Talk:Freemasonry/Archive 21

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive - please do not edit.

Explaining my revert of Imacomp Edits

I have reverted some of Imacomp's changes to the Anti-Masonry section. In particular, I have eliminated the reference to Islam in the opening, moving it back to its own section, clearly a more logical place for it. Also, the erroneous implication that a link between Anti-Masonry and Anti-Semitism is unique to Islam has been eliminated, by restoring my own text.

I have also shortened the Holocaust section slightly, removing "The majority of those who suffered during the Holocaust were Jews and Poles" and "The United Kingdom Government established Holocaust Memorial Day to recognise all groups who were targets of the Nazi regime, and counter Holocaust denial." because they don't seem to me to be relevant. I haven't restored the other material he deleted from this section, as I think we should keep it fairly short. Ben Standeven 03:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

As I posted on the History page of the article, "15:27, 29 June 2006 Imacomp (See archive. No consensus was reached to change this edit, so put back.)". Thus for the same reason the Ben Standeven edit is reverted because of lack of a consensus. Imacomp 08:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Bye the bye - I've spent a few hours of uproductive work here on Wiki today, defending myself - again. :( Imacomp 18:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
So are you going to discuss these edits or not? Ben Standeven 22:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Well they are not "edits" on my part, as they were reverted to the last time consensus was reached. It is up to the editor proposing a change to the article and to initiate a new discussion before making a new edit - and give a reasonable time for others to reach a consensus. An example of how not to act was just done on the page - hence I will revert it back. (minor changes do not change to meaning of subject, etc., and do not need the full procedure outlined). This outline is what Wiki cooperation is - although little practiced here - by anyone. Imacomp 10:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
No, actually, the idea behind Wikipedia is that anyone can edit things on their own, not just in tandem with other editors. Ben Standeven 23:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not require consensus to be reached before edits are made. Edits are made and people comprimise to reach consensus. Seraphim 03:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Edits not following Wiki policy

  • 04:03, 1 July 2006 SeraphimXI (Talk | contribs) (→Holocaust - murdered -> perished (don't start this again)) No consonsus to change edit to "perished", hence reverted with the next edit, below.
  • 04:06, 1 July 2006 SeraphimXI (Talk | contribs) (→Holocaust - rm "universally", it's a weasle word and untrue, not everyone who wears a forget me not is wearing it for masons) No consonsus to change edit, hence reverted.

The above were reverted with one edit. Imacomp 10:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Bye the bye, " now universally worn as a Masonic emblem" means, in context in written English, that any Freemason would universally ie from any constitution in the world - be able to use this as a Masonic emblem, in context to express solidarity with other Brethren. The article sentence in no implies that all little blue flower badges convey the same solidarity with the same issue. Editing out universally loses the point that even jurisdictions not in mutual recognition use the same emblem. Another example is the "universal" use of an emblem of the "square and compasses". What the article in no says is that all Freemasons wear the emblem all the time, or that the emblem only has this one meaning to the general public. This is an example, if a somewhat trivial one, of why non-masons are not really in a position to expertly comment on Freemasonry, although they can have a view on the subject. Following the same logic, an article on advanced mathematics is not improved by innumerate "lay" changes to the mathematics. Imacomp 11:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Number 1, the wording "perished" is compromize wording since both murdered and executed can be considered incorrect, if you keep insisting on re-adding the incorrect wording of "murdered" I will keep removing it, so should the other editors of the article. Number 2, "universally worn as a Masonic emblem" does not mean that any mason who wears a forget me not is wearing it for that reason, it means that anyone who wears a forget-me-not everywhere in the world wears it to remember the masons, which is simply not true. If you want to change the wording to something like "freemasons globally recognize" or something like that it would be ok. Seraphim 03:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
The suggested changes are BS, for the reasons I stated. Re: "I will keep removing it, so should the other editors of the article... Seraphim 03:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)." This statement is incitement to an Edit War, showing bad faith. The current "edit revert" was back to one of agrreed status. Imacomp 20:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Your adding false POV information back to the article over and over, and have made it clear that you want the word there because of the emotion it carries. Murdered is the wrong word, which you are suggesting, my first suggestion "executed" was also shown to be false, the current word "perished" simply means that they died, which is 100% accurate, and it was suggested by a few members as a compromise wording, and was on the article for well over a week. Please stop reverting to your false pov edit. If you continue I will escalate your RFC to the arbcom and we can get you banned from editing freemasonry related articles. Your not willing to compromise, and you have shown quite clearly that you do not care if the article is encyclopedic or not, and a lack of understanding on wikipedia policy and what consensus is. The point of the RFC was to get you to stop this type of behavior. I'm asking again, please stop. Seraphim 21:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
They seemed entirely reasonable to me. I'm not sure what your issue is, unless it's with Seraphim herself!ALR 20:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Suggested Revision of Opposition section

Again, here is the proposed section; this time it is at the same level it would be in the article. Ben Standeven 23:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Again(?) implies that all the changes have failed before. This is a bundle of changes, covering several contentious issues, and seems far too radical. Imacomp 20:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Looks like you're intentionally misrepresenting what has been said, since it's clear that this is a repeat of process. Somewhat disingenuous of you to phrase things in that way isn't it?ALR 20:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


I don't like the Christian anti-Masonry section myself, as it seems to focus to much on the supposed link between Masonry and deism, rather than being about Christian reactions to Masonry per se. Ben Standeven 23:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The link between Masonry and deism is one of the two major problems christianity has with masonry. The other being the secrecy of masonry. It's completly valid to point out that one of the major christian problems with masonry is the stance of masonry on supreme beings. It actually splits into 2 camps also, some believe that masons worship a masonic god, others belive that masonry is evil because they don't require you to worship the christian god, simply believe in a supreme being, aka a false idol. Seraphim 03:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Your wording is illuminating, but:
  • There is no explicit link between FM and Deism. FM is not a religion, just accepting of all religious philosophies as unique to the individual. I'd agree that some of the traditions within the Christian church interpret this as deism, Bens' concern about the wording is entirely valid, since it could be argued that the churchs main issue with FM is its' potential for political influence within the church hierarchy and accusations of a deist approach are a useful way to mitigate for that potential influence.
  • Just to further clarify the point on The Supreme Being. No problem with your characterisation of some traditions which have the misconception that the SB is a Masonic God, however I'd hesitate to conflate acceptance of the individuals SB and a perception as evil. That does not equate ones' SB as a 'false Idol'. If I might refer you to Exodus it should be clear that the Tribal God of the Israelites had an issue with representations of himself, such as the golden calf. An Idol is a representation of $Deity, not the $Deity itself.
Notwithstanding all of that I'd tend to agree with both of you, Christian reactions to FM aren't as simple as might be suggested, whilst JAS made a lot of progress with the RCC position, which is by far the most sophisticated argument (having formed and evolved over centuries), there appears to be little from other traditions which is not derivative.ALR 08:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I am just stating some of the common objectives I found while researching the jahbulon page. The reaction of christians against freemasony are as you said, very very varied, and most of them aren't really based on fact and are more conspiracy theories then anything. If you want to see something funny go look up the website of Jack Van Impe (might be spelt wrong) and his book Global ID: 666 i think it's called. He's a prominent christian tv personality who is obsessed with the end of the world, and he usually sticks masons right in the middle of some sort of huge global conspiracy, watch a few episodes on his website it's hysterical, one second he's reading viewermail where they thank him for finding the good in everything, and in the next second he's quoting revelations and saying that the world will end in a year. Seraphim 21:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
As I've said before, I'm more than familiar with Anti-Masonic sentiment. I've had to take a former employer to court over what was clearly bias based on my membership of the craft.ALR 21:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with the changes above, which reflect a lack of restraint and bad faith in editing to wiki consensus. I've restored the sections changed without reaching a consensus, in bad faith. (Minor changes to the article were kept). The changes are still up for debate, so do not make them until a true consensus is reached. Imacomp 19:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
The substantive changes proposed represent a far too radical one-step change. I believe that such a one step change is ill advised. Imacomp 19:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Ben, Can I suggest that rather than paste whole swathes of the article on the talk page, you create a sub-page and paste there, then reference it on the talk page for discussion. fwiw I have a number of specific issues with what you're suggesting that could be dealt with in that way, although I appreciate that mature discussion in general is proving difficult to achieve at present due to circumstances outside most peoples control! ALR 21:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

'Tis done. Ben Standeven 07:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Why complicate and muddy the waters further? There are obviously several edits bundled, so separate them. (Although I agree with none proposed - see below). Imacomp 21:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I've already described some of them above, but here is a more complete list:
  • All material specific to Muslim Anti-Freemasonry is now located in a subsection of Religious Opposition; this is clearly a more logical place for it.
ContentALR 09:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The irrelevant references to Holocaust Day have been removed; an additional link between Anti-Masonry and Anti-Western sentiment has been added per SFMNAD.
ContentALR 09:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The intro now contains a paragraph demonstrating that "Anti-Masonry is often related to Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism", sourced to Andrew Prescott's essay.
ContentALR 09:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "The UK Labour Government , in the late 1990s and early 2000s, attempted to require all members of fraternal organisations who are public officials to make their affiliation public" is removed as it is too minor and only marginally relevant.
Not content. The section is significant and probably needs more thinking about. The impact is still the subject of debate in the welsh Assembly and in the Scottish Assembly, it's pretty much been put to bed in England although some local councils still try to include a declaration. It is required for Police and Judiciary appointments. If it ever reaches a conclusion it has the potential to spread, most of the legal beagles in the European Parliament are brits and a lot of european legislation can be demonstrated to be derived from some form of UK legislation.ALR 09:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, so this isn't just confined to Britain. But I still don't see the importance; isn't membership in the Masons more or less public information already? Ben Standeven 20:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The Holocaust section was trimmed to a single paragraph, by eliminating irrelevant details.

Ben Standeven07:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

ContentALR 09:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


Please answer as YES or NO: Do you agree to all the changes, to be made in a single edit?


  • Of course; I wouldn't have suggested them otherwise... Ben Standeven 07:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Absolutely, there is no other way to shrink a section. Seraphim 21:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Per Seraphim. Ardenn 21:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


If "No", then state which changes should be OK

  • None of the above. However the "History" section may need shortening? Would an editor show a new shorter section here? Imacomp 21:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

How about an option to say I choose not to simplify grown up discussion down to a simple yea or nay vote!ALR 21:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

To “ALR”, 1) you have not voted. 2) the format is both clear, and simple, to reach a consensus (or not). Yes/No seems to work in most civil debates involving adults. Imacomp 21:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. I haven't voted. I think simple sums it up, I choose not to participate in playground antics.ALR 21:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
That is your choice. "I think simple sums it up, I choose not to participate in playground antics.ALR 21:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)" For "participate in playground antics" I see only an effort to have an Adult vote. 1 vote out of 1 currently "No" with 0 for "Yes", then. Imacomp 21:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
You do appreciate that copying my line immediately above merely comes across as churlish and obfuscates the content free nature of your own response? simplistic votes in a complex debate are hardly adult.
Ben has suggested a number of changes, and whilst I think there is some scope for discussion around the potential contribution, the fact that it has been proposed rather than added is an approach wholly compatible with the consensual philosophy of Wikipedia. Seeking to divert attention by oversimplifying things adds little of value but does strike me as rather petulant.ALR 21:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Why not try voting democratically? Still 1 vote No 0 votes Yes. Imacomp 21:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC) Note Now 1:1 No:yes as at this time. Imacomp 21:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
2 yes, 1 no. Ardenn 21:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure we can all read Yes or No, without keeping a runnig total the is hard to keep in sink with the votes, in good faith. Imacomp 21:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

"Absolutely, there is no other way to shrink a section." No other way at all? Imacomp 21:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC) PS "Bad faith" edit reverted. Imacomp 21:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Correct, the proper way to shrink a section is to do exactly this, discuss it on the talk page and then pop the shrunk version onto the page in one fell swoop. Otherwise you have hundreds of little small edits. There is no "big edits are bad" rule, infact policy states the opposite WP:BOLD. Seraphim 21:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Meanwhile the bad faith edit war started - as threatened - but not by me. This shows other ways to edit the section (in another bad way). Imacomp 22:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Please explain what is being done in bad faith, I can't figure out what change or action you consider to be in bad faith. It would be enlightening to all if you could articulate what you feel is a bad faith edit, and your reasoning. Seraphim 22:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I already have below. Imacomp 23:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

"murdered" vs "perished"

Please explain why you feel that "murdered" is a better word then "perished". Because of the debatable legality of the nazi killings it was decided that neither the word "murdered" which implies illegal killing, or the word "executed" (that I originally suggested) which implies legal killings, were appropriate. The compromise word "perished" was inserted since it states that the people were killed without mentioning the legality of the situation, which is 100% accurate.

Either explain why "murdered" is the correct word, or point out how "perished" is the incorrect word. Reverting because somehow you feel that the change wasn't discussed or it isn't "consensus" is not a valid reason, if every change to an article required consensus all the contravercial pages on wikipedia would be blank.

I don't feel like getting into a revert war today, even though I would have the last revert, it's pointless, and just clogs up the page's history. Seraphim 22:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Copied from my talk:["Formal Warning"] If you continue to violate wikipedia policy in this way, through your unwarranted reverts, unwillingness to discuss reverts, and general uncivil behavior, tomorrow I will be requesting that ArbCom ban you from Freemasonry related articles. 22:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC) Try signing your threat please. Imacomp 22:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not a threat, it's a warning, which is Standard Operating Proceedure on wikipedia, you can't escalate a dispute without proof that attempts were made to solve the dispute. And I meant to sign it, I looks like I put 5 tilde's instead of 4 by accident, i'll go fix it. Seraphim 22:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Go on then, but try signing the threat next time. ie it is not a formal warning, but an unsigned threat. Imacomp 22:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I already fixed it. Like I said on your talk page, I did "try signing" I just hit the ~ key one too many times by mistake. Seraphim 22:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Well do not create new sections and move my talk into them either. Imacomp 22:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Refactoring talk pages is 100% valid and ok to do, if you want proof go look at the recent RFC against TonySideway. Part of the rules for talk pages on WP:TALK is to "Use coherent formatting". Discussion about a warning that I put on your talk page really belongs on your talk page, it does not belong on this talk page, never mind in a section intended for discussion on a particular subject. If you wish to change the section header be my guest, however unless you can show how me posting a warning on your talk page in any way answers the questions posed in the section, be my guest. Also I didn't move your text, I simply inserted a section break. If you want i'll even create it as a subsection. However cluttering up talk pages is simply not allowed. Talk pages must be coherent. Seraphim 22:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Seraphim See my Formal Warning, given on your talk page. Long talks of Wiki-lawyering after edits do not help. Imacomp 22:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
ALR See my Formal Warning, given on your talk page. Wiki-lawyering edits, without talk here, do not help. Re: "22:13, 2 July 2006 ALR (Talk | contribs) (Tend to agree with Seraphim. No bad faith on her part......) " is a "tag team" edit in the revert war started by SeraphimXI, but I'm not going to "3RR". Imacomp 22:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
If you have issues with my conduct feel free to raise an RFC in accordance with accepted Wikipedia protocol. I would suggest that an RFC, or indeed personal talk pages, are the appropriate place for a meaningful and contextualised discussion of conduct, this is an article talk page for discussion of the Freemasonry article.ALR 23:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
That is the warning that you deleted from your talk? All intermediate steps will be followed if I indeed go down that path. I'm talking here so as not to be deleted. Imacomp 23:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

No talk for this edit, below (single issue)

"23:06, 2 July 2006 BlueValour" was not given any discussion. Edit in bad faith. (Note i'm not going for a technical 3RR edit either). Another day of unproductivity, started in good faith - and kept that way by me. Imacomp 23:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Edits do not need to be discussed prior to making them. Please review the 3rd infobox at the top of this page discussing how to edit a contravercial page. Seraphim 23:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Please asume good faith. Thanks. Imacomp 23:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

In the Islamic world, Muslim Anti-Masonry is intimately related to Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism.

I think that this is a very controversial statement and the reference provides one point of view but does not stand this up as a fact. I am looking at some alternative wording to provide balance. BlueValour 00:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a bit strong. It can definatly be softened, I like the wording "commonly tied to", however all of the Muslim Anti-Masonry websites/documents i've ever seen do directly tie together Muslim Anti-Masonry and Anti-Semitism/Zionism. If you can find any Muslim Anti-Masonry stuff that doesn't base it's anti-masonic approach on some sort of Jewish conspiracy i'd be very very interested in reading it. Seraphim 00:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I have added a source that, like most others, includes some anti-jewish sentiments, but seems to have a broader critique. BlueValour 00:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah like I said, there is always some sort of tie between the comment about freemasonry and an anti-semitic ideal. Seraphim 00:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
The whole article is very controversial. It was posted in good faith into the article, and cited with adademic works to back it up. Always asume good faith. And it says in the Islamic world, not all Muslims - as there are Muslim Freemasons. Also ataching an edit (that I reverted) even in good faith, that Muslims say Freemasons worship Satan, offends all Freemasons - including the Muslim ones. I assume this was done in good faith, as an error. I also see a good faith edit was added, but talk was only added after - without letting debate. Please allow debate, in good faith.Imacomp 00:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
The fact that content is offencive does not mean it cannot be included in wikipedia. Merely stating that a group has a particular belief is 100% ok, as long as the article does not try to push that belief's POV. In this case, if the article says that some muslim groups feel that freemasons worship satan, and it's backed up by a few references that clearly show that muslim groups do make the claim that freemasons worship satan, stating that some muslim groups feel that freemasons worship satan is a 100% verifiable statement, and there is no reason to remove it from the article. Remember, wikipedia strives for verifiability, not truth. It's not our job to correct groups, it's our job to state what the groups say. Seraphim 00:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
These are good points. I have used your phrase 'is commonly tied to'. BlueValour 00:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Although edited in good faith, I must report that - as at my time code at the end here - the "current" article edit is highly offensive to a Muslim Freemason who knows me. (He telephoned). He is to make a formal complaint through UGLE, and will also alert others. He cannot edit here, as he would be "new". He is not asuming the good faith of your Wiki editing. I'm reporting this here, in good faith, as I consulted with him on "my" edit. I am now unwilling to continue editing here. Thanks, and yours in good faith. Imacomp 00:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
He can make any complaints through UGLE that he wants. I don't see how that is relevant to this page or wikipedia. If UGLE wanted to they could call up the wikipedia office and try to get a WP:OFFICE injunction on the page, that would be unprecedented however and highly unlikely to happen. Seraphim 00:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure what part of the revised wording has caused upset but I have re-edited to make it as objective as possible. If there are still concerns then it would be helpful if Imacomp could share them so that they can be addressed. BlueValour 01:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
My own main concern here is the erroneous implication that only Anti-Freemasonry is only connected to Anti-Semitism in the Islamic world; the sources clearly state that this relationship is universal.Ben Standeven 07:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Been away from here. Come back and found that Mousescribe has removed agreed wording again. I have reinserted with a modification to meet the somewhat pedantic point he made. BlueValour 01:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

System of morality

I've reworked the language to make it a little less clunky and take the britannica reference into reference format. I looked at the Britannica site but only get the opening paragraph of their article, has someone got access to their current article to see if it's in there, I'm afraid a 1911 encyclopedia doesn't really cut it in terms of reliability for me.ALR 09:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

A much better edit, from the article's past, was and is, "Both 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica and 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia agree that Freemasonry is most generally defined as: A peculiar (some say particular or beautiful) system of morality veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols.[1] This is illustrated in the 1991 English Emulation Ritual.[2]". Note I'm not a sock, but I have the same IP address of (another) Freemason, (my father) for this 1st and last edit to this page. Hello and bye from me. Deltascribe 09:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not better, for the reason that no WP article I've ever seen directly in-lines its sources; avoiding that is what the references are for. MSJapan 10:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not culpable for the poor quality of editing in wiki articles. "I'm afraid a 1911 [encyclopaedia (illiterate spelling corrected)] doesn't really cut it in terms of reliability for me." Using “popups” is about the level this stuff is aimed at. Not worth the cyber-space or my time to comment further. Bye. Deltascribe 11:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Illiterate spelling?! That's awfully rude. In fact, it looks like a personal attack to me. OzLawyer 17:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
It's par for the course from Imacomp though, I kind of let it wash over me now, it's a useful exercise in patience :) ALR 18:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Minor correction needed

Under the section on Membership and Religion, Hinduism is described as a non-monotheistic religion. This is incorrect. Please see the Wikipedia articles on monotheism and hinduism.

While "technically" Hinduism is monotheistic when taken to its logical conclusion, most adherents to that faith don't really think of it that way, and it cannot really be considered monotheistic in the same way as the Trinity in Christianity is still considered monotheistic. OzLawyer 19:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Hinduism is monotheistic when taken to its logical conclusion, by historical president - within the former British Empire - for the purposes of UGLE regular membership. Mousescribe 14:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

"Religious opposition" - theocratic and authoritarian. Eg, "Papal States" - how theocratic and authoritarian can one get? Fact, not POV. Imacomp 20:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC) PS Bye, again. Imacomp 20:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Morgan Section Revert

MSJ rolled back Mamalujo's edit about Morgan with the reason "(rv. Note 18 says nothing of the kind.)", which is Incorrect. From note 18 on the ref "Sheriff Elli Bruce was removed from office by Governor Clinton on September 26, 1827 [fn. 2 p. 22] and received a 28 months sentence. An appeal failed and he was jailed from May 20, 1829 to Sept 23, 1831. Loton Lawson received two years in the County jail; Nicholas G. Chesebro, one year , Edward Sawyer, one month; and John Sheldon, three months. Colonel William King died before trial. [p. 213] All of them made depositions prior to trial date; confessing their guilt in holding Morgan against his will for five days but denying that he had accompanied them against his will or that they had killed him."

Section 18 says that Loton Lawson, Nicholas Chesebro, Edward Sawyer, John Sheldon, and Colonel William King all made depositions "confessing their guilt" in Morgan's kidnapping.

From earlier in the reference(note 16)"On or about Monday night, September 18th, Colonel King [d. 1829/05/28], John Whitney of Rochester, Eli Bruce, Sheriff Niagara County, Orsamus Turner, editor, Captain Jared Darrow, Loton Lawson, John Sheldon, James Gillis, Timothy Shaw, Noah Beach, Samuel Chubbuck, William Miller, David Hague, Richard Howard and other unidentified Freemasons confronted Morgan in the magazine." Therefore we can see that Sherrif Bruce, Lawson and Sheldon are Masons.

Again Section 16 "On Sunday September 10th, Nicholas G. Chesebro, Master of a lodge in Canandaigua, and coroner for Ontario County, obtained a warrant for Morgan's arrest on a charge of stealing a shirt and cravat." Therefore Chesebro is a mason.

Again Section 16 "The journey ended in Youngstown, at the residence of Colonel William King, Master of a lodge in Lewiston " Therefore King is a mason.

The only person who confessed guilt that cannot be shown by that article to be a mason is John Sheldon. I'm going to edit back the section and change the primary reference for the whole page not just section 18 in particular, since the reference comes from both sections 16 and 18. Seraphim 04:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The point being that the Masonic connection wasn't in note 18 as claimed; I didn't read note 16, because that's not what the reference stated as its source. Also, you can't cite the whole page, as it's not going to help anyone find the information. Cite precisely which note(s) the information comes from. It might also be a good idea to point out explicitly in the article that those men never confessed to Morgan's murder, as the note does. As it reads now, there is room for speculation in the article that doesn't exist in the original piece. MSJapan 13:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps it should also be pointed out that none of these men even confessed to abducting Morgan. They claimed that he had accompanied them of his own free will, with the idea that he would be passed on to Canadian Masons. But upon finding that the Canadian Masons were not prepared to receive Morgan, they held him (this time against his will) for five days at Fort Niagra. It was this last part (holding him for the five days) that they confessed to. Blueboar 17:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
"All of them made depositions prior to trial date; confessing their guilt in holding Morgan against his will for five days but denying that he had accompanied them against his will or that they had killed him." They signed depositions saying that they held him against his will for 5 days and that he did not go along with them of his own free will. Seraphim 21:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
"...but denying that he had accompanied them against his will or that they had killed him" and the rest of the notes seem to back this up. Everything prior to Morgan being held for the five days (due to the problems coordinating things with the Canadian Masons) was pre-arranged between Morgan and Witney (the Master of a lodge in Rochester)... from note 15: "According to Whitney's testemony, Morgan claimed to be without funds and was in bodily fear of Miller to whom he still owed the final chapters of his exposure. Whitney offered a plan for Morgan to escape his difficulties: Morgan was to be paid $50 as evidence of good faith; to take him out of the jurisdiction of Genesee County, he was to be arrested on a technical charge of the theft of a shirt and cravat he had borrowed in Canandaigua; he would be taken to Canandaigua where the charge would be dropped; he would be rearrested on a minor charge to allow him to remain in safe custody and then that charge would be dropped; he would then be escorted to a farm in Canada where he would be provided with funds and his wife would later be sent to him. According to Whitney, Morgan agreed to this plan. [p. 80]"... It should be noted that up until Morgan was held in Niagra for 5 days, this is exactly what happened. Blueboar 00:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Conviction of the three Masons is a historical fact which is pertinent to the section. Certainly people can insist upon citations if they want, or refine the particulars, but this undisputed factual information should not be deleted. --Mamalujo 00:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the conviction is NOT a historical fact, at least not as you present it... they were NOT convicted of the crimes you attribute to them. Read my note above... They only confessed to holding Morgan for the five days in Niagra, not the original "abduction"... which they denied was against Morgan's will.
Also... I disagree that their conviction is pertinent to the section. This article is an overview of Freemasonry, not an article on the Morgan Affair. It is enough to state that Morgan disappeared under questionable circumstances, and that the Masons were widely thought to have been involved. We do not need to get into the details of what exactly may have happened... we link to the Morgan and Anti-Masonic Party articles for that. For this article, it is the fall out from the Morgan Affair which is more important. We need to concentrate on how the Morgan Affair impacted American Freemasonry, not on the Affair itself. Blueboar 01:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Whether or not the convicted Masons committed the original abduction, they were guilty of common law kidnapping (from Wikipedia): "In criminal law, kidnapping is the taking away or asportation of a person against the person's will, usually to hold the person in false imprisonment, a confinement without legal authority." Almost certainly, this is the crime of which they were convicted. You say that "it is enough to state...that the Masons were widely thought to have been involved." It is not enough to do so. It is not just widely thought that they were involved, a number of them WERE involved and were convicted in a court of law of that involvement. The problem is that the section as it stands now is factually inaccurate and deceptive. It creates the impression that involvement by Masons is only rank speculation, when in reality three Masons were convicted in the matter. And you are wrong, it does belong in the article. A discussion of the Morgan Affair is incomplete without the fact that three Masons were convicted in the matter, and all that it requires is one sentance. You seem to be detirmined to conceal the truth from this article. The fact that some Masons in New York acted deplorably is pertinent to the triggering of the anti-Masonic movement. Granted some Masons, notably Governor Clinton, acted quite admirably, but any discussion of the Morgan Affair is incomplete without this fact.--Mamalujo 18:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I have implemented my proposed changes

I think a week is long enough to wait; noone proposed any substantive objections except to one change (which I have not made). I notice that one of the cites for the Holocaust section is "THE BLUE FORGET-ME-NOT" - ANOTHER SIDE OF THE STORY, which I thought we had decided not to use. Or am I confused on this point? Ben Standeven 20:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like I am; we only decided not to accept Lightbringer's citing it, a different matter entirely...Ben Standeven 20:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


I concur with Webmaster@sgovd.org1 in edit 7:18, 10 July 2006 Imacomp 09:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Edits aiming to suppress the connections of anti-Freemasonry to Holocaust denial, anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism – only strengthen the arguments to publish the connection in the article. The continued linkage to the need to broadcast is proven beyond any doubt, and backed by statements in the talk archive. Mousescribe 10:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you make up your mind which of these two accounts you are planning on editing from! Unfortunately I'm time limited on the PC I'm at justnow (In a hotel in the US) and don't have time to raise the RFCU and sock-puppetry discussion myself. ALR 17:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
How sad for you, as no socks involved. Several people use the same machine and/or IP address. Sorry to spoil your conspiracy theory. Try concentrating on article content, and assume good faith. Mousescribe 11:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
An edit trying to use a chat site as a cited ref was reverted. Not only is the ref not notable, it would be laughable, if it did not propagate dangerous and highly inflammatory lies (re: Satan, again, etc.). Mousescribe 12:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I am confused... Mousescribe's current revert (11:54, 12 July 2006) includes the following edit summary: (Rv. to 12:48, 11 July 2006 Mousescribe. The web chat page is not a a credible citable reference. It would be laughable information, if it was not propagating dangerous lies anyway.) First, there is no edit at 12:48 on that date (there is one at 11:48, so I assume its a typo and this is what he refers to). Second, the revert has nothing to do with a citation... it reverts Blue Valour's change...
from: "Muslim Anti-Masonry is generally associated with Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism though that religion also raises other objections"
back to "Muslim Anti-Masonry is intimately associated with Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism"...
This is a revert based on wording and not citation. Thus, the summary (and the statement above) is misleading... Please folks, be clearer in your edit summaries so the rest of us can understand what you are trying to do.
Removing 'though that religion also raises other objections' is a form of denial. It is clear from the source that this statement is correct. To remove this statement you must show it is inaccurate. BlueValour 15:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Mousescribe has removed this again without explanation leaving something that is not NPOV. This is an encyclopaedia not a means of pushing one point of view. BlueValour 18:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
To lesson your confusion, you seem to be heading for a 3RR BlueValour, and I point this out in good faith. "This is an encyclopaedia not a means of pushing one point of view". Are you following this yourself, when assuming good faith. A parafrase is exceptable, and "direct quotes" look like that, as I stated in the edit summary. I did not use a direct quote, and it is not "NPOV" (to use a double negative) but an edit in good faith and in keeping with the spirit cited. "Removing 'though that religion also raises other objections' is a form of denial. It is clear from the source that this statement is correct. To remove this statement you must show it is inaccurate." That statement is itself incorrect, and the citation is facile - see what I have already posted on the subject. Mousescribe 18:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
'several sentence edits, and minor corrections' hardly accurately charactises reverting again a discussed edit. My phrasing was balanced and accurate unless I see an argument to the contrary. My view is that this part of the article no longer corresponds with NPOV and I have tagged it as such. BlueValour 18:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree - BlueValour's wording fits the source better. I had a look at the source, a look at the other pages avilable and the answers contained thereon, and compared them to my copy of 'Islam for dummies'. The source appears to broadly reflect 'normal muslim thought' and as such is likely to be a good source. Unless Imacomp Mousescribe can come up with a source stating otherwise, I would argue that BlueValour's wording should stay. IF a source stating the oposite can be found, I guess we have to include both sources and say there are multiple opinions/reasons among muslims why some muslims are anti-masons. WegianWarrior 19:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC) (via two editconflicts - busy here today =) )
"hardly accurately charactises". Yes they are, show good faith, please. Mousescribe 18:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, assuming good faith, I'm not going to 3RR, or indeed think that you two would form a 3RR avoiding "Tag Team" of Wikilawyers. I also assume in good faith that "Imacomp Mousescribe" is not a personal attack - and is inaccurate anyway, as is the "much loved" same IP = sock ploy, in My case. For the record "Imacomp" is currently in Hospital, for a minor "Op", and I am one of his Sons. Ok? Please quote any of the "more obscure" Wiki protocols, if any, that says several Users may not use the same machine? Personally, I would solve the problem with manditory full registration, for Editors, but we must use the current - if somewhat flawed - system (that allows shuch users as "Lightbringer" to subvert it). So assume good faith or "Wikilawyer", your choice? Mousescribe 19:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
All this repetition of 'show good faith' reminds me of another editor; now I wonder why? BlueValour 19:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I assume good faith, in thinking you know your own mind, if a little Cryptic and veiled in allegory (although not illustrated by symbols)? Mousescribe 19:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: "19:58, 12 July 2006 Ardenn (Talk | contribs) m (rv back to BlueValour)" Assuming that Ardenn did not intend to revert all my edits, I will reinstate them, (avoiding the edit that makes a 3RR), as no problem with them has been posted. I am, as a matter of routine, assuming good faith., although reinstating the edits is a little tiresome. Mousescribe 19:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

In (radical) parts of the Arabic world, this conspiracy theory about freemasons is based on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion hoax which is still widely spread and taken serious (i.e. Charta of the Hamas: Article 32). The German article about the Protocols says that there are about 60 different arabic editions of the Protocols and that there was even a TV series in Egypt in 2002 that was based on the Protocols and was broadcasted again in 2004 by a Lebanese Hizbollah TV sender. In Germany, spreading these Protocols is prosecuted since the Second World War. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 19:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC) Thanks for the interesting post :) Mousescribe 19:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Note I do not agree with the "npov" tag, but it was in my edit - just in case I got a 3RR over it. Mousescribe 19:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Note that assuming good faith, Chtirrell forgot to talk here before reverting all my work, that I talked about above. I may get a 3RR, if he reverts a second time and I revert him (?) so all my work may be lost in order to not 3RR. :( I hope Chtirrell is acting in good faith, as I would not want to inadvertently assum I'm being bullied by a gang? Mousescribe 20:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC) "21:07, 12 July 2006 Chtirrell (Talk | contribs) (RV, I am "assuming good faith" in Ardenn, as my Faith in Mousescribe/Deltascribe/Imacomp/Skull 'n' Femurs has run dry)" I assume that this is a staight personal attack, and so also simple bad faith vandalism. How about it Ardenn, (asking on personal talk page, in good faith). Note that the changes may come back, as per Wiki protocol, after 24hrs, acting in good faith after putting in hard work in a constructive set of edits. Mousescribe 20:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not acting in good faith towards you, user:Imacomp. Revert away. Yours truely, a former wikilawyer. Chtirrell 20:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC) "If you think this [above] is naughty [of Chtirrell] (and I do) then could you report him in the right place please. Thanks for your time." On Ardenn talk page. Mousescribe 20:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I revert blindly, to as WeiganWarrior put it, "a version by trusted editors." I don't have the time or patience to sit there, and lollygag over every single little change. Now I did go in and fix that "daughter" edit, since the word daughter isn't very appropriate. Ardenn 20:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

So I'm assuming I can just revert, in good faith, re "vandalism" and your post here. Mousescribe 20:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

"I think the only thing that is naughty, is that you're wasting my time. I'm not an admin, there's nothing I can do. I don't care to report him. I'm a very lazy person. Ardenn 20:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)" OK, as I'm lazy as well, Ill assume a vandalism revert is OK Mousescribe 20:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC) Note:21:22, 12 July 2006 was preserved. Mousescribe 20:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

No, because it's not vandalizm. Get your definition correct. Ardenn 20:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Well I did ask for help, but you posted after my edit, which was in good faith - in collaboration with a positive edit by I hope that if a 3RR is reported on me, that an admin will look at all the above talk. Mousescribe 20:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I notice that a good's edit was lost, as your collateral damage, in what has become a revert war, not of my making. I will be back for more +ve editing, in good faith. Signing out ;) Mousescribe 20:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Look again, nothing of's was lost. Only your edits. Peddle your lies someplace else. Chtirrell 20:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
And another personal attack? I was having a like lurk at my watchlist. Gone now (Or am I) ;) Mousescribe 21:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I could care less if you're "gone" or not. Apparently your alter ego user:imacomp is a "dead user" according to his user discussion page, yet he's been editting. Your other alter ego user:deltascribe was "not active" according to his page, yet you editted with him. I wouldn't assume you were "gone" if you stated it. Also truth is not a personal attack.'s edit was not lost and you lied about it to make us look bad to the admins. If you'd like a personal attack, here is one. Stop acting like a child and start acting like the mason you claim to be. Chtirrell 21:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


  1. Now I am a "liberal" freemason. My Grand Orient is not governed by anybody. This is why we call ourselves "Souveräner GrossOrient". Although there is no "government" for "regular" Freemasons, they have to follow rules, the Basic Principles of Grand Lodge Recognition to keep their recognition. I could not find thosse rules of the UGLoE, but you'll find rather similar rules here [1] for the AFAM Grand Lodge of Scotland or here [2]. My Grand Lodge is not recognized by the UGLoE, because they usually only accept one Grand Lodge per country (this is why there is this umbrella organization "United Grand Loges of Germany") and since we have no such rule to belief in a Supreme Being and this is a major point, we have female Freemasons. You can find our constitution here: [3]. But we are recognized by the Grand Orient de France, Grand Orient de Belgique, Grand Loge de Belgique, Grand Orient of Switzerland and the Grand Orient of Austria. They are all not recognized by the UGLoE, too. So there is no central government. In the history of Freemasonry the UGLoE recognized the Grand Orient de France until they removed the need to believe in a supreme being in their rules. Although all members of all lodges that are recognized by the UGLoE aren't allowed to participate in our rituals although they are welcome, we all Freemasony.
  2. There was no single Nazi German Department. This was the Reich Security Main Office.
  3. It is essential that is was after the World War II that the Forget-me-not was used. I see no reason to remove this fact.

--SGOvD webmaster (talk) 21:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting and your edits, as above, are OK with me :-) Mousescribe 21:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned about all this....

We are not the people who should be engaging in revert wars. We are here to make this article better. That being said, discussing edits and waiting for comments before making said edits is an important part of the improvement process. I'm seeing way too much changing of passages to reflect personal opinion rather than reflecting the concensus. The purpose of concensus is to get a majority opinion. Therefore, not everybody has to (or is going to) agree on everything, and we all need to respect that, even if it is information that we may not agree with.

As for the supposed sockpuppetry, I don't care if it's actually Imacomp under three names, or if it is his kids - the fact remains that this has been and will be a contentious and difficult article, and unilateral reversions arent going to help anybody assume good faith. This is why we all need to be cognizant of the issues involved in this article, and furthermore, not even resort to methods that could be considered questionable.

I think then that we need to really stick to the editing method we have had in place for a while now, and if people aren't going to follow the method, I don't care how good the edit is, it goes away. Discussion means discussion, not "post a notice and change it anyway." There should be no unilateral editing without discussion except for spelling and grammar - that means if you think it should say "some" instead of "all" you need to explain why. This is because we all have a different set of experiences, none of which are absolutely correct in all instances. We need to prevent the problem instead of running damage control after the fact. WP in general and this article in particular are supposed to be enjoyable experiences that we can all learn from, not reasons to beat our heads against the wall. MSJapan 00:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree, actually I cannot see a major difference between Ardenn's and Mousescribe's version. I now added some facts and reformatted the article. I hope all of you can live with it. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 00:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur with the above MSJapan (I have found you in the achived pages) & (a consistently good editor, using English as a 2nd language, as well :-) ) , and would be glad if I could edit without revert wars over my edits, and wikilawyers running off and calling me a sock every 5 mins. Good faith is much talked about but not put into practice much, by anyone here. Highly POV anti-masonry and name calling (such as FM = Satanists, and lumping religious tags on FM) are, not +ve edits. Also finger pointing at me, or “Imacomp”, as not Masonic in editing is not Masonic either. Lets draw a line under the whole thing, and perhaps the other editors could show good faith and take back current 3RR - and "naughty doings" reports - off me? Mousescribe 01:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)PS "Imacomp" posted "Please answer as YES or NO: Do you agree to all the changes, to be made in a single edit?" and was told it was childish. That is how "stick[ing] to the editing method" of trying for a consensus was met. Anyway He will not be back, and will be busy retiring form work.Mousescribe 01:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
MSJapan, I agree with you on almost all points. I think we should all edit in a mature way and keep our heads together. However, I do disagree with you about what the past "editing method" has been for this article. For the past several months, the editing method has been, people attempt to add material or change material and Imacomp/Socks revert it no matter what with an edit summary "RV to trusted editor" or "RV to concensus." Basically, it has become the dicatorship of Imacomp and his socks. I have attempted at times to help with making compromises, i.e. the murder or execute debate. I propsed a neutral word "killed by" and that was reverted by Imacomp several times. What I see is an editor that doesn't give a damn about compromise or concensus, only having his way. Today, I saw more blanket reverting and finally stopped caring about his position. It is also very coincidental that as soon as a group of editors stand up against this dictatorship and fill out an RFC, we get "I'm Imacomp's son" and "he's no longer editing." Sockpuppet or convinent Meatpuppet? I couldn't care less. This article deserves multiple points of view, including negative ones.
As for taking back the 3RR report and "doing naughty things" report. Hell will sooner freeze over first. You dug your grave, now sit in it. Don't play the victum with me. Chtirrell 02:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW, here's a little reading material from the wikipedia:AGF page. "Of course, there's a difference between assuming good faith and ignoring bad actions. If you expect people to assume good faith from you, make sure you demonstrate it. Don't put the burden on others. Yelling "Assume Good Faith" at people does not excuse you from explaining your actions, and making a habit of it will convince people that you're acting in bad faith." I think it illustrates Imacomp/Mousescribes use of the term "assume good faith" perfectly. Your wikipedia:AGF credit has run out. Chtirrell 02:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

"Sockpuppet or convinent Meatpuppet? [User?]". Neither is true, as defined by "WPs" - a proper Editors' Registration Protocol (without the need for vendetta hunts) would demonstrate this. Real die-hard socks, etc., use multiple IP addresses anyway, ("Lightbringer") - and this would be covered by the proper Editors' Registration Protocol. "Your wikipedia:AGF credit has run out. Chtirrell 02:26, 13 July". Apparently, and demonstrably that is not true – since this a/c is still operational, without any fancy IP address change - and Blueyonder itself cannot change the issued IP address for an a/c with multi-users. I'm guessing that its tied to the registered m/c in their case? The upshot is that I openly volunteered the information that “Checkuser” could have found – rendering it a redundant exercise, and the raising a waste of everyone’s time – if good faith had been shown in the first instance (“routine” blanket “checkuser-ing” of everyone is an even greater waste of time). It is article content that needs routine checking – and setting rules (again) is a good place to mark a start point, to move on from. Keep that good faith going... :) Mousescribe 19:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Assume good faith :) Mousescribe 08:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I should have specified - prior to this unilateral reversion, the policy we put in place was to discuss everything, and it seems that said policy has slipped a bit for whatever reason. Hopefully a restatement of what we should be doing will refocus everybody in a positive direction. MSJapan 13:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
The policies are in place, by much quoted "WPs", (if only selectively, by Wiki-lawyers), are they not, so why is this page seen as a "special case" - and upon what authority? If the WPs need amending, then why not use the channels of communication set out for that purpose? Mousescribe 19:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Guidelines for Editing Freemasonry Related Articles

As MSJapan has stated above, we have supposedly been operating on a "discuss everything before posting" basis for the last few months. In reality, some people have followed this editing guideline, while others have been posting, and counter-posting at will, and not really discussing anything until it gets into a revert war. As I see it, the guideline is a good one in spirit, but overly limiting. We will end up spending a lot of time posting "anyone mind if I change this word?" requests (and thus waiting for a reply), and not actually getting anything done. Instead, I propose the following:

  • Editors may initially feel free to make changes without the need for prior discussion. A clear Edit summary, however, should indicate what was changed (and, if appropriate, why).
  • If no one objects, all is well and the changes will be incorporated into the article without further comment.
  • If another editor objects to the changes he/she should follow one of two methods...
  1. Amend the initial change by making additional changes. This method of objecting should be used when the initial change is mostly acceptable, but needs some improvement. The editors involved may continue to amend until consenus is reached. If at any point in this process an editor feels that discussion is needed, he/she will indicate this in an edit summary - at which point no further edits will take place on the section involved until that discussion is complete.
  1. Revert the initial changes and request talk page discussion in the edit summary. This method should be used for more serious objections. It halts any further editing on the sections involved. All editiors involved should immediately go to the talk page and discuss the changes. Once consensus is reached further editing may continue.
  • Undoing a revert by re-reverting to "your" version will be seriously frowned upon, and will be considered evidence that the editor doing the "re-revert" is not editing in good faith. When in doubt, the article should be re-set to the last edit prior to the initial changes under debate. Blueboar 14:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Please indicate your thoughts in the straw poll below:

  • I’m very sad to report that I raised this with Admin, only to have a covert “checkuser” done on me, for my trouble. “He” only had to ask, and I would have told him that “Imacomp” is my Grandpa (Freemason); “Mousescribe” is my Dad (Freemason), and I’m “User:My 42 is in (Base 13)” (Not as yet a Freemason). WE ALL have the same IP address, etc. OK? Sort out the sign-on protoclos here as a matter of urgency, please. Anyway I’ve gone direct to Jimbo wales to see if he is actually concerned about this whole thing. Try H2G2 @ the BBC (linked from “My Page”) and see how “single sign on/in” works. Note I've not voted, just in case I get "Murdered" in my sleep, for being "naughty" :( My 42 is in (Base 13) 22:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Blueboar 14:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
BlueValour 16:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Cberlet 16:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Chtirrell 17:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Ben Standeven 20:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
SGOvD webmaster 20:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
In principle, but I'd highlight that the process assumes that all editors are actually seeking to develop the article in a meaningful way, with relevant and appropriate content. Indeed, if everyone was doing that there would be no need for an additional protocol such as this anyway. It only takes one individual to undermine this, or to exploit the protocol and disrupt meaningful editing. It does rather strike me as 'rules creep' and in my experience that's never a good thing, because it allows more opportunity for exploitation.ALR 13:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I've got the same concern - so I don't quite agree nor disagree. This doesn't solve every issue. MSJapan 18:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
What you are saying about "rules creep" is true, but I feel it is needed... the fact that there is nothing we can really do about someone who does not follow the guideline is also true, but they would be a problem in any case. All it can do in that situation is give us the moral authority to chastize someone who violates it. I think it will help somewhat to cut down on the "I like my wording better" re-reverts and re-re-reverts etc. To me they key is that people feel free to edit... but agree to discussion if someone lodges an objection. And that when a contentious edit is made, the default mode is to revert to the version prior to the edit while discussion takes place. Blueboar 19:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm struggling to find the words appropriate to the general case at the moment, but I'll try. The WP guidelines and policies should allow reasonable editing without the need for this. Should an individual choose to act in contravention of the letter of those then appropriate administrative action can be taken, gradually escalating, as we've seen before. Should an editor choose to contravene the 'spirit' then there are also processes in place to take some form of community action, that's been demonstrated as well. The outcome of that process is more tenuous, particularly where there may be a perception of tacit approval of that behaviour, although it can be escalated into a more formal administrative sanction. I'd suggest that it's more appropriate to use the processes in place already, rather than come up with something local which has no clear route towards more formal sanctions.
It may be reasonable to highlight the various WP guidelines and seek conformation of agreement to them. I'll acknowledge that some of the guidelines leave something to be desired (such as WP:AGF), but would prefer to address those weaknesses rather than come up with something local.ALR 22:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
In an ideal world we would not need such an informal agreement, but in light of how things goes sometimes, yes, I agree that this would be an usefull guideline. WegianWarrior 08:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
In that I agree with the spirit of this, in so much as the policies are in place, by "WPs", already, and generally applied to all Wikipedia - so why is this page seen as a "special case" - and upon what authority? If the WPs need amending, then why not use the channels of communication set out for that purpose? I see no "moral authority to chastise someone who violates it" behond that given to everyone by the general WPs - indeed the special policy - as set out and interpreted already - looks much like a charter for a Police State separated from the rest of Wikipedia. When would the "legal" vendetta murders" start? :( In short Why is the above needed? Why not in good faith point out the generally agreed Wiki Policy documents, and rigorously use the consensus "disciplinary" protocols set out therein?

Mousescribe 20:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I am glad that everyone at least agrees with (to use Mouscribe's words) the "spirit" of my suggested guideline - that we need to do more talking and concensus building and less edit-waring. That is encouraging to me. I am certainly not suggesting that we form some kind of "police state" seperate from the rest of Wikipedia. In fact, I was trying to do the opposite. We had previously reached a consensus that ANY changes, beyond simple grammar and spelling corrections, should be discussed first... I found that to be overly limiting. I want Editors to feel free to change things in the article if they feel change is needed (Or, in WP terms, to "Be Bold"). The suggested process for what to do if someone disagrees with such a change is simply an attempt to build an agreed upon conflict resolution process, and to encourage discussion instead of edit-warring. Note that I did not include any discussion on what to do if someone did not follow our suggested guideline... I did that on purpose. We would still rely on normal WP protocols and conflict resolution proceedures if encouraging discussion does not work. Blueboar 17:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I've just wandered into this page, knowing nothing about freemasonry and not having even read the article this talk page is for. However, it is not appropriate for individual articles or groups of articles to have their own special posting guidelines. Wikipedia's overall posting guidelines apply everywhere, including even Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. --Xyzzyplugh 00:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

More P2 commentary

I'm unclear about a few things in the P2 paragraph; firstly, was their charter revoked in 76 or 74? Both dates are given in this article, only the later one in p2's own. Second, when was Licio Gelli expelled? His article says it was in 1981, but the text here implies that it was simulataneous with the charter revocation. Thirdly, is the Grand Orient of Italy really irregular? Ben Standeven 20:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Their charter was revoked in 74, but it took into effect in 76. You are right, Gelli was expelled September 4 1982. The Internationales Freimaurerlexikon says this was because of disciplinary proceedings against Gelli who was affiliated by the Lodge Romagnosi in 65 (sic!) which was against the statutes of the Grand Orient. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
tbh I'm not comfortable with the wording as it stands. It should make clear at the opening of the sentence that it was iregular anyway, otherwise whats an iregular GL doing revoking the charter of a Lodge? The phrasing at present leads to a lack of clarity.ALR 21:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
It is not a stigma not to be "recognized" by the UGLoE. Lodges get "regular" through their Grand Lodge/ Grand Orient if they follow the rules of their constitution. (Following the 8th decree of Anderson's Constitution.)
The P2 became a criminal organization, they where not following their constitution. This made them "irregular".
Neither jewellery, nor a title nor the membership of a group can say something about a single person. And the other way round, there is no single person that can talk for a group of people. So to be a "recognized" Freemason of the UGLoE or to be a Freemason at all does not prevent criminality at all. Black sheep are everywhere. You cannot avoid this.
Personally, I believe in social equality of women, atheists and "cripples". For me, Freemasonry is an art to search for my own mistakes, learn to appreciate other beliefs and opinions and try to bring humans together for humanity. Social equality is an essential part of human rights. Why should these people be incapable to become equal Freemasons with equal rights? Everyone who is capable for the art should be allowed to become a Freemason. This is why I decided to become a Freemason that not "recognized" by the UGLoE. But IMHO I am not an outlaw or "irregular" person because of that. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 23:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I must remind everyone that we post here not as regular or irregular Masons, but as Editors. This article is about Freemasonry, not about "Anglo" Freemasonry, "Continental" Freemasonry or any other particular form of Freemasonry ... we must include forms of Freemasonry that our individual Grand Lodges may consider irregular. Questions of regularity and recognition are not important here... save to help the reader define which of the many branches of Freemasonry we are discussing at any given moment. (I might make an exception for "self created" jurisdicitions and fringe groups claiming the mantle of Freemasonry... it would depend on how far they stray from the common landmarks of the major Masonic branches)
Thus, we can not simply state that "P2 was irregular", because that depends on jurisdictional definition of regularity. It was, after all, chartered by a major Grand Body. What we can say is that P2 was originally constituted as a regular lodge by the standards of the Grand Orient of Italy and that, at a given point, This Grand Orient revoked P2's charter and it became irregular. We can also state that according to UGLE and those GLs in amity with it, P2 was NEVER considered to be regular (as it was chartered by a Grand Body that these GLs deem to be irregular). In otherwords we have to make it clear who is saying what, and when they said it. Blueboar 00:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
The point is not whether it was regular or irregular, and according to whom, but that the current wording introduces the concept with respect to the GL which withdrew the Charter. To the uninformed reader that creates more questions than it answers, why would an ostensibly 'normal' lodge have it's charter withdrawn by an 'irregular' GL? The current wording does not lend itself to clarity of thought or useful communication of the issues.ALR 03:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
So let's change the wording and clarify. Any suggestions? Blueboar 12:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Why not use P2s Constitution. Woops, sorry looks like you already are. This is a very sad place. What is sad is that the only "Freemason" left here is the so called irregular one. But what do know anyway - I'm only a sock-puppet(?) with an un-well Grandpa. However I KNOW (lucky me) that you lot are not representatives of all on the square :( My 42 is in (Base 13) 00:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
42, you might want to ask your dad and granddad if telling Masons that they aren't Masons is generally considered an insult or not.--SarekOfVulcan 00:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Complain to The Grand Tyler @ UGLE when he tells you to peddle off, for getting the secrets wrong – and for “Exposureing” yourself, “down under”. (Double meaning in there – get it?) Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. My 42 is in (Base 13) 00:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Answer this: why are you showing a "Barnstar" from "Very Naughty" and "Blocked"! User:Skull 'n' Femurs - who was blocked for quoting UGLE Craft Constitution at you A. "Freemason", Esq? (Archives are of some use?) 00:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
42, wouldn't you know absolutely nothing about these secrets in the first place, since you're not yet a mason? Also, I was wondering, when is your son and his son showing up. Perhaps, Iamcomp's father and grandfather would like to edit? You should stop hogging grandpappy's computer and give the rest of your extended family a chance. Chtirrell 00:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Well that was cryptic above. Who is who? What? But I'm back (as I can hack in on a "hot spot"... just this once...) Masonic Skull n Femurs little.PNG 01:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't wish to actually attempt editing ;) (looking back that statement is probably semi-serious rather than frivolous) The point is in my previous post above, at present the issue of regularity is too late in the sentence to be meaningful. It probably needs structured along the lines of 'P2 was an irregular lodge, it became politically difficult for its' parent GL and the charter was revoked and the Master expelled. Revocation was not carried out properly and it continued to operate in a clandestine manner etc......'ALR 12:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Revocation was carried out properly? You cannot avoid that they continue to operate unofficially and in a secret manner. P2 was an old masonic lodge which developed to a cover organization with the help of Gelli and others. There are indications that P2 and Gelli were financed by Operation Gladio -> Gladio in Italy. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 15:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
The article may be seen as "POV" to the advantage of "regular" UGLE, because of historical anti-masonry edits trying to introduce objections to "The Craft" as one (Centeralised? - although no general body excists) body - and quoting "exposures" more properly dealing with “Other Connected Body” material. P2, then, was historically dealt with in this spirit, so UGLE could be distanced from it. SGOvD webmaster may like to alter the article to a more "NPOV" treatment of P2 (whilst still distancing UGLE from that Lodge) and dealing with the "POV" regularity points in general. However the question of UGLE is connected to the fact that it is the most quoted and cited Grand Lodge. Mousescribe 20:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


I'll try to translate the German introduction - perhaps somebody is interested and adds some of these sentences or ideas.

Freemasonry is a worldwide humanitarian initiation companionship. It unites humans of all social classes and standards of knowledge and serves to improve intellectual and ethical improvement of their members.
Outwards, the most important duty of a Freemason is charity and support of education and enlightenment. With the help of ceremonies and rites, Freemasonry imparts a philosophy of life to its members that takes them into responsibility to internalize the five basic ideals of Freemasonry: Freedom, Equality, Fraternity, Tolerance and Humanity. A Freemason makes a promise to guarantee privacy and security of the other members; this includes identification marks (sign, word and grip), rituals and confidential information about someone's identity, statements and ideas. This certainty is the foundation of an exchange of views and ideas.
Freemasonry today is worldwide organized in registered societies, does not hide it's organization structure and provides public relations; so it is cannot be seen as a secret society.

--SGOvD webmaster (talk) 01:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

KZ Esterwegen

Perhaps this could be mentioned in the holocaust paragraph:

In 1943, seven Belgian resistance fighters and Freemasons of the Emslandlager VII (Esterwegen) founded the Masonic Lodge Liberté chérie (French: "Beloved Liberty") inside shack 6 for Nacht und Nebel prisoners. (German: "Night and Fog") These seven freemasons initiated the Belgian citizen Fernand Erauw. Up to two, all members died in other KZs and during an air strike on Essen to the end of war. This is why the Lodge dissolved after 1944.
On Saturday November 13 2004, a memorial was introduced by Belgian and German Freemasons and is now part of the memorial site of the cemetery Esterwegen.
See also: de:Liberté chérie (Freimaurerei)

--SGOvD webmaster (talk) 13:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that would be a great addition. That would also be a great addition to the Freemasonry under Totalitarian Regimes and History of Freemasonry. However, do you have any references for the information? That kind of information would meet with some resistance if it wasn't ref'd. If the reference is in German, that's okay. Ich habe fuer zwei Jahre Deutsch studiert. So kann ich ein Bisschen lesen. Vielen Dank fuer der neuen Information. Chtirrell 13:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

My references are from the German article de:Liberté chérie (Freimaurerei). They are mainly in French. You can find more, if you read the discussion.
I've found an additional reference with Google's cache: [4]
So I added some facts above. Here is an additional quote:
  • Wim Rütten Grand Master of the Belgian Federation of the "Droit Humain" ensures:
"We are gathered here today on this cemetery in Esterwegen, not to mourn, but to express free thoughts in public." "In memory of our brothers, human rights should never be forgotten."
--SGOvD webmaster (talk) 16:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Any suggestions? Do you think I should create a new article Liberté chérie (Freemasonry)? --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Now I created the new article Liberté chérie (Freemasonry). --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Unity of Freemasonry?

I have removed the following line from the end of the History section:
  • "The schism between the two branches has been bridged by American Grand Lodges stressing the unity of Freemasonry."
This referrs to the Schism between UGLE (and GLs in amity) and the GOdF (and related Grand Orients). The statement is backed by two citations, both to the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, which quotes statements made in Masonic journals written around the turn of the last century.
Given the history between the American GLs and GOdF since the end of the First World War, especially the fact that every American GL consideres the GOdF to be highly irregular and unrecognized, I would say that it is very incorrect to say that the schism has been bridged by American GLs (or any one else).
Once again, it must be pointed out that The Catholic Encyclopedia (CE) is a VERY outdated, biased source, and it should be used with caution. I suppose it would be ok to say that the Masonic Journals that the CE quotes indicate that, in 1917 (only thirty odd years after the schism occured) some Americans hoped to heal the schism with GOdF (and stressed the unity of Freemasonry in expressing that hope) but to imply that the schism was bridged by these statements is incorrect. To put it in the present tense ("the schism has been bridged") is completely wrong. In fact, given the fall out from the temporary recognition of GLdF by GL Wisconsin a few years ago, I would say that GOdF schism is stronger now than it has been in a long time. Blueboar 13:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Wasn't the schism briged (or at least glossed over), allthought for a limited time, during WW1? I seem to remember that it americans masons serving with the US Army in France at the time was allowed to visit french logdes. Could it be this that the severly outdated reference points to? After all, it's not too far a stretch of imagination to combine the fact that turn of the century american masons wanted to heel the schism with the fact that american masons were visiting french lodges and conclude that the schism was healed. Off course, to place such an opinion in the article would be original research, but it's still an interesting notion to ponder. WegianWarrior 13:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Paul Bessel deals with this in his paper on US Grand Lodges and French recognition, that was published in Heredom.--Vidkun 13:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
The Schism was basically ignored during WWI... As France was a key ally in the war, and as there were very few recognized lodges that US servicemen who were Masons could visit, most of the US Grand Lodges agreed that they would not file Masonic charges against a brother who visited an irregular lodge... but very shortly after the war things reverted back to the more hostile status quo anti-bellum.
But that is not what the references quoted in the CE were about... they were written prior to the War (one was dated 1906). I may be wrong, but I suspect that the line was an orphan, part of a deleted addition by a Catholic detractor who used it to imply that Freemasonry is more unified than it really is, and to "prove" that the Anti-clerical stance of Grand Orient (Continental) Style Freemasonry is at least tacitly approved by "Mainstream" Freemasonry.
In any case, it was wrong. Blueboar 14:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The German article de:Regularität (Freimaurerei) says: Nevertheless, there are occasional silent visits of liberal Masonic Lodges by "regular" Freemasons in spite of the risk of exclusion. (Those individual Freemasons refer to the human right of Freedom of assembly.) Basically, there is a good relationship between regular and liberal Freemasons. It's essential to the nature of Freemasonry that all Lodges of the earth are one symbolic Lodge.

Freemasonry is not a religion nor is it anti-clerical, but the Grand Orient d. F. supports the Separation of church and state: --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 16:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying that individual Freemasons do not visit lodges that their respective Grand Lodges or Grand Orients consider irregular. I am sure that this happens more often than our supervising Grand Bodies would care to admit. However, the 'official' policy is still one of separation between the two branches. And, in the United States at least, the hostility goes beyond just the policy of the various Grand Lodges... the fact that GOdF does not require a belief in Deity significantly upsets the majority of individual Masons as well. So any statement that there is a bridging of the schism in America is just plain wrong.
You can arguably draw an analogy between the Masonic schism and the schism between the Catholic and Anglican Churches... both sides would love to heal the schism, but they want it healed on their terms. Ultimately, there are too many doctrinal issues, and too much history of ill feeling for the schism to be healed any time soon. Blueboar 18:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Although there is a schism, it is a contradiction of Masonic ideals that is most harmful for Freemasonry.
Why being upset about what other people belief? I see no need to force someone to belief in a Deity. What about buddhists? There is no God in Buddhism. So how can Freemasonry be open to buddhists? But there are rules that order is a part of chaos. There is science. There is cause and effect. If you read the Greek bible, esp. John 1:1 (you should know why John) you'll find a better word for this "deity": "Logos", the origin of the word "logic". So there's no need to believe anything, but to understand and to question things. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 21:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
It is not our place to question our Grand authorities position here on any issue. To do so is to invite exclusion. Hence, I politely, and fraternally state that the above question is inappropriate. Mousescribe 22:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Since Craft FM is not a religion, etc., the use of religion is always a bad analogy, and is giving the "anti" block more ammo. The "Schism" is a Constitutional issue of regularity. No editor here is qualified to officially invite individual or Grand Lodge level visitations across Grand Lodge jurisdictions, without referring to their parent authority first. Transgressions are clearly just that, and wrong - inviting exclusion. That is all one can really say. That some Grand Lodge may, or may not, apply the same quality control standard is their sovereign business – but since this is a general article it is not the place to address this issue. We are back to either addressing commonalities across the Groups of (Grand level) authorities, or going the (rejected) route of a very long list of individual authorities in detail – and this is more properly addressed in individual (linked) sub-articles. Mousescribe 22:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
As an aside, the "sock" issue on "My" IP address has been sorted, in that a wired link is now used - preventing "hot spot" hackers, etc. "I" am the only user to edit here from that IP address, as far as it is under my control. So called "42" and "S&F" are not down to me. "42" will not edit here anymore, however, (Imacomp will not edit any Wiki). Mousescribe 22:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with Mouscribe... this is not a Masonic Lodge, and so our jurisdictional "Authorities" have no jurisdiction here... we can certainly discuss our differences and ask why they exist. Also, since this IS a genreral article, it is important to discuss these differences and lay out the differing oppinions. As Wikipedia Editors we must not judge which is correct and which is not... but we should understand what each side of the issue is saying and why. Now...
Webmaster: This is just my opinion, but one thing you must remember is that while Americans may be diverse in their religious affiliations, they tend to be VERY religious in what ever form they adhear to. Far more than your typical European. Just look at the role religion plays in American politics and you will see this. This feeds into how Americans view things in Freemasonry. Those that are upset at the GOdF are upset because they feel that a belief in Deity is one of the core Landmarks of the Fraternity. While Freemasonry does not dictate how one should believe, in regular Freemasonic tradition is manditory that one has belief. There are many reasons for this (one is that without belief an obligation made in God's name is not considered valid). This is not considered a contradition of Masonic ideals, since those ideals include belief in Deity by definition. In the Mainstream view, it is atheistic Freemasonry that is the contradiction. I think you will agree that this is a fundamental difference of oppinion... which is why there is a schism. I do understand tht you come from a very different tradition, I am not saying Mainstream Freemasonry is "right" and your tradition is "wrong" (this is not the forum for such discussions)... what I am saying is that the differences of oppinion on the issue are deeply felt and can not be glossed over. As far as the article goes... this is why I deleted the statements in the History section. Instead of being bridged, in recent years the schism has in fact widened.
As for Bhudists... There are forms of Bhudism that contain a belief in a creator (I am not an expert on Bhudism, so I can not tell you which forms... but without this belief, they could not join mainstream freemasonry). Blueboar 22:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
So Blueboar, we are back to which Grand authority is mainstream. The UGLE (Hence the 3 "Home" Grand Lodges") position is because of its Constitutional History, and so precedent was set at the time when Britain had an Empire. There is really no consistent other arching Meta-Philosophy on the subject, beyond the Constitution statement on belief in a Supreme Being. It is up to the candidate to express his personal interpretation, if he so wises, to his two sponsors – even before he gets to the more formal “interview” stage. It is one of the issue responsibilities that the sponsors must satisfy themselves - as being a settled point. The point is also covered by the sponsors (over a length of time) being satisfied that there is no family (or other) impediment to the candidate’s prospective membership. Mousescribe 23:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we have a disagreement on which GL is mainstream. You are correct that ultimately it is a constitutional issue... Mainstream GLs all include belief in Deity in their constitutions. But that is not what I was referring to. I was discussing WHY American maintream Masons feel so strongly about this constitutional mandate. Since the discussion opened with my removing a statement that seemed to be saying that American GLs bridged the schism between Mainstream and "Liberal" freemasonry, it was appropriate to discuss why this is not so... thus the American slant on this conversation. Webmaster, being from a different Masonic Tradition, and more importantly a European was asking why American Masons had this attitude... nothing wrong with attempting to explain it. If other US Masons wish to chime in and tell me I am full of it, they can. if you wish to give the UK slant, you can. Blueboar 23:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes that is why I did give a "UK" take. As to the US - are all US State Grand Lodges in amity with UGLE, and so mainsteam? I honestly do not know, as I've not checked the full list. Mousescribe 23:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes ... well let me clarify... Each of the 50 states (as well as Washington DC) has a Mainstream GL, in amity with UGLE. MOST also have a Prince Hall GL, in amity with the Mainstream GL of that state, and thus in amity with UGLE and MOST of the other State GLs (I suppose you could make the claim that these are now "mainstream of Prince Hall derivation")... there are still a few mainstream GLs that will not recognize Prince Hall Masons (some limit this to just their jurisdiction... ie they will allow visitation from "mainstream PH masons" from other states where they are recognized, but still do not recognize a PH GL in their jurisdiction... and one or two are hold outs who will not recognize any PH Mason... it's sad, but we are slowly getting there.) In addition, there are miriad irregular GLs derived from Prince Hall Tradition none of which recognize the others. And there are various self-created irregular GLs and GOs but these tend to be small fringe groups. In other words, it is important to have an up to date book from your GL, listing who they recognize, before you let strangers into the lodge. Blueboar 00:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
@ Blueboar: This is why I joined liberal Freemasonry. Discriminating people between their (dis)belief or sex would be against my conscience I am obligated to. In my point of view, a definition made by imperfect humans can never be perfect and has always be scrutinized to reach more enlightenment. Excluding humans doesn't really seem to lead to more unity, humanity and equality, so there must be something wrong with this definition.
Definitions change. One should not forget that James Anderson was a reverend with a strange view of writing history. While the Masonic York Manuscript No. 4 still defined in 1693 "the elders taking the Booke, he or shee (sic!) that is to be made Mason shall lay their hands thereon, and the charge shall be given." - this was now replaced by an absolute prohibition of women. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 23:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Sidebar Re: Unity

Hi "Webmaster". It would be good of you, if you could make your liberal Freemasonry points in the main article - stated as from that constitution. These would be valid points in this general article. Thanks :) (I've gone now) :) Mousescribe 00:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
This is not really easy since I want to add the common interest. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 01:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
And thus Webmaster and I must agree to disagree and can not visit each other's lodges. However, just because he is what I would consider irregular, I have no problem calling him a Brother Mason (that is the definition of "irregular mason" after all... he is a Mason who hails from a jurisdiction your GL considers irregular). After all, there is much that we can agree on even if we can not agree on the requirement for a belief in Deity. I think we would bopth agree on all the other landmarks. Lack of Amity between our GLs does not mean that there must be no friendship between us as individuals. and as an editor, I am pleased that he is around... he has already added his view to the article and it is richer for it. Blueboar 00:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, but let me ask you some more questions: If you see a requirement for a belief in a Deity, then you might think there must be something in common, so are you able to define Deity?
  • Are there special characteristics the Deity must have?
  • If not, what if someone actually believes in the power of money as a Deity?
  • If it is a "be-ing" how came this Deity into existence?
  • What is more complex? The Deity or its creatures?
  • Is this Deity able to violate all physical laws?
  • Does it know pain, sympathy or anger?
  • Does it talk directly to individuals? Or via archangel Gabriel?
  • Is a Dalit (outcaste) free enough to become a Freemason?
  • What if someone defines physical elemental forces as a "Deity". Is this person now an atheist?
--SGOvD webmaster (talk) 01:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Webmaster. These questions above are very interesting. However you have outlined an entire "College" level Theology course, that is defenately "off topic" for here :) From my POV:
  • Yes; not applicable, since Yes above; paraphrasing a Creed "existent before time began; Deity - see objections to panentheism; Classical Theology states that God is logically consistent, but can intervene, from outside the “World”, by circumventing "physical laws"; He (not it) is a loving God, see the “problem of evil”; both are true in Scripture; I do not understand the question, and finally “No”, but that person has no belief in a Supreme Being - as usually defined, by precedent - see objections to pantheism :) Mousescribe 10:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  1. and
  2. and
  3. "before time began"? A time before time? This seems to be a very human point of view. :-)
  4. A Got that can intervene is a theistic God. To believe in a theistic God causes the problem of the Theodicy question. Why can bad things happen? Why should a perfect God with a perfect plan intervene? I doubt you want o exclude people who believe in a deistic God? :-)
  5. If he (is God male?) is a loving God what about the angry God described in the Old Testament? What is the definition of bad or evil? Is a comet good or bad? Is it evil if it hits and destroys the earth?
  6. Again, this is only possible if you believe in a theistic God. I wouldn't do that job for a whole universe. And with which goal?
  7. Now some people might believe in a Supreme Being, but they are "unfree" people because of their religion although they are free people in their country. You have to be free according to Anderson's constitution.
  8. Now the most important aspect. If someone believes in the physical laws that created everything out of chaos, logically because of the constructive result of cause and effect and sees that everything is made of engery (E=mc²) - where's the difference to a deistic/pantheistic God?
--SGOvD webmaster (talk) 15:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
We are definitely getting off topic... but it is an interesting side bar, so I will answer. First, let me state that the following is my PERSONAL oppinion and may not reflect the views of the Grand Lodge of New York or any other Grand Lodge (and ultimately it is their oppinions that set policy)... Now, you ask:
  • ...then you might think there must be something in common, so are you able to define Deity?
    • I can not define Deity, as God is undefinable... but there is a common bond between all regular Masons in their belief - that God (by whatever name) created the heavens and the earth, (ie that there IS a Great Architect of the Universe.) It is up to the individual Mason's religious tradition to define when, how, and under what circumstances that creation happened. This is why members of certain polytheistic religions can become Masons - It does not matter if there are other deities in one's faith, as long as there is the concept of a single Creator.
  • Are there special characteristics the Deity must have?
    • Yes, God must, in some form, be the Creator/Architect of the Universe.
  • If not, what if someone actually believes in the power of money as a Deity?
    • Money is known to be a human invention. It did not create the universe. Thus it can not be considered a legitimate Deity under regular Masonic tradition.
  • If it is a "be-ing" how came this Deity into existence?
    • Not defined by Masonry. It is left to the individual's faith.
  • What is more complex? The Deity or its creatures?
    • Not defined by Masonry. It is left to the individual's faith.
  • Is this Deity able to violate all physical laws?
    • Not defined by Masonry. It is left to the individual's faith.
  • Does it know pain, sympathy or anger?
    • Not defined by Masonry. It is left to the individual's faith.
  • Does it talk directly to individuals? Or via archangel Gabriel?
    • Not defined by Masonry. It is left to the individual's faith.
  • Is a Dalit (outcaste) free enough to become a Freemason?
    • I do not know enough about Dalit beliefs to answer this.
  • What if someone defines physical elemental forces as a "Deity". Is this person now an atheist?
    • If one has a concept of Deity, one is, by definition, not an atheist. The real question is if that concept of Deity equates to a Creator (Architect) of the universe. So if one believes that the physical elemental forces that he defines as "Deity" in some way created the universe, then he may be initiated.
Again... this is just my understanding on the matter. I could be wrong. In reality, a potential candidate who is not a member of a previously approved religious faith tends to raise eyebrows, and it is likely that the Lodge would have to ask for guidance from the Grand Lodge. Some Grand Lodges, in recent years, have been fairly open in their determination of acceptability - stating that as long as the candidate believes in a Creator of some sort, they can be initiated. Others, however, have been less open and keep to the "approved list". Blueboar 13:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I can not define Deity, as God is undefinable... but there is a common bond between all regular Masons in their belief - that God (by whatever name) created the heavens and the earth, (ie that there IS a Great Architect of the Universe.)

If it is a "be-ing" how came this Deity into existence? Your answer: Not defined by Masonry. It is left to the individual's faith.

If there is an Architect of the Universe: How is pantheism explainable, because the universe would be God. (Who was first or did he create himself? If yes, is there still the need of a God?) So there could be another God above the Great Architect of the Universe who created him to create the universe - according to one's individual faith?
  • Masonry does not care who created the creator... that is for religion to define and Freemasonry is not a religion. as long as there IS a creator, Freemasonry is satisfied. I never said it had to be consistant or understandable. my personal view: "it's turtles all the way down".

If one has a concept of Deity, one is, by definition, not an atheist. The real question is if that concept of Deity equates to a Creator (Architect) of the universe. So if one believes that the physical elemental forces that he defines as "Deity" in some way created the universe, then he may be initiated.

Now an atheist does not believe in the existence of a creature called "God". But nobody would deny the laws of cause and effect, nobody would deny that everything is made of energy (E=mc²), nobody would deny physical laws. Today we know, that we were not "created", we know how evolution works. So the only difference between an atheist and somebody who claims to have a belief in a deistic/ panteistic God is that the atheist does not believe in a supernatural creature (be-ing), but cannot deny the results. According to Anderson's constitution, "stupid atheists" are not allowed. So this atheist must be intelligent.
  • It was your suposition that the man defined elemental forces as "Deity" so that is why I said he was not an Atheist. The use of the term "stupid" in Anderson's constitution is a matter of debate... but the general feeling in regular Freemasonry is that it is not a qualifyer (as in stupid vs. intellegent atheists) but a highlighter (ie that all atheists are stupid).
It is said that Buddha claimed that the belief in a God causes pain. If something goes wrong, it is asked why this God let this happen. But if you realize that everything is based on cause and effect and pain is the result of a negative behaviour, you need no belief in a "God" - because you understand.
  • And yet Bhudism (or at least some branches of it) includes a concept of a Creator... oh well, no one said a religion needs to be consistent.
--SGOvD webmaster (talk) 15:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Webmaster... I think we are getting too far off topic. I do not know enough about comparative religion to get into "but what about..." discussions. The policies of our respective Grand Bodies are what they are, and nothing either of us say here will change them. I have tried to explain my understanding of my GLs stance as best as I can. I feel you have tried to do the same. Let's leave it at that. Blueboar 15:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Sure. I just wanted to visualize that it is important to have a highest creative principle, independently if you belief in a God or if you have another world view. Not the belief is important but the content and the understanding behind. E.g. at least for us, the Eye of Providence is not just an Eye of God, but a symbolism for the revealing truth that appeals to conscience and the surrounding triangle symbolizes science and enlightenment since the triangle with its peak to the top is an old symbol for fire. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
The level of detail in the questions is not really all that relevant. The candidate in UGLE is asked 'Do you believe in a Supreme Being', nothing more and nothing less. The candidate can asnwer yes or no or may choose to elaborate further on nhis belief, but must still be specific about yes or no. We make no judgement on the nature of his belief, if he says yes then that's what is required. My own interpretation may differ extensively from the initiates that I put through when I was in the chair. The interview board does not explore the candidates belief any further and anything additional is entirely at his discretion. Should he be a Trinitatarian Christian (three reresentations as one), a Muslim or Jew who acknowledges YHVH or Allah, or a Buddhist who acknowledges primordial mind as a Supreme Being then it is of no consequence to the interview board. They aren't permitted to ask. After a candidate has been accepted the proposer should probably explore the topic to find an appropriate VSL for the candidate, but that should happen after a decision has been made and shouldn't influence. I've seen the bible, Q'uran, Dhammapada (even a representation of Sakyamuni Buddha) all used.ALR 05:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
The question for a "belief" in a "supreme being" is a new addition of the UGLE of the last century. There are still regular Lodges without such an explicit question in Germany. Some regular masons I personally know insist, that the "Great Architect" is nothing more than a symbol that is not inevitable a symbol for a "supreme being". I think this is nothing unofficial.
My "re-formed" Grand Lodge uses the 24 inch yardstick as one of the Great Lights which was historically used before the bible replaced one of the Great Lights. The Three Great Lights originally symbolized the Entered Apprentice (24 inch yardstick), the Fellow Craft (square) and the Master Mason (circle). The printed Human Rights is (additionally) the base of all three (which is new, of course). You say, you've seen the Q'uran etc. - but to my knowledge, regualar lodges only add (lay them on top or next to it) these books to the bible, but don't replace them. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 12:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
In England and Scotland the VSLs are as appropriate to the membership, if there are no Christian Brethren then it's unlikely that a Christian bible would be used. The Candidate obligates himself using the VSL as appropriate to him and different Lodges will deal with that in different ways. I'd never advocate laying one VSL on top of another, but laying alongside is appropriate. The one in the centre would be the Candidates preference.ALR 00:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
The question of whether the Bible must be used as a VSL is up to the individual GL... some require it, some don't. Some even go as far as to specify which version (in my jurisdiction it's the King James). My Lodge's secretary visited a lodge in Sri Lanka where they regularly used the Q'uran and Vedas (as the brothers were all either hindu or muslem), and only put out the Bible if a Christian or Jew visited.
BTW: King James: I am interested in parables. I like the parable of 1 Esdras, chapters 3 & 4 which you can't find in any standard German Bible. This parable is quoted in the Rosslyn Chapel -> Apprentice Pillar: "Wine is strong, a king is stronger, women are stronger still, but truth conquers all". The only plausible connection between Freemasonry and the Rosslyn Chapel I actually found is this: --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 14:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Re: Rosslyn... not much of a connection. First: the statue supposedly depicts a Templar leading someone who is hoodwinked with a rope around his neck. However, this is pure guesswork. The statue is so erroded that we can not really be sure what it depicts... Second: even if it is a carving of a Templar leading someone blindfolded with a rope around his neck, there is no proof that this depicts any sort of initation into the KTs (it could just as easily depict a Templar leading a captive, and there is no documented evidence that Templars used hoodwinks and cabletows in their initiations)... Third, even if it does depict some sort of Templar initiation, there is no proof that this initiation has a direct link to the Freemasons... and Last: In the 1880s, restoration work was carried out on the chapel, which included some work on the statues and other depictions. History students from Edinburgh University have argued that some of the Masonic poses of the statues are not original to the church, but were added during these restorations. Thus, it originally might have depicted something quite different, and might have been purposely changed to give it a Masonic connection in the 1880s. (As you can tell, I am a sceptic where it comes to Rosslyn. Most, if not all, of the theories about the Chapel and Freemasonry are absolute hogwash.) Blueboar 15:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Quite interesting facts, thank you. :-) --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 17:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


Remember, “Be Bold”. General History was already covered. The deleted History section was too detailed - since a sub-article on it already covers the details. This edit has shortened the main article and is less bogged down with UGLE POV. Mousescribe 23:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I really did not think I would get away with the edit, so go on - disscus it. But you know it makes sence. ;) Mousescribe 23:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Some History needs to be included... it is a hot topic in the general population, what with the pseudo-histories and fictional accounts that have come out recently. I agree that we do not need to go into every detail in depth... that IS what the history article is for... but a quick overview of the main topics should be included. Blueboar 23:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I am also going to move it back towards the bottom of the article... I think the article flows logically from Organizational Structure to Regularity (which discusses which Organizations are regular) to rituals landmarks and requirements. Then there is a logical break and we discuss history, current issues, and criticims (historical and current). Is there a reason for moving the section up front? Blueboar 23:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
"Is there a reason for moving the section up front?" Yes, as I was too lazy to move "History" to the position that you have put it. :-) Nighty night Mousescribe 23:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Just to make it "official", Blueboar, I concur with the edits you have collaborated on, on the History issue (Mousescribe has left the building) :) Mousescribe 00:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
That's nice... especially since I am not sure that I concur with my edits! The section still needs work. Blueboar 13:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I had no problems with Mousecribe's edits, nevertheless he's blocked now permanently. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 12:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Why? (Was it over the Imacomp sock accusation or something else?) Blueboar 15:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Because he was a "suspected" (not proved) "sock puppet of User:Imacomp": [5] --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 17:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I figured that would be the reason... thanks. Blueboar 18:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
[6] refers. He was notified on both accounts and chose not to comment.ALR 00:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)