Talk:Freemasonry/Archive 32

Use of primary sources

I've noticed that we use quite a significant proportion of primary sources in this article, including some that are used to rebut criticism. For example, the paragraph "Even in modern democracies, Freemasonry is still sometimes accused ..." is sourced to a Lodge website. I think for the sake of NPOV we would be better off using secondary sources. Thoughts? Jayen466 18:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, what is sourced to the UGLE webpage is the statement "This is officially and explicitly deplored in Freemasonry." If you are looking for an official statement, primary source is an acceptable source. From WP:NOR - Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. Is the idea that using Masonry for political influence and shady business dealings is officially disapproved by UGLE something that is unverifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge?--Vidkun (talk) 19:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Not meaning to come across as argumentative, ha ha, but according to WP:PRIMARY we should wherever possible use secondary sources. While I do not myself disagree with the quote above, it does use the present tense, and, as such, does not specifically rule it out for past behavior. Also, unfortunately, many or most people "deplore" getting caught at doing something. Jim Phelps would probably be "deplored" by the government too, but that don't mean he wasn't working for them. Again, not trying to be argumentative, but the quote doesn't necessarily say as much as some might think or desire. John Carter (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph concerned is this:

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. This is officially and explicitly deplored in Freemasonry.[32] It is also charged that men become Freemasons through patronage or that they are offered incentives to join. This is not the case; no one lodge member may control membership in the lodge and in order to start the process of becoming a Freemason, an individual must ask to join the Fraternity "freely and without persuasion."[32]

The only source it cites (twice) is ugle.org.uk. Incidentally, the content of that site seems to have changed: I was unable to find any references to "deplored" or "without persuasion" on it. But that is not the point. The paragraph mentions a particular type of criticism often raised against Freemasonry, and the only source it cites is a Masonic website. I would rather see scholarly sources cited here that summarise both the criticism and Masonic responses to it, so as to have a level playing field. Jayen466 10:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Overall, looking through the cited references, more than half appear to be primary (Masonic) sources, including some Masons' private webpages. There are populist published sources of questionable reliability on the topic of Freemasonry, and it obviously makes sense to avoid those. But there is also a wealth of authoritative academic sources on the topic, and we should not ignore these latter in favour of primary sources. Jayen466 10:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

agree in principle. Secondary WP:RS are preferable, but that doesn't mean primary sources shouldn't be used if the article text it supports is non-controversial (ie. we shouldn't throw out good text just because it is thinly referenced). I think the real issue with the quoted text above is that it is a bit masonic apologist and is therefore WP:POV. Both the criticism and the defense against the criticism could be removed without loss of article quality. --Surturz (talk) 12:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

With regards to the paragraph in question, I think the problem is that scholarly sources don't discuss these particular criticisms (neither to raise them nor refute them). These criticisms come from various non-scholarly (Anti-masonic) sources. The question is, do we just ignore the fact that such criticisms are made? If so, I have no problem with the idea of simply cutting the entire paragraph. But if not, then NPOV requires us to include both sides of the argument... both the Anti-masonic criticism and the Masonic response to it. Blueboar (talk) 13:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a statement in Fawn Brodie's book that Joseph Smith, Jr. repeatedly used the Masonic "man in trouble" signs (sorry, I don't know the proper words here) to his opponents during the incident in which he was killed. Granted, it is only a specific instance, but would that be at all useful for keeping the content? There are also at least a few sources here and here which seem to speak to the subject, although I'm not sure how many if any are RS. John Carter (talk) 13:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The correct terminology is the "sign of distress". Are you suggesting that this has a tie to allegations of cronyism? or just something you found interesting and would like to include (my thoughts on that would be that it is essentially a bit of trivia that really does not have anything to do with the purpose of the article... explaining what Freemasonry is) Blueboar (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the correct term for what I was doing is "grasping at straws", actually. It struck me that it might indicate that he thought he would be permitted to continue based on his being a Mason, which could be at least an indication that Masons at the time were occasionally acting for brother Masons simply on the basis of being Masons. John Carter (talk) 15:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

A more reliable source for references like this would be of more interest IMO that typing "freemasonry cronyism" into Google. ie. concrete examples where government or other organisations have investigated freemasonry. I would not be surprised if there are countries that have banned masonic membership for their police force etc, and others that have investigated and allowed it. --Surturz (talk) 14:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Using such court documents means taking direct recourse to primary sources (something expressly prohibited in the context of BLPs, and not particularly encouraged elsewhere). In such cases too it would be better to cite secondary sources commenting on such investigations (if they have bothered to do so). In the end, it is our job to reflect what the most reliable and reputable secondary sources have to say on such issues, in due proportion to their prominence in these sources. Have editors here ever done a review of the most authoritative sources on Freemasonry? Jayen466 15:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

@Blueboar: Here are a few scholarly sources that at least touch upon the matter: University ofNebraska Press, University ofNorth Carolina Press[1]. I am sure more could be found. Jayen466 15:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Um... looking through those sources, I don't see any discussion of the allegations of cronyism that we are talking about. They seem to be studies about the rise and developement of various Anti-masonic movements in general, and don't go into specific criticisms of Freemasonry. Blueboar (talk) 16:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

To give some examples from these sources, the first one refers to the "populist interpretation that Freemasonry was nothing but a cloak for nepotism" (p. 251), the second one to resentment that so many public offices were held by Masons, as well as to the charge "that Masonry composed an aristocratic body in a political democracy", with Anti-Masonic ascendancy purportedly leading to "more open access to office, both elective and appointive" (p. 126). The third source refers to anti-Masonry's "exaggerated warnings of an aristocratic conspiracy against the liberties of the common man" (p. 161). The word cronyism is not used in these sources, but the concepts expressed are the same, detailing a populist perception that Masons constituted a privileged upper class, with Masons having access to opportunities that the common man did not. Jayen466 17:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, ok, I see what you are talking about. These could probably support a statement to the effect that there was concern about nepotism and cronyism in the early 1800s. I would be less sanguine about using them for the statement that such concerns continue to be expressed in modern times (although there are unreliable websites that do so). Blueboar (talk) 17:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't really meant to suggest we should use these sources in that manner. All I was trying to do was to demonstrate that there are academic sources commenting upon these criticisms. IMO the article could benefit from our doing some research on this, so we can move away from the reliance on primary sources. Here for example is a scholarly source with a more contemporary outlook, from Lexington Books. Here and here another, by Alexander Piatigorsky. Here a book published by McGraw-Hill quoting the Information Officer of the UGLE responding to charges of nepotism. So I believe with a bit of effort, we can source both the allegations and the responses from neutral secondary sources. Jayen466 19:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how this moves us away from primary sources. We would still need to present any offical responce to these criticisms... and that means using Primary sources (ie UGLE and other GL websites). Blueboar (talk) 23:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Because if we cite this book, for example, we are presenting an official response by the UGLE, as presented in a secondary source. This is generally preferable to quoting a primary source selected by a WP editor. Generally, if there is a substantial body of secondary sources, as is the case here, there should be little need for editors to select and compile primary sources. The existing secondary literature will already have done that. Jayen466 19:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, perhaps we could swap out one official source for another in this case (the nepotism quote)... but I don't see that impacting on the rest of the citations to various GLs. For example, the oft quoted "Freemasonry is not a religion, nor a substitute for religion" statements. Blueboar (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Precisely because it's oft-quoted, we can cite any number of secondary sources presenting that statement. You may say it comes to the same thing: but it's important to avoid the appearance (or reality) of presenting only, or predominantly, the "inside" view of Freemasonry in the article. Scholarly publications are generally speaking neutral and authoritative, and are widely accepted as such; the more of them we cite, the better. Jayen466 20:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... I am not sure I agree with you on this. When stating what the laws, rules, beliefs, etc. of an organization are, I would think that an official statement from the organization itself will be the best source available. I think this one of those rare situations where the primary source is actually more reliable than a secondary one.

I also think that when we wish to include a quote it is best to cite the original, rather than a cite secondary source that intern quotes the original. For example, if an article wanted to quote the Declaration of Independance, wouldn't it be best to cite directly to the Declaration itself, rather than to another source that in turn quotes the Declaration? I understand that for interpretation of the Declaration we would need a secondary source, but for a quote of its text, we should cite the original. That is what many of the citations you seem concerned about are doing... going right to the original source text rather than relying on a secondary source that repeats it. Blueboar (talk) 20:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

If the original text that is being quoted is available, then of course it makes good sense to refer to it, and add it as an ancillary cite. But without a secondary source citing the primary source, our citing the primary source is WP:UNDUE. Because then it is a Wikipedian who decides that this particular statement and this particular primary source is important enough to be included. That is OR. You get that often with controversial authors, beliefs, religions etc. – proponents would like to pick the bits they especially like, opponents would like to pick the bits they find particularly silly or offensive, etc. It is not up to the Wikipedian to decide what is important in the Bible, or the Qur'an, or in Goethe's, Rudolf Steiner's or L. Ron Hubbard's works for that matter; if we quote something, it should primarily be the same passages that are quoted in the most authoritative and dispassionate sources. And if there is controversy, or criticism to be refuted, then we should not ourselves go to Scientology's websites, or Theosophical publications, or present criticism of Christianity or Islam only through the prism of Christian or Muslim apologetics, but we should ideally cite secondary sources that give a neutral presentation of such disputes without having a stake in either camp. The idea that "primary sources are more reliable and better than secondary sources" is a pernicious fallacy; it makes the Wikipedian, not the body of RS, the final arbiter of due weight. And that's before we get to the other problems and restrictions associated with WP:SELFPUB (especially points 1 and 2 in the list given there). Jayen466 22:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Given the content of some of the excerpts on that search page I think that both Scholarly and Neutrality could be open for debate. There is a clear inference in at least one that the claim is false.

I would also dispute the assumption that a secondary source is any more authoritative than an official statement.

ALR (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not advocating citing any of the conspiracy-theorist sources put out by fly-by-night publishers out there. But if there are reputably published (proper academic publishers etc.), authoritative works on Freemasonry available, then we should mirror their analyses of such conflicts rather than presenting our own based on primary sources. As it happens, upon closer scrutiny I agree that the google books page I linked to above does not exactly present a fine crop of reputable secondary sources. I guess the best of the lot there are "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Freemasonry" and "A pocket guide to sects and new religions". Those are obviously not brilliant, although they might do as a last resort. Jayen466 23:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Since Freemasonry is neither a sect nor a religion I would dispute the authority of the latter. The former is written by two fairly experienced Masons both of whom have positions of authority in a related organisation so I would describe it as essentially a primary source.

ALR (talk) 23:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

As for your objection to the first source, that is not our decision to make; we should simply report what reliable sources have stated. As far as the second source is concerned, Penguin Books is not a Masonic publishing house. Their publications are not Masonic primary sources. Likewise, it is quite legitimate for a Christian or a Buddhist to write a scholarly treatise on Christianity or Buddhism; if it is published by Penguin, or any reputable publisher, the work does not become a primary source of that religion just by dint of the author being a member of it. If such a work were published by the Vatican's own publishing house, or by a Christian publisher specialising in Christian apologetics, then that might be a different matter. Jayen466 11:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The crux of this is what constitutes reliability. As a trained, experienced, analyst I have serious misgivings about the bland and uncritical approach that wikipedia policy takes to assessing source quality. That's merely context for my position on this.

I would contend that the nature of the publisher is not an indicator of reliability. The responsibility of editors and legal advisors is to keep them out of court, and that's as far as it goes in terms of reliability. The important thing is the author and whilst neither speaks in an official capacity they're close enough to the administrative infrastructure for their independence to be questioned by any of the usual suspects who might choose to do so. I'm not saying don't use it merely that it's neither as simplistic as you suggest, or a panacea.

I'll acknowledge that the simplistic WP approach to source analysis will rubber stamp a source based on who publishes it, but if we're trying to present the material in a mature way then we really need to think about the serious limitations on article quality that imposes.

ALR (talk) 15:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally I would avoid the general broad assumption that secondary sources are inherently more reliable than primary in all contexts. Sources need to be individually assessed for how they're being used and whether they're corroborated by anything else.

Where it's a position statement, or a response, then I would suggest that a primary source is likely to be more reliable. The nature and perspective of a secondary source needs to be considered, and since most of what's on the market is explicitly hostile to FM then that should influence the assessment of reliability.

Where one can find an assuredly neutral assessment then I wouldn't in general disagree with the position, however that assessment of neutrality is key.

I should probably add, looking at the issues, the Google search of the UGLE website probably doesn't delve into the pdfs where the statements have come from.

ALR (talk) 20:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the core issue here is whether an official position statement from an organization is the most reliable source for that organization's position on something. I think it is. Yes, we need secondary sources for any analysis or interpretation of that position, but for a simple statement of what the position of the organization actually is, we should go to the primary source as being authorative.

In an article about a organization, it is appropriate to include statements as to what that organization says about itself. Now, if we only presented that view point, I would agree that this would be a WP:UNDUE violation... but we don't do that in this article. We present the outsider's view as well as the insider's view - the negative as well as the positive. In fact, it would be WP:UNDUE not to include official insider position statements, as it would only present the outsider's viewpoint. Blueboar (talk) 12:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

For background, this comment shows that the perception that this article presents both inside and outside views equally well is not universally shared. The editor who made that comment is a sysop in good standing, and a valued GA reviewer.

The due weight problem implicit in going to primary sources is not addressed by saying that we are not offering any interpretation. Imagine a Scientology article whose criticism section only cited the rebuttals found in Scientology publications, and whose cited references consisted to more than 50% of Scientology books and websites. I am not saying Freemasonry is like Scientology, but what they have in common is that both have been controversial, and both have attracted, at various points in their history, groups of dedicated and passionate critics. In such cases, we do not even fulfil the appearance of NPOV if over half the citations are to the group's own websites. So it would be a good start to cite to secondary sources, rather than primary sources, those parts of the present text that can be sourced to secondary sources. Jayen466 15:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

As an observation, it may be more productive to actually address specific issues and come up with some suggested wording for improvements, rather than a fly-by of use more secondary sources.

Using the example at the link you just provided is probably quite a good one, although I would disagree with your characterisation of what's said elsewhere. Specifically, in order to improve that area how do you think it should be worded, given the available sources?

For that particular aspect I see a three main potential approaches, although all bear inherent bias;

• Freemasonry bears an institutional culture that encourages nepotism and cronyism. Describe the accusations and then position the responses from masonic organisations.
• Freemasonry does not bear and institutional culture that encourages nepotism and cronyism. Describe the accusations and then position the responses. That is essentially the position that the article takes at the moment as far as I read it.
• We can't determine if Freemasonry bears an institutional culture that encourages nepotism and cronyism. Describe the accusations and position the responses. Whilst this might appear the most attractive position it verges on Original Research and I would suggest that it implies validity of the accusations.

Essentially there are many interested in the topic, and coming at it from their own perspectives. As an apparently independent editor it would be useful to see how you think the section should be written, rather than just tinker with the edges of the issue.

ALR (talk) 15:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we need to take a position on whether Freemasonry has or has not such an institutional culture. If we write the article to convey either of these convictions in its editorial voice, then we have probably already given up NPOV. Jayen466 19:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Including any topic in an article implies an editorial position on it, the placement in the article itself, the way it is introduced and the sequence of assertions and sources. To suggest otherwise is admirably idealistic, and in non contentious topics probably achievable. However this is a contentious article and it's probably unachievable.

The availability of secondary sources themselves ends up presenting a position. Nonetheless I would reiterate the suggestion that you suggest some forms of words for the sections you have issues with. IT seems more practical than a mildly esoteric discussion around the vagaries of wikipedia policy.

ALR (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Looking at Primary source usage

OK, let's look at the various situations in which we use primary Masonc websites and see if there are better alternatives. ALR's suggestion that, since we are currently discussing the nepotism/cronyism paragraph, we should start with that is fine. Jayen, you say there is a better (secondary) source... ok, do we just swap out the current citation and leave the current text, or do we need to rewrite the paragraph? Blueboar (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Blueboar. I need to do more research to answer your questions. First thoughts – in the first sentence, it would probably be best to remove the phrase "Even in modern democracies", as per G-guy's comment. In the fourth sentence of the paragraph, we confidently say, "This is not the case ...", adopting the Masons' voice as the editorial voice of the article. It would probably be better to attribute the statement. Jayen466 20:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Things are further complicated by the mantra that no one person speaks for Freemasonry. So relying on lodge or even grand lodge websites should be heavily qualified. JASpencer (talk) 20:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Re removing the bit about modern democracies... I have no problem with that in concept. The phrase is there simply as a transition. The idea was to tell the reader that Freemasonry is criticized by people not just in historical totalitarian states, but also in modern democracies. However, If you don't think that is needed, I don't have a problem with deleting this transition.

As for JASpencer's comment... You are correct, no one person does speak for all of Freemasonry... However, Grand Lodges do speak "offically" for Freemasonry within their jurisdiction. When Grand Lodges dissagree on things, we note that disagreement (such as the fact that Regular jurisdictions require belief in Deity, but Continental Grand Lodges don't). Or are you saying that there is a Grand Lodge that has come out with an official statement in support of cronyism etc.? Blueboar (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, I think these particular criticisms are based on the misconception that one is asked to join Freemasonry (the idea being that only those with connections will be asked)... this is a common misconception, but it is not an accturate one. The Masons don't ask you... you have to ask them (or in the language of tacky bumper-sticker marketing: "Ask1 2B1" ). This misconception actually causes a lot of problems for the fraternity. A potential candidate sits around waiting for the Masons to approach him, while the Masons sit around waiting for the potential candidate to approach them. Fathers miss out on seeing their sons join because they never clarified this one simple misconception. And the sons end up with a grudge against the fraternity because they assume that they didn't measure up in some way (What did they have against me? Why didn't they ask me to join? Well screw them!). Not saying that this should be mentioned in the section under discussion... just clarifying the proceedure. Blueboar (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

IMO this rule is to stop Freemasonry being a cult. There was one notable (possible) violation of this when the Mormons started joining freemasonry in large numbers (many decades ago). I think at one point the GL in question stopped allowing Mormons to join - the only monotheistic religion that was unacceptable. I think I have a reference for this somewhere .. Harry Carr perhaps, I'll try to remember to check. --Surturz (talk) 06:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The "rule" may have at one time been used in this way (certainly not any more... there is no problem if a Mormon wants to join) but it existed in England long before the Mormons came into existance... It goes back to the early years of Freemasonry (I will have to check, but it may even be mentioned in the Old Charges). Joining a lodge must be "an act of your own free will and accord". In other words, the candidate must not have been pressured into joining. The tradition of waiting until the candidate asks is a way to ensure this. Blueboar (talk) 13:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Masons don't accept all comers. It helps if you know someone who is a mason. If you really don't know any Mason at all, Masons will arrange to meet you socially, and you are then in due course invited to meet a committee and a vote will be held on your admissibility. In this kind of process it obviously helps, I imagine, if you have people within the fraternity who put in a good word for you. That is a bit like patronage. So Masons may not go out of their way to invite people to join them, but anyone who is interested still has to be invited to become a member, based on their character and credentials. It is obviously not as easy as joining the AA – nor can it be, given that the fraternity aims to uphold certain standards and values. Jayen466 13:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This is clearly drifitng way off the topic of improving the discussion of allegations of nepotism, however I would suggest that asking to join and don't accept all comers are different things. One has to ask to join, although one might find that some enquiries around potential interest might be forthcoming. Even when one has asked to join the lodge in question may not accept the potential candidate, for any one of a number of reasons. The process of applying does require a proposer and seconder, and in that sense then yes there is potential patronage. That applies to joining the lodge, not the allegations of nepotism and cronyism. Those tend to suggest that the obligations require one to express a preferment for fellow masons, although for what it's worth the obligations I took specifically prohibited that.

ALR (talk) 14:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Jayen466 15:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Another thing to think about

I just realized another problem with the paragraph under discussion... it is conflaiting two different allegations.

First we have the allegation that Masons engage in cronyism in the outside world ... ie that Masons will favor a fellow Mason in business, or that a policeman or judge who is a Mason might improperly favor a criminal who was a Mason. This allegation is worthy of discussion. The allegation has been discussed by reliable independant sources... it has been examined in various governmental enquiries (that have reported that the allegations are groundless). So here we do have independant sources that we can point to. We can also cite statments from various Grand Lodges in responce to the allegation.

Then we have the allegation that masons engage in cronyism within the fraternity... ie that one must have connections within the fraternity in order to join it. I am not sure that this is worthy of discussion in the article... for one thing, we do not have a source (much less a reliable one) for the allegation. For another thing, it is currently unclear exactly what the allegation is. Is it that you can only join if you have inside connections? Or is it that it is easier to join if you have inside connections? Or what? That needs to be clarified if we are to discuss it.

Thoughts? Blueboar (talk) 15:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Without a source mentioning the second point (in a clear format) as a prominent allegation, there is little point in presenting a response to it. As for the first allegation, it would be better to have a RS (or a couple) formulating both the complaint and the fraternity's response to it. Jayen466 15:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

In which case, I would suggest that we temporarily cut the current paragraph entirely, and completely re-work it. Any objections? Blueboar (talk) 15:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me, Blueboar. I've been looking for sources, but I tend to find anecdotes rather than summaries. Jayen466 15:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah... lack of reliable sources is a problem with a lot of the "criticisms" of Freemasonry... It is clear that all sorts of "criticisms" are floating around out there... but they tend to not be discussed by reliable sources. Blueboar (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, not entirely so. This book e.g. mentions that "In the lay Iranian's perception, Freemasons were the bane of Iranian politics and a dangerous clandestine brotherhood committed to serving the interests of foreign powers, especially the British. For many politicians, however, to become a Freemason was deemed a fast track to power and privilege." It mentions, later on, that "almost the entire upper echelon of the Iranian government seemed to have been Masons." The book is by I.B.Tauris, a reputable publisher. It's just that it describes one specific case, in a particular country, rather than making a generic statement about Freemasonry, so it's not of much use to us here. Jayen466 22:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not mean to imply that they were not discussed by any reliable sources... just that they tend not to be... in other words, the ones that do are few and far between. Blueboar (talk) 22:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you help me out here ... what would you say are the most authoritative scholarly sources on Freemasonry, covering both its origins, past and present (or, failing all three in one go, its present)? I have the book by Jacob (The Radical Enlightenment), but it's not much use for more recent affairs. Jayen466 23:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's see... I would start with Freemasons for Dummies and The Idiot's Guide to Freemasonry (Dispite the names, both are excellent over-views of the subject. I would call them semi-scholarly works, written by scholars for non-scholars). For more serious looks at the subject, I would recommend Jasper Ridley's [http://www.amazon.com/Freemasons-History-Worlds-Powerful-Society/dp/1559706546/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241089218&sr=1-6 The Freemasons], Mark Tabbert's [http://www.amazon.com/American-Freemasons-Centuries-Building-Communities/dp/0814783023/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241089218&sr=1-8 American Freemasons], David Stevenson's The Origins of Freemasonry - Scotland's Century, Steven Bullock's Revolutionary Brotherhood, and John Robinson's A Pilgrim's Path.

For online stuff I would look at the various articles hosted on the Grand Lodge of British Columbia & Yukon's website, and Paul Bessel's website (a collection of all sorts of statistics and essays). I would also look at the Phoenix Masonry website... although they are not as discriminating as I might like - some of the essays they have are written by amatures... and some of it is quite out of date.

Oh... and check out the University of Sheffield's Centre for Research into Freemasonry (An actual University Dept. devoted to the study of Freemasonry).

Hope this helps. Blueboar (talk) 11:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, brilliant. I'll have a look at those. Jayen466 00:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Cronyism: text to be re-worked

OK... here is the current text which I have removed from the article... without the second allegation (which we have agreed should be cut completely):

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. This is officially and explicitly deplored in Freemasonry.

The second sentence of what remains (the "offically and explicitly depored" bit) was cited to UGLE. No citation was given for the accusation itself, but we should be able to come up with one fairly easily. However, perhaps we could simply start from scratch. Suggestions? Blueboar (talk) 16:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Failing something better, this could do for the second sentence. Jayen466 23:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The link does not display text for me... could you cut and paste it please? Blueboar (talk) 00:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure. "When a new member is initiated, he is charged with the responsibility of fulfilling his civil, public and professional duties. Freemasons are required as a condition of membership not to use 'the Craft' to promote their own businesses or personal and professional interests. Any attempt to protect a fellow Freemason who has acted unlawfully is utterly forbidden." (p. 98–99, A pocket guide to sects and new religions. By Nigel Scotland Published by Lion Hudson plc, 2005 ISBN 0745951597, 9780745951591) Jayen466 00:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The statement is certainly accurate... not sure about the reliablility of the source as a whole (the title gives me some pause). What do we know about the author? Blueboar (talk) 00:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Never mind... here are his credentials. Seems to pass RS. Blueboar (talk) 00:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, so what is the proposed language? Blueboar (talk) 14:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry for the long delay. Looking at the section again, I must say, I don't really miss the paragraph in the place where it was (under "Political opposition"). But if the info in the above source is not covered yet, couldn't we add it further up, under Principles or Membership requirements? "As a condition of membership in Freemasonry, initiates have to promise that they will fulfil their civil and professional duties to the best of their ability, and that they will not use Freemasonry to further their own personal advantage. They also have to promise that they will not protect any fellow Mason who has behaved illegally from the consequences of their actions.(source)" Something along those lines. Jayen466 01:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any objections to adding something like that ... not sure where the best place to add it would be. Blueboar (talk) 14:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any huge issue with that wording, although I think it's needlessly defensive, I do think there are some likely objections. the point of the section removed was that there are accusations of impropriety, with the response that the impropriety is explicitly banned therefore that is not institutional. The suggested wording essentially removes that point completely, merely inferring that there is an issue without being explicit about it.

ALR (talk) 15:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about needlessly defensive when it's out of context, but I fail to see the relevance of the first phrase (performance of duties) to the allegation of cronyism. The latter two are much more relevant, however, because if a Mason is expressly prohibited from favoritism in matters of law and the employment of the fraternity for personal advantage, it is a direct answer to the allegation. If we're going to source it, though, what does the source say? It might be better to quote directly instead of crafting text. MSJapan (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

n/m, I forgot the source was mentioned. I've got a real problem with this being sourced from a "new religions and sects" book, because the author is clearly misrepresenting Freemasonry - it is neither new nor religious, nor is it a sect. Find a different source. If nobody's got one, I may have one, but I can't check it ATM. MSJapan (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

At the moment we don't have a source connecting those membership conditions to the charge of cronyism, or employing them as a counterargument to such charges. But the information is still relevant, in and of itself, and can be presented by itself. The title of the book is, I believe, irrelevant to its status as an RS. Jayen466 19:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

To start off... I would not call it a "membership condition". It isn't a condition for joining the way having a belief in God is. It is more of an instruction given after joining than a condition for joining. But then again, you did say you were not familiar with the terminology of the topic... so let's let that slide.

If we don't have a source connecting this "membership condition" to the charge of cronyism... why mention it in the first place? Blueboar (talk) 19:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, we didn't have any source connecting the two sentences before, either, and we only had a primary source for the second sentence. So we are better off by one secondary source as opposed to one primary source. Not much of an improvement, I grant you. I ordered some of the books you recommended above. As for the charges made against Masons that we had in the first, unsourced sentence, pp. 86–87 of Freemasons for Dummies (ouch, it still hurts, writing that title) has some more recent material – British legislation requiring Mason police officers, judges and government officials to publicly declare their membership, a 1940s vote in Switzerland on banning Freemasonry (a third voted in favour), anti-Masonry in France (even though they had a Mason president in Jacques Chirac), government suspicion in Russia, and proposed legislation in Ukraine making membership in Freemasonry a punishable criminal offence. There are a couple of points there that we have not yet covered.

I take your point about it not being a membership condition in the same sense as the ones we list. Jayen466 19:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Purely FYI, Masons would call something like this a "Charge"... as in "I give it you strictly in charge ever to.... " Also... Don't feel bad about Freemasons for Dummies ... dispite it's name, it is considered one of the best introductions to Freemasonry in print... recommended reading on almost all Masonic reading lists. It is quite reliable. (Brent Morris's Idiot's Guide to Freemasonry is also on the list... it seems they actually get real scholars to write these books.) Blueboar (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I got the Morris as well, btw. Jayen466 20:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

With respect to the source, the policy states that the source should be trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand, and the title of the source does not suggest that. To demonstrate that it is then you'd need to demonstrate that Freemasonry is legitimately encompassed by the context. anyway, notwithstanding that I get the impression we've kind of lost the point of why we were doing this.

We're now copying material into a loosely related section on a disproportionate basis in comparison with other points in that section. And I'm not entirely clear what the purpose of that is. Can we get back to the point about how to deal with the assertions of cronyism? Is it now the suggestion that the assertions be put in because they exist, yet there is no opportunity to contextualise them?

Being specific about the British legislation, much of that has now been revoked as being discriminatory in it's own right but the parliamentary investigation that led to it did eventually conclude that there was no evidence to support the assertions but that the requirement should be imposed anyway because some people had an impression of cronyism. Bizarre logic, but context is all; The existence of the legislation is itself not an assertion of an issue.

ALR (talk) 20:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

My original concern was to reduce the reliance on primary sources, so the article cannot be accused of citing predominantly Masonic sources. I don't necessarily have a great problem with what the article is saying at the moment, but when someone scans the footnotes, it makes the article vulnerable if half the sources cited are Masonic websites or journals. Jayen466 20:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

And in doing so you've managed to remove the most operationally significant criticism of Freemasonry and you're suggesting a huge change the balance of emphasis of the membership section...

In the interests of trying to maintain a semblance of structure would it not be beneficial to concentrate on one section, and rebalancing the sources in a structured way?

ALR (talk) 20:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Jayen, your comment brings us to a more fundamental issue: whether citing so many Masonic websites and journals is wrong in this article. First, the best place to find scholarly material on Freemasonry is a masonic journal. It is equivalent to citing a subject specific accademic journal. To make an analogy... if you were going to write an article on Geology, I would think the US Geological Society's journal would be considered highly reliable.

Second, not all the "Masonic websites" we cite are primary sources ... The Grand Lodge of BC&Y for example is a resource site... it is a host site for a collection of scholarly essays (much of which is published elsewhere)... ie we are citing secondary sources.

Even the ones that are primary sources are used for very specific reasons... this article talks a lot about the structure and "rules" of the fraternity. I would argue that using a primary source for such information is not only appropriate, they are the best, sources to cite.

So before you just count up the number of "Masonic websites" being cited... please take a look at a) what the site actually is, and b) exactly what is being cited to it (ie how it is being used).Blueboar (talk) 21:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

If what we are citing are convenience links, leading to copies of previously published sources hosted on Masonic websites, then we should make that clear in the footnote. In other words, we should not cite UGLE, but the author and the original publisher, with the convenience link added. As for the appropriateness of citing otherwise unpublished primary sources, the article was delisted as a GA two years ago because of its overreliance on primary sources. Looking at the sources it had then, and the sources it has now, nothing much has changed. Both the Complete Idiot's Guide to Freemasonry and Freemasons for Dummies were written by Masons, but their work has gone through a review process by independent publishers. Along with scholarly works of the kind you mentioned above, they make better sources than otherwise unpublished writings on Masonic websites. I think we should cite published works more. Jayen466 09:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

As for the GA delist of two years ago... I don't really care about that. To be honest, if we are faced with a choice of using the best, most reliable sources available (but not qualifying for "Good Article" as a result) or using sources of lesser reliability (and thus qualifying for "Good Article"), I will be happy to forgo the GA stamp. The reviewers looked at the fact that we were citing a lot of primary sources and stopped there. They did not review whether it was appropriate for this article to cite so many primary sources. The flaw was with the GA review and not with this article. Blueboar (talk) 16:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I understand where you're coming from, but I'd like to try for the best of both worlds, as I am confident we can have our cake and eat it – an accurate article, with a healthy mix of primary and secondary sources. Are you alright with the UK text below? It would go in just before "In some countries anti-Masonry is ...", i.e. where the old text was. Jayen466 19:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Coming back to the cronyism allegation, the first sentence is actually more or less citable to Freemasons for Dummies. I also found a couple of related articles in the Guardian and Independent. We could insert something like this:

Even in modern democracies, Freemasonry is sometimes viewed with distrust. In the UK, Masons working in the justice system, such as judges and police officers, have since 1999 been required to disclose their membership. While there has been no suggestion of wrongdoing, it is felt that any potential loyalties Masons might have, based on their vows to support fellow Masons, should be transparent to the public. This however, has subsequently been reversed by Jack Straw. Freemasonry is both successful and controversial in France; membership is rising, but reporting in the popular media is often negative.

I think this accurately summarises the sources. Views? Jayen466 10:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• I've added a sentence on France. Is that okay? By the way, the source states that Jacques Chirac is a mason, but I am not sure it is solid enough from a BLP point of view. I've also read denials saying he isn't. Jayen466 19:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I doubt Chirac is a brother. There are three French Grand Lodges, but all of them are likely to have made a bit of a fuss about it if he was a member (if for no other reason than to say... "see, we are the real Masonry" to their rivals)... none of them have. Also, given how active French Freemasonry is in politics, his membership would have been talked about in the mainstream press. After a quick Google search, it seems as if the claim is popular with the loony fringe and a few Anti-masons... but no hits to anything even close to being a reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 21:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Look, I bought Freemasons for Dummies on your say-so, and that's what it says (p. 86). :) Another source supporting the allegation is [2][3], another mentioning the allegation is [4]. It says two authors asserted he had been a member of the Swiss Grande Loge Alpina, but that their informants later retracted their statements; the official response to the allegation was "no comment". But I think we don't need this here anyway, it's not worth the BLP trouble involved in sources making disputed claims. If you're otherwise okay with the para above, I'll drop it in. Jayen466 22:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Huh... well wadda you know (I do trust Hodapp to get it right, so if he say Chirac is, then he probably is). I agree that there is no real reason to mention it in the article (we don't mention all the other political leader who have been or are brothres). As for you revised language... no objections. I have changed one word... instead of "suggestion" I have put "evidence" (which may not be the right word either). There definitely are suggestions of wrongdoing... In fact, this accusation is based upon nothing but suggestion (usually suggested by Anti-masons). What we don't have is any evidence or proof of wrongdoing. Blueboar (talk) 13:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Freemasons have money and power

The article forgets, this fact: freemasons must have money and power; at least in Latin America.Kings are almost ever at the peak of masonry. Slavery wasn't first ended in countries, under freemason leaders. At least in Latin America, the opposite was true. Brazil and Cuba were under freemasonic governments, but were the last to end slavery in American Continent, during late 1880 decade. Mussolini was nominated to power, by freemasons. The founder of Eugenics, Sir Francis Galton was a freemason. The main supporters with money to nazi party were in general, freemasons. Crooks such as Neville Chamberlain were freemasons. Such as anyone else, freemasons are deeply linked to their class and prejudices. Racial segregation was ended in countries linked to masonic leaders, later than other countries. Eugenics was under the control of freemasons decades, before the foundation of the Third Reich. Freemasons aren't illuminated persons or criminals. They are equal to their times and places. Agre22 (talk) 02:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Um... in a word... no. Blueboar (talk) 12:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, some Freemasons have money and power. So I think do some Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, Hindus, Confucians, atheists, and Mafiosi. Mustn't forget the Mafiosi; they get upset when that happens. But, if I dare be so bold, so what? John Carter (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Hitler and the nazi party both killed and hated the freemasons. Please check your "facts". --151.33.220.18 (talk) 16:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about other countries, but in Australia the Freemasons are so desperate for members I understand you can just walk in to one of their clubs and ask to be initiated. You don't need to be rich - although the regalia is so expensive, you might need to be wealthy to join. Eligius (talk) 03:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You can probably get second hand regalia for next to nothing on e-bay... No worries! Blueboar (talk) 03:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Ask one to be one, isn't that theyre motto? Haha prolly not desparate. 72.199.100.223 (talk) 01:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Youth groups

A good faith edit has been made to add a section on the various youth groups such as Demolay, Rainbow, etc. I reverted, since such a step should be discussed first... and with the following thoughts a) The various youth groups are not actually "Freemasonry for Kids", although many people think of them that way. They are seperate organizations with their own rituals, administrative structure etc. ... however they are supported by Freemasonry. b) Such groups are purely a US phenominon, and I think we want to keep this article more broadly focused. c) Perhaps a see also link?

Thoughts? Blueboar (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

How about a section called "Groups supported by freemasonry--JordanITP (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd just as soon keep them in the "tl|Freemasonry2" box, and not deal with them here, since they aren't part of Freemasonry proper. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I am the person who created the section.Sorry for not discussing it first.I'm more of a "WikiDragon" --JordanITP (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem Jordan... that's what WP:BRD is all about. Blueboar (talk) 23:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

How the RC sect of Xianity describes itself

The effort to reduce accuracy in this article by de-scoping the usage of Roman Catholic to Catholic appears to be predicated on an internal debate and an undefined usage of The church. The note being referred to is predicated on the term the church implying the denomination ruled by Rome. Whilst the semantic discussion may have a place on the article about the Roman Catholic church itself I don't believe that it has any place here, particularly where to understand the usage one must divert to a different article and then read a recursive discussion. It would be useful to present some justification for reducing the accuracy of this article, without relying on the assumption that one must follow the vicar of Rome.

ALR (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Sigh... I suspect that this is part of an on-going debate at the Article on the Church ... where editors have been arguing back and forth between using "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" for about five years now. The debate has recently heated up again, with a dispute over which title to use on the article (which in turn has evolved into debates at WP:NAME and related policy/guideline pages, and even has spilled over into other policies and guidelines). The edits ALR is discussing seem to be an attempt to make all articles conform to the usage "Catholic Church". However it is not yet clear that this has consensus. (neither side in that debate seems to have a clear consensus). Blueboar (talk) 00:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Freemasonry and Dan Brown's The Lost Symbol

Given how central Freemasonry is to the plot of this book, which is certain to be one of 2009's bestsellers, would it make sense to recognize its appearance in popular literature somewhere in the article? Davedonohue (talk) 20:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope.

Ok, some explanation is needed I guess. We once had a "Cultural references" section. It started off containing fairly "high brow" references like Mozart's "Magic Flute", and "War and Peace". Unfortunately it quickly decended into "pop-culture" references, like mentioning every episode of "The Simpsons" that spoofed Freemasonry - (I believe the last count had 6 episodes), and from there it quickly spiraled into any TV show video game, comic book, etc. etc. etc. that mentions Masons in passing... ie trivia. It got to the point that the section was as long as the rest of the article. We discussed this, and reached a consensus that the article should not have a "Cultural References" section of any sort. It simply was not needed.

We can reopen the discussion if you would like (after all, consensus can change)... but I for one would still oppose. Blueboar (talk) 16:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Freemasonry- the truth about their symbology

Quoting the Freemason's own books, citing sources of what their symbols stand for. The Eye Of Horus, from our one dollar bill, a Freemason symbol: Morals and Dogma page 13 and 14: "The sun and the moon represents the two grand principals of all generations, the active and passive, the male and female... both shed their light on their offspring, that blazing star, or Horus." So this passage of Scottish Rite's grand commander Albert Pike states that they believe in sun and moon worship, and their offspring a god as well, which is the Egyptian god Horus.

In this case the all seeing eye is again the pagan god Horus of Egypt, child of the sun and moon pagan gods, and is now considered the one god that sees our sin and rewards us accordingly. This of course opposes the Bible scriptures account of this job being of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and having no other gods before Him.

Freemasonry and the all paths lead to God false doctrine: In The grand commander of the Scottish Rite's "Morals And Dogma," by Albert Pike, (page 525): "(Masonry) reverences all the great reformers. It sees in Moses the lawgiver of the Jews, in Confucius and Zoroaster, in Jesus Christ of Nazareth, and in the Arabian Iconoclasts great teachers of morality and eminent reformers is nothing more." Also, the other quote was from Manly Hall in "Lost Keys Of Freemasonry." "The true Mason is not creed bound. He realizes with the divine illumination of his lodge that a mason, his religion must be universal: Christ, Buddha, or Mohamed, the name means little. He recognizes on the light and not the light bearer. He worships at every shrine, bows at every alter, whether in a temple, mosk, pagoda, cathedral, and realizes with his true understanding, the oneness of all spiritual truths. No true Mason can be narrow for his lodge is the divine expression of all broadness." Of course coupled together these two books state that they believe all religions lead to god, and that they support a broad path to salvation rather than what the Bible states as "narrow is the path that leads to life, and few be there that find it." Also, they disregard Jesus Christ as a great reformer if nothing more, and that he is no greater than Buddha in leading us to God. This opposes what Jesus Himself states when He stated "I am the way, the truth, and the life, and no one comes unto the Father except through me."

On our last note, you've forgotten the symbol called the Obelisk, such as the "Washington Monument." It is a symbol known as primarily recognized by Freemasons as it marks even their tombstones, and it seen across the nation upon our government lands. It became a national monument, even though it is a symbol for the pagan Egyptian god Osiris. To cite our sources that this is a Masonic symbol, we quote Manual Of The Lodge, Page 56, by Albert Mackey: "The Phallus was an imitation of the male generative organ, It was represented usually by a column which was surmounted by a circle at it's base. The point within the circle was intended by the ancients as a type of prolific power of nature, which they worshiped under the united form of the active or male principal, or the passive or female principal." Also concerning this phallus symbol, or Obelisk, we quote "Symbolism Of Freemasonry," page 353: "The point within the circle is devised from sun worship, and is in reality of phallic origin, it is a symbol of the universe. The sun represented by the point, while the circumference is the universe." The point within the circle is a Masonic Lodge symbol that show the phallus, or Obelisk, as the point, as the first Obelisk in Egypt shows from the air if you were in flight over this Obelisk.

The lower degree Freemasons are not being taught the truth about the symbolisms of Freemasonry purposefully, and they are "kept ignorant." We support this by quoting Albert Pike, Morals And Dogma, page 819: "The blue degrees are the outer court or portico of the temple, part of the symbols are displayed to the initiate, but he is intentionally misled by false interpretations. It is not intended that he shall understand them; but is it intended that he shall imagine that he understands them." So this is the first lesson one must learn with joining a religious group, it is to read all their literature before you join and pay dues to this group! What kind of groups basis it's foundations from their beginnings on keeping the initiates ignorant about what their symbolism really stands for?

Uh huh. Yeah. Right. I'm myself a practicing Roman Catholic who has probably been historically one of the most anti-Mason people to ever watchlist this page (right, Blueboar?), and I have to say that the statements of someone who pretty much peaked at the time of the American Civil War are probably not particularly useful in determining what the beliefs of members of that organization at any other period in human history. I could give you some really interesting (OK, make that nauseating) sources talking about Christian symbolism too. Frankly, and I mean this in all sincerity, I have to say that Pike's statements, while they might (and even that is doubtful) have reflected the opinions of the leaders of Freemasonry in the United States at that time, that does not necessarily mean that they apply at any other time. And, frankly, there is a limited number of geometric shapes out there, y'know? Like I remember from an early episode of Saturday Night Live, "sometimes a banana is just a banana". John Carter (talk) 21:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

As far as quoting Pike goes, context is vital to understanding what he says, and unfortunately most Anti-Masons quote him out of context. For example, a lot of the statements that Anti-Masons like to quote as being Pike's words are actually Pike discussing someone else's views, and not his own... of course you often need to look several pages before or after the bit being taken out of context to find this out. Blueboar (talk) 22:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Freemasons and Nazi Germany

We found some wrong information about the role of Freemasonry in Nazi Germany. The truth is that Adolph was taught by Lent, in a Masonic group named The New Order Of The Templars. After coming to power he feared these individuals would usurp his authority, and he ordered these fellow members killed. What remained was renamed The Thule Society. All of his core religious new age beliefs came from the teachings of The New Order Of The Templars, which relied much upon the eastern mysticism teachings of spiritual evolution. This was a piece of a racist religion, in that the belief is that spirits come to this planet as the lowest life forms which will evolve into higher beings. They believed that a spirit would begin it's journey as an animal spirit of a lower life form, reincarnating into a higher life form as it evolves upward through the species. Eventually this spirit would evolve higher into the human races, and this is where the teaching turned racist. At this juncture the spirit would become the lowest of the human races, the black race. When reincarnating the spirit would continue upwardly through the human races into the white race. The next stage was the reported "man god," or highest evolved stage. This horribly racist teaching was seen through out their global agenda to rid the Earth of the lessor evolved spirits that they believed were keeping the world from prospering. This was a religious belief taught by the branch of the Knights Templars, called The New Order Of The Templars. This was Hitler's roots, as Lent was the strongest influence in his early life. Lent was reportedly associated with Aleister Crowley, as his long time best friend. Europe had seen a neo pagan new age revival at that time, and sitting in coffee houses discussing Marxism, and the new age beliefs, were these two whom were soon to hand teach Hitler their idealism. Citing sources, The Broken Cross, by Carr

Nothing new. Carr is not a reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 22:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

And the material's direct relevance to the main article is also open to question. While such might be relevant to articles on the New Order of the Templars or the Thule Society, if it were reliably sourced, I sincerely doubt it is of such importance that it would have any reason to be mentioned, let alone at any length, in this article. John Carter (talk) 13:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

UGLE website has changed

UGLE has significantly changed its website. The fact that the UGLE website has changed does not make our citations to the old version suddenly unreliable (if need be, we can link to the old pages through wayback)... but we problably should review the links and point things to the appropirate new sub-pages. Blueboar (talk) 18:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Correction

In this article, should "military units of the UK and UK have met" be "military units of the US and UK have met"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.46.165.139 (talk) 07:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks... corrected. (actually, I completely reworked the sentence). Blueboar (talk) 12:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Misleading use of words

"[objections to Freemasonry are] usually religious in nature (mainly Roman Catholic and evangelical Christian), or political in nature (usually Socialist or Communist dictatorial objections" (Emphasis added)

To me, the italics seem to imply that most critics of Freemasonry must be Stalinists. This is bias, presuming criticism of Freemasonry is wrong. I propose changing "usually" to "for example". I'll wait for a green light, I know how picky people get over topics where some have a stake.

Other than this, good article. There is a bit where emphasis is added to wordsOh, and by the way, I've got no problems with Freemasonry, I even have a favourite uncle who's a Worshipful something or other. I just like neutrality in encyclopaedias is all. 81.99.137.46 (talk) 00:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not bias, it's simply true. The governments that have oppressed freemasons for the most part have been totalitarian. Masons have a long history of supporting democracy, and a long history of getting killed for it. PeRshGo (talk) 01:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you both are right: All totalitarian regimes usually oppressed freemasonry, eg. Nazi Germany. And Freemasonry is allowed in Cuba. --Liberal Freemason (talk) 00:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the wording a bit... now focuses on totalitarian regiemes.Blueboar (talk) 13:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Great, thank you. --Liberal Freemason (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

UK judges and disclosure of membership

Well Parliament has finally has come to its senses... according to Christopher Hodapp's blog (here) the rule requiring judges in the U.K. to declare their membership in Freemasonry has been recinded. (for a non-masonic source... see: this Guardian article)

I have therefor removed the following from the oppositions section (along with associated sources, as these are now out of date):

• In the UK, Masons working in the justice system, such as judges and police officers, have since 1999 been required to disclose their membership. While there has been no evidence of wrongdoing, it is felt that any potential loyalties Masons might have, based on their vows to support fellow Masons, should be transparent to the public.

Blueboar (talk) 16:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Not Parliament, but Straw in his capacity as Justice Secretary.

Rather than removal, rewording may be more appropriate. The rule still applies to Police Officers, who come under Home Office, rather than Ministry of Justice.

ALR (talk) 18:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

That would be fine with me as well. As long as we account for the change. Blueboar (talk) 20:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

What constitutes a "Masonic building"?

It seems no one is paying much attention to the Project page... A while ago I posted a querry at WT:WikiProject Freemasonry#Categories about what should be categorized as a "Masonic building". Please swing by and comment. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 15:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I realize now that I should have pointed those interested to the actual root discussion... please see: Category talk:Masonic buildings... sorry for the confusion. Between the category pages, the project pages, the portal pages, the ... well you get the idea... I sometimes lose track of where a discussion actually is. Wikipeida does seem to really like behind the scenes organization, dosen't it? Blueboar (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Improving the article to GA status and beyond

At the Project page, MSJapan has indicated his desire to get this article up to at least GA status. I think this would be a great idea... but I also don't expect it to be easy.

A few thoughts as we prepare...

1. I think the article is a bit "technical"... we spend a lot of time explaining masonic jargon and concepts. Some of this is important to understanding how Masonry works, so we will need to do some explaining... but is there a better way to do it?
2. A lot material was added to fight off Anti-masonic POV attacks (especially back when Lightbringer was with us). This makes the overall "tone" of the article overly defensive, and the information a bit repetative.
3. I think we spend an inordinate amount of time discussing opposition and criticism... there are other articles we can point to for the details. In this article, I think we can summarize a lot more than we do.

Blueboar (talk) 15:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that probably the first main issue to deal with is how we define Freemasonry, once that's clear quite a lot of the other issues are clearer, if not any easier to deal with.

For me one of the concerns is that we're handling quite a lot of complexity around what we mean, predominantly around recognition. There are two main areas there, the issue of belief and the issue of gender separation. The latter is easier to accommodate, but the former is not. Deling with the absence of belief is one of the reasons that the discussions are so very technical.

I would agree that there is a disproportionate amount of weight placed on criticisms, but recognise where that comes from.

I think some of the concepts can probably be cascaded out and handled elsewhere, treat the whole FM article in summary style and leave the reader to delve further.

ALR (talk) 16:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Knights Templar

There is non a Knights Templar connection even in theory in the article - The book 'Solomon's Power Brokers: The Secrets of Freemasonry, the Church, and the Illuminati' by Christopher Knight and Alan Butler describes the finding of ancient 'hidden' Judaic documents under the temple mount Jerusalem by the Knights Templar and the use of such documents to be the basis and the informing for Freemasonry and it's rituals, protecting from the Roman Catholic Mithraic paradigm the notions of the Shekinah Messiah's return, and other astro-religious concerns. Text mdnp (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Knight is a pseudohistorian and therefore not a reliable source. It's kind of funny that he says there's a connection that not even reliable KT historians like Stephen Dafoe have found irrefutably, since Knight claimed earlier with Robert Lomas that Freemasonry was a Venus-worshipping cult, which would mean that FM predated and therefore had nothing to do with KT. MSJapan (talk) 07:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Knight is definitely not a reliable source. He frequently makes suppositions in one chapter that in later chapters he restates as if they were accepted fact... which he then uses to support further suppositions (which he then uses as if they were accepted fact). No serious historian supports the idea that the KTs were in any way connected to the Masons... the historical documentation does not support it. Blueboar (talk) 15:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)