Talk:Anti-Masonry

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.

Archives of old discussions:

/Archive 1 - up to 31 dec 2005
/Archive 2 - up to 11 feb 2006

For the content of Anti-Masonry and its talk page prior to the AfD vote in March 2005, which resulted in a merge to Freemasonry, see Anti-Masonry/archive and Talk:Anti-Masonry/archive.

A seperation of church from the social sphere is not Religious Tolerance

The change from "Religious Tolerance" to "a seperation of church from the social sphere" is extremely POV. Although masonry is accused of seperating church from the social sphere, it most definitely does deny this accusation. Furthermore, "a seperation of church from the social sphere" is almost the same thing as anti-clericalism. "Religious Tolerance" means that masonry recognizes and respects the beliefs or practices of all religions, which is very much different than "a seperation of church from the social sphere." Since a church is a specifically Christian body, this would imply that masonry does not deny that it is attempting to remove Christianity from the "social sphere" or society. This is most definitely denied by masons! Furthermore, in JASpencer's edit summary for this change siad to "see talk page," there is nothing on this page about the change from "Religious Tolerance" to "a seperation of church from the social sphere." I am reverting this statement until further discussion on the talk page has appeared. Chtirrell 01:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine about the reversion, although religious tolerance is also very POV. We need to discuss what should be there. I've added a tag to represent this. Sorry about not putting it on the talk page, I'm getting forgetful in my old age. JASpencer 15:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please have some sort of suggestion rather than "Religious Tolerance". There was certainly a side of "Religious Tolerance" that did involve a radical seperation of church from the social sphere (that is not just the "state" but things such as education, marriage, funerals, etc.). JASpencer 21:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed religious tolerance to seperation of church and state (which creates more opposition). NPOV tag also removed. JASpencer 18:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have readded religious tolerance because Freemasonry has been accused of this. There is a cited reference to Hitler accusing Fremasonry and Judism of religous tolerance and not to the seperation of church and state, although Freemasonry has been accused of this as well. This is not a question of if Freemasonry is religiously tolerant, which can lead us into POV waters, it is a question of if it has been accused of this historically, which it clearly has.

Squaring the Circle

These are my opinions on where the content fork issue has got to.

There is still a strong opinion from the non-Masonic editors that this article is a POV fork. I still concur with this. Althought the article has improved and the respect shown to non-Masonic editors has increased markedly, the fundamental flaw in the article is still present.

What is the fundamental flaw? Well it's quite simply that the article is really about external reactions to Freemasonry rather than any coherant anti-Freemasonry movement. This further leads to placing together a number of entirely unrelated views.

For example as someone who would be seen as adhering to "anti-Freemasonry" - that is I am a Catholic who agrees with the Catholic hierachy in seeing Freemasonry as incompatible with Catholicism. At the same time I'm lumped together with Nazis, Stalinists, Protestant fundamentalists, Hamas and anti-corruption activists! I would say that I have little in common with most of these groups other than that I disapprove of some aspect of Freemasonry.

This taring with the same brush is always in danger of breaching NPOV guidelines.

So is this article without merit? Well I don't think so. I do believe that there is a distinct "Anti-Masonry" movement, but that it does not include the pot-pouri of movements laid out above.

This movement is one that sees the oath bound secrecy of free-masonry as being a corrupting influence on civil society. That is democracy is harmed by deals done behind closed doors, fiscal corruption is invited by secret lodge meetings, allegations that guilty men are set free, etc, etc. This is a secular "Anti-Masonry" argument and it is present almost throughout the history of speculative Masonry. It is for example a reason why it was banned in Holland (about four years before the Papacy), it continued through the Anti-Masonic Party, it surfaced in the Poulson scandal and it is around today in critiques such as Steven Knight's "The Brotherhood" and New-Labour's calls for judges and policemen to list Masonic affiliations.

Unlike the present "Anti-Freemasonry" article it is a coherant critique that has a continuity down the centuries. It may or may not have any credibility (I'm sure that editors here will have their views on that) but it avoids the wooly thinking that is the basis of the present article.

On the name Anti-Freemasonry attracts 667 pages on google and [Anti-Masonry http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%22Anti-Masonry%22&btnG=Search] attracts 37,200. Perhaps time for a change?

Any thoughts?

JASpencer 17:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some history is in order here, I think. The reason this article exists was because people felt the topic wasn't being trated fairly in Freemasonry. Every time it was summarized as an attempt to slim down the article, it caused a huge problem. It actually was supposed to be sent to Anti-Masonry, but Lightbringer decided to redirect it here so he could write whatever he wanted (his actual words). So, we've basically had to work with it as it is, because otherwise it would get reverted. No one (that being Lightbringer or clones)was ever interested in pointing out anything like the Anti-Masonic party, because the now obvious agenda was Freemasonry = Satanism.

If we're going to have the list of claims endlessly re-added in, we need to refute them if we're going to be an NPOV factual source. Now, if we're going to do something else entirely, that's fine, as long as we get a consensus on it. The article is the way it is because there was no other way to anything with it under the circumstances. MSJapan 19:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, Anti-Masonry actually takes three forms ... 1) Secular/Societal Anti-Masonry, which would include all the criticims outlined by JASpencer: The fear that "democracy is harmed by deals done behind closed doors, fiscal corruption is invited by secret lodge meetings, allegations that guilty men are set free, etc, etc" (to use his words). 2) Secular/State Anti-Masorny, which would include the fear that Masons could use their meetings to plot against the govenrment (especially true in totalitarian states such as Nazi Germany or Communits Russia). and 3) Religious Anti-Masorny, in which Masonry is seen as being incompatable with a given religion (The exact nature of the incompatablility will vary from religion to religion, but the objection is the same.) These three forms are very different in WHY they they are Anti-Masonic, but they all do have the common link of being Anti-Masonic. Again, I see it as being similar to many of the other Anti-whatever articles here on Wikipedia. I still think that there is a valid Article in all of this. Anti-masonry is a legitimate phemomenon that deserves its own Article. The key is to keep the Article from becoming NPOV either for or against Masonry. Thus, I think we need to keep plugging away at this article and not simply merge it into Freemasonry in order to make that article less POV. If Freemasonry needs improvement, then we need to improve it on its own merits and faults, independant of any other article. The same holds true here. If we stop thinking in terms of: "That is where we say good things about Masonry, and this is where we say bad things about Masonry" (even though that may have been how this article got started) and if we start treating the two Articles as seperate entities, valid in their own right, then we should be able to create TWO excellent and NPOV articles about related subjects. Blueboar 19:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know what the Wikipedia policy is on "anti-whatever" articles? People are being commendably honest that this is what the article is.

In the current structure I just can't see how you can get away without labelling all critics of Freemasonry as Nazis, which frankly was the state of the article when this current bout of hyper-editing started, and which I think it will degenerate to again. JASpencer 20:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree with JASpencer that the Catholic responce to Freemasonry should in no way be grouped together with the National Socialist responce to Freemasonry, so on and so forth. However, I disagree that the secular disagreement with masonry is the only distinct "Anti-Masonry" movement. Several different social movements can be grouped under one major movement even though they have radically different bases with different arguments, but contain a defining common thread. For example, the wikipedia article on socialism contains over 20 branches of socialism which are vastly divergent and incombatable with each other. Another example would be the anti-catholicism article where, this movement is divided into secular and religious groups and then further sub-divided. My opinion is that we attempt to mimic this catagorization and to show conclusively that the only common thread between these groups are a "prejudice against, hostility towards or criticism of the beliefs of Freemasons." I believe before we continue we should make a considerable effort to define the divisions within anti-masonry and structure the article along these divisions, thereby completely seperating one group's arguements and beliefs (aka expression of anti-masonry) from another. Chtirrell 23:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I figured out how to use lists I can attempt a go at divisions we're looking at so far.

Secular Anti-masonry
- Social Anti-masonry
  - American Anti-Masonry (1830's-1850's)
  - Modern Conspericy Theorists
- State Anti-Masonry
  - Insert all countries covered in the article
Religious Anti-masonry
- Christian Anti-Masonry
  - Catholic Anti-Masonry
  - Protestant Anti-Masonry
    - Evangelical Anti-Masonry
- Judaic Anti-Masonry
- Islamic Anti-Masonry

This list is in no way complete, but I figured it is a start with what we have in the article already. I just wanted to put this out so everyone can start putting in their ideas or changing this structure. I also believe that prior to this structure, prehaps in the introduction there is a short discussion on Anti-masonry as a social movement that encompasses what we've put forward here. That is A)Anti-masonry is not a coherent and homogeneous movement B)The only defining factor is based in the definition at the top, that the group has a "prejudice against, hostility towards or criticism of the beliefs of Freemasons" and that C)Anti-masonry is quite dynamic and has dramatically changed over the course of it's history. Just my two cents :) Chtirrell 23:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would also check out the articles on other Anti-whatever subjects such as were listed in an earlier discussion. Some are very well done and are not dissimilar to what we need to do here. For ease of linking, here they are again:

Blueboar 23:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term 'Anti-Freemasonry' is non-existant, the correct term is Anti-Masonry.

Masons refer to their critics as Anti-Masons and to the criticism of themselves as Anti-Masonry, never Anti-Freemasons or Anti-Freemasonry. In point of fact Masons never or very seldom refer to themselves as Freemasons, but as Masons. Generally Masons dislike the term Freemasons, it is a term generally used by non-masons to refer to the 'fraternity'.

In fact the only place I have ever seen the term 'Anti-Freemasonry' or 'Anti-Freemason' is here. I believe this term is used here because the Masonic Editors wanted to 'kill' the old 'Criticisms of Freemasonry or Masonry' page but the Masonry term was already used so they picked this one.

I don't think many Masons would object to the name of the page or the title of the section, if it is merged with Freemasonry, being changed to the correct term 'Anti-Masonry'.

Generally the critics of Masonry do not refer to themselves as Anti-Masons or their critism as Anti-Masonry as I believe the current Masonic use of these terms is to paint criticism of Masonry with Anti-Semitism and Anti-Semites.

My preference would be for the topic simply to be 'Criticism of Freemasonry(Masonry)', as it is a neutral descriptive term that is not pejoritive to criticism of Masonry or it's critics.Humanun Genus 11:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's here because of an edit war you or one of your compatriots was part of, and this article started because somebody didn't like "Anti-Masonry" not being a page of rants and cut and pastes from FreemasonryWatch. So, they made this and put said material here. Also, if you were at all grounded in history, the word "Anti-Masonic" goes back to the 1820s. It wasn't called the "Critics of Freemasonry Party", you know, and it wasn't the Masons that coined the term. Furthermore, until your non-sock nature is proven, nobody at all is going to care what you say, so you'd probably do yourself a favor by keeping quiet and letting everyone else get on with the article. MSJapan 14:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update - Another sock bites the dust. MSJapan 14:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we do take out the structure it does at least partially deal with my worries on this subject, but what do we do about the history area? My preference is to simply move it to the History of Freemasonry article and take back any bits that are relevant to a particular area. JASpencer 22:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Complete rewrite

This article needs a complete rewrite to incorporate the merge suggestions and to overcome the NPOV and factual disputes. Ardenn 17:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes a complete rewrite is necessary - by a non-masonic editor. The problems on this article and the Freemasonry article are completely due to the incredible bias of Masonic Editors. Masonic Editors have shown themselves completely and utterly incapable of editing this topic to anything even remotely resembling NPOV. This conclusion is apparent to everyone.Humanun Genus 11:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly no one owns the page either Masonic or otherwise. It has been a criticism - and a fair one - that a few Masonic editors treat this page and a couple of others as "theirs". I don't think that trying to simply formalise and reverse this bias is a good idea - even if it were it would go against a whole range of Wikipedia policies. I'm afraid that this is going to be a case of patient editing, debate and concensus building. Certain Masonic editors do seem to be recognising POV problems with some of these articles, although it is a slow process. For example we are getting far fewer claims that there are no "legitimate criticisms" of Masonry or that all critics of Freemasonry simply unread or evangelical Christians.JASpencer 13:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving out history

To facilitate the rewrite can we move out history to History of Freemasonry? We could move relevant history back to the various sections after the rewrite. JASpencer 22:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support- Absolutely. It's impossible to justify only posting a sanitized version of the history of freemasonry on that page. Seraphim 22:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support per Seraphim. Ardenn 03:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cautious Support as long as we do move the historical information back eventually (or perhaps rewrite it). Anti-Masonry does have a historical aspect that needs to be addressed. It has existed almost as long as Freemasonry. For example: the historical opposition of the Catholic Church, the American Anti-Masonic Party, the persecution under the Nazis and in Communist Russia all need to be mentioned. But if removing the section now will help us build a better article in the future, I will not block doing so. Blueboar 15:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't all that fall under history of freemasonry? Seraphim 16:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because Anti-Masonry and Masonry are interrelated topics this material should be included in both articles... the same information presented with a different topic in mind. Thus, it should all be included here as well. Blueboar 16:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, my comment was just that the history of "Anti-Freemasonry" is a subset of the history of freemasonry. Seraphim 17:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and No. It needs to be discussed in both articles. On that, I think we can agree. Blueboar 17:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it needs to be discussed. Seraphim 17:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However just because some of it is a subset of History of FM, that doesn't mean it should be excised completely from here.ALR 19:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've pasted the history section (without Totalitarian Persecution) into History of Freemasonry. Nothing's been deleted from here, pending how the vote turns out.JASpencer 17:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 12:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change of Title

Does anyone object to changing from Anti-Freemasonry to the fifty times more common tern Anti-Masonry? JASpencer 21:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object. Ardenn 22:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Provided that Anti-Freemasonry is made into a redirect to Anti-Masonry, I don't see any reason why not. WegianWarrior 22:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC) (currently on wikibreak, but checking in)[reply]

Uh... I'm not really working on this page, but just a note:

Anti-Masonry may be more common than Anti-Freemasonry, but so is Masonry more common than Freemasonry, but that doesn't make the article just Masonry...
Also a note, Anti-Masonry already redirect to Anti-Freemasonry, but Anti-masonry does not. I'll just go fix that right now... Grye 08:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historically it has been more common as "Anti-Masonry" ... the Anti-Masonic Party is the best example of this. So... no, I don't have a problem with changing the Title of the Article. Just make sure there are the proper redirects. Blueboar 13:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Anti-Freemasonry → Anti-Masonry – More common name

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

Support - The google hit count is reason enough. Seraphim 22:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support JASpencer 22:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as long as this article namespace is also redirected to prevent POV forking. MSJapan 00:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per all. Ardenn 03:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I think you may have to list this article at Requested moves. Ardenn 03:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is JASpencer 17:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Historically more accurate. Blueboar 16:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This was all much better watched when it was in the main article. Grye 11:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add any additional comments

See Change of Title discussion above.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

New Introduction

In line with the comments above I've added a new introduction. It doesn't flow in any way, but it's a start:

There is no homogenous anti-Masonic movement, but radically differing criticisms from sometimes incompatible groups. The only defining factor is some form of hostility to Freemasonry. It is a dynamic sentiment that has dramatically changed over the course of its history.

JASpencer 09:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Structure

I've tried to reorder the section in line with the structure suggested above. Can everyone live with this? JASpencer 10:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reordering looks good. Now we can start properly fleshing out the article, building up each section, and adding back some of the information that was transfered to various other articles ... or perhaps re-writing that information so that it is not too POV one way or the other. This is, however, a very good start. Blueboar 15:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I like the "Social Anti-Masonry" title (sounds too much like Antisocial Masonry); I think we want "Societal", or "in Society". MSJapan 15:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archieves are gone!!

I just tried to check the old archieves and can't get to them. I think with the name change, they got lost or redirected. Can someone more wiki-knowledgable than myself, check this. Chtirrell 18:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

citational obfuscation

Now we have someone coming in here and deciding that anything remotely critical, or allegedly critical, of Freemasonry, should be slapped with {{fact}} tags . . . Considering some of it is in regards to Morgan, I think the fact that there is a seperate article about the Morgan affair, which is referenced, is enough. But this seems to be a bit of a crusdae.--Vidkun 19:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I can understand needing citations for controversial statements, and each section should have at least one citation as a reference, but this is definitly overkill. Blueboar 19:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ISTR seeing the suggestion that the individual concerned was likely to be intimately associated with a recently blocked sock-puppeteer, and the areas of interest are very similar. Unfortunatly it does nothing useful for the article :( ALR 20:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From my talk page: My statement is that I saw the identification, not that I agree with it. HTHALR 20:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC) Copied here Imacomp 20:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC) So propergation of an abuse is ok, if you say "I only saw it done and stood by"? Nice :( Imacomp 20:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the "fact" tags on the section that includes Morgan and the American Anti-Mason Party (and added another "see main article" flag for the political party). I feel that these are general citations for the entire paragraph. Blueboar 20:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That seems reasonable to me.ALR 20:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Complete rewrite tag

This article has been completely restructured and has had much of the uncited and POV material removed. Can the "complete rewrite" tag be removed now, because it has been completely rewritten? Chtirrell 21:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think so... although our rewrite is not yet over, it now has a proper structure and that can be added to. The article no longer needs a "complete rewrite". Blueboar 02:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable. JASpencer 15:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poor Definition

The present definition is almost a straight lift from Anti-Semitism. Can someone find a more satisfactory definition from the web or a dictionary? That is why I put in the citation remarks. JASpencer 22:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chtirrell's edit is a great improvement. JASpencer 09:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've found an online refeference to Mackey. Is this the right reference? It doesn't seem to define anti-Masonry at any point.JASpencer 09:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It talks about anti-masonry but doesn't define it anywhere. The closest thing to a defination is ""Anti-Masonry" and "Morgan Affair" are become synonymous" (I assume they meant "have") which is completly wrong. (that is an amazing resource though)Seraphim 10:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK... lets get totaly authorative and go with what how the word is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED)... "Antimasonry: Avowed opposition to Freemasorny" (1979 ed., p. 369). I would say that covers all the disperate groups and motivations in the article fairly well. Blueboar 15:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's in the OED then it's authoratitive. By the way is Anti-Freemasonry in there? JASpencer 15:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, no "Anti-Freemasonry" in the OED. I have seen that version of the term used occasionally, but it is not common. Blueboar 15:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I'm glad the name change was right.

Are Criticisms "Avowed Opposition"?

Does "Social Anti-Masonry" really fit into an article about "avowed opposition towards Freemasonry"?

As I see it allegations of cronyism and moral faults of known masons probably need to be better tied into the Political anti-masonry, if possible?

JASpencer 15:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It can fit, depending on who is criticizing Masonry for cronyism, etc. I would certainly put Steven Knight's opposition to Masonry into this category... It becomes political when people try to actually do something about their social opposition. I would certainly agree that most "avowed opposition" is either religious or political in nature, but not all. That said, I never liked the title "Social Anti-masonry" (it sounds like a bunch of people at a tea party, complaining about what is going on down at the lodge). I can't come up with a better term, but we should think about it and try. Blueboar 15:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV Tag on the Catholic section

Anyone have any idea why this was inserted?

If there's no explanation here does anyone have any problem taking the tag off?

JASpencer 17:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's been an hour and a half with no comment as to why, no problem here. I can't see any justification since the statement appears entirely factual.ALR 17:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. If anyone wants to reinsert can they please say why on the talk page? (Do as I say, not as I always do). JASpencer 18:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well it was a fly-by edit....... ALR 18:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq

What's the justification for changing Iraqi political to Ba'athist? The Ba'ath party was in power so any legislative activity was as the ruling party in Iraq. I'm uncomfortable with the implication of the change, it applied to Iraq as a whole.ALR 19:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All above board. The idea was to tie it into the arab nationalist ideology of the Baathists. JASpencer 20:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was clear from the text, however the impact of their legislation impacted on Iraq nationally. A number of lodges closed down, some moved elsewhere. It's a bit like retitling the British Political section 'Labour party'.ALR 20:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case wouldn't it be better to put it into Freemasonry under Totalitarian Regimes? JASpencer 21:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's probably a case for moving the British stuff there as well given the current direction. but yes, totalitian regimes is probably reasonable, although it really depends what spin you're wanting to put on it.ALR 22:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the different forms of political anti-masonry should be listed by country not by political party or at least by both. I wouldn't mind it being listed as "Baathist Iraq Anti-masonry," this would lead to less confussion about where it occured, for those who are not knowledgable of Middle Eastern politics. I also believe that every totalitarian regime should be briefly listed under political anti-masonry with the bulk of the discussion occuring in Freemasonry under Totalitarian Regimes and a link appearing connecting the two. We should also be careful of what goes into Freemasonry under Totalitarian Regimes because we can run into some POV issues with some borderline regimes.

As an addendum, the Ba'ath party is also in power in Syria so the change injects ambiguity.ALR 08:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. JASpencer 18:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moral faults

Imacomp recently added a fact tag to the statement that "Some critics also argue that the Freemasons are primarily a social club" that is found in the Moral Faults section. I can understand that this might be a criticism... and agree that it should be cited... but without getting into the veracity of the statement, can anyone explain how belonging to a social club is a "moral fault"? Blueboar 00:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, is socialising evil in itself? Imacomp 00:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it all depends on whether they are playing that rock and roll devil music or not. (c8 Blueboar 01:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope your not trying to socalise, you naughty Mason! :) Imacomp 01:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wait a minute... social club.... socialising.... SOCIALIST!! OMG - Freemasons are all commies! See, I proved it! Blueboar 01:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

can anyone explain how belonging to a social club is a "moral fault"?. Beats me. JASpencer 18:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also add that it is a nonsense that this particular section is in here anyway, removing it makes it less of a content fork. JASpencer 18:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - as the section is currently written. I think the original intent was have a section to discuss the fact that some critics find fault with the actions/behavior of individual Masons, and then tar the entire Fraternity with the same brush (although we would have to find a more NPOV manner of saying that). I could could probably find some examples if needed, but to be honest - I just don't have the time or interest right now to do so. Cut the section if you want to. We can always work on it at some point in the future. Blueboar 18:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed neutrality and factual accuracy

This article is neither neutral nor factually accurate Imacomp 11:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imacomp, can you please provide examples? Unless I have any objections the tag is going off tomorrow. JASpencer 12:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only objection I can think of is that it's a Fork since it's an anti-article, but they have all refused to let a merger happen. Seraphim 13:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any substantive objectionsALR 13:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do. The article in totality as it stands falls short, hence one tag. I'm not going to re-write an anti-Masonic article. I'm using my Editorial prerogative. Imacomp 16:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Without examples of bias this is not good enough. This tag will still be removed tomorrow. JASpencer 17:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is the fact that many of the citations supporting the Anti-side fail WP:RS... but I do not have the time or energy to go through and note all of them right now. It is on my to-do list. so... go ahead and take off the tag. We can always add it back again later. Blueboar 18:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are misusing WP:RS. It's not the source as a whole that needs to be credible, it needs to be a source that can verify what you have in the article. For example according to how you interperate WP:RS the bible cannot be used as a source since it doesn't stand up to any academic review. The only thing that needs to be adressed is does source X verify the wording in statement Y. If we are presenting people's opinions or claims all that needs to be verified is that the people make those claims, the fact that they are nut-cases doesn't mean they didn't actually make the claims. My skitzophrenic aunt talks to the umbrella outside, if I say in an article that she claims the umbrella is talking to her that is 100% ok to add in, even though it is obvious the umbrella is not actually talking to her since it has no mouth. From WP:RS "An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable. However, that a certain person or group holds a certain opinion is a fact, and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group holds the opinion." The majority of WP:RS deals with facts, you are protesting opinion. That a group said something is a verifiable fact, the contents of what they claim is not. The contents of their claim cannot be held up to WP:RS because it is presented as opinion. Seraphim 18:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphim and Blueboar, this is going to be one that is decided on an issue by issue basis. It's not really an issue for a tag unless there is a pattern of unresponsive behaviour towards concerns.JASpencer 18:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS states (among other things):

Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report? Remember that conflicts of interest are not always explicitly exposed and bias is not always self-evident. However, that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it, although editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views, like Stormfront.org or the Socialist Workers Party. Groups like these may be used as primary sources only i.e. as sources about themselves, and even then with caution and sparingly, or about their viewpoints.
Have they reported other facts reliably, including on different subjects? Cross-check with what you already know.

Now... some of the citations supporting the Anti side are used as primary source citations, I do not have a problem with that (although they are used more than sparingly) ... but many are not. They are used as a secondary source which I do have an issue with. they certainly have an agenda, strong views or other bias and give a very colored report. And few have reported other facts reliably. But, as I said... Its on my to do list. I'll get to it another day. Until then... do what you wish. Blueboar 19:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it may not be the "proper" way to do this, but I don't know how to do it properly (please forgive)... anyway I have tagged each citatation that I feel violates WP:RS with

This page documents an English Wikipedia content guideline.

Editors should generally follow it, though exceptions may apply. Substantive edits to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on this guideline's talk page.

Shortcuts

This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations. If you are new to editing and just need a general overview of how sources work, please visit the referencing for beginners help page.

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

This guideline discusses the reliability of various types of sources. The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations. The verifiability policy is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, and sections of articles—without exception, and in particular to biographies of living persons, which states:

Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

In the event of a contradiction between this guideline and our policies regarding sourcing and attribution, the policies take priority and editors should seek to resolve the discrepancy. Other policies relevant to sourcing are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. For questions about the reliability of particular sources, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.

Overview

Shortcut

WP:REPUTABLE

Source reliability falls on a spectrum: No source is 'always reliable' or 'always unreliable' for everything. However, some sources provide stronger or weaker support for a given statement. Editors must use their judgment to draw the line between usable and inappropriate sources for each statement.

Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors, and not those of Wikipedians, who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. The following examples cover only some of the possible types of reliable sources and source reliability issues, and are not intended to be exhaustive. Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process.

Definition of a source

Shortcut

WP:SOURCEDEF

A source is where the material comes from. For example, a source could be a book or a webpage. A source can be reliable or unreliable for the material it is meant to support. Some sources, such as unpublished texts and an editor's own personal experience, are prohibited.

When editors talk about sources that are being cited on Wikipedia, they might be referring to any one of these three concepts:

The piece of work itself (the article, book)
The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)
The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)

Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.

Definition of published

Shortcut

WP:PUBLISHED

Published means, for Wikipedia's purposes, any source that was made available to the public in some form. The term is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online; however, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. Like text, media must be produced by a reliable source and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet.

Context matters

Shortcuts

The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.

In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article.

Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source or information that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. For example, a publisher's web site is likely to be reliable for an author's identity, date of publication, etc., but not necessarily for a critical, artistic, or commercial evaluation of the work (see § Reliability in specific contexts, below).

Age matters

Shortcuts

Especially in scientific and academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed. In areas like politics or fashion, laws or trends may make older claims incorrect. Be sure to check that older sources have not been superseded, especially if it is likely that new discoveries or developments have occurred in the last few years. In particular, newer sources are generally preferred in medicine.

Sometimes sources are too new to use, such as with breaking news (where later reports might be more accurate), and primary sources which purport to debunk a long-standing consensus or introduce a new discovery (in which case awaiting studies that attempt to replicate the discovery might be a good idea, or reviews that validate the methods used to make the discovery).

Similarly for breaking news, a contemporary secondary news source can quickly become a historical primary source. Articles of recent current events must be periodically updated with new secondary sources.

Sources of any age may be prone to recentism, and this needs to be balanced out by careful editing.

Usage by other sources

Shortcuts

How accepted and high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, whereas widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it. If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not unduly represent contentious or minority claims. The goal is to reflect established views of a topic as far as we can determine them.

Some types of sources

Shortcut

WP:SOURCETYPES

Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, controversial within the relevant field, or largely ignored by the mainstream academic discourse because of lack of citations. Try to cite current scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications. Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context. Material should be attributed in-text where sources disagree.

Scholarship

Shortcut

WP:SCHOLARSHIP

Prefer secondary sources – Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised. Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves ().
Reliable scholarship – Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.
Dissertations – Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from ProQuest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by independent parties. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Some theses are later published in the form of scholarly monographs or peer reviewed articles, and, if available, these are usually preferable to the original thesis as sources. Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence.
Citation counts – One may be able to confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking what scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes or lists such as DOAJ. Works published in journals not included in appropriate databases, especially in fields well covered by them, might be isolated from mainstream academic discourse, though whether it is appropriate to use will depend on the context. The number of citations may be misleading if an author cites themselves often.
Isolated studies – Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. If the isolated study is a primary source, it should generally not be used if there are secondary sources that cover the same content. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive and should be avoided. Secondary sources, such as meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred when available, so as to provide proper context.
POV and peer review in journals – Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals.^{[notes 1]}
Predatory journals – Predatory journals are of very low quality and have only token peer-review, if any. These journals publish whatever is submitted if the author is willing to pay a fee. Some go so far as to mimic the names of established journals (Journal hijacking).[1][2][3][4][5] The lack of reliable peer review implies that articles in such journals should at best be treated similarly to self-published sources.[notes 2] If you are unsure about the quality of a journal, check that the editorial board is based in a respected accredited university, and that it is included in the relevant high-quality citation index—be wary of indexes that merely list almost all publications, and do not vet the journals they list. ()
Shortcuts
- WP:PREPRINT
- WP:PREPRINTS
Preprints – Preprints, such as those available on repositories like arXiv, medRxiv, bioRxiv, or Zenodo are not reliable sources. Research that has not been peer-reviewed is akin to a blog, as anybody can post it online. Their use is generally discouraged, unless they meet the criteria for acceptable use of self-published sources, and will always fail higher sourcing requirements like WP:MEDRS. However, links to such repositories can be used as open-access links for papers which have been subsequently published in acceptable literature.

News organizations

Shortcut

WP:NEWSORG

News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. Most newspapers also reprint items from news agencies such as Reuters, Interfax, Agence France-Presse, United Press International or the Associated Press, which are responsible for accuracy. The agency should be cited in addition to the newspaper that reprinted it.

Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics . Press releases from organizations or journals are often used by newspapers with minimal change; such sources are churnalism and should not be treated differently than the underlying press release. Occasionally, some newspapers still have specialist reporters who are citable by name. (.)
Otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a blog-style format for some or all of their content may be as reliable as if published in standard news article format ().
Signals that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy are the publication of corrections and disclosures of conflicts of interest.
Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy (see Junk food news).^[6]
The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, although in some instances verifiable information about rumors may be appropriate (i.e. if the rumors themselves are noteworthy, regardless of whether or not they are true). Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors.
Some news organizations have used Wikipedia articles as a source for their work. Editors should therefore beware of circular sourcing.^{[notes 3]}
Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis.
Multiple sources should not be asserted for any wire service article. Such sources are essentially a single source.
Unless reported by a reliable source, leaks should not normally be used or cited directly in articles.

Editorial and opinion commentary

Shortcuts

Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact (see also § Statements of opinion, below).

When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint.^{[notes 4]} If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact. Reviews for books, movies, art, etc. can be opinion, summary, or scholarly pieces.^[7]^[8]
Some news organizations may not publish their editorial policies.

News aggregators

Some websites function partly or entirely as aggregators, reprinting items from websites of news agencies, blogs, websites, or even Wikipedia itself. These may constitute a curated feed or an AI-generated feed. Examples include the main pages of MSN and Yahoo News. As with newspaper reprints, the original content creator is responsible for accuracy and reliability should be judged based on the original source. Direct links to the original source should be preferred over the aggregator's link.

Vendor and e-commerce sources

Shortcuts

Although the content guidelines for external links prohibit linking to "Individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services", inline citations may be allowed to e-commerce pages such as that of a book on a bookseller's page or an album on its streaming-music page, in order to verify such things as titles and running times. Journalistic and academic sources are preferable, however, and e-commerce links should be replaced with reliable non-commercial sources if available.

Rankings proposed by vendors (such as bestseller lists at Amazon) usually have at least one of the following problems:

It may be impossible to provide a stable source for the alleged ranking.
When only self-published by the vendor, i.e. no reliable independent source confirming the ranking as being relevant, the ranking would usually carry insufficient weight to be mentioned in any article.

For such reasons, such rankings are usually avoided as Wikipedia content.

Biased or opinionated sources

Shortcuts

Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.

Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate, as in "The feminist Betty Friedan wrote that..."; "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff..."; or "The conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...".

Questionable and self-published sources

Questionable sources

Shortcuts

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions.^[9] Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited.

Beware of sources that sound reliable but do not have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that this guideline requires.^[10] The Journal of 100% Reliable Factual Information might have a reputation for "predatory" behavior, which includes questionable business practices and/or peer-review processes that raise concerns about the reliability of their journal articles.^[11]^[12]

Self-published sources (online and paper)

Shortcuts

Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published sources are largely not acceptable. Self-published books and newsletters, personal pages on social networking sites, tweets, and posts on Internet forums are all examples of self-published media. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.

User-generated content

Shortcuts

Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is generally unacceptable. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal and group blogs (excluding newspaper and magazine blogs), content farms, Internet forums, social media sites, fansites, video and image hosting services, most wikis and other collaboratively created websites.

Examples of unacceptable user-generated sources are Ancestry.com, Discogs, Facebook, Famous Birthdays, Fandom, Find a Grave, Goodreads, IMDb, Instagram, Know Your Meme, Reddit, Snapchat, TikTok, Tumblr, TV Tropes, Twitter, WhoSampled, and Wikipedia (self referencing). For official accounts from celebrities and organizations on social media, see the section about self-published sources below.

Although review aggregators (such as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic) may be reliable when summarizing experts, the ratings and opinions of their users (including the reported rating averages) are not.

In particular, a wikilink is not a reliable source.

Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves

Shortcut

WP:SELFSOURCE

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are met:

The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.
It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities).
It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject.
There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.
The Wikipedia article is not based primarily on such sources.

These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook. Use of self-sourced material should be de minimis; the great majority of any article must be drawn from independent sources.

Spurious sources produced by machine learning

Shortcut

WP:RSML

In recent years, machine learning (ML, AI) has become a common way to generate and publish material. It may not be known or detectable that ML was used. While ML generation in itself does not necessarily disqualify a source that is properly checked by the person using it, ML has a tendency to create or "hallucinate" imaginary information, "supported" by citations that look as if they are from respectable sources but do not exist. In one case, a lawyer used ChatGPT to generate and file a legal brief that he did not check; the judge upon reviewing the case stated, "six of the submitted cases appear to be bogus judicial decisions with bogus quotes and bogus internal citations", although ChatGPT had assured the author that they were real and could "be found in reputable legal databases such as LexisNexis and Westlaw".^[17] Citations have been published to newspaper articles that do not exist, attributed to named reporters.^[18] Such spurious material may be generated unintentionally by writers—reporters, scientists, medical researchers, lawyers, ...—using chatbots to help them to produce reports, or maliciously to generate "fake news".

Reliability in specific contexts

Biographies of living persons

Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons. Contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately; do not move it to the talk page. This applies to any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace, not just article space.

Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources

Shortcuts

Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates to or discusses information originally presented elsewhere.

Reputable tertiary sources, such as introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited. However, although Wikipedia articles are tertiary sources, Wikipedia employs no systematic mechanism for fact-checking or accuracy. Thus, Wikipedia articles (and Wikipedia mirrors) in themselves are not reliable sources for any purpose (except as sources on themselves per WP:SELFSOURCE).

Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

When editing articles in which the use of primary sources is a concern, in-line templates, such as {{primary source-inline}} and {{better source}}, or article templates, such as {{primary sources}} and {{refimprove science}}, may be used to mark areas of concern.

Medical claims

Shortcut

WP:RS/MC

Ideal sources for biomedical information include general or systematic reviews in reliable, independent, published sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies. It is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, independent, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge.

Fringe theories

Inclusion and exclusion of content related to fringe theories and criticism of fringe theories may be done by means of a rough parity of sources. If an article is written about a well-known topic about which many peer-reviewed articles are written, it should not include fringe theories that may seem relevant but are only sourced to obscure texts that lack peer review. Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia.

In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer-reviewed journal. For example, the Moon landing conspiracy theories article may include material from reliable websites, movies, television specials, and books that are not peer-reviewed. By parity of sources, critiques of that material can likewise be gleaned from reliable websites and books that are not peer-reviewed. Of course, for any viewpoint described in an article, only reliable sources should be used; Wikipedia's verifiability and biographies of living persons policies are not suspended simply because the topic is a fringe theory.

Quotations

Shortcut

WP:RS/QUOTE

The accuracy of quoted material is paramount and the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive. To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted. If this is not possible, then the text may be taken from a reliable secondary source (ideally one that includes a citation to the original). No matter where you take the quoted text from, it is important to make clear the actual source of the text, as it appears in the article.

Partisan secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion as they may misquote or quote out of context. In such cases, look for neutral corroboration from another source.

Any analysis or interpretation of the quoted material, however, should rely on a secondary source (see Wikipedia:No original research).

Academic consensus

Shortcut

WP:RS/AC

A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors. Review articles, especially those printed in academic review journals that survey the literature, can help clarify academic consensus.

Statements of opinion

Shortcut

WP:RSOPINION

Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the readers that they are reading an opinion (see also § Editorial and opinion commentary, above).

There is an important exception to sourcing statements of fact or opinion: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs; see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Using the subject as a self-published source.

The exception for statements ABOUTSELF is covered at Wikipedia:Verifiability § Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves.

Breaking news

Shortcut

WP:RSBREAKING

Breaking-news reports often contain serious inaccuracies. As an electronic publication, Wikipedia can and should be up to date, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper and it does not need to go into all details of a current event in real time. It is better to wait a day or two after an event before adding details to the encyclopedia, than to help spread potentially false rumors. This gives journalists time to collect more information and verify claims, and for investigative authorities to make official announcements. The On the Media Breaking News Consumer's Handbook^[19] contains several suggestions to avoid spreading unreliable and false information. These include: distrust anonymous sources, unconfirmed reports, and reports attributed to other news media; seek multiple independent sources which independently verify; seek verified eyewitness reports; and be wary of potential hoaxes. With mass shootings, remain skeptical of early reports of additional attackers, coordinated plans, and bomb threats.

When editing a current-event article, keep in mind the tendency towards recentism bias. Claims sourced to initial news reports should be immediately replaced with better-researched and verified sources as soon as such articles are published, especially if original reports contained inaccuracies. All breaking news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution: see Wikipedia:No original research § Primary, secondary and tertiary sources, Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources § Examples of news reports as primary sources.

The {{current}}, {{recent death}}, or another current-event-related template may be added to the top of articles related to a breaking-news event to alert readers that some information in the article may be inaccurate and to draw attention to the need to add improved sources as they become available. These templates should not be used, however, to mark articles on subjects or persons in the news. If they were, hundreds of thousands of articles would have such a template, without any significant advantage (see also Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles).

For health- and science-related breaking-news, Wikipedia has specific sourcing standards to prevent inaccuracies: see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) § Respect secondary sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources § Scholarship. On the Media cautions consumers to be wary of news reports describing early science and medical breakthroughs,^[20] especially those which do not interview independent experts (often solely based on unreliable press releases), to prefer reports which avoid hyperbolic language and describe both benefits and costs of a new treatment (all treatments have trade-offs), to be wary of disease mongering (exaggerating risks, symptoms, or anecdotes of a disease which leads to unnecessary worry, panic, or spending), and to be skeptical of treatments which are "awaiting FDA approval" or in pre-clinical testing" as more than 90% of all treatments fail during these stages and,^[21] even if efficacious, may be 10 to 15 years or more from reaching the consumer market.^[22]

Headlines

Shortcuts

News headlines—including subheadlines—are not a reliable source. If the information is supported by the body of the source, then cite it from the body. Headlines are written to grab readers' attention quickly and briefly; they may be overstated or lack context, and sometimes contain exaggerations or sensationalized claims with the intention of attracting readers to an otherwise reliable article. They are often written by copy editors instead of the researchers and journalists who wrote the articles.

Deprecated sources

Shortcut

WP:RSDEPRECATED

A number of sources are deprecated on Wikipedia. That means they should not be used, unless there is a specific consensus to do so. Deprecation happens through a request for comment, usually at the reliable sources noticeboard. It is reserved for sources that have a substantial history of fabrication or other serious factual accuracy issues (e.g. promoting unfounded conspiracy theories), usually when there are large numbers of references to the source giving rise to concerns about the integrity of information in the encyclopedia.

A deprecated source should not be used to support factual claims. While there are exceptions for discussion of the source's own view on something, these are rarely appropriate outside articles on the source itself. In general articles, commentary on a deprecated source's opinion should be drawn from independent secondary sources. Including a claim or statement by a deprecated source that is not covered by reliable sources risks giving undue weight to a fringe view.

Some sources are blacklisted, and can not be used at all. Blacklisting is generally reserved for sources which are added abusively, such as state-sponsored fake news sites with a history of addition by troll farms. Specific blacklisted sources can be locally whitelisted; see Wikipedia:Blacklist for other details about blacklisting.

Notes

^ Examples include The Creation Research Society Quarterly and Journal of Frontier Science (the latter uses blog comments as peer review). Archived 2019-04-20 at the Wayback Machine).
^ Many submissions to these predatory journals will be by scholars that a) cannot get their theories published in legitimate journals, b) were looking to quickly publish something to boost their academic resumes, or c) were honestly looking for a legitimate peer-review process to validate new ideas, but were denied the feedback by fraudulent publishers.
^ A variety of these incidents have been documented by Private Eye and others and discussed on Wikipedia, where incorrect details from articles added as vandalism or otherwise have appeared in newspapers
^ Please keep in mind that any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources, and this is policy.

References

^ Beall, Jeffrey (1 January 2015). "Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-Access Publishers" (PDF) (3rd ed.). Scholarly Open Access. Archived from the original on 5 January 2017.
^ Kolata, Gina (April 7, 2013). "Scientific Articles Accepted (Personal Checks, Too)". The New York Times. Archived from the original on April 11, 2013. Retrieved April 11, 2013.
^ Butler, Declan (March 28, 2013). "Sham journals scam authors: Con artists are stealing the identities of real journals to cheat scientists out of publishing fees". Nature. 495 (7442): 421–422. doi:10.1038/495421a. PMID 23538804. S2CID 242583. Archived from the original on April 13, 2013. Retrieved April 11, 2013.
^ Bohannon, John (4 October 2013). "Who's afraid of peer review?". Science. 342 (6154): 60–65. doi:10.1126/science.342.6154.60. PMID 24092725.
^ Kolata, Gina (30 October 2017). "Many Academics Are Eager to Publish in Worthless Journals". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 8 November 2017. Retrieved 2 November 2017.
^ Miller, Laura (October 16, 2011). "'Sybil Exposed': Memory, lies and therapy". Salon. Salon Media Group. Archived from the original on October 16, 2011. Retrieved October 17, 2011. Debbie Nathan also documents a connection between Schreiber and Terry Morris, a 'pioneer' of this [human interest] genre who freely admitted to taking 'considerable license with the facts that are given to me.'
^ "Book reviews". Scholarly definition document. Princeton. 2011. Archived from the original on November 5, 2011. Retrieved September 22, 2011.
^ "Book reviews". Scholarly definition document. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. 2011. Archived from the original on September 10, 2011. Retrieved September 22, 2011.
^ Malone Kircher, Madison (November 15, 2016). "Fake Facebook news sites to avoid". New York Magazine. Archived from the original on November 16, 2016. Retrieved November 15, 2016.
^ An example is the Daily Mail, which is broadly considered a questionable and prohibited source, per this RfC.
^ Beall, Jeffrey (25 February 2015). "'Predatory' Open-Access Scholarly Publishers" (PDF). The Charleston Advisor. Archived (PDF) from the original on 4 March 2016. Retrieved 7 January 2016.
^ Beall, Jeffrey. "Potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers". Archived from the original on 11 January 2017.
^ Fees, F. (2016), Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals (PDF), archived (PDF) from the original on 2014-03-05, retrieved 2019-01-12 Conflicts-of-interest section Archived 2018-12-30 at the Wayback Machine, [Last update on 2015 Dec].
^ Rochon, PA; Gurwitz, JH; Cheung, CM; Hayes, JA; Chalmers, TC (13 July 1994). "Evaluating the quality of articles published in journal supplements compared with the quality of those published in the parent journal". JAMA. 272 (2): 108–13. doi:10.1001/jama.1994.03520020034009. PMID 8015117.
^ Nestle, Marion (2 January 2007). "Food company sponsorship of nutrition research and professional activities: a conflict of interest?" (PDF). Public Health Nutrition. 4 (5): 1015–1022. doi:10.1079/PHN2001253. PMID 11784415. S2CID 17781732. Archived (PDF) from the original on 17 November 2018. Retrieved 12 January 2019.
^ See this discussion of how to identify shill academic articles cited in Wikipedia.
^ Moran, Lyle (30 May 2023). "Lawyer cites fake cases generated by ChatGPT in legal brief". Legal Dive.
^ Tangermann, Victor (6 April 2023). "Newspaper Alarmed When ChatGPT References Article It Never Published". Futurism.
^ "The Breaking News Consumer's Handbook | On the Media". WNYC. Archived from the original on 2019-02-28. Retrieved 2019-03-14.
^ Gladstone, Brooke (25 December 2015). "Breaking News Consumer's Handbook: Health News Edition | On the Media". WNYC Studios. WNYC. Retrieved 23 November 2022.
^ Sun, Duxin; Gao, Wei; Hu, Hongxiang; Zhou, Simon (1 July 2022). "Why 90% of clinical drug development fails and how to improve it?". Acta Pharmaceutica Sinica B. 12 (7): 3049–3062. doi:10.1016/j.apsb.2022.02.002. ISSN 2211-3835. PMC 9293739. PMID 35865092.
^ "How long a new drug takes to go through clinical trials". Cancer Research UK. 21 October 2014. Retrieved 23 November 2022.

External links

How to Read a Primary Source, Reading, Writing, and Researching for History: A Guide for College Students, Patrick Rael, 2004. (Also pdf version)
How to Read a Secondary Source, Reading, Writing, and Researching for History: A Guide for College Students, Patrick Rael, 2004. (Also pdf version)
Citogenesis (Where citations come from), xkcd comic by Randall Munroe
"How I used lies about a cartoon to prove history is meaningless on the internet", Geek.com. How a troll used user-generated content to spread misinformation to TV.com, the IMDb, and Wikipedia.
How to Read a News Story About an Investigation: Eight Tips on Who Is Saying What, Benjamin Wittes, Lawfare

. These citations come from sources with bias against Freemasonry... and are used to either make statements about Freemasonry or are used as a blanket "some critics say" statement (ie as secondary sources). At minimum, to meet WP:RS standards, you have to make it much clearer who is making the statement. Please note that I am not saying that you have to cut the statements entirely... I only ask that you consider them carefully, clean them up and ammend the citations. Blueboar 23:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only reason I reverted was that it was not a valid template and was making the article look horrendous. That's all. Seraphim 00:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understood... I needed a way to highlight where my problems were. But I can do it here instead... OK here are the specific citations I feel have problems with WP:RS:

Under the Patriotism Section

[7] - In the context of this article the Catholic Encyclopedia is a biased source. That is not in itself a reason to bar citations from it. But in this case, it is also being used as a secondary source, quoting something that someone else said. I have no way of knowing if they are quoting correctly. Also, you can use it to talk about what Catholics think and do, but not what Freemasons think and do. If you want to include it you would have to say: "According to the Catholic Encyclopedia" or something.

[8] - not acutally a WP:RS issue... but the citation needs to say what the source is.

[10] - kinda the same as #7.

[11] - also kinda the same as #7.

Under the Cronyism section:

[17] - GYPSY??? come on! That is not a source.

[19] - Duncan is definitely a biased source with an agenda. The citation also misconstrues what Duncan is saying and draws an unfounded conclusion from it.

As I said before... I am sure that we can improve these citations. Make it clearer who is saying what, etc. I do realize that in an article about Anti-Masonry, we will have anti-masonic citations. We just need to be careful that we are using them correctly. Blueboar 00:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the catholic encyclopedia shouldn't be used for the patriotism section. Number 17 and 19 are valid, the Duncan's quote does infact come from duncans and is being used in the correct way. The Gypsy line needs to be reworded Seraphim 00:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree about using Duncan. He is not a reliable source for quoting ritual. Besides... he says nothing about Freemasons helping "other Freemasons when it would be immoral to do so" as the Article states. OK... I know what you are going to say... that statement is attributed to the Catholic Encyclopedia and not Duncan. Sure. But then you go and cite Duncan to "prove" the previous statement, and it does nothing of the kind. The "be he right or wrong" line does not imply helping someone if it would be immoral to do so. It means you do not turn away from his need for help. For example, if a Companion were to call you and say he had just had a car accident, paniced, and ran from the scene of the accident... the aid you give him could be to counsel him to go to the police and turn himself in. Freemasons are not unique in this... Roman Catholic priests do this all the time. The only difference is that we do not have the benefit of confession if it comes to court. Blueboar 01:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The quote is saying that if you see another freemason in a difficult situation you are to support him (espouse) to the point that he is freed from the difficulty (extricate) if it is right or wrong to do so. If it didn't have the extricate part that would be fine, however the extricate word makes it pretty clear that it's not just limited to acting as a mentor. Seraphim 01:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on a second ... (deap breath) we are talking interpetation here. You have your interpretation and I have mine. Both of which are admitedly POV. Given that I am an insider and have a little bit more insite as to what "correct" interpretation is, I don't think you should be trying to tell me what Masonic ritual means. That said... no matter who's interpretation is correct, it is nothing more than interpretation... thus, it should not be included in the Article, unless cited by a reliable source. If you want to say that the Catholic Encyclopedia interprets Duncan as saying that Masons are obligated to help a fellow Mason, even if that help is immoral... fine (assuming that is indeed what the CE actually says). But my original objection stands. That section has POV and RS problems. It needs to be re-worked. Blueboar 02:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AND... I have double checked the citation in the Catholic Encyclopedia... it makes no mention of Masons aiding other Masons even if it were immoral to do so. Given that... I am now leaning towards cutting the entire paragraph as POV speculation not supported by proper citation. I will let people comment first, however. Blueboar 13:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to remove the tab as there is an ongoing discussion here. If anyone wants to take a more formal vote then they are welcome. JASpencer 18:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So is there any ongoing discussion about the disputed tag? If there isn't I'll remove it tomorrow. JASpencer 21:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency and adding to other articles

If we have cited material that we come across that may be of use to other articles, we should add that material in if relevant.

For example, Rhodri morgan is cited by name as criticized for his blocking of that magistrate. However, no mention of it is made in the Rhodri Morgan article. Why not? It would be indicative of him sticking to UK Labour policy, which he is not noted for doing, according to his article. MSJapan 00:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, not another Morgan? Imacomp 19:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cronyism

Given that no one has made any comment about the problems with the "immoral" help paragraph of this section... I will delete it. If you can not quote a source properly, don't quote it at all. Blueboar 00:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, what would St Morgan say? I think you are right though. Imacomp 07:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patriotism section

I think this needs to go, for the following reasons:

The claim is that Masonry prevents full committal to country, based on this statement: "Another characteristic of Masonic law is that "treason" and "rebellion" against civil authority are declared only political crimes, which affect the good standing of a Brother no more than heresy, and furnish no ground for a Masonic trial." Masonry (Freemasonry) from the Catholic Encyclopedia, quoting Mackey, "Jurisprudence", 509. It says, therefore, that actions of a political nature are no grounds to convene a Masonic trial for purposes of expulsion from Masonry. It says nothing about patriotism at all. In fact, the Masonic claim is that many of the early American patriots were Freemasons. If Freemasonry prevented full committal to one's country, there would be no such thing as military lodges, which have existed since before America was even a country.

The point is in comparison to the earlier operative constitutions which were far clearer on the subject.JASpencer 20:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but we're talking pre-1700s vs post-1700s in England, then, not modern-day universally, but "modern-day universally" is the impression I get from reading the paragraph. It needs to be fleshed out a lot more (otherwise the evidence doesn't fit), and it also needs to be stated that the links between Operative and Speculative aren't set in stone (pun intended), nor are the connections at all clear from the paragraph. In short, the claim is based on some really circumstancial evidence, and I don't believe any real proof of this situation has ever come to light, whereas there are plenty of counterexamples. MSJapan 23:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note 9 also does not support the statement it is used to cite, as the note claims that a Mason is a peaceable subject, which doesn't seem ambiguous at all. If you want use Note 10, fine, but as was mentioned, cite that it is the Catholic Encyclopedia. I don't think what it says is applicable to all critics. I have to agree that the Catholic Encyclopedia really should be limited to use only in instances relating to Catholicism in particular. It's too easy to see or claim an agenda when religion-based statements are applied to a non-religious context. You have to ask yourself what the Church saw in society at the time of writing, especially since the country as a whole was trying to stay out of a war at the time. There were, however, many military leaders who were Masons both prior to and after WWI. So the claim really doesn't hold water, and I don't believe it was ever really a legitimate statement outside of this one source. MSJapan 02:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Catholic Encyclopedia can be used in Wikipedia according to this policy Wikipedia:Using_Catholic_Encyclopedia_material. I'd also find it quite mad if you took out the Catholic Encyclopedia as a reliable source for what critics of Freemasonry say, because it is written by critics of Freemasonry. It would be the equivalent of taking out ~~Albert Pike~~ the UGLE as a source on Freemasonry. JASpencer 20:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Pike has nothing to do with UGLE past, present, or future. So you cannot remove that which is not present anyway.Imacomp 22:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just not comfortable with using only a Catholic commentary on issues that are much larger than Catholicism. I think other religions wouldn't criticize Freemasonry for a lack of patriotism, as its outside the purvirew of religion. The nature of the critique has a lot to do with how the Catholic Church sees itself in society - i.e., the criticims of church and state has a lot to do with the Church's own aspirations, and these are not views shared by other religious groups. In short, I think you're taking a particularly Catholic view and saying it's a universal view, which I feel is too POV given that patriotism crosses over religious boundaries. MSJapan 23:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Christianity and Freemasonry Freemasons are consistent advocates of the US Constitution in separation of church and state "Freemasonry Does Not Support any particular political position. It has long stood for seperation of Church and State, and has been a champion of Free Public Education." From a speech given by Bill Jones Grand Master of Arkansas, 1996, which was seen especially by the Catholic church as a veiled attack on the Church's place in public life. Pope Leo XIII ETSI NOS (On Conditions in Italy).

Imacomp 21:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. Not everyone lives in the United States.JASpencer 20:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well the anti-Masonic guy in the red dress does. Imacomp 21:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really saying that this is not a common criticism of freemasonry? A Google search for treason and masonry comes up with 66,500, which is more than the devil worship claims that used to be claimed as the most "pervasive" of accusations. The test on this article is not whether or not the allegation is fair (I don't know) but whether it is made.JASpencer 20:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes... Google searchs.. I checked out these searches. Several of the "treason+masonry" searchs deal with treasonable acts that involve masonry... as in stones and bricks that make up WALLS! Try doing the same searchs with Freemasonry and you get very different results... "Satan+Freemasonry" gets you 240,000 hits. Yes, you do get lots of hits on "Freemasonry+treason"... but, many of these are duplicate hits (ie more than one hit on the same site), AND after doing a quick flyby on some of them, they are actually anti-masonic sites that talk about how Freemasons have horable punishments for treason against the fraternity (ah yes... those "blood penalties"... gotta love em!). In otherwords they are not talking about treason against the state at all.

Now... all that said... I do agree that the accusation has been made, and so can be included in the article if you feel it is needed. But the statement must be made with care for proper citations and can be refuted with ease. Your choice. Blueboar 21:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blueboar, you know where I'm coming from. Do you think I actually care about the Patriotism area? It is a common accusation, that's all. JASpencer 21:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes lets avoid the evidence if it does not fit anti-Masonic myth? Imacomp 22:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is a very common accusation at all. It tends to be a one or two liner used on the religious anti sites as "further" evidence of Masonic damnation. I would actually say that the alligations of cronyism and favor are significantly more common. Perhaps my perception is skewed by being from the US, where freemasonry is often viewed as another "service" group such as Kiwannis, Lions, Rotary, etc. etc. which are seen as being ultra patriotic (and usually conservative in politics). Perhaps it is different in the UK. Personally, both as an editor and as a Mason, I wouldn't mind doing away with the section. The Masonic reasoning is admittedly POV... the editorial reasoning is that the evidence contradicts itself. Thus, it should probably be omitted. Blueboar 23:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could go with that. MSJapan 23:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK with me as well. Imacomp 23:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then Gone it is! Blueboar 00:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a claim, it belongs in the article just as much as any other section. Seraphim 00:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Seraphim, if since it fits right in with the "quality" of this article's low quality. Lets go for a DELETE then as the 3 to 1 say? Imacomp 01:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually... I am glad that Seraphim objected... I acted in too much haste. I read the comments quickly and mistook MSJapans comments for JASpencers (damn initials!). In otherwords... I thought there was agreement from BOTH sides of the issue and not just one. Since JASpencer has been the largest contributer on the Anti side, I should have waited for his comment and (I hope) agreement.

Seraphim, thanks for catching my error. While I disagree with you on a lot, I do not disagree on this. Blueboar 01:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imacomp if you wanted this page gone you had a chance with the merge vote. Instead you all shot down the merge without thinking, and now we have an article that covers all forms of anti-masonry without presenting the masonic counter-points much like the anti-semitism article. This is what you all voted for by not approving the merger. Commenting on the "quality" of the page now is hypocritical. Seraphim 01:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell you that I "shot down" the merge with a LOT of thought. As I have said all along, it is a subject that is worthy of an article. We should have an article that covers all forms of anti-masonry... although I disagree with you about not presenting masonic counter-points (where appropriate). And I agree about the poor "quality" ... that's why I am still adding my comments and edits. There is much to be done to this article to make it NOPV and wiki-worthy. We will get there, but it will take time. Blueboar 02:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If anti-masonry really is a seperate entity from freemasonry it should be possible to create an article that does not require any counter-arguments. Seraphim 02:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it was a completely seperate entity... of course they are related. But they are not the same. Just as it is important to have a "criticisms" section in the Freemasonry article, it is important to include a "criticisms" section here. The difference being that the critisms here would be directed against the Anti-masonic side. I am not talking about having a counter-argument for every statement... I am talking about adding a section that outlined the Masonic view of the more common Anti-masonic arguments and criticizing typical Anti-masonic practices (For example... misquoting Masonic authors or taking Masonic statements out of context). I would see it as being similar in proportion to the "criticims" section on the Freemasonry Article. Blueboar 02:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Patriotism Section should stay, it is an important, and extremely effective, criticism of Masonry. MSJapan, a Freemason well familiar with Freemasonry's weaknesses, recognizes this and thus seeks to remove it. A very well cut incision on the body of Freemasonry JASpencer. You clearly have a talent for Anti-Masonry.40 Days of Lent 09:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't think it is a very common accusation at all." In America, perhaps. Most secular conservative criticism seems to center round this aspect, especially on the continent. Action Francaise would be an example of this. I'm sure a lot of the Totalitarian criticism of Freemasonry centers on their supposed "rootless cosmopolitan" nature. It would be surprising if a group centered around international brotherhood did not get some of this criticism. The fact that the more predestrian (and I mean that in a good way) American and English Grand Lodges are not getting as much criticism is more a sign that their members are more social on average. That Blueboar or MSJapan see it that way is no surprise. It's rather telling that the defence is that they are good propositional Americans rather than blood and soil patriots.

As a member of an organisation that has got its fair share of abuse for being international (especially in England), I'm not that sympathetic with the critique and don't think it that important. However it is a criticism that is made frequently, although admittedly more so in the past.JASpencer 13:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JASpencer - So in your POV, should we "Keep", "Delete" or "Rewrite"? You seem to be indicating that you would not mind seeing it go, but are not 100% sure. Please advise. Blueboar 13:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think it would be unencyclopedic to let it go, especially as the current page is aiming to be a mismash of all past and current criticisms of Freemasonry. It's not at all important in my view of Freemasonry, but the article is not about my view. JASpencer 13:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy section needed

Given what JASpencer has stated about the patiotism section (in essence, that we need to keep the section because the claims do indeed exist) I feel it is time to reinsert a section on the various conspiracy accusations that are made. Yes, most of these are made by complete nutters in my POV... but then this is not about my POV... the accusations are made. Blueboar 14:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a start to this... I have added some material to the previously existing Modern Conspiracy section. It is primarily copied from the Freemason conspiracy theories article. I removed references to those theories already better discussed in other sections of this article. There is a lot that needs to be done to bring this section into line with the rest of the article... The citations and links need to be brought into line with our current format. I also think some of the theories should be expanded upon to say exactly who makes the claim and in what context, or to explain them better. Will search for more theories as we go. Blueboar 16:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed one citation that seemed broken (for some reason, and I didn't know this, we can't use numbers (as 9/11) to name references under the new system) and also converted an external link into a proper reference. Just thought I would state clearly what I did.

I also spendt some time looking throught the sites referneced (to make sure the references actually support the claims), and I have some trouble stopping laughting... there is one which (on a page linked from a page used as a reference) claims that Masons are behind cropcirlces... and part of the logic is that some fractal cropcircles look like snowflakes, and under 33 degrees water turn into snow (bottom of page). With logic powers on this level (last I checked, water froze at 0 degrees - it's all down to the system one is using), it's amazing people take them seriously *smiles* WegianWarrior 07:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never said the claims make sense... only that they are made. Blueboar 15:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use Google to find better links. There are a ton of pages on each subject of conspiracy, just choose the ones that are the best written, most informative, or use the most historical references and data. There are plenty of other theories that can be added, elaborated, expanded on, and described in detail. Spending time going through external web pages will give a good continuity of theories, while giving you enough opportunities to ignore the most poorly written pages. Use anything that uses historical references, or is backed up by Masonic evidence or documents from former members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.89.103.34 (talk • contribs)

Proposal to Merge Anti-Masonry with Freemasonry Page

Anti-Masonry is a term used only by Masons. In reality this page should not exist and the criticms of Freemasonry it contains, plus other criticisms deleted by Masons over the past years from the entry, should be fully integrated into the main page. The admirable work JASpencer is doing here is really being wasted since there is likely to be very little traffic and thus eyeballs on this side page. If JASpencer's work is to be fully valued it must be included on the main page. Thus I suggest to merge this page with the Freemasonry page.40 Days of Lent 07:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed to death several times over, and the current concencius seems to be to keep them seperate. This article is summarized in (allthought the summary might be improved, after the lasts improvments in this article) and linked to from the freemasonry article. But feel free to provide arguments why we should merge. WegianWarrior 07:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WegianWarrior. I agree with you. Imacomp 10:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently two "concencius" - one Masonic uncritical, the other Masonic critical. The Masonic uncritical "concencius" consists of deleting all criticism of Freemasonry, channeling all critiques they are unable to get deleted into a side page "ghetto" with little readership, and painting the critics of Freemasonry as criminals. The critical "concencius" generally seeks to have the main Freemasonry page completely rewritten and have the material presently contained on the Anti-Masonry page, and other critical side pages, merged into the primary Freemasonry article, the article with the greater readership. Generally Masonic Critical Editors prefer to use sources such as the Catholic Encyclopedia while Masonic Uncritical Editors prefer to use sources such as 'Freemasonry for Dummies'.40 Days of Lent 10:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And thus 40 Days of Lent is shown to be Lightbringer.Imacomp 10:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rv. Lightbringer sock edits of 40 Days of Lent back to 08:01, 14 March 2006 WegianWarrior.Imacomp 10:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe that Anti-Masonry should have a tighter focus - on the criticisms of Masonry vis-a-vis civil society rather than including social criticisms, etc. I do not think that we should merge it. It was used by the Anti-Masonic party and is in the OED. Who cares about the traffic, it's about the truth. JASpencer 12:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Who cares about the traffic, it's about the truth" ... oh boy, am I going to have fun quoting that back to you at some point :>) Blueboar 15:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JASpencer... can you further explain what you mean by "vis-a-vis civil society rather than including social critisms, etc." I have no idea if I agree or disagree with you. Blueboar 17:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Took out Anti-Semitism

The anti-masonry=anti-semitism charge taken out. I'm sure it was well intended, but it should be discussed here first. It was not NPOV. JASpencer 12:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was certainly intended as NPOV - perhaps you have a better non-homogenous 'anti-movement' to compare anti-masonry with? I think part of the problem is that a lot of people assume anti-masonry is more unified than it is in reality. Besides, I never meant to say that anti-masonry == anti-semitism, but rather to point out that like the later, the former is not a unified movement. WegianWarrior 13:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I said "I'm sure it was well intended", I did mean that it was intended to be NPOV. I'm happy that you didn't want to say anti-masonry=anti-semitism. JASpencer 13:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, just wanting to make sure we both mean the same thing - misundertandings are all to easy when one of us don't have english as their native tounge *smiles* WegianWarrior 14:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

40 Days of Lent Additions and Edits

Most of the material has been discussed previously and deleted by Masonic editors(in the case of Signs, Oaths, and Secrets of Masonry). The material I removed to this talk page is either on the wrong page (in the case of the conspiracy theory and conspiracy web site material) or very poorly referenced (in the case of the Saddam Hussein Conspiracy Theory referenced to the Moonie owned Washington Times). This is a page about Masonry not a place for Masonic editors to maliciously post crackpot material to discredit the critics of Masonry.40 Days of Lent 06:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They mostly manage to discredit themself, many because they are crackpots. This article just summarizes their claims. WegianWarrior 07:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no problem with them being listed as they are. It would be POV to remove any anti-masonic claims that us editors feel makes the anti-masonic conspiracy theorists look like wackos. All the information avaliable must be presented, and then it's up to the reader of the article to come up with their own conclusions, it is not up to us to push them towards a certain conclusion by censoring the information published. Seraphim 07:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page is about Anti-Masonry, not Anti-Masons. The purpose of the page is criticism of Masonry, not a melanage of accusations against it's critics. This page as it presently sits is a travesty compared to versions that existed months ago. Where is the criticism? I really wish you would find a section of Wikipedia you are knowledgeable about, or at least interested in NPOV Seraphim 40 Days of Lent 09:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your second sentence is wrong. The purpose of this page is NOT criticism of Masonry. That would be blaitantly POV. Rather, its purpose is to discuss those who criticize Masonry and their claims. This Article is indeed about Anti-Masonry, and thus it is about all the various forms that Anti-Masony takes. Conspiracy theories are one of those forms. Blueboar 13:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record... check-user result proves that User:40 Days of Lent to be a sock of a sock... all leading back to User:Lightbringer who is perminantly banned from editing pages relating to Freemasonry. The sad thing is: I know he will be back under a new name soon. Blueboar 19:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rv.

Reverted to 08:37, 21 March 2006 WegianWarrior to role back a blanking edit. Imacomp 16:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editors on Freemasonry had put forth the position that material on Rosicrucian page as it related to Freemasonry should not be duplicated on Freemasonry page because it was 'cut and pasting'. Obviously if this is the correct editorial style then the removed section, being an exact 'cut and paste' from the Freemasonry page should not be included here. However it would seem that you disagree with the Editors on the Freemasonry page who put forth that position.Fyodor Dos 14:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well since Fyodor Dos is a proven sock of Lightbringer .... Imacomp 13:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust

The majority of those who suffered during the Holocaust were the Jews (because of their religion)^[1] and the Poles (because of their nationality). Freemasons were selected for "special treatment"^[2] under the Nazis World Perception (Weltauffassung), tortured and executed simply because they were Freemasons. During that time, Freemasons are believed in some places to have worn blue Forget Me Not flowers as a secret badge of recognition. Estimates calculate that between 80,000 and 200,000 Freemasons died.^[3]. It is impossible to arrive at a total figure as no one knows the number of Freemasons from Nazi occupied countries who were murdered. ^[4] The United Kingdom Government established Holocaust Memorial Day ^[4] to recognise all groups who were targets of the Nazi regime, and counter Holocaust denial.

The little blue Forget Me Not^[5] flower, or badge, is worn in the coat lapel to remember all those that have suffered in the name of Freemasonry, and specifically those during the Nazi era.^[6] ^[7]

In 1948 this emblem was adopted as an official Masonic emblem at the first Annual Convention of the United Grand Lodges of Germany, Ancient Free & Accepted Masons.^[7] Two UGLE Lodges, with services connections to Germany, are named after the flower. ^[8] In 1948 this emblem was adopted as an official Masonic emblem at the first Annual Convention of the United Grand Lodges of Germany, Ancient Free & Accepted Masons.^[7] Two UGLE Lodges, with services connections to Germany, are named after the flower. ^[9]

OK, JKWithers has moved this section here for discussion (apparently he or she feels that it is "poorly referenced") ... I will assume good faith, but I do find it strange to move text to the talk page for discussion and not discuss it. I see a lot of citations, so I am not sure what he or she means by "poorly referenced". I await a responce. Blueboar 13:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen a connection made between Freemasonry and the Holocaust before. The sources sited all seem to go to Masonic websites that themselves contain little or no references. I am familiar with Holocaust literature and never seen any citations for Freemasons being arrested in such numbers, none-the-less murdered. It seems pulled out of thin air IMHO, other than a few Masonic websites, that themselves have a lot of other questionable claims or largely unsupported claims on them.JKWithers 13:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, JKW. Just so I can better understand where you are coming from, are your concerns based on a belief that Freemasons were not sent to concentration camps and executed by the Nazis during the Holocaust? Is it the numbers claimed that you have a problem with, or is it the claim itself. Or is it that you do not feel the source is reliable (ie that the claims comes from Masonic websites and not some other source)? Please expand on your comments and explain exactly what you do not like about each claim and citation.

Keep in mind that at Wikipedia, the criteria for inclusion is the verifiablility of a claim, not the truth or untruth of the claim itself. Perhaps the language in this section needs to be changed to make it clearer who is making the claims presented, but the fact that someone makes them is verifiable and cited. If you have any citations that contradict the claims made here, they can be included to balance the POV, but we should not simply cut the section because you have never heard these claims before. Blueboar 14:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said I have never seen or heard the claim before that Freemasons were arrested and murdered by the Nazi's - anywhere. I checked the citations given and found there were really no references of primary sources at all. The articles cited either had no author listed or an author with nor credentials. The claims in the section are to my mind not credible at the moment, they are certainly not supported at present at any rate. The Wikipedia criteria of verifiability has not been met.JKWithers 14:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure who put this section from Freemasonry here on anti_Masonry, but there is plenty to connect Jews Freemasonry and the Nazi's Anti-masonry (hence to Holocaust) on the Freemasonry page. Try reading that. Imacomp 14:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, JKW, here's a book citation with which you should be familiar, then - Nazi Hunter by Simon Wiesenthal. The statement that Freemasons were among the groups persecuted by the Germans is on the first page of the book. Also, I'm not sure about "no citations" Bernheim in particular has a lot of citations, and I don't know what you consider "primary sources" for the Holocaust. That is also a good question as to why this is c/ped in here, but the history shows that Fossick the LB sock did it. MSJapan 15:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a great difference between being persecuted(having laws passed restricting the organization) and suffering mass arrest, deportation to Auschwitz, and murder in the gas chamber, like the section I removed to this discussion page suggests, with no attributions to accredited sources.JKWithers 15:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Freemasonry For Dummies' is not an accredited source and I doubt very much whether there is any statement even there for the amazing claim that is made in the 'Holocaust' section. Do you really have so little respect for those who did die in the gas chamber to use it in this tiff with Freemasonry's critics? It is really despicable.JKWithers 16:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^ A. Hitler, Mein Kampf, pages 315 and 320.
^ The Enabling Act Accessed February 23 2006.
^ Freemasons for Dummies, by Christopher Hodapp, Wiley Publishing Inc., Indianapolis, 2005, p.85, sec. Hitler and the Nazi
^ ^a ^b Cite error: The named reference HMD home was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Das Vergissmeinnicht The Forget-Me-Not Accessed February 6 2006.
^ Flower Badge as told by Galen Lodge No 2394 (UGLE) Accessed March 4 2006.
^ ^a ^b ^c Flower Badge Accessed March 4 2006.
^ History of the Forget Me Not Lodge No 9035 Accessed February 6 2006.
^ History of the Forget Me Not Lodge No 9035 Accessed February 6 2006.

[1] Examples include The Creation Research Society Quarterly and Journal of Frontier Science (the latter uses blog comments as peer review). Archived 2019-04-20 at the Wayback Machine).

[7] Many submissions to these predatory journals will be by scholars that a) cannot get their theories published in legitimate journals, b) were looking to quickly publish something to boost their academic resumes, or c) were honestly looking for a legitimate peer-review process to validate new ideas, but were denied the feedback by fraudulent publishers.

[9] A variety of these incidents have been documented by Private Eye and others and discussed on Wikipedia, where incorrect details from articles added as vandalism or otherwise have appeared in newspapers

[10] Please keep in mind that any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources, and this is policy.

[2] Beall, Jeffrey (1 January 2015). "Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-Access Publishers" (PDF) (3rd ed.). Scholarly Open Access. Archived from the original on 5 January 2017.

[NYT4713-3] Kolata, Gina (April 7, 2013). "Scientific Articles Accepted (Personal Checks, Too)". The New York Times. Archived from the original on April 11, 2013. Retrieved April 11, 2013.

[Nature032713-4] Butler, Declan (March 28, 2013). "Sham journals scam authors: Con artists are stealing the identities of real journals to cheat scientists out of publishing fees". Nature. 495 (7442): 421–422. doi:10.1038/495421a. PMID 23538804. S2CID 242583. Archived from the original on April 13, 2013. Retrieved April 11, 2013.

[5] Bohannon, John (4 October 2013). "Who's afraid of peer review?". Science. 342 (6154): 60–65. doi:10.1126/science.342.6154.60. PMID 24092725.

[6] Kolata, Gina (30 October 2017). "Many Academics Are Eager to Publish in Worthless Journals". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 8 November 2017. Retrieved 2 November 2017.

[8] Miller, Laura (October 16, 2011). "'Sybil Exposed': Memory, lies and therapy". Salon. Salon Media Group. Archived from the original on October 16, 2011. Retrieved October 17, 2011. Debbie Nathan also documents a connection between Schreiber and Terry Morris, a 'pioneer' of this [human interest] genre who freely admitted to taking 'considerable license with the facts that are given to me.'

[Princeton-11] "Book reviews". Scholarly definition document. Princeton. 2011. Archived from the original on November 5, 2011. Retrieved September 22, 2011.

[VirginiaTech-12] "Book reviews". Scholarly definition document. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. 2011. Archived from the original on September 10, 2011. Retrieved September 22, 2011.

[13] Malone Kircher, Madison (November 15, 2016). "Fake Facebook news sites to avoid". New York Magazine. Archived from the original on November 16, 2016. Retrieved November 15, 2016.

[DM-14] An example is the Daily Mail, which is broadly considered a questionable and prohibited source, per this RfC.

[Beall1-15] Beall, Jeffrey (25 February 2015). "'Predatory' Open-Access Scholarly Publishers" (PDF). The Charleston Advisor. Archived (PDF) from the original on 4 March 2016. Retrieved 7 January 2016.

[Beall2-16] Beall, Jeffrey. "Potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers". Archived from the original on 11 January 2017.

[ICMJE_recommendations_2015-17] Fees, F. (2016), Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals (PDF), archived (PDF) from the original on 2014-03-05, retrieved 2019-01-12 Conflicts-of-interest section Archived 2018-12-30 at the Wayback Machine, [Last update on 2015 Dec].

[supp_quality-18] Rochon, PA; Gurwitz, JH; Cheung, CM; Hayes, JA; Chalmers, TC (13 July 1994). "Evaluating the quality of articles published in journal supplements compared with the quality of those published in the parent journal". JAMA. 272 (2): 108–13. doi:10.1001/jama.1994.03520020034009. PMID 8015117.

[19] Nestle, Marion (2 January 2007). "Food company sponsorship of nutrition research and professional activities: a conflict of interest?" (PDF). Public Health Nutrition. 4 (5): 1015–1022. doi:10.1079/PHN2001253. PMID 11784415. S2CID 17781732. Archived (PDF) from the original on 17 November 2018. Retrieved 12 January 2019.

[20] See this discussion of how to identify shill academic articles cited in Wikipedia.

[21] Moran, Lyle (30 May 2023). "Lawyer cites fake cases generated by ChatGPT in legal brief". Legal Dive.

[22] Tangermann, Victor (6 April 2023). "Newspaper Alarmed When ChatGPT References Article It Never Published". Futurism.

[23] "The Breaking News Consumer's Handbook | On the Media". WNYC. Archived from the original on 2019-02-28. Retrieved 2019-03-14.

[OTMHealthBNCH-24] Gladstone, Brooke (25 December 2015). "Breaking News Consumer's Handbook: Health News Edition | On the Media". WNYC Studios. WNYC. Retrieved 23 November 2022.

[Sun202290percent-25] Sun, Duxin; Gao, Wei; Hu, Hongxiang; Zhou, Simon (1 July 2022). "Why 90% of clinical drug development fails and how to improve it?". Acta Pharmaceutica Sinica B. 12 (7): 3049–3062. doi:10.1016/j.apsb.2022.02.002. ISSN 2211-3835. PMC 9293739. PMID 35865092.

[CancerResearchUK-26] "How long a new drug takes to go through clinical trials". Cancer Research UK. 21 October 2014. Retrieved 23 November 2022.

[27] A. Hitler, Mein Kampf, pages 315 and 320.

[28] The Enabling Act Accessed February 23 2006.

[holocaust-29] Freemasons for Dummies, by Christopher Hodapp, Wiley Publishing Inc., Indianapolis, 2005, p.85, sec. Hitler and the Nazi

[HMD_home-30] Cite error: The named reference HMD home was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[31] Das Vergissmeinnicht The Forget-Me-Not Accessed February 6 2006.

[32] Flower Badge as told by Galen Lodge No 2394 (UGLE) Accessed March 4 2006.

[Flower_Badge-33] Flower Badge Accessed March 4 2006.

[34] History of the Forget Me Not Lodge No 9035 Accessed February 6 2006.

[35] History of the Forget Me Not Lodge No 9035 Accessed February 6 2006.

[notes 1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[notes 2]

[6]

[notes 3]

[notes 4]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

v t e Wikipedia referencing
Policies and guidelines	Verifiability No original research Biographies of living persons Reliable sources Medicine Citing sources Scientific citations
General advice	Citation needed Combining sources Offline sources Referencing styles
Citing sources	Citation Style 1 Citation Style 2 Citation Style Vancouver Bluebook Comics Citation templates
Inline citations	Footnotes Punctuation and footnotes Shortened footnotes Nesting footnotes
Help for beginners	Reference-tags Citations quick reference Introduction to referencing Referencing with citation templates Referencing without using templates Referencing dos and don'ts Citing Wikipedia
Advanced help	Cite link labels Cite errors Citation merging (bundling) Cite messages Converting between references formats Reference display customization References and page numbers Guidance on source reviewing at FAC
Footnote templates	Citation Style documentation Multiple references {{Reflist}} {{Refbegin}}
Find references	How to find sources Bibliographies Wikipedia Library Resource Exchange Reference Desk Book Sources Free newspaper sources
Citation tools (External links)	Citer Biomedical cite Citation bot MakeRef Refill WayBack

A seperation of church from the social sphere is not Religious Tolerance

Squaring the Circle

Complete rewrite

Moving out history

Change of Title

Requested move

Discussion

New Introduction

Structure

Archieves are gone!!

citational obfuscation

Complete rewrite tag

Poor Definition

Are Criticisms "Avowed Opposition"?

NPOV Tag on the Catholic section

Iraq

Moral faults

Disputed neutrality and factual accuracy

Overview

Definition of a source

Definition of published

Context matters

Age matters

Usage by other sources

Some types of sources

Scholarship

News organizations

Editorial and opinion commentary

News aggregators

Vendor and e-commerce sources

Biased or opinionated sources

Questionable and self-published sources

Questionable sources

Sponsored content

Self-published sources (online and paper)

User-generated content

Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves

Spurious sources produced by machine learning

Reliability in specific contexts

Biographies of living persons

Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources

Medical claims

Fringe theories

Quotations

Academic consensus

Statements of opinion

Breaking news

Headlines

Deprecated sources

See also

Templates

Policies and guidelines

Information pages

Locating reliable sources

Essays

Other

Notes

References

External links

Consistency and adding to other articles

Cronyism

Patriotism section

Conspiracy section needed

Proposal to Merge Anti-Masonry with Freemasonry Page

Took out Anti-Semitism

40 Days of Lent Additions and Edits

Rv.

Holocaust