Talk:Masonic conspiracy theories/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Uku blocked

Elonka just blocked Uku for 31 hours, so let's suspend discussion/changes until he returns.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. (Taivo (talk) 19:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC))

No objections. Blueboar (talk) 01:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Should give me time to read what has happened while I was too busy to pay attention. Agree with suggestion. WegianWarrior (talk) 07:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If I'm counting correctly, he should be back around 3:00 EST today.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

We can probably impliment Taivo's latest version of text resolving issue 2 (the Taxil stuff with foot notes and citations)... I think that had consensus, even from Uku. But if people want to wait for him just to make sure, that is fine too. Blueboar (talk) 13:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it better to wait until he's back even though we seemed to have consensus. (Taivo (talk) 13:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC))

31 hours expired 15 minutes ago, fwiw... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you counted wrong, Sareck... His block log shows that he was blocked at 18:26 yesterday, and it is now 20 something (by the same clock setting)... that means only 26 or 27 hours that have passed. He should be back later tonight. Blueboar (talk) 20:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That is, of course, assuming that one of the admins he's baiting doesn't extend his block or worse. (Taivo (talk) 20:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC))

Well, we will be patient and wait, what ever happens. Blueboar (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No rush on my part--I've got papers to grade ;) (Taivo (talk) 21:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC))

Ah. *headdesk* Sorry, it was UTC/EST confusion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The block has expired. This section can be deleted. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll stick it in the archive tomorrow.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The title of the article

The phrase "Masonic conspiracy theories" is ambiguous. I propose that it be changed to something like "Conspiracy theories regarding Freemasonry."

I do not believe the phrase "conspiracy theory" to be inherently pejorative. It is only used in a pejorative context in ad-hominem attacks (eg: words like "hacker," "entrepreneur," "rapper" or "liberal"). A "theory" is described as an informed explanation. It is not arbitrary speculation, which is instead referred to as a "conjecture" or "hypothesis." As such, this article should not be cluttered with unsupported, unpopular claims. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 23:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

What is ambiguous about the current title? The article is about the various theories that state that Freemasonry is involved in a conspiracy... ie that there is a "Masonic conspiracy"... hence: "Masonic conspiracy theories". I don't see much abiguity in that.

The word "Masonic" is in the genitive case. This means, basically, that the phrase implies that the conspiracy theories originate from, or belong to the Freemasons themselves. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 02:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, the title is the last thing we should be concerned about at this juncture. Most people have no trouble with it as such. Moreover, these items are "of the Freemasons" (which is really only part of what a genitive is; read the article you linked to), so there shouldn't be a titling problem for that reason. I believe that the title is such per standard naming conventions on WP. By the way, if you want to play semantics, almost none of these theories are supported by an "informed explanation"; if they were, they would instead be factual, needing to be drawing on fact. The "arbitrary speculation" you talk about includes many of the theories you wished to add yourself. So, is the complaint genuine, or a matter of "what I say is correct is correct because I say so, and your stuff is wrong, also because I say so"? MSJapan (talk) 03:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You have mangled a bunch of issues into a big pile. I will only address the one concerning the title in this section. The word of in English has multiple meanings. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 04:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This is begining to sound like President Clinton's "definition of is"... I am not going to get hot and bothered about the title of the article (if consensus is to change it, that is fine with me... if not, that is also fine)... that said, I tend to lean towards the current title because, as MSJ points out, "X conspiracy theory" fits standard WP naming conventions. I think it is the most recognizable varient we could choose... the title most people would search for. WP:NAME encourages that. Blueboar (talk) 04:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You're talking like a jerk again. That page says "be precise when necessary." It also says "redirect adjectives to nouns" Ukufwakfgr (talk) 04:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Please be civil. Blueboar (talk) 05:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

That was an inappropriate joke, and an insinuation that I'm acting deceptive. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 05:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You are the one calling people names, not me... please be civil. Blueboar (talk) 05:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Why did you need to make Bill Clinton jokes? Maybe because you felt ashamed that you didn't understand what I was saying. Just let people who know what they're doing handle this. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 07:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

That's precisely why we will not let you do what you like. You have a four day edit history - you do not by any means "know what you are doing." If you do, in fact, "know what you are doing," then you are likely a sock puppet. Take your pick.

You have shown a clear bias to make the facts you find fit the opinion you already have, and when confronted with changes you cannot support, you move on to a different issue you create yourself. You're also being petty; your reversion of Jayen666's edit here as a "major edit" (when he in fact changed three words) was inappropriate, and yet another example of your use of misleading edit summaries.

Your current pattern of behavior is not constructive. WP is not a place where you cause enough trouble until people go away and let you do what you want. This is an encyclopedia. It has policies on what is and is not acceptable for sourcing, as well as editor behavior. I would suggest you go to our simplified ruleset and read it before continuing any discussion or activity here. MSJapan (talk) 14:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about ?? Come back when you actually have an original thought. He edited a section that was being discussed. Read the log, and stop being a waste of space. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 20:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I am going to say this one more time...Please be civil, and stop making personal attacks... if you continue I will report you. Now... Jayen's edit was obviously made in an attempt to resolve the very issues that you raised. So what is your objection to his change? Blueboar (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

MSJapan alleges that "I do not know what I'm doing" without any basis. In general, he is basically spitting back the same accusasions that I myself have made, which, at the least, demonstrates mockery. No, Jayden made a disputed change without discussing it. You refuse to respond my concerns about you, yet find it necessary to tag-team with other users. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 12:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No, Jayen did not make a "disputed change"... he made an edit, which you subsequently disputed. Yes, he did make a change to a section that had been under discusion, but he had not been part of that discussion. In fact, as near as I can tell, he had never edited this article before. Further, his change was obviously made in reply to your stated concerns. He took out the language that you objected to, and replaced it with other language (ie he was trying to fix what you said was a problem.) His edit may not have resolved your problem, and it is your right to object to it... but it is wrong to object to the fact that he made the edit in the first place. Blueboar (talk) 15:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

He changed a portion that was under dispute. If his intention was to apply what I proposed, then it still counts as under dispute since no one else agreed with it. In that case, he clearly misunderstood what I was saying. Reviewing the discussion itself will reveal this. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 16:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Given that MSJapan reverted back to Jayen's version, I would say he agreed to it. So do I. Lack of objection is the same as acceptance on Wikipedia. I also note that you have not commented on what you found wrong with Jayen's language... you have only objected to the fact that he made a change. Blueboar (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There is not such thing as a "silent veto" over a forum like the Wikipedia talk pages. People come on Wikipedia on their own free time, not when YOU think they should. You have misquoted me yet again. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 23:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

This talkpage is getting long enough to give me trouble over a slow connection, so I went ahead and archived the old discussions. See archive box on top of this page to find the old threads. WegianWarrior (talk) 14:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Two Changes

First, Freemasonry is not a religion, so in the second paragraph I removed the comparison to "mainline religions". The sentence without the comparison is still accurate about the theories--it loses nothing of fact without the comparison between Freemasonry and "other religions".

Freemasonry has been described as a "religion" or a "cult" by conspiracy theorists, because it demonstrates a number of features, including but not limited to:

• Belief in supernatural powers
• Ritual as a means of entraining practitioners
• Rewards for compliance, including hidden knowledge
• Promise of "redemption"
• Rituals pertaining to death

Ukufwakfgr (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Second, The item about Freemasons in popular culture is not a "conspiracy theory". There are just as many Freemasons in the entertainment industry as there are outside the entertainment industry, such as Leonardo di Caprio, Michael Richards, etc. This hardly constitutes a "conspiracy". I've never heard of any "conspiracy" about having Freemasons in popular culture. In actual fact, the number of Freemasons has been declining over the last two decades. In the 1920s and 1930s nearly the entire group of movie production moguls were Freemasons. Now none of the really powerful names are Freemasons. James Cameron is not even a Freemason! Kind of shoots the "conspiracy" theory in the foot. If there is, indeed, some conspiracy theory concerning Freemasons in popular culture then it was not mentioned in the statement as it was worded. The statement I deleted simply said that there were Freemasons in popular culture--a statement of fact, not a theory of a conspiracy. (Taivo (talk) 05:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC))

The entertainment industry and the mainstream media are used to engineer social opinion, as I mentioned earlier. That probably should be specified in the article. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

While James Cameron may or may not be a Mason (frankly, I only has a vague idea of who he even is), there is a conspiracy theory that he is a mason, and that this somehow means that anyone watching his movies are brainwashed by MK-ULTRA technology or something to that effect - it was all "explained" in the reference that followed the statement. If we were to simply remove all debunked conspiracy theories listed in this article the only thing left is the lead. WegianWarrior (talk) 06:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Explain how this, or any conspiracy theory, is debunked. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The way the item was written didn't say anything about the conspiracy aspect of Cameron's mythical membership. It just stated his membership without stating the conspiracy aspect of it. That's the real problem with what I deleted--it didn't state the conspiracy. (Someone's membership status alone is not a "conspiracy".) (Taivo (talk) 07:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC))

Please discuss desired changes before editting the article. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

replying to Uku's comments

Uku comments above:

Freemasonry has been described as a "religion" or a "cult" by conspiracy theorists, because it demonstrates a number of features, including but not limited to:

• Belief in supernatural powers
• Ritual as a means of entraining practitioners
• Rewards for compliance, including hidden knowledge
• Promise of "redemption"
• Rituals pertaining to death

While this is a claim made by conspiracy theorists (as well as Anti-masons who are not conspiracy theorists), they have indeed been debunked (for two excellent debunks, I suggest reading Freemasons for Dummies by Christopher Hodapp, and A Pilgrim's Path by John Robinson... each of whom devote entire chapters to debunking this claim). I would also point to the website of the United Grand Lodge of England, and the Grand Lodge of BC&Y both of which debunk these claims. Blueboar (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The first page does not say that it's not a cult or other such similar group, and it does not explain its assertion. The second page says:

• We have no dogma or theology. Religious discussion is forbidden in a masonic lodge thereby eliminating the chance for any masonic dogma to form.
  Freemasonry uses words, grips, and signs as proof of membership, which is inherently dogmatic. Masonry stresses the importance of enlightenment and "building a temple," which is dogmatic. The story of Hiram Abiff must be theology, because it's untrue. This article itself appears to be pro-Masonic theology.
• By any definition of religion accepted by our critics, we cannot qualify as a religion.
  This does not specify what the definitions are.
• ... an anti-Christian religion
  This is deceptive. Freemasonry, while not being overtly anti-Christian, mocks Christianity and Jesus.

Ukufwakfgr (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You are sadly misinformed about Masonry. There is not a single moment in Masonic ritual that "mocks Christianity and Jesus". You are relying exclusively on anti-Masonic literature for your limited knowledge of the Craft. Religions are exclusive in their membership and redemption practices--"This is the path to Heaven". Such is not part of the teachings of Masonry. All discussion of religion and politics, in fact, are strictly forbidden in Lodge and at Masonic functions. I regularly sit in Lodge with Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, LDS, Jewish, Buddhist, and even Druid brothers. This is not a religion, it is a fraternal organization open to all men who already possess a faith, it does not bestow or teach faith, it requires faith before membership. That is unlike every religion, which takes men and women who have no faith and gives them one. (Taivo (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC))

During a certain intiation ritual, the candidate is asked to drink "the blood of Jesus" from a skull. None of the major religions are selective in their membership. Freemasonry promises deliverance from "darkness," and promises that when its members die they can move on to the "Great Lodge in the Heavens" or something like that. If it's not a religion then maybe it's a cult? Ukufwakfgr (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no such ritual in the initiation or at any other time. You have been lied to. I can also show you half a dozen universities with a motto something like "from darkness to light". It means the achievement of wisdom. Does that make these universities "religions"? There is no such promise of moving to the "Great Lodge in the Heavens". The ceremonies are carefully worded and only state that Masonry helps one to live a life so that when the person stands before whatever Supreme Being they worship, they can do so in a clear conscience. Religions specify what the afterlife is like. Masonry makes no such assertions, it is only relevant for this life and can be used in whatever religion the member belongs to. It is not a cult. Look up the definition of a cult--it follows a charismatic individual and specifies that only its point of view is relevant. I reiterate that Masonry is not exclusive in its use of terms like the Great Architect of the Universe. It is a non-religious fraternity that urges its members to the active practice of whatever religion they belong to outside the fraternity. (Taivo (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC))

Your use of the phrase "the initiation or at any time" suggests that your perspective is distorted. If you are talking about Ivy League universities, practically all of them are host to secret societies. Light is knowledge, not wisdom. It suggests that secret societies run those universities. That phrase, or something close to it, is used during the Masonic funeral ritual. Nope, in Freemasonry the "Supreme Being" is a man's penis, because it is based on the mystery religions. In Buddhism and Hinduism there is no afterlife, only reincarnation. Just because lodge meetings are boring, doesn't mean that there are not charismatic leaders in Freemasonry. Yes, Freemasonry stole, among other concepts, the GAOTU, but its usage is dissimilar to how other organizations use it, just like how the Jewish God is not the same as the Christian God. Many people who purport themselves to be "religious" are actually liars. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 00:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

At this point it is clear that you know nothing of truth about Masonry. (Taivo (talk) 00:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC))

At this point you have done nothing to help resolve any of the other prevailing conflicts. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 00:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope. In order to be a Christian you must "accept Jesus into your heart." In order to be a Jew you must accept and maintain the Covenant of Abraham. In order to become a Muslim you must say "Allahu akbar." Ukufwakfgr (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. And all can equally be Masons because nothing within Masonry contradicts the practice of one's religion--whatever religion that is. (Taivo (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC))

Actually, a neophyte is told that the oath will not conflict with "his god, his country, his neighbor or himself." That is a lie. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 00:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Another readily available excellent source is S. Brent Morris, The Complete Idiot's Guide to Freemasonry (2006, Alpha). I don't know where Uku got his list of features for "religion", but most of them would be unrecognizable to members of any church I've been a member of. Let's see, other than the redemption issue, this list could apply to the U.S. Army--belief in superior authority, basic training as means of entraining practitioners, rewards including greater security clearance for compliance, a military funeral and internment at Arlington. The only really relevant point here is the issue of redemption. Indeed, that is the foundation of all religions--any rituals only support that primary issue, "What will happen to me after I die?" Masonry has absolutely no teaching on the issue of redemption--if you do or believe X you will get Y and if you don't do X you won't get Y. (Taivo (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC))

Brent Morris is known to spread biased disinformation and outright lies, but I will read that book when I get a chance. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, unlike your anti-Masonic websites, which are completely unbiased and 100% truthful. (Taivo (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC))

This article is not about Freemasonry vs. "Masonic detractors." Ukufwakfgr (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I did not say superior authority, I said supernatural powers. Buddhism has no superior authority, but instead relies of "the tao" and nature. I also said entrainment through ritual. Ritual implies symbolic value, which is not why people train in the US Army. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

What is your basis for saying that "Brent Morris is known to speard biased disinformation and outright lies"? He is one of the most respected authorities on Freemasonry. Blueboar (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Respected by whom? Ukufwakfgr (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Look at this website where Brent Morris himself says:

• The facts are clearly presented, together with several examples of the use of the "All Seeing Eye" prior to any known Masonic use.
  The first clause does not explain how the facts are "clearly presented." The second clause is misleading: just because the Masons didn't invent it, doesn't mean that they don't copy it.
• The eye in the pyramid (emblazoned on the dollar bill, no less) is often cited as "evidence" that sinister conspiracies abound which will impose a "New World Order" on an unsuspecting populace. Depending on whom you hear it from, the Masons are planning the takeover themselves, or are working in concert with European bankers, or are leading (or perhaps being led by) the Illuminati (whoever they are). The notion of a world-wide Masonic conspiracy would be laughable, if it weren't being repeated with such earnest gullibility by conspiracists like Pat Robertson.
  This is the same caliber misrepresentation that is present in this article as well.
• Sadly, Masons are sometimes counted among the gullible who repeat the tall tale of the eye in the pyramid, often with a touch of pride. They may be guilty of nothing worse than innocently puffing the importance of their fraternity (as well as themselves), but they're guilty nonethe less.
  This is a logical fallacy.

In addition, there is video of him using lies of omission and denial arguments. I can't be bothered to look them up right now. Look for stuff from the History Channel. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the website you point to is not Brent Morris speaking for himself... it is "BrotherGene" quoting snippets from an article Morris wrote. If you look at Morris's original essay, and place the quotes back in context, what he says is quite accurate. Blueboar (talk) 01:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no reason to believe that the person who operates that website would misrepresent Brent Morris, because the host's page says that they provide hosting for Freemasons. Regardless, what conspiracy theories does Brent Morris present? You can't have him in this article just for a bunch of denials and emotional appeals. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 02:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Commenting interalia

Uku, it is not good style to insert your arguments interalia in other people's comments. The problem is that you often insert your comments above the other person's signature making it impossible to determine who said what. Once that has happened, the comments (both your comment and their comment) become worthless. Please ensure that you only insert your comments after the other person's signature. If that means that your relevant comment comes a sentence or two after what you want to comment about, then so be it. It makes the discussion readable. We are intelligent people here and can figure out that your statement applies one or two sentences earlier. But preserving the integrity of the comment is more important than inserting your response in the middle of someone else's paragraph. Thank you. (Taivo (talk) 12:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC))

I would insert a counterpoint after each paragraph of an overly long statement. As such the statements are technically not signed. I did NOT seperate any message from its editor's signature. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 15:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest that if you need to insert a counterpoint, you add your comment with a significant indent (at least two additional :: marks) so people can easily see that you are interupting someone else's comment. However, the best practice is not insert counterpoints at all, but to add your comments at the end, and quote the sentence or paragraph you want to respond to.

like this:

Above you said: "I did NOT separate any message from its editor's signature", Technically this is corrrect, but inserting them in the middle of someone else's comment separates one paragraph from the others in the comment... thus separating the first paragraph from the signature at the end of the comment. And because you do not always indent your comments properly, your insertions can even make it look as if you wrote the very paragraph that you are replying to.

Quoting and commenting like this avoids interrupting someone else's comment (politeness) ... and makes it easier for everyone else to follow what is being said. Not a criticism... just advice.

Oh... an exception to this is when there is a bullet pointed list of comments (such as in the discussions above). In those situations, it is considered acceptable to insert comments after each bullet point ... essentially treating the bullet point as if it were starting a seperate thread. Blueboar (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It is a more efficient use of space not to repeat information from the same page. Maybe it is better for people with multiple talking points to sign each talking point; there is a risk of error when a respondent to manually signs another editor's statements. In addition, I may change some of my talking points into 3= subsections Ukufwakfgr (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It is also considered rude to insert comments in the middle of someone else's comments... akin to interrupting them when they are speaking. Finally... comments should be in date/time order if possible, so people can figure out when people responded to comments and in what order. Blueboar (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This particular talk page warrants special consideration. Most people who read it find it difficult to find key information. I'm assuming you mean ascending chronological order (ie: new messages go at the bottom). I will attempt to re-sort the talking points in that manner. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Why does this page warrant special consideration... it is no different than any other talk page. There is no need to re-sort or change the formatting or things like that. Just don't interject in the middle of someone's comments.

As for finding it difficult to find "key information"... I attempted to discuss your issues one at a time... now you understand why. May I suggest that we return to that concept, and start over? Pick the most pressing of your concerns... start a new thread and we can discuss it in depth. Once we reach a consensus (or come to the conclusion that no consensus can be reached) we can move on to the next issue. Blueboar (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If you would go back and actually read it, you will see that I have answered nearly every question that has every been raised on this talk page since I started here. Of course, that has become difficult because of the mountains of text on this talk page. You are the one who has tried to "move along" without resolving any disputes. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think starting over is a very good idea. It's best to pick one small area, thrash that out on the talk page, come to an agreeable wording then go on to the next point. Also I can see that people are feeling tense but it would be much better if you try to forget that, and stick to the points in question, keeping everything neutral and avoiding any suggestion of a personal attack. Theresa Knott | token threats 19:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems like you are parrotting whatever Blueboar says -- not how you resolve a conflict. This also calls into question your motivation for "redlinking" me without describing what it is and without specifying when it will expire, despite your acknowledgement that I am a new user. Nobody here is tense, Ukufwakfgr (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I redlinked you because I wanted to ensure that others at the AN could see that you were a "new user" and treat you accordingly. I intend to resolve the dispute by simply removing all personal attacks. Theresa Knott | token threats 21:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I have been "deleted" according to the logs, and I am deprived of a user page. What you did seems like some sort of penalty. Wikipedia policy says prevent, not to penalize. I lashed out because of a perceived injustice on the part of the other users. It does not appear that you have dealt with them, but instead provide additional support to their claims. This is apparent from their insistence on repeating the same behavior over and over. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 23:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

In a spirit of creating a fresh start (and since Uku seems upset about Theresa's deletion of his previous userpage)... Uku has now been an editor for several days... and it is not at all uncommon for a new editor to have been formally welcomed to Wikipedia and bluelinked by someone else in this amount of time. Therefore, I have taken it upon myself to extend that courtesy... I have (re)created a User page for him and have added the standard Welcome message. Uku, feel free to delete the welcome message if you wish, it is your page to do with as you wish. Blueboar (talk) 00:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Starting Over

Speaking as a Freemason, I find the article as it stands here (after Blueboar's edit) to be balanced and NPOV. I think it should be the starting point for any discussion. (Taivo (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC))

You are proposing to "start over" something that was never completed. Please refer to my talking points, which you have not done.Ukufwakfgr (talk) 21:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, I agree with Taivo... but it is also obvious that Uku disagrees. So, I invite him to choose the what he feels is the most serious issue with the article, and outline his concerns (even if it means repeating what he has already said earlier... the point here is that we are trying to start over and stay focused.) Blueboar (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I stated what changes I would like 5 days ago, and those changes still have not been discusssed to completion. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 21:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you please state the most important change that the article still needs please. Theresa Knott | token threats 21:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Uku, "starting over" means just that. Please state the most important of your "talking points" and we can proceed one step at a time. We have also politely asked you to post your comments at the end of this discussion rather than interspersing them. It makes following the issue much easier. Thank you. (Taivo (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC))

Scroll up, scroll up, scroll up .... Ukufwakfgr (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

First of all, everything that has gone before is moot. Therefore, you have a choice: pick one of the concerns you raised above to work on and repost it further down for discussion and resolution, or you drop the whole thing. It's that simple. I will not respond to any further comments or statements by you on this page unless it is to discuss one of the aforementioned points you need to pick, and I would suggest the others do the same. I will, however, revert any edits you make to the article on sight without said discussion. MSJapan (talk) 23:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

So you are stating your intention to engage in a revert war. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 23:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I really feel that the most constructive way forward is to focus on one issue at a time, rather than attempting to resolve them all at once. Uku... if you don't want to have to restate your arguments, that is fine... just copy the material that relates to the "talking point" you think is most important from the mish-mash above, and post it in a new section below... we can continue the conversation from where it leaves off... but I am no longer going to hop around, scrolling up and down, engaging in multiple discussions on several talking points, all at the same time. Pick one... copy it below, and let's focus on that until done. Blueboar (talk) 01:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

There is already discussion below each talking point. I attempted to change the layout for better emphasis (3= subcategories), but that change was reverted multiple times. I don't see why users should feel forced to discuss all of the issues simultaneously. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 02:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Uku, we are willing to engage you in constructive discussion, but just one point at a time. Start a new section below with a single point (whichever one you want to start with) and copy your point. (Taivo (talk) 03:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC))

I don't think that there was anything ambiguous in the way that we have all agreed to work with you, Uku, through your proposed changes--one at a time, copy the proposed change in a new section below here. Once a topic is finished, we will continue to the next one. What about this is confusing to you? Bolding statements in the mess above is not an option. (Taivo (talk) 05:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC))

There is already an on-going discussion which deserves to be completed, and your undo deleted a comment I made ! Ukufwakfgr (talk) 05:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No, there are no more "on-going" discussions. Everyone here has agreed to start over one topic at a time. Start a new section on the topic you wish to start with and the discussion will continue from there. The above section is a mess and unusable. Start over means start over. (Taivo (talk) 05:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC))

Ok, then, unresolved discussions. You are refusing to see my side of the situation. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 05:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you are refusing to see our side of the situation. The discussion above is not serviceable. We have been very clear and encouraged you to pick what you consider to be your most important change and to copy and paste it in a new section below where we can clearly discuss it and come to a consensus. Don't retype if you don't wish to, just cut and paste what you consider to be the most important thing you want to discuss. Once we have reached a consensus, we'll work on your next most important change. (Taivo (talk) 05:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC))

"Not serviceable" because .... Ukufwakfgr (talk) 05:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Not serviceable because you interlaced too many of your comments in with other comments to make it virtually unreadable. We have all now asked you to start over here with your most important point. You can cut and paste whatever you think is relevant from above. I quote you, "I don't see why users should feel forced to discuss all of the issues simultaneously." But you are asking that very thing--by making a massive list of issues, you prevent quality discussion on any of the points. We don't want to discuss everything at once, so pick your most important point and cut and paste the relevant discussion in a new section below this one. (Taivo (talk) 05:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC))

I simply refuted other people's talking points. Any allegation that I may have filibustered or something is completely false. Stop saying "we" because it's not like everybody has made an equal contribution to this talk page. It is more reasonable to finish any unresolved discussions, than to redundantly repeat them, which, as history as shown, will only lead to more sidetracking. You have agreed among yourselves that I should do this cut and paste spiel, and you all have basically agreed on pretty much everything else, so basically what you all are doing amounts to coercion, or logical fallacy in the least. Conspiracy, perhaps ? Ukufwakfgr (talk) 06:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Uku in the time you have spent so far arguing about not discussing things one point at a time, you could easily have resolved the first issue. Is this some sort of game to you? Because no one is is finding it funny. Trolling is disruptive. Theresa Knott | token threats 06:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No one has discussed anything. Your "resolution" is nothing more than an appeal to the majority. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 06:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I made no accusations against you concerning "filibustering". I said that the previous discussion is unservicable because your comments are improperly interlaced with other comments to the point that it is virtually impossible to follow the discussion, thereby rendering it unreadable. If you read back through the above, you will see that every recent editor here except for you has asked to start the discussion anew with you listing your most important point and proceeding to discuss it to consensus before proceeding to the next point. Sidetracking a focused discussion is much less likely when a single point is under the microscope than when you have sent a shotgun blast of unrelated points all at once. I guess you can call a near-unanimous agreement a "conspiracy" although conspiracy is usually something in secret--we've been quite open about our request of you, so it can hardly be called a "conspiracy". But I have to agree with Theresa Knott--the time you've wasted in this discussion about process could easily (and more productively) been used in discussing the first matter of substance to this article in a focused and organized way. (Taivo (talk) 06:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC))

You have not asked me to weigh in or even to agree. You have simply deliberated among yourselves, and now you are FORCING me to comply with what I have stated is an unreasonable demand. The motives of all 5 of you are questionnable. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 06:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Our request is not an unreasonable demand. The "discussion" above was hardly focused and was leading to nowhere fast because it was becoming more and more unreadable and therefore unusable. Theresa Knott is an admin who is trying to get this thing rolling by listening to a positive suggestion made by nearly all the editors involved on this Talk Page. She isn't interested in the topic, but only in facilitating a productive discussion. We have not asked you to retype anything, but simply to choose your most important point and to cut and paste it below in a new section so that the discussion can move forward in a focused and constructive way. I also wonder how our motives can be "questionable" when we are giving you every opportunity to have your voice heard in a way that it can be given proper and due consideration. By refusing to pull the most important issue out of an unreadable and unintelligible mass of interlaced comments you do yourself more harm than good. You are ensuring that your voice will not be heard by your own actions--making your arguments in an unservicable and unreadable format. And the deliberation occurred on this page right in front of your eyes. There was nothing covert or rude about it. It was an attempt to allow your voice to be heard in a way that we could give it proper consideration. (Taivo (talk) 07:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC))

I don't have a "favorite" conspiracy theory. I like them all equally. Forcing me to choose is cruel. Wikipedia policy says do whatever it takes to resolve conflicts. You could have copied/cut/whatever and pasted it YOURSELF just like Blueboar has done. All you do instead is make more allegations and waste time on your own part. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 12:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Right now, everyone but you is happy with the article the way it currently stands. We don't have to do anything at all. I have made no allegations. I have simply pointed out to you what we have asked you to do to promote your own point of view. We didn't ask you for your favorite conspiracy theory, we asked you to start the discussion over with what you consider to be the most important change you propose to the article. At this point, we have been crystal clear with what our position is. I will join MSJapan and Blueboar and make no further responses to any comments or statements you make here. I will watch this page with great anticipation of you posting your first proposed change for discussion and consensus-building. (Taivo (talk) 13:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC))

Right now, "the article the way it currently stands" is rated as stub-class and is biased, based on arguments that are already provided. In addition, it has not had a agreed-upon revision for 5 months, which is unusual for Wikipedia. Maybe you are happy with that, if so you are blocking any further progress. You have said: "By refusing to pull the most important issue out of an unreadable and unintelligible mass of interlaced comments you do yourself more harm than good." Stop using the word "we." Speak for yourself, just as I am speaking for myself. "Favorite" and "most important" are synonyms. You have not responded to my claim that forcing me to choose is cruel. My position was crystal-clear from the beginning, and I have not deviated from it one bit. MSJapan has already expressed an intention to engage in revert warring, maybe you express a similar intention? You have made no effort to alleviate any concern I have that your demands are unreasonable. Instead, you insist that I am the one being unreasonable. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 13:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Fine... since you find it difficult to choose one item... I will do so... see below Blueboar (talk) 15:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)