Talk:Masonic conspiracy theories

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)

LOL. That makes about as much sense as if I suggested you're a Lightbringer sock. (Incidentally, see http://www.google.com/search?q="Pot,+meet+Kettle.+Kettle,+Pot." )--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Flamebait. Off-topic. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 22:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you need a civility reminder, Uku? (Taivo (talk) 22:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC))

Look who's talking Ukufwakfgr (talk) 23:25, 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)

• Keep. Looking through the article for the very first time, and as a complete outsider, I'd say its wording seems POV. As Ukufwakfgr said, the article uses wording which appears to be aimed at diminishing the credibility of the individual claims. Laughable claims that nobody seriously would agree with are placed next to claims that many would find reasonable possible though unproven. The claims are always worded in the most extreme way. For example "That Freemasonry ... secretly controls all aspects of society and government". "All aspects"!! Would that mean a claim that the lateness of my postal delivery is down to the secret control of Freemasons? Meowy 22:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

For me, any "conspiracy theory" is laughable, whether it involves Masons or not, so if you think there is a better order, please suggest it. (Taivo (talk) 22:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC))

You've maybe just proved the POV nature of the article! And maybe also of its title. The various "conspiracy theories" (for want of a better term) should perhaps be grouped according to their closeness to the actual setup of Masonic orders (i.e. theories arising out of their perceived secrecy, theories arising out of their use of symbols, theories based on its alleged resemblance to a religion or cult, etc.), and the individual incident allegations (9/11, JFK assassination, etc.) should all be grouped together. Meowy 01:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW, the word theory is perhaps inapropriate as a standalone term for the title. A theory in a scholarly context is something that fits the best available evidence. Maybe the article's title should be changed to "Masonic conspiracy theory controversies". Meowy 01:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I just did an experimental reordering of the list, going from (IMHO) ludicrous to plausible. What do you all think?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Deciding what is ludicrous from what is plausible would be a POV decision, that's why I was suggesting grouping them into themes, such as single incident allegations. Meowy 17:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't like it. Validity requires a subjective judgment, which is an important item to avoid. I don't buy Meowy's argument either; it invokes semantics over substance, because adding "controversies" is a) not scholarly at all, and b) incorrect. A conspiracy theory is clearly defined. The suggestion above is like not calling a spade a spade because it might be a shovel and we don't want to offend it by mislabeling it. I'd rv the edit and just remove the POV tag. There's no basis for it aside from personal opinion, and everything we have is sourced and not judged. MSJapan (talk) 03:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with MSJ here - if a reordering is needed perhaps one that goes from the common to the less common? As for Meowys comment on the title... wasn't the use of the word theory recently discussed? The use in the article fits the common use of the word, and is neutral - and there is no 'controversies': just a reasonable few conspiracy theorists who sees cloaks and daggers where there are none. WegianWarrior (talk) 04:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "Conspiracy theory" is not using the word "theory" in the same way as it would be used in an academic context. It's a bit like Creationists saying that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is "only a theory" - that might fit common usage but it would be incorrect in the context of an encyclopedia. A theory is something that is considered to be generally true because it best fits all the available facts. By adding the word "controversies" it would make clear that the article is not about "theories" but about things that are generally considered to be "conspiracy theories". Becasue of its derrogatory meaning, "Conspiracy theory" is a judgemental and POV claim when boldly used as a title, but it's OK in the body of the article because there will be sources that call the claims "conspiracy theories". Meowy 17:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hardly. To quote Conspiracy theory here on Wikipedia: "The term "conspiracy theory" may be a neutral descriptor for any conspiracy claim" and "The word "theory" is in this usage is informal as in "speculation" or "hypothesis" rather than scientific". You may also want to check out this archived thread. WegianWarrior (talk) 17:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

But in reality, in common usage it is not neutral - you know it, I know it, and many of the commnents in this thread reveal it. I wasn't arguing for the phrase to be removed from the title, but for it to be made less POV by calling it "Masonic conspiracy theory controversies". Nobody gains if the title is seen as POV. Meowy 17:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

We had this discussion ad nauseum just a week ago. There are multiple occurrences of the word "theory" outside the context of academia and the dictionaries support that definition. There is nothing controversial about the existence of "Masonic conspiracy theories". They exist. It is common knowledge that they exist (just ask the millions of people who saw National Treasure). The title is not POV, it simply labels the things as they are known. The words "Nazi" and "Jesus" also conjure up strong emotional images, but articles should not be relabeled because of that. (Taivo (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC))

Also, Meowy, this article is _not_ about the controversies, if any: it's about the various theories that exist about conspiracies involving Freemasons. Hence, changing the title as you suggest would be inappropriate.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Getting Back on Track with the First Topic

The first topic of discussion was the phrase "broadly speaking" or "in the broadest terms". Uku, have we eliminated that phrase to your satisfaction? (Taivo (talk) 22:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC))

Given the lack of reply... I think we can slap a "DONE" stamp on it. Blueboar (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I asked you to "undo the change that SarekOfVulcan", which you promised to do and have not done. In addition, yesterday I said: "It is clear that the phrase "broadly speaking" does not exist in any of our proposed changes". Maybe the problem comes from simply not paying attention ? Ukufwakfgr (talk) 23:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

What are the main issues?

Hello - I saw the request at WP:FTN to bring outside views to this discussion.

To help newly arriving editors to get oriented to the issues of concern, it would be helpful if the involved editors would offer a summary of the dispute(s).

If there are various versions of the article that are preferred, a few diffs would be helpful also.

I'm not requesting a full analysis, just a quick overview so editors new to this discussion can tell where to focus. Thanks. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Quick overview: Uku was bold, Blueboar reverted, Uku went ballistic, arguing everything from ambiguity in the title to the removal of one redundant word being a major change instead of a minor one.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

When the form of this page was originally hammered out, it was decided that it would list some of the most popular theories, without further comment: any attempt to support or oppose them in the article would be POV.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The first diff in the dispute is here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

For the immediate issues that prompted me to seek outside comments, see the two Quick polls I posted above, and the conversations surrounding them. For Uku's other problems see the bullet pointed list in the above thread on the POV tag. Blueboar (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the summary, I've entered a comment in the RFC section below. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 10:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I arrived on January 30 and saw that the article was grossly biased, so I changed it. That change was reverted by Blueboar, who argued that it was painfully neutral or something like that. He was supported by as many as 4 other editors. They all seem to agree unconditionally, and have formed a cabal in order to synthesize a false consensus. After my initial edit, Blueboar has been consistently applying un-approved edits to the article. In addition, MSJapan has taken it upon himself to change the rating of the article, even though he is a vested contributor. The diff is here.

As for the title, I never said that it was POV, rather that it was ambiguous because the word "Masonic" can be misconstrued in that context. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

re: MSJapan changing the rating... there was nothing wrong with that... MSJ is a member of the Freemasonry Project. This article falls under the Freemasonry Project. Project members routinely evaluate and rate articles that fall under the projects they belong to. Not only that, he was right... this article is beyond "start" class. Blueboar (talk) 01:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It's been stub class, not start class. It was changed to C class after having only a few words altered. I find that to be highly unlikely. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Well this article is certainly far beyond a stub! But your complaint wasn't about the rating he gave... your complaint was that he "has taken it upon himself to change the rating of the article". That complain has no merit. You seem to be saying that no one may make any edit to this article without your personal approval. If this is your intent, you can forget it. That isn't how Wikipedia works. Blueboar (talk) 04:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It's little more than a list with an introductory paragraph. This counts as a stub. When did I ever say that I should rate the article myself?? Ukufwakfgr (talk) 05:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I never said that you said that you should rate the article... I said that you seem to be saying that no one else may make any edit to this article without your personal approval. Blueboar (talk) 15:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Every editor to this article, except for me, is a vested contributor, and as such this article requires an independent assessment. Changes are subject to everybody's personal approval. That is what a consensus means. If you looked at the logs you would see that I made only two changes, which were both reverted. I'm not sure whether you can say the same for yourself. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 16:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Uku, you are wrong about one thing. You, too, are a vested editor. You are vested in the conspiracy theories. Your comments in other places (stating your choice of "emotive", "evocative", and "pejorative" language) and your proposed changes have made it crystal clear that your POV is just as strong (or even more so) than anyone else's here. You are not neutral here. You support the conspiracy theorists entirely. That's why this article is not a discussion of the theories, but is an NPOV listing without commentary. I've read the version you want to revert to (25 August 2008) and it is fairly POV and not neutral. (Taivo (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC))

I did not say "vested editor." Ukufwakfgr (talk) 00:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

"Vested contributor" ~ "vested editor". So what? That's why more and more people are taking you less and less seriously. (Taivo (talk) 04:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC))

"Vested contributor" is defined in the guidelines. "Vested editor" may be construed to mean what you're trying to make it mean. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 07:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The article as it stands (before Uku's "input") is quite NPOV. It is a summary of what a Masonic conspiracy theory is and then a neutral list of the most common conspiracy theories concerning Masonry. Arguments pro and con are not to be found here on purpose--so that the article could remain encyclopedic--a list with a reference or two. Uku tried to push an overtly anti-Masonic POV onto the article, specifically using phrases like "emotive", "pejorative", etc. in describing to us why he wanted to make this or that edit. We are currently working on the first sentence of the article, although Uku is side-tracking the discussion into a discussion of the title of the article. His point is that "Masonic conspiracy theories" is potentially ambiguous. Every other editor here responds that the title is not ambiguous in context, is clearly disambiguated in the first sentence, and matches the names of other "conspiracy" articles (such as UFO conspiracy theories). (Taivo (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC))

POV dispute RFC

A new editor has come into an article and tried to completely rework it. When his changes were reverted, he started major discussions on minor parts of the article. I'm looking for comments on to what degree his arguments are valid, and whether the long-time editors, including myself, are violating WP:OWN. —SarekOfVulcan (via posting script) 23:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm entering this comment as an uninvolved editor. I came to this page from the notice at WP:FTN as noted above. I don't see indications of WP:OWNership on this article. The changes by one editor have not gained consensus or support by others, but that does not imply ownership is happening.

Regarding the content dispute, in the section above at #What are the main issues?, a few questions were pointed out, and this diff was provided to show the article version prior to this dispute and the initial modification that was reverted. Here are my initial comments in that context:

• POV tag: I don't see a POV issue with the article. It doesn't advocate the conspiracy theories, it just reports them. The question of whether to remove the tag or not is mostly a matter of courtesy to the editor who added the tag. Unless other editors agree there is a POV issue, after a while the tag should be removed, but there's no hurry.

• Quick poll #1: Is the article title too ambiguous? -- No, it's not. The phrase appears in reliable sources and none of those refer to the alternate meaning. Since the sources only use the phrase one way, it's not up to Wikipedia editors to declare that it's ambiguous, we can simply use the phrase as it is used in the sources.

• Quick poll #2: Is the article title POV: No, the title does not imply that the ideas are true or false, good or bad, it simply describes the topic of the article.

I hope these notes are helpful.--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 09:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

That is basically what everybody is saying. Please make a unique contribution. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

sigh... If this is basically what everybody is saying, perhaps it indicates that you should pay attention to what everybody is saying... see: WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Blueboar (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You asked for a "third opinion", Uku. There is it. An uninvolved third opinion. He doesn't agree with you. Given your propensity to think that everyone who disagrees with you is part of a conspiracy, we've got to be the largest Wikipedia conspiracy going for now. (And don't even try to deny that you think we are a conspiracy, you've accused us on many occasions of collusion.) (Taivo (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC))

External comment via topic RFC: I was aware of this discussion already via WP:COIN, so have already had a look at article history. I concur with User:Jack-A-Roe; whatever the affiliations of long-standing editors may be, I don't see any POV nor any sign of WP:OWN, merely expected reversion of a newcomer's edits that don't reflect consensus.
However, my main opinion of the situation is that discussion is being disrupted by some flavour of WP:TE/WP:DE going on, and Ukufwakfgr (talk · contribs)'s edit pattern particularly matches that of Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing (with its mix of overt bad faith stance, personal needling, procedural nitpicks, topic-shifting, rules-lawyering, etc). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Gordonofcartoon makes a good point here regarding disruptive editing by Ukufwakfgr. There is a clear consensus among several editors plus now two more outside opinions, while Ukufwakfgr is the only person arguing the opposing view. Ukufwakfgr's edited only this one article, aggressively complained about other editors from the start in a less than civil manner, and filed a multiple noticeboard reports within their first few days of editing (with the apparent goal of gaining an advantage in the content dispute). It's unlikely there will be positive results from continuing to debate with someone who shows no interest in collaboration. The best approach may be to move on and continue improving the article based on consensus and sources. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Those claims are NOT consistent with the documentation that you cited:

• WP:PUSH says "superficially polite" which directly contradicts your own claims.
• Any allegations of "disruptive editing" are absolutely false, since I made only one edit a week ago. I invited to you check the logs yourself, which you obviously have not done. If anything, Blueboar and Taivo should be accused of disruptive editing, for applying edits that were not even brought up in the talk page.

In addition, I am still not convinced that this is anything but an appeal to the majority. You are repeating other people's claims which is not conducive to conflict resolution. Obviously I will have the same issues with you as with the other users, since you are basically saying the same thing! In case you can't tell by now, I am talking to you in all sincerity. I am NOT making an effort to be petty and mischievous. Theresa has alleged that I am an experienced user who is masquerading, which is false and baseless. Maybe that is distorting your perspective? Ukufwakfgr (talk) 22:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe you are sincere, and I am not accusing you of pettiness. But someone can be sincere and still disrupt the editing on an article. Disruptive editing can include repetitive talk page arguments, and is not the same thing as edit-warring (refer to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT).

Several of your comments indicate that you don't understand or accept how consensus works on Wikipedia. When multiple editors agree with each other and disagree with you, it doesn't matter if it's an "appeal to the majority" as you have put it. When the numbers are close between the different viewpoints, it's not so easy to see a consensus, and that's why we do not consider debates to be solved by majority votes. But when there is a large difference in the numbers, as in this case (6 to 1 it seems), it becomes easy to see. If there were two other editors supporting your ideas for the direction of the article, it would make a big difference in how editors view the debate, and there is a good chance the discussion would take a different turn. But at this point, you don't have that support, so the only way you can change the article as you want to is to convince others to agree with you, or come to a compromise, in a collaborative way.

The best way for you to convince editors to agree with your changes for the article would be to find reliable sources that state the things you want to include. If you bring those sources to the discussion, you will find other editors much more receptive to your comments. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Numbers without substance == appeal to majority. Large difference doesn't matter -- what matters is each person's weight in the argument. A true majority is composed of a majority of individuals, not simply a majority of people. In addition, practically all of the other editors are Freemasons, which complicates things quite a bit. Making a prejudgment after skimming through the scandalous parts of the talk page does not constitute good faith.

I have provided additional material, along with sources. When you see the archives, it will become obvious. And my refutation was directed at Gordonofcartoon, so whoever is changing the indentation of my comments, would you please stop it ??! Ukufwakfgr (talk) 00:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the indentation, that was my mistake; I've put it back the way you had it.

Regarding the rest of your comment, you're wrong about "prejudgement". I've read the article, the prior version of the article, the entire discussion since you started on this page, and the various posts at COIN, WQA, and AN/3. And I've done Google searches on various permutations of the article title to see what kind of sources are available relating to the possible ambiguity of the term (I did not find any other than sources using the term as it is used here). Gordonofcartoon also stated he had reviewed the article history as well as being familiar with the situation from the noticeboard report.

Your comment about lack of good faith by others shows that the editors who have noted your incivility were on-the-mark. Several people have tried to help you understand how you can effectively collaborate here, but you do not seem interested in learning. Your methods are not working; you are not making any progress towards your goals. Doesn't it seem like a different approach might be more effective? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

First of all, you misspelled "prejudgment." Second, I alleged that outsiders were coming in and prejudging me as being the squeaky wheel because I talked in a sensationalistic manner, which neglects any factfinding, and which does not demonstrate impartiality but rather hasteful cynicism.Ukufwakfgr (talk) 03:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

In regard to the title of the article, there is no common usage for "Masonic conspiracy theory." The only examples I can find are other wiki sites which are also wrought with false statements. No credible conspiracy theorist has used the phrase "Masonic conspiracy theory." The phrase "Masonic conspiracy" itself clearly means "a conspiracy belonging to Freemasons."Ukufwakfgr (talk) 03:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You are again ignoring any data that do not fit your "theory", Uku. I just googled "Masonic conspiracy theories" (with quotes) and got over 5,000 hits for that exact phrase and not a single one of the first dozen sites are conspiracy theories belonging to Masons (I didn't look any further than that). Only one of those hits was this Wikipedia article. You are just wrong about your assertions about that phrase meaning something else. The phrase in actual usage (over 5,000 hits!) only means "conspiracy theories concerning Masons" not "conspiracy theories belonging to Masons". Give it up already. The evidence is overwhelmingly against your POV. (I also got 500 hits from "Masonic conspiracy theory" as well.) (Taivo (talk) 04:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC))

The admins said not to conjecture about motives. You should act in kind. When I said "wiki" I did not mean Wikipedia itself. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 06:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Not just the web -- Google Books: 46 hits for "masonic conspiracy theory" and 656 hits for "masonic conspiracy". Google Scholar: 11 hits for "masonic conspiracy theory" and 278 hits for "masonic conspiracy". --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Of the Google Books results, only one seems to link to anyone remotely resembling a conspiracy theorist: Solomon's Treasure by Tracy R. Twyman. I will have to check out that book. In the meantime, no other conspiracy theorists, especially any who are reputable, use that phrase. As I explained eariler, the phrase "Masonic conspiracy" only illustrates my point. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 06:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

They were giving the same canned responses as the editors themselves -- namely that I was wrong only because I was out-manned. Being out-manned works on the football field, but not in a civil discussion. If six people insist repeatedly that 2 + 2 equal 5, does it make me unreasonable to become frustrated and then complain loudly that 2 + 2 do not equal 5 ? Ukufwakfgr (talk) 03:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I am coming at this as an outsider. Here are my observations:

An article like this can show many different theories and still remain POV. The idea isn't to exclude information (such as some theories), but to provide as much information as possible (such as adding more theories). WegianWarrior explains it well: "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." And Blueboar's statement ("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") is valid and useful in this discussion.

Ukufwakfgr, your incivility diminishes greatly the legitimacy of any argument you make. It would be more effective if you left out the abrasive language and cries of flamebaiting and focused only on how to improve the article. By providing a list of what needs to be fixed, removed and added (without being abrasive), other editors will be much more likely to work with you. For example, if you think parts need further toning-down, quote the current sentence as it appears in the article and then provided what you think would be a better way to say it. You're going to have to play nice or not play at all.

Lastly to all, please review Staying cool when the editing gets hot and Civility. Even if you feel you are on the correct side of an issue here, sarcasm and curtness aren't going to help. Insults and abrasive language is not congruent to the way things work around here. Kingturtle (talk) 00:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I have provided lots of points and counterpoints. Many (most?) have not been addressed. I am not insulted at being ignored, but rather when people present false information and expect me to swallow it. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 00:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Second topic for discussion

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

Note... I have not copied the entire discussion relating to this topic... Most of the discussion revovled around Uku's problems with the Taxil hoax article... and I think it is agreed that problems with that article should be discussed at the talk page for that article and not here. That said... Uku's last comment in the chain is worth discussing further, so I will pick up the conversation with that... Blueboar (talk)

Then specify which parts of this article, and my changes, are based on the Taxil hoax. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 12:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I actually think Uku has a point here... we should better clarify which theories or genre of theories are based on Taxil hoax. Suggestions on the best way to do this? See my revised comment below.Blueboar (talk) 17:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a perusal of Freemasons for Dummies and The Complete Idiot's Guide to Freemasonry will develop a specific list of the Taxil hoax's features. (Both books have a extensive section on Taxil.) The theories can then be matched to them. It may take several iterations to hone down the list of theories that rely on Taxil in whole or in part, but that may be the most workable way. This list should include everything even if the conspiracy theory gets the Taxil hoax third or fourth hand. (Taivo (talk) 17:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC))

There are actually two issues involved in the "religious" batch of theories--the misinterpretations of Pike and the hoaxes of Taxil. Some theories rely on both sources, some more on one and some more on the other. There is a certain intertwining of the two. The article seems to focus completely on Taxil, but misreading Pike is also a strong feature as well. Of course, Taxil based several of his myths on Pike's work, so that it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between misreading Pike first-hand and reading Taxil's lies about Pike. The article on Taxil hoax doesn't even touch upon the depth of his hoaxes, but that's not our problem. The Wikilink is still valid whether or not the Taxil hoax article is good or not. Just some initial musing. (Taivo (talk) 17:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC))

I do think it is important not to go overboard on this... remember, the point isn't to "debunk" the theories... That there is a grouping of theories that originate with Taxil is neutral information. To go much further than that runs the risk of inadvertenyly inserting a POV. Blueboar (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You must specify which ones. That's like saying, "Some conspiracy theories are nothing more than a bunch of drunken rants." Ukufwakfgr (talk) 03:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

In the end, the list of conspiracy theories should be sorted by category. Thus, the Taxil-based stuff will be in its own section, the political stuff, the symbology, etc. (Taivo (talk) 03:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC))

A few must be listed right now, in order to justify keeping that claim in the article. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 05:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Just so we are all clear, the current version of the article reads:

• Another set of theories have to do with Freemasonry and religion, particularly that Freemasonry deals with the "occult", here used to denote a particular range of the occult dealing with Satanic beliefs, but also incorporating numerology and Masonic symbolism. This theory has its beginnings with the Taxil hoax.

This is fairly clear on which genre of conspiracy theory originates with Taxil... but I do think it could be even clearer (since not all theories that have to do with Freemasonry and religion began with Taxil... just the ones claiming that the Freemasons have occult, Satanic, beliefs.) Also, we need to cite this comment. Blueboar (talk) 19:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Another set ... has. The word "the" in "the occult" should be pushed inside the quotes. That explanation of the occult should be a footnote. "But also" should be changed, probably to "as well as." The word "Masonic" in "Masonic symbolism" is redundant. The Taxil issue is still under dispute. Writing the article principally to explain uses of the Taxil hoax is begging the question. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 03:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by "The Taxil issue is still under dispute"? (Taivo (talk) 03:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC))

Which conspiracy theories come out of the Taxil hoax ?

Here are a couple of references that show the Taxil ancestry of the religious hoaxes:

S. Brent Morris, The Complete Idiot's Guide to Freemasonry (2006), pp. 171-172

Christopher Hodapp, Freemasons for Dummies (2005), pp. 160-161; 298-299

Here is a reference to Albert Pike's infamous "Lucifer" quote that shows up as a foundation in some conspiracy theories:

Christopher Hodapp, Freemasons for Dummies (2005), pp. 161 (Taivo (talk) 20:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC))

I also think it better if we distinguish between the true occult conspiracies (Satan worship, etc.) and the symbolic "conspiracies" (the Washington street plan, the Great Seal, etc.). The occult practices are definitely derived from Taxil and Pike's "Lucifer" quote. The others, however, are not so derived, but have their origins in the misrepresentation of (non-conspiratorial) Masonic symbology in general. (Taivo (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC))

In referencing the occult, there can be subcategories dealing with ritualistic practices and symbology. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 03:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to propose a little bit of wording adjustment here:

• Another set of theories has to do with Freemasonry and religion, particularly that Freemasonry deals with "the occult", here used to denote a particular range of the occult involving Satanic or anti-Christian beliefs. These theories have their beginnings with the Taxil hoax.[refs here] In addition to these, there are various theories that focus on the embedding of Masonic symbology in otherwise ordinary items, such as street patterns, national seals, etc.[refs here] (Taivo (talk) 02:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC))

I think Blueboar's wording is more concise. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 03:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

By "Blueboar's wording".... do you mean the wording that is currently in the article? (it is actually MSJ's wording)... if so, perhaps we can call this issue resolved? ... with the addition of a source? DONE?Blueboar (talk) 03:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I see now, it was the original wording. I said "more concise" not "done." Taivo and I both have suggestions. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 05:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) But conciseness is not the same as accuracy. There is a very clear set of theories that have their origins with Taxil (supplemented by Pike's Lucifer quote) that deal with Satanic worship, etc. There is another more varied set that has a variety of origins, but have nothing to do with Satanism, etc., only with embedded symbology. These are not both "occult". That's why it is important, I think, to distinguish between these two very different sets of theories--those which deal with present-day activities (accusing the Craft of Satanic worship, for example) and those more passive activities in the past (embedding symbols, for example). Also, the quotes from reliable sources (some of which are cited above) point to two sets of theories, as well. Two time periods referenced, two origins, two degrees of active involvement by the rank and file of the Craft, two sets of references. Therefore two sentences are needed. (Taivo (talk) 03:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC))

The Taxil issue must be resolved first. The original sentence attributes all of the mentioned conspiracy theories, whereas your re-wording only attributes some of them. The rest of your comment seems to veer off topic. Please respond in the relevant thread. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 05:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Taxil's hoax is at the foundation of the Hidden Secrets point, the GAOTU point, and the Worship Lucifer point. The latter point also includes Pike's infamous quote, which was popularized by Taxil and those who followed him. These are the three Satanic/anti-Christian points found in the list. (Taivo (talk) 05:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC))

Actually, without violating WP:OR, the quotes from Freemasonry for Dummies and The Complete Idiot's Guide to Freemasonry, which are WP:RSs, state that the Taxil hoax is at the root of all religious based conspiracy theories. (Taivo (talk) 05:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC))

Here are the characteristics of Taxil origin in a conspiracy theory. All are inventions of Taxil:

• Pike is called the "Sovereign Pontiff of Universal Freemasonry" or any other such title that implies that he was the supreme leader of Freemasonry
• If Freemasonry is said to be controlled by something called the "Supreme Confederated Councils of the World" or similar wording
• If any rites of Freemasonry are called "Palladian" or the work of an inner circle is called "Palladism"
• If Freemasonry is linked with the worship of Lucifer or Satan
• If either Sophia Walder or Diana Vaughan are mentioned

If the theory cites any work by Gabriel Antoine Jogand-Pages, Leo Taxil, Abel Clarin de la Rive, or Edith Starr Miller then it is based on Taxil's hoax since the works of all these directly derive from Taxil and the works of those he was directly duping. (Taivo (talk) 05:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC))

For example, the website referenced in Footnote 30 contains a reference to: "Instructions to the 23 Supreme Councils of the World, July 14, 1889. Recorded by A.C. De La Rive in La Femme et l'Enfant dans la FrancMaconnerie Universelle on page 588", a completely fictitious event and fictitious speech that Taxil admitted was fradulent. It also calls Pike, "the former Sovereign Grand Commander of the Supreme Council of Grand Sovereign Inspectors General of the 33rd Degree", a completely fictitious title invented by Taxil. We aren't going to argue for or against the truthfulness of any of the conspiracy theories here. The site in Footnote 31 also says, "Without question it is a last century Masonic attempt to deal with the embarrassment that Masonry experienced when General Albert Pike's letter giving instructions to the 23 supreme councils of the world fell into public hands." (Also a reference to that fictitious letter and event.) My only purpose in mentioning them is to show how these are based on Taxil's hoax. (Taivo (talk) 06:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC))

None of these websites can be considered WP:RS in terms of using them to prove or disprove some aspect of Masonry. Their usefulness here is only as evidence of the different flavors of Masonic conspiracy theory out there. We use secondary sources, the Hodapp and Morris volumes, for example, to discuss the origins of particular theories, in this case focusing on the Taxil hoax as the foundation of the religious/Lucifer ones. They also serve to show the origins of other conspiracy theories in symbology and politics (when we get to discussing those theories). (Taivo (talk) 06:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC))

Ok then, thanks for that. Please cite each assertion and include that in the article. WP:RS here is about presenting significant conspiracy theories. Any theory that is satisfactorily "debunked" could be placed in a "debunked" category or something. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 07:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

All of them have been debunked, but this is not the place for that. This is an NPOV listing, nothing more. Which assertions are you talking about? Remember that this is not the place for argumentation. I have already provided every reference that I think needs to be in the article to prove the statements to be found in the article (Hodapp and Morris). (Taivo (talk) 09:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC))

As for the Lucifer issue, I think that it's prima facie that Freemasonry deals with Lucifer. The name, indeed, means "bringer of light." The star in the star-and-cresent symbol is actually the Morningstar. There are also Lucifer apologists, but I can't remember whether they are Freemasons. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 07:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Lucifer has nothing to do with Freemasonry. You are mistaken, there is no "prima facie" case for it. The star-and-crescent symbol is not a Freemason symbol and even if it were, the use of Venus in an originally Islamic symbol does not imply "Lucifer" in a strict sense, unless you are implying that its use in Islam is a symbol of "Lucifer" as well. There are no "prima facie" cases for any of these conspiracy theories. But, this is not the article for debunking or promoting. It is an NPOV listing. (Taivo (talk) 09:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC))

Denial. The star-and-crescent represents "Islamic faith" not necessarily the Islamic religion. The symbol did not originate with Islam. It was only used for the flag of Turkey during the Ottomon Empire. For 1000 years there was no "symbol of Islam." The flag of Libya illustrates that a more typical Islamic flag had simply one solid color. Islamic law has forbidden artwork depicting natural phenomena, so several Islamic flags are questionnable. The crescent in the star-and-crescent represents the Moon, being that Allah is a moon god. Some claim that the star is the photosphere of an occulation, or an Earthshine, which are both nonsense. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 13:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Dividing these conspiracy theories up into groups is a job for later. Right now we are focusing on the issue of the second paragraph of the introduction. I have proposed the following wording:

• Another set of theories has to do with Freemasonry and religion, particularly that Freemasonry deals with "the occult", here used to denote a particular range of the occult involving Satanic or anti-Christian beliefs. These theories have their beginnings with the Taxil hoax.[refs here] In addition to these, there are various theories that focus on the embedding of Masonic symbology in otherwise ordinary items, such as street patterns, national seals, etc.[refs here] (Taivo (talk) 09:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC))

Like I already said, there needs to be a footnote. The word "Masonic" in "Masonic symbology" is redundant. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 12:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no objections to Tavio's version... suggest changing "Masonic symbology' to just "symbols" (since some of the symbols that are claimed to be embedded are not in fact "Masonic"). The footnote that Uku wants can be combined with a reference to either the Idiot's Guide or For Dummies. Blueboar (talk) 13:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem either way. I meant that there should be a footnote to define "the occult," instead of an inline explanation Ukufwakfgr (talk) 13:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to give Uku some of his own medicine, he misspelled "Ottoman" and "questionable" a few paragraphs up, and I think we should spend the next three days going over how that indicates a fundamental problem with his argument.

"What is a problem is that Uku's statements made on symbolism (not "symbology") have no real basis in anything aside from his own belief. He would rather see conspiracy, devil worship, etc., in everything than accept perfectly logical explanations. For example, the Short History of the Shrine explains pretty clearly where all the symbols came from. They're not Islamic or anything else. That's like saying that the caduceus was a symbol pagan Greeks invented, so therefore, all doctors are pagans. That's an actual logical fallacy, by the way, as opposed to the purported ones that weren't. MSJapan (talk) 15:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about???! And this is a real show of gratitude after I showed support for your writing, which seems to have caused the discussion to finally move forward. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 01:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Consensus. Just to reiterate the version that everyone seems to agree on (with changes from above so no one feels blindsided when I put them in). I'll add the references when I post it:

• Another set of theories has to do with Freemasonry and religion, particularly that Freemasonry deals with "the occult" footnote follows Here used to denote a particular range of the occult involving Satanic or anti-Christian beliefs. end footnote These theories have their beginnings in the Taxil hoax.refs here In addition to these, there are various theories that focus on the embedding of symbols in otherwise ordinary items, such as street patterns, national seals, etc.refs here (Taivo (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC))

I think this is quite acceptable. I think we are ready to move on the the next topic.Blueboar (talk) 14:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Third topic

• The concept of a "New World Order" is NOT a "theory."

We have discussed this issue twice now ... but, I am not sure if it got resolved.

Current wording in the article (as relates to this issue) is: That Freemasonry is controlled by the Illuminati (some variants say they are one and the same) to achieve the New World Order, and that it secretly controls all aspects of society and government. Blueboar (talk) 14:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The concept of a NWO is not a theory -- than Freemasons are trying to implement it is one.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This is explained well in the article on New World Order (conspiracy theory)... which opens with:

In international relations theory, the term "new world order" refers to a new period of history evidencing a dramatic change in world political thought and the balance of power. However, in conspiracy theory, the term "New World Order" refers to a hypothetical totalitarian end of history.

At the extreme, some theorists speculate that a powerful and secretive group is conspiring to eventually rule the world via an autonomous world government, which would replace sovereign states and other checks and balances in international power struggles. In most theories, significant occurrences are said to be caused by an extremely influential cabal operating through many front organizations. Historical and current events are seen as steps in an on-going plot to rule the world primarily through crypto-politics: a combination of campaign finance, social engineering, fear-based propaganda, and even mind control.

Conspiracy theorists often mention Freemasonry prominently in this context... as either being this secret cabal, or being a front organization for it. The freemasons are portrayed as either semi-willing dupes or the evil masterminds, depending on the theorist. Blueboar (talk) 15:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Pinch me, but I don't see any factual problems with the bullet as it currently appears in the article. "New World Order" is a very clear concept in conspiracy theory (read, "one world government, a bad thing"). That Freemasonry is often linked with this is also very clear and easily documented (another bad thing). That Freemasonry and the Illuminati are often in some intimate relationship in this activity is also very clear and easily documented (another very bad thing). What's the problem? (Taivo (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC))

I agree, there's no problem with this topic point as stated. It's one of the most well-known conspiracy theories relating to Freemasonry. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article for the NWO is crap -- I called it before, and that quote just proves it further. This article seems to have changed, but I still have other problems with the sentence that hopefully will be brought up later. My whole point was that the New World Order should not be construed as a conspiracy theory, because it is indeed true. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 03:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of calling things, I've got to call you on this one. Clearly, you believe that the NWO is true. This, however, does not mean that it is fact, and your opinion is not enough to indicate that we should treat it as fact, either. Wikipedia is not a debate club - what is fact is fact, and what is not is not and needs to be labeled as such. MSJapan (talk) 03:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is based on George Bush's speech. A "debate club" does not exist to create paper tigers. Any debate club that does so is a not a debate club but a ghost story club. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 05:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Then how come only conspiracy theorists take the idea seriously? New World Order can mean many things, but in context it refers to the idea of a "hypothetical totalitarian end of history". As Sarek points out higher up, the concept is not by it'sef a conspiracy theory, but the idea that the masons are trying to bring one about is a conspiracy theory. And we have to simply report it as such; to do otherwise would not be neutral. WegianWarrior (talk) 04:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

"Totalitarian end of history" is ridiculous, and inaccurate. I really don't see why "new world order" should have multiple definitions. The article for the uncapitalized phrase describes things that are mentioned in conspiracy theory anyway, like the League of Nations, weapons disarmament and supra-national uniformity ("global partnership"). The article also says: "In 1992, Hans Köchler published a critical assessment of the notion of the "new world order," describing it as an ideological tool of legitimation of the global exercise of power by the US in a unipolar environment." Ukufwakfgr (talk) 05:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Here again, it's coming down to what you think it should be, rather than the way it is, insofar as apparently, everyone else in the world is wrong except for you. You don't see why something should be, but it is, and has basically been the hallmark of your entire "argument" process. Why don't you simply accept that you're not correct, instead of playing semantics and never answering a question properly? When you are asked about your opinion, you don't justify it with a random quote from somebody else, or a vague statement. Support your position with hard evidence, or cease wasting everyone's time here. MSJapan (talk) 05:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it isn't a question of whether "New World Order" should (or should not) have multiple definitions... the simple fact is that it does... one of which is a major component of conspiracy theory. Just type "New World Order" into Google and you can see multiple conspiracy sites that use the term in this way. And in most of them, Freemasonry plays a promentent roll. Blueboar (talk) 05:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

In books also, 389 hits in Google books for "new world order" +freemasonry --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Please list any relevant books. Last time we did a Google Books survey, only 1 hit was for an actual conspiracy theorist. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 07:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you also assert that the word "Swede" has more than one definition. Anybody can make up a word. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 07:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Going off topic, but Swede has four separate meanings, discounting the fact that it's also a name... WegianWarrior (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

"Everybody else in the world" is hyperbolic. You have not surveyed everybody else in the world. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 07:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Off course it's ridiculus; it's a conspiracy theory. And to maintain NPOV, we simply have to report it as such, with no toning up or down, properly cited off course. As MSJ points out, Wikipedia is not about what you think is right or wrong any more than it is about what I think is right or wrong. WegianWarrior (talk) 07:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh, guys, read the sentence in the article more carefully. It's not at all about whether or not the "New World Order" is fact or not. It's about a conspiracy between the Freemasons and Illumuninati to bring "it" about (no matter how factual you think "it" is). This article is not about the New World Order (so stop, Uku, complaining about how that article is written--it's immaterial here), it's about the existence of a conspiracy theory that says the Freemasons (with or without the Illuminati) are bringing it about. So, Uku, what is your objection to the way the sentence is written now? The sentence says absolutely nothing about whether the New World Order is reality or someone's peyote dream, and it shouldn't. It's a statement about the conspiracy theory that says the Freemasons are involved. (Taivo (talk) 06:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC))

I do think, however, that there is a pronominal reference problem in the second clause--..."it" secretly controls... What exactly is "it" referring to? To the New World Order? To Freemasonry? To the Illuminati? To the team of Freemasons and Illuminati? It's ambiguous. I propose that the second half of the sentence be rewritten to read: ...and that the Freemasons (with or without the participation of the Illuminati) secretly control many major aspects of government and society. (Taivo (talk) 06:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC))

Good point, I concur. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

While the 'it' in the sentence to me clearly points back to Freemasonry (or the Masonic-Illuminaty complex), making it even clearer can't hurt. ~I support this rewrite. WegianWarrior (talk) 07:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

"It" refers to Freemasonry, which is the subject. That part of the article should be discussed later. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 07:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The NWO article is untrue and should not be cited. My objection is that the sentence squeezes together a bunch of loaded phrases into a tight space. This causes the reader to become emotionally invested, whether you'd like to believe so or not. It is even more obvious now, that many people are not going to go through this article with a disciplined, objective outlook. That was my whole reason for marking this article POV. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 07:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Issues you have with the ariticle on the New World Order should be taken up on the talkpage for the article in question. This article however, refers to the cited fact that several conspiracy theorists links Freemasonry to the concept of NWO as commonly defined by conspiray theorists, therefore it should link to the article in question. WegianWarrior (talk) 07:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The quality of the NWO article is immaterial to our discussion. Work on that article if you wish to improve it, Uku, but as long as a NWO article exists in Wikipedia it should be wikilinked here. That's just the process. "A bunch of loaded phrases". What do you mean? And what specifically do you propose? (Taivo (talk) 07:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC))

Actually, glancing over at the New World Order article, it looks quite good and very thorough. It's a lot more encyclopedic that many articles here on Wikipedia. But even if it were a stub, it would still deserve a wikilink here because it exists. It is not our place to evaluate the quality of other Wikipedia articles here. It is only our place to improve this one. (Taivo (talk) 07:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC))

I need to interject something here... this article does not cite the New World Order (conspiracy) article... it mearly links to it. There is a difference. We are not using that article to support our statement about this particular theory, instead we cite a typical conspiracy website... one which verifies the existance of the theory. It does not matter whether the claims made on that website are "true" or not... As WP:V says, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is Verifiability, not "Truth". We say: this theory exists. We do not say that this theory is true (or false). If we can verify this statement (that the theory exists), then we we have met the threshold for inclusion. Blueboar (talk) 14:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, then that article makes invalid claims, and possibly violates WP:OR. If anything, link to the other "new world order" article. There's an extremely strong case that the Freemasons are involved in that. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 15:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no "extremely strong case" that Freemasons are linked to any such "conspiracy". You keep trying to imply that you have some sort of "science" or "evidence" to show that X or Y conspiracy theory is more valid than the others. None of them are based on fact, all are based on circumstantial inferences, wild conjectures, and improbable suppositions that rely in discredited hoaxes and a complete lack of knowledge about the "organization" of Freemasonry. If you don't like my POV characterizations of these dream-state conspiracy theories, then you should stop making your own POV assertions that X or Y theory is "well-documented", "extremely strong", etc. The issue of this article is about an NPOV listing of the Masonic conspiracy theories that are in existence. A wikilink from New World Order should (and must) link to New World Order (conspiracy theory) since that is the NWO that every conspiracy theory refers to--the coming one-world government that is totalitarian. (Taivo (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC))

Which instance of a New world order would that be then? The end of WWI and the creation of the League of Nations? The Malta Conference? Bush trying to score some cheap points by offering to add soviet troops to the UN forces during Gulf War I? None of which has much ties to masonry at all, and none of which is what the conspiracy theorists are refering to when they use the term. Sorry, but its a verifiable fact that all the conspiracy theorists referenced in the article uses the term as defined in New World Order (conspiracy theory). WegianWarrior (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Take your blinders off. Even the sentence structuring is terrible. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 15:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Where are we on consensus with this statement? The current version (after our agreed-upon amendments) is:

• That Freemasonry is controlled by the Illuminati (some variants say they are one and the same) to achieve the New World Order, and that the Freemasons (with or without the participation of the Illuminati) secretly control many major aspects of government and society. (Taivo (talk) 18:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC))

Or are these two clauses actually separate conspiracy theories? 1) Bringing about the NWO; 2) Controlling government and society? If separate are there references that clearly distinguish between them? If the references all unite them, then they should be one statement. If there are some references that focus on one to the exclusion of the other, then they can be separated. (Taivo (talk) 18:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC))

Number 1 is essentially a subset of number 2... all of conspiracy theories that discuss the NWO will also discuss the idea that secret groups are controling government and society, but not all of the theories that say there are groups secretly controling government and society will discuss the NWO. Blueboar (talk) 20:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Reordering

We've reordered the theories from silliest flight of fancy to serious peyote dream. But we must be careful that in our reordering we don't reword until we've discussed any wording issues on this page. The wording is sensitive right now and we need to discuss the issues carefully. (Taivo (talk) 06:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC))

I'm not conviced reordering is such a good idea, and I really don't think starting out with the ludicrous ones is the best choice if the !vote is to reorder... by startign with what most people (except conspiracy theorists) consider to be - if I may interject a personal opinion - batshit crazy (that a fraternal organisation somehow faked the moonlandings - never mind that the moonlandings wasn't faked in the first place) it paints a picture of conspiracy theorists that are less than neutral. Would it be better to order the conspiracy theories by group? Religous, political, other? WegianWarrior (talk) 07:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I think a reordering by group would be a good idea as well, but let's not get too sidetracked in reordering as we struggle with wording. If reordering can be done noncontroversially, then fine, but let's not allow it to become a big distraction. (Taivo (talk) 07:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC))

Agreed, lets work out the wording first. WegianWarrior (talk) 07:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Insignificant and unsupported conspiracy theories should be eliminated altogether. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 07:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* Conspiracy theories exists. They are reported and cited. All I've seen so far fall apart once you start looking at the facts, and are thus 'unsupported'. As far as I can tell, the majority of people does not believe in them, making them 'insignifcant'. Therefore, this artile should be deleted... right? WegianWarrior (talk) 07:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, all conspiracy theories are insignificant and unsupported. The public perception of conspiracy theorists is one of crackpots wearing aluminum foil hats in their basements so that the aliens can't read their minds or of Bible-thumping hell-fire-and-damnation preachers with a third-grade education raving against the evil Freemasons. But Wikipedia also includes articles on Sasquatch and the Loch Ness Monster, so an article on Masonic Conspiracy Theories is here along with one on the "New World Order". We'll list them all, since they all stand on the "insignificant and unsupported" ground of being impossible to demonstrate with reliable sources. (Taivo (talk) 07:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC))

Our job here is not to evaluate the conspiracy theories at all. It is just to list them--no matter how outside the realm of possibility. We simply list the ones that exist. Here "proof" is not proof of the validity of the theory, but of the theory's existence only. (Taivo (talk) 07:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC))

We have to include conspiracy theories that are supported among conspiracy theorists. This is where actual research comes into play. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

You may want to read WP:OR though... in short, no, we don't do 'research'. We report whats verifiable. It's a verifiable fact that all these theories are pushed by conspiracy theorists, therefore we add them to the article. It's not our job to pick and choose which to include on otehr grounds thant WP:V. WegianWarrior (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

No. Read WP:SELFPUB. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

You don't understand the point, Uku. We don't cite the self-published websites as sources, we list their theories as existent. There is a major difference. If we were writing an article on Masonic ritual in the 20th century, they would not be reliable sources, but since we are simply listing conspiracy theories that are in existence, they become sources for the existence of X or Y theory (because the site exists), not sources for its validity. (Taivo (talk) 19:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC))

You would need a truthful Mason to tell you about Masonic ritual. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Insignficant among conspiracy theorists ... Ukufwakfgr (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It matters not one whit whether conspiracy theorists think that a conspiracy theory is important or not. Our job here is to list conspiracy theories which exist. I could go through linguistics articles and delete all mention of Greenberg's classification scheme because most historical linguists dismiss it. But that would not be the job of Wikipedia. Greenberg's scheme exists so it must be mentioned where it differs from standard usage. If a conspiracy theory exists it must be listed. (Taivo (talk) 14:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC))

I'm assuming that Greenberg's classification scheme has a significant historical impact. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't matter whether minor or major--my point is that it exists and someone looking at the development of historical linguistics should know that it is there. Same with Masonic conspiracy theories--doesn't matter how major or minor, we don't evaluate their "worthiness" for inclusion here, just their verifiable existence. That's the only criterion to be used for inclusion on this list. (Taivo (talk) 17:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC))

Nope, Wikipedia policy goes against inclusion for its own sake. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Uku, but you are mistaken in this instance. If the website exists, then the theory exists. This is a list of theories, not an evaluation of whether or not they are significant. As far as I am concerned, they are all groundless and insignificant, lacking any proof whatsoever. But the issue is not their significance or their validity, but their existence. That's what this article is about. "I post, therefore I am". (Taivo (talk) 19:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC))

Then we should start looking for eBay listings for tinfoil hats !! That sounds like bias to me. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

As for reordering, we have a template for how to order things in the opening paragraphs... where we say that the theories can fall into rough categories: political, religious and cultural. So I think we should list the political based theories first, then the religious, and end on the cultural. Blueboar (talk) 14:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that was agreed. Why re-sort the article as it exists now just to re-sort it again ? Ukufwakfgr (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Blueboar's scheme. (Taivo (talk) 14:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC))

Works for me.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)