Talk:Freemasonry/Archive 15

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Previous Discussions

Previous discussions have been moved to Archive 14.

New Business?

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

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

Done some of the work for you.

Ritual and symbolism tightened up.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Penal Signs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

words

What weaseal words are used below, please?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fact tag

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Intereasting article wrt feminine Masonry

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

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

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

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

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

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

Small Edit Suggestion

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

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

02:01, 7 March 2006 Blueboar

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

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

RFC Link

The discussion had comments newer than two weeks by the time of archiving.

Morgan

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

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

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

Speculation in legislative reference

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

no personal attacks in edit summaries

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

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

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

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

Discussion

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

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

Where does UGLE assert this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Real NPOV

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

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

Missing Links

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keystrokes is not showing proof....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Protection

The discussion had comments newer than two weeks by the time of archiving

User: MSJapan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RFC Dispute

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

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

Holocaust and Freemasons

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

-Anonymous

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

3rr warning to everyone

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Revert

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

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