Talk:Freemasonry/Archive 4

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 4 Oct 2005 and 12 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_5. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you.

Contents

Arbitration Request Submitted

On Spinboy's suggestion, I have requested an arbitration on this article. The link is here, and should be updated in the relevant sections by any and all interested parties. MSJapan 21:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Despite being reasonable experienced in editing the Wikipedia, I must admidt to being a n00b when it comes to arbitration. What sort of information / statements would be relevant in this process? Despite not having taken part in it directly, I'm keen on seeing things come to a stop soon so we can focus on improving the article. WegianWarrior 13:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Anything that you think would be relevant can be part of your statement, if you wish to make one. That includes factual statements, opinions, impressions, or whatever you want. MSJapan 15:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
I see. I have to mull it over a bit - I don't want to say anthing that would 'damage' the process and be an obstruction to getting this mess cleaned up, but I do want to help getting it behind us so we can focus on the article. Would his action on other articles (where he pushes his anti-masonic POV) be relevant to bring up?
Nice rewrite so far BTW. WegianWarrior 09:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

What's happening with it? --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 21:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

3 approvals out of a needed 4, and a few statements up. Unfortunately, it seems that ArbCom is a bit slow. AFAIK, I phrased everything properly, but evidence cannot be submitted until the approval has gone through. So, nothing yet, which is why I'm glad Sarek asked for a protect, because it solves the issue in the meantime. MSJapan 06:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration was accepted, evidence goes at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lightbringer/Evidence. --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 17:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Article Status Update

This is my take on the article as it stands, with some ideas, possibilities, and comments that I hope will light a fire under some folks who haven't contributed in a while.

I am tempted to remove Specialist Lodges as a subsection (as it's only three lines) and merge it or delete it. The R&I system is UK-specific, AFAIK, and possibly outdated (Ars Quatuor Coronati #2097 only does research) whereas the Research and Instruction functions seem to be separated in the US. furthermore, to join a specialist lodge, you must be a member of a regular lodge, so is it even relevant?

I also removed some of the religious discussion from "Membership", as I felt it was overly technical and only served to cloud things after a certain point.

If someone could add citations to Women in Freemasonry re: Mrs. Aldworth, and add some info regarding other groups like OES and Job's Daughters, I think it would be much better off as a separate article this one links to, based on the reasoning that a fraternal organization by its very definition precludes women. I think we should clearly mention the role of women, but I think it detracts from the flow of the article with respect to focusing on Freemasonry itself. Ideally we strip it down to "Women are generally excluded from Freemasonry, but there are notable and systematic exceptions. See "Women in Freemasonry".

I'm becoming less enamored of the various country subsections, and I would suggest that if information is available, they be split off into separate articles. The real centers of Freemasonry seems to be England, Scotland, and the US, but i would like to try to keep comparative material out of the article as much as possible.

The "Continental" references seem to refer to GldF, which is not regular Freemasonry (it violates the Landmarks), so I would like to see them removed as large sections, referenced here, and dealt with in a separate article. Same with Prince Hall, and all the appendant bodies.

I hope to thereby strip out a lot of the non-central material, but focus more on historical sources. So there's some stuff to write. MSJapan 05:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Be bold MSJapan, you're a real asset to Wikipedia! --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 05:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Your a Masonic Propagandist and Vandal MSJapan. Period. Your changes to the 'Membership' section include wholesale deletion of any reference to athiesm in Freemasonry. Your addtions to the women in freemasonry is simply more masonic boilerplate. Your clandestine deletions of the links to the New York Times and Washington Post articles as well as your clandestine deletions of additional quoations about Lucifer and Freemasonry shows your n.p.o.v. agenda of deception.
Your and other Masons attempt to have me banned from Wikipedia including your recent 'arbitration' filing completely square with the history of freemasonary in seeking to silence any views that provide some truthful insights into this dangerous, destructive, deceptive, and Anti-American secret society. Lightbringer 10:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, MSJapan, but I disagree with stripping out the "extraneous" material. Prince Hall and Co-Masonry, in my opinion, definitely belong here. Limiting the article to "regular" Masonry is inappropriate, and might technically violate NPOV.--SarekOfVulcan 16:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
I disagree with you, SarekOfVulcan. There are articles on Co-Freemasonry and Prince Hall Freemasonry. This is the Freemasonry article. It should reflect blue lodge and touch on York and Scot rites as equally as it touches on other lesser known flavours. But for all intents and purposes, outside of the United States (and as keeps being pointed out, US military bases overseas, which is fucking moot if you ask me as that's still the US, with the exception being apparently japan) these things are so rarely encountered that they're not worth mentioning.
Due to the listing of women in freemasonry and prince hall masonry being higher up than the integral workings of FREEMASONRY it makes this article less of a resource to academia as it's starting out with the trivialities before the actual guts of the content. I'm probably not voicing my opinion properly at the moment due to sleep deprivation, but this was discussed, at length, in the archives and it was decided upon that we should FO the PH and Co stuff down into a lower segment of the article and deal primarily with Freemasonry only, not the million flavours thereof. Jachin 17:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Of course the REAL reason MSJapan deleted the Women in Freemasonry and Prince Hall material is because both subjects are rather "sore" points to the Masonic P.R. machine. Sexism and Racism in Masonry? Noooooo. Abracadabra. Irrelevent. 'Masonry takes good men and makes them better', '2B1ASK1' that's all you foolish 'Cowans' have to know. Masonic Academic Research...Lightbringer 21:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Lay off, no personal attacks. Keep your comments to the article itself and relevant. Stop accusing people of having an agenda. This isn't just for you, but for MSJapan too, and anyone else engaging in it. There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 21:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
No personal attack there Spin boy, just a bang on observation on why they deleted any mention of Women in Masonry or Prince Hall. Truth hurts sometimes. Prince Hall Masonry exists because Masonry is racist. Most 'regular' grand lodges won't admit black men. There is no 'women' masonry of course because 'regular' masonry doesn't think women are fit to become masons. So 'regular' Masonry is both sexist and racist. Now do you understand why they deleted both subjects? This is a grown up subject kid, about serious matters that affect peoples lives. Dan Brown doesn't live here, nor does Harry Potter. 100 million people were killed in the 20th century in wars started directly or indirectly by Masons, Masonry, or Masonic ideology.Lightbringer 22:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Ok, let's play the game son. Let's assume you're right, 100 million people died because of wars directly or indirectly started by Freemasons, Freemasonry or the ideaology thereof. Does that mean that men shouldn't fight for freedom of thought, religion and expression? Freedom to congregate? Freedom to seek out like minded folk? Contributions to society, science and academia at large? By your logic, we'd still be in the stone age if man didn't fight those against freedom. Oh, and for the record, there are approximately 34 'whites' in my lodge, out of 114 people, in Sydney AU. I suggest you get your facts straight before coming along with brainwashed propagandist approaches to an organisation you cannot comprehend. Then again, the born-again Christian cult propaganda you're basing all your accusative lambasting on is the same old tripe I've heard spouted by liars and fools and read of over the past 30 years. The second anyone tells you otherwise, they're just one of 'them', the conspirators, the illuminati. Next you'll be tying us in with crop circles and aliens and the like. Jachin 21:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Being a Mason, Jack.ff, you will be fully aware that there is not a single 'Fraternal' Group or 'Society' that is LESS democratic in it's internal structure or 'jurisprudence' than FREEMASONRY. So on the one hand we have a group that claims in it's propaganda to be responsible for bringing democracy to the world and on the other we have an organization that is associated with in body or spirit with the most murderous regimes in the history of mankind AND is a complete dictatorship for it's own members where dissent is ruthlessly crushed and under the fiat whims of it's worshipful masters and grand masters. Kinda a contradiction don't ya think? Freemasonry didn't found the United States, the Catholic Church did. 100% of American Grand Lodges sided with England, Washington thought very poorly of Freemasonry, and converted to Catholicsm on his deathbed. Lightbringer 14:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I didn't delete them, nor did I say I was going to delete them. In fact, I want them to have their own articles. how is that racist or sexist? Quiet the opposite, because i'm giving them their due. MSJapan 02:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
100 million people were killed in the 20th century in wars started directly or indirectly by Christians, Christianity, or Christian ideology. Shall we go start editing Christianity?--SarekOfVulcan 22:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
The subjects of "non-regular" Freemasonry probably don't need to be covered in great detail here, if the other articles do it well, but as far as they're concerned, we're the irregular ones. :-) I feel that this article should be inclusive, rather than exclusive.--SarekOfVulcan 21:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, my thought here is that there's a lot more to all of these organizations than can feasibly be covered in a non-specialized article. I would much rather reference other groups briefly within this article, and anyone interested can then go look at a full-length article on said group. The problem is that if you mention them, then you get into how they're different, why they were started, where and by whom, and IMHO, at that point, you have digressed considerably from the main topic of the article. MSJapan 02:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
The 'Black Hand' assassinated Archduke Ferdinand, the assassin admitted in trial he had received his order from Freemasons. Hey good idea for another section. Hitler was an occultist puppet of a Masonic secret society, the Thule, founded

by a Turkish Freemason. The causes of the Vietnam War go directly to Freemason Roosevelt, Truman, and Marshal abandoning General Chang Kai, ruler of China. Hey this is fun. Christians are responsible for nothing in the twentieth centuries except maybe bleeding and dying. Oh what Masonic Public Education is doing to the minds of the young these days.Lightbringer 23:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

How do we know you're not a Masonic plant to make us fear them? *g* — ceejayoz ★ 02:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Lightbringer is one of those evil 34th degree's that all the new-age religious anti-masonic groups keep ranting about. His real name is Ferdinand Pike Crowley-Lincoln, secret agent grand special pumbah of the two cows and goat of uzbekistan order of the 34th degree.  :) Jachin 07:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Agreed! I find it hard to believe this article was featured. Maybe it's just been mightily changed since, but I personally found it about as exciting (and difficult) as underwater soccer. I think if I hadn't been already pretty familiar with the general field of 'secret societies', if I were, say, a high-school senior researching a paper, I'd have a damned hard time forming a clear picture of just what Freemasonry is in the modern world from this article. But I think that's mostly a matter of organization; the most interesting and relevant information is buried halfway through (imho). That's my $.02 worth. :) (Oh, plus: it is way too long, and there is way too much that would be cut w/o finding a good home somewhere else. Even though it would seem counterintuitive, I would consider adding a 5 or 10 paragraph summary section at the top to provide a clear overview of the subject.)Eaglizard 06:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
When this article was featured, there was a separate AntiMasonry topic. Some genius decided that in the name of NPOV, the articles should be merged. I'm thinking that putting them back the way they were might not be a bad thing.


My my look at all the personal attacks. When I started researching Freemasonry many years ago there were 4 Million Masons in the U.S., five years ago there were 2.1 Million, and in 2004 they were down to 1.5 million and dropping like a rock. Well at 1.4 million they are now surpassed by the Knights of Columbus. So sad... And all those $6.99 copies of 'From Hell' filling the bins at Walmart, and the minds of the next generation of potentional recruits. Is there no help for the Widow's Son? I'll see your TUBALCAIN and raise you two JAHBULONS! Lightbringer 13:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Someone has thrown up the 'this article is getting too long' boilerplate. Perhaps we should, as mentioned above, move content on PH and Co-Freemasonry (and any other non Freemasonry (in the pure blue lodge sense, apart from references to other concordant bodies, et al) to their respective (already existing pages) and keep with the facts, just the facts ma'am. Jachin 07:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion for how to proceed under protection

I'd like to do something like what they're doing on the John Byrne article -- take each section in turn and re-write it here, making sure we have good references for everything that goes back on. Thoughts?--SarekOfVulcan 17:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's do this, then, assuming there are no objections (the alternative is to do nothing at all):
First of all, there is apparently a way to do superscript footnotes, and link them to a reference list. I would like to have somebody figure that out and be responsible for organizing all the citations once we're finished.
As far as content is concerned, we need to figure out what we're going to keep, what we're going to get rid of either due to unverifiability or tangentiality, and what we're going to farm out as separate articles. Then we can set up subheadings for each section and get to work. MSJapan 18:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
As someone mentioned above, we can also take sections and make them their own articles, like Co-Masonry, those wouldn't be protected. I think Anti-Masonry should go back to being it's own article to avoid problems like this in the future. --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 18:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
While I think it's a good idea to break Anti-Masonry back out, I'd like to see more consensus before we do that.--SarekOfVulcan 20:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll start creating subtopics here for the individual sections. Please vote to keep, revise, or delete each one. I don't want to do the whole thing at once -- that will be too distracting. If you vote anything besides keep, please provide rationale/references. And if you think I'm full of it, you can vote that too. :-) --SarekOfVulcan 20:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

IMHO (which is of course better than YHO :) ) I don't think we need ot take anything as a given. For example, where does the quote that "Freemasonry is a peculiar system of morality..." come from? We need to cite that, which requires revision of a sort. Therefore, I think we need to choose to revise or delete, because very little in this article is as good as I think it could be. Anyhow, I willstate here and now that my general opinion is to revise everything, but I will repost in those sections where I think farming is necessary. MSJapan 06:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I think someone should request the page be protected again. --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 01:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan

I vote that he's full of it. ;-) --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 20:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I vote that he's full of it. ;-) --SarekOfVulcan 20:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

What are you, high? :-) You voted that you yourself are full of it? Well, that just proves that you're not full of it; rather, you're positively overflowing with it! Go get a mop and bucket and clean that up, whatever it is! MSJapan 06:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Revise, vulcans are too stoic. ;) Jachin 21:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Introduction

I vote to keep the introduction as it stands.--SarekOfVulcan 20:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep it. It's short but concise and sweet. Jachin 21:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Revise it. It needs citations, and we might be able to condense other basic material from other sections into it. Yes, it will be longer, but an introduction is supposed to give you an overview of what the article is all about. It does, but only if you click on all the linked stuff to learn about that, too. It's not condensed in the sense that it's readily apparent. MSJapan 06:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that if expansion is possible and someone is willing to undertake it, let's go for it. I don't feel confident enough to edit the first thing people will see when they come to this article as yet however. Jachin 08:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Organizational structure

I vote to keep this opening part of section 1 as it stands.--SarekOfVulcan 20:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Revise it. After seeing MSJapan's reasoning, I have revised my position on the subject. I too believe that the Freemasonry article should focus on regular stock standard vanilla blue lodge as much as possible. Jachin 06:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Revise it. There is too much material that refers to GLdF (e.g., "Continental" as evidenced later on. Freemasonry does not have two branches: Continental is irregular, and thus should not have the amount of space it does in the Freemasonry Memebership section, because all it really serves to do is confuse the reader. I think it needs to be shrunk down to focus on regular Blue Lodge membership only. MSJapan 06:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

As I've said elsewhere, I strongly disagree with restricting the article to "regular" Masonry. One of the strongest things about this article is that it explains how the various branches are related in an NPOV way. We should not mess that up.
And I am a "regular" Mason, in the sense that my Grand Lodge(s) are recognized by UGLE.--SarekOfVulcan 22:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
It would be like writing the Christianity article to be about Catholicism.--SarekOfVulcan 22:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't mind mentioning them, but there are certain places in the article that are primarily about issues surrounding GLdF (the "Contonenetal" stuff) which do not relate to any other jurisdiction, which means that those arguments are not valid for the majority of Masonry in the world, which is the same argument against a full PH article in here.
Once again, I think we need to set some limits. Frankly, I'm not even sure how verifiable that section of information is, but apart from that, I'd rather do the same thing with GLdF as I proposed with PH and Co-Masonry, which is to discuss it briefly and put everything else in another article. The section in question also goes into far too much ecumenical detail for purposes of the scope of the article. MSJapan 01:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that it is important to keep the freemasonry article short, however I do not believe that we should limit the article to "regular" masonry, while making everything else that is non-blue lodge a side topic. A brief description of each of the divisions within masonry should be explained with a link to a corresponding side topic. This should include "mainstream masonry" or "regular masonry," which in one way shape or form should have its own article apart from "Freemasonry." I am well aware that "mainstream freemasonry" makes up the vast majority of freemasonry in the world, but freemasonry is a generalized concept with many divisions, none of which has the exclusive authority over the fraternity. Mainstream masonry has a history that is unique to itself with subject matter that is seperate from freemasonry as a whole, which should be delved into. This is a difficult split to make because most masonic authors are mainstream masons and are required not to recognize the other divisions masonically. However, this is not about recognition, this is about an encyclopedic article covering the social movement known as freemasonry, which includes all aspects. If Prince Hall Masonry, Co-masonry, continental masonry and female masonry get subdivided, I believe that mainstream masonry should also be. This is a point of view coming from a mainstream mason. Chtirrell 23:01, 12 October 2005 (UTC)