Talk:Masonic conspiracy theories

Old discussion

Is there any chance of getting non-crackpot sources, or at least refutations? Otherwise this is just a list, not an encylopedia article, bordering dangerously close to soapboxing. For example, Bush never was a Mason (see the list of Freemasons on WP), there aren't *that* many politicians who were Masons (also see List), DC wasn't designed by a Mason, nor was the dollar bill, and I'm not even going to address the New World Order claims, because that's just Pat Robertson talking. MSJapan 13:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you will find many "non-crackpot" sources for conspiracy theories... that is sort of the definition of the term. I agree we should add some refutations, but we do need to be careful to keep the article NPOV. While they may be crackpots, there ARE people who make these claims... and people who believe them. Blueboar 12:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about you people - but just because this, "popular wiki" has something on one its lists that contradict conspiracy theorists and their claims, it does not necassarily mean that wikipedia's list is correct. Ever thought about that? No, I thought not. Also - this is not soapboxing - this is facts that are clearly verifiable using other sources - its not like we got to go and ask the president of the United States himself - he'd obvioulsy lie - common sense people, common sense. Second thing - this list is perfect, I see no problems with a list of conspiracy accusations - since there are already articles concerning Masonry and each of their conspiracy plots...--Lord X 19:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu

Funny how MSJapan and Blueboar whine about keeping this article "NPOV" but yet, use subjective ad hominem labels such as "Crackpot" to demonize the term "Conspiracy theory". Archival McTannith 03:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Because, my dear troll, most of the sites are self-published and violate WP:RS. I can claim anything I want on my own website; that does not make it notable, popular, or accurate, and despite what Xinyu said, WP is supposed to be accurate. That's why there are policies and guidelines. MSJapan 04:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, there is a big difference between stating ones POV opinion on the talk page of an article and allowing that POV to influence what is put IN the article. Yes, I think almost all of these theories are "crackpot" theories. But MY view is not relevant to the article (indeed no editors view is relevant)... what IS relevant is a) discussing/listing the multitude of conspiracy theories that center on or involve Freemasons and b) doing so in a way which meets wikipedia policies and guidelines. Blueboar 15:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of uncited theories

I've removed the uncited (ie: the ones marked with a {{fact}}-tag) statements from the list of conspiracy theories. They can always be added back when someone finds a good citation for them, bearing in mind off course WP:RS and WP:EL. WegianWarrior 04:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a suggestion

I am not going to discourse on my personal views of this topic.

What I will suggest is that we rename this section Alleged conspiracy theories involving Freemasonry

It's just a suggestion. Let's be neutral about this guys.

Your suggested title would imply that the existance of the theories is in doubt. But that is not the case. Each of these theories does indeed exist... they all are cited to websites and books that discuss them. I think you are confusing the allegations contained in the various theories with the existance of the theories themselves. We make no judgment as to whether the allegations contained in these theories are "true"... we simply state that they exist. See Wikipedia:Attribution and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view for the guiding policy on this. If we had to change the title, we would have to change it to some thing like "Theories alleging a conspiracy involving Freemasonry" or "Theories alleging that Freemasonry is involved in a conspiracy"... both far clunkier than the current title... which says essentially the same thing.

Also, this tends to be the accepted form for titling articles on conspiracy theories. Blueboar 13:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

How about Theories of alleged conspiracies involving Freemasonry OK, it's a convoluted sentence, but they're convoluted theories LOLSaxophobia 21:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This gets into a huge debate that occured over the titles of all the conspiracy theory articles on Wikipedia (see a few threads below and related links). The determination was to keep such titles short and concise. It fits with the title of other articles about conspiracy theories. I don't see a need to make the title more convoluted than is needed. Blueboar 13:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to Freemasonry

This page serves no useful purpose and is a poor reflection on Wikipedia. It is extremely poorly written and consists of nothing more than unreferenced slander against the critics of Freemasonry as well as being a duplication of existing material on the main Freemasonry page.Lestervee 05:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Slander perhaps, but it a verifiable fact that antimasons made these allegations (which we all know are false, but they still make them). Each allegation is referenced, in several cases with multiple references.

None of the information here exists in the main article on Freemasonry - there used to be a single paragraph stating that several conspirasy theories invols masons, but that seems to have been removed along the line. A extremly condensed version exists in the article on Anti-Masonry, refering the reader to this article.

And it does serve a usefull purpose - there are recomandations on size for Wikipedia articles, and if everythng was rolled into the main article it would break the size guideline ten times over (and not just once as it does today).

So this article should stay - at least real concensious is reached. WegianWarrior 06:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If you read carefully, there is no judgment made on this page. It states referenced claims, and that is all. There are around 40 references for 22 claims, so to claim this as "unreferenced" is impossible. There is also no reference to this page in the main article in the Criticism section (which I will rectify), and there are only 10 listed claims in Anti-Masonry (which I will take out, summarize, and then list this article as main), so it's not a duplicate of anything. MSJapan 16:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Changes made. That should end the redirection debate. MSJapan 19:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it's none of the above. The page is absolute nonsense. It is just propaganda boiler plate. The references are not references at all. It is an outrageous page full of capricious masonic fantasy. It is certainly not encyclopedic.Lestervee 19:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Masonic fantasy? Interesting turn of phrase, seeing as how it's not Masons who make these claims, nor Masons who propagate them. The references are perfectly valid as far as WP policy goes. We aren't here to judge the claims, only to provide a source for them. In that respect, it's very encyclopedic. MSJapan 21:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, and strangely familiar... WegianWarrior 21:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "conspiracy theory" is not a neutral way of describing something

I have proposed that articles titled with "conspiracy theory" be renamed at Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory titles, please direct all comments to the proposal's discussion page, thanks. zen master T 22:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You haven't proposed an alternative, either, so what's the point? My vote of non-support is on the talk page. MSJapan 01:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

How else can you phrase it? This article is about the various theories that Masons are involved in some form of conspiracy. Sounds neutral to me. Blueboar 12:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Once there is consensus that "conspiracy theory" is non-neutral we can begin the renaming process. The phrase "conspiracy theory" has a secondary definition which is indirectly POV because it connotes that the theory being described is unworthy of serious consideration. It's POV and wrong to be indirectly POV. zen master T 14:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, you're not going to get consensus, and conspiracy theories are considered unworthy of consideration in certain cases because certain people have non-credible ideas that are contrary to fact. For example, "The Masons and the CIA killed Kennedy" is a conspiracy theory. It's not my place to judge the validity, and the truth is borne out by the facts or lack thereof. I'm not supporting your proposal, so you won't be renaming anything, especially without an alternative. MSJapan 15:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

If some information is citable and otherwise fit for inclusion in Wikipedia why is it treated differently than other citable information? Inconsistency is a sign of non-neutrality. Please note when you use the phrase "conspiracy theory" that it has more than one meaning/usage. I agree that many "conspiracy theories" are potentially dubious but we should not allow that dubiousness to affect new theories that also allege a conspiracy. zen master T 15:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you actually looked at this article or are you making an assumption about it? We make no judgement on these theories. If there is a theory that says the Freemasons are part of a conspiracy, we include it. We don't judge whether the theory is "dubious" or not... we simply list it and briefly discribe it.

I am not sure what you mean by your inconsistency... how are we treating any information differently than any other information. We state the theory exists, cite to who holds the theory, and leave it at that. We treat all of the theories the same. Blueboar 15:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a vote on this proposal at Wikipedia talk:Conspiracy theory titles. Please read the debate and !vote. Blueboar 23:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposal resoundingly rejected. Blueboar 21:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Bush a Mason?

Membership in the Freemasons is a matter of public record. It is verifiable fact that neither Bush is a Mason (the last President to be a Freemason was Ford... although Clinton was a DeMolay). Furthermore, if either one was a Freemason, the fraternity would shout it to the rafters, place it on their websites and talk about it in their magazines (the way they do with most of the other Presidents who were Masons). Blueboar 19:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that this is a list of conspiracy theories, not a list of facts. Since he has a reference for people believing that the Bushes are Masons, it's valid to include here: it doesn't need to be rebutted. If this were the List of Freemasons, it wouldn't belong here.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 19:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the theory is that many important and powerful polititians are Freemasons. Bush is simply singled out. My point is that since some of the polititians included in the theory actually are Freemasons, I think it makes sense to note that, in Bush's case, he isn't one.

I suppose that an alternative would be to simply not mention any particular polititian. If we don't single out Bush, we don't need to clarify that he isn't one. Would that be acceptable? Blueboar 19:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Not in my humble opinion. Are you going to deny that Freemasons cause crop circles, too?--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 19:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Not at all... that would be POV. I simply deny that the specific one in that cornfield outside of DesMoins was caused by the Freemasons. (That one was caused by the Knights of Columbus on secret orders from the Vatican... oh, wait... isn't the Pope secretly a Freemason? Drat... exposed again.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboar (talk • contribs) 20:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

RFC on sources

By it's nature, this article is about all the various unsubstatiated claims and theories that involve Freemasonry. In order to maintain a NPOV, the editors of this page have agreed upon certain conventions... we don't discuss the "truth" or "untruth" of the theories, or comment upon them; and we must have verification that the theory actually exists. To substantiate the latter requirement, we cite sources in a particular way... not as support that the individual conspiracy theories listed in the article are factual or "true"... but purely as verification that the theory exists. Recently, however, this has raised an issue (and caused a brief edit war), as many of these theories are only discussed on fringe websites, blogs and POV rant pages. Such sites are not usually considered reliable sources under WP:RS.

So... The question is: Can a site that would be normally be considered unreliable be cited purely as verification of existance? Can unreliable sources be used in a limited context such as this?

Comments

• I think this is a case where "Ignore All Rules" should apply. The current convention has the local consensus of those editors who contribute to the page and of the Freemasonry Project. Without some form of verification of the existance, this entire article is gutted. A degree of latitued on WP:RS is needed here. Blueboar 14:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

From WP:RS/N - can I be directed to some of the disputed sources? Relata refero 15:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You could probably pick one at random, as the issue relates to almost every source we use... but the specific ones that caused the edit war are these: Bohemian Grove Exposed! and Freemasons, Illuminati and Associates

They were used to verify the existance of the theory: "Freemasons hold meetings with influential politicians and businessmen at Bohemian Grove. The worshiped statue of an owl is an alleged masonic symbol". Blueboar 15:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I see how they would, but the question that a reader could ask is whether it is a notable theory. And the answer is simply to cite an RS that it is, and then the non-RS can be used to support any statements about the content of the notable theory. A suggested RS for the Bohemian Grove could be, for example, the Evening Standard, the Brisbane Sun or the Village Voice. On a side note, haven't I seen that in a movie with Dan Aykroyd sometime? Relata refero 15:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I remember now, the end of Dragnet. Relata refero 16:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a risk of undue weight, in some cases these conspiracy theories are published only by a couple of nutters on their own blogs, as opposed to a nutter in a high circulation book. I suppose some adherents of the more respectable conspiracies might feel that their theory is diminished by being associated with the real tosh, in their opinions. In terms of a reasonable coverage of the topic a strict adherence to RS probably doesn't really help to create a decent article, although one could go too far and include all kinds of theory which would become excessive.

Inevitably wherever the boundary is set someone will object.

ALR 15:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with ALR, because a lot of the problem is subjective; for example, if there was proof, it wouldn't be a theory, would it? As for notability, a lot of these things boil down to the same types of ideas (new world order, government, plots, etc.) as are typical of any group someone is not a part of, meaning that to some people, these theories are very notable, while other people have never heard of them nor do they care. So we have a problem no matter what we do. Even if the stuff is unverifiable, there is a case for notability, so we can't even AfD the thing with any degree of success. MSJapan 03:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Looking this over, after coming here from WP:RS/N, I think this article has a lot of poor sources. I would personally get rid of most of them. It's not clear to me that local consensus can override general WP standards on reliability. (Notability would be more negotiable, in my view). EdJohnston 05:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ed, I do understand your statement... It's why I asked this question in the first place. The problem is that conspiracy theories such as these tend to be dismissed out of hand by the mainstreem, and are not considered worthy of discussion by reliable mainstreem sources. That leaves unreliable Fringe sources as the only way to verify that these theories exist. Without citation to these fringe sources we can't include any discussion about the theories, and that means we really don't have an article.

In a way, we are dealing with the following dilema: The broad topic (that Freemasons are involved in some sort of conspiracy) is very notable, and deserves an article. However, the specifics about what that conspiracy entails are not notable enough to be discussed by any reliable source. Thus, we end up with an article on a notable topic that, under a strick interpretation of our rules, can not have any content. Blueboar 14:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that there needs to be some indication that a fringe theory is "mainstream" or at least "relatively notable" before we talk about it here. In the case of Freemasonry, there are a ton of pseudohistory books in the bookstores that cover all kinds of bizarre theories. If a certain theory appeared in multiple books, I would say that that met the bar of notability, even if the theory wasn't being discussed in "reliable" books. In terms of websites though, that's a tougher call. If a theory is only on one or two sites, then I don't think that's famous enough. But if a Google search showed that a theory was being picked up by a lot of sites (like thousands), then even if the theory wasn't being picked up in major news, I'd say it might be appropriate for us to discuss on Wikipedia. There's still a lot of "it depends" in the equation though. --Elonka 06:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I'd agree that publication in >1 book probably indicates a degree of notability. I'd be concerned about using internet prevalence as an indicator, many of the tinfoil-headgear websites are straight cut and pastes of one another, or use out of context quotations from the books. The whole industry is a bit self perpetuating, so it's not very clear how widespread the theories recognition is.

ALR 11:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I share ALR's concern about self-perpetuating rumors, passed from one site to the next (see snopes.com). It would be better to use published books, even if they were pseudohistory, so long as we can tell they are not self-published. In some cases we might be able to collect evidence using book reviews and the known qualifications of the authors, and weigh that up to present to our readers. Books and web sites are different in this respect. Determining the truth of any statements on an anonymous self-published web site is practically impossible, and it would be better not to use such a site at all. EdJohnston 16:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, we had a somewhat related discussion about this on the Knights Templar article, when talking about the Friday the Thirteenth rumors. In the FA discussion for the Templar article, we debated whether or not we should mention about the rumors, and further, whether we could use a website such as snopes.com as a source for the debunking of the rumors. We had no "reliable source" in a book or published peer-reviewed format which definitively said "The Friday the Thirteenth superstition did not start with the Knights Templar." But the question about Friday the Thirteenth is clearly a major and controversial topic, and judging by the patterns of vandalism and anon edits, it's one of the primary reasons that readers are coming to the article in the first place. So, what we decided to do was to add a parenthetical: "...1307 (a date incorrectly linked with the origin of the Friday the 13th superstition)" that was sourced to the discussions at Snopes and Urbanlegends.about.com. We debated it at the FA nom, but the reviewers agreed with the reasoning as an exceptional case. So, towards what we do here with this "conspiracy theories" article, we can apply some of the same criteria: "Do we have any even moderately reputable site (such as Snopes) which is discussing this?" "Is this the kind of theory that will serve our readers, by us including it?" and "Are we not serving our readers, by not including such a major theory?" Just my $0.02, --Elonka 18:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Freemasons control Wikipedia

I believe that Freemasons control Wikipedia, especially any pages on Freemasons, conspiracy theories, Knights Templar, religion, and politics. If anyone knows of any source of others who share my belief to make it postable it would be great. But my computer will probably melt as soon as I hit Save Page. Not really, Freemasons know that I sound crazy and no one will believe me. Melting of my computer isn't necessary at this point in time. 142.165.59.39 (talk) 00:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice if someone explained this fact to the admins at AfD... they never seem to follow orders when I tell them to delete an article I don't like. :>) Blueboar (talk) 03:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

of course no one will believe you, your login name is 4 sets of random numbers!--Adamfinmo (talk) 08:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"Proven" theories

There is noting 'proven' about these. But that is actually a secondary issue. This article should not take a stand on whether any given theory is proven or not... nor whether any given theory is "True" or not (see WP:V). In this article we follow WP:NPOV, and simply list the theories, without comment as to whether they are proven, true, etc. Blueboar (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

There should not be comments about the conspiracy theories on this article. (cantikadam (talk) 09:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)).

Besides this article so meager and "superstitious" that it seems like it has been input by a mason. It should be based on solid theories and facts, moreover the links given after the claims should supply the exact information about the theory claimed if not it does not represent any value but a jester figure. (cantikadam (talk) 12:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)).

I am not sure if I understand what you mean by "links given after the claims should supply the exact information about the theory claimed"... they are citations, and as such they verify the fact that the theory exists (and exists in the form this article says they do). Or do you mean something else? Blueboar (talk) 12:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[[Freemasonry has political influence over branches of the US government including the Central Intelligence Agency[9]]], as one clicks on the link, there pops up the article of CIA, but it does not justify or clearify the theory by connecting directly to the main CIA page instead of a more detailed section, you should have thought that part as one of you prepare this funny article. (cantikadam (talk) 12:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)).

Hmmm.... you are somewhat correct... reading the article at the link, it is essentially saying that the "conspiracy" is the other way around... that the CIA had infultrated Masonry (or more specifically the P2 lodge) and not that Masonry had infultrated the CIA. I'll remove it. good catch. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 13:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Funny. (cantikadam (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)).

Watch the Language

I find the wording of the second paragraph laden with sarcasm and bias:

"Historically, complaints have been made that the Masons have secretly plotted to create a society based on the revolutionary ideals of liberty, equality, fraternity, separation of church and state and (in Nazi Germany) a Jewish plot for religious tolerance."

This sounds like one of those phrases that can be defended as technically truthful, but full of subjective speech. It is usually difficult to render an objective statement if one puts an adjective before nouns such as "ideals". If one describes "ideals" as "old-fashioned", "modern", "colorful", "typical", etc., then a bias is normally imparted. Also, the association between Nazi Germany and "historically" is inappropriate. Nazi Germany is an idiom of modern evil, and use of that imagery is often (as in this case, I believe) used in equivocation. "My brother is wearing a mustache these days, just like Adolf Hitler." Mom probably will take it harder phrased that way...although it may be true in a literal sense. If Nazis thought the Freemasons were enemies of the regime because the Freemasons were proponents of religious freedom, instead of state-approved atheism, then just say as much. I don't know anything about this topic, so I won't edit the article, but please try to stick to neutral language so newbies to the topic (like myself) can make up our own minds more easily--and objectively.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Atomdrummer (talk • contribs) 08:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, they were "revolutionary" ideals (in that the desire for such caused revolutions), and wholly historical - church authorities objected to all of the above at the time. That's why the statement is qualified the way it is. Nevertheless, the lead needs to be rewritten, just not for the stated reasons.MSJapan (talk) 13:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess the usage of 'have secretly plotted' instead of 'had secretly plotted' made me believe that 'Historically' meant 'thoughout history' rather than 'at some previous point in history'. Also, I usually read 'revolutionary' as meaning a revolution in thought or principle, and not political action. Otherwise, I guess every banana-republic dictator has been motivated by the 'revolutionary ideals' of greed and power. This could be worded better.Atomdrummer (talk) 01:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

removing theories - the Lucifer Theory

I don't see the grounds for challenging the statement that

"Some of the conspiracy theories involving Freemasonry are:...That Freemasons worship Lucifer or Satan, often attributed to quotes by Albert Pike.[27][28][29][30]"

There are four different citations that demonstrate that this theory is indeed proposed. The article takes no stand on whether this (or any other) theory is true or not... it simply lists it along with others. Essentially each item in the list is a statement of opinion. We are thus saying that this is the opinion of a person or group of people, not that it is true. A quick look at the sources demonstrate that people do have that oppinion... thus The citations back that statement. I agree that the sources would clearly NOT be reliable if we were giving a statement of FACT (ie saying that the Freemasons actually do worship Satan), but I think they are clearly reliable when used as they are. Blueboar (talk) 20:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Since we seem to be edit warring over this, and the citations may not be in the article for others to see... the citations under discussion are these: Freemasonry The worship of Lucifer, SATAN Part 1 of 5, DO FREEMASONS WORSHIP SATAN/LUCIFER ?, The Masonic Fairy Tale Known As The Leo Taxil Confession and Freemasonry: Midwife to an Occult Empire

Your citations are either personal sites or conspiracy sites. Find something better.

your new citation of the book doesn't seem to have a mention of either words lucipher, or satan. In addition, I found some links that show that satan/lusipher is a junk idea: 'no mention of satan' -- by the book author you quoted, 'obvious flame-bait'

So I repeat, find solid sources. Lakinekaki (talk) 21:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Robinson most certainly does discuss the Lucifer claim... in fact he devotes an entire chapter of the book to it. I am beginning to think that you have no idea what you are talking about. Blueboar (talk) 01:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

And by the way... John Robinson reaches the same conclusion that you have... that the idea that Freemasons worship Lucifer or Satan is absolute crap. That has nothing to do with this article. This article does not pass judgement on the theories. it does not say they are true (nor does it say they are not true). The only thing it says is that the theory exists. The statement that the theory exists is a factual statement... the claim is indeed made (in fact it is made by some very prominent people, notable people such as Pat Robertson, amoung others). Now, most people who seriously look into the issue will quickly discover that the theory is full of crap (most conspiracy theories are), but that does not mean we should not report that the theory exists... especially in an article that is about such theories and claims. In fact, I happen to believe that all of the theories listed in this article are crap (both from insider information and from the fact that I don't believe conspiracy theories in general). None of that matters. It is appropriate to list what the theories are in and article about the theories. Blueboar (talk) 01:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I misspelled 'lucifer' in search engine, that's why i didn't find it. Lakinekaki (talk) 06:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

lucipher...

provide reliable secondary sources of the overview of the theory. no geocities personal pages, nor conspiracy websites, but reliable secondary sources. Lakinekaki (talk) 20:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see my comment above... we are not saying that the theory is true (for which we would need reliable secondary sources) all we are saying is that the theory exists (for which we need to cite the fact that someone does indeed hold that theory)... and the four cites linked do indeed demonstrate that someone holds the theory. It is a statement of opinion, not a statement of fact. The standards are different Blueboar (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

By WP:N and WP:FRINGE, it does not matter if you find someone somewhere talking about it if nobody cares. Show that it is notable enough. Show that it deserves place in the article. Lakinekaki (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I would think Pat Roberston is more than a nobody... but OK... how about John Robinson's A Pilgrim's Path: Freemasonry and the Religious Right, (M. Evans pub. 1993 ISBN:087131732X)... Robinson is an eminent historian who wrote an entire book studying the issue.

I could also add several Masonic writers who discuss the theory in order to disprove it, but the conspiracy nuts would say that they are just lying to cover up the conspiracy. The point is, we didn't want to get into issues of proof or lack of proof or even quality of proof ... to keep the article's NPOV we simply state that the theory exists and give a few examples of someone stating the theory as citation. I would be willing to say that, taken individually, few of the theories on this page are notable... but the concept that there is some sort of "Masonic Conspiracy" certainly is. The details of what that conspiracy may be will change from theorist to theorist (and most mix and match different theories into their take on the conspiracy)... this one is common amoung the Religious Right. Blueboar (talk) 21:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

There aren't any reliable sources - that's why this is a conspiracy theory. You're looking for something that doesn't exist, and yet you have no trouble accepting the claims of the other theories and sources. So what's your issue with this particular one? MSJapan (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I am dealing with one statement at a time. Once we resolve dispute about this one, I will move to the next. In addition, this one really sounded to me like an exceptional claim, even for a conspiracy theory. In addition, existence of lousily sourced content elsewhere in the article or in other articles doesn't justify inclusion of the particular content I am disputing. [1] Lakinekaki (talk) 22:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Hold on... look at what is being said in the article. If we remove the other claims and the list format and write it as a simple sentence, it reads as follows: One of the conspiracy theories involving Freemasonry is that that Freemasons worship Lucifer or Satan. The only "claim" being made in this sentence is that this is one of several conspiracy theories. How is this an exceptional claim? I can agree that it would be exceptional if we stated that the theory was true, that Freemasons do worship Satan... but we don't claim that at all. All we claim is that it is one of the many theories that are made. There is nothing exceptional about that.

But even if we do say that listing this theory is exceptional, since a noted historian (a mainstream, independent, third party source) had gone to the trouble writing an entire book specifically to examine this particular theory, and since I have now cited that book, it now passes the exceptional sources requirement to include the claim in the list.

Let's see, we have tried WP:RS, WP:N, WP:NPOV, WP:Fringe, and WP:REDFLAG... as long as we are shopping, are there any other policies or guidelines that we would like to try? Blueboar (talk) 00:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

... I misspelled 'lucifer' in search engine, that's why i didn't find it. Lakinekaki (talk) 06:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Why are 99% of the conspiracies in the US?

What I noticed when doing ref cleanup is that every Masonic conspiracy theory not based in religion has to do with the United States or uses Us examples, aside from Jack the Ripper. If this is such a worldwide problem, why aren't there any theories originating in other countries? MSJapan (talk) 19:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Rewrote lead

I didn't like that the article subject was not close to the head of the article, so I reorganized and rewrote the lead. MSJapan (talk) 18:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add additional conspiracy theories but the user Blueboar insists on using brute force to prevent it from happening

I spent several hours doing a major re-write of the article only for Blueboar to undo it. After I left a complaint about the undo in the changelog, he had the article rolled back to the version from August 25, 2008 -- before my edit. I tried to leave a message in his talk page which he has silently deleted. To me, this implies passive-aggressive malice. These kinds of actions only fuel suspicion and lend further credence to "conspiracy theories." Ukufwakfgr (talk) 14:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no it doesn't. Your so-called neutral edits were not, and you didn't add new material so much as change what was already there from a list of statements made to implied certainties that in fact all the theories were true. Also, if Blueboar deleted your message, that means he had to have read it, and a lot of people do that. Complain all you want, but your edits added nothing of value to the article. I probably would have reverted them as well, since your edit summary was misleading. Don't misbehave and then get mad when you get caught. MSJapan (talk) 15:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The article, as it exists already, is highly biased and has a condescending tone which I found to be atrocious and misleading in itself. If you're going to bring up a topic like this, let's put the cards on the table.

The changes were deleted, but I will post them again here, so that you can actually look at it. I have no idea why you'd think that I'm "misbehaving" Ukufwakfgr (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The changes I reverted are these... MSJapan has it right... your edit changed the carefully neutral tone of several of the entries. The key to this article is that it simply states that the theories exist... it is carefully worded so that it neither says nor implys truth nor falseness. If you wish to add theories (backed by reliable sources of course), that is fine... but you must do so using this established neutral tone. Blueboar (talk) 16:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

That is complete bullshit and you know it. Here's a quote from the article:

That Freemasonry is the Illuminati or New World Order, and secretly controls all aspects of society and government.

That idea is not even supported by most conspiracy theorists.

Additionally:

• The article uses the phrase "in the broadest terms" which clearly shows intent to diminish or otherwise misrepresent the subject matter.

• The article links to the Wikipedia entry for the Taxil hoax, which was also written in poor taste.

• The concept of a "New World Order" is NOT a "theory." There is video on YouTube of the phrase being used by both George H W Bush and Henry Kissinger. Go look it up yourself, I'm not going to hold your hand this time.

• The article uses loaded, hyperbolic phrases like "the Illuminati," "world domination," "hidden war," and "secretly control" in a context whereby they do NOT give the article a neutral tone.

• The article obfuscates conspiracy theories regarding the events of September 11, 2001.

• The article names the NSA, FEMA, NASA and Congress as "branches of the US government" which is COMPLETELY WRONG !!!

• The article has only one external link, to a website which refutes the subject matter. This also does not give the article a neutral tone.

• The article was sloppily written, so I changed a few sentences here and there.

Ukufwakfgr (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The changes that I would like to make

• York Rite Freemasons have an affinity for New York.

No.

Why? Ukufwakfgr (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• They secretly aim to control all aspects of society and government. This view is somewhat supported by the official website of the Masonic Grand Lodge of Scotland, which lists several ambitious statesmen among its past membership including Cecil Rhodes.

Already covered with better sources.

Then please include those sources here as well Ukufwakfgr (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• They have political influence over organizations connected to the US government including the Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency, Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the United States Congress.

Again, we've already got this.

Added the CIA, along with 2 references Ukufwakfgr (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• They control the international socialist and communist movements.

Fails RS.

• They control powerful Arab political leaders and heads of state.

Fails RS.

• They control non-governmental organizations like the Red Cross, that enjoy special priviliges during wartime.

Fails RS.

• They are aligned with international organized crime.

Fails RS.

• They name among their membership influential members of the entertainment industry including movie producer James Cameron, and cartoonist Matt Groening.

How is this a conspiracy? MSJapan (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The entertainment industry is utilitized to engineer popular opinion Ukufwakfgr (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• That Jack the Ripper was a Freemason whose murders resembled Masonic initiation rituals.

Debunked, and already mentioned.

Please explain how it was debunked Ukufwakfgr (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• They may have been involved in the assassination of US president John F. Kennedy. Some conspiracy theorists claim that Freemasons actually had JFK killed.

We already have this.

Sentence re-write Ukufwakfgr (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• They intertwine various symbols and numerology into graphic design, such as corporate logos.

Gross speculation that fails RS. Art is subjective.

That doesn't preclude it from being a conspiracy theory Ukufwakfgr (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• That even most members are unaware of hidden or secretive ruling bodies that govern their organization, conduct occult ritual, or control various positions of power. This is an example of a secret society within a secret society.

Covered already.

Good, then readers will be pleased to see it again Ukufwakfgr (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• They are intimately tied to the Ku Klux Klan, Skull and Bones, and other organizations.

Debunked.

Albert Pike Ukufwakfgr (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Debunked... suggest you read this book. Blueboar (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I normally don't read books "for dummies" but I might take a look at it next time I'm in a book store. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 17:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• That the owl is a hidden Masonic symbol found in the layout of the US Capitol building and the US dollar bill, with the owl itself being an Ancient Egyptian symbol foreshadowing death.

"Amazing Psychic Revelations.com"? No.

Don't hate the website, hate the author Ukufwakfgr (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Their practices are dervied from the ancient mystery and fertility cults.

No again.

Uh, yes yes and definitely yes. Now it seems like you're attempting a half-assed cover-up Ukufwakfgr (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• They praise their own particular god, such as GAOTU the "Great Architect of the Universe", or Jahbulon, an amalgam of the gods Yahweh, Baal, and Osiris.

Nope. This is directly contradicted by plenty of reliable sources. The suposed "Masonic Deity" is no different than anyone else's.

I didn't even write this !! Can we say "busted" ??? Ukufwakfgr (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• That in Freemasonry Lucifer is praised as the "bringer of light."

This is Pike, it's been done, and we don't need to bulk it out with the same material from three different sources.

Lucifer, in Latin, means "bringer of light" and "light" is a prominent theme in Masonry Ukufwakfgr (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• They were behind the alleged Apollo moon-landing hoax

It wasn't a hoax, so what's the point?

Nobody knows for sure whether or not it was a hoax Ukufwakfgr (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• They hold meetings with influential politicians and businessmen at Bohemian Grove. The large owl statue is a Masonic symbol.

Where and who?

Anyhow, that should address the problems. We either don't need it, or it's not sourced properly woth reliable sources per Wikipedia. These are, by the way, theories. If they were provable, they would be fact. So, that may explain the tone; we cannot present somebody's guess as an empirical fact, and that is what you purport to do. MSJapan (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Please explain why they are not reliable sources for conspiracy theories. The article is not about Freemasonry itself. Let's not get the topic confused. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 15:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ukufwakfgr, I am not at all sure what your changes are ... almost all of the items above are already mentioned in the article. It might help if you go item by item and explain what you want to change, and why. Blueboar (talk) 15:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

If you are saying that they are "already mentioned" by inference then you really should stop editing Wikipedia articles. I'm sure you can figure it out, it's not like I wrote it in Klingon Ukufwakfgr (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

That is not what I am saying... more than three quarters of the stuff you list above as "Changes you would like to make" are already in the article... using wording either exactly or almost exactly the way you wrote them above... for example you list:

• That Jack the Ripper was a Freemason whose murders resembled Masonic initiation rituals.

This exact wording is already in the article (and has been there for more than a year). So I am confused as to why you list it as something you want to change. Do you mean you want to remove it? Do you mean that it needs to be worded differently? What is your change? Blueboar (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I put it in for my own convenience, so that I wouldn't do 5,000 cuts and pastes. Diff is your friend Ukufwakfgr (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

In other words, your changes are burried in there, somewhere among a lot of things that are not changes, and you expect us to find them... this is not helpful. Let me ask again... go slower and discuss each change one at a time rather than in bulk. Please outline the first change you wish to make... we will discuss it. Then we can move on to the next one. Blueboar (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of changes; they are not just "buried." If anything, portions of the original text are "buried" in my changes. Diff exists for a reason. MSJapan has critiqued the changes, albeit unsatisfactorally. You can start from there Ukufwakfgr (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

One issue at a time

The first issue that Ukufwakfgr has an issue with is the line:

• That Freemasonry is the Illuminati or New World Order, and secretly controls all aspects of society and government.

He states: "That idea is not even supported by most conspiracy theorists."

For an idea that is "not even supported by most conspiracy theorists", it sure is a popular theory. Searching Google for Freemasonry+Illuminati we get about 922,000 hits. It deserves to be mentioned. What we are very careful to do is not say whether the theory is true or not. Blueboar (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned this in the other section as an example of biased speech.

No. According to conspiracy theorists, Freemasonry is controlled by the Illuminati, not that it is the Illuminati. Either you don't know much about conspiracy theory or you're trying to perpetuate a cover-up. Stick to the other Freemasonry articles. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I suppose this depends on which conspiracy theorists you talk to... this website certainly equates the two. As does this site, and this site.

So perhaps a compromise is to change the wording to... "That Freemasonry is (or is controled by) the Illuminati... " etc. Blueboar (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

What the fuck ... do you enjoy lying, or is it just a bad habit ? Ukufwakfgr (talk) 19:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Please be aware that a comments like that are considered personal attacks by Wikipeida's rules, and if repeated can result in the attacker being blocked or even banned. I will let it slide this time, but if you persist I will report your abuse to an admin.

Now, I gave you three conspiracy websites that treat the Illuminati and the Masons as being one in the same... and offered a good faith suggestion for compromise language. Do you reject that compromise? Blueboar (talk) 23:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Your threat to report me to an admin, your making 2 reverts without a single explanation, and your general dishonesty constitute incivility. I could have put you on the noticeboard, and done lots of other things as well. The three links you provided do NOT support your claim. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 23:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

If you really think I have done something wrong, please do report me. As to the links I provided, in what way do they not support what I claim? Blueboar (talk) 01:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

How about just owning up ?? Those websites contain the words "Freemason" and "Illuminati" but make no specific claim that "Freemasonry is the Illuminati." The Google search keyword you used is inefficient, given how the web and search engines work. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 01:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Um... from the first line of the first of my three links... note the hyphenation "Hiding the Meaning: If the Illuminati-Freemasonry mysteries are working for world government and want to keep it a secret, they must conceal and hide the truth of their actions. This is clearly indicating that the two are one. Blueboar (talk) 01:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It does not say that "Freemasonry is the Illuminati." It is describing a prototypical one-world mystery religion. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 01:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly ... the Illuminati-Freemasonry religion... ie they are one religion (at least according to the web site). Blueboar (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The word "mysteries," in reference to mysteries that actually exist, is plural. Anyway, Fritz Springmeier suggests that the Illuminati consists of 13 or more family bloodlines. He does not insinuate that they are all Freemasons by necessity. This image of the "Illuminati Pyramid Structure" seems more like a rip-off of Freemasonry. This page, which demonizes George W. Bush, places Freemasonry at about the middle third of the Illuminati hierarchy, below the Jesuits and the Catholic Church. There is also an Illuminati-structure image on that page, although I highly doubt its credibility since it also mentions the Priory of Sion. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 03:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, mysteries is plural... it often is in religious oriented writings... Catholic theologians often refer to the Mysteries of the Catholic Church... one organization with many mysteries.

There is no need to point me to conspiracy sites that place Freemasonry somewhere within a broader Illuminati... I have already conceded that not all conspiracy theorists say they are the identical... my only point is that some do say they are identical. Some say the Illuminati are part of the Freemasons (as the Illuminati was founded by the Freemasons), others that the Freemasons are part of the Illuminati (at least at the higher levels of Freemasonry), and still others say that they are one in the same (that Freemasonry is just the "public face" of the Illuminati) ... and one or two may say all three at the same time (we shouldn't expect the paraniod to always be logical). Blueboar (talk) 04:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I forgot to mention that there is no clear definition of "The Illuminati." It is just an informal nickname for a secretive organization which, in all likelihood, is not called "The Illuminati" by its members. As such the phrase "The Illuminati" does not lend itself to credibility, and for this reason I erased it when I made my changes. Freemasonry serving as a front organization to execute the plans of the Illuminati would cause one to imply that the Illuminati controlled, or at least was in cooperation with Freemasonry -- not that it is one and the same with Freemasonry. That would be like saying that eco-feminism is Marxism. The Bavarian Illuminati was founded by Freemasons, but it lasted only a few years. "The Illuminati" in its current usage does not reference the Bavarian Illuminati. Presenting conspiracy theories as "paranoia" is judgmental and, thus, biased. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 05:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You may believe that "The Illuminati" in its current usage does not reference the Bavarian Illuminati, but others hold different beliefs. Many conspiracy theorists believe that the Bavarian Illuminati still exists. They believe that this group infiltrated Freemasonry and took it over. This may not agree with your version of the theory, but the theory does exsist. This article is not about which of these theories is "true"... it is about the fact that the various theories exist. Blueboar (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, there is no clear definition of "The Illuminati." The groups to whom the phrase "The Illuminati" refers -- such as the Jesuits, the Catholic Church, and the 13 family bloodlines -- existed before May 1, 1776. Conspiracy theorists say that the Bavarian Illuminati existed until 1783 or 1784. If they still exist, they do not use the name "Bavarian Illuminati" or else conspiracy theorists would continue to use that name as well. Nowadays various groups call themselves "Illuminati" or have the word "Illuminati" in their name, but they are not "The Illuminati" per se. In comparison, there is no evidence that the current Knights Templar are the same group as the Knights Templar from the 12th century except whatever the current group could copy out of historical records. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see your problem... you are talking factual history... factual history often has little to do with conspiracy theory. Many conspiracy theorists get their historical facts wrong. Remember, this article isn't about the historical Illuminati (for that see the Wikipedia article on Illuminati), or even about the modern groups that call themselves Illuminati. This article is about the claims that are made by conspiracy theorists about the Masons... some of whom claim that when the historical Bavarian Illuminati were supressed, they continued on in secret, merging into the Freemasons. Yes, there is little to no evidence to support this theory, but that does not stop theorists from making the claim. In this sense, it is similar to the theories about the Templars... no real evidence, but lots of claims.

This is why the article takes the tone it does... if we were to get into which of these claims are "true", the article would quickly get into arguments about "proof" and "evidence" (and would probably be accused of taking a "pro-masonic" tone... because most if not all of the claims that are made are easily debunked when you examine the evidence.) We chose not to go that route... we avoid the entire issue of "truth" by not discussing it. We stick firmly to Verifiability. We simply say: "here are some of the common claims that are made about the Masons". We don't examine whether these claims are true or false... we don't try to "prove" or "debunk" the claims... we simply list them. Blueboar (talk) 16:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You have just demonstrated, multiple times, your intention to write this article with bias and malicious intent. In addition you have a vested interest in misrepresenting the subject matter (ie: being a 5th degree Scottish Rite Freemason). Leave it to people who actually know about conspiracy theory, and are not faced with a possible conflict of interest. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

How have I demonstrated an intention to write with bias and malicious intent? To the contrary, I am trying to avoid bias. Oh, and FYI, you are incorrect in thinking that I am a 5th Degree Scottish Rite Freemason... I have not taken any Scottish Rite degrees and do not belong to the Scottish Rite (for full disclosure, I have taken the York Rite degrees... although I am not currently active in that organization). Blueboar (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Many Masons stop attending meetings, but they still hold onto their membership cards. In your user page you state that you mostly edit articles related to Freemasonry, so you are still involved with the organization, even if you are not active in lodge meetings. You have characterized conspiracy theory and conspiracy theorists in less-than-flattering terms. If this is because of a compulsion, then you obviously cannot provide unbiased information. In addition, you do not know about conspiracy theory, so you cannot talk about it, even in the context of a topic that you do know about. After all, the Masonic lodge has an interest in misrepresenting conspiracy theories for the sake self-preservation. I know about conspiracy theory, but I can't talk about how conspiracy theory relates to the textile industry, and I won't attempt to write a Wikipedia article in that regard. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand, I am quite active in Freemasonry - at the local lodge level and (to a lesser extent) at the Grand Lodge level ... I have let my membership in the York Rite laps due to lack of interest, but I remain very active in my local lodge.

As for my bias... of course I have a bias... we all have biases. The key is to not let them impact what we write in the article. We can express our biases on the talk page. From what you have said, I am assuming that you are a proponent of at least some of the conspiracy theories discussed in this article. If so, that is not a problem... unless you let your bias affect how you write and what you include and exclude from articles. The entire point behind the tone of this article write is avoid bias, no matter who is editing the article. By omitting both attempts to "prove" and attempts to "debunk" the theories, the article remains bluntly neutral, in line with the WP:NPOV policy. We stick firmly to WP:Verifiability (that "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability not truth")... we say that the theories exist, and give a citation to a source that verifies that the claim exists. That's it. Blueboar (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Your bias seems to be particularly strong. You still do not know enough about conspiracy theory to write a Wikipedia article about it, and you refuse to address the other concerns that I expressed. This demonstrates your carelessness. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, I know quite a lot about the various Masonic conspiracy theories (being a Mason, it is in my interest to know what Anti-masons say about the organization). The most important thing I know is that there isn't just one theory out there. There are multiple theories (some of which contradict each other). Yes, I happen to think that all of them are complete bunk (my bias), but I do not let that attitude impact my article writing. Can you say the same? Blueboar (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

So then you are attempting to provide contradictory information in order to invalidate the subject matter. Not "good faith." Ukufwakfgr (talk) 18:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I am attempting to adhear to Wikipedia policy... read WP:NPOV... when different sources give contradictory information, Wikipedia policy is to mention both. Our job is to report what the sources say, not to prove one right and the other wrong. If I wanted to "invalidate" the subject matter, I would add a paragraph to each item debunking it (which would not be difficult to do).

That view is in the minority, and there is no special reason to bring it up. You could say that a minority of Americans are left-handed, but it's not worth mentioning that "there are left-handed people who" use their left hand to perform a particular task unless it's for a reason. Wikipedia policy discourages inclusion for its own sake. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at the article on Handedness, it is mentioned. No, as per WP:NPOV, minority viewpoints must be expressed (and, isn't it is a bit silly to talk about majority/majority views here... as the entire masonic conspiracy idea is a fairly minority, even fringe, view in the first place.) Blueboar (talk) 22:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about, but it seems like you did not even read what I wrote. Opinions are like noses -- everybody's got one. How many minority views are there on any topic? Again, you state your intention to present the subject matter in a biased way. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 02:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Moving on to the next issue

We seem to be talking in circles about the first issue... Perhaps we can make more progress if we move to another issue on your list... You say:

• The article links to the Wikipedia entry for the Taxil hoax, which was also written in poor taste.

Please expand on this... why shouldn't this article link to Taxil hoax and what is in "poor taste" about that article? (note: problems with another article should really be discussed on that article's talk page... but since there is a link, we can briefly discuss it here) Blueboar (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You have been dishonest and stubborn, and I refuse to collaborate with you. I suggest you talk to an admin about deleting this article or moving it out of the Freemasonry project. In the meantime, stay away. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 17:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going away, so I suggest that you at least try to collaborate with me, as I am trying to collaborate with you. In the meantime, I suggest you read up on the various policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, starting with: WP:Assume good faith.

Now, I ask again... Please elaborate on your comment. Blueboar (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You reverting my changes without a reason is not acting "in good faith." Also, the rules say to ignore the rules when it would improve Wikipedia, which is what I'm attempting to do. You, on the other hand, would prefer that the article stay as it is, even though it's been rated as stub-class. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I did give a reason... I did not believe your edit to be neutral. So my revert was made in good faith (WP:Assume good faith does not require you to always agree with someone or their edits). I have no objection to improving this article, and am more than willing to work with you to do so. However, I suspect that we will freequently disagree on wether a given edit is actually an improvement or not. Such disagreements are common on Wikipedia. The solution is to talk it out, and if possible, reach a compromise (and if a compromise is not possible there is a dispute resolution process... the first step of which is to seek other opinions). Blueboar (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

No, you are not trying to talk out anything. You are just trying to bulldoze you way through it. I told you already that your proposals attempt to obfuscate the article by including arbitrary views for no real reason other than inclusion, which is not good enough on Wikipedia, and which does not give the article a better sense of completion. These are not "compromises," they are attempts to invalidate the subject matter by including disinformation. You have demonstrated "bad faith" on numerous occasions. In addition, there is a possible conflict of interest, because the views expressed are detrimental to your lifestyle and possibly your personal safety. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPOV... when different sources disagree, the policy is to mention what they both say, and not attempt to judge between them. That is what I do, and what this article does. Blueboar (talk) 18:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

More bullshit. WP:NPOV says all significant views. The point that you are trying to include is not only insignificant, but based on non-credible information. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 02:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

In fact, I would suggest you read all of our core policies... WP:Verifiability (usually abreviated as WP:V), WP:No original research (WP:NOR) as well as WP:Neutral point of view]] (WP:NPOV)... it will probably save everyone's time and energy if you come to understand these core policies right from the start. Blueboar (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, more condescending language. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 02:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You know, I'd like for Uku to expand on his idea that the views expressed are detrimental to Blueboar's lifestyle, and particularly, his "personal safety", because I don't think I particularly like the tone of that statement when it comes from a hostile editor. MSJapan (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not at all worried for my "personal safety", but thanks for the concern. Blueboar (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar risks betraying his oath by divulging any secrets of Freemasonry, which is what I intend to do. That was not a threat, and calling me "a hostile editor" is a personal attack that is bordering on slander. If anything, you have contributed nothing, and you need to change your own attitude. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 02:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

No he doesn't, and that total lack of knowledge on your part pretty much indicates that you have very little knowledge which is supported by fact in this area. I have no need to justify either my edit count or my contributions, but I would suggest that you think about what you are saying to whom before you say it. You're a hostile editor because you refuse to cooperate and refuse to acknowledge that maybe you really don't know what you;re talking about, and you'd rather create some nonsense about "violating obligations" or guessing at what holding membership in an organization you clearly don't understand means rather than trying to support your own statements with a reliable source. I'd suggest you read John J. Robinson's A Pilgrim's Path and note exactly the type of argument method he states most Masonic detractors use. You might see some similarities. MSJapan (talk) 04:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, he does, because that's part of what the Masonic oaths entail. Maybe you know better than I do because you are a Freemason as well? Specify this "'total' lack of knowledge on my part." My name is not "a hostile editor" so I suggest that you stop calling me that, and no one should have to cooperate with someone who is acting dishonest and stubborn. I said nothing about your general contributions to Wikipedia, rather your contribution to improving this article. How about you quote from that book instead of just pointing to it? And saying that I speak like "a typical Masonic detractor" is an ad-hominem attack. Again, you are contributing nothing. Don't be a sock puppet. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 05:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Several comments: First, you are correct that, as a Freemason, I have promised not to divulge the "secrets of Freemasonry"... these consist of the vartious grips and passwords used to gain admission to a lodge meeting. And since these grips and words play no real part in any Masonic conspiracy theory, I have no worries about "violating my obligation" by "divulging" them. Second, even if I were to divulge these grips and passwords, the only punishments I would or could face are repremand, suspension or expulsion (and I doubt I would even get a repremand, since these "secrets" have been divulged so many times over the last few centuries that no one really thinks they are "secret" anymore). So no, there is no threat to my personal safety... sorry to disapoint.

Finally... If you think that MSJapan is a sock puppet... feel free to report him (I am sure the admins could use a laugh).

Now... can we please stop attacking the editor and focus on the edits instead.

I opened this thread with a question... you have yet to answer it. Blueboar (talk) 14:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it is typical for members of secret societies to refute the claims of outsiders, saying confidently that they "don't know the secrets." The grips, signs and words do play a part in conspiracy theory, namely as they concern the entertainment industry and the mainstream media. The secrets also consist of rituals and symbology. Members who hold the lower degrees are told lies about them. In addition, I suppose that the activities of the Freemasons and their alignment with other groups would also count as secrets, and I think that you would agree. Suspension from the lodge means that you'd have more free time or even that other members may turn away from you, thus affecting your livelihood. Freemasons have been persecuted throughout history, especially after the publishing of William Morgan's book and during the 20th century. This would imply that many people in general do not know much about Freemasonry; after learning, people tend to disagree with it.

Why do you need to mention that "the admins could use a laugh?" Sounds like intimidation.

Like I said, I refuse to collaborate with you. If you think that my outbursts are irrational and would just "blow over" then you are mistaken. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Why do I mention that "the admins could use a laugh?" Simply because MSJ is a long time Wikipedian who is quite respected. The idea that he could be a sock puppet is amusing.

So then you are placing him on a pedestal. Try not to do that so much. Even Freemasonry says not to do that so much. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

As to your other comments... "The grips, signs and words do play a part in conspiracy theory, namely as they concern the entertainment industry and the mainstream media."... how do they play a part in conspiracy theory, and how do they concern the entertainment industry and the mainstream media?

People are routinely photographed while giving Masonic signs, getting Masonic grips, and using Masonic secret words (usually as double-entendre). Photos are manipulated such that the model appears to be giving a Masonic sign. Entertainers routine use the cornuto -- to the point where it now has become known as like "metalhorns" or something. These seem like unnecessary superfluous embellishments, and people ask questions. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

"The secrets also consist of rituals and symbology."... Nope... The ritual and symbology of Freemasonry are not secret... the ritual (which includes the explanation of the symbology) is actually published and can be purchased by the general public at Amazon.uk

Someone should tell Amazon.uk to start selling copies of Morals and Dogma Ukufwakfgr (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

"Members who hold the lower degrees are told lies about them." This is the only comment you have made that does relate to Masonic conspiracy theories. However, we already cover this claim...the article states: "That most Freemasons are unaware of hidden or secretive ruling bodies that govern their organization, conduct occult ritual, or control various positions of power. This is an example of a secret society within a secret society"... I suppose we could expand or reword it to specifically mention the claim that the lower degrees are lied to.

I never proposed this as a change to the article, I was simply responding to a question. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

"In addition, I suppose that the activities of the Freemasons and their alignment with other groups would also count as secrets, and I think that you would agree". Nope... I don't agree. The only "secrets" are the grips and words. I am not even sure what "other groups" you are referring to (what "other groups" do you thik Freemasonry is aligned with?)

Refer to my changes. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

"Suspension from the lodge means that you'd have more free time or even that other members may turn away from you, thus affecting your livelihood." Well... I suppose more free time might affect my livelihood (as I could spend more time at work earning money, instead of attending lodge meetings... perhaps I should consider trying to get myslef suspended!). But it is unlikely that people I grew up with and are long time friends will turn away just because I can't attend lodge.

I will not discuss your personal life any further. In short, you have a vested interest in misrepresenting the subject matter. Furthermore, you never explained your motivation for working on this article. All I have to go by are assumptions. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

"Freemasons have been persecuted throughout history, especially after the publishing of William Morgan's book and during the 20th century. This would imply that many people in general do not know much about Freemasonry; after learning, people tend to disagree with it." - The first part of that is true... Freemasons has been persecuted many times. But I would argue that the persecution happens because people don't know much about Freemasonry, and they fear what they don't know... over the last fifty years or so, Freemasonry has become more open about it's rituals and activities... and more and more people have realized that there is nothing to fear. It seems most people actually like what they see when they find out more about the Craft. Blueboar (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I recently watched a documentary on the History Channel about Freemasonry. The documentary was presented with a biased tone. The Master Masons who were interviewed refused to correctly answer a lot of the most common questions. In addition, their portrayal of the Masonic baptism was misleading. The documentary itself says that the portrayal was based on a composite of information. The baptism is only one part of the initiation ritual for a Master Mason, and it was included for the sake of illustrating the story of Hiram Abiff -- NOT to demonstrate the initiation ritual in itself. Despite that, their description of the story of Hiram Abiff was still incomplete. That is not being "open." Secrecy is an integral part of the Freemasonry's identity and practices. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

OK... Uku has tagged the article as not being neutral... so, what is not neutral about it? Blueboar (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Respond to the points that I brought up, which continue to accumulate for each instance of bullshit that you post on here. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I am responding to your points ... you just don't like what I have to say. (I get the idea that you equate "agree with me" as a valid response, and "don't agree with me" as "bullshit".) And once again you are attempting to avoid the question... what is not neutral about the article? Blueboar (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL refers to this as "feigned incomprehension." Learn how to scroll up. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Nothing feigned about it... I think this article is excrutiatingly neutral in tone, so I really do not see how you can think otherwise. In any case... since you don't seem to want to discuss your concerns point by point... I have responded to them all below. Blueboar (talk) 20:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You have not proven that this article is "excruciatingly neutral." You are simply reacting defensively and irrationally. You may have invested a lot into it already, and that may be distorting your perspective. As someone looking in from the outside, it appears, on no uncertain terms, that this article is biased. In addition, you have demonstrated a lack of self-control, compassion and objectivity, which are all needed to make unbiased statements. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I wish I had more time to take part in the discussions these days, but best guess is that 'current version' =! 'his version', therefore 'current version' =! neutral.

I would suggest that the current version is as close as an article of this kind is going to get - it reports simple facts (per WP:V) without taking a bias as far as possible (per WP:NPOV). This is not saying that todays version can't be improved though, but Ukufwakfgr's changes were not an improvement.

Off course, if we were apply WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE heavoly to this article we might as well delete the whole thing - but thats beside the point. I would argue that the neutrailty tag is misused on this article.

WegianWarrior (talk) 18:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You don't have enough time to engage in discussion, yet you are certain that the neutrality tag is misused and you apparently have enough time to click "undo." Your sincerity is questionnable. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice ad hominen there, but perhaps you had something more usefull to add to the discusson? WegianWarrior (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

responding to Uku's points

Let's try again... since you don't seem to want to discuss them point by point, fine... I will deal with them all together:

• The article uses the phrase "in the broadest terms" which clearly shows intent to diminish or otherwise misrepresent the subject matter.

The exact sentence is: Masonic conspiracy theories are a subset of conspiracy theories involving Freemasonry. In broadest terms, these theories claim that Masonic conspiracy theories are a subset of conspiracy theories involving Freemasonry. This is a statement that summarizes a broad concept that is common to most of the theories. Wikipedia's style guidelines say we are supposed to summarize the article in broad scope in the intro... that is what we do (even a quick look at the list shows that most of the theories claim this in some way. How is it not neutral?

It insinuates that the subject matter does not warrant serious consideration. Besides, that phrase is not only false, but exaggerated Ukufwakfgr (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

False? It's a very accurate description, but the meaning don't change much if we rewrite it to "''Masonic conspiracy theories are a subset of conspiracy theories involving Freemasonry. These theories claim that Masonic conspiracy theories are a subset of conspiracy theories involving Freemasonry. - it just turns the last sentence into a fragment and a repeat of the first. As for being exaggerated... sources please? Preferable realiable ones? WegianWarrior (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, here is the whole sentence as it currently appears in the article:

In broadest terms, these theories claim that Freemasonry exerts control over politics at all levels.

Incidentally, that proposal does not include the phrase "in the broadest terms." The phrase "Masonic conspiracy theories" itself is ambiguous. That usage of the word "involving" is also ambiguous. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• The article links to the Wikipedia entry for the Taxil hoax, which was also written in poor taste. In order for me to respond to this complaint, I need to understand it... so, Uku... why shouldn't this article link to Taxil hoax and what is in "poor taste" about that article?

That article is biased, and written in a spirit similar to this one. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

And it is also verifiable, neutral and keeping to reliable sources... WegianWarrior (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• The concept of a "New World Order" is NOT a "theory." There is video on YouTube of the phrase being used by both George H W Bush and Henry Kissinger. Go look it up yourself, I'm not going to hold your hand this time.

Fine... I will hold yours. Start with the Wikipedia article New World Order (conspiracy theory)

That article is all kinds of filth, and that's why I don't reference it in my changes to this article. This article represents the "New World Order" as an organization, which is false. Even that Wikipedia article refers to it as "a hypothetical totalitarian end of history." 21:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Uhm, no. This article refers to the verfiable fact that some conspirasy theorists refers to "New World Order" as an organisation. WegianWarrior (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You did not quote it, and besides that is a moot point. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• The article uses loaded, hyperbolic phrases like "the Illuminati," "world domination," "hidden war," and "secretly control" in a context whereby they do NOT give the article a neutral tone.

Of course the article uses these phrases... as they are terms that are used by the cited sources, and express the POV of those who make the claim. It would be non-neutral to not use these terms.

No. Those are grossly exaggerated misquotations, which cause the subject matter to appear invalid. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Having taken time to go throught most of the sources (intrestingly enought, several are blocked at my workplace for being hate-sites), I would say that the article if anything is toning down the hyporbole and exagguration the sources display. WegianWarrior (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

So what? They require further toning-down. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• The article obfuscates conspiracy theories regarding the events of September 11, 2001.

Huh? How? (please remember that this isn't the 9/11 conspiracy page. We are only talking about those 9/11 theories that involve Masonry)

It states that, according to conspiracy theorists, 9/11 was about a hidden war between the Knights Templar and the Muslims or something like that, which is a minority viewpoint. I do not wish to discuss 9/11 conspiracy theories in this article, so I deleted it in my changes. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You may not wish to discuss it, but it's a verifiable fact that some conspiray theorists does make some form of connection between Freemasonery and 9/11. And last I checked this was the Wikipedia article on Masonic conspiracy theories, not the article on what Ukufwakfgr wants to discuss. WegianWarrior (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

If those claims are valid, then we can add them in. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• The article names the NSA, FEMA, NASA and Congress as "branches of the US government" which is COMPLETELY WRONG !!!

This one is a valid complaint... suggest changing it to "...agencies of the US government, such as NSA, FEMA, and NASA" and even branches of the government such as Congress."

No. NASA is a civilian agency, and I don't know enough about the NSA or FEMA to make a call on those. Congress is part of the legislative branch of US government. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone with a better working knowlegde of how the various agencies and organisations ties into the US goverment may want to reword that sentence. However, looking at the cited sources, it's obvious that some conspiracu theorists consider NSA, FEMA and NASA to be US goverment agencies - thats the likely source of the error. WegianWarrior (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and please point them out, so that we can dismiss those sources as invalid. 22:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• The article has only one external link, to a website which refutes the subject matter. This also does not give the article a neutral tone.

You are right... the article probably does need more links expressing the pro-Masonic POV... given that this link is the only point in the article that presents that POV and the rest of the article is Anti-masonic.

This article should not be about proving that Freemasons are better than "conspiracy theorists" or "Masonic detractors." It should be about presenting the conspiracy theories themselves. The majority of conspiracy theories make overly negative allegations about Freemasonry, which would be an accurate way to describe the subject matter. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Which it attempts to do. Remember that in accordance to Wikipedia policies external sites that are listed in the notes and references should not be repeted as an external link. Taking those links into account, we need a lot more links to places debunking the theories to maintain 'balance'... WegianWarrior (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

No. You are stating an intention to invalidate the subject matter. This article is not about presenting "balanced" views about Freemasonry. I hope you're not engaging in a cover-up as well... Ukufwakfgr (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• The article was sloppily written, so I changed a few sentences here and there.

You change a lot more than a few sentences. Blueboar (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes I did, so what? Flamebait. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah you're full of that, but at least Blueboar is trying to keep the discussion on track. WegianWarrior (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

"full of that" is not my name. He is pointing out something that is obvious and unimportant. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)