Talk:Freemasonry/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between Sep 2005 and 4 Oct 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to Talk:Freemasonry/Archive_4. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you.

Contents

England is in Europe

I'm really going to need to look into this. Most people I know who are from or live in the UK do not consider themselves European. Now, England is part of the EU, but they have not elected to adopt the euro as currency. Given the ambiguity this causes, I would be inclined to leave England as a separate set of links.

Furthermore, as Freemasonry officially started in England (not Europe) I feel that it merits its own section for that reason as well. Thoughts?MSJapan 03:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

England/UK is physically located in Europe. If you're gonna do it by continent, then they're in there. Or each country has to have its own heading, which doesn't really make sense. -- Spinboy 03:04, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
What about doing England/Scotland/Wales and then Europe? It's not called "the Continent" for nothing. Seriously though, geography aside, I think that all the UK links really need to be separate. UGLE is a very important link as far as the article is concerned, and it's one of the few countries outside the US that has a lot of Masonic provinces; Freemasonry did not start in Hungary or Soain, and to put UK links in with the rest of Europe only makes them that much harder to find.MSJapan 16:20, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
You either do it by continent for all, or for none. It's hypocracy to do otherwise. England/Scotland/Wales are all one nation called the United Kingdom, you may have heard of it. They have a common passport and national anthem, God Save the Queen. And the UK is physically part of Europe, thus if you're doing the links by continent, then it should be there. -- Spinboy 20:05, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree completely with MSJapan's concept. The United Kingdom features too heavily in regards to Freemasonry to just lump it in with Europe as the continent. That would be like lumping the Vatican into Italy when dealing with the Roman Catholic articles on here. I say retain a United Kingdom links section then continental based for the rest. 211.30.72.208 18:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
I think that considering England apart of Europe is a stupid "englinshish". England is politically, historically and geographically part of the Europe continent. —Claunia 02:34, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough Claunia, but would you say, in relation to Freemasonry, that England isn't of higher import than most of Europe when it comes to the organised fraternal brotherhood of F&AM? After all, the British Empire, all it's colonies, territories, past colonies and past territories all answer to UGLE for their charters. Apart from America, Japan and a few other places (a definite minority in the masonic world however) almost every Freemason walking this earth would consider UGLE of much greater import than even their own UGL. 211.30.72.208 21:58, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm not a freemason (still) so I have no voice in what you are saying, but, this is an encyclopedia for everybody, not just a freemasonry book, so it should atain to regular people's view, and for regular people, England is part of Europe, and is of no more importance (you know, relatively and fairly) than any other Europe country. —Claunia 04:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
However, I'm sure you would agree that in order to inform the general public about Freemasonry, we need to show what Masonry's history is. In that context, the most important place in the history of Freemasonry is England. Without the intellectual efforts that went on there that led to the creation of UGLE, Masonry would simply not exist (as Jachin states slightly differently and correctly below). To therefore de-emphasize the role of England does a great disservice to those "regular people" who want to learn about Freemasonry, especially given the huge amount of tourism now being generated in Scotland at Rosslyn Chapel due to (disputed) Masonic connections. If England, Scotland, and Ireland are "just countries", how do you explain that interest? Short answer: you can't, and you punch a big hole in the facts as a result. MSJapan 22:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


However, I'm sure you would agree that in order to inform the
general public about Freemasonry, we need to show what Masonry's  
history is MSJapan

If the above doesn't constitue a Masonic P.O.V. Manifesto, then nothing does. Of course this is from the same individual who brings me up on "charges" for a P.O.V. "agenda"! Welcome to the wonderful wackey world of Masonic 'Jurisprudence'. My advice to anyone trying to understand freemasonry is to ignore their lofty motto's and instead focus on studying the actions of it's members. Lightbringer 04:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't mean to bust any balls by this statement, but to the majority of Freemasons (numerically speaking), England is far more important than the United States which has zero bearing on Freemasonry anywhere but inside the US itself unto itself. Our charters of UGL's are from UGLE here in Australia. Every commonwealth country and every past colonies Freemasonry comes from UGLE in England.

If the United States has a category of it's own and Canada even has a category of it's own, lumping UGLE in England, the motherlodge of all Freemasonry into 'Europe' is politically correct bullshit if you ask me. Jachin 12:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, though we need to strike a balance (a la Spinboy) between useful and useless links. Have you had a chance to do anything regarding that full-bore structural revision yet? The convo got archived, but it would be great if you could take that on. MSJapan 22:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

"Anti-Freemasonry Propaganda"

To add information to a Wikipedia page via paragraph and heading insertions and additions is in the spirit of this project. To wholesale delete entries, repeatedly and completely erase them, is certainly not. These entries are not the personal domains, websites, or fifedoms of anyone. The author of the following commentary has never deleted a single paragraph or word of any Wikopedia page, he has added yes, but never deleted. The subject of the commentary on the other hand has, repeatedly.

Here is a carry-over from a message posted by Dreamweaver attacking those who make entries on the subject of Freemasonry he deams "anti-freemasonry propganda", after he appears to have gone through the Jack the Ripper page and deleted each and every entry or reference to the 'Freemasonry Theory' as put forth by a number of authors and popular movies. It is useful to read Dreamweavers self-appointed 'Manifesto' as the arbitrator of what is and is not "acceptable".

This anti-Masonry poster is on a crusade to put in bad info about MAsons, regardless of how unreliable the information is. His claims that I removed every reference to the freemason theory from the JAck the Ripper pages is completely false, as the info on the suspect Gull is included there, which links to an article specifically about that theory, debunking the alleged Freemason connections. His sources for his claims are a book by a known anti-Mason bigot Stepehn Knight which is full of errors and a comic book (see his mention of Eddie Campbell, the ocrrect author is Alan Moore, Eddie Campbell drew it). There are articles on Jack the Ripper royal conspiracy theories, Juwes, and tons of others direclty dealing with the topic but using actual reliable sources. DreamGuy 22:42, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


By your choice of language I take you to be a 'E-M@son', which is a Mason who is a member of an 'electronic' masonic lodge or club. One of the more active ones I am familiar with, not you, I see listed in the recent entries on the talkback section. This individual, not you, and his group spent four years trying to destroy that site. They are currently trolling all internet discussion boards seeking to detect posts that they do not deem 'Masonic'. Instead of replying to the posts or engaging in debate their tactic is to bombard the board host and isp providers with complaints to close the account of the poster. So much for Freemasonry's committment to freedom of expression. Kinda reminds one of the accusations made against Scientology doesn't it.
And yes Dreamie you did delete all the work I did on that page last night, twice. I had 'British Freemasonry' listed as a suspect in the suspect section. You deleted this. The reference to Gull contains no reference to Freemasonry whatsoever. You cleverly put up a seperate page on 'Juwes will not..' where you repeat you attack against 'Anti-Masons', but make no link to the main Ripper entry. Playing the Google keyword game eh? No matter I re-entered it in the 'Additional Theory' section. Oh and if you don't like the reference I have Knights books sitting right beside me, would you prefer that?
Stephen Knight was a journalist for an East-End London Newspaper, he was not an "Anti-Mason", a made up non-existant boogeyman term Masonry invented to shut down and eliminate critical discussion of their organization. The book is very well referenced as is Campbells.
All you little unlinked 'stubs' about Jack the Ripper you have scattered around Wilkopedia should be grouped on the Ripper page of course, but that would 'raise unnessesary questions in peoples minds'. Why would you Dreamie make a seperate Juwes and Stephen Knight pages, and probably otherws I haven't found yet, unlinked to the main ripper page, where the only info on them is a personal attack against Stephen Knight as an "anti-mason"? Your a Masonic Vandal Dreamie, sorry to blow your cover.
And your paranoia is showing throw. I'm not a mason. There is no conspiracy going on here to hide articles, they are all linked. Knight very clearly was an antimason, having written famous antimasonry books that invented up facts to go along with his insane theory. He is not respected by any other authors or experts, his Ripper book is considered the worst one ever made, and you are only showing your true colors by making up insane sounding conspiracy theories about my goals here. And, please, the comic book was written by Moore, not Campbell, and stop pretending that a fictional comic book written for entertainment purposes somehow counts as a reliable reference on history. DreamGuy 01:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Come on, why the big battle in here? anyone who has followed the BBC program (where they had historians in the studio) and studied about the Ripper know that there is not one proof that the masons are linked to it. Putting your faith in "From Hell" is like putting your faith in Batman for crime fighting, its a fantasy.
The Ripper was (according to the infamous "From Hell" letter) illiterate, so the juwes was probably a attemt to spell judes.
And in the Victorian times the queen was so powerfull that if she didnt wanted a child to exist. she would say it and it would be gone. no need for the masons to run around and do any dirty work.

Sneaking Viper 04:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Original Message

Warning

Wikipedia is not a place for you to deposit anti-Freemasonry propoganda. IF you intend to try to contribute to this site in the future, please read and follow the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy, as encyclopedia articles cannot take sides in disputes (except for pointing out mainstream opinion and labeling it as such and pointing out errors in arguments by citing appropriate experts where appropriate). The site freemasonrywatch.org is not a valid and accepted source. See the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. DreamGuy 21:22, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


Response

What is 'Anti-Freemasonry Propaganda'?

Are you suggesting that information that Freemasons disagree with is defacto false and therefore propaganda?

You should read Stephen Knights book, as well as Eddie Campbell's graphical novel. The BBC did a number of investigations on the Masonic theory as well. It has NOT been discredited, despite Freemasons attempts to do so.

Websites that contain information that Freemasons dislike are not considered a valid and accepted source by Freemasons. So what. Freemasons never accept criticism of themselves, yet much of the content of the website is either quoting directly from recognized masonic sources, or is masonic writing itself. Freemasonry is a Secret Society that employs deception to mislead outsiders about it's purposes and teachings. 'The Craft of the Crafty'.

Secondly who is responsible for deleting the additional information about the Jack the Ripper case yesterday? You? No other theory has captured the public imagination about the subject. Yet you, like 'active' and 'zealous' freemasons, seek to 'disappear' it. It never happened. Now you see it, now you don't. Abracadabra.

You can't do an entry on Jack the Ripper and list the suspects without including the Freemasonry theory. Who has the hidden agenda here?

There certainly is evidence that Masons have been attempting to craft the wilkopedia entry for Freemasonry to their liking, and have undoubtably installed their conferates inside the editorial committees, exactly as they did for Dmoz.

I have read your rant Dreamweaver about your crusade against 'Mythology' and 'Jack the Ripper'. Two favourite areas for Freemasons trying to "simplify" their history and public image. I won't suggest you are possibly a Freemason yourself however.


Actually, the anon editor above changed what he originally wrote: his original comments were:
But they failed in Dmoz and they will fail here as well, because they are stupid and they are liars. '
Which exposes his anti-Freemason agenda and complete disregard for the NPOV policy here. And I don't have a crusade against Mythology and Jack the Ripper, I write factual information about them all over this encyclopedia.
You are quite incredible. The sentence was 'up' for all of what ten minutes as I edited and wrote my reponse to you. That fact that I did not include it in the final version of my response to you proves I seek to abide by the spirit and guidelines of Wilkopeida, no matter how furious I maybe at the deceptions and activities of Freemasonry, organized Freemasonry. Yes Freemasons lie and deceive, no great revelation there. And yes they turned Dmoz upside down for two years, making the Freemasonry Opposing Views section a listing for Freemasonry sites attacking 'Anti-masonry' and 'Anti-masons', refusing the inclusion of websites that were actually opposing! But repeated complaints straighted that out, eventually. Just like your little unlinked dispersion and stub strategy on Jack the Ripper will be straighted out as well. Is not this deception and lieing?
I would suggest that anyone who cares about accurate information on Freemasonry take the time to watch this anon IP's edits so that they can be reverted whenever his level of hatred and conspiracy mongering gets added anywhere. DreamGuy 22:42, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Yup you've got all the little Masonic thought police lingo down pat don't you? To post information Masons disagree with is a crime - this is the implication of the 'hate' accusation. The Conspiracy accusation Masons hurl is actually an accusation of Mental Illness. Basic Soviet tactics. Not much light in freemasonry, but lots of darkness and shade.

DreamGuy should know that the NPOV policy means that all different theories and points of view must be fairly reflected. That you do not like something gives you neither the right to remove it nor the right to start Nazi crusades against other user. Your, in my opinion, close-minded attitude proves fast who is the one trying to contribute something useful here. Zapatancas 14:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

You need to be able to back up your edits with credible sources. -- Spinboy 15:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Actually Zapatancas, NPOV does not mean "all dofferent theories and points of view must be fairly reflected" as some views are not encyclopedic/notable and not credible/verifiable. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Giving "equal validity". But the point is that Lightbringer's edits are not "fairly refelected" at all, because they are made with a specific agenda of criticizing Masons by making accusations that are throroughly disputed by experts and lack credible sources and he removes al references that point out that the arguments and accusations he posts are not taken seriously by credible sources, thus meaning only his view gets represented and only his way with no controls or credible sources. Thus your accusations, Zapatancas, are totally misplaced. DreamGuy 17:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
What experts? Dreamguy keeps stating this or that 'has been completely discredited by experts or academics', but he never gives their names, or references to their writings. Who are these mystery experts Dreamguy? Could they be Freemasons perhaps. It is a pretty dishonest debating method, but seems to be the primary crutch you use to erase anything you don't like. Incidently you also seem to try and portrary yourself via your writings as being Wipipedia when in fact you are just like the rest of us, a simple contributor. This points also to deception like your repeated unnamed 'experts' claims. This is a public community Dreamguy, not your personal and private space. You are certainly entitled to a place to have your exclusive views but that place Dreamguy is not here, you should do that on your own webpage.

If this gentleman cowan refuses to sign his affronts and pointless drivel, why are you taking the time and effort to reply to him? Certain people are obsessive with their need to victimise groups of people, especially those who are strongly opposed to immorality or who are closely knit socially. These peoples narrow minds cannot comprehend the truth and are not worth discourse with.

I suggest until this cowardly dim-wit utilises four tildes and has the bollocks to sign his rants you stop humouring him further. Jachin 13:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I am from Spain and I had heard before those things about the Captain Morgan, about Jack the Ripper and so on. They are part of Freemasonry's history, no matter they are true or not and I believe every expert in Freemasonry knows what has been said about these issues. Why cannot they be placed in this article if they are fairly reported (that is, including the different data and opinions that exist about them)?
Finally, I am sorry to contradict DreamGuy but the NPOV policy means exactly that "all different theories and points of view must be fairly reflected". If a view is not encyclopedic/notable or not credible/verifiable that does not mean it must not be fairly treated as a not encyclopedic/notable or not credible/verifiable view, especially it is had been around for more than a century (as it is the case with the mistery of the Captain Morgan).
I hope, DreamGuy, you are not afraid of anything.
Jachin, please personal attacks are forbidden in the Wikipedia. A little respect for other human beings is also moral. Zapatancas 16:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
OK, first up, what on earth is "I hope, DreamGuy, you are not afraid of anything." supposed to mean? It almost sounds like a threat, but then no sane person would make a threat and then turn around and tell someone else not to make personal attacks. So what is that line supposed to mean?
Secondly, you can disagree with me all you want, but your claims that NPOV policy says all different theories and points of view must be represented is complete nonsense. See NPOV:#Giving_.22equal_validity.22. DreamGuy 05:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Jachin: Personal attacks are not acceptable. No matter what your motivation. They are obviously not helpful, neither to this discussion, nor to your reputation. Eaglizard 04:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


==

It would seem this argument could readily be solved by two actions, making a section for Criticism and Conspiracy Theory, which would accumulate a short bit of information on generalised Anti-Masonic attitudes and outlooks then creating a seperate page (visibly linked both in disambiguation and in that specific section mentioned above) that lists these theories in length.

I lack the technical knowledge of how to do such a thing, but I do suggest it strongly.

India section looks plagiarized....

I say this because there are subheadings styles that appear nowhere else in the document, there are far too many dead links, and the first paragraph doesn't make sense at all. Can someone see if a source exists for this section? My only other issue is that I think this sort if information is very useful, and it would be a shame if it had to be removed.

Has anyone done anything regarding the new article structure I proposed and which is now archived?MSJapan 16:14, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Links to Lodges

I actually think the lodge links should be removed. Wikipedia isn't a links repository. -- Spinboy 04:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, but could we perhaps leave a few useful major ones, such as UGLE?MSJapan 22:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I think if UGLE is important enough, you can write an article on it, and link to it that way. -- Spinboy 23:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
I think the national Lodges should be linked, as in other articles there are lot of links related to them, not just sources of information. About the regional ones, that should be included in separate articles as "Freemasonry in France" for example. —Claunia 04:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Agree on that, unless someone wants to write List of Masonic Grand Lodges or something like that. WegianWarrior 06:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
I like the list a lot better, thank you. -- Spinboy 06:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The "Anti-Freemason" Comments on the edits he made

The Wikipedia message at top of page tonight suggested size of page was too long at 74K, so I placed the Freemasonry in Specific Countries on a new seperate page, like another user did for the Grand Lodge listings. I also noticed some 'Famous Freemason' included in the cultural reference paragraph that were already included on the Famous Freemasons page, I moved the Famous Freemasons link to a higher position in the additional section also.

We could also do additional pages on what Regular Freemasonry considers 'clandestine' Freemasonry, the Golden Dawn, O.T.O., Wiccan etc., etc.,. There was a brief entry on the G.D. in the cultural references that could be put there, if someone wants to start a page about that. Most of these 'clandestine' or 'irregular' versions or side orders of Freemasonry were founded by 'Regular' high degree Freemasons incidently.

I added a link to a New York Times article as well. There were others in the Washington Post and MSNBC which could be put in there as well.

More work is needed in the Catholic v Freemaonry area, the different letters from various Bishops etc.. It is an interesting history.

I sincerely hope the edits I made tonight are seen in the co-operative and non-npov spirit in which I made them. Lightbringer 12:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I moved your comments to the bottom, where new comments routinely go.
It's nice to see you switch to changes that aren't outright overt anti-Freemason propoganda. However this new article you created was not named well, missed the vast majority of information you deleted (hrmm, wonder if there was an agenda to removing famous respected people as Masons when you have already stated your belief that they are all stupid and liars). I would think if you are going to break the history out into separate articles it'd be best to do it by country and not try to have one poorly worded catch all for all of them. DreamGuy 23:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Never have, however you as usual showed your pro-masonry propaganda hand and deleted the link to the New York Times article on Freemasonry. Why? It is obvious, it was extremely embarrasing to Freemasonry. The remainder of your deletions of my work are obvious as well, to spam the page with unnecessary duplications of material cut and pasted from Masonic web sites. Exactly how many times do you want to list 'Famous Freemasons of the United States'? Hmmm? They are already completely listed in the Famous Freemasons page. Why do you enter them again in the cultural references section - and at the top. More Dreamguy spam. They aren't even cultural references, which refer to references in popular media, books, films, etc.. Your rolled up trouser leg is showing there 'brother'. Also why the problem with moving your really silly and pointless "composition" about Freemasonry in Russia and Estonia, that absolutely noone is interested in to a seperate page, when you use the exact same logic to selectively bury the truth of the Jack the Ripper murders Freemasonry connnection? I Don't think I'm going to let you get away with that bit of double standard either.
You're a vandal Dreamguy. A shallow Pro-Masonry propagandist hack. You are destroying and deleting my contribtuions to this topic with absolutely no justification. "Anti-Freemasonry" is not a justification, and in any event it is a purely subjective term invented by Freemasons. George Orwell doesn't live here.Lightbringer 12:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


In the interests of accuracy, Anti-Freemasonry is *not* a term invented by Freemasons, and in fact was created by, not surprisingly, people against Freemasonry. Would you contend, then, that the Anti-Masonic Party was a double bluff? This article needs to deal in facts, and not speculation, wherever possible.
Furthermore, this back and forth "vandalizing" or "correction" or whatever you want to call it needs to stop. It's wasting a lot of time, and accomplishing very little. This is an encylopedia article [b]on[/b] Freemasonry, not an encyclopedia [b]of[/b] Freemasonry. We're not going to hit every topic possible, nor can we prove or disprove every theory. There's also a big difference between "neutral" POV and "every" POV. They are not the same thing. An in-depth analysis of the Morgan Affair, Jack the Ripper, New World Order, etc., does not really belong in this article. Ideally, these items will be dealt with in their own linked articles.MSJapan 20:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Uh huh. Tell me what is the possible justification *in your opinion* of deleting links to a NYT article, an link to an article by the Archdiocese of Arlington, Virgina and a Scottish Newspaper all about MAJOR issues involving Freemasonry? Hmmm? What is *your justification* about deleting a quotation regarding Lucifer from a major Masonic author *IN THE ACCUSATIONS ABOUT SATANISM* section? Hmmm? What is your justification about including copyright violation cut and pastes from Masonic websites on 'Landmarks', Liberty, Famous Masons, on this page rather than on a seperate page? Hmmm? Lots of space for Masonic Krap, paragraphs and paragraphs of it. But a link to a respected publication by respected researchers on the subject of Freemasonry that portrays it in a somewhat shall we say less than rosey light. Oh NOOO, we can't have that. There isn't enought room for "every" POV. You're busted Brethren.
This page is, or rather was, dominated by Pro-Masonry Propaganda Hacks but this doesn't seem to bother you. Basically I could care less what your Pro-Masonic Propagandist opinion is, and I suspect 99% of the readers of this page would agree with me on that. So life goes on, the truth about Freemasonry will prevail, and your and other Pro-Masonry Propaganda Hacks efforts will be completely wasted. God bless Wikipedia. Lightbringer 14:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, as the Landmarks are standard information that is common to all regular Lodges, and such information was first published in 1717 (or thereabouts), it is no longer subjected to copyright (a la Project Gutenberg). Copyrighting material regarding Famous Masons is tantamount to requiring a citation to say that Kennedy was the 35th President - utterly ridiculous, because that information is a public domain indisputable fact.
The quotation regarding Lucifer is from Pike, and that item was dealt with in an archived discussion. To sum that up, the quote is taken out of a larger context, skewing the meaning. As for the articles, there's been so much back and forth nonsense between you and Dreamguy, it's simply not worth the time to hunt up the citation. Also, it depends where you put it. If it's Freemasonry vs. Catholicism, it should not go in the "See also" links (because the article is not about Freemasonry, but rather a conflict involving it indirectly, indirectly meaning that no Grand Lodge has gotten involved by making a statement aimed at an Archdiocese), but rather in the "Criticisms" section under an appropriate heading. Furthermore, I would think the Ephesians link would cover the debate quite well from the perspective you have.
You may simply be mistaking (intentionally or otherwise) the distinction that inappropriate placement of valid information is invalid. Adding factually inaccurate information is also invalid. Finally, you clearly expect this Wikipedia article to be your own personal rant space against what you see as "Masonic Krap" ("in Amerika", no less, I would gather). If you want to do that, go get a blog. What you're doing here is only making it harder to get factual information of any kind into the article, whether it supports your claims or not. We have a responsibility to present factually proven material in its appropriate place; that is all. Just because you do not agree with what is said doesn't make us "Propagandists", neither does it make you right and us wrong.
I don't want to have to lock this article, but if it is the only way that responsible changes can be made, so be it. I'm not going to sit here and try to make anybody behave, but I would certainly appreciate it if you would, on both sides. MSJapan 22:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
On further study of the edits made, many of them are completely without merit based on what Wikipedia seeks to do. Tagging a Masonic art website as "Pro-Masonry" is pretty redundant, and also removes the reader's right to come to their own conclusions. Many of your edits, Lightbringer, fall into the category of "wanting to prove a point", especially when cursory fact checking reaveals third-party (or sometimes first party) information which disproves your edits, such as the Pike and Taxil material. Furthermore, quoting a page number in a book is not enough for a citation. MSJapan 03:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Yet your "study" failed to notice, or mind, the insulting and belittling "descriptions" of 'anti-mason' websites that these same individuals had added. Why is the additions by Pro-Masons of 'helpful descriptions' of "anti-masonic" websites o.k. in your book but not the addtion of 'helpful descriptions' of 'pro-masonry' websites? Your 'logic' is deceitful and hypocritical. You are clearly attempting, and stumbling badly, to conceal your pro-masonic n.p.o.v..Lightbringer 09:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I haven't concealed a thing. No one here has ever asked me a single thing about any affiliations or experiences I may have had (positively or negatively) with the Masons. I could be a Mason, or I could have relatives who were Masons, and thus I am interested without wanting to join. Maybe I was a beneficiary of the services of a Shriner's Hospital or a blood drive at some point in the past. Perhaps my field of research is on secret societies.

Huh huh. How many Masons are "editing" now anyways hmmm? And don't tell me you are not co-ordinating your "edits" and attempts to get me and others banned by 'back-channel' e-mails either. Why do you make dramatic claims that 'Lightbringer admits he's an anti-mason' as if that means something. Of course in your weird Masonic dreamworld this means the comments are inadmissable. What is an 'anti-mason'? Well someone you and other Masonic propagandists don't like, i.e. someone who contradicts you. Of course you don't consider you and other "editors" here's Masonic credentials here relevant. If you all are so proud of Masonry why do you keep you affiliation with it a secret. Embarressment I would imagine. Of course if you openly admitted your affiliation and posted your Masonic credentials it would damage your claims you are making to Wikipedia Admin about your lily white agenda here. Deceit is the word that comes to mind.Lightbringer 11:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


From a research and academic perspective, it's certainly not my fault that all the sources that paint Masonry favorably are supported in many other sources, and that the vast majority of sources that are critical of Masonry have turned out to be hoaxes or fabrications, also shown by third party sources, or sometimes first party admissions. You can choose to believe whatever you want, but if you think that anything that was shown to be a hoax was forced out of someone by the Masons, you might as well be skeptical of everything thatr you don't have firsthand experience of, which would make using Wikipedia at all a losing battle for you.

A big fat Masonic claim. Unfortunately you provide no references for it, like your edits. Famous Masons with out a single reference is just one example. Of course you don't consider the Catholic or other Church's as 'legitimate' references. You don't even consider quotations from Masonic books considered 'legitimate' - if they contradict the 2005 nonsense being spoonfed to Masons wives and families about their husbands and fathers activities. National Treasure you aint'.Lightbringer 11:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, since you seem to be hung up on certain things that you keep re-adding: with regard to "Lucifer", how are you right when you put the Lucifer quote back in, and then remove the counter-evidence that shows that it is fake or open to interpretation? How is that fair, if your contention is that both sides of the story aren't being told?

Now you are just plain lieing here. I added the OTHER side of the Taxi Hoax. You and other Masons deleted it. You said that this particular Pike quote was part of Taxils writings, when it wasn't. You deleted my 'mentioning' of the teenie point that Taxil's real name was Jogand and he was a Freemason in the Grand Orient of France! I provide book references, you provide none, as usual for a bogus Masonic researcher, that is typical of the 'work' done by Philanthese or Quator Coronati types.Lightbringer 11:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Moreover, I would really like to know what you found "belittling" about labeling an Anti-Masonic website as such? What is wrong with calling an apple an apple? That's what it is. Your problem is that you refuse to see anything positive about Freemasonry, and that anyone who does is supporting an agenda. to you, it is perfectly fair to lavbel something pro-Masonic, but Heaven forbid someone should call a site dedicated to combating Freemasonry anti-masonic. As such, you really should not be "contributing" (your word, not mine) to this article. I can disprove everything you have posted thus far via multiple published sources. So who are you to claim the side of truth?

Who died and made the Masons editor-in-chief of this page. Why do you make derogatory 'descriptions' of pages you don't like, but make fawning comments of pro-masonic web pages. Remember the individual who posted the links never made these 'helpful' descriptions, you did. Why did you delete the addition I made of 'A Pro-Masonic Website' to each of the links that you love? You make not a stitch of sense. Your 'you fail to see anything good in masonry' a nonsense. Did you see mee deleting the 2/3rds plus of the article you and other masons wrote? You are just trying to change the subject here. The subject actually is why you keep deleting my contributions of links to articles that are critical of masonry and when I refuse to go away and stand my ground you make complaints to Wikipedia to get me banned. Lightbringer 11:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Funnily enough, the Post article isn't anti-Masonic at all if you know how to read. Looks like Freemasonry Watch doesn't know how to read carefully either. However, as the Post article requires permission to be given to republish on the Net and that costs $400 a year (even for nonprofits), we can't post a link to it on Freemasonry Watch without violating copyright. The reason i know this is because I was going to put it back up as a link, but linked to its original source. going to the original source, I saw that 90% of the article was missing and there was a direct link to a publishing rights order form. So, good or not, we can't use it.

Funnily enough it is pretty clear that you can't read yourself, if you don't think the Post article is 'anti-masonic'. It makes Masonry and Masons look like fools. Your copyright tactic is just that, a tactic. It is a five year old article well within 'fair use'. Your repeated wholesale cut and pasting from unsourced or cited Masonic websites shows your don't give a fig about 'copyright'. It is a newspaper article that makes Masons look like fools. Of course you cleverly omit any mention or explanation of your continual deletion of the New York Times or Arlington Virgina Catholic Herald articles. Lightbringer 11:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Your quote from Waite's "Black Magic" cites a book that is not connected to Masonry, nor does it mention Masons. There were a lot of occultists who were Masons, becaus they were drawn to the endless esoterica that can come out of any system of symbols. The assumption here is "a Mason wrote it, so it must be Masonic". By that line of reasoning, the U.S. Constitution, the Jungle Book, and The Boy Scout Handbook are all Masonic, as they were written either by or with the help of men who were Masons. These are all simply not supportable as encyclopedic material. Once again, you mistake an understanding of research principles for bias.

Huh? Waite is a 33rd degree Freeemason writing about Freemasonry. Of course the key to your very masonic deceptive use of the word 'connected' is the key here. Waite is not a Grand Lodge therefore he is not 'connected'. Waites books and writigns are sold and promoted by every Masonic website and Grand Lodge site I have every seen. 'Research Principles', that'a joke coming from a Mason. You going to tell us now how Masons built the pyramids, how Jesus was a Mason, how Masons founded the United States? Give it a rest, you only seek to bury the fact of Fremasonry's intimate connection to the occult, i.e. Satanism. Lightbringer 11:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

As much as you call us pro-masonic, you are anti-masonic and refuse to see anything that might prove your POV wrong. You're not going to change anyone's mind with your tactics, because you misunderstand the basis of how Wikipedia works, and I'm not going to debate this any further with you, because it's wasting my time when I could be contributing something to the article. MSJapan 20:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean "you call us pro-masonic"? So you deny your Pro-Masonic? That's a real hoot. In your and other Masons delusional world Pro-Masonic is "neutral". What you don't tell folks is why you keep deleting the links to the articles by The New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Arlington, Virgina Catholic Herald. Why don't you tell the good folks here why you "neutral" editors always delete those links in secret as part of your other "helpful" edits?Lightbringer 11:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Your comments on the arbitration page and here are deceptive and unreferenced slander. Attack the man, not his idea's, you learnt your Masonic 'Craft' well.Lightbringer 11:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I've had similiar issues in other articles being on one side or another. A few thoughts to consider. 1. Links don't have to be NPOV. OTOH, Wikipedia isn't a links repository. 2. What get's included has to be factual, and has to be backed up with some sort of reliable source. While I didn't read the NYT article, it may merit inclusion. 3. Removing factual information from either side doesn't benefit anyone. 4. Article titles should be as NPOV as possible, but as MSJapan pointed out, this article isn't an encylopedia of Freemasonry, the article is on freemosonry. OTOH, Wikipedia isn't paper. -- Spinboy 22:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd also mention that there are other rules on that page which apply here as well. I fail to see the lack of NPOV, though, because everything here that is of central importance is supportable in multiple sources as statement of fact rather than opinion. The problem seems to be that while the "pro-Masonic" material is easily supported by objective sources, much of the "Anti-Masonic" material is not supportable by fact, exists only via the strength of belief of the reader, and is therefore not suitable content for the article. MSJapan 03:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
The Pro-Masons own actions completely rebut your points MSJapan. They continuous delete links to fully referenced articles about Freemasonry in The New York Times, The Scotsman, and the Arlington Virgina Catholic Herald. They continuuosly delete quotes from Masonic writings about Freemasonry and Lucifer that include page references, book particulars, and author information. They continuously revert edits of material that they had previously cut and pasted from Masonic websites - that contain absolutely no reference material for claims of 'famous masons' or 'support of liberty', 'history in specific countries' etc., yet demand material be deleted about Freemasonry because 'there isn't room for every p.o.v.'. So on the one hand we have editors, like I, who seek to abide by Wikipedia, and on the other we have editors like Pro-Masons who engage in systematic deceit and hypocrisy. Sorry to burst the bubble your Dan Brown like fantasy world.Lightbringer 09:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

IMHO, your best option is to list the article under requests for comments since the two of you are in a revert war, or you can go to arbirtration. I suggest doing one of these for the overall benefit of the article, otherwise it won't function. -- Spinboy 20:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/r/e/Talk%7EFreemasonry_Archive_3_aeda.html"