Talk:Freemasonry/Archive 6

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 12 Oct 2005 and 20 Oct 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to Talk:Freemasonry/Archive_7. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you.--SarekOfVulcan 10:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Dreamboy being "Arbitrated" elswhere on Wiki

Since it was he that began this little tussle by his serial deletions of my link postings and edits I find it quite interesting to find that he is currently embroiled on the Arbitration page by a number of complaints by Wiki editors in other topic area's. Dreamboy also *ONCE MORE* destroyed my referenced paragraph addition to the Taxil hoax] page. I restored it but no doubt he will delete it again. Isn't Wiki policy to add comments to provide additional p.o.v. and not to delete? I'm getting pretty fed up here.Lightbringer 08:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

That is a separate article with its own talk page and an issue with that article should be dealt with over there.

However, if the paragraph is the same one that was there before, the one negating a provable fact with a conspiracy theory by saying - (to paraphrase) "Some claim that Taxil, who wrote material discrediting the Masons, was in fact an invention of the Masons" is once again not a question of POV, but rather verifiability and believability.

Just because some people believe it doesn't make it true, such as the world being flat, or the Moon being made out of green cheese. There is factual evidence disproving those statements, and anything in the same vein is really not appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. IIRC there is a Wiki policy on "relative weight" that should clear this up. Even if that policy doesn't convince you 100%, the fact that Wikipedia is not democratic and is edited by consensus does cover it.

Is it too much to ask to quit all the nonsense until ArbCom deals with this and either work on the article or do nothing? MSJapan 20:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

To clarefy, the relavant policy is found at WP:NPOV#Giving "equal validity". It is also usefull to look at the policy on WP:NPOV#Undue_Weight. Actually, all of the Category:Wikipedia official policy is interesting reading, and I recomend everyone to look throught it. WegianWarrior 21:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

To further clarify, the "arbitration" I am in was brought up by another POV-pushing problem editor who has since been blocked for months at a time when the admins caught up with his antics. User:Lightbringer's strategy here is simply a violation of the WP:No personal attacks rule in the hope that he can use other problem editors' complaints against me here as well. Let's hope this case ends up the same way: with Lightbringer being banned for constant POV-pushing, knowing and blatant violations of policy, and etc. And, interestingly enough, a vandal calling himself User:DreamBoy has been going around making harassing edits and vandalism and got himself blocked... considering that Lightbringer uses that term too, I wonder if it's another one of his sockpuppet accounts, like the anon IP and the USer:SquareDeal who showed up to make the exact same edits he did? DreamGuy 22:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

It also might be nice for the editors here making these comments to head over to Taxil hoax and chime in, because Lightbringer and an editor who does not understand the policies on NPOV and sources are letting the antiMason stuff take over the article. DreamGuy 22:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Pjacobi has been made aware of things, and it should be left at that. MSJapan 01:06, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Having been watching this 'discussion' for a week or so, I want to point out to DreamGuy and Lightbringer that you are BOTH engaging in egregious personal attack in an almost routine manner. It undermines nearly every comment you make. Perhaps you don't understand WP:NPA, so let me put it another way: the Talk page of an article is for discussing the article. It is not for discussing who started what, who is a vandal and who a purist, or any other opinion you might have of other editors, or their motives. Discuss the edits, not the editors. This way, you will avoid both inadvertant personal attack and the appearance of stupidity. Please understand: most of us don't care who said what; we only care what the article says. (Having said that, I also want to state that my initial impression when I saw User:DreamBoy was also "sockpuppet". If this is in fact the case, isn't there a proper place to lodge such allegation?) Eaglizard 17:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Long article

You should...

1. remove 4.1: Degrees because of Degree (Freemasonry)
2. remove 6.: History of Freemasonry because of History of Freemasonry

84.61.3.191 14:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

It makes more sense here. Otherwise the article is going to be a ten line list with "See X" for every heading. MSJapan 02:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Can someone put in an RfD for Degree (Freemasonry)? MSJapan 18:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

You can't do that? --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 19:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Dammit, Spinboy! I'm an editor, not a technician! :) TBH, I looked at the process, and it requires some code insertion I'm not sure I could do properly. MSJapan 02:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Reversion of Templar/US sections

I agree with DreamGuy's reversion here -- those sections were highly speculative, not well-cited, and added too much to a too-long article.--SarekOfVulcan 17:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I too agree with this reversion. I felt that the templar section had some merit although not presented in an accurate manor. I tried some revision to it, but I feel that a consensious should arise on it before we go ahead with a section like that. It might be benificial to have an origins of freemasonry sections were the main theories (i.e. no space aliens and bigfoot theories) are put forth in a short manor. This section should focus on the pre-1717 history of freemasonry. The USA section was extremely speculative and needed to be removed. All the statements in that section were gross overstatements, theory or untruths. chtirrell 19:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Taxil Hoax

I reverted the removal of this section before, but on reflection, I think that Lightbringer's move of the text to the existing Taxil Hoax page is correct.--SarekOfVulcan 23:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I see what's going on here re: external links

Apparently, someone feels this page needs to become a link repository for every single Catholic anti-masonic article ever published. This is not a links repository, this is an encyclopedia article. We already have plenty of those types of articles, and they all say the same thing. What is the use of that?

As a matter of fact, roughly half of the links we have are anti-Masonic sites or articles, and roughly half of those are Catholic in nature. I would think that one or two would suffice. Furthermore, the NYT article requires registration to view, so I removed the link, as it doesn't really do any good for anyone seeking information. MSJapan 00:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

All I've seen are born again anti-masonic links, where you draw the catholicism part from is lost on me. Actually, I've found that with the growing numerics of evangelical (tv varient, because too many people are too lazy to seek faith in temples or churches these days) types, the anti-masonic fervor has increased dramatically. So we should be seeing more major POV with circumstantial arguments and no citation references or sources heading our way.

Personally, as the anti masonry page is in existance again, I think it would be fair for us to POQ all the POV to that page. Jachin 06:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Section 8 (Anti-Freemasonry) summary needed

Since the anti-Freemasonry material has been moved, can someone add a link to that article at the top of section 8, and condense the various sections into a summary? That should allow us to get rid of the "too long" boilerplate. MSJapan 05:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Never mind, I condensed it myself. MSJapan 06:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Support for liberty

I can't see where this fits in the article, so I have excised it to save it for possible future reinsertion. It's not criticism, but neither is it history or symbolism, and it's not a membership item. I also dropped the headline by two levels to avoid confusion on the page here. MSJapan 06:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Support for liberty

It has been said that "the Freemason builds his life around the moral principles that lie at the heart of the Craft, and becomes in his every word and deed the epitome of brotherly love, relief and truth ~ he will thus respect the rights of others to hold beliefs and attitudes that differ radically from his own, for he knows that tolerance is an essential part of brotherly love."

(Freemasonry, A Celebration of the Craft'~ 1993. Edited by Hamill & Gilbert for Terry Allan).

Freemasons consider the need for vigilance in the defense of human liberty to be as great in society as it is within the Craft. It is a general source of pride within the fraternity that society's aims and values have increasingly come into line with those of Freemasonry, and they view their Order as having helped laid the foundations for many of the cultural norms and values prevalent in the western world today.

The legend at the heart of Masonic Ritual — the story of the building and reconstruction of King Solomon's Temple — is generally seen as an allegory for the creation of a new, just and tolerant society.

The duty of Masons to "give to the cause of Charity" was stressed by William Preston, in his Illustrations of Masonry of 1772, when he wrote: "To relieve the distressed is a duty incumbent on all men, but particularly on Freemasons, who are linked together by an indissoluble chain of sincere affection.

"To soothe the unhappy, to sympathize with their misfortunes, to compassionate their miseries and to restore their troubled minds, is the great aim we have in view."

A Mason's duty is also in his loyalty, as a peaceful subject, to the civil authority found wherever he resides or works, and it is on these grounds, restrained from pursuing any means of disrupting the established rule of law, that Freemasonry is itself a reformist institution, its members abstaining from any thought of association with rebellion. This may seem at odds with the support given by many Masons over the years to democratic revolutions. This is usually explained by the fact that Masons tend to view their obligations, while of utmost importance, to be in a kind of hierarchy of priority: firstly to God, then to country, then to family and only then to Masonry, for example. So, if one's highest religious and moral principles are violated by an obligation to one's country, only then can that obligation be broken, in favour of the higher principle.

--End

Anticlericalism moved

I don't see how this fits, either, as it's really a critical argument covered in a different way already, and not really supported well here. MSJapan 06:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

The section stays. A study of anti-clericalism by Freemasonry is integral to any encyclopedia on Freemasonry.Lightbringer 06:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

First of all, there was no need to delete it off here. This is a talk page, not the main article. Second of all, the section was not done well, and the point it was making was unclear, and at the very least it needed to be worked on. MSJapan 06:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh Please! Stop the charade MSJapan. You moved this very important section to the talk page to bury it, not discuss it. Furthermore you immediately moved it to the anti-freemasonry page you created, without anyone being able to discuss it - at all, which shows the depth of the sincerity. It was just a tactic to 'cleanse' the page of critical views.

Secondly and more importantly it was previously decided BY CONSENSUS and before I arrived here (check previous talk archive) that it was not appropriate to have a seperate 'criticisms' page, for a number of reasons, one of which is that it goes against Wikipedia guidlines of balance and tends to ghettoize p.o.v.s . We want a balanced Freemasonry article, and we have one now, as I write this. The First two thirds of the Freemasonry page are pro-masonry cut and pastes from Masonic websites. The last third of the page are criticisms, and within the criticms are a healthy rebuttal by the pro-masonic crowd. The links section is again two thirds pro, one third critical. By your deletion of all the critical links and the mauling of the criticism sections last night, before you were blocked for 3:RR we can clearly see that you are not interested in a N.P.O.V. balanced article. You want it all your way - Pro-masonic P.O.V.. Well Buster you are not going to get it all your way, regardless of all the spurious complaints you and your amigo's file against me and others who hold critical views or views that run contrary to the official masonic party line.

A balanced article. I am being reasonable, why can't you be?Lightbringer 10:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Link war

I reported Lightbringer for violating the 3RR. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 06:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

It is the Pro-Masonry editors who have violated the rules and spirit of Wikipedia by their manic serial deletions of any links to articles or websites that could be construed as critical. Did you people not take anything to heart during the block cooling off period instituted by Wiki arbitrators?Lightbringer 06:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Hasn't Lightbringer been arbitrated against? Can someone link me to the findings of that, after the whole page freezy situation please? Jachin 06:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I can't find that arbitration listed in the current RFA's, the completed RFA's or the unofficial rejected RFA's, what's going on? Jachin 06:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The RfA is at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lightbringer, and was opened scant hours ago. Feel free to add evidence one way or the other if you have it. WegianWarrior 06:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Evidence goes at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lightbringer/Evidence. The arbitration was accepted. Perhaps that is why Lightbringer has created a sockpuppet. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 17:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The link to Freemasonry: Midwife to an Occult Empire is not vandalism, as Spinboy has reported. This is a scholarly look into an historical occurrence at the convergence of the 19th and 20th centuries. Further, the link was prominently featured before being deleted by pro-masonic editors. This link is relevant, popular, accurate and it is intelligently written, with all sources cited - mainly high ranking masons.

I would also put forward the fact that there is a double standard here. If one site has to have a disclaimer appended at the end of the link which says "anti-mason" then the same should apply for the opposite bias: "pro-mason" should be added as well. --XDev 08:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Since when do links on an article about Freemasons that go to Masonic organizations have to be labeled "pro"-mason? That makes no sense. The standard default is that links in an article about the topic discuss the topic. Links to sites that try to bash the topic need to be labeled so as not to confuse people.

And you are calling a link to "Conspiracy archive" site "scholarly"? Get out. Victrix 12:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

ALSO, isn;t it peculiar how a few minutes after Lightbringer gets blocked for violating 3RR a brand new user appears out of nowhere to take up where he left off? Looks like he's got another sockpuppet again... Victrix 12:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

It is a thoroughly researched page, and it stays! Period! Web documents aren't rated by the name of the website (book by its cover) but the value of the content on any particular resource (URL: Uniform Resource Locator). It is not an amateur Taxil Hoax expose purporting that masonry is satanic. Real research has been undertaking with the utmost care to be as accurate as possible.

At the very top of this wiki page we're discussing, there is a statement to the effect that masonry is an "esoteric art." Going to the link for [esoteric] one finds: "Esotericism refers to knowledge suitable only for the advanced, privileged, or initiated, as opposed to exoteric knowledge, which is public. It is used especially for mystical, occult and spiritual viewpoints." The Conspiracy Archive page proves that statement exactly - in irrefutable terms. So, in effect, it actually strengthens the opinion of the Freemasonry page on wiki - and it is therefore, exceedingly relevant.

We can go on and battle about the merits of these links (both ways) but the fact is that if it were up to the masons there wouldn't be any links pointing to contrary views on the subject. Whoever merged the two pages into one is a complete idiot! --XDev 17:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

You're wasting your time trying to be reasonable and logical with these Masonic editors, I tried that and they deleted all of my edits and links anyways. When I refused to go away and stood my ground they filed bogus complaints with Wikipedia for "vandalism".

There purpose for putting all 'critical' or contradictory views and links on a seperate page entitled 'anti-freemasonry' is to marginalize or ghettoize those views, as they believe few people actually visit the supplementary pages. If critical or contradictory viewpoints to the official masonic party line are to be seen or read by Wikipedian's the thinking is that they must be on the main page, in a prominent and very public location, i.e. this pageLightbringer 02:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Talking to yourself is the first sign of madness. Talking to your sock puppet whilst astro-turfing is the second and third respectively. 211.30.72.208 03:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Funny how XDev and Lightbringer both try to claim that the people opposing their edits must be Masons... One doesn't have to be a Freemason to oppose blatant bigotry being pushed into an encyclopedia article. I'm not a Freemason, I've never been a Freemason, and according to their rules as I understand them I am not even elligible to become a Freemason (something about a higher power clause). Your edits are opposed because they are BAD and VIOLATE WIKIPEDIA POLICIES, not because there's some conspiracy of Masons to stop you... what is it with you guys and your insane conspiracy theories anyway? Satanism? Jack the Ripper? British politics? Wikipedia cabals? The Masons do all that? Do you even listen to yourselves to see how silly you sound? DreamGuy 09:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Funny how Dreamguy has so many arbitrations and complaints made against him. There are at least a half dozen editors on this page who have admitted they are Freemasons. You have shown a complete disregard for the truth as well as a penchant for bullying, deception, and deleting any information that might portray Freemasonry in a less than flattering light. Now what was it you were saying you weren't now?Lightbringer 10:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

While User:XDev may or may not be a sockpuppet of User:Lightbringer, it is amasing how alike the 'look and feel' of their edits are (the choise of words, multiple edits within minuts of eachother to correct typos etc). If nothing else, I feel both of them would be better of learning about the Show preview feature - unless off course one of their goals is to fill the talk page history with their own names to make it appear they are adding more to the discussion than they in fact are.

And while on the subject of funny things, it's funny how Lightbringer goes all silent when someone points out his factual mistakes. Off course, pointing that out probably makes me a member of the Pro Masonic Cabal, or whatever imaginary group Lightbringer believes is running Wikipedia today. WegianWarrior 11:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey, pal. The only edit I have done to this piss-poor page is adding a relevant link. I really could care less what you masons write about yourselves (it's bound to be confusing to the reader anyway since you can't even agree on your own history, and never will). I want the link put back up that was there before, that's it. I haven't touched anything else in the whole article.--XDev 13:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

True, according to your user contributions page you have only edited the article itself thrice - but as I write you got 17 edits to this very talkpage; edits which has a pattern (the choise of words, multiple edits within minuts of each other to correct typos etc) remarkable simular to the pattern that is in user:Lightbringers edits to talkpages. Combine that with the fact that you havn't edited any otehr article, and you'll see why people jump to certain conclusions. Now, as I said, you may or may not be a sockpuppet - for me, the jury is still out on that one. My comment on the value of a preview stands thought. WegianWarrior 14:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

A very simple reason why the Comnspiracy Theory Archive article is no good: Even if we were to assume that CTA was a valid and researched site, all the links to supposed ritual and other sources for quotes all link not to an original source, but various documents on www.saintsalive.com, which clearly states that their "main function is to deal with Mormonism and Freemasonry" rather than say, the original sources for the supposed ritual. Thirdhand outdated (and unverifiable) information is not, and never will be appropriate for an encyclopedia article. For example, they state here that a "Blue Lodge is called a Blue Lodge because the ceiling of the Lodge is blue". Such a simple answer to a question no actual researcher has been able to answer. Would be good if it was true. Any picture of a lodge room on a web site will not necessarily show a blue ceiling. I would suggest that the lack of factual evidence on CTA gets pointed out on Anti-Freemasonry as well. I don't mind a differing opinion, except when it's completely unsupportable in any way that counts. MSJapan 03:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Deceptive edit comments

What the heck is "Restored links approved by consensus after block. Individuals who deleted this attempted to get poster banned and were rebuked by Wiki Arbitrators for abuse" supposed to mean? There was no consensus to have those links there... I did not attempt to get anyone banned. Nobody was rebuked for Wiki Arbitrators for abuse... Lightbringer is just out and out lying at this point trying to force his hatred for Freemasons into the article. Victrix 11:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Please review talk page archives. The history of this page and the previous 'anti-masonry' page was fully discussed previously and a concensus discussion was reached to combine the two. Not only did the Pro-Mason editors who filed false and vexacious complaints against 'critical' editors violate the spirit of this consensus decision, but their attempt to circumvent the freeze page order by wikipedia arbitrators by creating a mauled version of the criical section showed there general disregard for Wikipedia. It is quite clear where the intolerance and trouble on these Freemasonry pages are originating from.Lightbringer 02:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

The arbitration filed against you was for vandalism, pov breach and 2rr breach. The arbitration hasn't been dismissed, it has actually been carried and is going forwards as we speak. Sorry to be the one to break it to you mate, but two clicks from this talk page and I found this out, I'm amazed that you haven't worked it out yet. 211.30.72.208 03:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• I would like to point out that the first-person comment above (in the phrase "I did not attempt to get anyone banned") appears to refer to an arbitration case brought by User: MSJapan. As it appears to answer a charge leveled at MSJapan, and answer in the first person, it makes me wonder if User: Victrix may in fact be the same person as MSJapan. Would either MSJapan or Victrix care to comment on this apparent oddity? Eaglizard 19:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Thought I already responded to this, but my reply is not here, so here we go again. HUH?!?! Where on earth did you come up with that? Lightbringer claimed that "Restored links approved by consensus after block. Individuals who deleted this attempted to get poster banned" -- I deleted the links because they were inappropriate links, and I never tried to get Lightbringer banned (though I don;t disagree it is long overdue). That's what my comment meant. I don;t know how somebody can read that line to claim that I was saying I took part in whatever banning attempt MSJapan tried, because I explicitly said I hadn't. You need to read more carefully and not make outrageously bizarre accusations. Furthermore, it also appears that your sole purpose here is to try to claim that people who stop POV-pushing are just as bad and that they need to stop editing as well. That's complete nonsense. Enforcing Wikipedia policy and removing POV-pushing links and content does not make somebody a POV pusher of the opposite side. Your attempt to come here and portray yourself as neutral while accusing everyone of being POV-pushers is ridiculous, and you've done nothing that could help this article progress in the future, all you;ve done is attempted to polarize things further. I would respectfully submit that you get the heck off this page unless you actually want to try to help. We have concensus, we know what we are doing with the page, we are following policies here... your accusations and holier than thou attitude is just getting in the way. Victrix 04:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for responding here, and please feel free to use as much inflammatory language as you deem necessary. Your vitriol is baffling, but not unexpected. All personal attacks will be ignored (and I would in fact unilaterally delete per WP:NPA, but this no longer seems to be consensual). I'm only interested in discussing the article, and edits thereto. In brief response, however, I would like to note that I didn't accuse User: Victrix or User:MSJapan of any wrongdoing (please see my clarification on the workshop page). In retrospect, the word 'oddity' was an unfortunate choice, but Victrix, if you are indeed a unique individual, I've merely confused your comments with someone else's (in spite of the signature). This doesn't reflect on your behavior. In fact, I've no interest in commenting on your behavior at all. Eaglizard 06:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and yes, the person making inflammatory accusations and then more inflammatory comments complains about me making supposedly inflammatory comments... Yeah... it's clear you have no purpose to being on this page at all except to stir up trouble. You already admit you won't edit the page, and you've demonstrated both your inbility to read for comprehension and a disdain for the people working within the policies to improve the page, so what purpose do you have here? None at all that I can see. Victrix 11:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

O.K. by reading this article I learnt that

Freemasons are a bunch of inmature old men who barely know what is exactly that they are. Also, the article is too long, boring and full of opinions. This is an encyclopedia people, not a Freemason Promotion/Discredit webpage. Grow up. 216.184.122.12

Very well said. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 21:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Not all masons are old men, but yes, I'd get that impression too. I doubt the masons that edit this article are over the age of 40. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 21:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

37, actually. :-) --SarekOfVulcan 22:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Here, here, anonymous poster who uses the same ISP from the same POP as lightbringer!  :) Jachin 22:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Nope, not lightbringer, my name is Francisco, and I don't like Wikipedia... yet. 216.184.122.12

And I'm Elvis. 211.30.72.208 03:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

For good measure, can you document that, please?--SarekOfVulcan 22:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)