Talk:Masonic conspiracy theories/Archive 6

POV tag

At this point, I want to get a vote on whether this article should have the POV tag attached to it. (Please do not use this space for incivility or for arguing for massive changes. Just state your view simply and clearly, please.)
I vote remove. This article is extremely NPOV. Every conspiracy theory is stated without discussion of either its evidence for or against in very neutral and non-judgemental language. It is simply a list of theories, as it should be. (Taivo (talk) 11:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC))

• Premature: I agree that the article isn't really POV, but I suspect that Uku will not. Removing is thus premature. We can re-address the issue after we have discussed more of his talking points. Blueboar (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• I object, for reasons stated earlier. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I requested that you state your view simply and clearly. Please summarize your paragraphs into one or two clear sentences. Remember that the question is not "Are there problems of fact or missing data?", but "Does the article, as it stands, express a point of view?". (Taivo (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC))

Wasn't this section was deleted?

These are my reasons, from January 30 (which officially makes one week):

Here's a quote from the article: "That Freemasonry is the Illuminati or New World Order, and secretly controls all aspects of society and government."

That idea is not even supported by most conspiracy theorists. Additionally:

• The article uses the phrase "in the broadest terms" which clearly shows intent to diminish or otherwise misrepresent the subject matter.
• The article links to the Wikipedia entry for the Taxil hoax, which was also written in poor taste.
• The concept of a "New World Order" is NOT a "theory." There is video on YouTube of the phrase being used by both George H W Bush and Henry Kissinger. Go look it up yourself, I'm not going to hold your hand this time.
• The article uses loaded, hyperbolic phrases like "the Illuminati," "world domination," "hidden war," and "secretly control" in a context whereby they do NOT give the article a neutral tone.
• The article obfuscates conspiracy theories regarding the events of September 11, 2001.
• The article names the NSA, FEMA, NASA and Congress as "branches of the US government" which is COMPLETELY WRONG !!!
• The article has only one external link, to a website which refutes the subject matter. This also does not give the article a neutral tone.
• The article was sloppily written, so I changed a few sentences here and there. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 19:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Which part of the request "Please summarize into one or two clear sentences" was unclear? Doesn't matter in the end, two respected editors have voted for "premature". (Taivo (talk) 19:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC))

Don't give me any attitude. Maybe if you actually read the talk page I wouldn't have to re-state it ???? Maybe I should have just pointed you to the Archive 2 ???? Ukufwakfgr (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Pot, meet Kettle. Kettle, Pot.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

That is something that Blueboar said in MSJapan's talk page. I was only kidding before, but I think there might be an actual case for sock puppetry. If this is Blueboar, I seriously suggest you get some professional help. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 21:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL. That makes about as much sense as if I suggested you're a Lightbringer sock. (Incidentally, see http://www.google.com/search?q="Pot,+meet+Kettle.+Kettle,+Pot." )--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Flamebait. Off-topic. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 22:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you need a civility reminder, Uku? (Taivo (talk) 22:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC))

Look who's talking Ukufwakfgr (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Premature. It's an NPOV list, but while there is active discussion ongoing, it should stay -- at least for a while.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Looking through the article for the very first time, and as a complete outsider, I'd say its wording seems POV. As Ukufwakfgr said, the article uses wording which appears to be aimed at diminishing the credibility of the individual claims. Laughable claims that nobody seriously would agree with are placed next to claims that many would find reasonable possible though unproven. The claims are always worded in the most extreme way. For example "That Freemasonry ... secretly controls all aspects of society and government". "All aspects"!! Would that mean a claim that the lateness of my postal delivery is down to the secret control of Freemasons? Meowy 22:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

For me, any "conspiracy theory" is laughable, whether it involves Masons or not, so if you think there is a better order, please suggest it. (Taivo (talk) 22:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC))

You've maybe just proved the POV nature of the article! And maybe also of its title. The various "conspiracy theories" (for want of a better term) should perhaps be grouped according to their closeness to the actual setup of Masonic orders (i.e. theories arising out of their perceived secrecy, theories arising out of their use of symbols, theories based on its alleged resemblance to a religion or cult, etc.), and the individual incident allegations (9/11, JFK assassination, etc.) should all be grouped together. Meowy 01:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW, the word theory is perhaps inapropriate as a standalone term for the title. A theory in a scholarly context is something that fits the best available evidence. Maybe the article's title should be changed to "Masonic conspiracy theory controversies". Meowy 01:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I just did an experimental reordering of the list, going from (IMHO) ludicrous to plausible. What do you all think?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Deciding what is ludicrous from what is plausible would be a POV decision, that's why I was suggesting grouping them into themes, such as single incident allegations. Meowy 17:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't like it. Validity requires a subjective judgment, which is an important item to avoid. I don't buy Meowy's argument either; it invokes semantics over substance, because adding "controversies" is a) not scholarly at all, and b) incorrect. A conspiracy theory is clearly defined. The suggestion above is like not calling a spade a spade because it might be a shovel and we don't want to offend it by mislabeling it. I'd rv the edit and just remove the POV tag. There's no basis for it aside from personal opinion, and everything we have is sourced and not judged. MSJapan (talk) 03:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with MSJ here - if a reordering is needed perhaps one that goes from the common to the less common? As for Meowys comment on the title... wasn't the use of the word theory recently discussed? The use in the article fits the common use of the word, and is neutral - and there is no 'controversies': just a reasonable few conspiracy theorists who sees cloaks and daggers where there are none. WegianWarrior (talk) 04:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "Conspiracy theory" is not using the word "theory" in the same way as it would be used in an academic context. It's a bit like Creationists saying that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is "only a theory" - that might fit common usage but it would be incorrect in the context of an encyclopedia. A theory is something that is considered to be generally true because it best fits all the available facts. By adding the word "controversies" it would make clear that the article is not about "theories" but about things that are generally considered to be "conspiracy theories". Becasue of its derrogatory meaning, "Conspiracy theory" is a judgemental and POV claim when boldly used as a title, but it's OK in the body of the article because there will be sources that call the claims "conspiracy theories". Meowy 17:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hardly. To quote Conspiracy theory here on Wikipedia: "The term "conspiracy theory" may be a neutral descriptor for any conspiracy claim" and "The word "theory" is in this usage is informal as in "speculation" or "hypothesis" rather than scientific". You may also want to check out this archived thread. WegianWarrior (talk) 17:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

But in reality, in common usage it is not neutral - you know it, I know it, and many of the commnents in this thread reveal it. I wasn't arguing for the phrase to be removed from the title, but for it to be made less POV by calling it "Masonic conspiracy theory controversies". Nobody gains if the title is seen as POV. Meowy 17:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

We had this discussion ad nauseum just a week ago. There are multiple occurrences of the word "theory" outside the context of academia and the dictionaries support that definition. There is nothing controversial about the existence of "Masonic conspiracy theories". They exist. It is common knowledge that they exist (just ask the millions of people who saw National Treasure). The title is not POV, it simply labels the things as they are known. The words "Nazi" and "Jesus" also conjure up strong emotional images, but articles should not be relabeled because of that. (Taivo (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC))

Also, Meowy, this article is _not_ about the controversies, if any: it's about the various theories that exist about conspiracies involving Freemasons. Hence, changing the title as you suggest would be inappropriate.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Third topic

• The concept of a "New World Order" is NOT a "theory."

We have discussed this issue twice now ... but, I am not sure if it got resolved.

Current wording in the article (as relates to this issue) is: That Freemasonry is controlled by the Illuminati (some variants say they are one and the same) to achieve the New World Order, and that it secretly controls all aspects of society and government. Blueboar (talk) 14:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The concept of a NWO is not a theory -- than Freemasons are trying to implement it is one.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This is explained well in the article on New World Order (conspiracy theory)... which opens with:

In international relations theory, the term "new world order" refers to a new period of history evidencing a dramatic change in world political thought and the balance of power. However, in conspiracy theory, the term "New World Order" refers to a hypothetical totalitarian end of history.

At the extreme, some theorists speculate that a powerful and secretive group is conspiring to eventually rule the world via an autonomous world government, which would replace sovereign states and other checks and balances in international power struggles. In most theories, significant occurrences are said to be caused by an extremely influential cabal operating through many front organizations. Historical and current events are seen as steps in an on-going plot to rule the world primarily through crypto-politics: a combination of campaign finance, social engineering, fear-based propaganda, and even mind control.

Conspiracy theorists often mention Freemasonry prominently in this context... as either being this secret cabal, or being a front organization for it. The freemasons are portrayed as either semi-willing dupes or the evil masterminds, depending on the theorist. Blueboar (talk) 15:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Pinch me, but I don't see any factual problems with the bullet as it currently appears in the article. "New World Order" is a very clear concept in conspiracy theory (read, "one world government, a bad thing"). That Freemasonry is often linked with this is also very clear and easily documented (another bad thing). That Freemasonry and the Illuminati are often in some intimate relationship in this activity is also very clear and easily documented (another very bad thing). What's the problem? (Taivo (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC))

I agree, there's no problem with this topic point as stated. It's one of the most well-known conspiracy theories relating to Freemasonry. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article for the NWO is crap -- I called it before, and that quote just proves it further. This article seems to have changed, but I still have other problems with the sentence that hopefully will be brought up later. My whole point was that the New World Order should not be construed as a conspiracy theory, because it is indeed true. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 03:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of calling things, I've got to call you on this one. Clearly, you believe that the NWO is true. This, however, does not mean that it is fact, and your opinion is not enough to indicate that we should treat it as fact, either. Wikipedia is not a debate club - what is fact is fact, and what is not is not and needs to be labeled as such. MSJapan (talk) 03:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is based on George Bush's speech. A "debate club" does not exist to create paper tigers. Any debate club that does so is a not a debate club but a ghost story club. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 05:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Then how come only conspiracy theorists take the idea seriously? New World Order can mean many things, but in context it refers to the idea of a "hypothetical totalitarian end of history". As Sarek points out higher up, the concept is not by it'sef a conspiracy theory, but the idea that the masons are trying to bring one about is a conspiracy theory. And we have to simply report it as such; to do otherwise would not be neutral. WegianWarrior (talk) 04:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

"Totalitarian end of history" is ridiculous, and inaccurate. I really don't see why "new world order" should have multiple definitions. The article for the uncapitalized phrase describes things that are mentioned in conspiracy theory anyway, like the League of Nations, weapons disarmament and supra-national uniformity ("global partnership"). The article also says: "In 1992, Hans Köchler published a critical assessment of the notion of the "new world order," describing it as an ideological tool of legitimation of the global exercise of power by the US in a unipolar environment." Ukufwakfgr (talk) 05:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Here again, it's coming down to what you think it should be, rather than the way it is, insofar as apparently, everyone else in the world is wrong except for you. You don't see why something should be, but it is, and has basically been the hallmark of your entire "argument" process. Why don't you simply accept that you're not correct, instead of playing semantics and never answering a question properly? When you are asked about your opinion, you don't justify it with a random quote from somebody else, or a vague statement. Support your position with hard evidence, or cease wasting everyone's time here. MSJapan (talk) 05:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it isn't a question of whether "New World Order" should (or should not) have multiple definitions... the simple fact is that it does... one of which is a major component of conspiracy theory. Just type "New World Order" into Google and you can see multiple conspiracy sites that use the term in this way. And in most of them, Freemasonry plays a promentent roll. Blueboar (talk) 05:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

In books also, 389 hits in Google books for "new world order" +freemasonry --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Please list any relevant books. Last time we did a Google Books survey, only 1 hit was for an actual conspiracy theorist. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 07:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you also assert that the word "Swede" has more than one definition. Anybody can make up a word. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 07:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Going off topic, but Swede has four separate meanings, discounting the fact that it's also a name... WegianWarrior (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

What are those meanings ? Ukufwakfgr (talk) 13:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

"Everybody else in the world" is hyperbolic. You have not surveyed everybody else in the world. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 07:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Off course it's ridiculus; it's a conspiracy theory. And to maintain NPOV, we simply have to report it as such, with no toning up or down, properly cited off course. As MSJ points out, Wikipedia is not about what you think is right or wrong any more than it is about what I think is right or wrong. WegianWarrior (talk) 07:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

You are not working from a good frame of mind. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 13:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh, guys, read the sentence in the article more carefully. It's not at all about whether or not the "New World Order" is fact or not. It's about a conspiracy between the Freemasons and Illumuninati to bring "it" about (no matter how factual you think "it" is). This article is not about the New World Order (so stop, Uku, complaining about how that article is written--it's immaterial here), it's about the existence of a conspiracy theory that says the Freemasons (with or without the Illuminati) are bringing it about. So, Uku, what is your objection to the way the sentence is written now? The sentence says absolutely nothing about whether the New World Order is reality or someone's peyote dream, and it shouldn't. It's a statement about the conspiracy theory that says the Freemasons are involved. (Taivo (talk) 06:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC))

I do think, however, that there is a pronominal reference problem in the second clause--..."it" secretly controls... What exactly is "it" referring to? To the New World Order? To Freemasonry? To the Illuminati? To the team of Freemasons and Illuminati? It's ambiguous. I propose that the second half of the sentence be rewritten to read: ...and that the Freemasons (with or without the participation of the Illuminati) secretly control many major aspects of government and society. (Taivo (talk) 06:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC))

Good point, I concur. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

While the 'it' in the sentence to me clearly points back to Freemasonry (or the Masonic-Illuminaty complex), making it even clearer can't hurt. ~I support this rewrite. WegianWarrior (talk) 07:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

"It" refers to Freemasonry, which is the subject. That part of the article should be discussed later. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 07:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The NWO article is untrue and should not be cited. My objection is that the sentence squeezes together a bunch of loaded phrases into a tight space. This causes the reader to become emotionally invested, whether you'd like to believe so or not. It is even more obvious now, that many people are not going to go through this article with a disciplined, objective outlook. That was my whole reason for marking this article POV. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 07:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Issues you have with the ariticle on the New World Order should be taken up on the talkpage for the article in question. This article however, refers to the cited fact that several conspiracy theorists links Freemasonry to the concept of NWO as commonly defined by conspiray theorists, therefore it should link to the article in question. WegianWarrior (talk) 07:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The quality of the NWO article is immaterial to our discussion. Work on that article if you wish to improve it, Uku, but as long as a NWO article exists in Wikipedia it should be wikilinked here. That's just the process. "A bunch of loaded phrases". What do you mean? And what specifically do you propose? (Taivo (talk) 07:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC))

Actually, glancing over at the New World Order article, it looks quite good and very thorough. It's a lot more encyclopedic that many articles here on Wikipedia. But even if it were a stub, it would still deserve a wikilink here because it exists. It is not our place to evaluate the quality of other Wikipedia articles here. It is only our place to improve this one. (Taivo (talk) 07:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC))

I need to interject something here... this article does not cite the New World Order (conspiracy) article... it mearly links to it. There is a difference. We are not using that article to support our statement about this particular theory, instead we cite a typical conspiracy website... one which verifies the existance of the theory. It does not matter whether the claims made on that website are "true" or not... As WP:V says, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is Verifiability, not "Truth". We say: this theory exists. We do not say that this theory is true (or false). If we can verify this statement (that the theory exists), then we we have met the threshold for inclusion. Blueboar (talk) 14:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, then that article makes invalid claims, and possibly violates WP:OR. If anything, link to the other "new world order" article. There's an extremely strong case that the Freemasons are involved in that. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 15:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no "extremely strong case" that Freemasons are linked to any such "conspiracy". You keep trying to imply that you have some sort of "science" or "evidence" to show that X or Y conspiracy theory is more valid than the others. None of them are based on fact, all are based on circumstantial inferences, wild conjectures, and improbable suppositions that rely in discredited hoaxes and a complete lack of knowledge about the "organization" of Freemasonry. If you don't like my POV characterizations of these dream-state conspiracy theories, then you should stop making your own POV assertions that X or Y theory is "well-documented", "extremely strong", etc. The issue of this article is about an NPOV listing of the Masonic conspiracy theories that are in existence. A wikilink from New World Order should (and must) link to New World Order (conspiracy theory) since that is the NWO that every conspiracy theory refers to--the coming one-world government that is totalitarian. (Taivo (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC))

Valid conspiracy theories are based on hard evidence, confessions from members, some spy work, and collaboration. By linking to such a piss-poor article in that way, you are making an insinuation of guilt by association. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 13:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Which instance of a New world order would that be then? The end of WWI and the creation of the League of Nations? The Malta Conference? Bush trying to score some cheap points by offering to add soviet troops to the UN forces during Gulf War I? None of which has much ties to masonry at all, and none of which is what the conspiracy theorists are refering to when they use the term. Sorry, but its a verifiable fact that all the conspiracy theorists referenced in the article uses the term as defined in New World Order (conspiracy theory). WegianWarrior (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, yeah, that is how conspiracy theorists relate Freemasonry and the New World Order. That article has lots of templates, and not good ones either. Fnord? Kinda makes it hard to be "verifiable fact." Ukufwakfgr (talk) 13:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You are confused, Uku, between a wikilink and a reliable source. Other Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources to be used in footnotes. They are other places in Wikipedia where users can find related topics. They are treated, therefore, differently. Wikilinks only link to other Wikipedia articles. The quality of those other articles is immaterial, they are just links. Reliable sources are for the references and cannot be other Wikipedia articles. Apples and oranges. If you want to discuss the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article, then go there and talk about it on its Talk page. Don't work on it or complain about it here. It's immaterial to this discussion. (Taivo (talk) 13:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC))

Take your blinders off. Even the sentence structuring is terrible. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 15:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Where are we on consensus with this statement? The current version (after our agreed-upon amendments) is:

• That Freemasonry is controlled by the Illuminati (some variants say they are one and the same) to achieve the New World Order, and that the Freemasons (with or without the participation of the Illuminati) secretly control many major aspects of government and society. (Taivo (talk) 18:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC))

Or are these two clauses actually separate conspiracy theories? 1) Bringing about the NWO; 2) Controlling government and society? If separate are there references that clearly distinguish between them? If the references all unite them, then they should be one statement. If there are some references that focus on one to the exclusion of the other, then they can be separated. (Taivo (talk) 18:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC))

Number 1 is essentially a subset of number 2... all of conspiracy theories that discuss the NWO will also discuss the idea that secret groups are controling government and society, but not all of the theories that say there are groups secretly controling government and society will discuss the NWO. Blueboar (talk) 20:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

So should the two be split on that basis? Indeed, the point just above this one claims massive infiltration of government organizations by Freemasons, should point number 2 be removed from this item and combined with the preceding one? (Taivo (talk) 21:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC))

I don't think we need to, but will not object if others disagree. Blueboar (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I think the second clause should be combined with the item immediately above it. They both say virtually the same thing. (Taivo (talk) 01:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC))

What are you doing??? One topic at a time! Ukufwakfgr (talk) 13:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh, we were working on the last bullet. I think this is an improvement to the last bullet. The continuing discussion is below. If you have a constructive comment on this, see the continuing discussion below. (Taivo (talk) 13:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC))

Reordering

We've reordered the theories from silliest flight of fancy to serious peyote dream. But we must be careful that in our reordering we don't reword until we've discussed any wording issues on this page. The wording is sensitive right now and we need to discuss the issues carefully. (Taivo (talk) 06:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC))

I'm not conviced reordering is such a good idea, and I really don't think starting out with the ludicrous ones is the best choice if the !vote is to reorder... by startign with what most people (except conspiracy theorists) consider to be - if I may interject a personal opinion - batshit crazy (that a fraternal organisation somehow faked the moonlandings - never mind that the moonlandings wasn't faked in the first place) it paints a picture of conspiracy theorists that are less than neutral. Would it be better to order the conspiracy theories by group? Religous, political, other? WegianWarrior (talk) 07:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I think a reordering by group would be a good idea as well, but let's not get too sidetracked in reordering as we struggle with wording. If reordering can be done noncontroversially, then fine, but let's not allow it to become a big distraction. (Taivo (talk) 07:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC))

Agreed, lets work out the wording first. WegianWarrior (talk) 07:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Insignificant and unsupported conspiracy theories should be eliminated altogether. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 07:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* Conspiracy theories exists. They are reported and cited. All I've seen so far fall apart once you start looking at the facts, and are thus 'unsupported'. As far as I can tell, the majority of people does not believe in them, making them 'insignifcant'. Therefore, this artile should be deleted... right? WegianWarrior (talk) 07:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, all conspiracy theories are insignificant and unsupported. The public perception of conspiracy theorists is one of crackpots wearing aluminum foil hats in their basements so that the aliens can't read their minds or of Bible-thumping hell-fire-and-damnation preachers with a third-grade education raving against the evil Freemasons. But Wikipedia also includes articles on Sasquatch and the Loch Ness Monster, so an article on Masonic Conspiracy Theories is here along with one on the "New World Order". We'll list them all, since they all stand on the "insignificant and unsupported" ground of being impossible to demonstrate with reliable sources. (Taivo (talk) 07:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC))

Our job here is not to evaluate the conspiracy theories at all. It is just to list them--no matter how outside the realm of possibility. We simply list the ones that exist. Here "proof" is not proof of the validity of the theory, but of the theory's existence only. (Taivo (talk) 07:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC))

We have to include conspiracy theories that are supported among conspiracy theorists. This is where actual research comes into play. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

You may want to read WP:OR though... in short, no, we don't do 'research'. We report whats verifiable. It's a verifiable fact that all these theories are pushed by conspiracy theorists, therefore we add them to the article. It's not our job to pick and choose which to include on otehr grounds thant WP:V. WegianWarrior (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

No. Read WP:SELFPUB. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

You don't understand the point, Uku. We don't cite the self-published websites as sources, we list their theories as existent. There is a major difference. If we were writing an article on Masonic ritual in the 20th century, they would not be reliable sources, but since we are simply listing conspiracy theories that are in existence, they become sources for the existence of X or Y theory (because the site exists), not sources for its validity. (Taivo (talk) 19:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC))

You would need a truthful Mason to tell you about Masonic ritual. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

So you are back to insulting the other editors. Let me remind you about WP:CIVIL. Calling the rest of us liars doesn't help your cause. (Taivo (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC))

You are making no sense. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 08:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm fully aware on the limitations for using self publisehd works by non-experts, but after looking at them again I'm forced to conclude that you are not: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves." Which is excatly what we do in this article; we are using the conspiracy theorists own self published works to verify that they (the conspiracy theorists) make these claims. However, I'm not sure WTF that has to do with Wikipedias ban on original research? WegianWarrior (talk) 05:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope, you are cherry-picking. Don't cherry pick, read THE WHOLE THING. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 08:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Cherry picking? Yelling? Do you need another reminder to be civil? Self published sources can be used on wikipedia to show what the writer says - which is what this article do. And again, WTF has this to do with original research? WegianWarrior (talk) 10:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Insignficant among conspiracy theorists ... Ukufwakfgr (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It matters not one whit whether conspiracy theorists think that a conspiracy theory is important or not. Our job here is to list conspiracy theories which exist. I could go through linguistics articles and delete all mention of Greenberg's classification scheme because most historical linguists dismiss it. But that would not be the job of Wikipedia. Greenberg's scheme exists so it must be mentioned where it differs from standard usage. If a conspiracy theory exists it must be listed. (Taivo (talk) 14:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC))

I'm assuming that Greenberg's classification scheme has a significant historical impact. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't matter whether minor or major--my point is that it exists and someone looking at the development of historical linguistics should know that it is there. Same with Masonic conspiracy theories--doesn't matter how major or minor, we don't evaluate their "worthiness" for inclusion here, just their verifiable existence. That's the only criterion to be used for inclusion on this list. (Taivo (talk) 17:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC))

Nope, Wikipedia policy goes against inclusion for its own sake. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Uku, but you are mistaken in this instance. If the website exists, then the theory exists. This is a list of theories, not an evaluation of whether or not they are significant. As far as I am concerned, they are all groundless and insignificant, lacking any proof whatsoever. But the issue is not their significance or their validity, but their existence. That's what this article is about. "I post, therefore I am". (Taivo (talk) 19:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC))

Then we should start looking for eBay listings for tinfoil hats !! That sounds like bias to me. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I have never hidden my POV about these theories, your sarcasm aside. Your POV is also in full view. No editor approaches any article without a POV or else they would have no interest in editing here. The key is to work out a consensus between competing POVs so that the article is NPOV. We are working on the wording of a specific element of that article below. If you wish to participate constructively in the discussion, please do so. Right now these excursions into whether or not the New World Order (conspiracy) article is well-written are not germane to our discussion and the work of improving this article. (Taivo (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC))

You research the subject matter and then make a conclusion based on available data. You don't go looking for data to support your own pre-determined hypothesis, especially if you don't know much about it. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 08:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Two things about that... A) read WP:OR - I don't think you understand what it says. B) if you actually bother to do the research based on available, reliable information, you'll find that all of these conspiracy theorists are off the mark by a wide margin. WegianWarrior (talk) 10:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

As for reordering, we have a template for how to order things in the opening paragraphs... where we say that the theories can fall into rough categories: political, religious and cultural. So I think we should list the political based theories first, then the religious, and end on the cultural. Blueboar (talk) 14:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that was agreed. Why re-sort the article as it exists now just to re-sort it again ? Ukufwakfgr (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Blueboar's scheme. (Taivo (talk) 14:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC))

Works for me.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

more or less arbitary break

I've done a quick shuffle of the current bulletpoints at User talk:WegianWarrior/MWR - I found several threories hard to class, so I introduced a 'other' section. Comments? Feel free to change that page BTW. WegianWarrior (talk) 07:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks good to me... I actually had been thinking about doing a similar mock up, just to see what things would look like. Suggest everyone take a glance at it. Blueboar (talk) 15:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It looks good. (Taivo (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC))

Ditto that.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Since there seems to be concensious, I've been bold and done the changes to the article. I did check, and I'm fairly sure no conspiracy theories have been added nor removed. WegianWarrior (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Back on Track for Third Topic

Once again trying to get the discussion back on track on the topic at hand. Right now there are two final bullets:
As written

• That Freemasonry has political influence over "US government agencies" such as the National Security Agency[33], Federal Emergency Management Agency[34], National Aeronautics and Space Administration[35] as well as having influence over the United States Congress.[36][37]
  
• That Freemasonry is, or is controlled by, the Illuminati to achieve the New World Order, and that it secretly controls all aspects of society and government.[38][39][31]
  

v v v v v

Proposed change

• That Freemasonry (with or without the cooperation of the Illuminati) secretly controls many major aspects of society and government including US government agencies such as the National Security Agency, the Federal Emergency Management Administration, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration as well as having undue influence over the United States Congress.
  
• That Freemasonry (with or without the cooperation of the Illumninati) is secretly working to establish the New World Order.
  

This cuts the current final bullet into two parts and unites the second phrase with the preceding bullet, because they seem to say the same thing. Comments? (Taivo (talk) 11:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC))

I am not sure that "cooperation" is the right word to use in either of the parentheticals. The theories that involve both the Illuminati and Freemasonry claim a significantly more symbiotic relationship than mere cooperation. The exact relationship will shift from theorist to theorist, but the most common claim is that there is some form of overlap between the "high degrees" Freemasonry (usually Scottish Rite) and the Illuminati. Many conspiracy theorists acknowledge that "low level" Freemasons may not be conspirators (at least not knowingly), but are instead "dupes" of their "33 degree, Illuminati masters", etc.

If we are going to cut the broader "Freemasons are the Illuminati and control the government" theory into its various sub-parts ... then we should probably start off with something along the lines of: That Freemasonry overlaps with, or is controled by the Illuminati, especially in the higher degrees. Blueboar (talk) 13:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The question is, then, how do our current conspiracy theory sources divide up this pie? Do the references support our subdivisions? Or do they lump all of this stuff together into a grand Übertheorie? If they lump it, then we should lump it all together. If there are natural subdivisions in the sources, then we should follow those. My version above was a "logical" move based on a division between current actions and future intentions. (Taivo (talk) 14:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC))

That is the problem... the sources don't agree on this (not uncommon with conspiracy theorists)... each divides the pie up differently. Some lump them together and others don't. Some discuss a direct tie between the Illuminati and the Freemasons in secretly controling the government, others hint at it (by including the words Illuminati and Freemasonry in close proximity... but not spelling out a direct connection), yet others discuss each as "arms" of the same secret octopus, and still others focus on one but not the other. Blueboar (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's start from this, then: Proposed change

• That Freemasonry overlaps with, or is controlled by, the Illuminati, especially in the higher degrees, and that they secretly control many major aspects of society and government and are working to establish the New World Order.
  

That makes referencing much easier. The laundry list of government agencies is subsumed under "control of government". All the references for both of the last two points would then be put here. Writing a list like this is always problematical because some things want to be lumped together and some things want to be separately listed. It's hard to come up with foolproof criteria for distinguishing between points. In our case I think that ease of referencing might be the key factor. (Taivo (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC))

That works for me. Blueboar (talk) 15:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, that would replace the last two bullets in the list and combine all the references. (Taivo (talk) 15:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC))

still works for me. Blueboar (talk) 15:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it's good.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Haven taken the time to read through the references given for the two points in the article as it stands, I concour that this will be a accurate and to the point summary. Mind you, after reading some of that stuff my brain feels like melted cheese.. =) WegianWarrior (talk) 07:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

*spreads WW's brain on crackers*--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 07:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL! Should reference #38 be split in two, since it refers to two different sites? WegianWarrior (talk) 07:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Uku Blocked Again

Today's news: Uku is blocked for two weeks this time
He never got back on track with helping with this article after his last block, so I think we should continue work on what we've started. The article is fairly NPOV in my opinion, but there was another editor who showed up in the last day or two who may disagree. (Taivo (talk) 14:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC))

I agree... if he is out for two weeks, we should continue without him. I think you know my view on the POV issue... I think this article is extremely neutral. It is not our job to judge which of these theories has merit or not... we should continue to just list them without comment. That said, I have no objections to re-ordering things, or to continuing to improve on the wording of the individual bullet points. Blueboar (talk) 15:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I think a reorder might not be a bad thing, but I'm not sure leading off with political is best. They're the most plausible ones, as they're hardest to disprove (for the most part). As I mentioned in my reorder, I went from implausible to plausible, because then you're taking it more seriously as you go along. If you start with taking it seriously and then lose it halfway through, that's less neutral, IMHO. (Oh, and I finally figured out the use of the {{diff}} template. :-) Your link above could read like this...)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to avoid "plausible" vs. "implausible" as a criteria... as that involves interjecting our own POV as to which is more or less "plausible". This is why I suggested ordering by category. It is a more neutral way to order things. That said, I am quite flexible as to which category we start with, we don't have to start with the political theories... if we want to list the cultural or religious ones first that is fine (just swap the order we list them in the intro, to keep the structure the same). Blueboar (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I know it would be POV to call them plausible or im-, but we have to consider how (we think) most people reading the article will see it. It's our duty not to introduce POV by explicitly holding to policy.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

NPOV OK

Based on the discussion on this page and the content of the article, I've de-activated the RFC for the POV issues because there is no problem with this article regarding the NPOV policy. I'm also removing the NPOV tag. If there is not consensus for either of those changes, please feel free to re-activate the RFC or re-add the tag (note: consensus is not simple majority, but also, it does not require unanimous agreement). However, if the tag is re-added, please bring reasons to the talk page.

There is no POV-issue in reporting conspiracy theories connected to Masonry that have been published in various reliable sources. Reporting the stories does not endorse them, it simply describes them. Individual stories may or may not have basis in fact, but that doesn't matter for this article; that's for articles about the individual conspiracy theories; for this article, all we need are notable and verifiable stories of conspiracies that according to reliable sources are believed to involve the Freemasons. That's the bar to pass, and as an editor who has not been editing this article other than to add a couple footnotes, it looks to me like that's the way the article has been approached, and that bar has been passed. As I noted, if this does not meet with consensus, let the debate continue. But I don't think it's needed, the article is just fine in that department, it doesn't present any bias. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This came out of left field. Re-applying. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 05:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The rest of Uku's issues

Question... should we wait until Uku is unblocked to address the remainder of his list of talking points... or should we go ahead and discuss them in his absence. Waiting would be polite, but one of his complaints is that we still have not addressed them. Blueboar (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Considering that he provided no input for the last of "his" points we discussed, we might as well drive on. In the end, he won't like anything we do anyway. (Taivo (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC))

OK... then here are the remaining issues that Uku raised...

1. The article uses loaded, hyperbolic phrases like "the Illuminati," "world domination," "hidden war," and "secretly control" in a context whereby they do NOT give the article a neutral tone.
2. The article obfuscates conspiracy theories regarding the events of September 11, 2001
3. The article has only one external link, to a website which refutes the subject matter. This also does not give the article a neutral tone

I have omitted two of his points... The first (regarding NSA, FEMA etc as being branches of the US Government) we have already addressed it. The second (sloppy writing) is more a justification of his initial revert than an issue. Besides, we have already improved the lanugage. Blueboar (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts on these...

1) The article uses these terms because the sources use these terms. In other words, we use them in order to accurately present what the sources say. They are used in context... that is neutral.

2) I am not sure what Uku was getting at with this complaint... This article isn't about the various 9/11 theories. There is a seperate article for that. We only mention one particular 9/11 theory... because it involves Freemasonry. If other 9/11 theories involved Freemasonry, we would discuss those as well, but none do. Uku has stated that the one we do mention is a minority theory, even among conspiracy theorists... but that is not exactly true. It is in the minority amoung English speaking conspiracy theorists... but it is much more common in the Arab world. We should not limit ourselves to just theories written by people the English speaking world.

3) I really do not think this complaint is valid at all... Given that almost all of the links cited as references are to advocates of various conspiracy theories, including one EL to a debunking site (with no commentary... just a link) hardly unballances the neutrality of the entire article. That said... I don't have any objections to adding additional ELs. Blueboar (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

1) Agreed - as we tried to tell him multiple times. I'm sure he would like us to tone it down though...

2) I'm not sure what he's getting at either - I think the one bulletpoint in question happens to be one conspiracy article he don't like. Would be nice to get more references for this though.

3)I would love to see more EL going to pages that discuss masonic conspiracy theories - not pages that are filled with them, but which discusses them (there is a difference)... So far I havn't found any, and I have looked.

WegianWarrior (talk) 17:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll add my voice in here as well. I agree with all your points above--if the source says "Illuminati" how can we say otherwise? Adding more external links is a good thing, but our links are already mostly to the theories so I don't know what Uku was saying about "just one external link". The only thing I can imagine is that his comment was not properly contexted and he was meaning only one link in one of the points (the one he was thinking about, but didn't mention to us). At this point, I think we can keep working as we are--slowly and thoughtfully. (Taivo (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC))

The article lists only one website under External links, all the other links are listed in Notes and references. Things that are listed as a reference shouldn't appear under external links - I think Uku didn't grasp that part of wikipedia guidelines, thus adding to his confusion. WegianWarrior (talk) 19:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we are all in basic agreement here... but, I don't want to simply dismiss these complaints without at least taking a second look (if Uku could be here, you know he would not let us do so). Forget the specifics of Uku's complaints... do any of his points, or anything he says, make you think of something that might improve the article (it does not have to be related to his issues). Blueboar (talk) 03:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

1. State where "the sources" use that exact wording. 2. I mentioned already that it may be disinformation, and is not a majority opinion 3. Links are for references, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. Besides that, the link is for information which "debunks" the subject matter itself, and is bias. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 04:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Group within Group

I don't think that the point about the group within the group is a conspiracy theory since it is an assumption that underlies nearly every other conspiracy theory. I think that it needs to be discussed in the introductory paragraph. (Taivo (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC))

Agreed... it is a common thread, not a theory on its own. Blueboar (talk) 02:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

In other words, move the bulletpoint "That most Freemasons are unaware of hidden or secretive ruling bodies that govern their organization, conduct occult ritual, or control various positions of power." with it's citation up to the short list of assumptions underlying the conspiracy theories in the lead? Sure, works for me. WegianWarrior (talk) 19:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Done... I have added it to the bit about the 33rd degree (since that is usually named as the secretive ruling body that goverens the organization)... Feel free to separate it if you disagree. Blueboar (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think we've got a doubly-used item here. The group within theory states two things: one, that such a group exists and is influencing whatever the topic is, and second, that most Freemasons are unaware of said group exerting whatever influence it is. So I think it is used as part of other theories, as well as a standalone, and therefore, might be best left in the political cat. MSJapan (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it needs to be split up... I think a lot of people (not just conspiracy theorists) assume that the "higher degrees" have some sort of governance over the "lower degrees", so that does belong with the "assumptions"... but the idea that this "group within a group" is secretly up to no good belongs with the theories. Blueboar (talk) 02:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the secret leadership council is part of the assumptions, but it so underlies all the other theories that I guess I don't see it as a standalone theory. Whether they are up to no good or the guiding force protecting the Templar's wealth and America's power (which is a conspiracy theory that isn't mentioned in our list and should be added), this inner commandery is critical to every other theory--otherwise the theory could be easily falsified by asking any Mason on the street about the "secret mission". (Taivo (talk) 05:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC))

You mean you don't know about the "secret mission"? Are you sure you are a Mason?  :>) Blueboar (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm embarrassed to say that I don't know about it. I took all three degrees in one day as part of a Grand Master's class, so maybe I missed that part of the ritual :p They keep giving me a new dues card every year, though. But they look at me funny when I don't know the current president of Brazil when they ask :p (Taivo (talk) 15:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC))

Ah... you're a "McMason"! Conspriacy recruitment just isn't what it used to be! (seriously, I hate the whole mason-in-a-day idea... but admit that it does work for some people... as it seems to have done for you). Blueboar (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree that it's not the best. I wish I had experienced the Master Mason degree as a candidate rather than as an observer. Of the five guys from my lodge who went through the Mason-in-a-day process, I'm the only one still active. But people (and the Grand Masters) still like the idea. But it's very hard to convey the importance of world domination in just a day :p As a Worshipful Master now, I can really see the difference--one of our new guys refused the mason-in-a-day experience and is doing it step by step. He drives 60 miles one way to attend every lodge meeting. The other guy hardly ever darkens our lodge door and he lives half a mile away. (Taivo (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC))

Should the sentence "This is an example of a secret society within a secret society." be taken out? I don't think it's needed; partly because the preceding sentence says that same, partly because Freemasonry isn't a secret sociecty (apart from in the mind of conspiracy theoriests). WegianWarrior (talk) 07:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I started another section about this same question - apparently I didn't realize that there already was a thread in progress about this. (See section below at #Source & clarification needed). The group-within-a-group statement does seem somewhat unclear, but so does the rest of the paragraph in which it appears, as noted in the section below. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 08:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Knights Protectorate?

All the conspiracy theories in this article cover bad things that Freemasonry is supposedly up to. What about the conspiracy theories (yes they would be "conspiracies") that have Freemasonry promoting good? National Treasure may be illustrative of one type of these "good" theories. If there are websites/theorists who promote the Freemasons-as-good-guys theories, then they should stand alongside all these "bad guy" scenarios as well. There are plenty of books (including books written by Masons) that promote the supposed Templar heritage of Freemasonry. Are there conspiracy theories based on a continuing heritage of protecting the Templar wealth/secrets/history, etc.? (Taivo (talk) 05:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC))

I propose that we add another category of conspiracy theory labelled "Masonic Protectorate" (or something like that) where we add the following:

• That Freemasons protect ancient sacred artifacts discovered in Jerusalem by the Knights Templar such as the ark of the covenant and the holy grail (in its various interpretations). [Here's one ref: Templar Gold: Discovering the Ark of the Covenant (Paperback)

by Patrick Byrne]

• That Freemasons protect ancient treasures including the Knights Templar wealth not confiscated by Philip IV in 1307.

These two should cover the Freemasons as protectors conspiracy theories. (Taivo (talk) 05:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC))

Aren't these more or less variants of the same theory? (That the Masons are direct descendants of the Templars and are thus hiding/protecting the "Templar's Treasure"... which might be either a physical treasure or some sort of secret knowledge, depending on the theorist) I agree that it should be added, but I don't think there are enough "protecting knights" theories to merit a separate category... just stick it in the Others category. Blueboar (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Circumstantial evidence

This text from the intro is unsupported, and does not directly address the topic of this article, so I've deleted it:

However, the very nature of conspiracy theory relies on circumstantial evidence. For this reason, all of these theories have groups that support them and others that do not.

The first sentence is not needed because this article is not a general discussion of conspiracy theories. Also there is no case being made in the article that any of the theories are true or supported by evidence, so it's not necessary to answer as if there were such claims being made.

The second sentence is vague. I don't think it's needed as currently written. It could be an interesting point if it were made more specific and supported by sources. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Source & clarification needed

This section of the intro is not fully supported by sources, and also is not clear. We need to consider that most readers are not Masons so statements that may be self-evident to Masons need to be presented with sufficient context. If anyone has an idea how to improve it, that would be welcome:

The majority of these theories are based on one or more of the following assumptions:

• That Freemasonry is a religion in its own right
• That the 33rd degree of the Scottish Rite is more than an honorary degree and that most Freemasons are unaware of hidden or secretive ruling bodies that govern their organization, conduct occult ritual, or control various positions of power. This is an example of a secret society within a secret society.
• That there is an international controlling body over the Grand Lodges

Points needing clarification:

• How do we know these assumptions are the basis of "most" of the theories? That could be original research unless we have a source. It might be better to say something like "Some elements that appear in the conspiracy theories include..." ... ? — Jack-A-Roe — continues after insertion below

Simple reading of the sources, mainly. The claims of many of the theorists overlap in this respect, though I'm pretty sure i could find someone who plainly makes this point, but I would need to look. MSJapan (talk) 08:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Could something from masonicinfo.com be used? I don't have much time to go through the various sub pages there right now - being at work and all - but the site does provide a nice overwiev. WegianWarrior (talk) 10:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• How can we explain the significance to the conspiracy theories of whether or not Freemasonry is a religion? — Jack-A-Roe — continues after insertion below

Again, I'd say it's there already, and explaining the significance otherwise would require some synthesis. MSJapan (talk) 08:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• "Freemasons are unaware of hidden or secretive ruling bodies that govern their organization, conduct occult ritual, or control various positions of power." - this seems like an important point, but the part it follows (the 33rd degree) is unclear. It seems in this point, the lead has been buried. — Jack-A-Roe — continues after insertion below

No, it's vague by nature because of the leeway it grants the theorist. It's either that being a 33rd gets you some sort of governmental control or magical knowledge, or that being a 33rd grants you power within Freemasonry, which allows access to power or magical knowledge. Fundamentally, this is set up to allow rebuttal of a rebuttal - if the theorist says "you're occult/corrupt", and I say "no, and here's why", the theorist then says, "well, you're just not a high enough degree Mason to know what's really going on." MSJapan (talk) 08:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• "international controlling body" - Most readers probably don't know whether or not the Freemasonry is structured in that way, so that statement needs additional context to show why it's significant to conspiracy theories. — Jack-A-Roe — continues after insertion below

They make assumptions from reading the theories, as do the theorists. Many people want to believe that there's some central figure controlling things they don't understand, because then what doesn't make sense suddenly does. All we need is to pull a citation from Grand Lodge showing what the official statement is. MSJapan (talk) 08:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that this section be rewritten. I'd do it, but I'm not sure about the source for these points being the basis for most of the conspiracy theories, so I thought it would be better to put it up for discussion. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced we'd end up with a better result, but we can try. MSJapan (talk) 08:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I would think that all this is discussed by either Robinson, Hodapp or Morris... I will check. Blueboar (talk) 13:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys, I complained when Uku did this and it's still annoying. Please do not interthread your comments. It makes the text impossible to read. (Taivo (talk) 20:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC))

Forgive us, Taivo; some of us formed our quoting habits two decades ago. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Owls

We mention owls twice... First in the "Policital" section (That Freemasons hold meetings with influential politicians and businessmen at Bohemian Grove and that a statue of an owl (allegedly a masonic symbol) is worshiped at these meetings), and then again in the "Other" section (That the owl is a hidden Masonic symbol found in the layout of the US Capitol building and the US dollar bill). This seems excessive.

I am going to cut the latter of the two, as the idea that Masonic symbolism (whether actual or alleged) is hidden in in various places is already covered by the more general statement in the "Cultural" section (That the United States was founded by Freemasons who have interwoven Masonic symbols into American society, particularly in national seals, streets in Washington DC, architecture, and the Dollar Bill.) Blueboar (talk) 14:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources

I have read both Freemasonry for Dummies and Idiot's Guide To Freemasonry

Both contain nothing more than firsthand denial statements. Neither book, for the most part, deals with conspiracy theory. As such both sources are invalid.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think somebody stated that Albert Pike either never existed or he wasn't a Freemason. Both books confirm that he was a member of the Grand Lodge of Arkansas. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 04:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Um... I don't remember anyone involved with this article ever claiming that Pike never existed or that he wasn't a Freemason. Someone might have pointed out that he is often misquoted or never said some of the things that are attributed to him... but no one denies his existance or membership in the fraternity. Blueboar (talk) 04:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

What you miscontrued as a denial of his membership is the statement that he was not any sort of "Supreme Grand Master of the Universe". He was never even a Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Arkansas. He was the Commander of the Southern Jurisdiction of the Scottish Rite. He existed, he wrote Morals and Dogma (which no one ever reads), he was a Mason, he was a member of the Scottish Rite, he was a conservative Christian. He was not a Satan worshiper, he was not the supreme leader of Freemasonry. (Taivo (talk) 05:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC))

That didn't take long, but a quick search through the archives verifies what Blueboar remembers; no one here said Pike didn't exist. There may be some conspiracy theorists who says that, I don't know... they claim a lot of weird stuff. WegianWarrior (talk) 07:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

That's got to be some sort of record time from unblock to indefinite block. (Taivo (talk) 07:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC))

And, of course, that will add one more bullet to our list of conspiracy theories--That Freemasons are conspiring to take over the editing of Wikipedia. (Taivo (talk) 07:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC))

We going to need a reliable source before we add that to the list though :) WegianWarrior (talk) 07:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)