Talk:Freemasonry

• /Archive 1
• /Archive 2
• /Archive 3
• /Archive 4

New discussion items are to be placed at the bottom of the discussion page. Jachin 04:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

The Direction this page is heading under Masonic Editors

What is the point *IN YOUR MINDS* of having the Wikipedi entry be an exact mirror of hundreds of other Masonic websites? Don't you Masonic "lights" think people will just take one look at it, realize it is a duplicate of what they have seen elsewhere and trundle on off to say, the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Freemasonry, or some other non-masonic website?

Masonry still retains among its emblems one of a woman weeping over a broken column, holding in her hand a branch of acacia, myrtle, or tamarisk, while Time, we are told, stands behind her combing out the ringlets of her hair. We need not repeat the vapid and trivial explanation... given, of this representation of Isis, weeping at Byblos, over the column torn from the palace of the King, that contained the body of Osiris, while Horus, the God of Time, pours ambrosia on her hair.

Illustrious Albert Pike 33°
Morals and Dogma, page 379

Lightbringer 13:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC) (This content was placed at the top of the discussion page in err by Lightbringer, placed in it's correct position by myself, Jachin)

I don't understand, Lightbringer, why you can't seem to come to a consensus with the other editors of this article on what should and shouldn't be included. They can seem to come to a consensus, yet you somehow are incapable of this. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 19:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand why I can't come to consensus with the Pro-Masonry Propagandist 'consensus's' deletion of any information they dislike? Go figure Jimmy.Lightbringer 15:30, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Should a second "anti freemasonry" page be created?

Note: This section restored afer user:Lightbringer removed [1] it for no apperant reason. WegianWarrior 10:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

should a second "anti freemasonry" page be created?

grazon 23:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

There was one already, and someone had the lame idea to merge it into the main article. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 01:17, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll create a new anti freemasonry page then

grazon 01:21, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

The problem with articles specifically about minority views on larger topics is that 1) the info is not integrated into the main article, where it usually deserves to be, 2) POV-pushing individuals see an article specifically about their stance and tend to think they "own" it as represntatives of that stance and can say whatever they want, dispensing with the NPOV policy because they claim the "balance" comes from the existence of the main article, and 3) editors tend to ignore the side articles and focus on the main ones, so those pushing agendas on these fork articles get away with a lot more because fewer people are watching. In this case with a known POV pusher on the loose, this just reopens the battle that was put on hold while this page was locked. You can still see him creeping around to other articles to try to sneak anti-Mason comments in as it is. DreamGuy 01:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll keep it restricted to Historical movements and important people then.

grazon 02:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused -- why create a new page instead of just removing the redirect from the old page? That way, we could just delete anything from the main article that was duplicated there. Theoretically. --SarekOfVulcan 06:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I've deleted the page because it is a violation of the block and arbitration of the Freemasonry page in obvious disregard for the Wikipedia process, and the information contained is not factual and unsupported by any references. Wikipedia is not a place for Masons to propagate their fiction and misinformation.Lightbringer 15:26, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't violate a thing. It's a separate article, and as such has nothing to do with arbitration of this article. grazon can do whatever he wants, because that's his article. Neither you nor I nor anybody else has a right to delete that page. MSJapan 18:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Nor is Wikipedia a place for Anti-Masons to propagate their unrefereced fiction and misinformation. You're throwing stones when you're in a glass house there buddy. WegianWarrior 15:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

But Brethren I am merely applying the same 'jurisprudence' Dreamboy and MSJapan applied to me in serially deleting all of my page creations. Secondly the 'progression' of the debate in the last two months of the Wikipedia Freemasonry entry (I silently observed and followed the state of affairs here for six weeks before interjecting myself) is that you had a anti-masonry page where all the 'criticism' views were contained. Some Wikipedians complained about the continual deletion of links and edits of "anti" pages and material and the CONSENSUS decided to combine the 'anti' page and the 'freemasonry' page into one. Now it is all blocked and under arbitration at MSJapan's and Dreamguys "frustrations". So now MSJapan is trying to "seriously" suggest that the creation of a 'anti-freemasonry' page is not a violation of the block, not to mention the Pro-Masonry P.O.V. tagline at the top that the content of the page 'can only contain historical figures' or some such. The material posted (obviously intended as the new version of anti-masonry, deleting all 'criticsm' paragraphs now on the freemasonry page, is a rote rip-off cut and paste from virulent anti-anti-masonry Masonic websites, of course in keeping with the MSJapan double standard, containing not a single reference to the masonic website the list was swiped from, and without a single reference, also in keeping with the Dreamguy/MSJapan double standard. Do we see a pattern developing here kiddies?Lightbringer 05:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I spent about 40 minutes tonight adding some interesting info about the history of Freemasonry under the nazi's then I thought what is the point, there shouldn't be a serpate sub page for this 'anti' material anyways as it is integeral to the whole. I then read about subpages on Wiki and see that it is really something they are trying to get away from. If it is used it is only used sparingly and should be for extraneous material, which this under arbitration topic clearly is not. I also see that Dreamguy has once again deleted my addtional paragraph to the Taxil hoax with his usual caustic comments. So it appears to be still 'game on'. I have placed a redirect on the 'anti-freemasonry' page, and that is that. We are under arbitration and block and the subpage is not following Wiki guidlines. Lightbringer 07:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

By All Means 'Freeze' the Page

I don't need this, go back 30 days and freeze it, I've only been 'editing' here for a few weeks I think. Would suit me just fine, at least it would stop the continual slow deletion game being done to an otherwise pretty good page on Freemasonry, and believe me I've seen most of them on the net.

This "war" all started with the "Masonic" editors continual deleting of a couple of links to newspaper articles by the way. Like I said I thought it was already a pretty good page on Freemasonry that included both perspectives. Freeze away please. Lightbringer 20:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC) (This content was placed at the top of the discussion page in err by Lightbringer, placed in it's correct position by myself, Jachin)

Wikipedia cannot link to copyrighted material without permission. I looked at the Post's website, and the $400 per year charge was for that article for non-profit websites. Clearly, any definition of "fair use" does not apply, and we have no right to circumvent that, such as by getting it off another site that does not have the required permissions displayed. Never mind the fact that the main site is already bookmarked.

Your 'point' about this is really a hoot. Are you the webmaster of the Freemasonry Watch website? It is obvious you are just making this stuff up as you go along. And what about all the material you have 'removed' from Masonic websites, did you get permission for that? Did you pay those Masonic webmasters $400? It is obvious you will say anything to try and justify deleting information you intensely dislike, no matter how transparantly silly and ridiculous the 'point' you are making may beLightbringer 14:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Meanwhile, a cursory search will reveal that some of the NYT "facts" are wrong (the accidental shooting did not occur either during ritual or in the Lodge room, for example). There isn't really any other choice open to us other than deleting articles like that if we're going to provide correct, factual information and adhere to Wikipedia's policies.

Gee you certainly seem to have an amazing resource of 'facts' at your disposal. You seem to have memorized page and verse the Freemasonry Watch website, you imply you are an Editor of the site, or a manager of the Washington Post, and you have access to New York Police department files and information, that the New York Times doesn't. And you are aware of the 'fact' that well known Masonic author Waite is not a 33rd Degree Freemason, even though he says so on the front cover of his books. You are either the greatest scholar of Freemasonry, in the history of Freemasonry, or you are the greatest charlaton. Only time will tell which is the truth. Lightbringer 13:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I have the feeling that reverting to a month ago will only put us back in the same situation, because the articles will go in again, somebody will delete them, and the whole thing will go on ad infinitum until we end up at the same place. As it stands, the only way to get this mess sorted out is to lock it down, because it's getting to the point where the edits are past the point of following. Now, ideally, people can grab bits they want to work on, and post them on the talk page for perusal, so we won't lose the ability to improve the article. However, I would first suggest that nothing be done to the article until arbitration is complete. MSJapan 02:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

We already can see by your wholesale deletion of the Prince Hall, Women in Freemasonry, and Membership sections, as well as repeated deletions of Lucifer quotations, Taxil Hoax additions, and offsite links, of what kind of Freemasonry page you have in mind for Wikipedia readers. Wouldn't is just be easier to have all the Wikipedia pages related to Freemasonry just hotlink to MSJapan's own website? Lightbringer 13:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

What you call "destruction" is a little thing called the NPOV policy. You should read up on it. Also, why do you keep calling all the editors who revert your propoganda in this article "Masons"? I've already explained that I'm not, I'm just someone who likes to have an encyclopedia free of fiction, wild conspiracy theories and bizarre accusations presented as if they were factual when they are not. Rant and rave all you want. Wikipedia policies and the consensus of the editors here all oppose your actions. DreamGuy 00:53, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

What I call destruction, is exactly that. What you call "NPOV" is in fact your extremely biased Pro-Masonry POV. The remainder

of your comments are simply more personal attacks and extremist masonic rhetoric, something you specialize in. You're not intersted in facts or references, which I have provided in abundance, only in putting the best face you can on Masonry, and insulting those who don't.Lightbringer 15:14, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think Lightbringer quite understands that Freemasonry as a whole appreciate Prince Hall, Co-Freemasonry and other appendant bodies as an example of the diversity of the Craft and it's expansion and enlightenment of society, heck, every 'new age' religion is based on Freemasonry, from Gardner's Wicca through to the Mormons, from the Church of Satan to certain born again Christian sects. It's a cross spectrum thing and a good illustration of work. Jachin 05:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Freemasonry as a whole certainly does not appreciate Prince Hall and Co-Masonry as part of the diversity of the Craft, because they do not recognize them as 'being part of the craft' AT ALL. There is not a single black man or woman who is a member of the vast majority of Masonic Lodges in the U.S.A.(zero for women) because YOU WON'T ADMIT THEM. Why exactly would the Church of Satan, wicca, and 'new age' religions be a good thing? Run that one by me again. Lightbringer 15:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Lightbringer et al, you are all forgetting the WikiLove. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 19:38, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Lightbringer, The entire anti-mason argument falls flat on it's arse if you take away 'religion' from the perspective. That Freemasonry is a code of conduct and moral beliefs, much like chivalry. One can be chivalrous and be hindu for all I care, likewise, with Freemasonry, it is a code of conduct that brings people together. Much of the 'ritual' where anti masons would have them slaughtering goats is generally illustrative of early man's mnemonic cultural history, passing on stories of the history of man through a parable or illustrative means.

Sometimes the obligation to omerta vexes me greatly in the fact that if anti-masons SAW and UNDERSTOOD they'd realise just how paranoid and dilusional they are. But people so filled with hate need scapegoats, there will always be a comeback or little wit or intellect. "You just don't see the goat slaughtering and satan worshipping because you're too low a degree.", or "Maybe in your country it's like that, but here .." At the end of the day, anti-masonry is moot, the preachers thereof have no understanding of what they're damning to hell, but that being said the same people who damn what they don't understand have just as much right as the next man to join and examine it and walk away whenever they see fit.

In my lodge, as I said earlier, there is a minority of whites. This whole prince hall thing is American drivel and considering there are 241 other countries in the world I pay it no heed. If you want to deface an article and ruin it for 241 other countries, to victimise ALL of us equally on behalf of your opinion from what you have read of ONE COUNTRIES actions and beliefs, then I really have no time for you. I have looked at both sides of the story, before becoming a freemason I read through every single anti-masonic site out there, once you get past the paranoia and obvious borderline personality and behavioural disorders of the owners and participants, you can gain much knowledge about what FM is about. Well, was about, a few hundred years ago, as almost all of the information is so outdated.

That being said, I just want to reitterate, there are hundreds of other countries out there, we're all constantly subjected to the woes of America every day in the media as it is, a lot of us come to the internet for freedom of press, so to find an international encylopedia bogged down with American he says she says shits me to no end.

At risk of this turning into a norse edda, let me say, the above is purely -my- opinion as an individual and probably not fit for this forum, but I want to get things straight, so as an individual to an individual, whilst I can appreciate where you are coming from, as I have held somewhat similar beliefs about certain organisations in the past, the method through which you are going about things is incorrect. Wiki requires a consensus of authors, so you're just beating your head against a brick wall by making yourself look like a vindictive agressor in this situation. I suggest you just chill, relax, learn a little more about Wiki before you jump straight in like you have and work WITH people instead of against them. Your opinion is respected and appreciated, just making sweeping generalisations and statements on the article without even questioning the validity of the data on the talk page is problematic. Jachin 00:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

There are two 'streams' of anti-masonic 'thought', as you are probably aware of - religious objections, AND social objections. So if an eternity in hell doesn't turn your crank, you can ponder having your application for government employment or contracts being shelved in favour of the Bro's down at city hall giving all the plums to their fellow masons. Since the vast majority of masons are motived by preferment and preference rather than communing with dislocated spirit of Albert Pike this is an extremely effective denomination of the anti-masonic faith. To put in laymens terms 'they're a bunch of crooks'. Hope this info helps to clear up your confusion on the matter.Lightbringer 05:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I know this is probably not the forum for psychological profiling, but I have to ask. Lightbringer, have you ever been directly wronged by a Freemason, or with your own eyes sighted such wrongdoings? It takes a lot more than conspiracy theories to show so much hate towards any organisation, surely? Jachin 08:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Wine and Whiskey improve with age. Let's just say the little skirmish here is not the first. I knew exactly what would happen if I started posting critical material of Masonry here. The point of it wasn't to illicit a rise out of the resident Masons, it was to show them that the era when they could get a free ride to disseminate their p.r. in the public arena, like they have done for a century or more in the English speaking world, is no more. There are two sides to every story, Masonry being no exception. The 'second' side, should be authentically told, and it will. So help me God.Lightbringer 05:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Masonic Academic Research Methodology

James Anderson (d. 1739), a Scottish Presbyterian minister, wrote the Book of Constitutions in which he contrived the "traditional" albeit spurious history of freemasonry. Masons hold that God, "the Great Architect," founded freemasonry, and that it had as patrons, Adam and the Patriarchs. Even Jesus is listed as "the Grand Master" of the Christian Church. They credit themselves with the building of Noah's Ark, the Tower of Babel, the Pyramids and Solomon's Temple. In all, freemasonry borrows liberally from the history and traditions of cultic groups such as the Druids, Mithars, Egyptian priesthood, Rosicrucians and others to weave its own history.

-Fr. William P. Saunders

Fr. Saunders is pastor of Our Lady of Hope Parish in Potomac Falls and a professor of catechetics and theology at Christendom’s Notre Dame Graduate School in Alexandria.Lightbringer 04:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC) (This content was placed at the top of the discussion page in err by Lightbringer, placed in it's correct position by myself, Jachin)

You know, I hate to break it to you, but every Masonic researcher is aware of this. Entries on all those things appear in just about every Masonic encyclopedia or dictionary. It doesn't mean we necessarily believe it to be the absolute truth. Rather, it explains where certain thungs came from. For example, two Masons, Lomas and Knight, attempt to tie Freemasonry as far back as pre-Judeo-Christian Venus cults in their book The Hiram Key. It's got lots of sources, but nobody takes their research seriously, because it's a lot of speculation masquerading as fact. Just because someone says something doesn't mean it's true, the same way not everyone believes that the world is less than 6000 years old. These same people who invented this history also thought that good medical treatments were giving people mercury and leeching blood out of them. Given the application of Reason, I fail to see a) why that quote says anything about Freemasonry that is valid now, and b) what that quote supposedly says about Masonic research methodology. MSJapan 15:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm currently reading Snow Crash, where "the application of Reason" has quite a different (and rather tempting) meaning. :-)--SarekOfVulcan 00:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas are not Freemasons and have never been Freemasons. (A fact that they freely admit -- with good reason -- in their book 'The second messiah'.)

The above paragraph rebuttal was not written by me. I don't know if it is written by a unsigned third party, or it is some kind of little game by MSJapan. For the record I am well aware of the book/books by these authors, as well as their Masonic membership. Lomas is generally disliked by 'mainstream' masonry, especially for his revealing of certain rituals and images.Lightbringer 05:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC) Update: see my comments on Spinboy hacking and stiring the pot on this thread. Lightbringer 06:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

From the back inside dust jacket of the selfsame The Second Messiah - "In 1976 [Christopher Knight] became a Freemason...In 1986 [Dr. Robert Lomas] became a Freemason...". From the inside front jacket of The Book of Hiram - "When Freemasons, Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas..." From the inside front cover of The Hiram Key - "When Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas, both Masons..." I don't have Uriel's Machine, but I'm sure something similar is there, and finally, from the inside back of the dust jacket to Freemasonry and the Birth of Modern Science - "In 1986 Robert [Lomas] became a Freemason and quickly became a popular lecturer on Masonic history before coauthoring the international bestsellers..." MSJapan 01:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not just Knight and Lomas, they are just the tiny tip of an iceberg full of Masonic claims about it's origins and accomplishments. Read Pike, read Mackey, read Hall. The list and claims are endless. One thing is certain is that Anderson was trying to cover up his burning of the real original constituions of the Lodge, which were Trinitarian Roman Catholic. Instead what we have is Satanic inspired Occultism from the Rosicruicians and other heretics who opened the gates of hell for 300 years of apostasy and terror.Lightbringer 05:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC) Repost of deleted remarks.Lightbringer 06:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Spinboy reversing Talk Page

I posted a response to MSJapan's comments in the Masonic Research Methodology para about Lomas and Knight and ten minutes later see Spinboy deleted them 'reason given: vandalism'. What the heck! You will note that MSJapan responded to an unsigned paragraph, apparently thinking I wrote it, I guess now we can guess who the real author is. Get a grip Spinboy!!! Lightbringer 06:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

You went and changed messages left by other users, that's considered rude and vandalism. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 06:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous users don't tend to sign their comments. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 06:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

You're seeing things then. I never changed anything MSJapan or the anonymous author of the para about Knight and Lomas not being Masons. Sometimes if I see a spelling error or want to add another thought I will 'edit' MY OWN comments immediately after making it, but that is it. You can easily verify this if you read the versions before I responded and after. I didn't bother to find out who wrote the unsigned para, maybe it was you, maybe it was someone else, but MSJapan thinks it was me I think.Lightbringer 06:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, perhaps not. I'm 99.9% sure I saw you edit MSJapan's comments. No matter, you're doing fine now. I'm not here to be against you, I'm just making sure that everyone plays fair. If I see MSJapan, DreamGuy, etc doing this, I'll revert it too. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 06:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

00.1% You "saw" me edit his comments? By the way did you "see" who changed the heading for this sub para from 'Spinboy hacking Talkpage' to 'Spinboy changing Talkpage'?Lightbringer 06:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

3.0 Now it's "reversing". Spinboy you definately have what it takes to be a Mason.Lightbringer 06:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I renamed the section as per Wikipedia policy. See Wikipedia:No personal attacks. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 01:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

For those too lasy to look thru the history of the talk-page in order to 'see' who did what;

• User:Lightbringer 'changing' (well, technicly splitting up) the comment left by User:MSJapan. I'm not sure is splitting up a previous comment is considered vandalism as such, but I find it impolite and disrespectfull myself.
• In the same spirit, User:Spinboy moving (per the guidelines for talkpages) this section, and renaming it from "hacking" to "reversing". I have no clue where User:Lightbringer saw the word "changing"...

WegianWarrior 14:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I must admidt it's interesting to see how quiet User:Lightbringer got once someone point to simple facts like this that proves him wrong... Since he has edited the talkpage multiple times since the links was posted for the world to see, I'm assuming he has indeed seem them. WegianWarrior 10:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Dreamboy being "Arbitrated" elswhere on Wiki

Since it was he that began this little tussle by his serial deletions of my link postings and edits I find it quite interesting to find that he is currently embroiled on the Arbitration page by a number of complaints by Wiki editors in other topic area's. Dreamboy also *ONCE MORE* destroyed my referenced paragraph addition to the Taxil hoax] page. I restored it but no doubt he will delete it again. Isn't Wiki policy to add comments to provide additional p.o.v. and not to delete? I'm getting pretty fed up here.Lightbringer 08:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

That is a separate article with its own talk page and an issue with that article should be dealt with over there.

However, if the paragraph is the same one that was there before, the one negating a provable fact with a conspiracy theory by saying - (to paraphrase) "Some claim that Taxil, who wrote material discrediting the Masons, was in fact an invention of the Masons" is once again not a question of POV, but rather verifiability and believability.

Just because some people believe it doesn't make it true, such as the world being flat, or the Moon being made out of green cheese. There is factual evidence disproving those statements, and anything in the same vein is really not appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. IIRC there is a Wiki policy on "relative weight" that should clear this up. Even if that policy doesn't convince you 100%, the fact that Wikipedia is not democratic and is edited by consensus does cover it.

Is it too much to ask to quit all the nonsense until ArbCom deals with this and either work on the article or do nothing? MSJapan 20:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

To clarefy, the relavant policy is found at WP:NPOV#Giving "equal validity". It is also usefull to look at the policy on WP:NPOV#Undue_Weight. Actually, all of the Category:Wikipedia official policy is interesting reading, and I recomend everyone to look throught it. WegianWarrior 21:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

To further clarify, the "arbitration" I am in was brought up by another POV-pushing problem editor who has since been blocked for months at a time when the admins caught up with his antics. User:Lightbringer's strategy here is simply a violation of the WP:No personal attacks rule in the hope that he can use other problem editors' complaints against me here as well. Let's hope this case ends up the same way: with Lightbringer being banned for constant POV-pushing, knowing and blatant violations of policy, and etc. And, interestingly enough, a vandal calling himself User:DreamBoy has been going around making harassing edits and vandalism and got himself blocked... considering that Lightbringer uses that term too, I wonder if it's another one of his sockpuppet accounts, like the anon IP and the USer:SquareDeal who showed up to make the exact same edits he did? DreamGuy 22:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

It also might be nice for the editors here making these comments to head over to Taxil hoax and chime in, because Lightbringer and an editor who does not understand the policies on NPOV and sources are letting the antiMason stuff take over the article. DreamGuy 22:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Pjacobi has been made aware of things, and it should be left at that. MSJapan 01:06, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Having been watching this 'discussion' for a week or so, I want to point out to DreamGuy and Lightbringer that you are BOTH engaging in egregious personal attack in an almost routine manner. It undermines nearly every comment you make. Perhaps you don't understand WP:NPA, so let me put it another way: the Talk page of an article is for discussing the article. It is not for discussing who started what, who is a vandal and who a purist, or any other opinion you might have of other editors, or their motives. Discuss the edits, not the editors. This way, you will avoid both inadvertant personal attack and the appearance of stupidity. Please understand: most of us don't care who said what; we only care what the article says. (Having said that, I also want to state that my initial impression when I saw User:DreamBoy was also "sockpuppet". If this is in fact the case, isn't there a proper place to lodge such allegation?) Eaglizard 17:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Long article

You should...

1. remove 4.1: Degrees because of Degree (Freemasonry)
2. remove 6.: History of Freemasonry because of History of Freemasonry

84.61.3.191 14:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

It makes more sense here. Otherwise the article is going to be a ten line list with "See X" for every heading. MSJapan 02:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Can someone put in an RfD for Degree (Freemasonry)? MSJapan 18:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

You can't do that? --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 19:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Dammit, Spinboy! I'm an editor, not a technician! :) TBH, I looked at the process, and it requires some code insertion I'm not sure I could do properly. MSJapan 02:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Reversion of Templar/US sections

I agree with DreamGuy's reversion here -- those sections were highly speculative, not well-cited, and added too much to a too-long article.--SarekOfVulcan 17:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I too agree with this reversion. I felt that the templar section had some merit although not presented in an accurate manor. I tried some revision to it, but I feel that a consensious should arise on it before we go ahead with a section like that. It might be benificial to have an origins of freemasonry sections were the main theories (i.e. no space aliens and bigfoot theories) are put forth in a short manor. This section should focus on the pre-1717 history of freemasonry. The USA section was extremely speculative and needed to be removed. All the statements in that section were gross overstatements, theory or untruths. chtirrell 19:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Taxil Hoax

I reverted the removal of this section before, but on reflection, I think that Lightbringer's move of the text to the existing Taxil Hoax page is correct.--SarekOfVulcan 23:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I see what's going on here re: external links

Apparently, someone feels this page needs to become a link repository for every single Catholic anti-masonic article ever published. This is not a links repository, this is an encyclopedia article. We already have plenty of those types of articles, and they all say the same thing. What is the use of that?

As a matter of fact, roughly half of the links we have are anti-Masonic sites or articles, and roughly half of those are Catholic in nature. I would think that one or two would suffice. Furthermore, the NYT article requires registration to view, so I removed the link, as it doesn't really do any good for anyone seeking information. MSJapan 00:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

All I've seen are born again anti-masonic links, where you draw the catholicism part from is lost on me. Actually, I've found that with the growing numerics of evangelical (tv varient, because too many people are too lazy to seek faith in temples or churches these days) types, the anti-masonic fervor has increased dramatically. So we should be seeing more major POV with circumstantial arguments and no citation references or sources heading our way.

Personally, as the anti masonry page is in existance again, I think it would be fair for us to POQ all the POV to that page. Jachin 06:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Section 8 (Anti-Freemasonry) summary needed

Since the anti-Freemasonry material has been moved, can someone add a link to that article at the top of section 8, and condense the various sections into a summary? That should allow us to get rid of the "too long" boilerplate. MSJapan 05:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Never mind, I condensed it myself. MSJapan 06:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Support for liberty

I can't see where this fits in the article, so I have excised it to save it for possible future reinsertion. It's not criticism, but neither is it history or symbolism, and it's not a membership item. I also dropped the headline by two levels to avoid confusion on the page here. MSJapan 06:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Support for liberty

It has been said that "the Freemason builds his life around the moral principles that lie at the heart of the Craft, and becomes in his every word and deed the epitome of brotherly love, relief and truth ~ he will thus respect the rights of others to hold beliefs and attitudes that differ radically from his own, for he knows that tolerance is an essential part of brotherly love."

(Freemasonry, A Celebration of the Craft'~ 1993. Edited by Hamill & Gilbert for Terry Allan).

Freemasons consider the need for vigilance in the defense of human liberty to be as great in society as it is within the Craft. It is a general source of pride within the fraternity that society's aims and values have increasingly come into line with those of Freemasonry, and they view their Order as having helped laid the foundations for many of the cultural norms and values prevalent in the western world today.

The legend at the heart of Masonic Ritual — the story of the building and reconstruction of King Solomon's Temple — is generally seen as an allegory for the creation of a new, just and tolerant society.

The duty of Masons to "give to the cause of Charity" was stressed by William Preston, in his Illustrations of Masonry of 1772, when he wrote: "To relieve the distressed is a duty incumbent on all men, but particularly on Freemasons, who are linked together by an indissoluble chain of sincere affection.

"To soothe the unhappy, to sympathize with their misfortunes, to compassionate their miseries and to restore their troubled minds, is the great aim we have in view."

A Mason's duty is also in his loyalty, as a peaceful subject, to the civil authority found wherever he resides or works, and it is on these grounds, restrained from pursuing any means of disrupting the established rule of law, that Freemasonry is itself a reformist institution, its members abstaining from any thought of association with rebellion. This may seem at odds with the support given by many Masons over the years to democratic revolutions. This is usually explained by the fact that Masons tend to view their obligations, while of utmost importance, to be in a kind of hierarchy of priority: firstly to God, then to country, then to family and only then to Masonry, for example. So, if one's highest religious and moral principles are violated by an obligation to one's country, only then can that obligation be broken, in favour of the higher principle.

--End

Anticlericalism moved

I don't see how this fits, either, as it's really a critical argument covered in a different way already, and not really supported well here. MSJapan 06:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

The section stays. A study of anti-clericalism by Freemasonry is integral to any encyclopedia on Freemasonry.Lightbringer 06:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

First of all, there was no need to delete it off here. This is a talk page, not the main article. Second of all, the section was not done well, and the point it was making was unclear, and at the very least it needed to be worked on. MSJapan 06:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh Please! Stop the charade MSJapan. You moved this very important section to the talk page to bury it, not discuss it. Furthermore you immediately moved it to the anti-freemasonry page you created, without anyone being able to discuss it - at all, which shows the depth of the sincerity. It was just a tactic to 'cleanse' the page of critical views.

Secondly and more importantly it was previously decided BY CONSENSUS and before I arrived here (check previous talk archive) that it was not appropriate to have a seperate 'criticisms' page, for a number of reasons, one of which is that it goes against Wikipedia guidlines of balance and tends to ghettoize p.o.v.s . We want a balanced Freemasonry article, and we have one now, as I write this. The First two thirds of the Freemasonry page are pro-masonry cut and pastes from Masonic websites. The last third of the page are criticisms, and within the criticms are a healthy rebuttal by the pro-masonic crowd. The links section is again two thirds pro, one third critical. By your deletion of all the critical links and the mauling of the criticism sections last night, before you were blocked for 3:RR we can clearly see that you are not interested in a N.P.O.V. balanced article. You want it all your way - Pro-masonic P.O.V.. Well Buster you are not going to get it all your way, regardless of all the spurious complaints you and your amigo's file against me and others who hold critical views or views that run contrary to the official masonic party line.

A balanced article. I am being reasonable, why can't you be?Lightbringer 10:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Link war

I reported Lightbringer for violating the 3RR. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 06:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

It is the Pro-Masonry editors who have violated the rules and spirit of Wikipedia by their manic serial deletions of any links to articles or websites that could be construed as critical. Did you people not take anything to heart during the block cooling off period instituted by Wiki arbitrators?Lightbringer 06:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Hasn't Lightbringer been arbitrated against? Can someone link me to the findings of that, after the whole page freezy situation please? Jachin 06:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I can't find that arbitration listed in the current RFA's, the completed RFA's or the unofficial rejected RFA's, what's going on? Jachin 06:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The RfA is at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lightbringer, and was opened scant hours ago. Feel free to add evidence one way or the other if you have it. WegianWarrior 06:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Evidence goes at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lightbringer/Evidence. The arbitration was accepted. Perhaps that is why Lightbringer has created a sockpuppet. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 17:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The link to Freemasonry: Midwife to an Occult Empire is not vandalism, as Spinboy has reported. This is a scholarly look into an historical occurrence at the convergence of the 19th and 20th centuries. Further, the link was prominently featured before being deleted by pro-masonic editors. This link is relevant, popular, accurate and it is intelligently written, with all sources cited - mainly high ranking masons.

I would also put forward the fact that there is a double standard here. If one site has to have a disclaimer appended at the end of the link which says "anti-mason" then the same should apply for the opposite bias: "pro-mason" should be added as well. --XDev 08:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Since when do links on an article about Freemasons that go to Masonic organizations have to be labeled "pro"-mason? That makes no sense. The standard default is that links in an article about the topic discuss the topic. Links to sites that try to bash the topic need to be labeled so as not to confuse people.

And you are calling a link to "Conspiracy archive" site "scholarly"? Get out. Victrix 12:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

ALSO, isn;t it peculiar how a few minutes after Lightbringer gets blocked for violating 3RR a brand new user appears out of nowhere to take up where he left off? Looks like he's got another sockpuppet again... Victrix 12:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

It is a thoroughly researched page, and it stays! Period! Web documents aren't rated by the name of the website (book by its cover) but the value of the content on any particular resource (URL: Uniform Resource Locator). It is not an amateur Taxil Hoax expose purporting that masonry is satanic. Real research has been undertaking with the utmost care to be as accurate as possible.

At the very top of this wiki page we're discussing, there is a statement to the effect that masonry is an "esoteric art." Going to the link for [esoteric] one finds: "Esotericism refers to knowledge suitable only for the advanced, privileged, or initiated, as opposed to exoteric knowledge, which is public. It is used especially for mystical, occult and spiritual viewpoints." The Conspiracy Archive page proves that statement exactly - in irrefutable terms. So, in effect, it actually strengthens the opinion of the Freemasonry page on wiki - and it is therefore, exceedingly relevant.

We can go on and battle about the merits of these links (both ways) but the fact is that if it were up to the masons there wouldn't be any links pointing to contrary views on the subject. Whoever merged the two pages into one is a complete idiot! --XDev 17:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

You're wasting your time trying to be reasonable and logical with these Masonic editors, I tried that and they deleted all of my edits and links anyways. When I refused to go away and stood my ground they filed bogus complaints with Wikipedia for "vandalism".

There purpose for putting all 'critical' or contradictory views and links on a seperate page entitled 'anti-freemasonry' is to marginalize or ghettoize those views, as they believe few people actually visit the supplementary pages. If critical or contradictory viewpoints to the official masonic party line are to be seen or read by Wikipedian's the thinking is that they must be on the main page, in a prominent and very public location, i.e. this pageLightbringer 02:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Talking to yourself is the first sign of madness. Talking to your sock puppet whilst astro-turfing is the second and third respectively. 211.30.72.208 03:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Deceptive edit comments

What the heck is "Restored links approved by consensus after block. Individuals who deleted this attempted to get poster banned and were rebuked by Wiki Arbitrators for abuse" supposed to mean? There was no consensus to have those links there... I did not attempt to get anyone banned. Nobody was rebuked for Wiki Arbitrators for abuse... Lightbringer is just out and out lying at this point trying to force his hatred for Freemasons into the article. Victrix 11:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Please review talk page archives. The history of this page and the previous 'anti-masonry' page was fully discussed previously and a concensus discussion was reached to combine the two. Not only did the Pro-Mason editors who filed false and vexacious complaints against 'critical' editors violate the spirit of this consensus decision, but their attempt to circumvent the freeze page order by wikipedia arbitrators by creating a mauled version of the criical section showed there general disregard for Wikipedia. It is quite clear where the intolerance and trouble on these Freemasonry pages are originating from.Lightbringer 02:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

The arbitration filed against you was for vandalism, pov breach and 2rr breach. The arbitration hasn't been dismissed, it has actually been carried and is going forwards as we speak. Sorry to be the one to break it to you mate, but two clicks from this talk page and I found this out, I'm amazed that you haven't worked it out yet. 211.30.72.208 03:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

O.K. by reading this article I learnt that

Freemasons are a bunch of inmature old men who barely know what is exactly that they are. Also, the article is too long, boring and full of opinions. This is an encyclopedia people, not a Freemason Promotion/Discredit webpage. Grow up. 216.184.122.12

Very well said. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 21:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Not all masons are old men, but yes, I'd get that impression too. I doubt the masons that edit this article are over the age of 40. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 21:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

37, actually. :-) --SarekOfVulcan 22:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Here, here, anonymous poster who uses the same ISP from the same POP as lightbringer!  :) Jachin 22:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Nope, not lightbringer, my name is Francisco, and I don't like Wikipedia... yet. 216.184.122.12

And I'm Elvis. 211.30.72.208 03:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

For good measure, can you document that, please?--SarekOfVulcan 22:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Is Joining encyclopedic?

I'd like it to say somewhere in the article how you become a mason so that Lightbringer can apply to be rejected. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 22:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:NPA, please.--SarekOfVulcan 22:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

On the nice side, the article should say how one becomes a mason, that is noticably absent from the article. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 23:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, it has membership requirements, talks about the degrees, and mentions the initiatory work. I'm not sure what more is encyclopedic.--SarekOfVulcan 23:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I think this is worthy of more discussion, so I'm breaking it into its own subheading.--SarekOfVulcan 23:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Freemasonry has been around a long time. It has the membership requirements, etc, but if you live under a rock in Arkansas, and don't know anyone who is a mason, where else would you find how to join? I've checked out masonic websites in my area, all they say is "to be one, ask one" which to me doesn't really make sense, or tell the reader anything. I would think it's worthy of inclusion to tell potential readers how they can join. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 23:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but this isn't a Freemasonry advocacy article. Besides, some jurisdictions allow members to recruit, some don't -- how do we cover everything? --SarekOfVulcan 00:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Very carefully. Talk about the pros and cons of each method and the arguments behind it. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 00:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a good topic for a supplementary page. Perhaps if you could take yourself away from deleting material from other contributors and filing false and harrassing complaints against Wikipedia Editors, you might have the time to share your research on this subject area.Lightbringer 02:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

You violated 3RR, you got blocked. Suck it up. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 02:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Disputes Resolved

"This page is protected from editing until disputes have been resolved on the discussion page. Protection is not an endorsement of the current page version. To request unprotection, ask on Requests for page protection and unprotection." There is no disputes here. Everytime I try and put my link to a relevant page it gets erased. You call that dispute? I call that a bunch of tyrants! Discuss the page already. Give a reason why this link is not relevant, and should not be included. The link was prominently displayed here many times. It is also in the DMOZ.

Someone was complaining that it was 50/50, anti-mason and pro-mason links before. Well you guys certainly have taken care of that. It is now 80/20 in favor of the "brotherhood." You think that is fair, and balanced? Does this help out the reader when he is only propagandized?