User talk:LessHeard vanU/archive 102

Here are the archives of specific matters. These are not necessarily "dead", and may be added to.

Duncan's, etc

Actually I realised that there was no article on Masonic ritual which is a bigger hole in Wikipedia, so I decided to do that. As you've held the ring in various disputes in this area, could you add it to your watch list please? JASpencer (talk) 19:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, have done so. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. JASpencer (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

As you've just bumped into this, it seems...

As you've left a comment for JAS on his page regarding a redirect I think is related to his new article on Masonic ritual, I'd like to point out that the material he is adding is erroneous in the extreme (as I've noted on article talk). The reason none of the WP:FM editors has ever done this is precisely because nothing standard can be said about it. If people want to go look things up, there's plenty of books out there, and they're all different and of uncertain provenance. I'd also note he's gone ahead and wikilinked the article wherever possible, which is really not appropriate given the state that the article is in. Furthermore, given his interactions with myself and others on various Freemasonry articles, I do not feel that it is at all appropriate for him to be working in the Freemasonry outside of his expertise on the Roman Catholic viewpoint. He simply cannot evaluate source materials properly. MSJapan (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I will reply here, so JASpencer (JAS?) can join in (I will note them in case they are not looking at this page).

I remember from the Jahbulon article that it is extremely difficult to definitively say what Freemasons do (or say!) either as an individual grouping, or as the various Lodges and/or affiliated groups or whatever, since the "secrecy" that surrounds them means that there is no incontestable source/reference. This also means that no "claims" can be entirely - or at least, easily - refuted. However, as per Jahbulon, I think it would be fair to make clear that these are sources that are not recognised by whatever Freemsonry authority there might be - so Masonic ritual (the article) is a record of other parties interpretation of purported Masonic ritual. Have you looked at the references?

I note your concerns regarding wikilinking - I noted the same to JAS regarding a link at Jahbulon, although that was only a redirect to Freemasonry (obviously already included) which I removed. I think wikilinking the Masonic ritual article is appropriate where there is good reason, providing the question of the definitiveness being resolved.

The question of JAS editing any Freemason article is the same for anyone; if it is verifiable, adheres to NPOV, etc. then it can be added (and then changed/removed/restated/whatever, to the same principles). What "interaction" concerns do you have?

Oh joy, re Roman Catholic-ism! I am aware of the anti-Freemasonry position of them (and other Christian churches) from the Jahbulon matter (again...) - as ever it is a matter of making clear the "position" of some sources, if they come from an interested party.

I trust this helps. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, if the article is a copy of what's in main, all JAS has added in an incorrect lead that implies a religious rite, and a controversy section. He's expanded nothing else, and I think that should make it pretty obvious that the intention is a POV fork to make the anti-Christian or anti-clerical argument. MSJapan (talk) 21:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Can we remove the "implication" to make it an "allegation" or "interpretation"? I remember the debate whether Freemasonry (FM) is itself a religious grouping (and whether it is a Christian one) or not being one of the major issues. I would certainly wish to see that no definitive statement is made when it is disputed. Re controversy; I note this is one sentence - which is covered in the main article. Unless it is expanded, in relation to the rituals themselves, I see no reason for it to remain. I have noted JAS about this discussion (and also at whatever "Masonic ritual" is now called) and would prefer some agreement before things get radically changed/removed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ther should be no implication or interpretation - Masonic ritual is not "the various rituals that Freemasons practice during their meetings. That statement makes no sense, and isn't even referred to in the article. "Practicing of rituals" is an obvious attempt to make a religious ceremonial parallel, and Masonry does not self-identify as a religious group, period. Tax records do not give it a religious exemption, so the government does not consider it a religious organization either. MSJapan (talk) 21:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think there is some confusion over the meaning of ritual. Mostly it is taken to mean a solemn procedure (or arrangement of events) with religious overtones, or the "superstitious practices" found within cultures, or simply a series of events that are regularly practiced within informal or formal groups. What type of ritual are we talking about? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to say, couldn't this be added to the article talk page? JASpencer (talk) 21:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I have raised that question there; is there any likelihood of others getting involved, or should we keep this here and not have it in the article talk history? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to answer the interactions portion of the question - my interaction concerns are indicated by the tone of New Welcome Lodge and its obvious conspiracy intent, and behavior with respect to not only that artilce but also the recent Grand Lodge AfDs (with blatant statements of bias on my part with no proof of either that or of the notability of the subject), and then spurious claims of what makes either of the aforementioned topic areas notable ("Intrinsic notability" for Grand Lodges, and "well, the Prince of Wales can't be interested in all Lodges, can he?" for New Welcome - there is no policy support for either of these assertions). The sources JAS uses simply do not support the claims made, and many times he tries to create notability through bluelinking, not through sources, and has created a triple redirect in order to link every instance of Masonic ritual or ceremony to his new article. There is a clear pattern he follows, and when he gets caught, he blames bias rather than poor article quality, and then recreates deleted articles as spurious redirects. MSJapan (talk) 21:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I will take a look re the first points. What recreated redirects of deleted articles? nb. It's getting late here, and I will look into all this and come back tomorrow. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

He's probably talking about Grand Orient de Suisse (redirected to Continental Freemasonry - Europe), Grand Orient du Congo (redirected to Continental Freemasonry - Africa) and John Salza (redirected to WEWN, the radio station on which he's a host). I don't think these are spurious. JASpencer (talk) 21:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, I have concerns with the first of those (and I haven't looked at the others) - but as mentioned I will look into all of them with fresh eyes tommorrow, and I want to be sure that my concerns are valid. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If there are concerns then please let me know. Is there a policy that once an AfD has been passed it can't be revisited? JASpencer (talk) 22:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

My concerns are summed up in my query at WT:AfD#clarification re redirects. I do not see any reason why content that had been deemed non-notable should be largely re-added back into the article when it is a redirect, as happened with Grand Orient de Suisse and Grand Orient du Congo. I only noticed it when opening up the redirect history to get to the AfD discussion. If the content was needed to be kept for future reference, it could have been userfied - when it would remain in that history, easily accessible. I have asked if there is any relevant policy regarding the redirect content history at WT:AfD, and will see what they say. Your comments would be appreciated. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

To reply to a question that Less had earlier... what do we mean by "ritual" in a Masonic context? You come closest with "simply a series of events that are regularly practiced within informal or formal groups". Essentially the ritual is a scripted play, with "opening the lodge", "conducting business", "initiating candidates" and "closing the lodge" as the scenes within that play. However, because Freemasons take the lessons that are presented in that play seriously, it does have shades of the first meaning... at least in part. It is in some respects "a solemn procedure (or arrangement of events)" but without the religious overtones. Blueboar (talk) 12:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Redirects and edit histories

There has been a response at WT:AfD, and it looks as if the effected redirects will need to be deleted/undeleted. Other than the two mentioned above, are there any more that need looking at (and do any contain material that would be wanted userfied)? A concern that I didn't comment on at AfD, is that the Grande Orient de Suisse edit history "starts" with MSJapan placing an A7 speedy on the content... where is the edit history of that content? If it is caught within another redirect (and please don't let that be an AfD delete as well. Thinking about it, it would better be a delete than a merge - because I am better with the axe than the needle and thread) then I am going to have to look at the edit history of that as well... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the subheading is an accurate summary of the discussion you linked to. The question raised was about putting in the previous article into the history of the redirect (and I admit I was wrong) and not about the idea of putting in redirects where there is a deleted article. By the way there are no more cases such as this. I'm not sure what the point is about the redirects, User:Pvosta may be able to help. JASpencer (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Um... Okay, I trust the rename is good for you?

My point, as far as the redirects go, is that GFDL is one of those areas I really don't do much work in, since it goes beyond my "free and easy" competence - and if I started getting involved then the pitiful article work I do these days will suffer (perhaps no loss to the community, but I like to read the stuff I copy edit!) I looked into the three examples given by you, and I got worried about the content "re-added" (admittedly for the wrong reasons - I thought it "not on" to put deleted material back into the history, because it had been decided as inappropriate already, rather than the GFDL matter) on two of them - the last has no content other than the redirect and has never been deleted.

Are you able to help regarding Grande Orient de Suisse? I wish to be able to find the older edit history. Again, the clock is winning so I will have to resume this tomorrow. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

(To LHvU) Yes, the title's much better, thank you. Sorry for the touchiness. I have not found any alternative titles. User:Pvosta was the original poster. JASpencer (talk) 22:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see the need for keeping the redirects at all - redirects imply content at the target, and there is none of value. Is it fair to say that the consensus is that stashing deleted page content within page revisions is behavior that is to be discouraged? MSJapan (talk) 22:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

"I fail to see the need for keeping the redirects at all" - because they may have failed the AfD but they are still search terms. It is the topic not the previous content that is being reflected. JASpencer (talk) 22:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)"Redirects are cheap" is a phrase that is often bandied about, and not everyone knows the correct name of the article so every bit of help is useful (is there a redirect of Der Der Der, Du-Der der Der-Der to Smoke on the Water? and if not, why not?). It appears, however, that having the redirect history contain deleted content is inappropriate, so I will be deleting it again in due course. Do you know anything about Grande Orient de Suisse, as you tagged it A7 speedy? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted/undeleted the two Grand(e) Lodge articles back to a basic redirect. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

(tangential statement) BTW, the reason that redirect doesn't exist (besides the fact that onomatopoeia is different in every language) is because the pattern is wrong. You missed the middle of the phrase, and it's actually "Der der der, der der da-der, der der der da-der". The first two portions ("Der der der, der der da-der") would probably be legit as a redir to Beavis and Butthead, believe it or not. MSJapan (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I bow to your acknowledged expertise in this matter, as well as the fact I prefered the stuff that started Tang-tang, Tung-tung, ting-ting, Tung-tung... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability, and "redirects do not need to comply to NPOV"

I speedied it because I was unable to find anything notable about it, and the initial page was a dicdef-style definition of "A is B part of C". It's not the only Grand Lodge in Switzerland, and every hit I get on it not on its own page merely confirms that it exists as far as a webpage goes. Its own webpage doesn't assert notability; it only has 18 lodges in its jurisdiction (not 20 as, and a cursory scan of the schedules of those constituent lodges doesn't show anything notable. It publishes a magazine three times a year, which is also not a rarity for a grand body anywhere. Its founding principles are no different than those of any other grand body in its branch, which should be discussed in the main article on Continental Freemasonry. Redirects may be cheap, but when you need to know French or German to glean any information about the group, there's a tangential relation to WP:NONENG, especially when the accuracy of the translations used to generate the article is questionable - various "missing words" edit summaries indicate that pages are being fed through Babelfish and are then pasted in directly to articles, and they're obviously not being looked at to even correct grammar until a later pass-through (if it occurs). The translated material has turned out wrong on at least two articles so far, and so the motivation to pursue these topics as informational escapes me - what good is an article that's wrong and cannot easily be corrected? From a technical standpoint, this material propagates through WP mirrors in less than five minutes after creation - that simply exacerbates the spread of bad info. MSJapan (talk) 02:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

One of those bad info articles is Grande Loge Suisse Alpina, which also looks like a c/p job - the second source is dated as 7/19/07 for apparent access, over a year before the article was created this time around. The GL of Venezuela article with the ridiculously long name was another one with incorrect info. MSJapan (talk) 02:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• The nutshell at WP:Notability says; The Grande Loge Suisse Alpina, as is, does not establish notability. However, there is no point in going for AfD if it is going to then become a redirect should it be deleted; I would propose that it be changed to a direct immediately, this way the edit history remains (as there are no GFDL concerns) and it can be restored as a stub article should a reliable source be located. (It also means that anyone searching for GLSA will not be tempted to start a new article, if it is deleted and not made into a redirect). It is also noted at WP:Redirect that NPOV does not apply to redirects, so the "suitability" of an article does not impact upon it as a redirect; therefore the basis that GLSA is not "proper" is not relevant, it is a simple search parameter. I suggest that any other such article with these concerns be treated in the same manner, so they can be quickly listed as redirects with histories intact, as can any future creation of Lodge stubs - with history that otherwise complies with WP policy - pending location of reliable sources. Regarding the existing articles, is it possible to provide a list of "notability queried" articles for changing to redirect? Any article that is challenged should be taken to AfD, with redirect as the desired outcome. Would this proposal satisfy all parties, or should I request a wider forum (WP:AN) for input? LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

My concern here is that it will create a precedent for "if I can't prove it's notable per policy, but that it exists, I can make a redirect for it," though that does not appear to be a purpose of redirects as noted at redirect puposes or the reasoning employed on redirecting for non-existent pages (they both imply the point is to allow for later creation, not to prevent it), so I'd prefer a wider consensus on the issue. In this case, also, the recreations were done tendentiously without location of sources, and also involved misuse of DRV.

If the idea here is rather to prevent article creation without sources, prior deletion notices appear on deleted pages for that same purpose, and they more solidly show that an article should not have been recreated. A redirect can simply be undone at will, and there's no real recourse to say it should not have been undone. I also think it goes against the consensuses reached in the various AfDs - many were overwhelmingly delete with no suggestion of a redirect or merge, and I think to do otherwise sets a different precedent that "if my article gets AfDed, I can just make it a redirect", with the implication that it can be recreated later despite the AfD outcome indicating deletion. Because this will again cause wider policy concerns, I would like wider consensus from the community on the course of action. I can provide a list of articles, though. MSJapan (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy enough for a wider consensus; although it is understood that as WP policy is descriptive rather than prescriptive it wouldn't hurt to consider that redirect might be a legitimate outcome at an AfD (which would carry such a notice). I was considering turning the contended stub/non-notable articles into redirects as a middle way to please both parties, but I see your point in having redirects undone (per AGF, innocently) and using the disputed content as the basis of the new article (we can discuss ways to warn people about this?). I would wait upon JAS' response before looking to agree a way forward. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with MSJ's description of the concensus. The concensus was that within the articles there was no proof of notability. But that is not the same as proof of no notability. This is a terribly important point.

If AfDs that were decided on notability had to meet the second test then they would be almost impossible to get through.

JASpencer (talk) 19:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD's have a five day minimum period (exception for WP:SNOW) so that concerns such as sources/indication of notability can be addressed. It is not unreasonable to consider that a decision of "delete: non-notable" generally means that it is unlikely that notability can be presently be provided - but not notability will never be determined. For the purposes of the encyclopedia, "non-notable" means just that until evidence is found to the contrary. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

But that can hardly be a reason for throwing around accusations of "tendentious" redirects. JASpencer (talk) 21:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

IMO, it's an opinion rather than an accusation. However, I am seeing this as something of a dispute under the lines of "inclusionist"/"deletionist" - but specifically involving (aspects of) Freemasonry. I have been doing some little back reading, and I am seeing some entrenched positions and not the most civil (or good faith) tone from both sides. I had hoped that there might be a compromise, such as creating redirects rather than stubs that would be AfD'd (I saw MSJ's valid concern, but hoped there might have been an "understanding" over it), and that I might broker a deal that allowed both of you - I have seen both BlueBoar and Dwain involved, but consider you the two main protagonists - to get much of what you wanted. I am now of the opinion that perhaps a formal avenue of dispute resolution be tried, if matters are not progressed over the next few days. Complaints about the others tone or choice of language is not going to get anything resolved. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right there has been a history, although it's more than simply mutual exasperation. On the main idea to sort the issue out I may be slow but the usual behaviour with stubs with unclear notability has been to put notability tags, and if the assertions of notability are not backed up to put citation requests in. Only after this does the AfD or Prod tend to come in. I then see a different, more aggressive, deletionism practiced and advocated against essentially harmless articles. What's the gain for Wikipedia to delete these articles? This is why I'm worried on the redirects. As soon as they are AfD'd won't the argument be that they are simply un-notable subjects rather than subjects that haven't produced any notability. JASpencer (talk) 23:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between non-notable, the language that WP uses, and un-notable; non-notable indicates that notability cannot currently be established through reasonable research, un-notable takes the unreasonable view that notability can never be established whatever research is conducted - and nobody can ever say that that is going to be the case for all time. All that WP requires is that the subject is notable, and there is a third party source referencing that notability (WP requires it to be verifiable rather than verified), and that notability is indicated at the creation of the article. The list of "intrinsically" notable subjects are quite small (places of human habitation... and...?) and I cannot recall any type of organisation that criteria applies to. WP:GNG clarifies the expected minimum to maintain an article. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) A stub should have some possibility of expansion. A point to note is that Blueboar for one feels that JAS creates stubs that cannot be expanded (or, perhaps more correctly, that he never bothers to work on ever again), and then links them all over the place to have some sort of superficial notability. I think this speaks again to editing behavior - if an article is to be created in good faith by anyone, the creator need to consider first whether or not it is something that will conform to policy, rather than just puppeting the same info listed on one website and trying to make it look like it conforms to policy. MSJapan (talk) 03:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

As I have pointed out to JAS above, the primary requirement is notability which can be sourced. Some articles may never grow further than a stub, since other than the notability there is nothing else to add. This is fine, since it serves an encyclopedic purpose. I can only refer again to the notability nutshell at the start of this section that I copied over; if an article satisfies that criteria, it stays - if not, then we have to decide what should happen to the information. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

List of queried articles

Here's the list. It has everything I have queried with its outcome, as well as what I would like queried. I also added articles that may have been queried and deleted, but the edit would have been deleted from my contribs, the deletion history was wiped out by the redirect creation, and i don't remember offhand what actually happened.

Articles that were queried and found nn

Recreated as redirects:

• John Salza - prod or CSD, AfD
• Grand Orient de Suisse - prod or CSD, AfD
• Grand Orient du Congo - CSD
• Gran Logia Valle de México - CSD

All of these had their deletion history removed by the redirect overlay.

Articles that were queried and found notable

For completion's sake, the following articles were queried, and were found notable because the article content was found to be incorrect during the course of the AfD; the articles both claimed the body in question is part of the GodF tradition (the CSDs and later AfDs were for lack of attestation of this). It turned out they were in fact UGLE, and had sources once they could be found. Details of the issues are in the relevant AfDs.

• Gran Logia de la Republica de Venezuela
• Grand Orient of the Netherlands

Should be queried for redirect, deletion, or merge

• Grande Loge Suisse Alpina - Bad use of sources and possible undue weight. The sources used only establish existence, and Gould's History of Freemasonry was mis-cited (I fixed it); Kessinger reprints old books, not new ones (again, why one needs to know the provenance of sources in the topic area), and there's a big difference to notability in saying GLSA was mentioned in a book in 2003 as opposed to 1911. I have the volume in question stored someplace, I think, and I would bet that there's only a paragraph on the group in the whole volume.
  • Action required: PROD or AfD re notability, or redirct. LHvU
    • Why is there a big difference in notability in 1911 and 2003? Once notable, always notable. Anyway why not simply have a "Freemasonry in Switzerland" article as then pre-GL history (such as Coustos) and the anti-Masonic movement of the 1930s can be discussed as well as talking about any other jurisdictions. It could act as a launch pad when sections get big enough for other articls and it would be hard to deny that this is notable. JASpencer (talk) 06:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Much the same as why Encyclopedia Brittanica 1911 edition (which is copyright expired) is not always the best guide for notability; an over emphasis on Western Culture and Victorian values may not mean it is as reliable as the current edition. Notability is indeed supposed to be permanent, but sources providing evidence can be open to interpretation. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
        • How does that work? If there are a number of sources independent of the subject, etc, how does it matter when or where the sources where from? JASpencer (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
          • Think "Geography of the Earth"; how much weight do we give to the Bible (and other religious works) against something published in the last 25 years? Geography is notable, the Bible is notable, the Bible comments how the geography of the Earth came to be, thus it is clearly a good source and reliable source... Nope. That a group of educated gentlemen, who may well have had Masonry affiliations themselves, born in the 19th Century should consider a Grande Lodge notable is not necessarily an indication of a current understanding of lasting notability. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
            • Still can't get it. This seems to be presentism on a massive scale. JASpencer (talk) 23:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
• Masonic ritual and symbolism - supposedly notable, but has not been worked on to add new information not already in the main article, nor has it had correct information added, despite vehement claims of notability and necessity. There's a triple redirect buried in here as well that needs to be cleaned out.
  • Action required: Notability template, AfD if not resolved in reasonable time. (Ask for help re triple redirects - beyond my competence) LHvU
    • RfDed the plural Masonic rituals and redirected the articles using it to the singular Masonic ritual (with s tacked on), which will un-nest that mess. MSJapan (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
• Großorient von Österreich - 14 months with no expansion; 5 lodges in jurisdiction.
  • Action required: PROD/AfD if notability not established in reasonable time. LHvU
    • Again, what about Freemasonry in Austria? This would be especially useful when there was the stop starting of lodges being set up and suppressed? JASpencer (talk) 06:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
• Darkness Visible (Hannah book) or Walton Hannah - My merge when the book article was one line was undone, and now the book article is longer than the bio article. There's nothing to indicate the notability of either the author or the book other than the existence of both articles. The book article should be redirected to the bio article to fill it out.
  • Action required: Merge Author to Book, bio details give background. LHvU
    • I don't think a merge is a good idea. This book is probably the most influential "mainstream" Protestant critique of Freemasonry, at least of the twentieth century. It may be ironic that Hannah later became a Catholic priest, but his work is cited by a number of religious bodies on their worries about the compatability of Freemasonry with mainstream Christianity, this includes both the Catholic bishop's conference of the United States and the General Synod of the Church of England. I've put this into the article. I'd also suggest that a notability tag would have been better on the old article rather than a merge. JASpencer (talk) 09:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
      • The book is notable, and likely more notable than the author. By keeping the book article and merging in the authors bio details you get the basis on who wrote the book within the more notable subject. Other than the book, what is the authors claim to notability. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Hannah was more then his book. He started the first debate in the Church of England on the compatability of Freemasonry (before Darkness Visible) and after that published Christian by degrees and left both England and the Anglican Church to become a Roman Catholic priest in Canada. JASpencer (talk) 17:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
• Gran Logia Mixta de Puerto Rico - possibly CSDed, don't remember, history covered by redurect creation.
  • Action required: None - plain redirect. LHvU
    • Not CSD'd as far as I'm aware, just created from CLIPSAS page. (Same with Camaroun) JASpencer (talk) 06:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
• Grand Lodge of the Valley of Mexico - English language redirect of Gran Logia Valle de México, which was CSDed.
  • Action required: None - plain redirect. LHvU
• Grands Orient & Loge Unis du Cameroun - redirects to an article that contains no info related to it; may have been previously CSDed.
  • Action required: None - plain redirect. LHvU
• Grand Lodge of Denmark - CSD removed; decided to leave nn tag to see what would happen, and nothing did other than finding one of the two sources dead.
  • Action required: PROD/AfD to redirect (where?) LHvU
    • Again a "Freemasonry in x" (probably Denmark, but could start off on a regional basis) could work here. JASpencer (talk) 06:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
• Regular Grand Lodge of Belgium, Grand Lodge of Belgium, Grand Orient of Belgium - essentially three articles about Grand Lodges created for the same purpose of recognition at different times. The reason is notable, the groups aren't. Better to make a Freemasonry in Belgium article out of them.
  • Action required: Yes these three could be merged, giving a cohesive history. I suggest that the below article could be included too. LHvU
    • No objection to the common article, but the Grand Orient of Belgium is far bigger and historically more important than the other two bodies, and it is quite likely that it will get its own article quite quickly (especially as a member of the group posts as User:Pvosta). JASpencer (talk) 09:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
      • As I am interested in (masonic) history and there is quite a bit of documentation available I have added the requested source information which is readily available about the Grand Orient of Belgium. You do not need to bee a freemason to find these sources, I have all my information out of the public domain. It seems though, that there is very little public literature about Continental freemasonry in the Anglo-Saxon world? I wonder if there are any continental style freemasons making contributions to Wikipedia or only general history enthusiasts?Pvosta (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
• Women's Grand Lodge Of Belgium - there's a title typo anyway, but this article has had nothing substantial added to it since April of 2007 when it was created. Redirect to Women and Freemasonry, maybe.
  • Action required: Fix typo, merge content into "Freemasonry in Belgium" article in seperate section since women/Freemasonry is likely notable (clear link to Women and Freemasonry) LHvU
    • See User:MSJapan/Freemasonry in Belgium for new version of article. MSJapan (talk) 20:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

As the article has everything but its cats (because I don't like cats pointing to user pages), can I move it into article space and redirect the other articles? MSJapan (talk) 20:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure. BTW, nobody needs my permission to do stuff - it is just more useful to centralise debate and get the views first before plonking it in mainspace and having piecemeal discussions after the event. Once someone is happy with stuff, just do it (and make a note if you want to ensure that everyone knows). Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a neutral staging area, and it leaves a record on a page I shouldn't normally be making changes to after the fact. MSJapan (talk) 21:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be another article, Belgian Federation of Le Droit Humain, that might be usefully merged into the Freemasonry in Belgium article. I am going to speak to the originating editor. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I don't really want to merge this in - AFAICT from the statement of degree structure, this is the Co-Masonic equivalent of the Scottish Rite, and as such is administered differently and may have a totally different relationship (or none at all) with the other liberal groups (for example, the US page says they cover Craft, York, and Scottish Rites, which means they function as an independent entity unto themselves). The same problem arises in the mainstream versions, so we handle the various rites independently. for that reason, and also because this is a national instance of an international group, I would rather we redir this to the main Le Droit Humain article than to the Freemasonry in Belgium article, where we would need to qualify too many statements. MSJapan (talk) 15:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks like I got into a Rite mess here... This my major problem, in that my base in WP policies has to be measured against my ignorance of the subject. I would say that the article is "Freemasonry in Belgium", but subdividing the various lodges into the appropriate rite would only make sense if there were many lodges which could be divided into two or more rites. Or, in short, "Okay!" LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Grand Lodge of Kansas - Awful. Can be recreated when information is available.
  • Action required: PROD/AfD, to redirect. LHvU
• Masonic Order of Liberia - largely uncited, and the main source is of questionable validity - an established and reputable company should not be using pop-under classmates.com and online degree ads.
  • Action required: Possibly the most complex here; needs third party references, but appears notable in that it appears influential in Liberian politics. As regards the source - a country that is as poor yet commercial orientated as Liberia would indicate this is fairly usual. LHvU
    

MSJapan (talk) 04:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I have placed my suggestions (ignore the language) under each example - and if JAS or anyone else has other suggestions, queries or whatever, please can they follow that process. I would point out again that redirects should simply be regarded as search parameters, and that no authority is conferred by their use (the notability resides in the article directed to, only). Having a full and proper title of a Lodge redirecting to an umbrella article confers the same "prestige" as a mis-spelling of the umbrella article. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

General comments.

I would suggest a compromise as being geographic articles rather than organisational articles. Freemasonry in Latin America is clearly notable and so Grand Lodge/Orient articles can redirect to there until more information is found for the Grand Lodge (if it ever is). It would also have the beneficial effect of being able to talk about other aspects - particularly the anti-Masonic campaigns which are harder to show the relevance on articles about the Grand Orient de France. There has been a concern expressed by Blueboar that this would be a magnet for conspiracy theorists, but I disagree as most anti-Freemasons tend to be concerned about their own area. Anyway if it is a target for conspiracy theorists, who do you want dominating the Google rankings on "Freemasonry in Latin America"? Wikipedia or freemasonrywatch? (This is why I think the general deletionism is so self-defeating, but it's another argument for another time).

It's good to see the point about redirects being made clearly, and I hope that it puts the whole argument to bed.

There is one question about the datelessness of notability (Switzerland) and a quibble about the Grand Orient of Belgium's relative notability. These are in specific sections.

The only area where I strongly disagree (not counting the geographic vs organisational point) is the Hannah book. Again I've put my concerns under this area, although I accept that the older article did not assert notability. That has changed.

JASpencer (talk) 09:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Whoops... re: Freemasonry in Belgium

I moved the Freemasonry in Belgium article talk page to the article space instead of the article. Can you undo the move, restore my last edit to the talk page (I thought rollback would undo the move), and make sure the talk gets to the talk, and the article gets to the article? MSJapan (talk) 21:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. I fixed a few stray wls, and I'll go and add the other redirects now. MSJapan (talk) 22:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I hadn't asked you to do that. MSJapan (talk) 22:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Grand Orient of Belgium

Hi, I have added several sources which changes the basis for merging the articles as the reason for merging was lack of notability proof.Pvosta (talk) 17:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I see it notes the existence, but is short on what makes it different from any other Grande Lodge under those jurisdictions (excuse the lack of familiarity with the technical terms, I'm picking this up as I go along) or others. We may as well have articles on every Scout Troop, since they all have their local "flavour" and tradition and are a fairly modern Western phenomena with examples all over the world - and are organised into areas, and the suchlike. They also have their repertoire of signals and forms of recognition, have codes of conduct, etc. but you would be hard pressed to justify the creation of an article for each (and there is a plethora of references to Scouting compared to Freemasonry). LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

A diff of interest....

Yet another unsubstantiated allegation which more or less undermines this entire process we've been going through: [1] . MSJapan (talk) 20:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You've got the wrong talk page, this is LessHeard vanU's. Mine is at the end of my signature. If you want me to substantiate this then please ask. JASpencer (talk) 20:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think MSJ is referring to the comment about UGLE's (or whatever) relationship with other continental disciplines - is there any reference (third pary reliable source) for such a comment? Is there one on Wikipedia? If it is an opinion, even if it is held by others as well as yourself (and especially if it is denied by others), it should not form the basis of any "discussion". It goes against WP:AGF and makes for a bad working atmosphere. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

[2] "One of the other reasons we don't have GodF in there (aside from a reference) is because irregular Freemasonry in general (at least in English-speaking countries) is messy (and a bit shifty, IMHO) - if a few guys get mad at their GL and go off and start a new one, they try to get the URL into the articles as "regular" when in fact going there will get a regular Mason suspended, and many times it's only a few people who ever run these things". There are other references from a number of editors, but I don't have time or frankly the appetite for snitching. Continental Freemasonry is "irregular", "shifty" and sometimes (often?) "a few guys get mad at their GL and go off and start a new one". This is not accurate (Italy, Portugal, France, Belgium, Latin America and Spain show that Contintal Freemasonry has had plenty of political influence albeit massively diminished) and a very insensitive thing to put on the talk board of one of these members if an "irregular" and "shifty" lodge. Snitch over. JASpencer (talk) 21:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"Irregular" does not mean only "Continental" in all cases (nice assumption, though), which I indicated at the time (I used "irregular" when I meant irregular, and Continental when I meant continental). As this still does not provide a notice for position, here's a few outside indicators of the position on "bogus Masonry", and the problems it presents, and particularly on RGLE which is precisely what I was thinking of at the time I wrote the comment.

Nevertheless, none of this implies an institutional bias, nor is it proof of bias against anything but fakes, and there is no instance in which I have invoked that opinion as the basis for discussion without proof. I'm not going to let a pyramid scheme become notable (and therefore "legitimate") because it gets a Wikipedia entry on the basis of existence. Moreover, as PVosta didn't complain, I assume he read my entire comment and not just the portions excised out of context here from a comment 17 months ago. MSJapan (talk) 22:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Err, you were talking about the Grand Orient de France and related jurisdictions in that post. The RGLE was not mentioned once. You were talking to someone who was under the GOB and who had constantly tried to edit articles on Continental Freemasonry and not RGLE-style bodies - as even I grasped. Your actions, whether intended or not, in my opinion were a large part in driving him off or at least lowering his contribution rate, as it did (but to a lesser extent) with Liberal Freemason. As we do not have many who belong to this type of freemasonry, due to the language issue, this has been Wikipedia's loss. I'm no fan of Continental Freemasonry as should be obvious to anyone familiar with this, but it is notable and it should be included and we should watch for our systematic bias. JASpencer (talk) 22:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You claimed institutional bias by UGLE masons towards Continental Freemasonry, and now all of a sudden it's a simple case of systemic bias on Wikipedia, and a bunch of assumptions about what drives other users' contribution rates?

However, if you want to go that route, Pvosta's articles sat for eight months or more without him working on them at all - I wasn't watching them or contributing to them. He had plenty of opportunities, because he was still contributing elsewhere on WP, where he also has a history of "one-edit-and-done" articles (check his contribs for the Ns). Don't attempt to blame lack of followthrough by others on me. As for Liberal, he emailed me research material for something, and he was contributing from 2006-2008, so that's not even a supportable claim. Next? MSJapan (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The basic problmen IMHO is the lack of good references to Continental Style Freemasonry in English and the lack of editors who can therefore create and write well-founded (with reliable 3rd party sources and references) articles. You cannot blame English-speaking editors from not contributing to articles for which they have no reliable sources, which is in my experience a more important factor than bias towards UGLE-style freemasonry. As far as I can see, there seem to be a lot more UGLE-style freemasons willing to write English articles. Out of general historical interest I started creating several articles about Belgian and Continental Style Freemasonry (it is part of our history), but soon noticed that the stubs were not being expanded (how could it be with the state of avaialable sources). Quite a few of the articles I wrote about Lodges have been deleted, but as it is to the contributing editor(s) to provide decent sources and references, I cannot object to this (although it is an unpleasant experience). When Continental Style Freemasons want articles on Wikipedia they have to write them according to the rules (provide sources), but up to now most articles are written by outsiders out of general historical interest. As a final remark, I have had discussions with MSJapan, but looking back he has always done his work for the benefit of the quality of the articles on Freemasonry on Wikipedia.Pvosta (talk) 06:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

On the lack of good references, the references don't need to be in the English language - they need to be publicly available. It's in practice more work to bring in a non-English language reference (as it is probably best to have the relevant sentence or paragraph quoted and translated) but it certainly is not impossible. I would be glad to help and advise you on this. If you say that MSJ has not shown any animosity towards you then I'm happy to take you on your word, even if I am still rather bemused at the words that I quoted above. JASpencer (talk) 22:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

While references need not be in English, they need to be properly understood - and this coming from someone who has difficulty understanding the English language sources! Translation is one thing, but interpretation is another. In that Masonic ritual, being described either by discipline or Lodge, is sometimes not familiar to even other jurisdictions (please don't correct me on my use of terminology:- the illusion of flying is maintained by an overwhelming practice of merely flapping) in the same language group, the use of non-English references needs to be used sparingly and with much consideration. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but that shouldn't be an excuse to say "this is not mentioned much in English and so so is not notable". The reasoning is obviously tosh when stated like that but could become less obvious when in month 1 you (or someone unconnected) removes all foreign language references as they should be understood, etc and in month 2 the article is put up for deletion because the lack of sources indicates lack of notability. I must stress I haven't seen this done (at least the month 1 bit) but we are losing a lot of articles in this area, including the Grand Orient of Belgium due to the lack of English language sources. Seriously the GOB is a massively important grand lodge in the whole Continental v Anglo masonic fight, third to only France and Italy (and the first to break from the English). JASpencer (talk) 20:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I said, "...sparingly and with much consideration" since that is my understanding of how WP:VERIFY#Non English sources relates it. If there are no English language sources of equal standing, then having another language source is fine - you just have to be pretty exact in ensuring what is quoted in the article is what the text says. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I see another fundamental item here that needs to be resolved. There is no "fight" as JAS sees it - Masonry isn't like separatist churches, where somebody has to be "right". I'm not sure that you noticed, but many of therse newer bodies, despite claims to want to "co-exist", are endlessly saying "UGLE is wrong/outdated/in decline" etc, and attacking the institution they don't agree with (because they and they alone have to be right - see my previous point). Nobody in the Anglo groups care, and the smaller groups create the "fight" to justify their existence. I can say this because there has never been any official statement by any Grand Lodge other than to clarify issues of recognition with these bodies, and there certainly would not be any official correspondence. So, what exactly is this whole "fight" idea predicated on other than the claims of individuals acting officially (Past GMs and Secretaries and such on websites) against individuals acting unofficially (your average Mason with an opinion and a Net connection)? In short, you're positing an institutional-level issue that doesn't exist at that level. What an individual says about Freemasonry may have a meaning to other individuals, but it means nothing in any official sense unless the individual is a Grand Master speaking as such, and even, then, it only affects the Masons in his jurisdiction. Every book on Masonry goes ot great lengths to say that "no one man speaks for Freemasonry" (as a whole). So, why should a group feel threatened by remarks made by an individual when those remarks don't (and can't) really affect them in any way unless they choose to be affected? MSJapan (talk) 21:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It is always difficult to prove an absence. Whatever the situation between UGLE and other non-UGLE adherents (for want of a better term), unless there are reliable third party sources noting such relationships then it isn't something that needs commenting upon. A groups motivation in establishing itself independently of a previous authority/grouping is only of interest to that group, and may not bear relevance to the other group - but I can only repeat it should be noted in WP where it is referred to by a reliable third party. (An analogy may be the Socialist Labour Party in the UK - the split from the Labour Party was a matter internal to the SLP, and has no place in the Labour Party article.]] LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps I should mention that, under the GFDL license, I fully intend to publish these conversations as an "explosive exploration of modern day Freemasonry" (once the nudie scenes of various Hammer House of Horror films are available upon expiry of copyright so I may mislead the general public in thinking the images relate to the content) and so finance my declining years to the manner in which I wish to become accustomed? Hmmmm... Perhaps I should keep it a secret for a while longer... LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

User JASpencer

Less... I know that you have mediated between MSJapan and JASpecer in the past... Perhaps you would help me out in my own dispute with JAS. It concerns another case of JAS jumping the gun as far as redirects go... to be specific: I have been attempting to deal with an article on yet another non-notable Masonic Grand Orient (Grand Orient of the United States of America). Based on the fact that, as soon as such an article is deleted at AfD, JAS will create a redirect to his Continental Freemasonry article, I attempted to skip the AfD step and suggested that we simply reach a consensus to redirect. It took some discussion, and a side debate or two... but all the editors working on the page finally agreed to do this. Almost immediately, however, JAS re-redirected the information into a sub-article on Continental Freemasonry in North America. I find this to be extremely bad faith, as this was not the consensus at the GOUSA article. More to the point, I have made it clear to JASpencer on several occasions that I was strongly oppose the creation of any "Continental Freemasonry in x" article. I think that such articles violate NPOV by only discussing one branch of Freemasonry without discussing the other. As I have told JAS on numerous occasions, I do support broader "Freemasonry in x" articles provided that they discuss both "Mainstream" and "Continental" branches of Freemasonry in any given region.

On a lesser note, more connected with MSJ's previous complaints about impropper redirects ... JASpencer recently pre-emptively redirected the names of two websites to the main Freemasonry article. I have to question this... one of the names, "masonicinfo.com", is the website of a noted masonic appologist (this website was recently the topic of discussion in the GOUSA article I mention above, and was deemed to be unreliable as it is self-published)... the other is "Freemasonrywatch.com", an anti-masonic rant website that has actually been banned on Wikipedia for spamming. I seriously doubt that anyone would actually search for either of these website names on Wikipedia... but if they did, is it really appropriate to redirect them to Freemasonry? I would think it more appropriate to have a "no article" result. Blueboar (talk) 00:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, give me the name of the two redirects and I will delete them; if they have been considered unreliable and especially one a spamsite then they have no place in the encyclopedia (in this instance, a redirect may be considered as providing a legitimacy they would not otherwise have). Secondly, and the first matters mentioned, is that WP:Consensus over-rides WP:BOLD. I would suggest that the redirect be as per consensus. As far as redirecting to Continental Freemasonry articles, as the article(s) exist(s) then it appears to be the logical place for them. If there is any problem with the provenance of the "Continental Freemasonry in X" articles then it would be a question of arguing for a merge into the relevant existing Freemasonry articles that cover those areas; Simply, it would be more encyclopedic to have one article covering Freemasonry in an area, which has content relating to all kinds of disciplines. If that were the case, then all redirects would point to that umbrella article. I trust this helps. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it helps, thanks. The "articles" that were redirected are: Freemasonrywatch.org and Masonicinfo.com. Blueboar (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Just as a matter of record I agreed for the article to be merged/renamed to Continental Freemasonry in North America not to be redirected. It was then simply redirected. I assumed good faith and thought that this was an invitation to start the article up.

Didn't realise about spamsites policy, I'll have to read up on it. Do you have a link for the policy on this as I read WP:REDIRECT when MSJ tried to argue against redirects for deleted articles (and just re-read it now) but I didn't see anything about adding legitimacy to WP:BADSITES.

JASpencer (talk) 19:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:SPAM is the page, but the wording is ambiguous - however, it is clear that spam is not wanted (only legitimate sources referred to in the text are generally permitted) and having a spamsite as a searchable name defeats that. I shall delete the redirects. As regards the redirect, if it could be taken back to the consensus state then there is no further action needed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

So you're deleting as an A7? I thought speedy's were narrowly defined. You live and learn. JASpencer (talk) 17:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The subject of the masonicinfo.com deletion was brought up on Blueboar's user page. I know it's a novel approach but I think that you should be told if I talk about you on other people's user pages. JASpencer (talk) 19:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Both items were WP:SPAM in my opinion; an item does not have to be blacklisted to be spam. The sites are non-notable and do not otherwise meet WP criteria by themselves. Moreover, anyone searching WP under those search parameters and being directed to Freemasonry would possibly be given the incorrect impression that those terms were legitimate subjects in that regard. Therefore I deleted as WP:CSD#A7, noting - since they were redirects - that they were SPAM per the target article. If you want to argue the technicalities, then take it to WP:DRV.

Also, and although it is very likely my poor communication skills rather than intent, there is a possibility that the tone of your last couple of remarks might be interpreted as not conveying an appreciation of good faith. I would suggest that it might be unfortunate if other readers also made the same mistake when interpreting those comments, so it may be helpful if you could review your language choices before pressing "Save page". LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Less, would you please explain a bit more about why you think masonicinfo.com does not pass WP:SPAM, and what that means? We cite to it a fair amount in all the various Freemasonry articles, and it would be a real headache to find new citations. I can understand limiting it as being a self-published site (and thus unreliable in many situations), but am not clear on WP:SPAM. Blueboar (talk) 20:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It is the circumstances of the redirect rather than a general evocation of WP:SPAM, and the fact that it is a non-notable subject of itself being redirected to a clearly notable article; the only analogy I can quickly think up would be placing a link to the Anti Nazi League website (without context) on every article relating to historical Fascism - no matter that in this case it is a notable organisation, it would still be spamming if it was used out of correct context. However, it would be appropriate to link to the website if that is the source of information about the historical article subject. In this way a website can both be considered spam and a legitimate source.

The difference in this case is that the websites are non-notable (there being no likely independent sources for verification purposes) and being used in such a way to possibly generate interest in themselves by their relationship to the article i.e. self advertising. To continue to use them as sources elsewhere in an appropriate context, however, is fine since the relationship is properly defined.

I hope this helps. It may be a good time to remind people that Admins are editors who are trusted to use certain tools on the basis that their judgement is considered reasonable but not necessarily perfect/correct and based in good faith; sometimes it may be that a situation may not be resolved in exact accordance with a policy page (or six), but with a consideration of the principles held within those pages. This is an aspect of what I did here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Less, that clears it up for me at least. Blueboar (talk) 21:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm obviously not as sharp as Blueboar but I still don't understand. You know that I created these redirects, you know (or I hope you do) that I'm not connected to either sites. What have I missed? I ask this in all good faith, but how could this be the websites getting publicity for themselves? JASpencer (talk) 23:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I am happy to make clear I had never considered the possibility of connecting you to the sites. I'm not sure how much more I can explain my decision - it is as inappropriate to redirect titles that belong to masonic critique websites to Freemasonry as it would be to redirect anti-Semite site names to Jewish articles, in that it potentially provides a spurious legitimacy that such an organisation might exploit (or people may believe it reflects). A redirect to Anti Masonic groups or Masonic conspiracies might be legitimate, providing those names are present in the content and there are links, but not the main Masonic articles. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I get it now. Sorry for being slow. That makes sense on freemasonrywatch which is anti-masonic. However masonicinfo is pro-Masonic, very much so. It also is not on the spam list and is used quite commonly as a site in Wikipedia and could be used as a legitimate search. Would it be OK if I recreate masonicinfo.com and masonicinfo as redirects to Freemasonry? JASpencer (talk) 17:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I should think that MSJapan and Blueboar are better judges for that, as they have already had some experience of the site. They may have some other suggestion as to a more appropriate target. I am assuming that they have this page watched, but I will request their thoughts if there is no response within 24 hours. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is my take on the situation. My primary concern was with redirecting masonicinfo.com to the main Freemasonry article. That the redirect simply did not make sense. To my mind, the primary reason to redirect something is to aid users in finding the information they are searching for. Someone who enters "masonicinfo.com" as a search term on Wikipedia is not looking for general information on Freemasonry... he or she is looking for information on a specific website (or for information about its author/owner, Ed King). If we had an article for Ed King, I could understand redirecting the name of his website to that article (or vise-versa); if we had an umbrella article on "Masonic websites", I could see redirecting to that... but I can not understand the logic of redirecting to Freemasonry.

My second concern is that this website is currently being re-evaluated as a source. Until recently, masonicinfo.com has been considered perfectly reliable by the members of the Freemasonry Project. It is a well regarded website that is often referred to and cited in various masonic blogs and forums. As such it has been used as a citation on many of the Freemasonry related articles. However, it has recently been questioned because it is the work of one man... and as such can be considered a personal self-published source. This has called all of these citations into question. Obviously this is of some concern to the members of the Freemasonry Project. The reason why I called this to your attention was that I found JASpencer's redirect in the midst of this re-evaluation to be inappropriate (and, quite frankly, a little suspicious).

Finally, there is your interpretation of how WP:SPAM fits in. If masonicinfo.com isn't reliable, creating a redirect for it does give it legitimacy that it probably should not have. If it is reliable, then there is the possibility that someone may wish to create an article about it. In either case, redirecting was inappropriate. Blueboar (talk) 20:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so pending clarification of how reliable the site is as a source the redirect should stay deleted - if there is consensus to keep the source then a more appropriate target can be found (the article which most references the source?). If the source is found to be unreliable, then whether there should be any redirect from that site name can then be considered. Is this okay? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a reasonably extensive site that is linked to by many grand lodges not for scholarship or elegance but because it says what the grand lodge officials think but can not say. It may or may not meet notability, but that's not an issue for a redirect. And as far as it not being a search term, I'd disagree, and I would say that the burden of proof should not be on the redirect creator. JASpencer (talk) 21:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, there seems to be some debate on whether it is a single persons site (no matter if there are quotes from other individuals, it may still not be under any independent editorial review) but the main point is that any redirected name needs to target that article which is most germane; that is the responsibility of the creator, I suggest, and Freemasonry does not appear to be that article. I would also comment that it is nearly impossible to prove an absence, so it is not feasible to find evidence it is not a search criteria. As I argued previously, redirects are cheap and it is fine to use anything that may reasonably be a search parameter but it must point toward that article which is most relevant. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Masonicinfo is for information about Freemasonry. Unless there is an article on pro-Freemasonry apologetics there's no more suitable site for this redirect. JASpencer (talk) 21:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, the site is non-notable so its own purpose is not sufficient for it to be redirected to the Freemasonry article. Secondly, it is not commented on or used as a reference in that article. It should be redirected to that article which most uses its content as a source - this will be Masonic related with a link to the main article. Analogy time...; the pretend site scottishterriers.com should point to the site which most uses it as a reference (such as Scottish Terriers) but not the Annoying rat featured canines main article - even if the site is run by an apologist for small ratty temperamentally unstable doggies.

Masonicinfo.com may be for information about Freemasonry... but the Wikipedia article with the title "masonicinfo.com" (assuming one is ever written) should be about that website. Perhaps I am missing something, but why does the name of this website need to be redirected at all? What is wrong with leaving it undirected, ie without an article? That seems to be the most appropriate thing to me. Blueboar (talk) 02:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a legitimate search term, however I can't see how as an article it would get past WP:NOTABILITY, at least at the moment. Redirects are cheap. JASpencer (talk) 06:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

To LHvU's point, List of Freemasons seems to use masonicinfo.com the most. I'm not sure it's the best fit with what the site is about, but it could be set up and to point there and it could be RfD'd if Blueboar still objects to it, and this particular redirect would be off your talk page. JASpencer (talk) 08:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

As discussed in the Belgium Lodges matter, a redirect of a non-notable name to an umbrella article of some relevance is fine and I agree that JAS recreates the redirect to List of Freemasons, perhaps to the references section. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Now that one's off your talk page. JASpencer (talk) 09:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Not so fast... I find redirecting to List of Freemasons just as silly and inappropriate as redirecting to Freemasonry. Perhaps I don't understand the point of redirects in general, but I thought the whole point of redirecting a page title was to point readers towards the information they are looking for. The only reason why someone would search on the name "masonicinfo.com" in wikipedia is if they were looking for information about masonicinfo.com or Ed King. They are not going to find that information by being redirected to List of Freemasons, any more than they would by being redirected to Freemasonry. Nor is someone who is looking for a list of Freemasons likely to use the term "masonicinfo.com" for their search. It just does not makes sense. To give you an example, redirecting masonicinfo.com to List of Freemasons would be like redirecting The Wall Street Journal to List of companies on the New York Stock Exchange, simply because the WSJ reports stock market prices. It just does not make sense.

I still don't understand why we need to redirect this title at all, but if we do, perhaps we should create a List of Masonic websites article or something. Redirecting to something like that I could at least understand.Blueboar (talk) 16:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Blueboar, I agree with you about the list of Freemasons not being the most logical destination to my mind. However it is about going to the most useful article currently available. At the moment the most useful website for that searcher to my mind would be to the general Freemasonry article. If there were an article on Masonic apologetics then that would be better, Websites relating to freemasonry would be better still (although there may be problems with WP:NOT). JASpencer (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course there's another website that would go to Anti-Masonry very easily. JASpencer (talk) 18:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree... I think the most useful thing for a potential reader would be to get a "no article exists" result. I think the most useful thing is to undo the redirect and not have it redirect to anything. I don't see any purpose behind redirecting this. Blueboar (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

another inappropriate Freemasonry related redirect

Another inappropriate redirect by JASpencer: he created a redirect for "Preston-Webb" (redirecting to Masonic ritual and symbolism). In this case the problem is that the original term being redirected seems to be a conglomeration of the names of two seperate people William Preston and Thomas Smith Webb, either of which would be a better redirect target.... but we could argue for days about which one. Blueboar (talk) 19:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

This was re-redirected before you typed this. After all you've only just created one of the articles. JASpencer (talk) 19:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

First, while I did just create the article on Webb, the article on Preston has been around for a while (and was not started by me). Second, moving the redirect to Thomas Smith Webb, while an improvement, it still leaves Preston out. Essentially, the underlying problem is that you should not have created the "Preston-Webb" article title to begin with. There is no "Preston-Webb"... there is Preston, and there is Webb. Now we are left trying to find an appropriate redirect for something that does not exist.

Perhaps we could avoid these types of situations if, before you create an unneeded or incorrect redirect for everything and anything that might relate to Freemasonry, you ask someone who knows more about the subject. Blueboar (talk) 19:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

If you think that there's a better destination then do it yourself. If you think that a redirect is somehow inappropriate (and the exact article not being present isn't one of these) then raise an RfD. If you want to change the policy or think that I'm doing a load of rogue, out of policy, redirects go to WP:REDIRECT. However an admin's talk page is probably not the place to do this. I'm also prepared to accept an apology. JASpencer (talk) 20:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You miss my point... in this case, there isn't ANY good destination, and never will... because the article title "Preston-Webb" should never have been created in the first place. And since this isn't the only situation where you have made an error of this sort, I am not going to appologize for pointing that out that you are making errors in your redirects, nor for suggesting that in the future you seek a second opinion before you create new ones. Blueboar (talk) 20:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

And more

Volume of Sacred Law should not be redirected to Masonic Ritual and Symbolism. It isn't a masonic symbol or part of the ritual. It is simply a non-denominational Masonic term for the Bible, the Torah, the Koran, or any other sacred text that is used at a meeting of Freemasons (which it is will depend on the makeup of the lodge). This could probably merit its own article, as there are numberous reliable sources that talk about it. Blueboar (talk) 21:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Lions grasp - no such thing in Freemasonry. Blueboar (talk) 21:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

re: Volume of Sacred Law... Give me some time, I'll create it for you. JASpencer (talk) 21:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Please doBlueboar (talk)

re: Lions Grasp... There's definately mention of it outside Wikipedia as one of the funny handshakes in the initiation ceremony. Not notable, but a legitimate search term. JASpencer (talk) 21:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you cite an example? Blueboar (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want. Do remember I'm not claiming that it should be cited or created as an article. JASpencer (talk) 21:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

And here it is freemasonrywatch .org/diabolic_by_design.html (remove the space to get past the spam filter. JASpencer (talk) 21:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

OK... granted it is based on faulty information, but if the Anti-masonic sites are claiming it as a masonic handshake, then it is a legit search term. I withdraw this objection. Blueboar (talk) 22:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. JASpencer (talk) 22:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally I wouldn't withdraw the objection, the mention on a site which is banned in WP anyway doesn't suggest notability. What appears to be a personal quest to replicate FMWatch in Wikipedia does tend to lend undue weight to the material contained therein, particularly when much of it is poorly sourced and incorrect. using the argument above anyone could create a personal website, declaring pretty much whatever they wanted and someone would create an article or redirect about it. LHVUs talkpage probably isn't the place to discuss that though.

ALR (talk) 23:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that the creation of new redirects to various Masonic articles is getting excessive. The newest are not things that are really valid search terms, and specifically for Masonic ritual and symbolism it is simply bringing terms not covered in the article into search relation so people can look for it, come to the article and see the RCC critique JASpencer added. Given that no work has been done on said article since it was created, I can only posit that that was JAS' intent all along. This is POV-pushing in the extreme, because all JAS is doing is adding Catholic criticism sections to other articles, when said criticism has an article all to itself. Furthermore, the critique is not relevant to the symbolism presented. I don't know whether to define this as bias, POV, undue weight, or all three and then some, but this is turning into a concerted campaign. MSJapan (talk) 22:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there an XfD (perhaps "Miscellaneous") that you may consider placing these redirects under for third party consideration? I support redirects generally, because "catching" search terms is something that aids the encyclopedia, but if there are concerns as to why search terms are pointed toward various articles/topics then it requires addressing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion would be a good place to start. WP:AGF would also be a nice place for some people. JASpencer (talk) 22:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

23 separate RfDs related to the same article and/or creator is a little past AGF. I left the few that were valid, and even then I had to fix them. MSJapan (talk) 05:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

NPA problem...

See Talk:Grande Loge de France. Problem is, the user is a dynamic IP. He doesn't seem to understand that what he claims is not appropriate because a) he is directly involved with the topic, and b) doesn't understand basic WP policies. What can be done about this? MSJapan (talk) 19:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I have redacted the personal attacks and legal threats on the talkpage, and warned the ip on their talkpage. I assume that they will return on a different addy, but the context of my warnings remains on the above talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I also noticed the IP has about a 5 or 6RR on the article. Is it worth reporting a dynamic IP for that? MSJapan (talk) 01:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I think an enquiry of a friendly CheckUser to see if there is any likely collateral damage from a small rangeblock might be best. Give your reasons, and if they concur and there are no other ip editor's that would be effected you might get a result. Give them diffs - especially of the legal threats - of the disruption to make your case, as well as the edit histories to prove the XRR. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Sigh... Peter's personal attacks against me continue. I have tried to be polite and not respond in kind... but it is getting difficult. Blueboar (talk) 17:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

You have extended AGF, and explained your (although I do not acknowledge that your Lodge has any more remit over WP than his, but assume that the references back your Lodges understanding) actions and WP's requirements in respect of content, but the other party has chosen not to use the appropriate venues and practices to resolve their dispute. I don't think you can do anymore. I propose you do on the talkpage what I suggested regarding Lunarian (or whomever), revert and ignore anything that does not move the discussion on. As for the article page edits, revert as vandalism anything that removes sourced content and replaces it with invalidly referenced material. Keep warning them and then take it to AIV. If they ip hop, report it to CU as I suggested to MSJapan. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

RFCU indicated too much collateral damage. MSJapan (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Update: Peter seems to have gone off in a huff, so the attacks have stopped for now ... hopefully if he does follow through with his stated intent to appoint a dedicated "Wikipedia Manager" (see my talk page history) that person will be more civil and will follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Thanks for your advice and support. Blueboar (talk) 16:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

If you're not too busy...

There is an escalating issue at Masonic conspiracy theories. It appears to be based on the misconception that one's own ideas trump the requirements and application of WP policies by User:Ukufwakfgr. I note as a telling example that he says he saw a documentary on Freemasonry on The History Channel and that the Masons on the program were "less than truthful". That indicates to me a preconceived notion. Every attempt to collaborate with this editor has been met with straw man arguments, as well as some accusations of which an editor with an apparent three-day history should be unaware. I think you resolve things fairly, so I would request some assistance if you are so inclined. MSJapan (talk) 03:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

That was a lot of reading... I'm not sure what the problem is - one that needs admin assistance. It appears that you and Blueboar are answering the "concerns" raised and have noted the gamesmanship employed, if Ukufwakfgr starts violating policies and disregarding warnings then I can drop by if required then. Oh, and the important standard to quote is "consensus" - being bold does not deprecate that requirement, hence the endgame of discuss (i.e. consensus) follows Bold/Revert in WP:BRD. Let me know if there is anything specific you would request of me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)