Talk:Masonic conspiracy theories

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removal of uncited theories

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

Just a suggestion

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

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

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