Talk:Abel Clarin de la Rive

AC de la Rive's name

I corrected his name in a few places, as using using his last name, de la Rive, means 'of the Rive', and can be confusing. In the text, I made sure he is listed as Abel Clarin de la Rive, AC de la Rive, or Abel de la Rive.--Craxd1 (talk) 22:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Reverted article for accuracy

Reverted back to original written by Craxd1 and FoCuSandLeArN, Wikipedia editor.--Craxd1 (talk) 09:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Living people

Though this article has references pertaining to 'living people' on the page, the people written about within the article are all deceased.--Craxd1 (talk) 09:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Tagged

Since the creating editor seems unwilling to edit cooperatively, I have tagged the article based on its major problems. Bombastic language such as "staunch", "scathing article", "large tome" and so forth, as well as words to watch such as "alleged" all violate Wikipedia's policy on neutrality. The sources are unreliable, such as frremasonry.bcy.ca. That means they lack editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking, and may in fact be WP:PRIMARY rather than the preferred reliable secondary sources. And last but not least, the creator and major contributor has declared a conflict of interest as a member of Freemasonry, and while he has been advised of the difficulties presented by this, continues to boldly edit the article against policy. Elizium23 (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes I imagine you do have a problem, since you have been trying to edit factual citations from any article pertaining to Freemasonry, so it will show in a bad light, ever since I tried to add a citation to the article about Jack Chick. This article was not only written by me, but also, FoCuSandLeArN, a Wikipedia reviewer and editor. So, you must be claiming he is as biased too? What this did buy you, is an e-mail to Wikipedia about your conduct, especially about reverting the Luciferian Doctrine article, which was clearly libelous toward Freemasonry and its membership, and could bring a law suit. Also, you cite my sources to the Grand Lodge of British Columbia, Yukon, which have been cited a multitude of times elsewhere, but you gladly allow religious biased editors and websites to use their own material as citeable at the Chick article, and according to you, if one is a Freemason, one shouldn't edit or publish an article, which is clearly prejudiced and discriminatory for Wikipedia, but this also goes for anyone religious, then, and that would include 99.9% of the world being, in your eyes, biased. I think anyone who looks into your edits will see who the biased party is.

Also, when looking at your page, you are listed on numerous religious groups, which makes you biased, and you have no business, according to your own words, editing an article that pertains to Freemasonry or the occult.--Craxd1 (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

You will need to immediately retract your threat of legal action or you will be indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia. Elizium23 (talk) 21:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC){{subst:arbcom notice|CASENAME}}.

(1) Now, I will address your concern that I am "unwilling to edit cooperatively", even though you have a clear prejudice against Freemasonry and the occult, evidenced by the very sections of your Wikipedia page that you follow and edit. I am unwilling to let anyone, with a very clear religion based prejudice, edit an article on Freemasonry or the occult that they know nothing of, and after your multi-article editing stunt, you shouldn't be allowed on Wikipedia. I catch you at it again, and you'll be before the Arbitration Committee as fast as you can say Jesus.

(2) Words. AC de la Rive was a "staunch", (which means loyal and committed in attitude), anti-Mason, which is evidenced by him running the Antimasonic Council of France, of which The Antimasonic France was a publication of. AC de la Rive did write a "scathing", (which means scornful; severely critical), article about Leo Taxil, which is proven by the article itself, which you also tried to delete, that was a direct quote from an old popular French magazine, named Freemasonry Unmasked. It is cited, and I figure it is why you tried to delete it, as it proves the word "scathing", and deleting the quote would hide many truth's that some religious zealots would love to hide. Last, Morals and Dogma was a large tome. My 1950 version is 8 x 6 and is 861 pages long. It's large print version is big enough to use as a boat anchor. By the way, Tome means 'large book'. Oh yes, and the word, 'alleged', is not used anywhere in this article, try again.

(3) Now, lets talk about reliable sources, as your problem seems to ONLY hinge on the Grand Lodge of British Columbia, Yukon. AC de la Rive's article, there, is both translated and sourced to the book: author, Cf. Fry, L. Léo Taxil et la Franc-maçonnerie, Chatou, British-American Press, 1934. Now are you calling the Grand Lodge a liar, for translating a book? The other link used, as a source, leads to Leo Taxil's translated confessions, which is used elsewhere on a few articles, and is also in the book, Is It True What They Say About Freemasonry?, by S. Brent Morris Ph.D. and Arturo De Hoyos, who was formerly a professor at Brigham Young University, and received his Ph.D. from Michigan State University. There are several sources, but the one used, which was the full translation of the Parisian newspaper, Le Frondeur, is: authors, Alain Bernheim, A. William Samii, and Eric Serejski, trans., The Confession of Léo Taxil, Heredom, Transactions of the Scottish Research Society, vol. 5, pp. 137-68. © 1997 Scottish Rite Research Society. Are you afraid of what readers may find, if they follow these sources? Last, you most happily skipped over the link that leads to the Amazingdoscoveries.org article: Lucifer is the god of Freemasonry. I wonder why? To be fair, you missed one, which goes to the online version of of the paper, An Examination of Contemporary Anti-Masonry, by Martin I. McGrego, at freemasons-freemasonry.com. Since its it own source, the original is located at the Research Lodge of Southland No.415 on October 10, 2006. By the way, the research Lodges are part of the Authentic School of Freemasonry, who do Masonic historical research, and is handled by lettered members, holding a PhD.

(4) Your editing of word and name links. For the word, anti-Mason, you tried to edit the link from going to the anti-Masonry page, to the one of Freemasonry. I wonder why? You also tried to kill the links off of AC de la Rives name, on the other Masonic articles, by deleting them. I am biased, am I?

(5) Last, let's deal with your prejudice against me. Yes, I am a Freemason, and am qualified to write on the subject, since I have studied it in depth. You keep forgetting, that I also have a non-biased co-author in this writing. Also, I would not read any article, that was not written by someone not versed on the subject at hand, and that generally requires someone in the actual field of study. This being the case, maybe we should tag every religious article that you have ever laid a finger to? You are a religious editor, are you not? A religious editor, who has never stepped foot inside a lodge of Freemasonry, but feels they are competent enough to freely edit an article on Freemasonry. Let me ask, when did you stand in the North East Corner? Also, about using Masonic sources. That is the same as quoting the Bible on your religious articles. Maybe, we should edit every article on Christianity and Catholicism, and remove all mentions of chapters and verse, then tag all of those too? Oh yes, you claiming the article is not neutral, when it CLEARLY show both sides of the subject on his notoriety, and CLEARLY shows AC de la Rive in a good light, since he recanted the mis-truths he wrote in his book, Woman and Child in Universal Freemasonry and the magazine articles he published. No, it's not neutral at all, is it? That is sarcasm by the way. Lastly, for comparison, saying that I shouldn't be allowed to write this article, (with an unbiased co-author who is a Wikipedia reviewer and editor), is like saying a stamp collector should not write nor edit an article on stamp collecting.

Since you seem to not understand the word, libelous, then I quote Law.com for libel. "n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander, which is oral defamation." That is the description of the article, Luciferian Doctrine, before I edited it, which you took back to the libel version, not I. It would not bother me to see the article removed. However, that is not a part of this discussion, except the brief mention below.

For the editors and readers, please take the above into account, and look at his other edits. He was mad at me, over outing him as a religious bigot, about the Chick tract article, so he looked under my name, for everything I had contributed to, and took it upon himself to revert or delete sections on the following articles: Chick tract, AC de la Rive, Taxil Hoax, and Luciferian Doctrine, which was libelous, stating that Freemasons worshiped Lucifer, which he/she gladly reverted it back to that form.--Craxd1 (talk) 14:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)