Talk:Freemasonry/Archive 41

Archive 35

←

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Proposed paragraph removal

Section proposed for deletion

In contrast to Catholic allegations of rationalism and naturalism, Protestant objections are more likely to be based on allegations of mysticism, occultism, and even Satanism. Masonic scholar Albert Pike is often quoted (in some cases misquoted) by Protestant anti-Masons as an authority for the position of Masonry on these issues. However, Pike, although undoubtedly learned, was not a spokesman for Freemasonry and was also controversial among Freemasons in general. His writings represented his personal opinion only, and furthermore, an opinion grounded in the attitudes and understandings of late 19th century Southern Freemasonry of the US. Notably, his book carries in the preface a form of disclaimer from his own Grand Lodge. No one voice has ever spoken for the whole of Freemasonry.

I believe that the above paragraph should be deleted due to poor sourcing and WP:OR issues. The deletion was contested by User:Blueboar, so I would like to elaborate more on the issues that I have with this paragraph.

The first sentence makes a general statement about what Protestant objections are more likely to be based on using one source alone: an anti-Freemasonry tract by Christian fundamentalist Jack Chick. Since this is a WP:PRIMARY work presenting the viewpoint of an individual Protestant Christian, we can only use it as a source for straightforward statements of fact that directly come from the source (e.g. what Jack Chick personally thinks about Freemasonry). We cannot engage in WP:OR and apply extrapolation and analysis to this source to say what Protestant objections are more likely to be based on overall.

The second sentence is published by the Masonic Information Center, meaning that it is not WP:INDEPENDENT of Freemasonry. Per WP:ABOUTSELF, it cannot be used to make claims about third parties, such as what Protestant anti-Masons have said or any misrepresentations they may have made.

The end of the passage is cited to Albert Pike's own Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, a WP:PRIMARY work. It cannot be used to establish whether Pike was learned, whether he was a spokesman for Freemasonry, whether it is [notable] that his book carries a disclaimer from his Grand Lodge, or whether his writings were controversial among Freemasons in general, all of which are not direct statements of fact about Pike's work but rather analytical statements contextualizing his work requiring a secondary source. As the paragraph states, His writings represented his personal opinion only, so they cannot be used as a source for describing the role of Pike in Freemasonry in WP:Wikivoice. Zylostr (talk) 06:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• An initial comment (I will respond in more detail later) - first, the source for the second sentence (De Hoyas and Morris) was originally published by M. Evans & Company, which is INDEPENDENT of Freemasonry. The online version that is linked to (Masonic Service Center) is merely a “courtesy link”… a re-publication by permission of the authors. Second - It is a secondary source, not a primary one. And… even if it were, the authors are two of the most notable scholars on Freemasonry, writing about a subject within their expertise, so it would pass the EXPERT exemption. Blueboar (talk) 10:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  It still seems to me that the source may be WP:COISOURCE. The publisher being independent doesn't make the authorship independent—for instance, a public figure's autobiography might be published through a major mainstream publishing house, but it would still be a non-independent source. The De Hoyas and Morris source appears to carry the copyright of the Masonic Information Center, making it the work of a Masonic organization. Additionally, the genre of the work appears to be a polemical work in defense of Freemasonry, and De Hoyas and Morris are Freemasons who have held leadership roles in Freemasonic organizations, so this is not a work by outsider academics.

  To be charitable, I believe it might make sense to limit the extent to which COISOURCE applies to work written by members of very large organizations or movements, as well as work belonging to organizations that fall under the umbrella of a broader movement but are not necessarily formally connected to the movement as a whole. For instance, it seems to me that works written by scholars who happen to be religious are not categorically COISOURCE on religious matters. I can see an argument that De Hoyas and Morris's work is on par with the work of legitimately credentialed religious apologists, which could make it usable but not in WP:Wikivoice. Zylostr (talk) 04:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  I have been thinking about this further, and while I still disagree with your objections to Morris and De Hoyas, I do think these paragraphs are too long. In fact, I think the entire “religious objections” section (not just the paragraphs in question) could benefit from better summarization. The opinions that various religious sects and denominations have about Freemasonry (and Freemasonry’s response to those opinions) are covered in detail in linked articles. We don’t need to repeat it all here. This article is supposed to be an overview. Blueboar (talk) 00:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  I think I would also agree with summarization in accordance with due weight. Perhaps the whole section could be replaced with a brief paragraph cited to academic sources about religious history, with secondary sources guiding due weight considerations. This would potentially obviate concerns over De Hoyas and Morris by replacing the source with very similar information from an academic source.Zylostr (talk) 16:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

One problem is that there are no completely independent academic sources that cover the sub-topic. The closest we have are either Religious scholars or Masonic scholars like Morris and De Hoyas. Still, I will give it a shot. Be patient please… this will take time. Blueboar (talk) 16:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

References