This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed.
Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.
I came here randomly, not knowing anything about the masons because someone mentioned something about secret societies to me and masons jumped into my head. Now I know 0 about the masons, and when I read the article, there is nothing mentioned at all about any secret anythings. I went back into the history and found that a section called masonic secrets was edited out. Why would you take information like that out of the article? If that information isn't in the article it might as well not be a secret society. I can understand people that know the secrets editing out the exact secrets or something but not editing out the section that even mentions that there are secrets... Anyway consider this a small peer review. Not have a section on the secrets of a secret society, is not good for an encyclopedia. Seraphim08:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is two snags with listing the secrets of any 'secret society' in an encyclopedia:
Verifiability - if they are secret, how do you verify them to be correct?
If they are known, and thus avilable to be included, they cannot be considered secret.
On an tangent, and based on my personal experience with masonry in Norway, Freemasonery isn't as much a secret society as a society with secrets. Everything except the rituals are avilable... and the rituals should be secret in the same way (and for the same reasons) the answers to an exam is 'secret'. If you know the answers beforehand, it reduces the value of the experience. YMMV off course. WegianWarrior09:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing to add, from England, except to concur with the above comments – these are explicitly stated in the article anyway – and the article is not intended as an expose, as there is nothing to expose. Skull 'n' Femurs12:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The key here is that the secrets aren't the point. As a note, Eagle Scouts all have a secret handshake (which we usually forget entirely), but no one would claim that this is of central importance to knowing what an Eagle Scout is. Same with the Masons. I just did an informational meeting, actually, and people were much more concerned with what Masons do in terms of community service and activities than any religious position or secret anything. I think things like Learning Centers for dyslexic children, Shriners' hospitals, scholarships, child identification programs, and other charities and charitable activities Masonry supports are much more important, encyclopedically speaking, than the secrets of the Fraternity, because what we do is much more important. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that not one of us here joined to learn secrets; we joined in order to better ourselves and make a difference in our communities.
I used this argument already before, but if it works,why change? I could say that the secret of the 35th degree is a word called "flepgnopfarpian", but you're never going to find a 35th degree, and you're never going to find the word, because I made them both up. However, if you can't find it, does it mean that it is secret, or that it is wrong? How do you objectively prove it? Anti-Masonic sources are POV and tend to exaggerate, and the Masonic sources won't necessarily mention it.
However, if you want the real secret, here it is: the real secret of Masonry isn't a word, or a sign, or anything like that. The real secret of Masonry is intangible and indescribable, and if you're not a Mason, you'll never understand it. I will also note that this is my personal private opinion, and I don't speak for the Fraternity in any way by any stretch of the imagination.MSJapan16:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that you should expose what the secrets are. You should atleast mention that they exist. Wegian you said that everything but the rituals are avaliable, why isn't that information in the article? The fact that they have secret rituals should be in the article. Right now there is nothing in the article that even mentions any sorts of secrets that they have. If you can't post what the secrets are that's fine, but atleast adknowledge that the secrets exist. Seraphim19:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read the first paragraph of the article and then try to say that it's not explicit about the existence of secret material. Going any further is diffiuclt because that which is considered secret varies significantly depending on the the Grand Lodge one works under.ALR19:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It mentions that some secrets exist, but it is far from explicit. This is an encyclopedia, the masons are regarded as a secret society, there should atleast be a section that mentions what the secrets are. If it changes from sept to sept you can seperate the section into subsections for each variation like you have for alot of the article. Just reading the responces in this little discussion they mention rituals, secret words, and handshakes. Just adknowledging that they exist can be proven and not considered NPOV. I feel it's more NPOV and definatly against the ideals of wikipedia to not have a section atleast explaining why it's a secret society, and what secrets there are. The first paragraph does not do that. Especially since your arguing that listing any more would be NPOV, but your first paragraph states "It is referred to, in some sources, as "a beautiful system of morality veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols."" and your source for that is a masonic website. A group calling their own rituals beautiful is far from NPOV. Seraphim19:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While everything but the rituals are avilable (at least for the Grand Lodge of Norway), to add it all would turn this into a poor article that consited mainly of lists of names, lists of meetingplaces and times, and the Rules and Regulations (in Norwegian, off course).
Lets review an important part of that first paragraph (emphasis mine):
Freemasonry is an esoteric society, in that certain aspects of its internal work are not generally disclosed to the public, but it is not an occult system, and in recent years, it has become less and less a "secret society" than a "society with secrets". Among the reasons given for the amount of secrecy that remains, is that Freemasonry uses an initiatory system of degrees to progressively explore ethical and philosophical issues, and that the system is less effective if the observer knows beforehand what will happen.
It clearly states what the infamous secrets are (certain aspects of the internal work, in other words; the rituals), and why they are secret (so that the experience is not diluted). WegianWarrior20:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Adding more information to an article does not make it worse. I just can't understand why an article about a secret society doesn't have a section that adresses what the secrets are any more then a passing mention in the first paragraph. Seraphim20:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The classic circular argument, I fail to see how articulation of what the secrets consist of might add to the article. It is clear that there are elements which are esoteric, that's as much as is required.ALR20:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is in no way a circular argument. There are facts that are not covered in the article. This is an encyclopedia. It is not our job to filter out facts because we feel they don't belong. It is our job to present all the facts. And the fact that I had to come to the talk pages to find out more about the freemasons shows that the article is missing these facts. Seraphim20:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However those items are non-verifiable, unless you can source verification for that which might allegedly be secret.ALR21:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is verifiable what the secrets are. What is non-verifiable is what the content of the secrets are. The group is known to be a secret society, therefore somewhere there is a verifiable source that says that the society has secrets. This article itself says that things about the inner workings of the group and it's rituals are secret. You can find a source for that and add a seperate section. I'm not asking people to add stuff like "omg their secret password is "doghouse"" but if someone has mentioned that a secret password/handshake/ritual exists that needs to be included. Seraphim21:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The secrets are not verifiable; if they were, they wouldn't be secret. The article says there are secrets; you want them acknowledged, and they already are. I can give you a clear reference from Freemasons for Dummies that specifically states that the secrets vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but that still doesn't verify anything. So what is it exactly you want? MSJapan21:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A section in the article that explains all of this information that is here on the talk page, but not included in the article. Just mentioning that there are secrets is not enough, since there is obviously more information on the subject then the fact that secrets exist. Add a section specifically for the secrets, explain how the secrets change from sept to sept, explain why they are kept secret, and adknowledge in the article what forms the secrets take (rituals/passwords/whatever) Seraphim22:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have still failed to make a convincing argument why Paragraph one is inadequate. It makes clear that there are secrets, and why they are there. I fail to see why articulating what those secrets might be actually adds to the article, particularly as they are not cinsistent. Indeed it may be that in some cases the nature of the secrets is in itself secret. That's a very good way of protecting a secret!ALR22:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no more information, because the secrets are secrets. If there was public information, they wouldn't be secret anymore, would they? First of all, they can't be verified except within one jurisdiction anyway, out of probably 600 at a low estimate. England alone has 47 working rituals today, and not one of them has the secrets printed in them. There's also no way to tell how they change - you can only take degrees in one jurisdiction, and you can only do it once. There is no way, therefore, to tell what the secrets are, how they change, or what forms they take, because they are all different as far as any one of us knows. You want the secrets of a jurisdiction, join and find out, because that's the only way you're going to get them.
The story I was referring to takes place in the Phillipines. Some US Army personnel found a lodge meeting, but none of the signs matched. They ended up having to put all the stuff in the Lodge in its proper place to verify their membership. Nothing else they knew made a difference.
As an example of verifiable sources, I went through the pages listed as references on this article. In the first reference "The Masonic Manual" it has a few paragraphs of interest.
"Finally, keep sacred and inviolable the mysteries of the order; as these are to distinguish you from the rest of the community, and mark your consequence among masons. If, in the circle of your acquaintance, you find a person desirous of being initiated into masonry, be particularly careful not to recommend him, unless you are convinced he will conform to our rules; that the honor, glory and reputation of the institution, may be firmly established, and the world at large convinced of its good effects."
That shows that there is a secret used to mark masons so they know eachother, that is not found in the article. Also there's another paragraph:
"The virtue indispensably requisite in Masons is - SECRECY. This is the guard of their confidence, and the security of their trust So great a stress is to be laid upon it, that it is enforced under the strongest obligations; nor, in their esteem, is any man to be accounted wise, who has not intellectual strength and ability sufficient to cover and conceal such honest secrets as are committed to him, as well as his own more serious and private affairs."
In the last reference "Anderson's Constitution" there is also a paragraph that shows that Mason's have a secret way of identifying eachother:
"You are cautiously to examine him, in such a Method as Prudence shall direct you, that you may not be impos'd upon by an ignorant, false Pretender, whom you are to reject with contempt and Derision, and beware of giving him any Hints of Knowledge.
But if you discover him to be a true and genuine Brother, you are to respect him accordingly; and if he is in Want, you must relieve him if you can, or else direct him how he may be relieved; you must employ him some days, or else recommend him to be employ'd. But you are not charged to do beyond your ability, only to prefer a poor Brother, that is a good Man and true before any other poor People in the same Circumstance. "
Because of all this information, in sources that are already considered viable enough to be included in this article, you can state with valid sources that not only are the masonic rituals secret, there are also secret means of identifying yourself as a mason
to fellow masons. I'm sure if I go digging I can find more, since in that 3rd paragraph it mentions that you can't give a false Pretender any "hints of knowledge" which means that there is more secret information out there. There are 2 examples of valid sources that show that secrets not covered in the first paragraph exist, there is no justifiable reason not to add a section that mentions them, since their existance can be easially proven. Seraphim23:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Crack on then, you're just as entitled to add material as anyone else, if you feel it's missing, then add something.ALR23:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is a contraversial topic it is customary to reach an agreement on the talk page before adding information to prevent a revert war. I noticed that there has been a section on the secrets in the article before but it is usually swiftly removed. Also as i've said i'm not an expert on freemasonry, that's why I came to this article in the first place, and I would rather see someone who is considered an expert add the section to keep people from coming to my talk page yelling at me for changing a page that i'm not an expert on. Seraphim23:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seraphim, I want to thank you for being willing to discuss this and not just getting into a revert war. Let me address some of your points above. The first paragraph (the one that includes the line "mark your consequence among masons") is not about secrets. You have taken the paragraph out of context. In context, that bit of ritual is not about secrets or secrecy but about living up to the ideals of the fraternity... Being charitable, respecting for your fellows, living a temperate, upright and moral life. THESE are the mysteries of the order which we are asked to keep sacred and inviolable. THESE are the things that distiguish us and mark us. While the second paragraph is about secrets... it is again taken out of context. The secrets being discussed are personal confidences that one Mason might have shared with another. In short, the paragraph is saying that Masons should not be gosips. Finally, the paragraph from Anderson's Constitutions IS about the kind of secrets you are talking about. He is talking about regognition signals: Secret handshakes, passwords, etc... All that silly stuff that every fraternity in the world uses. It is no secret that Masons have them. What is a secret (sort of) is what they are. (I say sort of, because a- they vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and b- many of them have been "exposed" already and you can find them with about 10 minutes worth of googling.) However, I seriously doubt that including discussion of these secrets would change any POV problems you feel the article has. Blueboar03:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well 1 out of 3 isn't bad :p anyway like I said, since this is a source that you guys deem to be acceptable, that shows that masons do have the secret passwords/secrets/whatever, that information needs to be in the article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we are suppossed to list all the facts, not pick and choose which ones to add. The argument people presented above against adding a section to address the secrets was that they were already addressed in the first paragraph, and that any other secret cannot be validated. However now I just proved that it can be proven that they exist. I am of the opinion that the idea that it is ok not to include information in wikipedia because it can be googled in 10 minutes is not a good path to go down. Also this isn't a NPOV issue, I only noticed all the NPOV issues after this discussion started, and I started reading the backlogs of the talk page to find more information about the "secrets" and how the page has dealt with them in the past.
My point is, it can be proven that masons have secret rituals, and secret ways of identifying themselves, people have also been saying that the secrets vary from lodge to lodge. This information (minus the existance of the rituals) are not mentioned in the article at all, which to me is a glaring omission. If you read the article right now, you are lead to believe that the only secrets are the rituals, and they are kept secret so people do not know the "answers" when they have to take part in them. It doesn't mention that secret ways of identifying eachother exist, and that the reason for the secret ways of identifying eachother is so you can verify that a stranger that comes to your lodge is indeed a fellow mason and not a "ignorant, false Pretender, whom you are to reject with contempt and Derision". The fact that this stuff is not in the article seems to be a glaring omission. Since I had 0 knowledge of masons before I poked over here yesterday afternoon, and I have learned all this on the talk page, not in the article. Seraphim04:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Potentially the difficulty we have here is that the recognitions are part of the ritual, and aren't used outside of that context as such. I don't see any need to be more specific than 'The ritual is secret' since that covers it. In some GLs the entirety of the ritual is secret, in others, such as my own, the secrets are limited to the recognitions. The article makes clear that there are secrets within the ritual context and elaborates on that inasmuch as prior knowledge of the ritual lessens its' effect. Additionally merely because an item purports to be one or more of the secrets it cannot be validated or verified without violation of the obligations. Indeed, some of the material purporting to be the Secrets is wrong or at the very least inaccurate since the specifics also vary according to ones GL and in at least one case have changed over time.ALR08:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The source I have doesn't mention the rituals at all. It shows that masons have secret ways of identifying eachother. It's completly seperate from the rituals. Also i'd like to point out that the source article i'm using is one that is already referenced in the article. If you feel that it is not a valid source, then you have to remove the other parts of the article that reference it as well. I understand 100% because you guys keep hammering it in that the secrets change all the time, and vary from group to group, plus you cannot ever be sure what the secrets are because the people that have the secrets aren't allowed to disclose them. However this source, and you masons, have made it clear that not only are their secret rituals that change from group to group, but there is also a secret greeting or means of showing other masons that you belong to the fraternity. This I feel deserves it's own section, instead of just mentioning that "secret rituals exist". Especially when the only reasoning given in the article for the secrecy of the rituals is so that people don't know what to expect when they go to them, does not cover the reason for keeping the identification stuff secret, obviously that is kept secret so nobody is able to falsely identify themselves as a mason and get access to other information they aren't suppossed to have. Seraphim08:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure which part of 'recognitions are ritual' you're not understanding here, but I can't simplify any more than that. The point is extremely simple and requires no further illumination which would itself only obfuscate that clarity. There is no explcit secrecy outside the ritual context.ALR09:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you consider ther recognitions a ritual, however it isn't the same type of "ritual" that the first paragraph talks about. A secret way of proving to other masons that you are a member doesn't fall under the statement in the first paragraph "Among the reasons given for the amount of secrecy that remains, is that Freemasonry uses an initiatory system of degrees to progressively explore ethical and philosophical issues, and that the system is less effective if the observer knows beforehand what will happen." at all. Also somewhere in the article it should say that the secrets change from lodge to lodge, since that is information that is not in the article. Seraphim09:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you consider ther recognitions a ritual, however it isn't the same type of "ritual" that the first paragraph talks about. Yes it is, the recognitions only apply in a ritualistic context. More than that isn't for discussion.ALR10:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It might be different at your lodge since customs change from lodge to lodge, as others have pointed out in this discussion numerous times is that one mason does not know what the other sept's secrets are, or how they are used, therefore you can't say that for sure because of the nature of the secrets. However in Anderson's constitution it says "You are cautiously to examine him, in such a Method as Prudence shall direct you, that you may not be impos'd upon by an ignorant, false Pretender, whom you are to reject with contempt and Derision, and beware of giving him any Hints of Knowledge. But if you discover him to be a true and genuine Brother, you are to respect him accordingly;" If it was only used as part of a ritual, I (if i was a guy) would beable to just walk into a lodge and participate in a ritual up to the point where the recognitions take place. However by the time you get to that point, you have already participated in a ritual or atleast part of one, and therefore someone would beable to post online as a valid source all of the parts of the masonic rituals, up to the point where the recognitions take place. Also the quote from Anderson's says that you are not to give a false pretender "any Hints of Knowledge" it seems to me like bringing them into a ritual would be doing just that, since the rituals are secret. It stands to reason that the recognitions are used outside of rituals. Also you can't say "More than that isn't for discussion." since I have a source that claims otherwise, that people in this article already have given approval to as an accepted reference. The idea that you can just decide what can and cannot be discussed is incorrect, this is an encyclopedia and it is not suppossed to be filtered information, but all the best factual information on a subject. Seraphim18:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
you have already participated in a ritual or atleast part of one is a very valid point and I know at what point any cowans present would be evicted from the lodge. You clearly haven't read the article in full as you will note that Feminine Freemasonry is considered as Freemasonry in most resepcts except inasmuch as it admits women; so if you are a woman you can still be admitted to the mysteries. I can say More than that isn't for discussion since I know what the rituals are and am of the opinion that any further discussion down this particular route goes beyond that which I am obligated to protect. all the best factual information, my previously stated stance IS a statement of the best factual information available as it applies to the Fraternity worldwide, namely: Elements of the ritual are considered secret, the level of secrecy associated with the ritual varies with some GLs considering the entirety and some limiting their secrecy only to the recognitions. Beyond that my view is that whilst my GL holds the latter position I respect the positions of other GLs and qould tend to protect the ritual as a whole to avoid inadvertantly leading another brother to break his or her obligations. As was mentioned elsewhere in this discussion, the most effective way you can find out what the secrets are as they apply to your part of the world is to join a lodge. I'll say again that we appear to be going round in circles with this debate, so I'll leave it at that.ALR19:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Gives a secret sign over the ether)... I'm only a 6&7/8° Mason, but I've found a secret memo, on the internet, saying Freemasons are going to vary the hours of daylight over the course of the next 48 hours, to further the grip on world government. Should we tell everyone? I think we should watch the skies! Skull 'n' Femurs09:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would be funny if I was one of those conspiracy/crazy people, I could care less about what the secrets are, you won't see me going around saying "omg the password is fishbone!" or anything like that since I understand that the nature of the secrets makes it so that you cannot trust any sources out there that claim to know what the content of the secrets are. However with that said the fact that they exist needs to be in the article. Seraphim09:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion on talk pages is suppossed to stay on the topic of how to improve the associated article. If you have voices in your head, you might need to go see a quack. However please don't try to de-rail this section with nonsence. Seraphim10:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seraphim... you seem to have as much information on this issue as any non-Mason could have. You know that Masons have secrets, that vary in content from the entire ritual in some jurisdictions, to just recognition signs, grips and passwords in others. You obviously feel strongly that a statement to this effect should be included in the article, so why not draft a paragraph? If you are worried about a possible instant revert and rejection of your paragraph, try posting it here first - then everyone can comment on it, work out a compromise and perfect it before it is put into the article. Blueboar13:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Seraphim... you seem to have as much information on this issue as any non-Mason could have." I cannot find any evidence to support that. The artcle already covers the issue. "You obviously feel strongly that a statement to this effect should be included in the article, so why not draft a paragraph? If you are worried about a possible instant revert and rejection of your paragraph, try posting it here first - then everyone can comment on it, work out a compromise and perfect it before it is put into the article." I obviously feel strongly that the statement to this effect should remain as it is. No special cases... but as I'm busy for the next few days, any changes may get through, initially. This secret stuff is like people complaining when I draw the lounge curtains at night to watch TV, so as not to be disturbed by any nosey passer-by. If you’re that interested, knock on the door and join. Otherwise mind your own business. As a Christian I try not to read Pagan, etc., rituals - as I do not need to validate myself in this way. If your take is that Freemasonry is evil, why is it of such interest to you? Again my faith is my business, and Freemasonry is not a religion, or a substitute. Skull 'n' Femurs20:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what difference it makes if it is verifiable or not. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. It should be respectful of certain religious groups requests for privacy. This article is extremely informative on all that is important to know. Epachamo19:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
POV warning and Merger tags
Large portions of this article go against wikipedia's fundamental NPOV principals, which according to wikipedia policy is "absolute and non-negotiable".
There is a very obvious NPOV Content Fork with this page and the Anti-Freemasonry page. That has gone so far as to people on the talk page arguing that information should be moved from this page to the Anti-Freemasonry page. There is no reason to not have the history of and arguments against freemasonry on this page. This is a non-negotiable issue according to wikipedia policy, and must be resolved for this page to be NPOV.
The way to fix a Content Fork is to merge the 2 offending pages, and therefore i'm adding POV warnings and Merge proposals to both pages.
The fork is the largest NPOV violation, however there are also other less obvious ones.
In the first paragraph the line "It is referred to, in some sources, as "a beautiful system of morality veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols."" is sourced by a Masonic writing, a group speaking highly of itself is Not NPOV. Especially if you do not include a differing view point.
I am not qualified to judge the Pov status on the information presented in the Orginizational structure, membership requirements, principles and activities, Ritual and symbolism, and the History of Freemasonry sections, I do not claim to be a historian or even educated in freemasonry, therefor I cannot judge these sections.
What I am capable of is spotting glaring NPOV violations. And the section on Criticism, persecution, and prosecution is another glaring example of one. It should be titled "Masonic counter-arguments to common criticism's" since every single criticism in that section is followed by a defencive statement, some of which are proceeded by the word "However" if your looking for them.
It is very obvious that steps have been taken to make sure this article is very Pro-Masonic and does not cover both sides of the topic in a fair NPOV view. This stuff Needs to be addressed.
All wikipedia articles must follow the NPOV rules. We are an encyclopedia not a propaganda machine. In order to fix this article's NPOV problems, this page Must be merged with Anti-freemasonry, the POV statements backed up by biased sources must be removed, and the Criticism's must be allowed to stand alone, without counter-arguments, or allow the anti-freemasonry people to add counter-arguments to the counter-arguments added by the pro-freemasonry people. It is a section on critisims not "Masonic counter-arguments to common criticism's". Seraphim21:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It has also been clearly shown that the article is too long otherwise, and the anti-Masonic edits were from biased sources. The criticisms are not fact, save the Catholic one, and the counterarguments are fact. So the article is POV because it doesn't show what you want it to, and that's simply too bad. You would rather there be anti-Masonic propaganda rather than what you see as pro-Masonic propaganda (that research shows is fact). That doesn't make the article NPOV. You have a gross misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy, but a pretty good grasp of what's what for a new user.
However, if you can show me anti-Masonic sources that don't come from FreemasonryWatch or conspiracy theory/evangelical Christian sites, we can change it. Length restrictions prohibit us from remerging the articles. Tags are removed. MSJapan21:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not judging the content, because I am not an expert on the subject. It is wikipedia policy that all articles must be NPOV. It is an "absolute and non-negotiable" rule. One of the examples of NPOV is a content fork, and I quote from Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View "A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV guidelines by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and majority Point of Views on a certain subject are treated in one article."
From the talk page I can see that this has been attempted before, and the party listing the NPOV tag usually gives up out of frustration. However I feel that it is Immoral for any wikipedia editor to ignore the NPOV policies since we are suppossed to be creating an encyclopedia, and I am willing to follow the dispute resolution proceedures to get this article fixed. Seraphim21:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, "generally accepted policy" means that there are exceptions, and this happens to be one of them. The consensus was that it should be split, and you can thank the anti-Masonic POV people for that. Also, "treated fairly" is negotiable; the facts of anti-Masonic POV don't stand up to research, and to not point out that the citations are false and the quotes created would definitely be POV. There are no further counter-arguments, because there is really on ground for the anti-Masonic POV to stand on. I can't help that.
This is what concerns me - you say you're not an expert, but you say you see the problems on the page. However, your comments don't show me (or others) that at all, because you're not convincing me that you really understand anything about the situation in the slightest, but you're arguing about it. MSJapan02:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First off, I wouldn't be breaking a theoretical 1rr on this page, never mind a 3rr, lets not toss around baseless threats. Second, NPOV is not a policy, it is a rule, it is one of the only 5 rules of wikipedia and it is not something that you can ignore and call it an exception. Also you saying that the consensus was that the page should be split is incorrect. The split was done by a random person in archive 5 back in october when he noticed there was no anti-freemasonry page. Also if the reasoning for the split was so the anti-masonic POV people could have their own page (which it wasn't), it follows the defination of a POV fork to a T.(from Wikipedia:Content_forking "POV forks usually arise when two or more contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page, and instead of resolving that disagreement, someone creates another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) to be developed according to their personal views rather than according to consensus. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be nominated for deletion. ". The anti-freemasonry page should be nominated for deletion, and the editors of that page need to work the information from over there into here. Also just because you can formulate a counter-argument, does not mean that you should not list the critisism. Since alot of the critisism's are based on the "secrets" that other editors made so certain to point out that you cannot say for sure what the secrets consist of, you also are not able to say what they don't consist of. If someone were to assert that X secret ritual involves the sacrifice of a baby frog, you can point out that there is no way of knowing if that is true or not, but due to the secrecy you cannot state that it does not involve the sacrifice of a baby cow since it would be hypocritical. Also i'd like to remind you once again, that you do NOT need to be a expert on a subject to detect bias in an article on that subject. Bias has to do with the words, not the facts they are presenting. Also any wikipedia user has the right to edit any page they want. I feel this article is not NPOV, therefore the article's NPOV standing is disputed, and it will be disputed untill both sides agree that the article is now NPOV. Removing the NPOV tag while this discussion is still going on is not the correct thing to do. Since all the NPOV tag says, is that the article's NPOV standing is being disputed, which is obviously currently the case since this discussion is still going on. Unless of course, you can argue that somehow i'm not disputing the article's NPOV status. Which would be quite an impressive feat. Seraphim05:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Never did I argue for equal time. Infact wikipedia policy, which I agree with, is very clear that equal time is not needed for an article to be NPOV. My arguments are about non NPOV language in the article, and the creation of a POV Fork. Seraphim05:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Freemasons do not talk religion or politics in Open Lodge. But what is the policy about talking to users who think they are minor deities on Wiki? I think we should be told... (Doctor! Doctor! The earth is flat I tell you! I demand arbitration!) Skull 'n' Femurs09:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anti-masonry (as with Freemasonry) is a unique phenomenon with a long and complex history. As such it deserves its own article independant of Freemasonry. It is similar in scope to Anti-semitism... Granted, you should discuss anti-semitism in an article on Judeism (as we mention Anti-masonic issues near the end of this article), and you should discuss Judeism in an article on anti-semitism, but each topic still gets its own article. Blueboar14:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"A NPOV Content Fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject". This is not the case here. Most of the content forks are actually POV forks:an attempt to evade NPOV guidelines by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. Grye02:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to what you said, and amplifying it (though I think we are in agreement in intent if not wording) is this, from the same page: "There is no consensus whether a "Criticism of .... " article is always a POV fork. At least the "Criticism of ... " article should contain rebuttals if available. And the original article should contain a summary of the "Criticism of ... " article. See also Wikipedia:Criticism"--Vidkun02:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Content by Basil Rathbone
Note that the citation is Steven Knight which has been discredited, note also that his ritual citation is Duncans. I don't have access to a copy of that justnow, does anyone know the publication date? As I remember its 1880s or thereabouts? Notice of that posted to Administrator: David Gerards talk page.ALR13:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. Steven Knight is an accepted Anti-Masonic Resource, widely available.
2. Duncan's Ritual is an accepted Masonic Resource, widely available
3. Is this the justification for deleting several hours of work creating a badly needed section on Masonic Secrets? And what is the justification for deleting the 'See Also' Wiki links to Secret society and Mormonism? And what is the justification for deleting the collection External links to articles critical of Freemasonry?
4. Is this the justification for deleting the NPOV and Article Merge warnings put in place recently by another Wiki editors with absolutely no discussion?
5. Is this the justification for ignoring the above discussion on this talk page about the NPOV and Forking problem on this page?
I guess the fact that you are trying to push a POV intentionally to annoy most of the person editing this justifies your ignoring the variouslink guidleines that are established.--Vidkun14:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't guess, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. By the way I seen from a perusal of your personal page you have a little Masonic symbol listed with a 'I'm on the square' beside it, like ALR, BlueSquare, and Blueboar who have been "editing" my contributions today. Very helpful and useful information about you all. Thank-you for your contribution to this important discussion.Basil Rathbone14:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, actually, I DO have the square and compasses on my user page. DO you know why? Because, unlike some persons editing the page, I am willing to show EXACTLY what my personal biases are. It's called full disclosure, something other don't seem to practice.--Vidkun15:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have a little square and compass on my talk page... I am a Mason and proud of it. That's why I am interested in editing an article about Freemasonry. If you even bother to read the discussion here, you would know that I have never said any different. Your point? Blueboar15:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And... 1) Steven Knight may be accepted by Anti-Masons, but he is hardly accepted as a source by the rest of the world. 2) Duncan's Ritual is most definitely NOT an accepted masonic source. for the rest, see the linking guidelines cited by Vidkun. Blueboar15:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. Dunno about 'The Rest of the World' Bro, I don't get around that much I guess. Still the book has sold millions and millions of copies and was referenced in the U.K. House of Commons Special Inquiry into Freemasonry...
2. Well Duncans is very commonally used today by Masons and it is listed for sale on a great number of Masonic websites. But your question is an interesting one. Would you be so kind as to post copies of Masonic Secrets from your own Grand Lodge ritual book so we can compare? Thanks for your help.Basil Rathbone15:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
None of us have to. You are the one making a claim that these ARE the secrets, so, why don't YOU go and get proof from an active Grand Lodge. We do not need to prove the falsehood, as we are not trying to say, in the article, that the exposés are false. YOU are trying to say the are true, and have nothing to back that up from a reliable source. It's nice to see the same tactics that have been used for years on end by people trying to say what the secrets are, still don't prove anything. --Vidkun15:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Duncan's is still available commercially, and thus it is still under copyright. Taking a picture from an old edition doesn't suddenly make it public domain. Second of all, this iarticle is not about Royal Arch. Third, Duncan is only about US Freemasonry, and thus has no place here. These things vary, and this article is a general article, not a specific one. MSJapan16:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just because something is under copyright doesn't mean it can't be included as a source if it is properly cited. If that was the case writing a termpaper would be almost impossible. Seraphim16:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent point Seraphim. In any event the information as Brother Vidkun pointed out in his excellent 'Exposes' contribution has been exposed for centuries and has neither been confirmed or denied. However if Brother MSJapan would now like to confirm the 'exposure'...Basil Rathbone16:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why should I? You violated Copyvio by copying a picture out of Duncan's as well as verbatim text, and did not cite properly. I'm also not your Brother, and I would appreciate you not referring to me as such. MSJapan16:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just using a copyrighted image is not a copyviolation. Most of the images on wikipedia are under fair use, this particular image would also fall under fair use if the source is found and added to the image page. If your claiming that it is a copyrighted image, then you must know what the source of it is, therefore please add the source to the image page. Seraphim16:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't look like "it's gone" Brother MSJapan. Are you now saying the Royal Arch secrets posted in this section are 'Historical Material'? It's getting a little hard to follow your train of thought here, please shed some more light.Basil Rathbone16:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is now, and yes I am, as they were already discussed elsewhere. Believe whatever you want to believe about it, but this is still not the appropriate article for that material. MSJapan16:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No you seem to be seeing things again Brother MSJapan. Perhaps you have Wikipedia confused with a "private" Masonic website. Wikipedida is an encyclopedia and therefore should certainly contain information about Masonic Secrets, secrets that have been exposed and confirmed by the public circulation of official masonic grand lodge ritual books and monitors from the estates of deceased masons. Something you are no doubt well aware of. Your 'copyright' concerns have been asked and answered so you seem to be trying another gambit, but if I may I might suggest it is as equally thought out by you.Basil Rathbone16:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a Mason I choose not to divulge the secrets of my Lodge, but will say this: I think we can agree that content here regardless of topic should be (1) comprehensive and (2) fundamentally correct. This section is neither. --Faustus3717:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Basil has been blocked for a few days due to the 3rr violation. Let's make sure we go carefully through the Article to undo any damage. Blueboar18:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I took the easy way out, and simply reverted to the last (trusted) version prior to Basil's arrival. If I inadvertantly cut a legit edit, you have my appology. Blueboar18:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the user Ardenn whacked the offending section beforehand. I don't see anything particularly wrong with what's there now. Much thanks to all. --Faustus3718:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but it was also materially incorrect. I can't speak for all of us, but if you tried using that to get into my Lodge, you'd be spectacularly unsuccessful. --Faustus3718:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to say that what he listed is incorrect because it's not how it's done at your lodge, that is an invalid reason to blank his contribution. Instead of removing it you should add a disclaimer saying that the contents of the secrets change from lodge to lodge, not remove the information because it is not true at your lodge(since that statement in itself you can't verify).Seraphim18:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst it may have been sourced the currency, accuracy and POV of the sources would render them inadequate for any serious academic work, including a termpaper. My copy of Duncans is nearly 130 years old, given that I've cited a current ritual book published in 1991, so any dependence on a book the age od Duncans is invalid given the existence of more recent texts. I'd also say support Faustus comment, if you tried that to get into my Lodge you'd be thrown out in pretty short order. The assertions in Knight have been demonstrated to be invalid, most of the assertions weren't taken to investigation, those that were investigated garnered insufficient supporting evidence to be taken forward. Knight is also an openly biased assessment, so for a NPOV discussion isn't reliable. Sourced does not mean reliable.ALR18:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the assertations in Knight are invalid, then remove them and cite that it is an invalid source. However throwing out a source for being too old, when it comes to a society with rituals that go back to before 1583 (according to the article) that to me, is completly invalid. I know the secret society at my school still performs the same initiation rituals from 1889 (atleast the public part). Also i'd like to point out once again, people here when it defends their point have stated over and over that the secrets change from lodge to lodge. If you would like to say that what he listed is incorrect because it's not how it's done at your lodge, that is an invalid comment. Instead of removing it you should add a disclaimer saying that the contents of the secrets change from lodge to lodge, not remove the information because it is not true at your lodge(which you shouldn't be saying anyway). Seraphim18:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually around 1188 is claimed in one of my Lodges, but the evidence for that is circumstancial and therefore not verifiable. I'd also say that I may have given the wrong impression about how the secrets vary. It's not so much that the secrets themselves vary, but what are considered to be secrets. In some cases the entire ritual in others, such as my own, only the recognitions. To prove a man to be a Mason would require more than just asking him to give any recognitions. And is it not somewhat presumptious to try to tell me how to interpret my own obligations?ALR19:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sourced, but not verifiable for what it claims to be. I could write a book saying the secret word is flibbertigibbit, but that doesn't make it verifiable. The things are not verifiable to the general public. Even a use of Masonic books that were privately owned doesn't give a verifiable source. The claim is that what Rathbone put in are THE actual secrets. He makes this claim, or his source does. His source does not do anything to give verifiability to that claim. No claim to expose the secrets will ever be verifiable.-Vidkun18:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If no claim will ever be verifiable why do you not challenge the line " It is referred to, in some sources, as "a beautiful system of morality veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols."" that is already in the article.? That line says that the rituals are beautiful but that is talking about the contents of the secrets. You can't have it both ways. Seraphim18:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all: regarding the beautiful system phrase being openly available, in my jurisdiction some portions of the ritual ARE written out, and, were that portion you love to keep quoting part of MY jurisdiction's ritual, it would, possibly, be part of the written out portion. There are portions which are NEVER written out, and those are the secrets. They are passed on by demonstration and as oral teachings. Secondly, that line is not one of the secrets, it is a description of Freemasonry, and is self referencing. Thirdly, you seem to be falling prey to the idea that if I don't fix EVERY section, I am not allowed to fix ANY section.--Vidkun19:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"I took the easy way out, and simply reverted to the last (trusted) version prior to Basil's arrival." No worries on the revert, then, Blueboar. --Vidkun18:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think one would be hard-pressed to find any subject that has generated more pure and utter crap passing as fact than Freemasonry over the years, "sourced" or otherwise. Even information generally accepted as legitimate rarely covers Freemasonry as a whole. I find the main challenge in editing this subject is to somehow reconcile the practices of the different jurisdictions into a short, easy-to-read format. Often it simply can't be done, and that's when dealing with the public attributes of the Craft. Even if we Wikipedian Masons were to conspire to publish a definitive account of our secrets (which we all know ain't gonna happen), it would be a positively daunting (and I daresay pointless) challenge, much more so than anything previously attempted here on the subject. It's a can of worms best left unopened for a wide variety of reasons, many of which have nothing to do with Freemasonry at all. --Faustus3718:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Images and photographs, like written works, are subject to copyright. Someone owns them unless they have been explicitly placed in the public domain. Images on the internet need to be licensed directly from the copyright holder or someone able to license on their behalf. In some cases, fair use guidelines may allow a photograph to be used.
If you are the owner of content that is being used on Wikipedia without your permission, then you may request the page be immediately removed from Wikipedia; see Request for immediate removal of copyright violation. You can also contact our Designated agent to have it permanently removed, but it may take up to a week for the page to be deleted that way (you may also blank the page but the text will still be in the page history). Either way, we will, of course, need some evidence to support your claim of ownership.
Yeup like I said, Fair Use. We deal with this all the time over at the Video Game related articles, since before a game is released it is impossible to get non copyrighted screenshots. If you would like I can show you some of the templates we have made to standardize the image citations. Seraphim18:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Fair use - If you use part of a copyrighted work under "fair use", you must make a note of that fact (along with names and dates). It is our goal to be able to freely redistribute as much of Wikipedia's material as possible, so original images and sound files licensed under the GFDL or in the public domain are greatly preferred to copyrighted media files used under fair use. See Wikipedia:Boilerplate request for permission for a form letter asking a copyright holder to grant us a license to use their work under terms of the GFDL.
Yeup I agree, it's much better to have original image or sound files, or public domain images. However the fact that an image is copyrighted does not mean we cannot use it on here as long as the image page has the correct legal information on it. Seraphim19:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Never use materials that infringe the copyrights of others. This could create legal liabilities and seriously hurt the project. If in doubt, write it yourself. --Ardenn18:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few blanket categories of copyrighted images whose use on Wikipedia has been generally approved as likely being fair use when done in good faith. These include:
Cover art. Cover art from various items, for identification and critical commentary (not for identification without critical commentary).
Team and corporate logos. For identification. See Wikipedia:Logos.
Stamps and currency. For identification.
Other promotional material. Posters, programs, billboards, ads. For critical commentary.
Film and television stills. For critical commentary and discussion of cinematic and televisual history.
Screen shots from software products. For critical commentary.
Paintings and other works of visual art. For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school.
I can play the quote game too! "Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include— the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; the nature of the copyrighted work; the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. We are using it for scholary research, for a non profit educational purpose, we are using a very small portion of the article, and we are not effecting it's market value. It is fair use. If you want to argue otherwise, all the quotations in the article must be removed also if they are from 20th century works. Then we have to start going through wikipedia and removing all screenshots taken from outside sources, all movie posters, all photographs that the photographer hasn't explicitly approved use on wikipedia. Seraphim19:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about one real simple thing: the uploaded file masonsign.gif has no source listed, which is a violation of wikipedia policy on images, plain and simple.--Vidkun19:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One more time, seeing as how you just want to trade duelling quotes, and don't want to do anything about the substance of the matter:If you use part of a copyrighted work under "fair use",you must make a note of that fact (along with names and dates). It is our goal to be able to freely redistribute as much of Wikipedia's material as possible, so original images and sound files licensed under the GFDL or in the public domain are greatly preferred to copyrighted media files used under fair use. See Wikipedia:Boilerplate request for permission for a form letter asking a copyright holder to grant us a license to use their work under terms of the GFDL. --Vidkun19:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on that, whoever posted the image originally needs to put a source for it. However even if the image was copyrighted, if it was first created before 1923 it is public domain no matter what. Seraphim19:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unless whoever posted the image originally puts a source for it, it is automatically violative of fair use guidelines. Without sourcing, w cannot judge age. However, from a view of the image, that mode of dress seems to be mid to late 20th century, and I believe it is probably from Knight's book, and, therefore, NOT fair use.--Vidkun19:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll agree right now it is a violation since he does not have it sourced, however he cannot add it because he is currently blocked. Once he adds a source it will be fair use due to the fact that it meets the requirements for fair use listed in US copyright law that I quoted above. We are using the image for scholary/educational purposes, wikipedia is a non profit organization, we are only using a small portion of the work, and we are not affecting the work's market value. This is the tag it should have Seraphim19:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please add a detailed non-free use rationale for each article the image is used in, which must also declare compliance with the other parts of the non-free content criteria, as well as the source of the work and copyright information.
To patrollers and administrators: If this image has an appropriate rationale please append |image has rationale=yes as a parameter to the license template.
That's all well and good regarding the fair use of the image. It still doesn't make the image verifiably the secret signs of Masons. There isn't anything backing that claim up, and, therefore, it shouldn't be put in. To quote you: "If the assertations in Knight are invalid, then remove them and cite that it is an invalid source." except that it isn't necessarily invalid, simply unverifiable.--Vidkun19:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree 100% I was just pointing out that the fact that the image may be copyrighted does not mean it can't be included. If the source does turn out to be in the Knight book, and you all feel it is an invalid source, by all means remove it. However do not list the removal reason as that the image breaks copyright law (as was done according to the page history) list that it was removed due to the image coming from an invalid source. This section is about copyright, and that's all I was talking about. Seraphim19:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If this image was used, to do it any justice one would have to cite it something to the effect of, "This is an artist's depiction of what he believes are the secret Masonic signs as published in a known anti-Masonic work circa 1875. This depiction does not necessarily represent the signs given in any Masonic lodge worldwide in 1875 or at any point thereafter." In short the accuracy of the depiction itself is suspect at best. The argument of whether it's Fair Use or not is quite frankly immaterial in my view. --Faustus3719:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Guys this section was just about Copyright in general. If you want to attack the credibility of the image, go up into the correct talk section and i'll help you. This was a section Ardenn created as a claim that copyrighted images cannot be used on wikipedia, which is untrue. Seraphim19:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why not. The Anti-Masonry Article is growing and becoming stronger. As it does it becomes even more sure that stands on it's own, and should not be merged here. Blueboar23:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right now it's just being brought into line so it's an NPOV article on it's own. Then we have to discuss if the content there needs to be brought over here. Seraphim00:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're not going to win that strictly based on article size. They're both over length, so merging them will only make it twice as bad. MSJapan01:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rathbone, again
Basil, If you look above on this page, you will see a LOT of discussion about your reverts the last time you were here. You were blocked for these repeated reverts the last time around. Now, as soon as the block is lifted, you jump right back in and pick up where you left off - making the exact same changes you were blocked for previously. This is a good way to get yourself banned permanently. Please stop. Blueboar13:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of Formal Complaint Against Masonic Editors on Freemasonry Related Pages
Uh huh. And by you "good faith" I assume you are referring to your persecution and serial deletion of non-masonic contributors and your 'look the other way' behavior to the actions by your 'brother' Masons - 'Brothers' you have sworn a POV oath to, under severe penalties. (said penalties are in content of Secret Society para your 'group' just deleted again today.Basil Rathbone15:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I can't speak for the others, I personally have not given the oaths you added (from, I'm given to understand, a published titual that are well over a century old and that are not, as far as I understand, used by any regular lodge today). When I talk about good faith, I'm refering to the Wikipedia policy that states one should TRY to assume that others acts in the best interest of the encyclopedia and that one should be patient with the others. You on the other hands does not seem to follow this policy - you seem to assume that jest because I happen to member of a certain group of people I'm automaticly trying to push a certain point of view and silence any others. In addition you're not particualy civil in your dealings with others.
So tell me, in the interest of openess, what organisations do you happen to be a member of? And why you feel you must be uncivil towards other editors on Wikipedia, up to and including administrators? Also, I would like you to provide some form of proof that I (since you are talking to me) has, at any time, persecuted or serial deleted anything a non-masonic or masonic editor has done on Wikipedia. WegianWarrior04:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look through the diffs, the complaint was removed as being in an inappropriate place. I'm not sure if it was moved elsewhere though.ALR11:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Forget me not
Once again, Basil Rathbone is insistant that we remove the picture of the Forget me not. Even if his claim is true (which I debate) and the forget me not was not used by Freemasons in Nazi Germany, it is now a common Masonic Emblem. Thus, it is worthy of inclusion. This has been discussed before, and the concensus was to include it. Therefore I am going to put it back. Blueboar14:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I now realize that Basil also took out the entire paragraph relating to supression by totalitarian states such as the Nazis. Since the Nazis were great critics of Freemasonry, this MUST be included in the criticism section. To leave it out is factually inaccurate and POV. I am returning it as well. Blueboar14:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to not understand the concept of the summary of the "main" anti-freemasonry page principal we are operating on here.
There is no forget me not flower on main page so why here?
The para you re-inserted was completely replaced by a bullet format with entirely different and more NPOV content. Why would you want to put back a 'bad' POV para that consensus just got rid of in its re-edit of anti-freemasonry?
FREEMASONS put Hitler in power? - give me a break! Or better yet, prove it! That statement is almost as offensive to me as saying that Jews put Hitler in power.
What is the "main" anti-freemasonry page? If you are referring to Anti-Freemasonry, that is a different article, that deals with a different (although related) subject. It would not be appropreate to include it there. Even if what you are claiming is true, and the Forget me not was not used by Freemasons in Nazi Germany, it has subsequently become a masonic symbol representing our continued existance dispite percecution. Thus, it goes well with a discussion on how the Nazis and other totalitarian states persecuted Freemasons. Blueboar16:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blueboar identifies himself on his user page as being a Freemason.
Never denied it... in fact, I put the tag on my user page because I am proud of it. What has that got to do with the current argument?
The main anti-freemasonry page is the main anti-freemasonry page. What did you think it referred to? As you are aware the anti-freemasonry fork was created by Masonic editors such as yourself to suppress a list of criticism of Freemasonry that appeared on the main Freemasonry page. The strategy by the Masonic editors was to claim that the main freemasonry page was 'too long' so a brief summary of masonic criticism would be placed instead with a link to the main anti-freemasonry page. Of course stage two was to do a massive revert of the anti-freemasonry material acutally page should have been named rightly 'criticisms of freemasonry' since that was the material that was first moved there. Unfortunatley the Masonic Editors got a little carried away with their sanitizing and revisionary zeal and made the pages so lopsided as to stand out to some non-masonic wiki editors. I.e. you blew it Bro's. The Great Anti of the Universe (G.A.O.T.U.) strikes back...Basil Rathbone16:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article IS to long. Thus, following Wiki guidelines, certain section are being branched out into seperate articles. That much is true. However, to say that this was done to get rid of any Anti-Masonic arguments is patently false. Anti-Masonry is a valid subject for an article all its own... as has been repeatedly stated in this talk page (see above) and at Talk:Anti-Freemasonry Anti-masonry is a complex and diverse topic. It more than deserves its own Article. Sure that page has changed, there are several reasonable people (Masons,Anti-Masons, and people who are neither) working to improve it. Some sections there are indeed a bit too POV (this is true in both directions), and if you look at the talk pages there, you will see that we are working section by section to compromise and reach NPOV language.
Oh, and as for the German Freemasonry and the Nazi's why don't you read the two Bernheim articles you keep deleting sometime, or the Wiki pages about The Thule Society. It was the German upper class who made up the membership of 'Old Prussian Freemasonry', the German General Staff, the Industrialists, the Von's and the Counts and the Princes'. This no so coincidently is the exact same elements of German society which financed Hitlers rise to power. Of course Brother Henry Ford, propogator of the Protocols, did his bit too. Hitler and the inner core of the Nazi's were occultist anti-christians, just you like you and your masonic fraternity chums. Maybe we should do an entry on St. Maximillian Kolbe the founder of the anti-masonic Militia of Christ who was put to death inside Aushwitz with an injection of Phenol? You've been fed a bunch of revisionist nonsense by the arbitrators of the craft. German Freemasonry was deeply anti-semitic, it refused membership to all Jews. Do you understand that? Do you?Basil Rathbone16:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did read the articles. I do not find Bernheim's arguments convincing. Are you saying that I am anti-christian? AS a christian I would find that very offensive and boardering on a personal attack. You can get banned for behavior like that. As for German Freemasonry... I am sure there were anti-semetic and even pro-Nazi Freemasons in Germany... the fraternity is like the rest of society, it has its share of bigots. However, you are incorrect in saying Freemasonry in Germany refused membership to Jews. There were many Jewish Masons in Germany prior to the rise of the Nazis. That was one reason Hitler banned Freemasonry. He saw it as being part of a Jewish conspiracy. Read the Bessel article.Blueboar17:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct. The majority of German lodges allowed Jewish membership at some point in the 19th century (the chart is hard to read), and it is simply ridiculous to consider 1 of 5 or 6 Grand Lodges to be indicative of the climate when it suits an argument, and then to ignore the dissolution of all 6 Grand Lodges when it doesn't suit your argument. MSJapan21:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There were three and only three Grand Lodges of Freemasonry in Germany and all of them were deeply anti-semitic, all of them forbid Jews membership, all of their Grand Masters sent letters of congratulations to Hitler on his election, all of them continued to operate under the cover name of the Frederick the Great Association. These three Grand Lodges termed 'Old Prussian' were the only Grand Lodges recognized by UGLE and U.S. 'Regular' Grand Lodges as being Freemasons. That is a FACT. UGLE and U.S. 'regular' Grand Lodges never withdrew their recognition of these Grand Lodges even after they sent letters of congratulations and loyalty to Hitler, even though they were deeply anti-semitic and even though they had never admitted any Jews, and even though they persecuted the small 'clandestine', irregular', so-called Humanitarian Lodges that did admit Jews, the "masonic" lodges the Nazi's shut down after they were elected while leaving the large 'regular' lodges open after they went under cover with the Frederick the Great Association slight of hand. Of course the 'Old Prussian' GL's membership consisted of the General Staff, Militarists, Industrialist, and German Nobility, the very elements that brought Hitler to power.Basil Rathbone04:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
links
I do not feel that Freemasonry is a secret society, considering that it has large buildings with the square and compass on the front, its membership is public record, etc. it is hardly secret. I have removed the link to that article. I also do not think we should have the link to Mormonism and Freemasonry. While Joseph Smith may have been influenced by, or borrowed from Freemasonry, there is no verifiable direct link between the two, dispite what that article may say. Blueboar23:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm. Yeah, Smith was killed by pissed off Masons. Most of the signs and signals used in modern LDS (Mormon) temples are direct copies of Masonic exchanges. Oh, and every dedicated adult mormon wears a square and compass on their body *every day* of their lives. His (Smith) last words were, by some accounts, "IS THERE NO HELP FOR THE WIDOW'S SON!" So... yeah. They're heavily related. I won't rv your edit, but I do hope you'll study the connections a tad more. Ronabop04:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the only way to verify the first and second claims is to ask a Mormon, and I'm pretty sure they aren't telling as I've never had a Mormon comment to me regarding any parallels, and that includes Masons and non-Masons alike. As for the other points, I just read a few articles on Smith, actually, and Smith was *not* killed by "pissed-off Masons", he was shot by a mob of regular angry people, and what his last words are are complete conjecture, though the claim can be verified. I don't as yet see a verifiable fact in your statement other than the last, though, which isn't necessarily a fact. It could simply be a misconception. MSJapan06:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If they are connections, I'm sure you can provide handy references so the reast of us can learn the connections too (I'm not saying there arn't connections, I'm just saying I'm not aware of them). WegianWarrior05:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't want to bother you (as a former mormon) with WP:NOR, but I can tell you that the connections are plentiful. Some quick googling, with no filtering (as to context) so as to not bias research (some think the connections are more meaningful than others): [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13].... or just start with [14]. Ronabop04:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Forget Me Not is back, and its the correct story
Here's several external links that give the official story of Freemasonry's use of the forget me not as a symbol.[15]
Who, in the article you are citing, is an anti Mason? The compiler of the site? This is highly unlikely, as Paul Bessel is an officer of the Grand Lodge of the District of Columbia, a GL in amity with UGLE. The other writers? Funny, looks like they are all Masons.--Vidkun14:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then he should keep his private musings to himself, should he not? Or are you saying this is the official position of his Grand Lodge? Tell UGLE, not me. Skull 'n' Femurs16:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alain Berheim is one of the most respected members of Quator Corranati, he was also a member of a German Grand Lodge in the early post war era, as well as being arrested by the Gestapo in Paris because he was a Jew. The Pietre Stones sites is quite prestigious within the Masonic 'E' community. You wanted 'more light' bud, you got it.Basil Rathbone05:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki, the Anti-Masonic Site
Why have I only just edited, after several days? Well I was blocked at IP level again, even though I did not contribute during the last ant-masonic atack on the main article. David Gerard acts like Basil Rathbone is his anti-Masonic “sock”. Go on block me for that. I am not going to give out my e-mail address to anti-Masons. PS if any so-called "Masons" revert the Forget-me-not stuff, then they are on the ant-Masonic side. Also since UGLE Freemasonry is defined as regular here, and since they back the use of forget me nots as symbols, those who try to trash the story are at the very least irregular. Skull 'n' Femurs10:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me see if I can make this clear: you are not a GL, in and of yourself. If a Mason removes the forget me not, that is not a Masonic offense. You cannot make determinations, based on editorial actions of who is regular or not. Use of a specific symbol, or non use of it, is not a determination of regularity or irregularity. If you think it is, I would suggest asking your Grand Lodge to define what determines irregularity.--Vidkun13:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Links are give on the subject. UGLE Lodge sites are veted for content by UGLE, and are thus de facto the voice of UGLE. Also at least two Lodges are named after the Forget Me Not, and are UGLE Lodges. Thus it is UGLE that, amongst others, promotes the official line. Since UGLE is regular, those who promote the oposite view are by definition irregular. I'm not determining regularity, UGLE is. This is true even if I am not a Freemason, but I am. Skull 'n' Femurs14:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, regarding history disputes, the UGLE does NOT say that those who are in disagreement with them are Irregular. Irregularity has nothing to do with this little bit of trivia. To confirm this, I will be email the Grand Secretary of UGLE on this matter.--Vidkun15:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Web pages vetted by UGLE are to ensure that there is nothing contrary to the stated position of UGLE, gien the many and diverse traditions in English Masonry anything more than that would be impossible to manage. Merely because the story has been allowed through does not assure its' validity. UGLE does not hold a formal position on the legend. Lodges are at liberty to name themselves and in the absence of any good reason not to be named 'Forget-me-not' UGLE is unlikely to object, again just because it's been allowed through does not imply a tacit validation of the legend. It's up for debate, both sides of the story need to be represented.ALR16:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You want to make accusations of irregularity, go right ahead. Here are, in fact, the principles for Grand Lodge recognitions as establish by the UGLE. You will note the absence of anything regarding disputes of historical trivia:
1. Regularity of origin: i.e. each Grand Lodge shall have been established lawfully by a duly recognised Grand Lodge or by three or more regularly constituted Lodges.
2. That a belief in the GAOTU (1) and His revealed will shall be an essential qualification for membership.
3. That all Initiates shall take their Obligation on or in full view of the open Volume of the Sacred Law, by which is meant the revelation from above which is binding on the conscience of the particular individual who is being initiated(2)
4. That the membership of the Grand Lodge and individual Lodges shall be composed exclusively of men, and that each Grand Lodge shall have no Masonic intercourse of any kind with mixed Lodges or bodies which admit women to membership.
5. That the Grand Lodge shall have sovereign jurisdiction over the Lodges under its control; i.e. that it shall be a responsible, independent, self-governing organization, with sole and undisputed authority over the Craft or Symbolic Degrees (Entered Apprentice, Fellow Craft and Master Mason) within its Jurisdiction, and shall not in any way be subject to, or divide such authority with, a Supreme Council or other Power claiming any control or supervision over those degrees.
6. That the three Great Lights of Freemasonry (namely, the Volume of the Sacred Law, the Square and the Compasses) shall always be exhibited when the Grand Lodge or its subordinate Lodges are at work, the chief of these being the Volume of the Sacred Law.
7. That the discussion of religion and politics within the Lodge shall be strictly prohibited.
8. That the principles of the Antient Landmarks, customs, and usages of the Craft shall be strictly observed.
Okay, now that is one heck of an accusation: that anyone who disputes it is Irregualr. I suggest, right now, put you your bona fides up here, as, in at least two of the jurisdictions I belong to, making false allegations about another Mason is considered a Masonic offense.--Vidkun14:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is with UGLE, not me. I certainly will not put up "bona fides" here. Get lost, and I'm backed up both by European Human Rights and US Constitutional law in that. Skull 'n' Femurs14:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Get lost, and I'm backed up both by European Human Rights and US Constitutional law in that. Um, how do those legal standards have anything to do with you telling me to get lost, Blue Square?--Vidkun15:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have a legal right to tell anyone to get lost, if they try to get Masonic ID information by putting me under duress. Who are you, the Wiccan FBI? UGLE had several cases tested, read the article section on the subject. If your trying 3RR on me, I'll sit it out. PS my IP address rotates with several other Brethren. They also say get lost, by proxy. We have the same ISP, in a small village. You started the personal stuff. Have a bumch of Forget-me-nots on us. Skull 'n' Femurs15:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I have the legal right to say I'm not getting lost, going to stay right here and continue to watch you little games unfold. I have not attempted to put you under duress, you have made accusations here that you choose to not back up. You have made claims of irregularity against noted Masons. If you honestly believed your accusations to be valid, you would make them in an official venue, not here.--Vidkun15:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who wrote that? Please sign your stuff. I have made no accusations on the subject in hand. I have pointed to several places that state UGLE's de factco position. I have also defended myself. Skull 'n' Femurs16:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have stated, and I quote: "those who try to trash the story are at the very least irregular." That is an accusation of irregularity by you, towards anyone who expresses a difference of opinion on a historical matter.--Vidkun16:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you made the statement that anyone disagreeing with the history of the forget me not (as you list it) is irregular. Not UGLE. Or are you now claiming to speak for UGLE?--Vidkun16:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE If you read above, and follow the links, any reader can see that I cited correctly the links I added on this subject. Vidkun has added anotations to make them read as the oposite, but these links show the "official" line taken by UGLE. I will not be trapped by any User into so-called 3RR, so he can peddle his POV. Strangly, ALL other "MASONS" are quiet, leaving ‘‘me’’ to defend that factual truth on my own. "Thanks" Brethren. Sitting any blocking out if given... Skull 'n' Femurs16:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note none of the articles cited are listed, on those pages as being official policy of the UGLE. User:Skull 'n' Femurs has edited the page to place the "not an official spokesman" tag on at least one of the websites listed in the external links section. His POV is that there is one official history of the forget me not, and that disagreement over this point of view constitutes irregularity, which amounts to an accusation, and a personal attack against other editors of this page. His edits about the official or unofficial status of authors cited are also personal attacks, which he complains about when other editors point out the same information on HIS cited links.--Vidkun17:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wibble wibble. UGLE for ever. POV. If Freemasonry was a religion I would be on CNN by now, Jumping up and down, in my apron, with an AK47, etc. But it is not... so I am not. Author's status is not verifiable as Masonic, because they do not need to prove that they are 1001st degree Pangendrems, just like I did not. They only add "ranks" to impress people. No Mason needs to use any rank above Bro. Even then they are not official unless they can prove that they are official. I explained how the English Lodge sites are vetted by UGLE, hence the "official" tag. If private authors want to stitch gold brade on their nightware, and parade about, who am I to stop them? I do not run round the streets in an apron, and I wrote why, at the start of this. Skull 'n' Femurs17:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS As I can still "edit" up to the time I sign this, the anti-Masonic "gods" 'n' "socks" of Wiki must think that the ant-masonic job is being done for them, and are waiting for the UGLE PoV loyalist Mason to go off to my Lodge. That's what I doing now QED... Skull 'n' Femurs17:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FYI - I have been planning a major rewrite of the history article for some time now... but I keep getting side tracked to other Freemasonry related articles due to some of the recent POV additions etc. I intend to expand what is there to include brief discussion of some of the other Origin theories, and to add the rest of history after 1717 (and not just England... also America, Canada, France, India, South America, etc. etc.). Ambitious yes... but they do say be bold. I hope to have a first draft posted in a month or so (still checking my citations and facts). Blueboar00:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I have no objections to Ardenn's concept. While this article definitely does need a history section to outline the basic history of the fraternity, it could be made shorter... perhaps some of the details could be shifted over to (or, alternatively, simply copied on) the history page. On the other hand... I will be incoporating all this into the material I am working on anyway. Blueboar02:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. I feel that this section should follow a general guideline of only 1 link per site. All of these sites have good internal navigation, and surely users who are interested in this topic at this level of detail are capable of doing their own reading and surfing. Previously many links critical of Freemasonry were deleted by known Masonic editors with the reason given 'not enough room for all links', while overlooking fact that there were many duplicate links to masonic websites, including 5 to a rather obscure masonic site in Germany. Surely a bit of balance in this often rv'd section would go a long ways to turning down the temperature on the Freemasonry related pages.Basil Rathbone05:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Masonic Secrets Section
[Introductory Commentary: Have placed this section on Talk Page for discussion after numerous Masonic Editors kept deleting it to determine their reasoning or offer suggestions for improvement. Quite concerned about ill will being shown by Masonic Editors on Freemasonry related pages as they insist a poorly researched section on 'Forget Me Not Flower' be kept on main page while being discussed but insist this section be removed while being discussed. If the freemasonry related subjects are to be NPOV then obviously there must be sections related to their secretative rituals. Also feel continual deletion of Wiki link to Secret society and Mormonism and freemasonry by Masonic editors is further evidence of the disrespect and disinterest shown by this same 'Corporate Entity' to Wikipedia rules and spirit.]
Interesting approach, I suppose by posting this data here it can be legitimately placed under discuaaion as to whether it's useful to the article as a whole, and whilst under discussion can't really be deleted. Whilst I am amused that it has taken so long for the point to be realised I'm unsure of what it is you feel the need to discuss now? The items are posted with no discussion. So, is this posted as a suggestion for inclusion in the article, or not? Are these posted as authoritative, if so how are you planning on substantiating that? Have you done any further research on the ngoing validity, or criticisms, of your sources? If this is just an effort to get clearly contentious information onto WP, in a manner which limits the opportunity for it to be removed, then at least make that clear so that the majority can just ignore these sections and move onto more useful discussion.ALR16:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He swears, with his hand on the Bible, "I (name), in the presence of Almighty God, most solemnly promise and swear that I will always hail, ever conceal, and never reveal any of the arts, parts of points of the hidden mysteries of Freemasonry... binding myself under the penalty than that of having my throat cut across, my tongue torn out, and my body buried in the rough sands of the see..."
2- The Second Degree, Fellow Craft
He swears on the Bible, in the presence of Almighty God, "under the penalty than of having my breast open... and my heart and lungs thrown over my left shoulder... so help me God".
3- The Third Degree, Master Mason
He swears "under the penalty than that of having my body severed in two, my bowels taken from thence and burn to ashes... so help me God".
The big reason is that it's inaccurate in modern terms - these are old, and they've really got no place in this particular article. Since this is a general article, jurisdiction specific material is irrelevant. On top of all that, it was cited incorrectly, which is really the most minor of the problems.MSJapan17:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your just wasting the non-masonic editors time. You have absolutely no interest in having any section titled 'Masonic Secrets'. Please give us a list of any material that is critical of Freemasonry you have ever contributed to this page, or any material that is critical of Freemasonry that you have not deleted from this page.Basil Rathbone15:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This so-called higher degree of Freemasonry is considered by many Masons to be the completion of the first three degrees of Masonry. In North America it is part of the 'York Rite' of Freemasonry.
The Oath in the Royal Arch goes one beyond that of the Third Degree and does not except murder and treason as is contained in the Master Mason oath; “I will aid and assist a companion Royal Arch Mason, when engaged in any difficulty, and espouse his cause, so far as to extricate him from the same, if in my power, whether he be right or wrong. A companion Royal Arch Mason’s secrets, given me in charge as such, and I knowing him to be such, shall remain as secure and inviolable, in my breast as in his own, murder and treason not excepted.”
The Secret Word of the Royal Arch is JAHBULON a triparte word displayed on a triangle or delta. The first part JAH represents Yahwah the God of the Hebrews, the second part BUL represents Baal the God of the Babylonians, the third part ON represents Osirus the God of the Egyptians.
Reports prepared for various Protestant Denominations, including the Church of England, specifically singled this 'secret' word out for attention under the charge of blasphemy, as Baal and Osirus are names sometimes associated with the Devil. The word can be also pronounced Diabolon when including the Greek letter Delta, representing the triangle with the three parts written on each side.
As Masonic Editors such as yourself have shown themselves to be completely unwilling to accept any material on these pages that is critical of Freemasonry or exposes it's secrets it is pointless to engage in any discussion with them, because of their exhibited bad faith in achieving NPOV. Masonic Editors could care less about 'copyright' of 170 year old images that are well known and well known to be in the public domain under no copyright provisions what so ever.Basil Rathbone14:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd point out that no one who is not interested in the topic would know what these are at all. Well-known to you, maybe, but not the public. also, as Duncan's is still being published as a historical curiousity, it most certainly is still under copyright, as shown here[21] The publishing date is 1986, and what you have is certainly not an original copy, if you even scanned it. MSJapan17:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the writing is still under copyright does NOT matter. It can still be used as a source. Provided it's not plagarized and it's properly cited. Seraphim17:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I have to agree, in so far as the copyright issue goes. It is a matter of fair use. However, the verifiability of the information is lacking.--Vidkun17:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before when this originally came up, attacking the source is ok, but attacking the information because it's suppossed to be "under copyright" is just rediculious. Also other people on here have mentioned that Duncans Ritual is an accepted masonic source, and even a few editors have mentioned owning it, and masonic websites sell it. I guess the Knight source is iffy. Seraphim23:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Owning Duncans does not lend any credence to its credibility as a source. I collect antique books, hence I own a copy of a source some 130 years old. I also own an up to date ritual book which I actually use, in fact I'll be using it heavily for the next couple of weeks having been asked to participate in an installation in a month :) Duncans is not a credible source, largely because of the age, but also because it is not representative of Freemasonry as a wholeALR23:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not old according to MSJapan "Duncan's is still available commercially, and thus it is still under copyright. Taking a picture from an old edition doesn't suddenly make it public domain." apparently it has newer editions. Also nothing is representative of freemasonry as a whole, there is already a note of that in the Organizational structure section "There is no central Masonic organizational structure or authority, and in any event many practices are determined by Lodge custom, so any general description will inevitably be inaccurate in respect of some places.". If we discredit a source because it's not representative as a Whole, we need to remove other large sections of the article. (membership requirements, principals and activities, ritual and symbolism, basically any section not about history) Seraphim23:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly didn't take in the MSJs comment about it being available as a result of its historical significance, rather than being a current reference. The age is my objection to it as a source.ALR23:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only way for his comments to be valid, is if he was referring to it as a current reference. Since the book is over 130 years old, if it was not updated it would be public domain. Since it's not public domain it's obviously updated to stay current, and no longer a 130 year old source. You can't have it both ways :) Duncan's is the only ritual book that we have had presented so far, therefore it's the only source we have. Of course if you wanted to include the information from your "updated" ritual book, and cite it properly we can include that. Seraphim 00:05, 8
February 2006 (UTC)
It's not updated, but the current publisher still holds copyright to their version, and the uploaded picture is certainly not from an original edition (you can see the type on the other side through the page). It is published as a work of historical merit and reference only. The most important thing, though, which everyone has forgotten again since I last said it is that the Royal Arch is not part of the three degrees of Freemasonry that pertain to this article. Therefore, copyvio or fair use, it doesn't belong here. MSJapan02:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're incorrect as far as it not being updated. According to [amazon] it's on 3rd edition and is copyright april 12th 1976. If they were not updating it the publisher cannot hold onto the copyright, since copyright in the US for books and published items last at a maximum 70 years. The publisher cannot just decide to insist something is copyrighted, after a set period of time the writing enters the public domain. Do a quick lookup on copyright if you don't believe me. Seraphim
02:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll repeat, again. Copyright really isn't important to me, the validity of Duncans as a source is. duncans is not a reliable source. I also disagree that the contribution adds value to the article therefore see no justification for any citation. As you mention downthread, you don't see Rathbones contributions as relavent, therefore any similar contribution using a reliable source is also inappropriate.ALR07:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could be just a new intro, which is what happens with a lot of books. I know the local Lodge library has iterations of the text from original to modern edition, and I will check, but the point still stands that it is material that is irrelevant to this article. MSJapan02:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it's just a new intro the text itself is not copyrighted just the intro, which doesn't seem to be the case. Also i'll agree that the stuff specific to the Royal Arch doesn't belong. However other things that are secrets of masonry in general should be included. If you remember it was pointed out to me earlier that all lodges have the same material (rituals/symbols/signals/identifiers), it is just what they consider secret that changes between lodges. Seraphim02:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, that wasn't what was said to you at all. The rituals are not all exactly the same, and some are more different than others. It also was not said that what was considered secret was different, but that the secrets themselvesare different, which is why I cited the story from Freemasonry for Dummies, which said in short: "The Masons who came to the Lodge were unable to identify themselves in any way that the Lodge members were able to recognize." So, the only thing all these pictures are doing is giving historical information relevant in one jurisdiction 130 years ago, which is also why none of this discussion - Royal Arch or otherwise - is particularly relevant to this article. This article is supposed to be a general overview. There is no need to "expose Masonic secrets!!!111!!" in order to understand the Craft, especially when the validity of any of the material pertaining to it is questionable.
Frankly, I'd really like to know what possiblevalue you think that including that material has, other than NPOV claims, because NPOV really doesn't apply when there's no position to take; the fact of existence is not disputable, but the content is (by uotside source), and there's no way to 100% verify any of it to the expectations of WP policies. In short, what is so important about the secrets that you can't possibly understand what the Masons are without them?
I'd also like to add that potential candidates don't even care about secrets and handshakes; they're more interested in what we do in terms of activities, charity, and the opportunities we provide, not the esoterica. Yet this very item seems to have become the entire focus of the last week because of two people - one who has a blatant agenda, and another who says they don't know anything about the topic. At this point we have gone way beyond NPOV, and I'd simply like to know why this is such an issue. I would also furthermore state that if the answer isn't anything more than "because", we should really drop the whole thing and work on the other more pressing issues in the article. MSJapan04:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was told by ALR that " I'd also say that I may have given the wrong impression about how the secrets vary. It's not so much that the secrets themselves vary, but what are considered to be secrets. In some cases the entire ritual in others, such as my own, only the recognitions." which means that the contents of the secrets are the same, it's what is considered secret that varies, if you want to argue that with him be my guest, however that's what I was told. I'd also like to point out that I personally do not believe in disclosing what the contents of the secrets are, just explain what they consist of. If you read the top section on here you can see what I am planning on adding. I personally don't feel this information in here should be added, however the secrets must be mentioned on the page. That is why i'm saying over and over to not attack the content over copyright status, but to attack the source itself. What I said was "However other things that are secrets of masonry in general should be included." I did not say "OMG we should put TUBALCANE on the page!". It doesn't matter what potential candidates care about, this is not a propaganda article for potential candidates to look over and make a decision on masonry, it is an encyclopedia article on freemasonry, to barely mention that the secrets exist is not encyclopedic. Also I would like to point out, that I believe ALR to be a more valid source of information then any of the other masonic editors on this page. He is very candid about what he can and cannot say, and admits that sometimes he cannot participate in an NPOV fashion, which has earned alot of respect from me. I personally do not feel any of this information Basil is trying to add is appropriate, and i'm expecting you guys to tear it apart, however the fact that you feel it's not NPOV to add more information about the secrets beyond what is already in the document is beyond me. I guess when I eventually write my section up you will be there to attack it, and i'm looking forward to that discussion. Seraphim05:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to point out that I personally do not believe in disclosing what the contents of the secrets are, just explain what they consist of. Your behaviour belies that espoused position. It has been pointed out, repeatedly, that Duncans is not a viable source in the context of the article. The discussion is going round and around so fast it's starting to cause dizzyness. As previously discussed, at length and at the expense of any meaningful discussion, the existence of secret material is highlighted in the first paragraph, no more than that is required since more depth adds nothing to the article. Incidentally I've only said I'm not going to contribute to the Anti page as it is something that I personally have been affected by, hence I do not consider position as a contributor to be tenable.ALR07:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This morning Basil Rathbone deleted two parts of the article, claiming to move them to the discussionpage for 'discussion'. Since five (5) hours have gone since the first section was deleted without him posting them here, I've put them back in - it's clear to me he had no intention to discuss the section and paragraph in question in the first place, but just wanted them out of the article to pursue his own POV.
The edits in question by Basil (the time listed is the timestamp on the edits as it appers on my screen):
Now, I'm all for discussing things, based on reputable sources, but to cut stuff out of the article, claim that one are going to place it on the talk page and then dont... thats dishonest, to put it politly. Basil had a whooping five hours and 22 minutes to place the section here on the talkpage, but he didn't.
And before either side pipes up.. yes, I know there are two stories that are told about the background for the use of the forget-me-not - both should be reported, and it should be reported that there exists a disagreement over the background. It don't change the fact that the Forget-me-not is a common symbol in a number of GL today. WegianWarrior10:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There were already a couple of threads on this talk page devoted to this section, so I felt this sufficed. I would like to add that MANY times Masonic editors have deleted contributions by non-masons saying 'moving to talk page for further discussion' and never moved it, and never discussed it. WegianWarrior knows this as he has been around here long enough. I note WegianWarrior identifies himself on his user page as being a Freemason.Basil Rathbone11:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you thought it was sufficient, why claim you were going to move (my emphasis) the section and paragraph to the talkpage? I've seen a lot of calls for discussion of things on the talkpage, but not moves to talkpage - perhaps you could be as good as to provide links to a few diffs where this is stated (I just scanned the latest 1000 edits in the edit history, and found no mention (other than yours) of moving anything to the talkpage)?
And yes, I do identify myself not only as a mason, but as a drinker of coffee, owner of goldfish and a fan of Red Dwarf. I do however note that Basil Rathbone don't see it fit to tell us anything about himself... I guess he might have something to hide. WegianWarrior12:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please post a listing of any sources or publications that you consider to be legitimate criticisms of Freemasonry. Please post a list of any websites that are critical of freemasonry that you do not want deleted from this page. Please post a list of Masonic secrets including images of signs that you are willing to have posted to this page. Please post a list of any non-masonic authors that have posted material to this page that you have not personally harrassed and sought to have permanently banned.Basil Rathbone14:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only speaking for myself, off course, but I see Freemasonry not as a 'secret society', but as a 'society with secrets'. With a secret society one would not, almost by definition, be able to find out who are members, nor where and when they meet. While I cannot speak for all Grand Lodges (regular or irregular), at least in Norway and the rest of Scandinavia (and I'm assuming the same is correct in the rest of the western world), neither the list of members nor the place and time of the meetings are secret (the meetings are in fact often announced in the local papers in Norway). Logicaly, despite the accusations made by conspiracy theorists and anti-masons, Freemasonry cannot be claimed to be a secret society. Therefore it's pointless (and misleading) to include it. WegianWarrior13:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Encyclopedia Brittanica says Freemasonry is a Secret society, why should we accept, or even care, what your opinions are on this subject? What are your qualifications to contradict this established NPOV resource, other than the extreme POV bias against any information which could be remotely considered unflattering or critical towards Freemasonry? Is there really any point at all for you or other Masonic Editors to continue to make contributions to the Freemasonry pages?Basil Rathbone15:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. FWM is a large, well-known site that is critical of Masonry. Of course Masons refuse to accept any website, or writing that is critical of Masonry as being legitimate, just like it refuses to allow any criticism of Freemasonry on these pages. Masonic Editors are incapable of discharging their responsiblities and should not be allowed to edit any pages related to Freemasonry due to their extreme pov, and their continual violations of Wikipedia rules and spirit. The simple fact is you and other Masonic editors apoplectically hate the Freemasonry Watch website, and any reference to, or from it. You can't stand it. You despise it. Why is that exactly? Non-masonic editors on the other hand, such as myself, have no problem having links to Masonic websites, no matter how extreme their rhetoric towards the critics of Masonry. Why is that exactly. Who is willing to accept opposing viewpoints in this article and who is not?Basil Rathbone15:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually MSJapan that's just the comment section scroll further down to the Proposed Remedy number 2. I also just noticed part 5 of their decision "5) Lightbringer, MSJapan, Spinboy are limited to one revert per day per article in articles related to Freemasonry. DreamGuy, SarekOfVulcan, XDev, and Grazon are also strongly warned to limit their reverts as well. All parties are instructed to use talk pages rather than edit war at all." It's kinda funny that you choose to make sure number 2 is enforced but you ignore number 5. Seraphim17:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah your right. My bad :p I guess it should be noted then for record that ArbCom did not make any ruling about the addition of links to freemasonrywatch. Seraphim23:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shortly after the rise to power of Adolf Hitler, possibly as early as the year 1934, there was an awareness that Freemasonry was in danger. The German Grand Lodge of the Sun In Bayreuth (one of the pre-war German Grand Lodges), realised the imminent problems which faced them and started to wear this little blue flower, the Forget-Me-Not, in place of the Square and Compasses, to identify them as Freemasons. This was to allay attraction by the Nazis in the process of their confiscation and appropriation of Masonic Lodges and property. Freemasonry at this time was underground and thus the Brethren had need of a readily recognised, but covert, indentification.
This little blue flower worn in the lapel distinguished those refusing to allow the Light of Freemasonry to be extinguished and during the Nazi era marked a Brother whether he was in the cities - or even in theConcentration Camps.
The Grand Lodge of the Sun was re-opened in Bayreuth in 1947 by Past Grand Master Beyer and a blue shaped pin shaped as a Forget-Me-Not was adopted as the official emblem of the first annual convention of the survivors of the bitter years of semi-darkness which brought the Light of Freemasonry again into the Temples.
In 1948 this pin was adopted as an official Masonic emblem at the first Annual Convent of the United Grand Lodges of Germany, Ancient Free & Accepted Masons. This as an honour to those valiant Brethren who worked under adverse and extreme conditions. Theodor Vogel, Grand Master of the newly-formed United Grand Lodges of Germany. At the Grand Masters Conference in the United Slates, presented a Forget-Me-Not pin to each of the representatives of the Grand Jurisdictions which enjoyed Fraternal relations with the United Grand Lodges of Germany.
This simple flower blossomed forth to become the Fraternity's meaningful emblem and today is one of the most widely worn pins by Freemasons, all around the world. Two UGLE lodges are named after the flower. [22][23][24][25][26][27]
I don't like this section, I think it has been completely discredited by research, and that by and large the more credible Masonic websites have dropped it from their repetoire. I invite your commentary.Basil Rathbone11:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you start with Alain Bernheim 33rd Degree, Quator Corranati? Oh wait I forgot you don't think he is a legitimate source to quote from because he has shown his anti-masonry 'agenda' for exposing the Forget me not Flower Legend and the relationship between Regular German Freemasonry and the Nazi's. The moral of the story? There is no legitimate criticism of Freemasonry. All criticism of Freemasonry is 'Anti-Masonic', and all who 'disseminate' views that are critical of Masonry are Anti-Masons. Welcome all to Masonology 101.Basil Rathbone15:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that QC is a UGLE Craft Lodge, therefore no member as a UGLE Mason is higher than a third degree. Wilst there may be a conflicting view with respect to the assertion as cited it is more appropriate to include that in the discussion rather than excise the section completely. Put in he debate if you have an issue.ALR16:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Criticism, persecution, and prosecution Introductory Para
Freemasonry has historically attracted criticism and suppression from the politically extreme right (Nazi Germany), and the politically extreme left (the former Communist states in Eastern Europe). The fraternity has encountered both applause for “founding” and opposition for supposedly thwarting liberal democracies (such as the United States of America). It has also attracted criticism and suppression from theocratic states and organised religions for supposed competition with religion, or heterodoxy within the Fraternity itself. Basil Rathbone11:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like this paragraph I think it has been discredited by research and is by and large unsubstantiated, over-the-top, Masonic propaganda. I think it is NPOV and not a credit to this page. I invite your comments.Basil Rathbone11:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do like this paragraph. There is nothing POV in it... just facts... Freemasonry HAS drawn criticism from the extreme political right and left, as well as theocratic states (such as the Papal States in the 1700s and 1800s) and modern religions. To leave this out would be POV as it would not discuss some of the key criticisms of Freemasonry. Please cite (here) the research you refer to. Blueboar14:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
first of all, it's supposed to be NPOV. Second of all, it's true, but the second sentence may be a bit redundant if you consider the intent to be clear from the first sentence, which is debatable. MSJapan14:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The para is just 'sheep dipping', and you know it. Reductio Absurdum. It is not encyclopedic, it is a new para 'crafted' on to the body entitled 'criticisms of freemasonry'(which you and other masonic editors previously deleted). To you there is no legitimate criticism of Masonry. Don't you think the wee little fact that the Grand Masters of Regular Freemasonry in Germany sent letters of congratulations and loyalty to Hitler and the Nazi's on their election contradict the suppositions contained in this paragraph? Why did the Nazi's arrest and execute in Auschwitz the leading Anti-Masonic Catholic Priest in Europe, St. Maximilian Kolbe? Why won't you accept published papers from Quator Corranti members on this?Basil Rathbone15:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as you haven't cited them, there's no way to check. Also, you're using historical hindsight. You assume that everyone in Germany knew what Hitler was going to do on the day he got elected and thus the letters were designed to permit him to do whatever he wanted. One of the tenets of Freemasonry is loyalty to the country, and you've created a conspiracy where none exists by making an incorrect assumption. The Nazis came to power because Germany was a mess and the prior government did nothing about it.
The Nazis arrested a lot of people, and I'll bet Kolbe got arrested because he was Catholic more than anything else. Seehere for info on Nazis and Catholics.
Your problem is that you are constantly making universal assumptions on the basis of one non-authoritative source, or the derivatives of one non-authoritative source. I will also point out you used Bernbeim's paper to state German Lodges didn't take Jews. Bernbeim has a chart that shows that all but the Old Prussians did, and did so since the 19th century, so don't tell us we are misreading sources and not accepting certain sources. What we are not accepting is misuse of sources so you can say things that the sources do not. MSJapan16:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This paragraph could use citing. As it stands, it fails WP:V. I would reccomend finding the statements or actions by the states referenced above and creating the paragraph again with the specific statements or actions referenced, as opposed to a generalization. For example, and I'm making this up, obviously "In the Republic of Kabukistan, a theocratic state run by Rutubians, Fremasons were required to kill all of their female offspring (cite). Conversly, in Nazi Slevankia, Fremasons were required to inject themselves with mad-cow plasmids.(cite) The society has attracted praise from Leonard Grimes for founding Antartica (cite), and criticizm from Ralph Wiggum for stifling democracy in North Bearing Strait. (cite)" Hipocrite - «Talk»16:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't fit the policy. Not only does it not duplicate an existing template, that was a referenced official statement that it is important to keep in mind. While this is a general article, there is no standardization within Freemasonry as a whole, and what one person says may or may not apply. MSJapan16:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It duplicates the General Disclaimer, specifically "None of the authors, contributors, sponsors, administrators, sysops, or anyone else connected with Wikipedia in any way whatsoever can be responsible for the appearance of any inaccurate or libelous information or for your use of the information contained in or linked from these web pages." If you want a statement that Freemasonry cannot be spoken for by anyone, please put that in the article, not in a disclaimer template. Hipocrite - «Talk»16:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What i'm pointing out is that it wasn't a template. However, the statement was slightly misused, so I have fixed it such that it follows its original intent. MSJapan16:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the statement is valid and cited and relevant otherwise, so I'll just remove "please note"? If that was the only problem, you could have easily removed "please note" instead of rving. MSJapan16:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now it's just written wrong, because where it is now has nothing to do with the content of the paragraph that it is tacked onto. MSJapan17:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the template, and the discussion was from two years ago. i think it is safely closed, so I've removed the tag. MSJapan17:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll point out here as well. Why? The template for featured clearly identifies the featured article as a previous version of current. Where's the issue? MSJapan17:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, former fa is for after removal. I checked. As it hasn't been removed yet, it's not the right one. Read the top of this page, and read what the words in the FA box say, and explain to me why it is an issue to leave it as is. MSJapan17:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me quote "which means that it or a previous version". Let me also note that the term wikilawyering is also described as a pejorative, which can be construed as a personal attack. Highly suggest comes across as an attempt to coerce.--Vidkun17:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page lists articles that used to be Featured Articles, but were demoted because they no longer met the Featured Article standard. Featured articlescan only be demoted through a consensus derived through discussion at the Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates page. The removal discussions for the former featured articles listed below can be found in the featured article removal candidates archive. Of course, the articles listed here do not have to stay here: Be Bold in updating and improving these pages, and help bring them back to Featured Article status. See below for some examples of re-premoted articles. This page has not yet been demoted, therefore the former template doesn't apply. --Vidkun18:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe that I have engaged in personal attacks, I suggest that you follow the steps listed in WP:DR. I believe that this article is no longer of the standards to be "featured," so I proposed it for removal. This was opposed, above, because the "featured" template refers to a previous version, and thus, even if the current version is not quality, it's fine as a featured article. This argument is Wikilawyering - the template says a previous version because not all article are monitored at all times - not because featured status is a right that the article owns for all times. I am happy to help work the article back to featured (and have already taken the first step - by removing a blatently policy violating template, and converting the references to the most new format). However, do not Wikilawyer to try to "win," because you will "lose." This is not cooercive - it's a fact. Hipocrite - «Talk»18:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like you have an issue with the way the template for featured article is worded. Maybe you should suggest it be changed, to simply say a version (with link to the FEATURED version) of this article is considered a featured article. Works for me, and states accurately what the situation is, with little chance for someone who is not savvy to wiki policies (such as someone just coming to look here for the first time) to misinterpret the statement.--Vidkun18:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the templates for FA on the top that are there currently are fine. I do understand how MSJapan could feel that the Wikilawyering comment could be considered a personal attack. Let's try to stay cool so we can beat the POV vandals. United we stand. Ardenn18:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. Note: this popped up on my talk page, but is not editable, (and so must have been added by a "high end" user, up the Wiki ladder)
I replied to this on Hipocrite's talk page, as I do not believe the statement applies here. MSJapan 16:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)"
Since I have just got back editor rights, how can this apply to me Hipocrite? How about taking it off my talk page, and giving an big apology here? Skull 'n' Femurs21:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Hipocrite has done some “coding magic” and blocked the Notes section from we common editors, so I’m reverting it back to the last editoral-able history (MS Japan’s). It is no use upgrading a section with code so we cannot edit it. Skull 'n' Femurs21:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To add a new reference superscript, put the tag <ref>THE NOTE YOU WANT HERE</ref> on the article page. There is no need for anyone to ever have to edit the notes again, and they will automatically sort. Hipocrite - «Talk»21:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We editors want to write in English, as far as posible, without going to coding school. Also we need to edit refs already there. Also I've spent alot of unpaid time in research on this section. Skull 'n' Femurs21:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You make it sound like he is doing something bad. He just updated the references in the article to fit the new way to add references on wikipedia. Seraphim22:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Adding more info to my comment cause i was a bit unclear. If you go to http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cite/Cite.php you can see that recently the wikimedia platform was updated to include a ref tag, this was added to make adding references to articles much easier, and to replace the old reference way where one reference gets a new listing every time it's mentioned in the article, which adds unnecessary length, and creates more work for the editors. It is an automated way to do things, and is the new proper way to do it. After you're done with your "major" edit, if Hipocrite doesn't put them back up I will, since it's the proper way to do it. You said "We editors want to write in English, as far as posible, without going to coding school. Also we need to edit refs already there." what is scaring you off is the ref tag. It's actually much easier then the code your already using, and it makes it so there is no need to "edit refs already there". Seraphim22:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Edits of that magnitude to a controvercial article require talk page discussion. If you are reverted, please do not revert war and instead discuss it on the talk page. Hipocrite - «Talk»21:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hipocrite You reverted the references I needed, after I put a polite note here. The section is as near NPOV, when I've finished it as WE can get here. It has taken into account ALL recent chat traffic, including the ani-Masonic stuff. You have a very high hadded use of your power, proved QED, but have added nothing constructive. How about reporting yourself? Skull 'n' Femurs21:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'NOTE My edit has ended. Thanks to S of V for the notice put on the main article page. I'm sorry for any data lost due to me having to put internal and external links back by hand. Hence taken so long to do it! Skull 'n' Femurs23:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I missed any edits to the 1st Para of "Criticism, persecution, and prosecution", but I could not find any since my last "edit blocking". ;) Skull 'n' Femurs23:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually much much much easier and less time consuming to do it this way. Here is a little explanation on how to do it. To add a reference if you were familiar with the old {{note|tag}} method, where you would have put {{note|tag}} put <ref> then type what you would have put in this section followed by </ref> example. If you added {{note|GLNF}} to a paragraph, and the cite in the notes section was "# {{note|GLNF}}[http://www.grandelogenationalefrancaise.com/ The Grande Loge Nationale Francaise (GLNF)], accessed February 6, 2006." all you have to do now is put "<ref>[http://www.grandelogenationalefrancaise.com/ The Grande Loge Nationale Francaise (GLNF)], accessed February 6, 2006.</ref>" into the article where you had the {{note|GLNF}} and you will get the same results. Look in the article or ask any questions here if your still confused. Seraphim23:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am noticing a trend that I would like to ask people to stop. Due to the recent revert wars, we have begun to use the edit explanation boxes to leave in depth explanations on why the revision/revert is needed. That is what the talk page is for. The edit explanation box (ie the text we see when reviewing the edit history) should be a brief statement on what was done. Just my two cents worth. You can go back to ignoring me now! Blueboar02:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I only use it if the reason against it is already covered in the talk page. For example the last edit where SnF removed the images, the reason for keeping the images was already on the talk page, it was just being ignored.
What also needs to stop happening is people making edits, and leaving non descriptive of false edit comments. I already brought this up on SnF's talk page. Any time you make a content change you need to include a reason for that change in the comment, that's why the box is called the "Edit summary". This lets people easially see what you changed. If your comments can't fit in the comment box, then create a section on the talk page and refer to that in your comment. Also remember that the minor edit flag is only to be used for "spelling corrections, minor formatting, and minor rearrangement of text" otherwise some major edits won't show up for alot of editors. Seraphim02:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seraphim, I slightly disagree with you on this. To my way of thinking, the edit summary sould highlight what was changed, the talk page should be where you put why it was changed. But I don't want to make a big a deal about it. It was just a request. thanks Blueboar14:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is very clear on what the Edit Summary is according to WP:ES "Even if short, an edit summary should strive to answer the question, "Why did you make this edit?". " that's what I follow. Seraphim20:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However, from Help:Edit summary, "Most projects highly recommend using it to its full capacity, to summarize and/or explain the changes made." as well as "In the case of a small addition to an article, it is highly recommended to copy the full text of this addition to the summary field" and "In addition to a summary of the change itself, the summary fieldmayalso contain an explanation of the change; note that if the reason for an edit is not clear, it is more likely to be reverted, especially in the case that some text is deleted. To give a longer explanation, use the Talk page and put in the edit summary "see Talk"." which shows intent is to summarize the what not the why. I feel, as an editor, a summary of WHAT was changed is easier, and why should become a discussion on the talk page, as that is where consensus should be reached. Edit summaries aren't a place for establishing consensus.--Vidkun20:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quoting wikipedia policy, your quoting wikimedia help pages. Wikipedia is a project that uses wikimedia software. Wikipedia Policy dictates what we do on wikipedia, what wikimedia pages say is irrelevant when it comes to wikipedia policy. Seraphim20:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no, you are quoting a wikipedia guideline: "This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It illustrates standards of conduct, which many editors agree with in principle. Although it may be advisable to follow it, it is not however policy. Feel free to update the page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose any major changes."--Vidkun20:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok a valid point, however atleast it's talking about wikipedia :), and Wikipedia guidelines are what arbcom people care about :P Seraphim20:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I was feeling at all cynical that might come across as an implicit threat. I'm sure it's not intended that way though.ALR21:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nonono not at all. I'm just pointing out that the wikipedia higher ups don't adknowledge wikimedia help pages. I was trying to clarify the point that even though it's a guideline it is what we should adhere to over a wikimedia help page describing the edit summary box's function. (thanks for pointing that out to me so i could clarify). Seraphim21:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, alot of the discussions are still ongoing. Once all the "issues" are settled, and the tags come off it will be time to archive. If you have problems editing such a long page, just use the headers at the top to jump to the section, and then hit edit. Archiving this right now would not work since you are not suppossed to reply to an archived page. Seraphim02:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I decided i'll agree to archive some of the page if we discuss and reach conscensus on which sections to be archived, since some of them are concluded. "Regardless of which method you choose, you should leave current, ongoing discussions on the existing talk page." I just want to make sure some sections aren't archived that shouldn't be (for example my section that's the top one #1 is not concluded, i'm just waiting to move on it untill the newer discussions about a more contravercial version are concluded) Seraphim02:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article has existed for quite some time(2003?), & has been a featured article for quite some time. Why, suddenly, do some users think it's so NPOV, controlled by Freemasons, etc? has it suddenly become a target of Conspiracy theorists? Has it changed so so much in a negative way? & it is, actually, fairly well cited, if one actually reads the Notes, See Also section, The External links, the Catagory:Freemasonry articles (& if one really wants to do their homework, Catagory:Freemasons), & especially if one goes through the 12 archived talk pages. This article didn't get to be featured by being bad, poorly cited, etc. There's a lot of hard work by a lot of people here. They often dispute eachother, & nearly as often come to terms & learn to compromise. So, what's the point again? What valid arguement is being presented? Grye09:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think there should be a spoiler warning of some sort in the article for stuff folks might not wanna read if they're considering joining masonry. That's allowed per rules. Ardenn04:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any information that would fall under a spoiler tag should not be included in the article. With that said, critisism of a group is not a spoiler. Seraphim04:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
link to Mormonism and Freemasonry
I really feal that this is an inappropriate link... this article does not discuss any tie between the two orgnizations at all. Since there is debate as to the extent of the ties between the Church of Later Day Saints and Freemasonry, I think we should (at minimum) discuss this issue before adding a link to Mormonism and Freemasonry] to this page. Comments please. Blueboar04:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Mormonism and Freemasonry page could use a few more inline reference links, however the references at the bottom of the article show that there is a relationship between the two. It should be included as a link Seraphim04:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the solution, & I've got plenty to focus on, but as far as I know, there's a rather heavy, significant link to Moronsim & Freemasonry that can't be denied. It is an historically problematic link that isn't going to be easy to cite & verify etc etc, but it is there. If someone can actually do it, cited & all, then that'd actually be a pretty impressive... But does need to be watched closely, in wikipedia's interest. Again, that's not a "Yeah or nay", just an aside. Grye08:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well then if there is a link between the 2 we need to link to the page discussing that link :) Let the people who are editing that article deal with that article's problems :p Seraphim08:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merging anti-Masonry with the Freemasonry site?
I do not believe the two should be merged, the one would undoubtedly cast an unpartial view on the institution.
Not that I believe that all forms of dissent should be done away with, I think discussion and views should be expressed where they are now in the discussion forum. Anti-Masonry is a view and an opinion I count two wiki sites alone dealing with Anti-Masonry the first Mostly banter about Conspiracy Theories which is marred by conjecture, the second a legitimate page about the American Masonic party and the Morgan affair.07:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)~
Believe it or not, you just summarized why we would have to merge them, if we find that to be the case :p. It is inherently POV to move all "anti" stuff to one page, and all "pro" stuff to another page (i'm not saying that this is the situation we are in right now with the freemasonry pages). Right now the merger talk is pretty much on hold, untill we get all the POV tags off of Anti-Freemasonry, at that point we will decide the fate of that article :) Seraphim08:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it is so old as to be not in Copyright, then the ritual is no longer done in that way.
Ritual is usually only "exposed" by Anti-Masonic types to reveal "secrets". Because Freemasonry is Constitutional, and not a religion, only the last and current issue of any ritual is relevant to any discussion, beyond antiquarian interest. A publicly available and published ritual is not always the one used by any particular Private Lodge, since a wide latitude is given in any Grand Lodge or Orient over "performing" such ritual. To sum up it is futile to debate "secrets" here in the public domain as no "secrets" will be given up here, and no naughty "secrets" are found in any publicly found sources. There are no naughty secrets to be found. The point about one "Mason" recognising another by passing "secrets" is just silly these days, even if it ever applied, since after an initial introduction, a detailed protocol of conformation is gone through before a "stranger" can get into an active Lodge, etc. I would say that anyone showing undue interest in the craft, beyond what is already here in the article, should go and get a life validated in some more fruitful way. Skull 'n' Femurs12:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The standard of Wikipedia is VERIFIABILITY, not TRUTH. If someone published something about the secrets in the past, it is appropriate to say who published it and what they published. Hipocrite - «Talk»12:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the book was published when it was published. If it's not accurate, then provide a source saying it's not accurate. Please REVIEW what I have written before blindly reverting - you are on the verge of violating the 3rr. Hipocrite - «Talk»13:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The burden of proof is on the side of the citing person not the editor saying it is wrong/copyrighted, as per how Wiki works. You keep adding a citation that is wrong, and the reference is a general one, but that in context only applies to regular Freemasonry, not European Contintental style Freemasonry. I've no idea how many rituals currently circulate, have you? If only Duncan is cited, the point is lost, since the point is to show all regular Freemasons are obligated not to politically plot, etc. This is not one of the "secrets". "Please REVIEW what I have written before blindly reverting - you are on the verge of violating the 3rr." Same back at you, and that is what you are trying for. Skull 'n' Femurs13:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It cannot be verified that what is in the book is what the book purports to be. There is no proof that what is in that book are the actual rituals, and there is no way to support the claim that they are. If you absolutely feel that book must be mentioned, then the impossibility of proving its contents should be cited. For example, if you have a text that says "the secret word of the 100th degree is bubblegum" how can you prove that it is indeed bubblegum?--Vidkun14:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please review WP:V. The book is published by a reputable publisher. If it says something, it is appropriate to say it says something. If there is a another reputable source that says it's full of crap, that other reputable source can also be mentioned. This is the fundamental tennant of WP:NPOV. Hipocrite - «Talk»14:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is it cannot be proven or disproven. The falsifiability of the source referred to does not exist. Prove to me that the invisible pink unicorn is neither invisible, nor pink.--Vidkun14:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We can't take a side in the dispute over the accuracy or truthiness of Duncans, if such a dispute exists. We can only report on it -> IE: "Duncans, which claims to be a ritual book from the 1800s, has a bunch of masonic rituals. (SOME OTHER SOURCE) claims that Duncans' is garbage." This is where NPOV policy shines - we don't have to figure out who is right, just say there's a fight! Hipocrite - «Talk»15:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Case Studies in Politics and Crime
First of all, that's a misleading title - what that section used to be was a summary of the old Anti-Freemasonry page. Second of all, that section is by no means a case study. I would suggest you choose a more appropriate and less leading title. The 1799 material should be in a history section, or somewhere else, as it makes no sense where it is now - the section doesn't read properly. The ritual wasn't antiquated when it was originally published, and I fail to see what relevance it has to the situation with Pitt - Pitt was the British Prime Minister in 1799, and Duncan's Monitor wasn't published until the late 1800s in the US.
Masonic charity has nothing to do with religious opposition (as a matter of fact, that is one of the things that the Catholics felt was good about Masonry), the 1980s date for ritual change is wrong if it's not cited, as I believe it was actually the 1970s, but one would have to ask UGLE about it. Also, why is the forget-me-not section now called "In Remembrance" and part of the Politics and Crime section?
In short, I need a really good reason as to why that whole thing should not be reverted, because it makes no sense whatsoever now in terms of either readability or organization. The titles have almost nothing to do with the content, and make very little sense themselves. MSJapan13:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to, but only because it's not relevant in the context, as I have stated above. You're tying Pitt in 1799 in England to Duncan in the US in 1866 (I think), and that doesn't make any sense. My putting it back in there is not AGF, it's acceding to POV, because there is no factual need to even mention ritual there, as it's got nothing to do with anything in that section. MSJapan14:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You did now. You also changed the diff reference. The other one clearly shows it in politics and crime, and shows it as your edit. Speaking of violating AGF....MSJapan14:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I filed an RFC regarding the constant removal of the Duncan's Cite. The RFC reads as follows: "Link to a cite being constantly removed based on the statement that it is not-accurate. Newer cites are not available as they are secrets. Should the older cite remain in article untill a reputable source says it is not-accurate (and then such disagreement described in text), or should the older cite be removed based on the say-so of those privy to the newer cites?" This section is for outside comment on the RFC. Please do not respond here if you are an "insider" to this discussion - there is a section for insider comments below. Hipocrite - «Talk»14:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The cite is valid, but it does not belong where it is placed in the article, as it has absolutely no relevance to the incident being discussed. Please see my above section "Case Studies on Politics and Crime" for further comments. MSJapan14:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me quote what I think is a major issue for verifiability: contain older descriptions of masonic rituals. My opinion is that this is not something that can be proved or disproved. A better wording would be "contain alleged older descriptions of masonic rituals".--Vidkun14:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The other issue, Hip, is that at the time of publication, Duncan's was the equivalent of a self published book, without verifiability of its sources. Just because something is published doesn't make it verifiable. I realize that we are looking at verifiability here, ie. did someone publish this book, and does it say x y z, and not that the claims of x y z are correct, per sé. I think my best way to deal with it is the inclusion of the word alleged although someone might say it is a weasel word and POV to do so. I simply disagree on that, though.--Vidkun14:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am waiting for you to make that edit. Using "alleged" to show that a book "Allegdges" to be something is fine, if it's disputed. I'm certain you can show me a reputable source for such a dispute. Hipocrite - «Talk»14:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree, for the bolds only. The italics, from my quick scrub of the article, are used to indicate words which have different internal meanings within Freemasonry, than they might in general English language use.--Vidkun14:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Going through it again, it's only italics being used for emphasis at times. The bolds are all subhead-repeats, which is MOS ok. Review upcoming edit. Hipocrite - «Talk»14:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems good, as far as I can tell. It has a few pieces that were highlighted to me by comparing the diffs, that need to be reworded, specifically the Golden dawn thing, but none of that was part of your edit. Thanks!--Vidkun15:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CIVIL
Read and follow WP:CIVIL. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
You 1st Skull 'n' Femurs 14:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Seriously, heed Hipocrite's advice, and try to be "nicer" to other editors, and less confrontational if you can. Or else (forgive the clicé, but I cannot put it any other way) I or somebody else, will block you. Cheers Banez 14:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Changing an entire link, actually deleting it, is not a minor edit. In addition, while Freemasonry, worldwide may not be a service organization, the link was to a page for both fraternal organizations and service organizations.--Vidkun15:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The other issue is that it was a revert without discussion of what other changes were made, which definitely makes that a completely misleading edit summary.--Vidkun15:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the spirit of comity, I will pledge not to re-do any of the edits that SnB undid, in the hopes that when he returns from his block he will be willing to go back to the most-recent good version - [33] I think - on his own. Removing the bad-emphasis marks took a good 10 minutes of work, and was a really positive change. Hipocrite - «Talk»15:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shame
It's a shame that I already blew 3 reverts trying to fix the article and can't revert back to the last good version. The most recent changes require citing if they are going to stick, period. Hipocrite - «Talk»16:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the most recent changes by User:Basil Rathbone are simply more of the same from someone who was blocked for various violations of policies and guidelines, specifically on this and related articles.--Vidkun16:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but you didn't revert to the last good version - [34]. You left in the garbage about women, the emphasis marks, and left out the citation for the intro statement. Hipocrite - «Talk»16:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These most recent changes (from the anti side) are also outrageous. Edits to this article MUST abide by WP:V. If something is true, please cite a source saying that. Hipocrite - «Talk»16:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have plenty of references for info about Blacks, Women, and the Disabled in Freemasonry. University level citations. Of course whether I made them or not the reference would be quickly reverted by the 24/7 'tyle' that is in place on Wikipedia by Masonic editors.
Did any of these Masonic editors complain or revert the massive re-edits of the criticisms section that went on yesterday? Nope. Did any of these same editors complain about continual deletion of links to Freemasonrywatch, secret societies, or masonic secrets? Nope. There is no good faith here by Masonic editors. I have made contributions that are critical of freemasonry, ergo I am an anti, ergo I must not be allowed to make any additional contributions, ergo I must be banned. That is the way Masons operate. Ignore the criticism, silence the critic. They have been doing it for centuries. Masonry is a cult.Basil Rathbone17:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah Ardenn that's an invalid 3rr report. Unless someone violates it just randomly reporting them does nothing but give them sympathy from the admin's. Seraphim
The problem with proving it is that it requires check-user, and backlog doesn't begin to describe the situation there.--Vidkun17:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the editors here need to stop accusing everyone of being Lightbringer. Yes basil needs to be dealt with, prefrably blocked, that doesn't make him automatically lightbringer. Seraphim17:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They want me blocked because I make edits critical of Freemasonry, ergo I am an 'anti', ergo I can not be allowed to make anymore posts. Don't you get it? They always demonize their critics and ignore the criticism.Basil Rathbone17:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Basil I agree with you that the secrets need to be adressed, if you look at the top section of this talk page you will see where I had that debate, and we reached a kinda steady truce at the moment. Right now you are going about it the completly wrong way. YOur trying to take a HUGE step when a small step is what's needed. Seraphim17:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as the page is protected, discussion now has to take place here until the issues are resolved, so that's a start. The basic issue is what is necessary encyclopedically to understand Freemasonry, and I personally don't believe that the secrets, historical or otherwise, are integral to that; what Freemasonry is and what it does have nothing to do with secrets, now or then. MSJapan17:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, right now, in the middle of an edit war between three sides (Basil, general users, and Skull) there is any way to fix it. My opinion is that Skull has gotten frustrated with the process, and makes his reversions out of spite for the process itself. I would like to see each section come up in discussion here, and a couple of hours of discussion on it, before we edit it. That's the goal in general, anyway.--Vidkun17:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, lets review the actions of Masonic Editors on the Freemasonry and related pages shall we?
Continual deletion of Secret society, Mormonism and Freemasonry from See Also section
There is no factual proof of "secret society" as WP defines it being valid. Masonic buildings are publicly marked and meetings are advertised. The Mormonism stuff is very much contested by Masons and Mormons. MSJapan17:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Continual deletion of FreemasonryWatch.org and many other sites critical of Freemasonry from External links section.
FreemasonryWatch is not a reputable site of information. Much of what is there is taken out of context, and it is rife with conspuracy theories. MSJapan17:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Continual Deletion of Masonic Secrets from Freemasonry Page
This is not a history article, and the validity of the information as to any modern application is contested. It's also not integral, encyclopedically speaking, to understanding Freemasonry. MSJapan17:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOV requires that for contested information we do not take a side - we describe the controvercy. If there is a sourced discussion of masonic secrets, I will fight to include it, with the inclusion of any sourced rebuttal. Hipocrite - «Talk»18:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However one must, in an academic context, consider the reliability of the stated source. That reliability does lead to a consideration of the utility of including the source as a legitimate context. Is a mention in a non-peer reviewed journal considered at the same level of reliabilty as that in a peer reviewed journal, how does the source compare with others of a similar age and topic, how has the environment within which the source exists changed since it was published? Merely appearing in print (or indeed on the web) proves nothing.ALR18:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Continual insertion of reams of unsubstantiated propaganistic and irrelevent information cut and pasted from dozens of Masonic websites.
Truth is not the standard of inclusion, verifiability is. If the occult rituals are sourced, the only response is to find a source that says there are no occult rituals and describe the debate. We cannot take sides. Hipocrite - «Talk»18:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Continual deletion of any reference to discrimination of women, blacks, and the disabled in Freemasonry
Because this is not true either, apart from not allowing women to join, and i would add that college fraternities do the same thing - it is the nature of the word "fraternity" actually. So to claim that only Masonry does this is wrong. Also, blacks and the disabled are free to join. I know plenty of brothers who are amputees, or are in wheelchairs, or have learning disabilities, and I also know plenty of brothers who aren't white. MSJapan17:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, truth is not the standard of inclusion, verifiability is. If the various discrimatory practices are sourced, the only response is to find a source that says there are no discrimatory practices and describe the debate. We cannot take sides. Hipocrite - «Talk»18:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Continual deletion of any reference to support of Hitler and Nazi's and their occult involvements by Regular German Freemasonry
Because the historical fact shows otherwise. You're using the actions of a subset of Lodges as a generalization for the whole, and the fact ias that all Masonry, including the Old Prussian lodges, were suppressed. As I said, you are using hindsight to assume that the support of the government in the 1930s (which is a tenet of Freemasonry, by the way) was the same as condoning later actions, and it certainly is not. Even the lodges that initially supported the regime were shut down, which doesn't say much for that. Furthermore, the Nazis looted all the Lodges and appropriated materials for propaganda and their own occult purposes. MSJapan17:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, truth is not the standard of inclusion, verifiability is. If the various nazi relations are sourced, the only response is to find a source that says there are no nazi relations and describe the debate. We cannot take sides. Hipocrite - «Talk»18:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Continual deletion of any reference to Freemasonry's support and involvement in the Ku Klux Klan
Because there is nothing but speculation available. Pike was never a member, and it is also important to differentiate the old KKK and the new KKK; they are not the same entity. MSJapan17:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, truth is not the standard of inclusion, verifiability is. If the various KKK relations are sourced, the only response is to find a source that says there are no KKK relations and describe the debate. We cannot take sides. Hipocrite - «Talk»18:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Continual deletion of accurate and complete information regarding the P2 conspiracy including involement in terrorism, subversion, and murder
Continual deletion of accurate and complete information regarding Freemasonry's corrupt practices of perfering other Freemasons in hiring, promotion, and business.
Where's your proof? Also, how is that any different if I were to run a business and hire a family member or a friend instead of someone else? MSJapan17:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, truth is not the standard of inclusion, verifiability is. If the various discrimatory practices are sourced, the only response is to find a source that says there are no discrimatory practices and describe the debate. We cannot take sides. Hipocrite - «Talk»18:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Continual violation of Wikipedia rules and guidelines using combined numbers to delete any contributions by non-masons avoiding 3rr rules, continual false and harrassing complaints against non-masonic editors with aim to get them banned. Continual vandalism of non-masonic editors user and talk pages with 'suspected' of being sockpuppet' templates.Basil Rathbone17:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, you're the one who "has an interest in history and esoterica and doesn't edit much", and you're the one who has been shown to violate rules by outside sources. A sock tag is not vandalism, and you haven't done anything to allay anyone's suspicions. You're the one claiming conspiracy, and then you take actions such that you are "proven right". Even "non-Masonic" editors (a distinction which you make and we don't) have tried to intercede, with no success.MSJapan17:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Both of you have demonstrated reasonably poor editing behavior. I believe you are both very defensive or offencive about your POV, and have a hard time editing for the enemy. Hipocrite - «Talk»18:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, Hipocrite, we may as well say all of the blood libels are out there. Do you know why you don't see rebuttals to so many of them? Because they are so outlandish as to defy belief by any except conspiracy theorists and people with bigotted axes to grind. It's pretty much similar to asking us to prove we don't beat our wives.--Vidkun18:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a whole NPOV article about the blood libels. That's how things are written. "x claims y, z refutes this." This is our NPOV formulation. Deleting "x claims y" because "y isn't true" is not NPOV. Hipocrite - «Talk»18:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is, as an entire seperate page. The list of blood libels against Jews is not part of the main article Jew because it is a seperate issue. In fact, it isn't even referenced on the main page. So, in that case, why should these repeatedly uncited claims claims be here on the main article space?--Vidkun18:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When they are cited and included, you can argue about forking them out, which I will strongly oppose (masonic secrets are more interesting than most of the article, and I will happily submit that to 3o or RFC, and get back exactly that result). Now that you have retracted your argument that falseness requires exclusion, we can move on. Hipocrite - «Talk»18:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, then, I can expect you to attempt to have the blood libels against Jews made part of the main article Jew? As for many of Basil's other claims, they have been refuted again and again in the history of this article. One glaring issue, he claim black are not allowed into a majority of Masonic Lodges in the US, that Prince Hall Lodges are not recognized in the US, but this map shows that to be false. But, oh, no, because we don't show it to you right now, and EVERY SINGLE TIME SOMEONE MAKES THE ACCUSATION, we aren't citing our rebuttals. It's been done, over and over again, whenever someone has tried to say that PHA is not recognized in the US. I would also submit that what you find interesting is not what an encyclopedia is all about. While truth is not the issue, verifiability is, no other rebuttals of false accusations against large scale groups require citing. Double standard.--Vidkun18:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POINT would prevent me from trying to add uninteresting information into an article so that I could add interesting information into this one. You wouldn't have to prove things false over and over if you followed WP:V and WP:NPOV. The sentance would read "A source (obviously, the name of the source would need to be included) claimed that Prince Hall Lodges are not recognized in the US, but according to Paul M. Bessel's "Masonic Recognition Issues" website states that 38, or 75% of US Grand Lodges have voted to recognize them." Hipocrite - «Talk»18:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"You wouldn't have to prove things false over and over if you followed WP:V" Why don't you just go and look at the section on Prince Hall Masonry, and you will see with your own two eyes that it is cited.--Vidkun18:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, does NPOV mean that items that are VERIFIABLY FALSE have to be included? Claims that the moon is made of cheese don't have to be kept in wikipedia for an NPOV, do they?--Vidkun18:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Basil has not ONCE put a source for the claim that a majority of Grand Lodges in the US do not recognize PHA.--Vidkun18:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, its up to BR to provide reputable sources. You can't prove a negative, and BR is going to be hard proved to provide anything REPUTABLEALR19:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Both of you are being entirely unhelpful. Basil - I'd like to focus on one edit of yours that I thought had a great deal of interesting information - specifically, [35]. This edit is great, except it lacks sources. What sources can we find for these claims? Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk»18:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about that Mason, I've got plenty of sources, and will post them forthwith. Of course you know my accusations about Freemasonry are 100% correct, and yet you remain a Mason.Basil Rathbone19:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That being the case, I have removed the material from here, as all it does it take up space. Much of it is a repost from an earlier section. MSJapan18:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is just vandalism what you are doing, you have no right to delete material from discussion page, no right at all, it is pure vandalism. You are not the moderator of this discussion page. DO NOT delete my material any more from this page!Basil Rathbone18:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm your biggest supporter on this page, and I'm deleting it. Does this tell you something? Please go to my userified copy and find the cites, then we'll get it included. Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk»18:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that BR is not interested in actually contributing, merely disrupting as demonstrated by the several blockages in the last few days and refusal to actually rationally discuss his suggested additions. If one were being cynical then BRs behaviour might charitably be described as Trolling.ALR18:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I'll acknowledge that at least one editor countering BRs vandalism has handled himself in a manner which I would consider to be unacceptable, the all encompassing nature of your last seems to imply that you are including me in that response. That could easily be considered as a personal attack, which I consider somewhat unreasonable bearing in mind you have yet to respond to a number of direct responses to your entries this afternoon.ALR19:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is the discussion page, this is where it will be discussed, not elsewhere. I repeat you CAN NOT delete material from the discussion page. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? So far you haven't helped in the slightest. You have got the most twisted version of this page to date locked in permanetly. Big help you. Just stay out of it.Basil Rathbone18:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry the authority we follow on this page are entitled Wikipedia rules and not Hipocrites '4 rules'. Who are you supposed to be again? Wikipedia needs to permanetly ban a dozen Masonic editors from going anywhere near any pages related to Freemasonry based on reams and reams of evidence of their violation of said rules and spirit. That is the help that is needed here, not what you have 'offered' so far. This isn't a feel good, why can't we just get along gang parlee, I want some enforcement, and now.Basil Rathbone19:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Freemasonry refuses to admit men born with birth defects as part of it's pseudo Levitical Priesthood laws. Men are asked during the interview process to become a Freemasons if they were 'born whole'.
This has led to accusations that the disabled are being routinely discriminated against by Freemasons in hiring, promotions, and business, in those fields where Masonic membership 'placement' is known to be concentrated, such as in the Police, Judiciary, and Public Office.
Status of Women in Freemasonry
Freemasonry considers Women 'totaly unfit to discharge the duties of a Freemason' and thus forbids them membership. There are no Women Freemasons. Wives of Freemasons may be admitted to a service organization called 'The Order of the Eastern Star' which principally concerns itself to preparing meals for their husbands Lodge dinners. The head of the Order of the Eastern Star and all sub-lodges are lead by a Master Mason, i.e. a man.
This sitation has led a number of Women political figures in the U.K. and elsewhere to call for a banning of Freemasonry membership in public life because of the preferement Masons show to each other in hiring, promotion, and business leading to defacto discrimination against all women, as well as all male non-masons.
Status of Negroes in American Freemasonry
U.S. Masonic Grand Lodges have traditionally discriminated against Black men from joining Freemasonry. Today in the U.S. Grand Lodges south of the 'Mason-Dixon' Line can not count a single Black person among it's membership. In the North and West a similar situation existed up until the 1980's. Even with the removal of an outright ban of Black membership in Northern and Western Grand Lodges the membership remains almost completely 'white'. The pseudo religious occult arguement given by Freemasons for this discrimination against Black's is that 'they are not men free born and are thus unable to discharge their Masonic duties'.
Prince Hall Freemasonry, which Black men do join, is considered by the vast majority of U.S. Grand Lodges to be 'irregular' and 'clandestine' Masonry. In the U.S. and Canada the majority of membership in the Ku Klux Klan consisted of white Masons of 'Regular' Grand Lodges. In most towns the membership in the local Ku Klux Klan Klavern and the membership in the local white Masonic was overlapping.
References
Christianity and American Freemasonry, William J. Whalen,
Ignatius Press 1958, 1987, 1998
Inside the Brotherhood, Martin Short, Harper Collins, 1990
Catholic Encyclopedia
Behind the Lodge Door, Paul A. Fisher, Tan Books, 1991
Darkness Visible, Walton Hannah, Saint Austin Press, 1998
The Secret society of Freemasonry employs demands it's members keep secret both the membership of other Freemasons and any information learned other Freemasons. Masons must obtain the permission of other Masons before revealing membership or any information about other Masons.
Additionally Freemasons are required to prefer other Freemasons in hiring, promotions, and business.
To ensure these rules of internal discipline and secrecy are maintained Freemasonry requires it's members to undertake a number of oaths, and employ a number of secret recognitions signs and words to ensure non-masons do not become aware of Masonic activity or preferement in their immediate surroundings.
2- Fellow Craft: Cut open my chest, and put my heart and lungs on my left shoulder.
3- Master Mason: Put my bowels out.
Oaths of the three Degrees
1- In the First Degree, Apprentice
He swears, with his hand on the Bible, "I (name), in the presence of Almighty God, most solemnly promise and swear that I will always hail, ever conceal, and never reveal any of the arts, parts of points of the hidden mysteries of Freemasonry... binding myself under the penalty than that of having my throat cut across, my tongue torn out, and my body buried in the rough sands of the see..."
2- The Second Degree, Fellow Craft
He swears on the Bible, in the presence of Almighty God, "under the penalty than of having my breast open... and my heart and lungs thrown over my left shoulder... so help me God".
3- The Third Degree, Master Mason
He swears "under the penalty than that of having my body severed in two, my bowels taken from thence and burn to ashes... so help me God".
This so-called higher degree of Freemasonry is considered by many Masons to be the completion of the first three degrees of Masonry. In North America it is part of the 'York Rite' of Freemasonry.
The Oath in the Royal Arch goes one beyond that of the Third Degree and does not except murder and treason as is contained in the Master Mason oath; “I will aid and assist a companion Royal Arch Mason, when engaged in any difficulty, and espouse his cause, so far as to extricate him from the same, if in my power, whether he be right or wrong. A companion Royal Arch Mason’s secrets, given me in charge as such, and I knowing him to be such, shall remain as secure and inviolable, in my breast as in his own, murder and treason not excepted.”
The Secret Word of the Royal Arch is JAHBULON a triparte word displayed on a triangle or delta. The first part JAH represents Yahwah the God of the Hebrews, the second part BUL represents Baal the God of the Babylonians, the third part ON represents Osirus the God of the Egyptians.
Reports prepared for various Protestant Denominations, including the Church of England, specifically singled this 'secret' word out for attention under the charge of blasphemy, as Baal and Osirus are names sometimes associated with the Devil. The word can be also pronounced Diabolon when including the Greek letter Delta, representing the triangle with the three parts written on each side.
