Talk:Masonic conspiracy theories/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Old discussion

Is there any chance of getting non-crackpot sources, or at least refutations? Otherwise this is just a list, not an encylopedia article, bordering dangerously close to soapboxing. For example, Bush never was a Mason (see the list of Freemasons on WP), there aren't *that* many politicians who were Masons (also see List), DC wasn't designed by a Mason, nor was the dollar bill, and I'm not even going to address the New World Order claims, because that's just Pat Robertson talking. MSJapan 13:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you will find many "non-crackpot" sources for conspiracy theories... that is sort of the definition of the term. I agree we should add some refutations, but we do need to be careful to keep the article NPOV. While they may be crackpots, there ARE people who make these claims... and people who believe them. Blueboar 12:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about you people - but just because this, "popular wiki" has something on one its lists that contradict conspiracy theorists and their claims, it does not necassarily mean that wikipedia's list is correct. Ever thought about that? No, I thought not. Also - this is not soapboxing - this is facts that are clearly verifiable using other sources - its not like we got to go and ask the president of the United States himself - he'd obvioulsy lie - common sense people, common sense. Second thing - this list is perfect, I see no problems with a list of conspiracy accusations - since there are already articles concerning Masonry and each of their conspiracy plots...--Lord X 19:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu

Funny how MSJapan and Blueboar whine about keeping this article "NPOV" but yet, use subjective ad hominem labels such as "Crackpot" to demonize the term "Conspiracy theory". Archival McTannith 03:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Because, my dear troll, most of the sites are self-published and violate WP:RS. I can claim anything I want on my own website; that does not make it notable, popular, or accurate, and despite what Xinyu said, WP is supposed to be accurate. That's why there are policies and guidelines. MSJapan 04:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, there is a big difference between stating ones POV opinion on the talk page of an article and allowing that POV to influence what is put IN the article. Yes, I think almost all of these theories are "crackpot" theories. But MY view is not relevant to the article (indeed no editors view is relevant)... what IS relevant is a) discussing/listing the multitude of conspiracy theories that center on or involve Freemasons and b) doing so in a way which meets wikipedia policies and guidelines. Blueboar 15:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of uncited theories

I've removed the uncited (ie: the ones marked with a {{fact}}-tag) statements from the list of conspiracy theories. They can always be added back when someone finds a good citation for them, bearing in mind off course WP:RS and WP:EL. WegianWarrior 04:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a suggestion

I am not going to discourse on my personal views of this topic.

What I will suggest is that we rename this section Alleged conspiracy theories involving Freemasonry

It's just a suggestion. Let's be neutral about this guys.

Your suggested title would imply that the existance of the theories is in doubt. But that is not the case. Each of these theories does indeed exist... they all are cited to websites and books that discuss them. I think you are confusing the allegations contained in the various theories with the existance of the theories themselves. We make no judgment as to whether the allegations contained in these theories are "true"... we simply state that they exist. See Wikipedia:Attribution and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view for the guiding policy on this. If we had to change the title, we would have to change it to some thing like "Theories alleging a conspiracy involving Freemasonry" or "Theories alleging that Freemasonry is involved in a conspiracy"... both far clunkier than the current title... which says essentially the same thing.

Also, this tends to be the accepted form for titling articles on conspiracy theories. Blueboar 13:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

How about Theories of alleged conspiracies involving Freemasonry OK, it's a convoluted sentence, but they're convoluted theories LOLSaxophobia 21:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This gets into a huge debate that occured over the titles of all the conspiracy theory articles on Wikipedia (see a few threads below and related links). The determination was to keep such titles short and concise. It fits with the title of other articles about conspiracy theories. I don't see a need to make the title more convoluted than is needed. Blueboar 13:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to Freemasonry

This page serves no useful purpose and is a poor reflection on Wikipedia. It is extremely poorly written and consists of nothing more than unreferenced slander against the critics of Freemasonry as well as being a duplication of existing material on the main Freemasonry page.Lestervee 05:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Slander perhaps, but it a verifiable fact that antimasons made these allegations (which we all know are false, but they still make them). Each allegation is referenced, in several cases with multiple references.

None of the information here exists in the main article on Freemasonry - there used to be a single paragraph stating that several conspirasy theories invols masons, but that seems to have been removed along the line. A extremly condensed version exists in the article on Anti-Masonry, refering the reader to this article.

And it does serve a usefull purpose - there are recomandations on size for Wikipedia articles, and if everythng was rolled into the main article it would break the size guideline ten times over (and not just once as it does today).

So this article should stay - at least real concensious is reached. WegianWarrior 06:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If you read carefully, there is no judgment made on this page. It states referenced claims, and that is all. There are around 40 references for 22 claims, so to claim this as "unreferenced" is impossible. There is also no reference to this page in the main article in the Criticism section (which I will rectify), and there are only 10 listed claims in Anti-Masonry (which I will take out, summarize, and then list this article as main), so it's not a duplicate of anything. MSJapan 16:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Changes made. That should end the redirection debate. MSJapan 19:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it's none of the above. The page is absolute nonsense. It is just propaganda boiler plate. The references are not references at all. It is an outrageous page full of capricious masonic fantasy. It is certainly not encyclopedic.Lestervee 19:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Masonic fantasy? Interesting turn of phrase, seeing as how it's not Masons who make these claims, nor Masons who propagate them. The references are perfectly valid as far as WP policy goes. We aren't here to judge the claims, only to provide a source for them. In that respect, it's very encyclopedic. MSJapan 21:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, and strangely familiar... WegianWarrior 21:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "conspiracy theory" is not a neutral way of describing something

I have proposed that articles titled with "conspiracy theory" be renamed at Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory titles, please direct all comments to the proposal's discussion page, thanks. zen master T 22:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You haven't proposed an alternative, either, so what's the point? My vote of non-support is on the talk page. MSJapan 01:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

How else can you phrase it? This article is about the various theories that Masons are involved in some form of conspiracy. Sounds neutral to me. Blueboar 12:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Once there is consensus that "conspiracy theory" is non-neutral we can begin the renaming process. The phrase "conspiracy theory" has a secondary definition which is indirectly POV because it connotes that the theory being described is unworthy of serious consideration. It's POV and wrong to be indirectly POV. zen master T 14:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, you're not going to get consensus, and conspiracy theories are considered unworthy of consideration in certain cases because certain people have non-credible ideas that are contrary to fact. For example, "The Masons and the CIA killed Kennedy" is a conspiracy theory. It's not my place to judge the validity, and the truth is borne out by the facts or lack thereof. I'm not supporting your proposal, so you won't be renaming anything, especially without an alternative. MSJapan 15:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

If some information is citable and otherwise fit for inclusion in Wikipedia why is it treated differently than other citable information? Inconsistency is a sign of non-neutrality. Please note when you use the phrase "conspiracy theory" that it has more than one meaning/usage. I agree that many "conspiracy theories" are potentially dubious but we should not allow that dubiousness to affect new theories that also allege a conspiracy. zen master T 15:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you actually looked at this article or are you making an assumption about it? We make no judgement on these theories. If there is a theory that says the Freemasons are part of a conspiracy, we include it. We don't judge whether the theory is "dubious" or not... we simply list it and briefly discribe it.

I am not sure what you mean by your inconsistency... how are we treating any information differently than any other information. We state the theory exists, cite to who holds the theory, and leave it at that. We treat all of the theories the same. Blueboar 15:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a vote on this proposal at Wikipedia talk:Conspiracy theory titles. Please read the debate and !vote. Blueboar 23:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposal resoundingly rejected. Blueboar 21:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Bush a Mason?

Membership in the Freemasons is a matter of public record. It is verifiable fact that neither Bush is a Mason (the last President to be a Freemason was Ford... although Clinton was a DeMolay). Furthermore, if either one was a Freemason, the fraternity would shout it to the rafters, place it on their websites and talk about it in their magazines (the way they do with most of the other Presidents who were Masons). Blueboar 19:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that this is a list of conspiracy theories, not a list of facts. Since he has a reference for people believing that the Bushes are Masons, it's valid to include here: it doesn't need to be rebutted. If this were the List of Freemasons, it wouldn't belong here.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 19:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the theory is that many important and powerful polititians are Freemasons. Bush is simply singled out. My point is that since some of the polititians included in the theory actually are Freemasons, I think it makes sense to note that, in Bush's case, he isn't one.

I suppose that an alternative would be to simply not mention any particular polititian. If we don't single out Bush, we don't need to clarify that he isn't one. Would that be acceptable? Blueboar 19:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Not in my humble opinion. Are you going to deny that Freemasons cause crop circles, too?--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 19:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Not at all... that would be POV. I simply deny that the specific one in that cornfield outside of DesMoins was caused by the Freemasons. (That one was caused by the Knights of Columbus on secret orders from the Vatican... oh, wait... isn't the Pope secretly a Freemason? Drat... exposed again.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboar (talk • contribs) 20:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

RFC on sources

By it's nature, this article is about all the various unsubstatiated claims and theories that involve Freemasonry. In order to maintain a NPOV, the editors of this page have agreed upon certain conventions... we don't discuss the "truth" or "untruth" of the theories, or comment upon them; and we must have verification that the theory actually exists. To substantiate the latter requirement, we cite sources in a particular way... not as support that the individual conspiracy theories listed in the article are factual or "true"... but purely as verification that the theory exists. Recently, however, this has raised an issue (and caused a brief edit war), as many of these theories are only discussed on fringe websites, blogs and POV rant pages. Such sites are not usually considered reliable sources under WP:RS.

So... The question is: Can a site that would be normally be considered unreliable be cited purely as verification of existance? Can unreliable sources be used in a limited context such as this?

Comments

• I think this is a case where "Ignore All Rules" should apply. The current convention has the local consensus of those editors who contribute to the page and of the Freemasonry Project. Without some form of verification of the existance, this entire article is gutted. A degree of latitued on WP:RS is needed here. Blueboar 14:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

From WP:RS/N - can I be directed to some of the disputed sources? Relata refero 15:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You could probably pick one at random, as the issue relates to almost every source we use... but the specific ones that caused the edit war are these: Bohemian Grove Exposed! and Freemasons, Illuminati and Associates

They were used to verify the existance of the theory: "Freemasons hold meetings with influential politicians and businessmen at Bohemian Grove. The worshiped statue of an owl is an alleged masonic symbol". Blueboar 15:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I see how they would, but the question that a reader could ask is whether it is a notable theory. And the answer is simply to cite an RS that it is, and then the non-RS can be used to support any statements about the content of the notable theory. A suggested RS for the Bohemian Grove could be, for example, the Evening Standard, the Brisbane Sun or the Village Voice. On a side note, haven't I seen that in a movie with Dan Aykroyd sometime? Relata refero 15:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I remember now, the end of Dragnet. Relata refero 16:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a risk of undue weight, in some cases these conspiracy theories are published only by a couple of nutters on their own blogs, as opposed to a nutter in a high circulation book. I suppose some adherents of the more respectable conspiracies might feel that their theory is diminished by being associated with the real tosh, in their opinions. In terms of a reasonable coverage of the topic a strict adherence to RS probably doesn't really help to create a decent article, although one could go too far and include all kinds of theory which would become excessive.

Inevitably wherever the boundary is set someone will object.

ALR 15:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with ALR, because a lot of the problem is subjective; for example, if there was proof, it wouldn't be a theory, would it? As for notability, a lot of these things boil down to the same types of ideas (new world order, government, plots, etc.) as are typical of any group someone is not a part of, meaning that to some people, these theories are very notable, while other people have never heard of them nor do they care. So we have a problem no matter what we do. Even if the stuff is unverifiable, there is a case for notability, so we can't even AfD the thing with any degree of success. MSJapan 03:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Looking this over, after coming here from WP:RS/N, I think this article has a lot of poor sources. I would personally get rid of most of them. It's not clear to me that local consensus can override general WP standards on reliability. (Notability would be more negotiable, in my view). EdJohnston 05:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ed, I do understand your statement... It's why I asked this question in the first place. The problem is that conspiracy theories such as these tend to be dismissed out of hand by the mainstreem, and are not considered worthy of discussion by reliable mainstreem sources. That leaves unreliable Fringe sources as the only way to verify that these theories exist. Without citation to these fringe sources we can't include any discussion about the theories, and that means we really don't have an article.

In a way, we are dealing with the following dilema: The broad topic (that Freemasons are involved in some sort of conspiracy) is very notable, and deserves an article. However, the specifics about what that conspiracy entails are not notable enough to be discussed by any reliable source. Thus, we end up with an article on a notable topic that, under a strick interpretation of our rules, can not have any content. Blueboar 14:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that there needs to be some indication that a fringe theory is "mainstream" or at least "relatively notable" before we talk about it here. In the case of Freemasonry, there are a ton of pseudohistory books in the bookstores that cover all kinds of bizarre theories. If a certain theory appeared in multiple books, I would say that that met the bar of notability, even if the theory wasn't being discussed in "reliable" books. In terms of websites though, that's a tougher call. If a theory is only on one or two sites, then I don't think that's famous enough. But if a Google search showed that a theory was being picked up by a lot of sites (like thousands), then even if the theory wasn't being picked up in major news, I'd say it might be appropriate for us to discuss on Wikipedia. There's still a lot of "it depends" in the equation though. --Elonka 06:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I'd agree that publication in >1 book probably indicates a degree of notability. I'd be concerned about using internet prevalence as an indicator, many of the tinfoil-headgear websites are straight cut and pastes of one another, or use out of context quotations from the books. The whole industry is a bit self perpetuating, so it's not very clear how widespread the theories recognition is.

ALR 11:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I share ALR's concern about self-perpetuating rumors, passed from one site to the next (see snopes.com). It would be better to use published books, even if they were pseudohistory, so long as we can tell they are not self-published. In some cases we might be able to collect evidence using book reviews and the known qualifications of the authors, and weigh that up to present to our readers. Books and web sites are different in this respect. Determining the truth of any statements on an anonymous self-published web site is practically impossible, and it would be better not to use such a site at all. EdJohnston 16:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, we had a somewhat related discussion about this on the Knights Templar article, when talking about the Friday the Thirteenth rumors. In the FA discussion for the Templar article, we debated whether or not we should mention about the rumors, and further, whether we could use a website such as snopes.com as a source for the debunking of the rumors. We had no "reliable source" in a book or published peer-reviewed format which definitively said "The Friday the Thirteenth superstition did not start with the Knights Templar." But the question about Friday the Thirteenth is clearly a major and controversial topic, and judging by the patterns of vandalism and anon edits, it's one of the primary reasons that readers are coming to the article in the first place. So, what we decided to do was to add a parenthetical: "...1307 (a date incorrectly linked with the origin of the Friday the 13th superstition)" that was sourced to the discussions at Snopes and Urbanlegends.about.com. We debated it at the FA nom, but the reviewers agreed with the reasoning as an exceptional case. So, towards what we do here with this "conspiracy theories" article, we can apply some of the same criteria: "Do we have any even moderately reputable site (such as Snopes) which is discussing this?" "Is this the kind of theory that will serve our readers, by us including it?" and "Are we not serving our readers, by not including such a major theory?" Just my $0.02, --Elonka 18:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Freemasons control Wikipedia

I believe that Freemasons control Wikipedia, especially any pages on Freemasons, conspiracy theories, Knights Templar, religion, and politics. If anyone knows of any source of others who share my belief to make it postable it would be great. But my computer will probably melt as soon as I hit Save Page. Not really, Freemasons know that I sound crazy and no one will believe me. Melting of my computer isn't necessary at this point in time. 142.165.59.39 (talk) 00:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice if someone explained this fact to the admins at AfD... they never seem to follow orders when I tell them to delete an article I don't like. :>) Blueboar (talk) 03:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

of course no one will believe you, your login name is 4 sets of random numbers!--Adamfinmo (talk) 08:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"Proven" theories

There is noting 'proven' about these. But that is actually a secondary issue. This article should not take a stand on whether any given theory is proven or not... nor whether any given theory is "True" or not (see WP:V). In this article we follow WP:NPOV, and simply list the theories, without comment as to whether they are proven, true, etc. Blueboar (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

There should not be comments about the conspiracy theories on this article. (cantikadam (talk) 09:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)).

Besides this article so meager and "superstitious" that it seems like it has been input by a mason. It should be based on solid theories and facts, moreover the links given after the claims should supply the exact information about the theory claimed if not it does not represent any value but a jester figure. (cantikadam (talk) 12:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)).

I am not sure if I understand what you mean by "links given after the claims should supply the exact information about the theory claimed"... they are citations, and as such they verify the fact that the theory exists (and exists in the form this article says they do). Or do you mean something else? Blueboar (talk) 12:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[[Freemasonry has political influence over branches of the US government including the Central Intelligence Agency[9]]], as one clicks on the link, there pops up the article of CIA, but it does not justify or clearify the theory by connecting directly to the main CIA page instead of a more detailed section, you should have thought that part as one of you prepare this funny article. (cantikadam (talk) 12:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)).

Hmmm.... you are somewhat correct... reading the article at the link, it is essentially saying that the "conspiracy" is the other way around... that the CIA had infultrated Masonry (or more specifically the P2 lodge) and not that Masonry had infultrated the CIA. I'll remove it. good catch. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 13:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Funny. (cantikadam (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)).

Watch the Language

I find the wording of the second paragraph laden with sarcasm and bias:

"Historically, complaints have been made that the Masons have secretly plotted to create a society based on the revolutionary ideals of liberty, equality, fraternity, separation of church and state and (in Nazi Germany) a Jewish plot for religious tolerance."

This sounds like one of those phrases that can be defended as technically truthful, but full of subjective speech. It is usually difficult to render an objective statement if one puts an adjective before nouns such as "ideals". If one describes "ideals" as "old-fashioned", "modern", "colorful", "typical", etc., then a bias is normally imparted. Also, the association between Nazi Germany and "historically" is inappropriate. Nazi Germany is an idiom of modern evil, and use of that imagery is often (as in this case, I believe) used in equivocation. "My brother is wearing a mustache these days, just like Adolf Hitler." Mom probably will take it harder phrased that way...although it may be true in a literal sense. If Nazis thought the Freemasons were enemies of the regime because the Freemasons were proponents of religious freedom, instead of state-approved atheism, then just say as much. I don't know anything about this topic, so I won't edit the article, but please try to stick to neutral language so newbies to the topic (like myself) can make up our own minds more easily--and objectively.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Atomdrummer (talk • contribs) 08:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, they were "revolutionary" ideals (in that the desire for such caused revolutions), and wholly historical - church authorities objected to all of the above at the time. That's why the statement is qualified the way it is. Nevertheless, the lead needs to be rewritten, just not for the stated reasons.MSJapan (talk) 13:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess the usage of 'have secretly plotted' instead of 'had secretly plotted' made me believe that 'Historically' meant 'thoughout history' rather than 'at some previous point in history'. Also, I usually read 'revolutionary' as meaning a revolution in thought or principle, and not political action. Otherwise, I guess every banana-republic dictator has been motivated by the 'revolutionary ideals' of greed and power. This could be worded better.Atomdrummer (talk) 01:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

removing theories - the Lucifer Theory

I don't see the grounds for challenging the statement that

"Some of the conspiracy theories involving Freemasonry are:...That Freemasons worship Lucifer or Satan, often attributed to quotes by Albert Pike.[27][28][29][30]"

There are four different citations that demonstrate that this theory is indeed proposed. The article takes no stand on whether this (or any other) theory is true or not... it simply lists it along with others. Essentially each item in the list is a statement of opinion. We are thus saying that this is the opinion of a person or group of people, not that it is true. A quick look at the sources demonstrate that people do have that oppinion... thus The citations back that statement. I agree that the sources would clearly NOT be reliable if we were giving a statement of FACT (ie saying that the Freemasons actually do worship Satan), but I think they are clearly reliable when used as they are. Blueboar (talk) 20:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Since we seem to be edit warring over this, and the citations may not be in the article for others to see... the citations under discussion are these: Freemasonry The worship of Lucifer, SATAN Part 1 of 5, DO FREEMASONS WORSHIP SATAN/LUCIFER ?, The Masonic Fairy Tale Known As The Leo Taxil Confession and Freemasonry: Midwife to an Occult Empire

Your citations are either personal sites or conspiracy sites. Find something better.

your new citation of the book doesn't seem to have a mention of either words lucipher, or satan. In addition, I found some links that show that satan/lusipher is a junk idea: 'no mention of satan' -- by the book author you quoted, 'obvious flame-bait'

So I repeat, find solid sources. Lakinekaki (talk) 21:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Robinson most certainly does discuss the Lucifer claim... in fact he devotes an entire chapter of the book to it. I am beginning to think that you have no idea what you are talking about. Blueboar (talk) 01:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

And by the way... John Robinson reaches the same conclusion that you have... that the idea that Freemasons worship Lucifer or Satan is absolute crap. That has nothing to do with this article. This article does not pass judgement on the theories. it does not say they are true (nor does it say they are not true). The only thing it says is that the theory exists. The statement that the theory exists is a factual statement... the claim is indeed made (in fact it is made by some very prominent people, notable people such as Pat Robertson, amoung others). Now, most people who seriously look into the issue will quickly discover that the theory is full of crap (most conspiracy theories are), but that does not mean we should not report that the theory exists... especially in an article that is about such theories and claims. In fact, I happen to believe that all of the theories listed in this article are crap (both from insider information and from the fact that I don't believe conspiracy theories in general). None of that matters. It is appropriate to list what the theories are in and article about the theories. Blueboar (talk) 01:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I misspelled 'lucifer' in search engine, that's why i didn't find it. Lakinekaki (talk) 06:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

lucipher...

provide reliable secondary sources of the overview of the theory. no geocities personal pages, nor conspiracy websites, but reliable secondary sources. Lakinekaki (talk) 20:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see my comment above... we are not saying that the theory is true (for which we would need reliable secondary sources) all we are saying is that the theory exists (for which we need to cite the fact that someone does indeed hold that theory)... and the four cites linked do indeed demonstrate that someone holds the theory. It is a statement of opinion, not a statement of fact. The standards are different Blueboar (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

By WP:N and WP:FRINGE, it does not matter if you find someone somewhere talking about it if nobody cares. Show that it is notable enough. Show that it deserves place in the article. Lakinekaki (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I would think Pat Roberston is more than a nobody... but OK... how about John Robinson's A Pilgrim's Path: Freemasonry and the Religious Right, (M. Evans pub. 1993 ISBN:087131732X)... Robinson is an eminent historian who wrote an entire book studying the issue.

I could also add several Masonic writers who discuss the theory in order to disprove it, but the conspiracy nuts would say that they are just lying to cover up the conspiracy. The point is, we didn't want to get into issues of proof or lack of proof or even quality of proof ... to keep the article's NPOV we simply state that the theory exists and give a few examples of someone stating the theory as citation. I would be willing to say that, taken individually, few of the theories on this page are notable... but the concept that there is some sort of "Masonic Conspiracy" certainly is. The details of what that conspiracy may be will change from theorist to theorist (and most mix and match different theories into their take on the conspiracy)... this one is common amoung the Religious Right. Blueboar (talk) 21:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

There aren't any reliable sources - that's why this is a conspiracy theory. You're looking for something that doesn't exist, and yet you have no trouble accepting the claims of the other theories and sources. So what's your issue with this particular one? MSJapan (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I am dealing with one statement at a time. Once we resolve dispute about this one, I will move to the next. In addition, this one really sounded to me like an exceptional claim, even for a conspiracy theory. In addition, existence of lousily sourced content elsewhere in the article or in other articles doesn't justify inclusion of the particular content I am disputing. [1] Lakinekaki (talk) 22:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Hold on... look at what is being said in the article. If we remove the other claims and the list format and write it as a simple sentence, it reads as follows: One of the conspiracy theories involving Freemasonry is that that Freemasons worship Lucifer or Satan. The only "claim" being made in this sentence is that this is one of several conspiracy theories. How is this an exceptional claim? I can agree that it would be exceptional if we stated that the theory was true, that Freemasons do worship Satan... but we don't claim that at all. All we claim is that it is one of the many theories that are made. There is nothing exceptional about that.

But even if we do say that listing this theory is exceptional, since a noted historian (a mainstream, independent, third party source) had gone to the trouble writing an entire book specifically to examine this particular theory, and since I have now cited that book, it now passes the exceptional sources requirement to include the claim in the list.

Let's see, we have tried WP:RS, WP:N, WP:NPOV, WP:Fringe, and WP:REDFLAG... as long as we are shopping, are there any other policies or guidelines that we would like to try? Blueboar (talk) 00:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

... I misspelled 'lucifer' in search engine, that's why i didn't find it. Lakinekaki (talk) 06:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Why are 99% of the conspiracies in the US?

What I noticed when doing ref cleanup is that every Masonic conspiracy theory not based in religion has to do with the United States or uses Us examples, aside from Jack the Ripper. If this is such a worldwide problem, why aren't there any theories originating in other countries? MSJapan (talk) 19:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Rewrote lead

I didn't like that the article subject was not close to the head of the article, so I reorganized and rewrote the lead. MSJapan (talk) 18:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)