Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:27, 20 March 2006

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Previous Discussions

; Archives
Archive 1	Archive 2
Archive 3	Archive 4
Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8
Archive 9	Archive 10
Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13	Archive 14

Previous discussions have been moved to Archive 14.

New Business?

So what sections need work? Let's get to it. Blueboar 04:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, remove everything of Lightbringers that Hipocrite just reverted back in, noting Bedfords subsequent addition of Aramanth. Unfortunately I'm on the stops as far as dealing with Lightbringers vandalism is concerned so can't deal with Hipocrites' contribution.ALR 08:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done some of the work for you.

Ritual and symbolism tightened up.

Flower badge given two valid citations, as per custom here. Also bug fixed, that showed up in process of citing. Imacomp 11:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge tag removed from Holocaust since not discussed to a conclusion, and section is integral to a General article. It covers all known regular and irregular Freemasons. The facts are that the UK Government started a Holocaust day (they only found out about Freemasons in the Holocaust when it was pointed out to them) after being told off in the Euro Courts - on Masonic membership disclosure - and they are a "Liberal" democracy. Imacomp 12:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV tag removed from Holocaust section, but put it back if and when YOU can cite contra evidence, or just put contra evidence in with a citation. Imacomp 12:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I've taken "Conservative" from "Conservative estimates". Now I'm happy to see the NPOV tag go. JASpencer 12:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JASpencer OK with that.Imacomp 12:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not objecting to removing the word "conservative" ... just curious as to why? Blueboar 12:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not objecting either, hence OK above, (I would have not dared to do it myself ;) ). I do not know why.Citation is still valid though. Imacomp 13:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I uphold the last two small edits by Blueboar (to edits by me) though not talked about before. Now they are talked about, so we both agree, as the edit(s) now stand. :) Imacomp 13:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last Agreed Edit was as of "12:56, 4 March 2006 Blueboar". Imacomp 13:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think such small edits really needed to be discussed. I appologize if I was mistaken. Blueboar 13:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blueboar I hope you saw the :) in good faith for your good job. ;) Imacomp 18:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed conservative as there is no evidence that these were "conservative estimates". When there is then I will be happy for the term "conservative estimate to go on". JASpencer 17:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JASpencer I agree. Have a :) Imacomp 18:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last Agreed Edit was as of "12:56, 4 March 2006 Blueboar"

Secfan edits rv. Just silly edits about a band. "Naughty" :) Hipocrite likes Lightbringers stuff, but I've rv as the 1st item on this page under "New Business". Last Agreed Edit was as of "12:56, 4 March 2006 BlueboarImacomp 19:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"19:24, 4 March 2006 Imacomp (→Holocaust - Galen Lodge cited correctly)" Anyone want to dispute this edit? (Hipocrite added it to main text, I cited it as per 19:24, after checking site and saw authenticated by UGLE Arms/Link on its Home page) Imacomp 19:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last Agreed Edit was as of "19:24, 4 March 2006 Imacomp"

As contributed by Hipocrite and myself. Imacomp 20:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand why you are noting when things were agreed upon (I think it is a little overkill, but I understand it) ... and I have no objections to any of the material you have been adding, so I guess I can add my "agreement". But I do need to point out that there are several regular editors to this Article who have not been present to discuss these edits nor party to any "agreements". Thus, they may revert or edit things as they wish should they disagree with your additions. Also, I do have a small objection to making "agreements" elsewhere than here on the talk page. Just for the record. Blueboar 21:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve sojourned here today in order to clear some ground. I have been pedantic and I have marked well, in order to show where we are up to. I hope you agree (I think you have) that all the edits have been +ve, and none unilateral. I cannot see why anybody would want to crunch the gears into reverse again, after making progress with some consensus. "Also, I do have a small objection to making "agreements" elsewhere than here on the talk page." I do not know what you mean by that, but if I have offended you I am sorry. Let’s all level off, be more transparent, and let this article stand square. My best wishes Blueboar are with you. Imacomp 23:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the wishes... my small objection is due to your stating that you reached an "agreement" with Hipocrite. Perhaps I misread your statement (I like agreement)... I simply wanted to make the make it clear that I think things should be discussed on the talk page. No offence taken, and no problems with what you have been contributing. Pass on... Blueboar 02:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re ALR (large?) edits to 22:33, 4 March 2006 ALR I agree, with the caveat that asking for another citation is overkill. The Scottish/Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence decent of swearing an oath on the Bible is just common sense. A “Civil” Obligation cannot be taken in regular Freemasonry, for another obvious reason. However if some Historian or Jurist can find a reference to cite, well then OK, do it. Imacomp 00:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However common sense isn't an appropriate reference or source for encyclopedic discussion. It's an interesting proposition however I would suggest that the content of the obligation moves in a different direction. As such it's either superflous or inaccurate, and I don't feel that the statement adds value anyway but held back from deleting it.ALR 11:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last Agreed Edit was as of "22:33, 4 March 2006 ALR"

As contributed by ALR and agreed with by me. Imacomp 00:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed Citation #63 - "Freemasons for Dummies, by Christopher Hodapp, Worshipful Master of Lodge Vitruvian #767, Wiley Publishing Inc., Indianapolis, 2005, p.85, sec. Hitler and the Nazi". I asume that "Bro. Hodapp" is not "Worshipful Master of Lodge Vitruvian #767" for life, or indeed eternity. Can the citation be modified to "of Lodge Vitruvian #767" and perhaps add the jurisdiction (if know)? Thanks. :) Imacomp 00:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even think Hodapp was Master at the time he wrote "Freemasons for Dummies" ... In the book, he states he is a Past Master of two lodges, but makes no mention of being a current Master. I could be mistaken, however. In any case... Imacomp is correct in removing the title since, even if he is currently the Master of that lodge, in a year or two he will not be. In fact, is there a reason we need to even list his lodge (since he states that he belongs to more than one)? We have not cited the lodges of other Masons we quote. Blueboar 02:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a copy of the book. I did not remove the title, but Blueboar I agree with your edit. Imacomp 11:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added citation for UK 1998 Human rights Act, as per Euro style Human rights. Imacomp 02:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbringer stuff removed again, as per several discussions. NOTE "citation" in "Links" not removed for this subject (from Hipocrite). Perhapse another editor will do that? We have several edits that need "seconding" at least, before an agreed edit can be posted. I know it's pedantic of me, but look how soon we can get into a mess. :( Imacomp 11:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So now were at 11:39, 5 March 2006 ALR. ALR why not post edit changes here? I do not want the job of Janitor (done that in Chapter already ;) ) OK then I'll say I agree with these edits. But see above moan as well.

Last Agreed Edit was as of "11:39, 5 March 2006 ALR"

Edited by ALR and agreed by me. Please explain your changes/edits below, and try to agree (or not) on an edit-by-edit basis? Lots more to do guys... Imacomp 11:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some growing impression of ownership appearing here. You've managed to roll back the ritual and symbolism aspets you got so worked up about when you were using the SnF nym but where do you feel this authority to agree everything comes from? Don't assume that everything put in yesterday is acceptable. Given that I got home last night after assisting at an installation (and investment as ADC), I really couldn't be bothered addressing everything that needs addressed.ALR 12:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could reflect back most of what you say above, back at you. (re ownership, etc.). Back to attacks are we? How productive (not). Also I'm not the permo-blocked SnF, so get over it. The last "agreed" edit is yours, so what exactly have you got to moan about, if you "couldn't be bothered addressing everything that needs addressed"? Imacomp 12:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I couldnt be bothered last night. The statement above implies a basline, it's not. Anyway, the above was not an attack, but an observation. The point is what gives you any more right to agree to any edits, they are still liable to be challenged, with varying degrees of informed authority, by anyone who chooses the edit the article. You can agree all you like, but there is still a lot of potential for improvement, not least the holocaust fetish that was injected and takes up a disproportinate amount of the article.ALR 12:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To quote you ALR “You've managed to roll back … aspets you got so worked up about”. "the holocaust fetish that was injected and takes up a disproportinate amount of the article." Why not give the Holocaust 1 min of your time and stand with the sign of reverence? :( I'm of to bash a golf ball. Imacomp 13:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of which has any relevance to the discussion at hand. Just before you got blocked using the SnF nym[[1]] you made a determined effort to remove anything except explicit Christian references in the religion sections. You removed a chunk of that again last night, but I'm not going to engage in another edit war about it. I think it should be in there, if there is a general consensus that it needn't be then that's fair enough. Last time round there wasn't and you were acting unilaterally, this time there might be, but suggesting that there is a consensus is presumptious. And my personal views on the holocaust don't change my view that your enthusiasm to devote a disproportinate quantity of the article to one short period in the hostory of anti-Masonry, the subject of another article anyway, is inappropriate. Incidentally I've moved this back to where it was so that the impact of your misquote and removal of context is lessened.ALR 13:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: all editors have equal authority to agree (or not). It's not my fault if only two people do stuff here at any one time. The more that agree, the better. Any "agreed" edit is subject to be re-edited and agreed (or not). Unilateral major edits are less able to be sustained. That is Wiki. Imacomp 12:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See TAG @ top of the article: "This article or section is currently being developed or reviewed. Some statements may be disputed, incorrect, biased or otherwise objectionable. Please read talk page discussion before making substantial changes". Imacomp 12:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Penal Signs

The penal signs information I am adding is cited, sourced, NPOV and verifiable. Why is it being removed? Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What value do you believe it adds to include them?ALR 19:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So that makes it notable then?ALR 19:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, why not? Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, enumarate why you feel that inserting a section without context, elaboration or explanation is notable or useful to the casual reader.ALR 19:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because you have been desperate to delete it every time it comes up. I think it's pretty interesting, and intend to expand it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So when do you anticipate having an ostensibly useful contribution to make?ALR 20:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hipocrite, Just because you find these signs these signs "interesting" does not make them worthy of inclusion, and to insist on the

m would be very POV. My objection to them rests on the fact that different jurisdictions use very different signs (Hodapp has a very good section on this in Freemasons for Dummies, which I can cite if needed). Thus, any signs that are included in an "exposé" can only be the signs given at the time the exposé, AND in the particular jurisdiction from which the exposer took them (assuming the exposé is accurate). For example, the Morgan exposé can only be said to be the signs as Morgan says they were given in 1820s New York State, and nowhere else. As for the "Penalties"... many jurisdictions have removed or changed them since the 1820s. Because of all this, quoting or citing ANY exposé or ritual would give incomplete (at best) or factually inaccurate (at worst) information... something that an encyclopedia should never do.

In fact, I can understand why you find all of these signs "Interesting". I am constently facinated by all the different signs I run into as I travel to other lodges in other jurisdictions. "Interesting" is fine, as long as it is facutal; and no matter how "interesting" it might be, the information you wish to include is not factual, and thus should not be included. Blueboar 00:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add this information to the article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 02:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So basically you would have this section read "Here's some information, and by the way, now that you've looked it over, it's wrong". how is that either a) encyclopedic, or b) responsible? I would also maintain that as far as the casual reader is concerned, the penalties and signs aren't particularly pertinent outside of the fact that they exist in some form. MSJapan 04:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Our NPOV policy provides that in the event there is a dispute over a statement, you describe both sides of the dispute. If you can find a source that says the information is wrong, please feel free to include it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We did. It was taken out. We gave you Chris Hodapp to illustrate that the secrets are not universal, and UGLE to show that the blood oaths are no longer used. How much more proof do you need? There's also no "dispute" - the problem here is that you think you're right, regardless of what the facts illustrate, and you're creating a dispute out of what is simply a factual error. Yet you accuse me of wikilawyering. MSJapan 13:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've also misread the policy - "The (NPOV) policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions." It's got nothing to do with disputes. Furthermore, this policy is not a standalone policy, and WP:RS needs to be considered as well. MSJapan 13:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

words

What weaseal words are used below, please?

In the 1800 two texts revealed that Masons identified each other via Penal Signs, which represent the punishments that would be metted out if the secrets of the temple were revealed.[28] In Illustrations of Masonry William Morgan wrote that the penalalties were

  1. Apprentice: Cut my throat and tongue.
  2. Fellow Craft: Cut open my chest, and put my heart and lungs on my left shoulder.
  3. Master Mason: Put my bowels out.[29]

Hipocrite - «Talk» 02:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Number one, it wasn't really a revelation. Number two, "signs of recognition" and "secrets of the Temple" have almost nothing to do with each other, and the second phrase is incorrect, whoever claimed it. Number three, Morgan as a reliable source is questionable in the extreme - even his Masonic status is unclear. Also, what purpose does it serve in the article, since we've established through contemporary sources that these penalties don't mean anything and have never been enforced (except possibly in Morgan's case, which is unclear)? So, while I might not call them weasel words per se, there is very much an issue of informational quality involved. MSJapan 05:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, they're not "penal signs" at all. Go read whatever online copy of Duncan's there is and think about what it says. Until then, section is removed. MSJapan 05:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The information is NPOV, cited and verifiable. I know that it obviously reveals things you would prefer were kept hidden. I suggest that if you want the section removed you either look for a WP:3o or an article RFC - asserting that it's wrong over and over will not persuade me - again, the threashold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually WP:RS does apply. The accuracy or otherwise of the source and absence of corroboration for the assertions therein should be taken into account when citing sources. There is a lack of corroboration hence the sources cannot be considered reliable.ALR 12:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the paragraph that is currently in the article - it does not state that what Duncan's says is true, merely that Duncan's said it. Also, there is no evidence that the source is NOT accurate, nor is there a lack of corroboration - both Duncan's and Morgan said the same thing. If there is a better, more current source for the information, please add it. If it contraindicates what Duncan/Morgan says, please indicate that as well. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hipocrite, my objection has nothing to do with my wanting to keep anything hidden. First of all, nothing you quote is hidden ... these exposés have been around since the early 1800s. They can be found on numerous web-sites and in the local public library. How can anyone "hide" something that is so readily available?! No, my objection is on accademic, editorial grounds... Even with your qualifying remarks, you are using these quotes to imply that this is something all Masons have in their rituals, and use today... that is an inaccurate and misleading implication. The fact that different jurisdictions use different signs, grips and words is verified (Hodapp, Freemasons for Dummies). Thus, as I said before, the best you can say about Duncan and Morgan is that they expose the signs as they were given in one or two places in the early 1800s. Since this article is about contemporary Freemasonry, and about Freemasonry all over the world (and not just in those one or two jurisdictions) the information is irrelevant.

I also want to clarify something you said above, because it seems as if you have a misconception about the "penalties". Leaving aside the fact that the ones you quote are incorrect or incomplete (even as used in the 1820s), these penalties have NEVER been "punishments that would be metted out if the secrets of the temple were revealed". In those jurisdictions that still use the penalties, and in those others where they were used historically (and now removed), it is/was ALWAYS made clear that they are/were symbolic in nature... to symbolize what a man would be willing to have done to him should he violate his oath; not something that anyone would ever actually do to him or that he would ever have to do to someone else. Thus, any "punishment" is purely internal in nature. In the middle ages (when the Masonic Obligations were created), it was normal to add such blood curdling penalties onto any oath. It was a way of saying: "I really, really mean it." Today we say, "Cross my heart and hope to die" or "May God strike me dead". Blueboar 14:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the penalty of violating the obligation is being 'a wilfully perjured individual, void of all moral worth and unfit to be acepted into a lodge of Freemasons', in other words one is ostracised. Ref is Emulation ritual as already used as a source. Therefore it can be demonstrated that the factual accuracy of the section is inadequate.ALR 15:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK... I have added a new (accurate and verified) section about the signs, grips and words... outlining how they are different from GL to GL, and how that effects any exposé. Hodapp is cited, as is John Robinson (a noted historian). I am at work right now, and do not have the books with me... as soon as I get home I will add the page numbers to the citations. Blueboar 16:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, this is complementary information, and appreciated, to the statements of Duncan and Morgan, which are of historical interest. As such, I have made their historical status clear, and reinserted them. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I might have opened the door to citing various exposés, given what I say ... to cite ONLY Duncan and Morgan would give undue weight to their exposés... there are others that disagree with them, and further prove the statements I made at the end of my new addition. To keep the article balance and NPOV, you would also have to include every single expose ever written to give equal weight to opposing "revelations". That would screw up the the entire article. No, Morgan and Duncan are out. furthermore, you deleted a factual statement about any exposé only being valid for a given location and time... a very important fact. Blueboar 18:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to include and cite more. That fact is your conclusion. Your conclusions are NOR. I have tagged your conclusions with the fact tag, and reinserted the duncan and morgan historical facts. Please include more content, if you find that will better balance the article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the idea that an exposé won't be correct in all times and all jurisdictions is a logical conclusion to be drawn from the information shown in the following section: "The signs, grips and passwords used can and do differ from Jurisdiction to Jurisdiction, according to Cristopher Hodapp. Furthermore, according to John J. Robinson Grand Lodges can and do change their rituals frequently, updating the language used, adding or omitting sections." It's not original research at all.--Vidkun 18:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Mason and Duncan would dispute the accuracy of Hodapp and Robinson. As such, if you want to include the statement that it could be logically drawn from the statements of Hodapp and Robinson, that is fine. As a statement of indisputable fact, it's not acceptable. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can show where Morgan or Duncan say that their ritual is universal, they do not contradict my statement. And I have no problem with ammending my "conclusion" to state that this is logically drawn from Hodapp and Robinson. I can probably find other citations to back the "conclusion". Blueboar 18:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fact tag

A fact tag is applies to the following: "The signs were described as Penal Signs, as they represented the symbolic punishments that would be metted out" - I believe the word "symbolic" solved the dispute over needing citations - but I have adapted the paragraph again to Blueboars talk page statement. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need to cite a source for any statement about the penalties... even using the word symbolic as a qualifier. I am also going to question your quotations of the penalties... What you wrote are not accurate to Morgan. If you are going to quote someone, at least quote them accurately. In your favor, you did not actually write this section. You have simply re-posting the material that Lightbringer/Basil wrote several months ago, and it is obvious that you did not really look into what he was quoting. I do think this demonstrates a lack of serious research into this topic on your part, but perhaps I am wrong. Blueboar 19:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, since the morgan quotes were inaccurate, I have removed them. Blueboar 19:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might as well, because they're wrong anyway. Symbolic or not, there is not one documented example of the punishments being meted out at all. Also, they're still not "penal signs". What I would like to know, though, is why historical material is repeatedly being considered as legitimate contemporary information when there is plenty of evidence to the contrary provided. Furthermore, this is supposed to be a universal introduction to Freemasonry - therefore, while it is appropriate to say that there are secrets, it is not appropriate to go into it any further because WP:V with respect to differences in jurisdictions (which is heavily provable, even from non-Masonic sources). MSJapan 20:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No argument from me. Blueboar 20:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me, just didn't want to get into a futile edit war earlier.ALR 21:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MSJapan, Blueboar and ALR I concur. Unless members of a research Lodge, I would say most brethren in England have never read of Morgan et al. Imacomp 00:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The standard for inclusion is VERIFIABILITY, not TRUTH. Morgan says what it says Morgan says. I have corrected the section to be full quotations. The section is verifiable, NPOV and cited. Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Morgan? Is he notable? Imacomp 01:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to read his wikipedia article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 01:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What article? I did not know he had written one. Imacomp 02:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hipocrite, thank you for at least getting the quote right... but that still does not solve the issue of reliablity of source or contradict my statments above. I notice that you only quote Morgan and not both Morgan and Duncan... If you compare them, they do not agree with each other on the wording of the penalties... and this is from two "sources" that are both from the same State (New York) and only 40 years apart in publication (Morgan in 1827 and Duncan in 1866) That in itself supports my comments that rituals change (and thus you should not include either of them in the article because they do not represent current practice). Its either that, or one of them is not accurate (which would call into question their veracity and thus their use as a verification). Either way, it supports cuting them out entirely. I have shown you repeatedly that they do not belong in this article. To insist on them is rapidly becoming pure POV agenda vandalism. Blueboar 02:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to correct the article. It currently is verifiable, NPOV and cited. It is made clear that they are for historical interest only in the section that is being multiply blanked. If you have a source that says they are false from a historical perspective, feel free to include that also, or submit yet another article RFC. Hipocrite - «Talk» 02:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there's nothing stated regarding historical interest whatsoever. you have Morgan says, a picture, then Duncan says. Then there's nothing else, so as it stands, the section has no stated purpose, and it's already shown to be wrong. What do you expect us to do? Go "Now everybody can be a Mason! OH NOES!!!!" because you've exposed the fraternity's innermost secrets? Funnily enough, repeated deletion does not mean that the material is obviously required in the article, so I guess it's time to RFC. MSJapan 04:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The beginning of the repeatedly blanked section reads "Two examples of such exposés are two texts published in the early 1800s"

It doesn't say that they are possibly no longer relevant, and it says nothing about "historical interest only", so thank you for proving my point with your own quote. MSJapan 04:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome you to insert any cited, verifiable NPOV information into the article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you are free to insert any cited, verifiable NPOV material yourself... the problem is that you are showing a distinct POV attitude with the material you keep insisting should be inserted. Several editors have continually demonstrated why this material does not belong in the Article. You, on the other hand have not made a case for inclusion except "I find it interesting". This is an article about Freemasonry as it is today... not as it was in 1827 or 1866. Yes, there is a "History of" section - to explain why things today are the way they are, not because someone found it "interesting". So... you have only two justifications for inclusion: Personal interest (which is POV), and historical interest (which does not fit with this article).

Now as to why your most recent attempt fails... You tried to improve your case by adding Duncan, as if it were a contrary viewpoint (ie Morgan says this, but Duncan says that). The problem is that they are not contrary viewpoints. They both claim to be accurate exposés, 40 years apart. The fact that they are different definitively shows that the rituals changed during the 40 years between their publication. Now, if the rituals changed that much in just 40 years, they have changed significantly more in the 140 years between now and Duncan's publication. Look at it the other direction: 140 years prior to Morgan and Duncan, Freemasonry did not even have a third degree! Now THAT was a change! I will admit, things have not changed quite as dramatically since the mid-1800s, but change they have.

Finally, you say that verification is all that is required to put something in Wikipedia... but that is not a complete statement of Wiki policy... we also need to keep in mind other wiki policies... for example we need to evaluate the reliablilty of our sources. Please read the section on Evaluating Sources at WP:RS. Neither of these exposés meet this test. Blueboar 14:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, on Morgan and Duncan: They both claim to be accurate exposés, 40 years apart. The fact that they are different definitively shows that the rituals changed during the 40 years between their publication. The other option, off course, is that they are not as accurate as they claim to be - or even that the ritals changed and the exposés are less then totaly accurate... Not haveing access to copies of the original ritals used at the time and place, I (we) have no way to judge. I'll repeat my suggestion from the RFC that is running right now; move the information in question to a seperate article named something like Historical exposés of alleged Masonic secrets, and make sure it is made crystal clear in that article that the information in it is outdated, possible unverified (ie; not verified by sources other than Duncan and Morgan, and these two is AFAIK not 100% in agreement with eachother), likely not to hold true in other jurisdictions (ref Hodapp, Freemasons for Dummies) and that the so called penalties are meant symbolicly. WegianWarrior 14:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would not object too strongly to this alternative. As I said above, I don't so much object to what is said in these exposés as I do their inclusion in this Article. After all, Morgan's and Duncan's exposés have been around for quite a while... they can be found on just about every Anti-Masonic web site. Having a seperate Wikipedia entry on them (as WeganWarrior discribes, including his cautions) would not be much different to my way of thinking. Blueboar 18:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit as of "05:03, 6 March 2006 MSJapan"

I’m happy to support this edit from MSJapan, a reasonable and level headed editor. :) Imacomp 09:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intereasting article wrt feminine Masonry

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1711652,00.html ALR 21:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's interesting about this? (Yawn). Imacomp 00:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it does colaborate the statement that UGLE agrees that Co-Masons practice "good" Masonry, even if they are unrecognized. So I guess is at least somewhat interesting (at least I found it so). I wonder if they have a male version of the Eastern Star to prepare the pot luck supper? (c8 Blueboar 01:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They "use" each other's husbands? I'm only mildly intrigued by that though. (I may be quoting out of context?) Imacomp 01:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "peculiar system" quote is in there, BTW, and the article differentiates quite nicely between regularity and recognition as UGLE sees it. Most notably, it's a non-Masonic source. Maybe we can grab some small things from it? MSJapan 16:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OES doesn't exist in England, although it is in Scotland. Some arcane interpretation of the rules I guess. One thing is that many members of HFAF are married to Masons anyway. A friends wife is in almost all the appendant bodies.ALR 16:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Small Edit Suggestion

I notice that in the second paragraph of the section about Lodges there is a statement that Masons meet "as a lodge" rather than "in a lodge". As a universal statement, I would have to disagree. My Grand Jurisdiction (Texas) defines a lodge not only as a certain number of Masons gathered together to work, but also as "a place where Masons meet for work." Ken 21:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had a quick hack, not sure if it helps. Although a close look at Anderson indicates use of Lodge to mean the building as well. It's a discussion we had recently at one of my research lodges and the discussion was pretty dynamic, to say the least.ALR 21:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

02:01, 7 March 2006 Blueboar

Nice one Blueboar, I missed that one. 02:01, 7 March 2006 Blueboar discussed and bi-laterally agreed. Imacomp 02:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Blueboar 02:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC link

RFC link is here MSJapan 04:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not how article RFC's are conducted. Please review WP:RFC Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did, and that is precisely how they are conducted. Where do you think I got the template? MSJapan 04:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - the template was vandalized by -Ril- in mind February - I expect no one noticed. That is not the prefered format for RFCs, which take place on article talk pages. Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, until somebody goes and fixes it, I'm going to use that format because that's what it says to do. It's pretty well-done for vandalism, and clearly took a lot of effort. I would imagine somebody would have noticed before now and changed it back if it was an issue, seeing as how it's an infrastructure page. MSJapan 04:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you INSIST, but I must ask that you review the previous RFCs - you will find no one has EVER used that incredibly bad-idea broken format. Hipocrite - «Talk» 05:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll bring it to an admin's attention, then, although I don't see that this was reverted as part of vandalism rvs on that page at all - there are <10 edits in the last two months to the page. Maybe it changed and nobody noticed? It's a good way to get rid of frivolous RFCs, because now you need to be able to articulate an argument to support your position. MSJapan 05:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was a change to the template - note that none of the rfcs since the template change (except for yours) used the new format. I have brought it up in the appropriate locations. Hipocrite - «Talk» 05:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, most people don't even look at that small template, since the way article RFCs are done (adding a link to the relevant article talk page) hasn't changed for ages. Only two RFCs ever used this different format (the creation of which was not a lot of effort — it's almost a straight copy of the way user RFCs are done), one being this one, and the other having been made by a notoriously quirky user (and thus his use of a different format was probably ascribed to his quirkiness). --cesarb 18:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does the use of this format makes the RFC invalid? If so, we can always redo it properly. If not, then I don't see much point of belaboring the issue. Blueboar 19:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's just wikilawyering, it distracts from the lack of substance in H's argument.ALR 19:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't make it invalid. It's kind of hard to make invalid what's nothing more than an informal request for outside help. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Besides, it has alredy been redone correctly (changed into the usual format, with a note pointing to the misplaced page). --cesarb 19:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given what's going on it's fairly easy to see why a discussion on the topic that comment is requested on is easier off the article page. The discussion can focus on the point at issue and it's up to the various protagonists to actually articulate their position in a reasoned manner. Attempting to have the discussion here, at the same time as continuing to work on editing the rest of the article results in a confused and poorly articluated arguments which depend on hyperbole and sensationalisation to succeed. From that perspective it means that Hipocrite et al are favoured by having the discussion here, whereas a more rational argument would tend to support those editors who don't see the material as being value adding in this article. As much as anything else an observation of the various discursive techniques is interesting; evasion and misrepresentation across a wide range of pages, personal, talk and edit comment boxes versus a tightly presented discussion. Anyway, the inclusion of the material in Wikipedia isn't so much an issue to me, since they're not the secrets of Masonry anyway, they can go live somewhere else as far as I'm concerned.ALR 23:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really an issue someone simply didn't understand how to file an rfc. It's been fixed now. Seraphim 23:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the RFC page it's internally inconsistent, and the approach that Hipocrite et al have an issue with is more in line with the rest of the dispute management process, so it makes sense to do things in that way. I didn't say it was an issue, more an interesting manifestation of information manipulation. I think I mentioned before that I'm doing a Masters degree in Information Management, so I'm more amused by the blatant attempts at attempting to undermine a sensible process. Although looking around it appears that undermining established processes is a bit of a hobby for some users who'd rather do that than contribute substantive material. It's inevitable in any social networking space that people find their confort zones, and wikipedia is no different.ALR 23:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm doing a Masters degree in Information Management, so I'm more amused by the blatant attempts at attempting to undermine a sensible process." And your Dyslexic as well ALR . Well done. Imacomp 17:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan

The biographical article is neither neutral nor factually accurate. This person is not notable either, nor are his dusty deluded rantings. (A Christian "Saint". Doh! You are avin a laf, wibble wibble) Imacomp 16:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I did say it leaves a lot to be desired. :) But it's better than inaccurate and inappropriate material being left in here. ALR 16:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, the link should become more specific: William_Morgan_(anti-Mason). --84.158.47.118 19:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation in legislative reference

The reason I asked for a citation on the point about legislative origins in UK law was for something that explicitly associates FMs acceptance of the candidates preferred VSL with the legislative system. The citation provided is contemporary and doesn't actually answer the question. As it stands the statement is pure speculation and nothing more, indeed I would suggest that it's wrong given that the acceptance of a range of potential VSLs dates from the de-christianisation under the authority of the Duke of Sussex. The citation provided doesn't substantiate the assertion and it would be more reaosnable to remove the assertion, unless something explicitly associates the two points.ALR 11:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use a bit a common sense. Otherwise reflect that you have used lots more sepculation above. Imacomp 13:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using a contemporary reference doesn't support a historical assertion. Common sense can cut both ways. You previously claimed to have a PhD, using your previous nym, so surely you appreciate that you need to establish some degree of causality when using an assrtive statement like that. It doesn't add anything of utility to the section and I'd suggest that it's historically inaccurate given the absence of evidence.ALR 13:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not claimed to have a PhD using a "previous nym". Pity the Lodge with a robotic pedant, for they will be hampered in work as if a Cowan was with them. Imacomp 14:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Several step-by-step basic citations for those of the Order of Pedants without common sense. Imacomp 14:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of which actually support the assertion. Similar to does not mean is derived from. I still don't see the point as relavent or appropriate. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia and either evidence or argument needs to be presented. As it stands the statement does nothing. Incidentally the Pennsylvania link doesn't work.ALR 14:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your quite sure, I fixed it. Doh!. Incidentally the demonstrated fact that some Masons are Wankers does not demonstrate that we all are. Imacomp 14:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It works now, shame it doesn't actually add anything; it makes no explicit reference to the assertion.ALR 14:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is not a "legislative reference" anyway. Tell it to UGLE. Checkmate. Imacomp 15:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted an edit. The "improvement" talks about one thing, and cited another, whilst taking out the main supporting citation? Nice one (not) ALR to go back to were you started, then move backwards. Lets move on. Imacomp 15:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note your reversion of my improvement to the text and since it appears that you're not interested in any kind of dialogue about how to enrich the information content of the article I'm just going to delete it. It contains no information value and as such has no place in the article.ALR 15:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How productive. I'll add it back then.... just for da Cowans... Imacomp 15:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In your statements "UGLE aserts that this is related to legal practice in the UK", and citations, I see NO such assertion by UGLE. I see your originally research and supposition that there is a direct link.--Vidkun 15:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've done no "originally research". How is what you see important? This is a wiki article, not an eye test. Imacomp 15:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine you want to start with MORE insults and personal attacks? You have NOT shown any assertion made by UGLE in any of your citations. You merely show various legislative and historical statements, NONE of which are from UGLE. You show NO causal link.--15:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

How can I insult the entity with no name? Imacomp 16:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC) Also I've made no "legislative" statements. I've stated, earlier below, that the statement is not "legislative". QED Imacomp 16:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're just going to start indiscriminately start deleting my stuff, persumably as some form of revenge' because I'm daring to question the utility of your contributions, and indeed your veracity as an editor. This is, after all, a wiki and these things happen. It's just amusing that you think it actually adds anything to the article to do so. The name calling is impressive as well. No matter.ALR 15:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erm it is called editing. Put in citations and re-insert, if it is "yours" - or not. Imacomp 16:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the material which I contributed a few days ago and hadn't found time to reference. I'm doing some owrk on information ownership and atributability at the moment so it's easy to start associating across the media. It just comes across as tit-for-tat and petty retribution. Now it would be unreasonable to suggest that such behaviour might be expected based on previous history, so I won't do that.ALR 16:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tautology. I got an “Ology” Mum! Do you award PhDs in that? Imacomp 16:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, what's your in anyway? Bearing in mind it says [here] you've got one. ALR 16:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"No idea, what's your in anyway?" Doh! You no reada da English or write good? Or Memory going? Link shows what? Der, dat no me... er dat a permo-blocked guy who says He's a Phd and Freemason. Does "ALR 16:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)" register as personal????????? If so take this as an equaliser. Imacomp 16:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm dyslexic. Thank's for pointing out the typo, a lot of the time I see them, but not always.ALR 16:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm dyslexic." Me to. Imacomp 17:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you'll appreciate how useful it is for someone to highlight the issues. I am grateful...... no reely, I am.ALR 17:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I get on very well using "Word". I've RSA 1 in typing, as well. Imacomp 17:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no personal attacks in edit summaries

User:Imacomp, please stop using your edit summaries to conduct personal attacks.--Vidkun 15:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goose and Gander? Pot and Black? You are rather selective, are you not? Have you read all the section above? Imacomp 15:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i did, and it seems like, as with previous editors, if someone starts disagreeing with you, you start using personal attacks in your edit summaries, with statements that border on saying that if UGLE didn't say it, it ain't so, for ALL of Masonry.--Vidkun 15:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: UK Oaths, etc. So reference and statement are good, since UGLE is notable, and cited as such with supporting other references. Explicitly the reference states UGLE, not all Freemasonry says it. QED. Imacomp 15:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

No discussion? You know what happens if the posted rules are not followed. Oh look it did. Peace and Brotherly Love. :) Imacomp 23:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC) 23:05, 8 March 2006 216.161.238.90 21:44, 8 March 2006 216.161.238.90 19:34, 8 March 2006 Harrypotter. These 3 edits were good, but lost because of vindictive vandalism. Sorry I could not preserve these good edits. Can some kind person do the putting back selectively? Thanks. Imacomp 23:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh "St Morgan" help us? I think not. Imacomp 23:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where does UGLE assert this?

UGLE aludes to this. Imacomp 07:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UGLE aserts that this is related to legal practice in the UK Imacomp cites links to the following:

Defendant Walkthrough - The trial FAQ (which does not contain an assertion by UGLE)
UGLE website frequently asked question "What promises do Freemasons take?" New members make solemn promises concerning their conduct in the lodge and society. These promises are similar to those taken in court or upon entering the armed services or many other organisations. Each member also promises to keep confidential the traditional methods of proving he is a Freemason which he would use when visiting a lodge where he is not known. which shows no assertion by UGLE that the statement "A candidate for a degree will normally be given his choice of religious text for his Obligation, according to his beliefs." is based on legal practice in the UK.
webpage by the University of PA press selling a book about Freemasonry, with no text on that webpage supporting the claim that UGLE makes the assertion listed
a definition of feudalism, which, again, shows nothing supporting the claim.

This claim "A candidate for a degree will normally be given his choice of religious text for his Obligation, according to his beliefs. UGLE aserts that this is related to legal practice in the UK." has not been cited, and will be removed.--Vidkun 23:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the links cited! [2] "These promises are similar to those taken in court or upon entering the armed services or many other organisations." Play at being pedants and this article just gets bogged down editorially. Other articals are not edited so pedantically, as a rule.Imacomp 06:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, but the level of trouble here almost requires extraordinary scrutiny, as do many of the other related articles, to make sure that everything is accurate. MSJapan 07:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia strives for verifiability not truth. If we were to hold up every article to extraordinary scrutiny we would be left with next to nothing. Seraphim 07:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in what you quoted back says anything about a candidate being given his choice of religious text for his Obligation. I will be pedantic when you make claims that are not supported by your references. By pointing out the UGLE statement "similar to those taken in court or upon entering the armed services" and then referencing legal guidelines, you have not shown a direct link between the two. That makes your statement a supposition, an assumption, and original research. You draw a conclusion that is not supported by your references. Please show us where UGLE makes the assertion that allowing a candidate to use the VSL he chooses is related to legal practice in the UK. You are, in effect, quoting something UGLE has not said.--Vidkun 14:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Real NPOV

See, believe it or not, Crips. The article lacks citations, but there are many places where multiple POVs and claims are presented and refuted or supported appropriately. I think this is the approach we need to take on all of the Freemasonry articles. MSJapan 07:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding? First off the lack of citations makes it completly irrelevant since it's impossible for us to know what is verifiable, and secondly the article is so sanitized it's appalling. Plus the only example of conflicting viewpoints being presented is "The Crips were founded by Raymond Washington and Stanley Williams. Williams argued that this was after the two became fed up with random violence in their neighborhood. Law enforcement officials dispute this, pointing to the extremely large number of violent crimes involving the gang members, even in early years." Seraphim 07:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Links

Why did MS Japan delete these links with no discussion, someething the Masonic editors constantly demand in their manipulation of Wikipedia rules on this page to delete any information they dislike?Keystrokes 15:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the links removed by MSJapan. Nothing too controversial, I think:

Entered so that they can be discussed. JASpencer 09:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion of these links is nothing less than vandalism. User: MSJapan offered no explanation. The links had been on the page for months. I find the deletion of the links to the Masonic sites that contain articles contradicting the Blue Forget Me Not Legend contained, without adequate references, on the page particularly offense. User: MSJapan deserves to be blocked from editing this page.Keystrokes 14:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to MSJapan's edit summary, most of these links are already cited in the article, or have WP:EL issues. I would hardly call removing things on those grounds vandalism. May I suggest that you discuss them first and then, if concensus supports, adding them one by one.

Oh my, a new user with less than five edits, all to Freemasonry articles, and is apparently already and expert on candalism, after trying to merge Anti-Masonry in here. Not too suspicious at all. Anyhow, I'm repasting the list with rationale.

Your repeating the list with your lies, is more like it.Keystrokes 15:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Masonry Frequently Asked Questions - Not relevant to this article.

Web of Hiram - not relevant to this article; also qualifies as a non-official site per WP:EL
PS Review of Freemasonry made by Freemasons for Free Masons - WP:EL as site advertising
James A. Garfield, "Memorials to Great Men Who Were Masons" - not used in the article, and there's no real reason to link to just the one issue; there's an entire archive, though there have been mistakes, and this was put here to 'prove" Jefferson was a Mason, which isn't relevant to the article.
A Page About Freemasonry - lots of those, this isn't official or better or unique, so it's advert again.
Webb's Freemason's Monitor — including the first three degrees - Not used in the article, and therefore it's eiither site advert or link repository violation.
Robert Macoy: The Masonic Manual — A pocket Companion for the Initiated - This was cited before, but the quote was taken out, and there's no other real reason to have it here, except to be a link repository of all the Masonic books on the Net.

Some Masonic books are of more historical import than others, and there is NO reason not to include them.

Masonic art & clip art - There is no need for a link to a clipart site.

This is not a "clip art site." This is historical Masonic art, and like many of these links unceremoniously axed, is of historical interest.

Funny, it clearly says "Masonic art and clipart" both in the description and in the link itself. MSJapan 04:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Real Secret of Freemasonry - personal page; comes under advert or link spam.

Hardly "linkspam; I put this in, not the site owner.

Doesn't matter; read the policy. MSJapan 04:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of Anti-Masonry - No stated relevance here, and it should be linked in the Anti-Masonry article.
The Blue Forget Me Not, Another Side of the Story by W.Bro. Alain Bernheim 33rd - not really relevant, though I'm not why this isn't cited in the article; it should be because it was used, and that material apparently disappeared.

Really, not really relevent? Not relevent to the nonsense you post on this page day after day that is. The reason this is not cited in the article is because YOU repeatedly delete it!Keystrokes 15:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

German Freemasonry and it's Attitudes towards the Nazi Regime, by W. Bro. Alain Bernheim 33rd Degree - same here; it should already be in the notes, which means something disappeared. Forget-me-not therefore needs to be rewritten. As a note, I know why someone thinks this and the other F-m-n articles should go into the external links, but that's simply because said person didn't actually read the articles except for the bits that supported their argument. This is probably why this is "vandalism" on my part.

Probably? The ONLY reason you deleted this list of links is because of the previous two links about the forget me not. That is the truth. The other links are already included in the references, and in any case are boiler plate of masonic disinformation sites. Of course you are loath to admit that the entire forget me not flower legend is a demented masonic lie, which these two links conclusively prove.Keystrokes 15:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Grande Loge Nationale Francaise GLNF - We have a whole list of GLs on the appropriate page, so this doesn't need to be here. We made said page so this page wouldn't become a links repository of these sorts of links, and there's nothing particularly special about GLNF. I believe it's cited in the article someplace as well.
The Forget Me Not and Freemasonry - This isn't a page about the forget-me-not. If it's not cited in the article, it really doesn't need to be here. However, I believe some stuff disappeared from F-m-n, so it probably needs ot be rewritten as above.
Illustrations of Masonry by William Morgan, 1827 - Let's see....It's been put in on Morgan's page (where at least there's a case for it being more eappropriate), it's probably on the Anti page, and the site is partisan to say the least. Violates WP:EL as well as being tangential and linked somewhere else more appropriate. We're also not a link repository for every book about Masonry on the Net. MSJapan 15:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, lets see. You deleted this link after participating in the destruction of the oaths and images of Freemasonry section which this link was used as a reference in. Co-incidence? Furtherproof that membership in Freemasonry should be an absolute bar against being permitted to edit pages related to Freemasonry!Keystrokes 15:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia Keystrokes. Just a piece of advice, you may not want to concentrate on this emotive area at first but look at other less controversial areas. I'd also not call for bans on members for the first few days. Freemasonry seems to attract new editors who seem to put more heat than light on the subject. You may do your blood pressure and editing skills more good by taking a break from Freemasonry related articles for the moment. JASpencer 16:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh huh. Maybe if you were defending the faith with diligence I wouldn't need to be. The page is little more than pro-masonic boilerplate, and has been for months and months. Your efforts to date are, to say the least - weak and ineffectual. The Masons are running circles around you. Perhaps you don't embarass easily.Keystrokes 16:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You went off in the deep end and then you accused everyone of vandalism and conspiracy. Can't you please try and get to a civil conversation.JASpencer 17:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He 'went off the deep end' because he didn't follow your do-nothing example? Why would you want to be civil with an organization that is responsible for the murder of tens of thousands of Priests. Some Catholic you.Healthy eating 19:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA. Ardenn 19:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keystrokes is not showing proof....

He is showing his POV by choosing selected passages from articles and ignoring the rest. His factual additions consist of "this is disputed by critics" with no discussion. I suggest we just let him run all over the article and then revert the garbage. MSJapan 16:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think most of us realise just who he is. Lets see how long it takes before the admins act. We might want to ask for a semi-protection if this escalates. dur.. forgot to sign...WegianWarrior 16:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected, and notifications in the appropriate places. If somebody could work out the 3RR, though, that would be excellent. The edits have been intentionally obfuscated to avoid 3RR, which is also pretty remarkable for a new user. Too bad partial reverts count. MSJapan 16:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His point about the misuse of summary style when it comes to the anti-masonry page is valid. Seraphim 16:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What point?JASpencer 16:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point that the existing summary of "Anti-Freemasonry" is not even remotely connnected to the article it proports to link to - 'Anti-Masonry'. 'The Rooster Crowed' months and months ago on this page.Keystrokes 16:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That has more to do with the fact that that page has been totally rewritten. Now, I'm sure that if we didn't have vandals showing up here every other day, we could do the necessary rewriting here so the material matches, but instead, we get tied up with reports and logs and rvs. It's not really good form to criticize others for not doing something due to a situation that you helped to bring about yourself. MSJapan 16:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keystroke... For a "new" user, you seem to know a LOT about (and care about) the history of these articles... would you mind telling us what your previous log in name was? Blueboar 16:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind telling us why you are proud to be a Freemason?Keystrokes

Sure... I love the bond of fellowship I get while attending our meetings. I am proud of the fact that Freemasons give over a million dollars A DAY to charities. I think that Freemasonry's philosophy of brotherly love, faith in God, and the equality of all mankind is a halmark of how one should live. I can go on if you wish... what does that have to do with my question? Blueboar 16:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freemasonry doens't give 1 million dollars a day to charity, this has been completely disproven as another Masonic lie. Post your proof Mason! As for the rest more Masonic lies. Freemasonry is racist, sexist, treasonous, manipulative, duplicitous, criminal, and satanic. The "fraternity" of, by, and for, fools and knaves.Keystrokes 17:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think perhaps you might be happier editing the "anti-masonic" page, Keystrokes. I would seriously question your ability to remain neitral on this topic.(this comment added 23:38, 16 March 2006 by User:Infinitysnake Blueboar 23:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Satanic??? Now that is an interesting accusation. I don't think you need to give your previous user name ... we know it. As for the million dollar a day statement: Look in Freemasons for Dummies, by Christopher Hodapp (Wiley Publishing Inc. 2005). He says it is closer to 3 million world wide, and 2 million in the US alone. He gives the stats to back it up. But then, he is a Mason so you will probably just accuse him of making it all up. So I will ask you the same question... post your proof. Blueboar 17:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you can't now, you got him banned. I think the accusation of Satanism is one of the most common criticisms of Freemasonry. Don't tell me this is the first time you've heard it.Healthy eating

Protection

(copied from User talk:MSJapan) I've protected this article to stop edit warring. User:Keystrokes has been delisted from AIV, as they don't seem to be making obvious vandalism, and commented on the protection on 3RR Reports. I'm going to recuse myself from determining the possible 3RR breach on this article though, and will revist the protection in a few days if antoher admin has not lifted it. Thanks, xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 16:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addtionally, I'm sure that some will argue that I've protected The Wrong Version, but I have no personal interest in this article, just in stopping the edit war. -- xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 16:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The tag says the current version isn't necessarily endorsed, so I see no reason why it would be an issue at all. I'm sure my "followers" (as noted below by Keystrokes), would agree. MSJapan 16:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing will change until JASpencer gets up the druthers and files motion with Wikipedia Admin to have MSJapanand his fellow travellers permanently banned.Keystrokes 17:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Banned for what exactly? JASpencer 17:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You figure it out genius.Keystrokes 17:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me. JASpencer 17:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've downgraded this to semi-protection, to see if that works. William M. Connolley 17:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having blocked Keystrokes, I shall remove the semi too, and see if thats OK William M. Connolley 17:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you, as an Admin, feel you have to ask the Freemason Editors if the actions you just took 'are o.k.'?Healthy eating 19:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about Freemason editors, it's about sockpuppets and new editors coming to only this article. If those editors worked on other articles and contributed to the community, it might prove good faith, and then they get in enough edits to get around semi-protection. Ardenn 19:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have misinterpreted me William M. Connolley 19:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No-prot is clearly not going to work, as new users are too easy to create, so I've made it semi again William M. Connolley 19:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has been protected since the 11th of march. I suggest that you remove the protection for a while to see what happens. It looks bad when articles are protected for a week. Lapinmies 13:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does look bad... but it is needed. Over the last few months, this article has been repeatedly attacked by the same POV pushing vandal using multiple sock pupet names. This vandal has been barred by arbitration from editing all articles related to Freemasony, but since new accounts are so easy to create, he keeps returning. The second we lift the lock, he simply starts to attack the article all over again. With the semi-lock in place, he is limited to this talk page long enough that we can usually catch him before he can vandalize the article. I suspect that the semi-lock will be on here for quite a while longer. If you have a something to add... contact one of the editors who are not locked out and we will be happy to add it for you. Blueboar 14:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has now been over a week. Semi-protection policy states:"Semi-protection should only be considered if it is the only option left available to solve the problem of vandalism of the page. In other words, just like full protection, it is a last resort, not a pre-emptive measure. Remember to lift the semi-protection after a brief period.". I think a week is a brief period. Lapinmies 10:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I will have to disagree. Under normal circumstances a semi-block would indeed have been lifted by now... but this is not a normal circumstance. We have tried lifting the block... only to have the vandal return and attack the page. I expect that the semi-block will have to stay on for a lot longer. Sorry. Again, if you have something you would like to contribute, post it pn the talk page or to one of the editors who is not blocked and we will be happy to include it for you. Blueboar 13:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have anything to add and I could add it myself if I wanted. Semi-protection is bad faith against every new user. Lapinmies 23:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If wikipedia could work out a way to keep the vandal from making new socks, I would have no problems. As it is, new editors can still post on the talk page and make their suggestions. Blueboar 00:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks more like a content dispute than vandalism. Articles are supposed to evolve and not be locked. Lapinmies 00:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble is that the master of socks in question is banned indefinetly by ArbCom to edit any article or talk page related to freemasonry. So at the moment a new user is determined to be a sock of this banned user, he is in violation of the ArbCom, and therefore a vandal. Personaly I would have loved to be able to lift the semi-prot on this article, but the times it has been done it's only been a matter of hours or days at the most before the army of socks return. WegianWarrior 07:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User: MSJapan

I have closely observed your behaviour on the Freemasonry related pages and have determined you are probably the single largest source of bad feelings. Your conduct is reprehensible and consists largely of manipulation of Wikipedia rules and spirit and inciting other Masons to do likewise. You routinely delete material without discussion claiming others didn't discuss it first, while do the exact oppposite when it is material you desire to be included. Your behaviour today on the External Links is true to type for you. You massivley deleted a dozen external links with no summary, discussion, or explanation, and then when I tried to re-insert them you and your followers claimed it must be discussed first! You claimed to be "uncertain" of why there were no references to forget me not flower contradictory links and when I added them you and your followers deleted them!. The sooner you and your masonic followers are permanently banned from the Freemasonry pages the better!!!!Keystrokes 16:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA PLEASE! I would hardly call several Admins (who as far as I know are not Masons) "followers" of anyone. As for "masonic followers"... well I am a Mason, although I do not follow anyone... I found your edits to be highly POV and asked you to discuss them prior to posting... you refused. I needed no prompting from MSJapan, or anyone else, to revert them until you did. Blueboar 16:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are a Freemason, ergo you are ipso facto POV with an agenda, ergo you should not be permitted to edit pages related to Freemasonry. These are all the facts that pertain to you. Oh and the reference to followers was clearly a reference to YOU and other MASONS and not Admins. Try another lie.Keystrokes 16:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... I see... just because I belong to a fraternity, I should be banned from an article about it. How NPOV is that? If you would make a legitimate argument about why something in the article should be changed, I for one will listen. I may not agree, but I will give you a fair hearing. So far, I have heard nothing but POV ranting. Blueboar 17:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point he was making was not because you belong to a Fraternity but because you belong to the Fraternity of Freemasons, with all that entails, vis a vis, Freemasonry's known behaviour in regard to being totally intolerant to criticism.Healthy eating 19:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is supposed to be balanced and NPOV, by discluding masonic editors, you get it one sided against Freemasonry. Ardenn 19:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That goes for calling them socks as well. Imacomp 23:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sock accusations are coming from both sides. Seraphim 23:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She's a sock... burn her! (ok... I am getting a little punchy... don't take it too seriously). Blueboar 23:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I os rarely get a chance to do a multifaceted inside joke, but here goes: We burn witches, not socks, but we need to figure out which witch is which first. MSJapan 23:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But haven't Masonic Editors, such as MSJapan et al made lengthy arguements on Admin dispute pages that a given non-masonic editor should be banned simply because the editor said he was opposed to Freemasonry? Yet when someone else makes the exact same arguement about having a blanket banning of known Mason editors for their POV agenda you give the reverse arguement! It is obvious that non-masonic accredited independent historians knowledgeable about this subject should be the only ones editing pages related to Freemasonry. Even Masonic writers admit the history put forth by Freemasons on the supposed history of Freemasonry is practically 100% invention! It's time to move on, lets not let the inmates run the asylum any longer.40 Days of Lent 09:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC Dispute

There is a dispute regarding the inclusion of the content of Masonic secrets in the article.

In actuality the dispute is a tactic by Masonic editors to blanket delete a section they intensly dislike, a tactic they have used previously on numerous occasions. Blanket delete to 'talk' page then ignore the talk. After a few days declare the talk complete and delete from talk page to the archive. Of course when it is their material they want included the material is allowed to remain on the main page until discussion 'is complete'. Of course discussion never takes place and section on talk page related to evidence of the dispute is quickly moved to archive as in tactic #1 and the material is deemed 'permanent' on Freemasonry page requiring lengthly 'discussion' in order to remove it. The Masonic Manipulation of Wikipedia runaround. Freemason Editors should be blanket banned from editiing any pages related to Wikipedia because of their past group behaviour, the oaths they have taken to each other, and their permanent Anti-Wikipedia POV Agenda.Keystrokes 16:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust and Freemasons

In the article you say that the Nazis killed the Freemasons just because they were freemasons;you make it seem like there was no reason.However,Hitler believed that they were a resistane group trying to subvert the Nazis.

-Anonymous

Actually you use IP address 71.124.142.31 Doh! Imacomp 22:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3rr warning to everyone

Dear editors of this article, can I warn you that there is a content dispute going on here and that reverts of "vandalism" will be looked on with suspicion (unless its plain out-and-out vandalism; if you aren't sure, it isn't). The way to deal with sockpuppets is not to out-revert them William M. Connolley 19:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the only real content dispute that anyone seems to be able to ascertain is whether or not the entire Anti-Masonry article goes here. However, a new vote has never been asked for; instead, one user has taken it upon himself to add in what he feels is correct. Considering the excellent work that has been done on Anti as a separate article, I don't think a new vote would suddenly agree to a merge. Now, if there is another dispute, I would certainly like somebody to say what that is. Even on the links, there were only three refutations on what I removed out of probably 15, based on claims of "Masonic lies", mostly, because the disputer had a idea in mind before he ever read the article. I am more than happy to go through and make a copyvio version of the forget-me-not situation from Bernheim and others and put it on talk so everyone can see what is really being said by the sources, and compare it to what is said now. Lastly, I am sure that the section was lost in an rv war with an LB sock, because it used to be there; I rewrote it myself. So, if that's the content issue, and we can keep the vandals out of here for a bit, I can write something up for here. MSJapan 20:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also notice that the critical links are FreemasonryWatch, Ephesians, and other anti-Masonic sites, and that the Bernheim links did not go back in. So I'm guessing the dispute is not the forget-me-not, but rather "I want my anti-Masonic links on Wikipedia" How much more of an agenda do you need to broadcast to have as your tag "How do you lead Masons away from Lodge?". This roughly equivalent to putting "A guide to persecuting Jews" as a site on the Judaism article, or "Instructions on how to roast Cathars" on the Cathars article. This is not a content dispute, it is a POV/agenda dispute. LB has shown that he will not be dissuaded from his crusade, no matter how many facts disprove his ideas (not that they are his ideas, either, for that matter). The links as they stand are not appropriate for an encyclopedia article (WP:SOAPBOX and WP:POINT and WP:EL) come to mind here. Every "critical" link is anti-Masonic and placed by LB not critical in that it has a well-thought-out argument, but critical in that it is against Masonry. Every "non-critical" link is any other link that doesn't say to burn and convert Masons on sight. So, I really wonder if this really is a content issue. It seems not. MSJapan 20:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Are you missing me? :) Imacomp 22:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note conducting a "Whitch Hunt" to prove I'm a sock is just daft. Imacomp 12:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But how else can we tell if you're a witch or not? :) (He turned me into a neut!)Blueboar 23:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about donating a few Virgins to Lodge funds? (Whitch is a ritual word from which and witch) :)Imacomp 23:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

I've done a revert from SeraphimXI to Blueboar - because discussion was in history and not here, and was obscure anyway. Imacomp 00:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

see next section Seraphim 01:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Section

"US Roman Catholic contextual view" added as a usefull insight into a certain mindset, in a NPoV straight Cited quote. Note RCs say P2 is irregular. This contextual defn. is up-to-date and far more of use than the Roman Catholic "CE". Imacomp 12:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It might be apposite as a reference, I don't think it needs it's own section.ALR 18:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it fits in an existing section, that would be good. Also, it should probably be incorporated into the Catholicism and Freemasonry article, because it represents a marginal shift in a positive direction. MSJapan 01:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to Freemasonrywatch

Back from a rather long hiatus (double-law undergrad, dropped my masters for it, don't ask) .. I have noticed whilst reading over the digressive circumlocutory of this talk page that content has been brought into question by anti-Mason conspiracy theorists yet again. Some are familiar names, such as Lightbringer, ADR and a few of his other sock puppets which are perm-banned from even sniffing this articles socks. Many are new. So perhaps some clarification is in order: -

It was decided a long time ago (in a galaxy far, far away) that Freemasonrywatch is a libelous and vilifying site that should not be linked to on Wiki as a source of reference. It's content being derivative and an outright breach of various copyrights for one and the fact that there is precedence set likewise for such *watch sites.

Allow me to suggest a case example; of all the 'people' 'religion' 'race' issues, the Jewish are an example of a complex transgressive ethos/religion/culture based system that can be affirmed as almost identical in principal to that of Freemasonry.

Both break the mould of linkage of religion and ethos based on race, some say jews are a race, others a religion, others a school of thought. Just because the direct links are not overt and easily made between a class or type of person, their religious, moral and dogmatic beliefs does not invalidate them by any means. Thus, Jews also have a history of persecution, something that Freemasons share with them.

Even if we just accept the latter as self-evident fact, allow me to put it to you, the reader, that if you wish to place freemasonrywatch on this article as an official 'source' for anything, that you likewise approach the community of the jewish articles and insist on placing jewwatch.org there. What response do you believe you will get?

I wouldn't be hard pressed to say you could expect a subpoena to your ISP to gank your address from your IP and face a rather nasty vilification law suit, which you would lose, in a heartbeat.

Now bring that context across to the Freemasonry article. Whilst there is no AFL for Freemason's it could be argued that the same grounds are valid, just because it is not as readily enforced nor not as publically witnessed nor does it (unfortunately) fall under the umbrella of any modernism catchwords such as 'anti-semitism' does not in any way make it right.

Thus the decision was made that the authors and maintainers of this article will outright refuse such farcical and defaming sites as Freemasonrywatch just as our fellows maintaining the Jewish related articles reject their likewise defamining sites from the same genus of conspiratorius nuttius casius.

I hope this has cleared a few things up on this issue, but as this is Wiki and is open for discussion, I would -LOVE- to hear some valid arguments against this decision we, ze Wiki community who haunt these articles, deduced oh so many moons ago. Jachin 14:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That decision was never made, it was brought up in the lightbringer arbcomm case and was thrown out. FreemasonryWatch is a collection of anti-masonic writings, that's all. If it is followed by a disclaimer explaining that the site is anti-masonic it is 100% valid to link to. It's not up to us to decide how a reader should interperate information, just to present it. (Also fmw does NOT violate copyright, your allowed to include other published source texts in your writing as long as you credit the original source) From WP:EL "On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first." Seraphim 16:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to come up a lot. Apparently this ruling was made(or not made?) a long time ago ... before I became a contributer, and certainly before Seraphim joined us. Can someone who was actually present at the time fill in the details? How was the "ban" decided upon? Was it an internal decision by the editors working on this Article, or was it decided by the admins? It may be that, to settle the debate on freemasonrywatch's acceptability once and for all, we will need to (re)present it for arbitration. It would help if there is something in the record that we could point to to say: "yes, Freemasonrywatch is out... look here". Blueboar 16:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It popped up as a potential ruling in lightbringer's arbcom case, along with some other potential rulings that included limiting a few users that currently edit this page (including msjapan) to 1 revert a day on freemasonry related articles. They were not part of the final ruling. You can look through the lightbringer arbcom case to see it. It's not an issue arbcom can address, it is a content issue which they have no control over. For example, if they don't allow freemasonrywatch links, what stops people from using the same ruling to remove all of the holocost denial links from the holocost denial page. Also the discussion surrounding the proposed ruling was discussing if it should be used as a reference, not about posting it as an external link which follows a completly different set of guidelines. Nobody will beable to say "yes, Freemasonrywatch is out... look here" since it isn't. Seraphim 17:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are links Proposal on workshop page. Voting on Decision the proposed decision was dropped before it even got to this point. Final ruling since it didn't even make it off the workshop page, obviously it's not here either. Seraphim 17:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the links Seraphim... What do you make of this section from the RFA?

Comment by Arbitrators:
Despite good information on some freemasonry pages there is conflation with fantastic conspiratorial material. I think this may render the site unable. Useful information needs to be sourced to the original source freemasonrywatch copied it from Fred Bauder 18:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

As I read it, it says: "use the originals, not the stuff from fmwatch." Not sure if that means an outright ban, but it certainly means it's use should be restricted. Also, what is wiki policy on "see also" links to sites with copyvio problems. I know we can not use them directly, or in sources... is it your understanding that it is OK to use them as "see also" links? Blueboar 18:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's one arbitrator's opinion, it's not an arbcom opinion but that of an individual editor with just as much say on the issue as you or me (unless it's actually brought to a vote of course). I agree that freemasonrywatch should not be used as a source (which it isn't) because it fails WP:RS, but that has nothing to do with including it as an external link. WP:RS does not apply to external links since your not using it as a source. The key difference here is that listing a site as an external link is not including any material sourced to that site in the article, instead it's just saying "this site is related, this is it's pov, if you want further reading go here". Seraphim 18:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK... I understand your take on it... I don't fully agree, but I do understand. thanks. Blueboar 18:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you disagree with? Seraphim 18:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering your intransigence with any editor who openly declares their affiliations in an open and honest manner then I can understand why BB hasn't said what the disagreement is with. He's said he sees where you're coming from and that he doesn't agree with you. It should be clear from that termination of the conversation that there is clearly little value in continuing the interchange. Why do you feel a need to antagonise the debate in this way?ALR 19:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be confusing intransigence with adhering to wikipedia policy. Fact: WP:RS applies to sources only. Fact: WP:EL applies to external links. Fact: We are discussing adding FMW as an external link not as a source. Fact: WP:EL allows linking to biased sources (from the "what should be linked to")"On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view.". And final fact: arbcom never ruled in any way shape or form on including FMW as an external link. Seraphim 19:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you're confusing everyone else's view of policy with yours. EL says in full regarding what to link to (my comments after the asterisks:

1. Articles about any organization, person, or other entity should link to their official site, if they have one.

Doesn't exist as a single site.

2. Sites that have been cited or used as references in the creation of an article. Intellectual honesty requires that any site actually used as a reference be cited. See Wikipedia:Verifiability.

I removed those links that were already cited.

3. An article about a book, a musical score, a webcomic, a web site, or some other media, should link to the actual book, musical score, etc. if possible.

N/A.

4. On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first.

We don't have multiple POV here, as it is handled in separate articles. Also, one runs into issues with link balance if we need the same number of links for all POV when referenced links are externalized as well.

5. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference.

There's nothing from FMW in-depth here. It is linked in its appropriate place, the Anti article.

6. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as textbooks or reviews.

N/A here.

What not to include:

1. Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, unless it is the official site of the article's subject or it is a notable proponent of a point of view in an article with multiple points of view. (See WP:RS for further information on this guideline.)

Notable, but fails according to RS.

2. In general, any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose.

all the FMW material is stolen from other places.

3. Links that are added to promote a site. See External link spamming.

probably N/A.

4. Sites that primarily exist to sell products or services.

N/A

5. Sites with objectionable amounts of advertising

N/A.

6. Sites that require payment to view the relevant content

N/A.

7. Sites that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content unless (1) it is the official site of the subject of the article (2) the article is about those media, or (3) the site is being cited as a reference.

N/A.

8. Bookstores. Use the "ISBN" linking format which gives readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources.

N/A.

9. A website that you own or maintain (unless it is the official site of the subject of the article). If it is relevant and informative, mention it as a possible link on the talk page and wait for someone else to include it, or include the information directly in the article.

N/A.

Also, from "occasionally acceptable": 5. External sites can possibly violate copyright. Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page. Whether such a link is contributory infringement is currently being debated in the courts, but in any case, linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on us (see Wikipedia:Copyrights and in particular Contributors' rights and obligations).

They do. FMW has articles that clearly require payment of fees for redistribution, and no copyright notices on said articles.

From RS:

Personal websites as primary sources

A personal website or blog may be used only as a primary source, i.e., when we are writing about the subject or owner of the website. But even then we should proceed with great caution and should avoid relying on information from the website as a sole source. This is particularly true when the subject is controversial, or has no professional or academic standing.

Although it is a .org site, it is a personal site run by one individual.

Personal websites as secondary sources

Personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources.

That is, they may never be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website. Another possible exception to this rule occurs when somebody had written secondary source material that is suitable as a reference that he now refutes or corrects on his personal website, though even in this case one should be careful and try to find out the reason why the material has not been published elsewhere.

The reason personal websites are not used as secondary sources — and as primary sources only with great caution and not as a sole source if the subject is controversial — is that they are usually created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world. It is impossible to know which is the case. Visiting a stranger's personal website is often the online equivalent of reading an unattributed flyer on a lamp post, and should be treated accordingly.

This is certainly applicable to FMW.

Partisan websites

Partisan political and religious sources should be treated with caution, although political bias is not in itself a reason not to use a source. Widely acknowledged extremist political or religious websites — for example, those belonging to Stormfront, Hamas, or the Socialist Workers Party — should never be used as sources for Wikipedia, except as primary sources i.e. in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group, but even then should be used with great caution, and should not be relied upon as a sole source.

FMW does not discuss opinions, but it is widely acknowledged as extremist.

So, as a matter of fact, the arbitrator's opinion is fully in keeping with WP policy regarding EL and RS. As we see, it either fails the acceptance guidelines, or conforms to the avoidance guidelines. Therefore, the only real course of action in accordance with policy would be to avoid it completely except in its appropriate context, which is what the situation is if it is not in the link list. MSJapan 07:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your using WP:RS incorrectly. WP:RS only applies to articles that are being used as sources that's why it's called "reliable sources". I'll 100% agree with you that it's a site that shouldn't be used as a source in the article. However that is NOT what we are talking about. We are talking about including the site as an external link only, which means that WP:V and WP:RS have 0 impact on this situation. I'm only going to talk about the WP:EL requirements since they are the only things that apply here.

For number 4 on what should be linked to you wrote "We don't have multiple POV here, as it is handled in separate articles. Also, one runs into issues with link balance if we need the same number of links for all POV when referenced links are externalized as well." that is 100% incorrect. We do have multiple POV here, if we didn't have multiple POV here the article would fail WP:NPOV. You are claiming that all of the anti-masonic POV should be kept to the anti-masonry page. That is 100% against WP:NPOV. The seperate anti-masonry page is a sub page used to keep this page small and is represented on this page in summary style. The anti-masonic POV must still be present here, it's not a debatable issue. There is multiple POV here on this page. Now your issues on the what not to include section. For number 1 you say "Notable, but fails according to RS." you are admitting the site is notable, which means number 1 doesn't apply to it. You say it fails WP:RS but it doesn't matter since it's not being used as a source. For number 2 you say "all the FMW material is stolen from other places." which is also not the case, they collect articles and then Comment on them, their commentary is not stolen. Now your last reason under occasionally-acceptable you say "They do. FMW has articles that clearly require payment of fees for redistribution, and no copyright notices on said articles." which shows that you do not understand copyright and what redistribution is. It is 100% legal to copy the text of a news article onto your site as long as the original source is given credit, that is not redistribution. What redistribution is, is actually distribuiting the content. For example, it's ok to copy paste the text of an AP news story into your blog and credit the AP. What's not ok is for you to put an AP story into your newspaper and distribute it without paying for the distribution rights.

FMW is a notable anti-masonic site, it does not violate ANY copyrights, it should be included as an external link with the caveat that WP:EL says to attach to biased sites that would read "A collection of anti-masonic documents and strong anti-masonic commentary". Seraphim 18:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use of ritual as a reference

To avoid pettiness associated with making the wording in the article as clumsy and unreadable as possible I'll take this here. The statement made carries a reference, I can give a page number when I get home next week but the statement is printed, in full, in the reference. There is no need for any caveat around the nature of that reference and it's integrity. If we applied the principle of caveating all the references then the article would become completely unreadable. There is a demonstration of clear editorial bias from Seraphim when bracketing and caveating the majority of edits by self declared Masons at the moment which is becoming, even more disruptive, disruptive.ALR 19:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine that it's ritual. However it should be made clear for npov purposes that it is masons describing their own ritual. We have already had this discussion many times. If on the anti-masonry page someone added in "Masonry has been described as a satanic demon worshiping cult" and then nowhere in the paragraph explained where that description comes from you would protest and add in where the claim came from. This is the same exact situation. If I call myself pretty and my reference is my own writings, for example "Seraphim has been described as pretty <ref>my own diary</ref>" that would be inappropriate to include in an article on me since it is a vanity opinion. What would be appropriate is to post "Seraphim has described herself as pretty <ref>my own diary</ref> since the bias of the describer is made apparent. I'm not making this stuff up, it's from WP:POV "Each POV should be clearly labeled and described, so readers know: Who advocates the point of view/What their arguments are (supporting evidence, reasoning, etc.)"

We have already had this discussion when the line was in the top paragraph, simply migrating it in the article does not change the situation. Also I love how you claim that i'm showing a clear editorial bias when your the one who changed the line to say "Freemasonry is a System of Morality, veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbol" presenting opinion as fact is the defination of POV pushing. Seraphim 19:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another example from WP:NPOV: "Sometimes, a potentially biased statement can be reworded to a more NPOV version. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" can be reworded to "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by many". Even better would be, "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre", as long as those statements are correct and can be verified. Similarly, "Joe Bloggs has poor habits" can be reworded to "Joe Bloggs has often been criticized for his habits, by observers such as Momar Kadafi and Anwar Saddat."" Seraphim 19:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to compare with some other similar self definitions: ATOS KPMG is a Management Consulting Firm, Triumph is a manufacturer of motorbikes, Cadbury Shweppes is a confectionary manufacturer. The statement is 'System of morality......', indeed I would suggest that caveating it with 'claims to be' is inserting a POV on the statement since it implies a level of skepticism on the part of the editor. Incidentally the discussion over the top paragraph was whetehr it was beautiful or not, a description I disagreed with myself since it was second order and conflicted with the ritual.ALR 19:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your confusing publicly avaliable information with private information. It's easy to look up with ATOS KPMG, Triumph, and Cadbury Schweppes are, however since masonic ritual and meetings are closed to the public it is not public information that someone could easially confirm. The published ritual is telling it's readers what it claims freemasonry is, the readers have no way of confirming that beyond trusting the source. Seraphim 19:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which rather misses the point that the reference contains the ISBN of the ritual, a notification that I put on your talk page as requested some time ago. It is also fairly easy to get hold of ritual books for a number of different ritual forms (Emulation, Taylors, Nigerian etc) where the reference can be confirmed. In that sense the reference is wholy verifiable. Before you make any pronouncement on what the ritual says can I suggest you get a copy. I have copies of several variants, and know emulation virtually off by heart, and your suggestion that I am not faithfully representing the explicit content reflects badly on your motivations in respect to the treatment of any contributions and provides some illumination of your motivations with respect to editors who have chosen to make explicit their affiliations in order to ensure a balanced and fair treatment of the topic.ALR 21:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, that reporter from the Guardian, who is not a Mason, quoted the same phrase. The quote appears in other books, which are even more easily publically available than, say, ordering Emulation Ritual from Amazon? But, if you still want to claim it as private, we can get the same quote without using a ritual source. Also -- "Having no choice but to trust a source"? You'll trust a corporate source, but not an organizational one? They're both readily accessible, as we have long debated. Or is this a wider philosophical issue, from which we are to conclude that we should not bother reading or writing anything, because by your argument, nothing can be trusted? One has to trust the dictionary to be correct, too; you can't pick and choose what to trust and what not to trust and then apply your preference to everyone. You still display a marked lack of understanding, and you seem to interpret things only as they fit your arguments, and ignore things otherwise. The result is that we have not one single shred of concrete evidence to back up any of your complaints. You either really don't get it, or you're purposely trying to argue in circles. I don't care which it is, but it's got to stop either way. You're either going to have to start listening to what is being said and be constructive, or simply leave the article be. I'm really starting to wonder if it's an accident that if it's not an LB sock complaining, it's you complaining; AGF only works when some constructive is being done. MSJapan 21:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to state some facts here, stuff that you (meaning alr/msjapan) have pointed out to me on the jahbulon article. Fact: Ritual changes between groups so any ritual content made public can only be applied to that specific jurisdiction not freemasonry as a whole. (This was used to make sure the jurisdiction that duncan's talked about was not confused with freemasonry as a whole, and that ALR kept insisting made the UGLE claim that freemasonry is not a religion unrelated to the article) Fact: Published Ritual is Obsfucated (this was used a few times to prevent me from using ritual books as verifiable sources) Fact: The freemasonry "secrets" include much of the ritual so the upcoming masons aren't "spoiled" (this was in the article for a long time and was pointed out to me over and over and over in the first discussion I ever entered here) If masonic ritual is kept secret, ritual changes between jurisdictions, and published ritual is obsfucated how can any blanket description of freemasonry that is always sourced back to the same place (remember they are all quoting the same person much like all those other publications use mackey as a source for jahbulon) be considered fact? It isn't it's unverifiable, it is a claim that must be presented as such. It seems like a common tactic that is forming is that you are trying to turn my insistance on NPOV into me being stubborn or unwilling to compromise, that is not the case at all, if there is a blatant violation no matter how much you complain or slander me it doesn't change the fact that it's a NPOV violation which must be addressed. NPOV is NOT negotiable. Bash me all you want, but your not going to beable to file an arbcom case against me because I'm not an obsessive anti-mason, heck 1/2 of the mediation request on jahbulon is me trying to include a pro-masonry factoid. If you haven't learned by now i'm here to stay, you can't just slander me and hope I go away like you have with other editors in the past. I'm here to make sure that this article is up to wikipedia standards and every single thing I do has policy backing it. The WP NPOV page clearly states that if a statement could be considered biased it should be re-worded to a more NPOV version. There is nothing wrong with stating that the quote comes from masonic ritual, that is where it comes from and that is what the reference is. It's not something false being added into the article, it's not something unverifiable being added into the article, it's a verifiable fact. The only reason to remove it that I can think of is that somehow you feel that pointing out that the source is masonic changes the content, which implies that you want the reader to believe that it is a fact instead of an observation. That is the absolute defination of POV pushing. Accuse me of whatever you want, I don't care, nothing will stick and you will just end up with egg on your faces. Seraphim 22:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you are misrepresenting the argument spresented to you elsewhere, yet again. That rather strengthens the impression that your not acting in good faith. Particularly given our extant agreement to wait for mediation in a different article which is not Masonic. However one point with regard to ritual, elements are obfuscated however large portions are presented in plain text, which rather supports the argument that only the recognitions are private. The subtelety, which was made clear at the time the statement was made, has been missed in your comments above. If you choose to interpret an understanding of Masonry and a desire to produce a meaningful, fair and representative series of articles on Masonry and subjects which influence and are influenced by Masonry as trying to present your intransigence in a bad light then I'm sorry you choose to feel that way. I would suggest that your position tends not to treat sources as equal, tending to denigrate the contributions of self declared informed editors as some way lesser than others. Indeed I noted a comment of someon elses today which might be construed as being a slight on the integrity of those editors who acknowledge their expertise on the topic. Nobody is suggesting that there should be an arbcom case however personally I no longer view your contribution (for want of a better description) as being in good faith. With reference to the statement which prompted this discussion, the wording you suggested was clearly NPOV because it indicated skepticism.ALR 22:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have one question. Why does saying "Freemasons often describe the fraternity as a System of Morality...." cause you to get all upset, yet saying "Freemasonry is described in ritual as a System" doesn't? Seraphim 22:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not your wording, thats BBs.ALR 23:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same meaning. He simply changed "Freemasonry has been described by masons" to "Freemasons often describe the fraternity". Lets do some simple word shuffling. Lets change the word "Freemasonry" in mine to say "the fraternity" (they are interchangable) and lets change the word "masons" in mine to the word "freemasons" (they are interchangable) so now mine says "The fraternity has been described by freemasons" which when you flip it over says "Freemasons have described the fraternity" and then he changed have to often which is just semantics. It is the same exact meaning yet because I added it you automatically had a hissy fit. Who is the biased editor now? Seraphim 23:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you are less than honest. Your wording was 'Freemasonry is described by masons', different words might literally mean the same thing but they carry different emotional and perceptual strengths. In that sense the excess caveating around the statement serves to minimise the import of the phrasing and indeed is highlighted as weasel wording in the guidance that you are so fond of quoting. Words mean things however words can be used in various ways to strengthen or weaken a satement, your wording seeks to throw doubt on the integrity of the statement, mine and Blueboars wording sought a level of neutrality.ALR 23:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What??? Hello Damage Control, how is "freemasonry is described by masons" in any way shape or form more POV pushing then "Freemasons have described the fraternity" it simply isn't, both point out that masons are describing freemasonry. And don't say "mine and Blueboars" wording, you changed it to "Freemasonry is ...". Plus since i've left up blueboars wording and even complimented him on his talk page, and you claim that you helped come up with that wording, would make your comments that i'm never willing to compromize flat out lies, since if that is infact your wording that I have agreed with (which it isn't it's blueboars) it would be a compromise. Seraphim 23:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just read through a lot of comments here, and thought I would add my two cents: Seraphim's wording seems quite reasonable, and I can't detect any negativity or connotation of skepticism in it. It indicates clearly why the wording used is so strange ("system of morality veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbol" is pretty odd by normal English standards). The problem otherwise is that the article looks like it's been written by Freemasons, using their peculiar language, which gives the uncomfortable feeling that you're only getting their point of view. Basically the article will read more authoritatively if doesn't sound like the voice of Freemasonry, but rather like the voice of an independent third party.

I also, as an outsider to this debate, see nothing to make me think that Seraphim is being dishonest or has any hidden agenda. I haven't been party to any other debates you might have had, but her arguments here seem quite valid. Fuzzypeg 23:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My position is that I don't think the statement needs caveating at all. Freemasonry is a 'system of morality, veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbol' . In fact if you went to the source rather than persisting in nitpicking and seeking to reduce brevity of communication then you'd find that the source does not say Beautiful. I've already said that I wasn't happy with that use previously and you seem to choose to ignore that statement. I would suggest that the only reason you left it as Blueboar suggested is because you could reasonably be caught out on 3RR had you not. Borderline and it could be argued either way, but I suspect it's a risk you recognised and chose not to take. Anyway I fail to see how the statement can be seen as POV pushing. Freemasonry is a System of Morality in that the ritual content contains moral lessons. Fact. Freemasonry is veiled in allegory in that the ritual uses allegorical vehicles to communicate the content. Fact. The broad use of symbols illustrates the messages conteained in the ritual. Fact. There si nothing to debate and no reason for the statement to carry caveats.ALR 07:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As was noted before when this came up, Freemasonry is not "described by some Masons in this way" - it is described as such in a well-known (some might dispute major) ritual branch, and thereby is known to hundreds of years worth of English Masons (at the very least; it is used outside of the UK as well). This is obviously not a small group by any stretch of the imagination. This makes Emulation authoritative wherever it is used. Ritual may differ depending on jurisdiction (or it may not; this is due to the lack of a central authority), but no one Mason can change ritual, and this particular item I'm sure will never change. Therefore, to then ascribe the quote to "some Freemasons", or even just "Freemasons" personifies (and thereby subjectifies) and limits something which is not personifiable, limitable, and certainly not subjective. The statement is thereby misrepresented - it is of the same caliber as a GL statement would be, not a statement made by one man or one Lodge. The quote, no matter the source, is, was, and always will be a collective statement, not an opinion. As a statement, NPOV does not apply to this quote. Therefore, the so-called "NPOV wording" is wrong, and the reason this is persisting is because the person espousing the opinion would rather fit statements to preconceived ideas, rather than fitting ideas to statements. MSJapan 00:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The line was written by a freemason, he described what he believe freemasonry is. It is not fact. I suggest you look at WP:NPOV under bias. The original writer obviously was a very "hardcore" mason if he was writing a ritual book. Pointing out that it is an observation made by a freemason about freemasonry is not POV pushing, trying to supress that information is. You are trying to present the quote as a statement, which is incorrect, it is an observation, infact the complete quote calls it "beautiful". You are trying to present opinion as fact which is incorrect. Just because alot of people hold the same opinion doesn't make it a fact, it isn't a "collective statement" it's a "collective opinion". For example, Pope Clement XII said that "because the scope and object of Masonry are "wicked" and condemnable". The roman catholic church has over a billion members (appx 1,085,557,000) who all believe that the pope's word is dogmatic law. That means that at one point all of the roman catholic church believed that "the scope and object of masonry [is] "wicked" and "condemnable"" does that mean that all of asudden because so many people believed it that it is a fact? Should we add into the article that "the scope and object of masonry [is] "wicked" and "condemnable""? Of course we shouldn't because it is an opinion. If you change the wording to say "is" your making an unverifiable claim. It's a widely held opinion, nothing more. Seraphim 00:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake 1: It was most likely not written by "a" Freemason, but rather a group. Mistake 2: The quote's existence in established ritual makes it a valid fact, the same way you say that claims are valid because they are made, and the background is irrelevant. Mistake 3: An observation is made by a third party, so this is not an observation, but rather a statement, as presented. Mistake 4: ritual is not "an observation made about Freemasonry by a Freemason"; it is the foundation of the whole group. Furthermore, I would bet that the quote in the ritual reads "is", which would indeed make it correct.

You've definitely got a conceptual problem with the entirety of Freemasonry, because you are still consistently backing up your arguments with incorrect statements. You're also making a disprovable and irrelevant statement about the Church here; if there are Catholics who are Masons (and there are), then the dogma is not universally held belief, and for you to claim otherwise is erroneous, as it is an easily disprovable statement. OTOH, I don't think you would find a Mason who would disagree with the Emulation quote. So I fail to see how it is not a fact or statement. You also can't claim ritual as a biased source, because it's not; it's a fundamental text. If you refuse to take it as it is, then there's no point in writing this article, because nothing in it is valid if you discount the original text. I don't care who wrote what expose, the fact is it all came from some branch of ritual.

Further note: Catholic dogma, BTW, is ostensibly written by one man (the Pope), and is therefore one man's opinion based on his interpretation of religious law. Freemasonry is at the very least a group effort. So, you're trying to compare apples and oranges. Also, why do you always sidetrack every discussion into a different unrelated argument? Catholic dogma has nothing to do with the current discussion at any level whatsoever. Lastly, do you have any other way of proving your argument without resorting to rhetoric and semantics? I still don't see any solid evidence other than your interpretation of meanings of words and policies (which are wrong) couched in tangential and/or incorrect statements and assumptions. MSJapan 07:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphim, I have a question about what you are trying to say... Do you think that there is a contrary view about the statement? In other words, do you think that someone dissagrees, and says that Freemasonry is NOT a "system of morality, veiled in alegory and illustrated by symbol"? I can understand that saying it is a "beautiful" system (or even the more common "peculiar" syestem) might be considered a value judgement and thus POV. But I find nothing POV about the statement if you cut the adjective. Does it not, at that point, become a statment of simple NPOV fact? Where is the POV? Blueboar 15:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely believe that someone might disagree with the statement. First off freemasonry is not a single homogenous movement, nobody speaks for all of freemasonry, and different groups of freemasons can have radically different practices. For example some groups allow females to join, others don't require you to believe in a god, some allow just about anyone to join. There is no "proper" freemasonry (this article is UGLE and GDoF centric but that should be fixed eventually). Ritual changes between jurisdictions so the masonry that someone in London might learn could be completly different then the masonry I would learn in a local OES chapter. It's impossible to make a blanket statement about the contents of masonic ritual as is being done here, it's simply impossible to verify as truth. Now about the actuall quote itself: "a system of morality, veiled in alegory and illustrated by symbol". This assumes that all masonic jurisdictions use the alegorical ritual and symbolism to teach their lessons to their member masons. This is not the case. In MA where I live the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts your allowed to become a EA with a 1 day crash course in freemasonry, and they don't require people to study ritual "Not everyone will want to learn the ancient ritual – as it takes great time and study – but those Masons who chose to learn it are rewarded with the satisfaction of upholding a powerful tradition and helping their fellow brothers further their Masonic understanding.". The ritual is where the alegory comes in, giving masons crash courses in masonry is hardly alegorical. On top of that (please note this part is not my stance at all i'm just stating facts) many many many people and groups have challenged that masonry is a system of morality, I don't think I need to go into the details on it a quick look at the anti-masonry article which will outline that for you. So yes, alot of people do disagree with the opinion presented in the article that freemasonry is a "system of morality veiled in alegory and illustrated by symbol". What makes the statement not a simple NPOV fact is that some people do disagree with it, and it isn't true for all freemasonic jurisdictions. It is a statement that a group of freemasons put in their ritual to describe the group to other freemasons(since it's in some ritual). Just because it's in some jurisdiction's ritual does not make it fact, it is still the original authors' interpertation of what the freemasonry that they practiced was. Seraphim 17:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll bite. First off I'll agree that the article needs some development, many of the references are from UGLE, equally many are from a book written by an American Mason. There also needs to be a more rigorous discussion of regularity and the issue of androgynous and feminine Freemasonry. However progress in improving the article is being significantly impeded by the regular visits by Lightbringer which is unfortunate. Notwithstanding that, can I be first to highlight just how flawed your understanding of Masonry is in general :)

You will not learn about Freemasonry in OES, that fact has been pointed out in this page, on your own talk page and can be clearly derived from the OES article itself.

One day classes are an abomination and should not be allowed. That is my view, UGLE dispenses with the bit about them being an abomination. However just because the process does not take every candidate through the ritual individually does not mean that allegory and symbol are not used, just that the initiate observes rather than experiences. One learns the ritual to be able to understand it and to communicate it to others. Some may feel that they do not wish to learn it but extend their masonic researches in other directions. The 'one day class' structure does not generate the demand for brethren who have learned the ritual that the more individual approach does, that does not mean that the ritual allegory and symbol is not used. You might actually want to toddle off and understand what allegory means before pronouncing on whether it's used in ritual or not. You may also want to check your facts about what the one day class allows one to become, because here in England one becomes an EA after about a 3 hour participatory ritual, which is a little less than a one day crash course.

A system of morality, hmm. Get hold of the reference and then try to disagree with what it says. I'll acknowledge that at times some may not capitalise on the lessons contained within the ritual however that is not the fault of the vehicle but the individual. A comparison might be Doctors who have taken the Hippocratic oath yet take some action in contravention of it; is it the fault of the oath? Your argument would suggest that it is.

I'll articulate issues around ritual differences, yet again, since you seem to have difficulty with the many previous articulations: The general direction of Masonic ritual is common across Regular Masonry as recognised by UGLE, it is also common in much irregular Masonry viz The elucidation of lessons of a moral nature using allegorical methods and symbolic representation of the various principles embodied in the ritual. Within that general thread there are commonalities; three degrees; the Hiramic Allegory; the seven Liberal Arts and Sciences; moral conduct with ones fellow creatures and the development of ones relationship with the Supreme Being to which one owes an allegiance. Detail within the ritual varies however some statements can be made with respect to what Freemasonry is in a universal sense, since otherwise it would not be Freemasonry. There are elements within that which are considered private and the extent of that privacy varies according to the Jurisdiction which controls and governs the ritual. Some of that which is private does vary in terms of detail.

Please bear in mind that I'm continuing to humour you despite your lack of substantive contribution across this topic.ALR 18:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your continuing to dance around my key point. Freemasonry is NOT only the jurisdictions that are percieved by UGLE to be "regular". It is Impossible for anyone to make any claims that speak for all of freemasonry. This is a situation where a group of masons wrote something in ritual and now your trying to claim that they are able to speak for freemasonry as a whole. They cannot. Freemasonry is not only "regular masonry as recognised by UGLE". And by the way, stop with the "I'm continuing to humour you despite your lack of substantive contribution across this topic" statements. Seraphim 18:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and I would contend that you're continuing to dance around the real point. There are several key components of Freemasonry Whether it is regular or not without which something could not be described as Masonry. Given the active dialogue between Masonic bodies in the research field, regardless of their regularity, there is a clear understanding of the commonalities and differences. The point about regularity may become clearer when there is an opportunity to insert a section on it. You once again reflect back to me exactly what I've said many times before about FM being more than just UGLE. Indeed you may not be aware that many HFAF lodges use UGLE emulation ritual. And as to your last point, is there an issue with continuing to state that I don't believe that you're acting in good faith for the benefit of the article?ALR 18:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can believe whatever you want about me, it's not going to hurt my feelings. It doesn't change the fact that your attempting to change a small group's opinion into a fact. If you feel i'm not acting in good faith file an RFC against me. Don't keep personally attacking me. Seraphim 18:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an attack. It's a statement of my position, it is useful and beneficial to be completely open and honest about issues which are influencing my perspective at present and unhealthy to keep the position concealed. I note that you haven't actually responded to the substantive points in my most recent discussion, which is illuminating.ALR 18:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphim... I am going to have to disagree with a lot of your statements. No matter what ritual is used, or how rushed it is... Freemasonry is still a "system of Morality, veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbol". Even in a one day class, the candidate is rushed through a ritual that uses allegory and symbol to teach freemasonry's moral lessons. In fact, EVERY form of Freemasonry, regular or irregular, from UGLE to GOdF... even related side organizations such as OES or Rainbow Girls uses some form of allegorical ritual and symbol to teach moral lessons. The lessons may be different... the ritual may be different, but the statement still holds true.

Dispite your disclaimer, I suspect that your real problem is with the word "Morality"... but even here, you have to admit the statement as fact... Some critics may feel that what we say is a moral thing to do is not in fact moral... but that is their POV and does not make the statement false. Our system of morality may not be correct in some people's view... but it is most definitely a system of morality.

Let me take the statement a phrase at a time: 1) Freemasonry is a system of morality in that it teaches some form of moral lessons, whether you agree with those lessons or not 2) It uses allegory to teach these lessons. 3) It uses symbols to illustrate those lessons. Which of these sub-statements do you disagree with? Blueboar 19:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your point on the morality comment is correct, It didn't click in my head that the anti-masonic groups claiming that it is immoral are still claiming that it is a system of morality. I'll concede that point, however it really wasn't my main objection anyway. Your explanation actually explains partially my point. By making the statement "Freemasonry is ..." that means that it's true for all freemasonic jurisdictions. The Grand Lodge of Massachusettes does not require people to study ritual (which is where the allegorical stories are) instead they just teach the different lessons, therefore the statement "fact, EVERY form of Freemasonry, regular or irregular, from UGLE to GOdF... even related side organizations such as OES or Rainbow Girls uses some form of allegorical ritual and symbol to teach moral lessons." is not true because there is an exception (i'm sure there are more groups that have broken off from the historical methods, but the GL of MA is the only one i've looked at since I saw their commercials on tv :P). Instead of saying "Freemasonry is" it needs to be made clear that it's not a blanket statement that covers all freemasonry, just the vast majority. I can't think of any wording for it, the word "most" seems too weak, same with "majority", but the fact that even 1 group doesn't require people to learn through allegory makes the statement "Freemasonry is" invalid. Seraphim 20:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Grand Lodge of Massachusettes does not require people to study ritual (which is where the allegorical stories are) instead they just teach the different lessons Just what are you basing this on? A commercial? Can you give the exact citation, as in a direct quote? I ask because I know people who created the commercial, and I also happen to be an officer in a MA Lodge, and the "teach the different lesson" is done VIA RITUAL. Also, UGLE isn't the only place where Emulation Ritual is used, it is used by quite a number of GL's in the world. But, of course, my comment regarding the fact that MA still uses the rituals, which include allegorical stories, is going to be put down by you as original research. Fact: the GL of MA has not stopped using symbols, allegory, and ritual to teach candidates for freemasonry.--Vidkun 20:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It says on their website that not everyone is required to learn the ritual. Go to their askafreemason website and then go to the FAQ's section 11. It makes it very clear that not all masons must learn the ritual. I am not making this up. Seraphim 19:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the difficulty here is that you fail to recognise the difference between seeing and participating in ritual, and learning it after having been through the experience. To become a Mason one must undergo the ritual experience, whether as a spectator as in the one day class model or as a participant as in every other model. Now I don't know whether this is a wilful misinterpretation or not but the discussion has gone round in circles for some time and should be clear by now.ALR 19:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use of ritual - part 2

The topic was getting a bit long and difficult to scroll down... so I am continuing it here.

Seraphim, I think you have misunderstood the commercials for the GLMA... Even in a one day class, the candidates sit and watch the ritual. The "no studying" part is a waver of having to memorize and recite questions and answers about that ritual before advancing to the next degree. It is sort of like attending a college class, but not sitting down and taking the exams. The material is presented, there is just no way to be sure that the student fully understands it. Nevertheless, the System of morality, the allegory and the symbolism ARE indeed presented to the candidate. So, again... which phrase of the statement do you consider not to be factual? Blueboar 20:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the one day class is not a mandatory way of joining. In fact, it is a very controversial, and possibly not long for this world, bandage to slap on the wound of losing members though death and other forms of attrition. The GL still has many Lodges who do standard one night per degree rituals, and some which are moving towards requiring more than one month between degrees. But, yes, the candidates still see the ritual. Looks like I am going to have ANOTHER sit down with a GL officer about how stupidly worded the commericals are, if they can be interpretted the way Seraphim has.--Vidkun 20:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So... just to hammer the point home, when Seraphim says "it needs to be made clear that it's not a blanket statement that covers all freemasonry" she is incorrect. Instead, it needs to be made clear that it IS a blanket statment that covers all of Freemasonry. Freemasonry is a system of morality. It is veiled in allegory. It is illustrated by symbols. This statement applies to ALL forms and branches of Freemasonry. In short the statement is fact. Now, I am perfectly happy to leave the wording as... "Freemasons often refer to the fraternity as...." for that is a true statement. But so was "Fremasonry is ...." The insistance on the change was overly petty. Blueboar 21:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's that bad - it's a case of having an idea in mind before seeing the evidence, and making the evidence fit the idea. There is no real plausible way to jump from "no memorization is required" (or whatever it is) to "we don't use ritual in One Day Classes" unless one has it set in one's head that that is what it means. However, having seen DeMolay and Rainbow material, I think it is more than fair to say that all these related systems teach morals in some way shape or form. A system that doesn't probably isn't really considered Masonry. MSJapan 21:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Principles and activities

This is "my" edit:

Both 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica and Catholic 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia agree that Freemasonry, according to the official English, Scottish, American, etc., Craft rituals, is most generally defined: A peculiar (some say particular or beautiful) system of morality veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols. (ref) http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09771a.htm 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia.(1911 Encyclopædia Britannica agrees)(/ref) The continued use of this definition is illustrated in the example of the 1991 printing of the English Emulation Ritual (ref)Emulation Ritual ISBN 0 85318 187 X pub 1991, London(/ref)

As such Freemasonry uses ritual to convey the principles of "Brotherly Love, Relief and Truth" - otherwise related, as in France: "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity".(ref) Freemasons for Dummies, by Christopher Hodapp, Wiley Publishing Inc., Indianapolis, 2005, p.783, sec. "Masons marked for life" (/ref).

The above edit should put this issue to bed for any reasonable editor(s)? (Although I do not like quotes from rituals in use, I've left the ref.). Imacomp 21:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very verbose way of saying Freemasonry is...... by all means add them as references.ALR 21:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's also not as concise or succinct as the other statement, but if it'll solve the issue, we might as well use it. MSJapan 22:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The snag with verbose content is it that it's vulnerable to the accusation that it's hiding something, particularly with the current insistence on wiki-lawyering. Brevity helps avoid that suggestion.ALR 22:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is an almost direct quote, and covers all the bases. It is not realy my work, just "my" edit. Nit picking at me for doing the work is of no use (and I use this to all editors), since the work stands on its own, and should be left as such. Read both the 1911 EB and 1913 CE articles on the web, for a check. For "very verbose" read Accademic - as in encyclopaediae (ias) Imacomp 22:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The snag with verbose content". Well tell them to build a time machine and tell it to the editors of the "sources", because as I said if you trace the section back it is an almost, wikified cited ref to 1913 Catholic ecnyclopedia in particular (as the 1911 EB is less "encyclopedic" there). "Endex". Imacomp 22:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me. Seraphim 19:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

22:12, 15 March 2006 Gabbe m (readd duplication reduction by me)

Anyway what about the "new" editor cliping out citations and refs? Should they be put back? Imacomp 22:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand, you're saying that you actually prefer a dozen references to the same thing web address labeled as 12 separate references? The only difference I made was that references to the same thing were labeled as one and the same recuring reference. I never removed any information or reference as such from the article. —Gabbe 23:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats how they all like it, except for those who say not here. Silence is read as keep status quo here. Imacomp 23:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense. It was a purely stylistic edit, no information was removed from the article, I don't see how there could be anything controversial with my edit. —Gabbe 23:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not my idea (head butting). See your/my talk page, as of now. Imacomp 00:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imacomp, I am not sure I follow what your argument is about... I do not see how Gabbe's changes have actually changed anything other than having one citation where there used to be many. That said, I freely admit that may have missed something... so please explain. Gabbe... this page IS controvercial, and has been recently been the subject of repeated attacks by POV agenda pushers. Thus all the regular editors are very leary of any change at the moment. Please discuss what you intend to do and why ... to ease our fears. Blueboar 04:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

tbh I don't see what the issue is here, the changes improve the information content of the document by reducing redundancy. and damned if I know where this de-facto standard is coming from? Sounds a little like the 'baselining' initiative at the top of this talk page, ie noise that gets in the way of useful editing.ALR 18:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Additions to Freemasonry Page

I feel the following proposed additions to the Freemasonry page have not been adequately discussed. I feel they would be an excellent and informative well referenced addition to the page.40 Days of Lent 12:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: These "proposed changes" have been discussed to DEATH... (See archives ... multiple archives). Posting this material again (I think this is the 4th time) is nothing but vandalism by a sock puppet of a POV agenda bashing user who has been banned from editing any article related to Freemasonry. Just ignore until he is blocked and then we can delete the vandalism. Blueboar 15:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second that suggestion Blueboar. WegianWarrior 15:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concur, maybe if we ignore him he'll go away. Admittedly that's never worked on af :) ALR 18:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't think he will just go away. My point was to leave this here as evidence of his MO. I have already asked for a user check... hopefully it will show his sockness. Of course, he will be right back again under a new sock ... and he will probably just revert the page and bring this all back (or post it again under a new sock name). But each time he does, it will be more and more clear to the admins that he is interested in nothing but vandalism hidden in "content dispute" trappings. Blueboar 19:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Morgan Affair

40 Days Sock Off

Here we go again... the exact same "proposed" additions that were "proposed" by Lightbringer/Basil Rathbone/Humanum Genus/your favorite sock name here. Same material, same MO. The sooner this POV agenda pushing puppet is proven for what he is, and blocked, the better. Blueboar 13:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh... by the way... while we could simply delete his vandalism, I would suggest that we leave it for now - as evidence for the Admins. We can delete it once he has been blocked. Blueboar 14:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeup had to deal with an idiot on another page before, you have to leave up the junk untill the admin bans them, then you can remove it. Seraphim 19:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

40 Days, if you are going to enter these citations for a book you should give the date, publication details and page numbers. If necesary you should also enter the quotation. If posible it will be preferable to point to a website. JASpencer 20:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism removed. Admins can read the History page. Imacomp 21:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Admins "21:23, 16 March 2006 Computerjoe" was the last edit to show all the "Lighbringer vandalism", before I removed it for you. Imacomp 21:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Admins. The (permo-blocked) Lightbringer sock 40 Days of Lent added his rejected "Vandalism" again. I thus Rv. this page back to 01:26, 17 March 2006 MSJapan (→New Section). Thank you for you time. Imacomp 13:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patience is a virtue... check-user result

Proven to be a sock of a sock... all leading back to Lightbringer. The good guys win another battle... unfortunately, I know he will be back under an new name soon. Blueboar 19:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notice he isn't (yet) blocked for infinity. Has anybody notified an admin? I don't think a positive checkuser automaticly results in a bannination. WegianWarrior 22:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have asked William Connolley to look into it. Blueboar 22:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

I'm not sure if this is the correct forum to say this, but I am grateful to all who are responsible for the information contained in this article as well as the all of the opposing opinions that have gone into the editing of the article. I was simply curious about Freemasons and I came across a gem of an article. I realize the sometimes controversial nature of the Freemasons and am suprised how much information you have all provided. Thanks again for your efforts. Tim mrvanh@yahoo.com

Mass Deletion

Should everything that 40Days has put in be deleted or simply put into seperate archive pages? JASpencer 14:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not burn it and put on "St Morgan"'s shrine? (next to the urinal?) Imacomp 19:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of it is already in TWO of the Archive pages... why clutter up yet another. His posting it yeet again was simply vandalism pretending to be suggested content. Blueboar 17:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a reference to the archive pages then? I don't like removing talk even from blocked users, it smacks of censorship. I'd feel the same way about taking out Imacomp's Talk contributions if he ever gets blocked. JASpencer 19:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After thinking about this, I would prefer a reference to the Archives to anything else, but if the reference can't be given then the contributions should be restored. Similarly contributions that are not in previous archives should not be deleted at all. I'm basing my view on this policy in WP:VAND:

Talk page vandalism

Deleting the comments of other users from article Talk pages, or deleting entire sections thereof, is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long Talk page to a separate file and then remove the text from the main Talk page. The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where users generally are permitted to remove outside comments at their discretion, except in cases of warnings, which they are prohibited from removing.

The presumption is that Talk Page content should never be removed, although archiving content is fine and removing personal attacks may be OK. There may be an over-riding policy somewhere, especially in relation to banned users - but this should not be assumed. If it is duplicate text that is already in the archive then I'd not have a problem with it merely being referenced in the current talk page. However I am not satisfied with simple deletion, unless the censorship is explicitely endorsed in a Wikipedia policy.

For reference the deletions were here. JASpencer 22:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying... and it does give me pause. I do not like censorship either. With the various Lightbriner socks, however, I think it may be justified. He has posted the same LONG section of "proposed" edits over and over and over again under various sock names. The first few times he "proposed" this material, we took it seriously and responded... in depth... to his suggestions. We pointed out where he had his facts wrong, cited respected references to counter what he proposed, and basicly demonstrated why his edits were not acceptable. We went through all this at least twice. It is obvious that he is not really making "proposed" edits anymore... instead he is simply trying to get "his" material onto any new talk page that we make. Keep in mind that each of these socks had eventually been indefinitely blocked for his disruption to the Article and its editors. This is a user that arbitration ruled should not be posting ANY Freemasonry related page. PERIOD. In short, I feel that what he is doing constitutes vandalism. As such, I have no problems cencoring him. We may need some form of official arbitration ruling on this... something we can point to and say: Material deleted as per (link to ruling), and then move on. Blueboar 22:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well this seems to go against Wikipedia policy on Talk Page Vandalism, so it's not just about personal feelings on censorship (although that is where it started up). As I said unless he's making any new points I would be perfectly prepared to have a simple reference to where any duplicate material could be found on the archives. This would avoid an arbitration report. Try to think about it this way, if Imacomp gets banned as a sock, would you be happy for the precedent to be set that all his Talk Page entries get deleted? JASpencer 23:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Imacomp, or anyone else, were permanantly banned from editing any page relating to Freemasonry, and yet still returned to post the same material over and over again... then yes, that material would eventualy become nothing but vandalism and could be deleted.

Please note that I am not saying that every word written by this sock should be deleted... If he came and made new accusations or new "suggested material" I would leave it... I would delete just the repetitious and gratuitous material. The ruling I would look for from Arbitration would be that this specific material, written in this specific manner (allowing for minor changes designed to evade the ruling), and posted by this particular user (or a proven sock of the same) be considered pure vandalism and may be deleted if posted. Blueboar 23:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're not deleting all his entries, only the ones that were already discussed and continue to be reposted out of spite. Plenty of objective factual evidence was given to contest his claims, and basically, what the repeated postings fall under is not nonconformity to "Talk page vandalism" per se, but rather WP:POINT or WP:NOT, which are a little more overarching, I think. In short, because LB believes Masonry is Satanic, etc., he thinks he is getting the "true word" out by dumping said material on the talk page, in spite of the fact that there is plenty of proof that says otherwise. He never discussed those edits or had any intention of discussing those edits. They take up a good chunk of the talk page, too, which is disruptive to the talk page. So, the rest of his stuff can stay, but this particular repost should not. This is a lot motre than an issue of simple censorship.

Free speech (which is really what's at issue here) is a right that only applies when used responsibly. Once someone else's rights are violated as a result, that right ends. This is why we have laws against public disorderliness, because you're free to do what you want until you adversely affect someone else. MSJapan 23:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blueboar and MSJapan, some new comments were deleted, which I take it that we're happy to reinstate. I'll do that later. Could one of you post a friendly warning on Imacomp's page on deleting new material even from proven banned users? He ~~may~~ will take it better from one of you rather than me. JASpencer 23:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MSJapan we've moved beyond the philisophical point about censorship and are now looking at the policy on deletions from Talk Pages, which seem quite clear - don't. If you can find a policy over-riding this then fine. I am prepared to compromise by a simple pointing to material on the archive in the current talk page. JASpencer 23:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JASpencer. Why is my avatar being specifically discussed, above, in a “what if he was blocked” scenario, when the discussion is about the rubbish continuously re-inserted by “Lightbringer” in acts of vandalism? You once wrote that “lightbringer” is a Catholic version of “Me”, you are obsessed with trying to get me blocked, and you are somewhat of an apologist for “Lightbringer”. Try to get over yourself, so as to stop wasting our time. Imacomp 10:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you Imacomp, when I say that Lightbringer is a mirror image of you it was not meant as a compliment towards him. Quite the reverse. And no, I am not obsessed with having you blocked. JASpencer 15:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, JASpencer, why did you tag my Home page with a sock tag, after my last post above? (I removed it, and will do so any time that you replace it). You actually define word word obsessed. WP:DICK. Imacomp 18:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US Roman Catholic View

I've put a POV-Section on this as the quote is in my opinion taken out of context, making Freemasonry seemingly acceptable for American Catholics in a letter that actually said the opposite. JASpencer 17:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DICK So what? A Roman Catholic Cardinal defines his view, in a letter about Freemasonry, and you say this is POV against His Church. Huh????????? Imacomp 18:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did anyone actually see the new Pope's election? (That is "Pope" JASpencer I) Vatican III should make intertesting reading? Imacomp 19:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freemasonry is ecceptable for American, and other, Roman Catholics. Some Clergy seem to have problems with it. Imacomp 22:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The papacy still has a prohabition against joining freemasonry. If someone is a Roman Catholic they follow the pope (That's the "Roman" part). If the pope says something it's not acceptable for some roman catholics and not-acceptable for others. Seraphim 14:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suspect there's a wording issue there. But Many RCs are Masons, I have a number in some of the Lodges I belong to. Indeed lots more in the Rosecrucian orders, which is interesting in its own right.ALR 14:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV Fork (Again)

It has been made very obvious that some editors feel that this page is not required to have any anti-masonry content because there is an anti-masonry page. For example in this edit, MSJapan listed as one of the reasons for not including a Freemasonry Watch link "We don't have multiple POV here, as it is handled in separate articles.". This is not allowed in wikipedia articles, all articles must adhere to a Neutral POV not a pro or anti pov. This is a perfect example of a Content Fork. From the top of the Content Fork page "This guideline in a nutshell: Wikipedia articles should not be split into multiple articles solely so each can advocate a different stance on the subject.".

What is being claimed by some editors is that the Anti-Masonry page is linked to as a Main article and is therefore considered an article spinout which is allowed in summary style articles. However what is not adknowledged is that if content is spun out it doesn't get removed entirely, instead a summary that accurately summarizes the content on the spunout page must be replaced. Also in summary style articles editors are not permitted to pick and choose what sections to spin out. From WP:SS "The top or survey article should have general summary information and the more detailed summaries of each subtopic should be in daughter articles and in articles on specific subjects.". It is not ok to spin off all the anti-pov sections, but then still have lengthy sections on things like "history of freemasonry".

With that said I do realize that it is very unlikely this page will be brought into line with the guidelines of WP:SS. However the POV fork must be addressed. I'm not going to make any changes now because I know it will be blanket reverted, so i'm hoping someone will step up in the next few days and makes sure that the content of the anti-masonry page is accurately summarized here, instead of linked to in a section that does not present any anti-masonic content, but is instead about persecution of freemasons, and the masonic responce to common criticisms of freemasonry. There is currently no section in the article that presents an anti-masonic pov, yet the entire article is written as if it could be placed on a Lodge's website under "What is Freemasonry". This needs to be addressed. Seraphim 18:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"There is currently no section in the article that presents an anti-masonic pov"... huh? What do you call the "Criticism, persecution, and prosecution" section? That definitely discusses the anti-masonic POV. Perhaps it needs more work, but it does discuss it.

And, once again, I am going to disagree with you on the POV fork... I understand that you see the Anti-Masonry page as being a fork, and yes, it did start off that way. But this is no longer true as I see it. I see them as two seperate articles that deal with similar subject matter. This Article is about Freemasonry. That article is about Anti-masonry. They are related but seperate topics.

You bitch and moan a lot about the POV problems you see in this article... but rarely do you make any concrete suggestions as to what exactly you want to change. If you feel something here is too POV, then bring it up and we can work on it. If you have a suggestion as to how something could be worded in a more NPOV manner, then bring it up and we can work on it. If you feel that there is something missing, bring it up and we can rip it to shreds... I mean work on it. :>) Blueboar 20:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly whenever any anti-masonic information is inserted into this article, it's removed with the reason that it belongs on the anti-masonry article. It's impossible to insert any such information untill the editors realize that "We don't have multiple POV here, as it is handled in separate articles." is not acceptable. Seraphim 21:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Blueboar. The Anti-Masonic lot should not fork around on this article. :) Imacomp 20:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what I said, Imacomp... Anti-masons may edit this page like anyone else ... as long as their statements are verifiable and properly cited, and as long as they add their comments in a NPOV manner I have no problems with that. The problem is that usually neither happens when an anti-mason posts something. Blueboar 20:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know you did not say it, but I could not resist "The Anti-Masonic lot should not fork around on this article". They can always make positive posts. :) Imacomp 21:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a valid point that the article should move more towards a summary style, I'd suggest that the treatment of the Anti-Masonry page has demonstrated that the topic is too big to really capture in a single article. Admittedly working towards a more appropriate treatment of the topic is greatly hampered by thge POV attacks from the Lightbringer sock farm and by the refusal of some editors to work productively and in a collaborative manner towards the optimum structure. Notwithstanding that I'd personally take the view that Summary Style has some weaknesses. Some areas don't have the volume of legitimate content to justify an article in their own right and a pure summary approach doesn't allow them to be treated, in this case the Charity section springs to mind. An important point but limited content, although I'm sure someone might come up with something now that I've said that.ALR 07:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I remember, the section started as a summary of the (then) anti-freemasonry article when it was branched out a few months back. However, after all the editing, sock-attacks and other things that has been going on, bot the section and the (now) anti-masonry article has evolved. But feel free Seraphim; write up a summary and be bold (ie: place it in the article). Just don't loose any relevant information that is in thesection today that is not in the main anti-masonry article (in fact, be bold and add it there as well). And do remember to bring any references over, or we'll get into yet another cripplefight over citations... WegianWarrior 07:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll gladly do it. I just want everyone to be aware that removing it because it's anti-masonic content is inappropriate. Seraphim 13:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're saying is that you want to add stuff because it's anti-masonic rather than a useful and relevant contribution to the article?ALR 13:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it will be added because it's both. Right now this article is the "Pro-Freemasonry" pov article and the anti-masonry article is the "Anti-Masonry" pov article, both must represent both POVs. Seraphim 13:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now, this is my opinion, and has no basis in any policies or guidelines on Wikipedia, but... If you're not willing to do something yourself to mprove the article, you really shouldn't complain in the first place. As I said, just my personal opinion. Your milage may vary, off course. On the other hand, and this too is my personal opinion, if you're willing to do something, why not just do it and then explain your edits after the fact. I'm sure no one (with one or two exceptions, sadly) would disagree with a NPOV summary of the Anti-Masonry article, provided no verified info was lost from this article. WegianWarrior 14:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere did I say I wouldn't do it. I just posted it here first for discussion incase someone else wanted to do it first. Since if I simply just post the changes before having any discussion it will get outright reverted by the editors that believe that this is the "Pro-Freemasonry" article. Seraphim 14:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you have ignored my point previously made, the topic is too big for a single article to treat it adequately. It is more appropriate to cascade a number of child articles out from a parent. The portfolio of articles needs to present a balanced and comprehensive coverage of the topic. Notwithstanding that a number of areas in the current article don't in themselves justify a child. That leads to the requirement for a hybrid article as parent with a number of child articles cascaded as required to present that balanced overarching NPOV treatment. Of course it would be cynical of me to suggest that is not what you're interested in promoting.ALR 14:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was noted. There are only 2 options, a long article, or summary style. If a section doesn't have enough information that's fine since it is already a summary. Seraphim 14:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only going to make one comment on this issue, and that is that one again a false premise has been used as the basis of an argument. It is very interesting that Seraphim pulled out one comment I made on the Talk page regarding usage of FMW, and decided that that was what made a content fork. What that comment really was was a response to explain why we should not use FMW as a link. The reason we do not have multiple POV here as I stated is because it has been clearly demonstrated that it is functionally impossible to do so and stay anywhere mear the article length limits. So it is not a content fork at all; it is a necessary division to allow the subtopics to be covered in the depth they require, not an attempt to separate POV for the sake of separating POV. MSJapan 15:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I'd generally agree that once again Seraphim is misrepresenting the arguments presented (and is probably demonstrating behaviours that suggest WP:POINT ), the dialogue does suggest that we should try to agree how to treat the subject. It really isn't clear in this article that much of the discussion of the topic is out in other articles and there is a lot of clean-up needed following work elsewhere. I'm not a big advocate of a slavish adherence to arbitrary rules, particularly given WP:IAR, so I tend not to support his/ her suggestion that the covering article should adhere completely to the Summary style, but I would suggest that this article could be tighter and a spin out material elsewhere. There is a lot of verbosity and contrivances because of the attacks on the article, and the integrity of the editors who are actually contributing substantive content, which could be streamlined.ALR 15:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MSJapan, just to make it clear for everyone reading this page. Your argument could easially be summarized as "The main "Freemasonry" page does not represent multiple pov's due to article length limits." is that correct? Seraphim 16:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And would you agree that your representation of subtleties of argument is in itself rather avoiding the debate and being somewhat needlessly antagonistic.?ALR 16:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. I feel that MSJapan is the user that is most likely to revert any attempts to bring this article in line with wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. I feel that understanding his argument as to why he feels it is appropriate for this article to only represent a single point of view and discussing that argument is crucial to moving forward in the editing of this page. I cannot understand how asking someone to verify their position is in any way antagonistic. I'm just trying to make sure I understand his position before moving on further in the debate. It has become apparent that an argument that some users present in one discussion they sometimes feel is useable in that discussion only, so it is impossible to understand some user's positions unless they are clearly illustrated. MSJapan stated in this discussion "The reason we do not have multiple POV here as I stated is because it has been clearly demonstrated that it is functionally impossible to do so and stay anywhere mear the article length limits." so i'm merely asking for clarification that his main argument is that "The main "Freemasonry" page does not neet to represent multiple povs due to article length limits." to prevent any confusion down the road which will allow the debate to continue. Seraphim 16:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However your statement above did not reflect a recognition that a number of articles are required to present a meaningful and representative treatment of the topic. As to that being antagonistic, perhaps. You might wish to review my user page, you'll note that I am a Management Consultant and a specialist in Knowledge Management. As such I am aware of how communication is effected and how one moves an argument forward by selective and and appropriate abstraction, simplification, layering and conflating issues. I'm also aware of how inappropriate use of thos techniques can be used to undermine the position of an interlocutor. I would suggest that your previous usage was inappropriate in the culture of mutual collaboration which will allow the portfolio of articles to properly represent the breadth of Freemasonry.ALR 17:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My statement didn't reflect it since everyone in the discussion already understands that the NPOV policy exists. MSJapan has stated an objection to the incorperation of multiple points of view in this article. I'm merely requesting that he makes his objection clear so work on the article can continue. I believed his position was already stated by him in another related argument, but he has stated that i'm misusing his words. I'd like his position on this issue clearly stated so we know where everyone stands. You said "I'm also aware of how inappropriate use of thos techniques can be used to undermine the position of an interlocutor.", i'm confused as to how you feel that askingn someone to outline their position is considered innapropriate use, the point of a debate is to discuss and obviously to undermine the other party's position, that cannot take place untill someone has made their position clear. MSJ stated his position however it was stated in many words, I feel that it can only be beneficial to this discussion that he clarifies exactly what his position is. Otherwise we risk arguing for days and then him saying "[your] misrepresenting the arguments presented". I simply cannot understand why you feel that asking someone to clarify a statement they made is in any way innapropriate. If both sides of a debate are un-aware of the other side's position then no meaningful debate or discussion can continue. My position is obviously that this page needs to fall inline with the NPOV rules on wikipedia as they are written on the WP:NPOV page. MSJ's position is that this page doesn't need to represent multiple points of view, i'm merely asking him to explain his reasoning why, which is completly appropriate for when a user is acting against wikipedia policy. For transparancy purposes, I obviously already have a strong counter-argument against MSJapan's stance on the issue, however when I present it if he has not already confirmed his position he will argue that i'm misrepresenting him and that his position is not what I believed it to be. The first counter is [4] where jimbo states that "NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable" the second is from WP:NPOV "All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias. This includes reader-facing templates, categories and portals." the third is from WP:SIZE "In most cases, it is a violation of the neutral point of view to specifically break out a controversial section without leaving an adequate summary. Consider other organizational principles for splitting the article. Be sure that both the title and content of the broken-out article reflect a neutral point of view." the forth is from wikipedia:content forking#Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles. which states that "the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary" which it currently is not, also the page contents do not qualify as a summary style article since this page is not written as a summary style article in that it has some sections that do not reflect a summary of the spun off page but instead are actually indepth. And lastly this isn't a counter-argument but a suggestion that takes his position into account, I would suggest that the summary of the anti-masonry page that is presented be limited so it is no bigger then the current contents of the "Criticism, persecution, and prosecution" section that it would be replacing so the page size is not increased. Seraphim 17:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So I look forward to you actually making a substantive contribution to the article then? It's about time.ALR 18:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to hearing her scream when I revert all her hard work! :>) OK, seriously, Seraphim - until I see what you write, I can not promise what my reaction will be. Hopefully, you will write something that is indeed NPOV, cited, verifiable, and accurate. If I have issues with what you add, I can (and do) promise that I will discuss them with you before I undertake any reversions. Good luck with the editing. Blueboar 19:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mormons

The name of the Mormon church is "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints", not "The Church of Latter-Day Saints". Also, how about citing a source where it says that the first five presidents of the church were masons?

@@ Line 933: / Line 933: @@
 :::::::::::::: So I look forward to you actually making a substantive contribution to the article then?  It's about time.[[User:ALR|ALR]] 18:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 ::::::::::::I look forward to hearing her scream when I revert all her hard work! :>)  OK, seriously, Seraphim - until I see what you write, I can not promise what my reaction will be.  Hopefully, you will write something that is indeed NPOV, cited, verifiable, and accurate.  If I have issues with what you add, I can (and do) promise that I will discuss them with you ''before'' I undertake any reversions.  Good luck with the editing. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] 19:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
+== Mormons ==
+The name of the Mormon church is "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints", not "The Church of Latter-Day Saints".  Also, how about citing a source where it says that the first five presidents of the church were masons?