Talk:Masonic conspiracy theories

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2

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 routinely 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.co.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 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 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)

Flamebait. Sock puppeting. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 03:02, 2 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)

That article says

Léo Taxil was the pen name of Marie Joseph Gabriel Antoine Jogand-Pagès, who had been accused earlier of libel regarding a book he wrote called The Secret Loves of Pope Pius IX.

That he was accused of libel is irrelevant to the rest of the article, and is a personal attack on Léo Taxil, which indirectly casts judgment the subject matter. Further down, the article states:

After this encyclical, Taxil underwent a public, feigned conversion to Roman Catholicism, and announced his intention of repairing the damage he had done to the true faith.

There is no citation for this claim. It further casts judgment on Léo Taxil and, by extension, the subject matter. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 23:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The fact that Taxil was accused of libel indicates a plausible reason for why he went through with the hoax, thus its relevant to the article. His less than honest "conversion" to the chatolic fate is amply documented in the external links. Apart from that, the discussion weither or not the article on the Taxil Hoax needs more citations should be brought up on the talkpage of that article, not here. WegianWarrior (talk) 08:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

That is not a description of the hoax itself, it is "shooting the messenger." It should be cited instead of just placed in the external links. I brought it up stating that the article should not link to it. Scroll up !! Ukufwakfgr (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, the right place for bringing up issues you have with the article on the Taxil hoax is tha talkpage for that article. A number of conspiracy theorists builds on the taxil hoax (usually without realising it was a hoax, or refusing to acknowledge that factoid), thus it's natural to link to it from here.WegianWarrior (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Then specify which parts of this article, and my changes, are based on the Taxil hoax. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 12:38, 3 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)

No, it's cited. Have you actually read the cited sources? WegianWarrior (talk) 08:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Quote it here Ukufwakfgr (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Do your own damn homework. You might even learn something... WegianWarrior (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on you, because you brought it up. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 12:38, 3 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)

Uhm, why? Shouldn't wikipedia adhere to it's core policies and actually state whats verifiable, ie. what the conspiracy theorists actually says? Otherwise, whats the point? WegianWarrior (talk) 08:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy says "significant." How many times do I have to repeat that ???! Ukufwakfgr (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

If you look back in the edit history, you'll notice that a lot of insignificant and unverified conspiracy theories were weeded out. You were saying?

However, I fail to see what the word "significant" has to do with your demand to "tone down" and thus change what the cited sources says... keep to the issue at hand and dont change the subject.WegianWarrior (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

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

"A lot of ..." and "the cited sources" are not good enough. You have to be specific. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 12:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

Well, if we were going to base this article on validity... the entire thing would be gone. No, validity is not a criteria here... this is an article about the claims that people make about the Masons. Many Anti-masonic Muslim websites repeat the idea that 9/11 was planned by the Freemasons (who they equate with the Templars) as part of a crusade against islam. You may not think this theory true... but that does not matter... the claim is made. It is a Masonic conspiracy theory... or should we only discuss conspiracy theories that come from western sources (talk about POV and non-neutrality)! Blueboar (talk) 23:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, stating intent not to present the subject matter in a neutral tone. Again, all possible views cannot be stated on Wikipedia. That claim is unpopular and possibly exaggerated. In addition, many Muslims are Freemasons, so those claims may actually be disinformation or misleading (by referencing the "Knights Templar" as opposed to the entire Freemasonic order). Again, I prefer not to use the phrase "Masonic conspiracy theory." Ukufwakfgr (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Why do you insist on picking only theories you like? Those claims are made and just as verifiable (ie: we can verfify that the claims are made) as the others cited. WegianWarrior (talk) 08:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I like them for a good reason. Scroll up. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:ILIKEIT is not grounds for inclusion, just as WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a reason for deletion. WP:V is on the other hand, and is also a core policy of Wikipedia. WegianWarrior (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

My reasons for liking it have been already stated. Flamebait. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 12:38, 3 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 may dismiss those sources as invalid. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, and I don't think you have grasped this nugget of fact yet, Wikipedia isn't about whats valid or not, its about what can be verified. It's a verfiable fact that these claims are made by a number of conspiracy theorists. WegianWarrior (talk) 08:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to read WP:NPOV yourself. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm fully aware of the rules on neutral point of view, and I find that the page as it stands does adhere fairly closely to it. YOU need to have a good read through of WP:NPA though... WegianWarrior (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

If you read it, then you would know that attributing a claim to "a number of experts" is not good enough. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 12:38, 3 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)

While you are correct that the article is not about presenting a balanced view of freemasonry, it is about presenting a balanced view of the various Masonic conspiracy theories... which includes the view that they are bunk... a significantly under represented viewpoint. Blueboar (talk) 02:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it's only about presenting significant conspiracy theories. If such a view is "signficantly under-represented" by conspiracy theorists, then it's a minority view. Maybe there is a special reason to include it? Again we have to avoid making inferences, or presenting the subject matter itself as "ludicrous," "paranoid" or "untrue." If you are claiming that such a view is under-represented among laymen, that is false. The average person has a negative bias towards conspiracy theories, including conspiracy theories pertaining to Freemasonry. This is due, in large part, by ad-hominem attacks and disinformation as well as other attempts at self-preservation by the accused. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 02:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand what I said... I am not saying that the the "anti-conspiracy theory" view point is under-represented among laymen ... I am saying that it is a view point that is under-represented in this article. Thus, if there is any lack of balance, it is that this article does not have enough "anti-conspiracy theory" links. Blueboar (talk) 04:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't belong in this article unless it's pro-Masonic conspiracy theory. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No, read NPOV again... If a source discusses directly the theories that are the topic of this article, it does belong ... no matter what its viewpoint on the theory. But getting back to the external link under discussion, per WP:EL, External links are not considered part of an article... they are simply links to websites that give further information on the topic. Blueboar (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Read the subsection called Links normally to be avoided Ukufwakfgr (talk) 16:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

In what way does this link violate WP:EL:AVOID? Blueboar (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You must be reading somethign else than I'm writing... where do I state an intent to 'invalidate the subject matter'? WegianWarrior (talk) 08:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

By stating that "we need ... more ... debunking." You can't write an article describing Santa Claus and then provide links to websites claming Santa Claus is false. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

That is funny - Wikipedias article on Saunta Claus does in fact have at least one external link (and a fair nober of citations too) that testifies to the fact that Saunta Claus is in fact not real. I'm sorry if that burst your childhood beliefs, but thats the facts... Now, if you try to read what I wrote again, and not remove parts of that sentence to construct a new one, you might even understand what I was trying to say. WegianWarrior (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

That was probably done in the interest of irony. It is common knowledge that Santa Claus is a fictional story. My impression of your sentence has not changed after reviewing it multiple times. Your proposal to maintain "balance" would mean providing a balanced view of Freemasonry, which is not the subject matter. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 12:38, 3 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)

As far as I can tell, he's pointing out that one of your statement is in fact not correct. WegianWarrior (talk) 08:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Flamebait. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The title of the article

The phrase "Masonic conspiracy theories" is ambiguous. I propose that it be changed to something like "Conspiracy theories regarding Freemasonry."

I do not believe the phrase "conspiracy theory" to be inherently pejorative. It is only used in a pejorative context in ad-hominem attacks (eg: words like "hacker," "entrepreneur," "rapper" or "liberal"). A "theory" is described as an informed explanation. It is not arbitrary speculation, which is instead referred to as a "conjecture" or "hypothesis." As such, this article should not be cluttered with unsupported, unpopular claims. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 23:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

What is ambiguous about the current title? The article is about the various theories that state that Freemasonry is involved in a conspiracy... ie that there is a "Masonic conspiracy"... hence: "Masonic conspiracy theories". I don't see much abiguity in that.

The word "Masonic" is in the genitive case. This means, basically, that the phrase implies that the conspiracy theories originate from, or belong to the Freemasons themselves. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 02:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, the title is the last thing we should be concerned about at this juncture. Most people have no trouble with it as such. Moreover, these items are "of the Freemasons" (which is really only part of what a genitive is; read the article you linked to), so there shouldn't be a titling problem for that reason. I believe that the title is such per standard naming conventions on WP. By the way, if you want to play semantics, almost none of these theories are supported by an "informed explanation"; if they were, they would instead be factual, needing to be drawing on fact. The "arbitrary speculation" you talk about includes many of the theories you wished to add yourself. So, is the complaint genuine, or a matter of "what I say is correct is correct because I say so, and your stuff is wrong, also because I say so"? MSJapan (talk) 03:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You have mangled a bunch of issues into a big pile. I will only address the one concerning the title in this section. The word of in English has multiple meanings. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 04:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This is begining to sound like President Clinton's "definition of is"... I am not going to get hot and bothered about the title of the article (if consensus is to change it, that is fine with me... if not, that is also fine)... that said, I tend to lean towards the current title because, as MSJ points out, "X conspiracy theory" fits standard WP naming conventions. I think it is the most recognizable varient we could choose... the title most people would search for. WP:NAME encourages that. Blueboar (talk) 04:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You're talking like a jerk again. That page says "be precise when necessary." It also says "redirect adjectives to nouns" Ukufwakfgr (talk) 04:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Please be civil. Blueboar (talk) 05:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

That was an inappropriate joke, and an insinuation that I'm acting deceptive. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 05:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You are the one calling people names, not me... please be civil. Blueboar (talk) 05:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Why did you need to make Bill Clinton jokes? Maybe because you felt ashamed that you didn't understand what I was saying. Just let people who know what they're doing handle this. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 07:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

That's precisely why we will not let you do what you like. You have a four day edit history - you do not by any means "know what you are doing." If you do, in fact, "know what you are doing," then you are likely a sock puppet. Take your pick.

You have shown a clear bias to make the facts you find fit the opinion you already have, and when confronted with changes you cannot support, you move on to a different issue you create yourself. You're also being petty; your reversion of Jayen666's edit here as a "major edit" (when he in fact changed three words) was inappropriate, and yet another example of your use of misleading edit summaries.

Your current pattern of behavior is not constructive. WP is not a place where you cause enough trouble until people go away and let you do what you want. This is an encyclopedia. It has policies on what is and is not acceptable for sourcing, as well as editor behavior. I would suggest you go to our simplified ruleset and read it before continuing any discussion or activity here. MSJapan (talk) 14:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about ?? Come back when you actually have an original thought. He edited a section that was being discussed. Read the log, and stop being a waste of space. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 20:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I am going to say this one more time...Please be civil, and stop making personal attacks... if you continue I will report you. Now... Jayen's edit was obviously made in an attempt to resolve the very issues that you raised. So what is your objection to his change? Blueboar (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

MSJapan alleges that "I do not know what I'm doing" without any basis. In general, he is basically spitting back the same accusasions that I myself have made, which, at the least, demonstrates mockery. No, Jayden made a disputed change without discussing it. You refuse to respond my concerns about you, yet find it necessary to tag-team with other users. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 12:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No, Jayen did not make a "disputed change"... he made an edit, which you subsequently disputed. Yes, he did make a change to a section that had been under discusion, but he had not been part of that discussion. In fact, as near as I can tell, he had never edited this article before. Further, his change was obviously made in reply to your stated concerns. He took out the language that you objected to, and replaced it with other language (ie he was trying to fix what you said was a problem.) His edit may not have resolved your problem, and it is your right to object to it... but it is wrong to object to the fact that he made the edit in the first place. Blueboar (talk) 15:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

He changed a portion that was under dispute. If his intention was to apply what I proposed, then it still counts as under dispute since no one else agreed with it. In that case, he clearly misunderstood what I was saying. Reviewing the discussion itself will reveal this. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 16:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Given that MSJapan reverted back to Jayen's version, I would say he agreed to it. So do I. Lack of objection is the same as acceptance on Wikipedia. I also note that you have not commented on what you found wrong with Jayen's language... you have only objected to the fact that he made a change. Blueboar (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There is not such thing as a "silent veto" over a forum like the Wikipedia talk pages. People come on Wikipedia on their own free time, not when YOU think they should. You have misquoted me yet again. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 23:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

This talkpage is getting long enough to give me trouble over a slow connection, so I went ahead and archived the old discussions. See archive box on top of this page to find the old threads. WegianWarrior (talk) 14:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Two Changes

First, Freemasonry is not a religion, so in the second paragraph I removed the comparison to "mainline religions". The sentence without the comparison is still accurate about the theories--it loses nothing of fact without the comparison between Freemasonry and "other religions".

Freemasonry has been described as a "religion" or a "cult" by conspiracy theorists, because it demonstrates a number of features, including but not limited to:

• Belief in supernatural powers
• Ritual as a means of entraining practitioners
• Rewards for compliance, including hidden knowledge
• Promise of "redemption"
• Rituals pertaining to death

Ukufwakfgr (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Second, The item about Freemasons in popular culture is not a "conspiracy theory". There are just as many Freemasons in the entertainment industry as there are outside the entertainment industry, such as Leonardo di Caprio, Michael Richards, etc. This hardly constitutes a "conspiracy". I've never heard of any "conspiracy" about having Freemasons in popular culture. In actual fact, the number of Freemasons has been declining over the last two decades. In the 1920s and 1930s nearly the entire group of movie production moguls were Freemasons. Now none of the really powerful names are Freemasons. James Cameron is not even a Freemason! Kind of shoots the "conspiracy" theory in the foot. If there is, indeed, some conspiracy theory concerning Freemasons in popular culture then it was not mentioned in the statement as it was worded. The statement I deleted simply said that there were Freemasons in popular culture--a statement of fact, not a theory of a conspiracy. (Taivo (talk) 05:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC))

The entertainment industry and the mainstream media are used to engineer social opinion, as I mentioned earlier. That probably should be specified in the article. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

While James Cameron may or may not be a Mason (frankly, I only has a vague idea of who he even is), there is a conspiracy theory that he is a mason, and that this somehow means that anyone watching his movies are brainwashed by MK-ULTRA technology or something to that effect - it was all "explained" in the reference that followed the statement. If we were to simply remove all debunked conspiracy theories listed in this article the only thing left is the lead. WegianWarrior (talk) 06:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Explain how this, or any conspiracy theory, is debunked. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The way the item was written didn't say anything about the conspiracy aspect of Cameron's mythical membership. It just stated his membership without stating the conspiracy aspect of it. That's the real problem with what I deleted--it didn't state the conspiracy. (Someone's membership status alone is not a "conspiracy".) (Taivo (talk) 07:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC))

Please discuss desired changes before editting the article. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

replying to Uku's comments

Uku comments above:

Freemasonry has been described as a "religion" or a "cult" by conspiracy theorists, because it demonstrates a number of features, including but not limited to:

• Belief in supernatural powers
• Ritual as a means of entraining practitioners
• Rewards for compliance, including hidden knowledge
• Promise of "redemption"
• Rituals pertaining to death

While this is a claim made by conspiracy theorists (as well as Anti-masons who are not conspiracy theorists), they have indeed been debunked (for two excellent debunks, I suggest reading Freemasons for Dummies by Christopher Hodapp, and A Pilgrim's Path by John Robinson... each of whom devote entire chapters to debunking this claim). I would also point to the website of the United Grand Lodge of England, and the Grand Lodge of BC&Y both of which debunk these claims. Blueboar (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The first page does not say that it's not a cult or other such similar group, and it does not explain its assertion. The second page says:

• We have no dogma or theology. Religious discussion is forbidden in a masonic lodge thereby eliminating the chance for any masonic dogma to form.
  Freemasonry uses words, grips, and signs as proof of membership, which is inherently dogmatic. Masonry stresses the importance of enlightenment and "building a temple," which is dogmatic. The story of Hiram Abiff must be theology, because it's untrue. This article itself appears to be pro-Masonic theology.
• By any definition of religion accepted by our critics, we cannot qualify as a religion.
  This does not specify what the definitions are.
• ... an anti-Christian religion
  This is deceptive. Freemasonry, while not being overtly anti-Christian, mocks Christianity and Jesus.

Ukufwakfgr (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You are sadly misinformed about Masonry. There is not a single moment in Masonic ritual that "mocks Christianity and Jesus". You are relying exclusively on anti-Masonic literature for your limited knowledge of the Craft. Religions are exclusive in their membership and redemption practices--"This is the path to Heaven". Such is not part of the teachings of Masonry. All discussion of religion and politics, in fact, are strictly forbidden in Lodge and at Masonic functions. I regularly sit in Lodge with Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, LDS, Jewish, Buddhist, and even Druid brothers. This is not a religion, it is a fraternal organization open to all men who already possess a faith, it does not bestow or teach faith, it requires faith before membership. That is unlike every religion, which takes men and women who have no faith and gives them one. (Taivo (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC))

During a certain intiation ritual, the candidate is asked to drink "the blood of Jesus" from a skull. None of the major religions are selective in their membership. Freemasonry promises deliverance from "darkness," and promises that when its members die they can move on to the "Great Lodge in the Heavens" or something like that. If it's not a religion then maybe it's a cult? Ukufwakfgr (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no such ritual in the initiation or at any other time. You have been lied to. I can also show you half a dozen universities with a motto something like "from darkness to light". It means the achievement of wisdom. Does that make these universities "religions"? There is no such promise of moving to the "Great Lodge in the Heavens". The ceremonies are carefully worded and only state that Masonry helps one to live a life so that when the person stands before whatever Supreme Being they worship, they can do so in a clear conscience. Religions specify what the afterlife is like. Masonry makes no such assertions, it is only relevant for this life and can be used in whatever religion the member belongs to. It is not a cult. Look up the definition of a cult--it follows a charismatic individual and specifies that only its point of view is relevant. I reiterate that Masonry is not exclusive in its use of terms like the Great Architect of the Universe. It is a non-religious fraternity that urges its members to the active practice of whatever religion they belong to outside the fraternity. (Taivo (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC))

Your use of the phrase "the initiation or at any time" suggests that your perspective is distorted. If you are talking about Ivy League universities, practically all of them are host to secret societies. Light is knowledge, not wisdom. It suggests that secret societies run those universities. That phrase, or something close to it, is used during the Masonic funeral ritual. Nope, in Freemasonry the "Supreme Being" is a man's penis, because it is based on the mystery religions. In Buddhism and Hinduism there is no afterlife, only reincarnation. Just because lodge meetings are boring, doesn't mean that there are not charismatic leaders in Freemasonry. Yes, Freemasonry stole, among other concepts, the GAOTU, but its usage is dissimilar to how other organizations use it, just like how the Jewish God is not the same as the Christian God. Many people who purport themselves to be "religious" are actually liars. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 00:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

At this point it is clear that you know nothing of truth about Masonry. (Taivo (talk) 00:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC))

At this point you have done nothing to help resolve any of the other prevailing conflicts. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 00:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope. In order to be a Christian you must "accept Jesus into your heart." In order to be a Jew you must accept and maintain the Covenant of Abraham. In order to become a Muslim you must say "Allahu akbar." Ukufwakfgr (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. And all can equally be Masons because nothing within Masonry contradicts the practice of one's religion--whatever religion that is. (Taivo (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC))

Actually, a neophyte is told that the oath will not conflict with "his god, his country, his neighbor or himself." That is a lie. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 00:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Another readily available excellent source is S. Brent Morris, The Complete Idiot's Guide to Freemasonry (2006, Alpha). I don't know where Uku got his list of features for "religion", but most of them would be unrecognizable to members of any church I've been a member of. Let's see, other than the redemption issue, this list could apply to the U.S. Army--belief in superior authority, basic training as means of entraining practitioners, rewards including greater security clearance for compliance, a military funeral and internment at Arlington. The only really relevant point here is the issue of redemption. Indeed, that is the foundation of all religions--any rituals only support that primary issue, "What will happen to me after I die?" Masonry has absolutely no teaching on the issue of redemption--if you do or believe X you will get Y and if you don't do X you won't get Y. (Taivo (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC))

Brent Morris is known to spread biased disinformation and outright lies, but I will read that book when I get a chance. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, unlike your anti-Masonic websites, which are completely unbiased and 100% truthful. (Taivo (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC))

This article is not about Freemasonry vs. "Masonic detractors." Ukufwakfgr (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I did not say superior authority, I said supernatural powers. Buddhism has no superior authority, but instead relies of "the tao" and nature. I also said entrainment through ritual. Ritual implies symbolic value, which is not why people train in the US Army. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

What is your basis for saying that "Brent Morris is known to speard biased disinformation and outright lies"? He is one of the most respected authorities on Freemasonry. Blueboar (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Respected by whom? Ukufwakfgr (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Look at this website where Brent Morris himself says:

• The facts are clearly presented, together with several examples of the use of the "All Seeing Eye" prior to any known Masonic use.
  The first clause does not explain how the facts are "clearly presented." The second clause is misleading: just because the Masons didn't invent it, doesn't mean that they don't copy it.
• The eye in the pyramid (emblazoned on the dollar bill, no less) is often cited as "evidence" that sinister conspiracies abound which will impose a "New World Order" on an unsuspecting populace. Depending on whom you hear it from, the Masons are planning the takeover themselves, or are working in concert with European bankers, or are leading (or perhaps being led by) the Illuminati (whoever they are). The notion of a world-wide Masonic conspiracy would be laughable, if it weren't being repeated with such earnest gullibility by conspiracists like Pat Robertson.
  This is the same caliber misrepresentation that is present in this article as well.
• Sadly, Masons are sometimes counted among the gullible who repeat the tall tale of the eye in the pyramid, often with a touch of pride. They may be guilty of nothing worse than innocently puffing the importance of their fraternity (as well as themselves), but they're guilty nonethe less.
  This is a logical fallacy.

In addition, there is video of him using lies of omission and denial arguments. I can't be bothered to look them up right now. Look for stuff from the History Channel. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the website you point to is not Brent Morris speaking for himself... it is "BrotherGene" quoting snippets from an article Morris wrote. If you look at Morris's original essay, and place the quotes back in context, what he says is quite accurate. Blueboar (talk) 01:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no reason to believe that the person who operates that website would misrepresent Brent Morris, because the host's page says that they provide hosting for Freemasons. Regardless, what conspiracy theories does Brent Morris present? You can't have him in this article just for a bunch of denials and emotional appeals. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 02:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Commenting interalia

Uku, it is not good style to insert your arguments interalia in other people's comments. The problem is that you often insert your comments above the other person's signature making it impossible to determine who said what. Once that has happened, the comments (both your comment and their comment) become worthless. Please ensure that you only insert your comments after the other person's signature. If that means that your relevant comment comes a sentence or two after what you want to comment about, then so be it. It makes the discussion readable. We are intelligent people here and can figure out that your statement applies one or two sentences earlier. But preserving the integrity of the comment is more important than inserting your response in the middle of someone else's paragraph. Thank you. (Taivo (talk) 12:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC))

I would insert a counterpoint after each paragraph of an overly long statement. As such the statements are technically not signed. I did NOT seperate any message from its editor's signature. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 15:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest that if you need to insert a counterpoint, you add your comment with a significant indent (at least two additional :: marks) so people can easily see that you are interupting someone else's comment. However, the best practice is not insert counterpoints at all, but to add your comments at the end, and quote the sentence or paragraph you want to respond to.

like this:

Above you said: "I did NOT separate any message from its editor's signature", Technically this is corrrect, but inserting them in the middle of someone else's comment separates one paragraph from the others in the comment... thus separating the first paragraph from the signature at the end of the comment. And because you do not always indent your comments properly, your insertions can even make it look as if you wrote the very paragraph that you are replying to.

Quoting and commenting like this avoids interrupting someone else's comment (politeness) ... and makes it easier for everyone else to follow what is being said. Not a criticism... just advice.

Oh... an exception to this is when there is a bullet pointed list of comments (such as in the discussions above). In those situations, it is considered acceptable to insert comments after each bullet point ... essentially treating the bullet point as if it were starting a seperate thread. Blueboar (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It is a more efficient use of space not to repeat information from the same page. Maybe it is better for people with multiple talking points to sign each talking point; there is a risk of error when a respondent to manually signs another editor's statements. In addition, I may change some of my talking points into 3= subsections Ukufwakfgr (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It is also considered rude to insert comments in the middle of someone else's comments... akin to interrupting them when they are speaking. Finally... comments should be in date/time order if possible, so people can figure out when people responded to comments and in what order. Blueboar (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This particular talk page warrants special consideration. Most people who read it find it difficult to find key information. I'm assuming you mean ascending chronological order (ie: new messages go at the bottom). I will attempt to re-sort the talking points in that manner. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Why does this page warrant special consideration... it is no different than any other talk page. There is no need to re-sort or change the formatting or things like that. Just don't interject in the middle of someone's comments.

As for finding it difficult to find "key information"... I attempted to discuss your issues one at a time... now you understand why. May I suggest that we return to that concept, and start over? Pick the most pressing of your concerns... start a new thread and we can discuss it in depth. Once we reach a consensus (or come to the conclusion that no consensus can be reached) we can move on to the next issue. Blueboar (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If you would go back and actually read it, you will see that I have answered nearly every question that has every been raised on this talk page since I started here. Of course, that has become difficult because of the mountains of text on this talk page. You are the one who has tried to "move along" without resolving any disputes. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think starting over is a very good idea. It's best to pick one small area, thrash that out on the talk page, come to an agreeable wording then go on to the next point. Also I can see that people are feeling tense but it would be much better if you try to forget that, and stick to the points in question, keeping everything neutral and avoiding any suggestion of a personal attack. Theresa Knott | token threats 19:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems like you are parrotting whatever Blueboar says -- not how you resolve a conflict. This also calls into question your motivation for "redlinking" me without describing what it is and without specifying when it will expire, despite your acknowledgement that I am a new user. Nobody here is tense, Ukufwakfgr (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I redlinked you because I wanted to ensure that others at the AN could see that you were a "new user" and treat you accordingly. I intend to resolve the dispute by simply removing all personal attacks. Theresa Knott | token threats 21:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I have been "deleted" according to the logs, and I am deprived of a user page. What you did seems like some sort of penalty. Wikipedia policy says prevent, not to penalize. I lashed out because of a perceived injustice on the part of the other users. It does not appear that you have dealt with them, but instead provide additional support to their claims. This is apparent from their insistence on repeating the same behavior over and over. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 23:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

In a spirit of creating a fresh start (and since Uku seems upset about Theresa's deletion of his previous userpage)... Uku has now been an editor for several days... and it is not at all uncommon for a new editor to have been formally welcomed to Wikipedia and bluelinked by someone else in this amount of time. Therefore, I have taken it upon myself to extend that courtesy... I have (re)created a User page for him and have added the standard Welcome message. Uku, feel free to delete the welcome message if you wish, it is your page to do with as you wish. Blueboar (talk) 00:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Starting Over

Speaking as a Freemason, I find the article as it stands here (after Blueboar's edit) to be balanced and NPOV. I think it should be the starting point for any discussion. (Taivo (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC))

You are proposing to "start over" something that was never completed. Please refer to my talking points, which you have not done.Ukufwakfgr (talk) 21:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, I agree with Taivo... but it is also obvious that Uku disagrees. So, I invite him to choose the what he feels is the most serious issue with the article, and outline his concerns (even if it means repeating what he has already said earlier... the point here is that we are trying to start over and stay focused.) Blueboar (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I stated what changes I would like 5 days ago, and those changes still have not been discusssed to completion. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 21:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you please state the most important change that the article still needs please. Theresa Knott | token threats 21:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Uku, "starting over" means just that. Please state the most important of your "talking points" and we can proceed one step at a time. We have also politely asked you to post your comments at the end of this discussion rather than interspersing them. It makes following the issue much easier. Thank you. (Taivo (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC))

Scroll up, scroll up, scroll up .... Ukufwakfgr (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

First of all, everything that has gone before is moot. Therefore, you have a choice: pick one of the concerns you raised above to work on and repost it further down for discussion and resolution, or you drop the whole thing. It's that simple. I will not respond to any further comments or statements by you on this page unless it is to discuss one of the aforementioned points you need to pick, and I would suggest the others do the same. I will, however, revert any edits you make to the article on sight without said discussion. MSJapan (talk) 23:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

So you are stating your intention to engage in a revert war. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 23:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I really feel that the most constructive way forward is to focus on one issue at a time, rather than attempting to resolve them all at once. Uku... if you don't want to have to restate your arguments, that is fine... just copy the material that relates to the "talking point" you think is most important from the mish-mash above, and post it in a new section below... we can continue the conversation from where it leaves off... but I am no longer going to hop around, scrolling up and down, engaging in multiple discussions on several talking points, all at the same time. Pick one... copy it below, and let's focus on that until done. Blueboar (talk) 01:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

There is already discussion below each talking point. I attempted to change the layout for better emphasis (3= subcategories), but that change was reverted multiple times. I don't see why users should feel forced to discuss all of the issues simultaneously. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 02:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Uku, we are willing to engage you in constructive discussion, but just one point at a time. Start a new section below with a single point (whichever one you want to start with) and copy your point. (Taivo (talk) 03:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC))

I don't think that there was anything ambiguous in the way that we have all agreed to work with you, Uku, through your proposed changes--one at a time, copy the proposed change in a new section below here. Once a topic is finished, we will continue to the next one. What about this is confusing to you? Bolding statements in the mess above is not an option. (Taivo (talk) 05:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC))

There is already an on-going discussion which deserves to be completed, and your undo deleted a comment I made ! Ukufwakfgr (talk) 05:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No, there are no more "on-going" discussions. Everyone here has agreed to start over one topic at a time. Start a new section on the topic you wish to start with and the discussion will continue from there. The above section is a mess and unusable. Start over means start over. (Taivo (talk) 05:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC))

Ok, then, unresolved discussions. You are refusing to see my side of the situation. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 05:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you are refusing to see our side of the situation. The discussion above is not serviceable. We have been very clear and encouraged you to pick what you consider to be your most important change and to copy and paste it in a new section below where we can clearly discuss it and come to a consensus. Don't retype if you don't wish to, just cut and paste what you consider to be the most important thing you want to discuss. Once we have reached a consensus, we'll work on your next most important change. (Taivo (talk) 05:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC))

"Not serviceable" because .... Ukufwakfgr (talk) 05:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Not serviceable because you interlaced too many of your comments in with other comments to make it virtually unreadable. We have all now asked you to start over here with your most important point. You can cut and paste whatever you think is relevant from above. I quote you, "I don't see why users should feel forced to discuss all of the issues simultaneously." But you are asking that very thing--by making a massive list of issues, you prevent quality discussion on any of the points. We don't want to discuss everything at once, so pick your most important point and cut and paste the relevant discussion in a new section below this one. (Taivo (talk) 05:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC))

I simply refuted other people's talking points. Any allegation that I may have filibustered or something is completely false. Stop saying "we" because it's not like everybody has made an equal contribution to this talk page. It is more reasonable to finish any unresolved discussions, than to redundantly repeat them, which, as history as shown, will only lead to more sidetracking. You have agreed among yourselves that I should do this cut and paste spiel, and you all have basically agreed on pretty much everything else, so basically what you all are doing amounts to coercion, or logical fallacy in the least. Conspiracy, perhaps ? Ukufwakfgr (talk) 06:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Uku in the time you have spent so far arguing about not discussing things one point at a time, you could easily have resolved the first issue. Is this some sort of game to you? Because no one is is finding it funny. Trolling is disruptive. Theresa Knott | token threats 06:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No one has discussed anything. Your "resolution" is nothing more than an appeal to the majority. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 06:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I made no accusations against you concerning "filibustering". I said that the previous discussion is unservicable because your comments are improperly interlaced with other comments to the point that it is virtually impossible to follow the discussion, thereby rendering it unreadable. If you read back through the above, you will see that every recent editor here except for you has asked to start the discussion anew with you listing your most important point and proceeding to discuss it to consensus before proceeding to the next point. Sidetracking a focused discussion is much less likely when a single point is under the microscope than when you have sent a shotgun blast of unrelated points all at once. I guess you can call a near-unanimous agreement a "conspiracy" although conspiracy is usually something in secret--we've been quite open about our request of you, so it can hardly be called a "conspiracy". But I have to agree with Theresa Knott--the time you've wasted in this discussion about process could easily (and more productively) been used in discussing the first matter of substance to this article in a focused and organized way. (Taivo (talk) 06:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC))

You have not asked me to weigh in or even to agree. You have simply deliberated among yourselves, and now you are FORCING me to comply with what I have stated is an unreasonable demand. The motives of all 5 of you are questionnable. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 06:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Our request is not an unreasonable demand. The "discussion" above was hardly focused and was leading to nowhere fast because it was becoming more and more unreadable and therefore unusable. Theresa Knott is an admin who is trying to get this thing rolling by listening to a positive suggestion made by nearly all the editors involved on this Talk Page. She isn't interested in the topic, but only in facilitating a productive discussion. We have not asked you to retype anything, but simply to choose your most important point and to cut and paste it below in a new section so that the discussion can move forward in a focused and constructive way. I also wonder how our motives can be "questionable" when we are giving you every opportunity to have your voice heard in a way that it can be given proper and due consideration. By refusing to pull the most important issue out of an unreadable and unintelligible mass of interlaced comments you do yourself more harm than good. You are ensuring that your voice will not be heard by your own actions--making your arguments in an unservicable and unreadable format. And the deliberation occurred on this page right in front of your eyes. There was nothing covert or rude about it. It was an attempt to allow your voice to be heard in a way that we could give it proper consideration. (Taivo (talk) 07:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC))

I don't have a "favorite" conspiracy theory. I like them all equally. Forcing me to choose is cruel. Wikipedia policy says do whatever it takes to resolve conflicts. You could have copied/cut/whatever and pasted it YOURSELF just like Blueboar has done. All you do instead is make more allegations and waste time on your own part. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 12:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Right now, everyone but you is happy with the article the way it currently stands. We don't have to do anything at all. I have made no allegations. I have simply pointed out to you what we have asked you to do to promote your own point of view. We didn't ask you for your favorite conspiracy theory, we asked you to start the discussion over with what you consider to be the most important change you propose to the article. At this point, we have been crystal clear with what our position is. I will join MSJapan and Blueboar and make no further responses to any comments or statements you make here. I will watch this page with great anticipation of you posting your first proposed change for discussion and consensus-building. (Taivo (talk) 13:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC))

Right now, "the article the way it currently stands" is rated as stub-class and is biased, based on arguments that are already provided. In addition, it has not had a agreed-upon revision for 5 months, which is unusual for Wikipedia. Maybe you are happy with that, if so you are blocking any further progress. You have said: "By refusing to pull the most important issue out of an unreadable and unintelligible mass of interlaced comments you do yourself more harm than good." Stop using the word "we." Speak for yourself, just as I am speaking for myself. "Favorite" and "most important" are synonyms. You have not responded to my claim that forcing me to choose is cruel. My position was crystal-clear from the beginning, and I have not deviated from it one bit. MSJapan has already expressed an intention to engage in revert warring, maybe you express a similar intention? You have made no effort to alleviate any concern I have that your demands are unreasonable. Instead, you insist that I am the one being unreasonable. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 13:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Fine... since you find it difficult to choose one item... I will do so... see below Blueboar (talk) 15:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

First topic for discussion

copied from above:

• 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)

And for continued clarity... the passage has subsequently been edited (by Jayen666) so it now reads:

• Masonic conspiracy theories are conspiracy theories involving Freemasonry. Broadly speaking, these theories claim that Freemasonry exerts control over politics at all levels.

Does this change in language resolve any of your issues? Blueboar (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I proposed a change to the title, which ostensibly would also change the first phrase. I propose that the second sentence be changed to something like:

• Generally, they claim that Freemasons exert overwhelming control over business and politics.

in order to avoid redundancy, and to make the statement more precise. Also, please refer to my changes. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 16:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd note that the theories tend not to deal with politics in any other country besides the US. I'm not sure why this is, but if we're going to rewrite the lead again, that sort of specificity might be useful. It's not entirely politics, either, but politics is the vast majority of it. How about instead of that second sentence, we do: "These theories fall into the following categories: political control, occult symbolism," and add a few others to give the gist of it? MSJapan (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Well... some of the theories claim that Freemasonry exerts control over politics in the UK... but I agree that it is rare to find such claims made about other countries. I kind of like the idea of noting that the theories fall into "genres"... perhaps we can echo that categorization by structuring the list into similar "genres"? Blueboar (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Additional conspiracy theories would be helpuful. Most conspiracy theories are made by Americans in reference to Americans or "supra-national interests" because of the nature of American culture. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 16:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... Thinking about this some more... I think we have to be careful not to be overly Anglo-centric here... could our perception of this being an Anglo/American phenominon be colored by the fact that we are English speakers, and thus only coming in contact with theories written in English about English speaking countries? For all we know, some of these claims could be common in Uzbekistan (just to pick a random non-english speaking country), but because we do not speak Uzbeki, we are not coming in contact with them. Just a thought and a caution. Blueboar (talk) 16:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

But that is really besides the point... which is to improve this article. I have no problem with MSJapan's suggested change. Uku, would MSJ's suggestion resolve your issues with the passage? Blueboar (talk) 16:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It may be obvious through word selection and emphasis on particular issues, for example, that the article presents the subject matter through an Anglo-American perspective. Indeed, with more cultural perspectives, the truth may filter through. Symbolism should be described within a context more closely related to conspiracy theory: maybe the entertainment industry. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Having visited brothers and lodges in both Hungary and Ukraine, and having lived in Ukraine, the political conspiracy theories are basically American/British inventions. In those parts of the world, where Masonry was outlawed during Soviet times, they are still dealing with perceptions of basic legality carried over from Communism. "Conspiracy theories" involving Masonry's ties to politics don't exist there. The same is true of Poland. Although I haven't talked to any brothers or visited any lodges there, I have studied most Polish Masonic websites. From what I've read, South America is not rife with anti-Masonic conspiracy theories even though many heads of state and government officials in those countries are openly Masons (much more than in the U.S.). In general, Masonry is much more highly respected and valued in Latin America than it is in the Anglophone world. As was stated above and based on my own reading, the politically-motivated conspiracy theories seem to be a purely Anglophone invention. I think that MSJapan's rewrite works. The list could read: "...political or cultural control (primarily found in Anglophone countries), occult symbolism, anti-religious sentiment", for example. (Taivo (talk) 17:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC))

Several heads of state in South American countries are also openly socialist, which may further tie into conspiracy theory. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 17:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This article isn't about whether or not conspiracy theories are valid, it is about whether conspiracy theories exist and what they are. In that regard, politically-based conspiracy theories do not exist in Latin America according to my reading, whether or not the Masonic affiliations of their leaders tie into American conspiracy theories. The question I was answering was, "Are Masonic political conspiracy theories an Anglophone phenomenon or are they more international?" (Taivo (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC))

It relates to a topic that, hopefully, will be brought up in the future. I was simply noting that. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

first topic - random break

Actually, the question of whether the theories are an Anglo phemomenon is a side issue. What we need to focus on is MSJ's suggested re-wording (amended by Taivo):

• "Masonic conspiracy theories are conspiracy theories involving Freemasonry. These theories fall into the following categories: political or cultural control (primarily found in Anglophone countries), occult symbolism, anti-religious sentiment."

Does anyone object to this change, or wish to amend it? Blueboar (talk) 20:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe changing "occult symbolism" to "occult symbolism or belief". That will encompass the Satan worshiping conspiracies. (Taivo (talk) 20:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC))

Agreed Blueboar (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, earlier: "Symbolism should be described within a context more closely related to conspiracy theory: maybe the entertainment industry." Ukufwakfgr (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

But the conspiracy theories state that Masonic occult symbolism extends far beyond the entertainment industry such as the street layout of Washington DC. "Cultural control" entails the entertainment industry. (Taivo (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC))

Ok. For the record, it seems as though you have chosen "occult symbolism" because Freemasons did not invent it, rather they got it from the pagan (occult) faiths. "Occult symbolism or belief" should be changed to "the occult" for the sake of brevity. There should also be some connection between the occult and Freemasonry being based on the mystery religions. I prefer "social engineering" over "political or cultural control." Ukufwakfgr (talk) 21:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Uku, how would you word the passage? Blueboar (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Taivo, that symbolism is not limited to the entertainment industry. We could start by making the two substitutions I suggested. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 01:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Two comments: First, I'm not sure whether just "occult" realy encompasses the range of things we want it to. It's just too general. There are conspiracies involving Masonic symbology and conspiracies involving Satanic worship. Are these two really collapsible? Second, "social engineering" is not the same thing as political and cultural control. Why does Uku prefer "social engineering" rather than "political and cultural control"? (Taivo (talk) 01:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC))

Satanic worship is usually associated with ritual, which emcompasses symbology. "Political and social control" to me implies popular influence through overt restraint. I use the term "social engineering" in a pejorative sense, implying popular influence through a combination of bottom-up "astro-turfing" and misuse of legislative process. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 03:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Uku, would you write up the entire passage with your proposed wording, so we can see how your ideas compare with ours? Blueboar (talk) 03:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Your request is understood, but in the interest of efficiency I instead propose this re-write of the introduction:

• Conspiracy theories regarding Freemasonry are a subset of conspiracy theories specifically describing the Freemasonic fraternal order. Generally, conspiracy theorists allege that Freemasons engage in social engineering, heresy, and the occult.

I object to the use of "involving" because it is ambiguous in this context. I used "conspiracy theorists allege that Freemasons ..." for the sake of variety. I replaced "anti-religious sentiment" with "heresy." I reordered the list of items because it seemed like a more natural progression (from least emotionally-evocative, to most). It feels like there should be one more sentence before introducing that list of items, in order to smoothly transition towards the phrase "the occult." Ukufwakfgr (talk) 04:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

That wording is not neutral and you have said so yourself. There is no "subset" here, there are just one set of conspiracy theories regarding Freemasonry. "Social engineering" is a pejorative term in your own words and is therefore unacceptable as NPOV. "Heresy" is also not a neutral term and is therefore unacceptable. We are not trying for "emotionally-evocative" language in Wikipedia, but neutral language in order to meet the requirements of NPOV. I will counter-offer the more neutral wording:

• Masonic conspiracy theories are conspiracy theories specifically focused on Freemasonry. Generally, these conspiracy theories allege that Freemasons exert both overt and covert political or cultural control, engage in anti-religious ceremonies, or practice the occult.

This wording covers the issues you addressed, Uku, but without the overly emotionally-charged wording that you suggested. (Taivo (talk) 05:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC))

I have proposed a change to the name of the article. Maybe that topic will come up in the future? Words don't allege, people allege. Instead of "specifically focused on" I propose "specific to." Instead of "anti-religious ceremonies" I propose "ceremonies which mock Christianity" unless conspiracy theorist say that the Shriners are mocking Islam. If conspiracy theorists themselves use words such as "heresy," they should be attributed. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 06:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't buy "cultural control." If the idea is entertainment industry-based, it's really the vision of the creator of the work, and most people who write works on Masonic themes aren't Masons themselves, so I have no idea what they would seek to control by creating a Masonically-related work. I do agree with the wording regarding politics and religion, although the phrasing on occult seems somewhat pejorative. There is also some debate on what "occult" refers to, too (see the article), so on second thought, we might want to be more specific as to what is defined by occult. Also, I'd point out that "anti-religious" claims are, in the main, limited to anti-Christian statements, so it might be good to specify there as well, as there are many world religions which simply have no issue with Masonry.

How about: Masonic conspiracy theories are conspiracy theories involving Freemasonry. Generally, these conspiracy theories fall into three distinct categories: political (usually involving allegations of control of government, particularly in the US and UK), religious (usually involving allegations of anti-Christian or Satanic beliefs or practices), and cultural (usually involving popular entertainment)." MSJapan (talk) 05:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

We have concluded that Freemasonic symbolism is not said to be exclusive to the entertainment industry. The word "occult" has been proposed to mean Satanic practices. I have proposed against the use of the word "involved" in this context. The phrase "these conspiracy theories" can be changed to "they" because that is the only plural noun to be used so far. The rest of that sentence seems fine.

As for your concern that conspiracy theorists target only Americans, they don't, but maybe that topic will come up some other time. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 06:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I like your wording, MSJapan. It's good and covers all the bases. Uku, the comment about the U.S. and U.K. refers to the fact that these theories of political control are only found in the U.S. and U.K., not that they only refer to U.S. and U.K. politicians. I like it, MSJapan. (Taivo (talk) 06:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC))

That conspiracy theorists themselves tend to live in the US or the UK? There certainly must be conspiracy theorists from every corner of the globe. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 14:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I too prefer MSJ's latest. My problem with Uku's suggestion of "focussed on Freemasonry" as opposed to "involving Freemasonry" is that there are a lot of theories out there that primarily focus on something else (such as the illuminati), but where Freemasonry is a key sub-plot within that theory. As for the inclusion/exclusion of potentialy non-neutral words like "occult"... we should save these for the list, where their use can be directly supported by a citation. Blueboar (talk) 14:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec response to Uku) Conspiracy theorists who focus on the political/cultural aspects of Freemasonry are pretty much confined to the U.S. and U.K. (see my extensive comment above). The U.S. and U.K. have a lion's share of the crackpots [perhaps well-intentioned, but uninformed webpage authors] because of those countries' relative wealth. Poorer countries have fewer people with time to waste on nonsense such as Masonic conspiracy theories (most people haven't even heard of Freemasons in the Third World). Outside the U.S. and the U.K., the Masonic conspiracy theories tend to focus on the religious myths of Freemasonry. (Taivo (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC))

Some of this also has to do with Freedom of Speech... not every country allows one to criticize the government or claim that a conspiracy exists. The US and UK do. But I don't think we should speculate in the article on why the majority of the theories center on the US and UK... or why they originate from sources based in these two countries. (in fact adding such speculation would be original research).

Getting back to discussing the article and away from discussing the theories... I think MSJ's language is accurate... his parentheticals don't say that all allegations are US and UK centered... his words are: "particularly in the US and UK". I think this is an accurate statement. The large majority of politically oriented Masonic conspiracy theories do originate from US and UK sources... it does not matter why they do so. Blueboar (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

British culture relies more on democratic consensus that in the US, which is probably why people like David Icke have been funded by American interests. BTW I did not propose "focused on Freemasonry." Ukufwakfgr (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

People who live in 3rd world countries are more likely to join a secret society, so probably do not harbor negative prejudice towards Freemasonry. Those who have not heard of the Freemasons must have heard of the IMF or UNICEF. In addition, there is conspiracy theory suggesting that Freemasons control the Islamic states, and indeed Islam itself. Other theory suggests that they have engineered every major war since World War I. There are Colombians who claim that FARC is an arm of the Colombian shadow government. Similar claims are made about MS-13, the Zapatistas and the Medellín drug cartel. There is also conspiracy theory regarding the Yakuza, Russian organized crime, and the Italian "Black Nobility." This discussion should probably be moved to another location. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I did not propose to use the word "focused." Ukufwakfgr (talk) 01:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to go back to the cultural aspect, I would gather that Uku is making some sort of connection between symbols and culture, but I don't see it. To have a "cultural impact", something must have an effect on everyday life, like the TV dinner, or electricity. Nothing symbolic mentioned in this article (like the dollar bill or the All-Seeing Eye) has been shown to either do that or imply that.

However, there is a lot of pop culture stuff (various films, books, and cartoons) that make little references here and there, so maybe we're not talking about culture per se, but popular culture? If so, I would amend my wording once again, but I'm not going to do that until we figure out exactly what the "culture" thing is all about. MSJapan (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The key here is whether anyone claims that all these (pop) culture references are part of a conspiracy or not. Remember, this isn't an article about "Masonic cultural references"... this is an article about Masonic conspiracy theories. Blueboar (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)To get a handle on the cultural issues, we probably need to distinguish between two types of "conspiracy theory". First, there are the "embedded symbols" theories which seek to establish some sort of Masonic coding in physical objects--the street plan of D.C., the Great Seal of the U.S. (commonly known as the "dollar bill"), etc. Second, there are the "entertainment symbols" (for lack of a better term) theories which seek to establish a Masonic connection between prominent figures in the entertainment industry--the James Cameron/Leonardo di Caprio Masonic affiliation, the Walt Disney Masonic affiliation, etc. The theories seem to focus on the former as more benign--just a physical trademark on a product, so to speak--while the latter are treated as something more subtle, perhaps as a means of "indoctrination". These are just some random musings on how to organize the cultural issues to consider in our wording. (Taivo (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC))

They both fall under symbology, which is encompassed by the phrase "the occult." I think MSJapan prefers the phrase "Satanic practices." Ukufwakfgr (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The dollar bill is part of US culture, since the US government accepts it as payment for taxes. As the article itself suggests, graphic design often incorporates Masonic symbology. This would have an impact on culture since they are propogated in the public view, including entertainment. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

first topic - random break 2

Don't know if it should be mentioned in the article, but nearly every one of the "embedded symbols" that are mentioned in conspiracy theories were placed there by non-Masons. When Masons place symbols, they are nearly always quite overt--a square and compass on a cornerstone, or (as I saw on the gate of the offices for the Hungarian Grand Lodge) a square and compass motif worked into flatiron grillwork. The same goes for "entertainment symbols", they almost always involve attributing some Masonic reference to a non-Mason. (Taivo (talk) 17:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC))

Well, that gets us into the issue of the "truth" or "falicy" of the theories... and for that we would need to start evaluating which sources pass WP:RS... which definitely would skew the neutrality of the article, since most of the sources that present the theories are not reliable for anything other than a statement of opinion (ie that the source makes the given claim). Conspiracy sites tend to be personal webpages, blogs, and other self-published material. Blueboar (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

So there are three of us who like MSJapan's wording. Uku? (Taivo (talk) 18:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC))

I !vote for MSJapan's wording above, too.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier: "I have proposed against the use of the word "involved" in this context. The phrase "these conspiracy theories" can be changed to "they" because that is the only plural noun to be used so far. The rest of that sentence seems fine." This should stay as the start of a rough outline before finalizing out any minute details. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

If that point is mentioned by conspiracy theorists, I have no problem with including it. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

OK... I have added MSJ's language to the article... I know Uku continues to have a problem with the word "involve", and we can continue to look for a better word... but there is no reason not to integrate the rest of the change since we agree on that.

Uku... I think you proposed "focus on" instead of "involve"... and I objected to that wording as it would omit theories that focus on broader conspiracy, but which clearly mention Freemasonry as a significant sub-plot. So can you think of another alternative word? Blueboar (talk) 01:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the wording that I proposed:

• Conspiracy theories regarding Freemasonry are a subset of conspiracy theories specifically describing the Freemasonic fraternal order. Generally, conspiracy theorists allege that Freemasons engage in social engineering, heresy, and the occult. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 02:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I definitely would not approve of that wording... first, I think the slashed link is rediculous... "Freemasonry|the Freemasonic faternal order"? ... please! It's commonly referred to as Freemasonry (or just Masonry). If a reader does not know what that is, they can click on the link. no need for slashed links. Second... what are "conspiracy theories specifically describing Freemasonry"? no... Masonic conspiracy theories are theories that say Freemasons are involved in a conspiracy. It's that simple. Blueboar (talk) 05:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

hmmm I actually like that better... I hereby propose that we change the first sentence to:

• "Masonic conspiracy theories are theories that claim that Freemasonry is involved in a conspiracy".Blueboar (talk) 05:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a very intriguing encapsulation. The only problem is that phrasing seems to eliminate the "non-conspiratorial" conspiracy theories, such as embedded symbology. That is, unless embedded symbology is itself "conspiratorial". I guess that anything is conspiratorial if a conspiracy theorist has proposed it and it includes Masons :p If the others like the new wording, I could live with it. It is certainly very, very clear. (Taivo (talk) 05:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC))

The longer I think on it, the better I like it. There is just an incomprehensible elegance to it. (Of course, the sentence is perfectly "comprehensible", but off the top of my head I couldn't think of another modifier for "elegance" that sounded quite so....elegant.) (Taivo (talk) 06:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC))

The "embedded symbology" (especially the theory that there are Masonic symbols in the street plan of Washington DC) is certainly seen by many theorists to be conspiratorial... these symbols are seen as "clues" and "messages" left by the Masons for future generations, and are frequently pointed to as "proof" that the Masons are secretly controling the government. So, I don't think my suggested wording eliminates "non-conspiratorial" theories. Blueboar (talk) 14:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

As I already said, the word "Masonic" is ambiguous. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 15:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Why "no need for slashed links?" I simply changed the second use of the word "Freemasonry" in the interest of avoiding repetition. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 15:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar's latest un-approved change to the article

This is the diff. He has NOT applied MSJapan's wording to the article, and instead has changed "conspiracy theories" to "theories," which was not agreed upon. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 01:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Correct, if petty... as you had suggested changing "conspiracy theories" to "they" (which I find a bit blunt and awkward), I thought "these theories" might split the difference. But if you insist on MSJ's exact wording, I will amend my edit and return the missing word. Blueboar (talk) 02:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Is the language now acceptable to you? Blueboar (talk) 02:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe in cutting the baby in half. Please tell why you decided that way. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 02:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs · logs) has reapplied the undo, in order to "rm unneccessary clarification." Here is the diff. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 03:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Uku, Blueboar's latest change was approved by the majority of the editors here and your differences are quite minor. I object to your use of the phrase "a subset of". That is needless wording. "Masonic conspiracy theories are theories" plain and simple. No one thinks that they are the complete set of conspiracy theories or are a subset of something else. The "subset" phrase is totally unneeded. Your quibble about "they", "conspiracy theories", "these theories" is really kind of silly. The three phrases are completely equal to one another. If you want us to take your contributions seriously, then it is important that you carefully distinguish between comments of substance and nit-picking trivial issues. Remember the story of the little boy who cried wolf. Blueboar had the complete agreement of me, MSJapan, and Sarek. We incorporated your serious considerations. I also disagree with your list of terms since, by your very words, you were using emotive words, which is a direct violation of NPOV. We're shooting for neutral terminology here, but you have overtly said that you are looking for visceral reactions and pejorative terminology rather than objective writing. In this case, we are not going to use your version, but a compromise version that incorporates your major concerns. (Taivo (talk) 04:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC))

Don't talk to me about "majority of the editors." When you all agree unconditionally, then the weight of each in the "majority" is practically decimated, and more so every time you continue to unconditionally agree. I ALREADY SAID THAT I WAS FINE WITH MSJAPAN'S WORDING EXCEPT FOR ONE PHRASE WHICH I THOUGHT WAS REPETITIVE. IN ADDITION, BLUEBOAR MADE A CHANGE THAT WAS NOT EVEN DISCUSSED ON THE TALK PAGE. DO YOU GET IT NOW ??? Ukufwakfgr (talk) 04:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The point I am trying to make with you is that you were quibbling over an insubstantial change in wording for stylistic purposes that meant exactly the same thing that the version here said. You started a whole subsection here on the Talk Page for a totally inconsequential reason. That is a waste of time and effort. Like I said, when you focus so much effort on trivia, you lessen your ability to influence us to your point of view in more consequential areas. It is also considered to be bad style here in Wikipedia to use all caps. It is easy to see how your "agreement" was lost in 1) a new section titled "Blueboar's latest unapproved change", 2) a quibble over the inconsequential change of a single word, and 3) a complete reiteration of your pre-compromise wording just before the new section. It's like putting a feather on a porcupine and saying he's soft and cuddly. (Taivo (talk) 04:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC))

Style is subjective. More bullshit. "Soft and cuddly" people get treated based on their actions, in my book. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 15:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Uku, to answer your question as to why I wrote it the way I did... I thought it read better. I was essentially agreeing with your comment that the phrasing was repetitive, but at the same time disagreeing with your suggested change to "they" (which I found to be too blunt and awkward). I floated a compromise that I thought would be acceptable. I thought it was a minor change that no one would object to. Obviously I was wrong. Blueboar (talk) 05:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought that my changes "read better" as well, but I didn't go applying them to the article. AFAIK, on Wikipedia minor changes consist of things like spelling and grammar correction. Removing even a single letter for only an æsthetic improvement counts as a major edit. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 15:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

"When you all agree unconditionally" Can you stop saying that please Uku. Just because they agree with each other does not mean they are doing so unconditionally. Theresa Knott | token threats 10:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I certainly don't agree "unconditionally"... as the very edit that you so strongly object to shows (I removed the repeated word "conspiracy" in part because I saw no need to repeat it). For future reference, when I say "I agree" with a suggested wording, that means I have no serious objections to that wording... not that I agree to it "unconditionally". I reserve the right to have minor quibbles with the exact wording. Blueboar (talk) 14:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to re-state another person's position, other than to force that position down somebody's throat. I'm sure we can all fight our own battles here. Taivo has asserted that "insubstantial" edits are ok. How about we all make our own "insubstantial" edits? Ukufwakfgr (talk) 15:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by re-state another person's position. I was stating my position. As for making insubstantial edits... I have no objections to people making minor edits as we go along, and I don't think we need to discuss every minor change (such as writing "these theories" instead of "these conspiracy theories")... after all, if someone really objects to the change, they can simply revert it (at which point we can discuss it on the talk page if needed)... that is how Wikipedia works. Edit, revert, discuss. Blueboar (talk) 16:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

That is the problem. You don't see the potential for revert wars. That was not a minor edit, and edits can be overlooked, especially when they are compounded in a short period of time. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

How was removing one repititious word not a minor edit? Blueboar (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

This article uses the phrase "conspiracy theory" as an idiom that does not literally mean "a theory of conspiracy." The two words must not be seperated. You can say "a horse buggy is a buggy that ..." but you cannot say "a punch buggy is a buggy that ..." unless you are talking about something different. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 21:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

to put us back on track

Uku... I think we have resolved your issues in requards to the "in the broadest terms" language (as the article no longer contains language even remotely similar). Can we move to your next talking point, or do you still have issues with the opening paragraph? Blueboar (talk) 14:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Undo the change that SarekOfVulcan made. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 15:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I will be happy to do so if you really insist... but, before I do, I have to ask why you would want to change it back to something that you stated a problem with in the first place? Blueboar (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Also... I have proposed yet another version that may resolve the issue...

• "Masonic conspiracy theories are theories that claim that Freemasonry is involved in a conspiracy".

Would this be acceptable?Blueboar (talk) 15:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The word "Masonic" is ambiguous. I would also change "a conspiracy" to "conspiracy" which is more encompassing. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem with just "conspiracy"... but what is abiguous about "Masonic"?... it is a common word that has a clear meaning ("relating to Freemasons or Freemasonry").Blueboar (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing at all ambiguous about "Masonic". We interchange between Masons/Freemasons, Masonry/Freemasonry all the time. We never use, however, the term "Freemasonic", always substituting "Masonic" instead. In the context of conspiracy theories, there is no context in which an operative Mason could be confused with a speculative Mason. If the reader is confused, all they need do is click on the first link to enlighten themselves. (Oops, I forgot myself and used the word "enlighten" in public.) If you are speaking of the fact that in English a noun modifying an adjective can either be the proponent or the victim of the nominal, the context once again disambiguates. The subordinate clause makes it quite clear that it is the theory that claims that Masons are involved in a conspiracy, not that Masons are propounding conspiracy theories. "Disambiguating" the noun phrase "Masonic conspiracy theories" is unnecessary and stylistically awkward when the clause is immediately disambiguated in the following subordinate clause. There is absolutely no semantic difference between "Masonic conspiracy theories that claim that Masons are conspirators" and the awkward phrasing that you offered above. (Taivo (talk) 17:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC))

"Of or related to ..." is ambiguous in this context. That would be like saying "American conspiracy theories." Ukufwakfgr (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The words "of or related to..." do not occur in the initial sentence proposed by Blueboar above. They don't even occur in the whole first paragraph. Please stick to the topic for now. (Taivo (talk) 17:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC))

You are being facetious. Incivility. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm removing the whole POV tag issue so we can focus on the topic under discussion. (Taivo (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC))

Bad idea, Taivo. Restoring.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The POV issue seems to be resolved, and at this point it's just taking up space. I propose that it either be deleted or archived. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Taivo on the abiguity issue... OK, there are two (and only two) possible topics that the article title could refer to... "Conspiracy theories that involve Freemasonry", or "conspiracy theories that belong to Freemasonry". But, I do not think it is even remotely likely that anyone would ever think that we are referring the latter of these two possibilities (can you think of one single conspiracy theory would fit that meaning?) But even if someone did think that it might refer to the latter meaning, they would learn otherwise... by reading the opening sentence of the article (in which we clearly explain what we mean by the title). A reader would have to be a complete idiot to miss that.

So, while I will concede that the article title could be ambiguous, if unexplained... because it is explained, there is no ambiguity. It is obvious what we mean by the phrase "Masonic conspiracy theories". Blueboar (talk) 18:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The title should explain the article, not vice versa. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Huh? I find that to be an absolutely rediculous idea... of course the article explains the title... if the title explained the article, there would be no need for an article. Furthermore, there are often slightly abiguous titles... look at the article on An-Nasr Mosque... a quick glance at the article (specifically at the disambig note at the top) tells me that there is more than one mosque by that name... In other words, the article title is abiguous. However, the first line of the article tells me which An-Nasr mosque the article is talking about. The ambiguity is resolved. The same it true in this article. While there could be ambiguity to the title, any ambiguity is resolved by reading the first sentence of the article. Blueboar (talk) 19:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The title does explain the article without real ambiguity. Is the first paragraph satisfactory to you, Uku? If so, then we can move on. (Taivo (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC))

Nope. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Expand please? I know we are still dealing with the title... but is there something else?Blueboar (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Taivo must state his position. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I will start a !vote poll (below) so everyone can state his/her position. Blueboar (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The word "Masonic" refers to Freemasonry, that is well-known. The issue is not with that, rather with the grammatical context. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean? Blueboar (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you understand, but I will repeat myself yet again. The word "Masonic" could mean "about Freemasonry" but it could also mean "belong to Freemasonry" or "originating from Freemasonry." The article should not have to disambiguate that. I know that my proposal is not elegant, but it does not share this problem. Maybe someone can suggest a better name? Ukufwakfgr (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Articles disambiguate all the time (as I showed with my An-Nasr Mosque example)... but in this case, I don't think it needs any disabiguation. I don't think there is a real ambiguity here... can you think of a single conspiracy theory that would fit the definiton "belonging to Freemasonry"? I can't. So, I do not think this is a real problem. Blueboar (talk) 21:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I take your point, Uku, but I really don't think that that distinction needs to be drawn here. If someone creates an article about conspiracy theories originating from Freemasonry, then the distinction is relevant. Google "Masonic conspiracy theories" (no quotes) to see that it's probably this topic that's meant by the use of the phrase.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

There's another article in Wikipedia called UFO conspiracy theory. Are you seriously suggesting, Uku, that anyone thinks this is a theory propounded by UFOs? No. (Taivo (talk) 21:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC))

Quick poll #1: Is the article title too ambiguous?

• No as it is explained in the first sentence of the article Blueboar (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• Hell no--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• Absolutely not, it is crystal clear in the first sentence exactly what it means. (Taivo (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC))

Quick poll #2: Is the article title POV

• No, it accurately and neutrally discribes what the article is about.Blueboar (talk) 20:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• No. It doesn't say "crazy theories" or "crackpot theories", just "conspiracy theories" -- which is exactly what's alleged in most of them, so we're set.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• No. It's totally neutral. If it meant "conspiracy theories propounded by Masons" don't you think that I would object? Of course I would. The title is unambiguous as clearly defined in the first sentence and is neutrally worded. (Taivo (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC))

Wrapping up the fist topic for discussion?

We have gotten away from the talking point that started this topic for discussion... which centered on Uku s objection to the use of the term "Broadly speaking". Can we at least call that issue resolved? (as the objected to phrasing is no longer in the article.) We can continue to debate the article title as a second topic for discussion if needed. Blueboar (talk) 21:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

POV tag

At this point, I want to get a vote on whether this article should have the POV tag attached to it. (Please do not use this space for incivility or for arguing for massive changes. Just state your view simply and clearly, please.)
I vote remove. This article is extremely NPOV. Every conspiracy theory is stated without discussion of either its evidence for or against in very neutral and non-judgemental language. It is simply a list of theories, as it should be. (Taivo (talk) 11:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC))

• Premature: I agree that the article isn't really POV, but I suspect that Uku will not. Removing is thus premature. We can re-address the issue after we have discussed more of his talking points. Blueboar (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• I object, for reasons stated earlier. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I requested that you state your view simply and clearly. Please summarize your paragraphs into one or two clear sentences. Remember that the question is not "Are there problems of fact or missing data?", but "Does the article, as it stands, express a point of view?". (Taivo (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC))

Wasn't this section was deleted?

These are my reasons, from January 30 (which officially makes one week):

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) 19:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Which part of the request "Please summarize into one or two clear sentences" was unclear? Doesn't matter in the end, two respected editors have voted for "premature". (Taivo (talk) 19:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC))

Don't give me any attitude. Maybe if you actually read the talk page I wouldn't have to re-state it ???? Maybe I should have just pointed you to the Archive 2 ???? Ukufwakfgr (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Pot, meet Kettle. Kettle, Pot.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

That is something that Blueboar said in MSJapan's talk page. I was only kidding before, but I think there might be an actual case for sock puppetry. If this is Blueboar, I seriously suggest you get some professional help. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 21:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Premature. It's an NPOV list, but while there is active discussion ongoing, it should stay -- at least for a while.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)