Talk:Freemasonry/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
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 17 Oct 2005 and 5 Nov 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_8. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you.--SarekOfVulcan 08:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Contents

Is Joining encyclopedic?

I'd like it to say somewhere in the article how you become a mason so that Lightbringer can apply to be rejected. -- Spinboy 22:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:NPA, please.--SarekOfVulcan 22:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

On the nice side, the article should say how one becomes a mason, that is noticably absent from the article. -- Spinboy 23:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, it has membership requirements, talks about the degrees, and mentions the initiatory work. I'm not sure what more is encyclopedic.--SarekOfVulcan 23:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I think this is worthy of more discussion, so I'm breaking it into its own subheading.--SarekOfVulcan 23:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Freemasonry has been around a long time. It has the membership requirements, etc, but if you live under a rock in Arkansas, and don't know anyone who is a mason, where else would you find how to join? I've checked out masonic websites in my area, all they say is "to be one, ask one" which to me doesn't really make sense, or tell the reader anything. I would think it's worthy of inclusion to tell potential readers how they can join. -- Spinboy 23:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but this isn't a Freemasonry advocacy article. Besides, some jurisdictions allow members to recruit, some don't -- how do we cover everything? --SarekOfVulcan 00:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Very carefully. Talk about the pros and cons of each method and the arguments behind it. -- Spinboy 00:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Sounds like a good topic for a supplementary page. Perhaps if you could take yourself away from deleting material from other contributors and filing false and harrassing complaints against Wikipedia Editors, you might have the time to share your research on this subject area.Lightbringer 02:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
You violated 3RR, you got blocked. Suck it up. -- Spinboy 02:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Exposing the byzantine duplicity of minds immersed in Freemasonry is just as gratifying, and illuminating... I'm certain Wikipedian's have learnt a great deal about Freemasonry, just by observing the thought processes of Freemason Editors here. The Tale of Briar Rabbit comes to mind.Lightbringer 10:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Disputes Resolved?

"This page is protected from editing until disputes have been resolved on the discussion page. Protection is not an endorsement of the current page version. To request unprotection, ask on Requests for page protection and unprotection." There is no disputes here. Everytime I try and put my link to a relevant page it gets erased. You call that dispute? I call that a bunch of tyrants! Discuss the page already. Give a reason why this link is not relevant, and should not be included. The link was prominently displayed here many times. It is also in the DMOZ.

Someone was complaining that it was 50/50, anti-mason and pro-mason links before. Well you guys certainly have taken care of that. It is now 80/20 in favor of the "brotherhood." You think that is fair, and balanced? Does this help out the reader when he is only propagandized?--XDev 08:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Please read the NPOV policy, specifically the section on "Equal Time" ... specifically that calls for "Equal time" are completely bogus, what matters is encyclopedic content, verifiability, and giving coverage to sides IN DIRECT PROPORTION to how much they merit. If somebody came along here and decided that Masons were really lesbians who dress up in drag and tried to put 50% of the links in that section to their sites, those would get deleted as totally inappropriate. BE THANKFUL you have 20% of the links being sites making all sorts of ridiculous conspiracy theories and claims against the Masons, as that's more than really should even be there.
The link is not relevant because it goes to a highly unreliable, unscholarly and UNENCYCLOPEDIC (this is an encyclopedia we're trying to make, or aren't you aware of that?) site that makes bizarre, ludicruous claims in place of informed discussion. Please see the policy on Wikipedia:External links.
All of you and Lightbringer's complaints can be very easily dismissed as coming from people with obvioous agendas contrary to the goals of this encyclopedia and totally at odds with all of the relevant policies here. DreamGuy 09:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Actually it is only 2 out 18 links that go to a resource that is contrary to the official masonic line - that's 91% in favour of the brethren. "Easily dismissed"? How so? Prove to me that the link is "unscholarly," "unreliable," and "unscientific." "Verifiable"? Certainly ... in spades.
We need two seperate lists of links on this page. For the masonic party line, and those who's research proves otherwise. --XDev 10:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
That entire statement is so biased it's not even funny. The link is inherently unscholarly and unverifiable... it's a conspiracy theory site, pretty much the standard definition of nutjobbery. We don't need two separate set of links -- Wikipedia is not a link depository, after all -- we need encyclopedic links, and the few anti-Masonic sites that get listed should be clearly labeled as being opposed to Masonry so that anyone who goes to them knows before clicking what to expect. DreamGuy 07:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Someone had posted a link to an article written by a psychologist entitled 'Freemasonry: Closeted Mental Illness?'. It would seem the Brethren didn't like the diagnosis, so they deleted that link as well. Please remind me to restore it, when the block is removed, or perhaps the entire Freemasonry entry should be hotlinked to the DSMV IV page. Pyramids, secret names of god, hidden grand masters, rolled up trouser legs, and knights in drag; Nutjobbery indeed.Lightbringer 10:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
How about we look at the definitions of Theory Vs. Fact. To call most conpircy theories actual theory is contrary to the definition of theory. And nearly by definition an encyclopedia is a collection of facts, by entry 4. GRYE

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 what their POV is." This is the whole crux of the matter. You guys always cite the rules, so why don't follow them.--XDev 13:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a links repository. -- Spinboy 16:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Put the Anti-Mason links on the article about Anti-Freemasonry. I won't stop you from putting it there. -- Spinboy 16:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
"I won't stop you from putting it there." Done. Hope you stick by your word.--XDev 17:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm there defending your right to put it there. -- Spinboy 20:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


What Vandalism is not

I'd just like to comment on repeated accusations of "vandalism" from many of the parties involved here. Characterising the majority of edits here (and on Anti-Freemasonry) as "vandalism" is wrong, usually an implied insult, and generally counter-productive. As per Wikipedia: Vandalism#What vandalism is not, Bullying or Stubbornness:

Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them on an article's talk page, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is a matter of regret—you may wish to see our dispute resolution pages to get help. However, it is not vandalism.

Also mentioned specifically are NPOV Violations:

The neutral point of view is a difficult policy for many of us to understand, and even Wikipedia veterans occasionally accidentally introduce material which is non-ideal from an NPOV perspective. Indeed, we are all blinded by our beliefs to a greater or lesser extent. While regrettable, this is not vandalism. [emphasis added]

Consistently mis-using a value-laden term like "vandalism" is usually a good sign you've lost objectivity in a debate.

An editor's genuine concerns over content should not be lost amid poor writing or a lamentable inability to refrain from personal attack. Someone being a blatant POV-pusher does not make them inherently wrong, nor a vandal. This article is a good example of process (so far), but its escalation to the status of arbitration may interfere with that. I think all parties to the edit wars herein (Lightbringer, MSJapan, SpinBoy, DreamGuy, and grazon) need to take a break from editing this (and Anti-Freemasonry), and maybe some less passionate editors will have a go at straightening it up. Eaglizard 04:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

While I don't edit this article, I just revert vandalism and NPOV violations (I should know better, thanks) your comments make sense. Have fun editing the article, I think you'll do a great job. (I think people who speak up should put their money where their mouth is.) -- Spinboy 05:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Of course you'll have to wait for the page to be unprotected. -- Spinboy 05:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
I am hoping that is an open invitation to editors, I would consider myself a passionate editor of Wikipedia, any other kind is merely a white space filler. Contributing to factual databases with a passion is the acme of an academics bored lack of social life after all.
So, without further ado, I look forward to seeing Eaglizard's contributions to this article, so that we may take a much needed rest.  :) Jachin 11:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm not brave (nor bored) enough to get involved in this edit war :). From past behavior of those I named (with the probable exception of SpinBoy), I can see no reason to unprotect this page until a decision has been made on the requested Arbitration. Or at least until Lightbringer and some others publicly promise to limit their edits to the talk pages for the near future. Even re-reading the article only imagining trying to edit it was a harrowing experience. ;^) Eaglizard 18:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, it is unfortunate. We were in the middle of a complete re-write of this article to bring it's standard up and, by consensus, further the quality and accuracy of it, prior to Lightbringer creating his Wiki account to further his anti-mason agenda. I fear that his actions have shot down this articles quality completely and sent it's editors leaving in droves to other articles. Oh well, such is life. Jachin 22:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Eaglizard, put your money where your mouth is. -- Spinboy 01:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
The Truth will always prevail in the end, that is why Freemasonry has no future. Masonry has been losing 4% of it's membership annually for decades. I.N.R.I. 4 EVER.Lightbringer 03:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen. --SarekOfVulcan 06:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Gloria Patri, et Filio, et Spiritui Sancto. Sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper, et in saecula saeculorum. Amen. Translation loses the flavour of even the sweetest words. Jachin 04:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Cite: a peculiar system of morality

http://altreligion.about.com/library/texts/macoy/bl_masonicmanual.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SarekOfVulcan (talk • contribs) .


Spelling note

Hello douches, the section "Criticism, Persecution, and Prosecution" has a mispelling of the word "Membership". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.113.39.51 (talk • contribs) .

Thanks. We'll fix it when the page is unlocked. BTW, you misspelled "misspelled". MSJapan 01:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

You always manage to put a smile on my face with your odd quips, MSJapan.  ;) Jachin 04:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


List of Freemasons

I am going to clean up the List of Freemasons, see Talk:List of Freemasons. Please help to certify the wibsites that may be considered a reliable source of info. mikka (t) 20:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

MasonicInfo looks reasonable. Note that when possible, they have links to gravestones of the people they list. The first one I checked (Antheil) had the Square and Compasses on it. This also looks good: they have actual Lodge names where available. The Grand Lodge of BC has a list as well, but disclaims being comprehensive or definitive.
The first website you referenced is a tabloid style personal attack page not sanctioned or approved by any Masonic Authority. In fact most active on-line Masons strongly oppose it, and find it hurts and not helps Freemasonry's public image. If you're interested...Lightbringer 12:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
mikkalai, take my recommendation and Lightbringer's comment, check the page, and make up your own mind.--SarekOfVulcan 16:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
In fact most active on-line Masons strongly oppose it Citation for this? --Vidkun 19:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Lightbringer has been temp-banned from Wikipedia for trolling and personal attacks, so don't look for a citation anytime soon.--SarekOfVulcan 19:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected

I do understand that there is an arbitration case related to this article, but this is a wiki. I've unprotected the article in the hope that some editors will be able to perform useful work on it. Please apply on Requests for page protection, or to another administrator, if you think the article still needs to be protected. --Tony SidawayTalk 18:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Freemasonry in the language

I moved this here because it has no relevance whatsoever to the ritual and symbol section. It's not really relevant to language outside Masonic circles, which I think means it has very little value as part of the article. MSJapan 04:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

An expression often used in Masonic circles is to be on the square, meaning to be a reliable sort of person, and this has entered common usage. Another phrase from Freemasonry in common use is meeting on the level (without regard to social, economic, religious or cultural differences). The practice of Freemasonry is referred to amongst its members as the Craft, a term also used to distinguish the basic level of Freemasonry from other Masonic orders. A Mason who has served as Worshipful Master is known as a Past Master, which has passed into common use to indicate an expert in a subject.

How about phrases which have passed into common usage such as "Blackball_(blacklist)" meaning to shun or exclude. The black ball, or black cube, has been used as a voting mechanism in Freemasonry for a very long time. As elections to Masonic membership must be unanimous even a single no vote, black ball, is sufficient to reject a person who petitions for membership. For textual evidence see General Regulations compiled by M.W. Bro. George Payne in 1720, when he was Grand Master, which is published in James Anderson's "Consitutions" of 1723:

"But no Man can be enter'd a Brother in any particular Lodge, or admitted to be a Member thereof, without the UNANIMOUS CONSENT OF ALL THE MEMBERS OF THAT LODGE then present when the Candidate is propos'd, and their Consent is formally ask'd by the MASTER; and they are to signify their CONSENT OR DISSENT in their own prudent way, either virtually or in form, but with UNANIMITY" (pg. 59)

This text demonstrates the need for a unanimous vote as far back as 1720, with the likelier age being older still. The black ball as a symbol of the vote is old, but the first reference in my handy library is Jabez Richardson's "Monitor of Freemasonry" from 1861, but with this section being a simple reprint from William Morgan's "Illustrations of Masonry, by One of the Fraternity Who Has Devoted Years to the Subject" from 1826:

"The Lodge now proceeds to ballot. One black ball will reject a candidate. The boxes may be passed three times, should a black ball appear." (pg. 17)

Cratliff 17:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to see evidence that that started in Masonry, rather than being a common voting method that was also used there.--SarekOfVulcan 03:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


Another way to shorten the article....

Can someone look at the History of Freemasonry article and see what's there that isn't here, and vice versa? That seems to be the longest section in the whole article, and if the material is duplicated elsewhere, it could stand to be summarized here. MSJapan 21:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Freemasonry has the most honest and comprehensive analysis on the History of Freemasonry versus the usual Dan Brown like dross that is spoon fed to a gullible public these days. Kick the Freemasonry habit, it is spiritually damaging, unchristian, unamerican, and very unscientific.24.68.243.40 11:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Please note that 24.68.243.40 can be tied exclusivly to User:Lightbringer (see here for details, which has also been placed at the IP's userpage). The editor Lightbringer is presently banned from editing the Wikipedia after breaking the temporary ban on him editing any articles relating to Freemasonry. WegianWarrior 11:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Another day another donut. My preference is Tim Hortons, and I believe you are buying.Lightbringer 11:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

24.68.243.40/Lightbringer

Could someone please report to the admins that the user utilising 24.68.243.40 (Aka: Lightbringer) is still posting on Freemasonry and it's discussion page even after arbitration was carried out against him?

Evidence lies in the fact that lightbringers entire user info was written by him through this IP address and even signed a comment made by this IP.

Jachin 11:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Evidently, the admins have allready blocked this IP[1] for 24 hours. Nice and quick too. WegianWarrior 11:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
It may not have occurred to you that I was not aware that I had been blocked from editing the Freemasonry page as I assumed when I saw the removal of the general page block on Oct. 30 it applied to everyone. Are you guys just interested in formenting more bad feelings here in an already difficult situation? Freemasonry has had it's critics and criticisms since it's inception, why should an Encyclopedia on the topic of Freemasonry, like Wikipedia, not include such criticisms or critics? Maybe the Pro-Masonry editors should chill out a little, this is really starting to get a little silly.Lightbringer 11:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Tsk, tsk, check out his talk page. He started talking smack to an admin too, now he's banned for good and can't even edit his own talk page.  :/ What posesses a person to be so misguided? Jachin 04:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


Here's an Idea

Why don't you let the critics of Freemasonry do a page entited 'criticisms of freemasonry' or 'anti-freemasonry' and the promoters of Freemasonry can do a page entitled 'refutations of masonic criticism' or some such, and let the readers of Wikipedia read both perspectives and make their own minds up. That way we will stop spending all our time on reverts and 'brilliantly crafted' complaints that tie up all of the Wikipedia Arbitrators time?

Just an thought.Lightbringer 11:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Because it would degrade to the many various defacements such articles already garner, such as "FREEMASONRY R BE FUCKED" and other childish defacements. Or worse still, outdated anti arguments based on the Taxil Hoax, or "My grandfather was a freemason, he said they sacrificed virgins on alters to satan." which would be reworded and left in as fact.
Unlike criticisms of other organisations, criticisms of secret societies are based purely on speculation and faux-pas deductive reasoning. This is an encyclopedia, we want the truth here and only the verfiable provable logical and cited truth, not mish-mash of cross quoting of anti-masons since the begining of time who all cite one anothers work in an attempt to build up some academic credability.
Now I'm unsure of your education level, but I know for a fact that very little of the contra arguments proposed would be accepted in any institution around the world as having any academic or intellectual credability. So in the meantime, I feel we should keep things the way they were, there has never been a problem with this article, it's always been one of the feature listed articles of Wikipedia.
With the advent over the last thirty years of the born-again / charismatic movement of Christians in the United States, many old false attitudes have been brought forwards, such as that old laughable Chick tract, targetting Freemasons as 'the institution', or 'big brother', or the 'white man' who's keeping everyone down.
Without stemming too far into socio-economic setups of cults, new religious movements must have enemies, they must be supressed by SOMEONE, that someone is who they will blame for them failing to spread THEIR version of the 'truth' to the world. Look at the Zionist movement at the moment.
The difference is, unlike the Jews / Zionists, who were smart and coined the term 'anti-semetic' during their power struggle when B'nith B'rai launched in the 1800's as a legal front to beat down anyone who posted information contra to their cause anywhere, the Freemasons have no united cause of clandestine rule and thus do not have such defence and make the easy target for new religions.
So what I am saying is, whilst I respect the fact you're happy to follow your belief system, don't punish a social group that has been condemned simply because it isn't exclusively Christian. Jachin 06:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


Wikipedia must be NPOV within all articles. It's not NPOV to make separate articles arguing from opposing viewpoints. Besides which, giving a separate article implies that you are giving a veiw "equal time" when NPOV policy means you don't give "equal time" you give what each view is worth. The anti-Mason view (at least in the sense Lightbringer means it) is founded on sheer nonsense, information that has been repeatedly proven wrong and arguments that are simply hatred and fear-monger in place of logic and academic knowledge. If Lightbringer wants to write an article of his own for his own side he should start a blog or something. DreamGuy 00:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Link to Souls of Distortion

Although the link Souls of Distortion is interesting and shares subject matter with some of the more esoteric topics in Freemasonry, this link has no direct connection to Freemasonry and should be removed. I didn't want to preform the removal outright after the current onset of revision wars which have occured. Please announce your position on this link and we will take action according to concensus. Chtirrell 23:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Someone else already deleted it. Doesn't seem to me to be particularly relevant. --SarekOfVulcan 23:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, the relevancy is minimal. But regardless, that is, as Chtirrell said, quite an interesting little site based on esoteric aspects. Jachin 11:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/r/e/Talk%7EFreemasonry_Archive_7_1774.html"