Talk:Freemasonry/Archive 19

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

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

→

Archived 20:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC) by Ben Standeven. Current talk page is Talk:Freemasonry

Moved MCB "discussion"

(212.111.35.196 22:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)) dear me, this is an ugly, completely slanted entry. But someone who can please remove the outbursts of completely unrelated bigotry? Or is there a missing demonstration that the MCB is an arm of the free- or unfree- masons? It goeth:

In the Islamic world, Muslim Anti-Masonry[83] is intimately related to Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism.[84] The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) currently maintains a policy of refusing to send official representatives to any of the official events associated with Holocaust Memorial Day.

In a controversial interview on the UK BBC programme Panorama, (first broadcast on Sunday 21 August 2005)[85], Sir Iqbal Sacranie, the head of the MCB, denied that the policy constituted a boycott. The MCB subsequently made an official complaint to the BBC that their position had been misrepresented by selective editing of the interview. This complaint was rejected by the BBC.

NOTE that User 212.111.35.196 is a commercial links spamer on a last warning. As to the above, it is totally related to the article section and fully referenced and cited. If any stuff can be found to refute the above then feel free to introduce it. Imacomp 23:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Mail Order Masonry

I've seen, heard and overheard many instances of certain groups that do mass-degree's in the United States and some in South America; I was just wondering whether anyone can confirm (with a URL to such an organisation) or otherwise dispel this act for me? I've spoken in depth with many international brethren on the subject and I believe it was also the deal that Aleister Crowley went through when he vanished to Mexico and came back a '33 degree mason' in a year.

Further, I wasn't aware cross-jurisdictional degree impartment without permit from one's mother lodge is allowable? Can anyone comment on that further? Unfortunately, being located in Sydney, AU, we miss out on all the odd habits others may see. :P Jachin 03:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

http://www.texasyorkrite.org/festival.htm <-- Similar to what I mentioned. However I've heard instances of 1 - 33 occuring also. Jachin 03:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't have it in front of me, but I have seen it on the website of a few Grand Lodges in the US. Ardenn 03:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been scouring out of interest most of my morning, got to head off to class momentarily; if you can find any links it'd be much appreciated. I'm leaning more towards the confirmation as all but the third degrees are conferred in the above, so it isn't beyond reasonable belief that the first three inclusive would be offered somewhere in some bizarre 'package deal'. I wonder if they offer a side order of fries with your order? Scary stuff. Jachin 03:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The whole 'one day class' thing is the subject of much debate, filling a theatre and doing the degree on stage doesn't strike me as an effective way of communicating the 'secrets' but there are, mainly economic, arguments in its favour. By way of contrast here in the UK lodges generally can't conduct more than three candiadates on a given night, and frequently that means putting each through the trials individually then bringing them all in for traditional histories, charges etc. It seems to be quite common in A&AR in the US, although that wuold presuppose that the candidates are already MMs, sothe first three wouldn't be given. It's not out of the question that some of the iregular GL/ GOs which are subordinate to a Supreme Council would have some form of arrangement, taking the candidate to 32. It would be unusual to go to 33 automagically. My personal view is that one day classes are an abomination :) I reallydon't see how the candidate can actually undergo the initiatory experience which is really fundamantal to development, unless s/he actually goes through it. I've had the discussion with some Lady-Masons here and understand they don't put any more than one individual through at a meeting, leading to some of their lodges having quite a long waiting list. Thinking in practical terms, when I did the 18th I don't see how an audience can have seen anything much, particularly in the CofR with the EofM. My R+C Chapter don't take any more than one candidate at a time and that was a really deeply intense ritual, very heavy in depth of meaning.ALR 07:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

US GLs definitely do it for the first three degrees, as well as for York Rite on occasion and Scottish Rite as standard (in that everyone becomes a 32 in a day, but they don't see every degree, and would have to keep coming to the ODCs to see all the different degrees) but it is definitely an issue that has its proponents and detractors. I believe that at least in the US, the percentage of retained members for ODCs vs. regular initiations is about the same in the long run. Furthermore, in the US, York Rite is participatory, while AASR is not, so it makes a difference. On top of that, many people used to go through either Rite simply to become eligible for the Shrine, but the Shrine has since dropped the requirement. So the approach is very different between the US and UK. MSJapan 04:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you ALR and MSJapan. Do either of you have any URL's to organisations which run this? I'm interested as to what their take on the matter is. I am very much a traditionalist myself, however I can also see the potential (yet still second-hand) arguments I have heard put forward on behalf of these phantom GL's that run such endeavours.

I do however feel that perhaps this is an alternative to dealing with the massive rates of decline we faced in the 80's and 90's, but there has been a sudden influx of new initiates primarily due to people getting over the whole 'fuck the system' mentality of which being a 'square' was a hardened and ingrained facet in the socio-psyche.

That being said, I'm still dying to find any official text online pertaining to such, especially those inclusive of the first three degrees. I'll probably be dissapointed and find the same arguments I've heard as hearsay multiple times, but none the less, it will finally conclude my search. :P Thanks again you lot! Jachin 09:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't think you're going to find a script as such, as the content isn't different - it's still all the same ritual as standard ritual (for the jurisidiction); the only real difference is that it is run under dispensation to waive the time requirements between degrees (so the degrees are done one after the other). The Grand Lodges that do it should have notices on their websites, though, and I know the GL of Massachusetts just did one. MSJapan 19:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Rites

I can't help but notice that there is no mention of the Scottish and York Rite. If I passed it up, let me know! :) Or if it is being discussed on another page, which one by chance? And shouldn't that be linked from here (or is this not the main page?)? Zos 02:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

There are articles on both of those, and they are linked through Masonic Appendant Bodies, which is linked here in the Other degrees and bodies section. MSJapan 03:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Thank you. Zos 05:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Question

Considering that Image:Jahbulon royalarch.gif seems to only have been/to be used by Lightbringer, do we still need it? 68.39.174.238 03:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so, but because it's not relevant to this article, not because of who used it. MSJapan 04:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yea, but no articel seems to be using it though, its only on a couple of talk pages... 68.39.174.238 22:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, then it's junk, and can probably be deleted. MSJapan 13:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Stevertigos' edits.....

Freemasonry is a fraternal organization, joined together by shared ideals of both a moral and metaphysical nature and, in most of its branches, by a constitutional declaration of belief in a Supreme Being.

At the core of Freemason beliefs is the concept of The Craft —what Freemasons regard as the true or divine purpose of man as being 'to build and perpetuate the human society.' Among Masons, the term "Craft" is synonymous with Freemasonry and is a metaphor which owes itself to Freemasons' craftsman and labour origins. The term "Freemason" developed from "freedom" and "mason", as an early incarnation of layman philosophy (labour rights) in the work halls of England in the 1600s—one which asserted the value of work ethic and emphasised human freedom as the root purpose and ultimate goal of man's labour.

.... look like they should be removed. For starters it grows the intro paragraph, having only recently got it down to a sensible level, it also attributes a source (without evidence) for the term Freemason where the discussion of that topic is further down the article, and it discusses what a philosophy of FM which isn't an espoused policy, although it may be the personal philosophy of some individuals. With that in mind I'll remove them now.ALR 07:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

ALR, I agree with you. We are trying to shorten and summarise sections here at the main article. I also agree with your other comments, above :) Imacomp 11:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I have added the intro I wrote above. If you two can be precise about your criticisms, explain why a reference to "The Craft" is inappropriate, and justify your rather fraternal and esoteric emphasis on this subject (rather than a common sensical one), it would be much appreciated. -Ste|vertigo 16:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's more to Masonry than morals and metaphysics, and the latter isn't a good term to throw out in an introduction; I certainly couldn't tell you what metaphysics is off the top of my head, and a lot of other folks couldn't either. In short, it's too high-level for an introduction. An introduction does just what it says it does, which is to be the instrument of introducing something to somebody who doesn't know anything about it. What you've got just doesn't do it.

"The core of Freemason belief" - Huh? I'm sorry, are we a religion again? Not only that, you just called these "beliefs" ideals in the previous sentence. Also, with a blanket statement like that, you're contradicting the other fact that you also just stated regarding belief in a Supreme Being or not. In short, you claim universality after unequivocally stating that there are differences.

"the concept of the Craft" being at the core is wrong. The core of Freemasonry is Brotherly Love, Relief and Truth. "The Craft" is just a name used by Masons.

"is a metaphor which owes itself to Freemasons' craftsman and labour origins." - speculative, and not relevant in an introduction to Freemasonry. Also, it might just be that those who think of themselves as craftsmen work in a craft. It might even be possible to ascribe the usage as a way to differentiate operative and speculative masons when there were a lot of the former about, to avoid things like: "Who are you?" "I'm a Free and Accepted Mason." "Great! My chimney needs doing. Could you come by next week?"

"The term "Freemason" developed from "freedom" and "mason", as an early incarnation of layman philosophy (labour rights) in the work halls of England in the 1600s" - Speculative in the extreme; none of this is documented to my knowledge. There's also the French derivation, and a much older usage in the Regius or Halliwell MSS dating to 1300 and something. So that is also incorrect.

"—one which asserted the value of work ethic and emphasised human freedom as the root purpose and ultimate goal of man's labour." - In the 1600s? I dounbt it. This sounds more like the Royal Society. Men weren't very free at the time.

Most important ly, the introduction should serve as an abstract or distillation of the article. These edits don't do that. They introduce things that are not in the article, new and not very relevant information, and outright incorrect or unsupportable statements. MSJapan 17:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Stevertigos, some of the information you added may be worth including in one of the subsections later in the article (if you can find citations to back up the statements), or perhaps in one of the related sub-articles (such as History of Freemasonry)... but your additions definitly do not belong in the opening paragraph. For the most part, your additions seem to be personal interpretations of what Freemasonry is all about, which comes too close to Original Research for a Wikipedia article. Blueboar 17:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. I am not a Freemason and I have no real bias, except toward succinct, fact-based writing. If you two could please state your interests and biases we can start to work out what is wrong with this article. Simply saying its a fraternity with some strange beliefs doesnt cut it. What strange beliefs? Where is this documented? What does the literature say. "I certainly couldn't tell you what metaphysics is off the top of my head, and a lot of other folks couldn't either. In short, it's too high-level for an introduction. " Sounds like a bunch of wild speculation to me. Its ironic that a common sensical read of the origins of a work hall fraternity should be regarded as speculative, while the more mystical and esoteric notions are upheld as substantive. Im sure its all as complex as conspiracy theorists (and their readership) like to think it is. -Ste|vertigo 06:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

And so the debate goes off into a tangent, I'd be grateful if you could articulate your various points explicitly since the paragraph above appears to emcompass several, I don't wish to address them until I'm sure I'm addressing what you wish to discuss. My concerns with the contribution should be pretty clear:

Your suggestion that The Craft is core to the philosophy is uncited hence has no place, it's also wrong as made clear by MSJ.
The suggestion about use of The Craft being a reference to the operative origin theory would be more appropriate in the discussion of origin theories. Placing it in an intro paragraph places an unreasonable weight on it.
Etymology of the term is discussed in the article placing one interpretation in the summary gives it undue weight.
Your explanation of the etymology is uncited.

Feel free to deal with these concerns by citing the contribution and placing it in context within the existing sections of the article.ALR 07:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. Steve, your questions make sense in the context of the article. Your claims, however, do not, and they aren't factually supported enough to give them the weight you want by putting them where you do. Dealing with things like "strange beliefs" is what the article is all about. However, those things are dealt with in the body of the article; they are not appropriate to the introduction. Introductions are basic; they serve to give a general overview, and any detail the reader wants is why they should continue to read the article. Therefore, any discussions of specific points don't belong in the introduction. I'm not sure what you think the problem is, but you're simply not dealing with the research in the appropriate manner. MSJapan 21:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what you said about the introduction should not contain esoteric claims. What should be in the introduction is an explanation, by Freemasons, of what Freemasonry actually is. You both can do some reading :usnews, [1]. Regards -Ste|vertigo 04:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

From what I know of ALR and MSJapan (having worked with them on this article for quite some time now), they know far more about the history, meaning and rituals of Freemasorny than US News does. As to that... while the article you point us to is more or less accurate, it is a bit simplistic and overly focused on Freemasonry in the United States.

We have done some editing to try to address your concerns. Is there anything else you find objectionable with the introduction as it now stands? Blueboar 14:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

I've archived old comments and finished discussions. If they're not finished, please start a new topic here, not on the archive page. WegianWarrior 05:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Intro problems

The term "Freemason" developed from "freedom" and "mason", in the work halls of England in the 1600s. At the core of Freemason belief is the concept of building the society as the fulfillment of their duty as both free men and craftsmen. Among Masons, the term "Craft" is synonymous with Freemasonry and is a metaphor which owes itself to Freemasons' craftsman (labour, skilled trade) origins.

And this is sourced where? There's a ton of possible etymologies (French, German English, and probably a few others), and the word appears in pre-1600 documents, (such as the Regius Manuscript) as noted above, so this speculation is wrong, as is your speculation as to where the term "Craft" comes from. If you do not source and explain this, I see no other option other than to report this as vandalism or a violation of WP:NOR. I also find it egregiously arrogant of you to claim that your edit is "superior", considering it's now a load of unfactual nonsense. Lastly, don't piecemeal edit: if you can't source it when you add it, don't add it. MSJapan 05:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Were all working toward a basic and correct introduction - one which actually says something - I have no objection to any edits you might make to improve the lead. The key word is improve - construct, build, create, forge. Second, AIUI, the Regius Manuscript refers to the "master mason" - not the free mason. The concepts are directly related, (and no doubt the concept of the mason or smith is central to any masculine concept of creation - men dont have wombs after all), but the point is that Freemasonry emerged only in the context of the Western Renaissance as men gained a greater concept of the value of their personal freedom - hence "mastery" over their own lives once afforded only to "masters." Basic stuff - Keep your pants on. -Ste|vertigo 05:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You can't pick and choose bits of history at your leisure and ignore others - if you're going to do that, you might as well ignore operative masonry altogether, because according to you, it doesn't matter. BTW, what you think is the point is irrelevant; this article deals in sourced fact, not individual speculation. Furthermore, not being a Mason, how do you know what the point of it is? Moreover, this argument also smacks heavily of Lomas and Knight's book, which unfortunately suffers from untrained people doing "historical research". Most importantly, you are unable to defend any of your points, and the prior discusion has shown that you are editing against consensus, and your "improvements" have only made the article worse, because you're dealing in speculation and semantics. MSJapan 05:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Stevertigo does have a point, even if he don't seem to be aware of the implications of it himself. The lead should be improved - however that does not mean introdusing new, uncited material. According to WP:LEAD, the lead should:

provide a preview of the main points the article will make
summarizing the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable
be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article
be written in a clear and accessible style
be carefully sourced like the rest of the text
should encourage the reader to want to read more.

Stevertigo's version fails on at least four of these (1, 2, 3 and 5). Depending on the reader, it might fail on five (6 as well). I feel we ought to fix the lead in accordance with the guideline - but let's work it out on the talkpage first. WegianWarrior 06:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Stevertigo's disrespectful name calling in the history section deserves a knock on the door from our minions ;) Strange how an outsider thinks that they can summarise the Craft more effectively than several initiated Brethren? Imacomp 13:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

That jest alone has probably been cited on a few hundred thousand born-again christian websites proving that we summon demons and shoot fireballs from our arses. :P Jachin 14:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Its strange how someone who defends a reasonable, clear, and honorable view of Freemasonry, against a poorly written version that emphasises esotericism, should be regarded as an apostate. That the poor version is written by "initiated Brethren" only shows that those "Brethren" have not yet been "initiated" into "the craft" of writing (building) a good article. Its apparently my duty to initiate you. But I show no disrespect to anyone -my disrespect is reserved only for that part of people which is not sincere, or is otherwise irreverent of craft and purpose. Namaste. -Ste|vertigo 16:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

PS: Note that my changes were reverted by an an apparent sockpuppet. That edit also contained an important caveat to the "esoteric" comments in the first section. "In his book, American Freemasons: Three Centuries of Building Communities, Mark Tabbert explains that Masons themselves "heightened suspicion of the craft as an international order with secrets and a radical revolutionary past." -SV

Wegian wrote a list of guidelines about how an article lede should:

provide a preview of the main points the article will make
summarizing the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable
be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article
be written in a clear and accessible style
be carefully sourced like the rest of the text
should encourage the reader to want to read more.

is incorrect in that its not a "preview of points" - its an overview of the topic - important difference. The first comes from a more static notion of article development rather than a dynamic one - the most enduring writing must be the most agreeable. No amount of POV swarming is going to change that.
is incorrect in that the "reasons the subject matter is interesting" are completely irrelevent. Just state what is interesting instead, and keep things simple. See the difference: Reasons are interpretations, hence biasing colorations.
True. "Be capable" however is a value judgement -one which we strive for. In this case, a reasonable challenge to my edits would simply have been to make the changes, and make a small note of the esoteric nature of Freemasonry. Instead, others have chosen to be less than constructive.
True. Ive been striving for that since about... 2002. Some examples of my work: Beauty, Art, etc.
True, though sources often conflict. The real point is to draw a balanced sense of whats going on from multiple sources and explain them.
False. Encouragement is a coloration. Readers dont read what they dont want to - they follow their interest. Keep things interesting, which, by our standards, means NPOV, clarity, summation, integration. -Ste|vertigo thanks

Wegian wrote a list of guidelines about how an article lede should... NO - I qouted from WP:LEAD, the official wikipedia guideline on what a lead should be. If you have trouble agreeing with the official guidelines, and from your rambling reply it appers you have, perhaps you should set aside some time to read them to try to understand why they exists in their current form. If you still disagree, well, so sad. They are still the official guidelines and should be followed. WegianWarrior 20:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I will correct WP:LEAD in the morning. -Ste|vertigo 23:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Constructive criticism 101

OK Steve ... let's deconstruct your suggested intro to see where the problems lie...

The term "Freemason" developed from "freedom" and "mason", in the work halls of England in the 1600s....

This is only one of many etymologies for the word "Freemason". It may also derive from "Freestone Mason", from the french "Frere Macon" or several others. To place it in the introduction (without mention of other possible etymologies) gives it unue weight. As for the second part of the sentence, since the term Freemason can be found in manuscripts as early as the 1400s, this is incorrect. Also... a citation would be needed to back your statements.

At the core of Freemason belief is the concept of building the society as the fulfillment of their duty as both free men and craftsmen.

First, I would quibble with your use of the word "belief"... Freemasony is not something that tells you what to "believe". Yes there are "teachings" and "lessons" presented, but they do not impart things to be "believed"... that is left to Religion to impart. Each mason is free to interpret the lessons presented in his own way. Now, if you want to say that one core lesson imparted in the Masonic ritual is the concept that, as Masons, the brethren are "building society as the fulfillment of their duty as both free men and craftsmen"... I would agree. However this is only one of many teachings of the ritual, and thus should be discussed along with other teachings and lessons. Again, placing it in the introduction gives it undue weight. And again, you need a citation to back up the claim that this is indeed a Masonic lesson.

Among Masons, the term "Craft" is synonymous with Freemasonry and is a metaphor which owes itself to Freemasons' craftsman (labour, skilled trade) origins.

This is fine for the introduction (and much more accurate than your previous wording)... although I would say that it is a bit wordy. I would change it to something more along the lines of: "Freemasons often refer to their Fraternity as "The Craft", a term which evokes its possible origins in the operative stone mason's guilds." Blueboar 19:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

What's this? Constructive criticism? Thank you Blueboar, you redeem your people. On your points; 1) etymologies are always tricky --a good way to handle these is to include the most prominent sources, and use a footnote link to the etymology section. Etymology in this case isnt as interesting as the core beliefs, IMHO, but its important to define the basic word. Older found variants could be considered irrelevant, except in the context of discussing rather deep cultural archetypes which either directly led to Freemasonry, shaped it through cultural mores, or otherwise was an independent incarnation (with either similar or divergent meaning).

2) Belief may be the incorrect word, and I understood that when writing it. Clearly there is a spectrum of terms which we can use to define what binding principles or philosophies or whatever, Freemasons adhere to. It should also be noted that terms change, just as beliefs change. If that one tenet is matched by other parallel tenets, then these should be summarised. These are interesting. Excessive usage of the word "fraternity" and "Brethren" is not.

3) Im glad we agree on most issues, and that youve outlined a couple areas where my version could be substantively improved. As for wordiness, I make analogy to building: as with construction materials, skimping on the vocabulary of the article lede is something which should invite a building code citation. "Possible origins in the operative stone mason's guilds" reads a bit wordier, though it may be more correct given a lack of definitive evidence. Regards. (PS: Ive put a subheading on this section) -Ste|vertigo 23:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting that you choose to characterise BBs responses as more constructive than mine or MSJs, given that they're the same points. Anyway;

Etymology. Whilst it's all very interesting to debate how to manage etymological issues in an article where there are a range of different, and not mutually exclusive, options, the fact remains that unless you can provide a citation for your suggestion then it carries less substance than the others which have been presented. Therefore it has no place in the introduction, indeed without a citation it has no place in the section on etymology either.

Belief. I would tend to see the interpretation presented as an extremely minor aspect of the various lessons presented in craft ritual. the rituals that I have read and worked with would probably deprecate the point anyway since they tend to emphasise a different approach to the individuals place in regularl organised society.

Craft. I would suggest that the presentation proposed is somewhat simplistic.ALR 09:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Blueboar and Imacomp did a bit of a rewrite for the intro (with some apparent editing collusion and collision, judging from the edit history) and I edited it slightly. I think it actually works quite well, though I would say we need to add in a brief historical context at some point ("Freemasonry has various dates given for its origins", or the UGLE dates or the Lonodon tavern dates or the KST dates (which is why we need discussion). However, it should really not get too much longer than the current three paragraphs, or it's goin to get unwieldy as an intro. MSJapan 17:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

No collusion (just "great minds" thinking alike) ... as witnessed by the collision. MSJ, your final bits seem to work well. I agree that there is not much else to add without it getting too unwieldy. Blueboar 20:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Organization of article

Collusion is just pejorative term for 'collaboration one doesnt like.' Not really helpful. ALR, you mention a few interesting points about Masonic philosophy, and your familiarity with it in part and in general. What Im suggesting to you all is that the philosophy is far more interesting than any talk of organizational structure. Hence mentioning the organizational structure in the lede is contradictory to making the article interesting. We can start by asking ourselves which basic questions we would have about any organization, such as The Rotary Club, Scientology, etc. What originally brought these people together?

What (in a "simplistic" nutshell) are their core values? What keeps the organization going? What has changed for better or worse? Where are the differences? Does the organization try to hide its differences or resolve them? It is far more uninteresting for Masons here to shy from making definitive general statements about their fraternity, instead of coming to some generic formulation with reasonably specific caveats. If there is no such core philosophy, state so. If there once was one and now there is none, due to internal dispute quelling efforts, say so. It seems that there is a comflict of interest in this article between the divided loyalties of Wikipedia and Freemasonry; this organziation has aspects of being a fraternity as well—we are explainers who dislike obfuscation. -Ste|vertigo 17:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Rv. to 15:45, 5 June 2006 Imacomp. The article was better as it was in the first place. Imacomp 18:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

PS As to being a Freemason to be "ordered" to do this, that 'n' tuther in a "Police State" dream... "We" are "We" as well. (But just how many are "We"...) Imacomp 18:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

PPS This section looks better here ;) Imacomp 18:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You are obviously talented at explaining yourself and rationalizing your edits - including moving this section to the bottom. As the last has long been considered in bad form, I should also consider your edits to be as valuable as your explanation. -Ste|vertigo 21:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Replace Link for A Page About Freemasonry

There had been a link to "A Page About Freemasonry", the world's oldest Masonic website. When I checked again, it had been removed.

> Links are generally reserved for sites that have significant

> content beyond the scope of an encyclopedia entry

This certainly describes APAF, a comprehensive site with a large collection of articles and essays about Masonry, book reviews, a guestbook, a letters column, and more.

The URL was formerly http://web.mit.edu/dryfoo/Masonry/ (which still comes up #1 on a Google search on "Freemasonry") and is in the process of changing to http://MasonryPage.org/

24.128.169.142 17:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC) GLDryfoos

It will probably get back in there eventually, but in all fairness, we've got other more serious article-related issues to worry about ATM. However, I will make a note of it for future reference. MSJapan 19:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Ritual Section

I felt that the section on rituals was somewhat lacking. I have greatly expanded it. The source for the information was a televangelist show, but the rituals were performed by a supposed former mason. The rituals do not seem exagerated or conctrived. The show did not seem prone to conspiracy theories, and it's primary objection to freemasonry was that it was accepting of all religions. For this reason I felt it was a reliable source. Discuss. CJames745 21:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand that it is in somewhat bad form to add a large segment of text without consensus first. But why somebody would immediately revert a sourced segment of text that has only a slight anti-masonic bias and offering that it is "drivel" as the only explanation confounds me. I do not wish to partake in a revert war, so please explain what you felt was wrong with the section and we can move forward. CJames745 21:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

That's easy. One, it's a biased source. Visible or not, its point was to show how Masonry "makes a mockery of Scripture" (hence "the Masons added the story of Hiram to Scripture", which is not true, for example, because the story is not in the Bible at all). The "drivel" aspect comes from the fact that that's not how the ritual works or what it means at all. A Mason has never "displayed holiness through the secrets of the Masons", and standard or not (see next point) the ritual doesn't say that, and makes no sense in the context of what Masonry is.

Second of all, as we explained in the ritual section, ritual is not standard, and as a matter of fact, the layout of those degrees as you have written them don't quite match the way we do it in my jurisdiction (as a matter of fact, some of the stuff you have written isn't how anyone in any regular jurisdiction does it). Now, since we have people from all over the world using WP, in order to avoid the whole section needing endless "this is how they do it in London, but it's different in Sydney" types of clarifications, in the interests of this article serving its purpose as a general introduction to Freemasonry (not an "expose", mind you), we have left that sort of material out. There are plenty of resources online for outdated and private-use ritual, and it's simply too much to go into here.

I'm going to digress a bit here: Having come across this type of thing wrt to anti-Masonic research, I think any supposed "former" Master Mason who left the Fraternity (not that anybody bothers to verify membership of these supposed "ex-Masons") because of "religious views" probably went into Masonry thinking that it was a spiritual replacement for religion in the first place, which Masonry has never claimed to be. People only drift to evangelical groups because they have a spiritual void; Masonry's purpose is not to fill that void, and anyone who believes that that is what it does after having been a member really didn't understand what they were joining, or why. MSJapan 22:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Being that you are in fact a freemason I won't doubt that you are right about the ritual being nonstandard. I must have badly interpreted some lines of the ritual regarding "displayed holiness through the secrets of the Masons." While the film claimed that freemasonry was a religion, I disagree. The tried to evaluate the source only for its info on ritual. I'm not christian and I found the way they attacked a freemason on the show by making him say that freemasons who who were not christian were lost and by insisting that freemasons should only have the holy bible in their temples to be quite dispicable. But as I'm sure you understand, it is very difficult to find reliable information on freemasons and I thought this source was trustworthy based on the fact that it made no claims of satanism, or black mass, and that in general it was less extreem than many college fraternity initiations.

I would also like to clarify that in no way did I mean to imply that the story about Hiram had actually been put into the bible. I had meant to say that it is an addition to what actually is in the bible.

I can understand that since people from all over the world see this encyclopeadia, it wouldn't make sense to have an endless list of the different types of rituals that go on in a masonic lodge. But I do think the ritual section needs to be expanded. It is very general and, to me at least, seems uninformative. I think it would be quite helpful to have some kind of general explanation of what goes on during the ritual for each degree, or at least the master mason initiation. It can't vary so much that even that isn't possible, can it? It sounds at least like many of the parts I included were close to what you went through.

The reason I added the section was to attatch something concrete to the idea of masonic rituals. The current version leaves too much to the imagination. I have a friend who thinks that in order to be a master mason you have to be both a catholic and a satanic preist. I hate conspiracy theories. CJames745 23:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Your last point is not really a ritual issue; rather, it's a membership requirement issue, which is covered in the appropriate section in the article. Ritual only comes into the picture after one has joined. As for what goes on in the ritual, there are a few problems involved - one is that non-Masons aren't supposed to know what goes on; it ruins the experience if one knows what to expect (there's plenty of it available here and there, though), even though the ritual is more than the words involved. Secondly, at a rough estimate, there are 47 distinct rituals in use in the UK alone. So I would say that there is definitely an issue of standardization. Thirdly, the reason for #2 is because how ritual is performed is usually left up to each individual lodge, and it can differ in Lodges that meet in the same building. So there's only so much that can really be said that will be pertinent to all Lodges, for various reasons. I'll look over your latest additions, though I may rv them or edit them heavily, as per my explanation. MSJapan 03:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think MSJ has largely dealt with this. A single, unreliable, source for the ritual cannot be comprehensive (as an example each of the four craft lodges I belong to use different rituals) so it would be moderately deceptive to cite one (incorrect) example as representative. Whilst I see the point you're trying to make I would caution against being over-explicit about ritual in an article like this; it's slightly unfair on a prospective candidate to expose them to any example of ritual in advance of being initiated.ALR 09:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can understand your point about not exposing rituals to the uninitiated. But this is an encyclopedia, the purpose of which is to inform. The scientology article reveals things about the religion that people aren't supposed to know until after they join as well. I'm suprised to see that this article doesn't even mention Hiram Abiff. As far as I'm concerned it is censorship. I realize that my source was unreliable, but for this article to be truly complete I feel that it really should be as informative about freemasonry as possible. That means that information about rituals should be available, in my opinion. CJames745 19:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

See Hiram Abif ALR 19:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

In addition, I see it as mildly disingenuous to suggest that the reasons you have been presented with are a form of censorship. There are far more rituals in existence, regular and iregular, than could be usefully considered in the article. Utility and value is not defined by bulk alone and I would suggest that where a topic is too extensive to meaningfully consider within the scale of a single article it is of limited value to provide an incomplete or even inaccurate contribution. You are of course free to take the view that rituals should be available, as Imacomp highlights there is at least one reference to ritual already in the article, you can go out and buy several should you wish to do so, however that rather misses the point of what Freemasonry is about.ALR 21:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, CJames745, to add my $s/£s worth... The points you make above, I'm sure, are noted by all current Editors - and you are free to edit as you see fit. However, "Heads up" on the Ritual case, as you will find the "ISBN" number of an example - in the References - that is freely available. This is the resulting "Armistice" of an old, and very long "Revert War". Imacomp 19:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC) ear PS Asuming that all Brethren are on "Summer Break"... have a nice one, and get some Sun :) Imacomp 20:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I had a SocRos meeting last week, am learning Principal Soj for an exaltation and have a craft meeting in a couple of weeks. Summer Break........ chance'd be a fine thing. Oh btw my Scots lodge doesn't take a summer break at all, once a fortnight, all year round!ALR 20:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Since Masonic Hall in NYC does not have air conditioning, I am very glad that my lodge goes dark for the summer! However, as of our last meeting (Installation of Officers) I am now my lodge's Assistant Secretary (i.e. I do all the work, while the actual Secretary gets all the credit)... which means LOTS of Masonry to attend to during the off season, even if it is not in open lodge. And there is always editing on Masonry related wiki pages to do if I get bored. But I will try to get some sun anyway. Blueboar 20:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The Treasurer is in his Counting House, and keeping the Lodge Fees on-track... ("Will this get me a good *Dark Blue* apron"?) :) Imacomp 22:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Why can't I even mention Hiram Abif in passing? I don't get it. The reasons given for reverting my last contribution were fine. But this is censorship. I don't see what else it could be viewed as. If you're worried about ruining the suprise, so to speak, we could put up a spoiler warning of sorts. Considering that much of what freemasonry is about regards the legend of Hiram Abif, it seems odd to have an entire article about freemasonry without mentioning him. CJames745 23:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is really a case of not being able to mention the legend of Hiram Abif, but doing so in a way that adds something meaningful to the article. An "in passing" mention does not really add anything. You would have to put the reference into ritual context... and, as we repeatedly say in the article, ritual varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, it would require several paragraphs to do it justice. Otherwise it is little more than a case of adding it just to say "oooh, look... Masonic Secrets!!... coooool"

Also, I would disagree with your contention that "much of what freemasonry is about regards the legend of Hiram Abif". The Hiramic legend is but one small part of what Freemasonry is about. Indeed, most of the lessons that Freemasonry imparts are presented outside of the context of the Hiramic legend. Blueboar 23:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Brotherly love, relief and truth (which some would consider Masonry in a nutshell) have nothing to do with the Hiramic Legend. The legend is only one part of one degree, and therefore a very small part of what Freemasonry is all about, as it's certainly a lot more thnma ritual.MSJapan 01:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

A passing reference to Hiram Abif links to the article on Hiram Abif which does do the subject justice. I figured that since the rituals change in time and place, I would state the one fact that I know for sure applies to all of the rituals about Hiram Abif, that it regards the legend of Hiram Abif. I could further add that Hiram is confronted by three ruffians who want his secrets, that he declines, is killed, and either resurected or properly intered. That seems to be a fair description based on any sources I've seen of what happens. If not all of those points are universally accepted then we could remove or alter them. It is very difficult for me to understand how you could all be considered masons if some kind of common ground that basic in nature can't be reached describing the ritual. Would there be a problem with me adding something similar to this to the article if it were well sourced? CJames745 03:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"It is very difficult for me to understand". Well CJames745 that is just too bad. We have read all this before, Ref: the Revert War I indicated, above. Imacomp 10:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

A passing reference to Hiram Abif links to the article on Hiram Abif which does do the subject justice. - If all you want to do is have a link to the Hiram Abif article, why not just add it to the "see also" section at the bottom of the article? I don't think it is needed, but that would be where it should go if it was added.
I figured that since the rituals change in time and place, I would state the one fact that I know for sure applies to all of the rituals about Hiram Abif, that it regards the legend of Hiram Abif. - Why? What does this "fact" add to the article?
I could further add that Hiram is confronted by three ruffians who want his secrets, that he declines, is killed, and either resurected or properly intered. That seems to be a fair description based on any sources I've seen of what happens. If not all of those points are universally accepted then we could remove or alter them. - then consider them removed, for they are not universally accepted.
It is very difficult for me to understand how you could all be considered masons if some kind of common ground that basic in nature can't be reached describing the ritual. - First, we are not all Masons. Many of us are, but not all. Second, Let me try to explain where you are misunderstanding things... You know that the ritual changes dramatically from jurisdiction to jursidiction. This does not bother Freemasons, because Ritual is not where the "common ground" lies. You see, the ritual isn't what Freemasonry is all about. It is simply a means of transmitting what Freemasonry is all about ... the lessons on Freindship, Morality, Charity and Brotherly Love (etc.) Thus, if a particular Jursidiction decides to omit or change the Hiramic legend, we still can consider them Masons if they present the same lessons in some other way.
Would there be a problem with me adding something similar to this to the article if it were well sourced? - probably... since the sources could be misinterpreting things.

The key here is that contributions to this article should add something substantive. You have yet to tell us why adding a reference to the Hiram story is important or substantive. Blueboar 13:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that the Hiram legend is perhaps a little more significant than is being suggested here, although I'd agree that it's not a huge part of Craft it does serve as a vehicle and it's an underpinning allegory for a number of the 'Elect' rituals used in appendant bodies.

For reference the version that CJ is talking about is at [2], although now there was a unilateral redirect to get rid of history and debate and the current version is at Hiram Abiff with Imacomp doing his own thing to it. IMO it's now not a particularly useful treatment of the subject but I didn't want to get into a revert war over it. fwiw I also don't like CJs edit to Hiram Abif since it is both inaccurate and inadequately sourced.

A passing reference doesn't add anything to the topic, since it is only part of one of the three craft rituals, and I would suggest that the key elements are really included in the initiation rather than raising. The ritual section wouldn't benefit from a significant increase in content, since it is both contentious and difficult to reflect the wide variety of ritual in use.ALR 13:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

But my source was a masonic site. Was it a fake? I've seen the phrase, "from a dead horizontal to a living perpendicular" in various places in any case. I would agree that the new Hiram Abiff article doesn't do the subject much justice, regardless of any factual error I may have made on the old Hiram Abif article. I was actually considering adding a link to the See Also section as blueboar had suggested, but now that would seem to be in vain as well. CJames745 19:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe not fake (although it could be; I didn't look), but outdated (likely), limited in use (also probable) or misinterpreted (which happens a lot). The problem with ritual is that you can know it without really understanding it, and they aren't the same thing. BTW, the implication of "dead horizontal to living perpendicular" that you saw (which is not present in my jurisidiction, BTW) implies resurrection, and that doesn't happen. I believe this is covered in Anti-Masonry in the section on the Crucifixion. As a further note, I believe that even in Duncan's it states that the body was dug up and reburied, not resurrected. MSJapan 20:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The expression is more correctly from a dead level to a living perpendicular, thus recalling the Masonic Level and Plumbrule, two of the murder weapons, but in their correct, didactic roles.Nuttyskin 03:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The anti-masonry page, at least the current version, doesn't have a section on crucifixion and doesn't mention Hiram Abif. CJames745 06:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Try Catholicism and Freemasonry. MSJapan 13:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Do we need a "Common misconceptions" section?

I have been thinking about adding a "Common misconceptions" section to discuss in one place many of the myths and misunderstandings that we keep having to address peicemeal. What to the rest of you think? If such a section is added, what should be discussed and where should we put it? (my thinking is that it might go well either after the "organizational structure" section or before the "common criticisms" section.) Blueboar 12:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a candidate for another sub-article to me, as we are tying to shorten this article? I'm guessing that it would be quite a contentious lightening-rod, and by its very nature, seen as quite POV by the "Anti" lobby and random conspiracy theorists? But, good luck if you go ahead ;) Imacomp 16:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

That's why I wanted to discuss the idea before adding anything. If done wrong, it definitely could become a lightning rod for the anti croud. We already do address many of these misconceptions in a piecemeal way (for example... repeatedly stating that "Freemasonry is not a Religion", or that there is no over arching "world grand lodge"). I just wonder if it would make sense to combine them into one unified section. Blueboar 17:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, but at the same time, I think we'd have to subcategorize. Not only that, a good portion of the article would be a chunk of the anti article, and I think we should try to avoid direct copying of material from article to article. MSJapan 17:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

True... hmmm... let me think about this further, and if I can come up with something I like I will post it here so everyone else can rip it apart and tell me how silly I am being. :>) Blueboar 20:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

PS Blueboar, if you keep clarifying in the Main Article, it's go to get "fat" again. Look at the "full text" Subs, to see if the point is clear? We are not trying fo a "For Dummies" contract are we? :) Imacomp 20:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

LOL :>)... I'm done (for now)... my goal is to cut more than I add... but that is not always easy. Blueboar 22:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

LOL. PS to all my readers... For Bear read Beer (Sp). Sorry, and good night. Hic, pardon! :) Imacomp 22:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Why does my disambig link to Freemasons (band) keep getting deleted? If I'm looking for that band and I end up here while there is an article about the band I suppose a disambig is more than justified, whether the entry about the band is currently an AfD or not. -mrbartjens 23:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It was only deleted once, to my knowledge. However, as it looks like the band is going to stay, we can put a link in. The other problem is that this article suffers from unilateral reversion. As I said to Dryfoos earlier, I'll keep it in mind, and I'll put it back once things stabilize. MSJapan 01:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

There are good reasons to delete such "disambiguation" links. 1) They arent disambiguation links - nobody is looking for any cheezy band called the "Freemasons," so theres no issue of disambiguation. Its therefore a hatnote, and its presence serves only to advertise something that nobody wants to see - ie. spam. 2) I cant tell you how absolutely annoying it is to look for an article on a serious subject (like God) only to find somebody has stuck some irrelevant or otherwise unjustifiably trivial hatnote on top. 3) If there is an issue of disambiguation, a simple {{otheruses}} tag works quite well (though sometimes it needs to be just done by hand), then make a disambiguation page. Regards, happy editing -Ste|vertigo 17:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

1) Well, I was, and I know at least one person who was looking for it too. Just because you are not interested does not mean everyone else is not. 2) Does it matter how annoying you find it? As long as it is relevant... 3) Fair enough, as long as there is some sort of mention that this is not the only use of the term "Freemasons". -mrbartjens 23:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, thinking about it a little bit, what you need to do is change the "Freemasons" redirect page to a disambig, because the title of this article is "Freemasonry", and therefore it would not be what somone would type in to find a band named Freemasons. Basically, no matter what, it doesn't belong on this page - you're "fixing" the wrong thing. MSJapan 00:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Ha, I completely missed that. You're right. -mrbartjens 15:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Purpose of Freemasonry

This seems to be a pretty detailed article, containing far more information that I was expecting to find... yet I'm still at a complete loss as to why anyone would become a Freemason. There are only 2 unifying beliefs noted in the article: Liberty/Equality/Fraternity and a Supreme Being. But what is the purpose of this society? Is it:

To promote these beliefs in the general population?

Nope. They just use ritual to communicate with each other, not the outside world.

To perform the 'charitable effort' in the community?

Article implies this is a (laudable) by-product of the society.

To provide a 'social outlet' for the members?

Another by-product of the beliefs.

For power?

Not mentioned. Fair enough... all the policemen and mayors exposed in the UK papers during the 1960s and '70s did it for purely altruistic reasons, or boredom with suburbia. Not for us to speculate.

Er... that's all I can think of.

Apparently, there's no 'purpose' mentioned in the founding charter or constitution or whatever, but shouldn't the introduction to the article, or at least the body (but early), discuss why people are still joing the Freemasons now? And why they did 100 years ago? Or at least mention that, uniquely, the society is so secretive that no-one in 3 hundred years has ever publicly said why they joined? I might be way off track here... after all the article on Christianity doesn't explain why people become Christians. But there you can at least see from the massive list of complex beliefs held that adherents have enough to keep them occupied. Based on this article, the Freemason society seems extremely superficial in belief and extremely heavy in ritual, with nothing at all linking the two. The article (well-researched and written though it is) tells me that Freemasonry exists and has existed for a considerable period of time but no-one quite knows why.

You're all terribly passionate on this page, so I'm fully expecting to be shot down in flames, particularly since I can't be bothered to go back through the 18 archives. But would be interested to hear opinions on whether adding something on this would improve the article. Kayman1uk 10:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You're mostly right, to a point. We don't promote our "beliefs" (rather principles) to others (not a religion). However, charitable effort isn't really a by-product; whether a given Lodge has a strong service presence in a community is up to that Lodge, and I know that it goes to the extremes both ways. I also don't think a social outlet is a byproduct either; rather, it is the result of a group dynamic. Power is also dependent - there are Lodges that were made up of very powerful people, and if members who had positions of power put their fellow Masons into positions of power, that was a personal choice, hopefully based on the high moral character Freemasonry requires and cultivates, but it is by no means a given. Lodges are made up of everybody from politicians to plumbers.

It is impossible to talk about "why people join" in any brevity, or support it with anything but anecdotal evidence, because people join for so many different reasons, and they differ from country to country, and time to time. In American Freemasons, for example, Mark Tabbert says that people joined post-WWII because they wanted the type of brotherhood they had in the service (which is also how some motorcycle clubs started). I also know that conversely, in the 1960s, Masonry was "establishment" in the US, so people stayed away from it. So joining is not a cut and dried subject, and we're trying to provide useful and more or less universal information.

As for the divide between principles and ritual, I don't think that anyone who knows would say that at all.

We don't know where Masonry *really* came from - Lomas and Knight, for example, write fun books to read if you like revisionist history that say we come from a protohistorical Venus cult. Not bad for two untrained historians who don't use any souurces that are more than about 10 years old. Rosslyn? Who knows, but I'd think there's not enough proof. There are German stonemasons who built Strasbourg and other cathedrals in the 12th century, according to Gould. So the simple answer is that nobody really knows, and WP doesn't deal in speculation, because these are not widely-held concerns for the average Mason, even. MSJapan 13:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Kayman1uk, your question is not easy to answer. One problem is that each Mason joins the fraternity for his (or, in the case of Co-Masonry, her) own reasons. Some are looking for the bonds of fellowship that one forms with his fellow Masons. Others are attracted by our charitable works, and wish to contribute. Still others have heard a bit about the philosophical and ethical lessons Masonry teaches, and wish to learn more. Some are are attracted by the mystery, and simply want to find out what the "secrecy" is all about. And, yes, some join for mercenary reasons - under the mistaken idea that they will somehow get preferential treatment in business or society because they are Masons (these tend not to last long in the fraternity). My main reason was that my father, grandfather and great-grandfather all belonged to my lodge, and I wanted to be part of that family tradition.

But your real question was: "What is the purpose of Freemasonry?" This, too, has as many different answers as there are Masons... it is a social club where men can gather and enjoy each other's good fellowship; it is a charitable organization; it is a moral and ethical philosophy that "encourages good men to be better". You could even say that, for those who like to perform the rituals, it is an amature dramatics society. And this is but a sampling of what the brethren get out of joining the fraternity. Each brother finds something unique about it.

What is Freemasonry's Purpose? For me it is to initiate new men into the fraternity, teach them the fraternity's lessons of friendship, morality and brotherly love, enjoy the company of my brothers while doing so, and then take those lessons and apply them to my daily life. But to put that into an article would, unfortunately, be Original Research. Ask one of the other Masons who contibute here and they will give you a very different answer.

In short, we can not say what the "purpose" of Freemasonry is, because it has multiple purposes, each unique to each Mason. Blueboar 13:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Headline text

Bold textItalic text Do any of you know what you are talking about? or are you just trying to slag off anything you are not involved in? are u just jealous or something? == Meetings - private or public? ==

My experience is that most social or professional meetings welcome guests because they are seeking new members. Therefore, saying "Lodge meetings, like meetings of some other social and professional associations, are private occasions open only to members" is accurate as is saying "Lodge meetings, like meetings of many other fraternal associations, are private occasions open only to members". However, writing "Lodge meetings, like meetings of many other social and professional associations, are private occasions open only to members" is manifestly not accurate. BlueValour 20:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

That would probably run afoul of WP:NOR.--Vidkun 20:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

As might the original statement that merely quotes from the website of the United Grand Lodge of England without demonstrating any basis for it. BlueValour 20:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest that quotes from UGLE resonably constitute the official position fo at least one GL, which is in itself a basis. However as to the point of your 'objection', which does seem rather trivial to me, most organisations have elements of their business which they consider private, some which is considered public and some which fits in between, semi-private but open to invited guests. Freemasonry is the same, some meetings are private, some are public and many are open to invited guests; those that have expressed an interest in joining perhaps, wives and partners etc. As an example the local branch of one of the professional institutions I belong to has wholly private business meetings, open only to elected members, meetings open to members of the institution, meetings open to members and guests, and public meetings. I don't think it's as simple as you're trying to suggest.ALR 21:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur with ALR above. May I add that objection is facile Imacomp 09:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

As this is a direct quote from UGLE, perhaps the issue can be solved by placing quotation marks around the statement. Then it becomes clear that any faults in wording are that of the citation source, and not of the editors of this article. Blueboar 12:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed.BlueValour 15:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Many of the statements made about Freemasonry by Freemasons are not cited anywhere in the literature: they are deductively reasoned from other sources and hence as self-evident as 1+1=2 - I trust no-one here would demand a citation to prove that axiom?

Nuttyskin 03:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

BlueValour, what have your cult's beliefs got to do with Freemasonry? Imacomp 08:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Insults merely indicate the weakness of your case. For the record, I am not a member of any cult; I simply look for accuracy in Wiki articles. Also, do not assume that I agree or disagree with the statement. Moving on to the point in question. Freemasonry states that there is no 'Freemason God' whereas other bodies interpret things differently. In an encyclopaedia it is acceptable to attribute the 2nd and 3rd sentences to Freemasonry but not to state them as undisputed fact. BlueValour 13:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

We have a very strong case. For the record you did not answer the question, so unlike Freemasonry, are we to assume you belong to a secret society? Why should level headed members of Freemasonry be bothered how other bodies outside miss-interpret things - especially if they are not members of the said other bodies. Imacomp 17:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not about who has a case about what. It's about seeking consensus, and ensuring what is included is verified and cited. Ardenn 17:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Answer from Me. A consensus was reached, until one editor dropped in to bog down the article with - I repeat a facile case. Imacomp 17:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Question, why does a statement about lodge meetings need to be in at all? Why is that encyclopedic? Ardenn 17:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

'Conduct of meetings' is sourced, factual and informative and as such is encyclopaedic. In order to strive for concensus I am drafting an alternative form of words.BlueValour 17:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Surely you jest. What you put in isn't encyclopedic. It's how any meeting runs. NO ONE CARES. Ardenn 17:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Problem solved

I've rv'ed the article to about 50 edits ago (most minor by Imacomp, plus an edit war, so it's not as bad as it sounds) because somewhere along the line, the intro (and therefore who knows what else) got botched, and I'd rather go back to a good copy than try to sort out all the nonsense in-between. A few notes for everybody's benefit, which should make things less complicated:

Making minor edits for grammar and such is fine, but please try to do them all at once - in short, use the page edit instead of section edit, and just don't edit what you don't need to, because diffs only track changes; not the entire document.

Furthermore, if anybody wants to make any major changes, ask first.

For example, as the Lodge meeting quote was sourced, there was no reason to change it as POV or anything else, and to be honest, rewording a quote is the same as inserting nonsense or disseminating misinformation. Quotes say what they say, not what you think they say. If UGLE considers Freemasonry to be on a par with other social and professional organizations, they're entitled to their opinion, and just because one person disagrees is not a justification for changing it. We're not here to debate personal ideas about semantics and shades of gray; we're here to impart factual, useful, and pertinent information, decided on via consensus, not unilateral ideas of what might be pertinent, or wrong, or whatever. MSJapan 22:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks MSJ... and I echo your request that any additions or subractions other than grammar and spelling corrections be discussed on the talk page before being added to the article. It avoids edit wars and misunderstandings, and will end building concensus. I would also agree with your statements about changing sorced, quoted material...

BlueValor, I am sure you did not intend this... but several of your recent changes fell into the latter category. Many of these statements were direct quotations, and cited as such. Please, check the links before you arbitrarily decide to change material. If you have a problem with a quotation and how it is included in the article, bring it up here instead of simply changing it. Thanks. Blueboar 23:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You raise an important point. Where a statement is a direct quote it is essential that either it is placed in quotation marks or it should be attibuted in the editorial. A bald statement, even where accompanied by a reference number, will be assumed to be a statement of fact by many readers and is bad practice. BlueValour 23:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. If you will give me some time to complete the task, I will put quotation marks on the statements that are quotations (to make it clear that they are quotations). However, you bring up a very important point yourslef: Some of the bald statements ARE facts, no matter what some non-Masons may believe (As of the current version, I beleive these are all referenced). These are not matters of "Masons say this, while others say that"... they are more a matter of "This is true, but others do not think it is". I would be interested to hear how you would propose to deal with this kind of situation. Blueboar 01:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Because much in the Craft is allegorical it lends itself to interpretation. Indeed, Masons are positively encouraged to interpret lessons and rituals in the light of their own experience. This provides fertile ground for others to interpret differently (or misinterpret according to your position).

Where a statement is one that Masons universely concur is a fact then it can be stated as such /but/ editors then need to be prepared to accept an addition, sourced and clearly attributed as an opinion, as an alternative view.

While most of the material in this article is written by Masons it is not, and cannot become, purely a Freemasonry view. The world outside Freemasonry, however misinformed they may be, have views and where there is a substantial body of opinion in an objective encyclopedia those views must be represented,

Where Freemasonry does itself a disservice is by assuming that anyone with a different view a) can't be a Freemason and b) is motivated by malice. You have seen some of that on here where an innocuous edit has caused me to be accused of being a member of a secret cult! If only he knew...

As an example let us take the edit that caused all the problems:

"Freemasonry explicitly and openly states that it is not a religion, nor a substitute for religion. There is no separate "Masonic God," and there is no separate or proper name for a deity in any branch of Freemasonry".

I have no doubt that this is a correct statement. However, it is a 'position' so joining the two sentences as I proposed provided clarification and seemed unexceptional. As an alternative the view of, say the Catholic or evangelical churches, should be permitted but would no doubt be struck out. Would the views of Albert Pike be allowed?

There are plenty of topics in science, for example, where accepted facts are disputed and contrary views permitted in encyclopaedias.

In conclusion, we are agreed that clear opinion should be marked up and I suggest that what Freemasonry considers facts are stated as facts but dissenting opinions can be sourced.

BlueValour 02:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

BlueValor, the "Freemasonry explicitly and openly ...." statement is a perfect example of what I am talking about. First, this incorporates another direct quote from the UGLE web page (I will put it in quotation marks). But more to the point, the statement is one of pure FACT, not a "position" or an "opinion". It is like a scientist stating that Hydrogen is an element. It is a basic definition. It is not one of those allegorical things that "lends itself to interpretation". There is no "interpretation" involved. It is a policy statement by the premire Grand Lodge, and all Grand Lodges in amity with it. Now, the editors on this page do understand that some religious groups misunderstand this, and think Freemasonry is a religion. And we acknowlege this mistatken view in the article. In fact, we have given this mistaken view a) an entire section of the article and b) an entire sub-article (that this article prominently points to).

This article is the result of a lot of contentious debate and compromise. The regular editors (Mason and non-Mason) have reached a broad concensus on the wording. For you to come in and insist on making changes to that wording upsets that concensus. I am not saying that you have nothing to add to the article... but, PLEASE, work with us and not against us. Fully discuss any change before you make it. And read the archives (all the archives) to see WHY things are written the way they are. Blueboar 12:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean "what a mess"? There is no logical reason to have two sections dealing with the same information, so I have re-edited back my edit on this subject. Thanks also for loosing alot of my non-controvertial work on citation formatting (that was long overdue). It must be very nice to drop in now and again, leaving the work to others. Imacomp 11:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

PS its no use "asking" myself about edits, when only I am doing anything. Note that you reverted several days work, so you either dropped in at the end - or you lurked about without doing anything for those several days. I also not that you either reverted then reported it here - or reported and then just went ahead. Are you going to do any possitve edits? I will look on with interest. Imacomp 11:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes I was lurking and Rv'd that Rv, that was talked about, above. Imacomp 12:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Still lurking, and now @ 2nd revert of the day. Imacomp 12:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm on my 3rd revert. Pity no-one else is reporting here. PS still lurking... Imacomp 12:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

As I have used my reverts, can I report that Blueboar is making changes - but not talking here. Imacomp 12:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with MSJ on this, mixing up substantive edits with copyediting obfuscates the changes made and avoids the opportunity to debate the contribution, whilst the copyediting activity is useful I would tend to disagree with some of the substantive edits, but given the usual unilateral and disruptive approach to any form of collaboration then there is little value in commencing a debate, given that your usual approach is to get straight into a revert war, noting the same thing happened in the Hiram Abif article earlier in the week. Given the excessive level of aggresiveness which any emergent editor is treated to I do not believe that you are acting in a spirit of collaboration, and frankly would suggest that your behaviour does a disservice to the craft.ALR 12:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest that you can suggest what you want, but who is this Bro. Frankly? (Lurking)... Imacomp 12:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice to see you demonstrating the point in a useful and collaborative manner.ALR 12:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm er... lurking. Imacomp 12:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

"Harmony being the support of all institutions..." (even Wikipedia), I will ask that everyone take a deap breath and step back a few paces. Imacomp has made a lot of edits over the last week, some minor and some less minor (I would not call any of them "substantive"). To simply revert his work away does him a big disservice. However, I would agree that the other editors need time to read through his edits and see what has changed and what has not. So... Imacomp, would you be willing to hold off on further editing for a brief while (say a day or so) to give the rest of us time to catch up? We can then raise any issues we have with your edits here, where you can explain why you made the change. To all: please avoid making personal remarks and snipes about each other. It doesn't help. Thanks. Blueboar 12:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree that there have been no substantive edits, mixed in amongst the minor edits there have been a few subtle wording changes which, when taken within the article, create a significant change in the message being communicated. I'm not going to wade through to identify them, when I saw them during the week I couldn't be bothered with the inevitable edit warring that appears to typify any interchange, given that I've been quite busy with work recently. Whilst I appreciate your latter point I would take the position that it is also extremely unhealthy to allow issues over conduct to go unresolved.ALR 13:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

ALR, if you feel that something has significantly changed the message being communicated, and are not happy with that change, you should not just sit back and ignore it. You should discuss it (and by that I mean discuss it here, rather than get into an edit war). If you can't "be bothered" to discuss it, then I think you really do not have the right to snipe at the person making the edit. Could you give us an example of "subtle word changes" so we can understand what you are talking about?Blueboar 19:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

BlueBoar, this week I resigned from my job, so I've had a few more significant issues on my mind than WP. I've had my eye on it, and whilst I agree that any issues should be raised in talk you are as aware as I am that Imacomp tends to ignore any debate which disagrees with any of his contributions. Given that I've been busy with other things, and recognising that any attempt at meaningful debate with Imacomp is a futile waste of time, I've focussed my attention elsewhere. I don't intend on raking through the edits again but when I get a chance I'll be re-assessing aspects of the article which have concerned me.ALR 20:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Introduction Section

After a unilateral 24hr block (3RR) - I've formatted the links in the Introduction to a consistent format. This has in no way effected the content, or the http address directing any link. The work was done in one step - so revisionist editors may well start a revert war again? This positive work was done in good faith. Imacomp 16:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Some Thoughts

Do we really need the contmporary challenges section? I don't think it's particularly useful for an encyclopedia, nor do I think we need to go into details about GOdF. MSJapan 22:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur that the contemporary challenges section is not particularly useful. As to GOdF - I think we do need to go into details, to be encyclopaedic – indeed I found this very informative, and the data gets a unique airing in the article. Imacomp 09:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Re the "fact" tag 07:20, 13 June 2006 Morven. I do not know who inserted the stuff about an aborted idea of a "US Grand Lodge", and I am not able to find anything to cite. Over to US Brethren? Also I've noted that links now get underlined. Is this a change in Wiki coding? Imacomp 09:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC) PS US Grand Lodge OTO is in no way Freemasonic - so that Wiki article was edited to reflect this, just now. Imacomp 10:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The bit about the abortive GL of the US was added by me... I have, for the moment, cited to Bullock's Revolutionary Brotherhood (which I am fairly sure discusses it, although not in great depth) and will look for an even better citation over the next few weeks. Blueboar 12:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok thanks Blueboar, the subject is out of my area. I have now upset the OTO bunch for changing that article. However FM has no link to that load of OTO/Crowley BS :) Imacomp 17:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't say there is NO link... but it is a purely one sided one. Crowley copied from Freemasonry's rituals and forms, and then added all his mystical BS. But your point is correct. Good luck with the OTO bunch... I may pop over and give you some back up. Blueboar 19:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Having just reviewed the edits in the OTO article I'd tend to agree with the editors over there, OTO ritual demonstrates a clear derivation from FM ritual, and that's all the introductory paragraph suggests. Crowley was initiated, passed and raised etc, albeit in an iregular lodge, and he certainly used the experience to inform his work on OTO, in the same way that Gardnerian Wicca is clearly FM influenced. I'm pretty certain that there is a membership crossover in some of the more esoteric orders as well, although it'd be difficult to find documentary evidence of that. And tbh I don't see much wrong in civilised discussion in the OTO talk page, it might help reach a consensus.ALR 20:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Derivation is one thing... a formal tie is another. LOTS of orders and fraternities modeled themselves on Freemasonry, but that does not make them Masonic. It is similar to the complaints the Catholic Church made about the Carbonari in the 1870s... because some of the founders were Freemasons, and because it modeled itself after Freemasonry in its rituals... it must be part of Freemasonry and controled by Freemasons. In other words, they make a one-sided tie into a two-way tie. OTO does NOT equal Freemasonry. But this is an argument better made on the OTO page. Blueboar 20:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I added the section on contemporary challenges initially, and left a citation tag while I looked for some supplementary information. I remember reading a paper presented to QC on the topic but haven't been able to find it. Having put it in I'm not too keen on the derction it's taken and given that I've never managed to find the paper in any of my AQC I'd have no problem with removing it until such time as someone can deal with the issue more comprehensivly. I think it's something that is appropriate to be covered, but as I said upthread to Blueboar, I've got other things on my mind at the moment (starting my own business).ALR 20:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

As an aside... I know I speak for all of the editors on this page (Masons and non-Masons alike) when I say: ALR, Good luck on the new business! Blueboar 20:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou for the kind thoughts. It's not much, I'm setting up on my own as an independent consultant. It's going to be a busy, but challenging, time.ALR 21:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

The part of the article before the 'Contents' should only tell the reader what the article is about. Important information should be listed under 'Contents' for easy reader access. An alternative is to put all the content other than the first paragraph under an Introduction heading, which I have done. If you are still not happy please propose an alternative not just reverting which is not constructive. http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_image.png Embedded imageBlueValour 19:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason I am simply reverting is that I LIKE the intro as it is... my alternative is to keep it the same, so I have not posted an alternative. You seem to want to break the intro into two parts ... to move the Paragraph that starts "Freemasonry is an esoteric society..." to it's own section. Why? To me that is part of the introduction, as it is part of the basic definition of what Freemasonry IS (and thus telling the reader what the article is about). If you want to change that, I think you need to make a better argument for seperating it from the rest of the introduction. Blueboar 22:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Now why am I not surprised that you reverted? Your reversions without offering alternatives are against the spirit of WP. Please read,my first two sentences above. I have offered a third version, moving the third para to Organisational structure where it belongs. BlueValour 23:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I will not revert again for now (up against wikipolicy on 3rr)... but... As I said, the reason why I do not offer alternatives is that I do not see the need to move the third para at all. It is a further definition of what Freemasonry (the subject of this article) is. Thus, it belongs with the first two paragraphs as part of the introduction to the article. It certainy does not belong with "Organizational Structure" as it does not discuss the organization of Freemasonry at all! It also makes no sense to encaption this paragraph as "Introduction" as that is what the first few paragraphs of any article are. In short, it belongs where it was!

Why the insistance on breaking this paragraph away from the other two?... Why not leave it where it is? Why move it at all? Blueboar 00:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I have listened to your views and I have kept all the paragraphs together - I have simply merged the Organisation paragraph with the Organisation section to avoid duplication. BlueValour 01:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

And now you put "This article explains what Freemasonry is and describes its organisation, history and activities and discusses some opposing views." as the intro?... well DUH! Isn't that is what ANY Wikipedia article about an organization does? Your new introduction reads like it was written by a third grader. I have a better idea... why not leave the article as it was?

I am beginning to lose my ability to assume good faith here... first you move the third paragraph with the explanation of "'Society with secrets' heading added to streamline introduction" When I point out that it is an intrigal part of the introduction, you move it again adding a section header saying "Introduction". After I point out how silly that is, and again point out that the entire introduction should stay together, you move the entire introduction below the contents box and add a one line intro effectively saying: "this is an article about freemasonry... freemasonry is what this article is about." In other words you can not clearly state WHY you are changing the article around! I am beining to think that you simply do not like having the statement that Freemasonry is not a Secret Society, and that if it can not be deleted, you are determined to "hide" it below the content box. Blueboar 01:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

OK... I have carefully looked at your edit... and I can see that the paragraph about Jurisdictions and Branches could logically be moved to the Organization section (as you have done)... but I still don't see why the rest shouldn't form the basic introduction. Therefore, my compromise is to leave the Jurisdictions line where you moved it, and move the rest of the introduction back above the content box.Blueboar 01:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a small improvement so we will leave it at that for the moment. You seem to be misunderstanding my motives - I have no interest per se where 'Freemasonry is not a Secret Society' goes - you can have it in bright neon flashing lights if you wish - I am simply trying to make the start of the article more structured; again see my first two sentences at the top. BlueValour 02:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I am asigning motives that do not exist. I was just pointing out what your edit pattern looked like to me. If I am in error, my appologies are offered. Any way... I have read your first two sentences above, and they do not sway me... first you write:

"The part of the article before the 'Contents' should only tell the reader what the article is about." I disagree with this. An introduction should not "only" tell the reader what the article is about ... An introduction should also outline the more important aspects of the article. In some ways, an introduction should be a mini article of its own. I think the introductary paragraphs (as they were) did this quite well.

You then go on to say: "Important information should be listed under 'Contents' for easy reader access." Again, I disagree... important information can and should be contained in an introduction. This information should then be fleshed out in more detail under section headings in the main part of the Article. Wikipedia's programing picks up those section headings to form the "contents" for easy reader access. 12:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It does rather strike me that the suggested changes are a good example of shuffling the deck chairs. I don't see any real contribution to either readability or the information content of the article. The length of the introduction prior to these edits was reasonable for the size of the article as a whole.ALR 21:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust

"Most of those who suffered were Jews and Poles". I'm changing Poles to Slavs as the statement is far too specific. Crocodilicus 21:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

OK by me ... although, If someone wants to be specific, we could point out that the majority of Slavs who were persecuted by the Nazis were Poles ... In short, I would have no qualms about someone else reverting it if they feel the need. Blueboar 22:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm changing this back - in line with Blueboar, "In short, I would have no qualms about someone else reverting it if they feel the need." Imacomp 10:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

"The number of Freemasons from Nazi occupied countries who were killed is not accurately known, but it is estimated that between 80,000 and 200,000 Freemasons were murdered under the Nazi regime." This number is without any foundation in fact, as it is not known how many Freemasons died during the Holocaust. The difficulty in gathering a true and accurate number is because we don't have any verifiable record of a single individual who was arrested and/or killed just because he was a Freemason (individuals were first arrested for being members of the political opposition and because they were Jews). [From WJHC. feel free to contact me at WJHC@magnes.org for more discussion along these lines)

"In 1948 the little blue Forget Me Not[79] flower, or badge, was adopted as a Masonic emblem at the first Annual Convention of the United Grand Lodges of Germany, Ancient Free & Accepted Masons. The flower, or badge, is now universally worn as a Masonic emblem in the coat lapel to remember all those that have suffered in the name of Freemasonry, and specifically those during the Nazi era.[80][81]" [This flower is amatter of huge controversy. We have no proof that the Forget Me Not was worn during the Holocaust/Third Reich by Freemasons. Most of the German Freemasons before the war/Third Reich came to power, were members of lodges which did not allow Jews to join as members and which then tried to instill further anti-Jewish measures during the Third Reich, until they were forcibly dissolved, in 1935. The post-war myth of the Forget-Me-Not appears to have been established as a possible face-saving one. WJHC (again, feel free to contact me at WJHC@magnes.org for further discussion on this point)

I just noticed that someone changed "executed" back to "murdered". Murdered is the incorrect word, they were ordered to be put to death by a goverment, they were executed. Fact 1: their deaths were ordered by the nazi regime. Fact 2: The death sentences were carried out by the nazi regime, in the name of the nazi regime, under the laws of the nazi regime. Fact 3: The nazi regime was incharge of the land at the time, and the nazi laws applied. The holocaust was not murder, it was goverment sanctioned genocide, involving the goverment sanctioned execution of hundreds of thousands of innocents. They were executed by a fanatical goverment, not murdered by random fanatics. Now I'm pretty sure this change will be reverted immediatly, however in doing so your showing your inherent bias. The only reason to include the incorrect word "murdered" is to attempt to stir up an emotional responce, since the word is emotionally charged. The word murdered is completly incorrect and insulting to holocaust victims, they were not "murdered" like a gang member being shot by another gang member, they were executed by a goverment who killed them simply because they were who they were. Seraphim 03:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

If the people who died under the holocaust (every single one of them, not just the freemasons) were 'legaly executed' as you claim, why was the leaders of the Third Reich tried, convicted and executed for the Holocaust? The result of the Nuremberg Trials makes it quite clear that there was nothing legal about the killings of millions of people based on race, belief, politcal standpoint and membership in fraternities. Murdered if far more descriptive, and is indeed used in the main article on the Holocaust. WegianWarrior 07:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the laws under which the genocide occoured were later decided to be illegal laws is not relevant. The killings were done through a legal process, where the killings were ordered by the standing goverment, and carried out by the goverment's underlings. It's the same reason why not all people involved in the holocaust were put to death. If you actually read up on the Nuremberg Trials you will notice that nobody was tried who actually carring out the executions, only the people who were ordering them. If it was murders, the people who were turning on the gas chambers would have been held accountable, instead since it was executions, the people ordering the executions were held responcible, not the executioner. Seraphim 16:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Muslim Anti-Semitism

I removed the information about Muslim anti-semitism because it was unrelated to the rest of the article. Marsman57 14 June 2006

Thank you for replying here. After reading the section you deleted in context, your argument makes sense. Feel free to revert my revert. Blueboar 01:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Section restored. Muslim anti-semitism is directly related to anti-Freemasonry, and visa versa - as the text and links show. the secion, as restored covers Islam over the three sections - Political, Religious and Holocaust - and is thus placed inthe introduction to these topics. thus Marsman57's point falls on its face. Imacomp 10:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I've split the section along these lines; but the Muslim Council of Britain stuff doesn't have anything to do with Masonry, so I think it should be deleted. The link between anti-Masonry and anti-Semitism should be expanded upon, as should other aspects of the relationship between Islam and Masonry. (i.e. are there Muslim appendant bodies? How successful is the organisation in Islamic countries? etc.) Ben Standeven 17:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Reverted (again, but not in last 24hrs), as the logic has not changed from "Muslim anti-semitism is directly related to anti-Freemasonry, and visa versa - as the text and links show. the secion, as restored covers Islam over the three sections - Political, Religious and Holocaust - and is thus placed inthe introduction to these topics. thus Marsman57's point falls on its face. Imacomp 10:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)." There are no Muslim appendant bodies in FM. Anyway, this article is about the three degrees of the Craft. As to "How successful is the organisation in Islamic countries?" - well why don't you get back to us on that? Imacomp 17:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

If the logic has not changed, then it is still faulty. The MCB's boycott of Holocaust Day doesn't seem to have anything to do with either Masonry or anti-Semitism; they wanted the people running the event to spend less time on the Armenian Genocide and more time on supposed genocides in the Kashmir, Palestine, etc. Also, as I just pointed out, the relationship between anti-Semitism and anti-Masonry is not limited to Muslims. [I also took the liberty of unlinking the Bilderberger site; it doesn't seem reliable or relevant to me.] Ben Standeven 17:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Re Ben Standeven directly above. Is what you say original research, because if not then cite some references. Anyway the statement remains valid and fully cited - despite your opinion. The interest you have taken here at Freemasonry and Ordo Templi Orientis is noted, however, and is taken into account accordingly. Imacomp 20:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC) PS your edits on this subject have been reverted. Imacomp 21:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC) PPS All internal and external links work well, (I've checked), so edits to them are facile. Imacomp 21:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

My statement was based on the Wikipedia article on the boycott (of course, they don't call it a boycott, according to the given cite). In any event, the justification of my claim is irrelevant. If you wish this paragraph to be included in the article, you must provide a cite asserting its relevance to the topic. The Bilderberger site remains irrelevant and nonreliable, so I will delete it again. I am willing to leave the current cite to the "New Academic Discipline" paper, if you can explain why you wanted to link to cache site instead of the original PDF. Ben Standeven 00:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I am in full agreement with the removal of that ridiculous section. No vague attempt was made to connect Muslim so-called 'anti-Semitism' with 'anti-Freemasonry'. That paragraph was completely out of place in this article, and biased as it was, out of place in any article. I suggest whoever wrote it should read the Wikipedia entry for 'Logic'. -Jamal, 19:20, 22 June 2006

Suggestions

I've read through the article as a first time browser and have the following observations :

It is very good for the most part, factual and well written
It is too long - it is difficult to get an overview of Free Masonry from this article in a simple and concise way. The main sections are good, but I find the sub-sections ("Regularity", "The Masonic Lodge" etc) to be overkill. They can be linked as supporting articles with no loss of detail.
POV is still an issue - for example "Politcal Opposition" begins with the phrase : Perhaps influenced by the assertion... Freemasonry has long been the target of conspiracy theories - the first part of the setence is POV supposition, the second is closer to fact although 'conspiracy theory' is an interesting choice of words. 'Attacks' might be better.
The references section contains only Pro-Mason references - Remember NPOV is not 'an unbiased viewpoint' this is simply not possible, everyone has bias. NPOV should be an attempt to represent all views and let the reader make an informed choice.

I would be bold, and simply tackle the "opposition" section but given the history of controversy I thought it better to post here first. If I receive some support I might start some edits, confining myself maybe to the opposition section. --Nickj69 09:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Nickj69, your comments are valid ones... The article IS too long, and we are in the process of trying to pare it down in exactly the manner you suggest: Forming sub-articles to fully explain the details of complex issues such as regularity, while simply and concisely touching on the issue here. The problem is that much of this information is considered crucial to an understanding of Freemasonry in today's world. There is only so much that we can trim without losing important information. Your suggestions on how to better do this are welcome.

Please note that the "Opposition" section is very controversial. Much of what you read is a result of careful compromise between ardent anti-masons and equally ardent pro-masons. You are welcome to try to improve the section, but I would advise you to proceed with caution. You might try posting "suggested" versions here on the talk page first, so that both sides can comment and argue about it before it actually gets uploaded into the article.

As for the references... I assume you are referring to the "External Links". Please note that most of the anti-Masonic external links (and there were a lot of them at one time) were shifted to the sub-articles Anti-Masonry, Christianity and Freemasonry and Catholicism and Freemasonry when those articles were spun off. I agree that we should probably pick at least one representative "negative" external link to include in this article for NOPV purposes ... but which one to pick will cause arguments. Blueboar 13:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh joy! I love articles like this one. Suffice it to say that I've taken a mauling on others and have no wish to do so again. I'll pass thanks. My opinions on POV still stand and I would point out to 'pro-Masons' they are doing themselves no favours as the general reading public are more than able to spot bias. It wouldn't take much to pull it back to NPOV but it would take some concessions from the pro-Mason crowd. --Nickj69 13:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Catholic Church 'forbids' Catholics from becoming Freemasons

The use of the word 'forbids' was already discussed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Freemasonry/Archive_17#Forbid_vs._Discourages_in_Christian_religious_opposition It was removed sometime after without any reason given. I have reverted back to this original statement. The revert does not impact on any of the edits made since. This revert has absolutely nothing what-so-ever to do with discussion about wikipolicy violations at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Freemasonry/Archive_18#Christian_religious_opposition_-_the_Catholic_Church http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Freemasonry/Archive_18#About_the_.27RCC_does_not_see_Masonary_as_.22Satanic.22.27_Statement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Freemasonry/Archive_18#WP:NOR_Discussion There was never any agreement to remove the word 'forbids'. There was an agreement that 'forbids' should stay. A position that has cited sources to meet wikipolciy as seen on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Freemasonry/Archive_17#Forbid_vs._Discourages_in_Christian_religious_opposition (Simonapro 18:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC))

Oh gods, not again. This really is getting rather dull. You'll note from the previous discussion that nobody agreed with you about the wording that you appear to wish to insist on, mainly because you can't substantiate your assertion. To me the insistence on going against consensus regarding your interpretation of the document does rather look like a form of POV pushing.ALR 18:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Freemasonry/Archive_17#Forbid_vs._Discourages_in_Christian_religious_opposition it was shown with WP:CITE that the use of the term 'forbid' did not violate wikipolicy because it used WP:CITE while other terminology violated WP:NOR. There was absolutey no reason given for the removal of the word 'forbids' either. The title of this topic is "Catholic Church 'forbids' Catholics from becoming Freemasons" so discussion of the other WP:NOR violations should be taken elsewhere. POV pushing is violating WP:NOR. If you can WP:CITE then it is not a POV. This is basic wikipolicy. (Simonapro 19:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC))

I would say it is you, Simonapro, who is doing the POV pushing... As the article was before you returned, the section made it clear that the Church has not changed its stance on Freemasonry. The only difference was that we let Quaesitum est speak for itself, rather than trying to interpret it. Thus, the only "pushing" going on is your insistance of the word "forbids". You say that we had reached a "consensus" about this word... I would disagree. Besides, all of the discussion that you cite above took place over a month ago... the article has moved on since then, and new concensuses have been reached. Blueboar 22:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Blueboar It was you who violated WP:NOR by removing the word 'forbids' and making up your own word instead as can be seen on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Freemasonry/Archive_17#Forbid_vs._Discourages_in_Christian_religious_opposition You didn't just remove the word, you changed it. 'Forbids' has a WP:CITE. The whole reason it is there in that section is to make it absolutely clear to the reader that this is the official position of the RCC and not anything else. (Simonapro 09:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC))

That was not Original Research, but an honest mistake. In fact, my changes were a Good Faith attempt to avoid what I thought at the time was a NOR violation. I admitted at the time (and still admit) that my wording was an error. At the time, we did not have a citation to Quaesitum Est. With the citation added, I changed my stance. But all this is besides the point. My objection is not about the word "forbids", but your insistance on it, and the manner in which you are POV pushing. Since you are so fond of citing guidelines, I will point out another... From WP:Not:

Wikipedia is not a soapbox

Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not:

Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. You can also use Wikinfo which promotes a "sympathetic point of view" for every article. Wikipedia was not made for opinion, it was made for fact.

Your insistance on a particular phrasing amounts to advocasy. The version of the Article you so strenuously object to made it clear that the Church had not changed its stance and that the ban was still in effect. It cited Quaestum Est, and included a link to the Article about it. The "official position" of the RRC was clear. The only difference was that it was not "your" wording.

For the record, I don't really care if the word "forbids" is in the text or not. I am willing to let your wording be... However, if someone comes up with wording that I like better, I will not object either. In short... Your wording is (at the moment) acceptable to me ... the manner in which you push it is not. Blueboar 13:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

How about we take what Quaesitum est has to say directly, cite an authoritative interpretation, and thus avoid the problem? Then if Simonapro changes it, he violates WP:CITE, which we all know he really doesn't want to do, because it would clearly illustrate the hypocrisy of the situation. MSJapan 16:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Although I suspect that Simonapro would quibble about the "authoritave interpretation". Why not simply cite Quaesitum est directly, without any interpretation.Blueboar 16:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't the problem with Qe that it was unclear in the first place? That's why I'd say we need an interpretation in order to make it understandable, but if it's OK on its own, we don't need an interpretation. MSJapan 16:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem was solved by citing Quaesitum est WP:CITE. What happened was that some people here wanted to remove that citation. The word 'forbids' is used in Quaesitum est. It was even linked to Quaesitum est before Blueboar edited that link out a few hours ago. MSJapan maybe you could tell us what part of the current article tries to interpretate Quaesitum est? Please print the line(s) here. Thanks. (Simonapro 17:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC))

Oh really? But Quaestum est was mentioned, cited and linked to its article prior to your return and recent round of edits... Here is the text as it was before your return: (Revision as of 01:46, 15 June 2006)

A number of Papal pronouncements have been issued against Freemasonry. The first was "In Eminenti" by Pope Clement XII and was issued on April 28, 1738. The last was "Ab Apostolici" by Pope Leo XIII and was issued on October 15, 1890. More recently, in 1983,the in Quaesitum est issued by Roman Catholic Church's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the advisory body to the Pope responsible for ruling on matters of Church doctrine), states that "The faithful, who enroll in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion." This was signed by the then Prefect, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI).

If "the problem was solved by citing Quaesitum est" and linking to that article... then there was no problem to begin with!

As for my recent edit... As my edit summary for that edit says... there was no need to link the word "forbids" to the article on Quaesitum est, as the words "Quaesitum est" (also linked to the article) appear only five words later in the same sentence. All the link on "forbids" did was duplicte the link and cause the word "forbids" to be highlighted in blue. Blueboar 18:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I have made an edit along the lines of what MSJapan suggests.Blueboar 21:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)