Talk:Masonic conspiracy theories/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Getting Back on Track with the First Topic

The first topic of discussion was the phrase "broadly speaking" or "in the broadest terms". Uku, have we eliminated that phrase to your satisfaction? (Taivo (talk) 22:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC))

Given the lack of reply... I think we can slap a "DONE" stamp on it. Blueboar (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I asked you to "undo the change that SarekOfVulcan", which you promised to do and have not done. In addition, yesterday I said: "It is clear that the phrase "broadly speaking" does not exist in any of our proposed changes". Maybe the problem comes from simply not paying attention ? Ukufwakfgr (talk) 23:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

What are the main issues?

Hello - I saw the request at WP:FTN to bring outside views to this discussion.

To help newly arriving editors to get oriented to the issues of concern, it would be helpful if the involved editors would offer a summary of the dispute(s).

If there are various versions of the article that are preferred, a few diffs would be helpful also.

I'm not requesting a full analysis, just a quick overview so editors new to this discussion can tell where to focus. Thanks. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Quick overview: Uku was bold, Blueboar reverted, Uku went ballistic, arguing everything from ambiguity in the title to the removal of one redundant word being a major change instead of a minor one.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

When the form of this page was originally hammered out, it was decided that it would list some of the most popular theories, without further comment: any attempt to support or oppose them in the article would be POV.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The first diff in the dispute is here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

For the immediate issues that prompted me to seek outside comments, see the two Quick polls I posted above, and the conversations surrounding them. For Uku's other problems see the bullet pointed list in the above thread on the POV tag. Blueboar (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the summary, I've entered a comment in the RFC section below. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 10:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I arrived on January 30 and saw that the article was grossly biased, so I changed it. That change was reverted by Blueboar, who argued that it was painfully neutral or something like that. He was supported by as many as 4 other editors. They all seem to agree unconditionally, and have formed a cabal in order to synthesize a false consensus. After my initial edit, Blueboar has been consistently applying un-approved edits to the article. In addition, MSJapan has taken it upon himself to change the rating of the article, even though he is a vested contributor. The diff is here.

As for the title, I never said that it was POV, rather that it was ambiguous because the word "Masonic" can be misconstrued in that context. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

re: MSJapan changing the rating... there was nothing wrong with that... MSJ is a member of the Freemasonry Project. This article falls under the Freemasonry Project. Project members routinely evaluate and rate articles that fall under the projects they belong to. Not only that, he was right... this article is beyond "start" class. Blueboar (talk) 01:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It's been stub class, not start class. It was changed to C class after having only a few words altered. I find that to be highly unlikely. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Well this article is certainly far beyond a stub! But your complaint wasn't about the rating he gave... your complaint was that he "has taken it upon himself to change the rating of the article". That complain has no merit. You seem to be saying that no one may make any edit to this article without your personal approval. If this is your intent, you can forget it. That isn't how Wikipedia works. Blueboar (talk) 04:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It's little more than a list with an introductory paragraph. This counts as a stub. When did I ever say that I should rate the article myself?? Ukufwakfgr (talk) 05:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I never said that you said that you should rate the article... I said that you seem to be saying that no one else may make any edit to this article without your personal approval. Blueboar (talk) 15:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Every editor to this article, except for me, is a vested contributor, and as such this article requires an independent assessment. Changes are subject to everybody's personal approval. That is what a consensus means. If you looked at the logs you would see that I made only two changes, which were both reverted. I'm not sure whether you can say the same for yourself. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 16:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Uku, you are wrong about one thing. You, too, are a vested editor. You are vested in the conspiracy theories. Your comments in other places (stating your choice of "emotive", "evocative", and "pejorative" language) and your proposed changes have made it crystal clear that your POV is just as strong (or even more so) than anyone else's here. You are not neutral here. You support the conspiracy theorists entirely. That's why this article is not a discussion of the theories, but is an NPOV listing without commentary. I've read the version you want to revert to (25 August 2008) and it is fairly POV and not neutral. (Taivo (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC))

I did not say "vested editor." Ukufwakfgr (talk) 00:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

"Vested contributor" ~ "vested editor". So what? That's why more and more people are taking you less and less seriously. (Taivo (talk) 04:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC))

"Vested contributor" is defined in the guidelines. "Vested editor" may be construed to mean what you're trying to make it mean. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 07:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The article as it stands (before Uku's "input") is quite NPOV. It is a summary of what a Masonic conspiracy theory is and then a neutral list of the most common conspiracy theories concerning Masonry. Arguments pro and con are not to be found here on purpose--so that the article could remain encyclopedic--a list with a reference or two. Uku tried to push an overtly anti-Masonic POV onto the article, specifically using phrases like "emotive", "pejorative", etc. in describing to us why he wanted to make this or that edit. We are currently working on the first sentence of the article, although Uku is side-tracking the discussion into a discussion of the title of the article. His point is that "Masonic conspiracy theories" is potentially ambiguous. Every other editor here responds that the title is not ambiguous in context, is clearly disambiguated in the first sentence, and matches the names of other "conspiracy" articles (such as UFO conspiracy theories). (Taivo (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC))

POV dispute RFC (closed)

{{RFCsoc }}

A new editor has come into an article and tried to completely rework it. When his changes were reverted, he started major discussions on minor parts of the article. I'm looking for comments on to what degree his arguments are valid, and whether the long-time editors, including myself, are violating WP:OWN. —SarekOfVulcan (via posting script) 23:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm entering this comment as an uninvolved editor. I came to this page from the notice at WP:FTN as noted above. I don't see indications of WP:OWNership on this article. The changes by one editor have not gained consensus or support by others, but that does not imply ownership is happening.

Regarding the content dispute, in the section above at #What are the main issues?, a few questions were pointed out, and this diff was provided to show the article version prior to this dispute and the initial modification that was reverted. Here are my initial comments in that context:

• POV tag: I don't see a POV issue with the article. It doesn't advocate the conspiracy theories, it just reports them. The question of whether to remove the tag or not is mostly a matter of courtesy to the editor who added the tag. Unless other editors agree there is a POV issue, after a while the tag should be removed, but there's no hurry.

• Quick poll #1: Is the article title too ambiguous? -- No, it's not. The phrase appears in reliable sources and none of those refer to the alternate meaning. Since the sources only use the phrase one way, it's not up to Wikipedia editors to declare that it's ambiguous, we can simply use the phrase as it is used in the sources.

• Quick poll #2: Is the article title POV: No, the title does not imply that the ideas are true or false, good or bad, it simply describes the topic of the article.

I hope these notes are helpful.--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 09:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

That is basically what everybody is saying. Please make a unique contribution. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

sigh... If this is basically what everybody is saying, perhaps it indicates that you should pay attention to what everybody is saying... see: WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Blueboar (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You asked for a "third opinion", Uku. There is it. An uninvolved third opinion. He doesn't agree with you. Given your propensity to think that everyone who disagrees with you is part of a conspiracy, we've got to be the largest Wikipedia conspiracy going for now. (And don't even try to deny that you think we are a conspiracy, you've accused us on many occasions of collusion.) (Taivo (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC))

External comment via topic RFC: I was aware of this discussion already via WP:COIN, so have already had a look at article history. I concur with User:Jack-A-Roe; whatever the affiliations of long-standing editors may be, I don't see any POV nor any sign of WP:OWN, merely expected reversion of a newcomer's edits that don't reflect consensus.
However, my main opinion of the situation is that discussion is being disrupted by some flavour of WP:TE/WP:DE going on, and Ukufwakfgr (talk · contribs)'s edit pattern particularly matches that of Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing (with its mix of overt bad faith stance, personal needling, procedural nitpicks, topic-shifting, rules-lawyering, etc). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Gordonofcartoon makes a good point here regarding disruptive editing by Ukufwakfgr. There is a clear consensus among several editors plus now two more outside opinions, while Ukufwakfgr is the only person arguing the opposing view. Ukufwakfgr's edited only this one article, aggressively complained about other editors from the start in a less than civil manner, and filed a multiple noticeboard reports within their first few days of editing (with the apparent goal of gaining an advantage in the content dispute). It's unlikely there will be positive results from continuing to debate with someone who shows no interest in collaboration. The best approach may be to move on and continue improving the article based on consensus and sources. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Those claims are NOT consistent with the documentation that you cited:

• WP:PUSH says "superficially polite" which directly contradicts your own claims.
• Any allegations of "disruptive editing" are absolutely false, since I made only one edit a week ago. I invited to you check the logs yourself, which you obviously have not done. If anything, Blueboar and Taivo should be accused of disruptive editing, for applying edits that were not even brought up in the talk page.

In addition, I am still not convinced that this is anything but an appeal to the majority. You are repeating other people's claims which is not conducive to conflict resolution. Obviously I will have the same issues with you as with the other users, since you are basically saying the same thing! In case you can't tell by now, I am talking to you in all sincerity. I am NOT making an effort to be petty and mischievous. Theresa has alleged that I am an experienced user who is masquerading, which is false and baseless. Maybe that is distorting your perspective? Ukufwakfgr (talk) 22:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe you are sincere, and I am not accusing you of pettiness. But someone can be sincere and still disrupt the editing on an article. Disruptive editing can include repetitive talk page arguments, and is not the same thing as edit-warring (refer to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT).

Several of your comments indicate that you don't understand or accept how consensus works on Wikipedia. When multiple editors agree with each other and disagree with you, it doesn't matter if it's an "appeal to the majority" as you have put it. When the numbers are close between the different viewpoints, it's not so easy to see a consensus, and that's why we do not consider debates to be solved by majority votes. But when there is a large difference in the numbers, as in this case (6 to 1 it seems), it becomes easy to see. If there were two other editors supporting your ideas for the direction of the article, it would make a big difference in how editors view the debate, and there is a good chance the discussion would take a different turn. But at this point, you don't have that support, so the only way you can change the article as you want to is to convince others to agree with you, or come to a compromise, in a collaborative way.

The best way for you to convince editors to agree with your changes for the article would be to find reliable sources that state the things you want to include. If you bring those sources to the discussion, you will find other editors much more receptive to your comments. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Numbers without substance == appeal to majority. Large difference doesn't matter -- what matters is each person's weight in the argument. A true majority is composed of a majority of individuals, not simply a majority of people. In addition, practically all of the other editors are Freemasons, which complicates things quite a bit. Making a prejudgment after skimming through the scandalous parts of the talk page does not constitute good faith.

I have provided additional material, along with sources. When you see the archives, it will become obvious. And my refutation was directed at Gordonofcartoon, so whoever is changing the indentation of my comments, would you please stop it ??! Ukufwakfgr (talk) 00:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the indentation, that was my mistake; I've put it back the way you had it.

Regarding the rest of your comment, you're wrong about "prejudgement". I've read the article, the prior version of the article, the entire discussion since you started on this page, and the various posts at COIN, WQA, and AN/3. And I've done Google searches on various permutations of the article title to see what kind of sources are available relating to the possible ambiguity of the term (I did not find any other than sources using the term as it is used here). Gordonofcartoon also stated he had reviewed the article history as well as being familiar with the situation from the noticeboard report.

Your comment about lack of good faith by others shows that the editors who have noted your incivility were on-the-mark. Several people have tried to help you understand how you can effectively collaborate here, but you do not seem interested in learning. Your methods are not working; you are not making any progress towards your goals. Doesn't it seem like a different approach might be more effective? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

First of all, you misspelled "prejudgment." Second, I alleged that outsiders were coming in and prejudging me as being the squeaky wheel because I talked in a sensationalistic manner, which neglects any factfinding, and which does not demonstrate impartiality but rather hasteful cynicism.Ukufwakfgr (talk) 03:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

In regard to the title of the article, there is no common usage for "Masonic conspiracy theory." The only examples I can find are other wiki sites which are also wrought with false statements. No credible conspiracy theorist has used the phrase "Masonic conspiracy theory." The phrase "Masonic conspiracy" itself clearly means "a conspiracy belonging to Freemasons."Ukufwakfgr (talk) 03:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You are again ignoring any data that do not fit your "theory", Uku. I just googled "Masonic conspiracy theories" (with quotes) and got over 5,000 hits for that exact phrase and not a single one of the first dozen sites are conspiracy theories belonging to Masons (I didn't look any further than that). Only one of those hits was this Wikipedia article. You are just wrong about your assertions about that phrase meaning something else. The phrase in actual usage (over 5,000 hits!) only means "conspiracy theories concerning Masons" not "conspiracy theories belonging to Masons". Give it up already. The evidence is overwhelmingly against your POV. (I also got 500 hits from "Masonic conspiracy theory" as well.) (Taivo (talk) 04:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC))

The admins said not to conjecture about motives. You should act in kind. When I said "wiki" I did not mean Wikipedia itself. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 06:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Not just the web -- Google Books: 46 hits for "masonic conspiracy theory" and 656 hits for "masonic conspiracy". Google Scholar: 11 hits for "masonic conspiracy theory" and 278 hits for "masonic conspiracy". --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Of the Google Books results, only one seems to link to anyone remotely resembling a conspiracy theorist: Solomon's Treasure by Tracy R. Twyman. I will have to check out that book. In the meantime, no other conspiracy theorists, especially any who are reputable, use that phrase. As I explained eariler, the phrase "Masonic conspiracy" only illustrates my point. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 06:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

They were giving the same canned responses as the editors themselves -- namely that I was wrong only because I was out-manned. Being out-manned works on the football field, but not in a civil discussion. If six people insist repeatedly that 2 + 2 equal 5, does it make me unreasonable to become frustrated and then complain loudly that 2 + 2 do not equal 5 ? Ukufwakfgr (talk) 03:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I am coming at this as an outsider. Here are my observations:

An article like this can show many different theories and still remain POV. The idea isn't to exclude information (such as some theories), but to provide as much information as possible (such as adding more theories). WegianWarrior explains it well: "Wikipedia isn't about whats valid or not, its about what can be verified. It's a verfiable fact that these claims are made by a number of conspiracy theorists." And Blueboar's statement ("If a source discusses directly the theories that are the topic of this article, it does belong ... no matter what its viewpoint on the theory") is valid and useful in this discussion.

Ukufwakfgr, your incivility diminishes greatly the legitimacy of any argument you make. It would be more effective if you left out the abrasive language and cries of flamebaiting and focused only on how to improve the article. By providing a list of what needs to be fixed, removed and added (without being abrasive), other editors will be much more likely to work with you. For example, if you think parts need further toning-down, quote the current sentence as it appears in the article and then provided what you think would be a better way to say it. You're going to have to play nice or not play at all.

Lastly to all, please review Staying cool when the editing gets hot and Civility. Even if you feel you are on the correct side of an issue here, sarcasm and curtness aren't going to help. Insults and abrasive language is not congruent to the way things work around here. Kingturtle (talk) 00:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I have provided lots of points and counterpoints. Many (most?) have not been addressed. I am not insulted at being ignored, but rather when people present false information and expect me to swallow it. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 00:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Second topic for discussion

• The article links to the Wikipedia entry for the Taxil hoax, which was also written in poor taste.

Note... I have not copied the entire discussion relating to this topic... Most of the discussion revovled around Uku's problems with the Taxil hoax article... and I think it is agreed that problems with that article should be discussed at the talk page for that article and not here. That said... Uku's last comment in the chain is worth discussing further, so I will pick up the conversation with that... Blueboar (talk)

Then specify which parts of this article, and my changes, are based on the Taxil hoax. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 12:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I actually think Uku has a point here... we should better clarify which theories or genre of theories are based on Taxil hoax. Suggestions on the best way to do this? See my revised comment below.Blueboar (talk) 17:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a perusal of Freemasons for Dummies and The Complete Idiot's Guide to Freemasonry will develop a specific list of the Taxil hoax's features. (Both books have a extensive section on Taxil.) The theories can then be matched to them. It may take several iterations to hone down the list of theories that rely on Taxil in whole or in part, but that may be the most workable way. This list should include everything even if the conspiracy theory gets the Taxil hoax third or fourth hand. (Taivo (talk) 17:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC))

There are actually two issues involved in the "religious" batch of theories--the misinterpretations of Pike and the hoaxes of Taxil. Some theories rely on both sources, some more on one and some more on the other. There is a certain intertwining of the two. The article seems to focus completely on Taxil, but misreading Pike is also a strong feature as well. Of course, Taxil based several of his myths on Pike's work, so that it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between misreading Pike first-hand and reading Taxil's lies about Pike. The article on Taxil hoax doesn't even touch upon the depth of his hoaxes, but that's not our problem. The Wikilink is still valid whether or not the Taxil hoax article is good or not. Just some initial musing. (Taivo (talk) 17:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC))

I do think it is important not to go overboard on this... remember, the point isn't to "debunk" the theories... That there is a grouping of theories that originate with Taxil is neutral information. To go much further than that runs the risk of inadvertenyly inserting a POV. Blueboar (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You must specify which ones. That's like saying, "Some conspiracy theories are nothing more than a bunch of drunken rants." Ukufwakfgr (talk) 03:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

In the end, the list of conspiracy theories should be sorted by category. Thus, the Taxil-based stuff will be in its own section, the political stuff, the symbology, etc. (Taivo (talk) 03:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC))

A few must be listed right now, in order to justify keeping that claim in the article. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 05:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Just so we are all clear, the current version of the article reads:

• Another set of theories have to do with Freemasonry and religion, particularly that Freemasonry deals with the "occult", here used to denote a particular range of the occult dealing with Satanic beliefs, but also incorporating numerology and Masonic symbolism. This theory has its beginnings with the Taxil hoax.

This is fairly clear on which genre of conspiracy theory originates with Taxil... but I do think it could be even clearer (since not all theories that have to do with Freemasonry and religion began with Taxil... just the ones claiming that the Freemasons have occult, Satanic, beliefs.) Also, we need to cite this comment. Blueboar (talk) 19:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Another set ... has. The word "the" in "the occult" should be pushed inside the quotes. That explanation of the occult should be a footnote. "But also" should be changed, probably to "as well as." The word "Masonic" in "Masonic symbolism" is redundant. The Taxil issue is still under dispute. Writing the article principally to explain uses of the Taxil hoax is begging the question. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 03:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by "The Taxil issue is still under dispute"? (Taivo (talk) 03:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC))

Which conspiracy theories come out of the Taxil hoax ?

Here are a couple of references that show the Taxil ancestry of the religious hoaxes:

S. Brent Morris, The Complete Idiot's Guide to Freemasonry (2006), pp. 171-172

Christopher Hodapp, Freemasons for Dummies (2005), pp. 160-161; 298-299

Here is a reference to Albert Pike's infamous "Lucifer" quote that shows up as a foundation in some conspiracy theories:

Christopher Hodapp, Freemasons for Dummies (2005), pp. 161 (Taivo (talk) 20:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC))

I also think it better if we distinguish between the true occult conspiracies (Satan worship, etc.) and the symbolic "conspiracies" (the Washington street plan, the Great Seal, etc.). The occult practices are definitely derived from Taxil and Pike's "Lucifer" quote. The others, however, are not so derived, but have their origins in the misrepresentation of (non-conspiratorial) Masonic symbology in general. (Taivo (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC))

In referencing the occult, there can be subcategories dealing with ritualistic practices and symbology. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 03:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to propose a little bit of wording adjustment here:

• Another set of theories has to do with Freemasonry and religion, particularly that Freemasonry deals with "the occult", here used to denote a particular range of the occult involving Satanic or anti-Christian beliefs. These theories have their beginnings with the Taxil hoax.[refs here] In addition to these, there are various theories that focus on the embedding of Masonic symbology in otherwise ordinary items, such as street patterns, national seals, etc.[refs here] (Taivo (talk) 02:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC))

I think Blueboar's wording is more concise. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 03:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

By "Blueboar's wording".... do you mean the wording that is currently in the article? (it is actually MSJ's wording)... if so, perhaps we can call this issue resolved? ... with the addition of a source? DONE?Blueboar (talk) 03:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I see now, it was the original wording. I said "more concise" not "done." Taivo and I both have suggestions. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 05:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) But conciseness is not the same as accuracy. There is a very clear set of theories that have their origins with Taxil (supplemented by Pike's Lucifer quote) that deal with Satanic worship, etc. There is another more varied set that has a variety of origins, but have nothing to do with Satanism, etc., only with embedded symbology. These are not both "occult". That's why it is important, I think, to distinguish between these two very different sets of theories--those which deal with present-day activities (accusing the Craft of Satanic worship, for example) and those more passive activities in the past (embedding symbols, for example). Also, the quotes from reliable sources (some of which are cited above) point to two sets of theories, as well. Two time periods referenced, two origins, two degrees of active involvement by the rank and file of the Craft, two sets of references. Therefore two sentences are needed. (Taivo (talk) 03:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC))

The Taxil issue must be resolved first. The original sentence attributes all of the mentioned conspiracy theories, whereas your re-wording only attributes some of them. The rest of your comment seems to veer off topic. Please respond in the relevant thread. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 05:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Taxil's hoax is at the foundation of the Hidden Secrets point, the GAOTU point, and the Worship Lucifer point. The latter point also includes Pike's infamous quote, which was popularized by Taxil and those who followed him. These are the three Satanic/anti-Christian points found in the list. (Taivo (talk) 05:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC))

Actually, without violating WP:OR, the quotes from Freemasonry for Dummies and The Complete Idiot's Guide to Freemasonry, which are WP:RSs, state that the Taxil hoax is at the root of all religious based conspiracy theories. (Taivo (talk) 05:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC))

Here are the characteristics of Taxil origin in a conspiracy theory. All are inventions of Taxil:

• Pike is called the "Sovereign Pontiff of Universal Freemasonry" or any other such title that implies that he was the supreme leader of Freemasonry
• If Freemasonry is said to be controlled by something called the "Supreme Confederated Councils of the World" or similar wording
• If any rites of Freemasonry are called "Palladian" or the work of an inner circle is called "Palladism"
• If Freemasonry is linked with the worship of Lucifer or Satan
• If either Sophia Walder or Diana Vaughan are mentioned

If the theory cites any work by Gabriel Antoine Jogand-Pages, Leo Taxil, Abel Clarin de la Rive, or Edith Starr Miller then it is based on Taxil's hoax since the works of all these directly derive from Taxil and the works of those he was directly duping. (Taivo (talk) 05:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC))

For example, the website referenced in Footnote 30 contains a reference to: "Instructions to the 23 Supreme Councils of the World, July 14, 1889. Recorded by A.C. De La Rive in La Femme et l'Enfant dans la FrancMaconnerie Universelle on page 588", a completely fictitious event and fictitious speech that Taxil admitted was fradulent. It also calls Pike, "the former Sovereign Grand Commander of the Supreme Council of Grand Sovereign Inspectors General of the 33rd Degree", a completely fictitious title invented by Taxil. We aren't going to argue for or against the truthfulness of any of the conspiracy theories here. The site in Footnote 31 also says, "Without question it is a last century Masonic attempt to deal with the embarrassment that Masonry experienced when General Albert Pike's letter giving instructions to the 23 supreme councils of the world fell into public hands." (Also a reference to that fictitious letter and event.) My only purpose in mentioning them is to show how these are based on Taxil's hoax. (Taivo (talk) 06:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC))

None of these websites can be considered WP:RS in terms of using them to prove or disprove some aspect of Masonry. Their usefulness here is only as evidence of the different flavors of Masonic conspiracy theory out there. We use secondary sources, the Hodapp and Morris volumes, for example, to discuss the origins of particular theories, in this case focusing on the Taxil hoax as the foundation of the religious/Lucifer ones. They also serve to show the origins of other conspiracy theories in symbology and politics (when we get to discussing those theories). (Taivo (talk) 06:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC))

Ok then, thanks for that. Please cite each assertion and include that in the article. WP:RS here is about presenting significant conspiracy theories. Any theory that is satisfactorily "debunked" could be placed in a "debunked" category or something. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 07:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

All of them have been debunked, but this is not the place for that. This is an NPOV listing, nothing more. Which assertions are you talking about? Remember that this is not the place for argumentation. I have already provided every reference that I think needs to be in the article to prove the statements to be found in the article (Hodapp and Morris). (Taivo (talk) 09:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC))

As for the Lucifer issue, I think that it's prima facie that Freemasonry deals with Lucifer. The name, indeed, means "bringer of light." The star in the star-and-cresent symbol is actually the Morningstar. There are also Lucifer apologists, but I can't remember whether they are Freemasons. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 07:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Lucifer has nothing to do with Freemasonry. You are mistaken, there is no "prima facie" case for it. The star-and-crescent symbol is not a Freemason symbol and even if it were, the use of Venus in an originally Islamic symbol does not imply "Lucifer" in a strict sense, unless you are implying that its use in Islam is a symbol of "Lucifer" as well. There are no "prima facie" cases for any of these conspiracy theories. But, this is not the article for debunking or promoting. It is an NPOV listing. (Taivo (talk) 09:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC))

Denial. The star-and-crescent represents "Islamic faith" not necessarily the Islamic religion. The symbol did not originate with Islam. It was only used for the flag of Turkey during the Ottomon Empire. For 1000 years there was no "symbol of Islam." The flag of Libya illustrates that a more typical Islamic flag had simply one solid color. Islamic law has forbidden artwork depicting natural phenomena, so several Islamic flags are questionnable. The crescent in the star-and-crescent represents the Moon, being that Allah is a moon god. Some claim that the star is the photosphere of an occulation, or an Earthshine, which are both nonsense. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 13:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Dividing these conspiracy theories up into groups is a job for later. Right now we are focusing on the issue of the second paragraph of the introduction. I have proposed the following wording:

• Another set of theories has to do with Freemasonry and religion, particularly that Freemasonry deals with "the occult", here used to denote a particular range of the occult involving Satanic or anti-Christian beliefs. These theories have their beginnings with the Taxil hoax.[refs here] In addition to these, there are various theories that focus on the embedding of Masonic symbology in otherwise ordinary items, such as street patterns, national seals, etc.[refs here] (Taivo (talk) 09:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC))

Like I already said, there needs to be a footnote. The word "Masonic" in "Masonic symbology" is redundant. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 12:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no objections to Tavio's version... suggest changing "Masonic symbology' to just "symbols" (since some of the symbols that are claimed to be embedded are not in fact "Masonic"). The footnote that Uku wants can be combined with a reference to either the Idiot's Guide or For Dummies. Blueboar (talk) 13:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem either way. I meant that there should be a footnote to define "the occult," instead of an inline explanation Ukufwakfgr (talk) 13:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to give Uku some of his own medicine, he misspelled "Ottoman" and "questionable" a few paragraphs up, and I think we should spend the next three days going over how that indicates a fundamental problem with his argument.

"What is a problem is that Uku's statements made on symbolism (not "symbology") have no real basis in anything aside from his own belief. He would rather see conspiracy, devil worship, etc., in everything than accept perfectly logical explanations. For example, the Short History of the Shrine explains pretty clearly where all the symbols came from. They're not Islamic or anything else. That's like saying that the caduceus was a symbol pagan Greeks invented, so therefore, all doctors are pagans. That's an actual logical fallacy, by the way, as opposed to the purported ones that weren't. MSJapan (talk) 15:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about???! And this is a real show of gratitude after I showed support for your writing, which seems to have caused the discussion to finally move forward. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 01:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Consensus. Just to reiterate the version that everyone seems to agree on (with changes from above so no one feels blindsided when I put them in). I'll add the references when I post it:

• Another set of theories has to do with Freemasonry and religion, particularly that Freemasonry deals with "the occult" footnote follows Here used to denote a particular range of the occult involving Satanic or anti-Christian beliefs. end footnote These theories have their beginnings in the Taxil hoax.refs here In addition to these, there are various theories that focus on the embedding of symbols in otherwise ordinary items, such as street patterns, national seals, etc.refs here (Taivo (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC))

I think this is quite acceptable. I think we are ready to move on the the next topic.Blueboar (talk) 14:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)