secrets' section was due to a lack of reference for the speculative statement made.

Furthermore, my removal of non-regular features of requirements of becoming a Freemason, contrary to your quip that 'this article is not just about regular Freemasonry' was due to the fact the heading, three lines above where my edit begins, stipulates: -

Generally to be a regular Freemason, one must

Rather than reverting, I will leave this discussion open for your response first. If you can provide a citation for the obiter dictum stated as pseudo-fact, I will gladly leave it in. Likewise, if you can explain how the article not being about regular Freemasonry yet the section's sub title stipulating regular Freemasonry should impact on the 'creative principal' aspect?

Jachin 10:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for not reverting right off the bat. We have been having problems with POV vandals recently, and so we prefer to discuss changes before they are made. I do see your point on the regularity issue. I had forgotten that the header specificly mentioned "regular". I withdraw my objections to that change (although perhaps we need to change the header instead of the text?) As for the lack of references for the statement in the "secrets" section... Please place a {{fact}} tag on any statements you feel need citations and we will look for them. Blueboar 14:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Citation for the "secrets" being known since the 1700s (from UGLE website) added. [User?] (added by me a few days ago... sorry. Blueboar 17:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC))
You're preaching to the choir, Blueboar. The introduction still reads rather unprofessionally, in all honesty I think a revert to six months from today may be in order for that section. The featured status was destroyed by the anti-masonic zealots insistant on trying to bring NWO / Illuminati conspiracy theory drivel into the main article, so perhaps we should examine closely the old featured status compared to now and note the differences; and there are many! 211.30.80.121 04:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Notwithstanding the legitimate point that the introduction needs work, and probably some of it broken out into a supporting section, I'd hesitate to recommend the formerly featured article as a baseline. When FA was awarded the standards were pretty loose, and whilst the article was reasonably written it had huge gaps in its' coverage of the topic. I would take the view that the article has suffered from obsessive nit-picking from certain 'editors' and as a result it has become unwieldy and overly defensive in it's nature.ALR 10:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd say it's quite the contrary, it's become too liberal to the point where there are unsubstantiated lines of drivel as well as random tangents by anti-masons attempting to corroborate their other conspiracy theories and tie them in neatly (well, in their undereducated eyes perhaps) with their other rants. I'm waiting for the aliens, nwo and kennedy assasination things to sprout up next. I can honestly say in the time I have served Wiki and specifically this category, I have seen it flatline from a well written and well edited document to something written (well, messed up / edited / tweaked) by a pack of crack smoking monkeys due to too many editors with their own agendas. It's a shame really, t'was a nice article. Jachin 15:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'll play this game. I've just gone back 6 months, actually a little longer to a version last amended by MSJ although it was in the middle of a lot of Lightbringer edits, [[5]]. I'll accept that the intro is better, mainly because that was prior to a level of obsession with regard to secrets which have led to the current clunky prose. As I said above much of that potentially needs broken out into a discrete section. As to the rest of the article, it's full of contestable claims with little defensible jsutification of what it says, I'd hesitate to support moving back to that stage. As to the point of being liberal, well perhaps, although it would be more useful to actually address where you think there are issues with that, so that they can be examined and dealt with. Although from that page might I refer you to The position of women within Freemasonry is complex. Traditionally, only men could be made Freemasons. While this has been slowly changing, especially over the past century, there were exceptions to the rule as early as the 18th century. which is deceptive to the point of being a complete mis-representation of the actual situation. The fact that women cannot become regular freemasons has been discussed at length, that statement might reasonably be interpreted to indicate that they can, or could be some time in the near future. I'm not convinced that's an improvement of the current version. There are sections which probably need removed, but they are subject to rather passionate defence. The history section does need slimmed down and moved out to the appropriate page, and some of the other sections would benefit from slimming down and moving content elsewhere. Indeed the aliens, nwo, Kennedy stuff is already included at Anti-Masonry. As to your last point, every editor has their own agenda; those of us who are members of the craft belong to different GLs with different strategic directions(we probably all belong to different sets of appendant bodies as well, which doesn't help), others adhere to organisations which have a declared issue with the craft, yet more have little actual knowledge or understanding but choose to involve themselves in the debate for their own purposes. I'm not sure it's all that helpful to describe other editors as 'crack smoking monkeys'. Anyway, I look forward to seeing some more contributions from you to improve the article.ALR 19:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Housekeeping

I've done some housekeeping to the article. No large changes to content. Only moved some stuff about. Imacomp 15:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adding back some text, taking account of Verifiaphobia

Blueboar reverted some of my text, which is OK as he explained why. While I disagree with the verifiaphobia, I've not inserted the quotes in to the text, but simply changing the claims so that they no longer say things such as "in fact".

The quotes that have been taken out are emboldened:

<ref>"The secrets of Freemasonry are concerned with its traditional modes of recognition. It is not a secret society, since all members are free to acknowledge their membership and will do so in response to enquiries for respectable reasons. Its constitutions and rules are available to the public. There is no secret about any of its aims and principles. Like many other societies, it regards some of its internal affairs as private matters for its members." [http://www.grandlodge-england.org/masonry/what-is-freemasonry.htm What is Freemasonry]</ref><ref>http://www.grandlodge-england.org/masonry/YQA-secret-society.htm</ref>

and

.<ref name="secrets">"The rituals and ceremonies used by Freemasons to pass on the principles of Freemasonry to new members were first revealed publicly in 1723. They include the traditional forms of recognition used by Freemasons essentially to prove their identity and qualifications when entering a Masonic meeting. These include handshakes which have been much written about and can scarcely be regarded as truly secret today; for medieval Freemasons, they were the equivalent of a 'pin number' restricting access only to qualified members." [http://www.grandlodge-england.org/masonry/A2L-secret-society.htm website of the United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE)]</ref>

JASpencer 18:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not have "verifiphobia" (if that is a word)... I support verification strongly. Any statement that is at all controvercial should be cited, and a link provided if possible. What I object to is HOW JASpencer is insiting that things be verified. I see no reason to clutter up the citation footnotes with unneeded quotations, especially when all it would take to verify the statement is a quick click on the link provided in the citation. In this case, The UGLE website pages that are linked have very little text on them (each of the two statements quoted by JASpencer above, which he wanted to add as a footnote in the citation, amount to about a fifth of the text on each page). Anyone wishing to verify that UGLE actually says what we claim it says will find the relevant statements easily.
This is an argument that is being carried over from some of the other Freemasonry related articles. On those pages, JAS insists that every citation foot note include a snippet of quoted text to back up the statement being made in the main article... reguarless of whether it makes any sense to do so or not. A prime example of this can be found in the "Allegation that Freemasonry is a new religion" section of the Catholicism and Freemasonry article. Someone included the statement that "Freemasonry is not a religion, nor a substitute for religion." This is a direct quote from the UGLE website: Here Anyone going to that page should find those 10 simple words within the first 10 seconds of reading. However, JAS insisted that these words not only be linked to, but quoted again in a foot note next to the link. It was over-redundant and just plain SILLY. Now he wants to impose the same standard here.
Please understand that I am not saying we should never quote our sources... sometimes doing so is helpfull in making a point, or clarifying a statement so its meaning is crystal clear. In which case, I tend to feel that such a quotation should be placed directly in the main text of the article, and not "hidden" away in a footnote.
Finally, no matter what is done on other pages, it is clear that on this article we have not been adding quotes to our citations. I am not about to change that. (JASpencer probably feels we should go back and find quotes for each and every citation we have listed, and include these quotes in our citation footnotes. I am taking a stand to say, "No. There is no need to do so.") Blueboar 19:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revisiting "US Catholic View"

I know we talked about this above... but I want to revisit it. This section needs some work... It really does not belong where it is. However, I do think it is important, and don't think we should cut it (It should probably lead off the "Criticisms" section). Given that Cardinal Razinger is now Pope Benedict, his past statements about Freemasonry potentially take on new significance. I also think we need to provide some background... we should mention the fact that traditionally the Church has not approved of Freemasonry, and banned Catholics from joining; then we can (briefly) talk about the recent changes in Cannon Law that led many to think that the Church had relaxed its stance; which would give some context as to why Law and Ratzinger made the statements that are currently in the article. Blueboar 02:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I would take it to the Talk Page and then rework it. It was a mischevious addition and is not in place in the article. No matter what balance has been added it does not fit in at the moment - although it doubtless could.
On the Canon Law change has been fairly comprehensively shown to have been a red herring not just by Ratzinger's opinion, but by the German Bishop's conference, the American Bishop's conference and the very recent brouhaha over the Los Angeles Archdiocese's withdrawal of it's earlier permission, etc.
JASpencer 07:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that it's needed in this article, its place is in the 'RC position on FM' article. I'd agree with JAS that it was a spurious addition.ALR 08:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Agree. So do we just cut it, or do we rewrite it and stick it in the "criticisms" section? Blueboar 12:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I've cut it down to a "see also" link, to shorten article. This retains NPOV, as all stuff should be better served at length at RC and FM article. Imacomp 14:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms

I have deleted the following line from the "Christian religious opposition" section: "Freemasonry has at times and in certain places been heavily Christianised, while in other times and places been thoroughly anti-clerical." I know what this line is trying to say... but it has problems. Being Christianized is not an opposite of being anti-clerical. One can be Christian and anti-clerical, Christian and pro-clerical (if that is a word), Non-Christian and pro-clerical, Non-Christian and anti-clerical. In regards to Masonry (especially if you include irregular Masonry) both halves of the statement are historically true... but they made no sense linked together the way they were. Blueboar 13:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roman Catholic Mason

I am a Mason who has converted to the Roman Catholic faith. I made disclosure to my priest during my schooling for conversion and he said there was no problem. I also know many fellow Catholics who are Freemasons and no one from the church hassles them.

72.48.120.65 02:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

That's nice. I would hope no one would give you any trouble. Freemasonry is more elastic than most, and I see no problem with you converting whatsoever. I mean, what is there to be maad about, really? The possibility of any of the allegations against freemasonry being truthful are so slim that to bring them up is laughably silly, we would not have survived this long as a society if there was anything inherently evil occuring within the order, we would have been found out centuries ago and destroyed. Only the ignorant seem ot find cause to loathe us. But that too, is falling by the wayside as awareness replaces palpal bulls and ecclesiastical decrees of heresies. Best of luck to you brother.

NOTE: above was by 65.148.152.134. Imacomp 16:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

"The possibility of any of the allegations against freemasonry being truthful are so slim that to bring them up is laughably silly" seems to indicate that any criticism of freemasonry is already discounted, even before it has been enunciated. Also, as the range of criticism encompasses such a broad range of people, to close our minds to even the possibility seems to be wilfully blind.Harrypotter 18:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/r/e/Talk%7EFreemasonry_Archive_16_5fd1.html"