Talk:Freemasonry/Archive 26

This is an archived talkpage - please do not edit it, but take discussions to the current talkpage.

---

GA pass

I am going to pass this article for GA but I suggest that the editors do some additional research and article revision before attempting FAC again.

• The sources used here, while adequate, are not the most reliable. Using mason documents to prove information about the Masons is suspect - the Masons have an interest in representing themselves in a particular light. It would be best to have independent confirmation of those claims. Second, books such as "Freemasonry for Dummies" are not scholarly sources. There is no reason to use such books when there is so much good scholarship on the Masons.
• The article could use some reorganization and explanation. More terms and ideas need to be explained to the uninitiated reader. I might suggest placing the "History" section first and then explain the outgrowth of Prince Hall Masonry and modern Masonry from there.
• More summary style is probably in order as well. This is a long article and at times tedious - I would suggest tightening up the prose and condensing some of the information. Awadewit ^Talk 08:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! We need a bit of clarification, though. If "Masonic documents" aren't reliable (which one would assume here would include anything written by Masons about Masonry, which I think is a statement taking skepticism a little too far), and For Dummies isn't scholarly enough, what then would you suggest? Many of the non-Masonic writers make mistakes. I would be interested to know what you consider "good scholarship" in light of not using material sourced from Masons.

• I don't think that questioning Masonic statements about themselves is too skeptical; one does not believe everything a politician says about himself or herself, for example. All people and organizations represent themselves in specific ways in order to appeal to particular audiences. Thus, all statements made by an organization about itself should be verified externally. If a pharmaceutical company said they provided the best drug to fight a certain disease, would you trust the advertisement or the scientific studies that proved it? It is important to have outside verification to counter any bias present in Masonic texts. Awadewit ^Talk 00:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Scholarly sources are those written by academics and published by academic presses. See reliable sources and WP:ATT. Primary sources should be used sparingly (Masonic documents) and Dummies books do not go through the rigorous peer review that academic books go through, thus they are less reliable. They are designed to sell large numbers of books whereas academic books are not; academic books are less affected by the market. Academics want their books to be as accurate as possible since their careers rely on them. A quick search on google scholar reveals many books on Freemasonry that the editors should avail themselves of. Awadewit ^Talk 00:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's a "particular light" issue here, either, because we have addressed criticisms, and there were so many that they had to be broken out into another article. It can't be helped that said claims fail WP:V, and have been proven so by sourced research. I guess I'm a bit confused, because it seems to me that you're saying "A is no good, and B is no good", but there is no C alternative. MSJapan 21:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the careful reader questions the article's legitimacy because it is not based on secondary sources - much of it is based on primary sources. See WP:ATT. Awadewit ^Talk 00:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

There is also the problem that there isn't much accurate information about Freemasonry, which doesn't originate from Masonic sources &/or authors...? Grye 02:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why this is such a problem. Please explain further. Awadewit ^Talk 07:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

There are several issues here: Firstly, for information about freemasonry to be accurate, it must come from a masonic source, because all non-masonic information is based on second-hand, possibly garbled, possibly biased information which has been filtered by non-masons who may also be anti-masons. So the primary source for accurate information has to be masonic. Secondly, masonic history, rites and such like is well documented by non-masons, but this is based on primary masonic documents, so what you are asking for is to bypass the primary sources and settle for possibly less well-informed sources which are themselves based on primary masonic sources - this does not seem to make sense to me. It makes far more sense to approach the primary sources for information. Thirdly, when it comes to freemasonry, there are many out there who are very happy to put forward an anti-masonic POV based on lies, half-truths and innuendo, but clothed in respectable non-masonic publications. Placing credence on non-masonic influences will undoubtedly result in an inaccurate encyclopaedic entry. On the other hand, for a good encyclopaedic entry, we need to place these anti-masonic articles in some coherent order, with contextual relevance and cited. AFAICS, this has been done fairly well, but I would like to look at the article with reference to the suggestions - it can certainly be tightened up! The masonic bibliography should be better referenced. docboat 08:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the best way to think about this is through wikipolicy. Wikipedia articles present a summary of the best current scholarship on a topic - they do not present original research (WP:OR). Yes, secondary sources written by academics will rely on primary sources from Masons but the academic authors are in a better position to analyze it than yourselves because they are more knowledgeable on the topic. Moreover, that is what wikipedia does - it presents the dominant scholarly opinion on topics, not the views of editors. If you only rely on primary sources by Masons, you will be providing your own interpretation of them in the article and that is original research. Finally, I am not sure why you believe academic books will be "anti-masonic" or "based on lies, half-truths and innuendo." It is far from clear to me that there is an anti-masonic bias in academic texts. I understand that the Masons have been attacked in the past, but is there a clear, systematic bias from inside academia that needs to be countered? If you want to claim that all academic sources are biased, then you need to produce evidence of that, not vague suggestion. Awadewit ^Talk 12:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is saying that there are accademic books that are "anti-masonic" or "based on lies, half-truths and innuendo". I think docboat was referring to the tons of anti-masonic publications and websites that fit this discription... and I would definitely not call them accademic sources. However, this raises a different issue... the fact that there really aren't any independant accademic sources. Almost everything written about Freemasonry is either written by Masons themselves (some of which is quite accademic and scholarly), or by Anti-masons (most of which is absolute POV drivel). The few "independant" books tend to fall along the lines of Robert Lomas's "The Hyram Key" - pseudo-historical speculation capitalizing on the popularity of Dan Brown's "DaVinci Code" and the movie "National Treasure"... full of unreliable information that is easily disproved.

As for the reliance on primary sources... since there is a derth of reliable secondary sources, we have to use primary ones by default. While Masonic sources may be "positively biased" - the alternative is to use anti-masonic "negatively biased" sources (which are full of lies and half-truths). There really isn't anything in the middle when it comes to this topic. Blueboar 14:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Docboat's statement was unclear. S/he and you seem to be claiming that there are no reliable secondary sources. As far as I know, academic sources are not biased on this topic. If they are, you have to prove it since wikipedia requires the use of reliable (academic) secondary sources for its articles {WP:ATT and WP:RS). This search on google scholar reveals an excellent starting point for research, as I pointed out before. I am only asking the editors to use the available secondary sources (per wikipolicy) and to avoid original research (per wikipolicy). Please explain to me why all of the sources found by google scholar are biased and unusable. Finally, all history is full of "half truths" - there is no one historical truth or narrative that everyone will agree on. Awadewit ^Talk 15:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree - I thought I was very clear. A non-masonic secondary source will - unless it references masonic primary sources - always be unreliable wrt to facts because the non-mason is not informed about freemasonry. That source will need to rely upon conjecture, will bring unrelated threads into conjunction, will make analyses based on previous understanding, but always from a non-masonic perspective. For this reason there has been so much disinformation posited, and it has definitely muddied the waters. Now, if you want to look at good, academic, peer-reviewed material, I can direct you to the Quatuor Coronati Lodge of Research No. 2076 EC with the admirable annual publication of the "Ars Quatuor Coronatorum" and a whole realm of peerless and academically outstanding work. I am not certain non-masons are allowed to receive it, and there you have the problem, do you not? docboat 09:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I should be clearer about what I meant when I said that there was a dirth of reliable secondary sources... a LOT has been written about the history of Freemasonry. If you take a look at the sources listed at the Google Search you linked to, the vast majority deal with the history of the fraternity... where it came from and how it developed. Many of these are indeed good scholarly sources, and many of them are used at the History of Freemasonry article (appropriately split off from this article since it is worthy of it's own discussion)... the problem is that very little has been written about what Freemasonry is (its organizational structure, its philosophical lessons and rituals, the requirements for joining etc.) which is what the bulk of this article is about. While there have been a few scholarly studies of Masonic symbolism, they tend to be written by non-masons, who make assumptions about the meanings (the most common being the assumption that Masons ascribe the same meanings to symbols that other groups do... not always the case). For this kind of information, we have to rely on primary Masonic sources. We have to discuss what freemasonry says about itself. It is sort of like using official Catholic documents in an article about Catholicism... the primary documents speak authoritively for themselves, whithout the interpretation of a scholar.

I understand that the ideal Wikipedia article does not use primary documents... but in this case we have to. There are no secondary documents that discuss the issues raised in this article. Blueboar 16:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that what Masons say about themselves is not always reliable, either. Why are they so much more trustworthy than academics? The reason to use outside sources to verify what the Masons say is because the Mason material is a self-representation (propaganda, in a way). They want the readers of the material to believe certain ideas about the Masons. There is no reason to believe that Masons do not present a "spin" on themselves in the way that all other groups do. Moreover, any bias inherent to Masonic writing would not be revealed if the article relied exclusively on primary texts. I disagree with your assessment of Catholic documents for the same reason - texts do not speak for themselves. Every explanation of a text is an interpretation of it and to write a proper article on the Catholic church, like the Masons, one must include the organization's view of itself as well as scholarly views. Scholars can verify to what extent the self-presentation of an organization is reliable and can put it into a larger context. Awadewit ^Talk 16:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Blueboar - even the history of Masonry can be sketchy (although most contemporary Masonic scholars are not fanciful about creating origins, unlike earlier writers like Waite et al.). I still don't quite see how we can get around the documentation issue, as the only people legitimately familiar enough with Masonry are Masons themselves, which you believe to cause an inherent bias. My counter-argument would be: Why would anyone aside from Masons take an interest in organizational items or other miscellany, when most of the true interest of outsiders is in supposed "conspiracy theories" and "secret doctrines"? I see where you're coming from policy-wise, but one has to take into account that when a primary document states, for example, that there is no religious intent or racial bias in Masonry as an institution, there's no way to call it propaganda or spin. Now, clearly, there are always gaps between institutional intention and personal practical application (Prince Hall, for example), but these deficiencies are addressed. I just don't know where you would expect sources to come from if not from Masonic writers with a scholarly interest in Masonry, especially since Masonry was codified by Masons in the first place (it existed before being organized into the Grand Lodge system). We clearly need to discuss this more. MSJapan 16:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, scholars are interested in things like ritual and symbols for many reasons (there are whole books on this topic for every period of European history that I am familiar with). I'm not sure why the editors keep insisting that all non-Masonic sources are going to be wild speculation concerning "conspiracy theories" and the like. Good scholarship does not engage in wild speculation. I am also saying that any self-representation has a spin to it, whether intended or not. Thus, to not balance Masonic sources with those of outsiders is to privilege the Masons view of themselves. One would not, for example, only present a company's literature regarding itself or a religion's literature regarding itself. Have the editors read any of the scholarly material on Freemasonry? I would like to hear what is wrong with some specific texts - books published by academics at academic presses. The scholarly material that I have read on Freemasonry in the eighteenth century does not present Masons as part of a secret cabal that wants to take over the world or anything like that. All of the discussions that I have read are rational, logically-argued and explain when the sources they are using are confusing or lack information. Frankly, I find it hard to believe that there is nothing available on every single issue discussed on this page except for Masonic sources. If that is really the case, then the sourcing problem needs to be made clear to the reader (i.e., "Masons claim" would be a more appropriate way to word many of the sentences). Awadewit ^Talk 17:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, let me see what I can think of off the top of my head for books, then (and it would be helpful if you could do the same):

• American Freemasons is good, but it's written by a trained historian, museum curator, and Mason.
• Anything by Knight and Lomas is highly speculative (also Masons).
• Stephen Dafoe's Revolutionary Brotherhood is well-done, but I believe he is a Mason as well.
• Black Square and Compasses is a good book about Prince Hall Masonry, written by a noted scholar and PH Mason.
• The Little Book of Freemasonry is written by a woman, and it's got some mistakes in it.
• Anything by DeHoyos is researched, but he is a Mason.
• Same with Morris and Hodapp (the authors of the Dummies and Idiot's Guide books, though Morris shows a real historical bias that isn't supported by docs regarding precedence of GLs in the US.
• Waite is too fanciful in his writings, and is also a Mason.
• An Illustrated History of Freemasonry by Moses Redding (1892), is a bit dated, but might be OK. It's largely historical, obviously.
• Who's Afraid of Freemasons?" by Alexander Platigorsky (1997), is definitely scholarly, but deals mostly with history.

This is what I can think of off the top of my head. Many of the good books are written by Masons, which by your reasoning would discount them from being used. Also, many supposed "claims" aren't claims; they are stated fact in multiple sources (many of which were stripped out as "over-referencing". MSJapan 18:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not say that anything by Masons can't be used (you are misinterpreting my remarks). I said that reliable sources need to be used - reliable sources are defined as scholarly sources. I haven't checked to see if these books are scholarly, but that is the primary definition of "reliable source." It doesn't matter if the scholarly source is written by a Mason so much because those texts have to go through a rigorous peer review process whereas sources published by the Masons about themselves do not have to go through any such process (see Jayron32's comments below). Awadewit ^Talk 23:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Explaining terms

This has come up quite a bit, and yet on rereading, I'm not sure where the deficiency lies: as far as I can tell, every term is either defined, wikilinked, or discernable from context, which appear to be all legitimate ways of dealing with terms per WP guidelines. So, clearly, I'm missing something, so we need outside readers to find the problems. That being said, if there are problematic terms, please list them here with a brief explanation of why you thinhk there's a problem. MSJapan 17:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

(removed List)

This is not what I'm asking for at all. I am asking for a list of terms within the article that people feel are not defined adequately, and why that is. MSJapan 17:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh. I'll make it a separate section. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 17:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

1. The first term, 'Freemasonry', is inadequately referenced. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 17:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Fred... are you aware that the MOS guidelines for Wikipedia state that introductary paragraphs are not suppposed to have a lot of references. Also, could you explain what aspect of the term "Freemasonry" is not adequately referenced? What exactly are you looking for... a definition? Blueboar 18:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ahem. A tad Ad Hominem. I think that the reference, The History Channel, Mysteries of the Freemasons: America, video documentary, August 1, 2006., is inadequate for such a notable topic, removed or improved is my suggestion. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 18:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. ah... I agree with you completely on the History Channel documentary. When it was added, I tried to convince the person who added it that it was not the best of sources... will find something better. Thanks.

Improvement list

(Moved List)

Some terrific work by the editors here in bringing this up to GA. I will be happy to start that list, strike it when dealt with. Hope I can help. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 17:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC):

1. Conflict of interest by editors who are, or claim to be Freemasons.

Well, there you go. That explains a lot. I was very confused by the resistance to my suggestions. I don't have any problem with Freemasons editing this page, but they must follow wikipolicy when doing so. Wikipedia does not make exceptions for any group - all religions, philosophies, and organizations are described using outside sources because they are more reliable. Primary sources should be used sparingly as outlined in WP:ATT and WP:RS. Awadewit ^Talk 17:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

For my part, my resistance isn't based on a conflict of interest... but on a familiarity with the available sources, and the assumption that those written by Masons are to be immediately discounted. I have no problem with scholarly sources when applicable... provided they exist. If you have any suggestions, we will be happy to include them.Blueboar 18:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I never said that those written by Masons should be discounted - I said that they should be verified using outside sources. Skepticism is different than dismissal. Also, I refer the editors again to my google scholar search which turned up several books and articles on current Masonry, not just on historical Masonry. I might add that it is not a reviewer's job to spend hours researching - that is the job of the editors and writers. I am simply trying to point out a problem with this article. Awadewit ^Talk 18:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I missed that link entirely, actually. Sorry! Having now looked it over, though, many of those, while published by academic presses, aren't outside sources by your definition (which is what I thought the proble would be). The rtesults don't tell you what the book jackets do, which is that McNulty is a Mason (and his book stinks, IMHO, though I was going to use refs here); Yarker is considered not only an irregular Mason, but unreliable; Bullock (not Dafoe, my error) is a Mason; Mackey was a Mason, but unreliable at times, as his "research" is a lot of fancy on his part in many cases; and Hamill is a Mason. This is why I say there's a problem with the definition. The world at large could honestly care less about the facts behind Masonry (as I said, they want conspiracies and occult stuff), which is why it ends up being Masons that write the real stuff. So I don't see how to address the problem adequately, other than by spreading the source base, which is still going to net us works by Masons. MSJapan 19:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Books published by academic presses are reliable sources (WP:RS). I have never said that the editors should not use books written by Masons. I have said that the editors should not rely exclusively on material published by the Masons - Masonic materials, in other words. Academic books go through a peer review process that self-published materials do not. That is why they are the preferred sources in wikipedia. Awadewit ^Talk 00:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Splitting of article. [Attention to Wikipedia:Summary style regarding that process. 19:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)]

How so? We have split the article in several instances. Do we need to split more? If so where?Blueboar 18:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Attention to summary at section relating to 'main article' and check for pitfalls like content forking.☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 20:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

What "summary at section relating to main article"? There aren't any content forks - material split out is summarized within this article. MSJapan 20:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Exclusion of outside sources.

HUH? The only outside sources that have been excluded have been personal websites and similar unreliable sources, so I am confused as to what you think might have been excluded.Blueboar 18:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that s/he is referring to the exclusion of scholarly sources on Masonry. Awadewit ^Talk 18:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Correct, ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 19:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you mean something other than "exclusion"... if not, please identify a scholarly source that was "excluded"?

1. Different usage as a term.

Examples please?Blueboar 18:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Identification as a term primarily. Notable citations of usage per policy. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 19:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Identification of what as a term?

The title. This short article contains a relevant section ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 20:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a definition of the usage right in the first line of the article. I've read that section, and I've got no idea what you're getting at here, or why it's relevant. MSJapan 20:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Verify world view on freemasonic organisations.

What do you mean by "world view"? And how would we verify it?Blueboar 18:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:CSB. WP:V. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 19:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Still confused... Please identify what Systimatic Bias exists. Blueboar 19:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Objectivity is a difficult area in many topics in our document. Careful review of the NPOV problems listed at the links may be relevant to this article. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 20:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

That's got nothing to do with "worldview". We've addressed geographic issues as best we can given the sources. MSJapan 20:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Kinds of sources, reliability, and NPOV

I read the above lengthy debate over the use of sources, and thought that there was some perspective needed here. I am going to drop into a bit of a lecture here, but please indulge me, because I think it has quite a bit to add to the debate over the use of sources in this article. Consider the following types of sources:

• Primary Sources: Sources that report research data in raw form; first publications of information; contains information in isolation and without context.
• Secondary Sources: Sources that analyze primary sources to draw conclusions and provide context.
• Self-published Sources: Sources that are written by or published from within an organization abouu that organization.
• Independant Sources: Sources that are written or published by people unassociated with the organization they are writing about.

I want to start off by saying that ALL FOUR types of sources are necessary in building a good article, but not to the same degree. The problem is two-fold: Building a reliable article and building a neutral article. Consider these scenarios for a second:

• Primary sources are useful to establish simply facts and raw data like:
  • John Doe was born on Jan 5, 1956
  • John Doe served as president of the organization from 1988-1993
  • The organization's national headquarters are at 123 4th Street, New York City in a small office building.
  • The organization claims a membership of 300,000 people.
• What primary sources CANNOT do is establish context and provide analysis. Secondary sources are required to make THESE statements:
  • The divorce of John Doe's parents had a profound effect on his psyche.
  • John Doe's leadership of the organization resulted in unprecedented growth and influence in the public sphere.
  • The organization has been accused of discriminatory hiring practices in staffing its office.
  • The organizations membership consists primarily of Christian males over 35.

Do you see the difference? An article is only compelling insofar as it provides analysis rather than dry facts. This article is FULL of analysis. That analysis must be OTHER PEOPLE'S analysis (see WP:NOR), not the author's of the article. Thus, insofar as a well written and comprehensive article can be created, it must rely mostly (though not exclusively) on SECONDARY sources. Now, consider self-published sources:

• Self published sources again are useful to establish raw facts about an organization:
  • Leadership
  • Published membership
  • Mission statements
  • Activities
• However, self-published sources show a limited reliability when reporting on analysis of an organization. What is needed is MULTIPLE, INDEPENDANT sources. Where all sources agree with a single viewpoint, only that viewpoint need be reported. However, where reliable sources differ significantly on a viewpoint, those viewpoints must be given due weight in the article. Thus independant sources are required for two reasons:
  • To verify the claims made by the organization themselves
  • To provide due weight to opposing viewpoints of the organization

Consider a statement like this:

• The organization has a charitable wing which provides shelter and food to disadvantaged youths.

The above statement could come from purely self-published sources. However, what of an analysis of the effects of that charity? Should we trust an internal report from the organization solely for the effectiveness of that charity? Consider this:

• The organization has a charitable wing which provides shelter and food to disadvantaged youths. They have been cited by President Bush as doing "excellent work" in this field. However, several investigative reports, including one published in the New York Times, have turned up mismanagement of funds and corruption within the the leadership of the charity.

The above statement provides due balance to opposing viewpoints, which are unlikely to come from within the organization itself. In order to either verify the work (as shown by the second sentance) or contradict it (as provided by the third) we need independant sources. OK, breath. Now, where does this lecture take is for this article. Well, consider these few examples from the freemasonry article:

• Most Lodges consist of Freemasons living or working within a given town or neighbourhood. Other Lodges are composed of Masons with a particular shared interest, profession or background. Shared schools, universities, military units, Masonic appointments or degrees, arts, professions and hobbies have all been the qualifications for such Lodges. In some Lodges, the foundation and name may now be only of historic interest, as over time the membership evolves beyond that envisaged by its "founding brethren"; in others, the membership remains exclusive. Has no one outside of Masonry ever published a study of the membership and make-up of the movement? This statement is filled with interpretation and analysis of lodge make-up, (and is ENTIRELY unreferenced) and could benefit greatly from multiple perspectives, or at least a source of some sort.
• The "Prince Hall Freemasonry" section deals with a well-publicized facet of American society in the 19th and 20th centuries: Jim Crow and segregation. Surely, someone OUTSIDE of freemasonry has noted the rise of the Black Masonic movement? Couldn't some independant sources help this section out?
• The section "Ritual, symbolism, and morality" deals with issues that have TONS of indepenant sources. Why rely solely on internal published sources for this, when independant sources DO exist and DO provide additional perspective on the issue?
• "Charitable effort" Has no one outside of masonry ever noted the work of Masonic charities?
• "Membership and religion" Again, lots of stuff is out there. Why ignore it and rely solely on ONE source, and provide a one-sided view of the issue?
• "History" Again, external sources ABOUND on this section. Why not give the more accademic and reliable ones their due representation?

Just some things to consider. The article should represent the BULK of scholarship on the subject of Freemasonry; not just be a propaganda piece to restate what Freemasonry has to report about itself. When all sources are internal sources, the article gives that appearence, even if that was not the intent.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Something to work with! Great! Let me address these individually, and then I'll make some general comments. Let me preface by saying I do see the position, but I'm not sure if the sources exist - it depends on the definition of secondary, mostly, because my contention is that it shouldn't be excluded simply because a Mason wrote it as long as the research is solid. Anyhow:

The "Prince Hall Freemasonry" section deals with a well-publicized facet of American society in the 19th and 20th centuries: Jim Crow and segregation. Surely, someone OUTSIDE of freemasonry has noted the rise of the Black Masonic movement? Couldn't some independant sources help this section out?

A quick Amazon search shows that of all the books, only a Kessinger reprint of a secondary source is available, and I've not heard about it before. Everything else I know of that is held in high regard is written by PH Masons, like Walkes' book (mentioned above). Otherwise it's personal webpages or Grand Lodge websites. You picked a very under-represented group, even in Masonic scholarship, and I'm sure it's virtually unheard of in general, as most of the public regards Masonry as a unified organization (which it isn't).

The section "Ritual, symbolism, and morality" deals with issues that have TONS of indepenant sources. Why rely solely on internal published sources for this, when independant sources DO exist and DO provide additional perspective on the issue?

Because there's no end to the perspectives. I've heard tons of stuff from different people regarding Masonic symbolism and interpretations thereof, and we ourselves don't standardize interpretation beyond what is quoted in ritual. I think to state any position here would give undue weight to a particular POV. Also, are you sure they're independent sources? For example, a Christian source is going to give a Christian interpretation, while a Hermetic one will interpret in its way, and thus impose a belief structure where none exists. This is also setting aside any "mystical" interpretations, like Rosicrucian, Egyptian, occult, or Cabalistic interpretations, which are all different from one another, and are really based on different personal views than anything else. We don't tell anyone what to interpret things as, and I think it's a giant can of worms if we start giving interpretations, because I think it will require synthesis, and will become far too large to be a subsection.

Indeed... the fact that different people will interpret the Ritual, symbolism, etc. based on their own religious and philosophical pre-conseptions is exactly why Freemasonry DOESN'T define what it all means. It lets each member interpret them for himself. Blueboar 19:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: that if Masonry has any secrets whatsoever, maybe call it a "desire for privacy"... it is in ritual. All sources for actual ritual are third-party, which means they simply are not accurate. Any expounding on said ritual by non-Freemasons is without the Masonic context which only a Freemason has, & so inacurate. Every sentence addressing such ritual would have to include "Joe Smith's recalcitrant Catholic interpretation of John Jame's version of "a" Masonic ritual of "a" Masonic Lodge, of "a" Grand Lodge, is:..." Grye 19:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"Charitable effort" Has no one outside of masonry ever noted the work of Masonic charities?

Nope. We give without need of recognition, and we don't advertise. Most people don't realize Shriners are Masons, for example, so that's that entire well-known system separated from Masonry in public perception. The only place you're going to see charity data (and not numbers, necessarily) is on Masonic websites (which would seem to be a primary source/self-publishing problem).

No. In fact, at least here in Colorado it is viewed as "unmasonic" to "toot one's own horn" about what charitable works one does...Grye 19:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"Membership and religion" Again, lots of stuff is out there. Why ignore it and rely solely on ONE source, and provide a one-sided view of the issue?

I'm pretty sure this had more sources, until we were told it was over-referenced. Maybe what we need to do there is add "see alsos" to the relevant articles that cover particular religious issues in-depth (Christianity and Freemasonry, etc). The position since Preston's time (early 1700s) has been that there is no religious requirement. The issues come from the religions themselves, and are too detailed to be subsections.

I do not think there is anything wrong with quoting what the official stance of the organization is on this. And the only place you will get that official stance is in an official source... ie a Masonic Grand Lodge. Sure, we can include what others think as well (and we do)... but this is clearly one situation where an official declaration by Grand Lodges is in order. Blueboar 19:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"History" Again, external sources ABOUND on this section. Why not give the more accademic and reliable ones their due representation?

It's a bit of a judgment call - there's a "traditional" history that was accepted as fact until very recently, and then there's "real" history which people are only just starting to get into. We could certainly work on this, but the material properly belongs over in History of Freemasonry, which we can then recondense and add here - it's too big a topic to bea subsection here, though, especially if we follow both trains of historical thought (which has some merit to it). Again, though, I know of very few historical sources about Masonry not written by Masons (if any), and that's where I see a problem.

the History of Freemasonry article does need more work. Thanks for the reminder. Blueboar 19:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

With respect to the Times article (because it illustrates part of my point): that article was about the Shrine, which is administratively separate from Freemasonry. What that issue is really about, it seems, is personal politics and someone pitching a fit because they weren't in possession of all the facts. The Times also made some reporting mistakes (which they have done in the past re: Masonry). Charities in general are run by the various Masonic groups independently of one another, so what one group does in one area may not be what another does in another area, even in the same state. So it's very hard to generalize based on one source if the source is too specific; it creates too many caveats.

I'd love to see external sources, but I don't really know of any that fit the definition, and if they do, no one considers them reliable. The bulk of scholarship on Masonry is done by Masons (which is why I want to see what titles of sources people come up with - I have a suspicion many of the authors are or were Masons). I'm certainly willing to look at external sources, but I don't think they exist as per the definition given. As for the sources we do use, we have stuck to fact as much as possible, which should make primaries acceptable.

As MSJ pointed out, at least 4 of the 10 authors on the first page of the link provided above are Masons. 40%. Grye 19:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I will repeat again, academic sources by Masons are different because they have gone through a peer review process. Thus, they are required to meet higher standards of scholarship than those published by the Masons themselves. An academic work written by a Mason is perfectly acceptable. Please read WP:RS and WP:ATT as well as Jayron32's excellent statement above. Awadewit ^Talk 10:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll see about fixing some of the above where I can, but if we need outside sources, we really need outside direction to them - I don't even know what these tons of sources are, and I've got a reliability concern as long as I don't have a title to reference. MSJapan 19:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Summary of concerns

Let me try to summarize what has been stated so far, and comment on the comments ...

• Comment: Where possible, we need to cut back on using official statements from Masonic sources (ie GL websites and offical documents) as sources... Use "accademic" books instead. (These can be written by Masons, they just should not be "from" Masonic publications and websites)

• Reply: This makes sense ... but may be hard to do. I can understand that official Masonic sources can strike the average non-masonic reader as being biased in favor of the fraternity. But we face two issues here: 1) Many of the statements cited to Masonic sources (GL Websites, and the like) are not the sort of things that get put into "scholarly" sources. They are statements about offical policy... membership requirements, lodge/Grand Lodge structure, etc. I am not sure if there are "accademic" sources for this type of stuff. 2) The second is that "accademic" sources tend to focus on the history of the fraternity, and not on what the fraternity is today.

• Comment: Find "external" sources in general... studies of Masonic membership statistics, religious makeup, etc.

• Reply: Unfortunately these sorts of sources do not exist.

• Comment: The article needs to be reviewed for NPOV issues

• Reply: I disagree with this. We have a far larger "opposition" section than many FA articles, and clealry point the reader to several related articles that go into even more detail about various oppositions and criticisms of the Fraternity. This article is focused on explaining what Freemasonry is and what it does. I think we do this in a very neutral and NPOV way. We don't ignore the negative... we just don't focus on it. The article is clearly within the Undue weight clause of WP:NPOV. (In fact, given the lack of reliable sources on the "Anti" side of the issue, I think we have an unusually large "criticisms" section.

Additional comment by me: Sources in Freemasonry tend to fall into only three kinds categories: 1) Hard copy "scholarly" histories (usually written by members of the fraternity... the quality varies depending on the author), 2) pseudo-historical "pop-histories" and sensationalist fiction (which tend to contain highly speculative and unproven conjectures about how Freemasonry is tied to the Druids, Egyptians, Knights Templars, Illuminati Space Aliens or whatever the latest trend that will sell books is) and 3) "Anti-Masonic" POV rant web sites (a LOT of these... mostly created with a particular religious POV in mind). There really aren't many scholarly looks into Freemasonry as an institution. This is partly because, until recently, Freemasons took the concept of privacy/secrecy very seriously (some would say overly seriously) ... Except for examinations into masonic history, Masons did not discuss the fraternity or write books about it, and they actively discouraged outsiders from doing so. That meant that while there was a lot of speculation (some positive, but mostly negative) there really was not anything reliable written about it. This is beginning to change... Grand Lodge records and libraries are now open to independant scholars, and Masons are much more willing to discuss the rituals and traditions of the fraternity. But the change is slow. It comes down to the fact that basically there isn't a body of scholarly examination about the fraternity. This makes writing an ideal Wikipedia article, based on such independant "scholarly" and "accademic" sources, very difficult. We end up having to rely on offical statements by the fraternity and by its detractors. Blueboar 15:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• 1) As I have always said, I believe that self-published Masonic statements need to be verified with independent sources, thus both kinds of sources can be used. Statements such as "There are 5000 Masonic lodges in North America" (I'm making all of these up for the purpose of examples) or something like that can be sourced from Masonic documents. But statements such as "The Masons give a substantial portion of their time and money to charity" and especially analytical statements such as "The Masons used to be racist, in that they demanded separate halls for African-Americans, but are currently moving away from that practice" demand outside confirmation. If they cannot be confirmed, they should not be included, in my opinion. (I believe Jayron32 explained this very well.) Thus, it is particular kinds of statements that really need to be verified by independent sources. Is this clear? Do we agree on this? Awadewit ^Talk 15:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• 2) No one is suggesting that the editors use unreliable sources (such as pop-history, fiction or websites out to attack the Masons), so we can just stop referring to those. We all agree that those are poor sources. Awadewit ^Talk 15:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. Then the question then comes down to dealing with issue #1). I get what you are saying. I agree that independant confirmation would be ideal, and will continue to research the sources available. However, I am not sure that such confirmation always exists. I suppose the question that needs to be adressed is this: in the absence of an independant source that confirms substative statements, are Masonic ones acceptable? My contention is that they are. Such sources should be considered reliable... given that they fit under the "Articles about themselves" clause of WP:V and WP:RS (both of which indicate that a self-published website or document authored by a Freemasonic Grand Lodge can be used in an article about Freemasonry). I do agree that it comes down to specific sources and specific claims.

By the way... I do hope that you will continue to work with us... your comments are helpful (even if they represent an ideal that may or may not be achievable). What would be very helpful is to move beyond broad generalizations and discuss problems you see with specific sections and specific statements and sources. Blueboar 17:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If such sources cannot be found, then, as I said before, I believe that the language of the article should reflect this in some way, such as "The Mason's annual report states that one-third of its income is donated to charity" or something along those lines. I will go back to the article and review it line by line later. Awadewit ^Talk 17:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks... it actually sounds like we are a lot closer in outlook on this that it seemed yesterday. Again, your comments are appreciated. Blueboar 17:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent - I am looking forward to this! Would it be helpful to start the rewrite by providing a list of quality studies to reference? docboat 05:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do... I am always looking for good material about masonry. Blueboar 12:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

A tiny suggestion: I tend to feel that research and collection of sources should be done before a page is written. That tends to prevent situations such as this from arising in the first place. Awadewit ^Talk 13:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Confusing attribution - system of morality

I have just noteced a bit of confusion in the third paragraph of the openning section ... it reads:

• Freemasons define Freemasonry as "a system of morality," using the metaphors of operative stonemasons' tools and implements, against the allegorical backdrop of the building of King Solomon's Temple, to convey what is most generally defined as "a system of morality veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols."<ref>{{cite encyclopedia | encyclopedia = Catholic Encyclopedia | title = Masonry (Freemasonry) | url = http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09771a.htm | accessdate = 2007-05-08 | year = 1914 | publisher = New Advent }}</ref>

The confusion is that we open the paragraph with the qualifying attribution "Freemasons define..." but then use the Catholic Encyclopedia as a source. I am fairly sure that this definition was also used in the old Encyclopedia Britanica article on Freemasonry. This indicates to me that more people than just the Freemasons use this definition. If so, do we need the qualifing attribution really needed? Perhaps we can just say "Freemasonry has been defined as..." Blueboar 12:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Sentences needing more sourcing

Here are some examples of sentences that need to be sourced to more reliable sources (preferably academic sources):

• There have been many disclosures and exposés dating as far back as the eighteenth century. These often lack the proper context for true understanding of the content,[7] may be outdated for various reasons

This has two citations already... how many do you need? Blueboar 15:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It is what citations are being used. Like I said, I do not believe that The Complete Idiot's Guide to Freemasonry is a reliable, scholarly source. What is A Pilgrim's Path? It didn't look very rigorous to me in a quick glance. Awadewit ^Talk 15:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The Idiot's Guide is written by one of the most prominent Masonic scholars in the US. And "A Pilgrims Path" is indeed a scholarly view of Freemasonry (witten by a well regarded historian). I get the idea that you are not familiar with the sources. Perhaps you should read them before you criticise. Blueboar 16:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

That may be, but I do know that Idiot's Guide's do not have to go through a peer review process, what makes reliable sources stand apart from unreliable sources. I also suggest you think about how these sources appear to the reader; whether or not they actually are reliable, they do not appear reliable. No user is going to go read all of these books. I myself would look at the sources for this page and say "They are relying on Dummies books and Masonic documents - they don't know how to do research." Somehow you need to address that problem. Awadewit ^Talk 17:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• In many countries, Masonic Centre or Hall has replaced Temple to avoid arousing prejudice and suspicion.
• Widespread segregation, in the 19th and early 20th century North America, made it difficult for African Americans to join Lodges outside of Prince Hall jurisdictions—and impossible for inter-jurisdiction recognition between the parallel U.S. Masonic authorities.
• Prince Hall Masonry has always been regular in all respects except constitutional separation, and this separation has diminished in recent years. At present, Prince Hall Grand Lodges are recognized by some UGLE Concordant Grand Lodges and not by others, but appear to be working toward full recognition, with UGLE granting at least some degree of recognition.[19] There are a growing number of both Prince Hall Lodges and non-Prince Hall Lodges that have ethnically diverse membership.

There is a citation in this... so exactly what part needs further citation? Blueboar 15:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a self-published website by Paul Bessel. Hardly reputable, especially for such an important claim. Awadewit ^Talk 15:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Paul Bessel is a very well known historian and scholar... probably THE most respected scholar on Masonic topics in the US. He has written several books and papers on masonic topics, including one on PH Masonry. Is your objection that this is a web site? It isn't really a "personal" website... it is a scholarly compelation of masonic documents, papers, and other materials. I get the impression that you have an anti-website bias. Not every website is trash. Blueboar 16:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It is a personal website (go to the home page - it is self-published and far from being a scholarly compilation of anything. If you want to quote from something that he has published in an academic journal or in a book, do that. See WP:RS for the problems with self-publishing Please think again of the readers - they will have no idea who this person is or why they should trust this random website. Publication in an academic journal or by an academic press, because of their peer review process, at least lends more credibility to the source. Awadewit ^Talk 17:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Go further than the home page... [this] and [this], for example contains many of his papers and essays on masonic topics... While it may techincally be a personal page, it is scholarly in scope. Blueboar 17:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I did. Those link don't prove anything. Bessel can put up whatever he wants on that website - whatever articles he wants. If you want to link to a specific article that was published in a peer reviewed academic journal as well as on the website, then do so, but random articles that he wrote for some Lodge and then posted on his site do not count as scholarship. They have not been reviewed by other scholars. They could claim anything. Please review WP:RS. Awadewit ^Talk 18:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Masonic ritual makes use of the architectural symbolism of the tools of the medieval operative stonemason. Freemasons, as speculative masons (meaning philosophical building rather than actual building), use this symbolism to teach moral and ethical lessons of the principles of "Brotherly Love, Relief, and Truth" — or as related in France: "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity".

This is cited Blueboar 15:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Freemasons for Dummies is not a reliable source. Awadewit ^Talk 15:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It may not be an "accademic" source... but it is reliable under WP:RS and WP:V... it is published by a reliable publishing firm (ie not self-published), with editorial oversight and fact checking, and written by a well regarded Masonic scholar. Blueboar 16:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia welcomes material written by scientists, scholars, and researchers, particularly material published by peer-reviewed journals. However, these may be outdated by more recent research, or may be controversial in the sense that there are alternative scholarly and non-scholarly treatments. Wikipedia articles should therefore ideally rely on all majority and significant-minority treatments of a topic, scholarly and non-scholarly, so long as the sources are reliable. (WP:RS) - I would stress that wikipedia prefers scholarly sources whenever possible. Please understand that Dummies books are written for the market in a way that academic books are not, thus their content is often skewed in order to see books. I'm not quite sure why the editors would want to rely on books marketed to people who admit they cannot learn. Awadewit ^Talk 17:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Some Lodges and rituals explain these symbols as lessons in conduct: for example, that Masons should "square their actions by the square of virtue" and to learn to "circumscribe their desires and keep their passions within due bounds toward all mankind". However, as Freemasonry is non-dogmatic, there is no general interpretation for these symbols (or any Masonic symbol) that is used by Freemasonry as a whole.

This is cited Blueboar 15:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, these are items that need independent sourcing by reliable sources - this citation comes Masonic Quarterly. Awadewit ^Talk 15:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The articles in Masonic Quarterly are written by know Masonic scholars. Saying you can not cite to that is like saying that you can not cite to the Journal of American Medicine in an article on medical issues. You are making the assumption that because something is published by a Masonic institution it is not "scholarly". That isn't the case. Blueboar 17:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Nothing here leads me to believe that this journal is scholarly (that is peer reviewed). You cannot compare it to the JAMA, which is. Please read WP:RS and WP:ATT carefully. I'm not why I have to keep repeating the same arguments over and over again. It should be clear why these sources are inappropriate for these kinds of claims. Awadewit ^Talk 18:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• There is an enormous bibliography of Masonic papers, magazines and publications ranging from fanciful abstractions which construct spiritual and moral lessons of varying value, through practical handbooks on organisation, management and ritual performance, to serious historical and philosophical papers entitled to academic respect.
• The fraternity is widely involved in charity and community service activities. In contemporary times, money is collected only from the membership, and is to be devoted to charitable purposes. Freemasonry worldwide disburses substantial charitable amounts to non-Masonic charities, locally, nationally and internationally. In earlier centuries, however, charitable funds were collected more on the basis of a Provident or Friendly Society, and there were elaborate regulations to determine a petitioner's eligibility for consideration for charity, according to strictly Masonic criteria.

Which part of this needs citation?Blueboar 15:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"substantial" - what does that mean? what "non-Masonic charities"? how much money? Awadewit ^Talk 15:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that anyone has added it up on a world wide scale... but it has been estimated that in the US alone masons give about one million dollars a DAY to charity. Does that count as substantial?

The point is that everyone has a different idea of "substantial" - Bill Gates might think that was pocket change. So, yes, you have to explain citing sources otherwise it is simply the editors' opinion that it is "substantial." Awadewit ^Talk 17:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Be of sound mind and body (Lodges do not deny membership to a man because of a physical disability; this is largely a historical holdover, and if a potential candidate says there will be no problem, he will be taken at his word). - Frankly, I just don't understand the caveat.
• Be free-born (or "born free", i.e. not born a slave or bondsman). As with the previous, this is entirely an historical anachronism, and can be interpreted in the same manner as it is in the context of being entitled to write a will. Some jurisdictions have removed this requirement. - doesn't follow the "sound mind and body," so "previous" doesn't make sense

What part of "historical anacronism" does not make sense? They are requirements that used to be enforced, but now are not since between medical advancement and the end of slavery they no longer are relevant (yet the wording remains in the language of the constitutions). Blueboar 15:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say that the "historical anachronism" doesn't make sense, I said that the list is out of order - it doesn't follow the other requirement that is historically anachronistic so the word "previous" doesn't make sense. Grammatically, the word "previous" refers to the line "Be of good morals, and of good reputation." It did not seem like that was what you were referring to as "anachronistic" - I thought you were trying to refer to the "slave" bit. Awadewit ^Talk 15:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see ... what it is trying to say is that both the "sound body" and the "freeborn" requirements are there for historical reasons and are now anacronistic. Does that help?

I know what it is trying to say! I am telling you that it doesn't say that! Please look at the page and carefully read it. I cannot explain it any more clearly. Awadewit ^Talk 17:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Freemasonry has attracted criticism from theocratic states and organised religions for supposed competition with religion, or supposed heterodoxy within the Fraternity itself, and has long been the target of conspiracy theories, which see it as an occult and evil power.

This is an opening line for the opposition section... specifics (with citations) are provided later in the section.Blueboar 15:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Still needs a citation for the general claim. Awadewit ^Talk 15:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... I think you are being a little overly strict here. The problem is that you would need to basically repeat ALL of the citations in the rest of the section. Blueboar 16:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no. A broad claim is different than the individual claims all added together. Has anyone ever made this broad claim? If not, you cannot make it. An assemblage of individual claims cannot be synthesized into a broad claim unless someone has already made that broad claim (see original research). Awadewit ^Talk 17:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• However, the matter was clarified by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI), as the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, issued Quaesitum est, which states: "...the Church’s negative judgment in regard to Masonic association remains unchanged since their principles have always been considered irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Church and therefore membership in them remains forbidden. The faithful who enroll in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion." - where does this quotation come from? It needs to be footnoted.

It comes from Quaestum est (as the the sentence indicates)... full text at linked wikipedia article.Blueboar 15:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Still needs a footnote. Awadewit ^Talk 15:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

OK... although I remember reading a quideline that said otherwise (don't remember which at the moment... WP:CITE maybe?)

• Protestant objections are more likely to be based on allegations of mysticism, occultism, and even devil worship. - general claim needs support
• Islamic anti-Masonry is closely tied with Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism, though other criticisms are made such as linking Freemasonry to Dajjal.

This is cited. Blueboar 15:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, at the end of a paper in only a suggestive way. The paper's thesis is something totally different. The author has thrown in that last bit to be topical. I'm not convinced. Awadewit ^Talk 15:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Nevertheless, much of the political opposition to Freemasonry is based upon the idea that Masonry will foment (or sometimes prevent) rebellion.

Cited Blueboar 15:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, we are talking about statements that need to be cited from reliable sources that are not published by the Masons themselves. Awadewit ^Talk 15:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• The Fraternity has encountered both applause for “founding”, and opposition for supposedly thwarting, liberal democracy (such as the United States of America).
• In 1799 English Freemasonry almost came to a halt due to Parliamentary proclamation. In the wake of the French Revolution, the Unlawful Societies Act, 1799 banned any meetings of groups that required their members to take an oath or obligation.[60] The Grand Masters of both the Moderns and the Antients Grand Lodges called on the Prime Minister William Pitt, (who was not a Freemason) and explained to him that Freemasonry was a supporter of the law and lawfully constituted authority and was much involved in charitable work. As a result Freemasonry was specifically exempted from the terms of the Act, provided that each Private Lodge's Secretary placed with the local "Clerk of the Peace" a list of the members of his Lodge once a year.[60] This continued until 1967 when the obligation of the provision was rescinded by Parliament.[60] - It is unclear to me why this cited from a Masonic document rather than a scholarly history.

You are showing an "anti-web" bias here... just because something is included on a Masonic web page does not make it non-scholarly. The Grand Lodge of England has notable Historians who have researched this. Blueboar 15:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not. I just know that best historical research happens to be in print at the current time (alas). Also, you do not link to any particular research, so it is hard to know what you are pointing to on that site. Awadewit ^Talk 15:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Freemasonry in the United States faced political pressure following the disappearance of anti-Masonic agitator William Morgan in 1826. Reports of the "Morgan Affair" helped fuel an Anti-Masonic movement, culminating in the formation of a short lived Anti-Masonic Party which fielded candidates for the Presidential elections of 1828 and 1832.

Fully referenced in several linked WP articles. No need to duplicate references here. Blueboar 15:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Untrue, you must still reference here, whether it is referenced elsewhere on wikipedia or not. You cannot count on the fact that users will go to those articles. Awadewit ^Talk 15:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Even in modern democracies, Freemasonry is still sometimes accused of being a network where individuals engage in cronyism, using their Masonic connections for political influence and shady business dealings. - who is making this accusation?

Anti-masons... but you are correct that it needs a citation.

• While the number is not accurately known, it is estimated that between 80,000 and 200,000 Freemasons were exterminated under the Nazi regime. - I would use Holocaust scholarship for this.

I would too... Unfortunately, most studies on the Holocaust do not delve into masonic membership (the few people have studied this aspect of the holocaust are Masons.)

POV:

• Freemasonry explicitly and openly states that it is neither a religion nor a substitute for one. "There is no separate Masonic God", nor a separate proper name for a deity in any branch of Freemasonry. - Statements such as this one could probably be questioned using outside sources. This is tilting towards POV in my opinion. While the page deals with the outlandish attacks on Freemasonry, I am not sure that it addresses the calm, rational descriptions of Freemasonry that Masons disagree with, such as that it resembles a religion.

It is POV, but so is the opposite POV (that Freemasonry is a religion). This is a case where there are two conflicting POVs ... one states that Masonry is a religion... one states that it is not. This quote states the Masonic POV (and is clearly attributed as such). The article also gives the alternative POV. You need both.

To me, the Masonic POV dominates and presents all other alternatives as crazy and wrong. Awadewit ^Talk 15:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps because many of them are crazy or wrong. Seriously, When you are dealing with "he said/she said" opposites, there is no other way to present it than: this is what X says and this is what Y says. If the Masonic POV is made clearer and more succincly that is because there are clear and succinct statements put out by various Grand Lodges, while the Anti-masonic view is scattered and often poor in logic. Blueboar 16:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I highly doubt that all of the arguments are scattered and poor in logic. An organization that worships a higher being and has rituals? That is pretty much the definition of a religion. I'm sure you can find some good arguments if you tried. Awadewit ^Talk 17:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

So you would say that the US Congress, the British Parliament, the Boy Scouts etc. are all religions? After all, they all have rituals and all worship a higher being. Freemasonry is religious yes... but it is not a religion. As that same Grand Lodge page you object to points out, It has no dogma and does not define what or how one should beleive. Furthermore, its rituals are not religious in scope (the only thing that is overtly religious is an opening and closing prayer. Having that does not make it a religion.) Blueboar 18:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The Congress does not worship a higher being explicitly (there is a division between church and state), although we seem to be moving in that direction. I would have to know more about the current relationship between the Church of England and the British Parliament before I could answer the Parliament question. The Boy Scouts - yes. There are actually whole books written about just that topic, about the kind of institutional structure and ways of "belonging" encouraged by the Boy Scouts and how similar they are to religion. The fact that one cannot be an atheist and be a Boy Scout says a lot - the Scouts is not primarily about nationalism, manhood, virtue,, etc. then, is it? In the Scouts, religion gets intermingled with all of those things. The question becomes whether the Scouts is its own religion, the way the Masons can be seen to be, or whether it simply integrates other world religions into it. But since that is outside the scope of the talk page of Freemasonry, it is perhaps better to leave all of that unexplored for the present. I would also point out that simply demanding that its members believe in a God is dogma enough to exclude some people and prayers are pretty religious in my book. Awadewit ^Talk 18:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Traditionally, in regular Freemasonry, only men can be made Masons. Many Grand Lodges do not admit women because they believe it would violate the ancient Landmarks. - This also appears slightly POV. Masons have been accused of misogyny but here the editors present it as a "tradition" issue, not gender discrimination.

That's because it is a tradition. No other reason.

That is what I mean - that is POV. To exclude women appears to many as discrimination and as a misogynist tradition. To say that excluding women is just a tradition rather than discrimination denies women equal rights under the auspices of tradition. You cannot present just the Masonic position on this, particularly since it is so sexist. Awadewit ^Talk 15:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Except that (as the article states) this only applies to those lodges that call themseves "regular" freemasonry... not to "Freemasonry" as a whole. Women can join the fraternity (in either co-ed or women only lodges). I suppose these "regular" lodges are sexist... but they are sexist due to adhearance to tradition, not due to mysogyny... does make any sense?Blueboar 16:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

But I get the sense from the article that only the regular Lodges are truly acceptable - so it matters. Women can go to the "other," "separate but equal" lodges? Nice. Awadewit ^Talk 17:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It is more complicated than that... only other regular lodges are acceptable to other regular lodges... but the same is true for Co-masonry and female only Masonry. Each of the branches and offshoots of Freemasonry finds "their" lodges to be regular and others to be irregular, and only admit those they recognize. It isn't a clear "separate but equal" situation... more like "this is separate... and that is separate... and so is this over here ... etc. and none are considered equal by others ... but they really are equal when you examine it with dispassion." Women are excluded from some branches but not others. And the only real reason for this is that there is a tradition that they are excluded in those branches that do. Tradition is what separates these different branches (indeed adhearance to tradition, or the lack of it, is often what separated the different branches in the first place) it may be sexist, but to state this is not POV... it is fact. There is no way to say it except this bluntly.

Since it is a sexist tradition, which you have just admitted, then that criticism of Masonry should be made explicit in the article. Right now, it is only implicit. It is that kind of POV that irritates other editors who come to this page, by the way. Awadewit ^Talk 18:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• I find it interesting that in the "History" section, the editors make no mention of why Masonry became so popular in the eighteenth century. It was used primarily as a way to insulate tradesmen from the vagaries of aristocratic power - it was not used primarily as a club to morally uplift its members. I feel that the editors are leaving out a large part of the history here. Awadewit ^Talk 13:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I would very much disagree with this last statement. In fact, the most notable developement in Freemasonry during the eighteenth century is the fact that it shifted from its "tradesman" roots and became something that gentlemen and aristocrats were heavily involved with... this is exactly the era when the line between "operative" stone masons (tradesmen) and "speculative" Freemasons (gentlemen) became clear. As for moral uplift... this is also the era when the rituals were first laid out in more or less modern form (and the 3rd degree written)... there is clearly a heavy focus on moral uplift at the time. I would love to know where you are getting your information on this. Blueboar 15:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Not according to the history I've read (E. P. Thompson, for example). Awadewit ^Talk 15:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you give me more info on this... what are Thompson's credentials? I would like to read it... what is the title and publication info. It goes counter to the bulk of Masonic histories, and I would like to explore this more. Blueboar 16:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

E. P. Thompson is one of the foremost historians of the working-class movements of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (interesting you wanted his credentials - why is that, exactly? why is that important to you?). I can't remember which of his books talks about the Masons, but you can easily find out I'm sure. All of his books are easily available because they have become such classics within history. Awadewit ^Talk 17:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to know his credentials to know if he was an historian (you have answered that), an accademic in some other field, or just some random author. I had never heard of him before, so I was curious to learn more. That he is a historian of working class movements in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries would explain his take on Masonry. I'm not saying he is wrong... just that he fits facts into his speciallity - this is natural, a historian who focused on religious history might note the number of Anglican and Protestant clergy and vestrymen who were members of the fraternity at that time and say that freemasonry was primarily involved with religious matters. All I know is that Thompsons claims (or rather your brief explanation of them) is something I have never come across before, and they go against what other Masonic historians (backed by the records of the Grand Lodge) say... which is that Freemasonry was middle class with strong aristocratic leanings during the 18th centurey. The record shows a shift in the 19th century depending on where you look... while in England it remained upper middle class/aristocratic, in the US it became solidly middle class and in Europe it splintered - with some branches staying middle/upperclass and others becoming much more working class and even getting involved in revolutionary movements and the like. In any case, I am not going to say that Thompson is wrong without reading him (which I would like to do... can you give me a title?) ... I only say that his take is different than most. Blueboar 18:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

E.P.Thompson is indeed very well known. But to say that Freemasonry was promarily used for tradesmen to shield themselves, etc. is quite different from saying that tradesmen primarily used Freemasonry for that purpose. It depends on which set of actions you're looking at.And I find it far more credible that the Thompsons, who were not interested in what the upper classes used Freemasonry for, would have said the second. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, part of the problem is that "class" itself is not so easily defined in these periods as you are making it out to be (another thing Thompson proved). The idea of an easily distinguishable lower, middle and upper class did not exist in the eighteenth century, for example. Two titles come to mind, The Making of the English Working Class and Customs in Common, but I'm not sure if those are the ones. By the way, he does not ignore religious history, either. If I were you, I would not be so skeptical of historians who are not Masons. Oftentimes people who are on the outside have a better perspective of something because they are not so invested in the thing itself.

I believe that I have contributed about as much as I can to this debate. I strongly urge the editors of this page to do additional research under the rubric of WP:RS, WP:ATT, and WP:OR; Wikipedia articles are supposed to reflect the best scholarship on a topic. Please respect that aim. I also urge the editors to consider their rhetoric more carefully and the appearance of their sources. Relying so exclusively on Masonic sources, even if valid at times in the article, will give the appearance of a POV article, something they should wish to avoid. Awadewit ^Talk 18:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You do not mention that Making of the English Working Class is over forty years old. It is a very good book; but it should not be used as a standard for this article, because it's not about Masonry. What Thompson does say should be included, and sourced. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Not all old scholarship is bad scholarship, by the way. This book is still assigned in graduate school - all students of the eighteenth and nineteenth century are expected to know its thesis. Moreover, I did not say that it should be the basis for this article. I merely mentioned some information that was missing in the history section, in my opinion. Most importantly, it does not matter if the book is about Masonry or not (and please remember that I repeatedly said that I did not remember if that was where I read the history of Masonry I was referring to), if it has good information and is reliable, it can be used. And, of course, if better material is available, that should be used. My point was, a good researcher culls all the possible sources available in order to write an article. Please don't misrepresent my argument. Awadewit ^Talk 19:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree it should be used; why don't you go ahead and include what Thompson has to say? But there is a rather more important omission, on this subject: David Stevenson's books on the Origins of Freemasonry : Scotland's century 1590-1710 and First freemasons : Scotland's early lodges and their members, which date Freemasonry from the time of Schaw and James I. I realize that this article has a problem with the Templars wandering in; but the antidote to that is the actual scholarship. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

On another matter, Winterhilfswerk; a supposed charitable organization, which actually collected money used for rearmament. is an exaggeration of the on-line sources quoted. This should be sourced to a history of Germany; which I believe will say the somewhat more complex: by providing money for the poor, it freed up funds for rearmament. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting point... I have ammended the line in light of your comment. Blueboar 22:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

A word on "sexist tradition"

I thought this was important enough to break out. I don't see the same accusations being leveled at college fraternities (or sororities, for that matter). What, pray tell, is the difference? Why is it OK in one context and apparently wrong and "misogynistic" in another? And yet, I can't join NOW or the League of Women Voters, and that's OK. Is it really sexist and misogynist, or is it just because it's a group of men and not a group of women we're dealing with? MSJapan 19:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's another tack - calling it sexist is a judgment call, and is highly POV. State the facts - Freemasonry in the concordantly recognized UGLE dominated grouping is male only. State the other fact - that those GL's consider female or mixed gender groups to be irregular. State another fact - the female and mixed GL's either consider male only GL's to be irregular, or do not make judgment calls. Calling it sexist or misogynistic requires a reliable source who has said this, and also allows for the group's own literature to be used to explain its position (direct quotes only, no interpretation).--Vidkun 19:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

That was my whole point initially - there are groups who have criticized the Masons for being sexist and their views are being left out here. To respond more specifically to MSJapan, this debate doesn't really belong here, but I will mention my own personal opinion anyway. I would, in fact, level the same argument at fraternities and sororities. I see no difference. I checked the NOW and LWV websites - it doesn't seem to me that you have to be a woman to join. Historically, you might be able to see why early feminist groups limited their membership to women. What is most fascinating about the history of feminism in the United States was that the earliest feminists were in some ways the most radical (their groups were not limited by sex or race) - it was the intermediate groups, such as the ones fighting for suffrage that limited their membership. As far as I know, though, feminist groups don't limit their membership anymore - that is a myth perpetuated by someone (I've never quite been able to figure out by whom or what). If it isn't "liberal" groups that limit their membership by sex (or religious affiliation, sexual orientation, race, etc.), but "conservative" groups like frats and Masons, then I think an interesting political and social statement could be made about those groups. Awadewit ^Talk 19:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Which is not what the article is here to do - that's an opinion. The fact is that there is an almost 300-year-old tradition in regular Masonry on limiting membership to men. That being said, lodges often have events where women and guests can participate. There are also related groups that are only for women, which I think are solid rebuttals to sexism. A definition of a group implies some sort of discrimination anyway, because you need to define who or what is in the group, and everything else is not. In my opinion, we are dealing with an undue weight issue, though Vidkun's solution would work. MSJapan 19:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I said that much of the above statement was my opinion, but, if you think that having women as guests and as separate lodges (again, the "separate but equal" business which we know from race doesn't work out) is a serious rebuttal to sexism, I urge you to read some history on the civil rights movement or on the feminist movement. It is precisely this sort of exclusion that women have been fighting against for the last two centuries. To say that it is acceptable simply because it is tradition is faulty logic. Slavery, anti-Semitism and anti-Catholicism were also once traditional - that doesn't make it acceptable to embrace those ideas now (or perhaps it does in your view, I should not assume). The "tradition" argument is Edmund Burke's argument, by the way, in Reflections on the Revolution in France (one of the founding texts of modern conservatism) - he used it to say that the French Revolution was illegitimate and that no people could overthrow their government because whatever governments have been established through tradition are right. People like Thomas Paine in The Rights of Man and Mary Wollstonecraft in A Vindication of the Rights of Men and A Vindication of the Rights of Woman argued against this position, saying that governments should be determined through reason and democracy. Awadewit ^Talk 21:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's try and address conservatism - there have been Masons on both sides of every major war the world has seen since the American Revolution, so to staunchly put Masonry on one side of an argument at this juncture strikes me as an ultra-liberal stance trying to paint Masonry as neo-con (if nothing else), which it most certainly is not, believe me. If it was, "non-denominational" would mean "any type of Christian would be fine", and "free-born" would be "must own at least two houses". Conversely, in reality, Masonry has gone from guys missing a fingertip couldn't join, to allowing members in wheelchairs, or those missing limbs. So planting on an issue such as why women can't join a fraternal org (defined as being for men) seems aimed at showing "how backward Masonry really is". Moreover, those negative things you claim were once "traditional" are all very locale- and time-dependent. I'm also very concerned that this is turning into a pseudo-philosophical values issue, which is also not the point of this article. Whether or not women can be members is not a decision for me to make - the fact is that in certain types of Masonry they can, and in others they cannot. We could get very ridiculous and say "well, if everyone should be equal in the world, why do we have two sets of restrooms?" but it's not going to really help matters to debate that here either. MSJapan 00:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Awadewit... I don't think anyone is saying that the fact that "regular" Freemasonry is all male should be considered either acceptable or unacceptable. They are only stating that it is a fact (which it is). Each of us is entitled to a personal opinion about acceptability or unacceptability of that fact, but none of us should let that personal opinion enter into our editing. So let's look at what the article actually says (sentence by sentence) and see what you think needs work. It states:

• Traditionally, in regular Freemasonry, only men can be made Masons.

This is a simple factual statement, and while some may not like that fact... it is an accurate statement. We can cut the word "Traditionally" if that is a problem.

• Many Grand Lodges do not admit women because they believe it would violate the ancient Landmarks.

Again a factual statement. One of the common Landmarks says "no women may join", and many GLs uphold this Landmark. Do you have any problems with this sentence?

• However, there are many female orders associated with regular Freemasonry and its appendant bodies, such as the Order of the Eastern Star, the Order of the Amaranth, the White Shrine of Jerusalem, the Social Order of Beauceant and the Daughters of the Nile.

Also a simple factual statement. These orders exist. So is there a problem with this sentence?

• In addition, there are many non-mainstream Masonic bodies that do admit both men and women or exclusively women. Co-Freemasonry admits both men and women, but it is held to be irregular because it admits women. The systematic admission of women into International Co-Freemasonry began in France in 1882.

Also a series of simple factual statements. Do you have any problems with these sentences?

Now... all of this is well cited at the linked Main articles: Women and Freemasonry and Co-Freemasonry... I disagree with you on the need to include citations when they are provided in linked articles, but if the consensus is that we should, it can easily be done. Blueboar 22:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

A general comment

One thing that needs to be mentioned before we get into a re-write... this article is already VERY long. We (those of us who have been working on this for the last few years) have attempted to deal with this by splitting off certain topics into their own articles, and summarizing things here. I admit that not all of these related articles are as good as they need to be (The Freemasonry Project group has been concentrating on making this article the best it can be first) but they do exist and the intent is to improve them. My point is that we want to shorten this article (if possible) not lengthen it. If you have interesting material to add, it might be better to add it at the related article instead of here (indeed it may already be mentioned).

For example... PM Anderson makes a very good point about adding Stevensons Book on the Scottish origins... It is a very interesting book and does deserve to be discussed. But I think the place for that discussion is at History of Freemasonry. In THIS article we simply want to simply give a broad brush outline of Masonic history so that readers who know nothing about the fraternity can get a handle on the basic structure.

So, before you add something, please check to see if it is not already mentioned in another, more detailed, sub-article... if it is not, please consider adding it to that article instead of this one. And If it has to be mentioned in this one as well, figure out how to summarize it. Blueboar 22:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see that it is mentioned there; I simply recommend a sentence and footnote mentioning 1597-8 and Scotland before the one about England. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Thanks. Are their any other areas that you see needing improvement? Blueboar 11:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

OK... I added a brief sentence or two to cover the existance of Pre 1717 lodges. (at the moment they have fact tags as place holders for the citations ... I think the Stevenson book is good for Scotland and we can use a book that mentiones Ashmole's diary for England... I'll put the citations in when I get a chance.) Blueboar 11:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Concerns

People, you know, as a medical doctor I am no stranger to the need for rigorous peer-reviewed science in reputable academic publications when it comes to dealing with life and death situations. I have looked through the various points raised by Awadewit, and I am frankly a bit concerned. This is showing an anti-masonic bias in his approach to the topic, and I see his attachment to peer-reviewed references (which are of course quite proper) is being applied in a didactic and at times openly biased manner against web information, established sources of knowledge. Awadewit - by all respect for the sensible changes being recommended - I am calling you on this. Explain please. Is this because you are from a life-science background as a major in English? Any other reason for your, at times irrational, insistence on rejecting perfectly good sources of information? docboat 00:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I would hesitate to call it an "anti" bias. I think the problem is one of sourcing. Generally speaking, any historical topic will be covered in books somehow and somewhere. This does not, unfortunately, include fraternal organizations (not just Masonry, but IOOF, and so on). Even Scouting went FA on largely Scouting-created material and websites (check the refs), and I'd say we're a lot closer to and a lot more fruitful with that type of organizational sourcing than with third party uni press stuff. I still maintain we're not going to find the material we have in anything but our own documents (also similar to company articles like Boeing. So while I don't think this is a severe and purposeful bias, i do think that an over-reliance on paper goes a little against the grain of what WP allows to be done and with what. MSJapan 00:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. My POV about references is based on my daily use of referenced sources. While Awadewit may use such articles in academic papers for a dissertation, I use practical therapies and medications on a daily basis which are based on peer-reviewed and academic papers. In fact, I get BS on a daily basis as these articles are, for the most part, unreliable. Estimates suggest that only 30% of a doctors' activities are evidence-based, and there have been studies to suggest that due to selective publishing, skewed data, biased pre-study assumptions etc etc, that not one single (in this case SSRI for depression) drug could be chosen based on merits alone. And your life depends on these things sometimes. I am getting a strong sense of BS from Awadewit, and I was greatly disturbed by the additions to the correspondence in the last day. So I would still ask him to de-BS his approach and explain himself. He is not talking to amateurs or dillettantes here. docboat 01:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Assume Good Faith here folks. I see Awadewit as playing a useful "devil's advocate" roll here. We do rely heavily on Masonic websites and, to someone who does not know the topic as well as we do, that can raise questions. We should check to see if there are hardcopy "accademic" books and papers that we can use as sources. I doubt that we will be able to substitute all that many... but we should do so where we can. Let's not dismiss Awadewit's comments out of hand... while he is (in my opinion) overly strict in his definition of a reliable source, his criticism and comments are focused on making the article better. What we really need are a few more non-involved reviewers. If they make similar comments then we know Awadewit is on the right track... if not, we can take his comments to heart, but with a grain of salt. Blueboar 11:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - consider Good Faith assumed, and searching for more references! docboat 13:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Just FYI, I looked up this article because I am planning on joining Masonry and was curious what had been written about it here. For what it's worth, just my general impression, I thought the tone of the article was mostly neutral but maybe leaned just a little to the pro-Masonry side. I think that it should be no surprise, and no problem, that information about the structure and policies of an organization will, in most cases, come from sources within the organization. If, for instance, I wanted to know how all those myriad Quorums of This and That worked in the LDS Church, a church publication is likely to have the best answer. When it comes to purely factual matters about those things, I see no reason to question them unless/until a non-loony source raises legitimate doubts about them. I also think that if the mere existence of a lunatic fringe in opposition is sufficient to de-legitimize Masonic sources on this stuff, then the same argument would support eliminating all reference to Holocaust survivors' stories (or even all Jews worldwide) in that article. Clearly that would be a silly rule. I think a simple caveat that most information about this or that comes from Masonic sources would be sufficient to satisfy most readers, who could then decide to what extent they wanted to trust that material. I have only an undergraduate degree in history, my profession is law, so take this with a grain of salt.

Adding synopsis of obligation ties

I note that the "synopsis" of obligation ties from Obligations in Freemasonry is being added. That section violates WP:SYNT. I know, because I was part of the team that wrote it in the first place. It has problems with WP:V and WP:NOR beyond SYNT as well. I have suggested that it be cut in that article, and object to it being included in this article. Blueboar 15:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

i have taken the parts of it that i feel can be merged and merged them. The rest I feel are just a list of things that might happen are are not encylopedic. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not a list of things that "might happen". It's a list of things that do happen without being specific about which degree they happen in. GlassFET 15:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It would be much better as a paragraph as opposed to a bullet list. Take a look at my change. MSJapan 16:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

MSJ - I am not sure if all of the ties you mention appear in all three cited rituals. ALR may be able to check this, as I think he has all three (Emulation, Bristol and Craft rituals). They are common to US rituals, but that is OR without verification. Blueboar 17:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression we were dealing with them as a group as opposed to individually. Well, just tag it for now and ask ALR to look at it. MSJapan 04:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Never mind... I see now that we are no longer trying to state that these are common to all... but instead "may appear" ... which, to me, means that if a tie is in at least one of the cited rituals we can include it if we wish. Blueboar 12:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, n/p. MSJapan 17:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)