Jump to content

Talk:Anti-Masonry/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

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

The change from "Religious Tolerance" to "a separation 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 separation 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 separation 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 separation 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)

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

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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

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)

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)
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)

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)

  • 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)
  • Strong support per Seraphim. Ardenn 03:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • 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)
Wouldn't all that fall under history of freemasonry? Seraphim 16:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Yeah, it needs to be discussed. Seraphim 17:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)

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)

I don't object. Ardenn 22:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
Uh... I'm not really working on this page, but just a note:
  1. 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...
  2. 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)
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)

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 ~~~~

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)

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)

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)
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)

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)

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)

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)
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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

All above board. The idea was to tie it into the arab nationalist ideology of the Baathists. JASpencer 20:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Fair enough. JASpencer 18:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

I concur, is socialising evil in itself? Imacomp 00:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
I hope your not trying to socalise, you naughty Mason! :) Imacomp 01:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
wait a minute... social club.... socialising.... SOCIALIST!! OMG - Freemasons are all commies! See, I proved it! Blueboar 01:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
can anyone explain how belonging to a social club is a "moral fault"?. Beats me. JASpencer 18:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)

Disputed neutrality and factual accuracy

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

Imacomp, can you please provide examples? Unless I have any objections the tag is going off tomorrow. JASpencer 12:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
I don't see any substantive objectionsALR 13:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
Without examples of bias this is not good enough. This tag will still be removed tomorrow. JASpencer 17:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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 {{WP:RS}}. 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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)
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)
  • 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)
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)
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)
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)

Imacomp 21:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Not everyone lives in the United States.JASpencer 20:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Well the anti-Masonic guy in the red dress does. Imacomp 21:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Yes lets avoid the evidence if it does not fit anti-Masonic myth? Imacomp 22:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
I could go with that. MSJapan 23:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
OK with me as well. Imacomp 23:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Then Gone it is! Blueboar 00:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
It's still a claim, it belongs in the article just as much as any other section. Seraphim 00:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

"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)
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)
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)

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)

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)

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)
I never said the claims make sense... only that they are made. Blueboar 15:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
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. —The preceding unsigned comment was 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)

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

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)

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)
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)
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)

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)

They mostly manage to discredit themself, many because they are crackpots. This article just summarizes their claims. WegianWarrior 07:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
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 Seraphim40 Days of Lent 09:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
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)

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)

Rv.

Reverted to 08:37, 21 March 2006 WegianWarrior to role back a blanking edit. Imacomp 16:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
Well since Fyodor Dos is a proven sock of Lightbringer .... Imacomp 13:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust

Forget-me-nots

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
'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)
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion-hoax was one of the base document of the Nazis. This hoax is still spread by the Hamas and other groups.
The "Internationales Freimaurerlexikon" says that it is known that (around) 62 of the 80,000 freemasons (1933) were murdered, including Julius Leber, Wilhelm Leuschner and Carl von Ossietzky mostly because they were freemasons, but also because they were against Naziism. 238 of them were displaced from Germany, 52 were put into concentration camps, 377 were dismissed from their job. 44 were known to be members of the resistance. After 1945, only 5,000 of the 80,000 freemasons finally survived the war.
This is a photo of a Masonic memorial stone within the Konzentrationslager Esterwegen for the lodge Liberté chérie: de:Bild:Liberte_cherie2.jpg
Please put the section back in. I see no reason to remove it because of lack of knowledge or repudiation. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 04:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
PS: Thank you Blueboar. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 04:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello Lightbringer!

My this was quick. As they say in the sports world... Let's go to the video tape! Here. Notification to Admins coming up, and block soon to follow. Say good bye. Blueboar 16:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

And in case anyone did not make the connection... JKW used the same IP address as Fyodor Dos did. Sock sock sock. Bad boy. ! Blueboar 16:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust section - a question

As much as my reaction would be to simply revert anything that LB does... I gather from what Imacomp says that this section was actually copied from the Freemasonry Article, and pasted here by a previous LB sock. Do we want to revert so it is back in, or shall we leave it out? Blueboar 16:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't really belong here, and the material is already in the main article. MSJapan 17:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Talked with Imacomp about it... he would like it returned (something about Hitler and the Nazis should be in the Article after all) so i will do so. However, I will cut the Forget-me-not part, as that relates more to Masonic reaction than to direct Anti-Masonry. Blueboar 21:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, though it should really be a summary style section, as the majority should go in Totalitarian Regimes, I think. However, there's a lot of material from GLoS, so maybe it's also article-worthy at some point in the future. MSJapan 21:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
THe information needs to be in here. All of the information on the section in the main article must also be represented in here, since the section on the main article is supposed to be a summary of this article. That's why I copied that section into here in the first place. Seraphim 21:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem if you folks want to play with the wording. As long as something about the Nazis Anti-masonic stance, and what they did about it, is in the article. Blueboar 21:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Removed Holocaust section as per discussion. Freemasonry is not part of the Holocaust. If someone wants to create a subsection about Germany and Freemasonry they may but it is important to include information from Bernheims two articles, especially relevent inforation about Regular v Irregular support v treatment. I can do this if no one elses wants to.Oregano 13:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Read what I wrote above. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Where? This?
The "Internationales Freimaurerlexikon" says that it is known  
that(around) 62 of the 80,000 freemasons (1933) were murdered

It would seem to me that if these figures are accurate they are quite a ways off from the "80,000 - 200,000" figure claimed in the existing section!!!Oregano 14:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course it does not. You forget other countries like France. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 15:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Article is more coherently organized now Political, Social, Religious, Conspiracy with related subsections beneath related headings. Previous version was not ordered, subordered correctly. Article flows and thus reads better now.Oregano 13:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Oregano, Your edits are substantially similar to those made by User:JKWithers, who was banned from editing this page as a sock of a notorious long term abuser and vandal. Your first wikipedia contribution is on the same day that he was banned. Thus, the accusation that you yourself are yet another Lightbringer sock. I have requested a check user on your IP so that we can be sure whether you are, or are not this vandal. If I have accused you falsely then you have my appologies, If the accusation turns out to be true... then you will be banned again. In any case, I hope you will understand my reluctance to have these same edits stand. This is not meant as a personal attack, but to protect the page from said vandal. 14:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
If that is the case I can't help that. I am interested in this topic and spent some time reviewing the history of the page and related links. I feel my version is a real improvement to the page, it is a minor, but important, re-ordering of the headings and subheadings. Please re-read my version and compare it to the previous version before deleting it again. Thanks.Oregano 14:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
As I said on your user talk page... I am willing to Assume Good Faith until we are sure. However, I would suggest that you discuss things in depth here before you make further changes. By the way... you are very close to violating the three revert rule. Also, as you are new here, you should know that reverts are not usually considered a form of vandalism. I would appreciate it if you would not slap vandalism tags on my talk page. Blueboar 15:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

FYI - Oregano indefinitely blocked as another Lightbringer Sock. Blueboar 18:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Citations and Footnotes

An issue has come up on a related page (talk:Catholicism and Freemasonry) regarding the need to add quotations to all the footnotes and citations. I want to take this to a different level, divorced from any specific citation or footnote or even any specific page. We need to create a consensus policy for the various Freemasonry related articles regarding citations and footnotes. JASpencer seems to feel that every citation and footnote should contain a quotation. I disagree. I feel it is enough to cite a link to where the statement that we make in this article can be found (or where clear support for the statement can be found if we are not actually quoting something). I find all the quotations in the footnotes to be clunky, overly burdensome, and potentially misleading (the potential is there for someone to take a snippet from what is said in a source, quote the snippet here (out of context) to support a statement, when in fact the original in the source does not support what is being said here at all). So, I want to toss this debate out to all the editors. Do you think we need all these quotations in the citations?... please explain your view so we can come to some consensus. Please respond on this at talk:Catholicism and Freemasonry so we can consolidate our replies in one location. Blueboar 15:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

No. A footnote is to direct a reader to a source, not to give them the source text. I don't think that any citation needs a quotation. If it needs to be said, then say it in the main part. Imacomp 18:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I repeat: Please respond on this at talk:Catholicism and Freemasonry so we can consolidate our replies in one location. thanks Blueboar 20:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

quote requests in Conspiracy section

At some point, someone (it may have been a lightbringer sock) added quote requests to everyone of the claims in the Other Conspiracy Theories section. I have removed them all. I feel that asking for quotes from these sites is nothing but rediculous. Each claim is cited and linked to at least one conspiracy website where the conspiracy claim is clearly made. I suspect that whoever requested these quotes did so without bothering to look at the linked websites. If someone has a specific problem with a specific claim and the link to a specific conspiracy site, I will be happy to discuss them one by one. Blueboar 17:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

See also Poisoning the well.
http://www.freedomdomain.com/welcome.htm says "This was several pages of concentrated info. on a variety of subjects like Religious Symbolism, The Illuminati, The Freemasons, Skull & Bones, The Wall Street Bankers, History of the Bush Family, Hemp / Marijuana Uses, Rockefeller Control of the American Medical Association, Hulda Clark's Fluke Worm Cancer therapies, Flying Saucer / Free-Energy Technology and Alien Myth / Brainwashing and the James Shelby Downward's JFK / Freemason Connection." and "Freemen - Not Freemasons!!".
I can't see where it says something like "Freemasonry is part of the new illuminati".
As there is no quotation the citation has been removed.
JASpencer 20:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Generally I don't like the idea of fleeing from verification. Imagine if a Lightbringer took out quote requests? As these are conspircaist sites they are not exactly clearly and concisely written, and many of the citations seem to be seperate from the claims they back. JASpencer 20:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
For the Freemasonry = Illuminati claim on freedomdomain.com, you just have to look a bit deaper ... try clicking on the "Freemasonry" link at the bottom of the page... it takes you to a sub-page that discusses it. However, perhaps our citation should link directly to that sub-page [1] and not to the "welcome" page. I will edit the link. Next? Blueboar 12:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I can understand why you might think adding all these nut case conpiracy sites is a case of "Poisoning the well"... You obviously take the religious (and particularly the Catholic) objections to Freemasonry quite seriously, and I can see how you might feel that lumping your objections in with those raised by the conspiracy nutters deminishes what you consider to be the legitimacy of your issues. However their inclusion is not meant that way. This Article is about Anti-Masonry in general... not just those parts of it that you consider "legitimate". Remember, the truth of a claim is not the basis for inclusion. There are people out there who actually believe this stuff, and it would be POV not to include the material. We have sub-articles to discuss the specifics of the "legitimate" religious objections. There is also a seperate sub-article to discuss the conspiracy material in more depth (actually, that page needs work... but that is another issue).Blueboar 12:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Poisoning the Well by saying that Lightbringer asked for quotations when you know that he never was hot on citations, etc. I asked for the quotations.

Sorry... I honestly could not remember who did the asking and assumed it was a Lightbringer sock. Blueboar 01:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The citations do not prove the claims, by the way and should go:

  • The freedomdomain site does not say anything about the New World Order, and it doesn't say that Freemasons and the Illuminati are identical.
HAVE YOU EVEN LOOKED AT THE SITE? OK... I need to add a second link to this sub page at freedomdomain.com for the New World Order stuff which is why I originally linked to the main page. But it is all there. Since you insist...Let's play the quote game:
On New World Order: "So, the idea, essentially, is to be able to consolidate power as efficiently as possible. If there is a "plan", like the masons want to put in one of "their men", a candidate for office, and there is opposition, then they could easily mibolize against that candidate through control over media, intelligence agencies, and local and state authorities. If say, the masons want to get rid of the guns, to get their "agenda" passed, they can have members in the most "stealth" departments in the military, bring in someone who is a "sleeper", like McVeigh, who is also "active" in militia, patriot, and sovereignty circles, and help him to carry out a plan, like blowing up a federal building. At the same time, they would be able to coordinate all local and state agencies to "varying degrees" and have them respond accordingly, in order to keep everything "covered-up". In the same manner, they could use another Military connection to stage a shootout at a High School, and carry it out professionally, so as to leave little trace of doubt as to any conspiracy. "
On Illuminati: First, near the top it says: "The Compass represents geometry and building. It is a Mason's tool. It measures by "Degrees". When you graduate college, you recieve a 'Degree'.You are also called an "Alumni" for "Illuminated" or "Illuminati". Well, who do you think set up that University. The Freemasons and Illuminati, of course." Then a little later: "The Torch that is carried in the Olympics is Masonic. It is called the "Torch of Enlightenment". The French Grand Orient Temple Masons gave the U.S. the "Statue of Liberty". She is holding the Masonic "Torch of Enlightenment". Also referred to back in the 1700's by the Illuminati Masons as the "Flaming Torch of Reason". The Torch represents the "Sun" in the sky." (they are quoting Weishaupt here, but note that their quotes do NOT go around the words Illuminati Masons)... then a little further down the page: "Most of the Founding Fathersof America were Freemasons. Some were members of the Illuminati."
I'm sure that you can cut this down and put it in the footnote.
Don't want to. Blueboar 20:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Sigh... OK... Once again I linked to the front page instead of the ALL the pages on the site... if you go to the next linked page (link at the bottom of the GW page) it goes on to talk about the other early Americans who were freemasons, and all about how they put Masonic symbols on the map of Washington, the Dollar Bill etc.
What sort of historian cites a book without the page number? 17:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Which is why I have now added a second link. Blueboar 20:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Couldn't see anything immediately about the Dollar Bill, and so removed it
On second page of the above site... there is a whole section on it.
Cite it. Quote it. JASpencer 17:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Cited... no need to quote it... there is a great big picture of a Dollar Bill on the page... you can't miss it.Blueboar 20:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
It contains a map showing "Washington D.C. Street Layout. Satanic Pentagram. Designed by the Freemasons"
Cite it next to the claim. JASpencer 17:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
It is... right at the end of the sentence where citations belong.Blueboar 20:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • No mention of George W. Bush in Famous Freemasons (his father's there though). Removed.
OK... it actually says simply "George Bush" (with no W or HW)... so they could be referring to either one. However, I have seen similar claims for HW on other sites, so I will clarify the claim and keep the citation.
Is that the George Bush who's ex-president and former director of the CIA? It ain't Shrub. JASpencer 17:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


  • No mention of "various figures in popular culture", just James Cameron. Reworded
On this one I can agree... I will find citation on other people.
  • Can't see any reference to Freemasonry being behind 9-11 in the Enterprise Mission statement, rather the opposite. Removed
Well... the theory is tht the Freemasons are the Knights Templar and 9-11 was a counter attack in the on going war between Islam and the Knights Templar... but I have no problem rewording the claim around and saying that it was an Islamic war against Masonry,
But is this a conspiracy theory of which Freemasonry is a target as in the introductory text? It should be removed or the introduction changed. JASpencer 17:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes... according to this theory, the Islamicists hate Freemasonry for being the KTs... thus they attacked the WTC (read the cited page). Blueboar 20:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
No, at the end they specificly tie all the symbolism stuff to a statement that Masonry killed JFK: "Masonry does not believe in murdering a man in just any old way and in the JFK assassination it went to incredible lengths and took great risks in order to make this heinous act of theirs correspond to the ancient fertility oblation of the Killing of the King."
This should certainly be quoted then (in the footnote). JASpencer 17:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Anyone who wants to verify can click on the link and read the article. As you know, I hate quotes in footnotes, so I will not provide it.Blueboar 20:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • No source for JFK not being a Freemason or killed for being a Freemason. Removed
Returned... I will find more.
It should be removed, but never mind. JASpencer 17:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
No... it should be cited. I have added a fact tag to remind me to find citations. Blueboar 20:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Can't use Google for citations. Removed Denver Airport.
Can you cite the WP rule that says that? ... in any case, I will be happy to link to the top five of these cites as a "proper" citation.
  • Took out corporate logos as not mentioned in Forbidden Knowledge
HUH? Proctor and Gamble, McDonald's, MICROSOFT.... these are all discussed.
OK, but shouldn't you at least put a couple of quotes in there? I missed this stuff out because I did Control F and looked for Corporate. JASpencer 17:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
You can not quote a logo. 20:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Freedom domain does not claim that the KKK is a branch of Freemasonry, but that the Knights of the Golden Circle had links to Freemasonry (through Pike). Removed
  • Trosch claims that the Skull and bones were linked to Freemasonry, not a branch of it. Removed
On this one I will change the claim to say "tied to" instead of "a branch of"

Weak and audacious claims should be verified. Simply pointing to a website and saying "see for yourself" is like pointing to a book and saying "it's all there".

The key here is that these claims exist and can be verified. I do not think they need to be beafed up or "proven". It is simply a list of wacko conspiracy theories. If I were to provide exact quotes for each claim, it would make this section seem much more important to the article than it is. What is important is to include them... not "prove" or overly support them.
Well provide quotes in the footnotes. Yes they shouldn't be in the main text. Conspiracist sites tend to be far too long for just a simple point and look. As I've said on another talk page this flight from the truth is going to be convenient for you at the moment but it won't always remain that way.
It would be far easier to put the quotes in. Taking out quotes and quote requests is akin to taking out citation requests. JASpencer 17:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
As you know, I don't like having quotes in footnotes (with the occasional exception of a hard copy reference)... again, if someone wants to fact check they can click on the links and read the pages themselves. 'Nuff said. Blueboar 20:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

No doubt this will be deleted on sight. JASpencer 18:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

initial Comments responding to each bullet pointed criticism above all made by me. Blueboar 01:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I have added a few more citations where indicated in my comments above, and have put a fact tag where I feel I need to do more research. As far as I am concerned... most of these claims are now cited and verified enough for inclusion. I will do no more on them. I see no reason to clutter up the article quoting bits and pieces when it is obvious that these sites talk about the claims. End of story as far as I am concerned. Blueboar 20:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Factual Accuracy tag on Other Conspiracies section

First, let me just point out the redundancy of adding a Factual Accuracy tag to a section of an article that already has such a tag for the entire article... but, leaving that aside... please let me know where there is a factual inaccuracy. These claims may be a bit on the wacko side, but they are made (as has been verified by proper citations). Blueboar 20:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I add my support to Blueboar, above. (Yes I'm still here). :) Imacomp 16:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

S-protect

With the latest outbreak of Lightbringer activity, using an IP-adress instead of a username, I've requested semiprotection for this page and the others I can see he has been hitting. WegianWarrior 21:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Persecution and Holocaust under Totalitarian Regimes

I've made a merged section, and shortened duplicate stuff also @ "Freemasonry" and "Holocaust" articles. Imacomp 22:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

totallydisputed ?

Since there has been no discussion on wether or not the information presented is disputed in more than a month, can we assume that NPOV is reached and the tag can be removed? Should it be removed? WegianWarrior 11:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

In light of the factr that there has been no discussion on alleged disputed information (or any discussion at all) in roughtly a month and a half, and I asked if anyone minded just under a week ago, I'll go ahead and remove the totalydisputed tag. If anyone do add it back in, please give your reasons on this talkpage. WegianWarrior 07:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Much Prefer New Page Format

It removes much of the Masonic bias, well done I like it very much.200.17.89.80 12:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary... your edits skew the article to an Anti-masonic bias. To maintain WP:NPOV, both sides need to be represented. Now, if you have specific objections, we are willing to discuss them in a reasonable manner, but sweeping changes such as yours are not going to be accepted. Blueboar 13:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Skew to 'Anti-Masonic Bias'? Page is about Anti-Masonry, leave the blinkered pro-masonic nonsense elsewhere. The new version is VASTLY better.200.17.89.80 13:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
That would be called a POV fork and it is not allowed at Wikipedia (see WP:NPOV. While this page is about Anti-masonry in general, and the claims that Anti-masons make in specific, to not allow the POV of Masonry and Masonry's responce to these claims is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Both sides of these issues MUST be presented. I also note that your argument here is the opposite of what you say in your edit summaries (where you keep saying that "the article is about Freemasonry"). You can not have it both ways.
Again, if you wish to discuss specific issues please do so. If you simply don't like including both sides of an issue, then you should not be posting to Wikipedia. Blueboar 15:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
More personal attacks. The only POV fork was what was occuring previously. This version of page is MUCH better, it is balanced, non-pov and reads smoothly. Please respect Wikipedia guidelines and do not engage in any more personal attacks.59.14.200.242 15:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Please do not remove announcements of 3rr violations or sock accusations... these are commonly left on talk pages so that all involved know they occured. They are not personal attacks, they are posted according to proper Wikipedia proceedures. If you are not a sock of lightbringer, then you have nothing to worry about, and a notice to that effect will be posted... if you are, then others need to know about the accusation.
I am not sure you understand what a POV fork is... a POV fork is where you take material with one POV and break it off into a seperate article. This is what you were suggesting. That is not allowed on Wikipedia. You MUST present all sides of any issue. That means that both the Anti-masonic claims, and the pro-masonic counter claims MUST be included. Blueboar 16:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Assulting the Anti-masonry page and multiple open proxies are a tactic of banned editior Lightbringer

I am reverting the open proxy edits to this page for a fourth time today and calling attention to Wikipedia:3rr#Exceptions, expecially "Reverting banned or blocked users." There is no doubt in my mind and other frequent editors have shared this opinion that the open proxy assualt is from Lightbringer. He has used open proxies in the past. He frequently uses misleading edit summaries. This edits are carbon copies of ones he's attempted before. He has also accused that this "page is about anti-masonry not conspiracy theory" on several occasions. There is currently a request to lock the page being processed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection. Chtirrell 14:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Lightbringer has further proof of Lightbringer using open proxies.

I have semi'd the page William M. Connolley 17:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
  1. ^ A. Hitler, Mein Kampf, pages 315 and 320.
  2. ^ The Enabling Act Accessed February 23 2006.
  3. ^ Freemasons for Dummies, by Christopher Hodapp, Wiley Publishing Inc., Indianapolis, 2005, p.85, sec. Hitler and the Nazi
  4. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference HMD home was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Das Vergissmeinnicht The Forget-Me-Not Accessed February 6 2006.
  6. ^ Flower Badge as told by Galen Lodge No 2394 (UGLE) Accessed March 4 2006.
  7. ^ a b c Flower Badge Accessed March 4 2006.
  8. ^ History of the Forget Me Not Lodge No 9035 Accessed February 6 2006.
  9. ^ History of the Forget Me Not Lodge No 9035 Accessed February 6 2006.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-Masonry/Archive_3&oldid=1089766767"